Asian Research Journal of Business Management Issue 4 (Vol.5)2018 Issn: 2321 -9246 [618535]

Asian Research Journal of Business Management Issue 4 (Vol.5)2018 Issn: 2321 -9246

DOI:10.24214/ARJBM/5 /4/129141 Research Article
129

CODEN: ARJBAX
Asian Research Journal of Business Management

The Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Job Performance Registered by Romanian Travel
Agents

Dr. Irina Misoc

The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 6 Piata Romana, 1st district, Bucharest, 010374 Romania

Received: 27 May 2018; Revised: 13 June 2018; Accepted: 30 June 2018

Abstract: The present work paper emphasises the direct, linear and significant relationship that exists
between job satisfaction and job performance of the employees who are responsible of selling travel
packages through romanian travel agencies. This work paper brings new and inovative elements because
not so many researchers focused their attention on studying the relationship between job performance and
job satisfaction in the field of travel agencies. The study of this relationship was possible by measuring
first the level of job satisfaction and job performance of travel agents in Romanian travel agencies. 172
travel agents and 39 trave l agency managers participated in this study.The data used for measuring the
travel agents performances were collected from the questionnaires, which were elaborated by the author.
The instrument used for the data interpretation was the five Likert scale. In order to gather the data used
for measuring the job satisfaction a JDI questionnaire was used.
Keywords: Travel Agency, Travel Agent, Employee Performance, Employee Satisfaction, The
Correlation Between Employee Satisfaction and Employee Performance
JEL Classification : M54
INTRODUCTION
The tourism organizations seek permanently new forms to maximize their profits and to extend
their activity. A way to achieve these objectives is to always improve the activities and processes.
In the process of improving the quality, the managers focus th eir attention on human resources.
In every organization takes place employees assessement processes, through which some
important aspects are checked: the measure in which the objectives are achieved, if there are any
impediments in achiving the objectives and what areas should be improved in order to obtain
better results in the future.
Based on the data obtained in the assessment processes of the employees, decission on transfers,
promotions, resignation are taken. In conclusion one can state that the sy stem of employees
assessment represents an instrument to monitor the progress [1].
Another activity very important for achieving the organizational success is the assessment of
employees job satisfaction within a tourism -based organization, because it is a parameter both
of personal and organizational efficiency. The most famous variable from organizational theory
is "work satisfaction". In simple terms, employees satisfaction represents a positive feeling
experienced by the employees regarding their work. In other words, employees work satisfaction
represents how satisfied are the service employees about their work [2].

Asian Research Journal of Business Management Issue 4 (Vol.5)2018 Issn: 2321 -9246

DOI:10.24214/ARJBM/5 /4/129141 Research Article
130
Work satisfaction and work performance become important when they are reffer one to another.
The relationship between them is one of the most controversed from all the organizational
literature, because it hasn’t been reached a conclusion on the type of co rrelation that exists
between the two variables. On long term, the success of an organization is influenced also by the
evolution of the two organizational variables.
This paper work brings new elements and inovation because the correlation between work
performance and work satisfaction has been insufficient studied in the field of travel agencies.
This was possible by measuring the level of work performance and work satisfaction of travel
agents in Romanian travel agencies in 2016, and after that the rel ationship between the two
variables was analysed.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Many scientists holding diplomas in the field of Human Resources dedicated their careers to
study the organizational behaviour and focused on the causal relationship between job
satisfact ion and job performance. In other words, researchers such as Brayfield and Crokett ,
Herzberg, Vroom, Porter and Lawler, Steers, Iaffaldano and Muchinsky, Mathis and others,
Côte, Judge, Constantin & Constantin Stoica, Golu, Ioncică, Zlate, Gursoy and Chi, Brîndușoiu
[3-19] and many others, through their paper works, offer an important d ata base about job
performance and job satisfaction. Their activity is distinguished by a laborious research in the
field and by comments and conclusions relevant for the current paper work.
The analysis of the causal relationship between job satisfactio n and job performance has been
done since 1945 [20]. The conclusions of the previous researches are different one from another:
some researchers find a small an positive correlation between job satisfaction and job
performance: Vroom [5] found a correlatio n coefficient r=0,14, and Iaffaldano and Muchinsky
[10] obtained a correlation coefficient r=0,17
On the other hand, Steers considers there is no correlation between job satisfaction and job
performance, and it is not mandatory that the most satisfied and happy employees to be also the
most efficient. This opinion is also embraced by Porter and Lawler [8] and Lawler [21], who
considered that satisfaction does not determine performance and performance does not cause
satisfaction. Nevertheless, they think th at job performance influences directly individual job
satisfaction only if between them interfere various factors, the most important of them being the
rewards. As the two authors pointed out, the relationship between rewards and job performances
should ge nerate small but positive statistical relationships between job performance and job
satisfaction. In other words, the employees who achieve good results that are well correlated
with rewards, will register high levels of job satisfaction. Mathis et al [22] consider the
relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has not been clarified yet, and the
employees who register high levels of job satisfaction will not necessary be the ones who
obtained the best results. Petty, McGee and Cavender [23] claim that conclusions could not be
taken on the way in which the two variables influence one another, and the type of connection
that exist between them should be the subject of further studies.

Asian Research Journal of Business Management Issue 4 (Vol.5)2018 Issn: 2321 -9246

DOI:10.24214/ARJBM/5 /4/129141 Research Article
131
Other researchers such as Brayfield and Crokett [3], Côte [12], demonstrate a significant and
positive correlation between the two variables. Christina Chi and Dogan Gursoy demonstrated
that between job satisfaction and individual performance there is an indirect relationship,
mediated by customer satisfaction. In other words, the employees that register high levels of job
satisfaction, will be more careful and friendly with the customers, the customers will be more
satisfied of the quality of the service and they will spend more money on travel packages, helping
the employees to achieve better individual performances and the organization to obtain financial
growth [18].
After studying the literature, one can notice that the concept of job satisfaction and job
performance and the relationship between the two concept s was studied by only a few
researchers in the field of travel agencies.
METHODOLOGY
First of all, field researches have been carried out and the data have been collected via interviews
and questionnaires. The questionnaires were elaborated based on the i nformation found in the
statistical data bases – for example, data about the number of travel packages sold in 2016 and
the average number of days off in the service field have been used.
The questionnaires were elaborated by the author and applied to a n umber of 172 travel agents
and 32 travel agency managers. For gathering the data national and international data bases were
used such as: Jstor, ProQuest, Eurostat, Euromonitor, Tempo online, and also the programs
which collect, analyse and validate the da ta: Google Analytics and Excel.
A quantitative research has been conducted, with the purpose of measuring the performances of
travel agents in 2016. In order to achieve this purpose five travel agencies have been selected in
Bucharest, based on the turnove r achieved and the number of employees. In other words, only
the first five travel agencies that achieved the highest turnovers and that have the highest number
of employees in 2016, were selected to take part in this research (the online travel agencies w ere
not included in the current research: Paravion, Vola.ro, Aerotravel). Based on the research, one
could notice that the travel agencies that have the highest turnovers are also the ones that have
the highest number of employees. There were selected to participate in this research travel
agencies with a large number of employees, especially a large number of travel agents for
gathering enough data and the research to be representative for the field of Romanian travel
agencies. Based on confidentiality re asons, the travel agencies were named A, B, C, D, E.
Next, a table will be presented, which contains the turnovers of the five travel agencies from
2016, the number of employees of each travel agency on a national scale in 2016, the number of
subsidiaries in Bucharest, the number of travel agents working in each selected travel agency in
Bucharest:

Asian Research Journal of Business Management Issue 4 (Vol.5)2018 Issn: 2321 -9246

DOI:10.24214/ARJBM/5 /4/129141 Research Article
132
Table 1: Top 5 tour -operators travel agencies based on their turnovers and the number of
employees, in 2016:
Name of
travel
agency Turnover in
2016 (lei) Number of
employees on
group in 2016
on national
scale Number of
subsidiaries in
Bucharest Number of
employees in
Bucharest Number of
travel agents
in Bucharest
Agency A 246.771.328 190 employees 12 subsidiaries 100 employees 40 travel
agents
Agency B 194.475. 919 185 employees 1 subsidiaries 65 employees 52 travel
agents
Agency C 192. 655.418 167 employees 11 subsidiaries 84 employees 29 travel
agents
Agency D 179.283.503 162 employees 1 subsidiaries 58 employees 45 travel
agents
-Agency E 90.501.794 145 employees 14 subsidiaries 57 employees 25 travel
agents
Source: The table was elaborated by the author based on the data gathered on the site www.mfinante.ro [24] and
on the data gathered on the field
The managers of the five agencies and subsidiaries were asked questions about the performances
of travel agents in 2016. The data were collected via a questionnaire with six items, each having
five possible answers. The questionnaire was elaborated based o n the most important criteria
taken into consideration in the assessment process of travel agents. Firstly, the questionnaire was
tested on a pilot sample composed of ten managers. The purpose of this pilot test was to verify
the representativeness of the questions.
The first item took into consideration the first criterion followed by Romanian travel agencies:
the sales volume achieved by one employee per year, in this case in 2016. The index was
calculated as a fraction between the turnover of tour opera tors travel agencies and the number of
travel agents in 2016 (.887.234.000/6.254 = 301.764 lei/employee/2016).
For establish the answer ranges of the sales volume, firstly it was calculated the average sales
volume achieved by a travel agent in 2016, and a fter that there were established the five intervals
of answers.
The second item referred to the number of customers served by a travel agent in 2016. This
number was calculated as a fraction between the total number of customers the tour operators
travel a gencies had in 2016 and the total number of Romanian travel agents in 2016.
(1.190.522/6.254=190 tourists/travel agent/2016). One can say that on average, in 2016, a travel
agent served about 190 customers. To establish the answer ranges firstly it was cal culated the
average number of customers served by a travel agent in 2016. In total there were five answer
ranges.
The purpose of the third item was to point out if the travel agents accomplished their objectives.

Asian Research Journal of Business Management Issue 4 (Vol.5)2018 Issn: 2321 -9246

DOI:10.24214/ARJBM/5 /4/129141 Research Article
133
The item four and five paid a special att ention to aspects such as the number of complaints
received by a travel agency (item 4) and to the level in which the employees contributed to the
improvement of the activity (item 5). If the travel agency received a small number of complaints
that means t he employees did a good job and paid attention to achieve their objectives. For the
managers it is also important the way in which the employees come up with new ideas to improve
the activity and the processes. An example could be the shortening of the tim e spent with solving
a customer’s demand.
The last question refers to the number of days of absence. In services, in 2016, the number of
days of absence was 5.5 days/employee/year. Based on this value, it was considered that 5 -6 days
represents the averag e interval, and the rest of the intervals were considered taking this one as a
reference.
The answers received scores from one to five (Likert scale with five points), and the global
performance of travel agents was calculated by making the total of the si x items in the
questionnaire. For the interpretation of the information, the following set of values were used:
– Between 1 and 1,99 points – very poor performances
– Between 2 and 2,99 points – poor performances
– Between 3 and 3,99 points – average performances
– Between 4 and 4,99 points – high performances
– 5 points extraordinary performances.
The data were collected by the method of field research, when the researcher interrogated the
managers of the five travel agencies and their subsidiaries in Buc harest. For the travel agencies
which have more than one subsidiary, the global value of the travel agents performance was
obtained as the average of the values obtained from each subsidiary. 39 travel agency managers
participated in this study and offered answers regarding the activity of their employees.
Based on these answers, the global result for each agency is presented in the below Figure:

Source. Figure made by the author based on the data from the questionnaires
Fig. 1: The annual performances achieved by Romanian travel agents in 2016:
As one can see in the Figure 1, the travel agents who are working in Romanian travel agencies
obtained high performances, with values between 4.33 points and 4.66 points. The best results
012345
agency
Aagency
Bagency
Cagency
Dagency
E4.66 4.5 4.5 4.334.66
1Scores
Trav el agencies agency A
agency B
agency C
agency D
agency E

Asian Research Journal of Business Management Issue 4 (Vol.5)2018 Issn: 2321 -9246

DOI:10.24214/ARJBM/5 /4/129141 Research Article
134
were achieved by the employees of the agencies A and E, followed by the employees of travel
agencies B and C. The lowest performances were registered by the employees of the agency D.
The agency A, the one which have the most performant employees, had al so the first rank in 2016
on the classement of the turnover and number of employees. The agencies B and C, which
occupied the third and fourth position on the classament of the level of performances achieved
by their employees, were also on the second and third place on the turnover and number of
employees in 2016. The agency D, which obtained the lowest score of the employees
performances, was the fourth in 2016 in the classament of the turnover and number of employees.
Next, a quantitative research was made, whose purpose was to measure the work satisfaction of
travel agents from the five travel agencies and their subsidiaries, in 2016.
For measuring the level of work satisfaction of travel agents, the JDI questionnaire (reviewed
format from 2009) was used. The instrument focus on 6 items of work satisfaction: work
colleagues (18 items), workstation (18 items), work at the current job (18 items), payment (9
items), promotion opportunities (9 items) and direct supervision (18 items). The possibilities of
answers are detailed below:
Table 2: The revised scores for calculating the JDI scores
Answers Revised scores
Yes for a positive item 3
No for a negative item 3
? for any item 1
Yes for a negative item 0
No for a positive item 0
Source: Table 4.7 in Smith, Kendall and Hullin (1975:79) [25]
For a more detailed description on how to interpretate the JDI scores, the information below on
the maxim score, the indiference score, the set of answers and the neutral attitude for each scale
will be used:
Table 3: JDI expected scores under diverse assuumptions
The post
dimenssions The maxim
score The expected scores in accordance with the hypothesis
Indiference Maxim score Neutral
attitude
Yes No
Work 54 18 30 24 27
Supervision 54 18 30 24 27
Work station 54 18 30 24 27
Colleagues 54 18 24 30 27
Payment 27 9 12 15 13
Promotion 27 9 15 12 13
Source: Smith, Kendall and Hullin (1975:81) [25]

Asian Research Journal of Business Management Issue 4 (Vol.5)2018 Issn: 2321 -9246

DOI:10.24214/ARJBM/5 /4/129141 Research Article
135
In order to find out if the employees are satisfied or not about different aspects of their daily
work, this could be seen by situating the level of job satisfaction above or under the estimated
score of neutral attitude which correspond to each JDI scale.
The sample was composed of: 35 travel agents from the agency A (the agency A has in total 40
travel agents), 47 travel agents from the agency B (52 travel agents in total), 27 travel agents
from the agency C (29 travel agents), 40 travel agents from agen cy D (45 travel agents in total),
23 travel agents from agency E (25 travel agents). In total, the sample was composed of 172
travel agents, from which 92 % had college degrees, 3% post -college degrees and 5% of them
graduated high school. 102 of the respo ndents were female (59%), and 70 were males. This aspect
confirm the conclusion of the specialits that in travel agencies work more women than men
(according to Eurostat, in travel agencies 64% of the employees are women [26]). Regarding the
age, 28.7% of the respondents had ages between 25 and 31 years old, 24,3% were aged between
32 and 38 years old, 21,3 % had ages between 39 and 45 years old, 16,1 % were older than 45
years old, and 9,6% had ages between 18 and 24 years old.
After the scores of employees satisfaction were calculated for each of the six criteria mentioned,
in the five agencies and their subsidiaries from Bucharest, the global scores of job satisfaction
were calculated. These scores were later compared with the global score of the neutral attitude
(134 points). Based on the results obtained, one can state that the travel agents from the five
agencies registered high levels of job satisfaction, becuase they obtained scores which are higher
than the global score of neutral attitude, a s one can notice in the Figure 2:

Source. Figure made by the author based on the data from the questionnaires
Fig. 2: The global scores of job satisfaction in Romanian travel agencies
The most satisfied employees are those of agencies A and E, who registered the highest scores
of global satisfaction, of 200.18, and 198.84 points. At the opposite pole, the lowest score of
global satisfaction was registered by the employees of agency D, s coring 178.36 points, and on
the third and fourth places are the employees from travel agencies B and C, who registered 197.75
points, respectively 196 points.
165170175180185190195200205
agency
Aagency
Bagency
Cagency
Dagency
E200.18197.75196
178.36198.84Scores
Travel agenciesagency A
agency B
agency C
agency D
agency E

Asian Research Journal of Business Management Issue 4 (Vol.5)2018 Issn: 2321 -9246

DOI:10.24214/ARJBM/5 /4/129141 Research Article
136
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Taking into consideration the conclusions of previous studies on the relationship between job
satisfaction and job performance, the current research started from two hypothesis, which will be
tested on Romanian travel agencies.
The first hypothesis: Work satisfaction determine work performance, in other words the
employees who register high levels of job satisfaction will obtain better outcomes.
In order to check this hypothesis it was done a combined grouping of the data which refer to the
two variables calculated earlier in this research: the values of job satisfaction and job performance
of travel agents from the five travel agencies in Bucharest and their subsidiaries:
Table 4: Job satisfaction and job performance achieved by the travel agents from the five
Romanian travel agencies and their subsidiaries, in 2016:
The
agency/
Number
of
subsidiari
es Employee satisfaction
per travel agency
(related to the global
score of neutral
attitude of 134 points) Employee
performance per
travel agency (on a
scale fr om one to
five) Number of
employees per travel
agency/travel agents The
turnover
(lei) in 2016
A/11 200.18 4.66 100/40 246.771.328
E/14 198.84 4.66 57/25 90.501.794
B/1 197.75 4.50 65/52 194.475.919
C/11 196 4.50 84/29 192.655.418
D/1 178.36 4.33 58/45 179.283.503
Source : Table elaborated by the author based on the data obtained in Figure 1 and 2 and on the data from the
website www.mfinante.ro
It was established the shape of the link helped by the scatterplot, where on the abscissa one could
find the values of job satisfaction, as the independent variable, and on the ordinate there is the
dependent variable, which is the job performance. The con nection was approximated on a straight
line, having the following equation:
y = a+bx (1)
The scatterplot and the regression straight line were obtained using the Excel program, as one
can see from the Figure 3:

Source: Figured elaborated by the autho r based on the data from Figure 1 and 2
Fig. 3: The correlation between job satisfaction and job performance of Romanian travel agents
in 2016 y = 0.0135x + 1.8998
R² = 0.786
4.24.34.44.54.64.7
175 180 185 190 195 200 205Employee job
performance
Employee job satisfaction

Asian Research Journal of Business Management Issue 4 (Vol.5)2018 Issn: 2321 -9246

DOI:10.24214/ARJBM/5 /4/129141 Research Article
137
The arrangement of points on the diagram and the analysis of the parameters of the ecuation
proved the existance of a positive and direct correlation between job satisfaction and job
performance of Romanian travel agents.
The linear regression function ex pressed the average trend of variation of the job performance
under the influence of job satisfaction:
Y = 0.0135*x + 1.8998
The regression coefficient, in this case b = +0.0135 showed the existence of a direct connection,
and by size indicated the quantu m of the influence, in other words at every augmentation with a
unit of the satisfaction, the work performance tends to modify itself in the same manner with
0.0135 units. Hereby, if a travel agent obtained a level of job satisfaction equals with 1 unit, t hen
his job performance will be:
y = 0.0135*1+1.8998,
y = 1.9133
For establishing the intensity of the correlation, the correlation coefficient was calculated, using
the CORREL function from Excel and the value was r = 0.886, which confirm the existence of a
positive, direct and strong connection between job satisfaction and the global performance of the
travel agents from the five travel agencies and their subsidiaries. The regression coefficient
calculated in Excel has the value:
R2= 0.786
The determination coefficient represents a modality to appreciate the quality of the regression
function, in this case the value being:
D =78.49 %
The high quota of determination showed the fact that job satisfaction is an important factor of
influence, and the linear appreciation of this influence is satisfying.
For checking the significance of the correlation coefficient, the stat istical Student test t was
applied and t was calculated using the formula:

Where r= the correlation coefficient
n = the size of the sample (n= 5 travel agency)

tcalculated = 3,3
ttable=2.045 (the value of t is 29 degrees of liberty and α=0.05)
To this value correspond 29 degrees of liberty (in conformity with the value of t from the table).
tcalculated was compared with t table and the results showed that t cal> ttab, in conclusion the initial
hypothesis was rejected (the initial hypothesis was t hat it existed a correlation and the theoretical
coefficient equals to zero (the Hypothesis 0), so the correlation coefficient which was calculated
had a significant value. The error value, calculated in Excel with the function TDIST is:

Asian Research Journal of Business Management Issue 4 (Vol.5)2018 Issn: 2321 -9246

DOI:10.24214/ARJBM/5 /4/129141 Research Article
138
α1 = 0.0012<0.05 ( acceped error) indicates a correlation coefficient significat and one could tell
the Hypothesis 0 is false and the Hypothesis 1 is true.
This conclusion showed that if travel agents register high levels of job satisfaction and are happy
about their activit y, they will obtain high level of performance.
The second hypothesis is: The job performance determines job satisfaction, in other words the
employees who achieve better outcomes will register high levels of job satisfaction.
A similar research was condu cted, the difference being that when the scatterplot was designed,
on the abscissa one can find the values of job performance, as the independent variable, and on
the ordinate there is the dependent variable, job satisfaction.

Source: Figured elaborated by the author based on the data from Figure 1 and 2
Fig. 4: The correlation between job performance and job satisfaction of Romanian travel agents
in 2016
In the figure 4, it could be observed that the points are grouped around the main diagonal, which
means that between job performance and job satisfaction there is a statistical strong connection.
It was noticed that between the two variables there is a liniar and positive connection. The
regression straight line equation is:
Y = 58.044x – 68.712
With a=-68.712, which has no economic significance, and b=+58.044, which means the
performance influences directly the level of job satisfaction, and at every raise with a unit of job
performance, the satisfaction tends to modify in the same direction with 58.0 44 units. This
demonstrates that if the employees register better performances, they will be more satisfied of
their jobs.
The correlation coefficient between job performance and job satisfaction was calculated using
the CORREL function from Excel, and th e value of the coefficient was:
r* = 0.880
which means a strong, direct and positive relationship between job performance of the employees
who work in travel agencies and their job satisfaction. In order to check if this influence is
consistent, the statistical Student t test will be applied, obtai ning a significant correlation. y = 58.044x -68.712
R² = 0.786
175180185190195200205
4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7Employee job
satisfaction
Employee job performance

Asian Research Journal of Business Management Issue 4 (Vol.5)2018 Issn: 2321 -9246

DOI:10.24214/ARJBM/5 /4/129141 Research Article
139
The determination coefficient will be calculated using the formula:
D = r2*100 = 0,8802*100 = 77,44 %
The obtained value of the determination coefficient indicates a strong correlation between the
two variables. In other words, by obtaining better outcomes, the travel agents will be more
satisfied of their activity, 77.44% of the variation of job satisfaction is because of the variation
of job performance. The value of the error extracted from the table of t distribution i s:
α2 = 0,002<0,05
which indicates a significant correlation coefficient and one can say that the Hypothesis 2 is true.
To sum up, the two variables influence one another through a statistical, linear and strong
connection, which become noticed as a corre lation, if a significant number of answers is
considered. The difference up to 100%, the percentage of 22,56% proves that the correlation
between job satisfaction and job performance doesn’t necessarily imply causality, because there
are many factors that interfere on the two variables, and these factors should not be neglected.
These factors are linked to: the peculiarity of work, the way in which the travel agents perceive
and pertain to the work activity, the personality of each travel agent and his/her needs of interact
with the work group, to be appreciated by the work group and to have the feeling that he/she
belongs to the group. The factors refer also to the working conditions, the management style, the
place and time when the data were collected, e tc.
CONCLUSIONS
This research represents a new practical approach, that focused on stydying the human resources
in Romanian travel agencies, and it establish the connection between job satisfaction and job
performance of travel agents, using statistical -mathematical analysis: the correlation method and
the regression method, and also direct methods of research.
The results of this research showed that travel agents from the five travel agencies and their
subsidiaries registered high outcomes, closed to th e maximum values that could be obtained,
these good results being a reward for the management style applied. The employees obtained
good results because the managers of these travel agencies understood the human resource
represents the most valuable asset of an organization, that it is also en element which could
differentiate a company from its competitors. From the interviews with the managers, one can
notice that the managers are preocupied of the internal customers, a proof of this statement being
the v arious programms implemented within the travel agencies in order to help the employees
gain new skills and competencies.
The results of this research concluded that between job satisfaction and job performance exist a
linear, direct and significant correl ation, but other variables that influence the two variables,
should be taken into consideration, such as: the individual needs and perceptions, the
psychological profile of the employees, the personality of each employee, the relationship with
customers an d with external environment, etc.

Asian Research Journal of Business Management Issue 4 (Vol.5)2018 Issn: 2321 -9246

DOI:10.24214/ARJBM/5 /4/129141 Research Article
140
LIMITS
The Romanian managers manifested some reticence in participating in this study and at the
beginning there were quit sceptical in offering information about the activity of the travel agents
from their agencies. Th is research showed that the managers avoid to provide exact data, that is
the reason why the questionnaire which helped to measure the travel agents performances,
contained answer intervals instead of fix values.
The researcher had some difficulties in ga thering the data, because many travel agents refused to
answer immediatly to the questionnaire, they demand a longer time to answer, and also they ask
the researcher to return in the agency a few days later to collect the questionnaires.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
This research was done only for the year 2016, because of the long time used to collect and
process the data. The study should be extended for period of five years, to observe the evolution
of the two variables and of the relationship between them in tim e.
It is indicated that in the study of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance
to include other variables such as: motivation, organizational culture, leadership, and the role of
these variables on the relationship between the two c oncepts.
REFERENCES
1. A. Manolescu, V. Lefter, A. Deaconu, , Managementul resurselor umane , București, Editura
Economică, 2007 .
2. R. Emilian, G. Țigu, C. Brîndușoiu, O. State, C. Țuclea, Managementul resurselor umane ,
Bucuresti, Editura ASE, 2003 .
3. A. H. Brayfield & W. H. Crockett, Psychological Bulletin , 1955, 52, 396 -424.
4. F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, B. B. Snyderman, The Motivation to Work , New York, John
Wiley& Sons, 1959 .
5. V. H. Vroom, Work and motivation , New York, NY: Wiley, 1964
6. V. H . Vroom, Work and mo tivation ., Second Edition, Malabar, FL: Robert E.Krieger
Publishing Company, 1982 .
7. V. H. Vroom, Management and Motivation , London, Penguin Books, 1992 .
8. L. W. Porter & E. E. Lawler, Managerial attitudes and performance , Homewood, IL Irwin,
1968 .
9. R. M. Steers, Introduction to organizational behavior , 3rd Edition , Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman and Company, 1988 .
10. M. T. Iaffaldano & P. M. Muchinsky, Psychological Bulletin, 1985, 97(2), 251-273.
11. R. Mathis, P. Nica, C. Rusu, Managementul resurselor umane , București, Editura
Economică, 1997 .
12. S. Côte, CurrentDirections in Psychological Science , 1999, 8, 65-68.

Asian Research Journal of Business Management Issue 4 (Vol.5)2018 Issn: 2321 -9246

DOI:10.24214/ARJBM/5 /4/129141 Research Article
141

Correspon ding Auth or: Dr. Irina Misoc

The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 6 Piata Romana, 1st district,
Bucharest, 010374 Romania
13. T. A. Judge & A. H. Church, Job satisfaction: Research and practice , in Cooper C. L. &
Locke E. A. (Eds.), Industrial and organizational psychology: Linking theory with practice,
2000 , 166-198.
14. T. Constantin & A. Constantin –Stoica, Managementul resurselor umane , Iași, Editura
Institutul European, 2002 .
15. P. Golu, Psihologia grupurilor sociale și a fenomenelor col ective , București, Editura Miron,
2004 .
16. M. Ioncică, Economia serviciilor: abordari teoretice si implicatii practice , Bucuresti, Editura
Uranus, 2006 .
17. M. Zlate, Tratat de psihologie organizațional -managerial , Second volume, Iași, Editura
Polirom, 2007 .
18. C. G . Chi & D. Gursoy, International Journal of Hospitality Management ,2009, 28, 245 –
253.
19. C. Brîndușoiu, Recrutarea și selecția angajaților: strategii pentru performanța în servicii ,
București, Editura ASE, 2012 .
20. S.C. Davar, Ranju Bala, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 2012, 48 (2) .
21. E. E. Lawler, Motivation in organizations , Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1973 .
22. R. Mathis, P. Nica & C. Rusu, Managementul resurselor umane , București, Editura
Economică, 1997 .
23. M. M. Petty, G. W. McGee & J. W. Cavender, Academy of Management Review ,1984, 9,
712-721.
24. ***http://www.mfinante.ro/pagina.html?pagina=acasa accessed 25.08.2016
25. P. C. Smith, L. M. Kendall, & C. L. Hulin, Measurement of satisfaction in work and
retiremen t, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1969 .
26. ***http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics –
explained/index.php/Tourism_industries_employment accessed 10.08.2017
27. ***http://www.insse.ro/cms/sites/default/files/field/publicatii/anuar_statistic_cd_serii_de_t
imp.pdf access ed 10.08.2017