595

1 INTRODUCTION

Working at sea comes with some specific hardships,

such as periodic separations from family and friends

and a close coexistence with coworkers on a limited

space around the clock. On passenger vessels, about

70 percent of the staff on board works in the service

department. The frequent need to interact with

customers is a well-known stressor in that it adds

additional pressure to the work situation. This type of

work is commonly referred to as ‘emotional labor’

(Hochschild, 1983), implying that the crew is not only

involved in the daily ‘role play’ towards their

coworkers, but also towards passengers on the vessels

(Tracy, 2000).

Previous research has shown that the staff in the

service department on passenger ships expresses a

higher degree of exertion compared to the staff in

other departments on board (Österman & Hult, 2016,

Praetorius et al., 2018, Österman et al., 2020). Service

staff also display higher levels of long sick leaves and

work-related diagnosis (Hult et al., 2017, Österman et

al., 2020). Given these circumstances and the potential

risk of high turnover of staff, it is important to

examine the level to which the crews on passenger

vessels are satisfied with their work and committed to

their workplace.

The present study focuses on the pattern of

organizational commitment and job satisfaction

among seafarers registered at the Swedish Transport

Agency, and provides a comparison of seafarers

working on passenger vessels to those working on

other types of vessels.

The Committed Service Crew – The Impact of Passenger

Proximity on Organizational Commitment and Job

Satisfaction

Sandberg, C. Hult, C. Österman & G. Praetorius

Kalmar Maritime Academy, Linnaeus University, Sweden

ABSTRACT: The present study focuses on the pattern of organizational commitment and job satisfaction

among seafarers working on passenger vessels, compared to those working on board other types of ships. The

dependent variable in the study is organizational commitment. Work position, age and job satisfaction are used

as independent variables. The question posed in this study is whether the pattern of organizational

commitment and job satisfaction differ depending on the proximity to passengers. The material is based on a

survey sent to a random sample of seafarers in the Swedish Transport Agency’s register of seafarers. It has been

analyzed with descriptive statistics and multivariate regressions comparing the two categories of vessels. The

results show that organizational commitment is higher on passenger vessels, while the effect of job satisfaction

on organizational commitment is slightly higher for ships that do not carry passengers. For managers in the

service department, the level of commitment is to a higher extent dependent on job satisfaction. Development

and communication of career options and opportunities for the service crew is suggested as a way to enhance

organizational commitment and job satisfaction among this group.

http://www.transnav.eu

the

International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Trans

portation

Volume 14

Number 3

September 2020

DOI:

10.12716/1001.14.03.10

596

The dependent variable in the study is

organizational commitment, which refers to an

employees’ degree of commitment and loyalty

towards the employing company (Porter et al., 1974;

Steers, 1977; Mottaz, 1987).

Job satisfaction is viewed, in line with earlier

research (e.g. Mottaz 1987; Hult, 2005), as an

independent variable and as an emotional response to

a work situation (Steers, 1984). Organizational

commitment and job satisfaction has been studied in

numerous work settings within many different

domains (Porter et al., 1974; Kalleberg, 1977,

Kalleberg & Reve, 1992; Kallberg & Mastekaasa, 1993;

Mottaz, 1987; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).

Previous research in the maritime domain has

either focused on organizational commitment in

different departments on merchant ships (Hult &

Snöberg, 2014), or on job satisfaction in the cruise

sector (Larsen et al., 2012; Testa, 2001; Testa et al.,

2003; Testa & Mueller, 2009). There is to this date no

systematic research on organizational commitment

and job satisfaction focusing on passenger vessels in a

comparison to other types of vessels. In fact, more

research has focused on the situation for the

passengers on passenger vessels than on the people

who work in this environment (Dragin et al., 2014).

1.1 Aim and research question

The aim of this study is to compare the pattern of

organizational commitment and job satisfaction

experienced by crew working on passenger vessels,

compared to crew working on other types of ships.

The article will thus answer the following research

question; does the pattern of organizational

commitment and job satisfaction differ depending on

the proximity to passengers?

2 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

This section discusses organizational commitment

and job satisfaction. First, as theoretical concepts, and

second, how these concepts have been applied to

research in the hospitality sector and the shipping

domain.

2.1 Organizational commitment and job satisfaction

Organizational commitment has been studied in

different settings over the years (Meyer & Allen, 2001,

Mottaz, 1987; 1988; Porter et al., 1974; Steers, 1977,

1984). Briefly, displaying a strong organizational

commitment would mean that an employee holds a

positive attitude towards the organization where they

are working (Mottaz, 1987; 1988). Porter et al. (1974)

defines organizational commitment as the extent to

which an employee accepts and believes in the

organization’s goals, and to what extent they are

willing to make efforts to pursue those goals (Porter

et al, 1974: 604). More clearly speaking, organizational

commitment means that the employee is willing to ‘go

the extra mile’ for the company. Steers (1977) has

defined the concept as “the relative strength of and

individual’s identification with and involvement in a

particular organization” (Steers, 1977: 46).

Organizational commitment relates closely to job

satisfaction (Mottaz, 1987; Matieu & Zajac, 1990; Hult,

2005). The latter can be defined as whether the

employee holds an emotional positive or negative

response to work situations (Steers, 1984: 428 - 444).

Organizational commitment is usually more stable

over time and correlates with the degree of perceived

intrinsic rewards, such as autonomy in work, and

support from co-workers and managers. Job

satisfaction, on the other hand, depends to a greater

degree on ‘hard factors’, or extrinsic benefits, such as

work environment, work tasks and wage level

(Mottaz, 1987). It has been suggested that compared

to organizational commitment, job satisfaction may

oscillate quite rapidly depending on changes in the

work environment (Mowday et al., 1979). In addition,

it is generally viewed that job satisfaction causes

organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990:

184). However, although job satisfaction is commonly

viewed as a strong predictor of organizational

commitment it is only one of many possible factors

(Steers, 1984: 442; Hult, 2005).

2.2 Previous research on job satisfaction and

organizational commitment in the hospitality sector

Job satisfaction has been widely studied in the

hospitality sector, where a substantial part has dealt

with the positive correlation between work

satisfaction and customer satisfaction (Gazolli et al.,

2010, Pantouvakis & Bouranta, 2013; Ugboro &

Obeng, 2000; Wiley, 1991). Studies on job satisfaction

within the hospitality sector has also shown the

presence of role conflicts when working in a service

occupation. Hospitality work can have a negative

impact on job satisfaction, particularly for women

workers (Kim et al., 2009).

On the other hand, research on organizational

commitment in this sector is sparse. Kim et al. (2011)

show that workplace empowerment and

organizational trustworthiness are two variables that

have an impact on organizational commitment among

hotel restaurant workers (Kim et al., 2011). Another

study among airline cabin crew focuses on what effect

coworker support has on commitment with mixed

results due to differences in company nationality

(Limpanitgul et al., 2014).

Within the cruise industry, Larsen et al. (2012)

have, through a factor analysis, identified three

factors that have a positive impact on both job

satisfaction and organizational commitment: respect

and fair treatment from supervisors; the social

atmosphere including guests and co-workers; and the

standard of food and living quarters. In addition,

organizational commitment was predicted by two

other factors, the possibility to see the world, and

flexibility from supervisors (Larsen et al., 2012: 595).

2.3 The study’s rationale

The present study aims to compare the pattern of

organizational commitment and job satisfaction

597

depending on the type of ship. For this purpose, two

categories of ships are used: (i) “passenger vessels”

and (ii) “other types of vessels” (as merged category).

The rationale for this is that previous research has

shown that the service department is notable in some

negative respects regarding the work situation

especially on passenger ships (Österman & Hult,

2016; Hult et al., 2017). For example, Hult & Österman

(2016) present that female seafarers express less

motivation to the seafaring occupation if they work in

the service department, and that both men and

women express more stress and exhaustion if they

work on board passenger ships (Österman & Hult,

2016; Hult et al., 2017). Another study has shown

some results with possible implications towards job

satisfaction by using a qualitative metaphorical

analysis. The findings showed, for instance, that the

most common metaphor for waiters in the service

department was to be either a “slave” or a “robot”

(Denett et al., 2013: 489).

Results like these are alarming since other studies

in the field indicate that the level of job satisfaction

among service workers reflects on the customers’

perception of the service quality (Larsen et al., 2012;

Testa, 2001; Testa et al., 2003; Testa & Mueller, 2009).

It has also been demonstrated that both job

satisfaction and organizational commitment have a

positive impact on customer satisfaction (Larsen et al.,

2012).

To conclude, most of the research within the

hospitality sector has focused on job satisfaction, and

to a lesser extent on organizational commitment.

Perceived job satisfaction is of special importance in

the service sector because it influences the costumers’

experience. Expressed organizational commitment is

important because it indicates an employee

connection to the organizational goals and efforts.

This study addresses this research gap with a

comparative research on the pattern of organizational

commitment and job satisfaction.

3 METHOD

3.1 Collection of data

Data was collected using a survey sent to crew in the

deck, engineering and service department listed in the

Swedish Register of Seafarers. The sample framework

was restricted to those of age 18 or older who had

worked onboard at least once during the previous 12

months. Individuals registered on barges without

propulsion, road ferries, fishing vessels and

unregistered vessels were excluded.

Because of inadequate register update of

addresses, a postal survey using unrestricted random

sample selection proved impossible. Instead, the

collection of data was conducted via an online survey

that was sent by e-mail to 5 652 seafarers. The number

of respondents in the sample were limited to those

seafarers in the register with existing e-mail

addresses. The data collection took place in 2015

between June and December. The survey resulted in

(N) 1 980 replying respondents giving a response rate

of 35%. This is lower than preferred but somewhat

expected considering the general trend of survey

fatigue (e.g. Hohwü et al., 2013). However, the N is

sufficiently large and equals 14% of the total amount

of registered seafarers in in 2015 (Hult et al., 2017).

The response rate analysis reveals that the age-

structure corresponds well in comparison to the

sample framework. There is a minor

overrepresentation of men (79,5% respondents against

71,5% men in the sample framework).

Further, there is an overrepresentation of

respondents working in the deck and engine

departments. Consequently, the service department is

underrepresented in the sample. This might be related

to the underrepresentation of women and the

underrepresentation of service personnel, as this

profession on board ships has a higher percentage of

women workers (Hult et al., 2017).

The reasons for these deviations are difficult to

determine. However, one reason might be that

seafaring is a profession dominated by men, and

women might naturally feel reluctant to answer

surveys on issues related to the seafaring occupation.

The questionnaire was partly based on items from

a pre-existing questionnaire in the International Social

Survey Programme (ISSP) - Work Orientations III

study (2005). The items were translated and adjusted

to fit the context of Swedish seafarers. The

development of the questionnaire involved an

iterative process of tests and retests to gain sufficient

validity.

3.2 Processing of data and analysis

Throughout the analysis of this study, the

Statistical Package Social Science (SPSS) was used. An

index based on the dependent variable of

organizational commitment was created by using

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and internal

reliability control of Cronbach’s Alpha, see Table 1

and 2.

The dependent variable is organizational

commitment phrased in the questionnaire as

statements with answer alternatives on a five-point

Likert Scale, i.e. strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Table 1. Indicators of organizational commitment for

seafarers

_______________________________________________

I am willing to work harder than I have to in order to help

the shipping company I work for succeed

I am proud to be working for my shipping company

I would turn down another job that offered quite a bit more

pay

_______________________________________________

The lowest indication of each indicator of the

index was recorded with 0 and highest indication was

given the value of 4. The three indicators where

summarized into the index of organizational

commitment. The index was then coded to vary

between 0 and 100.

598

4 RESULTS

The dependent variable organizational commitment is

firstly analyzed with descriptive statistics and

secondly with a comparative multivariate regression

analysis on passenger vessels and other types of

vessels.

4.1 Organizational commitment with regards to age and

department

Table 2 shows Mean value, Standard deviation and

Cornbach’s Alpha for the dependent variable,

indicating a stable index where the respondents’

centers around a quite medium to high value of

environmental commitment.

Table 2. Index for Organizational Commitment, all

respondents 2015

_______________________________________________

Mean (0-100) 56,44

Standard deviation 21,21

Cronbach’s Alpha 0,76

N 1824

_______________________________________________

In Table 3, the levels of commitment are displayed

by age groups. The group with the highest score is 55

and older. The level of commitment is lowest in the

age group between 31 and 42 years old.

Table 3. Organizational Commitment and age groups

_______________________________________________

Age 30 Age 31-42 Age 43-54 Age 55

or younger and older

_______________________________________________

Mean value 55,5 52,68 57,25 61,10

Standard 21,14 22,95 19,83 20,13

deviation

Number of 536 436 478 365

respondents

_______________________________________________

In Table 4, the mean values of organizational

commitment and job satisfaction are presented for

onboard departments. In all departments, work

satisfaction is clearly higher than organizational

commitment.

Table 4. Organizational Commitment and Work Satisfaction

by department

_______________________________________________

Deck Engine Service

department department department

Org Job Org Job Org Job

Com Sat Com Sat Com Sat

_______________________________________________

Mean value 57,38 75,19 54,43 74,56 56,78 73,28

Standard 20,78 15,57 21,33 15,38 21,93 16,60

deviation

Number of 844 900 455 490 473 509

respondents

_______________________________________________

4.2 Organizational commitment on passenger vessels

versus other types of vessels

In table 5 and table 6, the pattern of organizational

commitment and job satisfaction is analyzed by using

an OLS (ordinary least square) method. The

dependent variable is organizational commitment.

The independent variables are (i) onboard position,

(ii) age and (iii) job satisfaction, which are introduced

in three steps, first for passenger vessels in table 5 and

later for other types of vessels in table 6.

In step I officers in the engine, deck and service

departments, as well as the ratings in the service and

deck departments, are compared to ratings in the

engine department, which is held constant in the

regression. The main finding here is that onboard

position only display significant result on passenger

vessels (Table 5), where service officers score highest,

followed by senior deck officers and service ratings.

In step 2, age is introduced to the model. The effect

of age on organizational commitment is somewhat

higher on other types of vessels (Table 5 and 6). For

the onboard positions, the effects are now only

statistically significant for the service department on

passenger vessels. This indicates that senior deck

officers’ commitment to a substantial part can be

explained by seniority in age.

In step 3, perceived job satisfaction is introduced.

When comparing vessel categories, the effect of job

satisfaction is slightly lower on passenger vessels. The

positive effect for senior deck officers on passenger

ships regains some strength and significance as the

effect of age decrease when perceived job satisfaction

is controlled for. This increase may solely depend on

that, the reference group (engineering ratings)

plunges when job satisfaction is controlled for. The

effect for service ratings on passenger vessels becomes

higher. On the other hand, the effect for service

officers on passenger vessels decreases when job

satisfaction is introduced. This pattern indicates that

the level of organizational commitment is less

dependent on job satisfaction for service ratings. It

also indicates that the commitment for service officers

and engineering ratings is more dependent on job

satisfaction. We can also see that the effect of age is

somewhat decreasing when job satisfaction is

controlled for.

In summary, the results show that significant

effects on organizational commitment related to

onboard position only appear on passenger ships. On

this type of vessels, the level of commitment for

service officers reaches over 62 on the scale 0-100,

while no position on other types of vessels

significantly reach over the constant (56,33).

Table 5. Organizational commitment for passenger vessels.

multiple analysis, OLS

_______________________________________________

I II III

_______________________________________________

Senior engineering officers 4,93 3,04 2,00,

Junior engineering officers -3,37 -3,86 -2,53

Senior deck officers 7,96* 6,22 6,59*

Junior deck officers -3,72 -4,56 -2,23

Deck ratings 4,351 4,92 5,29

Service officers 13,54*** 12,09*** 11,57***

Service ratings 6,74* 6,75* 8,08**

Age - 0,13* 0,11*

Perceived job satisfaction - - 22,12***

Constant 48,96*** 44,06*** 24,90***

Explained variance (%) 3,7 4,2 15,2

Number of respondents 919 916 916

_______________________________________________

Significance levels: *** = 0.001 level. ** = 0.01 level. * = 0.05

level.

599

Table 6. Organizational commitment for other types of

vessels. multiple analysis, OLS

_______________________________________________

I II III

_______________________________________________

Senior engineering officers 2,62 -0,31 -0,86

Junior engineering officers 0,87 0,54 -0,35

Senior deck officers 4,86 2,36 1,92

Junior deck officers -0,14 -0,66 -0,97

Deck ratings 3,69 3,10 2,70

Service officers 0,61 -2,11 -0,93

Service ratings 0,67 -1,82 -2,35

Age - 0,18** 0,17***

Perceived job satisfaction - - 23,32***

Constant 56,33*** 50,44*** 30,12***

Explained variance (%) 0,9 2,1 14,00

Number of respondents 853 848 847

_______________________________________________

Significance levels: *** = 0.001 level. ** = 0.01 level. * = 0.05

level.

5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The question addressed in this study was whether the

pattern of organizational commitment and job

satisfaction differs if the ship carries passengers or

not. As the results show, the proximity to passengers

makes a difference. On passenger vessels,

organizational commitment is significantly higher for

service ratings and senior deck officers, and especially

so for service officers. This may result from a sense of

extra responsibility towards the passengers on board.

For the service crew, especially so in combination

with the awareness of representing the core activity

on a passenger ship, which is to cater for the

passengers’ needs. On other types of ships, there are

no significant differences at all in commitment

between job positions. On the other hand, the effect of

job satisfaction on organizational commitment is

slightly higher on ships that do not carry passengers.

Overall, the results show that within the service

department, the onboard position has a clear positive

effect on organizational commitment. Age, on the

other hand, has some impact on service officers, but

none for the service ratings, which may be due to that

the officers overall are older than the ratings.

It has also been shown that, on passenger ships,

the level of commitment for officers is to some degree

dependent on job satisfaction, while less so for service

ratings. This difference may indicate that service

officers’ commitment is driven by the combination of

having responsibility for the core activity onboard

passenger ships and an independent satisfaction of

being officers. Service ratings’ commitment, on the

other hand, is driven by having responsibility for the

core activity alone.

Previous research on the cruise industry (Larsen et

al., 2012) suggest that the proximity to passengers

have a positive impact on both job satisfaction and

organizational commitment. For organizational

commitment, our results support this notion.

However, in the present study, organizational

commitment is generally high for passenger vessels,

while the effect of perceived job satisfaction on

organizational commitment is higher on ships that do

not carry passengers.

For service officers, age explains some of the effect

on organizational commitment. However, this is not

the case for the service ratings. If we assume that

service officers have been longer in the service

profession, this suggests that the determination to

resign from work decreases when career

opportunities for future management positions on

board are available.

Given the high rates of turnover in the hospitality

sector (Hinkin & Tracey, 2000; Kang et al., 2015; Tews

et al., 2013; Tews et al., 2014; Tracey & Hinkin, 2008),

the high levels of exertion (Österman & Hult, 2016)

and reported ill-health in the service department

(Hult et al., 2017), this study has reviled surprisingly

high levels of organizational commitment among the

service departments of passenger ships. However, we

have noticed that the service officers are more

committed to their work organizations than are the

service ratings. This may argue for the benefit of

promoting career options for the ratings in the service

department. Such a possibility could counteract a

feeling of having a ‘dead end job’, which in turn could

mitigate turnover among the service ratings.

This study provides an overview of how

organizational commitment differs depending on ship

and job position. Future research needs to delve

deeper into the explanatory variables that may

strengthen organizational commitment. A possibility

would be to test the effects of different internal

rewards, such as support from management and/or

coworkers, and its impact on organizational

commitment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We like to thank Stiftelsen Sveriges Sjömanshus (the

Swedish Mercantile Marine Foundation) for funding the

data collection and to all Swedish seafarers for participating

in the survey.

REFERENCES

Denett, A., Cameron, D., Bamford, C. & Jenkins, A. (2013).

An investigation into hospitality cruise ship work

through the exploration of metaphors, Employee

Relations, 36 (5), pp. 480 - 495.

Dragin, A. S., Djurdjev, B. S., Armenisk, T.; Jovanovic, T..

Pavic, D., Ivkov-Dzigurski, A., Kosic, K. & Favro, S.

(2014). Analysis of the labour force composition on

cruisers: The Danube through Central and Southeast

Europe, Journal of Transport Geography, 39, pp. 67 - 72.

Gazolli, G., Hancer, M. & Park, Y. (2010). The Role and

Effect of Job Satisfaction and Empowerment On

Customers’ Perception of Service Quality: a Study in the

Restaurant Industry, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism

Research, 34 (1), pp. 56 - 77.

Hochshild, A. (1983). The Managed Heart:

Commercialization of human feeling, Berkeley,

California, University of California Press.

Hohwü, L., Lyshol, H., Gissler, M., Jonsson, S. H., Petzold,

M., Obel, C. (2013). Web-based Versus Traditional Paper

Questionnaires: A Mixed-Mode Survey With a Nordic

Perspective, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15 (8),

e173, pp. 1 - 11.

Hinkin, T. R. & Tracey J. B. (2000). The Cost of Turnover:

Putting a Price on the Learning Curve, Cornell Hotel

and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), pp. 14–

21.

600

Hult, C. (2005). Organizational Commitment and Person-

Environment Fit in Six Western Countries, Organization

Studies, 26 (2), pp. 249 - 270.

Hult, C. (2012). ‘Seafarers’ commitment to work and

occupation’ in Hult C. (2012) (ed.). Swedish Seafarers

and the Seafaring Occupation 2010 – A study of work-

related attitudes during different stages of life at sea,

Kalmar Maritime Academy, Linnaeus University, pp. 73

- 119.

Hult, C. & Snöberg, J. (2014). Swedish Seafarers’

Commitment to Work in Times of Flagging Out,

TransNav, the International Journal on Marine

Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 8 (1), pp.

121 - 128.

Hult, C. & Österman, C. (2016). The Impact of Family and

Job Content on Swedish Seafarers’ Occupational

Commitment – A Gendered Issue?, TransNav, the

International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety

of Sea Transportation, 10 (1), pp. 27 - 34.

Hult, C., Österman, C., Praetorius, G. & Lindblad, M. (2017).

Intendenturpersonalens arbetsmiljö : arbetsmiljö,

arbetsupplevelser, motivation och sjukskrivningar på

passagerarfartyg. 56.

Kalleberg, A. (1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory

of job satisfaction, American Sociological Review, 42, pp.

124 - 143.

Kalleberg, A. & Reve, T. (1992). Contracts and commitment:

Economic and sociological perspectives on employment

relations, Human relations, 45, pp. 1103 - 1132.

Kallberg, A. & Mastekaasa, A. (1993). Firm internal labour

markets and organizational commitment in Norway and

the United States, Acta Sociologica, 37, pp. 269 - 286.

Kang, H.J; Gatling, A. & Jungsun K. (2015). The Impact of

Supervisory Support on Organizational Commitment,

Career Satisfaction, and Turnover Intention for

Hospitality Frontline Employees, Journal of Human

Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 14, pp. 68 - 89.

Kim, P.B, Murrman, S. K. & Lee, G. (2009). Moderating

effects of gender and organizational level between role

stress and job satisfaction among hotel employees,

International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28,

pp- 612 - 619.

Kim, P.B, Lee, G., Murrmann, S. K. & George, T.R. (2011).

Motivational Effects of Empowerment on Employees’

Organizational Commitment: A Mediating Role of

Management Trustworthiness, Cornell Hospitality

Quarterly, xx(x), pp. 1 - 10.

Larsen S., Marnburg, E. & Ogaard, T. (2012). Working

onboard – Job perception, organizational commitment

and job satisfaction in the cruise sector, Tourism

Management, 33, pp. 592 - 597.

Limpanitgul, T., Boonchoo, P. & Photiyarach, S. (2014).

Coworker support and organizational commitment: A

comparative study of Thai employees working in Thai

and American airlines, Journal of Hospitality and

Tourism Management, 21, pp. 100 - 107.

Mathieu, J. E. & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A Review and Meta-

Analysis of the Antecedents, Correlates, and

Consequences of Organizational Commitment,

Psychological Bulletin, 108 (2), pp. 171 - 194.

Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (2001). A Three-component

Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment,

Human Resource Management Review, 1 (1), pp. 61 –

89.

Mowday, R.T; Steers, R.M & W. Porter (1979). Employee-

organization Linkages, New York: Academic Press.

Mottaz, C. J. (1987). An analysis of the Relationship between

Work Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment, The

Sociological Quarterly, 28 (4), pp. 541 – 558.

Mottaz, C. J. (1988). Determinants of Organizational

Commitment, Human Relations, 41 (6), pp. 467 - 482.

Porter, L; Steers, R., Mowday, R. & Boulian, P. (1974).

‘Organizational commitment, Job Satisfaction and

Turnover Among Psychiatric Technicians, Journal of

Applied Psychology, 59, pp. 603 - 609.

Pantouvakis, A. & Bouranta, N. (2013). The interrelationship

between service features, job satisfaction and customer

satisfaction – Evidence from the transport sector, The

TQM Journal, 25 (2), pp. 186 - 201.

Praetorius, G., Österman, C. & Hult, C. (2018). Strategies

and measures to improve work environment of service

crew on board Swedish passenger vessels, TransNav,

the International Journal on Marine Navigation and

Safety of Sea Transportation, 12 (3), pp. 587 - 595.

Steers, R.M (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of

organizational commitment, Administrative Science

Quarterly, 22 (1), pp. 46 - 56.

Steers, R. M. (1984). Introduction to Organizational Behavior

(2nd edition), Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and

Company.

Testa, M. R. (2001). Organizational Commitment, Job

Satisfaction, and Effort in the Service Environment, The

Journal of Psychology, 135 (2), pp. 226 - 236.

Testa M. R; Mueller, S. L & Thomas, A. S (2003). Cultural Fit

and Job Satisfaction in a Global Service Environment,

Management International Review, 43, pp. 129 - 148.

Testa M. R. & Mueller S. L. (2009). Demographic and

cultural predictors of international service worker job

satisfaction, Managing Service Quality, 19, pp. 195 - 210.

Tews, M. J., Michel, J.W. & Ellingson, J. E (2013). The Impact

of Coworker Support on Employee Turnover in the

Hospitality Industry, Group & Organization

Management, 38 (5), pp. 630 - 653.

Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W & Allen D. W. (2014). Fun and

Friends: The Impact of workplace fun and constituent

attachment on turnover in a hospitality context, Human

Relations, 67 (8), pp. 923 - 946.

Tracey, J. B & Hinkin, T. R (2008). Contextual factors and

cost profiles associated with employee turnover, Cornell

Hospitality Quarterly, 49 (1), pp. 12–27.

Tracy, S. J. (2000). Becoming a Character for Commerce:

Emotion Labor, Self-subordination and Discursive

Construction of Identity in a Total Institution,

Management Communication Quarterly, 14 (1), pp. 90 -

128.

Tsui, P-L.; Lin, Y-S.; Yu, T-H. (2013). The Influence of

Psychological Contract and Organizational Commitment

on Hospitality Employee Performance, Social Behaviour

and Personality, 41 (3), pp. 443 - 452.

Ugboro, I.O & Obeng, K. (2000). Top managment

leadership, employee empowerment, job satisfaction

and customer satisfaction in TCM-organisation: an

empirical study, Journal of Quality Management, 5 (2),

pp. 247: 72, doi:

Yuvas, U., Osman K. & Babakus, E. (2013). Correlates of

Nonwork and Work Satisfaction Among Hotel

Employees: Implications for Managers, Journal of

Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22, pp. 375 - 406.

Wiley, J.W (1991). Customer satisfaction: a supportive work

environment and its financial cost, Human Resource

Planning, 14 (2), pp. 117 - 27.

Österman, C. & Hult, C. (2016). Administrative burdens and

over-exertion in Swedish short sea shipping, Maritime

Policy & Management, 43, pp. 569-579.

Österman, C., Hult, C. & Praetorius, G. (2020). Occupational

safety and health for service crew on passenger ships,

Safety Science, 121, pp. 403 413.