Abstract
Orientation: Employee job satisfaction is a widely studied concept with limited consensus on which factors of job satisfaction are most significant for tourism and hospitality employees. Specific factors of employee job satisfaction are critical to assist managers, practitioners, and academics, to enhance the levels of employee job satisfaction within national parks.
Research purpose: To determine and rank the factors of job satisfaction that are most significant towards an overall job satisfaction of tourism and hospitality employees within national parks.
Motivation for the study: Significant factors of job satisfaction will enable managers, practitioners, and academics to use specific factors of job satisfaction when addressing the levels of employee job satisfaction.
Research approach/design and method: This article adopted a quantitative explanatory research approach using a structured e-questionnaire to collect data. The study had 211 participants. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis were used to interpret data.
Main findings: Key findings reveal that tourism and hospitality respondents within national parks have diverse demographical characteristics, and present work is among the most significant factor of job satisfaction while salary is least significant for these respondents.
Practical/managerial implications: Managers and practitioners need to be specific when addressing factors of employee satisfaction. Managers need to pay more attention on employees’ present work than other factors.
Contribution/value-add: This study makes a significant contribution towards the tourism employment literature because the tourism employment is associated with negative work characteristics. Managers are further provided with specific factors to measure job satisfaction.
Keywords: job satisfaction; factors of job satisfaction; tourism and hospitality; service industry; theories of job satisfaction.
Introduction
It is imperative for labour intensive organisations within the service industry, such as national parks to regularly measure the levels of employee job satisfaction, as it is a workplace perception that is widely studied, vital, and effective for organisational growth, employee well-being, and customer satisfaction (Gajderowicz et al., 2014; Iqbal et al., 2017; Tasios & Giannouli, 2017; Thangaswamy & Thiyagaraj, 2017; Tsai, 2015).
Mardalena (2020) asserts that human resource practitioners study the levels of employee’s job satisfaction to understand employee’s commitment and behaviour within a workplace. Such an evaluation assists general and human resource managers to reduce the rate of employee turnover because turbulent business environments have multiple social, economic, political, and environmental impacts on employees.
Therefore, organisations need to frequently measure their employees’ well-being and satisfaction levels (Rozman et al., 2017) to identify and resolve their employees’ concerns before it affects the business’s customer care and service delivery (Alemshet et al., 2011; Ramana-Murthy & Harikrishna, 2015). Govender and Jasson (2018) emphasise that employee satisfaction enhances customer satisfaction.
The most common reasons for measuring, researching, and investigating employees’ job satisfaction levels are to positively influence and improve an employee’s performance at the workplace (Govender & Jasson, 2018; Mardalena, 2020; Peric et al., 2018), understand and meet employee’s needs for long-term employee satisfaction (Masri, 2009; Swanepoel et al., 2014), and to strengthen the organisational performance and competitiveness (Lillo-Banuls et al., 2018; Tasios & Giannouli, 2017).
Ngcobo et al. (2022) strongly accent that employees are crucial role players in the process of creating and delivering quality service, customer service satisfaction, and retention within the service industry while developing organisational development and revenue generation. Thus, organisations have a responsibility to ensure that their hard-working service employees are well satisfied and motivated to fulfil their individual roles (Ngcobo et al., 2022).
To maintain this responsibility, organisations need to incorporate certain job satisfaction factors when measuring the significance and relevance of specific industry employee levels of job satisfaction, in this case, the tourism and hospitality staff at national parks. The research concept of employee job satisfaction is a widespread practice that includes multiple factors, models, and tools to measure job satisfaction (Al Jenaibi, 2010; Suganthi, 2016; Yip et al., 2023).
Research purpose
The purpose of this article was to determine and rank the factors of job satisfaction that are most significant towards an overall job satisfaction of tourism and hospitality employees within national parks. This will be achieved by:
- Presenting a demographical profile of tourism and hospitality respondents within national parks and to understand the type of respondents who determine these significant factors of employee job satisfaction.
- Determining the relationship between factors of job satisfaction, and the overall job satisfaction of tourism and hospitality respondents within national parks.
- Ranking the adapted Job Descriptive Index (JDI) factors of job satisfaction according to each factor’s level of significance and recommend factors of job satisfaction mostly significant to tourism and hospitality respondents within national parks.
Motivation for the study
It is critical for organisations to know and understand specific factors of job satisfaction that are significant to employees’ level of job satisfaction within different organisations and sectors because employee job satisfaction is an individual and specific issue that differs from employee to employee (Suganthi, 2016; Tasios & Giannouli, 2017). According to Swanepoel et al. (2014), employee job satisfaction is a workplace matter that is important and subjective to each employee’s experience. Abuhashesh, Al-Dmour and Masa’deh (2019), Kohler (1988), Peric et al. (2018), and Vroom (1964) assert that employee job satisfaction is an individual job experience and it is specific to employee’s individual perceptions.
The earliest definition of job satisfaction depicts that job satisfaction is ‘any combination of psychological, physiological, and environmental circumstances that cause and [enable a] person truthfully to say I am satisfied with my job’ (Hoppock, 1935). Locke (1976) defines job satisfaction as ‘an employee’s pleasant or positive emotional state that is a result of the whole work experience or performance on a particular job’.
Thangaswamy and Thiyagaraj (2017) define employee job satisfaction as ‘an individual’s complex attitude towards his/her job’. Recently, Abuhashesh, Al-Dmour and Masa’deh (2019) note that job satisfaction is ‘an individual’s viewpoint that encompasses a way that an employee feels about his/her job and the employing organisation’. This study adopted that employee job satisfaction is a pleasant emotional state that results from an employee’s perceptions and experience about the job.
Job satisfaction is a variable matter that depends on the perception and experience of an employee (Suganthi, 2016). Suganthi (2016) expresses a view that one employee may experience job satisfaction and feel positive about the work while another, on the contrary, may experience job dissatisfaction and feel negative towards the very same job. Job satisfaction may then be considered as an individual’s sense of inner pride and accomplishment while doing a specific job (Ahmad et al., 2021).
Academics and researchers have explored and developed different theories to better understand the flow of employee job satisfaction. Various models and tools such as individual interviews, questionnaire surveys or regular special meetings are used to measure employees’ level of job satisfaction (Wexley & Yukl, 1984). Diverse instruments allow researchers to use one or more instruments to measure the level of employees’ job satisfaction (Astrauskaite et al., 2011).
Theories of employee job satisfaction
There are various theories of job satisfaction, and these may basically be categorised into content theories which are often concerned with basic needs and ambitions of employees as well as process theories which are concerned with how employees are inspired (Ahmad et al., 2021). Some of the common theories include:
The affect theory
The affect theory is the most popular theory about employee job satisfaction. Suganthi (2016) argues that with an affect theory, employee job satisfaction is determined by what an employee wants in a job versus what an employee has in a job.
Equity theory
Equity theory is a balance of employee’s views about their input and output ratio compared to other groups or individuals in a workplace (Suganthi, 2016). Suganthi (2016) further notes that an equity theory allows for equitable relationships in a workplace which enhances employee job satisfaction.
Discrepancy theory
This theory suggests that an employee’s satisfaction with their work comes from what they feel is important rather than the fulfilment or unfulfilment of their needs (Yip et al., 2023).
These theories may be categorised as both content and process theories of employee job satisfaction. Affect and discrepancy theory may be categorised as content theories, while the equity theory may be categorised as the process theory. Evident from different theories (Suganthi, 2016; Yip et al., 2023), it is clear that the various theories of job satisfaction are necessary to address employee satisfaction because employee satisfaction differs from one employee to another. It is critical for managers, practitioners, and academics to investigate and understand the various theories that make employees satisfied at the workplace (Ahmad et al., 2021).
Beyond the theories, there are various factors that are vital towards employees’ satisfaction at the workplace (Yip et al., 2023). Yip et al. (2023) argue the erroneous belief that one aspect of job satisfaction may result to a complete employee satisfaction. Employee job satisfaction is a broad concept and differs according to individual needs (Suganthi, 2016). Suganthi (2016) further indicates that the theories of employee job satisfaction provide for some of the conditions that make employees satisfied with their work.
Al Jenaibi (2010) notes that factors of employee job satisfaction are also widespread and as a result, the perception of this concept varies among researchers, scientists, and scholars. Moreover, job satisfaction has multiple dimensions and sides that are influenced by many different factors which differ from one employee to another (Al Jenaibi, 2010). Academics and researchers use different tools and instruments to measure job satisfaction. The following sub-section discusses some of the common instruments.
Instruments to measure employee job satisfaction
Swanepoel et al. (2014) argue that there are various instruments and models that may be used to measure the level of job satisfaction among employees. Astrauskaite et al. (2011) attest that there are diverse instrument designs to measure job satisfaction, and researchers may use multiple or single instrument depending on their research goal. Table 1 exhibits some of the common instruments used to measure the level of employee’s job satisfaction.
| TABLE 1: Common instruments used to measure the level of employee’s job satisfaction. |
These instruments and measures of employee job satisfaction share multiple factors that measure job satisfaction, namely, salary, promotion opportunities, co-workers, supervision, and nature of work. This revelation is related with the literature which argues that there are multiple measures, tools, and factors that may be combined or used in isolation to measure the level of employee’s job satisfaction within a workplace (Suganthi, 2016; Swanepoel et al., 2014; Tasios & Giannouli, 2017; Yusoff et al., 2013).
Job satisfaction is made up of various factors, hence, the primary goal of this study was to determine factors of employee job satisfaction that are significant for tourism and hospitality employees within national parks. These factors are mostly classified as intrinsic and extrinsic factors. The following sub-section discusses some of the common factors that are used to measure the level of employee job satisfaction in a workplace.
Job satisfaction factors
Although the selection and use of employee job satisfaction measuring factors differs from author to author, and research to research (Al Jenaibi, 2010; Peric et al., 2018; Ssegawa, 2014), generally there are seven factors that account for employees’ job satisfaction in the workplace, namely, the work itself, supervision, organisational management, promotion opportunities, salary and other financial benefits, co-workers, and working conditions (Al Jenaibi, 2010).
However, Gad et al. (2022), Gopinath and Kalpana (2019), Rode (2004), Tasios and Giannouli (2017) all agree that most common factors are the nature of work, supervision, salary, and co-workers.
Even so, Al Jenaibi (2010) uses eight factors to measure the level of job satisfaction, namely, salary and benefits, hours worked, technology provided, facilities provided, work stress, work environment, gender, and cooperation. Rode (2004) indicates that the significant factors for job satisfaction include promotions, salary, benefits, supervision, co-workers, work conditions, communication, safety, productivity, and work itself.
Each of these factors may mean something totally different from one employee to another (Al Jenaibi, 2010). Factors of employee job satisfaction are commonly classified into two categories, namely, intrinsic factors and extrinsic factors (Ssegawa, 2014).
According to Gathungu and Wachira (2013) and Ssegawa (2014), intrinsic factors refer to self-generated factors that influence employees to be satisfied with their job. Examples of intrinsic factors include freedom to act (autonomy), scope to use and develop skills, opportunities for advancement, elements of recognition, meaningful work, and job feedback (Ssegawa, 2014; Tanjeen, 2013; Tasios & Giannouli, 2017).
Gathungu and Wachira (2013) further explain that extrinsic factors of job satisfaction refer to what is done to or for employees to satisfy them in the workplace. Examples of extrinsic factors include working conditions, remuneration, job characteristics, team cooperation, job security, committed leadership, and promotional opportunities (Berliana et al., 2018; Iqbal, 2010; Ssegawa, 2014).
Research design
This article adopted a quantitative explanatory research approach that aims to understand and recommend the significant factors of employee job satisfaction (Mkhize, 2017) for tourism and hospitality respondents within the national parks. The relevance of this approach is important because employee job satisfaction factors are subjective to the individual employees, while it allows the researcher to generalise findings to a specific population, together with evidence of employee behaviour and demonstrate benefits for implementing recommendations (Goertzen, 2017).
Research approaches are systematic procedures that use research methods which are validated, reliable, and acceptable to determine research value (Mkhize, 2017). The following research methodological processes were applied to achieve the goal of the study.
Research methodology
Researchers have an option to study either all or portion of study units subject to availability of resources (Jennings, 2010). This article measures a portion of study participants, and convenience sampling method was employed to allow for participant selection on basis of proximity and availability (Jennings, 2010).
A self-completed e-questionnaire was most appropriate given the wide geographical spread of participants. Sekaran and Bougie (2016) attest that questionnaire survey is the common method of data collection, especially within the tourism and hospitality research. Jennings (2010) and Sekaran and Bougie (2016) further attest that self-completed e-questionnaires allow for participants to participate at their own pace and convenient time.
There were a total of 1658 tourism and hospitality employees employed at different national parks when the study was conducted. However, because of low level of computer literacy, only 559 tourism and hospitality employees were found to have access to technology because an e-questionnaire requires access to computer and the Internet.
According to Creative Research System (2012), with a target population of n = 559, confidence level of 95%, and confidence interval of 5, there should be a minimum of 211 participants to make a statistically significant analysis. Out of n = 559 participants who have access to technology, 211 responses give a response rate of 38%.
Bless et al. (2013) recommend a response rate that is higher than 10%, while Gillham (2000) asserts that a response rate below 30% in a questionnaire study is considered doubtful. The response rate was not favourable; however, it was significant for statistical analysis, not doubtful, and acceptable for a questionnaire-based study.
The study instrument met the principles of questionnaire design and was approved by the agency of national parks and Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Management Sciences at Tshwane University of Technology. A written official permission was sourced from the agency of national parks to allow the tourism and hospitality employees the opportunity to participate in the study.
An information sheet was further made available to enable participants to make informed decision when participating in the study. Information sheet provided the purpose of research and made the respondents aware of their right not to respond or discontinue participation at any stage without any consequence. Through this process, the researcher made adequate efforts to adhere and uphold ethical research considerations.
Statistical analysis
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) (International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk, New York, NY, United, V28). software programme was used to complete the statistical analysis of the study. Descriptive statistics were used to provide the description and demographical analysis of participants who preferred the underlying significant factors of employee job satisfaction. Descriptive statistics can be used to discover and present facts about the phenomenon (Buckingham & Saunders, 2004).
A correlation analysis was used to analyse the strength of relationship and significance among the factors of employee job satisfaction. According to McDonald (2014), correlation analysis can be used to measure the strength of association between variables and thus it was appropriate for this study. Cronbach’s Alpha analysis was finally used to measure the level of reliability of a scale that was used on a research instrument (Venter, 2011).
Main findings
The SPSS was used to analyse the data and multiple statistical analysis tools were used to summarise and interpret the data. The following sub-sections discuss the demographical findings, Spearman and pairwise correlation analysis.
Demographic analysis
Demographical data of tourism and hospitality respondents within the national parks were collected to achieve the secondary objective of presenting demographical profile of a tourism and hospitality respondent within a national park. This profile provides a descriptive understanding of what type of tourism and hospitality employees have a strong belief on factors of job satisfaction. Table 2 exhibits the descriptive analysis of respondents’ demographical factors in the form of frequency and percentages.
| TABLE 2: Descriptive analysis of respondents’ demographical factors. |
This study analyses seven demographical factors, namely, employees’ position, level of education, salary band, years of service, marital status, age, and gender. Findings of the study indicated that many respondents (41%) were junior employees, who had a National Diploma (42%), and were on B-band salary scale (45%). Out of the 211 respondents, 57 (27%) had 6–15 years of tourism and hospitality services within national parks. A large majority of respondents (48%) were married employees, females had a representation of 63%, and the age of most of the respondents (45%) ranged from 30–39 years.
The demographical analysis revealed a profile of tourism and hospitality respondents within the national parks. Table 3 presents the demographical profile of a tourism and hospitality respondent within a national park. Demographical findings indicated that the measured employees were largely junior employees on a B-band salary scale, married females aged 30–39 years with a tertiary qualification and 6–10 years of service. More than 60% of the respondents lacked managerial experience; this outcome relates and explains the situation of many employees being on the B-band salary scale.
| TABLE 3: Demographical profile of tourism and hospitality respondent within the national parks. |
It was not surprising to discover that the majority of tourism and hospitality respondents within national parks were females because the tourism and hospitality sector is commonly perceived as a sector that is dominated by females. Demographical findings of this research made a good logical sense on bases that the participated tourism and hospitality respondents were young couples at lower salary band, with tertiary qualifications, and strong possibilities to reach managerial level. Demographical findings would not make logical sense if most employees were young with higher salary band, no tertiary qualification, and more than 26 years of service.
Spearman correlation analysis
Measures of Spearman correlation coefficient analysis are defined by the thresholds on strength of relationship (Lani, 2010). The thresholds include a very weak relationship (0.00–0.19), weak relationship (0.20–0.39), moderate relationship (0.40–0.59), strong relationship (0.60–0.79), and very strong relationship (0.80–1.0). Table 4 presents the results of Spearman correlation analysis on factors of job satisfaction. This study adapted the factors of JDI to determine the strength of significance between these factors and job satisfaction.
| TABLE 4: Spearman correlation analysis of job satisfaction. |
Findings of Spearman correlation analysis indicated that the four out of five factors were moderately associated to job satisfaction and only one factor was strongly associated to job satisfaction. Present work showed a strong and significant association towards job satisfaction with a coefficient value of 0.64 while the other factors demonstrated a moderate relationship towards job satisfaction, namely, promotion opportunities (0.45), people on the job (0.43), supervision (0.41), and salary (0.40).
Further analysis on these four moderate factors showed that salary was a least moderate factor with least association towards job satisfaction. Promotion opportunity had a moderate association towards job satisfaction and this association was stronger than the factors of people on the job (0.43) and supervision (0.41). Tourism and hospitality respondents within national parks found salary and supervision being the least significant compared to people on the job, promotion opportunity, and present work. This was interesting because Tasios and Giannouli (2017) found salary and remuneration to be the most significant factors of job satisfaction within the workplace. Pairwise correlation analysis was used to support the findings of Spearman correlation analysis.
Pairwise correlation analysis
Pairwise correlation analysis was presented on a scatter plot matrix and this analysis indicated the strength of association between the JDI factors of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction among the respondents. Moore et al. (2013) argue that scatter plots are less detailed because of hundreds of data sets that are presented on each data set.
However, scatter plot matrix provides a meaningful and rich illustration of relationship between two variables (Moore et al., 2013). Data sets of scatter plot are interpreted in three options, namely, upward linear line that shows a strong and positive association, downward linear line that shows a weak level of association, and parallel line that shows a moderate association of variables.
Figure 1 illustrates the strength of relationship between the JDI factors of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction among the tourism and hospitality respondents within national parks. Findings of this analysis indicated that promotion opportunity had a parallel line that was nearly upward, and this showed a moderate relationship that was almost strong towards job satisfaction.
 |
FIGURE 1: Pairwise correlation analysis on a scatterplot matrix. |
|
Salary had a straight parallel line, and this indicated a least moderate relationship towards job satisfaction. Supervision and people on the job had a parallel line that was almost upward but not as upward as promotion opportunity, and this indicated a moderate relationship. Present work presented a clear upward linear line which translated to a strong relationship between present work and job satisfaction.
Findings of both Spearman and pairwise correlation analysis exhibited the same outcome of relationships. This outcome indicated that present work had a strong and significant relationship towards job satisfaction. It is not disputable that the tourism and hospitality respondents within national parks found present work to be the most satisfying factor than the promotion opportunity, people on the job, supervision, and salary.
The primary goal of this article was to reveal the significant factor/s of employee job satisfaction using the adapted factors of job satisfaction from JDI measuring tool. The third secondary objective of the article was to rank the adapted JDI factors of job satisfaction in order to recommend the most significant factor/s of job satisfaction for tourism and hospitality employees within national parks.
The above correlation analysis enabled the researcher to rank the JDI factors of job satisfaction from 1 to 5 where 1 had strong significance, 2 had moderately strong significance, 3 had moderate significance, 4 had moderately least significance, and 5 had least significance towards job satisfaction. Table 5 demonstrates the ranking of JDI factors of job satisfaction.
| TABLE 5: Ranking of Job Descriptive Index factors of job satisfaction. |
According to Table 5, present work had strong significance, promotion opportunity had moderately strong significance, people on the job had moderate significance, supervision had moderately least significance, and salary had least significance towards job satisfaction among the tourism and hospitality respondents within national parks.
This article found present work as the most significant factor of job satisfaction and salary as the least significant factor of job satisfaction. It was not surprising to find present work as the most significant factor; however, it may be arguable that salary cannot be perceived as a least significant factor of job satisfaction. The following section presents a discussion of these findings in consideration of other studies.
Managerial implication
It is a common key characteristic for a labour-intensive tourism industry to employ employees from diverse backgrounds (Lillo-Banuls et al., 2018). This study revealed that tourism and hospitality employees within national parks have diverse demographical backgrounds. An analysis of Lillo-Banuls et al. (2018) on Spanish survey about the quality of life at work revealed that tourism employees are mostly younger age groups with lower level of education and mostly males than females.
The analysis of Lillo-Banuls et al. (2018) contrasts with the findings of this study. Demographical analysis revealed that many tourism and hospitality respondents within national parks are females with tertiary education. The analysis of age group of this study concurs with the findings of Lillo-Banuls et al. (2018) that tourism employees are mostly young people. This study further revealed that present work was the most significant factor of employee job satisfaction within the national parks.
The studies of Lam et al. (2001a) and Lam et al. (2001b) similarly conclude that working conditions, environment and work itself are crucial predictors of employee job satisfaction. According to Wexley and Yukl (1984), job characteristics are job satisfiers that relate to a person’s higher order of needs and psychological growth. These job characteristics include work that is interesting and challenging, responsibility and opportunity for achievement, and recognition and advancement (Wexley & Yukl, 1984).
Present work is important; and it is critical for tourism employers to design job characteristics that are interesting to improve employee job satisfaction. Grant et al. (2011) find that job redesign and better work characteristics improve the levels of employee job satisfaction and employee performance. Methods of job redesign may include job rotation, enlargement, and enrichment (Parvin & Kabir, 2011). Job conditions and characteristics are strong influencers of employee job satisfaction within the tourism industry (Lillo-Banuls et al., 2018).
This study discovered that promotion opportunities, people on the job, and supervision are moderately significant factors of employee job satisfaction (Lillo-Banuls et al., 2018). Berliana et al. (2018) note that promotion is partially relative to rewards in a workplace and employees appreciate fair promotional processes to achieve trust between management and employees. Tourism employers and human resource practitioners must not overlook these moderately significant factors because employees still appreciate fairness and consideration of these factors to achieve employee job satisfaction.
Employees’ salary is a common predictor of job satisfaction and tourism employers must improve remuneration packages to achieve higher levels of employee job satisfaction (Pan, 2015). Tasios and Giannouli (2017) argue that although salary is associated with job satisfaction, an increase in salary does not necessarily translate to greater job satisfaction because salary correlates with and influences the perceived justice of efforts that an employee invests in a workplace. Findings of this study align with Tasios and Giannouli (2017) who indicate that although salary is a critical factor that associates with job satisfaction, salary does not necessarily determine employees’ higher level of job satisfaction.
The key findings of the study are summarised below:
- The first secondary objective of the study was to present a demographical profile of a tourism and hospitality respondent within a national park. This study found that tourism and hospitality employees have a diverse background.
- The primary goal of the study was to determine and rank the factors of job satisfaction that are most significant towards an overall job satisfaction of tourism and hospitality employees within a national park. Present work was found to be the most significant factor that contributed towards job satisfaction.
- Promotion opportunities, people on the job, and supervision were found to be the moderately significant factors for achieving job satisfaction among the tourism and hospitality employees.
Contribution
The study revealed that job satisfaction is crucial especially among the tourism and hospitality employees within the services industry. Tourism and hospitality employees are required to ensure customer retention, loyalty, and satisfaction. It is critical for tourism managers and human resource practitioners to ensure that these employees are satisfied to become productive and deliver satisfaction for customers.
The study indicated that managers, practitioners, and academics research the levels of employees’ job satisfaction to understand the needs of employees, strengthen organisational performance and competitiveness, and to retain talent. The primary purpose of the study was to determine the factors and rank the factors of job satisfaction that are most significant towards an overall job satisfaction of tourism and hospitality employees within national parks.
Tourism and hospitality respondents within national parks established that present work is a most significant factor of employee job satisfaction, and there were three moderately significant factors of job satisfaction, namely, promotional opportunities, people on the job, and supervision. Salary was ranked as a least significant factor of job satisfaction for tourism and hospitality respondents within national parks.
This study makes a significant contribution towards the tourism employment literature for tourism managers, human resource practitioners, and academics. Tourism employment is largely associated with negative characteristics such as long working hours, low wage, and abusive conditions. Moreover, tourism employees are still required to deliver excellent services that exceed customer expectations to achieve customer retention and satisfaction. The following are some of the recommendations to be considered for future research:
- Tourism managers and human resource practitioners need to design work that is fulfilling, meaningful, and relates to higher order of needs and psychological growth for tourism and hospitality employees. This job design will significantly improve the level of employee satisfaction within national parks.
- This study focussed solely on employees within national parks. There is a need for future research that measures job satisfaction within other sectors of the tourism industry and eventually to have a study that analyses job satisfaction across all sectors of tourism.
It is necessary for tourism employers and policy makers to redesign the conditions of tourism employment and change the negative perception that affects employees’ level of job satisfaction and performance. Tourism employers and policy developers need to give a stronger focus on job satisfaction factors that are relevant and significant for tourism and hospitality employees to achieve high levels of employee job satisfaction within the tourism industry.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank all the tourism and hospitality employees who took time to respond to the survey of this study. Further gratitude is dedicated to the statistician at Tshwane University of Technology, Ms Tshifiwa for her enormous statistical support and guidance.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
T.M.S. was fully responsible for the article and made contributions towards conceptualisation, data processing, and original draft writing. N.N.T. made significant contributions towards the conceptualisation of the research. He supervised the research, made multiple reviews and editorial inputs, and performed administrative tasks for this research. D.H.V. co-supervised the research and participated in the conceptualisation process of the research. He made significant reviews and editorial inputs as well.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Tshwane University of Technology, Faculty of Management Sciences Research Ethics Committee on 28 January 2022. The ethical clearance number is FCRE2022/FR/01/002-MS (2).
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The collected data were captured on MS Excel spreadsheet and the dataset is available from the corresponding author, T.M.S, upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Abuhashesh, M., Al-Dmour, R., & Masa’deh, R. (2019). Factors that affect employees’ job satisfaction and performance to increase customer satisfactions. Journal of Human Resources Management Research, 2019, 1–230.
Ahmad, M., Khan, A., & Arshad, M. (2021). Major theories of job satisfaction and their use in the field of librarianship. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 6385.
Alemshet, Y., Leja, H., Alima, H., Challi, J., & Morankar, S. (2011). Job satisfaction and its determinants among health workers in Jimma University Specialized Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia. Jimma Health Science, 26, 19–27.
Al Jenaibi, B. (2010). Comparisons among diverse public organisations in the UAE. Management Science and Engineering, 4(3), 60–79.
Astrauskaite, M., Vaitkevicius, R., & Perminas, A. (2011). Job satisfaction survey: A confimatory factor analysis based on secondary school teachers’ sample. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(5), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n5p41
Berliana, M., Siregar, N., & Gustian, H.D. (2018). The models of job satisfaction and employee performance. International Review of Management and Marketing, 8(6), 41–46.
Bless, L., Higson-Smith, C., & Sithole, S.L. (2013). Fundamentals of social research: An African perspective. Juta.
Buckingham, A., & Saunders, P. (2004). The survey methods workbook. Polity Press Ltd.
Creative Research Systems. (2012). The survey system: Statistical size calculator. Retrieved from https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
Gad, S., Nazarova, T., Rzanova, S., & Makar, S. (2022). Social workers’ job satisfaction in public institutions. South African Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v20i0.2127
Gajderowicz, T., Grotkowska, G., & Wincenciak, L. (2014). Graduates’ job satisfaction across domains of study. International Journal of Manpower, 35(4), 470–499. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-05-2013-0109
Gathungu, J. & Wachira, H. W. (2013). Job satisfaction factors that influence the performance of secondary school principals in their administrative functions in Mombasa District, Kenya. International Journal of Education and Research, 1(2), 1–15.
Gillham, B. (2000). Developing a questionnaire. Continuum.
Grant, A.M., Fried, Y., & Juillerat, T. (2011). Work matters: Job design in classic and contemporary perspectives. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 417–453). American Psychological Association.
Goertzen, M.J. (2017). Introduction to quantitative research and data. Library Technology Reports, 53(4), 1–7.
Gopinath, R., & Kalpana, R. (2019). Employees’ job satisfaction working at hospitals in Perambalur District. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 6(4), 220–225.
Govender, C.M., & Jasson, C.C. (2018). Measurable operational risk in human capital development in the South African service sector. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 7(2), 1–16.
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. In B. Aziri (Ed.). Job satisfaction: A literature review. Management Research and Practice (vol. 3(4), pp. 77–86).
Iqbal, A. (2010). An empirical assessment of demographic factors, organizational ranks and organisational commitment. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(3), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n3p16
Iqbal, S., Guohao, L., & Akhtar, S. (2017). Effects of job organizational culture, benefits, salary on job satisfaction ultimately affecting employee retention. Review of Public Administration and Management, 5(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n3p16
Jennings, G. (2010). Wiley Australia tourism series: Tourism research (2nd edn.). John Wiley & Sons Australia.
Kohler, L. (1988). Job satisfaction and corporate business managers: An organizational behaviour approach to sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 2(2), 100–105. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2.2.100
Lam, T., Baum, T., & Pine, R. (2001). Study of managerial job satisfaction in Hong Kong’s Chinese Restaurant. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110110365634
Lam, T., Zhang, H., & Baum, T. (2001). An investigation of employees’ job satisfaction: The case of hotels in Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 22(2), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00039-X
Lani, J. (2010). Correlation (Pearson, Kendall, Spearman) (pp. 1–4). Statistics Solution.
Lillo-Banuls, A., Casado-Diaz, J.M., & Simon, H. (2018). Examining the determinants of job satisfaction among tourism. Tourism Economics, 24(8), 980–997. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816618785541
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organisational psychology (vol. 1, pp. 1297–1343).
Mardalena, S. (2020). The effects of job evaluation on job satisfaction in the Merangin tourism, youth and sports department. Dinasti International Journal of Digital Business Management, 1(6), 980–986. https://doi.org/10.31933/dijdbm.v1i6.589
Masri, M. (2009). Job satisfaction and turnover intention among the skilled personnel in Tripic Berhas. Master’s Degree. Universiti Utara Malaysia.
McDonald, J.H. (2014). Handbook of biological statistics (3rd edn.). Sparky House Publishing.
Mkhize, B.N. (2017). Visitors’ perceptions of environmental education at an urban tourist attraction. M-Tech Tourism Management: dissertation. Tshwane University of Technology.
Moore, D.S., Notz, W.I., & Flinger, M.A. (2013). The basic practice of statistics (6th edn.). W. H. Freeman and Company.
Ngcobo, N.F., Chiwawa, N., & Wissink, H. (2022). Emotional labour: The effects of genuine acting on employee performance in the service industry. South African Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v20i0.1583
Pan, F.C. (2015). Practical application of importance-performance analysis in determining critical job satisfaction factors of a tourist hotel. Journal of Tourism Management, 46, 84–91.
Parvin, M.M., & Kabir, M.M.N. (2011). Factors affecting employee job satisfaction of pharmaceutical sector. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(9), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.52283/NSWRCA.AJBMR.20110109A13
Peric, G., Gasic, M., Stojiljkovic, M., & Nesic, I. (2018). The impact of employee satisfaction on the tourist satisfaction within the service of spa tourism. Economics of Agriculture, 65(2), 617–632.
Ramana-Murthy, V.V., & Harikrishna, K. (2015). Assessing the employee job satisfaction and factors affecting work-life balance at Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Global Journal of Commerce & Management Perspective, 4(3), 7–16.
Rode, J. (2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A longitudinal test of an integrated model. Human Relations, 57, 1205–1230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704047143
Rozman, M., Treven, S., & Cancer, V. (2017). Motivation and satisfaction of employees in the workplace. Business Systems Research, 8(2), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1515/bsrj-2017-0013
Ssegawa, G. (2014). Factors influencing employee job satisfaction and its impact on employee performance: A case of Unilever Kenya. MBA. United States International University.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business (7th edn.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Suganthi, S.K. (2016). Job satisfaction – A overview. International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences, 6(12), 200–206.
Swanepoel, B., Erasmus, B., Schenk, H., & Tshilongamulenzhe, H.C. (2014). South African human resource management: Theory and practice (5th edn.). Juta.
Tanjeen, E. (2013). A study on factors affecting job satisfaction of telecommunication industries in Bangladesh. Journal of Business and Management, 8(6), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-0868086
Tasios, T., & Giannouli, V. (2017). Job descriptive index: Reliability and validity study in Greece. Archives of Assessment Psychology, 7(1), 31–61.
Thangaswamy, A., & Thiyagaraj, D. (2017). Theoretical concept of job satisfaction – A study. International Journal of Research – Granthaalayah, 5(6), 464–470. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v5.i6.2017.2057
Tsai, C. (2015). Advances in culture, tourism, and hospitality research. In Woodside, A.G. (Ed.) Advances in Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research (Advances in Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research) (vol. 2, pp. 293–332). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1871-3173(08)02012-0
Venter, D. (2011). Crew resource management: A model for safety training in the South African adventure industry. M-Tech Adventure Tourism Management: dissertation. Tshwane University of Technology.
Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
Wexley, K.N., & Yukl, G.A. (1984). Organisational behaviour and personnel psychology (rev. edn.). Richard D. Irwin, INC.
Yip, P.M., Goldman, A., & Martin, A.L. (2023). Job satisfaction. Retrieved from http://www.u.arizona.edu/~ctaylor/chapter9/jobsat.html#:~:text=Locke%20developed%20the%20idea%20known,much%22%20of%20something%20is%20wanted
Yusoff, W.F.W., Kian, T.S., & Idris, M.T.M. (2013). Herzberg’s two factors theory on work motivation: Does it work for today’s environment? Global Journal of Commerce & Management Perspective, 2(5), 18–22.
| 
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
