Dan Popescu Cristina State Manuela Ciucurel - Albena

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION IN THE TOURISM UNITS
FROM ROMANIA -BETWEEN TO BE AND TO SEEM

Professor POPESCU Dan1, PhD., PhD. Candidate STATE Cristina,
Professor CIUCUREL Manuela-Mihaela, PhD.
The Bucharest University of Economic Studies - Romania
University of Pitesti - Romania
Abstract
Tourism has represented and represents a fundamental link of the complex process of
economic development. However, tourism is ensuring economic sustainability through
intensive and effective use of its natural and human resources. And, given the fact that the
image of a country is given by the degree of development of the tertiary sector, it becomes
obvious that the hospitality and tourism industry development depend not only on the overall
progress of each country, but also that of all human resources and their welfare.
Of the organizational communication depends primarily tourism image of each unit.
Secondly, on the way tourism organization communicate both inside and outside of it
depends the quality of relationships with customers. And given that, at least in Romania,
customers travel units are treated as mere "tourists" and the image of profile organizations is
far from the reality which their managers externalizes, it is no wonder that tourism is still
well below the development level stated by the decision makers at the ministry of resort. We
have proposed that, in this paper, to tackle an apparently easy topic, but not least as difficult
through the inconsistency and / or its lack of scientific debate: organizational communication.
Key-words: tourism, organizational communication, management, human resources
Introduction
Assaulted" daily with statistical data which presents a situation increasingly "thriving" of the
Romanian tourism, we have undertaken a research in order to determine, using scientific
instruments, which is the level of reality and from this perspective, to what extent is responsible the
communication, in particular the organizational communication in units travel from our country for
the current situation in the field.
By documenting, we found, with undisguised surprise that no one yet knows the actual situation of
the Romanian tourism performance level. Why? First, because statistical data related to the
situation of tourism in Romania (Romanian Statistical Yearbook 2012 - INS - ISSN 1223-6179) are
as contradictory as it is implausible, giving us the possibility of issuing empirical and unreal
conclusions regarding the development status of this very important area in and for Gross National
Product (GNP) creation. From this point of view, with a contribution of only 0.6% to the GNP
creation, Romanian tourism was far from what we all want. Citing World Travel and Tourism
Council (www.wttc.org, accessed on 07.09.2013) however, tourism contributes in the same year
2012 by 1.4% to GNP, so more than twice advanced INS data. Also in 2012, with revenue of 1.21
bil. USD from tourism, Romania ranks last among the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (the
first was Austria, with revenue of 18.3 bil. Dollars). Just over 20% of arrivals were represented by
foreign tourists, while net use of accommodation places was 18.1% of total tourist accommodation
structures. And also in the year 2012, the Romanian coast of the Black Sea, the one we "take pride"
so much, was receiving 3.8 times the number of foreign tourists compared to 1980 (Source: INS).
Secondly, because the data from the media are "dictated" by the interests of tour operators. More
specifically, given that, according to National Fiscal Administration Authority2(ANAF) in 2012,
tourism tax evasion was about 300 million (www.capital.ro, accessed on 27.05.2014), not
infrequently we find out that in high season, every weekend, Romanian coast of the Black Sea was
1
contact e-mail address: dan.popescu@man.ase.ro
2
Capital nr. 29(963)/2012
and / or is invaded by hundreds of thousands of tourists (usually by 200-250 thousands every
weekend), given that the maximum capacity of our coastline accommodation exceeds, slightly 100
thousand places (including those who provide to occasional tourists, private room) ...
In the year 2013, although increased tourist functioning accommodation capacity by 3.9%
from the previous year, the number of tourist arrivals in Romania increased by only 1%
compared to 2012. All this given that over 70% of foreign tourists who visit our country
aimed to travel for business, congresses and / or conferences (business.24.org, accessed on
07.02.2014). And yet a very important detail: 52% of foreign tourists who have visited the
country last year were from Hungary (32.3%) and Bulgaria (19.7%).
We found, therefore, despite all the contradictory aspects of information obtained from
sources which we used for documentation that, statistically, "we stand" well. However, in
reality, things are quite different, for example, no one, until now, doesnt know the real number of
accommodation units in Romania. Thus, according to the Romanian Ministry of resort (www.
cazare.info, accessed on 06.23.2014), we have 8763 hotels and hostels and 1633 travel agencies.
If, however, we see the data provided by the NSI (www.ins.org, accessed on 06.23.2014), we find
that in Romania are 5821 of such organization of which (attention!), not less than 4251 opened in
December 2013! ...
Finally, in our research, undertaken between 01/10/2012 - 12/01/2013, we found that in Romania
are 10414 hotels and guesthouses and 3213 travel agencies (we created a database, the largest
nationwide) . We offer, free of charge, through more than 11 000 messages sent, online, to the
tourism establishments in Romania (hotels, hostels, guesthouses, travel agencies) this database. No
one, until now, asked for it! ...
1. Goals, hypotheses and research methodology
1.1. Goals
The main objective of our applied research was to establish the organizational communication
influence through the tourism organizations performance.
The evaluation questionnaires were submitted to 500 tourism units, the number of formulated
responses being of 158. Importantly is that we received responses from all types (depending on
classification) of tourism units.
1.2. Research Hypotheses
Certainly, the issues are generated primarily by a poor communication both at the level of tourism,
as well as at the Ministry. We never thought for a moment at the possibility of influencing the desire
of the decision to buy or not a package or favor certain hotels and / or hostels appealing to
misinformation of the potential customers ...
The main hypothesis from which we started our approach to the research was that there is a low
degree of professionalization of organizational communication in tourism.
As secondary hypothesis we considered that:
1. the impact of the implementation of modern communication technologies on the income growth
and the number of visitors is still low;
2. in tourism units are a low concern for the loyalty of their human resources through the
development / improving their preparation.
1.3 Research Methodology
The methodology used (ANOVA) was a logical consequence of the questions of the research,
representing the first step in the selection of quantitative / qualitative approach. Analysis of
variance (ANOVA) is the name given to a collection of statistical methods used to analyze the
impact of one or more nominal variables as independent variables on a quantitative variable
as the dependent variable. ANOVA are used when: (1) we are examining differences between
groups on one or more variables; (2) the participants in the study were tested only once; (3)
we are comparing more than two groups.
2. Results of the research
Interpreting the answers and proceeding to draw conclusions from the results of variance analysis,
we found that:
1. related to general issues on tourism and business units within their organizational
communication:
a. the heterogeneity enrollment from the organizational point of view regarding the travel units
generates different attitudes towards external organizational communication. In this context we
reveal that in the first place, a profound negative aspect is the reality that travel units customers
consider them as "tourists", which shows a certain mindset on who, to whom serves. It will take a
long time in our opinion, until many of the units will have the power to understand that they are
serving customers and not vice versa! This, especially in the context of the many guesthouses who
do not hesitate to mislead potential customers, "drawing them" with offers that are not real, while
the "stars" displayed by the travel units, reflecting framing category, are in fact "daisies". Moreover,
there are still travel units (estimated about 20-25%, especially guesthouses) that do not have a
classification as required by law (flowers / daisies), but these may operate without any practical
implication. The management of these units is exercised randomly and empirical owners having
certificates who attests only writable (the most favorable case), their specialization in the field.
Therefore, in general, without a more complete uniform basis of the Romanian travel units, each
company communicates and promotes its own image as it sees fit;
b. there is a close correlation (f = 21.719) between organizational feature (Classification of
receiving units, for example) and the person or organizational subdivision responsible for
organizational communication activity. From the statistical point of view, all thresholds of
significance are relevant, which means that the results can be extrapolated to organizational reality.
Also, for the relationship between the classification of tourism units and the activity of
compartments specialized in organizational communication, there is always a correspondence
between the classification of tourism units and the degree of professionalization regarding
communication, which confirms the general hypothesis (see Table 1):
Table 1: The relationship between tourism unit classification and degree of professionalization of
organizational communication
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Departamentul Between Groups 32061.266 4 8015.317 21.719 .000
Comunicare Within Groups 56465.037 153 369.053
Organizationala Total 88526.304 157
Departamentul Vnzari Between Groups 30910.003 4 7727.501 24.617 .000
Within Groups 48027.927 153 313.908
Total 78937.930 157
Departamentul Marketing Between Groups 32674.120 4 8168.530 21.700 .000
Within Groups 57595.051 153 376.438
Total 90269.171 157
Directorul (Managerul) Between Groups 20603.242 4 5150.810 15.132 .000
General Within Groups 52079.296 153 340.388
Total 72682.538 157
Parteneri externi Between Groups 24188.007 4 6047.002 32.316 .000
Within Groups 28629.493 153 187.121
Total 52817.500 157
Mean of Departamentul Comunicare Organizationala
Mean of Departamentul Vnzari

120 120
Mean of Departamentul Marketing

110 110
100 130 100
90 120 90
80 110 80
70 100 70
Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de Agentie de turism Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de Agentie de turism
Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de
90
HOTEL HOTEL
80
Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de Agentie de turism
Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de
HOTEL
Mean of Directorul (Managerul) General
120 110
110
Mean of Parteneri externi

100
100 90
90 80
80 70
HOTEL HOTEL
source: made by authors in ANOVA Program

c. 5 * hotels do not assign, to the marketing compartments communication tasks, fact which
we consider to be correct. As, however, the classification gets lower, tasks doubles and even
more! Travel agents generally handle all personnel issues, which leads to the idea that there
are not specialized compartments dealing with organizational communication;
d. the correlation between classification and organizational communication means used is the
most intense in 4 * hotels;
e. no tourism unit expects from its foreign partners to receive help in external communication.
Conversely, on travel agencies, external influences are extremely powerful and often decisive;
2. Regarding specific issues related to the activity of tourism units and organizational communication
(internal and external) within them:
a. a completely normal fact is that efficiency of the means (methods) for communication is
different, depending on the framing category of tourism units. Thus, for example, if the most
frequent tourists accommodation facilities appeal to the use of websites, the same can be said
about the agencies, which their fear of potential spam accusations generate retentions on using
the internet as one of the effective external communication methods. Besides the internet, the
most commonly used methods of external communication are email, social networks (facebook,
twitter etc.) and newsletter. The intensity of using these forms of external communication is
regressive, as the classification category of tourism units decreases (see Table 2). Furthermore,
we have encountered situations, especially in guesthouses of 2 * and 3 * in which managers do
not know the meaning of the notion newsletter.
Table 2: The relationship between the classification of tourism units and the used
form of external communication (1)
ANOVA
Sum of
pagina de internet Between Groups 66185.687 4 16546.422 41.914 .000
Within Groups 60399.832 153 394.770
Total 126585.5 157
Posta electronica Between Groups 20540.830 4 5135.208 13.700 .000
Within Groups 57347.885 153 374.823
Total 77888.715 157
Retele de socializare Between Groups 44226.029 4 11056.507 40.693 .000
Facebook twitter Within Groups 41571.060 153 271.706
Total
85797.089 157
Newsletter Between Groups 36032.833 4 9008.208 31.185 .000

Within Groups 44196.104 153 288.863
Total 80228.937 157
120 120
110
Mean of Posta electronica

Mean of Retele de socializare Facebook twitter Mean of pagina de internet
110
100
90
100
80
70
90
60
50 80
HOTEL HOTEL
120 130
120
110
110
100
Mean of Newsletter
100
90
90
80
80
70 70
HOTEL HOTEL
In the same sense are manifesting the matter of fact and other forms of external communication
appealed by tourism units. Thus, as can be seen from the findings presented in Table 3, the least
used in tourism establishments (except travel agencies) are, in order, media advertisements,
billboards, social events, phone and finally, external partners:
Table 3: The relationship between the classification of tourism units and the used form
of external communication (2)
ANOVA
Sum of
Parteneri externi Between Groups 24188.007 4 6047.002 32.316 .000
Within Groups 28629.493 153 187.121
Total 52817.500 157
Telefon Between Groups 34909.330 4 8727.333 24.102 .000
Within Groups 55401.967 153 362.104
Total 90311.297 157
Panouri Informative Between Groups 33783.499 4 8445.875 24.072 .000
Within Groups 53681.342 153 350.858
Total 87464.842 157
Anunturi publicitare Between Groups 29964.828 4 7491.207 20.586 .000
media Within Groups 55675.476 153 363.892
Total 85640.304 157
Evenimente sociale Between Groups 30736.108 4 7684.027 22.433 .000
Within Groups 52406.322 153 342.525
Total 83142.430 157
110 120 120
Mean of Panouri Informative

110 110
Mean of Parteneri externi
100
100 100
90
Mean of Telefon
90 90
80
80 80
70 70 70
HOTEL
HOTEL HOTEL
Mean of Anunturi publicitare media
120 120
Mean of Evenimente sociale
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
HOTEL HOTEL
b. regarding the efficiency of the means (methods) for external communication, the results are
liable to reflect also the strong correlation between classification level of the unit and its appealed
forms of communication (see Table 4). Participation in fairs and exhibitions have a high percentage
only on activities of external organizational communication appealed by travel agencies and some
hotels of 4 * and 5 *. The least used are (also surprisingly) survey and the "suggestion box". And
also surprising was to find that many units do not use almost at all (making only minor exceptions
the hotels of 4 * and 5 *), the customer loyalty programs (surprising result, but the sad reality!) nor
the programs and / or actions of corporate social responsibility:
Table 4: The relationship between the classification of tourism units and the used form
of external communication (3)
ANOVA
Sum of
Conferinte Between Groups 31726.580 4 7931.645 23.054 .000
Within Groups 52638.439 153 344.042
Total 84365.019 157
Targuri si expozitii Between Groups 25222.253 4 6305.563 34.961 .000
Within Groups 27595.247 153 180.361
Total 52817.500 157
Sondajul de opinie Between Groups 24809.563 4 6202.391 18.436 .000
Within Groups 51472.621 153 336.422
Total 76282.184 157
Alte canale Between Groups 16713.847 4 4178.462 11.482 .000
Within Groups 55680.843 153 363.927
Total 72394.690 157
Va rugam sa indicati daca Between Groups 17685.566 4 4421.391 12.454 .000
n ultimele 12 luni ati Within Groups 54319.168 153 355.027
participat la cel putin un Total 72004.734 157
program de
Va rugam sa indicati daca Between Groups 26049.024 4 6512.256 34.814 .000
responsabilitate sociala
n cadrul organizatiei Within Groups 28619.735 153 187.057
corporativa?
dumneavoastra exista Total 54668.759 157
programe de fidelizare a
oaspetilor:
120 110 120
Mean of Va rugam sa indicati daca n cadrul organizatiei dumneavoastra e

Mean of Targuri si expozitii
110
100 110
Mean of Va rugam sa indicati daca n ultimele 12 luni ati participat la
Mean of Alte canale

100
Mean of Conferinte
90 100
90
80 90
80
70 70 80
Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de Agentie de turism Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de Agentie de turism Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de Agentie de turism
Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de Hotel / pensiune de
HOTEL HOTEL HOTEL
120 120
110
110
100
100
90
90
80
80 70
HOTEL HOTEL
Source: made by authors in ANOVA Program
c. regarding the internal communication forms, we found the following priority issues:
the most commonly used are individual discussions (face-to-face) and formal meetings;
very rare (except travel agencies) are organized informal events (social, info-trip, etc.)
intranet is used only in 5 * hotels, while "ideas box", and the survey are used rarely or not at all;
the internal publications are also, in general, non-existent;
e-mail is used "selectively" (usually isnt!), as well as social networks.
A summary of these data is shown in Table 5 (a and b):
Table 5.a: The relationship between the classification of tourism units and the used
form of internal communication (1)
ANOVA
Sum of
Discutii individuale Between Groups 35572.449 4 8893.112 26.504 .000
(fata-n-fata) Within Groups 51337.450 153 335.539
Total 86909.899 157
ntlniri formale (reuniuni, Between Groups 31501.267 4 7875.317 22.524 .000
sedinte, briefing-uri Within Groups 53496.031 153 349.647
operationale etc.)
Total 84997.297 157
ntlniri informale Between Groups 30306.121 4 7576.530 22.637 .000
(evenimente sociale, Info Within Groups 51207.986 153 334.693
Trip-uri etc.) Total
81514.108 157
Mean of ntlniri formale (reuniuni, sedinte, briefing-uri operationale
Mean of ntlniri informale (evenimente sociale, Info Trip-uri etc.)

Publicatii interne Between Groups 30974.415 4 7743.604 22.949 .000
Within Groups 51626.300 153 337.427
Total 82600.715 157
Instructiuni scrise, Between Groups 23453.129 4 5863.282 30.249 .000
memo-uri Within Groups 29656.289 153 193.832
Total 53109.418 157
Mean of Discutii individuale (fata-n-fata)
120 120 120
110 110 110
100 100 100
90 90 90
80 80 80
70 70
70
HOTEL HOTEL
HOTEL
Mean of Instructiuni scrise, memo-uri
120 110
110
Mean of Publicatii interne
100
100
90
90
80
80
70 70
HOTEL HOTEL
Table 5.b: The relationship between the classification of tourism units and the used
form of internal communication (1)
ANOVA
Sum of
Panouri informative Between Groups 25420.090 4 6355.023 19.007 .000
Within Groups 51155.631 153 334.351
Total 76575.722 157
Intranet Between Groups 23635.967 4 5908.992 18.502 .000
Within Groups 48863.906 153 319.372
Total 72499.873 157
Posta electronica Between Groups 13358.563 4 3339.641 8.731 .000
Within Groups 58525.646 153 382.521
Total 71884.209 157
Telefon Between Groups 24886.606 4 6221.652 32.930 .000
Within Groups 28906.862 153 188.934
Total 53793.468 157
Retele de socializare Between Groups 63187.648 4 15796.912 38.240 .000
(Facebook, Twitter etc.) Within Groups 63203.802 153 413.097
Total 126391.4 157
120 120 110
Mean of Panouri informative
110
Mean of Posta electronica

110
100
100
100
Mean of Intranet
90
90
90
80
Mean of Retele de socializare (Facebook, Twitter etc.)

70 80 80
HOTEL HOTEL HOTEL
110 120
110
100
100
90
90
Mean of Telefon
80
70
80
60
70 50
HOTEL HOTEL

The results obtained by applying ANOVA and the presented conclusions confirms the first
secondary hypothesis according to which the implementation impact of modern communication
technologies on the growth of income and the number of visitors is still low.
d. regarding the development and / or improvement of professional skills of its human resources,
the results presented in Table 6.a and Table6.b. confirms also the second secondary hypothesis. In
this context, we keep in mind that management of tourism units is concerned, primarily, eventually
on developing their own skills and not those of the subordinate. Human resources involved can be
useful as long as they are docile and exploitable providing results rated as financially significant for
their organization. From here to the reality of human resource fluctuations is no more than a single,
small step. Which, as experience proves, is madeIn the context of the above, we note also that
many employers rely, primarily, on the training to work place, on integration (orientation) and
subordinates improvement in IT&C. Regarding specializing in specialty areas such as
communication skills, basics of hospitality, sales techniques and / or negotiation and so on, they
are considered at least 'traditional' to be the 'prerogatives' chiefs.
Correlated with the results of analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the second secondary hypothesis
(in the tourism units are a low concern for the loyalty of their human resources by developing /
improving their preparation) is validated (for each variable studied f had values between 8.731 and
41.914).
Table 6.a: The relationship between the classification of tourism units and the used
form of professional development (1)
ANOVA
Sum of
Bazele ospitalitatii Between Groups 29124.399 4 7281.100 20.142 .000
(sau cursuri similare) Within Groups 55306.873 153 361.483
Total 84431.272 157
Abilitati de comunicare Between Groups 29579.891 4 7394.973 21.487 .000
Within Groups 52656.647 153 344.161
Total 82236.538 157
Leadership Between Groups 30559.636 4 7639.909 22.361 .000
Within Groups 52274.168 153 341.661
Total 82833.804 157
Teambuilding Between Groups 23620.353 4 5905.088 31.272 .000
Within Groups 28890.920 153 188.830
Total 52511.272 157
Mean of Bazele ospitalitatii (sau cursuri similare)
Informatica Between Groups 25764.576 4 6441.144 19.513 .000

Within Groups 50503.861 153 330.091
Total 76268.437 157
120 120 120

Mean of Abilitati de comunicare
110 110 110
Mean of Leadership
100 100 100
90 90 90
80 80 80
70 70 70
HOTEL HOTEL HOTEL

110 120
110
100
Mean of Teambuilding
Mean of Informatica
100
90
90
80
80
70 70
HOTEL HOTEL

Table 6.b: The relationship between the classification of tourism units and the used
form of professional development (2)
ANOVA
Sum of
Tehnici de vnzare si / Between Groups 21054.304 4 5263.576 15.842 .000
sau de negociere Within Groups 50835.930 153 332.261
Total 71890.234 157
Limbi de circulatie Between Groups 15468.933 4 3867.233 10.437 .000
internationala Within Groups 56690.257 153 370.525
Total 72159.190 157
Cursuri de marketing Between Groups 32285.726 4 8071.432 21.804 .000
online Within Groups 56638.426 153 370.186
Total
88924.152 157
Cursuri de social media Between Groups 28902.476 4 7225.619 22.168 .000

Within Groups 49869.321 153 325.943
Total 78771.797 157
Alte cursuri Between Groups 33093.952 4 8273.488 22.143 .000
Within Groups 57166.934 153 373.640
Total 90260.886 157
Mean of Tehnici de vnzare si / sau de negociere
Mean of Limbi de circulatie internationala
Mean of Cursuri de marketing online

120 120 120
110
110 110
100
100 100
90
90 90
80
80 80 70
HOTEL HOTEL HOTEL

Mean of Cursuri de social media
120 120
110
110
Mean of Alte cursuri

100
100
90
90 80
70
80
HOTEL
HOTEL

Finally, the situation of the tourism organizational communication in tourism units should not be a
surprise to anyone, especially considering that, although they believes that the image of their
organization is very important to others (see Table 7), their managers does not make any special
audits nor (or rather will not have) any clear guidance on ways in which it could create loyal
customers.
Table 7: The relationship between the classification of tourism unit and audits of organizational communication
in order to make loyal the customers of tourism units
ANOVA
Sum of
n cadrul organizatiei Between Groups 22882.089 4 5720.522 17.611 .000
dumneavoastra se
realizeaza audituri de Within Groups 49698.171 153 324.825
comunicare
Total 72580.259 157
organizationala?
Imaginea organizatiei Between Groups 23916.219 4 5979.055 31.309 .000
fata de terti Within Groups 29218.642 153 190.972
Total 53134.861 157
Mean of n cadrul organizatiei dumneavoastra se realizeaza audituri de c
Relatiile cu clientii Between Groups 67536.044 4 16884.011 42.390 .000

Within Groups 60940.791 153 398.306
Total 128476.8 157
Crearea de clienti fideli Between Groups 24075.084 4 6018.771 17.011 .000
Within Groups 54134.865 153 353.823
Total 78209.949 157
Nu stiu Between Groups 34157.087 4 8539.272 28.244 .000
Within Groups 46258.489 153 302.343
Mean of Imaginea organizatiei fata de terti
Total 80415.576 157
120 110 120

Mean of Relatiile cu clientii
110
110 100 100
90
100 90
80
70
90 80
60
80 50
70
HOTEL HOTEL
HOTEL
120 130
Mean of Crearea de clienti fideli
110 120
100 110
Mean of Nu stiu
90 100
80 90
70 80
HOTEL HOTEL
Finally, it is obvious that, at the level of tourism units, the principle "it can / works like this too"
proves its "efficiency".
Coefficients f resulting from econometric processing validated, eventually, all hypotheses of our
research.
Our conducted research, part of a larger study, the first of its kind in our country, allowed us the
substantiation of the following conclusions:
1. Priority organizational communication in tourism units is practiced intuitively, random. In
this respect, we mention that the literature from Romania has no material and no regulatory
framework to address and / or regulate the complex issue of organizational communication in
tourism facilities;
2. Although they benefit of specific programs and / or applications IT&C tourism units from
our country (we refer to guesthouses) attempts, in far too many cases to mislead potential
clients (even by the existing legal framework, they are called "tourists"), displaying tourist
classifications (stars, instead of flowers) that are not true;
3. the levels of organizational communication, both external and internal is still low, as a
normal resultant of its low degree of professionalization. As we have shown, in general,
in tourism facilities from Romania there is a low concern for the loyalty of their human
resources by developing / improving their preparation;
4. the impact of the implementation of modern communication technologies on the growth
of income and the number of visitors is still low. Profoundly surprising, though quite
common also internationally tourism facilities have not taken any concrete steps towards
customer loyalty.
Given some of the identified issues, we think that are likely to interest the following proposals:
1. paying more attention to internal organizational communication, the design and implementation
of operational programs on professional training of human resources in tourism units, especially
focusing on informing and advising as accurate and complete as possible of customer travel
agencies;
2. improving external organizational communication in at least two major directions, namely:
correct information of customers on the quality status of offered services. In this context, we
refer to mandatory framing of tourism establishments in norms issued by the ministry in
terms of classification. More specifically, we believe that the drastic sanction of tour
operators who misinform their potential customers by displaying other criteria / categories
for classification of quality service than the legally stipulated could be successful in making
a substantial increase in this matter;
travel units to keep in count correspondence between the made offer and services. This,
more so as, not infrequently, the services offered are hardly consistent with the reality that
"face" tourists on the ground;
auditing periodically based on a minimum subjectivity, the activity of all travel units and
drastic sanction to those who violate norms and regulations in force.
Acknowledgement
This work was co-financed from the European Social Fund through Sectorial Operational Programme
Human Resources Development 2007-2013, project number POSDRU/159/1.5/S/142115, project
title Performance and Excellence in Doctoral and Postdoctoral Research in Romanian Economics
Science Domain
References
[1] Abbot, R. 2012. Organizational Communication Flow. New York: Word Engines Press
[2] Avtgis, T. 2013. Study guide for Organizational Communication: Strategies for Success.
New York: CRAM101 Publishers
[3] Boonstra, J. 2013. Cultural Change and Leadership in Organizations: A Practical Guide
to Successful Organizational Change. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell
[4] Carroll, C. 2013. The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Reputation. New Jersey:
Wiley-Blackwell
[5] Castells, M. 2013. Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press
[6] Dainton, M., Dawn-Zelley, E. 2014. Applying Communication Theory for Professional
Life: A Practical Introduction. London: SAGE Publications
[7] Garcia, H.-F. 2012. Power of Communication, The: Skills to Build Trust, Inspire Loyalty, and
Lead Effectively. New Jersey: FT Press
[8] Gills, T. 2011. The IABC Handbook of Organizational Communication: A Guide to
Internal Communication, Public Relations, Marketing, and Leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
[9] Hargie, O., Tourish, D. 2009. Auditing Organizational Communication. A Handbook of
Research, Theory and Practice. New York: Taylor & Francis
[10] Polizzi, G. 2011. La Communicazione Della Destinazione Turistica Al Tempo Di
Internet. New York: John Willey&Sons
[11] Popescu, D., State, C. 2014. From the Science of Influence to the art of Manipulation.
Bucharest: ASE Publishing House
[12] Salver, J. 2013. Brand Management in the Hotel Industry and Its Potential for Achieving
Customer Loyalty. Mnich: GRIN Verlag
[13] Stanford, N. 2013. Organization Design: Engaging with Change. London: Routledge
[14] www.wttc.org, accesed at 09.07.2013
[15] www.capital.ro, accesed at 27.05.2014
[16] www.business.24.org, accesed at 02.07.2014
[17] www. cazare.info, accesed at 23.06.2014
[18] www.ins.org, accesed at 23.06.2014

Dan Popescu Cristina State Manuela Ciucurel - Albena

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Dan Popescu Cristina State Manuela Ciucurel - Albena

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dan Popescu Cristina State Manuela Ciucurel - Albena

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION IN THE TOURISM UNITS

FROM ROMANIA -BETWEEN TO BE AND TO SEEM

Mean of Departamentul Vnzari

Mean of Departamentul Marketing

100 130 100

Mean of Parteneri externi

source: made by authors in ANOVA Program

Newsletter Between Groups 36032.833 4 9008.208 31.185 .000

Mean of Posta electronica

source: made by authors in ANOVA Program

110 120 120

Mean of Panouri Informative

source: made by authors in ANOVA Program

120 110 120

Mean of Va rugam sa indicati daca n cadrul organizatiei dumneavoastra e

Mean of Alte canale

HOTEL HOTEL HOTEL

Source: made by authors in ANOVA Program

Mean of ntlniri formale (reuniuni, sedinte, briefing-uri operationale

Mean of ntlniri informale (evenimente sociale, Info Trip-uri etc.)

120 120 120

110 110 110

100 100 100

Source: made by authors in ANOVA Program

Mean of Posta electronica

Mean of Retele de socializare (Facebook, Twitter etc.)

HOTEL HOTEL HOTEL

Source: made by authors in ANOVA Program

Informatica Between Groups 25764.576 4 6441.144 19.513 .000

120 120 120

110 110 110

HOTEL HOTEL HOTEL

Source: made by authors in ANOVA Program

Cursuri de social media Between Groups 28902.476 4 7225.619 22.168 .000

Mean of Limbi de circulatie internationala

Mean of Cursuri de marketing online

HOTEL HOTEL HOTEL

Mean of Alte cursuri

Source: made by authors in ANOVA Program

Relatiile cu clientii Between Groups 67536.044 4 16884.011 42.390 .000

Total 80415.576 157

120 110 120

110 100 100

You might also like