Content uploaded by Stefan Kruger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stefan Kruger on May 21, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 2012, 34(2): 153-171.
Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Navorsing in Sport, Liggaamlike Opvoedkunde en Ontspanning, 2012, 34(2): 153-171.
ISBN: 0379-9069
153
DOES LEISURE HAVE AN EFFECT ON EMPLOYEE’S QUALITY OF
WORK LIFE?
Rosa NAUDE, Stefan KRUGER & Melville SAAYMAN
Institute for Tourism, Wildlife Economics and Leisure Studies, North-West University,
Potchefstroom, Republic of South Africa
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the research was to determine the effect of leisure on the overall
Quality of Work Life (QWL) of Front Office Employees (FOEs). This paper presents
the results of a self-administered survey, consisting of 12 sections, used to collect
data from 145 Front Office Employees in February 2010. A confirmatory factor
analyses and a Spearman correlation coefficient were used to determine the
relationship between Leisure time, Leisure preferences and Quality of Work Life
domains. The study found that Leisure has a definite effect on the overall QWL of
FOE; employees lack time to participate in leisure activities; and a positive
relationship exists between Leisure and Physical health and safety. This type of
research has not previously been conducted on FOEs in a South African hotel group
and contributes largely to literature on leisure and QWL.
Key words: Leisure participation; Quality of work life; Front office employees;
Hotel; Life domains; Hospitality industry.
INTRODUCTION
Employees currently live under more stressful circumstances than ever before, resulting in a
variety of physical and mental illnesses (Coleman & Iso-Ahola, 1993). In today’s productive
society, all efforts are celebrated and relaxation (or leisure) is used as the primary means of
recharging (Kleiber, 2000). Horner and Swarbrooke (2005) defined leisure as an entire set of
experiences people undertake in their free time, so long as they derive a positive mental state
from this activity.
Over the last few decades, the focus of work-leisure research has changed (Haworth & Veal,
2004). In the 1970s, the concern was that leisure was becoming a tendency and was viewed as
a ‘social problem’. However, modern research focuses on the minimal time people have
available to spend on leisure, (Woodside, 2000), which is emerging as a critical issue in
people’s Quality of Life (QOL) in the 21st century (Hsieh et al., 2004). Lloyd and Auld
(2002) concluded that the relationship between leisure and QOL is quite complex: QOL can
be influenced by individuals’ social characteristics, such as age, gender and employment
status, their person-centred attributes and place-centred attributes. However, it is generally
accepted that leisure satisfaction leads to a better QOL. In support of the latter, one study
found that hotel employees want more free time because they feel they do not have enough
time off (Wong & Ko, 2009). The study concluded that more research into Quality of Work
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Naude, Kruger & Saayman
154
Life (QWL) is needed in order to understand better the current situation in the hotel industry.
As Wong and Ko (2009:196) stated, “happy employees produce happy customers”, and so the
aim of this research is to determine the effect of leisure on hotel Front Office Employees
(FOEs) and their overall QWL. The purpose is to assist human resource practitioners to find a
comprehensive solution for creating a healthy and productive workforce that would
eventually lead to a hotel becoming an employer of choice and able to attract the best talent.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the past, technological advances seemed to promise increased leisure time, but the contrary
is currently the case where paid work is dominating people’s lives, leading to less leisure time
(Kleiber, 2000; Lowe, 2000; Lewis, 2003; Jacobs & Gerson, 2008). In the British workplace,
a new trend is emerging (Kleiber, 2000; Lewis, 2003) where: employees are increasingly
integrating work, personal life and leisure (known as a work-life balance), and the boundaries
separating work and non-work are becoming more blurred, as work is becoming more
enjoyable, interesting, absorbing, challenging, voluntary, spontaneous, satisfying and an
opportunity for enhancing positive well-being.
Leisure is usually divided into passive and active leisure. Passive leisure is a position of
relaxation, faithful openness, contentment, serenity and calmness, whereas active leisure
includes adventure activities such as recreation (Kleiber, 2000). Furthermore, leisure is given
vitality and meaning in the celebration of active engagement, but usually starts with
relaxation and comfort (Kleiber, 2000). According to Pieper (1981, as cited by Kleiber,
2000), leisure is to be found in an attitude of ‘non-activity’ and receptivity, and a state of the
mind in which one is open to everything like letting the reins loose and being free and easy. It
is a state in which one nourishes oneself, sets aside time to relax, regroups and recuperates
(Kotzé, 2004).
Research has identified many positive effects of participating in leisure. As Table 1 shows,
leisure participation provides numerous advantages. According to Kleiber (2000),
productivity, life satisfaction, development in the workplace and in life can be enhanced
when relaxation is integrated. However, while employees have more time and disposable
income for leisure activities, they fail to find satisfying forms of leisure (Lu & Hu, 2005).
This may mean that work starts to encroach on their time and space, eventually crowding out
all of their personal life. Thus, work becomes the new leisure term, as people choose to spend
their time at work and enjoy what they are doing (Lewis, 2003).
A new tendency in the workplace is for employees to participate in a work-leisure trade-off
(Brett & Stroh, 2003). In other words, the opportunity cost associated with trading work time
for increased leisure motivates employees to work more for more rewards. Furthermore,
employees who work long hours have more resources to spend on leisure activities that do
not necessarily cut into their working time. This trade-off in the workplace results in people
getting paid more, but working more and pursuing fewer leisure activities.
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Leisure and quality of work life
155
A work-life balance is an important aspect that everyone should aim to attain in life. Roan
and Diamond (2003) define work-life balance as the time and effort devoted to work
compared to non-work aspects of life such as leisure time and family. This is especially
challenging within the hospitality industry, as FOEs in the hotel sector are characterised by
their irregular and unsocial hours of work, which affects their work-life balance.
TABLE 1: ADVANTAGES OF PARTICIPATING IN LEISURE ACTIVITIES
Advantages of leisure activities
References
• Leisure contributes to one’s psychological and
physical health
Driver et al., 1991; Coleman & Iso-Ahola,
1993; Saayman, 1993; Kleiber, 2000; Lu &
Hu, 2005; Wemme & Rosvall, 2005;
Sasidharan et al., 2006.
• Leisure is a coping mechanism to buffer stress
and be able to deal with it
Coleman & Iso-Ahola, 1993.
• Leisure is a social activity, supplying
employees with social support in difficult
situations
Coleman & Iso-Ahola, 1993; Meyer, 1997;
Lloyd & Auld, 2002; .Lu & Hu, 2005;
Sasidharan et al., 2006.
• Leisure participation increases self-
determination and self-growth through
experiences of freedom, control, competence
and intrinsic motivation
Driver et al., 1991; Coleman & Iso-Ahola,
1993; Kerman & Domzal, 2000; Lu & Hu,
2005.
• Leisure contributes to relatedness, bonding,
intimacy and an ethos of shared identity
Driver et al., 1991; Jeffres & Dobos, 1993;
Kleiber, 2000.
• Leisure creates the time for relaxation, for
reflection, planning, appreciation,
contemplation, peace and gaining perspective
Kleiber, 2000; Lu & Hu, 2005.
• Leisure leads to increased enjoyment of life
leading to an overall Quality of Life
Wilson, 1992; Baker, 1995; Mogajane, 2005.
• Leisure leads to subjective well-being
Kleiber, 2000; Lu & Hu, 2005.
• Leisure motivates creativity in a person’s life
Sasidharan et al., 2006; Fourie et al., 2008.
• Leisure puts a person in a positive mood
Kleiber, 2000; Sasidharan et al., 2006.
• Leisure is a vital element in harmonising
community life
Lu & Hu, 2005; Wegner et al., 2006.
• Leisure leads to an increased spiritual well-
being
Scholtz, 1993; Scholtz et al., 1995; Ngai,
2005.
• Leisure leads to gaining contacts and
information valuable to work
Heintzman, 2002.
• Leisure assists a person to develop useful and
valuable skills and perspectives for work
Driver et al., 1991; Snir & Harpaz, 2002.
According to Wong and Lin (2007) and Wong and Ko (2009), FOEs increasingly face rising
levels of stress at work and, specifically, work-to-leisure conflict. The negative effect of
neglecting an employee’s leisure time is burnout, which leads to emotional exhaustion,
depersonalisation and a lack of personal accomplishment (Deery & Jago, 2009; Zopiatis &
Orphanides, 2009). To cope with the stress, employees in the hospitality industry are also
between 2.4 and 3.1 times more likely to drink alcohol frequently at high-risk levels (Deery
& Jago, 2009).
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Naude, Kruger & Saayman
156
Deery and Jago (2009) identified two great initiatives that can lead to an improved work-life
balance and be applied to the hospitality industry. The Tourism Australia campaign, called
‘No Leave, No Life’, sought to combat the phenomenon of large numbers of employees not
taking their annual leave, by motivating hospitality employees to take their leave. The
campaign also benefited Australia by motivating people to travel within the country (Deery &
Jago, 2009). The other initiative was Barclay’s Technology Services ‘Go Home on Time
Days’, which attempted to counter the culture of working long hours and to teach workers
how to work smarter and not harder.
Five models of work-leisure relations currently exist (Snir & Harpaz, 2002; Wong & Lin,
2007). The first is the spillover model, where work experiences spill over into and affect the
non-work domains. Second, the compensation model is when employees compensate for
experiencing a deprivation at work by their choice of leisure activities. The third model is the
segmentation model, which does not see any relation between work and leisure. The fourth
model is the instrumental model, in which some activities in certain domains may lead to
success in other life domains. The last model is the conflict model, where levels of high
demand in all spheres of life lead to people having to make difficult choices when individual
conflicts and overload occur.
There seems to be a renewed interest in the issue of employees’ QWL, also better known as
employee well-being and work wellness (Kotzé, 2004). As adults spend the majority of their
time in the workplace, their QWL makes an important contribution to their overall QOL
(Kotzé, 2004). Sirgy et al. (2001) define QWL as employee satisfaction with a variety of their
needs, through resources, activities and any outcomes that stem from participation at the
workplace. Management has the obligation to ensure that employees experience a high QWL
in return for committing themselves to the organisational objectives (Kotzé, 2004).
Leisure adds to the QWL and vice versa, while QWL has an effect on leisure satisfaction
(Sirgy et al., 2001). Therefore, QWL clearly focuses on more than mere job satisfaction and
includes looking into the satisfaction in non-work life domains, overall life and subjective
well-being (Sirgy et al., 2001). Neal et al. (1999) found that satisfaction with leisure does
indeed lead to an overall satisfaction with QOL. Some domains of QWL that have been
identified include leadership and management, working with others, the nature and contents
of work, physical and psychological environment, performance management, company
image, work-life balance, interaction with customers and performance outcomes and human
development, and personal well-being (Kotzé, 2004; Kandasamy & Ancheri, 2009).
QWL is important and, if offered to employees, can benefit a company in various ways, such
as reduced levels of absenteeism, increased productivity, efficiency and quality of product
and service, lower compensation claims and reduced medical expenses (Sirgy et al., 2001).
The service attitudes of employees in the hospitality industry are definitely affected by the
type of QWL experienced (Chang, 2006). Furthermore, offering QWL to hotel group
employees will attract and retain high-quality employees (Kandasamy & Ancheri, 2009). In
Australia, a study by Roan and Diamond (2003) found that employees in the hospitality
industry are willing to accept a low QWL simply to develop their skills, as they view these
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Leisure and quality of work life
157
jobs as transitory. This means that the hotel industry will suffer in the long term, as it will not
be able to retain experienced employees. Stein (1983) suggests that a realistic approach to
improving productivity and QWL would be to start focusing on employees’ QOL, meaning
employees in their non-working situations, which include family situations and leisure.
Meaningful leisure ultimately adds to an employee’s overall QOL and QWL (Jeffres &
Dobos, 1993; Kleiber, 2000; Lloyd & Auld, 2002; Silverstein & Parker, 2002; Lewis, 2003;
Ngai, 2005).
A career in hospitality is labour-intensive, and frontline personnel face huge demands (Wong
& Lin, 2007). While customers are enjoying their leisure time, touring or shopping, FOEs are
hard at work. Nowadays, FOEs work 24/7 and unsociable hours, which makes it difficult and
challenging to maintain a healthy lifestyle, travel and study (Deery & Jago, 2009). The job
demands of front-office work require much time and energy from the employees, leaving
them with less opportunity to engage in leisure activities in their time off (Wong & Lin,
2007).
This research focuses exclusively on the receptionists and reservationists of a chosen hotel
group in South Africa. Due to the sensitive nature of the results, the name of the hotel group
will remain anonymous. These FOEs are viewed as the most valuable asset of a hotel group,
since they are the face of the organisation and the persons with whom visitors interact the
most. They are responsible for the image that visitors have of a hotel’s staff, which leads to a
competitive advantage in the market if done correctly (Kandasamy & Ancheri, 2009).
METHODOLOGY
Based on the work by Sirgy et al. (2001), the questionnaire was developed. Questionnaires
were mailed to all the General Managers of the hotel group for distribution to front office
staff, with a due date for the return of the questionnaires. The questionnaire comprised 12
sections (Demographic information; Personality information; Health and safety issues;
Economic and family issues; Social issues; Esteem issues; Actualisation issues; Knowledge
issues; Creativity and aesthetic issues; Feelings concerning the establishment and
Management and Leisure) and contained closed-ended questions, one open-ended question
for comments and seven-point Likert scale questions with answers ranging from very true (1),
neither true/untrue (4) and very untrue (7) (Maree & Pietersen, 2007).
A quantitative method was followed while conducting this research. A total of 326
questionnaires were distributed to FOEs (receptionists and reservationists) of a well-known
hotel group in South Africa in February 2010. One hundred and forty-five (145) fully
completed questionnaires were returned and used in the analysis. According to Israel
(2009:6), out of a population of 600 (N), 86 respondents (n) are considered representative and
result in a 95% level of confidence with a ±10% sampling error. The number of completed
questionnaires is therefore greater than the required number of questionnaires.
The data was captured in the SPSS version 17.0 (SPSS, 2009). To determine whether the
questions for the various life domains really represented latent underlying constructs, a
confirmatory factor analysis was carried out prior to any statistical analysis. The factor
analysis established that the questions did indeed represent the specific life domains that
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Naude, Kruger & Saayman
158
represent an overall QWL. For a factor analysis to be reliable, the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity
should be significant (p<0.05), indicating that correlations between items are sufficiently
large, and the KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) index (Pallant, 2007) has to have a minimum
value of 0.6, indicating sampling adequacy (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, as cited by Pallant,
2007). According to Pallant (2007), the higher the value, the greater the reliability of the scale
and a minimum level of 0.7 are recommended despite the nature and the purpose of the scale.
Values between 0.5 and 0.7 are average, values between 0.7 and 0.8 are good and values
between 0.8 and 0.9 are excellent. Reliability of the constructs is also determined by
examining the average inter-item correlation, which should fall between 0.15 and 0.50
(Briggs & Cheek, 1986, as cited by Clark & Watson, 1995).
After conducting the statistical analysis, some of the questions that were worded negatively
were reversed. Negative wording in these questions prevents response bias (Pallant, 2007),
and reversing the questions ensures that the responses across the entire questionnaire were the
same. Pallant (2007) calls this reversing of negatively worded items, ‘manipulation of data’.
Each factor, once confirmed as reliable and valid, was allocated a description, to make
identifying the factors easier.
The data were analysed using the Spearman correlation coefficient, to explore the strength,
nature and extent of the relationship between the various life domains of QWL and leisure
(Bryman & Cramer, 1997; Babbie et al., 2007; Singh, 2007; Salkind, 2009). A positive
correlation indicates that as one variable increases, so does the other (Pallant, 2007; Singh,
2007). In contrast, a negative correlation indicates that as one variable increases, the other
decreases. The non-parametric Spearman rank order correlation coefficient was used, as it
does not rely on assumptions, such as normality of the data (Field, 2009).
RESULTS
This section provides an overview of the profile of the respondents and presents the results of
the factor analysis (life domains of QWL), a Spearman correlation coefficient and effect sizes
used in the study.
Life domains
The life domains include: Physical health and safety; Psychological health and safety;
Economic and family issues; Working relations; Social life; Work arrangements; Feeling
good at work; Personal potential; Learning opportunities; Creativity and aesthetic issues;
Feelings about the establishment; Feelings about management and Leisure.
Profile of FOEs working at the hotel group
As Table 2 shows, the hotel group’s front office employees are 64.8% female and 34.5%
male. Their highest level of education is a hospitality diploma (31%), followed by a matric
certificate (27.6%). The majority of the respondents have worked in the hotel for 10 years or
less (44% for between one and five years; 16.7% for six to ten years), which indicates that
employees do not stay very long with the hotel group.
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Leisure and quality of work life
159
Most of the respondents describe themselves as either highly sociable (44.1%) and/or having
a high esteem (24.1%). These are indicators that they have an extravert personality type. The
respondents said they work at the hotel because they love serving people (49.7%) and they
enjoy the hospitality and tourism sector. Added benefits that motivate the employees to stay
working at the hotel group were the bonus (43.3%) and the pension fund (37.2%).
TABLE 2: PROFILE OF FRONT OFFICE EMPLOYEES OF SELECTED HOTELS
Question
Reply
% And/
Or
Reply
%
Gender
Female
64.8
Male
34.5
Highest level of education Hospitality diploma 31.0 Matric 27.6
Length of service in years
1–5 years
44.1
6–10 years
16.7
Personality type
Sociable
44.1
High self esteem
24.1
Work at this hotel because….
Love serving
people
49.7
And
Love hospitality &
tourism sector
48.3
Added benefits
Bonus
43.3
And
Pension fund
37.2
See myself in next 5 years
Promoted
35.9
Or
Manager
32.4
Satisfied with life as whole
Satisfied
45.5
Very satisfied
33.8
Satisfied with present job
Satisfied
42.8
Neutral
22.8
Satisfied with family situation
Satisfied
44.1
Very satisfied
38.6
Satisfied with leisure
Satisfied
45.5
Very satisfied
19.3
Satisfied with financial situation
Satisfied
26.2
Neutral
25.5
Satisfied with health
Satisfied
49.0
Very satisfied
28.3
Satisfied with education
Satisfied
40.7
Neutral
20.7
Satisfied with friends & associates
Satisfied
61.4
Very satisfied
19.3
Satisfied with community
Satisfied
49.7
Neutral
21.4
Satisfied with spiritual life
Satisfied
43.3
Very satisfied
31.7
Satisfied with environment
Satisfied
47.6
Very satisfied
22.1
Satisfied with housing
Satisfied
40.7
Very satisfied
17.2
Satisfied with cultural life
Satisfied
53.8
Very satisfied
25.5
Satisfied with social status Satisfied 52.4 Very satisfied 21.4
When asked about their satisfaction with various life domains (that ultimately lead to a
QWL), the responses were overall positive according to the Likert scale. This scale ranged
from 1 to 5 (1= Very satisfied to 5= Very dissatisfied). In particular, respondents were ‘very
satisfied’ with life as a whole (33.8%), with their family situation (38.6%), with leisure
(19.3%), with health (28.3%), with spiritual life (31.7%), with the environment (22.1%), with
their housing situation (17.2%), with cultural life (25.5%) and with their social status
(21.4%).
Reliability of each factor in life domains
Table 3 shows the influence of the nine life domains as revealed by a factor analysis. The
reliability of the life domains was confirmed through the Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p<0.05)
and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy. All KMO values were
≥0.7, except for Health and safety issues, which was 0.68. All percentages of variance were
higher than 50%.
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Naude, Kruger & Saayman
160
TABLE 3: CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS ON QWL DOMAINS
Factor
Life Domain
Bartlett’s
p-value
KMO
No. factors
Tot.
variance
(%)
Max.
Commu-
nalities
Min.
Commu-
nalities
1
Health and safety
Issues
<0.0001
0.68
3
64.87
0.78
0.46
2
Economic and family
Issues
<0.0001
0.88
2
63.52
0.95
0.40
3
Social issues
<0.0001
0.84
3
58.17
0.71
0.46
4
Esteem issues
<0.0001
0.73
2
54.75
0.76
0.24
5
Actualisation issues
<0.0001
0.83
2
71.66
0.81
0.68
6
Knowledge issues
<0.0001
0.83
2
70.21
0.79
0.59
7
Creativity &aesthetic
issues
<0.0001
0.78
1
66.60
0.80
0.73
8
Feelings about the
establishment
<0.0001
0.80
3
58.43
0.74
0.42
9
Management
<0.0001
0.80
2
54.53
0.78
0.23
QWL: Quality of Work Life KMO: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index
Table 4 provides the factor loadings and mean values of the various life domains. Where the
factor loading is not high enough, the Average Inter-Item Correlation, which should be
between 0.15 and 0.50, will be considered. For example, the factor Psychological health and
safety (point 1.2) has a value of 0.35, which is quite high for only two items being measured.
Therefore, these constructs can be considered as reliable. In the case of point 1.3, the two
items do not form a reliable factor, as the Cronbach Alpha (0.31) and the Average Inter-Item
Correlation (0.19) are too small. Therefore, these two items cannot be used as one factor and
will instead be used as separate items (hence the mean score is not calculated).
For the factor Negative feelings about the establishment (point 8.2), which is reliable
(Cronbach Alpha at 0.71 and Average Inter-Item Correlation at 0.38), all four of these
questions are negative questions and were therefore reversed. From here on, these questions
will remain in their reversed orders to ensure consistent results. In conclusion, the various
factors for QWL are both reliable and valid.
The mean values for the various life domains were determined. The highest rating (negative
response by FOEs) was for the question Negative feelings about the establishment with a
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Leisure and quality of work life
161
mean value of 3.87. It must be noted that this is a negative question, which was answered
negatively and is therefore a positive response.
TABLE 4: FACTOR LOADINGS OF VARIOUS QWL FACTORS
Factor & Items Factor
loading
Mean Cronbach’s
alpha Ave. Inter-
Item Corr.
1.
Health and safety issues
1.1
Physical health & safety
2.78 0.78 0.46
Safe and sanitary workplace
0.79
Physically and emotionally feel good
0.84
Job is too stressful
0.48
Get time off for health problems
0.84
1.2
Psychological Health and Safety
2.05
0.52
0.35
Stay healthy and fit 0.78
Mood at work
0.81
1.3
NA
0.31
0.19
Safety not at risk with the large amount
of money worked with
0.91
Disability friendly workplace
0.56
2.
Economic and family issues
3.47
0.90
0.53
Reasonable salary 0.71
Flexibility at the workplace
0.63
Supervisor cares about economic well-
being
0.76
History of treating employees like
family
0.82
Company really cares
0.87
Able to manage job and family
0.80
Get time off for family problems
0.63
Would recommend this company
0.83
3.
Social issues
3.1
Working relations
2.97
0.84
0.47
Management cares
0.59
Would like some teambuilding activ. 0.66
GM makes an effort in having a
relationship with employees
0.70
A positive feeling among co-workers
0.78
Good communication in workplace
0.80
Co-operation is good
0.80
3.2
Social life
2.46
0.70
0.54
I have good friends at work
0.75
Good relationship with my co-workers
0.63
3.3
Work arrangements
3.25
0.60
0.33
I have flexible hours
0.72
Manager cares for life outside of work
0.64
Part of various teams/committees
0.53
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Naude, Kruger & Saayman
162
TABLE 4 (cont.)
Factor & Items Factor
loading
Mean Cronbach’s
alpha Ave. Inter-
Item Corr.
4.
Esteem issues
4.1
Feeling good at work
3.18 0.78 0.38
I feel appreciated at work
0.80
Get rewarded based on performance
0.84
Job calls for skills I have
0.48
Supervisor appreciates the work I do
0.71
Supervisor does anything so that I get
acknowledged
0.79
Feel good in latest uniform provided
0.48
4.2
My work at the workplace
1.75
0.67
0.40
I am productive
0.75
I offer a great contribution
0.88
Helping is a personal achievement for
me
0.62
5.
Actualisation issues
5.1
Personal potential
3.15
0.89
0.63
Supervisor helps me realise my
potential
0.81
Can exercise my talents
0.69
Supervisor cares about who I want to
become
0.90
Can take on increasing challenging
tasks
0.79
Opportunity to give fresh new ideas
0.88
5.2
Life potential
2.40
0.65
0.48
Job allows me to realize my full
potential
0.85
I lead a meaningful life
0.84
6.
Knowledge issues
6.1
Learning opportunities
3.02
0.90
0.65
Company learns employees needed
skills
0.86
Supervisor provides learning
opportunities
0.86
Educational programme at workplace
0.90
I can sharpen my professional skills
0.79
Company educates employees
0.83
6.2
Commitment to learning
N/A
0.38
0.26
I need to learn new things
0.82
Would make use of study loans if it
was available
0.76
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Leisure and quality of work life
163
TABLE 4 (cont.)
Factor & Items Factor
loading
Mean Cronbach’s
alpha Ave. Inter-
Item Corr.
7.
Creativity and aesthetics
3.12
0.83
0.55
Company encourages creativity 0.82
Design of work facilities is beautiful
0.68
Culture of work encourages creativity
0.89
Supervisor thinks highly of creative
people
0.86
8.
Feelings about the establishment
8.1
Positive feelings about establishment
2.73
0.85
0.48
I talk up this establishment to my
friends as a great organisation
0.80
Will accept any assignment to keep
working at this establishment
0.60
Values are similar to establishment
values
0.84
Establishment inspires me 0.83
Truly care about fate of establishment
0.54
Believe this is the best establishment to
work for
0.74
8.2
Negative feelings about establishment
3.87
0.71
0.38
Little loyalty towards this
establishment
0.72
Could just as well be working for
another establishment
0.71
A lot of unnecessary pressure
0.75
Nothing gained by staying with this
company
0.74
8.3
NA
0.36
0.27
Willing to put in a great deal of effort
0.86
Mood in mornings is positive 0.60
9. Management
9.1
Feelings about management
2.78
0.82
0.53
We have a capable manager
0.79
Set standards are necessary & good
0.84
Discipline is being applied fairly
0.81
Fully aware of all work procedures
0.76
9.2
NA
0.35
0.21
Enough employees to do work
0.89
Always enough work to do
0.55
QWL: Quality of Work Life Corr.: Correlation NA: Not applicable
The questions that have a negative mean value were Economic and family issues (3.47), Work
arrangements (3.25), Personal potential (3.15), Feeling good at work (3.18) and Creativity
and aesthetic issues (3.12). Although the mean values show that the answers were not
extremely negative, these are the life domains with the most negative responses and so are
areas that can be explored further by human resource managers.
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Naude, Kruger & Saayman
164
All QWL life domains, except leisure, were tested and their construct validity and reliability
were confirmed. As this research focuses on leisure, the factor analysis for Leisure is
reflected separately in Table 5 and determines whether the various questions posed on leisure
do indeed represent a single construct. The two factors identified within the Leisure domain,
Sufficient time for leisure and At least four times a week, were grouped together and labelled
Leisure Time. The four remaining questions were labelled Leisure Preferences.
The sample size was adequate since the KMO was 0.74, which is an average value, and
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was <0.0001, which is <0.05. The total percentage of variance
explained by the extracted factors is 68.64%. Both the factors of the leisure domain are
reliable, as the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is 0.75 for Leisure time and 0.79 for Leisure
preferences (≥0.7). Leisure time is a potential area that managers could focus on (perhaps
through implementing flexi-hours), as the mean value of 0.60 reflects the negative answers.
TABLE 5: FACTOR ANALYSIS AND CRONBACH ALPHA OF LEISURE DOMAIN
Pattern Matrix
Leisure
preference
Leisure
time
KMOa
Bartlett’s
test of
Sphericity
%
Variance
explained
Leisure: Mean
Cronbach alpha 0.49
0.79 0.60
0.75 0.74 <0.0001 68.64
Sufficient time for
leisure
0.93
At least four times
a week
0.85
Prefer active sports &
leisure 0.83
Prefer passive sports
& leisure 0.69
Improves my overall
productivity
0.81
View sports & leisure
part of my lifestyle 0.79
a KMO: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index
Correlation coefficient and effect sizes of QWL
Having confirmed the reliability and construct validity of the leisure domains, the correlation
coefficient is shown in Table 6. With the assistance of Field (2009), as shown below Table 6,
the conclusions from effect sizes can be interpreted, which can then be applied to the r-values
determined. It is clear that an employee’s Leisure time is related to the following factors:
leisure preferences and physical health and safety of QWL. The medium effect (0.34) of
Leisure time on Leisure preferences makes sense, as the more time employees have available,
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Leisure and quality of work life
165
the greater the variety and geographical spread of activities that they can participate in.
Leisure time greatly affects Physical health and safety, with a correlation of 0.47.
TABLE 6: CORRELATION COEFFICIENT OF QUALITY OF WORK LIFE
Constructs Leisure
time
Effecta Leisure
Preferences
Effecta
Time for leisure 1.00 – **0.36 Medium
Leisure preferences **0.36 Medium 1.00 –
Physical health and safety
**0.47
Large
**0.25
Medium
Psychological health and safety
*0.21
Small
**0.23
Medium
Disability-friendly workplace
-0.53
Large
0.09
Small
Safety is not at risk when working with
large amount of money 0.13 Small 0.17 Small
Economic and family issues **0.34 Medium **0.28 Medium
Working hours/shifts are too long
-0.06
Small
0.06
Small
Working relations
**0.31
Medium
**0.23
Medium
Social life
0.06
Small
*0.21
Small
People at work enjoy life outside of work
-0.02
Small
0.15
Small
Work arrangements
**0.42
Large
*0.21
Small
Feeling good at work
**0.37
Medium
**0.24
Medium
My work at the workplace
0.12
Small
0.15
Small
Personal potential
**0.31
Medium
**0.33
Medium
Life potential
0.12
Small
**0.27
Medium
Learning opportunities
**0.31
Medium
*0.17
Small
Learn to do my job better
0.10
Small
0.11
Small
Use of study loans if available
0.10
Small
*0.19
Small
Creativity and aesthetic issues
**0.31
Medium
**0.23
Medium
Positive feelings about establishment 0.18
*
Small *0.20 Small
Negative feelings about establishment
-0.11
Small
0.04
Small
Willing to put in a great deal of effort
0.04
Small
0.08
Small
Mood on way to work is positive 0.04 Small 0.06 Small
Feelings about management
**0.22
Small
**0.24
Medium
Frustrated when nothing productive to do
-0.02
Small
0.10
Small
Feel management is too democratic 0.13 Small -0.04 Small
Always enough work to do
0.08
Small
0.19
Small
Enough employees to do work
0.07
Small
0.12
Small
** Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) (Pallant, 2007:130) * Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
a Guidelines for effect sizes (Field, 2009:170):
Effect size (r) Effect Conclusions on r
0.1
0.3
0.5
Small
Medium
Large
Not practically significant correlation
Practically visible correlation
Practically significant correlation
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Naude, Kruger & Saayman
166
This is an important result, as the more time employees have for leisure activities, the more
they will participate, and increased leisure participation will result in improved physical
health.
Effect of leisure time on QWL
Leisure time has a medium effect (r=0.34) on Economic and family issues, reflecting the fact
that the time employees might spend on leisure activities would be time that could have been
spent with their family, or could be an activity that is part of family time as it includes the
family. The amount of time spent on leisure activities also determines how much money the
employee has available to spend on leisure activities. Leisure time has a large effect (r=0.42)
on the Working arrangements of the employee. These working arrangements include
communication, a positive feeling among employees, a good relationship with the general
manager, the need for teambuilding activities, as well as the feeling that management does
indeed care. Employees who are given time off for leisure would feel that management care,
which would facilitate the good relationship with management, create a positive feeling and
even motivate the employee to participate in teambuilding activities that can be viewed as
leisure.
Leisure time has a medium (r=0.37) effect on Feeling good at work, which makes sense, as
participating in leisure activities has been proven to lighten one’s mood and make one more
positive. Leisure time also has a medium effect (r=0.31) on employees’ belief in their
Personal potential, their Learning opportunities, as well as their Creativity. The
accomplishments from participating in leisure activities affects the employees’ belief in their
potential, while the amount of time spent on leisure activities will mean less time available
for learning and determine how much time is available for expressing creativity in the
workplace.
Effect of leisure preferences on QWL
Leisure preferences have a medium effect (r=0.36) on the time available for leisure, which
means that the type of activity determines the amount of time needed to participate in the
activity. Here a comparison can be drawn between watching a movie and painting a portrait.
In addition, leisure preferences have a medium effect on Physical health and safety (r=0.25)
and on Psychological health and safety (r=0.23). If referring to active rather than passive
activities, leisure preferences would be expected to have a more profound effect on these
factors.
Leisure preferences furthermore have a medium effect on Working relations (r=0.23), Feeling
good at work (r=0.24), Personal potential (r=0.33) and Life potential (r=0.27). The more
dangerous, challenging and adventurous the activity, the more employees will start believing
in themselves. The belief in their ability will transcend the specific leisure activity to what
they can accomplish in life. Leisure preferences have a medium effect (r=0.23) on Creativity
and aesthetic issues too, which means that painting or craftwork would satisfy and motivate
employees’ creativity. Finally, leisure preferences have a medium effect (r=0.24) on the
employees’ Feelings about management, for instance that management is too democratic.
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Leisure and quality of work life
167
FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS
The aim of this research was to examine the effect of leisure on the overall QWL of FOEs in
a hotel group. The research revealed that leisure affects the overall QWL of FOEs and
contributes to their physical health and safety; however, FOEs do not have enough time to
participate in leisure activities.
The first finding is that Leisure has a definite effect on the overall QWL of FOEs in the hotel
group. This finding is supported by the research of Ngai (2005) and Lloyd and Auld (2002)
who found a positive association between leisure satisfaction and the QOL of employees. The
implication is that the hotel group, and other tourism businesses, should provide employees
with an opportunity to participate in active and passive leisure activities. Some major
international hotel groups (and also businesses in general) employ wellness officers or
recreation managers to facilitate participation through active and well-structured programmes.
Certain companies have their own gymnasium and recreation facilities for staff or provide
subsidises to encourage staff participation. However, in the tourism industry such
participation does not exist on a large scale, as most of the tourism businesses are small to
medium enterprises. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of the manager to ensure that
employees participate in some sort of leisure activities. This supports research by Kleiber
(2000), Lu and Hu (2005), Sasidharan et al. (2006) and Fourie et al. (2008).
The above finding is further strengthened by the result that the Leisure time available to FOEs
has an impact on their Working relations, Working arrangements and Feeling good at work.
This shows that leisure participation has an important role to play in any business and makes
good business sense. Therefore, it is not a question of whether leisure activities should be
promoted, but rather how they should be managed. Fave and Massimini (2003) came to a
similar conclusion, finding that the positive enjoyment of leisure and other daily activities
have a positive effect on the way employees experience their work, leading overall to a
community who experience well-being. Respondents indicated that their Leisure time has an
impact on their Personal potential, Learning opportunities and Creativity and aesthetic
issues. This concurs with research by Jeffres and Dobos (1993), who found that leisure
activities are linked to people’s identity and personal satisfaction, eventually leading to a
good QOL.
The second finding revealed the positive relationship between Leisure and Physical health
and safety. Coleman and Iso-Ahola (1993), Pearson (2008) and Wemme and Rosvall (2005)
found a similar positive relationship, which means that leisure participation contributes to
physical health and safety. Heintzman (2002) confirmed a relationship between leisure and a
person’s spiritual well-being. The implication for businesses is that leisure participation can
help address aspects such as stress and tension. These results show that Leisure is an
important aspect that needs to be addressed in order to improve the overall QWL of FOEs.
The advantages of leisure participation include improved physical and psychological health,
spiritual well-being and a positive state of mind in an employee’s professional and personal
life. Human resource managers can use these results to justify a greater focus on FOE leisure,
through activities such as organising wellness days, building a gymnasium at the workplace
or communal place where the employees stay, having fun days, rewarding and honouring
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Naude, Kruger & Saayman
168
employees who look after their health and encouraging employees to take their leave and not
to work too much overtime.
The third finding was that FOEs lack time to participate in leisure activities, which supports
research in a South African context by Fourie (2006). The issue of not having enough time
for leisure activities is further supported by the study of Deery and Jago (2009) who
determined that employees in the accommodation sector face the challenge of trying to
maintain a work-life balance in a 24/7 workplace. In their study, Wong and Ko (2009) found
that hotel group employees need more free time. Their suggestions included campaigns to
motivate employees to take leave and not work overtime, job sharing, supplying employees
with parental, study and sabbatical leave and even having flexible working times. The
implication is that if the issue of sufficient time for leisure activities is not addressed,
frontline staff in the hotel group may experience burnout, similar to that found by Zopiatis
and Orphanides (2009) in their study of food and beverage employees.
CONCLUSION
The results clearly show that leisure participation has an effect on an employee’s QWL. The
research confirms several other studies conducted in the field of tourism and hospitality
management. What is important to note is that, for this particular group of employees, leisure
participation is not only important but it affects their work relationships. Therefore, tourism
and hospitality businesses need to take cognisance of this research and to seriously consider
implementing leisure programmes. Such programmes should entail both active and passive
leisure activities. One priority should be to address the employees’ lack of leisure time, which
was highlighted in the study.
This research contributes to the literature on this topic by being the first study of its kind in
the hospitality sector in South Africa. It highlights the importance of leisure participation to
individuals’ QWL and quality of life in general and confirms that companies and businesses
have a responsibility to promote and facilitate leisure participation. It shows that it is not
enough for businesses to acknowledge that staff members have to participate or that leisure is
important. Businesses simply have to do more.
Further research is needed concerning the role that education plays in QWL, as a large
percentage of employees are not well educated, and the leisure activities that people prefer
and how businesses could package these activities.
REFERENCES
BABBIE, E.; HALLEY, F. & ZAINO, J. (2007). Adventures in social research: data analysis using
SPSS 14.0 and 15.0 for Windows (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
BAKER, V. (1995). Leisure and tourism. (2nd ed.). Harlow, Essex (UK): Addison Wesley Longman.
BRETT, J.M. & STROH, L.K. (2003). Working 61 plus hours a week: Why do managers do it? Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88(1): 67-78
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Leisure and quality of work life
169
BRYMAN, A. & CRAMER, D. (1997). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS for Windows. London:
Routledge.
CHANG, C. (2006). A multilevel exploration of factors influencing the front-line employees’ service
quality in international tourist hotel groups. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge,
9(2): 285-293.
CLARK, L.A. & WATSON, D. (1995). Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3): 309-319.
COLEMAN, D. & ISO-AHOLA, S.E. (1993). Leisure and health: The role of social support and self-
determination. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(2): 111-128.
DEERY, M. & JAGO, L. (2009). A framework for work-life balance practices: Addressing the needs of
the tourism industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(2): 97-108.
DRIVER, B.L.; BROWN, P.J. & PETERSON, G.L. (Eds.) (1991). Benefits of leisure. Pennsylvania
State College: Venture.
FAVE, A.D. & MASSIMINI, F. (2003). Optimal experience in work and leisure among teachers and
physicians: Individual and bio-cultural implications. Leisure Studies, 22(Oct): 323-342.
FIELD, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
FOURIE, J. (2006). Tourism and leisure needs of high school learners in Potchefstroom. Unpublished
MA thesis. Potchefstroom: North-West University.
FOURIE, L., ROTHMANN, S. & VAN DER VIJVER, F.J.R. (2008). A model of work wellness for
non-professional counsellors in South Africa: Stress and health. Journal of International Society
for the investigation of Stress, 24(1): 13-35.
HAWORTH, J.T. & VEAL, A.J. (2004). In J.T. Haworth & A.J. Veal (Eds.), Work and leisure (pp.
213-230). East Sussex (UK): Routledge.
HEINTZMAN, P. (2002). A conceptual model of leisure and spiritual well-being. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 20(4): 147-169.
HORNER, S. & SWARBROOKE, J. (2005). Leisure marketing: A global perspective. Oxford (UK):
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
HSIEH, S.; SPAULDING, A. & RINEY, M. (2004). A qualitative look at leisure benefits for Taiwanese
nursing students. Qualitative Report, 9(4): 604-629.
ISRAEL, G.D. (2009). Determining Sample Size. [www.edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pd006]. Retrieved 10 March
2011.
JACOBS, J.A. & GERSON, K. (2008). Overworked individuals or overworked families? Work and
Occupations, 28(1): 40-63.
JEFFRES, L.W. & DOBOS, J. (1993). Perceptions of leisure opportunities and the quality of life in a
metropolitan area. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(2): 203-217.
KANDASAMY, I. & ANCHERI, S. (2009). Hotel group employees’ expectations of quality of work
life: A qualitative study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28: 328-337.
KERMAN, J.B. & DOMZAL, T.J. (2000). Playing on the post-modern edge: Action leisure as self-
identity. In A.G. Woodside; G.I. Crouch; J.A. Mazanec; M. Opperman & M.Y. Sakai (Eds.),
Consumer psychology of tourism, hospitality and leisure. Wallington, Oxon (UK): CABI.
KLEIBER, D.A. (2000). The neglect of relaxation. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(1): 82-86.
KOTZÉ, T. (2004). Quality of work life: What managers need to know. Management Today, 20(6): 38-
41.
LEWIS, S. (2003). The integration of paid work and the rest of life: Is post-industrial work the new
leisure? Leisure Studies, 22(Oct): 343-355.
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Naude, Kruger & Saayman
170
LLOYD, K.M. & AULD, C.J. (2002). The role of leisure in determining quality of life: Issues of
content and measurement. Social Indicators Research, 57(1): 43-71.
LOWE, G.S. (2000). The quality of work: A people-centred agenda. Ontario (Canada): Oxford
University Press.
LU, L. & HU, C. (2005). Personality, leisure experiences and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies,
6: 325-342.
MAREE, K. & PIETERSEN, J. (2007). Surveys and the use of questionnaires. In K. Maree (Ed.), First
steps in research (pp. 155-170). Pretoria: Van Schaik.
MEYER, C. (1997). Rekreasievoorsiening in die Noordwes-Provinsie. Ongepubliseerde navorsings-
verslag. Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom Universitiet vir CHO.
MOGAJANE, V.S. (2005). Leisure and tourism behaviour in rural areas in the North-West Province.
Unpublished MA thesis. Potchefstroom: North West University.
NEAL, J.D.; SIRGY, M.J. & UYSAL, M. (1999). The role of satisfaction with leisure travel/tourism
services and experience in satisfaction with leisure and overall life. Journal of Business Research,
44: 153-163.
NGAI, V.T. (2005). Leisure satisfaction and quality of life in Macao, China. Leisure Studies, 24(2):
195-207.
PALLANT, J. (2007). SPSS: survival manual (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Ligare Book Printers.
PEARSON, Q.M. (2008). Role overload, job satisfaction, leisure satisfaction, and psychological health
among employed women. Journal of Counselling and Development, 86(Winter): 57-63.
ROAN, A.M. & DIAMOND, D. (2003). Starting out: the quality of working life of young workers in
the retail and hospitality industries in Australia. International Journal of Employment Studies,
11(2): 91-119.
SALKIND, N.J. (2009). Exploring research (7th ed.). Upper Saddle Rivers, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
SAAYMAN, M. (1993). Rekreasiebestuur in swart plaaslike owerhede. Ongepubliseerde PhD
proefskrif. Pretoria: Universiteit van Pretoria.
SASIDHARAN, V.; PAYNE, L.; ORSEGA-SMITH, E. & GODBEY, G. (2006). Older adults’ physical
activity participation and perceptions of well-being: Examining the role of social support for
leisure. Managing Leisure, 11: 164-185.
SCHOLTZ, G.J.L. (1993). Leisure preferences and needs of South Africans in the age group of 15-30
years. Unpublished research report. Potchefstroom: Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir CHO.
SCHOLTZ, G.J.L.; VAN TONDER, H. & SAAYMAN, M. (1995). Sport en rekreasievoorsiening vir
Promosa. Ongepubliseerde navorsingsverslag. Potchefstroom: Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir
CHO.
SILVERSTEIN, M. & PARKER, M.G. (2002). Leisure activities and quality of life among the oldest
old in Sweden. Research on Aging, 24(5): 528-547.
SINGH, K. (2007). Quantitative social research methods. New Delhi (India): SAGE.
SIRGY, M.J.; EFRATY, D.; SIEGEL, P. & LEE, D. (2001). A new measure of quality of work life
(QWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories. Social Indicators Research, 55: 241-302.
SNIR, R. & HARPAZ, I. (2002). Work-leisure relations: Leisure orientation and the meaning of work.
Journal of Leisure Research, 34(2): 178-203.
SPSS (2009). SPSS® 17.0 for Windows, Release 17.0.0, Copyright© by SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.
[www.spss.com].
SAJR SPER, 34(2), 2012 Leisure and quality of work life
171
STEIN, B.A. (1983). Quality of work life in action: Managing for effectiveness. New York: American
Management Associations.
WEGNER, L.; FLISHER; A.J.; MULLER, M. & LOMBARD, C. (2006). Leisure boredom and
substance use among high school students in South Africa. Journal of Leisure Research, 38: 249-
266.
WEMME, K.M. & ROSVALL, M. (2005). Work related and non-work related stress in relation to low
leisure time physical activity in a Swedish population. Journal of Epidemical Community Health,
59: 377-379.
WILSON, G.D.J. (1992). Sport, recreation and tourism in South Africa: Preference and participation
patterns. Unpublished research report, Department of Geography. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
WONG, J. & LIN, J. (2007). The role of job control and job support in adjusting service employee’s
work-to-leisure conflict. Tourism Management, 28: 726-735.
WONG, S.C. & KO, A. (2009). Exploratory study of understanding hotel group employees’ perception
on work-life balance issues. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28: 195-203.
WOODSIDE, A.G. (2000). Introduction: theory and research on the consumer psychology of tourism,
hospitality and leisure. In A.G. Woodside, G.I. Crouch, J.A. Mazanec, M. Opperman & M.Y. Sakai
(Eds.), Consumer psychology of tourism, hospitality and leisure (pp. 1-17). Wallington, Oxon
(UK): CABI.
ZOPIATIS, A. & ORPHANIDES, N. (2009). Investigating occupational burnout of food and beverage
employees. British Food Journal, 111(9): 930-947.
Dr. Stefan KRUGER: Institute for Tourism, Wildlife Economics & Leisure Studies, North-West
University, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, Republic of South Africa. Tel.: +27 (0) 18 299
1401. Fax.: +27 (0) 18 299 1401, E-mail: stefan.kruger@nwu.ac.za
(Subject Editor: Dr. René Haarhoff)
