Content uploaded by Mitja Gorenak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mitja Gorenak on Aug 27, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Human Systems Management 39 (2020) 329–343
DOI 10.3233/HSM-190781
IOS Press
329
The influence of organizational values
on job satisfaction of employees
Mitja Gorenaka,∗, Johan R. Edelheimb,1and Boˇ
stjan Brumena
aFaculty of Tourism, University of Maribor, Breˇzice, Slovenia
bFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
Received 2 October 2019
Accepted 14 December 2019
Abstract.
BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown different ways how managers can influence job satisfaction of employees,
mostly in form of external factors. We found that there is little research regarding organizational values and their influence
on job satisfaction of employees.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was therefore to identify if there is a statistically significant influence on job
satisfaction from organizational values.
METHODS: The article is based on a quantitative approach where we have performed a survey among employees in a
selected sector. In the questionnaire we asked respondents to evaluate what kind of organizational values the organization
they work for does promote, later we asked respondents to evaluate what influences their job satisfaction, and in the final part
we have collected demographical data.
RESULTS: The results show a weak, but still detectable, positive correlation between organizational values and job satis-
faction of employees with regard to work itself. Additionally, we have found a positive correlation between organizational
value innovation and satisfaction with working conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: There is an influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees with regard to job satis-
faction with work itself. This indicated that employees feel the influence of promoted organizational values and that it does
influence their job satisfaction.
Keywords: Values, organizational values, job satisfaction, influence, hospitality, tourism
Mitja Gorenak obtained his Ph.D. in
the area of human resources manage-
ment from Faculty of organizational
sciences, University of Maribor, he
works for Faculty of Tourism, Uni-
versity of Maribor and also as an
independent consulting practitioner,
devoting his time to research in the
area of human resources; he special-
izes in human resources in tourism
sector with special interest in values,
competencies and ethical conduct of
individuals. For several years he has
cooperated with various organizations
1Current affiliation: Graduate School of International Media,
Communication and Tourism Studies, Hokkaido University, Sap-
poro, Japan.
∗Corresponding author: Mitja Gorenak, Ph.D., Cesta prvih
borcev 36, 8250 Breˇ
zice, Slovenia. Tel.: +386 41 545 965; Fax:
+386 8 205 4010; E-mail: mitja.gorenak@um.si.
in tourism sector helping them in the area of human resources. He
is also a licenced tour guide in Slovenia.
Johan R. Edelheim (PhD) is a global
hospitality and tourism educator and
expert. He has worked since the late
80 s both in the tourism industries,
and in vocational and higher educa-
tion related to the industries in several
European, and Asian countries, as
well as for a decade in Australia.
Johan is curious by nature and has
over the years accumulated several
diplomas and degrees from hospital-
ity, business, education, philosophy,
and cultural studies.
0167-2533/20/$35.00 © 2020 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
330 M. Gorenak et al. / The influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees
Boˇ
stjan Brumen (PhD) is an Asso-
ciate Professor and Dean of the
Faculty of Tourism at University of
Maribor, Slovenia. Having obtained
his PhD in Computer Sciences and
Informatics from the same univer-
sity. His research interests are mainly
focused on the use of informational
technology in tourism. He is an author
and co-author of several books, scien-
tific articles and conference papers.
1. Introduction
Researching how organizational values influence
job satisfaction, is based primarily on the premises
that organizational values are similar to values in
other communities that have their own value systems
[1]. Research on individual values present what is
important for individuals [2], and this guides how
individuals behave and make their choices [3]. Values
represent individual motivations [4], and happiness is
proven to be of great importance for personal satisfac-
tion [5]. There is therefore no doubt that individuals’
values are a foundation for their personal satisfac-
tion. There seems to be a substantial gap in research
between organizational values and job satisfaction
[6], since most of the research has been dealing
with the question of relationship between individ-
ual values and job satisfaction or the influence of
job satisfaction on other attributes of organizational
performance [7] that are clearly seen. Influences of
organizational culture or climate on job satisfaction
have been deeply studied before [8–11] but there is
still a gap in research of the influence of organiza-
tional values on job satisfaction of employees.
Based on this, this article aims to examine whether
there is an influence from organizational values on
job satisfaction for employees. The article will firstly
examine theories related to organizational values, and
job satisfaction. Secondly, it will analyze the results
of a survey on the influence of organizational values
on job satisfaction of employees.
This paper takes as its starting point a modernist
scientific ontology [12], in which the authors of this
paper take a neutral objective stance to the data, and
investigates the research questions with the help of
three hypotheses. The introduction, literature review
and conclusion are written in third person tense,
whereas the methodology, results and discussion are
written in first person tense to emphasize the deci-
sions taken in the research.
2. Between individual values and
organizational values
In order to understand how organizational values
are formed, and how they work, one needs to under-
stand what an individual’s values are, how they are
formed, and how they function. When it comes to
individuals’ values there are several studies from the
1960 s and 1970 s that lay a foundation for current
research. For example, that individuals’ values are
still seen as beliefs, upon which individuals perform
their tasks on the basis of their preferences [13],
more modern view says that values are broad moti-
vational constructs that express what is important to
people [14]. Individuals’ values can be interpreted
as relatively permanent frames of perception [15]
that influence the nature of individuals’ behavior. In
this sense, values are seen as types of beliefs, that
are centrally located in individuals’ system of beliefs
and they represent individuals’ attitudes towards how
someone should or should not behave [16]. There are
a lot of different factors influencing how individu-
als’ values are shaped. Classic research shows that it
starts in childhood, and is related to social status, fam-
ily, upbringing, education [13, 15, 17, 18], modern
research however stresses the importance of moti-
vational continuum [19], ethical behavior [20] and in
case of service sector, which this article is examining,
also consumer orientation [21], and all of this is seen
very clearly in the cultural capital of an individual
[22].
When talking about organizational values, it need
to be stated that, just as any human community has its
own set of values, the same is true for any organization
[1]. It has been well established that organizational
values influence organizational culture [23], organi-
zational structure and strategy [24], organizational
identity [25, 26] and that is how goals and the
means of reaching them are established. Organiza-
tional values are shaped primarily by the philosophy
of work that an organization is pursuing, exempli-
fied in the culture of the organization [27]. It could
be argued that organizational values are embedded
within organizational culture [28], since it is this very
organizational culture that shapes how people act,
work, make decisions and communicate within the
organization. Certain authors [29] agree that values
of top management have a great influence, but they do
not agree that these can be enforced unconditionally.
However, some authors [30] argue that organiza-
tional practices, originally established by founders,
and later modified by succeeding managers, are based
M. Gorenak et al. / The influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees 331
on values not necessarily shared by organization
members.
Regardless of how the evolvement of organiza-
tional values is described, it is most commonly shared
that the values that top managers sanction through
verbal or written statements and formal documents,
are often presumed to represent organizational val-
ues [31]. Another view is that organizational values
present something that is positive for an organization,
they are desired and worth the effort, organizational
values are beliefs within the organizations that are
shared by employees [32]. Research in travel and
leisure industries show that it is important that there
is a positive relation between individuals’ values and
organizational values [33, 34] and the effects of this
relation are presented in the following subchapter.
2.1. Individual – organizational values fit
theories
There are five prominent theories that, in one
way or the other, examine how personal values fit
organizational values. The first one is in the field
of interactional theory [35]; which investigates a fit
between personal values and environmental values
‘personality-environment fit theory’. The second is
[36] a theory of fit between a person and the per-
son’s vocation ‘personal-vocational fit’. The third is
a theory which discusses the fit between a person and
a group ‘personality-group fit’ [37, 38]. But, for the
purpose of this article, the focus will be on two theo-
ries that fits the interest of the topic the most: Firstly
a theory that focused on fit between a person and
a job ‘personality-job fit theory’ [39], and secondly
a theory which focused on a fit between a person
and an organization ‘personality-organizational fit’
[40]. These final two theories are our foci for this arti-
cle, since it will be examine the relationship between
organizational values and job satisfaction.
There are articles that takes into account some
of above mentioned theories, for example, Posner
et al. [41], who illustrated that the higher level of fit
between organizational and personal values is clearly
shown in individuals’ positive approach to work, as
employees are more satisfied when they are per-
forming their tasks. Furthermore, Enz and Schwenk
[42] confirmed this organizational personal fit, and
added that such fit has an impact on increased effi-
ciency of an organization as a whole, or on certain
workgroups within an organization. The latter finding
given that, in larger organizations, smaller work-
groups can have their own values [42]. Based on
this, it can be recognized that organizations would
benefit from establishing and maintaining friendly
and psychologically supportive work environments
which would allow employees to develop their self-
confidence, motivation, and relationship with their
managers [43]. This will increase their perceived
value congruence and a fit better with the organiza-
tion, which, in turn, results in increased level of job
satisfaction and decreased level of turnover intentions
[44].
2.2. Organizational values in tourism sector
The tourism sector, as a part of the service sector, is
highly dependent on the performance of employees.
Since employees are in direct contact with customers,
their experiences are in many ways dependent on the
employees. These same employees, as individuals,
have their own values, but as a part of an organi-
zation they also share organizational values. A very
comprehensive list of organizational values [45] can
show as many as 200 organizational values that can
be found within any organization. Within hospital-
ity research [46] a much shorter list identifies the
following eight as most important ones: team/people-
orientation, innovation, fair compensation, attention
to detail, valuing customers, employee development,
honesty and ethics and results orientation. There
are also several studies that have explored organiza-
tional values of different hospitality industries, within
hotel industry one of the researches Martinez et al.
[47] exhibited, for example, organizational values
such as: responsibility, sustainability, people focus,
innovation. Another example [48] shows the follow-
ing organizational values: valuing customers/service,
quality, results orientation, team orientation, hon-
esty and people orientation, innovation, employee
development, fair compensation. While there are also
very general examples [49] of organizational val-
ues within hospitality: consideration, cooperation,
courtesy, forgiveness, adaptability, creativity, devel-
opment, initiative, cautiousness, economy, formality,
obedience, orderliness,
Based on this knowledge about relations between
organizational values and satisfaction of employees,
this article seek to explain further the extent organiza-
tional values influence job satisfaction of employees
in travel and leisure industries. For the purpose of this
article, a definition of organizational values, based on
a communicative constitution of organizations [50]
will be proposed: Organizational values are defined as
‘relatively permanent beliefs, established by founders
332 M. Gorenak et al. / The influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees
of the organizations, but shaped by decisions that are
perceived as desired, expected and welcome, by all
the individuals within the organization’.
3. Job satisfaction
The second part of this literature review focuses
on another widely researched topic; job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction of employees has been suggested as
one of the most important responsibilities of organi-
zations [51], and that is why understanding it is of
even greater importance.
Job satisfaction is seen as individual perception
[52] of experiences with a company as a whole, part
of the company, company procedures, and fellow
employees [53]. However, it is not always related to
current feelings of an individual, but also past expe-
riences, and future possibilities [54]. Job satisfaction
can also be defined as a ‘pleasurable or positive emo-
tional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job
or job experiences’ [55]. Job satisfaction can also be
seen as employees’ feelings while they are perform-
ing their tasks at their workplace [56]. Examining
job satisfaction is not a simple matter of a person
being satisfied or not, but rather a more holistic state.
This debate goes back to the work, that demonstrated
the factors that influence satisfaction and dissatisfac-
tion [57], and further explained different levels of
satisfaction. Suggestions were made as well that job
satisfaction consists of three levels [58]; The lowest
level is named casual satisfaction, where individu-
als are not really satisfied, neither dissatisfied. The
intermediate level is called stable satisfaction where
individuals are generally satisfied, but due to the lack
of encouragement and motivation, they cannot reach
the highest level of satisfaction. The highest level is
named progressive satisfaction, where individuals are
highly motivated and encouraged to improve their
job satisfaction [58]. Others [59] have described job
satisfaction simply as the overall evaluation of the
employee’s job.
This article will not examine the intensity of job
satisfaction, but focus more on the factors that influ-
ence job satisfaction. Research [57] suggests several
factors that influence job satisfaction, and so has other
research [60]. While early research focused on indi-
vidual factors, later research suggests that groups of
factors is a preferable mode of investigation [61].
In the first group, there are factors related to orga-
nizational behavior, such as: Management systems,
decision-making procedures, system of promotions
and rewards. In the second group there are factors
related to job specifics, such as: Autonomy at work,
use of specific knowledge and information feedback.
In the final group, there are factors related to indi-
viduals’ characteristics, such as: Self-esteem, stress
management and ability of critical thinking [61]. An
interesting current feature is how job satisfaction
within the sharing economy is influenced in contrast
to standard employment. Research indicate that job
satisfaction within the sharing economy [62] has a
possibility of developing the sector positively. Job
satisfaction can also be seen within the broader con-
text of issues which affect individuals’ experience
of work, or their quality of working life [63, 64] as
well as their compensation [65] and career [66]. It
was found that satisfaction with work itself is one
of the factors of job satisfaction [67]. Another fac-
tor influencing job satisfaction is working conditions
[68, 69] and a further factor of satisfaction is linked
to the possibility of career development [70]. Thus
this article follows the definition that “job satisfac-
tion, is an emotional state of individuals, affected by
their experience of work, their quality of working life,
and other characteristics related to how their work is
being managed” [71].
4. Methodology
For the purpose of this article, we are using data
that was gathered in a wider survey. The data in
this chapter, as well as in Results and the subchap-
ter named Formatting merged variables, is presented
for explanatory purposes so that readers are able to
understand the survey that was conducted fully.
4.1. Research question and hypothesis
The aim of the research was to answer the research
question: is there a statistically significant influence
of organizational values on employee job satisfac-
tion?
In order to answer this research question, the fol-
lowing research hypotheses were set up based on
theory studied above:
H1: There is a statistically significant influence of
organizational values on employees’ job satisfaction,
with regard to satisfaction with work itself.
H2: There is statistically significant influence of
organizational values on employees’ job satisfaction,
with regard to satisfaction of career development pos-
sibilities.
M. Gorenak et al. / The influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees 333
H3: There is statistically significant influence of
organizational values on employees’ job satisfaction,
with regard to satisfaction of career development pos-
sibilities.
4.2. Instrument
The research was done using a questionnaire with
a pencil-and-paper survey. The whole population
of one central European nation’s employees in the
selected industries (Travel and Leisure) represents
9,117 people. Consent was given from several organi-
zations within the sector to carry out the survey, these
organizations employ 2,762 people, and 1,100 ques-
tionnaires were distributed on a random sample. Out
of 1,100 questionnaires, 388 were returned, which
represents 35.27% of all questionnaires sent out, or
4.26% of the entire population in the selected sector.
The questionnaire comprised 50 questions relating
to (1) Organizational values (20 questions), questions
were created based on own research within the coun-
try of research and two preexisting theoretical basis
[46, 72], (2) Job satisfaction (25 questions), ques-
tioner was adopted from existing research [73] and
(3) Respondent’s demographic details.
4.3. Sample and validity
The sample which has been used for the purpose of
this paper contained 133 (34.3%) male respondents
and 213 (54.9%) female respondents, and 42 (10.8%)
people who did not respond to the question regarding
gender. The average age of respondents was calcu-
lated at 38.17 years of age. The sample contained 34
(8.8%) respondents with elementary school level of
education or less, 83 (21.4%) respondents with voca-
tional high school level of education, 121 (31.4%)
respondents with high school level of education, 80
(20.6%) respondents with a college degree, 35 (9.0%)
respondents with a university degree or more and 35
(9.0%) respondents who decided not to disclose their
level of education.
We evaluated the validity of the sample within the
selected sector. The chi-square test (χ2) of signifi-
cance was employed on the following demographic
information of respondents: Gender, education and
age. For the variable sex, chi-square was 0.598 and
significance level at p= 0.434, for the variable educa-
tion, the chi-square test was 9.296 with significance
level at p= 0.054, the final variable age provided a
value of 13.971, and the level of significance was at
p= 0.052.
The value of chi-square (χ2) distribution at sig-
nificance 0.05 or 5% are for variables with single
degree of freedom (variable gender) 3.8415, for
variables with four degrees of freedom (variable edu-
cation) 9.4877 and for variables with seven degrees
of freedom (variable age) 14.0671 [74]. Based on the
findings, we can conclude that the research sample
could be generalized to the whole population [74].
5. Results
First, we tested the validity of the questionnaire
using Cronbach’s alpha test, calculating the coeffi-
cients for each set of variables. We have performed
this test on variables that measured organizational
values first; the value was 0.859, indicating great
reliability of measurement. Secondly, we performed
this test on variables that measured job satisfac-
tion; the value was 0.954, thus indicating an equally
great reliability of measurement. According to Cron-
bach’s [75] research, values indicate great reliability
of measurement. With regard to the composition and
characteristics of the sample, we determine that it is
representative.
5.1. Formatting merged variables
The structure of the questionnaire used in the sur-
vey demanded some variables to be merged and not
used individually. Values of some variables that were
formed intentionally in negative form statements
were transformed through the statements before cre-
ating composite variables, and were not changed into
positive form.
Before actually conducting the factor analysis of
variables related to organizational values we have
performed Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of
sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity,
results show KMO value of 0,931 and significance
of 0,000 for Bartlett’s test of sphericity, thus proving
that sample is appropriate for factor analysis to be
conducted. After this initial step, we have conducted
a factor analysis on the first set of 20 variables that
measured organizational values. Out of 20 variables
12 of them have positioned themselves in 6 differ-
ent factors with suitable weights, and the other 8 are
either not positioned in any of the factors, or have
had minimum weight in two or more factors, which
is why we have removed them. Results are shown in
Table 1.
334 M. Gorenak et al. / The influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees
Table 1
Factor analysis of variables that measured organizational values
Variable Factor
123456
Quality of work is important in our organization. 0.942
Within our organization we are focused on completing our
tasks successfully.
0.754
Encouragement of positive examples is rare in our
organization.
0.726
Inhibition of innovative ideas is frequent in our organization. 0.710
Adaptation to different business situations presents a
problem for our organization.
0.659
Immoral behavior at work is acceptable in our organization. 0.620
In our organization we respect each other. 0.902
Employees in our organization interact. 0.622
In our organization we try to satisfy the needs of our
customers.
0.869
Practices in our organization are focused on our
customers/guests.
0.533
At work in our organization we behave responsibly towards
others around us.
0.723
To achieve the objectives within our organization we are
working persistently.
0.210
We have named the factors determined in Table 3 in
the following order; the first factor represents quality,
so we merged the variables in the first factor into a new
variable named OVQ – Organizational Value Quality.
The variables in the second factor represent inno-
vativeness, merged into a new variable named OVI
– Organizational Value Innovation. The variables in
the third factor represent ethical conduct, merged into
a new variable named OVE – Organizational Value
Ethics. The variables in the fourth factor represent
employees, merged into a new variable named OVEm
– Organizational Value Employees. The variables in
the fifth factor represent customers, merged into a
new variable named OVC – Organizational Value
Customers. Finally, the variables in the sixth factor
represent responsibility, therefore merged into a new
variable named OVR – Organizational Value Respon-
sibility.
Before actually conducting the factor analysis
of variables related to job satisfaction we have
performed Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of
sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity,
results show KMO value of 0,961 and significance
of 0,000 for Bartlett’s test of sphericity, thus prov-
ing that sample is appropriate for factor analysis to
be conducted. After this step, we conducted a factor
analysis on the set of 25 variables that measured job
satisfaction. All 25 variables have positioned them-
selves in one of the three factors. Results are shown
in Table 2.
We have named the factors determined in Table 2
in the following order: The first factor represents
the dimension of job satisfaction with work itself,
so we merged the variables in the first factor into a
new variable named SWI – Satisfaction with Work
Itself. The variables in the second factor represent
the dimension of job satisfaction with working con-
ditions, merged into a new variable named SWC –
Satisfaction with Work Conditions. The final, third
factor, represents elements of job satisfaction with
possibilities for career development, merged into a
new variable named SPCD – Satisfaction with Pos-
sibilities for Career Development. With the help of
factor analysis, we were able to explain 56.23% of
variability of competencies with these 25 variables
in 3 factors.
5.2. Pearson’s correlation analysis
The first analysis we did was Persons’ correla-
tion analysis, so we could see which of the merged
variables correlate among each other, and results are
shown in Table 3.
M. Gorenak et al. / The influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees 335
Table 2
Factor analysis of variables that measured job satisfaction
Variable Factor
My job satisfaction is influenced by . .. 1 2 3
. . . My work challenges. 0.828
. .. Forms of motivation that my manager uses. 0.820
. .. Possibility to develop my competencies. 0.749
. .. Interpersonal relationships within the organization. 0.706
. .. Strict discipline within the organization. 0.706
. . . Professionalism at work. 0.687
. .. Possibilities to co-create decisions within the organization. 0.671
. .. Caring for my well-being in the organization. 0.653
. .. Feedback that I get regarding my work. 0.606
. .. Status that I have within the organization. 0.514
. .. Possibilities of creative work. 0.477
. .. Intensity of rewarding that I am receiving. 0.426
. .. Possibilities for improving my level of education. 0.422
. .. The amount of work I do. 0.852
. .. Working hours that I have. 0.821
. .. Leadership style of my manager. 0.656
. .. Type of work I do. 0.653
. . . My immediate co-workers. 0.550
. . . Physical working conditions. 0.458
. .. Level of safety and security of my job. 0.442
. .. Work space where I work. 0.357
. .. Pay that I receive. 0.349
. .. Manager’s efforts for my career development. –0.843
. .. Possibilities for career development. –0.735
. .. Health and safety at work. –0.411
Table 3
Correlation between individual merged variables
OVQ –
Organizational
Value Quality
OVI –
Organizational
Value Innovation
OVR –
Organizational
Value Responsibility
OVE –
Organizational
Value Ethics
OVC –
Organizational
Value Customers
OVEm –
Organizational
Value Employees
SWI – Satisfaction with
Work Itself
0.132* 0.173* 0.229** 0.200** 0.310** 0.192**
SWC – Satisfaction with
Work Conditions
0.071 0.195** 0.098 0.097 0.097 0.097
SPCD – Satisfaction with
Possibilities for Career
Development
0.075 0.102 0.097 0.105 0.101 0.102
∗Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ∗∗Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
(2-tailed).
336 M. Gorenak et al. / The influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees
Table 4
Linear regression analysis among individual pairs of merged variables
Linear regression →Organizational R2FpB
values – job satisfaction
OVQ – Organizational Value Quality – 0.017 6.033 0.015 0.132
SWI – Satisfaction with Work Itself
OVI – Organizational Value Innovation – 0.027 10.445 0.001 0.173
SWI – Satisfaction with Work Itself
OVR – Organizational Value Responsibility –
SWI – Satisfaction with Work Itself
0.034 13.102 0.000 0.192
OVE – Organizational Value Ethics – 0.037 14.052 0.000 0.200
SWI – Satisfaction with Work Itself
OVC – Organizational Value Customers – 0.050 18.643 0.000 0.229
SWI – Satisfaction with Work Itself
OVEm – Organizational Value Employees –
SWI – Satisfaction with Work Itself
0.096 30.619 0.000 0.310
OVI – Organizational Value Innovation – 0.035 13.312 0.000 0.195
SWC – Satisfaction with Work Conditions
Table 3 shows some correlations among merged
variables; the correlations are relatively weak, though
some are still statistically significant. SWI correlates
statistically significantly with all six organizational
values. SWC correlates statistically significantly only
with OVI. In the following step, we conducted a lin-
ear regression analysis among pairs that correlate
statistically significantly, though relative low values
indicate that the explained portion of dependent vari-
ables (job satisfaction) from independent variables
(organizational values) is going to be relatively low.
5.3. Linear regression analysis
Linear regression analysis has shown statistically
significant influence between independent variables
(organizational values) and dependent variables (job
satisfaction) only in some pairs, and results are shown
in Table 4.
In the first six pairs we have selected the depen-
dent variable SWI, and independent variables of all
six organizational values. There is a statistically sig-
nificant influence with all six pairs; the highest value
is with independent variable OVEm where we can
explain 9,6 % of dependent variable SWI, the lowest
value is with independent variable OVQ, where we
can explain only 1,7 % of dependent variable SWI.
In pair seven, we have selected the dependent vari-
able SWC and independent variables OVI and OVC.
With independent variable OVI, we can explain 3,5%
of dependent variable SWC. Linear regression only
explains part of the relations between dependent and
independent variables. To see all six values’ influ-
ence on the dependent variable SWI, we have further
created a hierarchical regression analysis.
5.4. Analysis of hierarchical regression
In the following section, we have conducted a
hierarchical regression analysis, where the influence
between independent variables towards dependent
variable was analyzed. For the dependent variable
we have selected variable SWI – Satisfaction with
Work Itself, and independent variables were entered
in the following order, determined by the strength
of correlation analysis done before: OVQ – Qual-
ity; OVI – Innovation; OVEm – Employees; OVE
– Ethics; OVR – Responsibility and, finally; OVC –
Customers. Results of analyses are shown in Tables 5
and 6.
We can see from Tables 5 and 6 that, with the first
variable, OVQ, we can explain 2.4% (R2= 0.024)
of variability of SWI. When we added the second vari-
able, OVI, we were able to explain an additional 0.9%
(R2= 0.009) of variability of SWI. When we added
the third variable, OVEm, we were able to explain an
additional 2.0% (R2= 0.020) of variability of SWI.
Adding to that the fourth variable, OVE, we were
able to explain an additional 1.7% (R2= 0.017)
of variability of SWI. Adding on the fifth variable,
OVR, we were able to explain an additional 1.8%
(R2= 0.018) of variability of SWI, and, finally
M. Gorenak et al. / The influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees 337
Table 5
Results of hierarchical regression analysis
Model R R2R2Std. error of the estimate
1 0.164(a) 0.027 0.024 0.96968792
2 0.200(b) 0.040 0.033 0.96502213
3 0.251(c) 0.063 0.053 0.95511312
4 0.289(d) 0.083 0.070 0.94637494
5 0.324(e) 0.105 0.088 0.93692880
6 0.361(f) 0.130 0.111 0.92518133
aPredictions: (Constant), Organizational Value Quality. bPredictions: (Constant), Orga-
nizational Value Quality, Organizational Value Innovation. cPredictions: (Constant),
Organizational Value Quality, Organizational Value Innovation, Organizational Value
Employees. dPredictions: (Constant), Organizational Value Quality, Organizational Value
Innovation, Organizational Value Employees, Organizational Value Ethics. ePredictions:
(Constant), Organizational Value Quality, Organizational Value Innovation, Organiza-
tional Value Employees, Organizational Value Ethics, Organizational Value Responsibility.
fPredictions: (Constant), Organizational Value Quality, Organizational Value Innova-
tion, Organizational Value Employees, Organizational Value Ethics, Organizational Value
Responsibility, Organizational Value Customers.
Table 6
Results of hierarchical regression analysis II
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
1 Regression 7.239 1 7.239 7.698 0.006(a)
Residual 260.462 277 0.940
Total 267.700 278
2 Regression 10.670 2 5.335 5.729 0.004(b)
Residual 257.030 276 0.931
Total 267.700 278
3 Regression 23.149 3 5.611 6.151 0.000(c)
Residual 244.551 275 0.912
Total 267.700 278
4 Regression 27.688 4 5.575 6.224 0.000(d)
Residual 240.012 274 0.896
Total 267.700 278
5 Regression 34.797 5 5.610 6.391 0.000(e)
Residual 232.903 273 0.878
Total 267.700 278
6 Regression 34.879 6 5.813 6.791 0.000(f)
Residual 232.821 272 0.856
Total 267.700 278
aPredictions: (Constant), Organizational Value Quality. bPredictions: (Constant), Organizational
Value Quality, Organizational Value Innovation. cPredictions: (Constant), Organizational Value Qual-
ity, Organizational Value Innovation, Organizational Value Employees. dPredictions: (Constant),
Organizational Value Quality, Organizational Value Innovation, Organizational Value Employees,
Organizational Value Ethics. ePredictions: (Constant), Organizational Value Quality, Organizational
Value Innovation, Organizational Value Employees, Organizational Value Ethics, Organizational
Value Responsibility. fPredictions: (Constant), Organizational Value Quality, Organizational Value
Innovation, Organizational Value Employees, Organizational Value Ethics, Organizational Value
Responsibility, Organizational Value Customers. gDependent variable: Satisfaction with Work Itself.
338 M. Gorenak et al. / The influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees
Fig. 1. Results of hierarchical regression analysis.
when we added the sixth variable, OVC, we were able
to explain an additional 2.3% (R2= 0.023) of vari-
ability of SWI. Altogether, we were able to explain
11.1% (R2= 0.111) of variability of SWI, and this
is also shown in Fig. 1.
6. Research findings
Through this study, we have established eight find-
ings that also correspond with practical implications.
Firstly, not all the organizational values correlate with
certain aspects of job satisfaction (see Table 3). Sec-
ondly, through the analysis, we have found out that
OVQ correlates with SWI (r=0.132 correlation is
significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)), adding to that
the results of linear regression of the first pair, we see
that the independent variable OVQ explains 1.7% of
variability of the dependent variable SWI. Thirdly,
we have shown that respondents who more frequently
indicated that OVI is important, also indicated more
often that SWI, is important to them (r= 0.173 cor-
relation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)).
Adding to that the results of linear regression of the
first pair, we see that the independent variable OVI
explains 2.7% of variability of the dependent vari-
able SWI. Fourthly, we have shown that respondents
emphasizing OVR as important, also answered more
often that SWI is important to them (r= 0.229 Cor-
relation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)).
Adding to that the results of linear regression of the
first pair, we see that the independent variable OVR
explains 3.4% of variability of the dependent vari-
able SWI. The fifth finding, shows that respondents
who answered more often that OVE is important,
also answered more often that SWI is important to
them (r= 0.200 correlation is significant at the 0.01
level (2-tailed)). Adding to that the results of linear
regression of the first pair, we see that the indepen-
dent variable OVE explains 3.7% of variability of the
dependent variable SWI. Sixth, we have shown that
respondents who said more often that OVC is impor-
tant, also say more often that SWI is important to
them (r= 0.310 correlation is significant at the 0.01
level (2-tailed)). Adding to that the results of linear
regression of the first pair, we see that the indepen-
dent variable OVC explains 5.0% of variability of the
dependent variable SWI. Seventh, we have shown that
respondents who emphasized that OVEm is impor-
tant, also indicate more often that SWI is important
to them (r= 0.192 correlation is significant at the 0.01
level (2-tailed)). Adding to that the results of linear
regression of the first pair, we see that the indepen-
dent variable OVEm explains 9.6% of variability of
the dependent variable SWI. Finally, after research-
ing the first set of organizational values and SWI, we
have continued on to the SWC. Respondents who said
more often that OVI is important, also say more often
that SWC is important to them (r= 0.195 correlation
is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)). Adding to
M. Gorenak et al. / The influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees 339
that the results of linear regression of the first pair, we
see that the independent variable OVI explains 3.5%
of variability of the dependent variable SWC.
Based on the findings we made, we can retain
hypothesis H1: There is statistically significant influ-
ence of organizational values on job satisfaction of
employees with regard to Satisfaction with Work
Itself. We have seen that there is a statistically
significant influence of all six different, identified
organizational values on job satisfaction with regard
to work itself. With hierarchical regression analysis,
we have further proven that we can explain up to
11.1% of job satisfaction with regard to work itself
with organizational values.
Further, we have to reject hypothesis H2: There
is statistically significant influence of organizational
values on job satisfaction of employees with regard to
satisfaction with conditions of work. We have found
out that only with Organizational Value Innovation
is there a statistically significant influence of orga-
nizational values when it comes to Satisfaction with
Working Conditions.
Finally, we have to reject hypothesis H3: There
is statistically significant influence of organizational
values on job satisfaction of employees with regard to
satisfaction with possibilities for career development,
since we found no influence between organizational
values and possibilities for career development.
7. Theoretical and practical implications
The first finding that not all organizational val-
ues correlate with certain aspects of job satisfaction
is somewhat expected, but the Pearson correlational
analysis was never intended to prove that everything
correlates; it was intended to forecast where the cor-
relations are found, so that we can, in further steps,
analyze how strong influences of various organiza-
tional values are on job satisfaction.
Our second finding, that organizational value qual-
ity correlates with satisfaction with work itself proves
that in the world where quality is important for the
long-term growth, it is not surprising that employees
value quality. Especially so when creating a product,
or conducting a service, that is perceived by them
to represent quality, which they experience heighten
levels of job satisfaction with work itself. This sup-
ports the idea [76], that various patterns of behavior
of employees, among them quality of work, influ-
ence job satisfaction. Our third finding indicated that
people who perceive organizational value quality as
important also see satisfaction with work itself as
important. It has been established that innovation is
the driving force of progress, thus, in the companies
where organizational conditions are facilitating inno-
vation, it can be expected that innovation will be seen
in the work of employees [77]. This, in turn, puts inno-
vation into the culture of the organization, and the
culture of the organization influences job satisfaction
of employees directly [78]. Our fourth finding indi-
cated that people who perceive organizational value
responsibility as important also see satisfaction with
work itself as important. Responsible behavior of
organizations is becoming more and more important
through the concepts of Corporate Social Responsi-
bility. Our results supports the previous conclusion
[79], that has established that if employees perceive
the organization that they work for as an organization
that promotes responsibility, they will in turn perceive
higher levels of job satisfaction. Our fifth finding indi-
cated that people who perceive organizational value
ethics as important also see satisfaction with work
itself as important. Ethical conduct that is promoted
by managers has a direct impact on job satisfaction
of employees [80]. In this sense, we can say that per-
ceptions of a positive ethical climate that indicates
ethical conduct being a value of the organization is
associated positively with job satisfaction of employ-
ees [81]. This supports our results that job satisfaction
might be increased indirectly through the develop-
ment of individual/managerial ethics, in other words,
ethics codes and training signify that the company
is institutionalizing an ethical culture by improving
individual moral development [79]. Our sixth find-
ing indicated that people who perceive organizational
value customers as important, also see satisfaction
with work itself as important. This finding correlates
with the finding that customer orientation is an essen-
tial part of organizational culture [10] and, through
it, influences job satisfaction of employees directly.
Our seventh finding indicated that people who per-
ceive organizational value employees as important,
also see satisfaction with work itself as important.
Putting a value on employees is important for every
organization; through time we have seen studies that
relate that to organizational commitment [82], and
although they did not relate organizational commit-
ment to job satisfaction of employees directly, this
commitment shows the fit of a person within the
organization, being the so called P-O fit (personal
organizational fit) or P-J fit (personal job fit). Later
studies, [83], have shown that valuing employees
and helping them with achieving the fit will increase
340 M. Gorenak et al. / The influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees
their job satisfaction, which again supports our
findings.
Our final eight finding indicated that people who
perceive organizational value innovation as important
also perceive as important satisfaction with working
conditions. As indicated before, innovation is the key
for progress; through the organizational culture [84]
we can foster an innovative working environment. We
can also expect that an innovative working environ-
ment will cause a substantial increase in creativity
[85], and creativity further influences job satisfaction
positively [86].
Our findings have theoretical as well as practical
implications. In terms of theoretical implications we
have re-confirmed the work of several authors men-
tioned above, adding the knowledge that the main
influence of organizational values goes towards the
general satisfaction with work itself, partially also
towards satisfaction with working conditions. Practi-
cal implications are much clearer, managers need to
promote organizational values within the organiza-
tion thus making them foundations for nurturing job
satisfaction. This approach to deal with job satisfac-
tion enables managers to build on satisfaction from
the core, since organizational values present the core
of any organization.
8. Conclusions
The article examined the influence of organiza-
tional values on job satisfaction of employees within
the selected sector. A theoretical framework was cre-
ated that supports the main research question; is
there a statistically significant influence of organiza-
tional values on employee job satisfaction? For each
of the six identified Organizational Values (Quality,
Innovation, Responsibility, Ethics, Customers and
Employees), it was shown that there is a direct corre-
lation to the variable of Satisfaction with Work Itself.
The results shows also that there is a direct corre-
lation between Organizational Value Innovation and
variable Satisfaction with Work Conditions. Using
linear regression analysis, it was confirmed that each
organizational value explains a certain percentage
of each variable in job satisfaction. The findings
show directly that there is a statistically significant
influence of Organizational Values. A hierarchical
regression analysis explained up to 11.1% of job
satisfaction with regard to work itself, with Orga-
nizational Values showing to have an influence on
job satisfaction of employees. This correlates with
the Managing by values theory [87], that stresses the
importance of values in all aspects of managing. The
main idea behind the Managing by values theory is to
limit the amount of formal control by enhancing the
trust among employees and their supervisors. There
are also other researchers [88] who have proven that
shared values, alongside communication and oppor-
tunistic behavior, can influence trust positively.
Initiating the research, the presumption was that
Organizational Values influence job satisfaction as a
whole. However, the research has proven that Orga-
nizational Values influence the part of job satisfaction
that is related to work itself, while only Organi-
zational Value Innovation plays a role in the part
of job satisfaction that is related to working condi-
tions. There is no statistically significant correlation
between Organizational Values and job satisfaction
related to career development that could be proven.
The novelty of this article is mainly in the finding
that not the whole of job satisfaction is influenced
by Organizational Values, but rather only a part of
it. With this knowledge, it can now be proposed that
managers on all levels should focus their energy on
working with Organizational Values leading to posi-
tive influences on job satisfaction of employees. This
knowledge is important for organizations in general,
and especially for organizations in travel and leisure
industries, which has an significant impact on the
local, national and global economies [89].
There are some limitations in this article that needs
to be highlighted. The research was conducted in a
single sector. To limit the influence of that the sample
was carefully selected, and ensured that it is represen-
tative of the entire population. The research was also
limited to a single country. However we have selected
a big enough sample so that it is representative. Other
precautionary measures have been implemented to
restrict influences of limitations to a minimum. For
further research, it is proposed that the intensity of
expression of Organizational Values would be mea-
sured, and that this influence on job satisfaction would
be investigated.
Conflict of interest
None to report.
References
[1] Kenny T. From vision to reality through values. Manage-
ment development review. 1994;7(3):17-20.
M. Gorenak et al. / The influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees 341
[2] Besharov ML. The relational ecology of identification:
How organizational identification emerges when individu-
als hold divergentvalues. Academy of Management Journal.
2014;57(5):1485-512.
[3] Boer D, Fischer R. How and when do personal values guide
our attitudes and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural vari-
ability in attitude–value linkages. Psychological Bulletin.
2013;139(5):1113.
[4] Harackiewicz JM, Tibbetts Y, Canning E, Hyde JS. Harness-
ing values to promote motivation in education. Motivational
interventions: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2014. p.
71-105.
[5] Lyubomirsky S, King L, Diener E. The benefits of frequent
positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psycholog-
ical Bulletin. 2005;131(6):803-55.
[6] Bouwkamp-Memmer JC, Whiston SC, Hartung PJ. Work
values and job satisfaction of family physicians. Journal of
Vocational Behavior. 2013;82(3):248-55.
[7] Silva S, Martins D. Human Resource Management in Hotel
Units: The Portuguese Case. Academica Turistica-Tourism
and Innovation Journal. 2017;9(1).
[8] Girma S. The relationship between leadership style, job
satisfaction and culture of the organization. International
Journal of Applied Research. 2016;2(4):35-45.
[9] Meng J, Berger BK. The impact of organizational culture
and leadership performance on PR professionals’ job satis-
faction: Testing the joint mediating effects of engagement
and trust. Public Relations Review. 2019;45(1):64-75.
[10] Sharma P. Organizational culture as a predictor of job satis-
faction: The role of age and gender. Management: Journal
of Contemporary Management Issues. 2017;22(1):35-48.
[11] Tong C, Tak WIW, Wong A. The impact of knowledge
sharing on the relationship between organizational culture
and job satisfaction: The perception of information com-
munication and technology (ICT) practitioners in Hong
Kong. International Journal of Human Resource Studies.
2015;5(1):19.
[12] Killion L, Fisher R. Ontology, Epistemology: Paradigms
and Parameters for Qualitative Approaches to Tourism
Research. In: Hilman W,Radel K, editors. Qualitative Meth-
ods in Tourism Research. Aspects of Tourism. Bristol:
Channel View Publications; 2018. p. 1-28.
[13] Allport GW. Pattern and growth in personality: Harcourt
College Publishers; 1961.
[14] Schwartz SH. Basic individual values: Sources and conse-
quences. Handbook of value. 2015:63-84.
[15] England GW. Personal value systems of American man-
agers. Academy of Management Journal. 1967;10(1):53-68.
[16] Rokeach M. Beliefs, attitudes and values: A theory of orga-
nization and change: Jossey-Bass; 1968.
[17] Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of
values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20
countries. Advances in experimental social psychology.
1992;25:1-65.
[18] Novak A, Trunk ˇ
Sirca N, Trunk A. Reasons for
studying and lifelong learning, educational sector in Slove-
nia. International Journal of Contemporary Management.
2015;14(1).
[19] Schwartz SH, Cieciuch J, Vecchione M, Davidov E, Fis-
cher R, Beierlein C, et al. Refining the theory of basic
individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology. 2012;103(4):663.
[20] J¨
agel T, Keeling K, Reppel A, Gruber T. Individual values
and motivational complexities in ethical clothing con-
sumption: A means-end approach. Journal of Marketing
Management. 2012;28(3-4):373-96.
[21] Sousa CM, Coelho F. Exploring the relationship between
individual values and the customer orientation of front-
line employees. Journal of Marketing Management.
2013;29(15-16):1653-79.
[22] Luthar B, Jontes D, Trdina A. Priˇ
cakovanja ˇ
studentov komu-
nikologije, kulturni kapital in kurikularni problemi. Teorija
in Praksa. 2013;50(2):376.
[23] Naranjo-Valencia JC, Jim´
enez-Jim´
enez D, Sanz-Valle R.
Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture.
Management Decision. 2011;49(1):55-72.
[24] Zheng W,Yang B, McLean GN. Linking organizational cul-
ture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness:
Mediating role of knowledge management. Journal of Busi-
ness Research. 2010;63(7):763-71.
[25] Ashforth BE, Mael F. Social identity theory and the orga-
nization. Academy of management review. 1989;14(1):
20-39.
[26] Gioia DA, Price KN, Hamilton AL, Thomas JB. Forging
an identity: An insider-outsider study of processes involved
in the formation of organizational identity. Administrative
science quarterly. 2010;55(1):1-46.
[27] Pfeiffer JW, Goodstein LD, Nolan TM. Understanding
applied strategic planning: A manager’s guide: Pfeiffer &
Company; 1985.
[28] Garavan TN, McGuire D. Human resource developmentand
society: Human resource development’s role in embedding
corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and ethics in
organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources.
2010;12(5):487-507.
[29] Cheng J-C, Chen C-Y, TengH-Y, Yen C-H. Tourleaders’ job
crafting and job outcomes: The moderating role of perceived
organizational support. Tourism Management Perspectives.
2016;20:19-29.
[30] Hofstede G. Attitudes, values and organizational cul-
ture: Disentangling the concepts. Organization studies.
1998;19(3):477-93.
[31] Bourne H, Jenkins M. Organizational values: A dynamic
perspective. Organization Studies. 2013;34(4):495-514.
[32] Kull TJ, Narasimhan R, Schroeder R. Sustaining the ben-
efits of a quality initiative through cooperative values: a
longitudinal study. Decision Sciences. 2012;43(4):553-88.
[33] Lucas R. Employment relations in the hospitality and
tourism industries. Delbridge R, Heery E, editors. London
and New York: Routledge; 2004.
[34] Bahman Teimouri R, Arasli H, Kilic¸ H, Aghaei I. Service,
politics, and engagement: A multi-level analysis. Tourism
Management Perspectives. 2018;28(October):10-9.
[35] Lewin K. Field theory in social science. New York Harper
and Row; 1951.
[36] Holland JL. Manual for the Vocational Preference Inventory
Vocational Preference Inventory: Consulting Psychologists
Press, Palo Alto, Calif.; 1978.
[37] Guzzo RA, Salas E. Teameffectiveness and decision making
in organizations: Pfeiffer; 1995.
342 M. Gorenak et al. / The influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees
[38] Hoerr J. The payoff from teamwork. Business Week.
1989;10:56-62.
[39] Holland JL. Vocational preference inventory: Consulting
Psychologists Press; 1985.
[40] Judge TA, Cable DM. Applicant personality, organizational
culture, and organization attraction. Personnel psychology.
1997;50(2):359-94.
[41] Posner BZ, Kouzes JM, Schmidt WH. Shared values make
a difference: An empirical test of corporate culture. Human
Resource Management. 1985;24(3):293-309.
[42] Enz CA, Schwenk CR, editors. Performance and sharing of
organizational values. annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, Washington, DC; 1989.
[43] Lam T, Lo A, Chan J. New Employees’ Turnover Inten-
tions and Organizational Commitment in the Hong Kong
Hotel Industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research.
2002;26(3):217-34.
[44] S¨
okmen A, Bitmis MG, ¨
Uner MM. The mediating role
of person-organization fit in the supportive leadership-
outcome relationships. E+M Ekonomie a Management.
2015(3):62.
[45] Majcen M. Management kompetenc: izdelava modela kom-
petenc ter njegova uporaba za razvoj kadrov in za vodenje
zaposlenih k doseganju ciljev: GV zaloˇ
zba; 2009.
[46] Tepeci M, Bartlett AB. The hospitality industry culture pro-
file: a measure of individual values, organizational culture,
and person–organization fit as predictors of job satisfaction
and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospi-
tality Management. 2002;21(2):151-70.
[47] Mart´
inez P, P´
erez A, Del Bosque IR. Exploring the role
of CSR in the organizational identity of hospitality compa-
nies: A case from the Spanish tourism industry. Journal of
Business Ethics. 2014;124(1):47-66.
[48] Tepeci M. The dimensions and impacts of organizational
culture on employee job satisfaction and intent to remain in
the hospitality and tourism industry in Turkey. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Research. 2005;5(1/2):21-39.
[49] Abbott GN, White FA, Charles MA. Linking values
and organizational commitment: A correlational and
experimental investigation in two organizations. Jour-
nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.
2005;78(4):531-51.
[50] Miller K. Organizational Communication: Approaches
and Processes. 7 ed. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning;
2015.
[51] Son J, Ok C. Hangover follows extroverts: Extraversion as a
moderator in the curvilinear relationship between newcom-
ers’ organizational tenure and job satisfaction. Journal of
Vocational Behavior. 2019;110:72-88.
[52] Vroom VH. Work and motivation. 1964. NY: John Wiley &
sons. 1964;45.
[53] Hancer MR, George T. Job Satisfaction Of Restaurant
Employees: An Empirical Investigation Using The Min-
nesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research. 2003;27(1):85-100.
[54] Sarapata A, Gro-Kozak J. Osnove sociologije dela: Mladin-
ska knjiga; 1968.
[55] Locke E. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Hand-
book of industry and organizational psychology. Chicago:
Ed. Rand McNally College; 1976.
[56] George JM, Jones GR. Understanding and Managing Orga-
nizational Behavior: Addison-Wesley; 1999.
[57] Herzberg F. The motivation to work. New York: Holy Wiley
& Sons. Inc; 1959.
[58] B¨
ussing A. Motivation and Satisfaction. In: Warner M,
editor. International encyclopedia of business and man-
agement. 4. London: Thomson Business Press; 1996. p.
3548-59.
[59] Hofmans J, De Gieter S, Pepermans R. Individual dif-
ferences in the relationship between satisfaction with job
rewards and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
2013;82(1):1-9.
[60] Vroom VH. Manage people, not personnel: motivation and
performance appraisal: Harvard Business Press; 1957.
[61] Furnham A. Personality at work: The role of individual
differences in the workplace: Psychology Press; 1994.
[62] Turnˇ
sek M, Ladkin A. Nova pravila igre za delavce? Airbnb
in platformna ekonomija. [Changing Employment in the
Sharing Economy: The Case of Airbnb]. Javnost-The Pub-
lic. 2017;24(SUP 1):S82-S99.
[63] Tomaˇ
zeviˇ
c N, Seljak J, Aristovnik A. Factors influencing
employee satisfaction in the police service: the case of
Slovenia. Personnel review. 2014;43(2):209-27.
[64] Garc´
ia-Cabrera AM, Lucia-Casademunt AM, Cu´
ellar-
Molina D, Padilla-Angulo L. Negative work-family/family-
work spillover and well-being across Europe in the
hospitality industry: The role of perceived supervisor sup-
port Tourism Management Perspectives. 2018;26(April):
39-48.
[65] Supriyanto S. Compensation effects on job satisfac-
tion and performance. Human Systems Management.
2018;37(3):281-5.
[66] Boˇ
stjanˇ
ciˇ
c E, Petrovˇ
ciˇ
c A. Exploring the relationship
between job satisfaction, work engagement and career satis-
faction: The study from public university. Human Systems
Management. 2019;38(4):411-22.
[67] Porter LW, Steers RM, Mowday RT, Boulian PV. Organiza-
tional commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among
psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology.
1974;59(5):603.
[68] Brayfield AH, Rothe HF. An index of job satisfaction. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology. 1951;35(5):307.
[69] Williams LJ, Anderson SE. Job satisfaction and orga-
nizational commitment as predictors of organizational
citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management.
1991;17(3):601-17.
[70] Arthur MB. The boundaryless career: A new perspective for
organizational inquiry. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
1994;15(4):295-306.
[71] Gorenak M, ˇ
Spindler T, Brumen B. The Influence of Com-
petencies of Managers on Job Satisfaction of Employees in
the Hotel Industry. Organizacija. 2019;52(2).
[72] Musek Leˇ
snik K. Vrednote, poslanstvo in vizija podjetja.
Koper, Fakulteta za management. 2008.
[73] Mihaliˇ
cR.Pove
ˇ
cajmo zadovoljstvo in pripadnost
zaposlenih: praktiˇ
cni nasveti, metodologija, interni
akt in model usposabljanja za upravljanje in merjenje
zadovoljstva in pripadnosti zaposlenih, z ukrepi za veˇ
cje
zadovoljstvo pri delu in pripadnost organizaciji: Mihaliˇ
cin
partner; 2008.
M. Gorenak et al. / The influence of organizational values on job satisfaction of employees 343
[74] Spruill MC. A comparison of chi-square goodness-of-fit
tests based on approximate Bahadur slope. The Annals of
Statistics. 1976;4(2):409-12.
[75] Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297-334.
[76] Bateman TS, Organ DW. Job satisfaction and the
good soldier: The relationship between affect and
employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal.
1983;26(4):587-95.
[77] Pierce JL, Delbecq AL. Organization structure, individual
attitudes and innovation. Academy of Management Review.
1977;2(1):27-37.
[78] Lund DB. Organizational culture and job satisfaction.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 2003;18(3):
219-36.
[79] Valentine S, Fleischman G. Ethics programs, perceived cor-
porate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of
Business Ethics. 2008;77(2):159-72.
[80] Koh HC, El’Fred H. The link between organizational ethics
and job satisfaction: A study of managers in Singapore.
Journal of Business Ethics. 2001;29(4):309-24.
[81] Schwepker CH. Ethical climate’s relationship to job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover
intention in the salesforce. Journal of Business Research.
2001;54(1):39-52.
[82] Moorman RH, Niehoff BP, Organ DW. Treating employees
fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the
effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal. 1993;6(3):209-25.
[83] Gabriel AS, Diefendorff JM, Chandler MM, Moran CM,
Greguras GJ. The dynamic relationships of work affect and
job satisfaction with perceptions of fit. Personnel Psychol-
ogy. 2014;67(2):389-420.
[84] Hogan SJ, Coote LV. Organizational culture, innovation, and
performance: A test of Schein’s model. Journal of Business
Research. 2014;67(8):1609-21.
[85] Tsai C-Y, Horng J-S, Liu C-H, Hu D-C. Work environment
and atmosphere: The role of organizational support in the
creativity performance of tourism and hospitality organi-
zations. International Journal of Hospitality Management.
2015;46:26-35.
[86] Ayranci E, Ayranci AE. Relationships among Perceived
Transformational Leadership, Workers’ Creativity, Job
Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment: An Investi-
gation of Turkish Banks. International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2017;7(4):491-
517.
[87] Dolan S, Garcia S, Richley B. Managing by values: A cor-
porate guide to living, being alive, and making a living in
the 21st Century: Springer; 2006.
[88] Kaˇ
c MS, Gorenak I, Potoˇ
can V. The influence of trust on col-
laborative relationships in supply chains. E+M Ekonomie a
Management. 2016(2):120.
[89] Rangus M, Brumen B. Development of tourism resarch.
Teorija in Praksa. 2016;53(4):929.
