- Email: [email protected]
Satisfaction measurement in guided tours
of &rum Restarch. Vol. 18. pp. 177-185. Prmted ,n the USA. All nghts resewed.
Annals
1991 Copyright
0160-i383/91 $3 00 + 00 0 1991 Pergamon Press plc and] J&r
SATISFACTION MEASUREMENT GUIDED TOURS
The Hebrew University
IN
Aviva Geva Arieh Goldman of Jerusalem, Israel
Abstract: Companies offering guided tours dwell on participants satisfaction in controlling the tour quality. The responsibility for achieving participants satisfaction is mostly delegated to the guide who is in a good position to customize the tour’s quality to the individual needs and preferences. This article questions the widespread assumption that the tour companies are directly credited with the success of the guide and with the customer’s satisfaction of the tour performance. The findings of an empirical study, investigating 15 guided tours from Israel to Europe and the United States, highlight the vulnerability of the tour company in the tripartite company-guide-consumer relationship. The managerial implications of the findings are explored. Keywords: guided tours, consumer satisfaction, satisfaction analysis, attribution theory, motivating guides. Resume: L’ivaluation de la satisfaction dans les voyages organises. Les compagnies qui offrent des voyages organises s’appuient sur la satisfaction des participants pour controler la qualite du vovage. La responsabilite pour gagner la satisfaction des participants est delegute surtout au guide, qui est bien place pour adapter les details du voyage aux besoins et aux preferences de l’individu. Le present article remet en question la supposition qu’on attribue directement aux compagnies faisant des voyages organises le suc& du guide et la satisfaction des clients. Les risultats d’une etude empirique qui a examine quinze voyages organist% d’Isra4 en Europe et aux Etats-Unis mettent en lumitre la vulnerabilite des compagnies dans le rapport tripartite compagnie-guide-consommateur. On ttudie les implications qu’ont les risultats pour la gestion. Mots-cl&: voyages organisis, satisfaction du client, analyse de la satisfaction, theorie de l’attribution, motivation des guides.
INTRODUCTION The motto ‘Service means customer satisfaction” is especially relevant in the guided-tours industry. Companies offering guided tours place a heavy emphasis on customer satisfaction. They emphasize it in their publications, measure it, and use the results to control the quality Aviva Geva (The Jerusalem School of Business Administration, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel) received her Ph.D. in Business Administration in 1987. Her research interests and publications include consumer satisfaction, changes in attitude structure, satisfaction-intention relationship, and comprehension/miscomprehension of advertising. Arieh Goldman is the Lipson Professor of Marketing and Director of the K Mart Center for International Marketing and Retailing at the Jerusalem School of Business Administration. His research interests include consumer behavior, distribution systems, and retailing. 177
178
GUIDED
TOURS
of the tour performance. The responsibility for achieving customer satisfaction is mostly delegated to the tour guide, who, throughout the tour’s entire duration, is in a continuous and intense contact with the tour participants. It is generally accepted that “it is the guide who sells the next tour” (Grijnroos 1978: 598). Underlying this belief is the assumption that satisfaction from the guide’s performance will directly translate into an enhanced image of the tour company, and then to repeat purchase and favorable recommendations to potential customers. However, this paper argues that consumer’s satisfaction from the guide’s performance and from the tour does not necessarily lead to favorable attitude towards the company offering the tour. The company-guide-consumer relationship is first discussed, and the vulnerability of the tour company in this relationship is pointed out. The results of an empirical study designed to evaluate this relationship is then presented. Finally, the managerial implications of the findings are discussed. THE
COMPANY-GUIDE-CONSUMER
RELATIONSHIP
Like other services, the guided tour is characterized by inseparability of production and consumption. The company, the guide, and the tour participants are all actively taking part in shaping the tour product. However, successes and failures are not equally attributed to each. The tour company determines the more tangible elements of the tour: the airline used, hotels and meals, the itinerary, the local transportation, and similar services. The tour company, however, is not participating in the, production of the actual tour and in shaping its atmosphere. Here, the guide, who goes along on the tour and interacts with the tour participants, plays the central role. During the tour, the guide is the company’s representative. It is the guide’s job to solve problems and, if something goes wrong, to change various components of the tour in order to maintain the tour’s quality and keep the participants satisfied (Gronroos 1978). The tour company becomes highly dependent on the guide at this stage. The bond that develops between the guide and the tour participants is stronger than the bond between them and the tour company. This is due to the fact that the guide fulfills not only the instrumental task of ensuring that the participants will be provided with important services, but also a leadership role in the touring group. The guide plays an essential role in fostering group interaction and solidarity, providing security and protection in the face of the difficulties encountered in the host country, and mediating tourists-host interaction (Cohen 1985; Crompton 1979; Holloway 1981; Lopez 1980; Pearce 1982; Quiroga 1990). The guide is in a good position to customize the tour product to the participants’ individual needs and preferences. The participants often perceive the guide as the one who, by virtue of his or her resourcefulness and expertness, is likely to provide solutions for problems caused by the company, and as the one correcting the company’s mistakes. It can be safely assumed that the guide is highly motivated to work
GEVA AND GOLDMAN
179
toward the achievement of a high level of satisfaction from the tour by the participants. One reason is that this goal is explicitly stated by the company as one of the guide’s main tasks, and the company attempts to motivate the guide to achieve it. Moreover, it is only natural for the guide who has long and intensive interaction with the participants to strive to help them enjoy the tour. Because of the difficulty in directly assessing the quality of the tour and the guide’s performance, companies use measures of consumer satisfaction as an indicator of both tour’s quality and his or her performance. This satisfaction measure is often used by the company as a basis for determining the guide’s bonus. Furthermore, the guide’s standing with the company and reputation in the industry are largely determined by these satisfaction evaluations. To achieve high scores on these satisfaction measures, the guide may try to magnify his or her personal contribution to the tour’s success. Consumers play an active role in the tour and take part in shaping its performance. Thus, the quality of the tour performance depends to a large extent on their motivation, initiative, ability, and effort. On the other hand, consumers depend very much on the guide’s assistance, but are likely to have little involvement during the tour with the company. According to attribution theory, in this type of situation, the consumer tends to take personal credit for acts that yield positive outcomes and to deflect blame for failures by attributing them to external causes (Bradley 1978; Folkes 1984; Fornell and Westbrook 1984; Francken and Van Raaij 1981; Jones and Nisbett 1972; Zuckerman 1979). The tour company, which is not actively involved in the performance of the actual tour, but does have the overall general responsibility for it, is likely to be blamed for failures. This proposition raises questions regarding the position of the tour company and of the guide in consumers’ evaluations of the tour. Specifically, the study focuses on the following issues: Does satisfaction from the guide’s performance lead to satisfaction from the company? Does satisfaction from the guide’s performance lead to intentions to repeat buying from the tour company, and to positive word-of-mouth communications about the tour? Does satisfaction from the tour performance lead to satisfaction from the company offering the tour? Method
Fifteen guided tours from Israel to Europe and the United States were studied. Each tour offered the same standard of hotels and facilities, and each included between 20 and 35 participants. The tours were operated by one of the major tour companies in Israel. This company, like many other tour companies, hires guides for each tour and pays them a salary plus a bonus. The bonus is determined on the basis of a feedback satisfaction questionnaire administered to the participants at the end of the tour. The questionnaire evaluates participants’ satisfaction from the tour and from the guide. The questionnaire used in the present study replaced the regular feedback questionnaire. It included questions about participants’ satisfaction with the tour in general and with 15 specific attributes: the guide’s expertness, the guide’s relations with the participants, the com-
180
GUIDED
TOURS
pany’s handling of the tour arrangements, the tour itinerary, local services, hotels, meals, order and organization, entertainment activities, the relations and interactions among group members, the cohesion and morale of the tour group, manner in which free time was spent, richness of the experiences in the tour, and allocation of time among the different types of activities such as visiting museums and shopping. In addition, the respondents stated the importance weights of the above attributes; their intentions to tour again with the same company; and their intended recommendations to friends, colleagues, and relatives regarding touring with that tour company. In all cases, a 7-point scale was used. The guide of each tour administered the study questionnaire at the end of the tour in the same time and manner in which the feedback questionnaire is usually administered. After eliminating partially answered questionnaires, duplicates filled by spouses, and those filled by children, 314 questionnaires were left for analysis (see Table 2 for the number of respondents in each tour). Findings As a first step in assessing the position of the company and of the guide in the consumers’ evaluation of the tour performance, the Importance-satisfaction grid proposed by Martilla and James (1977) is used here as a diagnostic tool. The data for the analysis are the importance and satisfaction ratings on each of the 15 tour attributes. The ratings at the aggregate level for all 15 tours are presented in Table 1 and graphically displayed in the form of the Importance-Satisfaction grid in Figure 1. The distinguished position of the guide in consumers’ perceptions is clearly evident in the grid. The guide is located in the upper-right corner of quadrant B, where attributes are evaluated as both important and being satisfactorily performed. In contrast, the tour company is located in quadrant A, where attributes are evaluated as important, but as not being performed at the desired level. The findings were similar when the same analysis was conducted Table
1. Importance
and
Satisfaction (aggregate
Ratings level)
for the
Tour Attributes
Attributes
Importance IlmQll
Rrltings S.D.
Satisfaction -alI
Tour itinerary Order and organization Allocation of time Utilization of free time Level of hotels Level of meals Local services Entertainment Richness of experiences Gmup intarrelations Moral of the group Guide’s eonduct Guide’s expertise Compaq’s handling of the tour Touring in an organized tour
5.45 6.46 6.10 5.66 6.00 5.75 6.27 5.71 5.72 6.06 6.32 6.77 6.65 6.32 6.07
C.71) C.79) (.89) (.9-l) (1.05) (1.10) 036) (1.07) (1.11) (1.04) C.93) C.49) c.64) (.961 C.93)
5.91 5.76 5.40 5.42 4.92 4.72 5.76 5.30 5.55 5.41 5.46 6.34 6.18 5.16 5.58
Rating
S.D.
(1.05) (1.23) (1.17) (1.38) (1.52) (1.53) (1.18) (1.23) (1.27) (1.33) (1.35) (1.17) (1.36) (1.56) (1.20)
181
GEVA AND GOLDMAN
ae
yyY a4
4
1
I
*a
I
6
Figure
a2
1.
a4
I
a6
1
a8
Satisfaction
Importance-Satisfaction
I
I
I
6
6.2
a4
6
Grid
separately for each of the 15 tours. The guide received the highest performance score in 13 out of 15 tours, whereas the company was rated low in 14 out of 15 tours. However, as to importance scores, both the guide and the company were rated among the most important of the tour attributes in all 15 tours. The grid is a useful diagnostic tool since it helps to focus attention on a potential problem for the company. While the guide is positioned in the favorable quadrant, the company is positioned in the most unfavorable one. This may not, however, be a real problem for the company if participants realize that the guide is the company’s representative and the guide’s favorable evaluation is being associated with the company. If, however, the guide is perceived by participants as a separate entity, action should be taken to prevent this unfavorable situation. To further clarify this issue, one should examine the guide’s contribution to consumer’s satisfaction from the tour company, consumers’ recommendations to others about touring with the company, and intentions to repurchase tours from the same company. The relative impact of the guide on these three factors was estimated using a stepwise multiple regression analysis. The independent variables were the satisfaction scores regarding each of the tour attributes. Because of multicollinearities, only eight of the attributes were used: guide’s conduct, order or organization, local services, hotels, allocation of time among activities, entertainment activities, tour itinerary, and interrelations among participants. Regressions were run on each of the three dependent variables (satisfaction from the tour company, recommendations to others, and intentions to repurchase) for each of the 15 tours. Investigation of the impact of the guide on the satisfaction from the
182
GUIDED
TOURS
company revealed that in 14 out of 15 regression equations, satisfaction from the performance of the guide did not significantly change the overall explanation power (R’) of the model. This means that the relative importance of the guide in predicting the satisfaction from the tour company is limited. Analysis of the guide’s impact on the consumers recommendations to others about touring with the company yielded similar results. Here, too, the change in R' caused by the guide variable was not statistically significant in 11 of the 15 regressions. Finally, when intentions to repeat touring with the same company served as the dependent variable, satisfaction from the guide was not statistically significant in 12 out of the 15 regressions. It can be concluded that there is a low level of association between the evaluation of the guide’s performance, viewed by the participants as the most important tour attribute and the one from which they are most satisfied, and the three factors that are highly important to the tour company and to its future success. The relative impact of the guide variable on consumer’s satisfaction with the company, consumers’ intentions to repeat touring with the same company, and consumers’ recommendations to others was found to be minimal. Another issue is whether satisfaction from the performance of the tour is related to satisfaction from the company offering the tour. The association between these two satisfaction scores was tested both for the aggregate level (all tours combined) and in each of the 15 tours. Table 2 shows that most of the correlation coefficients were positive, high, and statistically significant. However, in most of the tours, the absolute scores on satisfaction from the tour as a whole were higher than those on satisfaction from the company. In order to interpret this latter finding, the elements underlying these two types of satisfaction evaluations were examined. For this purpose, two regression analyses were run. The dependent variables were satisfaction from the tour as a whole and from the company, and the independent variables were the satisfaction scores regarding each of Table 2. Participants’
Satisfaction
from the Tour and from the Company s&isfzl&onkYJom
Correlation Coefficient
Satisfaction mean
from the Tour S.D.
tJ=GmpanY mean S.D.
TOW
(n)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
(24) (19) (241 (221 (16) (26) (24) (28) (21) (14) (14) (20) (26) (22) (12)
.4a .66’ .86’ .718 .25 .65’ .31 .72’ Ala .63’ .46 .Ol .67’ .8la .49
5.79 6.89 5.96 4.81 6.56 5.81 5.84 5.53 4.52 6.00 6.50 5.55 5.85 5.50 6.00
(59) C.45) c.67) (1.33) C.51) C.98) C.92) (1.07) (1.54) (1.19) C.52) C.94) C.93) (1.22) (.85)
6.12 6.63 5.63 3.95 6.00 4.57 5.37 4.96 3.52 6.00 6.57 4.25 5.39 5.00 4.58
C.53) C.59) (1.01) (1.75) C.51) (1.62) (1.46) (1.37) (1.69) (1.46) C.65) (1.62) (1.37) (1.46) (1.92)
-2.89b 2.54b 1.14 3.2t~~ 2.76b 5.05a 2.13b 3.15b 4.5fP 3.1Sb -0.43 3.llb 2.67b 2.73b 2.93b
T0t.d
(314)
.68’
5.76
(1.11)
5.15
(1.58)
9.36’
*P < .OOl b P < .05
t
183
GEVA AND GOLDMAN
Table 3. The Impact of Tour Attributes on Satisfaction from the Tour as a Whole and Satisfaction from the Company Independent
Variables
Order and Organization lntei-relations Local Services HOtdS Guide’s Performance Entei-tainment Allocation of Time Tour Itinerary
Satisfaction Beta .33a ,228 .1t?a ,158 .14 .ll b
from the Tour R2 .65
b
Satisfaction B&l .36’ b b
from the Company R* 52
.31* .I2
.15; b
* Significant at p < .Ol
b Variables not in the equation kignificanee of F test for R2 change > .l).
the same eight tour attributes included in the previous regression analyses. Table 3 shows that the attribute “order and organization of the tour” had the largest impact on both satisfaction from the tour and satisfaction from the company. To a large extent, this finding explains the positive correlation between the two types of satisfaction evaluations. The impact of the other determinants varied. In the case of satisfaction from the company, the level of hotels was an important determinant, while interrelations among participants was not. The opposite is true regarding satisfaction from the tour as a whole. Further, in both cases the guide is of little importance. Discussion The results of this study show that the company offering the tour is not fully credited with the success of the guide and with the favorable evaluation of the tour’s performance. The study supports the prevalent belief that satisfaction with the tour and with the guide do have an impact on participants’ evaluation of the company. Yet, it also reveals a systematic gap between the absolute levels of these evaluations: the company getting a lower evaluation than the guide. What is the explanation for the high evaluation received by the guide as opposed to the low evaluation of the company? The guide, being in the field, is the one who solves the problems emerging during the tour and shapes the actual way the tour performs. This function and the constant interaction with the participants puts the guide in an advantageous position. This position is further strengthened by the guide’s role as the leader of the touring group. It is quite natural that under these conditions, the guide’s contribution to the success of the tour will be emphasized by the respondents. The fact that the bonuses received from the company, the guide’s reputation, and other benefits are dependent on participants’ satisfaction with him or her increase the likelihood that the guide might try to achieve a high evaluation for him- or herself even at the expense of the evaluations given to the company. The guide’s position enables him or her to take credit for the tour successes and to blame the company for problems. The company is in a vulnerable position. While holding the ultimate responsibility for the tour, it is not present at the scene and is unable to defend itself. The findings show that the company is also vulnerable on the consumer’s side. The consumers are much more satisfied from the tour’s
184
GUIDED
TOURS
performance than from the company offering this tour. The consumers who take an active part in shaping the tour’s performance are likely to attribute the successes to themselves and the failures to the remote company. This explanation is supported by the regression analysis that shows that the two dependent variables - satisfaction from the company and satisfaction from the tour- are determined by different tour attributes. Whereas the satisfaction from the company is strongly determined by the level of hotels that is not under the control of the participants, the satisfaction from the tour as a whole is strongly influenced by those activities in which consumers are actively taking part. CONCLUSIONS The study shows that the tour guide is indeed vital to the tour’s performance, yet it casts doubt on the widespread assumption that the company automatically and directly benefits from the guide’s success in terms of positive effects on the corporate image and repeat purchase intentions. A company cannot assume that because the tour guide is its employee and representative, participants will perceive him/her as a constituent part of the entity. To achieve its goals, the company should ascertain that the guide will be motivated to work specifically toward the enhancement of its standing among participants and toward increasing the likelihood of their repeat usage of the company. One way of achieving this goal is by modifying the compensation plan. For example, the bonus should be tied not only to the evaluation of the guide’s personal achievements, but also to the evaluations given to the company, to indications about future buying intentions, and to recommendations to potential buyers. While such evaluation procedures are more involved than the ones currently in use, they can be developed and put into use. In order to strengthen the company’s position, it is important to devise ways to stress the contribution of the company to the success of all aspects of the tour. The position of the guide as the company’s representative should be emphasized, as well as the company’s continued involvement with the tour throughout its duration. 00 REFERENCES Bradley, G. N’. 1978 Self-serving Biases in the Attribution Process: A Reexamination of the Fact or Fiction Question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36:5-71. Cohen, E. 1985 The Tourist Guide: The Origins, Structure and Dynamics of a Role. Annals of Tourism Research 12:5-29. Crompton, J. L. 1979 Dimensions of the Social Group in Pleasure Vacations. Annals of Tourism Research 8(4):550-568. Folkes, V. S. 1984 Consumers Reactions to Product Failure: An Attributional Approach. Journal of Consumer Research 10(4):398-409. Fornell. C., and R. A. Westbrook 1984 The \‘icious Circle of Consumer Complaints. Journal of Marketing 48(summrrl:68-78.
GEVA AND GOLDMAN
185
Francken, D. A., and W. F. Van Raaij 1981 Satisfaction with Leisure Time Activities. Journal of Leisure Research 13(4):337-352. Griinroos, C. 1978 A Service Oriented Approach to Marketing of Services. European Journal of Marketing 12(3):588-601. Holloway, J. C. 1981 The guided Tour: A Sociological Approach. Annals of Tourism Research 8(3):377-402. Jones, E. E., and R. Nisbett 1972 The Actor and Observer: Divergent Perception of the Causes of Behavior. In Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. E. E. Jones et al, eds. Morristown NJ: General Learning Press. Lopez, E. M. 1980 The Effect of Leadership Style on Satisfaction Levels of Tour Quality. Journal of Travel Research 18(4):20-23. Martilla, J. A., and J. C. James 1977 Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing Uanuary): 77-79. Pearce, P. L. 1982 The Social Psychology of Tourist Behavior. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Quiroga, I. 1990 Characteristics of Package Tours in Europe. Annals of Tourism Research 17(2): 185-207. Zuckerman, M. 1979 Attribution of Success and Failure Revisited: or: The Motivational Bias is Alive and Well in Attribution Theory. Journal of Personality 47:245-287. Submitted 13 December 1989 Accepted 6 March 1990 Refereed anonymously Coordinating Editor: Valene L. Smith
Annals
1991 Copyright
0160-i383/91 $3 00 + 00 0 1991 Pergamon Press plc and] J&r
SATISFACTION MEASUREMENT GUIDED TOURS
The Hebrew University
IN
Aviva Geva Arieh Goldman of Jerusalem, Israel
Abstract: Companies offering guided tours dwell on participants satisfaction in controlling the tour quality. The responsibility for achieving participants satisfaction is mostly delegated to the guide who is in a good position to customize the tour’s quality to the individual needs and preferences. This article questions the widespread assumption that the tour companies are directly credited with the success of the guide and with the customer’s satisfaction of the tour performance. The findings of an empirical study, investigating 15 guided tours from Israel to Europe and the United States, highlight the vulnerability of the tour company in the tripartite company-guide-consumer relationship. The managerial implications of the findings are explored. Keywords: guided tours, consumer satisfaction, satisfaction analysis, attribution theory, motivating guides. Resume: L’ivaluation de la satisfaction dans les voyages organises. Les compagnies qui offrent des voyages organises s’appuient sur la satisfaction des participants pour controler la qualite du vovage. La responsabilite pour gagner la satisfaction des participants est delegute surtout au guide, qui est bien place pour adapter les details du voyage aux besoins et aux preferences de l’individu. Le present article remet en question la supposition qu’on attribue directement aux compagnies faisant des voyages organises le suc& du guide et la satisfaction des clients. Les risultats d’une etude empirique qui a examine quinze voyages organist% d’Isra4 en Europe et aux Etats-Unis mettent en lumitre la vulnerabilite des compagnies dans le rapport tripartite compagnie-guide-consommateur. On ttudie les implications qu’ont les risultats pour la gestion. Mots-cl&: voyages organisis, satisfaction du client, analyse de la satisfaction, theorie de l’attribution, motivation des guides.
INTRODUCTION The motto ‘Service means customer satisfaction” is especially relevant in the guided-tours industry. Companies offering guided tours place a heavy emphasis on customer satisfaction. They emphasize it in their publications, measure it, and use the results to control the quality Aviva Geva (The Jerusalem School of Business Administration, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel) received her Ph.D. in Business Administration in 1987. Her research interests and publications include consumer satisfaction, changes in attitude structure, satisfaction-intention relationship, and comprehension/miscomprehension of advertising. Arieh Goldman is the Lipson Professor of Marketing and Director of the K Mart Center for International Marketing and Retailing at the Jerusalem School of Business Administration. His research interests include consumer behavior, distribution systems, and retailing. 177
178
GUIDED
TOURS
of the tour performance. The responsibility for achieving customer satisfaction is mostly delegated to the tour guide, who, throughout the tour’s entire duration, is in a continuous and intense contact with the tour participants. It is generally accepted that “it is the guide who sells the next tour” (Grijnroos 1978: 598). Underlying this belief is the assumption that satisfaction from the guide’s performance will directly translate into an enhanced image of the tour company, and then to repeat purchase and favorable recommendations to potential customers. However, this paper argues that consumer’s satisfaction from the guide’s performance and from the tour does not necessarily lead to favorable attitude towards the company offering the tour. The company-guide-consumer relationship is first discussed, and the vulnerability of the tour company in this relationship is pointed out. The results of an empirical study designed to evaluate this relationship is then presented. Finally, the managerial implications of the findings are discussed. THE
COMPANY-GUIDE-CONSUMER
RELATIONSHIP
Like other services, the guided tour is characterized by inseparability of production and consumption. The company, the guide, and the tour participants are all actively taking part in shaping the tour product. However, successes and failures are not equally attributed to each. The tour company determines the more tangible elements of the tour: the airline used, hotels and meals, the itinerary, the local transportation, and similar services. The tour company, however, is not participating in the, production of the actual tour and in shaping its atmosphere. Here, the guide, who goes along on the tour and interacts with the tour participants, plays the central role. During the tour, the guide is the company’s representative. It is the guide’s job to solve problems and, if something goes wrong, to change various components of the tour in order to maintain the tour’s quality and keep the participants satisfied (Gronroos 1978). The tour company becomes highly dependent on the guide at this stage. The bond that develops between the guide and the tour participants is stronger than the bond between them and the tour company. This is due to the fact that the guide fulfills not only the instrumental task of ensuring that the participants will be provided with important services, but also a leadership role in the touring group. The guide plays an essential role in fostering group interaction and solidarity, providing security and protection in the face of the difficulties encountered in the host country, and mediating tourists-host interaction (Cohen 1985; Crompton 1979; Holloway 1981; Lopez 1980; Pearce 1982; Quiroga 1990). The guide is in a good position to customize the tour product to the participants’ individual needs and preferences. The participants often perceive the guide as the one who, by virtue of his or her resourcefulness and expertness, is likely to provide solutions for problems caused by the company, and as the one correcting the company’s mistakes. It can be safely assumed that the guide is highly motivated to work
GEVA AND GOLDMAN
179
toward the achievement of a high level of satisfaction from the tour by the participants. One reason is that this goal is explicitly stated by the company as one of the guide’s main tasks, and the company attempts to motivate the guide to achieve it. Moreover, it is only natural for the guide who has long and intensive interaction with the participants to strive to help them enjoy the tour. Because of the difficulty in directly assessing the quality of the tour and the guide’s performance, companies use measures of consumer satisfaction as an indicator of both tour’s quality and his or her performance. This satisfaction measure is often used by the company as a basis for determining the guide’s bonus. Furthermore, the guide’s standing with the company and reputation in the industry are largely determined by these satisfaction evaluations. To achieve high scores on these satisfaction measures, the guide may try to magnify his or her personal contribution to the tour’s success. Consumers play an active role in the tour and take part in shaping its performance. Thus, the quality of the tour performance depends to a large extent on their motivation, initiative, ability, and effort. On the other hand, consumers depend very much on the guide’s assistance, but are likely to have little involvement during the tour with the company. According to attribution theory, in this type of situation, the consumer tends to take personal credit for acts that yield positive outcomes and to deflect blame for failures by attributing them to external causes (Bradley 1978; Folkes 1984; Fornell and Westbrook 1984; Francken and Van Raaij 1981; Jones and Nisbett 1972; Zuckerman 1979). The tour company, which is not actively involved in the performance of the actual tour, but does have the overall general responsibility for it, is likely to be blamed for failures. This proposition raises questions regarding the position of the tour company and of the guide in consumers’ evaluations of the tour. Specifically, the study focuses on the following issues: Does satisfaction from the guide’s performance lead to satisfaction from the company? Does satisfaction from the guide’s performance lead to intentions to repeat buying from the tour company, and to positive word-of-mouth communications about the tour? Does satisfaction from the tour performance lead to satisfaction from the company offering the tour? Method
Fifteen guided tours from Israel to Europe and the United States were studied. Each tour offered the same standard of hotels and facilities, and each included between 20 and 35 participants. The tours were operated by one of the major tour companies in Israel. This company, like many other tour companies, hires guides for each tour and pays them a salary plus a bonus. The bonus is determined on the basis of a feedback satisfaction questionnaire administered to the participants at the end of the tour. The questionnaire evaluates participants’ satisfaction from the tour and from the guide. The questionnaire used in the present study replaced the regular feedback questionnaire. It included questions about participants’ satisfaction with the tour in general and with 15 specific attributes: the guide’s expertness, the guide’s relations with the participants, the com-
180
GUIDED
TOURS
pany’s handling of the tour arrangements, the tour itinerary, local services, hotels, meals, order and organization, entertainment activities, the relations and interactions among group members, the cohesion and morale of the tour group, manner in which free time was spent, richness of the experiences in the tour, and allocation of time among the different types of activities such as visiting museums and shopping. In addition, the respondents stated the importance weights of the above attributes; their intentions to tour again with the same company; and their intended recommendations to friends, colleagues, and relatives regarding touring with that tour company. In all cases, a 7-point scale was used. The guide of each tour administered the study questionnaire at the end of the tour in the same time and manner in which the feedback questionnaire is usually administered. After eliminating partially answered questionnaires, duplicates filled by spouses, and those filled by children, 314 questionnaires were left for analysis (see Table 2 for the number of respondents in each tour). Findings As a first step in assessing the position of the company and of the guide in the consumers’ evaluation of the tour performance, the Importance-satisfaction grid proposed by Martilla and James (1977) is used here as a diagnostic tool. The data for the analysis are the importance and satisfaction ratings on each of the 15 tour attributes. The ratings at the aggregate level for all 15 tours are presented in Table 1 and graphically displayed in the form of the Importance-Satisfaction grid in Figure 1. The distinguished position of the guide in consumers’ perceptions is clearly evident in the grid. The guide is located in the upper-right corner of quadrant B, where attributes are evaluated as both important and being satisfactorily performed. In contrast, the tour company is located in quadrant A, where attributes are evaluated as important, but as not being performed at the desired level. The findings were similar when the same analysis was conducted Table
1. Importance
and
Satisfaction (aggregate
Ratings level)
for the
Tour Attributes
Attributes
Importance IlmQll
Rrltings S.D.
Satisfaction -alI
Tour itinerary Order and organization Allocation of time Utilization of free time Level of hotels Level of meals Local services Entertainment Richness of experiences Gmup intarrelations Moral of the group Guide’s eonduct Guide’s expertise Compaq’s handling of the tour Touring in an organized tour
5.45 6.46 6.10 5.66 6.00 5.75 6.27 5.71 5.72 6.06 6.32 6.77 6.65 6.32 6.07
C.71) C.79) (.89) (.9-l) (1.05) (1.10) 036) (1.07) (1.11) (1.04) C.93) C.49) c.64) (.961 C.93)
5.91 5.76 5.40 5.42 4.92 4.72 5.76 5.30 5.55 5.41 5.46 6.34 6.18 5.16 5.58
Rating
S.D.
(1.05) (1.23) (1.17) (1.38) (1.52) (1.53) (1.18) (1.23) (1.27) (1.33) (1.35) (1.17) (1.36) (1.56) (1.20)
181
GEVA AND GOLDMAN
ae
yyY a4
4
1
I
*a
I
6
Figure
a2
1.
a4
I
a6
1
a8
Satisfaction
Importance-Satisfaction
I
I
I
6
6.2
a4
6
Grid
separately for each of the 15 tours. The guide received the highest performance score in 13 out of 15 tours, whereas the company was rated low in 14 out of 15 tours. However, as to importance scores, both the guide and the company were rated among the most important of the tour attributes in all 15 tours. The grid is a useful diagnostic tool since it helps to focus attention on a potential problem for the company. While the guide is positioned in the favorable quadrant, the company is positioned in the most unfavorable one. This may not, however, be a real problem for the company if participants realize that the guide is the company’s representative and the guide’s favorable evaluation is being associated with the company. If, however, the guide is perceived by participants as a separate entity, action should be taken to prevent this unfavorable situation. To further clarify this issue, one should examine the guide’s contribution to consumer’s satisfaction from the tour company, consumers’ recommendations to others about touring with the company, and intentions to repurchase tours from the same company. The relative impact of the guide on these three factors was estimated using a stepwise multiple regression analysis. The independent variables were the satisfaction scores regarding each of the tour attributes. Because of multicollinearities, only eight of the attributes were used: guide’s conduct, order or organization, local services, hotels, allocation of time among activities, entertainment activities, tour itinerary, and interrelations among participants. Regressions were run on each of the three dependent variables (satisfaction from the tour company, recommendations to others, and intentions to repurchase) for each of the 15 tours. Investigation of the impact of the guide on the satisfaction from the
182
GUIDED
TOURS
company revealed that in 14 out of 15 regression equations, satisfaction from the performance of the guide did not significantly change the overall explanation power (R’) of the model. This means that the relative importance of the guide in predicting the satisfaction from the tour company is limited. Analysis of the guide’s impact on the consumers recommendations to others about touring with the company yielded similar results. Here, too, the change in R' caused by the guide variable was not statistically significant in 11 of the 15 regressions. Finally, when intentions to repeat touring with the same company served as the dependent variable, satisfaction from the guide was not statistically significant in 12 out of the 15 regressions. It can be concluded that there is a low level of association between the evaluation of the guide’s performance, viewed by the participants as the most important tour attribute and the one from which they are most satisfied, and the three factors that are highly important to the tour company and to its future success. The relative impact of the guide variable on consumer’s satisfaction with the company, consumers’ intentions to repeat touring with the same company, and consumers’ recommendations to others was found to be minimal. Another issue is whether satisfaction from the performance of the tour is related to satisfaction from the company offering the tour. The association between these two satisfaction scores was tested both for the aggregate level (all tours combined) and in each of the 15 tours. Table 2 shows that most of the correlation coefficients were positive, high, and statistically significant. However, in most of the tours, the absolute scores on satisfaction from the tour as a whole were higher than those on satisfaction from the company. In order to interpret this latter finding, the elements underlying these two types of satisfaction evaluations were examined. For this purpose, two regression analyses were run. The dependent variables were satisfaction from the tour as a whole and from the company, and the independent variables were the satisfaction scores regarding each of Table 2. Participants’
Satisfaction
from the Tour and from the Company s&isfzl&onkYJom
Correlation Coefficient
Satisfaction mean
from the Tour S.D.
tJ=GmpanY mean S.D.
TOW
(n)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
(24) (19) (241 (221 (16) (26) (24) (28) (21) (14) (14) (20) (26) (22) (12)
.4a .66’ .86’ .718 .25 .65’ .31 .72’ Ala .63’ .46 .Ol .67’ .8la .49
5.79 6.89 5.96 4.81 6.56 5.81 5.84 5.53 4.52 6.00 6.50 5.55 5.85 5.50 6.00
(59) C.45) c.67) (1.33) C.51) C.98) C.92) (1.07) (1.54) (1.19) C.52) C.94) C.93) (1.22) (.85)
6.12 6.63 5.63 3.95 6.00 4.57 5.37 4.96 3.52 6.00 6.57 4.25 5.39 5.00 4.58
C.53) C.59) (1.01) (1.75) C.51) (1.62) (1.46) (1.37) (1.69) (1.46) C.65) (1.62) (1.37) (1.46) (1.92)
-2.89b 2.54b 1.14 3.2t~~ 2.76b 5.05a 2.13b 3.15b 4.5fP 3.1Sb -0.43 3.llb 2.67b 2.73b 2.93b
T0t.d
(314)
.68’
5.76
(1.11)
5.15
(1.58)
9.36’
*P < .OOl b P < .05
t
183
GEVA AND GOLDMAN
Table 3. The Impact of Tour Attributes on Satisfaction from the Tour as a Whole and Satisfaction from the Company Independent
Variables
Order and Organization lntei-relations Local Services HOtdS Guide’s Performance Entei-tainment Allocation of Time Tour Itinerary
Satisfaction Beta .33a ,228 .1t?a ,158 .14 .ll b
from the Tour R2 .65
b
Satisfaction B&l .36’ b b
from the Company R* 52
.31* .I2
.15; b
* Significant at p < .Ol
b Variables not in the equation kignificanee of F test for R2 change > .l).
the same eight tour attributes included in the previous regression analyses. Table 3 shows that the attribute “order and organization of the tour” had the largest impact on both satisfaction from the tour and satisfaction from the company. To a large extent, this finding explains the positive correlation between the two types of satisfaction evaluations. The impact of the other determinants varied. In the case of satisfaction from the company, the level of hotels was an important determinant, while interrelations among participants was not. The opposite is true regarding satisfaction from the tour as a whole. Further, in both cases the guide is of little importance. Discussion The results of this study show that the company offering the tour is not fully credited with the success of the guide and with the favorable evaluation of the tour’s performance. The study supports the prevalent belief that satisfaction with the tour and with the guide do have an impact on participants’ evaluation of the company. Yet, it also reveals a systematic gap between the absolute levels of these evaluations: the company getting a lower evaluation than the guide. What is the explanation for the high evaluation received by the guide as opposed to the low evaluation of the company? The guide, being in the field, is the one who solves the problems emerging during the tour and shapes the actual way the tour performs. This function and the constant interaction with the participants puts the guide in an advantageous position. This position is further strengthened by the guide’s role as the leader of the touring group. It is quite natural that under these conditions, the guide’s contribution to the success of the tour will be emphasized by the respondents. The fact that the bonuses received from the company, the guide’s reputation, and other benefits are dependent on participants’ satisfaction with him or her increase the likelihood that the guide might try to achieve a high evaluation for him- or herself even at the expense of the evaluations given to the company. The guide’s position enables him or her to take credit for the tour successes and to blame the company for problems. The company is in a vulnerable position. While holding the ultimate responsibility for the tour, it is not present at the scene and is unable to defend itself. The findings show that the company is also vulnerable on the consumer’s side. The consumers are much more satisfied from the tour’s
184
GUIDED
TOURS
performance than from the company offering this tour. The consumers who take an active part in shaping the tour’s performance are likely to attribute the successes to themselves and the failures to the remote company. This explanation is supported by the regression analysis that shows that the two dependent variables - satisfaction from the company and satisfaction from the tour- are determined by different tour attributes. Whereas the satisfaction from the company is strongly determined by the level of hotels that is not under the control of the participants, the satisfaction from the tour as a whole is strongly influenced by those activities in which consumers are actively taking part. CONCLUSIONS The study shows that the tour guide is indeed vital to the tour’s performance, yet it casts doubt on the widespread assumption that the company automatically and directly benefits from the guide’s success in terms of positive effects on the corporate image and repeat purchase intentions. A company cannot assume that because the tour guide is its employee and representative, participants will perceive him/her as a constituent part of the entity. To achieve its goals, the company should ascertain that the guide will be motivated to work specifically toward the enhancement of its standing among participants and toward increasing the likelihood of their repeat usage of the company. One way of achieving this goal is by modifying the compensation plan. For example, the bonus should be tied not only to the evaluation of the guide’s personal achievements, but also to the evaluations given to the company, to indications about future buying intentions, and to recommendations to potential buyers. While such evaluation procedures are more involved than the ones currently in use, they can be developed and put into use. In order to strengthen the company’s position, it is important to devise ways to stress the contribution of the company to the success of all aspects of the tour. The position of the guide as the company’s representative should be emphasized, as well as the company’s continued involvement with the tour throughout its duration. 00 REFERENCES Bradley, G. N’. 1978 Self-serving Biases in the Attribution Process: A Reexamination of the Fact or Fiction Question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36:5-71. Cohen, E. 1985 The Tourist Guide: The Origins, Structure and Dynamics of a Role. Annals of Tourism Research 12:5-29. Crompton, J. L. 1979 Dimensions of the Social Group in Pleasure Vacations. Annals of Tourism Research 8(4):550-568. Folkes, V. S. 1984 Consumers Reactions to Product Failure: An Attributional Approach. Journal of Consumer Research 10(4):398-409. Fornell. C., and R. A. Westbrook 1984 The \‘icious Circle of Consumer Complaints. Journal of Marketing 48(summrrl:68-78.
GEVA AND GOLDMAN
185
Francken, D. A., and W. F. Van Raaij 1981 Satisfaction with Leisure Time Activities. Journal of Leisure Research 13(4):337-352. Griinroos, C. 1978 A Service Oriented Approach to Marketing of Services. European Journal of Marketing 12(3):588-601. Holloway, J. C. 1981 The guided Tour: A Sociological Approach. Annals of Tourism Research 8(3):377-402. Jones, E. E., and R. Nisbett 1972 The Actor and Observer: Divergent Perception of the Causes of Behavior. In Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. E. E. Jones et al, eds. Morristown NJ: General Learning Press. Lopez, E. M. 1980 The Effect of Leadership Style on Satisfaction Levels of Tour Quality. Journal of Travel Research 18(4):20-23. Martilla, J. A., and J. C. James 1977 Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing Uanuary): 77-79. Pearce, P. L. 1982 The Social Psychology of Tourist Behavior. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Quiroga, I. 1990 Characteristics of Package Tours in Europe. Annals of Tourism Research 17(2): 185-207. Zuckerman, M. 1979 Attribution of Success and Failure Revisited: or: The Motivational Bias is Alive and Well in Attribution Theory. Journal of Personality 47:245-287. Submitted 13 December 1989 Accepted 6 March 1990 Refereed anonymously Coordinating Editor: Valene L. Smith