Self Efficacy - the UWA Profiles and Research Repository

The antecedents and consequences of service employees’

customer service self-efficacy (CSSE): An empirical study

Seow Bee Leng

MBR

MBA

BSc

This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of

The University of Western Australia

Marketing

Business School

2013

2

3

Abstract

What effect does the service marketing mix have on service employees’ customer

service self-efficacy (CSSE)? Specifically, the effect the resources directed at service

employees and customers (i.e., recruitment and selection, training, rewarding

customer service excellence, immediate supervisor support, team support from

co-workers, other departments’ support, customer education, customer

organisational socialisation, and encouragement of customer feedback) have on

CSSE was examined. The study investigated which of these resources enhance

service employees’ CSSE, as well as which moderating factors enhance or reduce

the strength of these relationships. In addition, the study examined the outcomes

of CSSE. These are important considerations for human resource, training and

service quality managers; as such understanding will help the development of

appropriate strategies for their service employees.

The present study focused on task-specific CSSE and developed a model to explain

the antecedents and consequences of service employees’ CSSE. The premise was

that the organisational resources not only influence customers, but, based on their

shared service environment, also influence service employees, as they impact on

the employees’ perceived CSSE. Consequently, the impact these elements had on

service employees’ CSSE was examined. The current project also examined the

moderating effects of a number of personal and situational factors (i.e. role clarity

role conflict, role overload, years of service experience, openness to experience,

passion for service, organisational climate for service, and general self-efficacy).

4

In Stage 1 of the study, focus groups were used to explore service employees’

perceptions of the situational resources directed at service employees and

customers. In Stage 2, a quantitative study was used to examine the study’s

hypotheses using a structural equation modelling approach to estimate the factors

that established the constructs’ measurement properties before proceeding with

regression analysis to test the substantive structural relationships. Moderated

regression in SPSS was used as the newly developed macro (“MODPROBE”) enabled

the testing of moderation while understanding the main effects of the resources

and CSSE relationships. Data was collected from 451 service staff employed in a

wide range of service organisations, including banks, leisure activity providers,

retailers, not-for-profit organisations, educational institutions, government

agencies and health care providers. In Stage 3, the results of the CSSE model were

discussed with a small sample of human resources, training, and service quality

managers, to examine their usefulness.

A final CSSE model was suggested that included three antecedent types: (i)

situational resources targeted at the employee (i.e., training), at the work-team (i.e.,

team support from co-worker) and at the customer (i.e., customer organisational

socialisation); (ii) personal resources of the service employees (i.e., openness to

experience and years of service experience) and (iii) organisational resources (i.e.,

role clarity). The three antecedent types provided a richer picture of the factors

underlying service employees’ CSSE that, in turn, led to employees feeling they

provided better quality service and that their customers were more loyal to their

employing organisation.

5

A comprehensive model of service employees’ CSSE had not been developed

previously. Consequently, the model developed and empirically tested in this study,

which was based on Gist and Mitchell’s Self-efficacy-Performance conceptualisation,

makes a significant contribution to theory and practice. This study involved an

integration of the self-efficacy and services marketing literature, which provided a

foundation for the present research. The relationships between the various

antecedents and service employees’ CSSE and, consequently, between CSSE and

perceived service quality and customer loyalty, make it clear how important it is to

manage employees’ CSSE. Situational resources (e.g., training, co-workers’ and

customers’ support, organisational socialisation), personal resources (e.g.,

employees’ openness to experience, years of service experience), and role clarity,

cannot be overlooked, as these constructs influence service employees’ CSSE and

can be used to improve service quality and human resource management efforts.

The managers who were interviewed in the third stage were interested in the

model and agreed with the study’s findings, offering a range of supportive and

insightful comments. They expressed interest in using the findings to better

understand and manage their key assets (i.e., service employees) and emphasised

that an on-going effort would be needed to enhance and fine-tune these

antecedents so as to maximise the impact of any intervention strategies.

6

7

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who has

helped me through this interesting and challenging research journey. Special

mention must be made to the superb support from my supervisors, Professor Jill

Sweeney and Professor Geoffrey Soutar. They have inspired, guided and helped me

with their professional competencies and love for research. The countless hours

they have spent with me discussing the CSSE model, and helping me focus my

thoughts and analysis were invaluable for the development of my research

capabilities, productivity and for making the Ph.D. process more enjoyable. They

have always been responsive with my queries and always patient enough to go

through my thesis chapters many times. Without them, I would not been able to

complete this research. I am also grateful to the service employees, human

resource managers, training managers and service quality managers who have

granted me their valuable time to participate in the focus groups, surveys and

interviews. My special thanks go to my family and friends for their motivation and

love. Lastly, I thank God for His blessings upon the whole thesis and the wonderful

people and resources He has sent forth to help me accomplish this research. May

the Lord bless everyone involved in this thesis.

“You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your

freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love”

Galatians 5:13

8

9

Table of Contents

Abstract 3

Acknowledgements 7

Chapter One: An Introduction 19

1.1 Background 19

1.2 The Importance, Scope and Contribution of the Research 23

1.2.1 Scope of the Research 23

1.2.2 Theoretical Contributions 25

1.2.3 The Study’s Managerial Contribution 30

1.3 The Study’s Research Questions 32

1.4 The Framework of the Dissertation 32

Chapter Two: The Literature Review 35

2.1 Introduction 35

2.2 Self-Efficacy: A Foundation of Human Performance 35

2.2.1 Determinants of Self-Efficacy 38

2.2.2 Antecedents to Self-Efficacy 47

2.2.3 Task-Specific Self-Efficacy and General Self-Efficacy 50

2.3 Related Constructs - How is self-efficacy different from other types of self-beliefs?

54

2.3.1 Self-Esteem 54

2.3.2 Outcome Expectancies 55

2.3.3 Locus of Control 57

2.3.4 Service Climate 57

2.4 Contextual Factors Affecting Performance 58

2.5 Strategic Human Resource Management: The Link between Organisations and Human Resource Management

60

10

2.6 The 3Ps of Services Marketing Mix - Booms and Bitner's 7Ps 64

2.6.1 An Assessment of the 3 Ps Situational Resources in Service Delivery

66

2.7 Human Resources (the People Factor) and Service Quality 71

2.7.1 Customer Resources Relating to the Customer - Customer Education

72

2.8 Self-Efficacy Research in Services Marketing 76

2.9 Customer Service Self-Efficacy in Delivering Service Quality 80

2.10 Conclusions 84

Chapter Three: The Development of a Conceptual Framework 87

3.1 Introduction 87

3.2 The Study’s Research Model 90

3.3 The Research Hypotheses 93

3.3.1 People Resources that are related to the Customer 100

3.3.2 The Consequences of Customer Specific Self-Efficacy 105

3.3.3 Moderators of the Situational Resources - CSSE Relationship 106

3.3.4 The Role of General Self-Efficacy 117

3.4 Conclusions 120

Chapter Four: The Research Approach 121

4.1 Introduction 121

4.2 Stage 1: The First Qualitative Study – The Focus Groups 122

4.2.1 Research Design and Methodology 122

4.2.2 The Focus Group Participants 123

4.2.3 Focus Group Procedures 124

4.2.4 Focus Groups’ Findings 126

4.3 The Quantitative Study 130

4.3.1 The Development of the Questionnaire 130

11

4.3.2 Operationalising the Model’s Constructs 131

4.3.3 The Sample 146

4.3.4 The Data Analysis Approach 147

4.4 Stage 3: The Second Qualitative Study –Model Confirmation 151

4.5 Ethical Considerations 152

4.6 Conclusions 153

Chapter Five: The Preliminary Data Analysis 155


5.2 Phase 1: The Descriptive Statistics 155

5.2.1 Sample Profile 155

5.2.2 Descriptive Statistics for the Individual Items 157

5.2.3 Missing Data 171

5.2.4 The Normality of the Data 172

5.3 Phase 2: The Constructs’ Measurement Characteristics 172

5.3.1 Common Method Variance (CMV) 197

5.4 Conclusions 198

Chapter Six: Examining the CSSE Model 199


6.2 Correlations between CSSE and People “P” of the Services Marketing Mix

199

6.3 Regressing the People “P” constructs on CSSE 202

6.4 Examining Potential Moderators 204

6.5 The Direct Relationship between CSSE and the Moderators 215

6.6 Estimating the Regression with the Antecedents to CSSE 217

6.7 Conclusions

220

12

Chapter Seven: Human Resource Managers’ Views of the Model 223


7.2 The Managers’ Perceptions 223

7.2.1 The people “P” elements of the services marketing mix 224

7.2.2 Personal Resources 227

7.2.3 Organisational Resources 229

7.2.4 The Consequences of Customer Service Self-Efficacy (CSSE) 230

7.3 Conclusions 231

Chapter Eight: Implications, Contribution and Conclusions 233


8.2 A Review of the Present Study 233

8.2.1 Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Service Self-Efficacy

233

8.2.2 Moderators of the Antecedents-CSSE Relationships 236

8.2.3 The Customer Service Self-Efficacy (CSSE) Model 236

8.3 The Study’s Contributions and Implications 237

8.3.1 Theoretical Contributions 237

8.3.2 Managerial Implications 240

8.4 Limitations and Directions for Future Research 242

8.5 Conclusions 244

References 245

Appendices 277

Abbreviations 277

Appendix 1A: Focus Group Consent Letter to Participants 278

Appendix 1B: Focus Group Guide 280

Appendix 2: The Qualitative Study - Focus Groups 284

13

Appendix 3A: Survey Consent Letter to Participants 298

Appendix 3B: Survey Form 300

Appendix 4A: Interview Consent Letter to Participants 312

Appendix 4B: Interview Guide for the HR Managers 314

Appendix 5: Parameter estimates using CMV adjustments 318

Appendix 6: Correlations of the CSSE and Situational Resources Constructs

324

Appendix 7: Correlations of the CSSE and the Moderator Constructs 326

14

Tables

Table 2.1: Antecedents to Self-Efficacy 49

Table 2.2: Factors affecting work performance 59

Table 2.3: An Expanded Marketing Mix for Services 65

Table 4.1: Focus Group Participants’ Background Characteristics 123

Table 4.2: The Customer Service Self-Efficacy Items 132

Table 4.3:The General Self-efficacy Items 133

Table 4.4: The Recruitment and Selection Criteria Items 134

Table 4.5: The Training Items 135

Table 4.6: The Rewards for Service Excellence 135

Table 4.7: The Immediate Supervisor Support Items 136

Table 4.8: The Co-worker Support Items 136

Table 4.9: The Other Department Support 137

Table 4.10: The Customer Education Items 138

Table 4.11: The Customer Organisational Socialisation Items 138

Table 4.12: The Encouraging Customer Feedback on the Service Items 139

Table 4.13: The Perceived Customer Loyalty Items 140

Table 4.14: The Service Quality Items 141

Table 4.15: The Role Clarity Items 142

Table 4.16: The Role Conflict Items 143

Table 4.17: The Role Overload Items 143

Table 4.18: The Passion for Service Items 144

Table 4.19: The Organisational Climate for Service Items 145

Table 4.20: The Openness to Experience Items 145

Table 5.1: Respondents’ Background Characteristics 156

15

Table 5.2: Descriptive Statistics for CSSE Items 157

Table 5.3: Descriptive Statistics for General Self-Efficacy Items 158

Table 5.4: Descriptive Statistics for Recruitment and Selection Items 159

Table 5.5: Descriptive Statistics for Training Items 160

Table 5.6: Descriptive Statistics for Rewards for Service Excellence Items

161

Table 5.7: Descriptive Statistics for Immediate Supervisor Support Items 161

Table 5.8: Descriptive Statistics for Team Support from Co-Workers Items

162

Table 5.9: Descriptive Statistics for Other Department Support Items 163

Table 5.10: Descriptive Statistics for Customer Education Items 164

Table 5.11: Descriptive Statistics for Customer Organisational Socialisation

164

Table 5.12: Descriptive Statistics for Encouraging Customer Feedback Items

165

Table 5.13: Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Customer Loyalty Items 166

Table 5.14: Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Service Quality Items 167

Table 5.15: Descriptive Statistics for Role Clarity Items 167

Table 5.16: Descriptive Statistics for Role Conflict Items 168

Table 5.17: Descriptive Statistics for Role Overload Items 169

Table 5.18: Descriptive Statistics for Organisational Climate for Service 169

Table 5.19: Descriptive Statistics for Passion for Service Items 170

Table 5.20: Descriptive Statistics for Openness to Experience Items 171

Table 5.21: The Normed Chi-Square Statistics for the Model’s Constructs

193

Table 5.22: AVE Scores and Squared Correlations between the Constructs

196

Table 6.1: Stepwise Regression Summary – Situational Resources and CSSE

203

16

Table 6.2: The Moderating Effect of Role Clarity on the Focal Predictor to CSSE Relationship

205

Table 6.3: The Moderating Effect of Role Conflict on the Focal Predictor to CSSE Relationship

206

Table 6.4:The Moderating Effect of Role Overload on the Focal Predictor to CSSE Relationship

208

Table 6.5: The Moderating Effect of Years of Service Experience on the Focal Predictor to CSSE Relationship

210

Table 6.6: The Moderating Effect of Openness to Experience on the Focal Predictor to CSSE Relationship

211

Table 6.7: The Moderating Effect of Years of Passion for Service on the Focal Predictor to CSSE Relationship

212

Table 6.8: The Moderating Effect of Perceptions of Organisational Climate for Service on the Focal Predictor to CSSE Relationship

213

Table 6.9: The Moderating Effect of General Self-Efficacy on the Focal Predictor to CSSE Relationship

214

Table 6.10: Stepwise Regression Model Summary for Moderators and CSSE

216

Table 6.11: Hierarchical Regression Model Summary of Antecedents and CSSE

218

17

Figures

Figure 1.1: What we know about the relationship between situational resources and performance (the service quality delivered)

27

Figure 1.2: What we need to know about the relationship between situational resources and performance (service quality delivered)

29

Figure 2.1: Self-efficacy Theory 40

Figure 2.2: A model of self-efficacy performance relationship 44

Figure 2.3: The Servicescape framework for understanding the 3 Ps of services marketing (customer and service employee relationships)

67

Figure 2.4: The Servuction interactions that make up a customer experience 80

Figure 3.1: Some suggested antecedents to task-specific self-efficacy 89

Figure 3.2: The Suggested CSSE Model 91

Figure 3.3: Perceived general self-efficacy as a moderator of the situational resources on perceived CSSE of service employee to deliver service quality

120

Figure 5.1: The Customer Service Self-Efficacy Construct 175

Figure 5.2: The Recruitment and Selection Construct 176

Figure 5.3: The Training Construct 177

Figure 5.4: The Rewards for Service Excellence Construct 178

Figure 5.5: The Immediate Supervisor Support Construct 179

Figure5.6: The Team Support from Co-workers Construct 180

Figure 5.7: The Other Department’s Support Construct 181

Figure 5.8: The Customer Education Construct 182

Figure 5.9: The Customer Organisational Socialisation Construct 182

Figure 5.10: The Encouraging Customer Feedback on the Service Construct 183

Figure 5.11: The Perceived Customer Loyalty Construct 184

Figure 5.12: The Perceived Service Quality Construct 185

18

Figure 5.13: The Role Clarity Construct 186

Figure 5.14: The Role Conflict Construct 187

Figure 5.15: The Role Overload Construct 188

Figure 5.16: The Openness to Experience Construct 189

Figure 5.17: The Passion for Service Construct 190

Figure 5.18: The Organisational Climate for Service Construct 191

Figure 5.19: The General Self-efficacy Construct 192

Figure 6.1: Role Conflict Interaction (Customer Organisational Socialisation) 207

Figure 6.2: Role Conflict Interaction (Co-worker Support) 207

Figure 6.3: Role Conflict Interaction (Customer Organisational Socialisation) 209

Figure 6.4: Role Conflict Interaction (Co-worker Support) 209

Figure 6.5: A Revised Model of the impact that the resources directed at the service employees and customers have on Employees’ CSSE

219

19

Chapter One: An Introduction

1.1 Background

The world’s most advanced economies are increasingly dominated by services, with

more than 70% of their gross domestic product (GDP) generated by services

(Ostrom et al., 2010). Even countries that have historically focused on

manufacturing are experiencing rapid growth in their service sectors. For example,

more than 40% of China’s GDP is now attributed to services. The services sector is

also an important engine of growth in the Singaporean economy, accounting for 69%

of nominal GDP and 67% of total employment in 2008 (Department of Statistics -

Singapore, 2008). With the opening of two integrated resorts (i.e., vacation resorts,

casinos, malls, theme parks and associated hotels in a single development) in 2010,

Singapore’s services sector is likely to grow further. The services sector is expected

to be a key driver of Singapore’s economy and has strong potential for growth,

especially if its service standards and productivity can be improved.

Companies are also focusing on service quality as a way to differentiate themselves

in today's competitive marketplace (Ackfeldt and Wong 2006, Chena and Chang

2005, Elmadag et al. 2008, Lovelock and Wirtz 2007). The service-profit chain,

developed from analyses of successful service organisations, suggests there are

relationships between profitability, customer loyalty and employee satisfaction,

loyalty, and productivity (Heskett et al. 2008, 1994, Kamakura et al. 2002). The links

in the chain are:

20

1. Profit and growth are stimulated primarily by customer loyalty.

2. Loyalty is a direct result of customer satisfaction.

3. Satisfaction is strongly influenced by the value of services provided to

customers.

4. Value is created by satisfied, committed, and productive employees.

5. Employee satisfaction is influenced by quality support services and policies

that enable employees to deliver results to customers (Heskett et al. 1994,

Zeithaml et al. 1996).

Service organisations seek to optimise staff performance in order to be productive,

efficient and effective (Lovelock et al. 2005, Appelbaum and Hare 1996, Zeithaml et

al. 2008). Service employees are important to such organisations because their

attitudes and behaviours significantly influence the quality of service (Bitner et al.

1994). Yet, it has been suggested that many organisations are not using their

people effectively (e.g., Dean 2004, Lovelock 1992, Schneider and Bowen 1993,

Zeithaml et al. 1996). Although many service employees have the knowledge and

skills to perform their service tasks, few seem to perform at an optimum level.

As Ozer and Bandura (1990, p. 473) noted, “people often fail to perform optimally

even though they know what to do and possess the requisite skills. This is because

self-referent thought mediates the translation of knowledge and abilities into

proficient performance.” It has been suggested that this performance gap is largely

associated with employees’ self-efficacy (Gist et al. 1991). Given the crucial role

service employees play in linking organisations with their customers, there is great

21

interest in understanding the factors that affect their beliefs about their abilities to

deliver quality service (e.g. Hartline and Wit 2004, Schneider et al. 2005).

Self-efficacy, which Bandura (1997, p. 3) defined as a “belief in one’s capabilities to

organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments,”

seems to influence people’s motivation to complete tasks effectively (Bandura and

Cervone 1983, Gist 1987, Stajkovic and Luthans 1998b). Consequently, the present

research was undertaken to see whether self-efficacy did influence service

employees’ service delivery. For the purpose of the present study, task-specific

customer service self-efficacy (or CSSE) was defined as the extent to which service

employees felt confident about their job skills and their ability to organise and

execute courses of actions so as to deliver quality service to customers.

A conceptual model was developed to explain the antecedents and consequences

of service employees’ CSSE after an examination of prior research and other

relevant literature, which is discussed in detail in Chapter Two and a number of

focus groups, which are discussed in Chapter Four. The conceptual model was

based on Bandura’s (1982) suggestion as to the four factors that influence

self-efficacy, namely:

1. Enactive mastery (performance accomplishments).

2. Vicarious experience (modelling).

3. Verbal persuasion.

4. Physiological arousal (e.g., anxiety).

22

Gist and Mitchell (1992) expanded on Bandura’s suggestion, arguing that

assessment processes were also involved in forming self-efficacy. In particular they

suggested people assess:

1. Their personal resources and constraints.

2. Their situational resources and constraints.

3. The task’s requirements.

4. Their own experience.

Using a self-efficacy development model, Gist and Mitchell (1992) suggested a set

of service specific self-efficacy situational determinants that enabled an integration

of the self-efficacy and services marketing literature; this set of determinants

provided a foundation for the present study.

In the services marketing literature, service delivery is profiled, promoted and

described in terms of the so-called 7 Ps (Booms and Bitner 1981). Of these seven

factors, the People, Physical evidence and Process factors, which are termed the 3

service Ps in the present study, are unique to services (Tax and Stuart 1997, Wirtz

and Bateson 1999) and are seen as being the tools that can be used to

communicate service to customers. The 3 Ps influence a customer’s decision to

purchase a service, their satisfaction and their repurchase intentions (Lovelock et al.

2005, 2007, Zeithaml et al. 2008). While the 7 Ps are focused on customers, both

service employees and customers share the same experiences of the servuction

system (Bateson and Hoffman 1999, Langeard et al. 1981, Lovelock et al. 2008)

23

which suggests a service is delivered in real time to customers through their

interactions with the service employees and other customers in the shared service

environment. As a service organisation provides the resources that support the

delivery of service, these resources that are provided are likely to impact on service

employees, particularly in terms of their perceptions of their CSSE. They are

consistent with Gist and Mitchell’s (1992) situational resources. Thus, it seems likely

that the provision of such situational resources will increase service employees’

beliefs about their abilities to provide quality service to the organisation’s

customers and it is this issue that was the central focus of the present study.

1.2 The Importance, Scope and Contribution of the Research

1.2.1 Scope of the Research

Based on the premise that an organisation’s service employee development

practices ultimately affect customers’ service experiences (Bowers and Martin 2007,

Schneider and Bowen 1993), a conceptual framework was developed that

examined the effects that the resources directed at the service employees and

customers had on service employees’ perceived CSSE. Two key research concepts

(self-efficacy and the 3Ps of services marketing mix) were used to develop the

model that was examined in the present study. In order to delimit the scope of the

study, the model focused on an aspect of the people “P” of services marketing.

Given the substantial costs in human resources management and the critical roles

that service employees play in building customer relationships (Bitner et al. 1994,

24

Schneider et al. 1998, 2005), it is crucial to study how organisations can use their

people “P” resources of recruitment, training, rewards, team support, and

customer education to influence service employees’ CSSE. Consequently, although

they are important factors, the other two service Ps (i.e., physical evidence and

process) were not examined in the study and were highlighted as future areas of

research.

The research examined the effects on service delivery of situational resources

related to service employees, including recruitment and selection, training,

rewarding customer service excellence, immediate supervisor support, team

support from co-workers, other departments’ support, and the resources related to

customers which includes customer education, customer organisational

socialisation and encouragement of customer feedback) (Zeithaml et al. 2008). A

review of the literature was conducted, and a number of focus groups were used to

expand the situational resources so as to include immediate supervisor support,

other departments’ support, customers’ organisational socialization, and the

encouragement of customer feedback about their service experiences. The

moderating effects of role clarity, role conflict, role overload, openness to

experience, passion for service, organisation climate for service, years of service

experience, and general self-efficacy on relations between situational resources and

service employees’ CSSE, were also examined. These moderators were included in

the study as it was hoped that an understanding of the conditions that enhance or

reduce the impact of the situational resources on CSSE would contribute insights

into the service context in which such resources are most effective.

25

1.2.2 Theoretical Contributions

Self-Efficacy Research in Organisational Behaviour and Psychology Research

Self-efficacy is an important topic in organisational behaviour and psychology

because of its relationship with task performance, the difficulty of the goals that are

set (often termed goal level), goal commitment, task learning, choice and

persistence of effort (Bandura 1991, 1982, Bandura and Cervone 1986, Gist 1987,

1989, Gist and Mitchell 1992, Locke et al. 1984, Phillips and Gully 1997, Stajkovic

and Luthans 1998). Various forms of task specific self-efficacy have been researched

in organisational behaviour, including computer self-efficacy (Compeau and Higgins

1995), computer software training (Gist et al. 1989), internet self-efficacy (Hsu et al.

2004), employee remote work self-efficacy (Staples et al. 1999), employee creative

self-efficacy (Tierney and Farmer 2002), front-line staff’s self-efficacy in initiating

sales (Pattni, Soutar and Klobas 2007), entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Brazeal et al.

2008), presentation self-efficacy (Tucker and McCarthy 2001), school counsellor

self-efficacy (Sutton and Fall 1995), student self-efficacy (Phillips and Gully 1997)

and academic self-efficacy (Bong and Skaalvik 2003).

The Importance of Self-Efficacy in Services Marketing

It was hoped that the present study would provide a key contribution by filling

some of the research gaps that exist between self-efficacy, service employee

behaviour and services marketing by focusing on task-specific self-efficacy. Service

organisations rely on their employees to improve service quality in order to acquire

and retain their customers. In service settings, customer satisfaction is often

26

influenced by the quality of the interpersonal interactions between the customer

and service employees (Bitner et al. 1994). Although services researchers have long

recognised the critical roles service employees play in building customer

relationships (Bitner et al. 1994), no empirical investigation has examined the

antecedents that strengthen service employees’ ability to deliver quality service.

Indeed, much of the research on self-efficacy and customer service has focused on

customers’ efficacy beliefs, mostly in terms of their use of the internet and

self-service facilities (e.g., Beuningen et al. 2009, Hartline and Ferrell 1996, McKee

et al. 2006). As was noted earlier, Bandura (1982) identified four factors that

influence self-efficacy (personal mastery experiences (performance

accomplishments), vicarious experience (modelling), verbal persuasion, and

physiological arousal (e.g., anxiety)). Subsequently, Gist and Mitchell (1992)

developed a theoretical analysis of how people appraise personal and situational

factors.

While studies have examined antecedents to self-efficacy, as is discussed in detail in

Chapter Two (table 2.1), no empirical studies have suggested how self-efficacy

perceptions influence service employees’ performance. This group of employees is

particularly important; as they represent the organisation and their behavioural

performance is the foundation of customers’ perceptions of the quality of the

service they receive (Bitner 1990, Yoon et al. 2001). In many cases, service

employees are under significant pressure to represent the organisation in a

favourable light and are often ‘put on the spot’ when dealing with customers. Gist

and Mitchell (1992, p. 207) recommended research should be undertaken into the

27

methods that can be used to enhance self-efficacy and our understanding of how

and why these interventions improve employees’ performance and such research

seems to be particularly important for frontline staff (Pattni et al. 2007).

The present study tested Gist and Mitchell's (1992) suggestion that situational

resources affect self-efficacy perceptions that, in turn, enhance employees’

performance. This was felt to be important, as employees who have greater CSSE

are likely to be more effective, which, in turn, will bring benefits to customers and

to the organisation as a whole.

The Missing Link between Service Employees Resources and Self-Efficacy– Gap 1

Previous research suggests impact team support, recruitment, training, rewards

and customer education can have on service employees’ commitment and

satisfaction, as can be seen in Figure 1.1. As there are substantial costs in human

resources management, it is critical to evaluate how services organisations can use

their people “P” resources to influence service employee CSSE. Booms and Bitner’s

(1981) suggest the people environment is “shared” or “experienced” by customers

and service employees in the servuction system, highlighting its importance

Figure 1.1: What we know about the relationship between situational resources and performance (the service quality delivered)

* Recruitment * Training * Rewards * Team support * Customer education

People “P” (situational resources) of services marketing mix

Performance (i.e. Service Quality)

28

Schneider et al. (2005, p. 1017) noted that “linkage research” is a stream of

research in organisational studies that centres on the relationships between

employees’ perceptions about the internal functioning of their organisation, and

customers’ perceptions of service quality. As service employees and customers

frequently interact with one another, employees’ experiences are related to the

experiences they provide to customers, and it is these customer experiences that

translate into customer satisfaction (Bitner et al. 1994, Bitner 1990, Bowers and

Martin 2007, Johnson 1996, Schmit and Allscheid 1995, Schneider et al. 1998).

Internal marketing, which emphasises employees as “internal customers” (Berry et

al. 1994, George 1990, Schultz 2003), has found the internal resources and support

activities that are provided to the employees drive external customer satisfaction.

Further, research has indicated that the service-oriented human resource

management practices correlate strongly with customers’ perceptions of service

quality (Bowers and Martin 2007, Schneider and Bowen 1985). All of this suggests

employees’ assessments of their service environment impact on their CSSE, which,

in turn, impact on customers’ perceptions and intentions.

Despite this, no empirical study has examined antecedents of service employees’

self-efficacy in delivering service quality. Enhancing service employees’ CSSE will

benefit customers, as they will be served by highly self-efficacious employees, who

make an effort to provide the highest service quality in a shared service

environment. Consequently, the present study tried to identify the role CSSE played

29

in the relationship between the people “P” of services marketing and the service

quality that was provided, as can be seen in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2: What we need to know about the relationship between situational resources and performance (service quality delivered) - Gap 1

The Missing Link between People “P” of the Customer and Self-Efficacy – Gap 2

In many service encounters, customers have vital roles to play in creating desired

service outcomes. As was noted earlier, a customer’s role in a given service

encounter may involve interactions with service employees and other customers in

a shared environment. As customer participation expands, the issue of how

customers’ education, customers’ organisational socialisation, and customers’

feedback affects service employees’ CSSE becomes increasingly important.

However, customers’ resources of this kind have not been included in employee

self-efficacy research.

Consequently, in the present study, this second research gap was addressed by

examining the impact customers’ education and training, customers’ organisational

socialisation, and customers’ feedback had on employees’ CSSE. The present study

investigated whether resources directed at customers also impacted on employees,

The missing link between the People “P” of services marketing mix and

service employees’ self-efficacy

People “P” (situational resources) of

the services marketing mix

Service Quality: A consequence of

self-efficacy

CSSE Customer Service Self-

Efficacy of service employee

30

through the employees’ CSSE. If this were the case, the results would provide

additional support for recognising the importance of treating and managing

customers as an important and productive resource within the servuction system.

1.2.3 The Study’s Managerial Contribution

It was hoped that the present study would provide recommendations about service

employees’ CSSE and the management of the resources from both a service

employee and a customer perspective. As efficacy judgements are a self-regulatory

aspect of people’s motivational processes (Bandura, 1977, 1986), understanding

service self-efficacy is likely to shed further light on employees’ intrinsic service

motivation and, consequently, on their service performance.

As was noted earlier, self-efficacy is an important topic in organisational behaviour

because it is positively related to many important outcomes. Given the critical

importance of self-efficacy and performance, the research question of interest was:

What factors in the servuction system affect service employees’

self-efficacy in delivering quality service?

Consequently, the present study attempted to identify the organisational practices

that support customers’ roles in customer-employee interactions and that also

affect service employees’ CSSE. The increasing involvement of customers in service

delivery (i.e., through opportunities for co-creation, co-production and participation

that enhance customers’ positive perceptions of the outcome) (Bendapudi and

Leone 2003; Bitner et al. 1997; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2000, 2004) has meant it

is crucial to see whether the resources directed at customers also enhance

31

employees’ CSSE. Further, although it has been found that some human resource

practices (e.g., training, appropriate rewards, supervisory support and teamwork)

affect employees’ behaviour, motivation and performance, the question of how

these factors influence service employees’ self-efficacy has not been previously

examined.

The changeable aspect of self-efficacy beliefs (Gist and Mitchell 1992) should be of

great interest to service and human resource management professionals, as this

provides a potential to influence service quality delivery directly by increasing

service employees’ CSSE. Consequently, determining whether the people

“P”elements of the services marketing mix are antecedents to employees’ CSSE is of

considerable interest both academically and managerially.

In addition, a number of potential personal and situational moderating effects (i.e.,

role clarity, role conflict, role overload, openness to experience, passion for service,

years of service experience, organisational climate for service, and general

self-efficacy) to the resources-CSSE relationship were explored in the present study.

Although these effects are intuitively supportable, they have not previously been

tested empirically. As the ways in which context influences service employees’

reactions to the people “P” aspects if the relationship is to be well managed, these

moderating influences were seen as an important part of the present project.

32

1.3 The Study’s Research Questions

The study attempted to answer a number of research questions, namely:

1. What effects do the resources that are relevant to service employees (i.e.,

recruitment and selection, training, rewards for service excellence,

immediate supervisor’s support, team support from co-workers, and other

departments’ support) have on frontline employees’ CSSE?

2. What effect do the resources relevant to customers (i.e., customers’

education, customer’s organisational socialisation and the encouragement

of customer feedback) have on service employees’ CSSE?

3. What impact does service employees’ CSSE have on their perceptions of

service quality and, consequently, on customers’ loyalty?

4. How is the relationship between the resources directed at service

employees and customers, and employees’ CSSE moderated by situational

and personal factors?

1.4 The Framework of the Dissertation

The remainder of the thesis follows a traditional format. Chapter Two reviews

relevant prior research related to self-efficacy and the 3 service Ps to better

understand the meaning and significance of service employees’ task-specific

customer service self-efficacy. Self-efficacy theory is described, as are the

characteristics of self-efficacy, the factors influencing self-efficacy, and the

33

consequences of self-efficacy. The unique 3 service Ps (i.e., People, Physical

Evidence and Process resources) are also discussed. Chapter Three develops a

number of hypotheses and presents a model in which self-efficacy is the central

construct. The antecedents represent employees’ perceptions of the people “P” of

the services marketing mix and are integrated into the model using

conceptualisations drawn from organisational behaviour, psychology, and services

marketing. The suggested moderating effects of the various situational and

personal factors are also outlined.

Chapter Four discusses the research approach that was used in the present study

and the ways through which service employees were recruited for the qualitative

and quantitative phases of the study that included a number of focus groups and a

survey. The focus group guide, questionnaire design, formulation of the items that

were used to measure the constructs of interest, and interview guide are also

outlined in this chapter. Chapter Five and Chapter Six discuss the analysis of the

data that was obtained and outline the results of this analysis. Chapter Seven

presents the findings from a subsequent qualitative phase of the study, in which

interviews were undertaken with human resource managers and training managers

to gauge their reactions to the suggested model and to the obtained results. Finally,

Chapter Eight discusses the study’s theoretical and practical implications and

limitations and suggests some directions for future research.

34

35

Chapter Two: The Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

This Literature Review chapter introduces “self-efficacy”, the key construct of this

study. Its antecedents, different levels of self-efficacy, and related constructs are

discussed. The chapter examines the importance of self-efficacy from a marketing

perspective. The importance of the customer’s role, and how the organisation could

help in this role, the importance of the front line service employee, and how the

various resources directed at employees and customers would enhance their

self-efficacy are discussed. In so doing, several marketing models (e.g. the

servicescape framework and servuction model) are reviewed emphasising the

importance of customer-employee interaction. The final section of this chapter links

back to service employees and highlights a gap in the services marketing literature

regarding service employees’ service self-efficacy.

2.2 Self-Efficacy: A Foundation of Human Performance

Self-efficacy was introduced as a core part of Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory,

which also includes self-regulation, self-direction, self-motivation behavioural

control mechanisms, as well as interactions with the environment (Bandura, 1977,

1982). The theory suggests that people function through a series of interactions

between personal factors (e.g., cognitions and emotions), behaviours, and the

environment (Bandura 1986). According to this framework, people are proactive

36

and self-regulating. Self-efficacy is a key part of the theory, as it is a comprehensive

summary of people’s judgements about their capabilities to organise and execute

the courses of action needed to achieve appropriate performance.

Self-efficacy has been defined as a personal judgement about “how well one can

execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” to attain

designated goals (Bandura 1982, p. 122). These judgements affect employees’

motivations and behaviours (Bandura 1991), as people try to avoid behaviours and

situations in which they believe they will perform poorly. Self-efficacy deals with

people’s beliefs about their ability to manage their environment and the actions

that are required to achieve desired results (Stajkovic and Luthans 1998a). However,

"efficacy in dealing with one's environment is not a fixed act or simply a matter of

knowing what to do” (Bandura 1982, p. 122).

People weigh, integrate and evaluate information and combine this with personal

and situational factors to estimate their ability to perform as is required (Gist and

Mitchell, 1992). They subsequently decide on a course of action and exert effort to

perform required tasks (Bandura and Cervone 1983). As Bandura (1977, p. 193-194)

pointed out:

“The strength of peoples’ conviction in their own effectiveness is likely to affect whether they would even try to cope with given situations…They get involved in activities and behave assuredly when they judge themselves capable of handling situations that would otherwise be intimidating…Efficacy expectations determine how much effort people will expend and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences.”

37

People who perceive themselves as highly efficacious are likely to be willing to

make the type of effort that is needed to produce desired outcomes, whereas those

people who have low self-efficacy are likely to cease their efforts prematurely and

fail at the tasks that are in question (Bandura and Cervone 1986, Silver et al. 1995).

As was noted earlier, self-efficacy is an important topic in organisational behaviour

because of its relationship to work-related behaviours and performance (Gist 1987,

Gist and Mitchell 1992, Peterson and Arnn 2005, Stajkovic and Luthans 1998b).

Organisational research has consistently found self-efficacy is positively related to

intended goal levels, goal commitment, task learning, choice and persistence of

effort (Bandura 1991, 1982, Bandura and Cervone 1986, Locke et al. 1984). The

stronger a person’s perceived self-efficacy, the higher are the goals that will be set

and the more persistent that person will be in pursuing those goals (Locke et al.

1984).

Wood and Bandura (1989, p. 408) noted that "self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one's

capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action

needed to meet given situational demands." They argued self-efficacy affects the

quality of people’s emotional life, their vulnerability to stress and increases their

motivation. Ozer and Bandura (1990, p. 473) further clarified the relationship

between knowledge and self-efficacy, suggesting that "people often fail to perform

optimally even though they know what to do and possess the requisite skills. This is

because self-referent thought mediates the translation of knowledge and abilities

into proficient performance." Thus, effective action requires not only knowledge or

skills but also a belief that one has the ability to use these assets effectively.

38

Bandura (1982) also argued that self-efficacy affects people’s choices of settings

and activities, skill acquisition and the effort they devote to activities. Thus in

organisational settings, as self-efficacy increases, employees will exert more effort,

take greater initiative, and learn more about their jobs, the organisation and

themselves, even when faced with task-related obstacles (Bandura and Cervone

1986, 1983, Bandura and Locke 2003, Tucker and McCarthy 2000). Self-efficacy

determines how environmental opportunities and impediments are viewed and the

types of reactions people have to these factors.

Bandura (2002, 1977) has also suggested people will avoid activities and situations

they believe exceed their abilities; but that they will undertake activities and select

social environments they feel they are capable of managing. They then stay the

course, even in the face of difficulties, and remain resilient. More importantly,

because self-efficacy judgements are positively related to outcome expectations,

the stronger people’s self-efficacy beliefs, the more likely they are to achieve

desired outcomes (Luszczynska et al. 2005). Based on this evidence, it is important

to understand how employees develop and maintain high self-efficacy levels.

2.2.1 Determinants of Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is context-specific and differs across several dimensions (Bandura

2006b). Bandura (1977) suggested self-efficacy has three dimensions, namely:

1. The Strength of self-efficacy, which relates to the certainty (from none to a

great deal) a person has about their ability to perform a specific task with a

39

given difficulty and complexity (Bandura 1977). If strength is high, people

will persevere in their effort despite obstacles. However, if strength is low,

people are likely to doubt their capability to achieve appropriate

performance in the face of difficulty and are less likely to persevere.

2. The Magnitude of self-efficacy, which relates to the difficulty and

complexity of the task (low, moderate and high) people believe they can

execute. For example, airplane pilots must obtain a single engine license

before they can earn a multi-engine pilot’s license. Locke et al. (1984) found

the magnitude of self-efficacy was positively related to the goal level chosen

and to task performance.

3. The Generality of self-efficacy, which is the extent to which magnitude and

strength beliefs generalise across different tasks and situations. It is the

transference of efficacy beliefs to other tasks and situations. As an example,

a services marketing lecturer may also feel comfortable teaching a

consumer behaviour course (Stajkovic and Luthans 1998a).

Self-efficacy is developed through social learning processes and Bandura (1997,

1982, 1986) identified four broad sources of information, which are shown on the

left-hand side in Figure 2.1, that influence self-efficacy (i.e., personal mastery

experiences (performance accomplishments), vicarious experience (modelling),

verbal persuasion, and physiological states (e.g., stress and anxiety)).

40

Figure 2.1: Self-efficacy Theory Source: Bandura, A. 1982, 'Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency', American Psychologist, vol. 37, pp. 122-147.

Change depends on how people process information from their past performance

(enactive mastery). For example, after service employees complete a customer’s

request, they interpret and evaluate the results obtained and judgements of

competence are created or revised. When they believe their efforts have been

successful, their confidence to accomplish similar or related service tasks is raised.

However, when they believe their efforts failed to produce the desired effect,

confidence to succeed in similar endeavours is likely to be diminished. Frequent

successes lead to higher self-efficacy, while consistent failures lower it.

Service employees who have earned compliments and awards for their service

delivery will typically believe themselves capable in this area for a considerable

period. Bandura (1997, p. 80) noted, "enactive mastery experiences are the most

influential source of efficacy information because they provide the most authentic

evidence of whether one can muster whatever it takes to succeed." Mastery

Self-Efficacy Judgment

Personal Mastery Experience(i.e. performance)

accomplishments)

Behaviour/ Performance

Vicarious Experience(i.e. modelling by others)

Verbal Persuasion(i.e. coaching and feedback)

Physiological States

41

experiences are particularly powerful when people overcome obstacles or succeed

in challenging tasks (Bandura 1982, 1997).

When enactive mastery is not possible, the vicarious experience of observing

competent employees undertaking a similar task can strengthen self-efficacy. In

many situations, people cannot determine whether a performance is a success or a

failure until they have some knowledge about how other people perform similar

tasks. People learn by observing the behaviour-consequence patterns of others,

without having to engage in the behaviours themselves (Eden and Kinnar 1991,

Usher and Pajares 2008).

Observing the successes and failures of others who are seen as similar in capability

contributes to beliefs in one’s own capabilities (“If he/she can do it, so can I”).

When colleagues are judged to have similar skills and are observed to be successful

at a task, an observer’s efficacy beliefs are strengthened. Employees compare

themselves to particular people as they make judgements about their own

capabilities. Social models play a powerful role in the development of self-efficacy,

especially when employees are uncertain about their own abilities or have limited

experience with required tasks (Bandura 1997).

A third social learning process is verbal persuasion (e.g., verbal encouragement and

progress feedback), which is provided by other people and suggests a person can

perform the task successfully. Encouragement from supervisors, colleagues and

customers can boost service employees' confidence in their capabilities to deliver

quality service. Verbal persuasion is commonly used because of the ease with which

42

it can be dispensed. The credibility and competence of the persuader plays an

important role in its effectiveness. The receiver must view the persuader as

someone who is qualified to provide meaningful and accurate feedback if such

persuasion is to impact on self-efficacy.

Persuasive comments are of greatest benefit when the task is perceived to be just

beyond the capabilities of the employee. If employees receive encouragement (e.g.,

when told “You can do this” and “You can do better next time” in a reassuring way),

they are more likely to exert greater effort and succeed in the given task

subsequently. However, persuasive comments’ effects can be transitory if

subsequent performance turns out badly (Renn and Fedor 2001, Silver et al. 1995).

Indeed, Bandura (1997, p. 106) cautions that "skilled efficacy builders encourage

people to measure their successes in terms of self-improvement rather than in

terms of triumphs over others".

People’s perceptions of their own physiological states (e.g., heart rate, feelings of

anxiety, stress, pain, fatigue and mood) can also influence their self-efficacy. People

often perceive their level of efficacy from their own physiological cues, reading

their stress or fatigue as negative predictors of successful task completion (Bandura

1982, p. 127). An individual in an emotionally aroused state (e.g., highly stressed

while serving a demanding customer) may interpret such arousal as anxiety or fear

and feel they have a higher probability of service failure, undermining their

self-efficacy. Staff who experience a feeling of dread when dealing with a particular

customer may interpret their apprehension as evidence of a lack of capability in

serving difficult customers. In general, increasing service employees’ physical and

43

emotional well-being and reducing their negative emotional states is likely to

strengthen their self-efficacy (Usher and Pajares 2008).

According to Bandura (1982), it is the cognitive appraisal and integration of these

experiences that determine self-efficacy. Many factors influence the ways in which

employees weigh, interpret and integrate information from these four sources, as

they make judgements about their capabilities. Bandura (1997) hypothesised that

the integration rules people use when weighing and interpreting efficacy-relevant

information may be additive (the more sources available, the more efficacy beliefs

are enhanced), relative (one source is stronger than another), multiplicative (two

sources present an interactive effect) or configurative (the strength of one source

depends on the presence of others), each of which depends on personal and

contextual factors.

Gist and Mitchell (1992) reviewed the antecedent processes and information cues

involved in the formation of self-efficacy over the skill acquisition phase. They

classified these antecedents as internal (i.e., individual-based) and external (i.e.,

situationally based). The internal antecedents included individual attributes, such as

knowledge, skills and abilities, performance-related strategies, personality factors,

and mood states. The external antecedents included influences such as task

attributes (e.g., difficulty, complexity), distractions, normative information (e.g.,

persuasion) and situational constraints in the environment that interfere with

employees’ performance. They suggested a classification schema to describe these

information cues that influence self-efficacy, which can be seen in Figure 2.2.

44

Figure 2.2: A model of self-efficacy performance relationship

Adapted from: Gist, M. E. & Mitchell, T. R. 1992, 'Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability', Academy of Management Review, vol. 17, no. 2, p. 189.

Stajkovic, A. D. & Luthans, F. 1998a, 'Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: Going beyond traditional motivational and behavioural approaches', Organisational Dynamics, vol. 26, no. 4, p. 69.

In their model, the prime emphasis was placed on the judgements and information

categories that precede a person’s efficacy assessment. Gist and Mitchell (1992)

argued that early judgements of self-efficacy involve the complex integration of

numerous factors, such as task requirements, interpersonal and physical

environment, and a person’s knowledge, skills and personality. Four types of

assessment process appear to be involved in forming self-efficacy, namely:

i) An assessment of personal resources and constraints

People assess the resources and constraints relevant to performing a task. This

examination requires a consideration of personal factors, including their job

Personal Mastery Experiences

Vicarious Experience

Verbal Persuasion

Physiological States

Assessment of Situational

Resources and Constraints

Self-Efficacy (Estimation of Orchestration

Capacity)

Assessment of Personal

Resources and Constraints

Analysis of Task Requirements

Attributional Analysis of Experience

Consequence of Self-Efficacy (e.g. goal level, performance)

45

experience and education. Self-efficacy judgements can also be affected by people’s

self-knowledge of their skill level, desire, effort and anxiety. People who believe

they have the skills necessary to complete a particular task are more likely to take

action than are those who doubt their own abilities (McKee et al. 2006). Doubts

about their abilities to perform cause people not to try, “even though they know

what to do” (Bandura 1986, p. 425). Perceptions of high self-efficacy are produced

when people believe they have the qualities needed to successfully meet the

demands of situations, whereas weak self-efficacy results when personal qualities

are seen as liabilities (Cervone 1997).

ii) An assessment of situational resources and constraints

A self-efficacy judgement is also dependent on situational factors (Peterson and

Arnn 2005) that include:

Available resources (e.g., material resources, time, and the people necessary

to complete the task). Gist et al. (1989) argued that employees should be

instructed as to what means (technology and processes) are necessary for

successful performance, and how to use those means effectively.

The interdependence of the task with other organisational functions that

usually involves different task execution methods. Thus, the

appropriateness of a selected approach should be clearly communicated.

Physical distractions (e.g., noise and interruptions).

46

The physiological and psychological dangers present in the environment. If

physical distractions are present, they may increase thoughts of failure and

stress (Stajkovic and Luthans 1998a), reducing coping mechanisms (Bandura

1982). The execution of skills will be hindered by these types of external

factors. Gist and Mitchell (1992) argued that external factors also affect

self-efficacy indirectly through their influence on self-referent constructs,

such as motivation and ability.

iii) The Analysis of task requirements

A person assesses the task requirements that enable inferences to be made about

what it takes to perform successfully. Due to the cognitive and behavioural

demands imposed by complex tasks, employees may not perceive they have the

capability to perform complex undertakings successfully. When the task

descriptions are unclear, employees may not be able to accurately assess task

demands, may not know what they have to do and, thus, will lack the information

needed to regulate their efforts, which may reduce self-efficacy.

iv) Attributional analysis of experience

There is an attributional analysis of experience, which involves a person’s

judgements about their past performance. When a task has been performed

personally and frequently in the past, people are likely to rely more heavily on their

interpretation of the causes of previous performance.

Given the importance of self-efficacy, many human performance researchers have

investigated the processes and structures that form self-efficacy. Gist and Mitchell

47

(1992) suggested that self-efficacy is determined by information cues about the

variability of a performance (i.e., low versus high), the locus of performance (i.e.,

external and internal) and control over performance (i.e., high versus low). They

suggested holding perceptions about variability and locus of performance constant,

self-efficacy would increase as people perceived greater personal control over the

causes of their performance. In contrast, self-efficacy would decrease as people

attributed performance to uncontrollable circumstances. Wood and Bandura (1989)

also found that employees with low perceived control had lower self-efficacy and

lower performance goals. Thus, self-efficacy is enhanced when employees believe

they have personal control over their performance (Renn and Fedor 2001).

2.2.2 Antecedents to Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy has been used by many researchers in organisational behaviour and

psychology. In corporate settings, job autonomy, supervisor behaviour, role conflict,

training, and learning effort seem to contribute to employees’ task-specific

self-efficacy (Tierney and Farmer 2002, Wang and Netemeyer 2002). A high

perceived level of job autonomy sends a message that management has confidence

in employees’ capability and, therefore, allows employees to carry out their tasks in

the ways they wish. This message has a positive effect on employees’ efficacy

judgements. Further, the controllability offered by an autonomous job allows

employees to use their skills, knowledge and creativity to choose and formulate

work strategies without other people’s interference. As a result, they perceive they

48

are more capable and more resourceful, thereby increasing their task-specific

self-efficacy (Wang and Netemeyer 2002).

Transformational leadership behaviours, especially role modelling, verbal

persuasion and physiological arousal, also affect task-specific self-efficacy (Pillai and

Williams 2004). Liao and Chuang (2007) found leaders’ respect, empathy, trust and

warmth contributed to employees’ task-specific self-efficacy.

Employees also assess elements of the task in which they are involved in

determining their perceived capacity (Gist and Mitchell, 1992). Perceptions that

tasks are complex may depress self-efficacy levels. Training experiences designed to

equip participants to cope with challenging work situations have a positive

influence on task-specific self-efficacy (Schwoerer et al. 2005, Gist et al. 1989, Pattni

et al. 2007). The more effort employees put into learning about their customers and

products and services, the better idea they will have about how they might meet

their customers’ expectations.

Learning effort also enhances self-efficacy (Wang and Netemeyer 2002). Gist and

Mitchell (1992) argued that internal determinants (e.g., the effort extended) are

likely to lead to changes in self-efficacy. Indeed, support from colleagues was found

to be a strong predictor of school counsellors’ self-efficacy in working with students

(Sutton and Fall 1995). Table 2.1 lists these and other examples of the antecedents

to self-efficacy that have been suggested by prior organisational behaviour and

psychology research. The Table also suggests, perhaps surprisingly, that little

self-efficacy research has examined service employees, who were the focus of the

present study.

49

Table 2.1: Antecedents to Self-Efficacy

Authors Discipline Performance Task Antecedents to Self-Efficacy

Bandura 1982 Psychology

Conceptual Paper

General task performance

Personal mastery experiences (performance accomplishment)

Vicarious experience (modelling)

Verbal persuasion

Physiological states (affectivity)

Gist, Schwoererand Rosen 1989

Organisational behaviour

- Empirical Study

Computer software training by administrators in a university

Training program

Behaviour modelling

Gist and Mitchell 1992


Conceptual Paper

General task performance

Assessment of personal resources and constraints

Assessment of situational resources and constraints

Analysis of task requirements

Attributional analysis of experience

Sutton and Fall 1995

Psychology

- Empirical Study

School counsellors self-efficacy to manage the students

Support from colleagues

Phillips and Gully 1997

Psychology

- Empirical Study

Students self-efficacy on an academic task

Learning goal orientation

Ability

Locus of control

Staples, Hulland, Higgins1999


- Empirical Study

Employees remote work self-efficacy

Training

Best practices modelling by management

Computer anxiety

IT capabilities

Tierney and Farmer 2002


- Empirical Study

Creative self-efficacy for employees working a broad cross-section of organisations

Job tenure

Supervisor behaviour

Task complexity

Wang and Netemeyer 2002

Sales Management

- Empirical Study

Salesperson self-efficacy

Learning effort

Job autonomy

Pillai and Williams 2004


- Empirical Study

Employee self-efficacy in fire department

Transformational leadership

Schwoerer, May, Hollensbe, and Mencl 2005

Sales Management

- Empirical Study

Salesperson self-efficacy

Training

50

Authors Discipline Performance Task Antecedents to Self-Efficacy

Hsu, Ju, Yen, Chang

2007


- Empirical Study

Knowledge sharing in virtual communities

Economy-based trust

Information-based trust

Identification-based trust

Liao and Chuang2007

Psychology and Services Marketing

- Empirical Study

Employee service performance and customer relationship outcomes

Transformational leadership

Beuningenet al.

2009

Services Research

- Empirical Study

Customer Self-Efficacy in Technology-Based Self-Service

Third-party credibility

Firm argument quality cues

2.2.3 Task-Specific Self-Efficacy and General Self-Efficacy

Bandura (1997, p. 49) suggested there are three levels of self-efficacy (task-specific,

domain-specific and general self-efficacy) that differ in their level of aggregation

across tasks and performance domains and in their stability over time and situation.

Task-specific self-efficacy, which is at the lowest level of aggregation, refers to

people’s belief about their capacity to master the cognitive, motivational, and

behavioural resources required to accomplish a specific task in a specific set of

conditions (Bandura 1997). That is, task-specific self-efficacy beliefs allow service

employees to answer the question “Can I do this task”? Task-specific self-efficacy

directly influences performance (Chen et al. 2000).

This belief is situation-specific, and people may find their self-efficacy beliefs vary

from situation to situation. For example, service employees may find their

perceived task-specific self-efficacy varies when answering customers’ queries over

51

the phone, in face-to-face interactions, when trying to understand customers’

needs, or when managing difficult customers.

The intermediate level of domain self-efficacy is people’s belief about their ability

to perform a category of activities (Mosley et al. 2008, Scholza et al. 2002). This

level measures perceived self-efficacy about a class of performances in the same

activity domain. For example, service employees in a bank may find their perceived

domain self-efficacy varies when performing a category of activities relating to

handling credit portfolios or in call centre situations of checking queries, bill

payments and fee waivers.

General self-efficacy measures people’s belief about their ability to undertake

activities of any sort (Jones 1986, Schwarzer and Jerusalem 1995, Sherer et al. 1982).

General self-efficacy is a measure of people’s “perception of their ability to perform

across a variety of different situations” (Judge et al. 1998, p. 170) and is a situation-

independent, broad and stable sense of personal competence. Thus, general

self-efficacy captures differences among people in their tendency to view

themselves as capable of meeting task demands in a broad array of contexts.

People who generally trust their own capabilities to master work demands tend to

interpret difficult achievement tasks as challenging rather than threatening.

General self-efficacy seems to buffer stress (Jones 1986, Siu et al. 2007). People

with low general self-efficacy are prone to self-doubt and find it difficult to cope

with work demands. The higher the level of aggregation, the more stable is

self-efficacy (Chen and Bliese 2002, Scholza et al. 2002). Thus, general self-efficacy

52

has been seen as a stable generalised belief that people can marshal the resources

needed to deal with the various challenges they experience.

According to Eden (1998, 1990), general and task-specific self-efficacy are indicators

of a person’s ability to achieve desired outcomes, but the constructs differ in the

scope of the performance (i.e., general or specific). Bandura (1997) argued

task-specific self-efficacy represents situation specific cognition, while general

self-efficacy is a “generalized trait consisting of one’s overall estimate of one’s

ability to effect requisite performance in achievement situations” (Eden and Zuk,

1995, p.629).

Thus, in contrast to task-specific self-efficacy, general self-efficacy is “not tied to

specific situations or behaviour” but relates to a “variety of situations” (Sherer et al.

1982, p. 664). Thus, it seems likely general and task-specific self-efficacy will share

similar antecedents (e.g., personal mastery, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion

and psychological states) (Bandura 1997). The most powerful antecedent to general

self-efficacy is the aggregation of people’s previous experiences (Sherer et al. 1982).

Discussing the generality of self-efficacy beliefs, Bandura (1997, p. 53) commented:

“Powerful mastery experiences that provide striking testimony to one's

capacity to effect personal changes can also produce a transformational

restructuring of efficacy beliefs that is manifested across diverse realms of

functioning. Such personal triumphs serve as transforming experiences.

What generalizes is the belief that one can mobilize whatever effort it takes

to succeed in different undertakings”.

53

There are suggestions that general self-efficacy moderates the impact that external

influences (e.g., performance feedback and training) have on task specific

self-efficacy (Eden 1988, 1990). General self-efficacy moderates the effect of the

treatment of behaviour; people with low general self-efficacy are influenced by

such treatments more than those with high general self-efficacy. Jones (1986)

provided some empirical support for the notion that general self-efficacy

moderates the learning process. In particular, he found that socialisation tactics

produced a stronger role orientation when newcomers had low self-efficacy. For

example, people with high self-efficacy might be expected to define their new roles

differently than those people with low self-efficacy because of differing beliefs

about personal competency.

As a result, newcomers with high self-efficacy may take proactive stances toward

role performance in order to demonstrate their abilities. Alternatively, the

socialisation tactics used may not affect subsequent role orientations. Conversely,

people with low self-efficacy may accept definitions of situations offered by others

more readily. As jobs and roles are becoming increasingly broad, complex and

demanding, high general self-efficacy is a valuable resource because it can maintain

employees' work motivation throughout rapidly changing and stressful job

circumstances and buffer them from the potentially demotivating impact of failure

(Chen et al. 2004).

54

2.3 Related Constructs - How is self-efficacy different from other types of self-beliefs?

Several constructs are closely related to, yet distinct from, perceived self-efficacy,

including self-esteem, outcome expectancies, locus of control and the service

climate concepts of motivation and personality. To fully understand self-efficacy,

we need to understand the conceptual differences between self-efficacy and similar

constructs and these differences are discussed in subsequent sections.

2.3.1 Self-Esteem

Self-esteem is a trait reflecting feelings of self-worth and is a person’s affective

self-evaluation (e.g., self-liking) (Brockner 1979). While self-esteem is a measure of

personal judgements of self-worth (and not just a confidence judgement),

self-efficacy perceptions involve cognitive judgements of capability. For example, an

employee working in a restaurant may have very low cooking self-efficacy (a task),

yet may decide on self-evaluation that this is not relevant to his job and that being a

poor cook does not diminish his self-esteem (an overall evaluation and feelings

about himself). Self-esteem is a trait-like variable that tends to be stable, while

self-efficacy judgements focus on perceived capabilities to perform an activity and

is a dynamic construct that changes over time as new information and task

experiences are obtained. Self-efficacy addresses the question “how well can I do

something?”, rather than “what am I like?”

Finally, self-esteem is a reflective evaluation of self (e.g., a feeling of self-worth)

that is influenced by several personal characteristics, such as intelligence and

integrity (Brockner and Guare 1986). People with high self-esteem generally feel

55

good about themselves, whereas people with low self-esteem tend to feel bad

about themselves, even if they see themselves as highly efficacious. A further

difference is that self-efficacy can be domain-specific or context and task-specific.

An employee might have high self-efficacy for some tasks (e.g., technically-based

problem solving) but low self-efficacy for other tasks (e.g., writing business reports).

In addition, self-efficacy seems to predict personal goals and performance, whereas

self-esteem does not (Mone et al. 1995).

2.3.2 Outcome Expectancies

The expectancy motivation model covers two key dimensions, namely, the

effort-performance (E1) and behaviour-outcome (E2) expectancies. Outcomes arise

from actions. How people behave largely determines the outcomes they experience.

The outcomes people anticipate depend on their judgements of how well they are

likely to perform in a given situation (Eastman and Marzillier 1984). These E1 and E2

expectancies are not the same as self-efficacy. Although E1 and self-efficacy

recognise that successful performance depends on employees’ effort, self-efficacy

beliefs involve much more than are associated with employees’ E1 perceptions of

the relationship between the degree of effort exerted and the level of performance.

In particular, self-efficacy estimates are influenced by more antecedents, including

personal ability, knowledge, previous task experience, the complexity of the task,

and people’s psychological and emotional states (e.g., stress, fatigue or happiness).

In addition, self-efficacy beliefs involve a generative capability (i.e., generalising to

similar areas, as would be the case if a salesperson's selling self-efficacy generalised

to customer service), which E1 does not.

56

Another distinction concerns performance outcome expectations (E2). Self-efficacy

is a judgement of capability to execute sets of tasks. Outcome expectations are

judgements about the outcomes that are likely to flow from such performances.

The outcomes people anticipate depend largely on their judgements of how well

they will be able to perform in given situations. The difference between self-efficacy

and E2 (the behaviour-outcome expectancy) can be seen in the different sequences

of a motivational model's continuum. Bandura (1978) distinguished these concepts

by noting:

“An efficacy expectation is a judgment of one's ability to execute a certain

behaviour pattern, whereas an outcome expectation is a judgment of the

likely consequences such behaviour will produce" (1978, p. 240).

Self-efficacy is a judgement of an ability to execute a certain behaviour pattern (e.g.,

"I believe I can perform this task successfully"), whereas an outcome expectation

(E2) is a judgement of the likely consequence such behaviour will produce (e.g., "I

believe that what I do will produce desired outcomes"). Thus, an employee's

assessment of self-efficacy comes before behaviour outcome expectations (E2) are

made. This distinction was supported in Barling and Beattie’s (1983) study, which

found self-efficacy predicted sales performance, but outcome expectations did not.

Expectancy theory focuses on a belief that effort will lead to desired performance,

while self-efficacy focuses on people’s belief that they have the skills necessary to

execute a required task. Self-efficacy seems to be a better predictor of behaviour

than outcome expectations (Shell et al. 1989).

57

2.3.3 Locus of Control

Locus of control, a widely recognised variable suggested by Rotter (1966), is

different from self-efficacy as it is concerned with beliefs about outcome

contingencies (i.e., whether outcomes are determined by one’s actions or by forces

outside one’s control). Locus of control is a belief about general causal relationships

(i.e., internally or externally induced) between actions and outcomes, rather than

personal capability to do a specific task. Rotter (1966) defined people with an

internal locus of control as believing they are in control of their own fate, feeling

that their actions have an impact, and assigning personal responsibility for the

consequences of their behaviour.

In contrast, people with an external locus of control believe consequences are

controlled by outside factors, such as destiny, luck or chance. Self-efficacious

individuals and those with an internal locus of control have more self-directed

behaviour than low self-efficacious individuals or those with an external locus of

control. However, locus of control does not take account of people’s confidence to

perform specific tasks in a particular context (Bandura 1997). Due to its greater

specificity, self-efficacy is a better predictor of achievement outcomes (Bong and

Skaalvik 2003, Valentine et al. 2004).

2.3.4 Service Climate

Service climate is “the shared perceptions of employees concerning the practices,

procedures, and kinds of behaviours that get rewarded and supported with respect

to customer service and service quality” (Schneider et al. 1998, p. 151). It

58

communicates a message to employees about what is valued and the attitudes and

behaviours that are desired and will be rewarded. Service firms must create

situations in which the work environment’s customer service climate (Schneider et

al. 1993) is supportive of quality service.

Peccei and Rosenthal (2000) found high organisational commitment enhanced the

impact of a strong service climate. Service climate influences employees’ attitudes,

and organisations must be concerned with improving employees' perceptions of

service climate because they help define their attitudinal and behavioural

commitment to customer service (Little and Dean 2006). Schneider et al. (1998)

have also found a positive link between the way employees perceived service

climate and customers' perceptions of service quality. Service climate, which is

concerned with inter-personal interactions in work settings, differs from

self-efficacy, which is concerned with people’s judgement of their capability to

perform a required task.

The previous discussion suggests the self-esteem, outcome expectancies, locus of

control, and service climate constructs, are distinct from self-efficacy in conceptual

orientation and comprehensiveness.

2.4 Contextual Factors Affecting Performance

When an employee engages in a behaviour, context plays a role in the initiation and

regulation of that behaviour (Deci and Ryan 1987). Service employees give

psychological meaning and significance to these contextual factors, and that

meaning is a critical element in determining their behaviour. Consequently, to

59

better understand the human resource-service quality relationship, a number of

human resource factors that may affect service employees’ work performance are

shown in Table 2.2 and discussed in subsequent sections.

Table 2.2: Factors affecting work performance

Article Information Main Findings Dependent Variables

Independent Variables

Bettencourt et al. (2005)

Empirical Study

Effects of procedural, interactional and distributive justice on these customer-oriented behaviours. Direct positive path from interactional justice to service delivery behaviours.

Customer- oriented boundary- spanning behaviours in service delivery

Procedural, interactional and distributive justice

Fisher and Ashkanasy

(2000)

Conceptual Paper

The role that emotions play in work settings

Job satisfaction

Emotional Labour

Mood

Anger

Little and Dean

(2006)

Empirical Study

The important effects of service climate and HRM on frontline employees in call centres.

Service climate (3 factors: managerial practices, customer feedback and HRM) was found to be positively related to employees' service quality capability, with partial mediation by employee commitment.

Service quality capability

Service climate (3 factors: managerial practices, customer feedback and HRM)

Employee commitment

Malhotra and Mukherjee

(2004)

Empirical Study

Job satisfaction and organisational commitment of employees have a significant impact on service quality delivered.

Affective component of commitment was found to be more important than job satisfaction in determining service quality by customer-service employees.

Service quality by customer- service employees

Organisational commitment

Job satisfaction

60

Article Information Main Findings Dependent Variables

Independent Variables

Leiter and Maslach(1988)

Empirical Study

Organisational commitment and burnout were related to interpersonal relationships of nurses in a small general hospital

Burnout

Emotional exhaustion

Supervisor contact

Co-worker contact

Meyer et al.

(1998)

Empirical Study

Influence of work experiences on organisation commitment moderated by the value employees place on these experiences.

Experiences interact in the prediction of affective commitment and normative commitment.

Affective, continuance and normative commitment

Work experiences

Rogg et al.

(2001)

Empirical Study

Indirect effects of human resource practices on customer satisfaction were significant.

Organisational climate (cooperation, customer orientation, commitment, managerial competence) mediates the relationship between human resource practices and customer satisfaction. The results were supportive of a social context model of the impact of human resource practices on organisational outcomes.

Customer satisfaction

Human resource practices– hiring, job description, performance review, training, policy, legal

Singh

(1993)

Empirical Study

The role ambiguity experienced by boundary-spanning employees greatly reduces their job satisfaction and performance.

Job satisfaction

Performance

Role ambiguity

2.5 Strategic Human Resource Management:

The Link between Organisations and Human Resource Management

The strategic human resource management (SHRM) literature suggests that people

resources, such as a highly skilled and motivated workforce that is involved in

61

productive behaviours, are a source of sustainable competitive advantage (Barney

2001, Birdi et al. 2008, Wright et al. 2001, Wright and Snell 1998). Barney (1991)

noted that resources that are rare, valuable, inimitable and non-substitutable can

be sources of sustainable competitive advantage, as they are difficult for other

organisations to imitate. By effectively managing their human resources,

organisations can nurture the types of employee behaviours that are essential to

the success of their competitive strategy (Ewing and Caruana 2000, Gudergan et al.

2008, Huang 2001).

Human resource (HR) practices can provide such differentiation (Ferris et al. 1998,

Yang 2006) through a combination of human capital elements, such as staffing, the

development of skills, compensation, structures, systems, processes and people

support management systems. SHRM involves designing and implementing

internally consistent HR policies and practices that enable the organisation’s human

resources to contribute to the achievement of the organisation’s goals (Guest 1997,

Truss and Gratton 1994). The emphasis is on developing human capital and

ensuring the work environment enables employees to perform effectively (Birdi et

al. 2008).

SHRM has put “people” on the strategy radar screen, highlighting the importance of

people to competitive advantage (Barney 2001, Huang 2001, Ewing and Caruana

1999, Mazzarol and Soutar 1999, Wright and McMahan 1992). The literature

contains many theoretical HRM models. Effective HRM strategy systematically

coordinates individual HRM measures and implements them so as to influence

employees’ attitudes and behaviour to ensure they help achieve competitive goals.

62

The “Harvard HRM Model,” which was first articulated by Beer et al. (1984), is

probably the seminal HRM model that has had a major influence. It stresses the

“human” aspect of HRM and is concerned with employer–employee relationships.

The Harvard interpretation sees employees as resources with their own needs and

concerns that sit alongside other groups, such as shareholders, management, and

customers. It also recognises the influence situational factors have on HR policy

choices. HRM is seen as having HR policy areas (e.g., human resource flows

(recruitment, selection, assessment, orientation and socialisation, training,

promotion and termination), reward systems (e.g., pay systems and motivation),

employee influence (e.g., delegated levels of authority, responsibility, power and

employee participation and involvement) and works systems (e.g., the definition

and design of work, the alignment of people, peer and supervisor evaluation, and

participative arrangements). These four HR policies areas lead to commitment,

competence, congruence and cost effectiveness, which, subsequently, lead to

mutual trust and improved individual and group performance at minimum cost, so

as to achieve individual well-being and organisational effectiveness (Lundy 1994,

Poole 1990).

The “Michigan HRM Model”, which is also known as the “matching model” or

“best-fit” approach to human resource management, comes from the Michigan and

New York schools (Fombrun et al. 1984). Fombrun et al.’s (1984) model highlights

the “resource” aspect of HRM and emphasises “strategic fit” as the efficient

utilisation of human resources can help an organisation achieve its goals (Hendry

63

and Pettigrew 1990, Hiltrop 1996). Four common HR elements have been identified,

namely:

1. Selection (matching people to jobs).

2. Performance appraisal.

3. Rewards (emphasising the importance of pay and other forms of

compensation to the achievement of results).

4. Employee training and development

There are many similarities with the Harvard Model, but the Michigan Model has a

less humanistic edge, seeing employees as resources in the same way as any other

organisational resource. People have to be managed in a similar manner to

equipment and raw materials. They must be obtained as cheaply as possible and

developed as effectively as possible. The main objective of the matching model is to

develop an appropriate “human resource system” that includes HR strategies that

contribute to the achievement of organisational goals.

Human resource issues are important in every organisational setting. These HR

issues are of paramount importance for service firms, as service employees deliver

service while interacting with the customers in a shared environment. When

employees feel their organisation has sound HR functions and activities, such as

good recruitment and selection, training and development, rewards, and

performance appraisal, they feel confident to serve customers (Quader 2006,

Yang2006). Thus, HR and marketing scholars have emphasised the importance of

HRM to service quality (e.g., Arrowsmith and McGoldrick. 1996, Kasper 2002, Little

64

and Dean 2006, Lovelock et al. 2005, Lundy 1994, Peccei and Rosenthal 2001, Tsaur

and Lin 2004, Zeithaml et al. 2008). The way service employees’ experience their

work environment is reflected in the perceptions customers have of the service

quality they receive (Schneider and Bowen 1993). Schneider and Bowen (1985)

found significant relationships between bank employees’ perceptions of human

resources practices and branch customers’ attitudes about the service they

received. It seems that, when employees describe the HRM practices in their work

environment in positive terms, customers report superior service quality (Gowen et

al. 2005, Schneider 1994, Yang 2006).

2.6 The 3Ps of Services Marketing Mix - Booms and Bitner's 7Ps

Booms and Bitner (1981) suggested an extension to the 4Ps marketing mix

framework (i.e., Product, Place, Pricing and Promotion) (McCarthy 1964) to take

account of service differences, including three additional factors, which they

termed:

1. People, which relates to the people directly or indirectly involved in the

delivery and consumption of a service.

2. Physical evidence, which relates to the environment in which the service is

delivered, and the tangibles that help communicate and perform the

service.

3. Process, which relates to the delivery and operating systems and procedures,

which are the mechanisms and the flow of activities that deliver the service.

65

The various aspects of the 3 P services marketing mix dimensions can be seen in

Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: An Expanded Marketing Mix for Services

Physical Evidence Process People

Ambient conditions

- Cleanliness - Music/scent/lighting - Noise - Air quality

Spatial layout and functionality - Layout, Equipment,

Furnishing Signs, symbols and artefacts

- Signage, Style of décor - Brochures -Employee dressing

Number of steps in process

- Simple - Complex

Degree of automation -

Use of technology Waiting time Degree of customisation

- Flexibility - Standardization

Employees

- Recruitment and selection criteria

- Training - Rewarding for

customer service excellence

- Immediate supervisor support

- Team support from co-workers

- Other department support

Customers

- Education

Adapted from: i) Booms and Bitner 1981, 'Marketing strategies and organisational structures of service firms',

Marketing of Services, p. 47-51.

ii) Tax and Stuart 1997, 'Designing and implementing new services: The challenges of integrating service systems ', Journal of Retailing, vol. 73, no. 1,p. 116 -118

ii) Zeithaml, Bitner and Gremier 2008, Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across The Firm, 5 edn, McGraw Hill, p. 24

The addition of the 3 Ps has gained widespread acceptance in services marketing

(Beaven and Scotti 1990, Constantinides 2006, Gummesson, 1994, Rafiq and Ahmed

1995) and are often jointly considered when planning and implementing a service

system, as they influence customers’ and employees’ cognitive, emotional and

physiological responses and behaviours (Tax and Stuart 1997, Bitner 1992).

66

Therefore, it seems worthwhile to examine the extent to which the 3 Ps of the

services marketing mix support service employees’ needs and preferences.

2.6.1 An Assessment of the 3 Ps Situational Resources in Service Delivery

The unique 3 Ps of services marketing are controllable and influence customers’

decisions to purchase a service, customers’ satisfaction and customers’ repurchase

decisions (Lovelock et al. 2007, 2005, Tax and Stuart 1997, Zeithaml et al. 2008).

Customer satisfaction is often influenced by the quality of the service delivered by

service employees (Bitner et al. 1994) and service organisations rely on their service

employees to provide quality service. The servicescape framework, which can be

seen in Figure 2.3 and is adapted from Bitner (1992) and Zeithaml et al. (2008),

shows the effect the3 Ps can have on customers’ and service employees’ behaviour.

The servicescape has a facilitating role, as it either enables or obstructs customers’

and service employees’ abilities to carry out their service delivery activities. As

services are purchased and consumed simultaneously, and often require human

contact, customers and service employees interact with each other within an

organisation’s servicescape. The servicescape influences service employees as well

as customers, who respond in cognitive, emotional and physiological ways (Baker et

al. 1988, Davis 1984, Zeithaml 1988). These responses to the 3 Ps influence

customers’ and service employees’ approaches (e.g., affiliation, staying longer,

expression of commitment, loyalty) or avoidance behaviour and affect the social

interactions that occur between and among customers and employees. These 3 Ps

are discussed briefly below.

67

Figure 2.3: The Servicescape framework for understanding the 3 Ps of services

marketing (customer and service employee relationships) Figure 2.3 is adapted from: i) Bitner (1992). "Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and

Employees." Journal of Marketing 56(2): 57. ii) Tax and Stuart 1997, 'Designing and implementing new services: The challenges of

integrating service systems ', Journal of Retailing, vol. 73, no. 1,pp. 116 -118 iii) Zeithaml, Bitner et al. (2008). Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across The

Firm, McGraw Hill

3Ps Services

Marketing

Holistic

Environment

Internal Responses Behavior

People “P” Recruitment &

selection

Training

Rewards

Immediate supervisory support

Team support from coworkers

Other department Support

Customer education & training

Physical Evidence “P” Ambient

Conditions

Spatial Layout & functionality

Signs, symbols & artifacts

Process “P” Nos. of steps

Automation

Waiting time

Customization

Moderators

(Personal Factors)

Arousal seeking

Screeners of environmental stimuli

Cognitive Beliefs

Categorization

Symbolic Meaning

Emotional Mood

Attitude

Physiological Pain

Comfort

Movement

Physical Fit

Individual Behaviors Affliation

Exploration

Stay longer

Commitment

Carry out plan

Employee Responses

Perceived Servicescape

Social Interactions

between and among

customers & employees

Customer Responses

Moderators (Situational Factors)

Expectations

Mood

Plan/Purpose

Cognitive Beliefs

Categorization

Symbolic Meaning

Emotional Mood

Attitude

Physiological Pain

Comfort

Movement

Physical Fit

Individual Behaviors

Attraction

Stay/explore

Spend money

Return

Carry out plan

68

i) People

In Booms and Bitner’s (1981) 7 Ps services marketing framework, people are all the

people directly or indirectly involved in a service encounter (i.e., service employees

and customers). The role service employees play is critical, as employees are the

service, especially in the absence of tangible artefacts (Lovelock et al. 2008). These

people carry the responsibility of projecting the organisation’s image (Morrison

1996, Schneider and Bowen 1992, Susskind et al. 2003) and, because of the

inseparability of the production and consumption of services, service delivery is

characterised by interactions between customers and providers (Schneider and

Bowen 1985).

Service employees who work in an organisation that has positive HR practices can

devote their energies and resources to effectively serving customers (Tsaur and Lin

2004, Ulrich et al. 1991). HRM practices can create an environment in which

employees are positive, courteous and helpful to customers (Morrison 1996). In

turn, such behaviours impact on customers’ service quality perceptions and

subsequent loyalty (Ackfeldt and Wong 2006, Schneider and Bowen 1985).

Customers are also a productive resource because they can assist in some of the

service employees' job functions, helping to reduce their perceived workload (Hsieh

et al. 2004). When customers become involved in co-production, they are acting in

the role of a partial employee, offering effort or work, time and other resources, as

well as executing a portion of the service delivery function (Bettencourt 1997). If

customers take a more active role in service production and delivery, they function

69

as a “resource contributor” (Kelley et al. 1992, p. 198, Lengnick-Hall et al. 2000) and

remove some of the service employees’ tasks.

ii) Physical Evidence

The physical evidence in the Booms and Bitner (1981) 7Ps framework includes the

tangible representations of service, such as signage, ventilation, space, internet

presence, equipment and facilities (Booms and Bitner 1981, Parish et al. 2008, Tax

and Stuart 1997). As services are intangible, customers search for tangible cues to

help them understand the nature of their service experience (Daunt et al. 2012, Fisk

et al. 1993, Carmen and Langeard 1980). For example, in a hotel, design, furnishing,

lighting, layout and decoration, as well as the appearance and attitudes of

employees and other guests, will influence guests’ perceptions of service quality

and their service experience. Because of the simultaneous production and

consumption of services, physical facilities can play an important role, influencing

the customer experience and the employee’s experiences (Bitner 1990, 1992,

Parish et al. 2008). Customers and service employees interact with each other

within the servicescape, which means service employees’ experience in the

workplace is correlated with the experiences they create for customers (Schneider

et al. 2005). The service employee and customer “internal responses” (Bitner 1992,

p. 59) are conditioned by the environment’s ambient conditions, spatial layout and

functionality. These internal responses subsequently influence people’s approach

or avoidance behaviours (Mehrabian and Russell 1976). Physical cues also affect

employees’ beliefs. For example, office layout, equipment and types of furnishings

70

may affect an employee's beliefs about their importance to the organisation and,

subsequently, influence their behaviour.

iii) Process

Process refers to the procedures, mechanisms and activities through which service

is delivered (i.e., the service delivery and operating systems). The process results in

a customer outcome (i.e., a customer is satisfied or dissatisfied with their service

delivery experience) (Kim and Kim 2001, Mayer et al. 2003). Because services are

performances or actions done by service employees for or with customers in a

shared environment, they typically involve a sequence of steps and activities that

are shared between the customer and the service employees (Lovelock et al. 2008,

Verhoef et al. 2004). Delivering customer expectations depends on how well

various steps function together (Berry et al. 1994, Lovelock et al. 2008). Highly

bureaucratised services frequently follow a complicated and extensive series of

actions and the logic of the steps often confuses customers (Sheu et al. 2003).

Customers may complain that such service firms are slow in responding, and

bureaucratic. They want easy access to the service process and they want things to

be handled quickly, preferably by the first service employee (Bitner et al. 1990,

Schneider and Bowen 1999). Service employees are "boundary spanners" between

the organisation and its customers because they operate at the organisation’s

boundary (Schneider and Bowen 1985). This places service employees in a

challenging position, as they often have to explain and implement the

organisation’s policies, rules, terms and conditions and requirements. Interestingly,

Bitner, Booms and Tetreault (1990) found customers were more satisfied with their

71

service encounters when employees were willing to meet their needs and

competent to do so. Service employees also see their ability to adapt the system as

being a key source of customer satisfaction and are often frustrated by the system’s

constraints (Masterson and Suzanne 2001, Motowidloa et al. 1986, Solomon et al.

1985).

In summary, delivering the service customers expect depends on how well the

various key marketing mix elements work together in the organisation’s servuction

system. These elements include the people who perform the specific services in the

service chain, the service processes that support these people, and the physical

environment in which the services are performed. The unique 3 Ps influence a

customer’s decision to purchase a service, their satisfaction and repurchase

intentions (Lovelock et al. 2007, 2005, Zeithaml et al. 2008).

2.7 Human Resources (the People Factor) and Service Quality

As has already been pointed out, services differ from products, as they are not

tangible, which poses problems to service firms’ attempts to communicate with

customers (Parasuraman et al. 1985). As customers cannot evaluate a service until

it is being consumed, services are seen as risky (Gronroos 1978, Regan 1963). The

role of the service employee becomes critical, as the employee is the service, given

the absence of tangible artefacts (Lovelock et al. 2008).

A service firm's HRM practices can create an environment that encourages positive,

courteous and helpful employee behaviour (Morrison 1996), which positively

72

impacts on service quality perceptions (Schneider and Bowen 1985). Just how HRM

practices (the people “P”) impact on service employees’ self-efficacy and service

quality provision is examined in detail in Chapter Three.

The people “P” also includes customers (Zeithaml et al. 2008). Consequently, the

next section discusses the effects situational resources (i.e., customer education,

customer organisational socialisation and the encouragement of customer feedback)

have on people’s service self-efficacy.

2.7.1 Customer Resources Relating to the Customer - Customer Education

Due to the nature of services (intangible and inseparable), customers are involved

in the production of the service process (Bitner et al. 1997, Kelley et al. 1990, Kotler

1994, Meuter and Bitner 1998, Specht et al. 2007, Weiner 1985). The services

marketing literature suggests increasing opportunities for co-creation,

co-production and participation between the firm and its customers as a means to

achieve competitive advantage (Bendapudi and Leone 2003, Bitner et al. 1997,

Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2000, 2004). Lovelock and Young (1979) were among the

first to discuss customer co-production and to indicate that customers are

important contributors to a firm's productivity (e.g., by using automated teller

machines or by pumping their own petrol). The Service-Dominant Logic (S-D

Logic) embraces concepts of co-creation of value and Vargo and Lusch (2004, 2008)

emphasise that a central concept in S-D Logic is that a complex and dynamic system

of actors relationally co-create value and jointly provide the context in which value

is created and assessed. The S-D Logic is captured in ten foundational premises

73

(Lusch et al. 2007, Vargo and Lusch 2004). Foundational premise six (FP6) states

“The customer is always a co-creator of value” (Lusch et al. 2007, Vargo and Akaka

2009, Vargo and Lusch 2008). Vargo and Lusch (2004, p. 11) described a shift, in

which the "separation of production and consumption is not a normative goal, and

toward a recognition of the advantages, if not the necessity, of viewing the

consumer as a co-producer." Human contact between customers and service

employees in the servuction system enable customers to co-create unique

experiences (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). The importance of the collaborative

role of customers and others (including the organisation) in value creation is

emphasised by Vargo and Akaka (2009, p38).

Co-creation, co-production and participation between the firm and its customers

can raise productivity, improve service performance (Mills et al. 1983) and can have

a positive effect on service quality perceptions (Claycomb et al. 2001, Kelley et al.

1992) and on customer satisfaction (Bateson 1985, Mills and Morris 1986).

Schneider et al. (1980) found a customer’s behaviour is crucial to the satisfaction of

both the customer and the service employees with whom the customer interacts

(Schneider et al. 1980). Customers are viewed as partial employees due to their

participation in providing resources in the form of labour and knowledge to the

service creation process, just like employees (Bowen 1986, Kelley et al. 1990, Kelley

et al. 1992, Mills et al. 1983, Mills and Morris 1986). Customer participation helps

co-produce the service, reinforcing the closeness between employees and

customers in service encounters.

74

By providing vital and accurate information in a timely fashion, service employees

will be more efficient and accurate in their service delivery. Thus, the quality of the

information customers provide can affect the quality of the outcome by helping or

hindering the productivity of service employees (Bitner et al. 1997, Dellande et al.

2004, Tax et al. 2006). Productivity can also be increased if customers learn to

perform service-related activities more effectively (Mills et al. 1983). This raises the

question as to how to increase customer participation so they can successfully

perform the role of partial employees and, thus, raise productivity and efficiency

while preventing a rise in service employees' workload.

The widely accepted antecedent conditions for customers to effectively participate

are task clarity, ability and motivation (Lengnick-Hall et al. 2000, Meuter et al.

2005). Task clarity is the extent to which customers understand what is required of

them in service production (Auh et al. 2007). The more clearly a customer's role

expectations are communicated, the greater is the likelihood that their

contributions will lead to improved service outcomes (Lengnick-Hall et al. 2000,

Mills et al. 1983, Tax et al. 2006). Customers’ ability is the quality of input

customers provide to the service production process (Kelley et al. 1990). In addition

to being able to contribute, customers must be motivated to get involved

(Lengnick-Hall et al. 2000). Increasing customer ability, task clarity and motivation

increase the incidence of co-production (Auh et al. 2007).

The extent to which customer participation can be encouraged also depends on the

customer training offered, as this can equip customers with the expertise or skills

they need to be able to understand and contribute to effective service delivery

75

(Burton 2002, Eisingerich and Bell 2006). Customer education refers to service

employees explaining complex concepts to customers and providing appropriate

information to aid their understanding of service offerings (Eisingerich and Bell

2006). Customers need to understand their roles and be trained in ways that are

similar to the training of service employees, so they will have the motivation and

ability to perform (Dellande et al. 2004).

Customer education can take the form of formal orientation programs, customer

handbooks, directional cues and signage in a service environment, online resources,

and information obtained from employees (Kelley et al. 1990). Materials that have

various levels of complexity, ranging from introductory materials that include

definitions and non-technical language and analyses to high-level reports, enable

customer competence to develop gradually. Accordingly, customer education

initiatives can serve as a strong signal of commitment to customers, strengthening

the service employee-client relationship (Goodwin 1988).

By focusing on customer education, perceived problems with service delivery are

likely to diminish, especially as customers become more capable and begin to

assume greater responsibility for the service outcome (Bendapudi and Leone 2003).

When service employees feel they receive necessary support from well-educated

customers who participate effectively, they are likely to deliver quality service and

improve their task-specific self-efficacy.

76

2.8 Self-Efficacy Research on Services Marketing

This section explores the research into self-efficacy that has been undertaken in the

services marketing area. Self-efficacy in a services marketing context has largely

been explored through studying customers’ involvement in service delivery, rather

than through examining service employees’ involvement in service delivery

(Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002, Luszczynska et al. 2005, McKee et al. 2006).

Customers’ beliefs about their ability to participate in a service (i.e., “service use of

self-efficacy”) (McKee et al. 2006, p 207) will determine their response to the

service provided. Customers who believe they are efficacious in the use of a

particular service are more likely to engage in problem-solving strategies relating to

the required task (Bandura 1982, Ozer and Bandura 1990).

Zeithaml et al. (2008) suggested customers contribute to service quality when they

take some form of responsibility for their satisfaction. Customers who believe they

are efficacious in a given service setting are more likely to develop intentions to

communicate their concerns and suggestions to service employees in their service

exchanges. McKee et al. (2006) suggested service managers should take steps to

increase customer self-efficacy, such as by providing context-specific training before

purchase, vicarious experiences (e.g., print or video portrayals of successful service

experiences) or through direct verbal persuasion (e.g., tagline of “you can do it! In

just a few minutes”), offering service in a low stress and relaxing environment and

by offering varied opportunities for customer feedback.

77

When organisations assist customers during coproduction by providing information,

customers develop greater self-efficacy (Brown et al. 2005). Customer self-efficacy

in services is important, as it is a powerful predictor of customers’ positive word of

mouth or exit intentions (McKee et al. 2006). With the move to a more

service-dominant logic, in which intangibility, inseparability, exchange processes

and relationships are central (Vargo and Lusch 2004), customer self-efficacy is likely

to play an even more important role, as customers will be seen as the co-producers

of the service.

An extensive body of research in information systems has investigated the role

customer self-efficacy plays in self-service technologies, such as ATMs, automated

hotel booking, internet banking and online investment trading. The focus is on the

requirements for customers participating in self-service technologies, such as

finding information or troubleshooting search problems. In an electronic service

context, self-efficacy refers to judgements customers make about their ability to do

what is required to successfully use electronic services at a task level (Beuningen et

al. 2009, Meuter et al. 2005, Yi and Gong 2008, Zhao et al. 2008).

Customers with greater self-efficacy can be expected to have more confidence in

their ability to use such electronic services (Compeau and Higgins 1995, Dabholkar

and Bagozzi 2002). Hsu and Chiu (2004) found customer self-efficacy was an

important factor in determining customers’ decisions about the use of electronic

services, while Yi and Gong (2008) found customer self-efficacy strengthened the

link between customer satisfaction and repurchase intention, and word of mouth.

78

Service employees’ self-efficacy also plays a role as it impacts on customers’

perceptions of the quality of the service they receive (Hartline and Ferrell 1996).

Employee performance during a service encounter typically involves responding to

customer needs, handling requests, and performing under adverse circumstances

(Bitner et al. 1990). Because of the increased effort self-efficacy drives, highly

self-efficacious service employees perform better in these service activities.

Hartline and Ferrell (1996) suggested managers need to increase employees’

self-efficacy and job satisfaction and reduce their role conflict and role ambiguity,

as this will increase customers' perceptions of service quality.

Employee self-efficacy research has largely been examined in organisational

behaviour contexts rather than marketing contexts. Indeed, service employees have

received little attention. Most research appears to be concerned with the outcomes

of self-efficacy beliefs. To date, the question of what factors foster the self-efficacy

beliefs that influence service employees’ behaviours has been largely unexplored.

Without a more complete understanding of the antecedents to service employees’

self-efficacy, our capacity to design interventions that can build efficacy beliefs and

facilitate the delivery of service quality is limited.

Lovelock, Wirtz and Chew (2008 p. 46, Figure 2.4) provided a structural

representation of the service production system (i.e., the “servuction system”)

which enhances our understanding of the 3Ps of services (i.e., physical evidence,

process and people). These 3Ps were discussed more fully in an earlier section (The

3Ps of Services Marketing Mix - Booms and Bitner's 7Ps Framework). The servuction

model, developed by Langeard et al. (1981) highlights the experiential aspects of

79

the purchases of a good or service by the consumer, emphasising that all products,

be they goods or services, deliver a "bundle of benefits" to the customer (Bateson

and Hoffman 1999). The servuction model, shown in Figure 2.4, illustrates how the

customer receives this bundle of benefits. The servuction framework (Figure 2.4)

suggests a service is delivered in real time to customers through their interactions

with the organisation’s personnel, the service environment and other customers.

The organisation providing the good or service is broken into two parts - visible and

invisible. The visible part of the organisation consists of the inanimate environment

within which the service experience occurs, and the service employees who interact

with the customer during the service experience. The visible part of the

organisation is supported by the invisible part, constituting the support

infrastructure which enables the visible part of the organisation to function.

Organisational activities that are not visible to customers are often termed

back-stage activities. These typically include support functions or other aspects that

are not directly involved in the production of the service. All other aspects of

service production, which are visible to the customer, are termed front-stage

activities. The model is completed by the introduction of other customers, with

whom the original customer may interact within the system. As noted earlier, due

to the simultaneity of the service process, a customer's overall experience is

affected by interactions with service personnel, other customers, the servicescape,

and service processes (i.e., the 3Ps of services marketing mix). It is clear that service

employees and customers participate in the production of service in the shared

environment of 3Ps resources, as can be seen in Figure 2.4.

80

Figure 2.4: The Servuction interactions that make up a customer experience

Sources: Bateson and Hoffman 1999, Lovelock, Wirtz and Chew 2008

Therefore, situational factors (e.g., resources in the physical service environment,

service processes and competent service employees with relevant product

knowledge) influence customers and employees within the same service encounter

(Bitner 1992).

2.9 Customer Service Self-Efficacy in Delivering Service Quality

Delivering quality in services is very different from delivering quality in physical

goods (Lovelock et al. 2008, Zeithaml et al. 2008). Fisk, Brown and Bitner (1993, p.

68) concluded that “four features - intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity, and

perishability - provided the underpinnings for the case that services marketing is a

field distinct from goods marketing.” These factors interact as well. The fact that a

service is a performance that cannot be seen or touched (i.e., "intangibility") or

stored (i.e., “perishability”), generates challenges in services marketing and

management. Further, the fact that different customers require different types or

levels of service in different situations, which means no two service deliveries are

The Service Delivery System

The Service Operation

System

Technical Core

Inanimate

Environment

Customer

A

Contact

Personnel

Back Stage (Invisible)

Front Stage (Visible)

Customer B

81

exactly alike (i.e., “heterogeneity”), compounds this difficulty. Customers are also

involved in the service mix, reflecting the "inseparability" of services marketing.

This increases the problem of managing the service in the shared environment of

customers and service employees. In service encounters, customers and service

employees confront intangibility, variability, perishability, and inseparability in their

roles within the servuction system.

Service employee self-efficacy can be important in service organisations because of

the service employee and customer involvement in the servuction system. The

attitudes and behaviours of service employees can influence customers’

perceptions of service quality, since a key part of the delivery of service occurs

during the interaction between service employees and customers (Bitner 1990,

Montes et al. 2003, Yoon et al. 2001). Previous research has found self-efficacy

exerts a positive influence on decisions about the behaviours people undertake and

the effort exerted and their persistence in attempting these behaviours (McKee et

al. 2006). When customers are served by employees who believe strongly in their

own abilities to perform the service task and show desirable service behaviours,

they are likely to receive better quality service (Hartline and Ferrell 1996).

The impact self-efficacy has on behaviour is well-established. Self-efficacy has been

operationalised as the “extent to which employees feel confident about their job

skills and abilities” to organise and execute courses of actions within a given context

to achieve the designated performances (Hartline and Ferrell 1996, p. 56). Service

employees who judge themselves relatively more efficacious in meeting situational

82

demands based on their current motivation, the courses of action needed, and their

cognitive resources, will persist to complete the task in difficult times (Wood and

Bandura 1989). Thus, they are more able to demonstrate desirable behaviours that

foster success (Bandura 1982, Mitchell et al. 1994).

In a service context, service employees’ self-efficacy refers to the judgements

service employees make about their ability and the resources that are available to

do what is required to successfully perform the service. Unless employees believe

they can gather necessary behavioural, cognitive and motivational resources to

successfully execute the task, they are likely to dwell on it and exert insufficient

effort and, as a result, they are likely to fail in delivering desired results (Stajkovic

and Luthans 1998b). Service employees with greater self-efficacy can be expected

to have more confidence in their ability to deliver service quality, choose desirable

actions, put in the effort needed to complete their service-based duties, and

persevere in difficult situations (Bandura and Cervone 1983).

Bitner et al. (1994) argued that boundary employees are attracted to their positions

because of a desire to provide service quality and, therefore, they look for cues to

help them improve service quality. Gist (1992) argues that external factors (i.e.,

situational factors, such as information derived from others, availability of specific

resources and constraints, task, distraction, process and work environment)

influence employees’ evaluation of the availability of resources and constraints,

thus determining their self-efficacy. Service employees will evaluate and integrate

information about their perceived capabilities (Stajkovic and Luthans 1998a), which

83

is consistent with self-efficacy theory that suggests people gravitate toward those

activities where they feel are capable, and avoid tasks they feel exceed their

abilities (Gist 1987, Ozer and Bandura 1990). This suggests that service employees

who believe they are efficacious in a given service task are more likely to develop,

to communicate well, and to deliver quality service to their customers.

Parasuraman et al. (1988, p. 16) suggested service quality is "a global judgment, or

attitude, relating to the superiority of the service." In service settings, customer

satisfaction is often influenced by the quality of the interpersonal interaction

between the customer and the service employee. Both service employee and

customer share the same experiences in terms of the people, the physical evidence

and the process in the simultaneous production and consumption of a service.

Bitner (1990) and Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault (1990) found that customers

evaluate the service encounter more favourably when employees are able to meet

their needs and requests. This finding was supported in a later study using the same

approach, but this time among employees (Bitner et al. 1994. p. 99); the study

found “almost half of particularly satisfying customer encounters reported by

employees resulted from their ability to adjust the system to accommodate

customer needs and requests. Success is attributed in these cases to the

employee's own ability and willingness to adjust.”

Situating the challenge of managing the service quality delivery by service

employees in the self-efficacy arena suggests that service employees who believe

they are more efficacious in delivering quality service are more likely to put in the

84

effort needed to create favourable service encounters than are those employees

who do not have such belief. (Bandura 1982). In general, Gist and Mitchell (1992)

specified four types of assessment processes that appear to be involved in forming

self-efficacy, namely:

1. An assessment of situational resources and constraints needed to perform

the task.

2. An assessment of the employee’s personal resources and constraints.

3. An analysis of the task’s requirements.

4. An attributional analysis of experience, which involves the employee’s

judgements about their past performance.

As task-specific self-efficacy is situation-specific, service employees will judge their

abilities to organise and execute a course of action that will attain a designated type

of performance for the task. Consequently, it is likely that task-specific self-efficacy

will have contextually specific predictors and information cues that facilitate task

execution and it is these factors that were the focus of the present study.

2.10 Conclusions

Bandura (1997) suggested that people construct self-efficacy beliefs on the basis of

information obtained from a variety of sources. The underlying assumption is that

such information is relevant for judging personal capabilities and that it is

translated into self-efficacy beliefs through cognitive processing. Cervone (2000, p.

49) described self-efficacy as "the product of dynamic cognitive processes" through

85

which people integrate various cues to take account of the different components of

an overall activity. Following this argument, a framework is needed to explain how

service employees evaluate the situational resources that drive employees’

assessment of their task-specific self-efficacy, ultimately influencing their ability to

deliver quality service, as will become clear in the discussion of this issue in Chapter

Three.

86

87

Chapter Three: The Development of a Conceptual Framework

3.1 Introduction

Self-efficacy is a powerful predictor of attitudes and behaviours (Bandura 1982, Gist

1987, Mitchell et al. 1994). Because self-efficacy influences people’s motivation and

ability to engage in specific behaviours (Bandura 1977) and the pursuit of specific

tasks (Bandura 1986), the concept holds much promise for understanding service

delivery issues. According to self-efficacy theory, if organisations can learn how to

increase their service employees’ self-efficacy judgements about their abilities to

complete service quality delivery tasks, this should lead to improved performance.

Although the study of self-efficacy is highly salient in organisational behaviours

(Bandura 1991, 1982, 1977, Bandura and Locke 2003, Gist and Mitchell 1992, Locke

et al. 1984, Stajkovic and Luthans 1998b, Thoms et al. 1996), research has not

assessed how the self-efficacy of service employees, or more specifically front line

service employees, which is the context of the present study, is formed.

Consequently, this study was undertaken to better understand the factors that

contribute to service employees' beliefs about their abilities to deliver quality

service (i.e., task-specific self-efficacy, which was termed “Customer Service

Self-Efficacy - CSSE”). Using a conceptual model of self-efficacy development based

on Gist and Mitchell’s (1992) suggestions, a set of antecedents related to the 3 Ps of

services marketing was derived from an integration of the self-efficacy and services

marketing literatures. A list of personal and situational variables that were thought

to be potential moderators of the effects resources directed at service employees

88

and customers had on employee CSSE was also developed. It was hoped that

studying the antecedents to, and moderators of, CSSE would improve our

understanding of how to motivate and manage service employees.

Building on the work of Bandura (1982), Gist and Mitchell (1992) developed a

model of work-related self-efficacy development, which was presented in Chapter

Two (Figure 2.2), Gist and Mitchell (1992) pointed out that people’s estimates of

their task-specific self-efficacy will be different in work settings because they

consider performance resources, such as time and staff availability, the

interdependence of a particular task with other functions in the organisation, and

the physical work environment. The general framework of the

self-efficacy-performance relationship model by Gist and Mitchell (1992) was used

to guide the present research and to develop a conceptual services marketing

framework.

A major tenet of self-efficacy theory is that employees must first believe that they

are able to perform the task of concern (service delivery in the present research

context). This study initially focused on the antecedents to CSSE, which was

conceptualised as service employees’ belief in their ability to deliver quality service.

The study model examined how the situational resources directed at the service

employees and customers affect CSSE. The model included two key research

concepts (self-efficacy and the 3Ps of services marketing mix). The model views

these resources as enablers that can increase service employees’ CSSE, as can be

seen in Figure 3.1.

89

Figure 3.1: Some suggested antecedents to task-specific self-efficacy

Sources: i) Gist, M. E. and Mitchell, T. R. 1992, 'Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants

and Malleability', Academy of Management Review, vol. 17, no. 2, p. 189.

ii) Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J. and Gremier, D. D. 2008, Services Marketing: Integrating

Customer Focus Across the Firm, New York: McGraw Hill

iii) Dimensions of 3Ps - Reference: Table 2.3: An Expanded Marketing Mix for Services

The antecedents (shown on the left-hand side of Figure 3.1) are the various sources

of information service employees can use to develop self-efficacy judgements. It

was hypothesised that having more resources (i.e., the 3 Ps of services marketing)

would improve service employees perceived CSSE, as service employees draw on

these resources to regulate their beliefs to deliver service quality. Employees’ CSSE

(shown in the middle of Figure 3.1) influences the quality of the service they

provide to customers (shown on the right-hand side of Figure 3.1).

Figure 1 (a) and (b) adapted from :

Assessment of Situational Resources: Process

of services marketing mix

Perceived Customer Service Self-

Efficacy (CSSE) of the service

employee

Assessment of Situational Resources: People


Assessment of Situational Resources: Physical Evidence


Consequences of CSSE:

Service Quality

90

Employees’ CSSE is seen as playing an important role in shaping customers'

perceptions of their service encounter. When customers are served by employees

who believe strongly in their own abilities, they are likely to receive better service.

The adapted framework was used to see whether service employees who were

more positive the 3 service marketing Ps had greater CSSE and, consequently, felt

they delivered better quality service using the research model that is discussed in

the next section.

3.2 The Study’s Research Model

The conceptual framework that guided the present research can be seen in

Figure3.2. While situational and personal assessments of resources are antecedents

to self-efficacy (Gist and Mitchell 1992), the present study focused on the

assessment of situational resources. Specifically, the study focused on the people “P”

of services marketing. Consequently, physical evidence (ambient conditions, spatial

layout and functionality, signs, symbols and artefacts), and process (number of

steps, degree of automation, waiting time and customisation) were not examined.

Although it has been found that some human resource (HR) practices (e.g.,

recruitment, training, rewards, supervisory support, other departments’ support,

and teamwork) affect employees’ behaviour, motivation and performance, the

ways in which these factors influence service employees’ CSSE has not been

examined previously. This is surprising as, given the substantial costs involved in HR

management, it is critical that services firms understand how they can use their

91

resources directed at service employees and customers effectively, to deliver

quality service.

Resources directed at Service Employees

Resources directed at

customers

Figure 3.2: The Suggested CSSE Model

H1

H2

H3

Perceived CSSE of service employee

Recruitment &selection criteria

Perceived Service Quality

H4

Training

Rewarding customer service excellence

Immediate supervisor

support

Team support from coworkers

Other departments’ support

Customer education

H8

H6

H7

H10

Customer organisational socialization

Encouragement of customer feedback

H5

H9

Perceived Customer

Loyalty

H11

92

The people “P” concerns all of the people who are directly or indirectly involved in

the service encounter (i.e., service employees, focal customers, and other

customers) (Booms and Bitner 1981). Based on Booms and Bitner’s (1981), Tax and

Stuart’s (1997) and Zeithaml et al.’s (2008) suggestions, the factors that were

included in the research model related to service employees including recruitment

and selection, training, rewarding customer service excellence, immediate

supervisor support, team support from co-workers, other departments’ support,

and the resources related to customers, which includes customer education.

Following the literature review and a subsequent set of focus groups, which are

discussed in Chapter 2, Chapter 4 and Appendix 2, the list of situational resources

was expanded to include customers’ organisational socialisation and the

encouragement of customer feedback. The study’s premise is that these variables

influence customers and service employees. As with customer education, customer

socialisation and the encouragement of customer feedback enhance the customer’s

role in developing employees’ perceived task-specific self-efficacy and this is

discussed further in the development of the hypotheses.

The emergence of a more strategic approach to human resource management

(HRM) in the service sector has been associated with a need to improve the quality

and efficiency of service provision in increasingly competitive environments

(Arrowsmith and McGoldrick 1996, Boxall and Purcell 2000, Rowley et al. 2004). As

service employees manage the boundary between the firm and its customers, and

their behaviour shapes customers’ behaviour, the connection between HRM and

service quality is strong (Batt 2002, Bell and Menguc 2002, Mills et al. 1983,

93

Schneider 1994). High involvement HR practices allow organisations to develop

effective service employees who deliver quality performances (Arrowsmith and

McGoldrick 1996, Batt 2002).

Figure 3.2 suggests the resources directed at the service employees and customers

have a significant influence on service employees’ perceived CSSE, which play a

critical role in determining their subsequent behaviour in delivering quality service.

The model summarises the preceding literature review and the subsequent

qualitative research and shows the hypothesised direction of the relationships

between these antecedents and the dependent variable (CSSE), as well as the

service quality and loyalty outcomes that are discussed subsequently. The

suggested moderating influences of role clarity, role conflict, role overload,

openness to experience, passion for service, organisation climate for service, years

of service experience, and general self-efficacy, are discussed in subsequent

sections, as are the hypotheses associated with each path in the model.

3.3 The Research Hypotheses

In this section, the rationale underlying the proposed relationships that are shown

in Figure 3.2 is developed. Gist and Mitchell (1992) suggested self-efficacy is

determined by information cues in work settings and highlighted three important

aspects of self-efficacy, namely:

1. Self-efficacy is a comprehensive summary or judgement of the employee’s

perceived ability to perform a specific task.

94

2. Self-efficacy has a mobilisation or motivational component.

3. Self-efficacy is a dynamic construct that changes in response to new

experiences and information.

One important source of information in the servuction system that influence

perceived task-specific self-efficacy is the people “P” component of the services

marketing mix. It is hypothesised that having greater situational resources will

influence employees’ CSSE. Recruitment and selection criteria, training, rewards

and recognition, supervisor, team and other departments’ support have been

studied extensively as distinct constructs in many different contexts in management

and organisational behaviour research and have been found to be linked to

performance. Consequently, service employees' perception of these indicators will

influence their perceived CSSE. Given this, and consistent with the tenets of HR

development theory, which argues that employee development leads to beneficial

outcomes, hypotheses were developed about the impact the people “P” of the

services marketing mix would have on employees’ CSSE.

Recruitment and Selection Criteria

Recruitment is the set of processes used to hire new employees and these

processes can “alter the characteristics of applicants to whom selection procedures

are ultimately applied” (Boudreaua and Rynesa 1985, p. 354). Recruitment occurs

before selection, determining the type of applicants from which information is

gathered for use in the final hiring process. Selection involves evaluating the

obtained information for the purposes of making a final hiring decision. The aim of

95

recruitment and selection is to select staff whose values appear congruent with the

organisation’s service ethic and who are likely to be committed to their work

(Schlesinger and Heskett 1991). On the other side of the coin, employees collect

information that is used in forming efficacy views from their interpersonal task

environments (Gist and Mitchell, 1992). Service employees who perceive they are

supported by other service employees hired through appropriate recruitment and

selection procedures will have better their perceived CSSE, suggesting

Hypothesis 1: The more positive a service employee’s assessment of the appropriateness of their organisations’ recruitment and selection procedures, the better will be their perceived CSSE.

Training

Organisations need to provide appropriate “training on products and services

offered, employees’ specific roles in delivering excellent service, the day-to-day

things they can do to deliver excellent service, and how to deal with angry

customers; communicating regularly about the importance of providing excellent

service” (Johnson 1996, p. 837). Training is a systematic process that is used to

develop employees' knowledge, skills, and the abilities that are critical for

successful job performance (Lovelock et al. 2008). Having relevant training can raise

self-efficacy (Schwoerer et al. 2005, Gist et al. 1989, Pattni et al. 2007).

When handling critical incidents, service employees need to judge their abilities to

organise and execute the course of action that will satisfy customers. When

employees feel they have received the necessary training, they will have more

confidence about their ability to successfully perform the service (Maurer et al.

96

2002). Relevant training will contribute performance accomplishment-type

information to people’s self-efficacy beliefs (Staples et al. 1999). Studies have

shown employees who are initially low in self-efficacy receive significant benefits

from training interventions that build self-efficacy (Eden and Aviram1993). Some

training methods can enhance self-efficacy in the areas of self-management (Frayne

and Latham 1987, Pattni et al. 2007), behaviour modelling (Gist et al. 1989) and the

use of information technology (Compeau 1995). Saks (1995) also found training was

an important source of information and helped change people’s self-efficacy beliefs,

suggesting:

Hypothesis 2: The more positive a service employee’s assessment of the training provided by their organisation, the better will be their perceived CSSE.

Rewarding Customer Service Excellence

Some organisations have recognised the importance of “rewarding and recognizing

employees who provide superior service and take a personal interest in resolving

customer problems, celebrating top service accomplishments, and making it clear

that delivering excellent service is important in advancement decisions” (Johnson

1996, p. 837). Employee rewards systems are important as they can motivate

employees to provide service excellence and to undertake the recovery efforts that

are often necessary to restore the satisfaction of a dissatisfied customer (Boshoff

and Allen 2000, Bowen and Johnston 1998, Schneider and Bowen 1993). Rewarding

for service excellence tells employees that service quality is important to the

organisation (Babakus et al. 2003). Johnson (1996) argued that employees should

97

be rewarded for providing superior service, resolving customer complaints and

problems, and finding better ways to serve customers. When rewards that are

valued by employees are not offered for employee competence, initiative and

persistence, employees’ sense of powerlessness increases (Conger and Kanungo

1988).

Employees are more likely to deliver excellent service to customers when the

organisation expects and rewards behaviours such as taking a personal interest in

resolving customer problems and celebrating top service accomplishments, and

when the organisation makes it clear that delivering excellent service is important

in advancement decisions (Berry et al. 1994, Johnson 1996, Schneider et al. 1992).

Rational and transparent rewards build employees' self-efficacy by increasing their

capacity to get what they want for themselves (Forrester 2000), suggesting:

Hypothesis 3: The more positive a service employee’s assessment of rewards offered for customer service excellence, the better will be their perceived CSSE.

Immediate Supervisory Support

Supervisory support has been defined as “individuals’ beliefs that supervisors offer

them work-related assistance to aid in the performance of their job” (Susskind et al.

2003, p. 181). Supervisors are a potential vehicle for two of the experiences

Bandura (1986) suggested play a key role in determining self-efficacy, that is,

vicarious learning ("modelling") and verbal persuasion. Supervisors’ role modelling

is crucial for self-efficacy development on complex and challenging activities in

which the demonstration of effective performance and coping are required

98

(Bandura 1997). Gist and Mitchell (1992) noted that, as employees often lack

sufficient information to gauge their task success, modelling is important in

providing the information they need to assess their own performance. Supervisors

may also engage in verbal persuasion, which helps improve self-efficacy (Bandura

1986). Efforts to verbally convince service employees they are capable of delivering

service quality can be instrumental in shaping task-specific efficacy beliefs. In

addition to persuading, such actions may also prompt positive emotive reactions,

which improve self-efficacy (Bandura 1997).

Research has shown service employees treat customers the way they are treated by

management (Berkley and Gupta 1995, Griffin et al. 2001). Employees who believe

their managers are supportive and receive resources from their supervisors tend to

feel more confident about successfully carrying out required activities (Anderson

2006, Johnston et al. 1990, Maurer et al. 2002). Further, a positive relationship has

been found between employees’ perceptions of management's service

commitment and customer perceptions of service quality (Schneider and Bowen

1985).

Leaders’ behaviours yielding trust, genuineness, empathy, respect, and warmth

may all contribute to employees’ self-efficacy (Dvir et al. 2002, Kark et al. 2003,

Schneider et al. 2005, Shamir et al. 1993). Of particular importance has been the

willingness of managers to introduce practices that help service delivery and to

personally demonstrate a commitment to service quality (Babin and Boles 1996,

Maurer et al. 2002, Schneider and Bowen 1993, Zeithaml et al. 1985). In most

studies, supervisory support has been conceptualised and measured from a

99

managers' perspective (Hartline and Ferrell 1996). However, Forrester (2000) has

suggested the concept should be defined from the employees' perspective, as

supervisors’ good intentions do not mean much unless employees perceive them as

such. This suggests:

Hypothesis 4: The more positive a service employee’s assessment of the level of support they receive from their immediate supervisors, the better will be their perceived CSSE.

Support from Co-workers

Susskind et al. (2003, p. 181) defined team support as the “extent to which

employees believe their co-workers are willing to provide them with work-related

assistance to aid in the execution of their service-based duties.” Many of the service

outcomes service staff seek are achievable only through cooperative interactions

with other team members. Indeed, a service employee is often dependent on

backroom support if they are to meet customers’ requests. In an effective team

environment, vicarious learning can occur, through which staff adopt approaches

taken by another team member and learn from each other (Boshoff and Alien 2000,

Horwitz and Neville 1996). The implication is that, if service employees experience

positive peer-based learning and co-workers’ service-driven attitudes, they will be

motivated to carry this attitude into their customer encounters (Jong et al. 2004).

Excellent service is often the result of teamwork, rather than the result of one

outstanding individual (Berry et al. 1994, Shemwell and Yavas 1998), which

suggests:

100

Hypothesis 5: The more positive a service employee’s assessment of the support they receive from their team members, the better will be their perceived CSSE.

Other Department’s Support

Inter-team support refers to team members’ perceptions of the internal service and

communication between their team and other units in the organisation (Campion

et al. 1993). Service employees often depend on other departments to provide

product knowledge (e.g., details of a promotion campaign and types of queries that

they are likely to receive as a result of the campaign) (Auty and Long 1999). Horwitz

and Neville (1996) argued that departmental support across an organisation’s

internal boundaries is an important determinant of service quality. Despite this,

large organisations often have complex interdependencies between departments.

“Other departments’ support” enables employees to invest more time and energy

to find solutions for customers' concerns because appropriate resources are

available to them (Auty and Long 1999, Sergeant and Frenkel 2000), increasing their

CSSE. This suggests:

Hypothesis 6: The greater the service employee’s assessment of the level of support they receive from other departments, the better will be their perceived CSSE.

3.3.1 People Resources that are related to the Customer

The inseparability of services implies there is an interdependence relationship

between service employees and customers (Regan 1963, Sierra and McQuitty 2005,

Solomon et al. 1985). For example, in a hair salon, the hair stylist relies on the

101

customer to explain clearly what services and styles are desired. Customer

resources that are consistent with organisational norms and values (Kelley et al.

1992), and customers’ behaviours that are consistent with those norms and values,

may also play a role in improving service employees’ CSSE, and these behaviours

are discussed in subsequent sections.

Customer Education

Customer education is the process through which service employees inform

customers about service-related concepts and explain the pros and cons of the

products or services they recommend to aid their decision-making (Eisingerich and

Bell 2008, 2006, Sharma and Patterson 1999). Customers who have a better

understanding of the service organisation are better able to communicate their

needs and expectations in the context of the organisation’s capabilities. The more

comfortable customers are with evaluating the service, the more questions they

may have about current service offerings (Ouschan et al. 2006). This will allow

service employees to better match customers’ requirements with appropriate

service offerings. Thus, customers are an important resource (Lengnick-Hall et al.

2000), especially as they can actively participate as co-producers of a service (Vargo

and Lusch 2004). Indeed, service quality often depends on customers’ willingness to

learn procedures and to interact cooperatively with service employees and other

customers (Goodwin 1988).

Customer education helps customers use critical information (Burton 2002). For

customers to be more actively involved, they must be trained so they can perform

102

the behaviours that facilitate service delivery (Bitner et al. 1994, Bowers et al. 1990,

Mills et al. 1983). Customer education can be undertaken through seminars,

instructions, guidelines, handbooks, videos and other informative materials about

the service (Lovelock and Wirtz 2007). Customer participation can cause employee

stress under certain conditions; when customer demands are incompatible and

unexpected, then stress can result (Chan et al. 2010). However, customer

education should be consistent with organisational norms and values (e.g. Kelley et

al. 1992). As such, the customers’ behaviours derived from customer education are

likely related to employee self-efficacy. Hence, supportive customers (i.e.,

customers who respond positively to the education process) will provide

boundary-spanning employees with feelings of greater control, increasing

employees’ beliefs that they are capable of meeting customers’ expectations,

suggesting:

Hypothesis 7: The more positive a service employee’s assessment of their customer’s organisational education, the better will be their perceived CSSE.

Customer Organisational Socialisation

Organisational socialisation is “the process by which an individual adapts to and

comes to appreciate the values, norms, and required behaviour patterns of an

organisation” (Kelley et al. 1992, p. 198). While customer education reflects

knowledge of the core service, customer organisational socialisation is concerned

with the process of service delivery. In a customer service setting, customers’

organisational socialisation provides the means to inform customers about the

103

activities and behaviours that are needed for an effective service encounter (Kelley

et al. 1990, Schein 1968). The process of customer organisational socialisation

creates support for an organisation’s values and policies. The service firm socialises

its customers by providing information that establishes customers’ expectations,

helps shape customers’ knowledge of the firm’s expectations of them, and clarifies

their services, tasks and roles (Lengnick-Hall et al. 2000).

Through customer organisational socialisation, customers gain an appreciation of

organisational values and gain the knowledge necessary to interact effectively with

employees and other customers (Kelley et al. 1990). Customers who have been

successfully socialised will have more accurate expectations about the resources

they provide to the service employee (customer technical quality) and how those

resources should be provided (customer functional quality) (Kelley et al. 1992, Mills

and Morris 1986). When customers participate in the service encounter as resource

contributors and there are mutual expectations about privileges and obligations,

service employees will feel they have social support and that they are being treated

courteously and with friendliness and respect. The interpersonal relationships with

such service employees are likely to be more favourable. Customer organisational

socialisation also improves service employees’ belief that they can meet the

well-informed customers’ expectations, suggesting:

Hypothesis 8: The more positive a service employee’s assessment of customers’ organisational socialisation, the better will be their perceived CSSE.

104

Encouraging Customer Feedback on the Service

A new theme of antecedent situational resources emerged from the focus group

phase of the present study, which is discussed in Appendix 2. This concerned the

encouragement of customer feedback about the service. Customers typically have

considerable experience with the service that is being delivered and can be a

valuable resource (Bettencourt 1997). Due to the inseparable nature of services and

a shared responsibility for service production, customers should be encouraged to

provide feedback (Sierra and McQuitty 2005). Customer feedback may enable

current service gaps to be filled or even suggest new services as feedback allows

service employees to identify customers’ unmet needs and expectations.

As customers participate and become more involved in the service process, they

tend to share the credit and blame for the service outcomes (Eisingerich and Bell

2006). They will be less dissatisfied with a service provider than when they believe

the provider is responsible and could have avoided the problem (Bitner 1990).

Because of improved communication between customers and their service

providers, customer feedback can lead to the development of social bonds that

improve the customer-service employee relationship, making it more resistant to

service failures. Participative customers (i.e., customers who give constructive

feedback to help the service) provide boundary-spanning employees with greater

knowledge of customer needs and increased feelings of control, suggesting:

Hypothesis 9: The more positive a service employee’s assessment of the organisation’s effort to encourage constructive customer feedback, the better will be their perceived CSSE.

105

3.3.2 The Consequences of Customer Specific Self-Efficacy


Self-efficacy research has provided empirical evidence that improving self-efficacy

increases performance for a wide range of skill-based tasks (Gist et al. 1989,

Vancouver et al. 2001, Stajkovic and Luthans 1998b). In services research, it seems

that improving service employees’ self-efficacy increases their service performance

(Ahearne et al. 2005, Hartline and Ferrell 1996). This seems to be due to employees

obtaining a sense of personal mastery or developing a “can do” attitude, which is

associated with enhanced self-efficacy. In the present context, the more efficacious

service employees can be expected to have more confidence in their ability to

deliver service quality, choose desirable actions, put in more effort for the

service-based duties and perform better in service encounters (Bandura and

Cervone 1983, Hartline and Ferrell 1996).

If service employees have low CSSE, they are likely gravitate toward activities they

feel they can do and avoid tasks they feel exceed their abilities (Ozer and Bandura

1990). Such service employees may not respond quickly or confidently to customers.

If service employees lack the confidence needed to perform a task, customers are

likely to become frustrated with their inability to perform (Anderson 2006). Indeed,

Jong et al. (2006) found self-efficacy among service employees increased customers’

service quality evaluations, suggesting:

Hypothesis 10: The better a service employee’s perceived CSSE, the better will be the service quality the employee perceives they provide.

106

Perceived Customer Loyalty

Customer loyalty is a customer’s intention to remain a customer and to be

committed to an organisation (Salanova et al. 2005, Zeithaml et al. 1996). It

represents a commitment by the customer to use services from the organisation

and to make word-of-mouth recommendations to other people. Customers who

experience better service quality are likely to be more satisfied with employees’

ability to perform, develop greater confidence in an organisation’s products and

services, thereby increasing the perceived cost of switching (Anderson 2006, Jong et

al. 2006, Schultz 2003). Several empirical studies have shown that the technical and

functional aspects of service quality increase customer satisfaction and foster

customer loyalty (Bell et al. 2005, Specht et al. 2007, Zeithaml et al. 1996). Indeed, a

failure to solve customers’ concerns effectively is a leading cause of customers

switching providers (Eisingerich and Bell 2006, Liao 2007), suggesting:

Hypothesis 11: The more positive customers’ perceptions of the service quality delivered, the greater will be their loyalty to the organisation.

3.3.3 Moderators of the Situational Resources - CSSE Relationship

Baron and Kenny (1986, p. 1174) suggest a moderator is a “variable that affects the

direction and/or strength of the relation between an independent or predictor

variable and a dependent or criterion variable.” A variable is a moderator if the

relationship between two other variables is a function of the level of the

moderating variable. The servicescape framework, which was discussed in Chapter

Two (Figure 2.3), suggests extrinsic cues (i.e., the 3 Ps of services marketing) are

107

provided to customers and service employees and that both respond cognitively,

emotionally, and physiologically to these cues. The internal responses to the

perceived servicescape influence both customers’ and service employees’

responses (Bitner 1992). However, the strength and direction of this relationship

can be moderated by personal and situational factors (Bitner 1992).

Consistent with the characteristics of the service role (i.e., the requirement for

interpersonal interactions with customers in a shared environment) and in line with

considerable past research, which was discussed in Chapter Two, several

moderators, that have been identified as situational variables in prior management

research, were examined in the present study. Although these relationships are

intuitively comprehensible, they have not been examined previously in the context

of CSSE. The four focus groups suggested two additional moderators, openness to

experience and passion for service that are also discussed in subsequent sections.

Role Clarity as a Moderator

Role ambiguity and role clarity represent opposite extremes of the same construct.

Role ambiguity occurs when a service employee is uncertain about the duties

he/she is expected to perform and “lacks salient information needed to effectively

enact his or her role” (Singh 1993, p. 12). Role ambiguity is the degree to which

information is lacking about role expectations, responsibilities, authority, tasks,

behaviours and the effective performance of a role (Li and Bagger 2008, Yun et al.

2007, Zeithaml et al. 1988). Role clarity, on the other hand, is the extent to which

the employee receives and understands information required to do the job. Role

108

clarity can improve performance as it encourages increased effort and promptness

in taking action (Brown and Peterson 1994).

When service employees, who act as “boundary spanners,” are given a number of

tasks without clear directives, they may experience stress (Arnold et al. 2009).

Service employees, who spend much of their time interacting with customers and

addressing their often highly variable, complex and distinctive needs, may

experience little role clarity (Stamper and Johlke 2003). They are in a unique

position of having to meet both the demands of the firm (i.e., managers, policies

and rules) and the demands of customers (Bateson 1985). Dealing with the stress

created by a lack of role clarity, service employees can feel drained and

overwhelmed by their work (Wilk and Moynihan 2005). Leiter and Maslach (1988)

suggested such service employees avoid work requests or withdraw, which can lead

to absenteeism (Cropanzano et al. 2003, Deery et al. 2002, Wright and Bonett 1997,

Wright and Cropanzano 1998). Therefore, service employees who have low role

clarity in their service workplace are likely to be less influenced by resources

directed at service employees and customers than are those employees who have

role clarity. This suggests:

Hypothesis 12 (a): The relationships between a service employee’s assessment of:

a) the appropriateness of their organisation’s

recruitment and selection procedures, b) the perceived availability of training, c) the rewards for customer service excellence, d) the level of support they receive from their

immediate supervisors, e) the level of support they receive from their team

members,

109

f) the level of support they receive from other departments,

g) the level of customer education with respect to participating in the service delivery,

h) the level of customer organisational socialisation, i) the level of encouraging customer feedback on the

service,

and their perceived CSSE, are greater when role clarity is high.

Role Conflict as a Moderator

Role conflict has been defined as “the dimensions of congruency-incongruency or

compatibility-incompatibility in the requirements of the role, where congruency or

compatibility is judged relative to a set of standards or conditions, which impinge

upon role performance” (Rizzo et al. 1970 p. 155). Role conflict results from a

service employee feeling some job requirements are incompatible with other job

requirements (Arnold et al. 2009). Service employees must satisfy the needs and

expectations of their organisation and customers, which make them prone to role

conflict (Babin and Boles 1996, Bateson 1985). For example, a customer requesting

a cash refund be given without a receipt, when this is contrary to policy, could

create role conflict. This situation becomes worse when service employees are not

given the authority needed to provide the required level of service. Role conflict

can also occur when customers place incompatible demands on service employees

(Zeithaml et al. 1988).

When role conflict is problematic, resources directed at service employees and

customers will lose their ability to influence CSSE. Role conflict will exacerbate

service employees’ fear of the difficulties and stress that will occur as they try to

110

fulfil their service role expectations. A downward spiral in energy loss can occur

when resources are perceived as inadequate to meet ongoing demands (Hobfoll

1989). Service employees who experience considerable role conflict are likely to be

less influenced by resources directed at service employees and customers than are

those who experience less role conflict, suggesting:

Hypothesis 12 (b): The relationships between a service employee’s assessment of:


recruitment and selection procedures

b) the perceived availability of training

c) the rewards for customer service excellence

d) the level of support they receive from their immediate supervisors

e) the level of support they receive from their team members

f) the level of support they receive from other departments

g) the level of customer education to support their participation in the service delivery process

h) the level of customer organisational socialisation

i) the encouragement of customer feedback about service delivery

and their perceived CSSE, are greater when role conflict is low.

Role Overload as a Moderator

Role overload occurs when service employees perceive role demands are

overwhelming, given available resources (Brown et al. 2005). In their boundary

spanning roles, role overload can occur because service employees are expected to

meet so many people’s expectations (Singh 2000). Collectively, these demands

111

require more than an individual’s available resources can cope with, resulting in

stress and emotional exhaustion (Cordes and Dougherty 1993, Deery et al. 2002).

Role overload forces employees to stretch their attention, effort and resources

thinly to meet overwhelming demands. Role overload may attenuate the

relationship between resources directed at service employees and customers, and

service employees’ CSSE because excessive role demands may restrict how

effectively the situational resources can be used. The sense of CSSE that comes

from perceptions of having resources directed at service employees and customers

will be negated by a perception of an overwhelming work load, suggesting:

Hypothesis 12 (c): The relationships between a service employee’s assessment of:











and their perceived CSSE, are greater when role overload is low.

112

Years of Service Experience as a Moderator

Longer serving employees are likely to be more competent, have greater expertise

and better coping behaviours (Cordes and Dougherty 1993) and will be less

influenced by the resources directed at service employees and customers. Service

employees’ perceptions of service quality and service capability (i.e., satisfaction

with the ability to serve the customers) have been found to increase with their time

in the job (Schlesinger et al. 1991). As service employees gain more experience,

they become more aligned with their customers, more capable of managing

difficult relationships and, consequently, develop their service capability (Deery et

al. 2002). More experienced service employees are better able to deal with the

strain of customer demands and co-worker interactions and develop effective

mechanisms for coping with the demands of their service role than are their

younger and less experienced counterparts (Maslach 1978). Novice service

employees, who are learning about the service job, depend more on the situational

resources and are most vulnerable to emotional exhaustion (Gaines and Jermier

1983). These resources give novice service employees a sense that they are

well-equipped to handle the demands of the service role (i.e., “they can do it”).

The focus group identified differing views about the moderating effect of

experience. Although service experience seems likely to moderate the relationship

between the people “P’ resources of the services marketing mix and service

employees’ CSSE in the ways suggested in hypothesis 15, some participants in the

focus group argued that “the longer the years of experience, the staff were hungrier

to learn new things, were more passionate to learn new skills especially when they

113

value-add to their skills”. While recognising this alternative view, a considerable

amount of prior research seems to suggest:

Hypothesis 12 (d): The relationships between a service employee’s assessment of:











and their perceived CSSE are greater when years of service experience is less.

Openness to Experience as a Moderator

Costa and McCrae’s (1992, 1995) “openness to experience” personality trait is

characterised by a preference for variety above routine and a receptivity to new

ideas, approaches and experiences (Bipp 2010, Bozionelos 2004, Thoms et al. 1996).

Service work provides opportunities to be exposed to, deal with, and be challenged

by novel situations and points of view. These conditions can satisfy people’s needs

to be open to experiences. Service employees seeking greater openness to

experience are likely to be more responsive to the people “P” than are those who

114

are less open to experience, as they are more open-minded, curious, intelligent,

and receptive to new ideas (De Jong et al. 2001, Thoms et al.1996), suggesting:

Hypothesis 12 (e): The relationships between a service employee’s assessment of:











and their perceived CSSE, are greater when openness to experience is high.

Passion for Service as a Moderator

Passion is a strong inclination towards an activity (e.g., service in our case) people

(e.g., service employees in our case) like, find important, and to which they devote

time and energy (Vallerand et al. 2007, 2003). Passion can create a heightened

emotional connection to a job, increase well-being and provide meaning in work

(Burke and Fiksenbaum 2009, Gubman 2004). This ‘harmonious passion’ (Vallerand

et al. 2003, p. 757) is characterised by a sense of deep interest and motivates

employees to engage in the activity willingly. Passionate employees are more

115

engaged in their work, enjoy greater job satisfaction, and higher levels of

psychological well-being. As passion is associated with more expansive job

behaviours, it seems logical to assume that service employees who are passionate

about service will be more responsive to the resources directed at service

employees and customers than will those who are less passionate about providing

service, suggesting:

Hypothesis 12 (f): The relationships between a service employee’s assessment of:











and their perceived CSSE, are greater when passion for service is high.

Organisational Climate for Service as a Moderator

Service climate is an organisation-wide embrace of service practices (attending to

customer needs, sharing, assisting and giving) that reflect a belief that service

excellence is a strategic priority (Kelley et al. 1992, Lytle et al. 1998). Service climate

116

reflects an organisation’s service delivery values. When service employees perceive

a strong service climate, they are likely to be more enthusiastic about providing

high service quality (Yoon et al. 2001, Schneider 1980, Sureshchandar et al. 2001).

For example, when the service leaders actively engage in helping meeting

employees’ needs and enabling them to achieve service excellence, they model of

the value of service to other employees. These managerial service behaviours are a

conspicuous way of directing and shaping the service climate. A strong positive

relationship exists between service employees’ perceptions of an organisation’s

service climate and customers’ perceptions of service quality (Schneider and Bowen

1985, Schneider et al. 1980).

Despite the limited amount of research into service climate as a moderator of the

situational resources – CSSE relationship, it seems likely that service employees

who work in a more positive service climate will be more responsive to the

resources directed at service employees and customers than will those who work in

a less positive service climate, suggesting:

Hypothesis 12 (g): The relationships between a service employee’s assessment of:








117




and their perceived CSSE, are greater when organisational service climate is high.

3.3.4 The Role of General Self-Efficacy

Gist and Mitchell (1992, p. 186) argued that “self-efficacy is an important

motivational construct. It influences individual choices, goals, emotional resources,

effort, coping and persistence.” Although task-specific customer service

self-efficacy, i.e., CSSE, is the central focus of this study, another highly relevant

efficacy judgement is general self-efficacy. In contrast to task-specific self-efficacy,

general self-efficacy, which concerns trait-like individual differences, taps a more

global perspective than a certain task or situation (Chen et al. 2000). General

self-efficacy is conceptualised as generalised work-related expectation e.g., asking

whether or not an employee has the capabilities to handle job situations in general

(Bandura 1986, Chen et al 2001).

Although most self-efficacy research has focused on task-specific self-efficacy

(Bandura 1977), several authors have also argued that a more trait-like general

self-efficacy is also useful for explaining motivational processes (Chen et al. 2000,

2004, Eden 1988, Eden and Kinnar 1991, Scholza et al. 2002, Siu et al. 2007).

Luszczynska et al. (2005) show that general self-efficacy is related to more active

coping, planning, positive reframing, and more frequent seeking of information for

118

various difficult situations. An employee’s general self-efficacy is likely to influence

the extent to which job demands are perceived as stressful and demanding.

Bandura (1997) suggested that efficacy beliefs do not exist in isolation and that a

person may generalise from one efficacy belief to others, related by "experience

and reflective thought" (p. 50). As general self-efficacy is the product of the

aggregation of previous experiences as one encounters success and failure across

situations, it is not amenable to change under short-lived conditions (Sherer et al.

1982). Therefore, trait-like general self-efficacy takes on the role of moderator as it

embodies the pre-existing and stable level of self-efficacy that can determine

whether or not a situational variable will have any effect on the task-specific

self-efficacy (Eden and Kinnar 1991).

General self-efficacy can be conceived of as a personal resource enabling the

service employee to meet the ongoing demands of the service role (Siu et al. 2007).

An individual who generally trusts his/her own capabilities to master work demands

tends to interpret difficult tasks as more challenging than threatening. Thus, a

service employee’s high general self-efficacy in this sense serves as a resource

factor that buffers against stressor perceptions. He/she is likely to believe in his/her

abilities to deliver service quality as part of his/her personal skill repertoire even

when faced with a lack of resources and outside support.

There is some evidence that individuals with higher levels of general self-efficacy

have lower levels of behavioural plasticity, i.e., the degree to which a person is

affected by external factors (Eden and Aviram 1993, Eden and Kinnar 1991, Eden

and Zuk 1995). Individuals with higher levels of general self-efficacy are less likely to

119

experience uncertainty about the correctness of their thoughts and actions, thus

they are less influenced by situational factors, e.g., training (Chen et al. 2000) and

social cues. It is posited that general self-efficacy moderates the relationship

between CSSE and the situational resources, as can be seen in Figure 3.3.

Service employees who are highly confident in their abilities (i.e., high general

self-efficacy) are less dependent on the external work conditions than are those less

confident in their abilities (i.e., low general self-efficacy). High general self-efficacy

service employees feel more resourceful and are inclined to show increased

initiative and a persistence of effort, which should improve performance (Saks

1995, Speier and Frese 1997). Because of their greater susceptibility to external

factors, low general self-efficacy employees are influenced more by resources

directed at service employees and customers in the servuction system than those

high in general self-efficacy. Thus, we hypothesise that general self-efficacy

moderates the relationship between the people “P’ resources of the services

marketing mix and the perceived task-specific CSSE of service employees, such that:

Hypothesis 13: The relationships between a service employee’s assessment of:








120




and their perceived CSSE, are greater when general self-efficacy is low.

Figure 3.3: Perceived general self-efficacy as a moderator of the situational resources on perceived CSSE of service employee to deliver service quality.

3.4 Conclusions

This chapter develops the CSSE research model by specifically focusing on the

people “P” of services marketing, namely, resources directed at service employees

and customers. Hypotheses are developed to study the impact of these resources

on service employees’ CSSE. Moderating influences of role clarity, role conflict, role

overload, openness to experience, passion for service, organisational climate for

service, years of service experience, and general self-efficacy on the relationship

between these resources and the perceived CSSE of service employees are

proposed. The emergent patterns of the hypothesised relationships will be

examined using moderated regression in SPSS.

H13: Perceived General Self-Efficacy

Perceived CSSE Of

Service Employee

Consequences of CSSE:

Deliver Service Quality

Assessment of Situational Resources: People “P” of services marketing mix

-

121

Chapter Four: The Research Approach

4.1 Introduction

In Chapter Three, a research model with a number of specific hypotheses was

suggested and discussed. The present chapter discusses the research approach that

was used to examine the model and to test its various hypotheses. The sample plan,

the development of the focus group guide, the questionnaire and interview guide,

the data collection procedures used, and the data analysis approach undertaken,

are discussed in the subsequent sections.

The objectives of the current study were to examine the effects that situational

resources related to service employees and customers had on service employees’

perceived customer service self-efficacy (CSSE) to deliver quality service. A review

of past research and the qualitative phase of the present study suggested a number

of situational elements that were likely to be antecedents to service employees’

CSSE, which led to the research model that was shown in Chapter Three (Figure

3.2).

A three-stage research method was used to test the model and its associated

hypotheses. In Stage 1, focus groups were used to further explore service

employees’ perceptions of the situational resources of the service marketing mix.

The data gathered in this phase of the study were used as a part of the foundation

for Stage 2 of the study, which was a quantitative examination of the suggested

model, which was estimated using moderated regression and MODPROBE

procedures. A questionnaire was constructed to obtain the data that were needed

122

to estimate the model that contained multiple-item scales for each of the

constructs in the model. Service employees responded to the questionnaire,

providing the needed data. In Stage 3 of the study, the suggested model and the

results that were obtained in Stage 2 were discussed in one-on-one interviews with

a number of senior managers to better understand their usefulness in managing

service employees. The various research stages are discussed in more detail

subsequent sections of the present chapter.

4.2 Stage 1: The First Qualitative Study – The Focus Groups

4.2.1 Research Design and Methodology

The focus groups were used to identify the people-related organisational resources

that were likely antecedents to service employees’ CSSE, as perceived by service

employees. In addition, the personal and situational conditions that people thought

would hinder or enhance the effect these resources had on service employees’

CSSE were identified. Focus groups were used because they enable a facilitator to

enter respondents’ realities and collect their interpretations (Stewart and

Shamdasani, 1990), which was seen as crucial to developing a better understanding

of potential people-related organisational resource antecedents. Focus groups also

offer insights that cannot be gathered through personal interviews (Yin, 1994). In

effect, the major purpose of this stage of the research was to develop face validity

for the study’s suggested model.

123

4.2.2 The Focus Group Participants

Four focus groups were conducted with service employees who had

boundary-spanning roles and who spent time directly interacting with customers,

as well as responding to their requests and problems. The groups ranged in size

from five to seven and lasted for one and a half hours on average. Participants were

recruited from a wide spectrum of services in Singapore, including airlines, banks,

community service organisations, education institutions, government agencies,

healthcare facilities and retail organisations. On average, they had had 5 years of

service with their organization, and had gained secondary school, diploma and

higher qualifications. Table 4.1 provides the focus group participants’ background

characteristics.

Table 4.1: Focus Group Participants’ Background Characteristics

Background Variables N Percentage (%)

Gender

Male 6 26

Female 17 74

Industry Sectors

Airline 3 13

Banking 2 9

Education 2 9

Government 5 22

Healthcare 4 17

Retail 4 17

Community Service 3 13

Employment Status

Full-time (32 to 40 hours/week) 23 100 Highest Qualification

Secondary 9 39

Diploma and A Level 12 52

University 2 9

124

All were service employees undertaking service training workshops provided by the

researcher. However, the workshops had concluded before participants were

approached to participate in the research. Consent was obtained from all focus

group participants, who were informed that their responses would remain

confidential and only be used with number codes. A focus group guide, which can

be seen in Appendix 1B, was developed that guided the discussions that are

described in more detail in subsequent sections.

4.2.3 Focus Group Procedures

Prior to the start of each focus group, the moderator explained the procedures and

the purpose of the session. A semi-structured approach was used, in which the

moderator followed a topic guide (Appendix 1b) that allows an exploration of

specific issues as they arose and at the moderator’s discretion. The structure of the

focus group sessions utilized a funnelling approach starting with general questions

on “what things could help make you feel more confident in delivering higher

service quality in your service role?” Participants were also asked about what could

help their colleagues feel more confident in delivering higher service quality. To

focus their thinking on the discussion, some open-ended questions were asked

about things their organisations do with respect to supporting people (staff and

customers) that help in developing confidence in delivering service quality. These

items, derived from a literature review, included recruitment and selection criteria,

training, rewards for service excellence, immediate supervisor support, team

support from co-workers, and other department support. Participants discussed

how and why the afore-mentioned situational resources affect their confidence in

125

delivering service quality. The facilitator then guided and narrowed the discussion

on customer-related organisational resource antecedents (i.e., customer education,

customer organisational socialisation, encouraging customer feedback on the

service) to CSSE. Participants were asked to complete the following sentences (i)

“Customers can help a service staff develop confidence in his ability to deliver

service quality by …….” and (ii) “Customers can hinder/stop a service staff develop

confidence in his ability to deliver service quality by …….”. Participants also

discussed the support they look for from their customers so as to further increase

their confidence in service delivery.

Then the concept of moderators was explained showing the relationship of the

resources directed at the service employees and customers, and service employee’s

confidence to deliver service quality. The facilitator started the discussion by

highlighting the situational resources enhancing the service employee’s confidence

in certain circumstances. This connection (situational resources to confidence) will

vary according to certain conditions: “these resources help develop confidence in

the service employees. However, this is more so when…..”. The facilitator suggested

some examples found in the literature (i.e., role clarity, role conflict, role overload,

years of service experience, openness to experience, passion for service,

organisational climate for service, and general self-efficacy) and asked for the

participants’ feedback. The moderators were explained, together with examples, to

draw further comments from the participants.

126

The four focus group sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed into a word

processing package. These transcriptions were analysed in the ways suggested by

Miles and Huberman (1984, 1994) and Goulding (2005). First, the researcher

examined the transcripts to acquire a feel for the data. Second, recurring themes

that related to the study’s research objectives were identified to distinguish

relevant organisational practices that supported a customer’s role in

customer-employee interactions. The transcripts were examined, and codes or

labels were assigned to each paragraph (Goulding, 2005; Miles and Huberman,

1994; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Finally, the themes were substantiated and refined

by re-checking the raw data and confirming interpretations. Themes, representing

resources directed at the service employees and customers, moderators and

employee CSSE, were summarised in the following section (details at Appendix 2)

and were compared with aspects of established scales and associated measures

were revised for use in the stage 2 survey.

4.2.4 Focus Groups’ Findings

Through an iterative process of data analysis described previously, several

different themes of resources of service employees and customers, moderators of

these resources, and CSSE relationship, emerged. The core themes of resources of

recruitment and selection criteria, training, rewards for service excellence,

immediate supervisor support, team support from co-workers, and other

department support identified in the literature were well-supported in the focus

groups’ findings. There was general consensus from the participants of the focus

groups that the greater the service employee’s assessment of the level of the

127

situational resources namely, recruitment and selection criteria, training, rewards

for service excellence, immediate supervisor support, team support from

co-workers, and other department support, the greater their perceived CSSE.

Service employees who perceived they were supported by the resource of other

service employees employed through appropriate recruitment and selection

criteria to effectively serve customers, would increase their perceived CSSE in

service delivery. To increase service employees’ confidence to serve, training was

highlighted as essential to prepare and develop service employees' knowledge,

skills, and abilities: rewards such as incentive programs, vouchers, cash prizes,

performance bonus or letter of acknowledgement from management were

important to motivate the desired behaviours to provide service excellence.

Immediate supervisory support elicited positive emotive reactions on the service

employee, which leads to stronger CSSE. Of particular importance was the

willingness of supervisors to personally demonstrate a commitment to service

quality by on-the-job coaching and role-modelling. Team support from co-workers

included having a “buddy system” to guide and advise each other to meet

customers’ expectations. A monthly gathering or party allowed the team

members to build rapport and promote greater network with each other in the

team. Service employees often depended on other departments to furnish them

with information; for example, details of the campaign and types of queries that

they were likely to receive. “If we had the knowledge at hand, it would be much

easier to solve customer queries,” thus service employees felt more confident to

serve.

128

When asked about how “customers can help a service staff develop confidence in

his ability to deliver service quality by …….” , a new theme of encouraging

customer feedback on the service emerged, in addition to customer education,

and customer organisational socialisation. Encouraging customers to give

constructive feedback on how to improve the service better allowed service

employees to identify customers’ unmet needs and expectations. Customers

typically had considerable experience with the service and were a valuable source

of feedback about the service (Bettencourt 1997). Customers’ feedback on our

service also allowed service employees to identify customers’ unmet needs and

expectations. Respondents claimed that participative customers, who gave

constructive feedback to help improve the service, would provide the service

employees with feelings of greater control of the service, thereby enabling the

belief that they were capable of meeting the customers’ expectations. In the

discussion generated, many aspects of customer training and education arose.

The education was conducted through “media coverage, media write-up and over

the radio” to generate customer awareness, and for better cooperation.

Supportive customers i.e., customers who responded to education in terms of

their role/customer participation, were thought to provide the

boundary-spanning service employees with feelings of greater control, thereby

enabling the belief that they were capable of meeting the customers’

expectations. They would work harder, display more effort and perform better to

meet customers’ expectations (Hartline et al. 2000). Finally, customer

organisational socialisation provided customers with organisationally specific

behavioural guidelines. Through the organisational practices, customers gained an

129

appreciation of specific organisational values, were better equipped with the

knowledge necessary to interact with employees and other customers (Kelley et al.

1990). The respondents believed that when there was customer “cooperation and

involvement” and the customer treated the service employees with “respect,”

then service employees’ confidence in service delivery was enhanced.

These situational resources enhancing the service employee’s confidence would

vary according to certain conditions. When asked to complete the sentence “these

resources (P’s) help develop confidence in the service employees. However, this is

more so when ….” , two new themes of openness to experience and passion for

service emerged. The openness to experience was crucial, as customers were said

to be changing and technology advancing. With greater openness to experience,

service employees would be more responsive to the situational resources in the

service workplace to enable their service delivery. The service employee trained in

delivering service quality, depended to some extent on his/her openness to the

experience. Passion for service created the heightened emotional connection to a

job and produced a motivational driver for the service employees to deliver

service quality. The passionate employees, who were more engaged in their work,

would appraise the resources as more positive, thus being more susceptible to

these resources than those less passionate for service. Passion for service was a

new theme which emerged from the focus group discussions. There was

consensus among the participants on the moderating effects of role clarity, role

conflict, role overload, organisational climate and general self-efficacy.

130

4.3 Stage 2: The Quantitative Study

A questionnaire was designed that used existing scales and the information

obtained from the focus groups to measure the constructs in the suggested model.

The model was analysed using a structural equation modelling approach to

estimate the factors that established the constructs’ measurement properties

before proceeding with regression analysis to test the substantive structural

relationships. Moderated regression in SPSS was used as the newly developed

macro (“MODPROBE”) enabled the testing of moderation while understanding the

main effects of the resources and CSSE relationships discussed in Chapter 3.

4.3.1 The Development of the Questionnaire

Obtaining useful data from a questionnaire depends on people being able to

accurately report their responses to the included items (Bodey and Grace 2006). In

order to ensure this was the case, a draft questionnaire was pilot tested on a

sample of 50 service employees who were similar to those who were to be included

in the main part of the study. After they had completed the questionnaire,

respondents were asked to comment on the questionnaire and to note any item

that was unclear. De-briefs with the pilot study respondents helped improve the

clarity of some of the questions, ensuring the items were not vague or

double-barrelled or inappropriately worded and that they were simple and specific.

To measure the hypothesised relationships at an individual level, the service

employees who participated were asked about their task-specific and general

perceived self-efficacy, their assessment of the resources directed at the service

131

employees, customers that were available to them, and about the suggested

moderators. All of the constructs, which are discussed in subsequent sections, were

measured using seven-point, Likert-type scales that ranged from strongly disagree

(1) to strongly agree (7). Appendix 3A and 3B contain a copy of the cover letter that

was provided to potential respondents and a copy of the final questionnaire that

was used in this phase of the study.

4.3.2 Operationalising the Model’s Constructs

The key dependent variable examined in the present study was service employees’

perceived CSSE. The impact the people “P” aspects of services marketing mix had

on CSSE was examined, as were a number of suggested moderators of the

antecedents-CSSE relationships. The key constructs were measured using

established scales, although the focus groups and the pilot study did lead to

changes in the wording of some items, as they were adapted to the present study

context. The model’s various constructs were measured in the ways outlined in

subsequent sections.

Customer Service Self-Efficacy (CSSE)

Perceived task-specific self-efficacy was operationalised as the extent to which

employees felt confident about their service job skills and their ability to organise

and execute actions so as to deliver high service quality (Hartline and Ferrell 1996).

Following Bandura (1977, 1982, 1997), task-specific CSSE self-efficacy was

measured using an eight-item scale designed to measure the specific task of

delivering service quality, as can be seen in Table 4.2.

132

Respondents were asked to refer to their own job skills or work-related outcomes

without specifically describing them to the respondents (Riggs et al. 1994) (i.e.,

“Think about your ability to do the tasks required in delivering customer service.

When answering the following questions, answer in reference to your own personal

work skills and ability to perform your customer service job”). These instructions

focused respondents on abilities specific to their service work performance. All

items of the items were worded positively. Consequently, higher scores on this

scale indicate higher CSSE.

Table 4.2: The Customer Service Self-Efficacy Items

SE1 I have confidence in my ability to provide customer service.

SE2 I am good at doing the things needed to deliver good customer service.

SE3 When my customer service performance is good, it is due to my ability.

SE4 I do not doubt my ability to deliver good customer service.

SE5 I have all the skills I need to deliver good customer service.

SE6 I deliver customer service better than most people in my line of work.

SE7 I am an expert at my customer service job.

SE8 I am very proud of my customer service job skills and abilities.

General Self-Efficacy

Personality psychologists view self-efficacy as a generalised trait that measures

“individual’sperception of their ability to perform across a variety of different

situations” (Judge et al. 1998, p. 170). They reasoned that “individual differences in

general self-efficacy expectancies exist and that these generalized expectancies

should influence the individual’s expectations of mastery in the new situations”

133

(Sherer et al. 1982, p. 664). Three key measures of general self-efficacy have been

developed, namely:

1. Sherer et al.’s (1982) General Self-Efficacy Scale.

2. Schwarzer and Jerusalem’s (1995) General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale.

3. Chen et al.’s (2001) New General Self-Efficacy Scale.

Using item response theory, Scherbaum et al. (2006) found the items in Chen et

al.’s (2001) measure yielded consistently better content and predictive validity

than Sherer et al.’s (1982) or Schwarzer and Jerusalem’s (1995) general

self-efficacy scales. The internal consistencies of responses to these items have

also ranged from 0.85 to 0.90, which is well above the generally accepted cut-off of

0.70 (Henson 2001). In addition, Chen et al.’s (2001) New General Self-Efficacy

Scale is shorter (8 items) than Sherer et al.’s (1982) general self-efficacy scale (17

items). Thus, on the present study, general self-efficacy was measured through

Chen et al.’s (2001) scale using the items shown in Table 4.3, with higher scores,

suggesting greater general self-efficacy.

Table 4.3: The General Self-efficacy Items

GSE1 I am able to achieve most of the goals I set for myself.

GSE2 I am certain I can accomplish any difficult task I face.

GSE3 I think I can obtain outcomes that are important to me.

GSE4 I believe I can succeed at most endeavours to which I set my mind.

GSE5 I am able to successfully overcome most of the challenges I face.

GSE6 I am confident I can perform many different tasks effectively.

GSE7 Compared to other people, I do most tasks very well.

GSE8 Even when things are tough, I perform well.

134

The People “P” of the Services Marketing Mix

The measures used in the present study were adapted from scales that previous

studies had suggested were reliable. The items were adapted and re-worded to be

consistent with the other people “P” constructs. In addition, the responses

obtained in the focus groups guided the revision of the items.

Recruitment and selection

The types of employees recruited and selected sends strong signals about the

priorities of a service firm in driving service quality (Schneider et al. 1994). The

recruitment and selection criteria construct was operationalised as a five-item

measure that asked service employees to indicate how much they agreed with each

recruitment and selection aspect, as suggested by Sureshchandar et al. (2001). The

five items can be seen in Table 4.4. Higher scores suggest a targeted recruitment of

appropriate service employees.

Table 4.4: The Recruitment and Selection Criteria Items

A1 My organisation has effective selection and recruitment processes in terms

of finding the ‘right person for the job’.

A2 My organisation emphasises service quality awareness right from the

recruitment stage.

A3 My organisation emphasises service quality management in its promotion

and career development programs.

A4 My organisation uses service work values and ethics as important criteria

when selecting new employees.

A5 My organisation takes steps to deepen the applicant pool to enhance

employee service delivery.

135

Training

The six-item scale asked about the existence of training, the timing of training and

the continuity of training using the items suggested by Boshoff and Allen (2000).

Higher scores suggested more training was provided to better enable their service

delivery. The items used in this case can be seen in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5: The Training Items

B1 I receive continued training to help me provide good service.

B2 I received extensive customer service training before I come into contact with customers.

B3 I receive ongoing training to help me serve customers better.

B4 I am well trained to deal with customer complaints.

B5 I am well trained to deal with customer problems.

B6 I have received extensive training to help me deal with complaining customers.

Rewards for service excellence

The five-item scale suggested by Babakus et al. (2003) was used to measure

expectancy of rewards if service excellence is provided. Higher scores suggested a

positive reward system for customer service excellence. The five items used to

measure this construct can be seen in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: The Rewards for Service Excellence

C1 If I improve the service I offer customers, I will be well rewarded.

C2 The rewards I receive are typically based on customers’ evaluations of my service.

C3 I am well rewarded for delivering good customer service.

C4 I am well rewarded for dealing effectively with customers’ problems.

C5 I am well rewarded for satisfying complaining customers.

136

Immediate supervisor support

This aspect was measured by the five-item scale suggested by Sergeant and Frenkel

(2000) that asked about the degree to which front-line employees felt supervisors

recognised their contributions were effective, and were helpful and supportive.

Higher numbers reflected a more positive view of supervisor support, as can be

seen in the items shown in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7: The Immediate Supervisor Support Items

D1 My immediate supervisor is good at the job they do.

D2 My immediate supervisor helps me develop my service skills.

D3 My immediate supervisor gives appropriate recognition for a service job well done

D4 My immediate supervisor keeps me well informed.

D5 My immediate supervisor encourages me to participate in important decisions.

Team support from co-workers

This aspect was measured by the four-item scale suggested by Sergeant and Frenkel

(2000) that asked service employees to consider the team in which they spent most

of their working time and to indicate how they agreed with a number of facets of

team support. Higher scores suggested there was greater team support, as can be

seen in the items shown in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8: The Co-worker Support Items

E1 My team is effective in helping everyone do their service job well.

E2 My team is effective in developing new team members.

E3 I feel that I am an important part of my service team.

E4 I very much look forward to working with my team members every day.

137

Other department support

This aspect was measured by a seven-item scale developed by Jong et al. (2004)

that asked service employee to consider the level of support from other

departments. Higher scores suggested greater support from other departments, as

can be seen in the items that are shown in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9: The Other Department Support

F1 Other teams act in a responsive manner when we forward customer complaints.

F2 Other teams’ knowledge helps us serve our customers better.

F3 The quality of service other teams deliver to our team is good.

F4 The feedback from other teams helps our team deliver good service to our customers.

F5 Other teams provide us with good feedback on how to serve customers.

F6 Cooperation between teams in our organisation is good.

F7 Employees in other teams are helpful in solving our customers’ problems.

Customer education

Four items based upon a scale developed by Sharma and Patterson (1999) were

used to assess employees’ views of customer education. The scale assesses

employees’ judgement of the extent to which customers are provided with the

abilities and techniques needed to use critical information effectively (Burton 2002).

The items measure the extent to which customers are provided with appropriate

information and the tools with which such information can be understood. Higher

scores suggest customers are provided with better education, as can be seen in the

items that are shown in Table 4.10.

138

Table 4.10: The Customer Education Items

G1 Our customers are kept well-informed about what is going on with their purchased services and products.

G2 Service concepts and recommendations are explained to our customers in a meaningful way.

G3 Our customers are provided with as much information as they need.

G4 The pros and cons of the services we offer are well explained to our customers.

Customer organisational socialisation

Four items based on a scale developed by Kelley et al. (1992) were used to measure

organisational socialisation. The scale assessed how well customers are informed

about the activities and behaviours that are needed for an effective service

encounter. Higher scores suggested better customer organisational socialisation, as

can be seen in the items that are shown in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11: The Customer Organisational Socialisation Items

H1 Our customers understand our organisation’s policies.

H2 Our customers feel comfortable with our organisation.

H3 Our customers understand the values that are important to our organisation.

H4 Our customers get along with employees in our organisation.

Encouragement of customer feedback

Four items based upon a scale developed by Eisingerich and Bell (2006) were used

to measure customer feedback. The scale assesses the degree to which customers

are encouraged to make constructive feedback about how to improve service.

139

Higher scores suggested a greater encouragement of customer feedback, as can be

seen in the items that are shown in Table 4.12.

Table 4.12: The Encouraging Customer Feedback on the Service Items

I1 We make sure our customers have a good knowledge about the different

services offered by our organisation.

I2 Our customers can make constructive suggestions to our organisation on

how to improve its service.

I3 When our customers experience a problem, they let our employees know so

we can improve service quality.

I4 Our customers can let our employees know when they give good service.

The Consequences of Customer Service Self-Efficacy (CSSE)

Perceived customer loyalty

Perceived customer loyalty was assessed through three items that measured

employees’ perception of the likelihood that customers would return to the service

provider and engage in the positive word-of-mouth behaviour. An adaptation of the

original scale suggested by Swan and Oliver (1989) was used to do this. The

measurement of service employees’ perceptions of customer loyalty can be

justified on the grounds that such employees are in the best position to evaluate

performance outcomes and their perceptions typically converge with those of their

customers (Bitner et al. 1994; Hooley et al. 2005, Schneider and Bowen 1985).

Higher scores suggested employees viewed customer as more loyal, as can be seen

in the items that are shown in Table 4.13.

140

Table 4.13: The Perceived Customer Loyalty Items

J1 My customers are likely to return to our firm in the future.

J2 My customers are likely to recommend our firm to other people.

J3 My customers are more likely to use our services than the services offered by our competitors.

Perceived service quality

Parasuraman et al. (1988) defined service quality as the extent to which a service

meets or exceeds customers’ expectations. Perceived service quality in this case

was measured by a ten-item scale developed by Hartline and Ferrell (1996) that

assessed employee-related aspects of service quality. Many previous studies have

used employees’ perceptions of service delivery in measuring performance (Boshoff

and Allen 2000, Sergeant and Frenkel 2000, Ulrich et al. 1991).

Further, several reviews of the various approaches to performance measurement

have supported the use of such self-report measures (e.g., Churchill et al. 1985;

Harris and Schaubroeck 1988). Measurement of service employees’ service quality

perceptions can be justified because, as was noted earlier, such employees are in

the best position to evaluate performance outcomes, and their perceptions

typically converge with those of the customers (Hartline et al. 1996). Higher scores

suggest employees have more positive service quality perceptions, as can be seen

in the items that are shown in Table 4.14.

141

Table 4.14: The Service Quality Items

K1 My customers feel I give them prompt service.

K2 My customers feel I am not too busy to respond to their requests.

K3 My customers have confidence in the things I do for them.

K4 My customers feel safe in their transactions with me.

K5 My customers feel I am courteous in my interactions with them.

K6 My customers feel I am able to answer their questions.

K7 My customers feel they receive individual attention from me.

K8 My customers feel they receive personal attention from me.

K9 My customers feel I have their best interests at heart.

K10 My customers feel I am able to understand their specific needs.

The Moderators

Statistically, moderation involves a change in a relationship between a set of

relationships. In this case, the relationships of interest were those between the

people “P” of services marketing (the independent variables) and the perceived

CSSE of service employees (the dependent variable). A number of potential

moderator variables were identified in the literature review provided in Chapter 3

and items that measured all of these constructs were included in the questionnaire,

as is outlined in subsequent sections.

Role clarity

This construct was operationalised as the degree of clarity (the opposite of

ambiguity) employees have about their job, including uncertainty about role

expectations, responsibilities, tasks, and behaviours, and effective performance in

their service role. It was measured through five items taken from Rizzo et al. (1970).

142

The original items ended with the phrase “in my selling position.” However,

because the respondents in the present study were service employees, the phrase

was changed to read “in my customer service role.” The scale, which has been used

extensively in marketing and organisational research (e.g., Babin and Boles 1998;

Stamper and Johlke 2003; Yun et al. 2007), assesses the extent to which employees

have clarity about their job. Consistent with the comments about negatively

worded items in Chinese contexts (Wong et al. 2003), all of the items were worded

positively, which meant higher scores suggested higher role clarity, as can be seen

in Table 4.15.

Table 4.15: The Role Clarity Items

L1 I feel certain about how much authority I have in my customer service role.

L2 There are clear and planned goals and objectives for my customer service role.

L3 I know what my responsibilities are in my customer service role.

L4 I know exactly what is expected of me in my customer service role.

L5 Explanations are clear as to what I have to do in my customer service role.

Role conflict

This construct was operationalised as the degree to which employees’ work

expectations and requirements are incompatible. It was measured through the use

of six items taken from Rizzo et al. (1970), shown in Table 4.16. Higher scores in this

case implied that an employee felt there was great role conflict in their job.

143

Table 4.16: The Role Conflict Items

M1 I sometimes receive service assignments without the manpower to complete them.

M2 I sometimes have to bend a rule or policy in order to carry out my customer service job.

M3 I sometimes receive incompatible requests about delivering customer service.

M4 I deliver customer service that is accepted by some customers and not by others.

M5 I sometimes receive service assignments but do not have the resources and materials to deliver them.

M6 I sometimes work on unnecessary things in delivering customer service.

Role overload

This construct was operationalised as the degree to which role demands created a

perception that available resources were not adequate to deal with the job’s

demands (Brown et al. 2005; Singh 2000) shown Table 4.17. Higher scores in this

case implied an employee felt there was great role overload in their job.

Table 4.17: The Role Overload Items

N1 The amount of work I do interferes with how well the service gets done.

N2 I do not have enough help and resources to get my service job done well.

N3 I do not have enough time to do my service job well.

N4 I have to try to satisfy too many different people when delivering customer service.

144

Years of service experience

This construct was defined as the total number of years of service experience an

employee had with service firms in their service career and was obtained by asking

respondents “how many years of service experience have you had (that are

relevant to your current role)?”

Passion for service

This construct was measured using the “harmonious passion” component of the

Passion Scale developed by Vallerand et al. (2003). Harmonious passion emphasises

an active perspective in which a service employee is fully engaged in an activity and

chooses to do so willingly. Activity in this case was reworded to “delivering

customer service” so as to follow the same format as was used when measuring the

other construct. Higher scores suggest employees are more passionate about

providing good service quality, as can be seen in the items that are shown in Table

4.18.

Table 4.18: The Passion for Service Items

O1 Delivering customer service allows me to live a variety of experiences.

O2 The new things I discover while delivering customer service allow me to appreciate my role even more.

O3 Delivering customer service allows me to live memorable experiences.

O4 Delivering customer service reflects the qualities I like about myself.

O5 Delivering customer service is in agreement with other activities in my life.

O6 For me, delivering customer service is a passion.

O7 I am completely taken by my role in delivering customer service.

145

Organisational climate for service

This construct was operationalised as a set of descriptive characteristics that asked

about service delivery and service quality issues that influence the service

employees’ service-related behaviours. A four-item scale developed by Kelley et al.

(1992) was used in this case and, as can be seen in Table 4.19, higher scores imply a

more positive perception of service quality.

Table 4.19: The Organisational Climate for Service Items

P1 In my organisation, consistent service performance is important.

P2 In my organisation, having a reputation for good service is seen as important.

P3 In my organisation, it is important to be friendly to our customers.

P4 In my organisation, our customers’ needs are important.

Openness to experience

This construct was measured using the “intellect” component from the Big-Five

personality dimensions scale developed by Gosling et al. (2003). The Big-Five

framework is model of personality traits with five broad factors of extraversion,

agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience

(Costa et al. 1995, DeYoung et al.2007, McCrae et al. 1983). A four-item scale

developed was used in this case and, as can be seen in Table 4.20. Higher scores

imply a more positive perception of service quality.

Table 4.20: The Openness to Experience Items

Q1 I am open to new experiences when I am delivering customer service.

Q2 I am open to complex experiences when I am delivering customer service.

Q3 I am flexible in my customer service delivery.

Q4 I am creative in my customer service delivery.

146

Background Information

Some descriptive information was also obtained that enabled an examination of the

sample’s characteristics. In particular, respondents’ age, gender, highest education

qualification and employment status (full-time, part-time or contract work), and the

industry sector in which they presently worked, was collected for this purpose.

4.3.3 The Sample

Surveys were collected from a convenience sample of service employees who were

participants in service training workshops provided by the researcher’s

organisation. A total of 451 responses were obtained, which exceeded Hair et al.’s

(2006) recommendation of having a minimum sample of between 100 and 150

responses when estimating structural equation models. This approach, which

entailed data being collected from service employees rather than from customers,

was used to bridge a possible gap, as most data of this kind have been collected

from customers, rather than exploring service delivery from an employee’s

perspective.

Boundary-spanning employees are important to the success of a service

organisation as they are the interface between an organisation and its customers

(Schneider and Bowen 1985). Consequently, it was decided to question service

employees who participated in service training programs undertaken by the

researcher in the course of her work. Participation was voluntary and participants

were assured of the confidentiality of their responses. The survey, which was

anonymous, was conducted separate from the training program. The respondents

147

had the opportunity to complete the survey in their tea or lunch break in the

absence of the researcher and drop it into a box at the entry, or to return via a

reply-paid envelope. The service employees included in the study came from a wide

spectrum of the service sector, including the banking, leisure, retail, and non-profit

organisations, as well as education, government and health care sectors.

4.3.4 The Data Analysis Approach

The proposed research model was tested using structural equation modelling to

estimate the factors that established the constructs’ measurement properties

before proceeding with regression analysis to test the substantive structural

relationships. Moderated regression in SPSS was used as the newly developed

macro (“MODPROBE”) enabled the testing of moderation while understanding the

main effects of the resources and CSSE relationships (Irwin and McLelland (2001).

The study adopted a three-phase data analysis approach which was based on the

six stages recommended by Hair et al. (2006), namely:

Phase 1: Computing descriptive statistics and examining the data.

Phase 2: Examining the constructs’ measurement properties.

Phase 3: Assessing the measurement model.

Phase 4: Testing the research hypotheses.

148

Phase 1: Descriptive Statistics

A preliminary descriptive data analysis helps researchers understand their data and

identify potential problems that might arise in a later stage of the analysis. The

normality of the data, the presence of outliers, the extent of missing data and

missing data patterns were also checked during this stage (Hair et al. 2006).

Consequently, this phase was undertaken first.

Phase 2: Examining the Constructs’ Measurement Properties

Before a model can be estimated, the measurement properties of its various

constructs must be examined, as poorly measured constructs will make it difficult, if

not impossible, to evaluate a suggested model. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

procedures have been suggested as a useful way to examine measurement

properties (Steenkamp and Van Trijp 1991). CFA can be used to examine the

unidimensionality, reliability and convergent validity of a construct. As CFA

procedures are “confirmatory,” they are generally assessed through a

goodness-of-fit statistic.

The chi-square statistic is the most common such index, but it is impacted by

sample size. Relatively small differences between observed and expected values

often suggest a poor fit when samples exceed 200 (Hair et al. 2006). Consequently,

other goodness-of-fit indices are generally used in addition to the chi-square

statistic. These include absolute fit indices (e.g., GFI, RMSR and RMSEA) and

incremental fit indices (e.g., NFI, CFI and TLI) (Sawyer and Page 1984). If the

measurement model fits the data well, the structural model can be estimated. If

149

not, revisions to the model may be necessary before it is estimated. These steps

were followed in the present study prior to any of the research models being

estimated.

Because the objective was to find a parsimonious set of construct subscales with

good measurement properties, confirmatory factor analysis was used to trim the

scales (Byrne 2001). Items with standardised coefficients that were less than 0.60

(Bagozzi and Foxall 1996) were removed iteratively, as were items for which

modification indices suggested correlated errors. In the latter case, the item with

the lower loading was removed (Simon and Usunier 2007). The results of the scale

purification process are described in subsequent sections, one construct at a time.

The items are referred to by their code name (e.g., SE1) in the discussion below.

The names of the items can be seen in Tables 5.2 to Table 5. 20.

Composite reliability tests of internal consistency and average variance extracted

(AVE) scores were also computed to allow an assessment of the constructs’

convergent validity, which is important in assessing a construct’s measurement

properties. Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested a composite reliability of 0.70 or

greater implies internal consistency, while an AVE score of 0.50 or greater implies

convergent validity. These standards were applied in the present study.

Lastly, discriminant validity, which suggests the differentiation between constructs,

was assessed, as models cannot be sensibly estimated if their constructs cannot be

differentiated. Following Fornell and Larcker (1981), discriminant validity was

examined by comparing the shared variance between pairs of constructs (i.e., the

150

square of their correlation) with their AVE scores. If the shared variance is less than

the AVE scores, the both constructs can be assumed to have discriminant validity.

Phase 4: Testing the Research Hypotheses

A structural equation modelling approach was used to estimate the factors that

established the constructs’ measurement properties before proceeding with

regression analysis to test the substantive structural relationships. Subsequently

moderated regression in SPSS was used as the newly developed macro

(“MODPROBE”) enabled the testing of moderation while understanding the main

effects of the resources and CSSE relationships. MODPROBE uses both a

pick-a-point approach and Johnson-Neyman’s (1936) technique for probing

interactions, which identified regions in the range of the moderator variable where

the effect of the focal predictor on the outcome was statistically significant and not

significant (Hayes and Matthes 2009, Preacher et al. 2007).

This technique was superior to the more common pick-a-point approach that

merely picked representative values (e.g., high, moderate, and low) of the

moderator variable. A difficulty of the pick-a-point approach was that there were

no non-arbitrary guidelines for picking the points at which to probe the interaction

(Hayes and Matthes 2009). Independent variables were not mean centered (Hayes

2005). When an interaction was present, the (conditional) main effects of the

predictors were not interpreted. These effects were probed with the MOBPROBE

technique.

151

4.4 Stage 3: The Second Qualitative Study –Model Confirmation

The final qualitative study was to ensure the results obtained and the study’s

recommendations were seen as appropriate by human resource, training, and

service quality managers. The data in this final qualitative phase were obtained

from a purposive sample of human resource, training, and service quality managers,

who were “deliberately selected for the important information they can provide

that cannot be gotten as well from other choices” (Maxwell, 1997, p.87). The

chosen managers were in the best position to assess the relevance of the results to

their management of service employees. They were not from the original

quantitative sample.

The managers who were interviewed were in charge of between 100 and 450

service employees and had been in their present managerial portfolio from two to

fifteen years. Individual face-to-face in-depth interviews were used, as they allowed

the interviewees to openly express their views on the findings from the quantitative

phase of the present study (Charters and Pettigrew 2006). Potential interviewees

were managers who had previously engaged the researcher to conduct service

training workshops for their service employees. Interviewee consent was obtained

before the interviews were conducted. An information sheet outlining the purpose

and time requirements of the interview was given to the interviewees.

The researcher scheduled appointments through an email or telephone

conversation. Five human resource, training, and service quality managers were

recruited from a wide spectrum of services in Singapore, including airlines, banks,

152

community service organisations, electronics firms, and healthcare organisations.

An interview guide (Appendix 4B) was developed to ensure all of the topics of

interest were covered during the meetings. The key construct “customer service

self-efficacy” was explained to the interviewees in lay term i.e. “the employee’s

belief in his/her capabilities to organize and execute the actions required to

complete the required service task”. Each interview was audio-taped and all of the

recordings were transcribed verbatim for subsequent theme analysis.

4.5 Ethical Considerations

All confidentiality and intellectual property rights within the study were undertaken

in accordance with the University of Western Australia’s Guidelines on Research

Conduct. Practical steps were taken in data collection to minimise any

inconvenience as a result of confidentiality restrictions. The free consent of

participants was obtained in writing before the research was undertaken. An

information sheet outlining the purpose of the research and what would be done

with the data upon the completion of the research, the benefits it could bring, and

time requirements associated with the study, were provided to respondents. The

information sheet and consent form made it clear respondents were free to

withdraw consent to further participation at any time with no reason or justification

for such a decision being required. All of the respondents were guaranteed

confidentiality of individual responses.

153

4.6 Conclusions

In the present chapter, the three-phase research methodology (i.e., the focus

groups, the survey and the in-depth-interviews) was outlined. The sample from

which the main data set was collected was discussed and the data collection and

analysis approaches that were used were outlined. The results of the focus group

analysis and the preliminary analysis of the survey data are discussed in the next

chapter.

154

155

Chapter Five: The Preliminary Data Analysis

5.1 Introduction

In Chapter Four, the research approach that was used in the present study was

described. A three-phase data analysis approach was used to examine the data

obtained in the quantitative phase of the study, which included:

Phase 1: Computing descriptive statistics and examining the data.

Phase 2: Examining the constructs’ measurement properties.

Phase 3: Assessing the measurement model.

Phase 4: Estimating the structural model.

In the present chapter, the results obtained from the first two phases, which are

outlined in subsequent sections, are discussed as a preparation for the estimation

and assessment of the proposed CSSE model discussed in Chapter Six.

5.2 Phase 1: The Descriptive Statistics

5.2.1 Sample Profile

Initially, 451 responses were obtained from the 475 questionnaires that were

distributed to a convenience sample of service employees who were participants in

the service training workshops provided by the researcher’s organisation. Table 5.1

provides the respondents’ background characteristics. The 24 survey forms that

156

were not completed or which had incomplete data were not used. Table 5.1

provides the respondents’ background characteristics.

Table 5.1: Respondents’ Background Characteristics

Background Variables N Percentage (%)

Gender

Male 151 33 Female

300 67

Industry Sectors Banking 50 12 Education 21 4 Government 139 31 Healthcare 52 11 Retail 25 6 Non-profit and voluntary welfare 93 22 Others

65 14

Employment Status Full-time (32 to 40 hours/week) 420 93 Part-time (16 to 31 hours/week) 13 3 Contract Staff

18 4

Highest Qualification Secondary 70 15 Diploma and A Level 171 38 University 190 44 Others 20 3

As can be seen from the Table, 67% of the respondents were female. This is typical

in Singapore’s service industries, where service staffs are predominantly female

(Department of Statistics – Singapore, 2010). The most common educational

achievements were university qualifications (80%). Respondents came from a range

of service industries, although the government agencies (31%) were the major

group, while non-profit and voluntary welfare organisations (22%) were the second

largest group.

157

5.2.2 Descriptive Statistics for the Individual Items

A total of 103 items were included in the questionnaire to measure the 19

constructs relevant to the suggested CSSE model, all of which were measured on a

7-point Likert-type scale. The descriptive statistics for these items are shown in

tables below.


The mean of all the CSSE items fell between 4.41 (‘I am an expert at my customer

service job’) and 5.48 (‘I have confidence in my ability to provide customer service‘).

The results suggested respondents generally felt confident about their service job

skills and their ability to organise and execute actions so as to deliver service quality

(the scale mean was 4.99 for the customer service self-efficacy construct).

Table 5.2: Descriptive Statistics for CSSE Items

Construct 1 – Customer Service Self-Efficacy (CSSE) Mean SD

SE1 I have confidence in my ability to provide customer service.

5.48 1.06

SE2 I am good at doing the things needed to deliver good customer service.

5.31 1.08

SE3 When my customer service performance is good, it is due to my ability.

5.07 1.20

SE4 I do not doubt my ability to deliver good customer service.

5.32 1.08

SE5 I have all the skills I need to deliver good customer service.

4.83 1.17

SE6 I deliver customer service better than most people in my line of work.

4.63 1.21

SE7 I am an expert at my customer service job. 4.41 1.29

SE8 I am very proud of my customer service job skills and abilities.

4.87 1.24

Scale Mean 4.99 1.02

158

General Self-Efficacy (GSE)

The mean of all the general self-efficacy items fell between 4.88 (‘Compared to

other people, I do most tasks very well’) and 5.26 (‘I believe I can succeed at most

endeavours to which I set my mind‘). The results suggested respondents generally

felt confident about their overall ability to perform across a variety of different

situations (the scale mean was 5.04 for the general self-efficacy construct).

Table 5.3: Descriptive Statistics for General Self-Efficacy Items

Construct 2 – General Self-Efficacy (GSE) Mean SD

GSE1 I am able to achieve most of the goals I set for myself.

4.97 1.04

GSE2 I am certain I can accomplish any difficult task I face.

4.96 1.06

GSE3 I think I can obtain outcomes that are important to me.

5.12 0.98

GSE4 I believe I can succeed at most endeavours to which I set my mind.

5.26 1.04

GSE5 I am able to successfully overcome most of the challenges I face.

5.10 1.04

GSE6 I am confident I can perform many different tasks effectively.

5.09 1.08

GSE7 Compared to other people, I do most tasks very well.

4.88 1.09

GSE8 Even when things are tough, I perform well. 4.94 1.05


The People “P” of the Services Marketing Mix: Service Employees

Recruitment and Selection

The mean of all the recruitment and selection items fell between 4.45 (‘My

organisation has effective selection and recruitment processes in terms of finding

159

the ‘right person for the job’’) and 4.78 (‘My organisation emphasises service

quality awareness right from the recruitment stage‘). The results showed

respondents generally agreed with the firms’ recruitment and selection aspects,

suggesting a targeted recruitment of appropriate service employees (the scale

mean was 4.68 for the recruitment and selection construct).

Table 5.4: Descriptive Statistics for Recruitment and Selection Items

Construct 3 – Recruitment and selection Mean SD

A1 My organisation has effective selection and recruitment processes in terms of finding the ‘right person for the job’.

4.45 1.35

A2 My organisation emphasises service quality awareness right from the recruitment stage.

4.78 1.38

A3 My organisation emphasises service quality management in its promotion and career development programs.

4.67 1.34

A4 My organisation uses service work values and ethics as important criteria when selecting new employees.

4.74 1.39

A5 My organisation takes steps to deepen the applicant pool to enhance employee service delivery.

4.75 1.37


Training

The mean of all the training items fell between 4.02 (‘I received extensive customer

service training before I come into contact with customers’) and 4.96 (‘I receive

continued training to help me provide good service‘). The results suggested

respondents perceived the existence of training, the timing of training, and the

160

continuity of training to be generally appropriate (the scale mean was 4.44 for the

training construct).

Table 5.5: Descriptive Statistics for Training Items

Construct 4– Training Mean SD

B1 I receive continued training to help me provide good service.

4.96 1.35

B2 I received extensive customer service training before I come into contact with customers.

4.02 1.50

B3 I receive ongoing training to help me serve customers better.

4.69 1.42

B4 I am well trained to deal with customer complaints.

4.35 1.40

B5 I am well trained to deal with customer problems.

4.47 1.34

B6 I have received extensive training to help me deal with complaining customers.

4.14 1.45


Rewards for Service Excellence

The mean of all the rewards for service excellence items fell between 3.98(‘I am

well rewarded for delivering good customer service’ and ‘I am well rewarded for

satisfying complaining customers’) and 4.19 (‘If I improve the service I offer

customers, I will be well rewarded‘). The results suggested respondents perceived a

positive reward system for customer service excellence (the scale mean was 4.07

for the rewarding for service excellence construct).

161

Table 5.6: Descriptive Statistics for Rewards for Service Excellence Items .

Construct 5– Rewards for Service Excellence Mean SD

C1 If I improve the service I offer customers, I will be well rewarded.

4.19 1.51

C2 The rewards I receive are typically based on customers’ evaluations of my service.

4.16 1.53

C3 I am well rewarded for delivering good customer service. 3.98 1.49 C4 I am well rewarded for dealing effectively with

customers’ problems. 4.02 1.45

C5 I am well rewarded for satisfying complaining customers. 3.98 1.47


Immediate Supervisor Support

The mean of all the items fell between 4.48 (‘My immediate supervisor helps me

develop my service skills’) and 4.59 (‘My immediate supervisor keeps me well

informed‘ and ‘My immediate supervisor encourages me to participate in important

decisions’). Respondents generally perceived their supervisors were helpful and

supportive (the scale mean was 4.60 for immediate supervisor support construct).

Table 5.7: Descriptive Statistics for Immediate Supervisor Support Items

Construct 6– Immediate Supervisor Support Mean SD

D1 My immediate supervisor is good at the job they do.

4.85 1.38

D2 My immediate supervisor helps me develop my service skills.

4.48 1.46


4.50 1.48

D4 My immediate supervisor keeps me well informed.

4.59 1.48

D5 My immediate supervisor encourages me to participate in important decisions.

4.59 1.53


162

Team Support from Co-Workers

The mean of all the team support from co-workers items fell between 4.57 (‘My

team is effective in developing new team members’) and 5.04 (‘I feel that I am an

important part of my service team‘). The results showed respondents generally

agreed with level of team support from co-workers in their service delivery (the

scale mean was 4.83 for the team support from co-workers construct).

Table 5.8: Descriptive Statistics for Team Support from Co-Workers Items

Construct 7– Team support from co-workers Mean SD

E1 My team is effective in helping everyone do their service job well.

4.75 1.31

E2 My team is effective in developing new team members. 4.57 1.33 E3 I feel that I am an important part of my service team. 5.04 1.27 E4 I very much look forward to working with my team

members every day. 4.98 1.31


Other Department Support

The mean of all the other department support items ranged between 4.35 (‘Other

teams provide us with good feedback on how to serve customers’) and 4.81 (‘Other

teams’ knowledge helps us serve our customers better‘). The results showed

respondents generally agreed with the presence of the level of support from other

departments (the scale mean was 4.56 for the other department support

construct).

163

Table 5.9: Descriptive Statistics for Other Department Support Items

Construct 8– Other Department Support Mean SD

F1 Other teams act in a responsive manner when we forward customer complaints.

4.49 1.20

F2 Other teams’ knowledge helps us serve our customers better.

4.81 1.20

F3 The quality of service other teams deliver to our team is good.

4.46 1.18

F4 The feedback from other teams helps our team deliver good service to our customers.

4.68 1.24

F5 Other teams provide us with good feedback on how to serve customers.

4.35 1.28

F6 Cooperation between teams in our organisation is good.

4.62 1.33

F7 Employees in other teams are helpful in solving our customers’ problems.

4.51 1.24


The People “P” of the Services Marketing Mix – Customers

Customer Education

The mean of all the customer education items ranged between 4.68 (‘Our

customers are kept well-informed about what is going on with their purchased

services and products’) and 4.85 (‘Our customers are provided with as much

information as they need‘). The results suggested respondents generally perceived

their customers were provided with appropriate information and the tools about

their service (the scale mean was 4.73 for the customer education construct).

164

Table 5.10: Descriptive Statistics for Customer Education Items

Construct 9– Customer education Mean SD

G1 Our customers are kept well-informed about what is going on with their purchased services and products.

4.68

1.20

G2 Service concepts and recommendations are explained to our customers in a meaningful way.

4.71 1.21

G3 Our customers are provided with as much information as they need.

4.85 1.23

G4 The pros and cons of the services we offer are well explained to our customers.

4.69 1.25



The mean of the customer organisational socialisation items fell between 4.19 (‘Our

customers understand our organisation’s policies’) and 4.70 (‘Our customers get

along with employees in our organisation‘). The results suggested respondents

generally agreed that the customers were familiar with and felt comfortable with

the organisation’s values and policies so that they could learn what their role would

be during the service encounter (the scale mean was 4.50 for the customer

organisational socialisation construct).

Table 5.11: Descriptive Statistics for Customer Organisational Socialisation Items

Construct 10– Customer organisational socialisation Mean SD

H1 Our customers understand our organisation’s policies.

4.19 1.32

H2 Our customers feel comfortable with our organisation.

4.66 1.19

H3 Our customers understand the values that are important to our organisation.

4.45 1.32

H4 Our customers get along with employees in our organisation.

4.70 1.19


165

Encouragement of Customer Feedback

The mean of all the encouraging customer feedback about service items ranged

between 4.73 (‘Our customers can make constructive suggestions to our

organisation on how to improve its service’) and 5.01 (‘When our customers

experience a problem, they let our employees know so we can improve service

quality‘). The results suggested respondents generally agreed that their customers

were encouraged to give feedback about how to improve service (the scale mean

was 4.87 for the encouraging customer feedback about service construct).

Table 5.12: Descriptive Statistics for Encouraging Customer Feedback about Service Items

Construct 11– Encouraging customer feedback about service Mean SD

I1 We make sure our customers have a good knowledge about the different services offered by our organisation.

4.83

1.21

I2 Our customers can make constructive suggestions to our organisation on how to improve its service.

4.73 1.17

I3 When our customers experience a problem, they let our employees know so we can improve service quality.

5.01 1.16

I4 Our customers can let our employees know when they give good service.

4.92 1.20




The mean of all the perceived service quality items ranged between 4.68 (‘My

customers feel I am not too busy to respond to their requests.’) and 5.31 (‘My

customers feel I am courteous in my interactions with them‘). The results suggested

166

respondents generally perceived their service meets or exceeds customers’

expectations (the scale mean was 5.14 for the perceived service quality construct).

Table 5.13: Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Service Quality Items

Construct 12– Perceived service quality Mean SD

K1 My customers feel I give them prompt service. 5.06 1.03 K2 My customers feel I am not too busy to

respond to their requests. 4.68 1.22

K3 My customers have confidence in the things I do for them.

5.18 0.99

K4 My customers feel safe in their transactions with me.

5.28 1.01

K5 My customers feel I am courteous in my interactions with them.

5.31 1.01

K6 My customers feel I am able to answer their questions.

5.21 1.00

K7 My customers feel they receive individual attention from me.

5.18 1.05


5.14 1.06

K9 My customers feel I have their best interests at heart.

5.16 1.07

K10 My customers feel I am able to understand their specific needs.

5.22 1.02



The mean of all the perceived customer loyalty items fell between 5.07 (‘My

customers are more likely to use our services than the services offered by our

competitors’) and 5.23 (‘My customers are likely to return to our firm in the

future‘). The results suggested respondents generally perceived a high likelihood

that customers would return to the service provider, and thus viewed customers as

more loyal (the scale mean was 5.13 for the perceived customer loyalty construct).

167

Table 5.14: Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Customer Loyalty Items

Construct 13– Perceived customer loyalty Mean SD

J1 My customers are likely to return to our firm in the future.

5.23 1.20

J2 My customers are likely to recommend our firm to other people.

5.09 1.24

J3 My customers are more likely to use our services than the services offered by our competitors.

5.07 1.22


The Moderators

Role Clarity

The mean of all the role clarity items ranged between 4.81 (‘There are clear and

planned goals and objectives for my customer service role’) and 5.17 (‘I know

exactly what is expected of me in my customer service role‘). The results suggested

respondents generally perceived they have role clarity about their service job (the

scale mean was 5.01 for the role clarity construct).

Table 5.15: Descriptive Statistics for Role Clarity Items

Construct 14– Role clarity Mean SD

L1 I feel certain about how much authority I have in my customer service role.

4.91 1.16

L2 There are clear and planned goals and objectives for my customer service role.

4.81 1.19

L3 I know what my responsibilities are in my customer service role.

5.14 1.15

L4 I know exactly what is expected of me in my customer service role.

5.17 1.16

L5 Explanations are clear as to what I have to do in my customer service role.

5.03 1.21


168

Role Conflict

The mean of all the role conflict items ranged between 4.35 (‘I deliver customer

service that is accepted by some customers and not by others’) and 4.80 (‘I

sometimes receive service assignments without the manpower to complete it‘). The

results suggested respondents generally felt there was incompatibility between

expectations and requirements, leading to a high degree of role conflict in their

service job (the scale mean was 4.59 for the role conflict construct).

Table 5.16: Descriptive Statistics for Role Conflict Items

Construct 15– Role conflict Mean SD

M1 I sometimes receive service assignments without the manpower to complete it.

4.80

1.31

M2 I sometimes have to bend a rule or policy in order to carry out my customer service job.

4.60 1.45

M3 I sometimes receive incompatible requests about delivering customer service.

4.67 1.30

M4 I deliver customer service that is accepted by some customers and not by others.

4.35 1.36


4.61 1.39

M6 I sometimes work on unnecessary things in delivering customer service.

4.52 1.50


Role Overload

The mean of all the role overload items ranged between 4.10 (‘I do not have

enough time to do my service job well’) and 4.65 (‘The amount of work I do

interferes with how well the service gets done‘). The results suggested respondents

generally perceived the available resources were not adequate to deal with the

service job’s demands, thus a high degree of role overload (the scale mean was 4.38

for the role overload construct).

169

Table 5.17: Descriptive Statistics for Role Overload Items

Construct 16– Role overload Mean SD

N1 The amount of work I do interferes with how well the service gets done.

4.65

1.29

N2 I do not have enough help and resources to get my service job done well.

4.12 1.38

N3 I do not have enough time to do my service job well.

4.10 1.46

N4 I have to try to satisfy too many different people when delivering customer service.

4.63 1.42


Organisational Climate for Service

The means of the organisational climate for service items ranged between 5.63 (‘In

my organisation, consistent service performance is important’) and 5.89 (‘In my

organisation, our customers’ needs are important‘). The results suggested

respondents generally perceived the organisational factors that influence their

service-related behaviours (the scale mean was 5.76 for the organisational climate

for service construct).

Table 5.18: Descriptive Statistics for Organisational Climate for Service Items

Construct 17– Organisational climate for service Mean SD

P1 In my organisation, consistent service performance is important.

5.63

1.19

P2 In my organisation, having a reputation for good service is seen as important.

5.73 1.18


5.77 1.16

P4 In my organisation, our customers’ needs are important.

5.89 1.12


170

Passion for Service

The mean of all the passion for service items ranged between 5.02 (‘I am

completely taken by my role in delivering customer service’) and 5.43 (‘Delivering

customer service allows me to live a variety of experiences‘). The results suggested

respondents generally were more passionate about providing service quality, being

engaged in their service delivery and choosing to do so willingly (the scale mean

was 5.25 for the passion for service construct).

Table 5.19: Descriptive Statistics for Passion for Service Items

Construct 18– Passion for service Mean SD

O1 Delivering customer service allows me to live a variety of experiences.

5.43 1.14

O2 The new things I discover while delivering customer service allow me to appreciate my role even more.

5.39 1.12

O3 Delivering customer service allows me to live memorable experiences.

5.33 1.18

O4 Delivering customer service reflects the qualities I like about myself.

5.34 1.14

O5 Delivering customer service is in agreement with other activities in my life.

5.13 1.19

O6 For me, delivering customer service is a passion.

5.14 1.32

O7 I am completely taken by my role in delivering customer service.

5.02 1.25


Openness to Experience

The mean of all the openness to experience items ranged between 5.20 (‘I am

creative in my customer service delivery’) and 5.63 (‘I am open to new experiences

when I am delivering customer service‘). The results suggested respondents

171

generally perceived a certain degree of openness in their service experiences (the

scale mean was 5.45 for the openness to experience construct).

Table 5.20: Descriptive Statistics for Openness to Experience Items

Construct 19– Openness to experience Mean SD

Q1 I am open to new experiences when I am delivering customer service.

5.63

1.10

Q2 I am open to complex experiences when I am delivering customer service.

5.49 1.11

Q3 I am flexible in my customer service delivery. 5.49 1.14

Q4 I am creative in my customer service delivery. 5.20 1.19


All of the constructs had scale means that were greater than 4.00. The constructs’

measurement characteristics were examined and the results obtained were

discussed in a later section. However, before undertaking this phase of the data

analysis, the data were further examined to see whether there were missing data or

normality issues that needed to be taken into account.

5.2.3 Missing Data

As the patterns and the severity of missing data can affect the generalisability of

the results (Hair et al. 2006), an examination of missing data was undertaken before

the measurement properties were assessed. As was noted earlier, missing data

were only found in the 24 incomplete survey forms that were excluded from

subsequent analysis.

172

5.2.4 The Normality of the Data

An important assumption in multivariate analysis is normality, which refers to the

shape of individual items’ distributions. A preliminary analysis found some

skewness and kurtosis in a number of items. However, the sample size of 451 was

considered sufficiently large to reduce the detrimental effects of non-normality

(Hair et al. 2006). Further, skewness is typically found in studies of satisfaction and

related constructs (Vantrappen 1992). Consequently, the data were used in their

collected form in phase two of the analysis.

5.3 Phase 2: The Constructs’ Measurement Characteristics

Constructs should only be used if they have acceptable measurement

characteristics. There are a number of issues that need to be considered, most of

which require the use of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedures to examine

the relationships between the various items and the constructs to which they are

assumed to relate. In particular, the constructs’ unidimensionality, reliability,

convergent validity and discriminant validity were assessed.

Unidimensionality

Unidimensionality can be assessed by examining the goodness of fit of the

estimated CFA model for each of the constructs. A good fit and reasonable factor

loadings of above 0.60 suggest unidimensionality (Anderson and Gerbing 1988).

While the chi-square statistic is the basic measure of fit, it is affected by the number

173

of observations. With a sample of more than 200, very small differences can lead to

a significant chi-square statistic and the rejection of reasonable models (Hair et al.

2006). Consequently, the ratio of the chi-square statistic to the degrees of freedom

for the model, which is often termed the normed chi-square statistic, can also be

used to assess fit. A small chi-square relative to its degree of freedom suggests a

good fit and a ratio of three or less is often seen to be a good indicator of fit (Kline

2005). While there are many other goodness-of-fit indices, which were used in

subsequent phases of the present study, only the chi-square statistic and the

normed chi-square statistic were used in this analysis phase.

Construct Reliability

Construct reliability is a measure of internal consistency and an indication as to

whether a construct is free of measurement error. Construct reliability can be

computed from a CFA’s results using Equation 1. Construct reliability should be 0.70

or higher (Hair et al. 2006).

i

2

2

εloading) edstandardis(

loading) edstandardis( y Reliabilit Composite

(1).

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is a measure of how well the items used to measure a construct

are related to each other. Bagozzi and Yi (1989) has suggested factor loadings 0.60

or greater provide evidence of convergent validity, while Fornell and Larcker (1981)

developed the average variance extracted (AVE) score as another way to assess

174

convergent validity, arguing scores of 0.50 support convergent validity. The AVE

score can be computed through Equation 2.

Average Variance Extracted =

i loading edstandardis

loading edstandardis2

2

(2).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is a measure of the difference between constructs. Fornell and

Larker (1981) suggested discriminant validity can be assessed by comparing the

squared correlation between each of the construct pairs with their AVE scores. If

the squared correlation between two constructs is less than the AVE scores of the

individual constructs, discriminant validity can be assumed.

Purification of the Constructs

In the following section, congeneric models were used to assess unidimensionality.

When an adequate fit was achieved, the estimated loadings were used to assess

construct reliability and the average variance extracted (Buvik and John 2000).


The eight items (SE1 to SE8) measuring customer service self-efficacy (CSSE) had an

unacceptable model fit (χ2=252.42, p<0.001; χ2/df=12.62). Four items (SE1, SE4, SE6

and SE8) were deleted during the purification procedure that led to an acceptable

fit (χ2=1.74, p=0.42; χ2/df=0.87). The four remaining items (SE2, SE3, SE5 and SE7)

had standardised loadings that were greater than 0.60, as can be seen in Figure 5.1,

175

in which the error terms have been deleted for ease of exposition. Construct

reliability was 0.89 and the AVE score was 0.66, which suggested the CSSE construct

was reliable and that convergent validity could be assumed. Consequently, the

construct was retained for subsequent analysis.

Figure 5.1: The Customer Service Self-Efficacy Construct

The People “Ps” of the Services Marketing Mix

Recruitment and selection

The five items (A1 to A5) measuring recruitment and selection criteria had an

unacceptable model fit (χ2=35.00, p<0.001;χ2/df = 7). Item A1, which had a low

loading, was removed to improve the goodness of fit. This process resulted in four

items (A2, A3, A4 and A5) being retained. The modified construct, which is shown

below, had an acceptable fit (χ2=4.39, p=0.11; χ2/df = 2.20) and the loadings ranged

from 0.80 to 0.90, which suggested unidimensionality could be assumed.

I am good at doing the things needed to deliver good customer service.

Customer Service Self-

Efficacy (CSSE)

When my customer service performance is good, it is due to my ability.

I have all the skills I need to deliver good customer service.

I am an expert at my customer service job.

0.82

0.73

0.87

0.83

0.67

0.54

0.76

0.69

176

Figure 5.2: The Recruitment and Selection Construct

Training

The six items (B1 to B6) that loaded highly on the training construct had an

unacceptable model fit (χ2=293.0, p<0.001; χ2/df = 9). Items B1, B2, and B5 were

deleted in the purification procedure. The process to improve the goodness of fit

resulted in three items (B3, B4 and B6) being retained, which meant there were no

degrees of freedom left to assess model fit. However, an examination of the results

suggested that two of the error variances could be made equal, providing the

degree of freedom needed to examine the construct’s measurement properties

(Byrne 2004, Quandt 1960). The modified construct, which is shown below, had an

acceptable fit (χ2= 26.8, p=0.00; χ2/df = 1) and the three loadings (items B3, B4 and

B6) exceeded 0.60, again suggesting unidimensionality.

My organisation emphasises service quality awareness right from the recruitment stage.

Recruitment and

Selection

My organisation emphasises service quality management in its promotion and career development programs.

My organisation uses service work values and ethics as important criteria when selecting new employees.

My organisation takes steps to deepen the applicant pool to enhance employee service delivery.

0.80

0.86

0.92

0.90

0.63

0.75

0.85

0.80

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A(Byrne%2C+Barbara+M.)

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A(Quandt%2C+Richard+E.)

177

Figure 5.3: The Training Construct

Rewards for service excellence

The five items (C1 to C5) that loaded highly on the rewarding for customer service

excellence construct had an unacceptable model fit (χ2=96.10, p<0.001; χ2/df =

19.22). Items C1 and C2 were deleted in the purification procedure. The process to

improve the goodness of fit resulted in three items (C3, C4 and C5) being retained,

which meant there were no degrees of freedom left to assess model fit. However,

an examination of the results suggested that all three of the error variances could

be made equal, providing the degree of freedom needed to examine the construct’s

measurement properties (Byrne 2004, Quandt 1960). The modified construct,

which is shown below, had an acceptable fit (χ2=5.06 p=0.08; χ2/df = 2.53) and the

three loadings exceeded 0.60, which suggested the three-item construct is

unidimensional.

I received extensive customer service training before I come into contact with customers.

Training

I receive ongoing training to help me serve customers better.

I am well trained to deal with customer complaints.

I have received extensive training to help me deal with complaining customers.

0.79

0.79

0.89

0.95

0.62

0.63

0.79

0.90



178

Figure 5.4: The Rewards for Service Excellence Construct

Immediate Supervisory Support

The five items (D1 to D5) that were used to measure the immediate supervisor

support construct had an unacceptable model fit (χ2=43.00, p<0.001; χ2/df = 8.60).

Items D1 and D5 were deleted in the purification procedure. The process to

improve the goodness of fit resulted in three items (D2, D3 and D4) being retained,


an examination of the results suggested that two of the error variances could be

made equal, providing the degree of freedom needed to examine the construct’s

measurement properties (Byrne 2004, Quandt1960). The modified construct, which

is shown below, had an acceptable fit (χ2= 1.34, p=0.51; χ2/df = 0.67) and the three

loadings exceeded 0.60, again suggesting unidimensionality.

I am well rewarded for delivering good customer service.

Rewarding for Service

Excellence

I am well rewarded for dealing effectively with customers’ problems.

I am well rewarded for satisfying complaining customers.

0.97

0.96

0.96

0.93

0.93

0.93



179

Figure 5.5: The Immediate Supervisor Support Construct


The four items (E1 to E4) that were used to measure the team support from the

co-workers construct had an unacceptable model fit (χ2=43.10, p<0.001; χ2/df =

21.55). Item E3 was deleted in the purification procedure. The process to improve

the goodness of fit resulted in three items (E1, E2 and E4) being retained, which

meant there were no degrees of freedom left to assess model fit. However, an

examination suggested that two of the error variances could be made equal,

providing the degree of freedom needed to examine the construct’s measurement

properties (Byrne 2004, Quandt1960). The modified construct, which is shown

below, had an acceptable fit (χ2= 0.77, p=0.38; χ2/df = 0.77) and the three loadings

exceeded 0.60, again suggesting unidimensionality.

My immediate supervisor helps me develop my service skills.

Immediate Supervisor

Support

My immediate supervisor gives appropriate recognition for a service job well done

My immediate supervisor keeps me well informed.

0.91

0.92

0.92

0.83

0.84

0.84



180

Figure 5.6: The Team Support from Co-workers Construct

Other Department Support

The seven items (F1 to F7) that were used to measure the other department

support construct had an unacceptable model fit (χ2=147.20, p<0.001; χ2/df=10.51).

Items F2, F5 and F6 were deleted in the purification procedure. The process to

improve the goodness of fit resulted in four items (F1, F3, F4, F7) being retained.

The modified construct, which is shown below, had an acceptable fit (χ2=0.59,

p=0.74; χ2/df=0.30) and the four loadings exceeded 0.60, again suggesting

unidimensionality.

My team is effective in helping everyone do their service job well.

Team Support From Co-workers

My team is effective in developing new team members.

I very much look forward to working with my team members every day.

0.91

0.91

0.80

0.83

0.84

0.64

181

Figure 5.7: The Other Department’s Support Construct

Customer education

The four items that were used to measure the customer education construct had an

unacceptable model fit (χ2=21.90, p<0.001; χ2/df=10.95). Item G1 was deleted in

the purification procedure. The process to improve the goodness of fit resulted in

three items (G2, G3 and G4) being retained, which meant there were no degrees of

freedom left to assess model fit. However, an examination suggested that all three

of the error variances could be made equal, providing the degree of freedom

needed to examine the construct’s measurement properties (Byrne 2004,

Quandt1960). The modified construct, which is shown below, had an acceptable fit

(χ2=0.12, p=0.94; χ2/df=0.06) and the three loadings exceeded 0.60, again

suggesting unidimensionality.

Other teams act in a responsive manner when we forward customer complaints.

Other Department

Support

The quality of service other teams deliver to our team is good.

The feedback from other teams helps our team deliver good service to our customers.

Employees in other teams are helpful in solving our customers’ problems.

0.76

0.91

0.82

0.84

0.58

0.82

0.68

0.71



182

Figure 5.8: The Customer Education Construct


The four items (H1 to H4) that were used to measure the customer organisational

socialisation construct. The construct shown below had an acceptable fit (χ2=1.03,

p=0.60; χ2/df= 0.52) and the four loadings exceeded 0.60, again suggesting

unidimensionality.

Figure 5.9: The Customer Organisational Socialisation Construct

Service concepts and recommendations are explained to our customers in a meaningful way.

Customer Education

Our customers are provided with as much information as they need.

The pros and cons of the services we offer are well explained to our customers.

0.91

0.91

0.92

0.83

0.83

0.84

Our customers understand our organisation’s policies.


Our customers feel comfortable with our organisation.

Our customers understand the values that are important to our organisation.

Our customers get along with employees in our organisation.

0.84

0.90

0.89

0.83

0.71

0.81

0.80

0.69

183

Encouraging customer feedback about service

The four items (I1 to I4) that were used to measure the encouraging customer

feedback on the service construct had an unacceptable model fit (χ2=7.80, p<0.001;

χ2/df=3.90). Item I1 was deleted in the purification procedure. The process to

improve the goodness of fit resulted in three items (I2, I3 and I4) being retained,


an examination suggested that the three error variances could be made equal,


properties (Byrne 2004, Quandt1960). The modified construct, which is shown

below, had an acceptable fit (χ2= 1.21, p=0.55; χ2/df= 0.61) and the three loadings

were greater than 0.60, again suggesting unidimensionality.

Figure 5.10: The Encouraging Customer Feedback on the Service Construct

Our customers can make constructive suggestions to our organisation on how to improve its service.

Encouraging Customer

Feedback on the Service

When our customers experience a problem, they let our employees know so we can improve service quality.

Our customers can let our employees know when they give good service.

0.86

0.86

0.87

0.74

0.74

0.75



184



The three items (J1 to J3) were used to measure perceived customer loyalty

construct, which meant there were no degrees of freedom left to assess model fit.

However, an examination of the results suggested that two of the error variances

could be made equal, providing the degree of freedom needed to examine the

construct’s measurement properties (Byrne 2004, Quandt 1960). The construct,

which is shown below, had an acceptable fit (χ2= 4.65, p=0.03; χ2/df=4.65), and the

three loadings ranged from 0.90 to 0.96, which suggested that this three-item

construct is unidimensional.

Figure 5.11: The Perceived Customer Loyalty Construct


The ten items (K1 to K10) that were used to measure the perceived service quality

construct had an unacceptable model fit (χ2=543.94, p<0.001; χ

2/df=15.54). Items K1,

My customers are likely to return to our firm in the future.

Perceived Customer

Loyalty

My customers are likely to recommend our firm to other people.

My customers are more likely to use our services than the services offered by our competitors.

0.90

0.96

0.90

0.81

0.92

0.81



185

K2, K3, K4, K8 and K9 were deleted in the purification procedure. The process to

improve the goodness of fit resulted in four items (K5, K6, K7 and K10) being

retained. The modified construct, which is shown below, had an acceptable fit

(χ2=6.31, p=0.04; χ

2/df=3.16). All four loadings were greater than 0.60, ranging from

0.88 to 0.94, which suggested that this four-item construct is unidimensional.

Figure 5.12: The Perceived Service Quality Construct

The Moderators

Role clarity

The five items (L1 to L5) were used to measure the moderator – role clarity

construct. The five items were a poor fit to the data (χ2=178.89, p<0.001;

χ2/df=35.78). Items L1 and L2 were deleted in the purification procedure. The

process improve the goodness of fit resulted in three items (L3, L4 and L5), being

My customers feel I am courteous in my interactions with them.


My customers feel I am able to answer their questions.

My customers feel they receive individual attention from me.

My customers feel I am able to understand their specific needs.

0.88

0.94

0.89

0.88

0.77

0.88

0.80

0.78

186

retained, which meant there were no degrees of freedom left to assess model fit.

However, an examination of the results suggested that two of the error variances

could be made equal, providing the degree of freedom needed to examine the

construct’s measurement properties (Byrne 2004, Quandt1960). The modified

construct, which is shown below, had an acceptable fit (χ2=5.75; p=0.17; χ2/df=5.75)

and the loadings ranged from 0.89 to 0.96, again suggesting unidimensionality. The

three-item role clarity construct had good measurement properties and was

retained for subsequent analysis.

Figure 5.13: The Role Clarity Construct

Role Conflict

The six items (M1 to M6) that were used to measure the moderator – role conflict

construct had an unacceptable model fit (χ2=122.78, p<0.001; χ2/df= 13.64). Items

M2 and M4 were deleted in the purification procedure. The process to improve the

goodness of fit resulted in four items (M1, M3, M5 and M6) being retained. The

modified construct, which is shown below, had an acceptable fit to the data

Figure

I know what my responsibilities are in my customer service role.

Role Clarity

I know exactly what is expected of me in my customer service role.

Explanations are clear as to what I have to do in my customer service role.

0.96

0.96

0.89

0.92

0.92

0.78



187

(χ2=4.88, p=0.09; χ2/df=2.44) and the four loadings exceeded 0.60, again suggesting

unidimensionality. The four-item role conflict construct had good measurement

properties and was retained for subsequent analysis.

Figure 5.14: The Role Conflict Construct

Role Overload

The four items (N1 to N4) that were used to measure the moderator – role overload

construct had an unacceptable model fit (χ2=17.65, p<0.001; χ2/df=8.83). Item N1

was deleted in the purification procedure. The process to improve the goodness of

fit resulted in three items (N2, N3 and N4) being retained, which meant there were

no degrees of freedom left to assess model fit. However, an examination suggested

that two of the error variances could be made equal, providing the degree of

freedom needed to examine the construct’s measurement properties (Byrne 2004,

Figure 5

I sometimes receive service assignments without the manpower to complete it.

Role Conflict

I sometimes receive incompatible requests about delivering customer service.

I sometimes receive service assignments but do not have the resources and materials to deliver them.

I sometimes work on unnecessary things in delivering customer service.

0.75

0.70

0.87

0.71

0.56

0.49

0.75

0.50


188

Quandt1960). The modified construct, which is shown below, had anacceptable fit

(χ2=1.09, p=0.30; χ2/df=1.09) and the three loadings exceeded 0.60, again

suggesting unidimensionality. The three-item moderator – role overload construct

had good measurement properties and was retained for subsequent analysis.

Figure 5.15: The Role Overload Construct


The four items (Q1 to Q4) that were used to measure the moderator – openness to

experience construct had an unacceptable model fit (χ2=75.22, p<0.001;

χ2/df=37.61). Item Q4 was deleted in the purification procedure. The process to

improve the goodness of fit resulted in three items (Q1, Q2 and Q3) being retained,


an examination suggested that two of the error variances could be made equal,


properties (Byrne 2004, Quandt1960). The modified construct, which is

I do not have enough help and resources to get my service job done well.

Role Overload

I do not have enough time to do my service job well.

I have to try to satisfy too many different people when delivering customer service.

0.84

0.86

0.68

0.71

0.74

0.47




189

shownbelow, had an acceptable fit (χ2=2.36, p=0.13; χ2/df=2.36) and the three

loadings exceeded 0.60, again suggesting unidimensionality. The three-item

openness to experience construct had good measurement properties and was


Figure 5.16: The Openness to Experience Construct

Passion for Service

The seven items (O1 to O7) that were used to measure the moderator – passion for

service construct had an unacceptable model fit (χ2=307.55, p<0.001; χ2/df=21.97).

Items O1, O5, O6 and O7 were deleted in the purification procedure. The process to

improve the goodness of fit resulted in three items (O2, O3 and O4) being retained,


an examination suggested that two of the error variances could be made equal,


properties (Byrne 2004, Quandt1960). The modified construct, which is

I am open to new experiences when I am delivering customer service.


I am open to complex experiences when I am delivering customer service.

I am flexible in my customer service delivery.

0.94

0.94

0.80

0.89

0.89

0.65



190

shownbelow, had an acceptable fit (χ2=1.63, p=0.20; χ2/df=1.63). All three

standardised loadings were greater than 0.60, again suggesting unidimensionality.

The three-item passion for service construct had good measurement properties and

was retained for subsequent analysis.

Figure 5.17: The Passion for Service Construct

Organisational Climate for Service

The four items (P1 to P4) that were used to measure the moderator –

organisational climate for service construct had an unacceptable model fit

(χ2=26.72, p<0.001; χ2/df=13.36). Item P1 was deleted in the purification procedure.

The process to improve the goodness of fit resulted in three items (P2, P3 and P4)

being retained, which meant there were no degrees of freedom left to assess model

fit. However, an examination suggested that two of the error variances could be

made equal, providing the degree of freedom needed to examine the construct’s

measurement properties (Byrne 2004, Quandt1960). The modified construct,which

Figure

The new things I discover while delivering customer service allow me to appreciate my role even more.

Passion for Service

Delivering customer service allows me to live memorable experiences.

Delivering customer service reflects the qualities I like about myself.

0.92

0.93

0.89

0.84

0.86

0.80



191

is shown below, had an acceptable fit (χ2=0.14, p=0.71; χ2/df=0.14). The three-item

organisational climate construct had good measurement properties and was


Figure 5.18: The Organisational Climate for Service Construct

General Service Self-Efficacy

The eight items (GSE1 to GSE8) that were used to measure the general self-efficacy

construct had an unacceptable model fit (χ2=122.35, p<0.001; χ2/df=6.12). Items

GSE1, GSE2, GSE3, and GSE7 were deleted in the purification procedure. This

process to improve the goodness of fit resulted in four items (GSE4, GSE5, GSE6,

and GSE8) being retained. The modified construct, which is shown below, had an

acceptable fit (χ2= 5.43, p=0.07; χ2/df=2.72) and the four loadings ranged from 0.82

to 0.92, suggesting unidimensionality. The four-item general self-efficacy construct

had good measurement properties and was retained for subsequent analysis.

In my organisation, having a reputation for good service is seen as important.

Organisational Service Climate

In my organisation, it is important to be friendly to our customers.

In my organisation, our customers’ needs are important.

0.88

0.92

0.92

0.78

0.85

0.84

192

Figure 5.19: The General Self-efficacy Construct

Table 5.21 provides a summary of the goodness of fit results for each of the

constructs. The initial results are shown, as are the goodness of fit results for each

of the constructs for which revisions were made. Overall, it is clear all of the

constructs fitted the data well. Please note the construct abbreviations (e.g. P1)

which are used for the subsequent tables Table 5.21 and 5.22.

Figure

I believe I can succeed at most endeavours to which I set my mind.

General Self-efficacy

I am able to successfully overcome most of the challenges I face.

I am confident I can perform many different tasks effectively.

Even when things are tough, I perform well.

0.84

0.92

0.82

0.85

0.69

0.86

0.67

0.72

193

Table 5.21: The Normed Chi-Square Statistics for the Model’s Constructs

Construct

Normed Chi-Square Statistic

Original Construct Items Final Construct Items

Number of Items

χ2/df Number of

Items χ

2/df


8 items SE1 to SE8

χ2=252.42,

p<0.001

χ2/df = 52.42/20.00

= 12.62

4 items SE2, SE3, SE5,

SE7

χ2= 1.74

p=0.42

χ2/df = 1.74/2

= 0.87

Recruitment & Selection Criteria – P1

5 items A1 to A5

χ2=35.00,

p<0.001

χ2/df =35.00/5.00

=7.00

4 items A2, A3, A4, A5

χ2=4.39,

p=0.11

χ2/df = 4.39/2

= 2.20

Training

6 items B1 to B6

χ2=293.90,

p<0.001

χ2/df = 293.90/8.99

= 32.66

4 items B2, B3, B4, B6

χ2= 12.19

p=0.00

χ2/df = 12.19/2

= 6.10

Rewarding For Customer Service Excellence – P3

5 items C1 to C5

χ2=96.10,

p<0.001

χ2/df = 96.10/5.00

= 19.22

3 items C3, C4, C5

χ2=5.06

p=0.08

χ2/df = 5.06/2

= 2.53

Immediate Supervisor Support – P4

5 items D1 to D5

χ2=43.00,

p<0.001

χ2/df = 43.00/5.00

=8.60

3 items D2, D3, D4

χ2= 1.34

p=0.51

χ2/df = 1.34/2

= 0.67

Team Support from Coworkers - P5

4 items E1 to E4

χ2=43.10,

p<0.001

χ2/df = 43.10/2.00

= 21.55

3 items E1, E2, E4

χ2= 0.77

p=0.38

χ2/df = 0.77/1

= 0.77

Other Department Support - P6

7 items F1 to F7

χ2=147.20,

p<0.001

χ2/df = 47.20/14.01

= 10.51

4 items F1, F3, F4, F7

χ2= 0.59

p=0.74

χ2/df = 0.59/2

= 0.30

Customer Education - P7

4 items G1 to G4

χ2=21.90,

p<0.001

χ2/df = 21.90/2.00

= 10.95

3 items G2, G3, G4

χ2= 0.12

p=0.94

χ2/df = 0.12/2

= 0.06

194

Construct



Number of Items

χ2/df Number of

Items χ

2/df

Customer Organisational Socialisation - P8

4 items H1 to H4

χ2=1.03,

p=0.60

χ2/df = 1.03/2

= 0.52

4 items H1 to H4

No Change

No Change

Encouraging Customer Feedback on the Service - P9

4 items I1 to I4

χ2=7.80,

p<0.001

χ2/df = 7.80/2.00

= 3.90

3 items I2, I3, I4

χ2= 1.21

p=0.55

χ2/df = 1.21/2

= 0.61


3 items J1 to J3

χ2=4.65,

p<0.001

χ2/df = 4.65/1.00

= 4.65

3 items J1, J2, J3

No change

No Change


10 items K1 to K10

χ2=543.94, p<0.001

χ

2/df=543.94/35.00

= 15.54

4 items K5, K6, K7,

K10

χ2= 6.31

p=0.04

χ2/df = 6.31/2

= 3.16

Role Clarity - M1

5 items L1 to L5

χ2=178.89, p<0.001

χ

2/df = 178.89/5.00

=35.78

3 items L3, L4, L5

χ2= 5.75

p=0.17

χ2/df = 5.75/1

= 5.75

Role Conflict – M2

6 items M1 to M6

χ2=122.78, p<0.001

χ

2/df =122.78/9.00

= 13.64

4 items M1, M3, M5,

M6

χ2= 4.88

p=0.09

χ2/df = 4.88/2

= 2.44

Role Overload – M3

4 items N1 to N4

χ2= 17.65,

p<0.001

χ2/df = 17.65/2.00

=8.83

3 items N2, N3, N4

χ2= 1.09

p=0.30

χ2/df = 1.09/1

= 1.09

Openness to Experience - M4

4 items Q1 to Q4

χ2= 75.22,

p<0.001

χ2/df = 75.22/2.00

=37.61

3 items Q1, Q2, Q3

χ2= 2.36

p=0.13

χ2/df = 2.36/1

= 2.36

195

Construct



Number of Items

χ2/df Number of

Items χ

2/df

Passion for Service - M5

7 items O1 to O7

χ2= 307.55, p<0.001

χ

2/df = 307.55/13.99

= 21.97

3 items O2, O3, O4

χ2= 1.63

p=0.20

χ2/df = 1.63/1

= 1.63

Organisational Climate for Service - M6

4 items P1 to P7

χ2= 26.72,

p<0.001

χ2/df = 26.72/2.00

=13.36

3 items P2, P3, P4

χ2= 0.14

p=0.71

χ2/df = 0.14/1

= 0.14

General Self-Efficacy - M7

8 items GSE1 to GSE8

χ2=122.35,

p<0.001

χ2/df = 122.35/20.00

= 6.12

4 items GSE4, GSE5, GSE6, GSE8

χ2= 5.43

p=0.07

χ2/df = 5.43/2

= 2.72

Table 5.22 shows the construct reliability and average variance extracted (AVE)

scores for each of the constructs (abbreviation list at Appendix). All of the AVE

values exceeded 0.50 and all of the construct reliability values exceeded 0.70, which

suggested the various scales were reliable and that they had convergent validity

(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). However, further analysis was needed to see if the

scales had discriminant validity. As was noted earlier, Fornell and Larker (1981b)

pointed out that discriminant validity is also a crucial measurement property and

this issue was also assessed before the model was estimated. Fornell and Larker

(1981) suggested discriminant validity can be assumed if the shared variance

(squared correlation) between a pair of constructs is smaller than the pair’s

minimum average variance extracted (AVE) score. The results obtained in this case

are discussed in the next section.

196

Table 5.22: AVE Scores and Squared Correlations between the Constructs

Construct Abbrev.

Construct Reliability

AVE Score

Squared Correlation

CSSE P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 CxL SQ M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6

CSSE 0.89 0.66

P1 0.93 0.76 0.14

P2 0.92 0.73 0.35 0.31

P3 0.98 0.93 0.09 0.26 0.36

P4 0.94 0.84 0.10 0.34 0.27 0.34

P5 0.91 0.77 0.21 0.36 0.31 0.23 0.45

P6 0.90 0.70 0.20 0.44 0.31 0.27 0.34 0.53

P7 0.94 0.83 0.22 0.32 0.26 0.14 0.17 0.37 0.44

P8 0.92 0.75 0.23 0.30 0.24 0.19 0.18 0.31 0.43 0.52

P9 0.90 0.74 0.21 0.31 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.32 0.34 0.45 0.58

CxL 0.94 0.85 0.18 0.28 0.20 0.11 0.14 0.28 0.27 0.38 0.40 0.44

SQ 0.94 0.81 0.42 0.23 0.22 0.10 0.14 0.30 0.32 0.45 0.41 0.45 0.42

M1 0.83 0.62 0.35 0.27 0.23 0.12 0.20 0.30 0.34 0.46 0.40 0.41 0.36 0.61

M2 0.84 0.57 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.05

M3 0.84 0.64 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40

M4 0.93 0.81 0.26 0.12 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.17 0.14 0.20 0.22 0.37 0.36 0.11 0.02

M5 0.94 0.83 0.21 0.20 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.26 0.27 0.41 0.46 0.13 0.01 0.56

M6 0.93 0.82 0.10 0.21 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.22 0.20 0.27 0.29 0.08 0.00 0.40 0.40

M7 0.92 0.73 0.49 0.13 0.16 0.07 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.37 0.26 0.08 0.00 0.24 0.23 0.10

197

5.3.1 Common Method Variance (CMV)

However, as with all cross sectional surveys, common method variance (CMV) is

potentially a problem. CMV is the amount of spurious covariance shared among the

variables when a common method is used in data collection (Malhotra et al. 2006).

CMV is also known as a methodological artefact and, as Lindell and Whitney (2001)

have highlighted, in a typical study in which the same rater responded to the items in

a single questionnaire at the same point in time, the collected data may be

susceptible to CMV. Lindell and Whitney (2001,p. 115) noted that “the smallest

correlation among the manifest variables provides a reasonable proxy for CMV.”

However, after further investigation they suggested using the second smallest

positive correlation as a more conservative estimate of rM, which in this case was

0.01 (the correlation between perceived customer loyalty and role overload). Within

the marker-variable analysis framework, a method factor is assumed to have a

constant correlation with all of the measured items. Under this assumption, a

CMV-adjusted correlation between the variables under investigation, rA, can be

computed by partialling rM from the uncorrected correlation, rU. The rA coefficient

can be calculated as:

rA=(rU – rM) / (1 – rM) (3)

Thus, in the present study, rA=(rU – 0.009 ) / (1 – 0.009)

Following Joshi’s (2010) suggestion, a z value was calculated that was used to assess

the significance of the difference between two correlation coefficients (i.e., rU and rA).

This analysis found that none of the original correlations were significantly different

198

from their CMV-adjusted counterparts, as can be seen in Appendix 4, suggesting any

CMV biases were not substantial and that the original data could be used in the

subsequent analysis.

5.4 Conclusions

The present chapter discussed the purification procedures that were used to revise

the various scales measuring the study model’s constructs. The scales were purified

following the procedures suggested by Hair et al. (2006) and Bagozzi and Foxall

(1996). In particular, the unidimensionality, reliability and convergent validity of the

subsequent scales were assessed. Further, Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) procedure

suggested all of the constructs had discriminant validity. Finally, common method

variance was shown not to be a threat to subsequent results. Consequently, the

measurement and structural models were estimated. The results of this phase of the

analysis are discussed in Chapter 6.

199

Chapter Six: Examining the CSSE Model

6.1 Introduction

The measurement properties of all the constructs in the suggested model were

discussed in Chapter Five and all of the constructs were found to have appropriate

properties for the assessment of the structural model, although some revisions were

made to the constructs’ items. The direct relationships of interest were initially

examined by computing simple correlations between customer service self-efficacy

(CSSE) and the suggested antecedent constructs and these results are discussed in

the next section.

6.2 Correlations between CSSE and People “P” of the Services Marketing Mix

A correlation is a measure of the nature and strength of a relationship between two

variables (e.g., the people “P” of the services marketing mix and CSSE) and,

consequently, was seen as a useful first step in examining the study’s various

hypotheses. A bivariate correlation was computed between CSSE (the construct of

particular interest) and each of the resources directed at service employees and

customers, so as to initially test hypothesis 1 to hypothesis 11. In the present case:

Hypothesis 1 suggested the greater a service employee’s assessment of the

quality of recruitment and selection, the greater would be their perceived

CSSE. The correlation between CSSE and recruitment and selection was 0.37

(p<0.01). Consequently, hypothesis 1 was supported in this phase of the

analysis.

200


training provided, the greater would be their perceived CSSE. The correlation

between CSSE and training was 0.59 (p<0.01). Consequently, hypothesis 2

was supported in this phase of the analysis.


rewards provided for customer service excellence, the greater would be their

perceived CSSE. The correlation between CSSE and rewards for service

excellence was 0.30 (p<0.01). Consequently, hypothesis 3 was supported in

this phase of the analysis.

Hypothesis 4 suggested the more positive a service employee’s assessment of

the immediate supervisor, the greater would be their perceived CSSE. The

correlation between CSSE and immediate supervisor support was 0.32

(p<0.01). Consequently, hypothesis 4 was supported in this phase of the

analysis.


support they receive from their team members, the greater would be their

perceived CSSE. The correlation CSSE and team support from co-workers was

0.46 (p<0.01). Consequently, hypothesis 5 was supported in this phase of the

analysis.


the support they received from other departments, the greater would be

their perceived CSSE. The correlation between CSSE and other department

support was 0.45 (p<0.01). Consequently, hypothesis 6 was supported in this

phase of the analysis.

201


the level of customer education, the greater would be their perceived CSSE.

The correlation between CSSE and customer education was 0.47 (p<0.01).

Consequently, hypothesis 7 was supported in this phase of the analysis.


the level of customer organisational socialisation, the greater would be their

perceived CSSE. The correlation between CSSE and customer organisational

socialisation was 0.48 (p<0.01). Consequently, hypothesis 8 was supported in

this phase of the analysis.


the level of customer feedback encouraged by their firm, the greater would

be their perceived CSSE. The correlation between CSSE and encouraging

customer feedback about service was 0.46 (p<0.01). Consequently,

hypothesis 9 was supported in this phase of the analysis.

Hypothesis 10 suggested the greater a service employee’s perceived CSSE, the

more positive would be their perception of the service quality provided. The

correlation between CSSE and perceived service quality was 0.65 (p<0.01).

Consequently, hypothesis 10 was supported in this phase of the analysis.

Hypothesis 11 suggested the greater a service employee’s perceived service

quality, the more positive would be their perception of customer loyalty. The

correlation between perceived service quality and perceived customer loyalty

was 0.42 (p<0.01). Consequently, hypothesis 11 was supported in this phase

of the analysis.

202

The simple correlation analysis provided good support for the suggested direct

relationships. In order to examine these relationships in a multivariate way,

regression analysis was undertaken and the results obtained are discussed in the

next section.

6.3 Regressing the People “P” constructs on CSSE

As the major interest in the present study was the impact the people “P” constructs

has on service employees’ CSSE, this relationship was examined in a multivariate way

through the use of regression analysis. An examination of the correlations between

the various suggested antecedent variables, which are shown in Appendix 6, made it

clear there were some significant correlations between these antecedent constructs

(e.g., the correlation between co-worker support and support from other

departments was 0.68, while the correlation between customer education and

customer organisational socialisation was 0.68). Given the potential effect the

multicollinearity among these antecedents can have on the results of a regression

analysis (Hair et al. 2006), a stepwise regression analysis was initially used to

evaluate the multivariate relationships between the suggested antecedent

constructs and service employees’ CSSE. The entry order of the constructs, which can

be seen in Table 6.1, was determined by the statistical criteria underlying the

stepwise procedure that was used in this case.

203

Table 6.1: Stepwise Regression Summary –Situational Resources and CSSE

Step R Square R Square Change F Sig. F Change

1 0.27 0.27 164.46 0.00

2 0.32 0.05 106.95 0.00

3 0.33 0.01 74.10 0.01

Coefficients

Step Unstandardised Coefficients

Standardised Coefficients

t statistic

1 (Constant) 3.13 21.77

12.82 Training 0.41 0.52

2 (Constant) 2.48 13.98

9.17

6.04

Training 0.32 0.40

Customer Organisational

Socialisation 0.24 0.26

3 (Constant) 2.31 12.33

7.53

4.70

2.45

Training 0.28 0.35

Customer Organisational

Socialisation 0.20 0.22

Team Support from

Co-workers 0.10 0.12

The estimated regression suggested there were some significant relationships

between the antecedent constructs and CSSE (F = 74.10, p<0.01), although the

training, team support and customer organisational socialisation constructs were the

only ones that entered the regression equation, as can also be seen in Table 6.1.

These three resources explained 33% of the variation in service employees’

perceived CSSE.

As only three of the nine “P” constructs were included in the regression, it was

decided to undertake a principal component analysis of these constructs to better

understand their interrelationships. This type of analysis can be used to identify

204

groups of variables, thus allowing one variable to be selected to represent a number

of related constructs (Hair et al. 2006). The measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser,

1958) was 0.92, which suggested there were underlying factors and a scree diagram

suggested three factors, which explained 77% of the variation in the antecedent

constructs, should be retained. An examination of the factors loadings after an

oblimin rotation to obtain simple structure, suggested the first factor was related to

employee level resources (e.g., the training construct that was included in the

regression), the second factor was related to work-team level resources (e.g., the

team support from co-worker construct that was in the regression) and the third

factor was related to customer level resources (e.g., the customer organisational

socialisation construct that was in the regression). Conceptually, it can be argued

that the three factors were related to the service employees themselves, the teams

about them, and the customers they served, and that these aspects are the keys to

determining service employees’ perceived CSSE. Service employees draw on these

resources to regulate their beliefs about their ability to deliver service quality (i.e.,

their CSSE) to their organisation’s customers (Beuningen et al. 2009; Gist et al. 1989;

Jong et al. 2004; Kelley et al. 1992; Mills and Morris 1986; Saks 1995).

6.4 Examining Potential Moderators

The three retained antecedent constructs (training, team support from co-workers,

and customer organisational socialisation) were used to examine the hypothesised

moderating effects of role clarity, role conflict, role overload, openness to

experience, passion for service, years of service experience and organisational

205

climate for service. These effects were examined using the MODPROBE program,

which shows the effect an independent variable has on an outcome variable

depending on the value of a moderator variable. Such an effect reveals itself

statistically as an interaction between the independent variables and the moderator

variable (Hayes and Matthes 2009).

Role Clarity

Hypothesis 12(a) suggested the greater an employee’s role clarity, the more positive

the relationships between training, team support from co-workers, and customer

organisational socialisation and perceived CSSE would be. As can be seen in Table

6.2, the interactions between role clarity and the training, team support from

co-workers and customer organisational socialisation constructs were not

statistically significant. The relationships between training, team support from

co-workers, and customer organisational socialisation and CSSE were not moderated

by role clarity. Thus, none of the hypotheses that were related to the moderating

effect of role clarity were supported in the present study.

Table 6.2: The Moderating Effect of Role Clarity on the Focal Predictor to CSSE Relationship

Focal Predictor R Squared

Coefficient for Interaction (b)

p Conclusion

Training

0.38 - 0.02 0.52 H12a - (b)

not supported


0.38 0.00 0.94 H12a - (e)

not supported


0.39 0.02 0.39 H12a -(h)

not supported

206

Role Conflict

Hypothesis 12(b) suggested the greater the role conflict in the service workplace, the

less positive the relationships between training, team support from co-workers and

customer organisational socialisation and perceived CSSE would be. As can be seen

in Table 6.3, the interaction between role conflict and training was not statistically

significant. However, the interactions between role conflict and the team support

from co-workers and customer organisational socialisation constructs were

statistically significant (p <0.01), suggesting moderating effects in these cases.

Table 6.3: The Moderating Effect of Role Conflict on the Focal Predictor to CSSE Relationship

Focal Predictor R Squared Coefficient for Interaction (b)

p Conclusion

Training

0.35 -0.03 0.32 H12b -(b)

not supported


0.36 -0.07 0.01 p significant

H12b -(e)

Supported



H12b -(h)

Supported

The nature of the interactions can be seen in Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2.Figure 6.1

suggests organisational socialisation had less effect on CSSE when role conflict is high

than it does when role conflict is low.

207

Figure 6.1: Role Conflict Interaction (Customer Organisational Socialisation)

Figure 6.2 suggests co-worker support had less effect on CSSE when role conflict was

high than it did when role conflict was low.

Figure 6.2: Role Conflict Interaction (Co-worker Support)

208

Role Overload

Hypothesis 12(c) suggested the greater the role overload in the service workplace,

the less positive the relationships between training, team support from co-workers

and customer organisational socialisation and perceived CSSE would be. As can be

seen in Table 6.4, the interaction between role overload and training was not

statistically significant. However, the interactions between role overload and the

team support from co-workers and customer organisational socialisation constructs

were statistically significant (p < 0.01), suggesting there were moderating effects in

these cases.

Table 6.4: The Moderating Effect of Role Overload on the Focal Predictor

to CSSE Relationship


p Conclusion

Training

0.34 -0.02 0.37 H12c - (b) not supported



H12c -(e) supported



H12c -(h) supported

The nature of the interactions can be seen in Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4.Figure 6.3

suggests customer organisational socialisation had less effect on CSSE when role

overload is high than it does when role overload is low.

209

Figure 6.3: Role Conflict Interaction (Customer Organisational Socialisation)

Figure 6.4 suggests co-worker support had less effect on CSSE when role conflict is

high than it does when role conflict is low.

Figure 6.4: Role Conflict Interaction (Co-worker Support)

210

Years of Service Experience

Hypothesis 12(d) suggested the greater an employee’s years of service, the less

positive the relationships between training, team support from co-workers and


in Table 6.5, the interactions between years of service experience and the training,

team support from co-workers and customer organisational socialisation constructs

were not statistically significant at the 0.01 level. The relationships between training,

team support from co-workers and customer organisational socialisation and CSSE

were not moderated by years of service experience.

Table 6.5: The Moderating Effect of Years of Service Experience on the

Focal Predictor to CSSE Relationship


p Conclusion

Training

0.37 0.00 0.38 H12d - (b) not supported


0.37 0.00 0.52 H12d -(e) not supported


0.37 -0.01 0.08 H12d -(h) Not supported


Hypothesis 12(e) suggested the greater an employee’s openness to experience, the

more positive the relationships between training, team support from co-workers and


in Table 6.6, the interactions between openness to experience and the training, team

211

support from co-workers and customer organisational socialisation constructs were

not statistically significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 6.6: The Moderating Effect of Openness to Experience on the Focal Predictor

to CSSE Relationship


p Conclusion

Training

0.43 -0.06 0.03 p significant b not supported

H12e -(b) not supported


0.42 -0.01 0.62 H12e -(e) not supported


0.42 -0.04 0.16 H12e - (h) not supported

The relationships between training, team support from co-workers and customer

organisational socialisation and CSSE were not moderated by openness to

experience. Thus, none of the hypotheses related to the moderating effect of

openness to experience were supported.

Passion for Service

Hypothesis 12(f) suggested the greater an employee’s passion for service, the more

positive the relationships between training, team support from co-workers and


in Table 6.7, the interactions between passion for service, training, team support

from co-workers, and customer organisational socialisation constructs, were not

statistically significant at the 0.01 level. The relationships between training, team

support from co-workers and customer organisational socialisation and CSSE were

212

not moderated by passion for service. Thus, none of the hypotheses related to the

moderating effect of passion for service were supported.

Table 6.7: The Moderating Effect of Years of Passion for Service on the Focal Predictor to CSSE Relationship

Focal Predictor R Squared

Coefficient for Interaction (b)

p Conclusion

Training

0.38 -0.06 0.03 p significant b not supported

H12f - (b) not supported


0.37 -0.02 0.41 H12f - (e) not supported


0.37 -0.04 0.13 H12f - (h) not supported

The Organisation Climate for Service

Hypothesis 12(g) suggested the more positive an employee’s perception of their

organisation’s service climate, the less positive the relationship between training,

team support from co-workers, and customer organisational socialisation and

perceived CSSE would be. As can be seen in Table 6.8, the interactions between an

employee’s perception of their organisation’s service climate and the training, team

support from co-workers, and customer organisational socialisation constructs, were

not statistically significant at the 0.01 level. The relationships between training, team

support from co-workers, and customer organisational socialisation and CSSE, were

not moderated by an employee’s perception of their organisation’s service climate.

Thus, none of the hypotheses related to the moderating effect of an employee’s

perception of their organisation’s service climate were supported.

213

Table 6.8: The Moderating Effect of Perceptions of Organisational Climate for Service on the Focal Predictor to CSSE Relationship


p Conclusion

Training

0.34 -0.01 0.64 H12g - (b)

not supported

Team support from co-worker

0.34 -0.03 0.25 H12g - (e)

not supported


0.34 -0.01 0.65 H12g - (h)

not supported

Perceived General Self-Efficacy

Hypothesis 13 suggested the greater perceived general self-efficacy of the service

employees, the less positive the relationships between training, team support from

co-workers, and customer organisational socialisation and perceived CSSE, would be.

As can be seen in Table 6.9, the interactions between the perceived general

self-efficacy of the service employees and the training, team support from

co-workers, and customer organisational socialisation constructs, were not

statistically significant at the 0.01 level. The relationships between training, team

support from co-workers, and customer organisational socialisation and CSSE, were

not moderated by an employee’s perceived general self-efficacy. Thus, none of the

hypotheses related to the moderating effect of an employee’s perceived general

self-efficacy were supported.

214

Table 6.9: The Moderating Effect of General Self-Efficacy on the Focal Predictor to CSSE Relationship


p Conclusion

Training

0.52 0.01 0.72 H13 (b) not supported


0.52 0.01 0.71 H13 (e) not supported


0.52 -0.02 0.42 H13 (h) not supported

Possible Direct Effect of Moderators on CSSE

A review of the results suggested a number of the potential moderators may have

direct relationships with CSSE, e.g., role clarity and years of service experience. These

relationships were consistent with the characteristics of the service role (i.e., the

requirements for interpersonal interactions with customers in a shared

environment). For example, when service employees are uncertain about the duties

they are expected to perform or when they must satisfy customers’ and employers’

needs, this may affect their CSSE. Therefore, role clarity, role conflict, role overload,

openness to experience, passion for service, years of service experience and

organisational climate for service were modelled as possible antecedents for CSSE.

To this end, it was decided to use a series of regression analyses to include the effect

of these variables. The results obtained in this phase of the analysis are discussed in

the next section.

215

6.5 The Direct Relationship between CSSE and the Moderators

The bivariate correlations between CSSE and the suggested moderators were

examined first. The correlation coefficients were all significant, at least at the 0.05

level, and ranged from 0.09 (role overload) to 0.64 (general self-efficacy).

Consequently, it was clear that some of the suggested moderating variables were

likely to affect CSSE directly.

An analysis of the correlations among the antecedents and moderators, which can

be seen in Appendix 7, found there were some moderate to strong correlations

between many of the suggested moderators themselves. As multicollinearity impacts

on the size and significance of regression estimates, a stepwise regression analysis

was again used to estimate the relationships of interest. Initially, only the suggested

moderators were included in the estimated regression, with three of these

constructs being included as a result of the stepwise regression estimation process

(i.e., role clarity, openness to experience, and years of service experience), as can be

seen in Table 6.10. The regression results suggested there were some significant

relationships (F= 83.45, p<0.01) and that the three constructs explained 36% of

service employees’ perceived CSSE. As can be seen in the Table, the coefficients

were all positive and significant, suggesting each of the included constructs

improved employees’ CSSE.

216

Table 6.10: Stepwise Regression Model Summary for the Moderators and CSSE

Step R2 R2 Change Sig. of R2 Change

1 0.28 0.28 0.00

2 0.33 0.05 0.00

3 0.36 .020 0.00

Coefficients

Final Model’s Predictors Unstandardised Coefficients


t statistic

Beta

Beta

3 (Constant) 1.63 7.38 7.69 5.50

Role Clarity

0.33 0.36


0.26 0.26


.022 0.16 3.77

In the servuction system, in which service employees and customers interact, service

employees are the “boundary spanners” between the firm and its customers and are

often given multiple tasks without clear directives (Arnold et al. 2009, Singh et al.

1994). Service employees have to meet organisational demands (i.e., managers,

policies and rules) and customers’ demands (Bateson 1985). Thus, the greater a

service employee’s assessment of role clarity the better is their perceived CSSE.

In delivering service quality, service employees are exposed to new approaches and

experiences when dealing with different customers’ needs and expectations. They

need to be open-minded and receptive to new ideas if they are to meet these

customers’ needs and expectations (De Jong et al. 2001, Thoms et al. 1996). Thus,

the greater a service employee’s openness to experience, the better is their

perceived CSSE. Additionally, longer serving employees develop greater competence,

217

expertise and coping behaviours in managing customers (Cordes and Dougherty

1993). Service employees’ perceptions of service quality and service capability (i.e.,

satisfaction with their ability to serve customers) increase over time (Schlesinger et

al. 1991). As service employees gain more experience in their service work, they

become more aligned with their customers, more capable of managing difficult

relationships and, consequently, develop their service capability (Deery et al. 2002).

Thus, the longer a service employee’s service experience, the greater is their CSSE.

In order to understand the combined effect of the original antecedents (training,

team support from co-workers, customer organisational socialisation) and the three

significant additional constructs from the suggested moderators (role clarity,

openness to experience and years of service experience) all were included as

antecedents to CSSE. The results obtained in this phase of the analysis are discussed

in the next section.

6.6 Estimating the Regression with the Antecedents to CSSE

Hierarchical regression was used to estimate the regression, as this approach can be

used to add constructs in an ordered way and it was seen as important to see

whether the addition of the originally suggested moderators added significantly to

the regression’s predictive power. In the present case, the initially suggested

antecedents (training, team support from co-workers, and customer organisational

socialisation), all of which were seen as situational resources, were included in the

hierarchical regression model in the first step of the analysis. Years of service

experience (a background variable), openness to experience (a personal variable),

218

and role clarity (an organisational variable), were then included in the regression in

the second phase of the analysis in a stepwise fashion.

As can be seen in Table 6.11, which shows the final regression, the introduction of

each of the additional variables increased the explained variation in employees’ CSSE

significantly and each of the additional regression coefficients was significant. The

explained variation in CSSE R2statistic increased from 0.33 to 0.44 (p < 0.01).

However, the addition of the three new constructs led to the team support from

co-workers construct losing its significance, leaving five significant CSSE antecedents.

As can also be seen in the Table, all of the coefficients were positive, suggesting

improvements in employees’ perceptions of the training provided, the socialisation

of customers and the clarity of their work role will increase their CSSE, as will

employees’ openness to experience and length of experience as a service employee.

Table 6.11: Hierarchical Regression Model Summary of Antecedents and CSSE

Step R2 Statistic R2 Change Sig. of R2 Change

1 0.33 0.33 0.000 2 0.41 0.08 0.000 3 0.42 0.02 0.000 4 0.44 0.01 0.004

Coefficients

Final Model’s Predictors Unstandardised Coefficients


t statistic Sig.

(Constant) 1.15 5.25 0.00

Training 0.23 0.29 6.65 0.00 Team Support 0.03 0.04 0.80 0.43 Customer Organisational Socialisation

0.09 0.10 2.09 0.04

Openness to Experience 0.24 0.24 5.57 0.00 Service Experience 0.02 0.13 3.66 0.00

Role Clarity 0.14 0.16 2.92 0.00

219

The present study assessed the extent to which the situational resources directed at

the service employees and customers impacted on service employees’ CSSE. The

literature review and the qualitative phase of the present study led to a suggested

model, which can be seen in Figure 3.2. The present phase of the study revised the

model, leading to the model that can be seen in Figure 6.5.

Situational Resources:

Personal Resources:

Organisational Resources:

Figure 6.5: A Revised Model of the impact that the resources directed at the

service employees and customers have on Employees’ CSSE

Perceived CSSE of service employee


Training


Customer Organisational Socialization


Role Ambiguity



220

Antecedents to service employees’ CSSE can be classified into three key aspects

namely:

1. Situational resources that are targeted at an employee level (e.g., training), a

work-team level (e.g., team support from co-workers) and at a customer level

(e.g., customer organisational socialisation).

2. Service employees’ personal resources, such as openness to experience and

years of service experience.

3. Organisational resources, which are typified by the role clarity construct that

was included in the finally estimated model.

In the shared environment in which service employees and customers interact,

service employees are “boundary spanners” who have to meet their organisation’s

demands (i.e., their managers’ requests and the organisation’s policies and rules)

and their customer’s demands. Given the substantial costs involved in human

resources management, it is critical that services firms understand how these

variables can be influenced, as improving employees’ perceptions in these areas will

improve their perceived CSSE and improvements in employees’ CSSE are likely to

lead to them providing better service quality, thereby increasing customers’ loyalty.

6.7 Conclusions

The present study found that the more positive service employee’s assessments of

their organisation’s people “P” elements that related to service employees (i.e.,

recruitment and selection, training, rewards for service excellence, immediate

221

supervisor support, team support from co-workers, other department support), the

greater was their perceived CSSE. The study also found employees’ perceptions of

the people “P” of services marketing mix that were related to customers (i.e.,

customer education, customer organisational socialisation and customer feedback)

were positively related to their CSSE.

The relationships between the antecedents of team support by co-workers and

customer organisational socialisation and service employee CSSE were found to be

moderated by role conflict and role overload (hypothesis 12b (e and h) and

hypothesis 12c (e and h). Service employees who experienced greater role conflict

and role overload also experience greater pressure, which can result in stress, which

acts as a barrier to the impact of the people “P”’ resources of team support by

co-workers and customer organisational socialisation on their CSSE. A subsequent

exploration of the direct rather than moderating effects of role clarity, openness to

experience and years of service experience on service employee’s CSSE further

added to our understanding of the antecedents to CSSE, as these three variables

increased CSSE directly.

In the next chapter, the findings of a series of in-depth interviews with a number of

human resource, training, and service quality managers, are discussed. In this phase

of the study, the revised CSSE model that was shown earlier in Figure 6.5 of this

chapter was shared with these managers to see if the model was seen as appropriate

in their organisational contexts. The interviews were also used to better understand

the study’s managerial implications, which are discussed in Chapter 8.

222

223

Chapter Seven: Human Resource Managers’ Views of the

Model

7.1 Introduction

The present chapter discusses the findings of five in-depth interviews that were

undertaken with human resource, training, and service quality managers from the

private and public service sectors in Singapore. The results of the estimation of the

suggested CSSE model, which were outlined in previous chapters, were discussed in

these interviews. Of particular interest was how the managers might use these

findings in their organisations to better understand and manage their service

employees.

During the first part of the interviews, the managers were shown simple diagrams

that described the findings from the present study, as well as definitions of the key

constructs in lay terms. For example, “customer service self-efficacy” was explained

as the employee’s belief in his/her capabilities to organize and execute the actions

required to complete the required service task. They were asked to comment on

how well they thought the results reflected their experience with their organisation’s

service employees and they were asked to discuss implications that they thought

flowed from these results. An interview guide, which is provided in Appendix 4B, was

used to ensure all of the aspects were covered during the interviews.

224

7.2 The Managers’ Perceptions

The managers who were interviewed were in charge of between 100 and 450 service

employees and had been in their present managerial portfolio from two to fifteen

years. All of the managers felt it was true that the more positive were service

employees’ assessments of training, team support from co-workers, and customer

organisational socialisation (resources directed at the service employees and

customers) and the better employees’ role clarity (an organisational resource), the

better employees’ CSSE would be. They also agreed employees’ openness to

experience and service experience (the two personal resources), the better

employees’ perceived CSSE would be. Some of the managers’ responses are

discussed in subsequent sections.

7.2.1 The People “P” Elements of the Services Marketing Mix

Training

All of the interviewees agreed that the greater the service employee’s assessment of

the level of training, the greater their perceived CSSE. They highlighted that service

employees who attended service training programs, such ‘Certified Service

Professional’ (mindset and skills program), service values, service recovery, service

protocol and product knowledge, were more confident about their ability to serve

their customers. Indeed, some emphasised the importance of training for their

service employees:

The key word is not just receiving training but receiving training that add value i.e.

relevant training. We are moving away from just theoretical training, but to more

practical and hands-on training with scenario-based, case studies, role plays training.

225

(Vice President, Service Quality of a bank)

It depends on how practical the training is. If the training is really customized and

tailored to their real service context and daily cases, and they can see how relevant

the programs are to their area of work, it will help them appreciate the training

better.

(Director, Service Quality of an education institution)

Overall, the managers felt the training they provided had increased service

employees’ confidence to serve. They were interested to explore the ‘what else’ in

training. One of the interviewees explored the possibility of incorporating the

successes and failures of their service delivery to build a database of service cases

into their current training programs. Some of the interviewees felt they would plan

for bigger training budgets in the future.

Team Support from Co-workers

All of the managers acknowledged the importance of team support from co-workers.

They agreed that the more positive service employees’ assessments of the level of

support they received from their team members the better would be their perceived

CSSE. The managers agreed that service employees in large organisations, whose

co-workers provided them with timely information would be more confident when

they answered customers’ queries in the service encounter:

Of course, if the service staff have good support from their peers and colleagues

whom they can refer to and call upon, it will help them. If they encounter queries,

they may need more information, the team is always a resource to check with. This

will increase their confidence when they meet with any customers’ queries.


They also added that more could be done to connect and bond co-workers and build

better teamwork. One interviewee commented:

226

I think for us this is a very valid point. One of the criteria that we rate our staff is

whether they are effective team players. In the retail environment, when we serve

our customers, it is not a one person job. For example, if customer enquires about

different products and the staff is not very experienced, she can consult the

pharmacist in the outlet. Sometimes, it is a team recommendation to the customer’s

needs.

(Training Manager of a healthcare organisation)

Overall, the managers indicated that the greater the team support from co-workers

the greater would be service employees’ confidence to deliver service quality. They

acknowledged the need to breakdown silos in the team and to raise the awareness

about the importance of team support in service environments.


All of the managers recognised the importance of customer organisational

socialisation, as two managers commented:

When the customers come to our centre and they are more oriented and equipped

with information, it will improve customers and service staff interaction and the overall

service experience.

(Assistant Director of a government agency)

On our website, we educate our customers on the different avenues they can get their

requests done and the steps involved. When the customers approach our staff or call

them, the staff will not have the difficulty to explain the steps which the customers are

clueless about. The customers can also better understand what our staff are telling

them.

(Senior Training Manager of a utility organisation)

Customers were informed about products and promotions through advertisements,

magazines, brochures, e-newsletters, website and seminars. The managers showed

great interest in the relationship between customer organisational socialisation and

227

service employees’ perceived CSSE as they expressed it was an opportunity which

they could further work to improve on their communication to their customers.

Some interviewees felt more could be done to inform the various customer

segments about the expected behaviours for an effective service encounter, with

one commenting:

The awareness of how customer organisational socialization can help is still very low. I

find that for some segments of customers, we need to communicate our expectations

to this group of customers who are not funding their accounts. This group of customers

need to be communicated of our expectations.

My communication should be you have to fund your accounts to enjoy the suite of

services. They are coming back to show unruly behaviours but they are not funding

their accounts. Such behaviours affect my frontline staff. When the service staff see

this group of customers, they run away, ‘freeze’ or just give in to waive everything and

the service fees. These are signs of low customer service self-efficacy right?


The managers welcomed the opportunity to use this information to assist them in

improving the ways to orientate their customers to better assist front-line staff in

their service delivery. Some interviewees recognised a need to review their existing

ways to communicate to their customers about their expectations and desired

behaviours in the service encounter.

7.2.2 Personal Resources


All of the managers recognised the value of having service employees who were

open to new ideas and experiences and who would explore different ways to

“delight” their customers. They acknowledged the relationship whereby the greater

228

the service employee’s assessment of the level of openness to experience, the

greater their perceived CSSE:

For staff with higher service quality rating, they are generally those who are more open

to new product knowledge, more open to be trained, more keen to go for training.

Thus, they have a greater level of confidence. They are able to do a better job.


On the contrary, service employees who were closed to new experiences, were likely

to just say ‘no’ or ‘it cannot be done’ to their customers without trying:

This is something we are working on. We also realized many of our staff have their

‘set’ ways to do things. For those who avoid learning and are closed-minded, we

observe recurring complaints on them too. I guess openness to learning, improving

and understanding their customers, will help the staff to be a better service provider.


The interviewees agreed management should explore ways to help staff be more

open to new ways to deliver service quality to meet customers’ expectations.


The managers recognised that service employees with greater service experience

were generally more confident to serve. They felt this occurred because their

product knowledge, their comfort with hands-on customer interactions and their

experience in handling difficult situations meant they were not fearful of being

scolded by their customers:

With many years of service experience, it will help as the service staff will have a

confident and seasoned personality in front of clients instead of the young staff. The

experienced service staff are able to trouble-shoot with hands-on experience in

operation. These can be good and poor/difficult cases. These are scenarios they have

encountered before, they will know how to front these scenarios if they happen again,

without being fearful of being scolded by the customers, what answers to give and

what to do. They are more confident.

229


Especially in their product knowledge. This is very important in our area of work as

we deal with pharmaceutical products. Of course, if you have more than years of

experience in this healthcare industry, the quality of recommendations to the

customers will be better.


Interviewees felt more experienced service staff were better able to manage

customers’ expectations and demands. Thus, one of the interviewees commented

that his organisation only recruited experienced service staff. It was also suggested

that service experience positively affected CSSE only if experienced staff were also

more open to experience:

This is only true if the experienced staff is open to experience. If not, I have seen

service staff with many years of service experience, but they are very jaded, resistant

to change and closed-minded.


I have many staff with many years of service experience and they are more confident

to serve. The more experienced staff can better set and manage customers’

expectations.


The results also led the managers to explore the possibility of creating opportunities

for experienced senior staff to share with more junior colleagues. Some managers

also suggested less experienced service employees were able to make up for this

through their enthusiasm and their willingness to learn and to ask senior colleagues

for advice.

7.2.3 Organisational Resources

Role Clarity

230

All of the managers agreed greater role clarity would help service employees’ CSSE.

They accepted that it was crucial for service employees to know what they could or

could not do for their customers and when to direct issues to their management

team when they were outside their role boundary:

If the staff are not sure or confident whether to do this or that, and just give a ‘no’

response or very negative response, the service encounter will be bad. Poor

confidence projected.


A few of the managers emphasised the importance of communicating such roles

and responsibilities to their service employees to better enable them to know what

to do and how to deliver quality service. If this was not done, service staff were

likely to be demoralised:

In fact, this should be the first step. You need to have clear roles before you can plan

for training. Your training must be based on the roles. You need to have clear roles

before you can talk about cooperation between co-workers and to orientate your

customers. Define the roles of the front-liners clearly so that they know what they

know what they can do.


Unfortunately, one of the areas we are trying to work on is to better definite their job

scope. When there is unclear communication, the staff will be confused as to what to

do. It takes clear communication and clarity of the role.


These results led the managers to recognise a need to identify possible gaps that

could lead their staff to being unsure about what they were expected to deliver,

leading to poor service performance.

7.2.4 The Consequences of Customer Service Self-Efficacy (CSSE)

Perceived Service Quality and Customer Loyalty

231

All of the managers shared the same sentiments as they felt customers who received

service quality would return as repeat customers. They highlighted their

observations that confident service staff will put in more effort and perform better in

their service delivery. In return, customers who receive quality service will be more

satisfied to return as repeat customers.

There is a direct relation. Higher confidence to serve, by behaviour the staff will be

more confident, thus at the receiving end, the customer will see a high service quality.


With all the drivers in place (antecedents of CSSE research model), our customer

satisfaction rating has been more than 80% every year. This is way above other

common players. We are the number one in getting the customers’ needs for utilities

and service.

(Senior Training Manager of a utility organisation)

7.3 Conclusions

The present chapter outlined the results of a number of interviews that were

undertaken with a number of Singaporean human resource, training and service

quality managers. The interviewees were asked about the applicability of the results

to the management of their service employees. The managers were interested in the

CSSE research model and felt the study’s findings were in line with their

organisations’ experiences. They also made a number of supportive and insightful

comments and felt the findings provided then with a better understanding of their

workplaces and suggested new ways to manage a key asset (i.e., their service

employees). The next chapter discusses the study’s theoretical and managerial

contributions. The study’s limitations are also outline and future research directions

are suggested.

232

233

Chapter Eight: Implications, Contribution and Conclusions

8.1 Introduction

The final chapter presents the conclusions, contributions and implications of the

research findings. The first part of the chapter re-introduces the key research themes

that guided the present study. The findings about the various antecedents to

employees’ CSSE are then summarised, as is the CSSE research model. The second

part of the chapter discusses the theoretical and managerial contributions of the

study. The chapter then concludes with a discussion of the limitations of the study

and some suggested directions for future research.

First, an overview of the major findings obtained from stage one is provided,

including the estimation of the CSSE model and the qualitative findings from the

subsequent one-on-one interviews with human resource managers, training

managers and service quality managers.

8.2 A Review of the Present Study

8.2.1 Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Service Self-Efficacy

The present research study built on and extended a theoretical model of the

self-efficacy performance relationship developed by Gist and Mitchell (1992), who

suggested that self-efficacy is determined by information cues. They classified these

cues as coming from an assessment of their personal and situational resources and

constraints, an analysis of task requirements and an attributional analysis of their

234

experience. The antecedents in the present study’s model were drawn from these

cues (which were termed the situational resources of the People “P” of the services

marketing mix) that service employees use to develop their CSSE. The people “P” of

the service marketing mix impacts on the service employee, the focal customer, and

other customers who are involved in the service encounter (Booms and Bitner 1981).

Consistent with the tenets of human resource development theory, which suggests

employee development is associated with beneficial outcomes, the impact the

people “P” of the services marketing mix had on service employees’ CSSE in

delivering service quality was examined. The people “P” in this case included:

1. The organisation’s recruitment and selection criteria.

2. The organisation’s training program.

3. The organisation’s ways of rewarding of service employees for customer

service excellence.

4. The supervisory support provided to service employees.

5. The support co-workers provided to service employees.

6. The support other departments provided to service employees.

7. The ways customers are educated about the organisation.

8. The ways customers are socialised into their relationship with the

organisation.

235

9. The ways in which customers are encouraged to provide feedback about the

service they receive from the organisation.

The relationships between the “P” elements of the services marketing mix and

employees’ CSSE had not been empirically tested prior to the present study. In

particular, no prior empirical study had investigated the impact of these antecedents

on self-efficacy from a service employee’s perspective. The premise of the study was

that the people “P” elements not only influenced customers, but based on the

shared service environment in which the service is delivered, also influenced service

employees’ perceived CSSE.

The study had several important research findings. The initial analysis found high

correlations between service employees’ assessments of some of the people “P”

elements of the services marketing mix and their perceived CSSE. These people “P”

variables included service employee recruitment and selection criteria, training,

rewards for service excellence, immediate supervisor support, team support from

co-workers and other department support. A high correlation was also found

between some of the “P” elements of the services marketing mix that were related

to customers (i.e., customer education, customer organisational socialisation, and

encouragement of customer feedback) and employees’ perceived CSSE. Finding

empirical support for the role the resources directed at the service employees and

customers play provides important information about the ways in which service

employees’ CSSE is developed.

236

Perceived customer service self-efficacy was correlated with performance as prior

research suggested (e.g., Bandura and Cervone 1983, Stajkovic and Luthans 1998b).

The present research found employees with positive perceived CSSE felt they

provided better quality service and that their customers were more loyal to their

employing organisation.

8.2.2 Moderators of Antecedents-CSSE Relationship

The moderating effects of role clarity, role conflict, role overload, openness to

experience, passion for service, organisational climate for service, years of service

experience and general self-efficacy were also empirically tested. The relationship

between the support provided by co-workers and customers’ organisational

socialisation and service employee CSSE was moderated by role conflict and role

overload. Service employees who experienced greater role conflict and greater role

overload seem to perceive greater stress, and thus these employees were less

influenced by the support provided by co-workers and customers’ organisational

socialisation.

8.2.3 The Customer Service Self-Efficacy (CSSE) Model

Collectively, the literature review and the qualitative and quantitative phases of the

present study led to a suggested CSSE model, which was shown in Figure 6.5.

Hierarchical regression was used to develop this parsimonious CSSE model, which

included three antecedent types:

237

1. Situational resources targeted at the employee (i.e., training), at the

work-team (i.e., team support from co-worker) and at the customer (i.e.,

customer organisational socialisation).

2. Personal resources of the service employees (i.e., openness to experience

and years of service experience).

3. Organisational resources (i.e., role clarity).

As was noted earlier, in the shared environment in which service employees and

customers interact, service employees are “boundary spanners” who have to meet

the demands of the firm and of their customers. Given the substantial costs involved

in human resources management, it is critical that services firms understand how

these antecedents can be influenced so as to improve service employees’ perceived

CSSE, as improvements in employees’ CSSE are likely to lead to better service quality

being provided and customers becoming more loyal. Ultimately, the results obtained

from this CSSE model have the potential to improve managers’ understanding of

their service employees and, hence, should enable them to develop appropriate

strategies for their staff, some of which are suggested in the subsequent sections.

8.3 The Study’s Contributions and Implications

8.3.1 Theoretical Contributions

The present research contributes to services marketing by joining a small, but

growing research effort examining self-efficacy and employees’ behaviour in services

238

marketing contexts (Hartline and Ferrell 1996, McKee 2006). The study represents a

significant shift of attention from prior research that has examined customers’

self-efficacy (e.g., customers’ efficacy beliefs about using the internet and

self-service facilities) (Beuningen et al. 2009, Hartline and Ferrell 1996, McKee 2006).

In this case, the focus was on service employees.

The research is the first to suggest and empirically test a model of the antecedents

and consequences of employees’ task-specific customer service self-efficacy (CSSE).

CSSE was defined as the extent to which service employees felt confident about their

service job skills and abilities to organise and deliver service quality (Bandura 1982,

1997). The suggested antecedents to CSSE (situational, personal and organisational

resources) provide a richer picture of the impacts different information cues, which

were outlined earlier in the present chapter, have in a service context.

The present research empirically demonstrates that the customer aspects of the

people “P” elements of the services marketing mix (i.e., customers’ organisational

socialisation) also influence service employees’ CSSE. The relationship between this

dimension of the marketing mix, CSSE and service quality has not been previously

examined. Researchers have long suggested customers can be seen as organisational

resources or even as partial employees (Kelley et al. 1992, 1990, Mills and Morris

1986) and this idea has gained considerable traction in recent years as researchers

examine co-production and the co-creation of value (Bendapudi and Leone 2003,

Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004, Vargo and Lusch 2004). The present study found

customers’ organisational socialisation also impacts on service employees’ perceived

CSSE. The study offers the first empirical evidence that situational resources that are

239

targeted at customers are important antecedents to service employees’ perceived

CSSE.

The current project also extended this services marketing research stream by testing

the moderating effects that a number of role stressors (role conflict and role

overload) have on the relationships between the people “P” elements of co-worker

support and customers’ organisational socialisation and service employees’

perceived CSSE. These relationships are much less pronounced when role overload

and role conflict are high, although they are positive relationships whether the role

stressors are high or low. The importance of these moderators arises from their

abilities to enhance our understanding of the relationship between the antecedent

constructs (i.e., resources directed at the service employees and customers) and

employees’ perceived CSSE.

This is also one of the few studies that examined service employees’ views. Most

data have been collected from customers and have not explored the factors that

impact on service delivery from an employee’s perspective. Service employees have

boundary-spanning roles and directly interact with customers, generating

transactions and responding to requests. The 451 boundary-spanning people who

were respondents in the present study were employed in a wide spectrum of the

service sector, including in banks, leisure activity providers, retailers, not-for-profit

organisations, educational institutions, government agencies, and health care

providers. Their boundary-spanning roles are important to the success of their

organisations, as they are the interface between these organisations and their

customers (Schneider and Bowen 1985).

240

8.3.2 Managerial Implications

The study’s applicability was affirmed in the personal interviews that were

undertaken with human resource managers, training managers and service quality

manager during stage three. All of the managers recognised that service employees

who interact with customers are key elements in the service delivery process (Bitner

et al. 1990, Schneider et al. 1998). It is important that managers do not wait for

service employees to feel unmotivated or disengaged before taking corrective

measures. The study suggests that they need to find ways to increase service

employees’ CSSE, as self-efficacious employees are likely to serve customers more

effectively.

However, attempts to influence service employees’ CSSE are only feasible when

managers are aware of what drives employees’ CSSE. Once managers become aware

of the antecedents and consequences of the resources-CSSE-performance

relationship, they can better motivate their service employees to deliver quality

service, providing a more productive environment in which to drive service quality.

In general:

1. At a situational level, managers can provide appropriate training to their

service staff, encourage greater team support and socialise customers about

organisational norms and practices, as these activities will increase

employees’ confidence in delivering service quality.

241

2. At a personal level, managers can explore ways to encourage service

employees’ to become open to new experience and leverage their service

staff’s experience as a way to coach younger staff.

3. At an organisational level, managers can communicate their expectations and

employees’ roles, as this will increase role clarity, which will improve

employee’s perceived CSSE.

The present research found customers’ organisational socialisation has an impact on

service employees’ perceived CSSE. Managers need to socialise their customers,

perhaps by managing customers’ expectations about their service encounters. The

process of customer organisational socialisation can be used to improve the ways in

which customers can contribute to their service encounters, which will improve the

service employees’ emotional well-being (Hochschild 1983, Kelley et al. 1992).

Through such socialisation efforts, customers are likely to be more willing to provide

resources to the service delivery process, thus impacting positively on service

employees’ CSSE.

The present study further contributed to our understanding of these relationships by

examining how role clarity impact on service employees’ CSSE. When service

employees are unsure about how they should perform their service tasks, their

confidence declines. Managers must find ways to increase service employees’ role

clarity. Singh (1993) has argued that jobs and roles should be designed and clearly

communicated to increase role clarity. Managers need to provide

boundary-spanning service employees with clear and salient information that allows

them to effectively deliver quality service.

242

Managers have a responsibility to promote service employees’ CSSE by creating a

work environment that increases CSSE and is organised around team support from

co-workers. It is further suggested that managers need to mitigate the effects of

adverse moderators, such as role conflict and role overload, as much as is practicable.

Managers need to resist the temptation to put heavier task burdens on the

shoulders of their capable service employees because doing so may negate the very

advantages that makes these employees confident and productive.

Even when they have positive CSSE beliefs, service staff who are experiencing role

overload and role conflict are not likely to perform well. Managers should be alert

for signs that employees are suffering from role overload (e.g., missing deadlines,

being late for appointments or absences from work) (Brown et al. 2005). Better

clarification of the demands that service roles place on employees by different

stakeholders (e.g., customers, other departments, supervisors and co-workers) is

likely to be beneficial. Having regular communication with service employees about

service task demands and procedures and helping them to prioritise tasks will reduce

their perceptions of overload and conflict and make them more confident of their

ability to provide good quality service.

8.4 Limitations and Directions for Future Research

As with all research, the present study is not without limitations. One limitation is

that the data for the measures were collected from the same source (i.e., from the

same set of service employees). Collecting all of the data from the same participants,

during the same time period, with the same method can cause common method

243

variance (CMV) problems. This variance, which is attributable to the measurement

method, rather than to the constructs the measures represent, can provide

alternative explanations for observed relationships between variables (Lindell and

Whitney 2001, Malhotra et al. 2006). To ameliorate any effect arising from the use of

self-reported items for the measures, Joshi’s (2010) procedures were used to check

for evidence of CMV. However, none of the original correlations were significantly

different from their CMV-adjusted counterparts, suggesting CMV biases were not

substantial in the present case. In addition, ideally the study would have been

conducted using data from both service employees and customers, such that quality

evaluations from several customers were collected for each employee. However,

collecting such data was prohibitive in the feasibility in obtaining access to the

customers.

The research took an important step by using two key research concepts (i.e.,

self-efficacy and the resources directed at service employees and customers) in the

development of the estimated service employee CSSE model. An extension of the

present research would be the inclusion of the other 2Ps of services marketing mix

(i.e., Physical evidence and Process). An assessment of the situational resources

provided by these additional services marketing mix elements would add to our

understanding of the impact they have on service employees’ CSSE and extend

understanding of the development of CSSE through employee and customer

resources. Although it has been established the 3Ps of the service marketing mix

influence a customer’s decision to purchase a service (Lovelock et al. 2007, Zeithaml

et al. 2008), the effect of the 3Ps on the service employees’ self-efficacy has not

been studied. Further, as was noted earlier, little research has examined service

244

employees’ views, which suggests there is ample scope for further research from this

viewpoint. Finally, as the present study used data from only one country (Singapore),

it could be extended and replicated in other countries (e.g., in developed and

developing countries and in different cultural contexts), as such extensions would

add to our knowledge of service employees and the roles they play in the servuction

system.

8.5 Conclusions

Prior to the present research, a comprehensive model of service employees’ CSSE

had not been suggested in the services marketing literature. The research model

developed and empirically tested in the current study moved this agenda forward,

making a significant contribution to theory and practice. The relationships between

the various antecedents and service employees’ CSSE and, consequently, between

CSSE and service quality and customer loyalty make it clear how important it is to

manage employees’ CSSE. Situational resources, such as training, support from

co-workers and customers, organisational socialisation, personal resources, such as

employees’ openness to experience, years of service experience, and organisational

resources such as role clarity cannot be overlooked, as all of these constructs

influence service employees’ CSSE. A knowledge of the resources directed at service

employees and customers can be used to improve service quality and human

resource management efforts.

245

References

Ackfeldt, Anna-Lena and Veronica Wong (2006), "The antecedents of prosocial service behaviours: an empirical investigation," Service Industries Journal, 26 (7), 727-745.

Agarwal, Ritu, V. Sambamurthy, and Ralph M. Stair (2000), "The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy: an empirical assessment," Information Systems Research, 11 (4), 418-430. Ahearne, Michael, John Mathieu, and AdamRapp (2005), "To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behaviour on customer satisfaction and performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (5), 945-955. Aijo,Toivo S. (1996), "The theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of relationship marketing: environmental factors behind the changing marketing paradigm," European Journal of Marketing, 30 (2), 8-18. Anderson, Eugene W. and Vikas Mittal (2000), "Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain," Journal of Service Research, 3 (2), 107-120. Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), "Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach," Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411–423. Anderson, Jonathan R. (2006), "Managing employees in the service sector: a literature review and conceptual development," Journal of Business and Psychology, 20 (4), 501-523. Appelbaum, Steven H. and Alan Hare (1996), "Self-efficacy as a mediator of goal setting and performance: some human resource applications," Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11 (3), 33-47. Arnold, Todd, Karen E. Flaherty, Kevin E. Voss, and John C. Mowen (2009), "Role stressors and retail performance: the role of perceived competitive climate," Journal of Retailing, 85 (2), 194-205. Arrowsmith, James and E. McGoldrick (1996), "HRM service practices: flexibility, quality and employee strategy," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7 (3), 46-62. Auh, Seigyoung, Simon J. Bell, Colin S. McLeod, and Eric Shih (2007), "Co-production and customer loyalty in financial services," Journal of Retailing, 83 (3), 359-370. Auty, Susan and George Long (1999), ‘’’Tribal warfare’ and gaps affecting internal service quality,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10 (1), 7-22.

246

Babakus, Emin and Gregory W. Boller (1992), "An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale," Journal of Business Research, 24 (3), 253-268. Babakus, Emin, Ugur Yavas, Osman M. Karatepe, and Turgay Avci (2003), "The effect of management commitment to service quality on employees' affective and performance outcomes," Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (3), 272-286. Babin, Barry J. and James S. Boles (1996), "The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance, and job satisfaction," Journal of Retailing, 73 (1), 57-75. Babin, Barry J. and James S. Boles (1998), "Employee behaviour in a service environment: a model and test of potential differences between men and women," Journal of Marketing, 62 (2), 77-91. Bagozzi, Richard P. and Gordon R. Foxall (1996), "Construct validation of a measure of adaptive-innovative cognitive styles in consumption," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13 (3), 201-213. Bagozzi, Richard P. and Lynn W. Phillips (1982), "Representing and testing organisational theories: a holistic construal," Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (3), 459-489. Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1988), "On the evaluation of structural equation models," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 411-423. Baker, Julie, Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman (1988), "The marketing impact of branch facility design," Journal of Retail Banking, 10 (2), 33-42. Baker, Julie and Michaelle Cameron (1996), "The effects of the service environment on affect and consumer perception of waiting time: an integrative review and research propositions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24 (4), 338-349. Bandura, Albert (1977), "Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change," Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215. ___ (1978), "Reflections on self-efficacy," Advances in Behavioural Research and Therapy, 1 (4), 237-269. ___ (1982), "Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency," American Psychologist, 37 (2), 122-147. ___ (1986), Social foundations of thought and action: a social-cognitive theory, Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

247

___ (1991), "Social cognitive theory of self-regulation," Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 248-287. ___ (1997), Self-efficacy: the exercise of self-control, New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company. ___ (2001), "Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective," Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. ___ (2002), "Social cognitive theory in cultural context," Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51 (2), 269-290. ___ (2006a), "Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales.," in self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, Frank Pajares and Tim Urban, Eds., Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing . ___ (2006b), "Adolescent development from an agentic perspective," in self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, Frank Pajares and Tim Urban, Eds., Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing . Bandura, Albert and Daniel Cervone (1983), "Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (5), 1017-1028 ___ (1986), "Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation," Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 38 (1), 92-113. Bandura, Albert and EA. Locke (2003), "Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited," Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (1), 87-99. Barling, Julian and Russell Beattie (1983), "Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance," Journal of Organisational Behaviour Management, 5 (1), 41-51. Barney, Jay (1991), "Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage," Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99-120. ___ (2001), "Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes," Academy of Management Review, 26 (1), 41-56. Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), "The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182. Barry, Davies, Baron Steve, and Harris Kim (1999), "Observable oral participation in the servuction system: toward a content and process model," Journal of Business Research, 44 (1), 47-53.

248

Bateson, John E. G. (1985), "Self-service consumer: an exploratory study," Journal of Retailing, 61 (3), 49-76. Batt, Rosemary (2002), "Managing customer services: human resource practices, quit rates, and sales growth," Academy of Management Executive, 45 (3), 587-597. Batt, Rosemary (2000), "Strategic segmentation in front-line services: matching customers, employees and human resource systems," International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11 (3), 540-561. Byrne Barbara M. (2004), “Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: a road less traveled”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11 (2), 272-300 Beaven, Mary H. and Dennis J. Scotti (1990), "Service-oriented thinking and its implications for the marketing mix," Journal of Services Marketing, 4 (4), 5-19. Beer, Michael, Bert Spector, Paul R. Lawrence, D. Quinn Mills, and Richard E. Walton (1984), Human resource management, New York, NY: The Free Press. Bell, Simon J., Seigyoung Auh, and Karen Smalley (2005), "Customer relationship dynamics: service quality and customer loyalty in the context of varying levels of customer expertise and switching costs," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (2), 169-183. Bell, Simon J. and Bulent Menguc (2002), "The employee-organisation relationship, organisational citizenship behaviours, and superior service quality," Journal of Retailing, 78 (2), 131-146. Bendapudi, Neeli and Leonard L. Berry (1997), "Customers' motivations for maintaining relationships with service providers," Journal of Retailing, 73 (1), 15-37. Bendapudi, Neeli and Robert P. Leone (2003), "Psychological Implications of customer participation in co-production," Journal of Marketing, 67 (1), 14-28. Bentler, Peter M. (1990), "Comparative fit indexes in structural models," Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2), 238–246. Berkley, Blair J. and Amit Gupta (1995), "Identifying the information requirements to deliver quality service," International Journal of Service Industry Management,6 (5), 16-35. Berry, Leonard L., A. Parasuraman, Valarie Zeithaml, and Dennis Adsit (1994), "Improving service quality in America: lessons learned," Academy of Management Executive, 8 (2), 32-52.


http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hsem20?open=11#vol_11

249

Bettencourt, Lance A. (1997), "Customer voluntary performance: customers as partners in service delivery," Journal of Retailing, 73 (3), 383-406. Bettencourt, Lance A. and Kevin Gwinner (1996), "Customization of the service experience: the role of the frontline employee," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7 (2), 3-20. Bettencourt, Lance A., Stephen W. Brown, and Scott B. MacKenzie (2005), "Customer-oriented boundary-spanning behaviours: test of a social exchange model of antecedents," Journal of Retailing, 81 (2), 141-157. Beuningen, Jacqueline van , Ko deRuyter, Martin Wetzels, and Sandra Streukens (2009), "Customer self-efficacy in technology-based self-service: assessing between- and within-person differences," Journal of Service Research, 11 (4), 407-428. Bipp, Tanja (2010), "What do people want from their jobs? The big five, core self-evaluations and work motivation," International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18 (1), 28-39. Bipp, Tanja, Ricarda Steinmayr, and Birgit Spinath (2008), "Personality and achievement motivation: Relationship among big five domain and facet scales, achievement goals, and intelligence " Personality and Individual Differences, 44 (7), 1454-1464. Birdi, Kamal, Chris Clegg, Malcolm Patterson, and Andrew Robinson (2008), "The impact of human resource and operational management practices on company productivity: a longitudinal study," Personnel Psychology, 61 (3), 467-501. Bishop, James W., K. Dow Scott, and Susan M. Burroughs (2000), "Support, commitment, and employee outcomes in a team environment," Journal of Management, 26 (6), 1113-1132. Bitner, Mary Jo (1990), "Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses," Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), 69-82. ___ (1992), "Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees," Journal of Marketing, 56 (2), 57-71. Bitner, Mary Jo, Bernard H. Booms, and Mary S. Tetreault (1990), "The service encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents," Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), 71-84. Bitner, Mary Jo, Bernard H. Booms, and Lois A. Mohr (1994), "Critical service encounters: the employee's viewpoint," Journal of Marketing, 58 (4), 95-106.

250

Bitner, Mary Jo, William T. Faranda, Amy R. Hubbert, and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1997), "Customer contributions and roles in service delivery," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8 (3), 193-205. Black, Dan A., Brett J. Noel, and Zheng Wang (1999), "On-the-job training, establishment size, and firm size: evidence for economies of scale in the production of human capital," Southern Economic Journal, 66 (1), 82-100. Bong, Mimi and Einar M. Skaalvik (2003), "Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: how different are they really?" Educational Psychology Review, 15 (1), 1-40. Booms, Bernard H. and Mary Jo Bitner (1981), "Marketing strategies and organisational structures of service firms," in Marketing of Services. James H Donnelly and William R George Eds., Chicago. IL: American Marketing Association. Boshoff, Christo and Janine Allen (2000), "The influence of selected antecedents on frontline staff's perceptions of service recovery performance," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11 (1), 63-90. Boudreaua, John W. and Sara L. Rynesa (1985), "Role of recruitment in staffing utility analysis," Journal of Applied Psychology, 70 (2), 354-366. Bowen, David E. (1986), "Managing customers as human resources in service organisations," Human Resource Management, 25 (3), 371-383. Bowen, David E. and Robert Johnston (1998), "Internal service recovery: developing a new construct," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10 (2), 118-131. Bowen, David E. and Edward E. Lawler (1992), "The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how, and when," Sloan Management Review, 33 (3), 31-39. Bowers, Michael R. and Charles L. Martin (2007), "Trading places redux: employees as customers, customers as employees," Journal of Services Marketing, 21 (2), 88-98. Bowers, Michael R., Charles L. Martin, and Alan Luker (1990), "Trading places: employees as customers, customers as employees," Journal of Services Marketing, 4 (2), 55-69. Boxall, Peter and John Purcell (2000), "Strategic human resource management: where have we come from and where should we be going?" International Journal of Management Reviews, 2 (2), 183-203. Bozionelos, Nikos (2004), "The big five of personality and work involvement," Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19 (2), 69-81.

251

Brazeal, Deborah V., Mark T. Schenkel, and Jay A. Azriel (2008), "Awakening the entrepreneurial spirit: exploring the relationship between organisational factors and perceptions of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and desirability in a corporate setting," New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 11 (1), 9-26. Brockner, Joel (1979), "The effects of self-esteem, success–failure, and self-consciousness on task performance," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (10), 1732-1741. Brockner, Joel and John Guare (1986), "Improving the performance of low self-esteem individuals: An attributional approach," Academy of Management Journal, 26 (4), 642-656. Brown, Steven P., EliJones, and Thomas W. Leigh (2005), "The attenuating effect of role overload on relationships linking self-efficacy and goal level to work performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (5), 972-979. Brown, Steven P. and Robert A. Peterson (1994), "The effect of effort on sales performance and job satisfaction," Journal of Marketing, 58 (2), 70-80. Burke, Ronald and Lisa Fiksenbaum (2009), "Work motivations, work outcomes, and health: passion versus addiction," Journal of Business Ethics, 84 (3), 257-263. Burton, Dawn (2002), "Consumer education and service quality: Conceptual issues and practical implications," Journal of Services Marketing, 16 (2/3), 125-142. Buvik Arnt and George John (2000) “When does vertical coordination improve industrial purchasing relationships?” Journal of Marketing, 64 (4), 52-64. Campion, Michael A., Gina J. Medsker, and Catherine A. Higgs (1993), "Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups," Personnel Psychology, 46 (4), 823-847. Caprara, Gian Vittorio, Claudio Barbaranelli, Laura Borgogni, and Marco Perugini (1993), "The “big five questionnaire”: A new questionnaire to assess the five factor model," Personality and Individual Differences, 15 (3), 281-288. Carmen, James M. and Eric Langeard (1980), "Growth strategies for service firms," Strategic Management Journal 1(1), 7-22. Cervone, Daniel (1997), "Social-cognitive mechanisms and personality coherence: Self-knowledge, situational beliefs, and cross-situational coherence in perceived self-efficacy," Psychological Science, 8 (1), 43-50. ___(2000), "Thinking about self-efficacy," Behaviour Modification, 24 (1), 30-56.

252

Chan, Kimmy Wa, Chi Kin (Bennett) Yim and Simon L. K. Lam (2010), "Is customer participation in value creation a double-edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures," Journal of Marketing, 74 (May), 48-64. Charters, Steve and Simone Pettigrew (2006), "Conceptualizing product quality: The case of wine," Marketing Theory, 6 (4), 467-483. Chebat, Jean-Charles and Paul Kollias (2000), "The impact of empowerment on customer contact employees' role in service organisations," Journal of Service Research, 3 (1), 66-81. Chen, Gilad and Paul D. Bliese (2002), "The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity," Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 549–556. Chen, Gilad, Stanley M. Gully, and Dov Eden (2004), "General self-efficacy and self-esteem: toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-evaluations," Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 25 (3), 375-395. Chen, Gilad, Stanley M. Gully, and Dov Eden (2001), "Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale," Organisational Research Methods, 4 (1), 62-83. Chen, Gilad, Stanley M. Gully, Jon-Andrew Whiteman, and Robert N. Kilcullen (2000), "Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (6), 835-847. Chena, Fang-Yuan and Yu-Hern Chang (2005), "Examining airline service quality from a process perspective," Journal of Air Transport Management, 11 (2), 79-87. Churchill, Gilbert A., Neil M. Ford, Steven Hartley, and Orville C. Walker Jr (1985), "The determinants of salesperson performance: a meta-analysis.," Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (1), 103-118. Chwen, Sheu, Roger McHaney, and Babbar Sunil (2003), "Service process design flexibility and customer waiting time," International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23 (8), 901-917. Clark, Lee A. and David Watson (1995), "Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development," Psychological Assessment, 7 (3), 309-319. Claycomb, Cindy, Cynthia A. Lengnick-Hall, and Lawrence W. Inks (2001), "The customer as a productive resource: A pilot study and strategic implications," Journal of Business Strategies, 18 (1), 47-68.

253

Cohen, Aaron (1991), "Career stage as a moderator of the relationships between organisational commitment and its outcomes: A meta-analysis," Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64 (3), 253-268. Cohen, Susan G. and Diane E. Bailey (1997), "What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite," Journal of Management, 23 (3), 239-242. Compeau, Deborah R. and Christopher A. Higgins (1995), "Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills," Information Systems Research, 6 (2), 118-143. Conger, Jay A. and Rabindra N. Kanungo (1988), "The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice," Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), 471-482. Constantinides, Efthymios (2006), "The marketing mix revisited: towards the 21st century marketing," Journal of Marketing Management, 22 (3/4), 407-438. Cordes, Cynthia L. and Thomas W. Dougherty (1993), "A review and an integration of research on job burnout," Academy of Management Review, 18 (4), 621-656. Costa, Paul T. Jr and Robert R. McCrae (1995), "Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory," Journal of Personality Assessment, 64 (1), 21-50. Costa, Paul T. Jr and Robert R. McCrae (1992), "Four ways five factors are basic," Personality and Individual Differences, 13 (6), 653-665. Cropanzano, Russell, Deborah E. Rupp, and Zinta S. Byrne (2003), "The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organisational citizenship behaviours," Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (1), 160-169 Dabholkar, Pratibha A. and Richard P. Bagozzi (2002), "An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors," Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (3), 184-201. Daunt, Kate L. and Lloyd C. Harris (2012) 'Exploring the forms of dysfunctional customer behaviour: a study of differences in servicescape and customer disaffection with service', Journal of Marketing Management, 28 (1/2), 129-153. Davis, Tim R. V. (1984), "The influence of the physical environment in offices," Academy of Management Review, 9 (2), 271-283. Davis, Tim R. V. (1991), "Internal service operations - strategies for increasing their effectiveness and controlling their cost," Organisational Dynamics 20 (2), 5-22.

254

De Jong, Rendel D., Mandy E.G. Van Der Velde, and Paul G.W. Jansen (2001), "Openness to experience and growth need strength as moderators between job characteristics and satisfaction," International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9 (4), 350-356. Dean, Alison M. (2004), "Links between organisational and customer variables in service delivery - Evidence, contradictions and challenges," International Journal of Service Industry Management 15 (4), 332-350. Deci, Edward L. and Richard M. Ryan (1987), "The support of autonomy and the control of behaviour," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (6), 1024-1037. Deery, Stephen, Roderick Iverson, and Janet Walsh (2002), "Work relationships in telephone call centers: understanding emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal," Journal of Management Studies, 39 (4), 471-496. Dellande, Stephanie, Mary C. Gilly, and John L. Graham (2004), "Gaining compliance and losing weight: the role of the service provider in health care services," Journal of Marketing, 68 (3), 78-91. Department of Statistics, Singapore (2008), Economy survey series: the services sector, Singapore: Singapore Department of Statistics. Department of Statistics, Singapore (2010), Yearbook of Statistics - Singapore. DeYoung, Colin G., Lena C. Quilty, and Jordan B. Peterson (2007), "Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93 (5), 880 - 896. Dick, Alan S. and Kunal Basu (1994), "Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (2), 99-113. Dietz, Joerg, S. Douglas Pugh, and Jack W. Wiley (2004), "Service climate effects on customer attitudes: an examination of boundary conditions," Academy of Management Journal, 47 (1), 81-92. Digman, John M. (1990), "Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model," Annual Review of Psychology, 41 (1), 417-436. Dixon, Andrea L. and Susan M.B. Schertzer (2005), "Bouncing back: How a salesperson optimism and self-efficacy influence attributions and behaviours following failure," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 25 (4), 361-369.

255

Donavan, D. Todd , Tom J. Brown, and John C. Mowen (2004), "Internal benefits of service-worker customer orientation: job satisfaction, commitment, and organisational citizenship behaviours," Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 128-146. Donovan, Robert J. and John R. Rossiter (1982), "Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology approach," Journal of Retailing, 58 (1), 34-57. Dvir, Taly, Dov Eden, Bruce J. Avolio, and Boas Shamir (2002), "Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment," Academy of Management Journal, 45 (4), 735-744. Earley, Christopher P. and Terri R. Lituchy (1991), "Delineating goal and efficacy effects: A test of three models," Journal of Applied Psychology 76 (1), 81-98. Eastman, Clive and John S. Marzillier (1984), "Theoretical and methodological difficulties in Bandura's self-efficacy theory," Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8 (3), 213-229. Eden, Dov (1990), Pygmalion in management: productivity as a self-fulfilling prophecy, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Eden, Dov (1988), "Pygmalion, goal sitting, and expectancy: compatible ways to boost productivity," Academy of Management Review, 13 (4), 639-652. Eden, Dov and Arie Aviram (1993), "Self-efficacy training to speed reemployment: Helping people to help themselves," Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (3), 352–360. Eden, Dov and Joseph Kinnar (1991), "Modeling galatea: boosting self-efficacy to increase volunteering," Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (6), 770-780. Eden, Dov and Yaakov Zuk (1995), "Seasickness as a self-fulfilling prophecy: raising self-efficacy to boost performance at sea," Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (5), 628-635. Eisingerich, Andreas B. and Simon J. Bell (2008), "Perceived service quality and customer trust - does enhancing customers' service knowledge matter?" Journal of Service Research, 10 (3), 256-268. Eisingerich, Andreas B. and Simon J. Bell (2006), "Relationship marketing in the financial services industry: The importance of customer education, participation and problem management for customer loyalty," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 10 (4), 86-97. Elmadag, Ayse Banu, Alexander E. Ellinger, and George R. Franke (2008), "Antecedents and consequences of frontline service employee commitment to service quality," Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16 (2), 95-110.

256

Ewing Mike and Caruana Albert (2000), “Strategic human resources effectiveness, internal marketing and performance in the public sector,” International Employment Relations Review, 5(1), 15-27.

Ewing Mike and Caruana Albert (1999), “An internal marketing approach to public sector management: The marketing and human resources interface,” International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12(1), 17-26. Farner, Steve, Fred Luthans, and Steven M. Sommer (2001), "An empirical assessment of internal customer service," Managing Service Quality, 11 (5), 350-358.

Ferris, Gerald R., Michelle M. Arthur, Howard M. Berkson, David M. Kaplan, Gloria Harrell-Cook, and Dwight D.Frink (1998), "Toward a social context theory of the human resource management-organisation effectiveness relationship," Human Resource Management Review, 8 (3), 235-264. Fichter, Courtney and John Cipolla (2010), "Role conflict, role ambiguity, job satisfaction, and burnout among financial advisors," Journal of American Academy of Business, 15 (2), 256-261. Fisher, Cynthia D. and Neal M. Ashkanasy (2000), "The emerging role of emotions in work life: an introduction " Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 21 (2), 123-129. Fisk, Raymond P., Stephen W. Brown, and Mary Jo Bitner (1993), "Tracking the evolution of the services marketing literature," Journal of Retailing, 69 (1), 61-103. Fombrun, Charles J., Noel M. Tichy, and Mary A. Devanna (1984), Strategic human resource management. New York, NY: Wiley. Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), "Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error," Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50. Forrester, Russ (2000), "Empowerment: rejuvenating a potent idea," Academy of Management Executive, 14 (3), 67-80. Frayne, Colette A. and Gary P. Latham (1987), "Application of social learning theory to employee self-management of attendance," Journal of Applied Psychology, 72 (3), 387-392. Gaines, Jeannie and John M. Jermier (1983), "Emotional exhaustion in a high-stress organisation," Academy of Management Journal, 26 (4), 567-586. García, Luis F., Anton Aluja, Óscar García, and Lara Cuevas (2005), "Is openness to experience an independent personality dimension? Convergent and discriminant validity of the openness domain and its NEO-PI-R facets," Journal of Individual Differences, 26 (3), 132-138.

257

George, William R. (1990), "Internal marketing and organisational behaviour: a partnership in developing customer-conscious employees at every level," Journal of Business Research, 20 (1), 63-70. Gist, Marilyn E. (1989), "The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among managers," Personnel Psychology 42 (4), 787-805. ___ (1987), "Self-efficacy: implications for organisational behaviour and human resource management," Academy of Management Review, 12 (3), 472-485. Gist, Marilyn E. and Terence R. Mitchell (1992), "Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability," Academy of Management Review, 17 (2), 183-211. Gist, Marilyn E., Catherine Schwoerer, and Benson Rosen (1989), "Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training," Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (6), 884-891. Gist, Marilyn E., Cynthia Kay Stevens, and Anna G. Bavetta (1991), "Effects of self-efficacy and post-training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills," Personnel Psychology, 44 (4), 837-861. Goldberg, Lewis R. (1992), "The development of markers for the big-five factor structure," Psychological Assessment, 4 (1), 26-42. Goodwin, Cathy (1988), "I can do it myself: training the service consumer to contribute to service productivity," Journal of Services Marketing 2(4), 71-78. Gosling, Samuel D., Peter J. Rentfrow, and William B. Jr. Swann (2003), "A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains," Journal of Research in Personality, 37 (6), 504-528. Goulding, Christina (2005), "Grounded theory: ethnography and phenomenology," European Journal of Marketing, 39 (3/4), 294-308. Gouthier, Matthias and Stefan Schmid (2003), "Customers and customer relationships in service firms: the perspective of the resource-based view," Marketing Theory, 3 (1), 119-143. Gowen III, Charles R. , Kathleen L. McFadden, and William J. Tallon (2005), "On the centrality of strategic human resource management for healthcare quality results and competitive advantage," Journal of Management Development, 25 (8), 806-826. Griffin, Mark A., Malcolm G. Patterson, and Michael A. West (2001), "Job satisfaction and teamwork: the role of supervisor support," Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 22 (5), 537-550.

258

Gronroos, Christian (1984), "A service quality model and its marketing implications," European Journal of Marketing, 18 (4), 36-44. ___ (1978), "A service-orientated approach to marketing of services," European Journal of Marketing, 12 (8), 588-601. Grove, Stephen J. and Raymond P. Fisk (1997), "The impact of other customers on service experiences: a critical incident examination of “getting along”," Journal of Retailing, 73 (1), 63-85. Gubman, Ed (2004), "From engagement to passion for work: the search for the missing person," Human Resource Planning, 27 (3), 42-46.

Gudergan Siegfried, Amanda Beatson, and Ian Lings (2008), “Managing staff as an organisational resource,” Services Marketing Quarterly, 29 (4), 25-41. Guest, David E.(1997), "Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda," International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8 (3), 263-276. Guest, David E. (2001), "Human resource management: when research confronts theory," International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12 (7), 1092-1106. Gummesson, Evert (2008), "Extending the service-dominant logic: from customer centricity to balanced centricity," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 15-17. Gummesson, Evert (1994), "Service management: an evaluation and the future," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5 (1), 77-96. Gwinner, Kevin P., Mary Jo Bitner, Stephen W. Brown, and Ajith Kumar (2005), "Service customization through employee adaptiveness," Journal of Service Research, 8 (2), 131-148. Hair, Joseph F., Bill Black, Barry Babin, Rolph E. Anderson, and Ronald L. Tatham (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis (Sixth ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall. Harris, Lloyd C. and Kate L. Reynolds (2003), "The consequences of dysfunctional customer behaviour," Journal of Service Research, 6 (2), 144-161. Harris, Michael M. and John Schaubroeck (1988), "A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor rating," Personnel Psychology, 41 (2), 43-62. Hartline, Michael D. and O. C. Ferrell (1996), "The management of customer-contact service employees: An empirical investigation," Journal of Marketing, 60 (4), 52-70.

259

Hartline, Michael D. and Keith C. Jones (1996), "Employee performance cues in a hotel service environment: Influence on perceived service quality, value, and word-of-mouth intentions," Journal of Business Research, 35 (3), 207-215. Hartline, Michael D., James G. Maxham III, and Daryl O. McKee (2000), "Corridors of influence in the dissemination of customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees," Journal of Marketing, 64 (2), 35-50. Hartline, Michael D. and Tom DeWit (2004), "Individual differences among service employees: the conundrum of employee recruitment, selection, and retention," Journal of Relationship Marketing, 3 (2), 25-42. Hayes, Andrew F. (2005), “Statistical methods for communication science,” Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hayes, Andrew F., and Matthes, J. (2009), “Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations,” Behaviour Research Methods,41, 924-936. Hendry, Chris and Andrew M. Pettigrew (1990), "Human resource management: an agenda for the 1990s," The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1 (1), 17-43. Henson, Robin K. (2001), "Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: a conceptual primer on coefficient alpha," Measurement and evaluation in counselling and development, 34 (3), 177-189. Heskett, James L., Thomas O. Jones, Gary W. Loveman, Jr. Sasser, W. Earl, and Leonard A. Schlesinger (2008), "Putting the service-profit chain to work," Harvard Business Review, 86 (7/8), 118-129. Heskett, James L., Thomas O. Jones, Gary W. Loveman, W. Earl Jr Sasser, and Leonard A. Schlesinger (1994), "Putting the service-profit chain to work.," Harvard Business Review, 72 (2), 164-174. Hiltrop, Jean-Marie (1996), "The impact of human resource management on organisational performance: theory and research," European Management Journal, 14 (6), 628-637. Hines, Tony (2000), "An evaluation of two qualitative methods (focus group interviews and cognitive maps) for conducting research into entrepreneurial decision making," Qualitative Market Research, 3 (1), 7-16. Hobfoll, Stevan E. (1989), "Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress," American Psychologist, 44 (3), 513-524.

260

Hochschild, Arlie (1983), The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling.: Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hooley, Graham J. and Gordon E. Greenley (2005), "The resource underpinnings of competitive positions," Journal of Strategic Marketing, 13 (2), 93-116. Hooley, Graham J., Gordon E. Greenley, John W. Cadogan, and John Fahy (2005), "The performance impact of marketing resources," Journal of Business Research, 58 (1), 18-27. Horwitz, Frank and Mark A. Neville (1996), "Organisation design for service excellence: a review of the literature," Human Resource Management, 35 (4), 471-492. Hsieh, An-Tien, Chang-Hua Yen, and Ko-Chien Chin (2004), "Participative customers as partial employees and service provider workload," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15 (2), 187-199. Hsu, Meng-Hsiang, Teresa L. Ju, Chia-Hui Yen, and Chun-Ming Chang (2007), "Knowledge sharing behaviour in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations," International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65 (2), 153-169. Huang, Tung-Chun (2001), "The effects of linkage between business and human resource management strategies," Personnel Review, 30 (2), 132-151. Hurtz, Gregory M. and John J. Donovan (2000), "Personality and job performance: the big five revisited," Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (6), 869-879. Irving, Gregory P. and Daniel F. Coleman (2003), "The moderating effect of different forms of commitment on role ambiguity - job tension relations," Canadian Journal of Adminstrative Sciences, 20 (2), 97-106. Irwin, Julie R. and Gary H. McClelland (2001), “Misleading Heuristics for Moderated Multiple Regression Models,” Journal of Marketing Research , 38 (Feb), 100-109. James, Lawrence R. and Jeanne M. Brett (1984), "Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation," Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (2), 307-321. Jex, Steve M.and Paul D. Bliese (1999), "Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related stressors: a multilevel study," Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (3), 349-361. Johlke, Mark C.and Dale F. Duhan (2000), "Supervisor communication practices and service employee job outcomes," Journal of Service Research, 3 (2), 154-165.

261

Johnson, Jeff W. (1996), "Linking employee perceptions of service climate to customer satisfaction," Personnel Psychology, 49 (4), 831-851. Jones, Gareth R. (1986), "Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to organisations," Academy of Management Journal, 29 (2), 262-279. Jong, Ad de, Ko de Ruyter, and Jos Lemmink (2004), "Antecedents and consequences of the service climate in boundary-spanning self-managing service teams," Journal of Marketing, 68 (2), 18-35. Jong, Ad de, Ko de Ruyter, and Martin Wetzels (2006), "Linking employee confidence to performance: a study of self-managing service teams," Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (4), 576-587. Judge, Timothy A., Amir Erez, and Joyce E. Bono (1998), "The power of being positive: the relation between positive self-concept and job performance," Human Performance, 11 (2/3), 167-187. Judge, Timothy A., Amir Erez, Joyce E. Bono, and Carl J. Thoresen (2002), "Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct?," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (3), 693-710. Kaiser, Henry F. (1958), "The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis," Psychometrika 23 (3), 187-200. Kamakura, Wagner A., Vikas Mittal, Fernando De Rosa, and José Afonso Mazzon (2002), "Assessing the service-profit chain," Marketing Science, 21 (3), 294-317. Kark, Ronit, Boas Shamir, and Gilad Chen (2003), "The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment and dependency," Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2), 246-255. Kasper, Hans (2002), "Culture and leadership in market-oriented service organisations," European Journal of Marketing, 36 (9/10), 1047-1057. Kelley, Scott W., James H. Donnelly, and Steven J. Skinner (1990), "Customer participation in service production and delivery," Journal of Retailing, 66 (3), 315-335. Kelley, Scott W., Steven J. Skinner, and James H. Donnelly (1992), "Organisational socialization of service customers," Journal of Business Research, 2 (3), 197-214. Kellogg, Deborah L., William E. Youngdahl, and David E. Bowen (1997), " On the relationship between customer participation and satisfaction: two frameworks," International Journal of Service Industry Management 8(3), 206-219.

262

Kim, Hee-Woong and Young-Gul Kim (2001), "Rationalizing the customer service process," Business Process Management Journal, 7 (2), 139-156. Kline, Rex B. (2005), Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.): New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Knights, David and Darren McCabe (2003), "Governing through teamwork: reconstituting subjectivity in a call centre," Journal of Management Studies, 40 (7), 1587-1619. Kotler, Phillip (1994), Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation and control (8thed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kraiger, Kurt (2003), "Perspectives on training and development," in Handbook of Psychology, W.C., Borman and D.R. AIlgen and R.J. Klimoski, Eds., New York, NY: Wiley. Langeard E., Bateson J., Lovelock, C. and Eiglier P. (1981), “Marketing of services: new insights from consumers and managers,” Marketing Sciences Institute, Cambridge, MA, Report No. 81-104. Lee, Cynthia and Philip Bobko (1994), "Self-efficacy beliefs: comparison of five measures," Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 364–369. Lee, Haksik, Yongki Lee, and Dongkeun Yoo (2000), "The determinants of perceived service quality and its relationship with satisfaction," Journal of Services Marketing, 14 (3), 217-231. Lee, Jin Kyu and Raghav H. Rao (2009), "Task complexity and different decision criteria for online service acceptance: a comparison of two e-government compliance service domains," Decision Support Systems, 47 (4), 424-435. Leiter, Michael P. and Christina Maslach (1988), "The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and organisational commitment," Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 9(4), 297-308. Lengnick-Hall, Cynthia A., Vincentia Cindy Claycomb, and Lawrence W Inks (2000), "From recipient to contributor: examining customer roles and experienced outcomes," European Journal of Marketing, 34 (3/4), 359-383. Li, Andrew and Jessica Bagger (2008), "Role ambiguity and self-efficacy: the moderating effects of goal orientation and procedural justice," Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 73 (3), 368-375. Liao, Hui (2007), "Do it right this time: the role of employee service recovery performance in customer-perceived justice and customer loyalty after service failures," Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (2), 475–489.

263

Liao, Hui and Aichia Chuang (2007), "Transforming service employees and climate: a multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships," Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4), 1006-1019. Lindell, Michael K. and David J. Whitney (2001), "Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs," Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 114-121. Little, Marie M. and Alison M. Dean (2006), "Links between service climate, employee commitment and employees' service quality capability," Managing Service Quality, 16 (5), 460-476. Locke, Edwin A., Elizabeth Frederick, Cynthia Lee, and Philip Bobko (1984), "Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (2), 241-251. Lovelock, Christopher H. (1992), "Seeking synergy in service operations: seven things marketers need to know about service operations," European Management Journal, 10 (1), 22-29. Lovelock, Christopher H. and Jochen Wirtz (2007), Services marketing: people, technology, strategy (6thed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson International. Lovelock, Christopher H., Jochen Wirtz, and Patricia Chew (2008), Essentials of services marketing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lovelock, Christopher H., Jochen Wirtz, Tat Keh Hean, and Xiongwen Lu (2005), Services marketing in Asia: managing people, technology, and strategy (2nd ed.): Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lovelock, Christopher H. and Robert F. Young (1979), "Look to consumers to increase productivity," Harvard Business Review, 57 (3), 168-178. Lundy, Olive (1994), "From personnel management to strategic human resource management," International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5 (3), 687 – 720. Lusch, Robert F., Stephen L. Vargo, and Matthew O. Brien (2007), "Competing through service: insights from service-dominant logic," Journal of Retailing, 83 (1), 5-18. Luszczynska, Aleksandra, Urte Scholz, and Ralf Schwarzer (2005), "The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies," Journal of Psychology, 139 (5), 439-457.

264

Luthans, Fred and Alexander D. Stajkovic (1999), "Reinforce for performance: the need to go beyond pay and even rewards," Academy of Management Executive, 13 (2), 49-57. Lux, David J., Steve M. Jex, and Curtiss P. Hansen (1996), "Factors influencing employee perceptions of customer service climate," Journal of Market-Focused Management, 1 (1), 65-86. Lytle, Richard S., Peter W. Hom, and Michael P. Mokwa (1998), "SERV*OR: A managerial measure of organisational service-orientation," Journal of Retailing, 74 (4), 455-489. MacCallum, Robert C., Keith F. Widaman, Shaobo Zhang, and Sehee Hong (1999), "Sample size in factor analysis," Psychological Methods, 4 (1), 84-99. Mageau, Geneviève A. and Robert J. Vallerand (2007), "The moderating effect of passion on the relation between activity engagement and positive affect," Motivation and Emotion, 31 (4), 312-321. Malhotra, Neeru and Avinandan Mukherjee (2004), "The relative influence of organisational commitment and job satisfaction and job satisfaction on service quality of customer-contact employees in banking call centres," Journal of Services Marketing, 18 (2/3), 162-174. Malhotra, Naresh K. (2004), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation (4th ed.): Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Malhotra, Naresh K., Sung S. Kim, and Ashutosh Patil (2006), "Common method variance in IS research: a comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research," Management Science, 52 (12), 1865-1883. Maslach, Christina (1978), "The client role in staff burn-out," Journal of Social Issues, 34 (4), 111-124. Masterson, Suzanne S. (2001), "A trickle-down model of organisational justice: relating employees' and customers perceptions of and reactions to fairness," Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (4), 594-604. Mathieu, John E. and Jennifer W. Martineau (1993), "Individual and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy implications for training effectiveness," Personnel Psychology, 46 (1), 125-147. Maurer, Todd J. and Kimberly D. Andrews (2000), "Traditional, Likert and simplified measures of self-efficacy," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60 (6), 965-973.

265

Maurer, Todd J., Heather R. Pierce, and Lynn M. Shore (2002), "Perceived beneficiary of employee development activity: a three-dimensional social exchange model," Academy of Management Review, 27 (3), 432-444. Maxwell, Joseph A. (1997), Designing a qualitative study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mayer, Karl J., John T. Bowen, and Margaret R. Moulton (2003), "A proposed model of the descriptors of service process," Journal of Services Marketing, 17 (6), 621-639. Mazzarol Tim and Geoffrey N. Soutar (1999), "Sustainable competitive advantage for educational institutions: a suggested model," International Journal of Educational Management, 13 (6), 287-300. McCrae, Robert R. and Paul T. Jr Costa (1983), "Joint factors in self-reports and ratings: Neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience," Personality and Individual Differences, 4 (3), 245-255. McKee, Daryl, Christina S. Simmers, and Jane Licata (2006), "Customer self-efficacy and response to service," Journal of Service Research, 8 (3), 207-220. Mehrabian, Albert and James A. Russell (1976), "Environmental variables in consumer research," Journal of Consumer Research 3(1), 62-63. Meuter, Matthew L. and Mary Jo Bitner (1998), "Self-service technologies: extending service frameworks and identifying issues for research," in 1998 AMA Winter Educators’ Conference: Marketing Theory and Applications, D. Grewal and C. Pechmann, Eds. Chicago, IL:American Marketing Association, 12-19. Meuter, Matthew L., Mary Jo Bitner, Amy L. Ostrom, and Stephen W. Brown (2005), "Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies," Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), 61-83. Meyer, John P., Gregory P. Irving and Natalie J. Allen (1998), "Examination of the combined effects of work values and early work experiences on organisational commitment," Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 19 (1), 29-52. Miles, Matthew B. and Michael A. Huberman (1984), Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Miles, Matthew B. and Michael A. Huberman (1994), Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Mills, Peter K., Richard B. Chase, and Newton Margulies (1983), "Motivating the client/employee system as a service production strategy," Academy of Management Review, 8 (2), 301-310.

266

Mills, Peter K. and James H. Morris (1986), "Clients as "partial" employees of service organisations: role development in client participation," Academy of Management Review, 11 (4), 726-735. Mitchell, Terence R., Heidi Hopper, Denise Daniels, Jane George-Falvy, and Lawrence R. James (1994), "Predicting self-efficacy and performance during skill acquisition," Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (4), 506–517. Mone, Mark A., Douglas D. Baker, and Frank Jeffries (1995), "Predictive validity and time dependency of self-efficacy, self-esteem, personal goals and academic performance," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55 (5), 716-727. Montes, Fco. Javier Lloréns, Maria Fuentes, and Luis Miguel Molina Fernández (2003), "Quality management in banking services: an approach to employee and customer perceptions," Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 14 (3), 305-323. Morin, Sylvie, Laurette Dubé, and Jean-Charles Chebat (2007), "The role of pleasant music in servicescapes: a test of the dual model of environmental perception," Journal of Retailing, 83 (1), 115-130. Morrison, Elizabeth Wolfe (1996), "Organisation citizenship behaviour as a critical link between HRM practices and service quality," Human Resource Management, 35 (4), 493-512. Motowidlo, Stephan J., John S. Packard, and Michael R. Manning (1986), "Occupational stress its causes and consequences for job performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (4), 618-629. Ostrom, Amy L., Mary Jo Bitner, Stephen W. Brown, Kevin A. Burkhard, Michael Goul, VickiSmith-Daniels, Haluk Demirkan, and Elliot Rabinovich (2010), "Moving forward and making a difference: research priorities for the science of service," Journal of Service Research, 13 (1), 4-36. Ouschan, Robyn, Jillian Sweeney, and Lester Johnson (2006), "Customer empowerment and relationship outcomes in healthcare consultations," European Journal of Marketing, 40 (9/10), 1068-1086. Ozer, Elizabeth M.and Albert Bandura (1990), "Mechanism governing empowerment effects: A self-efficacy analysis," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 (3), 472–486. Parasuraman A., Leonard L. Berry, and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1991), "Understanding customer expectations of service," Sloan Management Review, 32 (2), 39-48. Parasuraman A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry (1985), "A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research," Journal of Marketing, 49 (4), 41-50.

267

Parish, Janet Turner, Leonard L. Berry, and Shun Yin Lam (2008), "The effect of the servicescape on service workers," Journal of Service Research, 10 (3), 220-238. Pattni Indira, Geoffrey N. Soutar, and Jane E. Klobas (2007), "The impact of a short self-management training intervention in a retail banking environment," Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18 (2), 159-178. Peccei, Riccardo and Patrice Rosenthal (2001), "Delivering customer-oriented behaviour through empowerment: An empirical test of HRM assumptions," Journal of Management Studies, 38 (6), 831-857. Peterson, Tim O. and Royalyn B. Arnn (2005), "Self-efficacy: the foundation of human performance," Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18 (2), 5-18. Phillips, Jean M. and Stanley M. Gully (1997), "Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process," Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (5), 792–802. Pillai, Rajnandini and Ethlyn A. Willaims (2004), "Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance," Journal of Organisational Change Management, 17 (2), 144-159. Poole, Michael (1990), "Human resource management in an international perspective," International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1 (1), 1-15. Prahalad, C. K. and Venkatram Ramaswamy (2004), "Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation," Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (3), 5-14. Prahalad, C. K. and Venkatram Ramaswamy (2000), "Co-opting customer competence," Harvard Business Review, 78 (1), 79-87. Preacher, Kristopher J., Rucker, Derek .D. and Hayes, Andrew F. (2007), “Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods and prescriptions,” Multivariate Behavioural Research, 41, 185-227. Quader, Mohammed Shahedul (2006), "Human resource management issues as growth barriers in professional service firm SMEs," Journal of Business and Economics, 5 (1), 77-108. QuandtRichard E. (1960), “Tests of the hypothesis that a linear regression system obeys two separate regimes,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 55 (290), 324-330. Rafiq, Mohammed and Pervaiz K. Ahmed (1995), "Using the 7Ps as a generic marketing mix an exploratory survey of UK and European marketing academics," Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 13 (9), 4-15.


http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uasa20?open=55#vol_55

268

Rammstedt, Beatrice and Oliver P. John (2007), "Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10-item short version of the Big Five inventory in English and German," Journal of Research in Personality, 41 (1), 203-212. Redman, Tomand Brian P. Mathews (1998), "Service quality and human resource management A review and research agenda," Personnel Review, 27 (1), 57-77. Regan, William J. (1963), "The service revolution," Journal of Marketing, 27 (3), 57-62. Renn, Robert W. and Donald B. Fedor (2001), "Development and field test of a feedback seeking, self-efficacy, and goal setting model of work performance," Journal of Management, 27 (5), 563. Richardson, Brian A. and Grant C. Robinson (1986), "The Impact of Internal Marketing on Customer Service in a Retail Bank," International Journal of Bank Marketing, 4 (5), 3-30. Riggs, Matt L. and Patrick A. Knight (1994), "The impact of perceived group success-failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes: a causal model," Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (5), 755-766. Riggs, Matt L., Jette Warka, Bernadette Babasa, Renee Betancourt, and Stephenie Hooker (1994), "Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54 (3), 793-802. Rizzo, John R., Robert J. House, and Sidney I. Lirtzman (1970), "Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organisations," Administrative Science Quarterly, 15 (2), 150-163. Rogg, Kirk L., David B. Schmidt, Carla Shull, and Neal Schmitt (2001), "Human resource practices, organisational climate, and customer satisfaction," Journal of Management, 27 (4), 431-449. Rotter, Julian (1966), "Generalized experiences for internal versus external control of reinforcement," Psychological Monographs, 80 (1), 1-28. Rowley Chris, John Benson, and Malcolm Warner (2004), "Towards an Asian model of human resource management? A comparative analysis of China, Japan and South Korea," International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15 (4), 917-933. Saks, Alan M. (1995), "Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment," Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (2), 211-225.

269

Salanova, Marisa, Sonia Agut, and José María Peiró (2005), "Linking organisational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate," Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (6), 1217-1227. Sawyer, Alan G. and Thomas J. Jr Page (1984), "The use of incremental goodness of fit indices in structural equation models in marketing research," Journal of Business Research, 12 (3), 297-308. Schein, Edgar H. (1968), "Organisational socialization and the process of management," Industrial Management Review, 9 (2), 1-16. Scherbaum, Charles A., Yochi Cohen-Charash, and Michael J. Kern (2006), "Measuring general self-efficacy: a comparison of three measures using item response theory," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66 (6), 1047-1063. Schlesinger, Leonard A. and James L. Heskett (1991), "Breaking the cycle of failure in services," Sloan Management Review, 32 (3), 17-28. Schlesinger, Leonard A. and Jeffrey Zornitsky (1991), "Job Satisfaction, Service Capability, and Customer Satisfaction: An Examination of Linkages and Management Implications," Human Resource Planning, 14 (2), 141-149. Schmit, Mark J. and Steven P. Allscheid (1995), "Employee attitudes and customer satisfaction: making theoretical and empirical connections," Personnel Psychology, 48 (3), 521-536. Schneider, Benjamin (1994), "HRM - a service perspective," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5 (1), 64-76. ___ (1980), "The service organisation: climate is crucial," Organisational Dynamics, 9 (2), 52-65. Schneider, Benjamin and David E. Bowen (1985), "Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks: replication and extension," Journal of Applied Psychology, 70 (3), 423-433. Schneider, Benjamin and David E. Bowen (1993), "The service organisation: Human resources management is crucial," Organisational Dynamics, 21 (4), 39-52. Schneider, Benjamin and David E. Bowen (1999), "Understanding customer delight and outrage," Sloan Management Review, 41 (1), 35-45. Schneider, Benjamin, Mark G. Ehrhart, David M. Mayer, Jessica L. Saltz, and Kathryn Niles-Jolly (2005), "Understanding organisation-customer links in service settings," Academy of Management Journal, 48 (6), 1017-1032.

270

Schneider, Benjamin, John J. Parkington, and Virginia M. Buxton (1980), "Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks," Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (2), 252-267. Schneider, Benjamin, Susan S. White, and Michelle C. Paul (1998), "Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: test of a causal model," Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (2), 150-163. Scholza, Urte, Benicio Gutiérrez Doña, Shonali Sud, and Ralf Schwarzer (2002), "Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries," European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18 (3), 242-251. Schultz, Don E. (2003), "Study internal marketing for better impact: new forum researches what motivates workers," Marketing News, 36 (21), 8-9. Schwab, Richard L. and Edward F. Iwanicki (1982), "Perceived role conflict, role ambiguity, and teacher burnout," Educational Administration Quarterly, 18 (1), 60-74. Schwarzer, R. and M. Jerusalem (1995), "Generalized self-efficacy scale," in Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs, J. Weinman, S. Wright and M. Johnston, Eds.: Windsor, UK. Schwoerer, Catherine E., Douglas R. May, Elaine C. Hollensbe, and Jennifer Mencl (2005), "General and specific self-efficacy in the context of a training intervention to enhance performance expectancy," Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16 (1), 111-129. Sergeant, Andrew and Stephen Frenkel (2000), "When do customer contact employees satisfy customers?" Journal of Service Research, 3 (1), 18-34. Shamir, Boas, Robert J. House, and Michael B. Arthur (1993), "The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory," Organisation Science, 4 (4), 577-594. Sharma, Neeru and Paul G. Patterson (1999), "The impact of communication effectiveness and service quality on relationship commitment in consumer, professional services," Journal of Services Marketing, 13 (2), 151-170. Shell, Duane F., Carolyn Colvin Murphy, and Roger H. Bruning (1989), "Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement," Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (1), 91-100. Shemwell, Donald J. and Ugur Yavas (1998), "Seven best practices for creating a sales culture: transitioning from an internally-focused, transaction-oriented culture to a customer-focused, sales-oriented culture," International Journal of Bank Marketing, 16 (7), 293-298.

271

Sherer, Mark and Carol H. Adams (1983), "Construct validation of the self-efficacy scale," Psychological Reports, 53, 899-902. Sherer, Mark, James E. Maddux, Blaise Mercandante, Steven Prentice-Dunn, B. Jacobs, and Ronald W. Rogers (1982), "The self-efficacy scale: construction and validation," Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671. Sheu, Chwen, Roger McHaney, and Sunil Babbar (2003), "Service process design flexibility and customer waiting time," International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23 (7-8), 901-917. Shostack, G. Lynn (1984), "Designing services that deliver," Harvard Business Review, 62 (1), 133-139. Sierra, Jeremy J. and Shaun McQuitty (2005), "Service providers and customers: social exchange theory and service loyalty," Journal of Services Marketing, 19 (6), 392-400. Silver, William S., Terence R. Mitchell, and Marilyn E. Gist (1995), "Responses to successful and unsuccessful performance: The moderating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between performance and attributions," Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 62 (3), 286–299. Singh, Jagdip (1993), "Boundary role ambiguity: facts, determinants, and impacts," Journal of Marketing, 57 (2), 11-31. ___ (2000), "Performance productivity and quality of frontline employees in service organisations," Journal of Marketing, 64 (2), 15-34. Siu, Oi-ling, Chang-QinLu, and Paul E. Spector (2007), "Employees' well-being in greater China: the direct and moderating effects of general self-efficacy," Applied Psychology, 56 (2), 288-301. Solomon, Michael R., Carol Surprenant, John A. Czepiel, and Evelyn G. Gutman (1985), "A role theory perspective on dyadic interactions: the service encounter," Journal of Marketing, 49 (1), 99-111. Spangenberg, Eric R., Ayn E. Crowley, and Pamela W. Henderson (1996), "Improving the store environment: do olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviours?" Journal of Marketing, 60 (2), 67-80. Specht, Nina, Sina Fichtel, and Anton Meyer (2007), "Perception and attribution of employees' effort and abilities: the impact on customer encounter satisfaction," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18 (5), 534-554. Stajkovic, Alexander D. and Fred Luthans (1998b), "Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis," Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240-261.

272

Stajkovic, Alexander D. and Fred Luthans (1998a), "Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: going beyond traditional motivational and behavioural approaches," Organisational Dynamics, 26 (4), 62-74. Stamper, Christina L. and Mark C. Johlke (2003), "The impact of perceived organisational support on the relationship between boundary spanner role stress and work outcomes," Journal of Management, 29 (4), 569-588. Staples, D. Sandy, John S. Hulland, and Christopher A. Higgins (1999), "A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organisations," Organisation Science, 10 (6), 758-776. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Trijp Van (1991), "The use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8 (4), 283-299. Stewart, David W. and Prem N. Shamdasani (1990), Focus groups: theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Strauss, Anselm L. and Juliet M. Corbin (1990), Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory, procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Sureshchandar, G.S., Chandrasekharan Rajendran, and R.N. Anantharaman (2001), "A holistic model for total quality service," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12 (3/4), 378-412. Susskind, Alex M. (2000), "Efficacy and outcome expectations related to customer complaints about service experiences," Communication Research, 27 (3), 353-378. Susskind, Alex M., Carl P. Borchgrevink, and K. Michele Kacmar (2003), "Customer service providers' attitudes relating to customer service and customer satisfaction in the customer-server exchange," Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (1), 179-187. Sutton, M. Jr John, and Marijane Fall (1995), "The relationship of school climate factors to counsellor self-efficacy," Journal of Counselling and Development, 73 (3), 331-336. Swan, John E. and Richard L. Oliver (1989), "Postpurchase communications by consumers," Journal of Retailing, 65 (4), 516-533. Tax, Stephen S., Mark Colgate, and David E. Bowen (2006), "How to prevent your customers from failing," Sloan Management Review, 47 (3), 30-38. Tax, Stephen S. and Ian Stuart (1997), "Designing and implementing new services: The challenges of integrating service systems," Journal of Retailing, 73 (1), 105-134

273

Taylor, Shirley (1994), "Waiting for service: the relationship between delays and evaluations of service," Journal of Marketing, 58 (2), 56-69. Thomas, Kenneth W. and Betty A. Velthouse (1990), "Cognitive elements of empowerment: an interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation," Academy of Management Review, 15 (4), 666-681. Thoms, Peg, Keirsten S. Moore, and Kimberly S. Scott (1996), "The relationship between self-efficacy for participating in self-managed work groups and the big five personality dimensions," Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 17 (4), 349-362. Tierney, Pamela and Steven M. Farmer (2002), "Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance," Academy of Management Journal, 45 (6), 1137-1148. Truss, Catherine and Lynda Gratton (1994), "Strategic human resource management: a conceptual approach," International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5 (3), 663 – 686. Tsaur, Sheng-Hshiung and Yi-Chun Lin (2004), "Promoting service quality in tourist hotels: the role of HRM practices and service behaviour," Tourism Management, 25 (4), 471-481. Tucker, Mary L. and Anne M. McCarthy (2000), "Presentation self-efficacy: Increasing communication skills through service-learning," Journal of Managerial Issues, 13 (2), 227-244. Ulrich, Dave, Richard Halbrook, Dave Meder, Mark Stuchlik, and Steve Thorpe (1991), "Employee and customer attachment: synergies for competitive advantage," Human Resource Planning, 14 (2), 89-103. Usher, Ellen L. and Frank Pajares (2008), "Sources of self-efficacy in school: critical review of the literature and future directions," Review of Educational Research, 78 (4), 751-796. Valentine, Jeffrey C., David L. DuBois, and Harris Cooper (2004), "The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review," Educational Psychologist, 39 (2), 111-133. Vallerand, Robert J., Céline Blanchard, Geneviève A. Mageau, Richard Koestner, Catherine Ratelle, Maude Léonard, Marylène Gagné, and Josée Marsolais (2003), "Les Passions de l'Âme: On Obsessive and Harmonious Passion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (4), 756-767. Vallerand, Robert J., Sarah-Jeanne Salvy, Geneviève A. Mageau, and Andrew J. Elliot (2007), "On the role of passion in performance," Journal of Personality, 75 (3), 505-534.

274

Vancouver, Jeffrey B., Charles M. Thompson, and Amy A. Williams (2001), "The changing signs in the relationships among self-efficacy, personal goals, and performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (4), 605-620. Vargo, Stephen L. and Melissa Archpru Akaka (2009), "Service dominant logic as a foundation for service science: clarifications," Service Science, 1 (1), 32-41. Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004), "Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing," Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 1-17. Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2008), "From goods to service(s): divergences and convergences of logics " Industrial Marketing Management, 37 (3), 254-259. Verhoef, Peter C., Gerrit Antonides, and Arnoud N. De Hoog (2004), "Service encounters as a sequence of events - the importance of peak experiences," Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 53-64. Wall, Eileen A. and Leonard L. Berry (2007), "The combined effects of the physical environment and employee behaviour on customer perception of restaurant service quality," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48 (1), 59-69. Wang, Guang Ping and Richard G. Netemeyer (2002), "The effects of job autonomy, customer demandingness, and trait competitiveness on salesperson learning, self-efficacy, and performance," Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (3), 217-228. Weiner, Bernard (1985), "An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion," Psychological Review, 92 (4), 548-573. Wilk, Steffanie L. and Lisa M. Moynihan (2005), "Display rule regulators: the relationship between supervisors and worker emotional exhaustion," Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (5), 917-927. Wirtz, Jochen and John E.G. Bateson (1999), "Consumer satisfaction with services: Integrating the environment perspective in services marketing into the traditional disconfirmation paradigm," Journal of Business Research, 44 (1), 55-66. Wood, Robert E. and Albert Bandura (1989), "Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (3), 407-415. Wright, Patrick M., Benjamin B. Dunford, and Scott A. Snell (2001), "Human resources and the resource based view of the firm," Journal of Management, 27 (6), 701-721. Wright, Patrick M. and Gary C. McMahan (1992), "Theoretical Perspectives for strategic human resource management," Journal of Management, 18 (2), 295-320.

275

Wright, Patrick M. and Scott A. Snell (1998), "Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in strategic human resource management," Academy of Management Review, 23 (4), 756-772. Wright, Thomas A. and Douglas G. Bonett (1997), "The contribution of burnout to work performance," Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 18 (5), 491 - 499. Yagil, Dana and Gal Iddo (2002), "The role of organisational service climate in generating control and empowerment among workers and customers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 9 (4), 215-226. Yagil, Dana, Gil Luria, and Iddo Gal (2008), "Stressors and resources in customer service roles: exploring the relationship between core self-evaluations and burnout," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19 (5), 575-595.

Yang, Ching-Chow (2006), "The impact of human resource management practices on the implementation of total quality management: an empirical study on high-tech firms," TQM Magazine, 18 (2), 162-173.

Yeo, Gillian B. and Andrew Neal (2006), "An examination of the dynamic relationship between self-efficacy and performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity," Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (5), 1088-1101. Yi, Youjae and Taeshik Gong (2008), "The electronic service quality model: the moderating effect of customer self-efficacy," Psychology and Marketing, 25 (7), 587-601.

Yi, Youjae, Rajan Nataraajan, and Taeshik Gong (2010), "Customer participation and citizenship behavioural influences on employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intention," Journal of Business Research, 64 (1), 87-95.

Yin, Robert K. (1994), Case study research: design and methods (2nd ed.).London: Sage Publications. Yoon, Mahn Hee, Sharon E. Beatty, and Jaebeom Suh (2001), "The effect of work climate on critical employee and customer outcomes: An employee-level analysis," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12 (5), 500-521. Yun, Seokhwa, Riki Takeuchi, and Wei Liu (2007), "Employee self-enhancement motives and job performance behaviours: investigating the moderating effects of employee role ambiguity and managerial perceptions of employee commitment," Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (3), 745-756. Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988), "Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence," Journal of Marketing, 52 (3), 2-22.

Zeithaml, Valarie A., Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman (1996), "The behavioural consequences of service quality," Journal of Marketing, 60 (2), 31-52.

276

Zeithaml, Valarie A., Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman (1988), "Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality," Journal of Marketing, 52 (2), 35-48.

Zeithaml, Valarie A., Mary Jo Bitner, and Dwayne D. Gremier (2008), Services marketing: integrating customer focus across the firm (5thed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Zhao, Xin Yuan, Li-Shan Eva Tao, and Anna S. Mattila (2008), "The role of post-training self-efficacy in customers' use of self-service technologies," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19 (4), 492-505.

277

Appendices

Abbreviations

Construct Abbreviation

Customer Service Self-Efficacy CSSE

Recruitment & Selection Criteria P1

Training P2

Rewarding For Customer Service Excellence P3

Immediate Supervisor Support P4

Team Support from Coworkers P5

Other Department Support P6

Customer Education P7

Customer Organisational Socialization P8

Encouraging Customer Feedback on the Service P9

Perceived Customer Loyalty CxL

Perceived Service quality SQ

Role Clarity M1

Role Conflict M2

Role Overload M3

Openness to Experience M4

Passion for Service M5

Organisational Climate for Service M6

General Self-Efficacy M7 - GSE

278

Appendix 1A: Focus Group Consent Letter to Participants

Information Letter - Service Employees You have been invited to participate in a research project being undertaken by Ms Seow Bee Leng from the University of Western Australia. The project is for her doctoral research, which is supervised by Professor Jill Sweeney. If you have any questions relating to this study, Ms Seow can be contacted on mobile: 65-9199 5556 or [email protected]. Professor Jill Sweeney can be contact on 61 (0)8 6488 1438 or [email protected].

Project Description:

The major aim of this study is to understand how service employees come to feel confident about their job and specifically in delivering service quality. You have been invited to participate in this study because you have experience in service delivery and customer interactions.

It is expected that the focus group discussion will take about an hour. You are free at any time to withdraw consent to further participation without prejudice in any way. You need give no reason nor justification for such a decision. However, we hope and expect that you will enjoy participating in the study.

The interviews will be audio-recorded. Once transcriptions have been made, the audio records will be destroyed. No identifying information will be contained in the transcripts. All materials generated from the interview will be used only for the purposes of this research project. Thank you for participating in this research project.

_____________________________________

Jillian Sweeney

Professor of Marketing, UWA Business School

Jill Sweeney Winthrop Professor of Marketing UWA Business School (M263) University of Western Australia Crawley, WA 6009 Tel: 61 (0)8 6488 1438 Fax: 61 (0)8 6488 1004

mailto:[email protected]

279

Consent Form – Service Employee

I ______________________ (name of interviewee) have read the information provided and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in this activity, realising that I may withdraw at any time without reason and without prejudice. I understand that audio recordings of the interview will be made and I give my consent for this to occur. I agree that research data gathered for the study may be published provided my name or other identifying information is not used. I understand that all information provided is treated as strictly confidential and will not be released by the investigator unless required to by law. I have been advised as to what data are being collected, what the purpose is, and what will be done with the data upon completion of the research. _______________________ _______________________ Interviewee Date The Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Western Australia requires that all participants are informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner, in which a research project is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or, alternatively to the Secretary, Human Research Ethics Committee, Registrar’s Office, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009 (telephone number +61 8 6488-3703). All study participants will be provided with a copy of the Information Sheet and Consent Form for their personal records.

280

Appendix 1B: Focus Group Guide

1. Start with an open general question:

How important is service quality in your organisation?

If you were the customer, how will you grade the service you have received from the service employee of your organisation?

How confident are you in your current role to deliver service quality?

What do you think about the service delivered by your colleagues? Does it differ across employees? If so, why

What things help you feel more confidence in service?

How about your colleagues, what helps them feel more confident in delivering higher service quality?

2. Resources – Service Employees

I would like to concentrate now on things your organisation does with respect to supporting people (staff and customers) that help in developing confidence in delivering service quality.

First let’s talk about staff recruitment. What is one word/phrase that comes to your mind immediately to describe the contact service employee recruitment activities? (Projective Technique – Word Association)

What are the reasons you chose that word?

How do the situational resources affect your confidence in doing the job?

If so, why? How?

(Repeat this for all of the resources)

recruitment and selection criteria

training

rewards for service excellence

immediate supervisor support

team support from co-workers

other department support

281

3. Resources - Customers

What do you see as the customer’s role in delivering service quality in your organisation?

What can the organisation do to help the customers play their

role?(Model – what the organisation can do)

(Probe: customer education, customer organisational socialisation,

encouraging customer feedback on the service)

Use sentence completion below.

Now I want to talk about how their role affects your confidence.

On a paper, facilitator shows the participants:

“Customers can help a service staff develop confidence in his ability to

deliver service quality by …….”

Please complete the sentence.

And what about hindering the service

“Customers can hinder/stop a service staff develop confidence in his

ability to deliver service quality by …….”

Please complete the sentence.

What support do you look for from your customers? How?

If you had this support from customers, how would you benefit in your

role?

How would the customer benefit?

People ‘P’ Resources

of Customers

Service Employee’s Confidence to deliver service quality (CSSE)

282

4. Moderators

Start with a chart showing the relationship People “P” (list the items of) and service employee’s confidence to deliver service quality:

These resources enhance the service employee’s confidence in certain

circumstances. This connection (resources to confidence) will vary according

to certain conditions. I am going to suggest some to you. I have found them

in the literature or they have been mentioned in previous groups. I would like

your feedback.

These resources (P’s) help develop confidence in the service employees.

However this is more so when ….

Example: “when I am not sure about my service role,

then these resources do more to help my confidence more

than when I am sure”

What do you think about this condition?

Can you give me an example?

(repeat this for all moderators)

role clarity

role conflict

role overload

years of service experience

openness to experience

passion for service

organisational climate

general self-efficacy

Service Employee’s Confidence to deliver

service quality (CSSE)

People “P” Resources : (i) recruitment and selection criteria, training, rewards

for service excellence, immediate supervisor support, team support from co-workers, other department support

(ii) customer education, customer organizational socialization, encouraging customer feedback on the service

283

What other factors can you think of that may affect this relationship

either

positively (enhance) or negatively (reduce)?

5. Demographics Information

Demographics information of the participants was obtained using a

self-completion form. Information about age, gender, highest qualification,

total number of years of service experience, type of organisation,

employment status (full-time, part-time or contract staff), total number of

hours at service workplace per day, proportion of the day in contact with

customers were obtained

284

Appendix 2: The Qualitative Study - Focus Groups

Introduction

The objectives of the qualitative research using focus groups were to gain a better

understanding of the range of people-related organisational resource antecedents to

CSSE and moderators on the relationship between the resources directed at service

employees and customers that would evaluate the validity of the inter-relationships

between the constructs proposed by the research model. This exploratory research

allowed an in-depth validation and understanding of the proposed relationships

between the key construct of situational resources of service employees and the

customer in the servuction system, and the service employees’ CSSE. In particular,

aspects constituting people “P” resources of the customer such as customer

education and training, customer organisational socialization, encouraging customer

feedback on the service were investigated. It also developed context-specific

moderators in the servuction system where service employees and customers

interact together.

The four focus groups ranging in size from 5 to 6 service employees from the private,

public and social service sectors were conducted from 6 March to 8 May 2010. As

the participants in focus group sessions were highly involved in service delivery and

shared common experiences, the sessions generated information-rich discussion. All

focus groups took approximately an hour and half.

The structure of the focus group sessions used a funnelling approach, starting with

general questions on “what things could help make you feel more confident in

285

delivering higher service quality in your service role?”. Participants were also asked

about what could help their colleagues feel more confident in delivering higher

service quality. To focus their thinking on the discussion, some open-ended

questions on things their organisations do with respect to supporting people (staff

and customers) that help in developing confidence in delivering service quality were

asked. These items derived from literature review included recruitment and

selection criteria, training, rewards for service excellence, immediate supervisor

support, team support from co-workers, other department support. Participants

discussed how and why the above-mentioned resources affect their confidence in

delivering service quality. The facilitator then guided and narrowed the discussion on

customer-related organisational resource antecedents (i.e. customer education,

customer organisational socialization, encouraging customer feedback on the service)

to CSSE. Participants were asked to complete the following sentences (i) “Customers

can help a service staff develop confidence in his ability to deliver service quality

by …….”and (ii) “Customers can hinder/stop a service staff develop confidence in his

ability to deliver service quality by …….”. Participants also discussed the support they

look for from their customers so as to further increase their confidence in service

delivery.

Then the concept of moderators was explained with a chart showing the relationship

of the people “P” and service employee’s confidence to deliver service quality

(shown on the next page):

286

The facilitator started the discussion by highlighting the situational resources

enhance the service employee’s confidence in certain circumstances. This

connection (resources to confidence) will vary according to certain conditions:

“these resources (P’s) help develop confidence in the service employees. However,

this is more so when…..”.The facilitator suggested some examples found in the

literature (i.e. role clarity, role conflict, role overload, years of service experience,

openness to experience, passion for service, organisational climate and general

self-efficacy) and asked for the participants’ feedback. The moderators were

explained, together with examples, to draw further comments from the participants.

The focus groups were recorded and transcripts were developed. These transcripts

served as the basis for analysis in the theme interpretations. Results of these focus

groups are detailed in the following sections.

Focus Groups’ Results

Through an iterative process of data analysis described previously, several different

themes of situational resources of service employees and customers,

moderators of resources directed at service employees and customers and

CSSE relationship emerged. The following comments represented the themes.

Note: {} denotes phrase edited for clarification:

Service Employee’s Confidence to deliver

service quality

(CSSE)

People “P” Resources:

recruitment and selection criteria, training, rewards for service excellence, immediate supervisor support, team support from co-workers, other department support customer education, customer organizational socialization, encouraging customer feedback on the service

287

Resources of Service Employees as Antecedents to CSSE

The core themes of resources directed at service employees of recruitment and

selection criteria, training, rewards for service excellence, immediate supervisor

support, team support from co-workers, other department support identified in the

literature were well-supported in the focus group findings. There were general

consensus from the participants of the focus groups that the greater the service

employee’s assessment of the level of resources namely, recruitment and selection

criteria, training, rewards for service excellence, immediate supervisor support, team

support from co-workers, other department support, the greater their perceived

CSSE.

Service employees who perceived they were supported by the resource of other

service employees employed through appropriate recruitment and selection criteria

to effectively serve customers, would increase their perceived CSSE in service

delivery. In discussing factors that enhance the service employees’ confidence in

delivering service quality, a respondent said:

“You must recruit the staff in the field that they know. They have the

background of the work. So that the learning curve is shorter as they come

with some pre-knowledge”.

In recruitment interview, “it is good to give them a question based on the scenario”,

so that you would have an accurate assessment of how this recruit would perform in

his/her service role.

288

To increase service employees’ confidence to serve, training was highlighted as

essential to prepare and develop service employees' knowledge, skills, and abilities:

“You have to be knowledgeable about your work and you must have the skills

in improving. You must continue learning and have the skills in

communication”.

“Providing accurate and professional information is very important. It is

important to train the staff in relevant product knowledge and up-to-date

information of these products”.

Rewards were important to motivate the desired behaviours to provide service

excellence. Rewarding for service excellence includes “incentive programs or

competition programs that we are putting in place to encourage better customer

service”. On a monthly basis, when the staff received a complimentary letter from

customers, they would receive a letter of acknowledgement from management and

were featured in the company’s internal newsletters as a form of recognition. They

would also receive vouchers, cash prizes, performance bonus or promotion for

delivering service excellence. All these rewards for service excellence increased the

service employees’ confidence to serve.

Immediate supervisory support elicits positive emotive reactions on the service

employee which leads to stronger CSSE. Of particular importance is the willingness of

supervisors to personally demonstrate a commitment to service quality by

on-the-job coaching and role-modelling. A participant named her supervisor as “the

angel is here to help” in simple tasks, even if it was not her job. If your supervisors

were “affirming and there was not so much of criticism and discrimination, you

would feel more confident to serve”. Team support from co-workers included having

289

a “buddy system” to guide and advise each other to meet customers’ expectations.

The buddy would be a co-worker who was “friendly, approachable and willing to part

his/her knowledge”. A monthly gathering or party allowed the team members to

build rapport and promote greater network with each other in the team. Service

employees often depended on other departments to furnish them with information,

for example, details of the campaign and types of queries that they were likely to

receive. “If we had the knowledge at hand, it would be much easier to solve customer

queries”, thus being more confident to serve.

Resources of Customers as Antecedents to CSSE

When asked about how “customers can help a service staff develop confidence in his

ability to deliver service quality by …….” , a new theme of encouraging customer

feedback on the service emerged, in addition to customer education, and customer

organisational socialization.

Encouraging customers to make constructive feedback on how to improve the

service better allowed service employees to identify customers’ unmet needs and

expectations. Some related comments include the following:

“We solicit feedback from the public {customers} after service that will help us

improve our service delivery. This is one way we engage them in our value

chain”.

“For customer feedback, there are external agencies such as mystery shoppers

who we engage. They give us independent feedback. We do not take

customer feedback without a pinch of salt. There should be a balance data

from external observers as well”.

290

“Learners in training events are my customers. We obtained their feedback

through feedback forms at the end of every learner’s event. The customer’s

needs to give me feedback if what I am giving is not meeting or already

meeting his expectations”.

“I always tell them that they are my customers; I also need to know what their

real needs are. I think hearing from them, listening to them is very important“.

“If they {customers} give us credit, they reaffirm the positive actions displayed

by us {the service staff} and reinforce our confidence by telling us that we are

doing the right thing to serve them “.

Customers typically have considerable experience with the service and are a valuable

source of feedback about the service (Bettencourt 1997). Customers’ feedback on

our service also allows service employees to identify customers’ unmet needs and

expectations. Respondents claimed that participative customers, who give

constructive feedback to help improve the service, will provide the service

employees with feelings of greater control of the service thereby enabling the belief

that they are capable of meeting the customers’ expectations.

In the discussion generated, many aspects of customer training and education arose.

The education and training was conducted through “media coverage, media write-up

and over the radio” to generate customer awareness especially when there was a

new protocol or policy implemented. A participant shared they would conduct a

briefing to update customers on their new framework, roadmap and the desired

outcomes. They would give customers information and knowledge so that the

customers could cooperate with them.

291

“We need to try to get the youth {customers} into doing the things with

you...You ask questions, get the youths to think and they realize they need to

get involved. When you involve the youths, they get very confident. This will

boost confidence {my confidence in service delivery} too. From not interested

to being so excited and involved by having the youth wanting to do it. You will

know you have done the right thing in getting the youths involved”

“I expect the caregivers and family members of the dementia patients

{customers} to have a good understanding of dementia. To promote this

understanding, we encourage the caregivers to attend talks, training and

support groups. All these will boost the caregivers’ confidence in handling

dementia patients”.

“Sometimes, we have to share with the caregivers and family members of the

dementia patients {customers} our experiences in handling dementia patients.

To educate, encourage the caregivers by talks, support groups on ways to

handle the dementia folks”.

When customers were educated by the organisation on service-related offerings,

service employees believed that they could better match the customer needs to the

right services or goods. Educating customers was also said to reduce mistakes, delay

and additional steps to obtain special approval of the required tasks. Supportive

customers i.e. customers who respond to education in terms of their role/customer

participation, were thought to provide the boundary-spanning service employees

with feelings of greater control and thereby enabling the belief that they are capable

of meeting the customers’ expectations. They will work harder, display more effort

and perform better to meet customers’ expectations (Hartline et al. 2000).

Finally, customer organisational socialization provides customers with

organisationally specific behavioural guidelines. For example, a participant working

in a healthcare service firm explained how they communicate the organisation’s

policies, values and expectations of desirable customer behaviours through

292

postersand signs. Through all these organisational practices, customers gain an

appreciation of specific organisational values, gain knowledge necessary to interact

with employees and other customers (Kelley et al. 1990). The respondents believed

that when there is customer “cooperation and involvement” and the customer treats

the service employees with “respect”, then service employees’ confidence in service

delivery is enhanced as the following excerpts demonstrate:

“We require visitors to the hospital {customers} to provide identity card and

details for visiting. They also have a sign to promote courtesy and respect ‘If

you are abusive to our staff…’ in their posters”.

“From an organisational stand point, we can communicate to the passengers

{customers} desirable behaviours through posters”.

“We have a briefing to give the public and other agencies {customers} our

framework, roadmap and the outcomes we want to achieve. We give

customers information and knowledge so that the customers work with us.

The results will be more aligned to what we want. It saves a lot of time,

clarification and mistakes“.

“We need the other agencies {customers} to cooperate and provide correct

information to avoid delay in processing. If the customer misinterprets the

required information on the procurement forms, and therefore he provides

the wrong information, there will be delay and additional approval is

required”.

“We need to give the public {customers} information if there is a new protocol.

The organisation needs to provide some media coverage and write-up. Some

news, over the radio so that the public are aware... When the {service} staff

member arrives at the scene, he/she can explain to the public some key steps

before they proceed”.

“Our company sends letters to the passengers {customers} as a follow-up to

challenging service situations. Their job is to highlight to the passengers what

are the boundaries i.e. what the customer can or cannot do and the extent of

our effort {effort put in by the service employee} “.

293

“Our company can also communicate the terms and conditions, policies and

guidelines. When the customers open a banking account, they have signed the

terms and conditions. They know what are their entitlements and rights. They

will think twice of their behaviours as they have signed on the forms. It actually

modifies behaviours {according to the organisation’s norms} “.

Moderators of Resources and CSSE Relationship

These resources directed at service employees and customers enhancing the service

employee’s confidence would vary according to certain conditions. When asked

about “these resources (P’s) help develop confidence in the service employees.

However this is more so when ….” ,two new themes of openness to experience and

passion for service emerged. There was consensus among the participants on the

moderating effect of role clarity, role conflict, role overload, organisational climate

and general self-efficacy.

When service employees were not clear about their job duties and there was lack of

communication on the “checklist” of the tasks to be completed, they experienced

role ambiguity (opposite of role clarity). “If they were clear about their role, whatever

they did, they felt more confident and willing to put in extra effort”. If you were “at

the edge” with unclear duties, “it made you lack confidence to serve your

customers”.

There was consensus among the participants that service employees are expected to

“multi-task” in juggling the demands and expectations of many and differing job

requirements imposed by different parties. For example, when a customer

requested that a cash refund be given without a receipt which was contrary to our

294

policy, the service employee would feel role conflict especially when his/her

supervisor made the exception to grant customer’s demand. When service

employees had to meet the overwhelming demands e.g. “cheaper, faster, better”

and “working too long hours”, this role overload resulted in service employees who

were stressed and frustrated. A participant shared his experience: “you could not

meet the targets and yet expect to deliver. It could be a little role overload and it

affected your confidence”. In the process, they neglected the availability of resources

directed at service employees and customers which would increase their CSSE.

There was differing views on the moderating effect of years of service experience

which could have “positive and negative effect”. “The new staffs were more

enthusiastic than the older staff”. The new staff also bought in more new ideas to

increase service quality and assess the resources available more favourably. A

participant highlighted that she had a group of staff who worked many years in the

retail line and they were “cynical and selective about customers”. This resulted in

inconsistent service delivery. If they favoured the customer, they would tap on the

resources in the service workplace and deliver service quality. If they dislike the

demanding customer, they would provide the minimum service regardless of the

resources provided. The longer serving employees might also have developed

greater competence and experience in managing challenging situations. They would

be less dependent and influenced on the resources directed at service employees

and customers to enable them to deliver service quality. In contrast, some

participants viewed:

295

“the longer the years of experience, the staff were hungrier to learn new

things, were more passionate to learn new skills especially when they

value-add to their skills”.

There was consensus that service employees should “keep an open mind to new

duties and challenges” and “keep up with times”. This openness to experience was

crucial as customers were changing and technology was advancing. With greater

openness to experience, service employees would be more responsive to the

resources directed at service employees and customers in the service workplace to

enable their service delivery. The service employee trained in delivering service

quality, depended to some extent on his/her openness to the experience. One

participant highlighted “as you adjusted yourself towards being open, you realized it

bought out your confidence at work”. Openness to experience was a new theme that

emerged from the focus group discussions.

Passion for service created the heightened emotional connection to a job and

produced a motivational driver for the service employees to deliver service quality:

“the passion that drives you …… would give you the confidence”.

The passionate employees who were more engaged in their work, would appraise

the resources directed at service employees and customers in the servuction system

as more positive, thus being more susceptible to these resources than are those who

are less passionate for service. For example, “when it rained, the retail bank service

staffs were empowered to give umbrella for the customers after they finished their

transaction. There was a situation when the service staff was left with only one

umbrella. He volunteered to shelter the customers to the taxi stand. This was where

296

passion for service came in”. With passion for service, we would not have “robotic,

faked and insincere service”. Passion for service was a new theme emerged from the

focus group discussions.

Organisational climate for service was an organisation-wide involvement to “get

everyone in the organisation to be involved in the service excellence culture, all the

way from the top to the bottom management”. When service employees perceived a

strong organisational climate for service, they appraised the resources directed at

service employees and customers in the service workplace as more positive. This was

especially so when everyone in the organisation “lived and breathed service”.

General self-efficacy was related to more positive reframing, coping and seeking of

information for various difficult situations. In discussing the factors that would affect

the relationship of resources directed at service employees and customers and

service employees’ CSSE, there were consensus among the participants that the

staff’s high general self-efficacy served as a resource factor that buffer against stress

and demands in the service delivery. Service employees high in general self-efficacy

would be influenced less by resources directed at service employees and customers

in the servuction system that those low in general self-efficacy.

Conclusions

This section had described the objectives and findings of the qualitative stage of this

research study. Findings indicated that resources directed at service employees and

customers of service employees as antecedents to CSSE were supported i.e.

recruitment and selection criteria, training, rewards for service excellence,

297

immediate supervisor support, team support from co-workers, other department

support. In addition, resources directed at service employees and customers of

customers i.e. customer education, and customer organisational socialization as

antecedents to CSSE were supported. In addition, there were a new theme of

encouraging customer feedback on the service emerged from the focus group

discussions. For the discussion on the moderators of resources directed at service

employees and customers and CSSE relationship, two new themes of openness to

experience and passion for service emerged. There was consensus among the

participants on the moderating effect of role clarity, role conflict, role overload,

years of service experience, organisational climate and general self-efficacy.

298

Appendix 3A: Survey Consent Letter to Participants

Information Letter -Service Employees

You have been invited to participate in a research project being undertaken by Ms Seow Bee Leng from the University of Western Australia. The project is for her doctoral research, which is supervised by Professor Jill Sweeney. If you have any questions relating to this study, Ms Seow can be contacted on mobile: 65-9199 5556 or [email protected]. Professor Jill Sweeney can be contact on 61 (0)8 6488 1438 or [email protected].


The major aim of this study is to understand the how front line employees come to feel confident about their job and specifically in delivering service quality. You have been invited to participate in this study because you have experience in service delivery and customer interactions. It is expected that the questionnaire completion will take about ten minutes. All materials generated from the interview will be used only for the purposes of this research project. You are free at any time to withdraw consent to further participation without prejudice in any way. You need give no reason nor justification for such a decision. We hope and expect that you will enjoy participating in the study. Thank you for participating in this research project.

_____________________________________

Jillian Sweeney


Jill Sweeney Winthrop Professor of Marketing UWA Business School (M263) University of Western Australia Crawley, WA 6009 Tel: 61 (0)8 6488 1438 Fax: 61 (0)8 6488 1004


299


I ______________________ (name of participant) have read the information provided and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in this activity, realising that I may withdraw at any time without reason and without prejudice. I understand that all information provided is treated as strictly confidential and will not be released by the investigator. The only exception to this principle of confidentiality is if documents are required by law. I have been advised as to what data is being collected, what the purpose is, and what will be done with the data upon completion of the research. I agree that research data gathered for the study may be published provided my name or other identifying information is not used.

_______________________ _______________________ Participant Date

The Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Western Australia requires that all participants are informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner, in which a research project is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or, alternatively to the Secretary, Human Research Ethics Committee, Registrar’s Office, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009 (telephone number +61 8 6488-3703). All study participants will be provided with a copy of the Information Sheet and Consent Form for their personal records.

300

Appendix 3B: Survey Form

Section I

Think about your ability to do the tasks required in delivering customer service. When answering the following questions, answer in reference to your own personal work skills and ability to perform your customer service job.

Please rate how much do you agree with the statements by ticking the appropriate box number.

1 Strongly disagree

2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly

Agree

SE1 I have confidence in my ability to provide customer service

SE2 I am good at doing the things needed to deliver good customer service

SE3 When my customer service performance is good, it is due to my ability

SE4 I do not doubt my ability to deliver good customer service

SE5 I have all the skills I need to deliver good customer service

SE6 I deliver customer service better than most people in my line of work

SE7 I am an expert at my customer service job.

SE8 I am very proud of my customer service job skills and abilities

301

Think about your overall ability to perform successfully in a wide variety of tasks and situations. Please rate how much do you agree with the statements by ticking the appropriate box number.

1

Strongly disagree


Agree

GSE1 I am able to achieve most of the goals I set for myself

GSE2 I am certain I can accomplish any difficult task I face

GSE3 I think I can obtain outcomes that are important to me

GSE4 I believe I can succeed at most endeavours to which I set my mind

GSE5 I am able to successfully overcome most of the challenges I face

GSE6 I am confident I can perform many different tasks effectively

GSE7 Compared to other people, I do most tasks very well

GSE8 Even when things are tough, I perform well

Section II

Please rate how much do you agree with the statements by ticking the appropriate number box.

1 Strongly disagree


Agree

A1 My organisation has effective selection and recruitment processes in terms of finding the ‘right person for the job’

A2 My organisation emphasises service quality awareness right from the recruitment stage

302

1 Strongly disagree


Agree

A3 My organisation emphasises service quality management in its promotion and career development programs

A4 My organisation uses service work values and ethics as important criteria when selecting new employees

A5 My organisation takes steps to deepen the applicant pool to enhance employee service delivery


1

Strongly disagree


Agree

B1 I receive continued training to help me provide good service

B2 I received extensive customer service training before I come into contact with customers

B3 I receive ongoing training to help me serve customers better

B4 I am well trained to deal with customer complaints

B5 I am well trained to deal with customer problems

B6 I have received extensive training to help me deal with complaining customers

303


1 Strongly disagree


Agree

C1 If I improve the service I offer customers, I will be well rewarded

C2 The rewards I receive are typically based on customers’ evaluations of my service

C3 I am well rewarded for delivering good customer service

C4 I am well rewarded for dealing effectively with customers’ problems

C5 I am well rewarded for satisfying complaining customers

Please rate how much do you agree that your immediate supervisor …. by ticking the appropriate number box.

Supervi

1 Strongly disagree


Agree

D1 My immediate supervisor is good at the job they do

D2 My immediate supervisor helps me develop my service skills


D4 My immediate supervisor keeps me well informed

D5 My immediate supervisor encourages me to participate in important decisions

304

Considering the team in which you spend most of your working time, how much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statement?

1 Strongly disagree


Agree

E1 My team is effective in helping everyone do their service job well

E2 My team is effective in developing new team members

E3 I feel that I am an important part of my service team

E4 I very much look forward to working with my team members when I go to work

Considering the other departments in which you interact with in your service delivery, how much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statement?

1 Strongly disagree


Agree

F1 Other teams act in a responsive manner when we forward customer complaints

F2 Other teams’ knowledge helps us serve our customers better

F3 The quality of service other teams deliver to our team is good

F4 The feedback from other teams helps our team deliver good service to our customers

F5 Other teams provide us with good feedback on how to serve customers

F6 Cooperation between teams in our organisation is good

F7 Employees in other teams are helpful in solving our customers’ problems

305


1 Strongly disagree


Agree

G1 Our customers are kept well-informed about what is going on with their purchased services and products

G2 Service concepts and recommendations are explained to our customers in a meaningful way

G3 Our customers are provided with as much information as they need

G4 The pros and cons of the services we offer are well explained to our customers


1

Strongly disagree


Agree

H1 Our customers understand our organisation’s policies

H2 Our customers feel comfortable with our organisation

H3 Our customers understand the values that are important to our organisation

H4 Our customers get along with employees in our organisation

306


1 Strongl

y disagre

e

2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

I1 We make sure our customers have a good knowledge about the different services offered by our organisation

I2 Our customers feel that they can make constructive suggestions to our organisation on how to improve its service

I3 When our customers feel that they experience a problem, they let our employees know so we can improve service quality

I4 Our customers feel that they can let our employees know when they give good service

Section III

Please rate the quality of service you received in each of the following areas:

1 Strongly disagree


Agree

J1 My customers are likely to return to our firm in the future

J2 My customers are likely to recommend our firm to other people

J3 My customers are more likely to use our services than the services offered by our competitors

307

Please rate the quality of service you think the customers received in each of the following areas:

1

Strongly disagree


Agree

K1 My customers feel I give them prompt service

K2 My customers feel I am not too busy to respond to their requests

K3 My customers have confidence in the things I do for them

K4 My customers feel safe in their transactions with me

K5 My customers feel I am courteous in my interactions with them

K6 My customers feel I am able to answer their questions

K7 My customers feel they receive individual attention from me


K9 My customers feel I have their best interests at heart

K10 My customers feel I am able to understand their specific needs

Section IV

308

Please rate to what extent to which the following conditions apply to you in your customer service role.

1 Never

2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

L1* I feel certain about how much authority I have in my customer service role

L2* There are clear and planned goals and objectives for my customer service role

L3* I know what my responsibilities are in my customer service role

L4* I know exactly what is expected of me in my customer service role

L5* Explanations are clear as to what I have to do in my customer service role

Please rate to what extent to which the following conditions apply to you in your

customer service role. 1

Strongly disagree


Agree

M1 I sometimes receive service assignments without the manpower to complete it

M2 I sometimes have to bend a rule or policy in order to carry out my customer service job

M3 I sometimes receive incompatible requests about delivering customer service

M4 I deliver customer service that is accepted by some customers and not by others


M6 I am sometimes asked to work on unnecessary things in delivering customer service

309

How often do you experience each of the following feelings in your customer service delivery?

1 Never

2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

N1 The amount of work I do interferes with how well the service gets done

N2 I do not have enough help and resources to get my service job done well

N3 I do not have enough time to do my service job well

N4 I have to try to satisfy too many different people when delivering customer service

Please rate to what extent do you agree with the following statement in your customer service delivery?

1 Strongly disagree


Agree

O1 Delivering customer service allows me to live a variety of experiences

O2 The new things I discover while delivering customer service allow me to appreciate my role even more

O3 Delivering customer service allows me to live memorable experiences

O4 Delivering customer service reflects the qualities I like about myself

O5 Delivering customer service is in agreement with other activities in my life

O6 For me, delivering customer service is a passion

O7 I am completely taken by my role in delivering customer service

310

Please rate to what extent do you agree with:

1

Strongly disagree


Agree

P1 In my organisation, consistent service performance is important

P2 In my organisation, having a reputation for good service is seen as important


P4 In my organisation, our customers’ needs are important

Please rate what extent do the following conditions apply to you in your customer service job.

1 Strongly Disagree


Agree

Q1 I am open to new experiences when I am delivering customer service

Q2 I am open to complex experiences when I am delivering customer service

Q3 I am flexible in my customer service delivery

Q4 I am creative in my customer service delivery

311

Section V

Please fill in the blank or tick the appropriate number.

a. Age : ______years b. Gender : ______Female ______ Male c. Industry Sectors (1) Banking

(2) Education

(3) Government

(4) Health care

(5) Leisure

(6) Retail

(7) Non-profit organisation

(8) Voluntary welfare organisation

(9) Others (please specify)

________________

d. Employment status: (1) Full-time (32 to 40 hours/week)

(2) Part-time (16 to 31 hours/week)

(3)Contract staff

e. Your highest qualification: (1) Secondary

(2) Diploma

(3) A Level

(4) University degree


________________

f. How long have you been with your current organisation (across all positions you

have held with them)? ______ years

g. How many years of service experience have you had (that are relevant to your

current role)? ______ years

Thank You For Your Participation and Many Blessings

312

Appendix 4A: Interview Consent Letter to Participants

Information Letter -Human Resource and Training Managers

You have been invited to participate in a research project being undertaken by Ms Seow Bee Leng from the University of Western Australia. The project is for her doctoral research, which is supervised by Professor Jill Sweeney. If you have any questions relating to this study, Ms Seow can be contacted on mobile: 65-9199 5556 or [email protected]. Professor Jill Sweeney can be contact on 61 (0)8 6488 1438 or [email protected].


The major aim of this study is to propose a conceptual model to explain the antecedents and consequences of service employees’ Customer Service Self-Efficacy (CSSE) in delivering service quality. The purpose of interview is to ensure the recommendations resulting from the research study’s managerial implications will be perceived by human resource and training managers to be realistic and implementable. You have been invited to participate in this study because you have experience in human resource management and training planning. It is expected that the interview will take about an hour. All materials generated from the interview will be used only for the purposes of this research project. You are free at any time to withdraw consent to further participation without prejudice in any way. You need give no reason nor justification for such a decision. We hope and expect that you will enjoy participating in the study. Thank you for participating in this research project.

_____________________________________

Jillian Sweeney



313


I ______________________ (name of interviewee) have read the information provided and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in this activity, realising that I may withdraw at any time without reason and without prejudice. I understand that all information provided is treated as strictly confidential and will not be released by the investigator. The only exception to this principle of confidentiality is if documents are required by law. I have been advised as to what data is being collected, what the purpose is, and what will be done with the data upon completion of the research. I agree that research data gathered for the study may be published provided my name or other identifying information is not used.

_______________________ _______________________ Participant Date

The Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Western Australia requires that all participants are informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner, in which a research project is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or, alternatively to the Secretary, Human Research Ethics Committee, Registrar’s Office, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009 (telephone number +61 8 6488-3703). All study participants will be provided with a copy of the Information Sheet and Consent Form for their personal records.

314

Appendix 4B: Interview Guide for the HR Managers 1. Presenting the Results

Introduction of the results and show the Final Customer Service Self-Efficacy (CSSE) Model of antecedents and consequences

Please help us to understand our findings. This sharing is to better help us have a practical understanding.

Model of the People “P” of services marketing mix on CSSE

Situational Resources: People “P” of Service Marketing Mix

Personal:

Organizational :

Perceived CSSE

of service employee

Assessment of Situational Resources


Training


Customer Organizational Socialization

Perceived Customer

Loyalty

Role Clarity



315

2. Interview Questions

Specific Questions to confirm the research findings:

I: Situational Resources

Training We found that training affected service employees’ self-efficacy. The greater the service employee’s assessment of the level of training, the greater their perceived customer service self-efficacy. Do you think this would be true in your experience in your organisation?

Team support from co-workers We found that team support from co-workers affected service employees’ self-efficacy. The greater the service employee’s assessment of the level of support they receive from their team members, the greater their perceived customer service self-efficacy. Do you think this would be true in your experience in your organisation?

Customer organisational socialization We found that customer organisational socialization affected service employees’ self-efficacy. The greater the service employee’s assessment of the level of customer organisational socialization, the greater their perceived customer service self-efficacy. Do you think this would be true in your experience in your organisation?

Definition of Customer Organisational Socialization “means to inform customers about the activities and behaviours that are needed for an effective service encounter”.

“socializes their customers by providing information that establish

customers’ expectation, help to shape customers’ knowledge of the

firm’s expectations of them and clarify tasks and contribution”.

II: Personal Resources

Openness to experience We found that openness to experience affected service employees’ self-efficacy. The greater the service employee’s assessment of the level of openness to experience, the greater their perceived customer service self-efficacy. Do you think this would be true in your experience in your organisation?

316

Years of service experience We found that years of service experience affected service employees’ self-efficacy. The greater the service employee’s assessment of the years of service experience, the greater their perceived customer service self-efficacy. Do you think this would be true in your experience in your organisation?

III: Organisational Resources

Role clarity We found that role clarity affected service employees’ self-efficacy. The greater the service employee’s assessment of the level of role clarity, the stronger their perceived customer service self-efficacy. Do you think this would be true in your experience in your organisation?

Outcomes of Customer Service Self-Efficacy

Perceived service quality We found that the greater the service employee’s perceived customer service self-efficacy, the greater the level of perceived service quality. Do you think this would be true in your experience in your organisation?

Perceived customer loyalty We found that the greater the service employee’s perceived level of perceived service quality, the greater the level of perceived customer loyalty Do you think this would be true in your experience in your organisation?

General Questions for Managerial Applications:

How do these findings apply to your organisation in managing service employees?

How do these findings help you (or not) to better understand your

service employees in delivering service quality?

How do these findings value-add to you in planning future direction in managing the service employees?

317

3. Demographic Information a. Gender : ______Female ______ Male b. Industry Sectors (1) Banking

(2) Education

(3) Government

(4) Health care

(5) Leisure

(6) Retail

(7) Non-profit organisation

(8) Voluntary welfare organisation


________________

c. Employment duration at the current organisation: ______ years

d. Size of service employees at the current organisation: _________

318

Appendix 5: Parameter estimates using CMV adjustments

Factor Correlation

Uncorrected Correlation

CMV-adjusted Correlation

Z Value p Value

r (P1, CSSE) 0.35 0.34 0.17 0.43

r(P2, CSSE) 0.52 0.51 0.20 0.42

r (P3, CSSE) 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.50

r (P4, CSSE) 0.30 0.29 0.16 0.44

r (P5, CSSE) 0.43 0.42 0.18 0.43

r (P6, CSSE) 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.50

r (P7, CSSE) 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.50

r (P8, CSSE) 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.50

r (P9, CSSE) 0.42 0.41 0.18 0.43

r (CxL, CSSE) 0.39 0.38 0.18 0.43

r (SQ, CSSE) 0.60 0.59 0.23 0.41

r (M1, CSSE) 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.50

r (M2, CSSE) 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.44

r (M3, CSSE) 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.50

r (M4, CSSE) 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50

r (M5, CSSE) 0.43 0.42 0.18 0.43

r (M6, CSSE) 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.50

r (M7, CSSE) 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.50

r(P2, P1) 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.50

r (P3, P1) 0.49 0.48 0.20 0.42

r (P4, P1) 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.50

r (P5, P1) 0.58 0.57 0.22 0.42

r (P6, P1) 0.63 0.62 0.25 0.40

r (P7, P1) 0.54 0.53 0.21 0.42

r (P8, P1) 0.51 0.50 0.20 0.42

r (P9, P1) 0.52 0.51 0.20 0.42

r (CxL, P1) 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.50

r (SQ, P1) 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.50

319

Factor Correlation



Z Value p Value

r (M1, P1) 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.50

r (M2, P1) 0.04 0.03 0.15 0.44

r (M3, P1) -0.08 -0.09 0.15 0.44

r (M4, P1) 0.34 0.33 0.17 0.43

r (M5, P1) 0.43 0.42 0.18 0.43

r (M6, P1) 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.50

r (M7, P1) 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.50

r (P3, P2) 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.50

r (P4, P2) 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.50

r (P5, P2) 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.50

r (P6, P2) 0.54 0.53 0.21 0.42

r (P7, P2) 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.50

r (P8, P2) 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.50

r (P9, P2) 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.50

r (CxL, P2) 0.42 0.41 0.18 0.43

r (SQ, P2) 0.44 0.43 0.18 0.43

r (M1, P2) 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.50

r (M2, P2) 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.44

r (M3, P2) 0.04 0.03 0.15 0.44

r (M4, P2) 0.31 0.30 0.17 0.43

r (M5, P2) 0.32 0.31 0.17 0.43

r (M6, P2) 0.25 0.24 0.16 0.44

r (M7, P2) 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.50

r (P4, P3) 0.56 0.55 0.22 0.41

r (P5, P3) 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.50

r (P6, P3) 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.50

r (P7, P3) 0.36 0.35 0.17 0.43

r (P8, P3) 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.50

r (P9, P3) 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.50

r (CxL, P3) 0.32 0.31 0.17 0.43

320

Factor Correlation



Z Value p Value

r (SQ, P3) 0.32 0.31 0.17 0.43

r (M1, P3) 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.50

r (M2, P3) 0.11 0.10 0.15 0.44

r (M3, P3) 0.01 0.00 0.15 0.44

r (M4, P3) 0.23 0.22 0.16 0.44

r (M5, P3) 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.50

r (M6, P3) 0.21 0.20 0.16 0.44

r (M7, P3) 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.50

r (P5, P4) 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.50

r (P6, P4) 0.55 0.54 0.21 0.42

r (P7, P4) 0.39 0.38 0.18 0.43

r (P8, P4) 0.39 0.38 0.18 0.43

r (P9, P4) 0.40 0.39 0.18 0.43

r (CxL, P4) 0.36 0.35 0.17 0.43

r (SQ, P4) 0.37 0.36 0.17 0.43

r (M1, P4) 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.50

r (M2, P4) 0.04 0.03 0.15 0.44

r (M3, P4) -0.09 -0.10 0.15 0.44

r (M4, P4) 0.27 0.26 0.16 0.44

r (M5, P4) 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.50

r (M6, P4) 0.23 0.22 0.16 0.44

r (M7, P4) 0.34 0.33 0.17 0.43

r (P6, P5) 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.50

r (P7, P5) 0.57 0.56 0.22 0.41

r (P8, P5) 0.53 0.52 0.21 0.42

r (P9, P5) 0.51 0.50 0.20 0.42

r (CxL, P5) 0.52 0.51 0.20 0.42

r (SQ, P5) 0.53 0.52 0.21 0.42

r (M1, P5) 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.50

r (M2, P5) 0.08 0.07 0.15 0.44

321

Factor Correlation



Z Value p Value

r (M3, P5) -0.10 -0.11 0.15 0.44

r (M4, P5) 0.34 0.33 0.17 0.43

r (M5, P5) 0.38 0.37 0.17 0.43

r (M6, P5) 0.29 0.28 0.16 0.44

r (M7, P5) 0.38 0.37 0.17 0.43

r (P7, P6) 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.50

r (P8, P6) 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.50

r (P9, P6) 0.54 0.53 0.21 0.42

r (CxL, P6) 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.50

r (SQ, P6) 0.54 0.53 0.21 0.42

r (M1, P6) 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.50

r (M2, P6) 0.06 0.05 0.15 0.44

r (M3, P6) -0.07 -0.08 0.15 0.44

r (M4, P6) 0.29 0.28 0.16 0.44

r (M5, P6) 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.50

r (M6, P6) 0.34 0.33 0.17 0.43

r (M7, P6) 0.40 0.39 0.18 0.43

r (P8, P7) 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.50

r (P9, P7) 0.62 0.61 0.24 0.41

r (CxL, P7) 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.50

r (SQ, P7) 0.63 0.62 0.25 0.40

r (M1, P7) 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.50

r (M2, P7) 0.08 0.07 0.15 0.44

r (M3, P7) 0.00 -0.01 0.15 0.44

r (M4, P7) 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.50

r (M5, P7) 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.50

r (M6, P7) 0.37 0.36 0.17 0.43

r (M7, P7) 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.50

r (P9, P8) 0.69 0.69 0.00 0.50

r (CxL, P8) 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.50

322

Factor Correlation



Z Value p Value

r (SQ, P8) 0.60 0.59 0.23 0.41

r (M1, P8) 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.50

r (M2, P8) 0.03 0.02 0.15 0.44

r (M3, P8) -0.04 -0.05 0.15 0.44

r (M4, P8) 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.50

r (M5, P8) 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.50

r (M6, P8) 0.38 0.37 0.17 0.43

r (M7, P8) 0.42 0.41 0.18 0.43

r (CxL, P9) 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.50

r (SQ, P9) 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.50

r (M1, P9) 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.50

r (M2, P9) 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.50

r (M3, P9) 0.03 0.02 0.15 0.44

r (M4, P9) 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.50

r (M5, P9) 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.50

r (M6, P9) 0.43 0.42 0.18 0.43

r (M7, P9) 0.41 0.40 0.18 0.43

r (SQ, CxL) 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.50

r (M1, CxL) 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.50

r (M2, CxL) 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.44

r (M3, CxL) 0.01 0.00 0.15 0.44

r (M4, CxL) 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.50

r (M5, CxL) 0.49 0.48 0.20 0.42

r (M6, CxL) 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.50

r (M7, CxL) 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.50

r (M1, SQ) 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.50

r (M2, SQ) 0.24 0.23 0.16 0.44

r (M3, SQ) 0.07 0.06 0.15 0.44

r (M4, SQ) 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.50

r (M5, SQ) 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.50

323

Factor Correlation



Z Value p Value

r (M6, SQ) 0.50 0.49 0.20 0.42

r (M7, SQ) 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.50

r (M2, M1) 0.20 0.19 0.16 0.44

r (M3, M1) 0.01 0.00 0.15 0.44

r (M4, M1) 0.59 0.58 0.23 0.41

r (M5, M1) 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.50

r (M6, M1) 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.50

r (M7, M1) 0.49 0.48 0.20 0.42

r (M3, M2) 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.50

r (M4, M2) 0.30 0.29 0.16 0.44

r (M5, M2) 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.50

r (M6, M2) 0.26 0.25 0.16 0.44

r (M7, M2) 0.25 0.24 0.16 0.44

r (M4, M3) 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.44

r (M5, M3) 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.44

r (M6, M3) 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.44

r (M7, M3) 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.50

r (M5, M4) 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.50

r (M6, M4) 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.50

r (M7, M4) 0.49 0.48 0.20 0.42

r (M6, M5) 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.50

r (M7, M5) 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.50

r (M7, M6) 0.30 0.29 0.16 0.44

324

Appendix 6: Correlations of the CSSE and Situational Resources Constructs

CSSE

P1 Recruit

P2 Train

P3 Reward

P4 Supervisor

P5 Team

P6 Dept

P7 CX

Education

P8 CX

OrgSocial

P9 CX

Feedback CxL

SQ

CSSE Pearson Correlation

1 .350**

.518**

.282**

.299**

.425**

.414**

.431**

.443**

.417**

.388**

.597**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

P1 Recruit

Pearson Correlation

.350**

1 .550**

.487**

.540**

.578**

.625**

.539**

.509**

.516**

.510**

.470**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

P2 Train

Pearson Correlation

.518**

.550**

1 .569**

.493**

.533**

.539**

.482**

.451**

.461**

.415**

.438**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

P3 Reward

Pearson Correlation

.282**

.487**

.569**

1 .558**

.474**

.494**

.358**

.411**

.394**

.319**

.317**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

P4 Supervisor

Pearson Correlation

.299**

.540**

.493**

.558**

1 .632**

.547**

.386**

.390**

.397**

.356**

.366**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

P5 Team

Pearson Correlation

.425**

.578**

.533**

.474**

.632**

1 .674**

.568**

.525**

.507**

.517**

.525**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

P6 Dept

Pearson Correlation

.414**

.625**

.539**

.494**

.547**

.674**

1 .620**

.604**

.538**

.494**

.538**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

325

CSSE

P1 Recruit

P2 Train

P3 Reward

P4 Supervisor

P5 Team

P6 Dept

P7 CX

Education

P8 CX

OrgSocial

P9 CX

Feedback CxL

SQ

P7 CXEducation

Pearson Correlation

.431**

.539**

.482**

.358**

.386**

.568**

.620**

1 .671**

.615**

.580**

.626**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

P8 CXOrgSocial

Pearson Correlation

.443**

.509**

.451**

.411**

.390**

.525**

.604**

.671**

1 .691**

.582**

.598**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

P9 CXFeedback

Pearson Correlation

.417**

.516**

.461**

.394**

.397**

.507**

.538**

.615**

.691**

1 .621**

.620**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

CxL Pearson Correlation

.388**

.510**

.415**

.319**

.356**

.517**

.494**

.580**

.582**

.621**

1 .623**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

SQ Pearson Correlation

.597**

.470**

.438**

.317**

.366**

.525**

.538**

.626**

.598**

.620**

.623**

1

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

326

Appendix 7: Correlations of the CSSE and the Moderator Constructs

CSSE M1RClarity M2RConflict M3ROverload M4Openness M5Passion M6OrgClimate M7GSE YrsServiceExp

CSSE Pearson Correlation 1 .534** .190** .094* .500** .425** .282** .644** .255**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .023 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

M1RClarity Pearson Correlation .534** 1 .199** .009 .585** .630** .512** .485** .153**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .425 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

M2RConflict Pearson Correlation .190** .199** 1 .551** .299** .313** .257** .250** .070

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .069

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

M3ROverload Pearson Correlation .094* .009 .551** 1 .148** .126** .099* .074 .105*

Sig. (1-tailed) .023 .425 .000 .001 .004 .018 .059 .013

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

M4Openness Pearson Correlation .500** .585** .299** .148** 1 .718** .583** .487** .208**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

M5Passion Pearson Correlation .425** .630** .313** .126** .718** 1 .592** .454** .143**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .004 .000 .000 .000 .001

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

M6OrgClimate Pearson Correlation .282** .512** .257** .099* .583** .592** 1 .295** .106*

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .018 .000 .000 .000 .012

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

M7GSE Pearson Correlation .644** .485** .250** .074 .487** .454** .295** 1 .097*

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .059 .000 .000 .000 .020

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

YrsServiceExp Pearson Correlation .255** .153** .070 .105* .208** .143** .106* .097* 1

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .001 .069 .013 .000 .001 .012 .020

N 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

Documents

Self Efficacy - the UWA Profiles and Research Repository