Internal Communication and Employee Satisfaction in Hospitality

Abstract

This paper aims to analyze the influence of internal communication on employee satisfaction in the hospitality industry from the viewpoints of communication with superiors and colleagues. The study uses survey data from two hotels with the same quality rating and the same hotel chain. Our results indicate that both forms of communication positively influence job satisfaction, based on the PLS-SEM method.

Full text

11
A. Čuić Tanković, I. Bilić, I. Brajković
INTERNAL COMMUNICATION AND EMPLOYEE ...
1-16
INTERNAL COMMUNICATION AND EMPLOYEE
SATISFACTION IN HOSPITALITY*
Ana Čuić Tanković**
Ivana Bilić***
Iva Brajković****
Original scientific paper
UDC 005.32:331.101.32
Received: 12. 4. 2021
Accepted: 20. 12. 2021
DOI https://doi.org/10.30924/mjcmi.27.1.1
Abstract
*This paper was funded under the project framework ZIP UNIRI of the University of Rijeka, project no. ZIP-
UNIRI-116-4-19.
** Ana Čuić Tanković, PhD, assistant professor, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management, University of
Rijeka
Primorska 42, B.O. 97, 51410 Opatija, Croatia, Phone: +385 51 294 759, E-mail: anact@fthm.hr
*** Ivana Bilić, PhD, associate professor, Faculty of Economics, Business and Tourism, University of Split, Cvite
Fiskovića 5, 21000 Split, Croatia, Phone: +385 21 430 785, E-mail: ibilic@efst.hr
**** Iva Brajković, MSc, graduate student, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management, University of Rijeka,
Primorska 42, B.O. 97, 51410 Opatija, E-mail: iva.brajkovic8@gmail.com
This paper aims to analyze the inuen-
ce of internal communication on employee
satisfaction in the hospitality industry from
the viewpoints of communication with supe-
riors and colleagues. The study uses survey
data from two hotels with the same quality
rating and the same hotel chain. Our results
indicate that both forms of communication
positively inuence job satisfaction, based
on the PLS-SEM method.
Keywords: job satisfaction, communi-
cation with superiors, communication with
colleagues, hospitality industry
1. INTRODUCTION
Eective communication is a necessary
condition for the successful planning, or-
ganization, leadership, and control because
it “is the way through which members of an
organization share their meaning and agree
with others” (Koontz et al. 1980) by using
dierent verbal and nonverbal messages
(Antolović and Sviličić, 2016). People have
a natural predisposition to communicate
and interact with each other (Kraljević and
Perkov, 2014). Communication coordinates
actions across hierarchical levels and di-
rects individuals and teams toward the goals
(Borca and Baesa, 2014). Lack of commu-
nication represents a disturbance, breaks the
workow, causes delays, and creates inter-
personal conicts. Lunenburg (2010) noted
the existence of noise, which may exist in
the elements of the communication process,
as a critical obstacle in reaching complete
clarity of meaning and understanding in
communication. Eisenberg, Goodall, and
Trethewey (2010) identied four types of

Journal of Contemporary Management Issues
2
communication barriers: process, physical,
semantic, and psychosocial barriers.
Styles and personality factors are con-
sidered essential for communication suc-
cess, alongside interpersonal communica-
tion abilities, as those involve social eorts,
directly aecting personal or workplace
decisions. Primarily, interpersonal com-
munication skills enable more ecient
work: employers look for employees with
advanced communication skills because of
their ability to interact with competitors,
colleagues, and clients (Cushman and Cahn,
1985).
Managers and large companies with
inadequate communication waste money
and time, while good communication helps
them to keep the best employees (Carpenter
et al., 2010). Communication among man-
agers and employees can create an atmos-
phere of happiness and passion about their
work, with attitudes that help improve or-
ganizational performance (Dasgupta et al.,
2012), with a unique link between manage-
rial and communication success (Bovée and
Thill, 2012).
The hospitality industry, as the fast-
est-growing sector worldwide (Politis et
al., 2009), relies heavily on employees to
achieve consumer-related objectives. In
hotels, teams are large and characterized
by conicts (Ingram and Desombre, 1999;
Richards et al., 2012). To strengthen their
aliation to the group, customers will be-
come committed to a hotel when they see
that people they value have an excellent
opinion about their company (Pende, 2013).
Eective internal communication is a force
that enriches employees’ lives and, in turn,
helps increase customer satisfaction, prot-
ability, and overall company performance.
It is a crucial business function that inspires
and harmonizes the entire organization and
precedes the perceived trust (Prikshat et al.,
2020).
The hospitality sector has signicant
implications for formal employee involve-
ment and participation (Townsend et al.,
2011). These objectives can be very com-
plex, while communication is essential in
this under-analyzed and growing industrial
setting. Job satisfaction and passion for
work are critical to the hospitality industry,
where most lower-level employees come
into frequent contact with clients. These
contacts can convey a message more ef-
fectively than any paid advertising or oth-
er promotional eorts. Marchington and
Suter (2012) underline the importance of
rst-line managers, who may limit the in-
formation for the sta or reduce their con-
tribution to decision making. However, in
their research, they found a successful im-
plementation of employee involvement and
participation due to encouragement of the
information management and communica-
tion style.
Although employee satisfaction has
been widely analyzed, there is still a need
to constantly monitor the impact of vari-
ous forms of communication on employees’
job satisfaction. Surprisingly, regarding the
main research subject of this study, there is
little new research exploring the impact of
internal communication on employee sat-
isfaction. Furthermore, Borca and Baesu
(2014) suggest investigating the employees’
level of job satisfaction following regular
communication activities as an interest-
ing topic for future research. Therefore,
this specic research aims to contribute to
Human Resource Management, commu-
nication theory, and internal marketing by
building theoretical and empirical knowl-
edge regarding the role of communication
in organizations.

3
Management, Vol. 27, 2022, No. 1, pp. 1-16
A. Čuić Tanković, I. Bilić, I. Brajković: INTERNAL COMMUNICATION AND EMPLOYEE ...
The paper consists of ve sections.
After the introduction, the theoretical back-
ground is presented in the second section.
Research methodology, ndings, and con-
clusions represent the following sections.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
AND THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
2.1. Internal communication - a
critical business function
Internal communication refers to ex-
changing and sharing knowledge between
employees (Chen and Cheng, 2012). It en-
compasses all communication processes,
enables organizational functioning, con-
nects employees (Gray and Laidlaw, 2002),
and brings about competitive advantage
(Gomes et al., 2011). Because of its strong
strategic orientation, the importance of in-
ternal communication goes beyond sim-
ple measures to inform the internal public.
Employees are considered a key source of
customer information and a signicant con-
tributor to revisit intentions for a hospital-
ity company (King, 2010). Therefore, de
Chernatony et al. (2006) advocate inu-
encing employee behavior through internal
communication to achieve employee under-
standing, acceptance, and internalization.
Internal communication is essential for
increasing employee satisfaction and pro-
ductivity (Cummings et al., 1983), regard-
less of its formality. Formal communication
includes all potential communication chan-
nels, including downstream or downlink
(Bartle and Grins, 2001; Miljković and
Rijavec, 2002), upward (Bartle and Grins,
2001), horizontal (Bartle and Grins,
2001), and lateral (Rossela and Stoica,
2012). Formal communication is need-
ed to regulate organizational functioning
regardless of the form used. According to
Perinić (2008), employees who rely on for-
mal and ocial sources sometimes do not
receive information on time or are misin-
formed, while informal communication
seems more credible and practical in daily
interactions. Informal communication about
the business is an independent exchange
of information and feelings among people
(Lesikar et al. 1993). Informal communi-
cation within an enterprise is inevitable
because when employees bring their prob-
lems to the workplace, this can cause spon-
taneous behavior. During their interactions,
colleagues nd they have similar views,
opinions, and values; they get to know each
other and, ultimately, become friends (Al
Eslami Kandlousi et al., 2010).
Dasgupta et al. (2012) noted the impor-
tance of managers in creating an environ-
ment where employees will love to work,
who may inuence working behavior and
direct employees to improve organizational
performance. The conversation factor is
commonly used in this respect, involving
communication with co-workers and other
internal and external stakeholders (Yang,
2015). In this author’s research, conducted
in Taiwan franchising hotel chains, com-
munication channels proved essential in
knowledge sharing. Results of a Spanish
study provide additional evidence that in-
ternal communication predicts the workers’
aective commitment towards the organi-
zation and that procedural justice mediates
this relationship (Gomes et al., 2011).
2.2. Internal communication and
employee satisfaction
Previous research has extensively ana-
lyzed the key drivers of employee satis-
faction. Jabeen and Isakovic (2018) found
that various organizational factors inu-
ence employees’ trust in top management

Journal of Contemporary Management Issues
4
and greater career satisfaction. Naim and
Lenka (2018) argued that competency de-
velopment is critical for aective com-
mitment and raises the chances of keeping
Generation Y employees. Job exibility
represents a vital ingredient of employee
satisfaction, primarily when younger em-
ployees are concerned, as Baeza et al.
(2018) reported.
On the other hand, job satisfaction in
the Chinese context is negatively related to
union participation and involvement (Hu
et al., 2018). Plester and Hutchison (2016)
studied fun and work engagement con-
cerning employee satisfaction. Their ex-
ploratory ndings suggest that fun in the
workplace can be viewed as a refreshing
change that positively impacts employee
satisfaction. Tews et al. (2015) examined
workplace fun among millennials concern-
ing workplace engagement and found that
workplace fun was the most important pre-
dictor of workplace engagement. Lahap et
al. (2016) examined the impact of internal
communication on improving service qual-
ity and delivery in the Malaysian hotel in-
dustry from internal market orientation.
Internal communication is one of the four
critical factors to enhance the quality of
service and delivery. Tkalac Verčič and
Pološki Vokić (2017) proved that satisfac-
tion with internal communication inuences
employee engagement. Additional evidence
that the engagement starts to improve as
managers recognize the importance of in-
ternal communication (Ruck and Trainor,
2012).
Job satisfaction inuences employees’
commitment and performance in labor-
intensive industries, such as tourism and
hospitality. Thus, satisfaction is crucial
for service quality and productivity, and
protability.
The most inuential conceptual para-
digm for understanding workplace behav-
iors is the social exchange theory, based
on the central premise that the exchange of
resources is a foundation for human interac-
tion (Blau, 1964). Organizational support
theory, derived from social exchange theo-
ry, explains how organizational support in-
uences employee behavior (Eisenberger et
al., 1986). In this way, commitments arise
when interdependent parties interact (Saks,
2006).
Further development of ICT and modes
of communication among employees and
between employees and managers may in-
uence the communication experience.
Smartphones and their eects on com-
munication are studied by Obushenkova
et al. (2018). Their key ndings show that
smartphones extend the reach of work for
employees and managers to osite loca-
tions and outside of working hours, result-
ing in the employees’ and managers’ feeling
of pressure to be constantly connected to
work, even if this is not expected.
Downs and Hazen (1977) conrmed
the connection between employee satisfac-
tion with the workplace and internal com-
munication. Still, they noted that it varies
depending on whether the employees are
managers or non-managerial employees.
Their research suggests that some forms of
workplace fun provide a break that posi-
tively impacts individual employees, lead-
ing to greater engagement in the workplace
and at work. Employees experience their
work as a form of fun and a particular form
of engagement known as ow (Plester and
Hutchison, 2014).
Wang’s (2012) research of the hotel
chain has conrmed that the quality of in-
ternal communication has a positive and
signicant impact on workers’ satisfac-
tion in international tourism hotels. While

5
Management, Vol. 27, 2022, No. 1, pp. 1-16
A. Čuić Tanković, I. Bilić, I. Brajković: INTERNAL COMMUNICATION AND EMPLOYEE ...
studying workers in the Indian manufac-
turing industry, Dasgupta et al. (2012) re-
alized that higher employee satisfaction
with communication fosters a strong emo-
tional bond with organizations, resulting in
lower employee absenteeism rates. Steyn,
Steyn, and van Rooyen (2011) investigate
internal communication in a South African
branch oce from a two-way symmetrical
internal communication model. The results
show that eective internal communication
and corporate eciency can be improved
through adjustments to corporate culture
and the nature of internal communication.
Gray and Laidlaw (2002) analyzed part-
time employees who are not included in
mainstream communication and are less
satised than full-time employees in an
Australian retail organization. Initially,
companies did not see employee satisfac-
tion as being very important. However,
this began to change rapidly, once employ-
ers became aware that employee satisfac-
tion and the company’s overall success are
closely related. Service organizations know
that customer satisfaction and loyalty de-
pend on how rst-rate employees deal with
clients.
The starting point in a study by Ruiz-
Alba et al. (2014) related to the hotel in-
dustry is that only satised employees can
produce happy customers. Moreover, they
consider internal marketing orientation and
internal communication essential employee
satisfaction factors. Employees in the tour-
ism and hospitality industry have the abili-
ties and intentions to drive organizational
initiatives, as the industry is labor-intensive
and service-based (King, 2010).
According to the theoretical framework,
it can be concluded that communication can
aect job satisfaction and further empirical
evidence is necessary to corroborate this
impact. Previous research has not analyzed
this connection through the dimensions of
internal communication with superiors and
colleagues. Based on these considerations,
we posit the following hypotheses (Figure
1):
H1: Communication with superiors has
a positive eect on job satisfaction.
H2: Communication with colleagues has
a positive eect on job satisfaction.
Figure 1. Research model

Journal of Contemporary Management Issues
6
3. METHODS
3.1. Questionnaire design
This study focused on the employees of
hotel facilities using the survey method on a
convenient sample. Primary data collection
was based on a self-administered question-
naire, consisting of three question blocks,
adapted from previous studies (To et al.,
2015; Ruiz-Alba et al., 2014; Bolfek et al.,
2017; Bamboriki, 2010). The rst group
of questions explores job satisfaction, the
second part is related to formal and infor-
mal internal communication with the man-
agement, and the last one refers to internal
communication with colleagues. The ques-
tions in these sections were measured using
the 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1)
“strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree.”
The last section of questions centered on
sociodemographic characteristics, with
close-ended questions regarding the re-
spondents’ sex, age, level of education, and
the length of time they have been with the
current organization.
3.2. Data collection and sample
characteristics
The hotel industry was chosen as a re-
search area because, although employee
satisfaction is crucial for the success of
hotel companies, employee turnover and
the intention to quit have been identied as
signicant problems (Silva, 2006; Agušaj
and Čuić Tanković, 2016). Another reason
is that the hotel industry in Croatia is be-
coming one of the leading economic sec-
tors in the country, as is the case worldwide
(Gržinić, 2008).
In agreement with the hotel manage-
ment, the employees of two hotels were
asked to complete the questionnaire. The
hotels will be named Hotel A and B. The
relevant context of the selected hotels
(Molina-Azorin et al., 2009) is similar: both
have the same four-star rating, and their
size, measured by the number of rooms, is
comparable, as well. Hotel A has 302 rooms
and 23 suites, while Hotel B has 236 rooms
and 12 suites. Hotels A and B are also ali-
ated with the same hotel chain and operate
in the same geographical location. In this
way, any dierences in organizational cul-
ture and geographical location would not
aect the measured variables. The research
sample was selected from the ranks of em-
ployees, according to the decision of the ho-
tel management. Data were collected by on-
site research. The survey was conducted on
a sample of 184 employees, 119 from Hotel
A and 65 from Hotel B. The descriptive sta-
tistics were computed using IBM SPSS 22,
while the PLS-SEM analysis was conducted
using the Smart PLS 3.0.
Table 1 indicates the age, sex, educa-
tion degree, and average time with the or-
ganization for the survey participants. Out
of the total number of respondents in Hotel
A, most respondents are between 31 and 50
(51.86%). In Hotel B, the age of most re-
spondents ranges from 22 to 40 (54.27%).
The proportion of female respondents was
higher than the proportion of male par-
ticipants in both hotels (63.41%). The
qualication structure shows a signicant
dominance of employees with secondary
school qualications, 75.69% in Hotel A
and 61.65% in Hotel B out of 70.72% par-
ticipants who answered this question. The
largest group of respondents has been work-
ing in Hotel A for 11 to 15 years (21.36%),
while the employees in Hotel B are much
younger: 55.16% have not been in the or-
ganization for more than ten years.

7
Management, Vol. 27, 2022, No. 1, pp. 1-16
A. Čuić Tanković, I. Bilić, I. Brajković: INTERNAL COMMUNICATION AND EMPLOYEE ...
Table 1. Sample demographic characteristics
Measure and item Hotel A
(% within Hotel A)
Hotel B
(% within Hotel B)
Cumulative
(% within Hotel A and B)
Age 18-21 02.78 05.08 03.66
22-30 24.09 35.59 28.05
31-40 25 28.82 26.22
41-50 26.86 20.33 24.39
51-60 21.27 10.17 17.68
61 and over 00000
Gender Female 58.5 72.88 63.41
Male 41.5 27.12 36.59
Educational
level
Elementary school 13.46 03.33 09.76
Secondary
qualications
75.96 61.67 70.72
Two-year post-
secondary/bachelor’s
qualication
5.77 16.67 09.76
Higher education/
master’s
qualications
04.81 18.33 09.76
MBAs, MScs, PhDs 0000 00
Average
years spent
in the
company
Up to 5 years 18.45 27.58 21.87
5 to 10 years 15.53 27.58 18.75
11 to 15 years 21.36 13.79 18.75
16 to 20 years 19.42 12.09 16.88
21 to 25 years 13.59 13.79 13.75
More than 25 years 11.65 05.17 9.37
3.3. Results
Structural equation modeling, us-
ing partial least squares (PLS-SEM), was
used in this study. This is a non-parametric
method that allows dierent relationships
between constructs even in small samples
(Reinartz et al., 2009). A comprehensive
model of the relationships between commu-
nication with the superiors and colleagues
that inuence employee satisfaction was
designed as a rst-order reective model
(or outwards direct model). The reec-
tive indicators can be considered mutually
interchangeable without compromising con-
tent validity (Jarvis et al., 2003).
Before analyzing the structural model,
the evaluation of the measurement model
was conducted. All manifest variables were
checked for outliers to ensure the reliabil-
ity and validity of the measurement scales.
No variable has a standard deviation value
greater than +/-3 from the arithmetic mean
in this model. The proposed measurement
model describes the relationship between
the constructs and is assessed by examining
internal consistency (Composite Reliability

Journal of Contemporary Management Issues
8
- CR and Cronbach’s alpha coecient),
convergent validity with the average vari-
ance extracted (AVE), and factor loadings.
The outer loadings for one indicator in the
Job satisfaction factor were less than 0.4, so
it was eliminated (Table 2).
Table 2. Measurement model analysis
Item Outer loadings Standard Error t-value
Formal communication with superiors
Cronbach Alpha 0.866; C.R. 0.904; AVE 0.653
The company has regular sta appraisals where people
discuss what the employees want. 0.707 0.055 12.197
Managers interact formally and directly with employees to
nd out how to satisfy employees. 0.861 0.031 25.100
Managers meet with employees regularly to nd out the
expectations of their jobs. 0.868 0.034 23.208
The company surveys employees at least once a year to
assess the quality of employment. 0.804 0.053 13.234
Managers respect employees’ suggestions and remarks. 0.791 0.031 26.120
Informal communication with superiors
Cronbach Alpha 0.899; C.R. 0.930; AVE 0.768
Our manager regularly talks to us to nd out about our
work. 0.868 0.030 27.656
When our manager notices that we are acting dierently
than usual, they will try to nd out why. 0.884 0.040 19.760
Our manager tries to nd out what we want from the com-
pany when at work. 0.898 0.025 32.634
Our manager tries to nd out our real feelings about jobs
at work. 0.854 0.043 17.888
Communication with colleagues
Cronbach Alpha 0.937; C.R. 0.939; AVE 0.654
I’m happy with the communication with my colleagues. 0.761 0.053 14.602
I enjoy open communication with my colleagues. 0.775 0.049 15.719
The information I obtain from colleagues is reliable. 0.773 0.045 16.969
My colleagues always listen carefully when I address them. 0.845 0.024 36.264
My colleagues always understand what I want to say. 0.861 0.031 25.830
In my workplace, internal communication with colleagues
encourages productivity. 0.810 0.024 35.716
Internal communication with colleagues at my workplace
aects guest satisfaction. 0.864 0.062 11.890
Communicating with colleagues is essential to the well-
being of my organization. 0.741 0.062 11.210
I consider that my colleagues consider my opinions, sug-
gestions, and ideas. 0.865 0.024 36.456

9
Management, Vol. 27, 2022, No. 1, pp. 1-16
A. Čuić Tanković, I. Bilić, I. Brajković: INTERNAL COMMUNICATION AND EMPLOYEE ...
Job satisfaction
Cronbach Alpha 0.930; C.R. 0.936; AVE 0.507
I’m satised with the amount and quality of information
I get about the strategy and purpose of the company’s
business.
0.726 0.040 18.019
I am more likely to get information from a manager related
to their actions, achievements, and successes than a col-
league.
0.716 0.035 20.680
I get enough information on whether I am doing my job
correctly. 0.749 0.034 22.561
My superior listens to me when I talk to them. 0.688 0.052 13.375
I’m happy with the information ow in the company. 0.782 0.271 1.019
I get feedback on how I’m doing my job. 0.729 0.046 16.106
I follow the news of the company I work for. 0.676 0.050 13.164
The information I receive from my supervisor is reliable. 0.672 0.055 12.162
My knowledge and talents have been suciently utilized
in this workplace. 0.661 0.064 10.281
I receive acknowledgments for my work. 0.662 0.052 12.911
I have all the materials and equipment I need to do the job
I’m doing. 0.672 0.056 12.328
I’m happy with the job I’m doing. 0.713 0.044 16.496
I’m satised with the support I receive from the company. 0.768 0.030 25.928
I’m satised with the career opportunities I have in this
company. 0.748 0.031 24.375
I’m happy with the relationship I have with my bosses. 0.706 0.049 14.847
The bootstrap procedure was based on
500 subsamples. The outer loadings of the
constructs exceed the recommended value
of 0.7, except for one indicator in the con-
struct ‘Formal communication with superi-
ors’ and ve indicators in the construct’ Job
satisfaction,’ ranging from 0.6 to 0.7. These
values for manifest variables are consid-
ered acceptable in social sciences (Hair et
al., 2013). The C.R. values are above the
recommended 0.7 and range from 0.904 to
0.939. The AVE values are all above 0.5
and range from 0.507 to 0.768. Therefore,
internal consistency of reliability and con-
vergent validity were tested (Hair et al.,
2013).
Table 3 shows the heterotrait-monotrait
ratio (HTMT) of the correlations used to as-
sess discriminant validity. The HTMT ratio
ranges from 0.492 to 0.783, below the rec-
ommended threshold of 0.9.

Journal of Contemporary Management Issues
10
Table 3. Heterotrait-monotrait correlations
Satisfaction
Informal
communication
with superiors
Formal
communication
with superiors
Communication
with colleagues
Satisfaction
Informal communication with
superiors 0.685
Formal communication with
management 0.715 0.783
Communication with colleagues 0.579 0.618 0.492
The measurement model results show
a satisfactory level of discriminant validity
and internal consistency of reliability.
4. FINDINGS
4.1. Hypotheses testing
The structural model’s parameters statis-
tical signicance was established using the
bootstrapping technique (500 sub-samples).
Table 4 shows the results of the structural
model analysis.
Table 4. Structural estimates
Hypotheses
Original sample-
standardized
coecient
t-value f2 – eect
size R2Accepted
hypotheses
H1 Communication with
superiors  Satisfaction 0.570 8.686 0.473
0.527
Accepted*
H2 Communication with
colleagues  Satisfaction 0.229 3.013 0.076 Accepted**
* p<0.001
** p<0.05
The analytical results indicate that com-
munication with superiors (i.e., formal and
informal) and colleagues inuence employ-
ee satisfaction. In line with the model anal-
ysis, all the hypotheses are accepted. The
construct of communication with superiors
has a statistically signicant positive eect
on satisfaction (β=0.570; [0.240-0.834]),
as well as communication with colleagues
on satisfaction (β=0.229; [0.008-0.223],
p<0.05). Together they explain 52.7% of
the variance, which is moderate. The f2 ef-
fect size of communication with superiors
is 0.473, which is considered, according
to Cohen (1988), a large eect size, while
communication with colleagues is 0.076,
which can be regarded as a small eect size.
The standardized root mean square re-
sidual (SRMR) value was calculated to as-
sess the quality of the structural model.
Its value is 0.084, indicating a sucient

11
Management, Vol. 27, 2022, No. 1, pp. 1-16
A. Čuić Tanković, I. Bilić, I. Brajković: INTERNAL COMMUNICATION AND EMPLOYEE ...
structural model adjustment level to empiri-
cal data because it is below the recommend-
ed threshold of 0.1.
5. DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION
The primary focus of this paper is to
provide educators, managers, and all inter-
ested parties with an insight into the rela-
tionship between internal communication
with superiors and colleagues and employee
satisfaction. This study shows that both
types of communication (communication
with managers and colleagues) positively
impact job satisfaction, with communica-
tion with superiors having a more signi-
cant impact, explaining the largest amount
of variance. Contrary to the dominant re-
search area that analyzes the manager per-
ception of internal communication (Ruck
and Welch, 2012; Marques, 2010) and em-
ployee engagement (Wiley et al., 2010;
Tkalac Verčič and Pološki Vokić, 2017), we
assessed internal communication with supe-
riors and colleagues with job satisfaction.
Previous research, conducted in dier-
ent environments and under other condi-
tions, has proved that employee satisfaction
depends on communication within an or-
ganization. Yang (2015) nds conversation
an essential medium in internal communi-
cation, while Dasgupta et al. (2012) noted
the importance of managers in employee
satisfaction, where communication plays
an important role. Chen and Cheng (2012)
nd internal communication an essential
way of exchanging knowledge, sharing in-
formation, and ensuring that employees
perceive themselves as part of the organi-
zation. Wang’s (2012) research of the hotel
chain has conrmed that the quality of in-
ternal communication has a positive and
signicant impact on workers’ satisfaction
in international tourism hotels. Prikshat et
al. (2020) explored the inuence of trans-
formational leadership on follower growth
satisfaction through follower interpersonal
communication satisfaction and trust in the
hospitality industry. A positive relationship
was found between interpersonal commu-
nication and growth satisfaction in the job.
However, no study has identied the dier-
ence between communication with supe-
riors and colleagues to the best of the au-
thors’ knowledge.
In line with Gomes, Fernandes, and
Sobreira (2011), who found that internal
communication is essential in keeping em-
ployees connected with the organization,
this survey explains the importance of com-
munication in achieving employee job satis-
faction. Similarly, the results conrm simi-
lar prior research, which found evidence
regarding interpersonal communication
and job satisfaction (Vermeir et al., 2018;
Malik, 2011).
5.1. Practical implications
In the 21st century, managers should
search for ways to attract and retain good
employees, where employee satisfaction
plays a key role. One of the challenges for
all organizations, particularly in the hospi-
tality industry, will be managing and retain-
ing dierent generations to work together
and achieve satisfaction with the same lead-
ership or management approach.
In a setting with open communication,
interaction, discussion, and consultation
among employees are possible, thus facili-
tating the organization’s sharing of knowl-
edge and empowerment. In this way, em-
ployers can improve their communication
skills, and employees can enjoy better work
communication, which leads to greater
work satisfaction.

Journal of Contemporary Management Issues
12
Regular improvements in internal com-
munication make employees more ecient
and increase the likelihood that they will
relate to the job with dedication and pas-
sion. The feeling that their contribution is
appreciated increases the motivation and
desire for constant progress. Satised em-
ployees create an environment that is desir-
able to work in and increases the company’s
competitive advantage, which should be the
common mission of all businesses.
Managers’ and employees’ communica-
tion skills need to be constantly improved,
as the ability to communicate eciently
is indispensable in the hotel business.
Understanding communication skills are
fundamental to personal and social develop-
ment through constant interaction with the
environment. Therefore, organizations in
the hospitality industry can facilitate inter-
nal communication using various internet
platforms, apps, and other communication
technologies. Facilitating communication
upward, employees will share condential
and operational information with superiors
and colleagues.
5.2. Research limitations
The limitations of this study oer op-
portunities for future research. Although a
national sample was used in this research,
its implications and results may be valuable
for researchers in other tourist countries. It
would also be interesting to test whether
there are any dierences in responses if
the survey was conducted outside the ho-
tel. That could contribute to a more open
atmosphere of dialogue and sincerity in
the answers. Future studies can innovate
the research methodology to avoid the em-
ployees’ self-reports, raising concerns about
self-serving bias.
It will be helpful for future studies to
reduce problems arising from potential
common-method bias by using multiple
data sources and larger samples. Further
research could include the inuence of ICT
in communication with both superiors and
colleagues and the variables moderating the
relationship between communication and
satisfaction, which the present paper did not
examine.
By establishing successful communica-
tion with superiors and colleagues for job
satisfaction, future research could explore
new dimensions of colleagues’ motivation,
support, and information trust, according to
informal and formal interpersonal commu-
nication. Due to the competitive environ-
ment in the hospitality industry and arising
importance of internal communication, fu-
ture studies can include large measures and
sub-factors of the presented factors to ad-
vance this area of research.
REFERENCES
1. Agušaj, B. and Čuić Tanković, A.
(2016). The relationship between em-
ployee intention to quit and perceived
corporate reputation in user-generated
content in hotel industry. Conference
Proceedings of the International
Scientic Conference, University Juraj
Dobrila, Pula, 183-192.
2. Al Eslami Kandlousi, N.S., Ali,
A.J. and Abdollahi, A. (2010).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
in Concern of Communication
Satisfaction: The Role of the Formal
and Informal Communication.
International Journal of Business and
Management, 5(10), 51-61.
3. Antolović, K. and Sviličić N. (2016).
Interpersonal communication. K&K
Promocija, Zagreb
4. Baeza, M. A., Gonzalez, J. A. and
Wang, Y. (2018). Job exibility and

13
Management, Vol. 27, 2022, No. 1, pp. 1-16
A. Čuić Tanković, I. Bilić, I. Brajković: INTERNAL COMMUNICATION AND EMPLOYEE ...
job satisfaction among Mexican pro-
fessionals: a socio-cultural explanation.
Employee Relations, 40(5), 921-942.
5. Bamporiki, A. (2010). The impact of
internal communication on guest sat-
isfaction in hospitality establishments
in Cape Town. Faculty of Business
at the Cape Peninsula University of
Technology, Master thesis
6. Bartle, J. and Griths, D. (2001).
Power as well as Persuasion: politi-
cal communication and Party develop-
ment. available at: https://dspace.lboro.
ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/1093
(accessed 07 February 2019)
7. Blau, P. (1964). Power and exchange
in social life. J Wiley & Sons, United
States of America.
8. Bolfek B., Milković V., Lukavac, M.
(2017). Inuence of internal commu-
nication to satisfaction of employee at
a workplace, Oeconomica Jadertina,
7(1), 16-27.
9. Borca, C. and Baesu, V. (2014).,
A Possible Managerial Approach
for Internal Organizational
Communication Characterization.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 124, 496-403.
10. Bovée, C.L. and Thill J.V. (2012).
Contemporary business communica-
tion. MATE d.o.o., Zagreb
11. Carpenter, M. A., Bauer, T., Erdogan,
B. and Short, J. (2010). Principles of
management. Flat World Knowledge
12. Chen, W.J. and Cheng, H.Y. (2012).
Factors aecting the knowledge shar-
ing attitude of hotel service personnel.
International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 31(2), 468-476.
13. Cummings, HW, Long, LW, & Lewis,
ML (1983). Managing communica-
tion in organizations: An introduction.
Dubuque, Gorsuch-Scarisbrick.
14. Cushman, D.P., and Cahn, D.D.Jr.
(1985). Communication in
Interpersonal Relationships. State
University of New York Press, Albany
15. Dasgupta, S. A., Suar, D. and Singh, S.
(2012). Impact of managerial commu-
nication styles on employees’ attitudes
and behaviours. Employee Relations,
35(2), 173-199.
16. De Chernatony, L., Cottam, S. and
Segal-Horn, S. (2006). Communicating
services brands’ values internally and
externally. The Service Industries
Journal, 26(8), 819-836.
17. Diamantopoulos, A. (2011).
Incorporating formative measures
into covariance-based structural equa-
tion models. MIS Quarterly, 35(2),
335-358.
18. Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer,
H.M. (2001). Index construction
with formative indicators: an alterna-
tive to scale development. Journal of
Marketing Research, 38(2), 269-277.
19. Downs, C. W. and Hazen, M. D.
(1977). A factor analytic study of com-
munication satisfaction. The Journal of
Business Communication, 14(3), 63-73.
20. Eisenberg, E.M., Goodall H.L.Jr. and
Trethewey A. (2010). Organizational
communication: Balancing Creativity
and Constraint. Bedford St. Martins,
Boston
21. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R.,
Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986).
Perceived organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3),
500-507.
22. Gomes, D.R., Fernandes, J.L. and
Sobreira, R.M.C. (2011). Promoting
a path for organizational competitive-
ness: the role of internal communi-
cation. Exedra: Revista Cientíca, 1,
55-78.

Journal of Contemporary Management Issues
14
23. Gray, J. and Laidlaw, H. (2002). Part-
time employment and communication
satisfaction in an Australian retail or-
ganization. Employee Relations, 24(2),
211-228.
24. Grzinic, J. (2008). Trends in Croatian
hotel industry. Management and
Marketing Journal, 6(1), 122-128.
25. Hair, J.F. Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.
and Sarstedt, M. (2013). A Primer
on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks
26. Henseler, J. and Sarstedt, M. (2013).
Goodness-of-t indices for partial least
squares path modelling. Computational
Statistics, 28(2), 565-580.
27. Hu, E., Zhang, M., Shan, H., Zhang,
L. and Yue, Y. (2018). Job satis-
faction and union participation in
China: Developing and testing a me-
diated moderation model. Employee
Relations, 40(6), 964-980.
28. Ingram, H. and Desombre, T. (1999).
Teamwork: comparing academ-
ic and practitioners’ perceptions.
Team Performance Management: An
International Journal, 5(1), 16-22.
29. Jabeen, F. and Isakovic, A. A. (2018).
Examining the impact of organization-
al culture on trust and career satisfac-
tion in the UAE public sector: A com-
peting values perspective. Employee
Relations, 40(6), 1036-1053.
30. Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and
Podsako, P.M. (2003). A critical re-
view of construct indicators and mea-
surement model misspecication in
marketing and consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2),
199-218.
31. King, C. (2010). One size doesn’t
t all: Tourism and hospitality em-
ployees’ response to internal brand
management. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 22(4), 517-534.
32. Koontz, H., O‘Donnell C. and
Weihrich, H. (1980). Management:
A Book of Readings. Anybook Ltd.,
United Kingdom
33. Kraljević, R., Perkov D. (2014).
Communication management marke-
ting. Libertas – Plejada, Zagreb
34. Lahap, J., O’Mahony, B. and
Dalrymple, J. (2016). The importance
of communication in improving ser-
vice delivery and service quality in the
Malaysian hotel industry. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224,
213-220.
35. Lesikar, R.V., Pettit J.D. and Flatley
M.E. (1993). Basic business communi-
cation. IRWIN, Burr Ridge.
36. Lunenburg, F.C. (2010).
Communication: The Process,
Barriers, And Improving Eectiveness.
Schooling, 1(1), 1-11.
37. Malik, N. I. (2011). Level of job sat-
isfaction among university and
college men and women teach-
ers. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business,
3(3), 750–758.
38. Marchington, M., & Suter, J. (2013).
Where informality really matters:
Patterns of employee involvement
and participation (EIP) in a non‐union
rm. Industrial Relations: A Journal of
Economy and Society, 52, 284-313.
39. Marques, J. F. (2010). Enhancing the
quality of organizational communi-
cation. Journal of Communication
Management, 14(1), 47-58.
40. Miljković, D. and Rijavec, M. (2002).
Communication in organization. IEP
d.o.o., Zagreb

15
Management, Vol. 27, 2022, No. 1, pp. 1-16
A. Čuić Tanković, I. Bilić, I. Brajković: INTERNAL COMMUNICATION AND EMPLOYEE ...
41. Molina-Azorín, J. F., Claver-Cortés,
E., Pereira-Moliner, J. and Tarí, J.
J. (2009). Environmental practic-
es and rm performance: an em-
pirical analysis in the Spanish ho-
tel industry. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 17(5), 516-524.
42. Naim, M. F. and Lenka, U. (2018).
Development and retention of
Generation Y employees: a conceptual
framework. Employee Relations, 40(2),
433-455.
43. Obushenkova, E., Plester, B. and
Haworth, N. (2018). Manager-
employee psychological contracts:
enter the smartphone. Employee
Relations, 40(2), 193-207.
44. Pende, H. (2013). Croatian Tourism
- Identity Management. Hrvatska
sveučilišna naknada, Zagreb
45. Perinić, J. (2008). Business communi-
cation paradigm. Sveučilišna knjižara
d.o.o., Zagreb
46. Plester, B. and Hutchison A. (2016).
Fun times: the relationship between fun
and workplace engagement. Employee
Relations, 38(3), 332-350.
47. Politis, Y., Litos, C., Grigoroudis, E.
and Moustakis, V.S. (2009). A business
excellence model for the hotel sector:
implementation to high-class Greek ho-
tels. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 16 (4), 462-483.
48. Prikshat, V., Rajesh, J. I., and Rajaguru,
R. (2020). The growth satisfaction in
jobs among hospitality employees: the
role of transformational leadership, in-
terpersonal communication satisfaction
and trust. Journal of Human Resources
in Hospitality & Tourism, 1-27
49. Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M. and
Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical
comparison of the ecacy of covari-
ance-based and variance-based SEM.
International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 26(4), 332-344.
50. Rossela, N. and Stoica, I. (2012).
Internal communication – a prereq-
uisite for organizational eective-
ness. Holistic Marketing Management
Journal, 2(3), 45-50.
51. Ruck, K., & Trainor, S. (2012).
Developing internal communica-
tion practice that supports employ-
ee engagement. 1–25. Retrieved
from: http://www.pracademy.
co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/
Developing-Internal-Communication-
Practice-That-Supports-Employee-
Engagement-July-2012.pdf
52. Ruck, K., and Welch, M. (2012).
Valuing internal communication;
management and employee perspec-
tives. Public Relations Review, 38(2),
294-302.
53. Ruiz-Alba, J., Bermúdez-González, G.,
Rodríguez-Molina, M.A. and Blanca,
M.J. (2014). Internal Marketing
Orientation: an empirical research in
hotel sector. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 38, 11- 19.
54. Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents
and consequences of employee en-
gagement. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(6), 600-19.
55. Silva, P. (2006). Eects of disposi-
tion on hospitality employee job satis-
faction and commitment. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 18(4), 317-328.
56. Steyn, E., Steyn, T.F.J. and van
Rooyen, M. (2011). Internal commu-
nication at DaimlerChrysler South
Africa: A qualitative perspective on
two-way symmetrical communica-
tion and internal marketing. Journal
of Marketing Development and
Competitiveness, 5(4), 131-144.

Journal of Contemporary Management Issues
16
57. Tews, M. J., Michel, J., Xu, S. and
Drost, A. J. (2015). Workplace fun
matters…but what else?. Employee
Relations, 37(2), 248-267.
58. Tixier, M. (1994). Management and
Communication Styles in Europe:
Can They Be Compared and Matched.
Employee Relations, 16(1), 8-26.
59. To, W. M., Martin Jr, E. F. and Billy, T.
W. (2015). Eect of management com-
mitment to internal marketing on em-
ployee work attitude. International
Journal of Hospitality Management,
45, 14-21.
60. Townsend, K., Wilkinson, A., and
Burgess, J. (2013). Filling the gaps:
Patterns of formal and informal par-
ticipation. Economic and Industrial
Democracy, 34(2), 337-354.
61. Verčič, A. T., and Vokić, N. P. (2017).
Engaging employees through inter-
nal communication. Public Relations
Review, 43(5), 885-893.
62. Vermeir, P., Downs, C., Degroote,
S., Vandijck, D., Tobback, E.,
Delesie, L., Vogelaers, D. (2018).
Intraorganizational communication and
job satisfaction among Flemish hospi-
tal nurses: An exploratory multicent-
er study. Workplace Health & Safety,
66(1), pp. 16–23.
63. Wang, G.L. (2012). The inuence of
internal service quality on employee
job satisfaction at Taiwan-listed inter-
national tourist hotels: using organisa-
tional culture as the moderator. World
Transactions on Engineering and
Technology Education, 10(3), 174-183.
64. Wiley, J. W., Kowske, B. J., and
Herman, A. E. (2010). Developing
and validating a global model of em-
ployee engagement. in: Albrecht, S. L.
(Ed.): Handbook of employee engage-
ment: Perspectives, issues, research
and practice, Edward Elgar Publishing,
351-363.
65. Yang, J.T. (2015). Eect of internal
marketing on knowledge sharing and
organisational eectiveness in the ho-
tel industry. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, 26(1-2), 76-92.
INTERNA KOMUNIKACIJA I ZADOVOLJSTVO
ZAPOSLENIKA U HOTELIJERSTVU
Sažetak
Svrha ovog rada je istražiti utjecaj interne
komunikacijena zadovoljstvo zaposlenika u hote-
lijerstvu, s aspekata komunikacije s menadžerima
i kolegama.. Prikupljanje podataka je provedeno
na uzorku zaposlenika dvaju hotelskih objeka-
ta – članova istog hotelskog lanca, s jednakom
kategorizacijom. Primjenom metode strukturnih
jednadžbi (PLS-SEM), rezultati istraživanja uka-
zuju na to da obje vrste komunikacije pozitivno
utječu na zadovoljstvo zaposlenika.
Ključne riječi: zadovoljstvo poslom, komu-
nikacija s nadređenima, komunikacija s kolega-
ma, hotelijerstvo