Antecedents of employee engagement: Examining the moderating role of work life conflict for flight attendants

Abstract

Background

Flight attendants have direct contact with customers and are believed to be the face of the company. Therefore, factors causing employee engagement of flight attendants are important to understand.

Objectives

The purposes of this study are two-fold: (a) to investigate the impact of authentic leadership and group cohesiveness on employee engagement; (b) to examine the moderating role of work-life conflict on the hypothesized relationships.

Methods

Data was collected from 253 flight attendants from different Pakistani airlines with two separate time frames. This research study applies the hierarchical linear model to analyze the survey data.

Results

Results confirmed the significant and positive relationship between authentic leadership and group cohesiveness with employee engagement. In addition, work-life conflict was found to be a significant moderator for the relationships between the authentic leadership and flight attendants’ engagement. However, if there is a high level of work-life conflict, flight attendants who perceived a strong group cohesiveness turned out to indicate a high engagement level.

Conclusion

This study is the first to examine the work-life conflict faced by female flight attendants in association with authentic leadership, group cohesiveness, and employee engagement and the boundary conditions created by work-family conflict.

Keywords

authentic leadership work-life conflict employee engagement group cohesiveness flight attendants

Introduction

The airline industry has emerged as a competitive market after COVID pandemic.¹ Airline companies have to compete by offering low fares, extra benefits, and targeting the niches to survive and thrive.^2,3 In-flight services also have a profound impact on attracting and retaining customers in air travel⁴ which is not possible without the deep involvement and engagement of the flight attendants to perform work responsibilities.

Various studies have endorsed the pivotal role of flight attendants in providing quality services and building airline image^5,6; hence, the dynamics of such job category is important to understand. Work nature and the environment of flight attendants are quite demanding. They have to face job-related and customer-related challenges.^7–9 Specifically considering the developing world, a high influx of labor class and undereducated passengers worsen the situation.^10,11 Considering all these factors, it is difficult for them to fully immerse in their assigned roles.¹² As contended by Agarwal, Datta,¹³ hospitality literature lacks sufficient insights on this construct despite realizing its criticality on organizational success. Specifically, “what makes employees engaged?” in this labor-intensive industry still poses a question.

Previously, a few attempts were made but were largely focused on individual-level variables.^14,15 For example, dispositional, demographical, and emotional variables received considerable attention from scholars to examine in relation to employee engagement.^16–18 Conversely, organizational and team-level variables play an important role when the task itself depends on coordinated efforts.^19,20

The role of leader in general,²¹ and the role of authentic leader in particular, is important for employee engagement.^22,23 However, empirical studies on authentic leadership are limited in the tourism sector where genuine leadership can be a factor for productivity and performance.^24,25 Flight operations are perceived to be a project that has to be completed within the limited time to carry out all inter-connected activities. This makes the leadership role critical to get work done in a timely manner with the satisfaction of customers and coworkers as well. Authentic leaders seek to establish a coherent environment, where individual, managerial, and organizational objectives are congruent.²⁶

Likewise, effective flight operation largely depends on team efforts by all flight attendants.²⁷ Acceptance of group norms and task clarity are the two key pillars of aviation hospitality. The duties and responsibilities of flight attendants are divided, communicated, and coordinated for best in-flight services.²⁸ The interconnected task demands make it indispensable for this particular profession to work in the form of a team to fully engross in their responsibilities.²⁹ Extant hospitality literature provides limited guidance about team dynamics and their impact on individual outcomes.³⁰ Flight operation largely depends on coordinated effort; therefore, how team cohesiveness enhances individual work engagement poses another question for the study.

Leadership and team support are not important but also relevant while looking at the service characteristics of flight attendants that put them into unique category comparing other service profession.²⁹ For example, flight attendants’ role demands high adoptability and responsiveness. Unexpected situations such as flight delays, turbulence, or medical emergencies often arise that demands high problem-solving skills.³¹ Leadership role is important to develop adaptability, patience, and tolerance among followers.³² Authentic leaders create a supportive environment where followers feel empowered to fix issues. The trust encourages adaptability, as followers become more open to new ideas and challenges. The role of flight attendants further requires to be socially astute and emotionally stable.³³ They have to show situationally relevant emotions, and professional demeanor, in challenging or stressful situations.³¹ Authentic leadership is a way to promote emotional intelligence among followers by encouraging self-awareness, empathy, and open communication. Authentic leaders’ promote emotional competence and relationship management through their own words and behavior.³⁴

Likewise, customer service orientation and cultural sensitivity are also important to help passengers coming from different backgrounds, customs, and preferences.³⁵ This is the reason, airline companies and flight operators form an inflight-serving group composed of individuals with diverse backgrounds, including ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, culture, language, and life experiences.³⁶ It helps to quickly and effectively resolve passenger complaints and operational issues. Flight attendants in a well-integrated group handle emergencies and ensure that all safety procedures are followed. Working in a cohesive group is a way to notice and address small issues that could impact safety or comfort.³⁷ In sum, authentic leadership and group cohesion perceived to be important antecedents to flight attendants’ work engagement.

A careful analysis of flight attendants’ jobs also reveals the fact concerning work-family interferences due to role overload, shift work, and nonstandard work hours.^38–40 Usually, employees facing work to family life imbalances tend to allocate more time to family responsibilities.⁴¹ Considering gaps in extant literature, we draw upon the job demands-resources (JD-R) model^42,43 to argue that flight attendants need leadership support and team cooperation as a key resource to meet job demands. Work-life conflict exerts extra role pressure and results in the imbalance between job demands and available resources. The inability to meet job demands adequately may negatively affect authentic leadership and group cohesiveness to employee engagement relationships.

The main purpose of this study was to determine the effects of authentic leadership and group cohesiveness on employee engagement by keeping in view the importance of leadership roles and team spirit specifically for the flight attendants. We also assessed work-family conflict as a potential moderator of authentic leadership and group cohesion in employees’ work engagement relationships. Collectively, we selected a context (flight attendants) where employee engagement was the most critical factor, which further added to the novelty of the study to address both theoretical and contextual gaps. In addition, we followed a temporal design to collect data at two points of time separated by 30 days. This further adds methodological rigor. The core purpose of the study helped to derive the following research questions and objectives of the study:

Research questions

RQ1: Does authentic leadership positively influence employee engagement?

RQ2: Does group cohesiveness positively influence employee engagement?

RQ3: Does work-family conflict moderate the association between authentic leadership and employee engagement?

RQ4: Does work-family conflict moderate the association between group cohesiveness and employee engagement?

Research objectives

RO1: To investigate whether authentic leadership has a positive association with employee engagement.

RO2: To investigate whether group cohesiveness is positively associated with employee engagement.

RO3: To understand how work-family conflict moderates the relationship between authentic leadership and employee engagement.

RO4: To understand how work-family conflict moderates the relationship between group cohesiveness and employee engagement.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Authentic leadership and employee engagement

One of the vital factors that can stimulate positive feelings is leadership, who can by his character and words motivate employees towards shared goals and performance.^44–46 Authentic leaders are entitled to self-awareness, ethical beliefs, adjusted information handling, and conscience in relations with coequals and followers.^47,48 Being contextual, they have shown a constructive impact on various types of desired employees’ attitudes and behavior.^49–51 Likewise, authentic leadership has also shown a strong link with employee engagement in different work settings.²²

If we look at the dimensional characteristics of authentic leaders, it becomes evident that their self-awareness capacity provides a complete understanding of their roles in contextual environment.^52,53 Such understanding is important to satisfy the psychological and emotional needs of followers without which they cannot engage themselves in work. The relational transparency ability keeps them open to share real thoughts and emotions,⁵³ which results in flourishing trust and harmony in the environment. Likewise, internalized moral perspective explicates the tendency to follow behavior aligned with internal moral values.^52,54 Deeply seeded moral values help to establish a moral culture where everyone is self-accountable. Lastly, the quality of processing all information and informational sources objectively lends support to developmental opportunities. Authentic leaders openly listen to the views from all sources even if they challenge their opinions. Open communication is a way to discuss stances candidly and provide developmental opportunities to both leaders and followers.^47,52,54

Following the axiom of social exchange theory (SET),⁵⁵ human relationships are the outcomes of an exchange process where both parties feel contented with each other’s contributions. To strengthen the relationships, two parties must contribute at maximum.⁵⁶ Authentic leadership is a process to satisfy various psychological and emotional needs of the followers.⁵⁷ Authentic leaders strive to align the employees’ and organizational values. It creates a sense of purpose and meaning in work life. Likewise, they provide autonomy to take ownership of their work. The task significance and sense of empowerment, helps to boost employee engagement.⁵⁸ Therefore, we may assume the following:

Hypothesis 1: Authentic leadership will be positively related to employee engagement.

Group cohesiveness and employee engagement

A truly engaged employee is attentive, focused, well-coordinated, and mindful.⁵⁹ But when activities are interconnected, it is hard to engage without peer support. Team coordination and engagement is crucial to team performance nearly in all work settings.⁶⁰ Previously, Karatepe and Talebzadeh⁶¹ reported a strong link between teamwork and employee engagement.

The job demands-resources (JD-R) model presented by Bakker and Demerouti⁶² explains the link between group cohesiveness and employee engagement. JD-R model delineates the interplay between job demands and job resources to effectively engage employees into work assignments. Job demands include all kinds of emotional, psychological, and physical requirements of the job, whereas resources include all the factors helpful in meeting job demands. It includes both job resources such as peer and supervisor support, empowerment, role clarity, and autonomy as well as personal resources like physical fitness, skills, optimism, resilience, and self-belief. When job resources are adequate enough to meet job demands, it helps to engage employees in their work and yield important individual (organizational commitment, work enjoyment, connectedness, job satisfaction, and in role and extra-role behavior) and organizational (productivity, market share, and effectiveness) outcomes. Since the job demands of flight attendants include efficient and effective service delivery in a limited time span which heavily relies on the interconnected activities of fellow members, therefore group cohesiveness becomes a key factor towards employee engagement during flight services.

Group cohesiveness in essence is a precursor to shared goals. Inflight services are counted as a project with a clear beginning and end. In a truly cohesive group, all members are motivated to achieve common objectives and exhibit higher levels of work engagement.⁶³

Previously, the study of Kalisch, Curley⁶⁴ supported the link between team working and employee engagement. In organizational life, team members with different roles and responsibilities working cohesively may achieve goals where the whole would be greater than the sum of its parts.⁶⁵ In a few professions like in-flight services, teamwork lends itself to a requirement of fulfilling a role, and team spirit help each one to fully immerse in work.⁶⁶

These arguments helped to develop the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Group cohesiveness will be positively related to employee engagement.

Work-family conflict as a moderator

Work-family conflict refers to the incompatibility between work and family roles.⁶⁷ Employees participating thoroughly either in organizational affairs or in family life may ultimately face a challenge in balancing both corners.⁶⁸ Considering flight attendants, the job is inherently demanding on account of irregular work shifts, emergency calls, and long working hours (flying hours) in peak season that make them vulnerable to work-family conflict.^40,69

We assume the moderating role of work-family conflict for the postulated relationships on the tenet of conservation of resource theory. Conservation of resource theory posits that individuals strive to acquire, retain, capitalize, and protect resources. Resources can be physical (e.g., property and land), personal characteristics (e.g., skills and self-respect), emotions (e.g., love and joy), energies (e.g., time and effort), and likewise.⁷⁰ Individuals feel stressed and dejected when any of the resource is threatened or lost. In this study, authentic leadership and group cohesiveness provide necessary resources in the form of task clarity, psychological and emotional support, coordination, and synergy to keep everyone engaged in their jobs. On the other hand, work-family conflict jeopardizes the role demands (e.g., time and energy) of flight attendants as they have to juggle both family and work roles. Consequently, role pressure causes role loss at one side and, finally, they find it difficult to amicably carry out inflight responsibilities. Inability to balance work and family demands depletes energies and creates emotional, psychological, and physical exhaustion.⁷¹ Under such situations, employees have to make a trade-off between work responsibilities and family commitments.⁴¹ Employees prefer their family life over work life under such situations.⁷² Resultantly, employees in general and flight attendants in particular find it difficult to fully immerse in their jobs. Previously, work-family conflict has negatively moderated various organizationally desirable relationships in different settings.^73–75 Therefore, we may assume the following:

Hypothesis 3a: Work-life conflict moderates the positive relationship between authentic leadership and employee engagement, such that the relationship will be weakened when work-family conflict is high.

Hypothesis 3b: Work-life conflict moderates the positive relationship between group cohesiveness and employee engagement such that the relationship will be weakened when work-family conflict is high.

Methods

Sample and data collection procedures

Flight attendants constituted the population by keeping in view the core purpose and objectives of the study. To capture maximum variance, all operating airlines were contacted for data collection. With departmental permission, flight attendants were approached irrespective of their ranks. In Pakistan, the minimum qualification for flight attendants is 14 years of education. For that reason, they could easily understand the items of the survey instrument. However, we ensured the participation of subjects with at least 1 year of flight experience and the supervisor had done one performance appraisal of the flight attendants.

To gauge a complete understanding of hypothesized relationships between variables of interest, it was planned to collect data on two different points of time separated by 30 days (T1 and T2). According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie,⁷⁶ the time-lagged data collection helps in establishing causal relationships by observing how changes in one variable affect another over time. It also helps to reduce the impact of social desirability bias and method variance methodologically that might occur if data were collected at one point of time for all the variables under investigation. Psychological variable may not have an immediate impact but may influence outcomes after a certain period. Time-lagged data allows researchers to capture these delayed reactions.^77,78

By following the standard protocols, the questionnaire was divided into two parts with demographical information attached to each along with a unique code. At T1, flight attendants were asked to rate their leaders on various dimensions of authentic leadership inventory and apprise them about group cohesiveness as well as the extent to which they face work-to-family life conflict. After a time lag of 1 month (T2), they attempted employee engagement items. In total, 500 questionnaires were floated using postal mail service, and a few of them were personally administered in sealed envelopes. We received 390 questionnaires at T1 and subsequently punched them in IBM SPSS Statistics. Around 313 respondents forwarded the second part which were punched by following the unique codes. Demographical information also helped to see similarities and ensured the filling accuracy.

After initial screening, around 60 questionnaires were dropped which were not attempted in true spirit and finally 253 responses were analyzed to test the hypothesis. The sample profile revealed that 52.6% were between the age bracket of 21 and 25 years; 32.8% were between 26 and 30 years; and the rest were 31 or above. Since females were commonly preferred for the position of flight attendant, the sample included females only with 98% unmarried. Possible reason lies with the airline company policies where the age limit for this position is between 18 and 25 years for new recruits. Secondly, the role of flight attendants is preferred by the young segment of the society keeping in view the extensive traveling and varying nature of duty roster.

In the education category, 86% were bachelor’s degree holders. The majority of respondents (45%) revealed their income level in between $40 and –500 per month and nearly the same 44% in between $300 and 400 per month.

Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) is Pakistan’s largest airline that operates a fleet of 29 aircrafts. PIA is the government-owned flag carrier with maximum market share in Pakistan with over 60 domestic and international destinations. A few other airlines operative are Airblue with 12 aircrafts, SereneAir with 12 aircrafts, AirSial with 12 aircrafts and, Fly-Jinnah with 5 aircrafts for limited destinations. Considering the market share, headcount and fleet size, a majority of respondents belonged to PIA 82%. Responses from other airline companies were 18%.

Measures

Employee engagement

Employees’ work engagement was measured with 17 items from the Utrecht Work Enthusiasm Scale (UWES) developed by Schaufeli, Bakker.⁷⁹ Participants answered the items on a seven-point scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). An example included “At my work, I feel bursting with energy.”

Authentic leadership

Authentic leadership was measured with 16 items developed by Walumbwa, Avolio.⁵² Participants answered the items on a five-point frequency rating scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (if not always). An example of the item included “My leader seeks feedback to improve interactions with others.”

Group cohesiveness

The group cohesiveness was measured with a seven-item, five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) constructed by Wongpakaran, Wongpakaran.⁸⁰ An example of the item included “I feel accepted by the group.”

Work-life conflict

The work-life conflict was measured with five items developed by Netemeyer, Boles.⁸¹ Participants answered the items on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). Item included “The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life.”

All the measures were adopted from credible studies. Previously tested sources ensured the psychometric soundness in terms of proven validity and reliability. Measuring items and scales were the same prescribed by the scale developer. Various empirical evidence exists such as Demerouti, Mostert,⁸² Hakanen, Bakker,⁸³ Schaufeli, Bakker,⁸⁴ Schaufeli, Taris, and⁸⁵ Xanthopoulou, Bakker⁸⁶ where a combination of five-point and seven-point scales was employed to collect data and apply inferential statistics to come over to conclusion.

Results

Measurement model

To check for possible common method bias, we first conducted Harman’s single-factor test as prescribed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie.⁷⁶ Common method bias could affect the study if the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) presents 50% of variance explained by one factor or a dominant single factor. By constraining the number of factors extracted to one, results showed 25.03% of the variance explained by one factor. Hence, we concluded that the sample used in this study was not seriously tainted by common method bias. Furthermore, the variance inflation factor (VIF) showed that there was no severe multicollinearity among the collected data for the four constructs as the VIFs were all less than 1.5.⁸⁷

An overall confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using AMOS-23 to assess the construct validity of the measurement model. The primary purpose of a model fit assessment was to determine how the model as a whole was consistent with the empirical data. As a result of an overall CFA, the measurement model indicated an acceptable fit to the data (see Table 1). All the factor loadings were above the acceptable value (see Figure 1). The results of the CFA offered further validity for the instruments and model in a Pakistani cultural setting.

Table 1.

Measurement model assessment by CFA.

χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	IFI	TLI/NNFI	CFI	SRMR
1844.81**	932	1.98	0.06	0.91	0.90	0.90	0.08

Note: ^** p < .01; n = 253.

Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and the reliabilities. To estimate the internal consistency of the constructs, we used composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). The CRs for all constructs were greater than the 0.7 threshold.⁸⁸ In addition, the AVEs were all above the recommended 0.5 level,⁸⁸ which means more than half of the variance observed was accounted for by the hypothesized constructs.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities.

		Mean	SD	AVE	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1	Age	2.58	0.96	—	1
2	Gender	1.90	0.30	—	−.24**	1
3	Education	1.01	0.10	—	.01	.04	1
4	Income	2.88	0.75	—	.73**	−.23**	.07	1
5	Tenure	2.73	0.82	—	.75**	−.19**	.08	.48**	1
6	Work-life conflict	3.22	1.00	.76	−.05	.12	.03	−.09	.01	(0.94)
7	Authentic leadership	2.99	0.73	0.74	−.01	−.05	−.01	.06	−.05	−.12	(0.92)
8	Group cohesiveness	4.08	0.72	0.69	.07	−.09	−.01	−.01	.01	−.12	.14*	(0.94)
9	Employee engagement	4.38	0.99	.72	−.08	0.05	.01	−.07	−.11	−.41**	.21**	.28**	(0.88)

Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; n = 253; CRs are in the diagonal.

It also reports the correlations among the demographic variables and the four constructs. All the correlations indicated significant (p < .01) and moderate relationships among the constructs. As the result of correlation analysis, the first two hypotheses were supported in this study. Employee engagement was found to be significantly associated with perceived authentic leadership (Hypothesis 1) and group cohesiveness (Hypothesis 2). In addition, work-life conflict was significantly and negatively related to employee engagement.

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis

Table 3 illustrates the results of hierarchical multiple regressions for employee engagement. According to Aiken,⁸⁹ multiple hierarchical regression is a statistical technique used to analyze the relationship between a dependent variable and multiple independent variables. In survey studies, it is particularly valuable to test hypotheses derived from theoretical frameworks. It also helps to understand how the relationship between predictors and the outcome variable changes at different levels of another variable. Since the purpose of the study was to know the direct effects of authentic leadership and group cohesiveness on employee engagement as well as to examine the moderating role of work-family conflict on the authentic leadership and group cohesiveness to employees’ work engagement relationships⁹⁰; therefore, multiple hierarchical regression was employed to test the hypothesis. Specifically, in steps 1 through 4, we entered the control variables in Model 1, authentic leadership and group cohesiveness in Model 2, work-life conflict in Model 3, and the interactions in Models 4 and 5.

Table 3.

Results for main effects and moderated regression analyses.

	Employee engagement
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Step 1: Demographics
- Age	0.03	−0.02	−0.03	−0.06
- Gender	0.10	0.21	0.33	0.30
- Education	0.23	0.41	0.46	0.23
- Income	−0.04	−0.02	−0.08	−0.09
- Tenure	−0.15	−0.09	−0.05	−0.02
Step 2: Main effects
- Authentic leadership (AL)		.26**	.21*	1.01***
- Group cohesiveness (GC)		.40***	.34***	−.32
Step 3: Moderator
- Work-life conflict (WLC)			−.41***	−.49***
Step 4: Interactions
- AL * WLC				−.26***
- GC * WLC				.21**
F-Value	0.69	15.45***	45.62***	9.35***
Adjusted R²	−0.01	0.10	0.24	0.29
∆R²	—	0.11	0.14	0.05

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

With regard to the effect size, authentic leadership and group cohesiveness significantly influenced employee engagement (ΔR² = .11). Work-life conflict also had a significant effect on employee engagement (ΔR² = .14). More importantly, both interactions between the main effects and the moderator turned out to be significant on employee engagement (ΔR² = .05). Overall, the demographic variables, the effects, the moderator, and the interactions explained 29% of the variance in employee engagement, supporting all hypotheses.

We examined the interaction effects between the two main effects (i.e., authentic leadership and group cohesiveness) and the moderator (i.e., work-life conflict) (see Figures 2 and 3). First, work-life conflict (WLC) significantly moderated the relationship between authentic leadership and employee engagement (see Figure 2). The low WLC group who perceived high authentic leadership indicated a higher level of employee engagement. The effect of authentic leadership turned out to be weak for the high WLC group.

Figure 1.

Measurement model.

Figure 2.

Interaction effect of authentic leadership and work-life conflict on engagement.

Contrary to our hypothesis, WLC was found to be a significant but positive moderator for the relationship between group cohesiveness and employee engagement (see Figure 3). It is noted that the effect of group cohesiveness on employee engagement is positive and stronger for the high WLC group. That is, even though WLC negatively affects the level of engagement, highly cohesive group dynamics appears to keep employees engaged to their job.

Figure 3.

Interaction effect of group cohesiveness and work-life conflict on engagement.

Discussions

This study primarily examined the impact of authentic leadership and group cohesiveness on employee engagement with boundary conditions of work-life conflict. The results are in expected direction.^23,32 More specifically, employees who perceived their supervisors as authentic leaders tended to work with more dedication and vigor.^26,91

In line with previous studies, we also found support for the link between group cohesiveness and employees’ work engagement.^63,92 Dedication towards work cannot be ensured solely by individual efforts when work assignments are interconnected. Peer support becomes a key resource to meet job demands during flight operations.⁹³

In the current study, work-life conflict was found to negatively moderate the relationship between authentic leadership and flight attendants’ engagement. When work-to-family life conflict is high, employees cannot work with full of energies despite caring and supportive leadership.⁹⁴ Employees usually prefer their family life in case of conflicting demands between professional and family life.⁹⁵

Interestingly and contrary to our expectations, we found that work-life conflict positively moderated the relationship between group cohesiveness and employee engagement. Even if there is a high level of work-life conflict, flight attendants who perceived a strong group cohesion turned out to indicate a high engagement level. A possible explanation may be obtained by operationalizing the group cohesion where the members are ready to extend support to alleviate the hardships of each other arising due to conflicting work and family life demands. Group bonds are strong in a collectivist culture and group members are ready to extend all kinds of support.⁹⁶ They not only help co-workers in carrying out physical work demands but also provide moral, emotional, and psychological support to cope with work to family life interventions and complexities.⁹⁷ This in turn overweighs the negative effects of work-life conflict towards employee engagement.

Theoretical implications

This study contributes to the hospitality literature in many ways. Our postulated framework converged social exchange theory (SET), job-demand resource (JDR) model, and conservation of resource (COR) theory to explain employee-work nexus. Results support all the theoretical bases at large.

Following the axiom of social exchange theory that claim employee-employer relationships are based on the perceived rewards and costs associated with it. Authentic leadership is not only relevant but an important construct to the airline industry, showed a strong influence in keeping employees’ engaged in their work. Employees experiencing relational transparency and moral support from supervisors respond in the same way with enhanced dedication and enthusiasm.³²

Our proposed relationship between group cohesiveness and employee engagement was based on job demands-resources (JD-R) model.⁶² Employees need emotional, psychological, and physical resources to meet job demands. A sense of togetherness, unity, trust and cooperation becomes a key resource when tasks are interconnected.⁹³ Inflight services are interdependently executed and the disintegration of the group may result into disengagement of employees as well. Hence our study provides support to JD-R model in the airline sector as well.

Following the axiom of conservation of resource theory (COR), work-life conflict was examined as a hindering factor on authentic leadership and group cohesiveness to employee engagement relationship. COR in organizational studies states that employees tend to protect, gain, regain, and foster resources.⁹⁸ Family life and the bond with family members constitute a key resource that is threatened due to work role demands as a flight attendant. Work-life conflict weakens the authentic leadership to employee engagement relationship which is in line with the previous findings where WLC showed negative effects on organizationally desired relationships.⁹⁹

Contrary to our expectations, WLC strengthened the group cohesiveness to employee engagement relationship. A possible explanation can again be sought from the conservation of resource (COR) theory which states that loss of resource may drive individuals to stressful situations and work disengagement.⁹⁸ WLC may not cause resource loss in the case of a highly cohesive group since group members are always ready to help on and off the job. In a highly cohesive group, fellow members can go to the extra mile to share the workload, provide technical support, and even be willing to work extra if any of the group members cannot report to work or are unable to work due to any reason. Since all members share the same attitude, therefore, employees on the work floor show utmost dedication and devotion resulting in high engagement. In sum, our holistic model grounded by social exchange theory, job-demand and resource model, and conservation of resource theory is supported.

Practical implications

Our findings have important implications for practicing managers as well. First, the findings provide useful insights to enhance the work engagement of flight attendants with the help of authentic leadership. It emphasizes the need to abandon conventional leadership practices and develop authentic leadership.^25,100 Key HR practices such as recruitment and selection, leadership development program, performance management, and career planning are of paramount importance in this regard. The recruitment and selection process needs to be carefully executed to identify AL-traits. Since AL is the outcome of a positive organizational context¹⁰¹; therefore, the culture of the organization also plays an important role. Especially, the career progression of flight attendants should be based on AL qualities. An organization may encourage employees to share their weaknesses and development need in a transparent, honest, and objective manner.²⁵ Those already in the management cadre should be provided training and developmental opportunities about self-awareness and authenticity.¹⁰²

Second, the author would recommend going extra miles in developing authenticity among individuals at very early ages of life. Authentic leadership has proved to be a breakthrough in management literature. Authenticity implies deep-rooted values of transparency and honesty, which may start to penetrate at very early ages of life. Educational institutes may also play an important role in developing authentic values to future leaders.¹⁰³

Third, the findings reported a strong positive impact of group cohesiveness on employee engagement. Team spirit is also the outcome of the organizational culture, where everyone is ready to support their counterpart. Literature highlights team spirit as a personality trait; therefore, selection methods should be based on identifying team players.¹⁰⁴ In-flight and off-flight mentoring is also important to augment team working skill. Airlines should organize team-building activities and games out of work settings.^8,105,106 Team cohesiveness also needs the attention of the policymakers because of the combined positive effects it produces with work-life conflict. A highly organized and unified group diffuses the negative effects arising from work-to-family role incompatibilities.⁴¹ The managers need to promote a positive group culture, manage interpersonal conflicts effectively, and create opportunities for collaboration. Likewise, goal alignment may go a long way.¹⁰⁷ The airline management needs to explicitly highlight the way individual goals align with the group’s objectives to create a sense of interdependence and mutual support.¹⁰⁸

Fourth, work-life conflict is found as a key situational hindrance and the managers need to take a number of steps to cope with it. Various managerial and organizational strategies can be helpful to counter work-life imbalances. The key is to carefully formulate a work schedule in consultation with employees.¹⁰⁹ Flight attendants may follow flight rosters keeping in view their family commitments. Overtime duties should be handled properly. Employees naturally tend to increase their working hours to cumulate monetary benefits.¹¹⁰ It depends on airline companies to have a sufficient pool of headcount to discourage this tendency. Proper HR planning is required in this regard to offset staff deficiencies. Likewise, leave policies may also help the situation. For example, the provision of maternity, paternity, and sick leaves provides an opportunity for employees to spend ample time with family. Lastly, work-life conflict can be countered by incorporating technological means.¹¹¹ Airline companies may facilitate flight attendants with connectivity to family members during travels.^112–114 In nutshell, there is a need to cultivate an open and supportive culture where flight attendants including employees with supervisory role may feel safe to speak out in case of conflicting work demands and coworkers are willingly support each other.¹¹⁵

Limitations and recommendations for future research

Like other empirical studies, this study has a few limitations. First, the self-reported responses leave room for speculation with regard to common method variance. The responses may also be time sensitive. Future researchers may focus on more objective techniques for data collection and follow longitudinal design.

Secondly, the study was confined to flight attendants of local airlines; therefore, the generalizability of the present study should be treated cautiously on other settings. Future studies may examine the responses of customer service representative (CSR) of other international airlines. Acknowledging possible differences among employee perception and background across nations, future research also needs a direct comparison of Western and non-Western respondents.

To contribute theoretically, future research in this area should examine the other plausible factors creating boundary conditions on the relationships. For example, contextual factors such as organizational justice, role conflict, job insecurity, and harassment faced by flight attendants can be examined as contextual moderators, whereas neuroticism, machiavellianism, and impulsivity can also be tested as personal factors on the postulated relationships. The role of family to work conflict and work to family conflict can also be examined as situational factors to understand the interplay of a person and the situation in determining various attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.

Statements and declarations

Footnotes

Author contributions

Conception: Adnan Riaz and Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo

Methodology: Adnan Riaz and Rasool Bakhsh

Data collection: Adnan Riaz and Syed Ahsan Jamil

Interpretation or analysis of data: Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo

Preparation of the manuscript: Adnan Riaz and Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo

Revision for important intellectual content: Rasool Bakhsh

Supervision: Adnan Riaz, Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo and Syed Ahsan Jamil.

Conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical consideration

- Participants were treated with respect and dignity.

- Ethics committee approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethical Board.

- Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

ORCID iDs

Adnan Riaz

Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo

Syed Ahsan Jamil

Rasool Bakhsh

References

Amankwah-Amoah

. COVID‐19 pandemic and innovation activities in the global airline industry: A review. Environ Int 2021; 156: 106719.

Kurnaz

Rodrigues

Bowyer

. Challenges and opportunities for aviation stakeholders in a post-pandemic world. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2023.

Cento

. The airline industry: challenges in the 21st century. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2008.

Law

Zhang

Gow

. Airline service quality, customer satisfaction, and repurchase intention: Laotian air passengers’ perspective. Case Stud Transp Policy 2022; 10(2): 741–750.

Hyun

. The impact of foreign flight attendants’ service quality on behavioral intention toward their home country—Applied SERVPERF model. Sustainability 2019; 11(15): 4136.

Choi

Huang

Choi

, et al. The effect of flight attendants’ physical attractiveness on satisfaction, positive emotion, perceived value, and behavioral intention. J Hospit Tourism Manag 2020; 44: 19–29.

Hong

Hsu

. Exploring relationships between health-related lifestyle habits and fatigue among flight attendants and trainees. Work 2023; 74(4): 1361–1369.

Bremer

Maertens

. Future skills of flight attendants in times of covid-19-related job uncertainty—the case of Germany. Adm Sci 2021; 11(4): 154.

Lawrence

. Fly high: Overcoming travel challenges and personal growth for cabin crew. Morrisville, NC: Lulu.com, 2023.

10.

Deato

Fernandez

Trinidad

, et al. The lived experiences of selected flight attendants: exploring challenges and outlook in the new normal. AVAHAN: A J Hosp Tourism 2022; 10(1): 25.

11.

Vasigh

Fleming

. Introduction to air transport economics: from theory to applications. Milton Park: Routledge, 2016.

12.

Hur

W-M

Shin

Yingrui

. When and why job-insecure flight attendants are reluctant to behave pro-environmentally. J Trav Tourism Market 2024; 41(1): 88–105.

13.

Agarwal

Datta

Blake-Beard

, et al. Linking LMX, innovative work behaviour and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work engagement. Career Dev Int 2012; 17(3): 208–230.

14.

Chen

C-F

Kao

Y-L

. Moderating effects of work engagement and job tenure on burnout–performance among flight attendants. J Air Transport Manag 2012; 25: 61–63.

15.

Chen

C-F

Chen

S-C

. Burnout and work engagement among cabin crew: Antecedents and consequences. Int J Aviat Psychol 2012; 22(1): 41–58.

16.

Akhtar

Boustani

Tsivrikos

, et al. The engageable personality: Personality and trait EI as predictors of work engagement. Pers Indiv Differ 2015; 73: 44–49.

17.

De Clercq

Bouckenooghe

Raja

, et al. Unpacking the goal congruence–organizational deviance relationship: The roles of work engagement and emotional intelligence. J Bus Ethics 2014; 124(4): 695–711.

18.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

Demerouti

, et al. Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. J Occup Organ Psychol 2009; 82(1): 183–200.

19.

Wójcik-Karpacz

Kraus

Karpacz

. Examining the relationship between team-level entrepreneurial orientation and team performance. Int J Entrepreneurial Behav Res 2022; 28(9): 1–30.

20.

Ruiz‐Palomino

Linuesa‐Langreo

Elche

. Team-level servant leadership and team performance: The mediating roles of organizational citizenship behavior and internal social capital. Bus Ethics Env Resp 2023; 32: 127–144.

21.

Sun

J-M

Taris

, et al. Country differences in the relationship between leadership and employee engagement: A meta-analysis. Leader Q 2021; 32(1): 101458.

22.

Koon

V-Y

T-S

. Authentic leadership and employee engagement: The role of employee well-being. Hum Syst Manag 2021; 40(1): 81–92.

23.

Cho

Lim

. Authentic leadership and work engagement: the mediating effect of practicing core values. Leader Organ Dev J 2018; 39(2): 276–290.

24.

Ciftci

Erkanli

. Mediating role of the positive psychological capital on the relation between the authentic leadership style and employees’ work engagement: An applied study on hospitality industry 1. Bus Econ Res J 2020; 11(2): 461–478.

25.

Schuckert

Kim

Paek

, et al. Motivate to innovate: How authentic and transformational leaders influence employees’ psychological capital and service innovation behavior. Int J Contemp Hospit Manag 2018; 30(2): 776–796.

26.

Durrah

Charbatji

Chaudhary

, et al. Authentic leadership behaviors and thriving at work: Empirical evidence from the information technology industry in Australia. Psychol Rep 2024; 127(4): 1911–1940.

27.

Taggart

. Crew resource management: Achieving enhanced flight operations. Aviation psychology in practice. Milton Park: Routledge, 2017, pp. 309–339.

28.

Orlady

. Human factors in multi-crew flight operations. Milton Park: Routledge, 2017.

29.

Maniriho

. Airline cabin crew training manual. Chennai, India: Notion Press, 2022.

30.

Singh

Srivastasva

. Team performance scale for hospitality professionals. J Psychosoc Res 2016; 11(1): 1.

31.

Belotti

. Is a flight attendant career right for you? Kindle Edition: Amazon Digital Services LLC - KDP Print US, 2018.

32.

Baquero

. Authentic leadership, employee work engagement, trust in the leader, and workplace well-being: A moderated mediation model. Psychol Res Behav Manag 2023; 16: 1403–1424.

33.

Jeon

. The effect of pre-flight attendants’ emotional intelligence, emotional labor, and emotional exhaustion on commitment to customer service. Serv Bus 2016; 10(2): 345–367.

34.

Liu

Fuller

Hester

, et al. Authentic leadership and employees’ job performance: mediation effect of positive employee health. Journal of Management Analytics 2023; 10(3): 566–582.

35.

Park

H-s

. A study on the impact of the emotional intelligence of flight attendants upon customer orientation: Focusing on the mediating effect regarding knowledge sharing. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association 2022; 22(1): 444–455.

36.

Turney

. Tapping diverse talent in aviation: culture, gender, and diversity. Milton Park: Routledge, 2017.

37.

Afsar

Safdar

Dost

, et al. Flight attendant’s knowledge sharing, innovative work behaviour, and new service development. Int J Work Innovat 2017; 2(2-3): 193–215.

38.

Nogues

Tremblay

D-G

. Managing work-nonwork boundaries in atypical working patterns: Evidence from flight attendants in Canada and Germany. Empl Responsib Rights J 2019; 31(4): 197–221.

39.

Chen

W-K

Huang

T-Y

Tang

, et al. Investigating configurations of internal corporate social responsibility for work–family spillover: an asymmetrical approach in the airline industry. Soc Sci 2022; 11(9): 401.

40.

Iskra-Golec

Barnes-Farrell

Bohle

. Social and family issues in shift work and non-standard working hours. Berlin: Springer International Publishing, 2016.

41.

Tang

Chang

M-L

Wang

T-H

, et al. How to create genuine happiness for flight attendants: Effects of internal marketing and work-family interface. J Air Transport Manag 2020; 87: 101860.

42.

Demerouti

Bakker

Nachreiner

, et al. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol 2001; 86(3): 499–512.

43.

Bakker

Hakanen

Demerouti

, et al. Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. J Educ Psychol 2007; 99(2): 274–284.

44.

Haque

Fernando

Caputi

. Responsible leadership and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review, integration and propositions. Asia-Pac J Bus Adm 2021; 13(3): 383–408.

45.

Pearce

Conger

Locke

. Shared leadership theory. Leader Q 2008; 19(5): 622–628.

46.

Karatepe

Olugbade

. The mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between high-performance work practices and job outcomes of employees in Nigeria. Int J Contemp Hospit Manag 2016; 28(10): 2350–2371.

47.

Gardner

Karam

Alvesson

, et al. Authentic leadership theory: The case for and against. Leader Q 2021; 32(6): 101495.

48.

Bass

Avolio

Jung

, et al. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. J Appl Psychol 2003; 88(2): 207–218.

49.

Alilyyani

Wong

Cummings

. Antecedents, mediators, and outcomes of authentic leadership in healthcare: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2018; 83: 34–64.

50.

Avolio

Gardner

Walumbwa

, et al. Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leader Q 2004; 15(6): 801–823.

51.

Yammarino

Dionne

Schriesheim

, et al. Authentic leadership and positive organizational behavior: A meso, multi-level perspective. Leader Q 2008; 19(6): 693–707.

52.

Walumbwa

Avolio

Gardner

, et al. Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. J Manag 2008; 34(1): 89–126.

53.

Gardner

Avolio

Luthans

, et al. “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leader Q 2005; 16(3): 343–372.

54.

Iszatt‐White

Kempster

. Authentic leadership: Getting back to the roots of the ‘root construct’? Int J Manag Rev 2019; 21(3): 356–369.

55.

Blau

. Exchange and power in social life. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley, 1964.

56.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J Manag 2005; 31(6): 874–900.

57.

Leroy

Anseel

Gardner

, et al. Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. J Manag 2015; 41(6): 1677–1697.

58.

Nwachukwu

Chládková

Agboga

, et al. Religiosity, employee empowerment and employee engagement: An empirical analysis. Int J Sociol Soc Pol 2021; 41(11/12): 1195–1209.

59.

Kahn

. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad Manag J 1990; 33(4): 692–724.

60.

Müller

Antoni

. Individual perceptions of shared mental models of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and virtual team coordination and performance—The moderating role of flexibility in ICT use. Group Dyn-Theor Res Practi 2020; 24(3): 186–200.

61.

Karatepe

Talebzadeh

. An empirical investigation of psychological capital among flight attendants. J Air Transport Manag 2016; 55: 193–202.

62.

Bakker

Demerouti

. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J Manag Psychol 2007; 22(3): 309–328.

63.

Rodríguez-Sánchez

Devloo

Rico

, et al. What makes creative teams tick? Cohesion, engagement, and performance across creativity tasks: A three-wave study. Group Organ Manag 2017; 42(4): 521–547.

64.

Kalisch

Curley

Stefanov

. An intervention to enhance nursing staff teamwork and engagement. J Nurs Adm 2007; 37(2): 77–84.

65.

Kozlowski

SWJ

Klein

. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. Hoboken, NJ, US: Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 2000. pp 3–90.

66.

McClurg

Chen

Petruzzelli

, et al. Challenges and new directions in examining team cohesion over time. Team dynamics over time. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited, 2017, pp. 261–286.

67.

Shaffer

Joplin

Hsu

Y-S

. Expanding the boundaries of work—family research: A review and agenda for future research. Int'l Jnl of Cross Cultural Management 2011; 11(2): 221–268.

68.

Sirgy

Lee

D-J

. Work-life balance: An integrative review. Appl Res Qual Life 2018; 13: 229–254.

69.

Williams

. Why work and family conflict and what to do about it. New York: Oxford University Press Williams Why Work and family conflict and what to do about it, 2000.

70.

Hobfoll

(2011). Conservation of resources theory: Its implication for stress, health, and resilience. In Folkman

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping (pp. 127–147). Oxford University Press.

71.

Chen

Powell

Cui

. Dynamics of the relationships among work and family resource gain and loss, enrichment, and conflict over time. J Vocat Behav 2014; 84(3): 293–302.

72.

Kossek

Lee

K-H

. Work-family conflict and work-life conflict. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.52

73.

Frone

Russell

Cooper

. Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface. J Appl Psychol 1992; 77(1): 65–78.

74.

Juan

J-c

. The study of high performance work system and employee performance─With the moderating role of work-family conflict. Taoyuan: National Central University, 2015.

75.

Zhao

. Employees’ work–family conflict moderating life and job satisfaction. J Bus Res 2012; 65(1): 22–28.

76.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

J-Y

, et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 2003; 88(5): 879–903.

77.

Ledford

Lambert

. Analyzing data from studies using time-lagged conditions. Single case research methodology. Milton Park: Routledge, 2024, pp. 204–222.

78.

Law

Wong

C-S

Yan

, et al. Asian researchers should be more critical: The example of testing mediators using time-lagged data. Asia Pac J Manag 2016; 33: 319–341.

79.

Schaufeli

Bakker

Salanova

. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educ Psychol Meas 2006; 66(4): 701–716.

80.

Wongpakaran

Intachote‐Sakamoto

, et al. The Group Cohesiveness Scale (GCS) for psychiatric inpatients. Psychiatr Care 2013; 49(1): 58–64.

81.

Netemeyer

Boles

McMurrian

. Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. J Appl Psychol 1996; 81(4): 400–410.

82.

Demerouti

Mostert

Bakker

. Burnout and work engagement: a thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. J Occup Health Psychol 2010; 15(3): 209–222.

83.

Hakanen

Bakker

Schaufeli

. Burnout and work engagement among teachers. J Sch Psychol 2006; 43(6): 495–513.

84.

Schaufeli

Bakker

Van Rhenen

. How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. J Organ Behav 2009; 30(7): 893–917.

85.

Schaufeli

Taris

Van Rhenen

. Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well‐being? Appl Psychol 2008; 57(2): 173–203.

86.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

Demerouti

, et al. Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. J Vocat Behav 2009; 74(3): 235–244.

87.

Kutner

Nachtsheim

Neter

. Applied linear regression models. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2004.

88.

Hair

Black

Anderson

, et al. Multivariate data analysis. London, United Kingdom: Cengage Learning EMEA, 2018.

89.

Aiken

. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1991.

90.

Cohen

West

, et al. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Milton Park: Routledge, 2013.

91.

Peter

. The impact of authentic leadership behavior on employee engagement and organizational ethical culture in Nigeria [Dissertation]. Tyler, TX: University of Texas at Tyler, 2016.

92.

Xanthopoulou

Baker

Heuven

, et al. Working in the sky: A diary study on work engagement among flight attendants. J Occup Health Psychol 2008; 13(4): 345–356.

93.

Watson

. The mechanisms underpinning peer support: a literature review. J Ment Health 2019; 28: 677.

94.

Williams

McCombs

. Understanding employee work‐life conflict experiences: Self‐leadership responses involving resource management for balancing work, family, and professional development. J Occup Organ Psychol 2023; 96(4): 807–827.

95.

McGinnity

. Work-life conflict in Europe. Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Berlin: Springer, 2021, pp. 1–6.

96.

Gonzalez-Mulé

DeGeest

McCormick

, et al. Can we get some cooperation around here? The mediating role of group norms on the relationship between team personality and individual helping behaviors. J Appl Psychol 2014; 99(5): 988–999.

97.

Woodward

Walsh

Senn

, et al. Positive social interaction offsets impact of low socioeconomic status on stress. J Natl Med Assoc 2017.

98.

Hobfoll

. Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. J Occup Organ Psychol 2011; 84(1): 116–122.

99.

Palumbo

. Let me go to the office! An investigation into the side effects of working from home on work-life balance. Int J Public Sect Manag 2020; 33(6/7): 771–790.

100.

Corriveau

A-M

. Developing authentic leadership as a starting point to responsible management: A Canadian university case study. Int J Manag Educ 2020; 18(1): 100364.

101.

Luthans

. Organizational behavior: An evidence-based approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2011.

102.

Martínez-Martínez

Molina-López

Mateos de Cabo

, et al. Awakenings: an authentic leadership development program to break the glass ceiling. Sustainability 2021; 13(13): 7476.

103.

Williams

Grande

Nakamura

, et al. The development and practice of authentic leadership: A cultural lens. Eur J Train Dev 2022; 46(9): 937–952.

104.

O’Neill

Kline

. Personality as a predictor of teamwork: A business simulator study. N Am J Psychol 2008; 10(1).

105.

Hackman

. Teams, leaders, and organizations: New directions for crew-oriented flight training. Cockpit resource management. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press, 1993. pp 47–69.

106.

Scholtes

Joiner

Streibel

. The team handbook. Singapore: Oriel Incorporated, 2003.

107.

Dyer

JWG

Dyer

. Team building: Proven strategies for improving team performance. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

108.

Law

. A flight attendant’s essential guide: From passenger relations to challenging situations. Irvine, California USA: BrownWalker Press, 2019.

109.

Kim

Choi

Nam

. Enhancing flight attendants’ well-being: exploring the impact of social exchange relationships and job crafting. Service Business 2024; 18(3): 503–522.

110.

Bhatia

Sai

. A study on the factors influencing moonlighting among employees. Opus: HR J 2023; 14(2): 19.

111.

Temple

Gillespie

. Taking charge of work and life. ABA J 2009; 95(2): 31–32.

112.

Jiang

Luo

Kulemeka

. Strategic social media use in public relations: Professionals’ perceived social media impact, leadership behaviors, and work-life conflict. Int J Strat Commun 2017; 11(1): 18–41.

113.

McKenzie

. Work-life conflict and wellness: Examining coping strategies & life satisfaction among graduate students. New Britain, CT: Central Connecticut State University, 2020.

114.

Sirgy

Lee

. Work-life balance: HR training for employee personal interventions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023.

115.

Chen

S-C

. Paternalistic leadership and cabin crews’ upward safety communication: The motivation of voice behavior. J Air Transport Manag 2017; 62: 44–53.