A pilot study of business travelers’ stress-coping strategies

Abstract

This research note incorporates stress process theory to explore what stress-coping strategies have been adopted by business travelers. The results indicate that travel competence, social support, and destination activities, are three key components of the coping strategies business travelers utilize to decrease their stress on the road. Also, this study indicates that healthy menus, in-room amenities (i.e., technology, a temperature control panel, and quality of bedding and bath amenities), and convenience (i.e., distance to business sites/airport and hotel services) were considered important hotel attributes that help business travelers overcome travel-related stress. This study took an initial attempt to explore business travelers’ coping strategies used to combat travel-related stress. Since the need of understanding business travelers’ well-being and work–life balance has been increasing, this study could contribute to the limited research related to business travelers’ stress and bring suggestions for corporate travel policies and programs, as well as travel satisfaction. Consequently, this study broaches the subject of business travelers’ stress and implications for hospitality service providers.

Keywords

Business travelers travel stress coping strategy hotels destinations

Introduction

Business travelers often undergo various types of stress during their trips (DeFrank et al., 2000). Unexpected incidents, such as flight delays, cancellations, or other travel logistic issues are major stressors for most business travelers (Gustafson, 2014). In addition, previous research has investigated business travelers’ physical and psychological strain derived from their travel arrangements along with balancing work and personal life (Burkholder et al., 2010; DeFrank et al., 2000; Gustafson, 2014). Thus, travel-related stress could have an enormous negative impact on business travelers’ well-being, which may lead to physical and mental health problems, decreased work productivity, and depreciate their work performance in the long term (Burkholder et al., 2010). A recent travel study by Global Business Travel Association pinpointed that in order to improve travel policies and programs, organizations should consider business travelers’ health conditions and travel satisfaction (GBTA Foundation, 2017a). However, in the field of hospitality and tourism research, business travelers’ experience and well-being have been under-researched. Since the need of understanding business travelers’ well-being and work–life balance has been increasing (Mäkelä & Kinnunen, 2016), it is imperative for researchers to construe the attributes that influence business travelers’ stress, coping strategies, and travel experience. As such, the current study aimed to identify the coping strategies commonly utilized by business travelers and examine how hotel amenities and services accommodate business travelers’ needs.

Based upon stress process theory, when an individual encounters a stressful situation, a series of coping strategies for managing stress will be initiated and further change the individual’s emotions and behavior (Carver et al., 1989; Lazarus, 1990; Somerfield and McCrae, 2000). Researchers have categorized two general types of coping processes: problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980). While emotion-focused coping is viewed as avoiding stress, people employ problem-focus coping strategies when they feel the stressful situation could be changed or resolved by taking some course of action. Carver et al. (1989) referred to this type of strategy as “active coping,” which includes “initiating direct action, increasing one’s effort, and trying to execute a coping attempt in stepwise fashion” (p. 268). For instance, business travelers may apply their past experience and resources to solve problems and alleviate stress occurred during their trips (Westman, 2004). Frequent business travelers may have developed their own strategies to overcome travel-related stress and inconveniences on the road (DeFrank et al., 2000; Gustafson, 2014). For instance, some business travelers utilize resources and abilities that facilitate their travel experience, such as using mobile devices to control all travel arrangements (Egencia, 2016). Therefore, individuals’ ability and self-efficacy may determine the ways in which business travelers deal with travel stress (Striker et al., 1999).

Studies have shown that business travelers often feel lonely and separated from family and social life (Gustafson, 2014). The consequences of frequent business travel, such as making family arrangements before the business trip, missing family and social events during the trip, and overhauling family relationships and responsibilities after the return, all become major causes of travel stress (Burkholder et al., 2010; Striker et al., 1999). As such, social support from family and friends could provide significant stress relief for business travelers to overcome emotional exhaustion and frustration on the road.

Unger et al. (2016) investigated how business travelers transformed their journey from work-related activities to recreational experiences at the destination. If an intensive work schedule is expected at the destination, business travelers rely on resting well in a comfortable hotel to refresh and recover from work-related stress (Unger et al., 2016). In addition, the term of “bleisure” has become prevalent in the travel industry, which indicates that business travelers may combine a business trip with leisurely activities at the destination (Vivion, 2016). For instance, a study showed that millennial business travelers are more likely to extend stays at the destination after work; 94% of them plan to take a “bleisure” trip within the next five years (BridgeStreet Global Hospitality, 2014). In a recent study, business travelers indicated that they were inclined to take a short time-off to experience the destination and escape home and work (GBTA Foundation, 2017b) Thus, it is possible that business travelers may take a brief vacation while staying at the destination to help alleviate tiredness and exhaustion after business.

In summary, previous research regarding travel-related stressors has applied the stress process theory to examine traveler behavior that is associated with the intensity of stressful encounters (Schuster et al., 2006; Zehrer and Crotts, 2012). Considering business travelers may experience a higher intensity of travel activities, a series of stress appraisal and reactions will be stimulated to repel the stress level (Lazarus, 1990). Since this study intended to explore what stress-coping strategies have been adopted by business travelers, integrating the stress process theory was considered as a robust theoretical background. Specifically, the process of problem-focused coping, including individuals’ self-efficacy and proactive problem-solving techniques, was examined to understand how business travelers ameliorate travel discomfort. Finally, the researcher would like to acknowledge one of the limitations in utilizing the stress process approach: it overlooks the context of individuals’ personality traits, which may possibly influence idiosyncratic stress coping styles (Lazarus, 1993).

Methodology

To understand business travelers’ strategies for overcoming their travel discomfort during business trips, this study conducted a quantitative research method to survey travelers who have traveled for a business purpose in the past month and have stayed in hotels for at least one night. The travelers were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk, which is an online participant recruitment platform utilized by researchers in academia (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Mason and Suri, 2012). The travelers were asked questions about how they cope with travel-related stress during their business trip (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and their perceptions of hotel amenities, which may help them manage travel-related stress (from 1 = not important at all to 5 = extremely important). The questions were developed based upon the previous studies regarding business travelers’ stress, coping strategies, and travel experiences (Carver et al., 1989; Gustafson, 2014; Striker et al., 1999). Since this study was exploratory research that aimed to define different dimensions of business travelers’ coping behavior, a factor analysis was conducted to determine the number of underlying factors. There were several limitations to the methodology used in this study. First, the quantitative survey method did not include open-ended questions, which allow the respondents to write down other stress-coping strategies that were not listed in the questionnaire. Second, the samples collected through Amazon Mechanical Turk may show slightly diverse demographics (Buhrmester et al., 2011). Finally, since the respondents were compensated ($1 for completing the questionnaire), financial incentive and motivation should be acknowledged (Casler et al., 2013).

Results

In total, 284 questionnaires were collected through the Amazon Mechanical Turk website during June 2016. Twelve questionnaires were identified as incomplete, failed the validating question, and outliers. Thus, 272 completed responses from business travelers were included in the data analysis. The participants included 167 females and 105 males, and the majority was between 25 and 35 years of age (58%). In terms of travel profile, 54% of participants made five or fewer trips in a year, 63% had an average of three to four days per trip, and 44% stayed in upscale hotels (3.5 or four-star) (See Table 1).

A factor analysis was performed by SPSS. A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to analyze the 13 items with orthogonal rotation (varimax). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .71, which is above the acceptable limit of .5 (Field, 2009). Bartlett’s test of sphericity, χ²(78) = 976.84, p < .001, indicated that correlations between the 13 items were sufficiently large for PCA (Field, 2009). The results of an initial eigenvalues for each component indicate three components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 53.95% of the variance. One item (i.e., “I consider myself as a travel expert”) did not meet Gorsuch’s (1997) criteria (i.e., factor loading greater than |0.40|). Therefore, this item was removed from the analysis. Table 2 shows the rotated solution yielded three interpretable factors: travel competence (5 items, 26.80% of the item variance), social support (4 items, 15.39% of item variance), and destination activities (3 items, 11.77% of item variance). The internal consistency estimate of reliability (α) was between .71 and .77, indicating a satisfactory reliability.

Table 1.

Travel profile of participants (N = 272).

Variables	Frequency	Percent
Travel frequency
5 or less trips/year	148	54
6–10 trips/year	82	30
11–15 trips/year	27	10
16–20 trips/year	7	3
More than 20 trips/year	8	3
Average duration of one trip
1–2 days	67	25
3–4 days	170	63
5–6 days	26	9
Longer than one week	9	3
Hotel levels
Luxury (5-star or higher)	15	6
Upscale (3.5 or 4-star)	121	44
Mid-scale (2.5 or 3-star)	113	42
Economy (1 or 2-star)	20	7
Airbnb or rental homes	3	1

Table 2.

Summary of factor analysis (N = 272).

Items	Factor loading	α
Travel competence		.71
I know how to arrange my travel in ways that balance my personal life with work	.81
I develop my own routine to handle my business trip.	.73
I come up with some strategies to manage my family responsibilities.	.69
I am confident about how to deal with unexpected travel delays and other problems on the road.	.55
I try to come up with a strategy about reducing travel-related stress.	.51
Social support		.77
I try to get advice from my colleagues about how to overcome travel-related stress.	.80
I ask my colleagues who have had similar experiences about how they became competent in their business trip.	.76
I discuss my feelings with my family/friends when I travel.	.76
I try to get emotional support from my family/friends.	.71
Destination activities		.72
I spend time touring and site-seeing while I am at the destination for work.	.88
I look for leisurely activities at the destination while I am traveling for work.	.87
I use hotel services and amenities, such as having healthy food, using the fitness center, swimming pool, or spa, to overcome travel-related discomfort. and stress.	.51

Note: All standardized path coefficients were significant at p < 0.01.

When asked what hotel amenities and services may help overcome travel discomfort, the participants responded that healthy meal options, in-room technology, quality of bed/mattress pillows, in-room temperature control, convenient location to business sites, and gift/snack shops in hotels were from “4-very important” to “5-extremely important.” Bathroom amenities, laundry service, quick check-in and check-out process, convenience to airport, hotel well-being programs, in-room appliance (e.g., microwave, fridge, or coffee machine), and quality wash towels/bathrobes were considered between “3-moderately important” and “4-very important.” Fitness amenities, room services, business centers, free Internet, and other self-services were rated from “1-not important” to “2-slightly important.” Figure 1 details the business travelers’ preference in hotel amenities and services.

Figure 1.

Business travelers’ preference in hotel amenities and services to overcome travel discomfort.

Discussions and implications

The results indicate that travel competence, social support, and destination activities, are three key components of the coping strategies business travelers utilize to decrease their stress on the road. First, travel competence specifies an individual’s capability and experience regarding travel planning, as well as their ability to balance life and work, handle travel inconveniences and problems, and manage stress levels during a business trip. Previous research stated that business travelers often learn how to manage travel practicalities, which in turn, increases their self-efficacy and ability to develop their own methods of combating travel-related stress (Gustafson, 2014). Responding to the stress-coping paradigm, business travelers conduct a problem-focused coping approach, which is to proactively prepare for a stressful situation (Westman, 2004). Therefore, this study extended the previous research and utilized the stress process theory to further clinch important factors of business travelers’ stress-coping strategies.

Secondly, aligned with the previous research of applying social support as a stress relief, the current study also demonstrated that social support is crucial to managing stress during a business trip. As a road warrior, business travelers are often away from home and absent during special family events. Ivancevich et al. (2003) stated that social support includes emotional concern, instrumental aids, information, and appraisal support from friends and family. Business travelers seek instrumental social support from their colleagues and organizations to gain resources to handle travel-related issues. Additionally, emotional supports from family and friends help business travelers overcome anxiety and frustration (Ivancevich et al., 2003). This result indicates that affection plays a vital role in the process of coping stress—venting negative emotions and seeking sympathy are important coping strategies while combating a stressful transaction (Carver et al., 1989).

Third, this study identified business travelers’ leisure activities at the destination to be a type of coping strategy. This finding was not shown in previous studies of business travel-related stress. It is possible that the new generation of business travelers, who are younger travelers (under 35 years old), is getting used to working remotely, blurring lines between work and personal time, and willing to experience the city while staying at the destination (BridgeStreet Global Hospitality, 2014; Carlson Wagonlit Travel, 2016). Future research could investigate how young business travelers adopt their lifestyle and adjust travel behavior on the road. Indeed, an interesting inquiry would be what activities at the destination attract young business travelers. This information could provide insight for destination marketing organizations.

This study also examined business travelers’ perception of hotel amenities. Interestingly, travelers identified healthy menus offered by hotels as a top attribute that helps them reduce travel discomfort and stress. Business travelers may be concerned about health problems associated with travel and an inability to maintain a healthy diet on the road (Chen, 2017; Richards and Rundle, 2011; Rogers and Reilly, 2002). The implication for hotel practitioners is to offer healthy meal options for business travelers, such as providing a breakfast menu that is lower in total fat, higher in dietary fiber, or includes nutritious ingredients that will help travelers gain energy and overcome fatigue.

Additionally, in line with previous studies of business travelers’ expectation and satisfaction, this study indicates that in-room amenities (i.e., technology, a temperature control panel, and quality of bedding and bath amenities) and convenience (i.e., distance to business sites/airport and hotel services) were ranked as important hotel attributes by business travelers (Callan and Kyndt, 2001; Lockyer, 2002). Hotel amenities, cleanness and comfort of bedroom, location, and hotel services, are considered important attributes for business travelers while selecting a hotel (Dolnicar, 2002; Fawzy, 2010; GBTA Foundation, 2017b; Weaver and Oh, 1993). However, this study took a different approach to scrutinize business travelers’ perceptions of hotel amenities that contribute to stress relief. The quality of bedding/bath amenities and temperature control will influence travelers’ sleeping environment and quality, which is essential for business travelers to rest, refresh, and recover from work and travel (Pallesen et al., 2016; Rhee and Yang, 2015). The industry report also points out one of the critical issues business travelers encounter is sleeping less (Egencia, 2016). Thus, for hotels that focus on attracting corporate business travelers, practitioners could reexamine in-room amenities associated with hotel guests’ sleep quality. For business travel research, since most studies that address business travelers’ wants and needs are dated, the current research can bring a fresh insight and directions for future research associated with travelers’ well-being.

Interestingly, this study specifies that in-room technology, such as high-speed Internet connections, ability to stream devices to the TV, or room control panels, will help business travelers overcome travel discomfort. Technology has significantly changed the hotel experience (Bilgihan et al., 2016). Business travelers may bring more than one mobile device while staying in hotels; they tend to need many electrical outlets for all of their gadgets and would like to easily sync their personal devices to the in-room TV for entrainment (GBTA, 2015). Hence, one of the practical implications for practitioners is that the accessibility, capability, and the convenience of in-room technology can be addressed by hotels to help business travelers reduce work or travel-related stress.

Conclusion and limitations

This study took an initial attempt to explore business travelers’ coping strategies used to combat travel-related stress. Due to the issues of business travelers’ work–life balance, as well as their health conditions and travel satisfaction have been underlined by business travelers in recent years (Egencia, 2016; GBTA Foundation, 2017a), this study could contribute to the limited research related to business travelers’ stress and bring suggestions for corporate travel policies and programs. As a pilot study of investigating business travelers’ stress-coping strategies, this study was limited to a small sample size and young age population. Future research could gain a large sample size to assess the validity of measurements of coping strategy, extend the results from this study to investigate business travelers’ well-being, and investigate how hotels could better accommodate different ages of business travelers. For instance, researchers could collaborate with corporate travel managers to investigate business travelers from different industries, which may demonstrate more diverse findings. More research is desired to address business travelers’ needs and further improve their travel experiences. Specifically, issues of business travelers’ wellness, the phenomenon of bleisure travel, and business travelers’ satisfaction of corporate travel programs are important matters that should be explored.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Hsiangting (Shatina) Chen holds a Doctorate of Philosophy in Hospitality Administration from Texas Tech University. Dr Chen has served as an Assistant Professor in the College of Human Environmental Sciences, Department of Nutrition and Hospitality Management at The University of Alabama since 2015. Dr Chen serves as a reviewer for several top tier hospitality and tourism journals. Her research interests include the relationships between traveler behavior and hotel marketing strategies, e-commerce applications in the hospitality industry, and business travelers' well-being.

References

Bilgihan

Smith

Ricci

et al. (2016) Hotel guest preferences of in-room technology amenities. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 7(2): 118–134.

BridgeStreet Global Hospitality (2014) The Bleisure report. Available at: http://skift.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/BGH-Bleisure-Report-2014.pdf (accessed 15 April 2016).

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

(2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(1): 3–5.

Burkholder

Joines

Cunningham-Hill

et al. (2010) Health and well-being factors associated with international business travel. Journal of Travel Medicine 17(5): 329–333.

Carlson Wagonlit Travel (2016) Combing business and leisure trips—A quantitative look at the bleisure phenomenon. CWT Solution Group White Paper. Available at https://www.carlsonwagonlit.com/content/cwt/de/en/insights/report/combining-business-and-leisure-trips.html (accessed 31 July 2016).

Carver

Scheier

Weintraub

(1989) Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(2): 267.

Casler

Bickel

Hackett

(2013) Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior 29(6): 2156–2160.

Chen

(2017) Travel well, road warriors: Assessing business travelers’ stressors. Tourism Management Perspectives 22: 1–6.

DeFrank

Konopaske

Ivancevich

(2000) Executive travel stress: Perils of the road warrior. The Academy of Management Executive 14(2): 58–71.

10.

Dolnicar

(2002) Business travellers’ hotel expectations and disappointments: A different perspective to hotel attribute importance investigation. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 7(1): 29–35.

11.

Egencia (2016) The 2016 Egencia business and travel technology study. Egencia Business Travel. Expedia, Inc. Available at https://www.egencia.com/public/us/tag/technology/ (accessed 31 July 2016).

12.

Fawzy

(2010) Business travelers’ accommodation selection: A comparative study of two international hotels in Cairo. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 11(2): 138–156.

13.

Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, UK: Sage publications.

14.

Folkman

Lazarus

(1980) An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 21(3): 219–239.

15.

GBTA Foundation (2015) GBTA Foundation whitepaper: Explores use of technology to improve business traveler hotel experiences. Available at: http://www.gbta.org/pressreleases/pages/rls_071415.aspx (accessed 15 April 2017).

16.

GBTA Foundation (2017a) Balancing travel satisfaction and well-being with program compliance. Available at: http://www.gbta.org/Pages/default.aspx.

17.

GBTA Foundation (2017b) Extending business travel into leisure time-bleisure study. Available at: http://www.gbta.org/Pages/default.aspx.

18.

Gorsuch

(1997) Exploratory factor analysis: Its role in item analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment 68(3): 532–560.

19.

Gustafson

(2014) Business travel from the traveller’s perspective: Stress, stimulation and normalization. Mobilities 9(1): 63–83. Available at: https://d3h5ztdjmrkn2a.cloudfront.net/media/sites/2/2016/05/19195221/Control-Find-out-what-it-means-to-your-travelers.pdf.

20.

Ivancevich JM, Konopaske R and Defrank RS (2003) Business travel stress: a model, propositions and managerial implications. Work & Stress 17(2): 138–157.

21.

Lazarus

(1990) Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry 1(1): 3–13.

22.

Lazarus

(1993) Coping theory and research: past, present, and future. Psychosomatic Medicine 55(3): 234–247.

23.

Lockyer

(2002) Business guests’ accommodation selection: The view from both sides. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 14(6): 294–300.

24.

Mäkelä L and Kinnunen U (2016) International business travelers’ psychological well-being: The role of supportive HR practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1194872. Published online 16 June 2016.

25.

Mason

Suri

(2012) Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods 44(1): 1–23.

26.

Pallesen

Larsen

Bjorvatn

(2016) “I Wish I’d Slept Better in That Hotel”—Guests’ self-reported sleep patterns in hotels. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality & Tourism 16(3): 243. DOI: 10.1080/15022250.2015.1074938.

27.

Rhee

Yang

(2015) How does hotel attribute importance vary among different travelers? An exploratory case study based on a conjoint analysis. Electronic Markets 25(3): 211–226.

28.

Richards

Rundle

(2011) Business travel and self-rated health, obesity, and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 53(4): 358–363.

29.

Rogers

Reilly

(2002) A survey of the health experiences of international business travellers. AAOHN Journal 50: 449–459.

30.

Schuster

Hammitt

Moore

(2006) Stress appraisal and coping response to hassles experienced in outdoor recreation settings. Leisure Sciences 28(2): 97–113.

31.

Somerfield

McCrae

(2000) Stress and coping research: Methodological challenges, theoretical advances, and clinical applications. American Psychologist 55(6): 620.

32.

Striker

Luippold

Nagy

et al. (1999) Risk factors for psychological stress among international business travellers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 56(4): 245–252.

33.

Unger

Uriely

Fuchs

(2016) The business travel experience. Annals of Tourism Research 61: 142–156.

34.

Vivion N (2016) Bleisure travel: The benefits of mixing business travel with leisure. Available at: https://www.sabre.com/insights/bleisure-travel-the-benefits-of-mixing-business-travel-with-leisure/ (accessed 16 June 2016).

35.

Weaver

(1993) Do American business travellers have different hotel service requirements? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 5(3).

36.

Westman

(2004) Strategies for coping with business trips: A qualitative exploratory study. International Journal of Stress Management 11(2): 167–176.

37.

Zehrer

Crotts

(2012) Vacation stress: The development of a vacation stress model among US vacation travelers. Tourism Review 67(3): 41–55.