"12.4.3.3qu
. 5...

71..-...
. . .

..
Lflflr‘itz

Jw

.. 3

.2, .3.

i. . 3‘7.

5.3.x?! .r . .2

«r... 1:... .. #9:»...
a.

.t. 3..
31!»...‘1.
1

I 4.. .

Frankie...“ $5.
54...?“ ...o . ”3%...

mugdiumvmumm

kfimmrm .

 

£2,455... .
,1 f“. ,

1" “till.

5.9;.

g 1 ‘ .

. nut: . 1

............r................ .45. fihva
a... .349. s

.3.

IMnfie
aha-v

 

gamma»...
. .... Wfiuffijm.
$2.?!

:69. ‘
a, ‘ .
4-3.1

.50:
iv-
‘3 4..
[car 6..."...
.33...
I... I
m
is .
. n .15... uni-1.»...ghnu
.. . 5* 5.4.95.5! ”in”.
; .;.. .«.;.uJaafl..§§. f .
o.)....:r9\x.a$.. 1 :9 :l.....s.1i¢|.£l.!a..sc «4
(an. «finrxlgkiflrx. . .
i :1. 2.. ;
I 2:...
. .........\

w
h
a ‘1 n
.- vq.) x
:3
1:.
Yr:
.0...

.161. at:
43:35.3:
2. . .
R...

 

.mpwwfiv 1.. 4......

)1

II

 

116-94.. l4
.. i. . .. 1.
u... hir
3...)...»
52.1.1.4.
1h}... 3?}. .
h .L 1’ I)?!
. . ”Flare...
. hm”!
. an: .
2....
. , €312,351)
{1...}:
3.3.4.
I.
. in...
. 2....”
. .1 .. 1.3 a...
..n.§m..wmz?. 39f . ..my‘.
.I .. a . n1. . .
2-4.3.": .., .3

(3.2.5... ...

r. N LIBRARY
‘(.~,'..f, Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

EFFECTS OF PERCEIVED SERVICE CLIMATE AND
SERVICE ROLE AMBIGUITY
ON FRONTLINE EMPLOYEES’ SERVICE ORIENTATION
IN FOODSERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS

presented by
JaeMin Cha

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Communication

 

  

./ .-
WM.

Major Wofessor’s Signature

/ z//é/Z 005'

Date

MSU is an Aflinnative Acfion/Equal Opportunity Institution

n.--—--.----.-.-.--.—....-._._. s

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:lC|RC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

EFFECTS OF PERCEIVED SERVICE CLIMATE AND
SERVICE ROLE AMBIGUITY
ON FRONTLINE EMPLOYEES’ SERVICE ORIENTATION
IN FOODSERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS
By

JaeMin Cha

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirement
For the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Communication

2005

ABSTRACT
EFFECTS OF PERCEIVED SERVICE CLIMATE AND
SERVICE ROLE AMBIGUITY
ON FRONTLINE EMPLOYEES’ SERVICE ORIENTATION
[N F OODSERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS
By
JaeMin Cha

This present Study investigated direct and indirect factors influencing service-
oriented organizational citizenship behaviors among frontline employees in the context Of
foodservice establishments. In particular, a model was developed to test for the indirect
effect of service climate, as perceived by frontline employees, on their service-oriented
organizational citizenship behaviors. Two variables - service commitment toward
customers and service role ambiguity - were expected to mediate the relationship between
service climate and service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Service role
ambiguity was proposed as a partial mediator that expected to have both direct and
indirect effect on the outcome variable. A field survey was conducted among 452
frontline employees, working in 31 different foodservice establishments. The proposed
model was specified as the individual-level analysis. A series of confirmatory factor
analyses was performed to check the construct validity of the measurement model. From
these analyses, a second-order four-factor model of service climate was found to fit the
data best. The conscious job-dedication dimension, representing one of two service-
oriented organizational citizenship behaviors, had to be deleted, since it presented a
cross-loading problem with the other two domains of the service Orientation (helping

coworkers and service commitment toward customers). Overall, the proposed path

model was partially supported, in that three of five hypothesized relationships were

supported. The findings indicated that two links — between service climate and service
role ambiguity, and between service role ambiguity and service oriented organizational
citizenship behaviors — were statistically insignificant. The revised model, deleting the
two non-significant paths, fit the data better than the initially proposed model, x2 (622) =
1236.99, p < .01, (xz/df= 1.99, CFI = .93, NNFI = .92, RMSEA = .047). The revised
model showed that effects of perceived service climate and service role ambiguity, on
service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior, were fully mediated by service
commitment toward customers. Both theoretical and practical implications, as well as

suggests directions for future research, are discussed.

Copyright by
JaeMin Cha
2005

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents JoonSang Cha and ChoonJ a Kwak for
their lifetime commitment and unconditional love. It also is dedicated to my husband,
SeungHyun Kim, for his true spiritual companionship and support, and to our beloved

daughter, SeoHee Kim, for making me smile and feel joyful.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I have been richly blessed by the enormous support and assistance of many
mentors, colleagues and family members throughout my long doctoral journey.

First and foremost, I especially thank my dissertation chair and advisor, Dr. Carl
Borchgrevink. He always has been the perfect role model of an academic, a genuine
scholar, and a gentleman. Unfailingly and unendingly he was patient, supportive, caring
and attentive to me and to other students. In addition to his persistent inspiration to
complete my Ph.D., he has modeled the high standards I intend to maintain as I teach,
guide and interact with my own students. I am honored to be the first student to receive a
Ph.D. in Communication with Graduate Specialization in Hospitality Business at
Michigan State University and to be Dr. Borchgrevink’s first doctoral student.

I also am most grateful to my committee members, who all have been remarkably
supportive. My sincere thanks to Dr. Bonnie Knutson, the member who always
encouraged me to shape my thinking well and then further refine it. Equally so, I am
indebted to committee members Dr. Tim Levine and Dr. Heesun Park for their guidance
and instruction regarding my conceptual and methodological approaches. To all these
fine professors, I offer my thanks for their patience, expertise and insightful feedback,
and for being so readily available to respond to my needs.

Dr. Jim Dearing, Dr. Sam Larson, and Dr. Ronald Cichy are other faculty
members who expressed faith in my doctoral ambition and work and supported me in
countless ways and deserve the highest praise. Professor Michael Morris, my special

mentor and friend through all my years of study at Michigan State University, deserves

vi

an especial note of thanks for his constant encouragement, support, and insistence that I
stay the course. His fine ethics and high standards of excellence inspired me to accept
challenges and demands I thought beyond my reach and to accept responsibility as an
ambassador for international students. In multiple ways, large and small, he has
empowered and facilitated the achievement of my academic and personal goals. Mere
words cannot express adequately my indebtedness for all he has done.

High praise for, and thanks to, many friends who shared so much with me and
enriched my life, especially during difficult times. Thank you especially to Chang,
Jeonghee, Jinyoung, Seoki, MinJeong, SangMin, and Soonjo for their friendship.

I also am indebted to, and extend my heartfelt thanks to, my parents and parents-
in-law: Joonsang Cha, Choonja Kwak, Sungyeol Kim, and Moonsook Kim. Others who
generously shared their homes, love and support and made my doctoral journey possible
and eventually successful are my in loco parents: MSU Trustee Emerita Barbara Sawyer-
Koch and MSU Professor Emeritus Donald Koch, and the late, dearly beloved Eleanor
Boyles, formerly of the MSU Library Service and for many years my American
housemother. And thank you to my dear husband, SeungHyun Kim, who sacrificed
endlessly while I worked on this dissertation. We began this journey together: marrying
in doctoral midstream, delivering our daughter SeoHee en route, and working on two
dissertations simultaneously. Now we have earned the first and will celebrate the second
in 2006. Also thank you to little SeoHee who, born in the middle of my Ph.D. ascent,
often must have wondered where Mama was during my many hours away from home.

Above all, I offer my humble thanks to God for these countless privileges and my

success. Thank You, Lord. Thank you, all.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
Chapter Overview ....................................................................................................... 1
Practical Background ................................................................................................... 1
Foodservice Establishments as Part of the U.S. Economy ...................................... 1
Services in Foodservice Establishments .................................................................. 2
Roles of Frontline Employees in Foodservice Establishments ................................ 4
Theoretical Background ............................................................................................... 5
Rationale of Study .................................................................................................... 6
Study Objectives ...................................................................................................... 8
Definitions of Terms for Main Constructs ............................................................... 8
Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 11
Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................... 11
Service Climate .......................................................................................................... 11
Strategic Focus ....................................................................................................... 12
Level of Theory for Service Climate ..................................................................... 13
Dimensions of Service Climate ............................................................................. 15
Service Role Ambiguity ............................................................................................. 18
Role Ambiguity and Conflicts ............................................................................... 18
Defining Service Role Ambiguity for Frontline Employees .................................. 19
Service Orientation .................................................................................................... 20
Confusion of Construct of Service Orientation ..................................................... 20

viii

Innate or Dispositional Service Orientation ........................................................... 22

Service-Oriented Attitude ...................................................................................... 23
Service-Oriented Behaviors ................................................................................... 24
Conceptual Model ...................................................................................................... 26
Highlights of the Model ......................................................................................... 27
Hypothesized Relationships ................................................................................... 29
Chapter Summary ................................................................. . ..................................... 32
CHAPTER 3
METHOD .......................................................................................................................... 33
Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................... 33
Data Collection and Procedures ................................................................................. 33
Stage 1: Interviews ................................................................................................. 33
Stage 2: Pretest ....................................................................................................... 34
Stage 3: Main Study ............................................................................................... 35
Measurements ............................................................................................................ 38
Service Climate ...................................................................................................... 39
Service Role Ambiguity ......................................................................................... 39
Service Commitment Toward Customers .............................................................. 40
Dispositional Service Orientation .......................................................................... 40
Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior ......................................... 40
Other Variables ....................................................................................................... 41
Statistical Analyses .................................................................................................... 41
Data Screening ....................................................................................................... 41
Overview of Structural Equation Modeling ........................................................... 41
Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 45
Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................... 45
Preliminary Analyses ................................................................................................. 45

ix

Testing Measurement Models .................................................................................... 46

Factor Structure of Service Climate ....................................................................... 46
Factor Structure of Service Orientation ................................................................. 50
Fatcor Structure of Service Role Ambiguity .......................................................... 54
A Full Measurement Model ................................................................................... 56
Testing Full Structural Model and Hypotheses .......................................................... 59
Testing the Proposed Structural Model .................................................................. 59
Testing the Hypotheses for the Proposed Structureal Model ................................. 62
Testing Revised Structural Model .......................................................................... 64
Testing an Alternative Structual Model .................................................................. 66
Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................... 69
CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 70
Chapter Overview ...................................................................................................... 70
Summary of Key Findings ......................................................................................... 70
Factor Structures of Service Climate and Service Orientation .............................. 7O
Mediating Model .................................................................................................... 72
Non-Significant Paths ............................................................................................ 73
Implications ................................................................................................................ 76
Practical Implications ............................................................................................. 76
Theoretical Implications ........................................................................................ 78
Limitations and Future Research Directions .............................................................. 79
Level of Analysis - Ignoring Organizational Membership .................................... 79
Common Method Variance and Social Desirability ............................................... 82
Measurement Validation of Service Orientation .................................................... 83
Generalizability ...................................................................................................... 83
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 84
Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................... 85

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 86

Appendix A. Semi-Structural Interview Questiona and Protocol ............................. 87
Appendix B. Pretest Protocol .................................................................................... 90
Appendix C. Recruiting Letter .................................................................................. 91
Appendix D. Consent Form for Main Studyr ............................................................ 92
Appendix E. Original Full Measurement Scales ....................................................... 93
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 96

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1 Profile of Respondents .................................................................................... 36
Table 4-1 Overall Fit Indices for Alternative Models of the Service Climate ................ 47
Table 4-2 Standardized Factor Loadings for Revised Second-Order Four-Factor Model
of Service Climate ........................................................................................... 49
Table 4-3 Overall Fit Indices for Alternative Models of Service Orientation ................ 53
Table 4-4 Standardized Factor Loadings for Revised Three-Factor Model of Service
Orientation ...................................................................................................... 54
Table 4-5 Overall Fit Indices for Alternative Models of Service Role Ambiguity ......... 55
Table 4-6 Standardized Factor Loadings for Service Role Ambiguity ........................... 56
Table 4-7 Overall Fit Indices for A Full Measurement Model ........................................ 57
Table 4-8 Descriptive Statistics and Standardized Cronbach’s constructs ...................... 57
Table 4-9 Intercorrelated Factors in Theoretical Model ................................................. 58
Table 4-10 Overall Fit Indices for the Proposed Structural Model ................................... 60
Table 4-11 Standardized Path Coefficients of Proposed Structural Model ....................... 63
Table 4-12 Standardized Estimate for Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects ........................ 64
Table 4-13 Overall Fit Indices of Revised Structural Model ............................................ 66
Table 4-14 Overall Fit Indices of Alternative Structural Model ....................... ‘ ................ 6 8

xii

Figure 2-1
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-3
Figure 4-4
Figure 4-5
Figure 4-6

LIST OF FIGURES

Conceptual Model .......................................................................................... 26
The Second-Order Four-Factor Measurement Model of Service Climate ..... 48
A Full Measurement Model of Theoretical Constructs .................................. 56
Proposed Structural Model Proposed Structural Model ................................. 60
Obtained Structural Model with Standardized Path Coefficients .................. 61
Revised Structural Model ............................................................................... 65
Saturated Structural Model — Alternative Structural Model ........................... 67

xiii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Chapter Overview
This first chapter presents both the practical and the theoretical background
information, rationale and objectives of the dissertation. This chapter discusses the
critical roles of frontline employees in foodservice establishments. The concept of
service climate is introduced as a way to motivate and influence frontline employees’
service-oriented attitudes and behaviors. It discusses the study’s rationale and objectives.
Finally, this chapter presents conceptual definitions of constructs in the measurement and

path models.

Practical Background

F oodservice Establishments as Part of the U.S. Economy

The CIA’s World F actbook (2004) indicates that the contribution of the service
sector to the USA gross domestic product (GDP) reached 80%. Services are provided in
almost every sector of the economy, including “retailing, wholesaling, transportation,
telecommunication, finances, health, education, tourism, hospitality, and leisure
(Reisinger, 2001, p.2).” Among all these service sectors, the foodservice industry, which
is part of hospitality, is known as a fast growing and influential contributor to the
American economy. The most recent study conducted by the National Restaurant
Association (2005) demonstrates how the foodservice industry significantly impacts the

national economy and people’s daily lives. According to the National Restaurant

Association (2005), this industry segment employs an estimated 12.2 million people,
making it the nation’s largest non-government employer. More than four of ten adults
have worked in this industry segment at some time during their lives and 27% of adults
had their first job experience in a foodservice establishment. The National Restaurant
Association (2005) forecasts that the amount spent on meals eaten outside the home
would reach $476 billion from the nation’s 900,000 foodservice establishments in 2005.
This establishes the restaurant industry share of the food dollar as 46.7%. These
foodservice establishments include eating places, drinking places, managed (contract)
services, hotel/motel restaurants, retail, vending, recreation, and others according to their
own categories (NRA, 2005). Along with rapid growth in this industry segment,
competition among foodservice establishments is extremely high. In this increasingly
competitive economy, operators and managers of foodservice establishments strive to
improve and deliver service excellence to their customers.
Services in Foodservice Establishments

Shames and Glover (1989) defined service as one’s attempt to fulfill the perceived
needs of another within a particular social environment. Van Dierdonck, Gemmel, and
Van Looy (1998) refer to service as “an activity or series of activities of more or less
intangible nature that normally, but not necessarily, occur in interactions between
customers and service employees and/or physical resources or goods and/or systems of
the service provider, which are provided as solutions to customer problems.” Both
definitions of service imply interaction involved between two parties — namely between
customers and employees - in a work context. The level of personal interaction between

service providers and customers can vary, depending on the segments, the occasions, and

characteristics of the service industry. Mills and Margulies (1980) differentiated this
level of interactive nature of service work into the three categories of maintenance-
interactive, task-interactive, and personal-interactive. Customers in a maintenance-
interactive situation know what they want to and how to solve it (Mills & Margulies,
1980; Mills, 1986). Maintenance interaction is most likely to occur in fast-food
establishments. Most foodservice establishments that are not fast-food establishments on
the other hand, belong to personal-interactive service work, because of intense interaction
between customers and service providers. In this personal-interactive situation,
customers may not know exactly what they want, so they often rely on the expertise and
recommendations offered by the service providers (Mills, 1986). Consequently, quality
of service delivered to customers is critical to becoming and/or remaining a successful
service organization (Lytle, Horn, & Mokwa, 1998). Thus, increasing attention has been
given to the role, attitude, and performance of service employees in general. For
example, Susskind, Borchgrevink, Brymer, and Kacmar (2000) observed that attitude and
behaviors of frontline employees in foodservice establishments determine the quality
level of customer service. In foodservice establishments, there is direct interaction and
contact between customers and frontline employees. Moreover, frontline employees’
behaviors likely have a direct impact on customer evaluations of delivered service. The
following section of this chapter defines frontline employees and their roles in

foodservice establishments.

Roles of F rontline Employees in Foodservice Establishments

Frontline employees in foodservice establishments are also called customer-
contact employees. As the name implies, these employees are those who mainly make
contact with customers in the workplace. Positions such as servers, server assistants,
hosts and hostesses, and bartenders are main examples of frontline employees in
foodservice establishments. In the literature, frontline employees are also called
boundary spanners of the organization (of, Bitner, Bernard, & Tetreault, 1990; Boles &
Babin, 1996). As boundary spanners, frontline employees of foodservice establishments
have unique positions and play important roles for the establishments. To the public,
frontline employees act as representatives of the establishments; consequently, they play
crucial roles in reflecting the image of the foodservice establishments (Chung &
Schneider, 2002; Schneider & Bowen, 1993). Furthermore, frontline employees in
foodservice establishments are positioned to ascertain customers’ needs, wants, and
suggestions for service delivery, and consequently share this information with internal
operations (Stamper & Dyne, 2003). Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1990) suggest
that frontline employees can serve as a “strategic link” between the external environment
and internal operations. Thus, management and operators in foodservice establishments

rely heavily on frontline employees to satisfy and delight customers.

Theoretical Background

Although frontline employees are those who create “moments of true” (Carlzon,
1989), management also play a vital role in delivering quality service. This current study
argues that management’s role in serving customers lies in the development of service-
oriented frontline employees. Previous studies of service orientation have not explicitly
distinguished between different aspects of service orientation. This current study
differentiates three research domains of service orientation: dispositional, attitudinal and
behavioral service orientations. Frontline employees’ innate or dispositional
characteristics are most unlikely to be changed. When human resource managers discuss
the hiring of service-oriented employees, they are most likely referring to hiring
employees who have positive innate or dispositional service orientation characteristics.
Management in foodservice establishments, on the other hand, can indirectly manage and
influence service-oriented attitudes and behaviors of frontline employees. A question
thus arising is: What can management do to motivate frontline employees to have, and
improve, service-oriented attitudes and behaviors? Motivation, in this context, means to
entice employees to move in a direction and manner that meet the organization’s goals
(V room, 1964). Management in foodservice establishments needs to find ways to
motivate their frontline employees to exhibit service commitment toward customers
through positive attitudinal service orientation and display of service-oriented
organizational citizenship behaviors. Schneider and Reichers (1983) argued that the
organizational climate construct provides a useful alternative to motivational
explanations of employee behaviors in the work context. They defined organizational

climate as how members perceive events, practices, procedures and types of behaviors

valued, expected, supported and rewarded in an organization. Furthermore, past research
suggested that management commitment to service quality is a critical determinant of
employee behaviors in creating service excellence (Babakus, Yavas, Karatepe, & Avci,
2003; Hartline & Ferrell, 1996). A way of showing management’s total commitment to
service quality is to create a work environment emphasizing and valuing service quality,
which is called service climate. Service climate derives from organizational climate.
Schneider and his colleagues (c.f. Schneider & Bowen, 1985; Schneider & Bowen, 1995;
Schneider, Parkington, & Buxton, 1980; Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998) were the first
researchers to study service climate as a way of management’s showing commitment to
service quality to their own employees. Service climate is defined as the employee
perceptions of the policies, practices, and procedures and the behaviors that get rewarded,
supported, and expected with regard to customer service and customer service quality
(Schneider and Bowen, 1993). Schneider and White (2004, p. 100) explained this to be
“a pattern across policies, procedures, and rewarded behaviors to which employees attach
the meaning: service quality is important here.” That is, these kinds of policies, practices,
and procedures reflecting the importance of service quality would send the message to
employees that service quality is important to the organization.
Rationale of Study

This research builds on previous research examining the importance of service
climate, as perceived by frontline employees on important individual and organizational
outcome variables. First, since this proposed study is most interested in predicting
frontline employees’ service-related attitudes and behaviors, it is most appropriate to

examine the climate for service, rather than a global concept of organizational climate.

Second, Poole (1985) warns that climate dimensions may not be applicable across a range
of organizations. Studies of service climate have mostly been done in bank settings, led
by Schneider and his colleagues. This current study attempts to develop pertinent
components of service climate, applied to the context of foodservice establishments.
These identified components are service vision, service training, supervisor support, and
reward and recognition. Third, as explained above, previous studies did not differentiate
service orientation from dispositional, attitudinal, and behavioral characteristics
conceptually. Relevant service orientation definitions need to be clarified conceptually
and operationally. In particular, extra-role service behaviors, specifically service-
oriented organizational citizenship behaviors, are emphasized as an outcome variable.
This recognizes both the customers’ needs, through conscious job dedication, and the
coworkers’ needs, through helping behaviors. In the proposed theoretical model, it is
posited that employee perceptions of service climate directly influence service
commitment toward customers, representing attitudinal service orientation. The
attitudinal service orientation is in turn posited to influence service-oriented
organizational citizenship behaviors. Fourth, this current study investigated the roles of
affective mediating variables on the relationship between service climate and service-
oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Schneider and his colleagues (Schneider &
Bowen, 1985; Schneider et al., 1980; Schneider et al., 1998) have contributed what is
called, linkage research, in that service climate experienced by employees is related
directly to the service quality experienced by customers. Although this current study did

not measure customer evaluations of their experience of service quality, this current study

attempted to explore a possible mediating process between service climate and
employees’ service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors.
Study Objectives

In sum, the first objective of this dissertation was to explicate two fuzzy terms —
service climate and service orientation, so as to present clear conceptual and operational
definitions that are theoretically meaningful yet specific to foodservice establishments.
After determining the factor structures of these two critical constructs, the direct and
indirect factors influencing service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors among
frontline employees in the context of foodservice establishments were investigated. That
is, the current study proposed and tested a theoretical model that examines the effect of
service climate, as perceived by frontline employees, on their service-oriented
organizational citizenship behaviors, by emphasizing two mediating variables: service
role ambiguity, and employee commitment toward customer service (service-oriented
attitudes toward customers).
Definitions of Terms for Main constructs

Service climate. Service climate is defined as the employee perceptions of the
policies, practices, and procedures and the behaviors that get rewarded, supported, and
expected with regard to customer service and customer service quality (Schneider &
Bowen, 1985; Schneider, Wheeler, & Cox, 1992). Service climate is composed of four
dimensions. Service vision represents clear service goals and objectives that emphasize
importance of service excellent and service quality, articulated by the management of the
foodservice establishment (Butcher, 1994; Johnson, 1996; Lytle et al., 1998). S_egi_cg

training is defined as the foodservice establishment’s ongoing efforts to improve

employees’ skills dealing with service activities and interactions with customers
(Johnson, 1996; Schneider & Bowen, 1985). Supervisor support refers to the extent to
which that supervisor at the foodservice establishment offers employee service-work
related assistance in their service performance during work (Susskind, Kacmar, &
Borchgrevink, 2003). Reward and recognition is defined as rewarding and recognizing
employees’ service excellence and celebrating it by the management of foodservice
establishment (Johnson, 1996).

Dispositional service orientation. Dispositional service orientation is defined as
the frontline employee’s tendency or predisposition to provide supervisor service through
a genuine desire and enjoyment to satisfy customers’ needs (Brown, Mowen, Donavan, &
Licata, 2002).

Service commitment toward customers. Service commitment toward customers
represents the attitudinal service orientation, and is proposed as a mediator to examine
relationship between service climate perceived by frontline employees and service-
oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Service commitment toward customers is
defined as the frontline employees’ level of commitment to provide excellent service to
customers, indicating frontline employees’ desire and feelings toward improving service
quality for customers (Susskind et al., 2003).

Service role ambiguity. Service role ambiguity is proposed as a partial mediator,
influencing directly and indirectly on service-oriented organizational citizenship
behaviors. It is defined as a service employee’s feelings of uncertainty about aspects of
his or her service job activities and role, including priorities and expectations while

interacting with customers (Babin & Boles, 1996).

Service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. Service-oriented
organizational citizenship behavior is defined as extra-role service performance that
demonstrates discretionary behaviors to promote effective function of foodservice
establishments (Bettencourt, Gwinner, & Meuter, 2001; Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001;
Stamper & Van Dyne, 2003). Service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior is
composed of two dimensions. Helping coworlgrs refers to frontline employees’ helping
and cooperating with other co-workers regarding service-related duties that are not
necessarily part of their described job duties. mam iob-dedicgtion towfl cum
is defined as delivering extra care and special attention to customers without losing
customers focus, even in busy situations (Conway, 1999; Van Scotter & Motowidlo,

1996; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 2000).

Chapter Summary

Frontline employees are identified as valuable sources of strategic differentiation
and competitive advantages for delivering quality service to customers. This chapter
discussed the practical and theoretical background that led to the directions of this current
study. This chapter discussed the problems of service orientation not being differentiated
from dispositional, attitudinal, and behavioral service orientation. This chapter also
emphasized that the mediating variables - service role ambiguity and service commitment
toward customers - are necessary to explain the relationship between service climate
perceived by frontline employees, and service-oriented organizational citizenship

behaviors.

lO

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter Overview

This chapter discusses conceptual and methodological issues of constructs in the
proposed model, and explains the justification for specifying service climate as an
individual attribute rather than an organizational attribute. To explicate the concept of
service orientation, this study argues that the construct of service orientation (SO) needs
to be viewed differently from the three separate domains of innate SO, service
commitment toward customers, and service-oriented citizenship behaviors, representing
dispositional SO, attitudinal SO, and behavioral SO, respectively. Furthermore, this
chapter describes the highlights of the proposed model and hypothesized relationships
among service climate, service commitment toward customers, service role ambiguity,

and service-oriented citizenship behaviors.

Service Climate
Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939) first developed the root of organizational
climate, namely “social climate.” They conducted an experiment demonstrating how
social environment or contextual variables affect human behaviors in groups. For several
decades, organizational researchers have examined the central role of climate in
influencing the attitudes and behaviors of employees. Organizational climate is often
criticized as an unclear concept despite its long history as a research domain (Schneider,

Bowen, Ehrhart, & Holcombe, 2000). The conceptual ambiguity may be attributed to

11

climate comprising both the work environment and members’ interpretations of their
work environment (Parker, Baltes, Young, Huff, Altrnann, Lacost, & Roberts, 2003). The
literature review of organizational climate in general, and service climate specifically
identifies three main controversies that need clarification to set this study’s boundaries
(i.e., Gupta, 1998; James & James, 1989; Schneider et al., 2000; Schneider & White,
2004):
1. Strategic focus: Is there any specific climate more important than others
in predicting frontline employees’ service-related outcomes?
2. Level of theory: Is service climate an individual-level variable or
organizational-level variable?
3. Dimensions of service climate: What dimensions does service climate
comprise in the context of foodservice establishments?
Three identified issues — strategic focus, level of theory, and dimensions of
service climate — are discussed in the following section.
Strategic Focus
To distinguish between generic and specific concepts of an organizational climate
construct is an important issue, since such distinction clarifies research goals and
boundaries. Schneider and his colleagues (Schneider & Bowen, 1985; Schneider,
Parkington, & Buxton, 1980; Schneider, White, & Paul; 1998) advocated the idea that
climate research has to focus on a climate for something. They argued that strategically
focused climate measures demonstrate stronger relationship with specific organizational
outcomes than does an omnibus global measure of climate (Schneider, Wheeler, & Cox,

1992). Schneider et al. (2000, p. 26) further emphasized that “. .. unless the climate that

12

is conceptualized and measured is tied to the specific something of interest, the
relationship between the climate measurement and random variable criteria of interest
will be modest at best.” Schneider and his colleagues mainly studied climate for service
as the specific focus of organizational climate, yet their arguments have been supported
for climate for safety (Larsson, 2005; Zohar, 2000; Zohar & Luria, 2004), climate for
innovation (Abbey & Dickson, 1983), and climate for empowerment (Seibert, Silver, &
Randolph, 2004). In this study, it is most appropriate to examine service climate, rather
than a generic concept of organizational climate, in predicting frontline employees’
service role ambiguity, service-related attitude, and behaviors.
Level of Theory for Service Climate

To understand the level of theory for service climate, the concept of psychological
climate needs first to be introduced. Generally, psychological climate refers to how
organizational environments are perceived and interpreted by members within the
organization (James, James, & Ashe, 1990; James & Jones, 1974; Rousseau, 1988).
When studying psychological climate, researchers emphasized employees’ different
perceptions and interpretations of work environments, acknowledging that psychological
climate is a property of the individual and that individual-level is the appropriate level of
theory, measurement, and analysis (James & Jones, l974; Schneider et al., 2000). To
clarify the conceptual and operational boundary, James and Jones (1974) pioneered the
distinguishing of psychological climate (individual attribute) from organizational climate
(organizational attribute) by identifying three approaches: 1) multiple measurement-
organizational attribute approach arguing that climate is an “organizational attribute or

main effects measurable by a variety of methods” (p. 1096); 2) perceptual measurement-

13

organizational attribute approach, representing climate “as a set of perceptual variables,
which are still seen as organizational main effects” (p. 1097); and 3) perceptual
measurement-individual attribute approach, regarding climate “as perceptual and as an
individual attribute” (p. 1097). James and Jones (1974) recognized that climate can be
regarded as either an organizational or an individual attribute, from individual
perceptional measurements. Described simply, psychological climate is the individuals’
perceptions of their environments, and organizational climate is the combination of all
those individuals’ perceptions.

Glick (1985, p. 602), however, argued that “aggregating psychological climate to
make inferences about organizational climate results in the fallacy of the wrong level
because the unit of analysis (aggregate) is inconsistent with the unit of theory
(individual).” Although Glick (1985) challenged the generating of collective or
organizational climate by aggregating psychological climate perceptions, previous studies
supported that employee perceptions can be aggregated to represent the organizational
attribute, when aggregation makes conceptual sense and the frame of reference for the
perceptions is at the appropriate level (cf. Borucki & Burke, 1999; Johnson, 1996;
Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992; Schneider et al., 2000). Besides the theoretical justification,
a certain degree of within-organizational agreement measuring the degree of shared
perception should be met (James, 1982; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993). For example, if
service climate is studied at the organizational level, this indicates that an objective
service climate exists in an organization and is perceived similarly by all organizational

members.

14

This current study specifies service climate as an individual attribute,
acknowledging that each frontline employee at a foodservice establishment may differ in
how he or she interprets and perceives the service climate of the organization. This study
further argues that these different perceptions of service climate are likely to influence
the service-related attitude and behaviors differently among the frontline employees.
Schneider and Bartlett (1970, p. 150) observed that “what is psychologically important to
the individual must be how the individual employee perceives his or her work
environment, not how others might choose to describe it.” Furthermore, James and Jones
(1990) and Brown and Leigh (1996) argued that perceptions of work context take on
personal meaning for individual employees via their evaluation, in which the individual
interprets a cognitive representation of the features of the environment. Put simply, when
members interpret the features, events, and routines of the work environment, there may
be variance across employees in how each evaluate these features, events, and routines
(Kopelman, Brief, & Guzzo, 1990; Rentsch, 1990). These arguments justify specifying
climate as an individual attribute in this study, rather than as an organizational attribute.
Dimensions of Service Climate

Another important issue for organizational climate in general and service climate
specifically, is the identification of relevant components of organizational climate (or
service climate). The number of dimensions labeled relevant to climate has proliferated
(Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003). In this proliferation, different authors have reported
varying dimensions of service climate. For example, empirical studies have shown one-
(e.g., Andrews & Rogelberg, 2001), two- (e.g., Babakus, Yavas, Karatepe, & Avci, 2003;

Hartline & Ferrell, 1996), five- (e. g., Kopelman, Brief, & Guzzo, 1990), eight- (e.g.,

15

Johnson, 1996), and ten- (e. g., Lytle, Hom, & Mokwa, 1998) dimensions of service
climate. It should be stressed that, given varying events and routines in different work
contexts, different sets of dimensions have differential importance within different
industries (Schneider et al., 2000). Most service climate research has been conducted in
bank settings or sales departments. It is necessary to identify key elements of service
climate applicable to a chosen setting, in this example, foodservice establishments. The
literature reviews of service climate and organizational climate, combined with results
from semi-structured interviews, suggest four key dimensions of service climate relevant
to the context of foodservice establishments: service vision; supervisor support; service
training; and recognition and reward system.

Service vision. The construct of service vision represents clear service goals and
objectives that emphasize the importance of service excellence and service quality, as
articulated by the management of the organization (Butcher, 1994; Johnson, 1996; Lytle
et al., 1998). This dimension is similar to the dimension of goal emphasis and service
strategy represented by Kopelman et al. (1990) and Johnson (1996) respectively.

Supervisor support. Supervisor support is identified as an important component of
service climate in the context of foodservice establishments. It refers to the extent to
which that supervisor offers employee service-work related assistance in their service
performance during work (Susskind, Kacmar, & Borchgrevink, 2003). Supervisor
support is one of the most common dimensions for service climate or organizational
climate, as identified by many previous researchers (Carless, 2004).

Service training. Researchers identified training (or service training) as one of

service climate dimensions (c.f., Johnson, 1996; Kopelman et al., 1990; Schneider &

l6

Bowen, 1985). Johnson (1996) defined service training as “. . .providing sufficient
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.” Service training in this study is defined as the
organization’s ongoing efforts to improve employees’ skills dealing with service
activities and interactions with customers.

Reward and recognition. Rewarding and recognizing frontline employees for
their service excellence was considered an important managerial policy and practice that
creates service climate (Butcher, 1994). Reward and recognition is defined as rewarding
and recognizing employees’ service excellence, and celebrating it (Johnson, 1996).

Second-order or first-order four-factor of service climate. Besides viewing
service climate as a first-order four factor model, comprising service vision, supervisor
support, service training, and rewards and recognition, it seems reasonable to consider
overall service climate as a common high-order factor. For example, previous research
(Borucki & Burke, 1999; Burke, Borucki, & Hurley, 1992; James & James, 1989)
emphasized overall service climate by testing for a higher-order factor structure of
service climate, i.e., the extent to which employees believe that service is emphasized,
valued, and supported within the organization. Overall, the literature is inconsistent in
defining dimensions of relevant service climate, and fails to establish whether service
climate should be conceptualized as a higher-order construct or a multi-dimensional first-
order construct. This study seeks to find the factor structure best capturing the construct

of service climate. Thus, the following research question is given:

17

Research Question 1: which of two, 1) higher-order or 2) first-order four-factor

best represents the factor structure of service climate?

Service Role Ambiguity

In this current study, service-role ambiguity is expected to mediate the
relationship between service climate and service-oriented organizational citizenship
behaviors. At the same time, service role ambiguity is expected to have both direct and
indirect effect on service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. In short, the
construct role ambiguity acts as a partial mediator on the relationship between service
climate and service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors among frontline
employees.
Role Ambiguity and Conflicts

Role is defined as “the summation of the requirements with which the system
confronts the individual member” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 186). Job-related role stress
comprises two major components: role conflicts and role ambiguity (Shephard & Fine,
1994; Tubre & Collins, 2000). Role ambiguity refers to feelings of uncertainty, in that an
individual does not have clear direction about the expectations of his or her role in the job
or organization (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970), while role conflicts involve the
incompatibility of job demands facing individuals (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991).
Organizational researchers reported that both role ambiguity and role conflict are
negatively related to important job outcomes such as organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and job performance among employees (c.f., Boles & Babin, 1996; Johlke &

Duhan, 2001; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970; Sawyer, 1992). Although Tracy and

18

Johnson (1981) argued that role conflict and role ambiguity scales measured one
underlying construct, recent empirical studies supported that each of them independently
contributes to job-related outcome variables. For example, Yousef (2000) found that role
conflict and role ambiguity independently and negatively affect job satisfaction, cognitive
attitudes, and behavioral tendency attitudes toward organizational change.

Defining Service Role Ambiguity for F rontline Employees

The conceptual definition of role ambiguity broadly refers to uncertainty about
expectations of supervisor/s and/or other managers, promotion, ethical situations or
customers (Johlke & Duhan, 2001; Singh, Verbeke & Rhoads, 1996; Yousef, 2000), yet
this study limits role ambiguity to frontline employees’ service roles interacting with, and
serving, customers. Thus, this study defines service role ambiguity as a service
employee’s feelings of uncertainty about aspects of his or her service job activities and
role, including priorities and expectations while interacting with customers (Boles &
Babin, 1996). That is, the conceptual definition of service-role ambiguity refers to the
affective construct representing uncertain feelings about their expectations of service to
customers. Frontline employees need to have clear role information or direction from
management about how to perform well in the internal environment.

In particular, fiontline employees are prone to perceive higher levels of role
ambiguity and role conflicts, than are others (Johlke & Duhan, 2001). This may be
because frontline employees are required to concurrently please both customers’ needs
and managements’ job demands, and may experience uncertain expectations about their

service roles from the management and/or organization they work for, and of customers.

19

Although it is important to understand frontline employees’ role conflict and its effect on
other variables, this current study does not focus on frontline employees’ role conflicts,
identifying discrepancies in customer demands and management expectations (or own
expectations) (Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, 1981; Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991).
Instead, this study proposes that the service climate, perceived by frontline employees, is

a major antecedent of their experienced service-role ambiguity.

Service Orientation

Researchers strive to identify factors influencing service-oriented employees,
because service-oriented employees positively influence customer satisfaction and
organizational performance (of, Cran, 1994; Dale & Wooler, 1991; Dienhart, Gregorie,
& Downey, 1991; Hartline, Maxham, & Mckee, 2000; Kelly, 1992; Kim, McChon, &
Miller, 2003; Susskind et al., 2003). Understanding predictors and/or consequences of
service-oriented employees is valuable in the service-based organization, yet the
construct of service orientation is somewhat inconsistently defined and operationalized
from one study to another. These inconsistencies have created confusion about the
construct itself, and a clear conceptual definition and theoretical boundaries are needed.
The following section discusses limitations of past empirical studies and provides the
rationale and distinct conceptual definitions of separate domains of service orientation,
representing dispositional, attitudinal and behavioral aspects.
Confusion of Service Orientation Construct

First, there is confusion in distinguishing between a service-oriented

organization and service-oriented employees. For example, several researchers (e. g.,

20

Bowen, Siehl, & Schneider, 1989; Lytle et al., 1998; Schneider et al., 1992; Webster,
1993) use the term service-oriented organization, which is almost identical to the
construct of service climate. These researchers have focused on the organizational level
in inquiring to what extent an organization is service oriented in terms of internal design
characteristics. When researchers use the term service-oriented organization rather than
service climate, they tend to think of an organizational predisposition, namely, a natural
organizational preference for service excellence (Lytle et al., 1998). The problem is not
that researchers name their construct differently despite similar contents, but rather the
confusion that arises from researchers mixing these two different levels - service-oriented
employees and service-oriented organization — into one broad construct of service-
orientation. For example, several previous studies (e.g., Dienhart et al., 1991; Groves,
1992; Kim et al., 2003) have attempted to measure frontline restaurant employees’
service orientation. Specifically, Dienhart et al. (1991) proposed three dimensions of
service orientation among frontline employees, such as organizational support, customer
focus, and service under pressure. Based on Dienhart et al.’s (1991) and Groves’ work,
Kim et al. (2003) proposed four dimensions of service orientation of frontline employees
such as organizational support, customer focus, service under pressure, and prior
customer relationship. These three or four dimensions are mixed to represent both the
organizational (e. g., organizational support) and individual (e. g., customer focus, service
under pressure, and prior customer relationship) service orientation, although they called
it employee service orientation. Kim et al. (2003, p. 70) defined organizational support as
“management’s encouragement of service, training, design of service systems, and

organizational procedures for ease of service delivery.” In fact, a conceptual and

21

operational definition of organizational support as part of their employee service
orientation scales is consistent with those of service climate, discussed earlier.

Regarding the discussion of service-oriented employees (or individual
characteristics of service orientation), Hogan, Hogan, and Busch (1984) were the first
researchers to introduce the term service orientation. Their definition of service
orientation was “. . .disposition to be helpful, thoughtful, considerable, and cooperative”
(p. 165) and “. . .. a set of attitudes and behaviors that affects the staff of any organization
and its customers” (p. 167). Hogan et al.’s (1984) conceptual definition includes three
aspects of service orientation such as 1) innate (dispositional) service-orientation, 2)
service-oriented attitude, and 3) service-oriented behaviors. However, their measurement
seems to comprise a blend of certain sets of desirable personality characteristics only. A
review of the service orientation literature reveals a research gap, in that these three
aspects - dispositional, attitudinal, and behavioral service orientation —— have not been
differentiated explicitly, when the researchers use the term service-oriented employees.
Innate service orientation (pre-dispositional service orientation), service-oriented attitude
(service commitment toward customers), and service-oriented behavior (service-oriented
organizational citizenship performance) should be separate from each other in terms of
their conceptual definitions, as described below.
Innate or dispositional Service Orientation

An ability to identify and select service-oriented employees has become a critical
issue for the service organization’s success. When human resource managers address the
importance of selecting service-oriented employees, they refer to these innate service-

oriented characteristics, which individuals possess to one degree or another. Innate or

22

dispositional service orientation is defined as an individual’s tendency or predisposition
to provide superior service through a genuine desire and enjoyment to satisfy customers’
needs (Brown, Mowen, Donavan, & Licata, 2002). Past research clearly showed that
certain individuals have more of a service orientation than others (Hogan et al., 1984;
Sanchez & Fraser, 1993; Shewchuk & O’Conner; 1995). For example, in the context of
foodservice establishments, pre-dispositional service orientation is considered an innate
trait of frontline employees, in that certain frontline employees naturally have more
service-oriented traits than do others. When Hogan et al. (1984) pioneered investigating
the concept of dispositional service orientation, they argued that the concept of
dispositional service orientation could be examined using personality measures. In fact,
their Service Orientation Index ($01) was derived from the Hogan Personality Inventory
(HPI), and the $01 was a composite of three personality elements: adjustment,
sociability, and likeability. On the other hand, Donavan (1999) argued that pre-
dispositional service orientation should be treated as a separate construct rather than
mixing it with certain dimensions of personality. Furthermore, Brown et al. (2002)
supported Donavan’s notion by examining the effect of personality on the individual’s
pre-dispositional service orientation. Dispositional service-orientation needs to be
differentiated from the individual’s service-oriented attitude and behaviors, as explained
below.
Service-Oriented Attitude

Besides dispositional service-orientation, service orientation also has been used in
the literature to refer to an employee’s affective commitment toward customers,

representing attitudinal service orientation. In general, affective commitment is defined as

23

“the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the
organization.” (Meyer & Allen, 1991 , p. 67). This current study, in particular, has
focused on examining frontline employees’ affective commitment regarding their
service-related jobs. Based on the definition of service orientation by Susskind et al.
(2003), this study defines frontline employees’ service-oriented attitude as frontline
employees’ level of commitment to provide excellent service to customers, namely
service commitment toward customers. This definition does not imply innate or
dispositional characteristics, nor particular service-oriented behaviors, but rather captures
employees’ affective attitudinal beliefs or feelings of how important service quality is, for
their customers. In short, in this dissertation, service commitment toward customers
represents frontline employees’ affective desire and feelings to improve service quality
for customers. This study argues that service commitment toward customers is a
determinant of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors.
Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Beside dispositional and attitudinal service orientation, a separate domain of
service orientation is individual service-oriented behaviors, representing an individual’s
behavioral service performance. Recent research increasingly has used the term service-
oriented organizational citizenship behaviors (SOCB) of frontline employees (e. g.,
Bettencourt, Gwinner, & Meuter, 2001; Bienstock, DeMoranville, & Smith, 2003; Chebat
& Kollias, 2000; Donavan, Brown, & Moven, 2004; Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001;
Stamper & Van Dyne, 2003). Service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors are
rooted in the general concepts of organizational citizenship behavior. Organ (1988, p. 4)

defined organizational citizenship behaviors as “individual behavior that is discretionary,

24

not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in the
aggregate promotes the effective fimctioning of the organization.” Podsakoff et al.
(2000) observed that more than 30 different forms of organizational citizenship behaviors
have been identified. Among these more than 30, however, the five dimensions proposed
by Organ (1988), are the best known; these five are altruism, sportsmanship,
conscientiousness, courtesy, and civic virtue.

Two dimensions of SOCB. Borman and Motowidlo (1993) noted that citizenship
performance is more appropriate for certain types of organization than for others. For
example, Stamper and Dyne (2003) emphasized that service-oriented organizational
citizenship performance is particularly important for frontline employees in service-based
organizations, given unpredictable customers’ demands. Based on the work of Van
Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) and Conway (1999), two dimensions of service-oriented
citizenship performance are presented in this study: helping co-workers (interpersonal
facilitation), and conscious job-dedication dimensions. The concepts of helping
coworkers and conscious job-dedication are similar to Organ’s (1988) altruism and
conscientiousness. For example, Organ (1988, p. 96) defined altruism as “voluntary
actions that help another person with a work problem... instructing a new hire on how to
use new equipment,” and defined consciousness as “a pattern of going well beyond
minimally required levels of attendance, punctuality, conserving resources, and related
matters of internal maintenance.” In this study, helping coworkers refers to employees’
helping and cooperating with other co-workers regarding service-related duties that are
not necessarily part of their described job duties. Conscious iob-dedication dimension is

defined as delivering extra care and special attention to customers without losing

25

customer focus, even in busy situations. Put simply, the helping-coworkers dimension
represents frontline employees’ behavioral service orientation toward their coworkers,
while conscious job-dedication toward customers represents frontline employees’

behavioral service orientation toward customers.

Conceptual Model

The model presented in Figure 2-1 posits that frontline employee perceptions of
service climate negatively influence their perceived service role ambiguity, and positively
influence their service commitment toward customers. The perceived service role
ambiguity has a negative influence on service commitment toward customers.
Consequently, both perceived service role ambiguity and service commitment toward

customers directly influence their service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors.

 
   
 

Service role
ambiguity

    

H4

Service climate

  
  
 

 

H5

  

Service
commitment
toward
customers

 
   
    

* SOCB: Service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors

Figure 2—1
Conceptual Model

26

Highlights of The Model

Previous studies have shown that employees’ perceptions of service climate are
directly related to outcome variables such as customers’ satisfaction, job performance,
and organizational profits (c.f., Benoy, 1996; Johnson, 1996; Schneider & Bowen, 1985;
Schneider et al., 1980; Schneider et al., 1998). In particular, linkage studies (Schneider et
al., 1998) examining the direct relationship between employee perception of service
climate and customer perception of service quality, has been extremely popular in the
studies of service climate and service outcomes. Ostroff et al. (2003), however, were
concerned that the organizational climate (service climate in this example) needs to
identify the mediating linkages between climate and outcome variables.

In contrast to the direct model examining the relationship between service climate
and outcome variables, the proposed model posited in Figure 2-1 emphasizes two
mediating variables to investigate the relationship between service climate and service-
oriented organizational citizenship behaviors among frontline employees. The proposed
model (Figure 2-1) posits that frontline employee perception of service climate does not
directly affect service-oriented organizational citizenship, but indirectly affects this
outcome variable. Two identified mediating variables are service-oriented attitude
(service commitment toward customers) and service role ambiguity, in which the latter is
a partial mediator.

Mediating Model. The causal orders of the proposed model are generally
consistent with Bagozzi’s (1992) attitudinal model. According to Bagozzi (1992), the
cognitive appraisal or evaluation of events is likely to influence affective responses.

Generally, affective responses play mediating roles between cognitive appraisal and

27

behaviors. In the proposed theoretical framework, two affective responses - perceived
service role ambiguity and service commitment towards customers - are proposed as
factors directly influencing service-oriented organizational citizenship performance.
Schmit and Allscheid (1995), using Bagozzi’s attitudinal model (1992) also found
empirical support that service climate positively influences employees’ affective
responses and, in turn, performance. In particular, Kopelman et al. (1990) suggested that
expected influence of climate perceptions on behaviors would be mediated by cognitive
and affective states, which is consistent with Bagozzi’s (1992) attitudinal model and that
of Schmit and Allscheid (1995). Kopelman et al. (1990), however, did not test their
propositions empirically. A recent meta analysis by Carr, Schmidt, Ford, & Deshon
(2003) empirically tested the mediation model of climate, as suggested by Kopelman et
al. (1990), and supported Kopelman et al.’s mediation model. More recently, Babakus et
al. (2003) proposed and tested a model that examines the effect of management
commitment to service quality, on employees’ affective and performance outcomes,
using Bagozzi’s attitudinal model. Barbakus et al.’s study (2003) found that frontline
employees’ affective commitment and job satisfaction mediate the relationship between
perception of management commitment to service quality, and their perceptions of
service recovery performance. All these theoretical and empirical findings support the
hypothesized relationships among service climate, service role ambiguity, service
commitment, and service performance, in the proposed model. The following, in

particular, reviews the specific paths, with reference to these two mediators.

28

Hypothesized Relationships

As the conceptual model (Figure 2-1) posits, five main hypotheses are proposed:

m: A fi'ontline employee’s perceived service climate negatively influences his or

her perceived service role ambiguity.

I_I__2_: A frontline employee’s perceived service climate positively influences his or

her service-oriented attitude (service commitment toward customers).

LL33 A frontline employee’s perceived role ambiguity negatively influences his or

her service commitment toward customers (service-oriented attitude).

HA: A frontline employee’s perceived service role ambiguity negatively

influences his or her service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors

m: A frontline employee’s service-oriented attitude influences positively his or

her service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors.

Cognitive Appraisals. Employee perceptions of service climate, manifested by
service vision, supervisor supports, service training, and reward and recognition, are
considered individuals’ cognitive appraisals of things happening in that particular
organization. Interpretations of service climate have differing meanings to each
individual in the organization, because members’ perceptions of the features, events, and
routines in the work context are likely to differ, depending on their cognitive appraisals
(Carless, 2004; James & McIntyre, l996; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). This current study
proposes that perception of service climate (cognitive appraisals of organizational
practices, procedures, and policies emphasizing and valuing service quality) expects to

influence, directly, service role ambiguity and service commitment toward customers, in

29

which service role ambiguity also directly influences service commitment toward
customers.

Mediator: service role ambiguity. Individuals accomplish work in organizations
by engaging in roles expected of them by other individuals within the organization (Katz
and Kahn, 1978). In the current study, if frontline employees perceive/evaluate that the
organization’s routines, practices, events, and policies (i.e., service vision, service
training, supervisor support, and reward and recognition) value and expect service
quality, frontline employees consequently perceive their service role clarity (i.e., the
opposite of service role ambiguity), meaning that they know exactly what their service
roles should be and are expected to be (H1). That is, four identified elements of service
climate - service vision, supervisor support, service training, and reward and recognition
— all convey messages to members of the organization about what service roles are
expected, valued, and expected in a particular organization. When employees perceive
their service role clarity (ambiguity), this will influence their service commitment toward
customers positively (negatively). Several previous studies have produced empirical
findings that perceptions of organizational environments (service climate in this example)
influence the level of role ambiguity, and that this in turn impacts employees’ attitudinal-
(service commitment toward customers in this example; H3) and behavioral- outcomes
(service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors in this example; H4).

Mediator: service commitment toward customers. This current study proposes that
-perception of service climate (employees’ cognitive appraisal of events in work context)
influences his or her service commitment toward customers. This hypothesized

relationship is supported by previous empirical studies examining the effect of

30

management commitment to service quality, on employees’ service commitment toward
customers (c.f., Barbakus et al., 2003; Hartline & Ferrell, 1996; Reardon & Enis, 1990).
These empirical studies have supported that management commitment to service quality
influences affective outcomes such as job satisfaction and employee commitment to
customers. An important question is how the management commitment to service quality
in their studies relates to the service climate in this current study. Barbakus et al. (2003)
defined management commitment to service quality as “employees’ appraisal of an
organization’s commitment to nurture, develop, support, and reward its employees to
achieve service excellence.” They further explained that potential indicators of
management commitment to service quality include recruitment and selection of frontline
employees, training, technical support, rewards, and so on. Their definitions of
management commitment to service quality also emphasize employees’ cognitive
appraisal of routine events in the organization, which is consistent with the way service
climate has been conceptualized in the current study. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that
employees’ perceived service climate positively influences service commitment toward
customers (H2). Service commitment toward customers (affective state), consequently
expects to influence frontline employees’ service-oriented citizenship behaviors (H5).
When Babakus et al. (2003) proposed and tested a model examining the effect of
management commitment to service quality on employees’ affective and performance
outcomes, they found that frontline employees’ affective commitment and job
satisfaction mediate the relationship between perception of management commitment to

service quality and their perceptions of service recovery performance.

31

Chapter Summary

This chapter explained why the climate for service, rather than organizational
climate, needed to be studied to explore service-related attitudinal and behavioral
outcomes in this present study. This chapter provided the justification for specifying the
service climate as an individual attribute, rather than as an organizational attribute. Four
dimensions of service climate —- service training, supervisor supports, service vision,
reward and recognition — were identified as key elements of organizational practices,
procedures, and policies that emphasize quality of service in the context of foodservice
establishments. This chapter explained a proposed model that the effect of service
climate on service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior is mediated by service
commitment toward customers and service role ambiguity. In particular, this chapter
emphasized that attitudinal service orientation (i.e., service commitment toward
customers) needs to be differentiated from behavioral service orientation (i.e., service-
oriented organizational citizenship behavior). Two dimensions of service-oriented

organizational citizenship behavior (outcome variable) were discussed.

32

CHAPTER 3

METHOD

Chapter Overview

This chapter provides a discussion of data collection and procedures for three
stages: interviews, pretest, and main study. It describes sample characteristics,
representing 452 frontline employees working in 31 different foodservice establishments.
This chapter explains how measurement items for all constructs were developed initially
and modified for testing further analyses. It also outlines the techniques of the structural
equation model in terms of selecting estimation method and criteria of evaluating the
model fit. Finally, this chapter discusses the steps of evaluating both measurement and

path models.

Data Collection and Procedures

Stage 1: Interviews

In exploring the concepts and dimensions of service climate and service
orientation during Spring 2004, semi-structured interviews (see Appendix A) were
conducted with ten students from The School of Hospitality Business at Michigan State
University. An email was sent to a list of Hospitality Business students at MSU
encouraging them to participate in this study. Participation in the study was completely
voluntary. Extra-credits or financial incentives were not given to those ten subjects. All
subjects had experience working in table-service foodservice establishments. Three had

worked in one restaurant and seven had worked in many. The main purpose of the

33

interviews was to explore whether there may be unique or additional dimensions of
service climate and service orientation in the context of foodservice establishments, based
on the literature of service climate and service orientation generally, in other industries.
Stage 2: Pretest

Afier generating a pool of items, this researcher recruited nine judges1 to evaluate,
in April 2005, items from an initial pool to assess face/content validity. These nine
judges were students of The School of Hospitality Business at Michigan State University,
who have experience in serving at foodservice establishments. This researcher sent an
invitation email to a list of students in one of the courses offered by The School of
Hospitality Business at MSU. A researcher compensated each subject with $20 cash for
the time spent, ranging from 45-60 minutes.

This researcher met individually with each of the nine judges to have him or her
evaluate content and face validity of the construct. Each received a folder including 1) a
sheet including conceptual definitions of dimensions of each construct in the theoretical
model, and 2) a sheet including actual measurement items planned to be used in the
questionnaire for the subjects (see Appendix B). The judges were asked to evaluate how
well each item in the questionnaire reflected the relevant construct, based on the given
conceptual definition in the separate sheet. They used a seven-point Likert-type scale,
ranging from very unclearly representative (1) to very clearly representative (7). To be
included in the main study, the average value for each item is recommended to be higher
than 5 (DeVellis, 2003). At the end of the session, the researcher encouraged the subject
to comment verbally regarding uncertain and unclear items on the questionnaire. The

collected feedback and answers from this pretest were used to refine the survey

 

' These nine judges were not from those ten subjects who participated in the pilot test.

34

instrument for the main study by eliminating uncertain or inappropriate statements in the
questionnaire.
Stage 3: Main Study

Participants for the main study were 487 frontline employees from 31 different
foodservice establishments with an average participation of 15 employees (ranging from
4 to 45 employees) from each establishment. F rontline employees are defined as those
persons as having direct contact with customers in foodservice establishments (e. g.,
servers, bartenders, and hostesses), including family-owned restaurants, chain restaurants,
banquet foodservice department or restaurants in hotels, etc. Those employed in fast-
food restaurants were excluded from the target sample, since employees in that setting
have only minimal contact with customers. Those who hold supervisory positions also
were ineligible to participate in this study. Of 487 collected surveys, 35 responses were
deleted due to incomplete responses as well as illegibility. Therefore, the final number of
subjects used for SEM analysis was N = 452. The majority of the participants were
female (66.5%), with an average age of 25.5 years (SD = 7.6). The majority of
participants (85%) were white (Caucasian). F ifcy-three point seven percent of
participants were part time, and 46.3% full-time, frontline employees. Participants had
working experience averaging 25.2 months at the foodservice establishment where the
data were collected. Regarding their job types, the majority of participants were servers
(75.7%), followed by those who served multiple or rotated positions (13.7%), hostess
(6.3%), and bartender (4.2%). The largest percentage of participants had an earned two-

year (associate) degree or four-year degree in progress (54.7%), followed by 34.5% who

35

had high-school degree or less (23.7%), and by 17.6 % who had an earned baccalaureate

(four-year) degree (17.6%).

 

 

Table 3-1
Profile of Respondents (N = 452)
Demographic Info Descriptions

Gender Male 33.5 %
Female 66.5 %

Age Under 20 13.0 %
20-24 48.8 %
25-30 17.2 %
Over 30 21.0 %
Average (SD) 25.5 years (7.6)

Education High school or less 23.7%
Some college or associate degree 42.9%
Four-year degree in progress 11.8%
Baccalaureate (four-year) degree 17.6%
Graduate degree 4%

Ethnic background White / Caucasian 85.0%
Black / Afiican American 5.1%
Mexican American 1.6%
Hispanic / Spanish American 1.3%
American Indian / Native American .7%
Asian / Pacific Islander 2.7%
Other 3.6%

Current Work status Part-time 53.7%
Full-time 46.3%

Weekly working time Average (SD) 30.7 hours (8.9)

Employment status Temporary / Seasonal 25.6%
Permanent / Long-terrn 74.4%

J ob position Server 75.7%
Multiple positions 13.8%
Hostess 6.3%
Bartender 4.2%

Work experience at

current establishment Average (SD) 25.2 months (28.2)

Total work

experience at food Average (SD) 69.2 months (63.6)

establishments

 

36

To recruit participating foodservice establishments, this researcher sent initial
letter packets to 78 alumni of The School of Hospitality Business, and contacts of MSU’s
School of Hospitality Business faculty who hold senior management positions (Chief
Executive Officer, President, Director of Human Resources, Foodservice Director) at
particular organizations. Each letter packet included a copy of the questionnaire, a
supporting letter from the dissertation advisor or the director of The School of Hospitality
Business, and a cover letter explaining the purpose of study and other essential points
(see Appendix C). This researcher followed up with emails, phone calls, and personal
visits when appropriate, to increase participation by foodservice establishment personnel.
In exchange for their participation, this researcher promised that the senior management
referred to above would receive summary results regarding their own establishments,
together with the results of total aggregated sample in this dissertation. Five participants
(frontline employees) would be selected, randomly, to win 8 100 cash each. Once access
to the foodservice establishments was obtained, the survey packets (including actual
questionnaire attached with consent form, drawing card, and drop boxes) were mailed or
delivered (depending on the locations of foodservice establishments) to designated
managers. Whenever possible, this researcher delivered the survey packets directly to the
designated managers, rather than mailing them, to speed the process. This researcher
delivered in each instance a quantity of survey packets matching the numbers of frontline
employees at that particular operation, together with two separate drop-boxes. The
researcher asked the designated managers to post the study announcement on their
employee café or rest area notice board/s and to place, immediately proximate to such

announcement, the actual survey packets. F rontline employees were asked to complete

37

the survey and to submit it, sealed in the provided envelope, into a drop-box labeled
“Survey collection.” To prevent any possibility of linking an individual’s response with
his or her identity, those frontline employees were asked to place drawing cards
containing their contact information into the separate drawing box labeled “Drawing
collection.” The incentive information was clear in the consent form (see Appendix D)
and in the announced study note, that each of five respondents would be selected
randomly to win a cash prize of $100. This researcher revisited each operation to fetch
the two survey boxes within three weeks. For those foodservice establishments to which
survey packets were mailed, the procedures were essentially similar (completed surveys
sealed in provided envelopes, separate submission of drawing cards, and provision of two
separate large envelopes, one collecting actual surveys and another collecting the drawing

cards), excepting the inclusion of pre-paid return mailbox.

Measurements

The initial pool of items was modified based on the pretest procedure, described
earlier. The proposed model included eight latent constructs, consisting of four
dimensions of service climate, service role ambiguity, service commitment toward
customers (service-oriented attitude toward customers), and two dimensions of service-
oriented organizational citizenship behavior (conscious job-dedication toward customers
and helping co-workers). All items measuring constructs in the proposed theoretical
model were assessed with a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1)

to strongly agree (5).

38

Service Climate

Four dimensions of service climate (i.e., service vision, supervisor support,
service training, and reward and recognition) were measured with 30 items in total. This
present study also explored whether service climate has a hi gher-order factor representing
overall service climate or a specific first four-factor model of service climate. The items
were developed and modified from several service climate scales (e.g., Burke, Borucki,
& Hurley, 1992; Johnson, 1996; Lytle, Hom, & Mowka, 1998; Schneider, Wheeler, &
Cox, 1992) as well as the findings of semi-structured interviews and a pre-test. All items
reflected the foodservice establishment’s internal functions (e. g., policies, practices, and
procedures), emphasizing quality of service. A sample item for each construct is as
follows: “management makes every effort to ensure that service quality is the top priority
of this foodservice establishment” (service vision); “my supervisor regularly spends time
on the floor to support me to facilitate service activities” (supervisor support); “this
foodservice establishment offers extensive customer service training before my initial
contact with customers” (service training); “wowing customers contributes to my
potential recognition” (reward and recognition).
Service Role Ambiguity

The construct of service role ambiguity was assessed by six items modified from
Rizzo, House, & Lirtzrnan’s (1970) role ambiguity scale. King and King (1990)
criticized Rizzo et al. (1970)’s scale as having a lack of correspondence between items
and the specific content domains. The original Rizzo et al.’s (1970) items were modified

to improve clarity of measurement items that can be applicable to the context of

39

foodservice management. A sample item is "I feel uncertain about how to solve customer
complaints, if they occur."
Service Commitment Toward Customers

Service commitment toward customers represents attitudinal service orientation
toward customers. Service commitment toward customers measures employees' affective
beliefs about the importance of customer service. The construct of service commitment
toward customers was measured with seven items. The scale of service orientation used
in Butcher (1994) and Susskind, Kacmar, and Borchgrevink (2003) were used, since
these scales captured the attitudinal concept of service orientation. A sample item is "I
feel that the needs of our customers always come first."
Dispositional Service Orientation

The service orientation scale of Hogan, Hogan, and Busch (1984) has been
criticized as lacking in discriminant validity (Rosse, Miller, & Barnes, 1991), since this
measurement was based on general personality scales. In this study, the construct of
dispositional service orientation measured the extent to which an individual naturally
enjoys meeting the needs of customers. Twelve items of dispositional service orientation
were developed from both previous research (Brown, Mowen, Donavan, & Licata, 2002;
Donavan, Brown, & Mowen, 2004) and the pre-test. A sample item is “I have a natural
tendency to enjoy providing friendly service to customers.”
Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Two dimensions of the service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors —
conscious job-dedication toward customers (behavioral service orientation toward

customers) and helping co-workers (behavioral service orientation toward co-workers)

40

were measured via self-report fi'om frontline employees, with eight and six items
respectively. Both dimensions measure the extent to which frontline employees’
discretionary service roles interact with their customers (conscious job dedication toward
customers) and co—workers (helping dimension) to improve and maximize quality
service. An example of conscious job-dedication toward customers is “I follow customer
service guidelines with extreme care.” An example of helping co-workers is “I help other
servers’ service activities that are not assigned to me in busy situations.”
Other Variables

Job tenure, job status (part-time vs. full-time), average number of hours worked
weekly, and demographic characteristics (gender, educational level, ethnic background)

were asked about, to obtain background information about participants.

Statistical Analyses

Data Screening

Before proceeding with evaluating the measurement model and the path model,
the data were screened for missing data, normality, and linearity. Tabachnick and Fidell
(2001) observed that failure to meet assumptions such as normality and linearity may not
invalidate the analysis, but rather may weaken the validity of the results.
Overview of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

This study followed the two-step approach advocated by Anderson and Gerbing
(1988) in testing structural equation model using AMOS 5.0 structural equation program.
That is, a measurement model was estimated and refined first, prior to testing the

estimation of the structural model and hypotheses.

41

Sample size for SEM. SEM analysis requires larger samples to produce reliable
parameters. Smaller sample size is most likely to increase the likelihood of specification
errors, and produce biased goodness of fit indices (Kline, 1998). The rule of thumb
calculating the required sample size to run SEM is that the ratio of free parameters to
participants should be 1:5 (Bentler, 1995). Kline (1998), on the other hand, observed that
sample size of 200 is considered to be ample to run SEM. The obtained sample size for
this current study (N = 452) met both suggested criteria.

Estimation method. The maximum likelihood (ML) estimation procedure was
used as an estimation procedure in SEM analyses. The ML estimation allows all model
parameters to be estimated at the same time (Kline, 1998), and this estimation method
performs reasonably well “under a variety of less-than-optimal analytic conditions” such
as small sample size and violation of normal distribution (Hoyle & Panter, 1995, p. 163).

Assessment of model fit. A chi-square statistic is commonly used to evaluate
model fit, but this statistic is known to be too sensitive to sample size (Kline, 1998). A
number of fit indices have been developed, particularly over the past two decades, to
evaluate structural equation models (Bollen & Long, 1993; Bryne, 2001; Hu & Bentler,
1999). In this study, multiple indices were used in assessing the model fit, following
recommendations by Bollen (1989) and Hu and Bentler (1999). More specifically, the
chi-square statistics adjusted by the degrees of free (xz/df), the comparative fit index
(CF I; Bentler, 1990), the nonnormed fit index (NNFI; Bentler & Bonnett, 1980; Tucker
& Lewis, 1973), and the room mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Nevitt &
Hancock, 2000) were used to evaluate the appropriateness of model fit. These fit indices

have been shown to be good measures under various conditions of model

42

misspecification, sample size, and estimation methods (Fan, Thompson, & Wang, 1999).
xz/df less than 3 is considered a good fit. For CPI and NNFI, values range from 0 to 1.0,
are considered good. The value of less than .10 for RMSEA indicates good fit. Both
modification indices provided by AMOS output and the standardized residual matrix
were examined to modify the models. Furthermore, x2 difference test was used to
compare and evaluate the competing and alternative models.

Measurement model. Before testing a full measurement model, a series of
confirmatory factor analyses was conducted to evaluate whether higher-order of service
climate or specific four first-order factor would show better fit of model (research
question 1). Second, the factor structure of service orientation, dispositional service
orientation, attitudinal service orientation toward customers, labeled as service
commitment toward customers, and behavioral service orientation labeled as service
oriented organizational citizenship performance) was evaluated (research question 2).
After these two tests were completed, a full measurement model, based on retained items
from these CFAs was evaluated to assess internal consistency as well as parallelism.
Items with large standardized residuals and low reliability (based on Squared Multiple
Correlation, provided by Amos output) were dropped to improve the model fit to the data.
In addition to the model fit test, the reliability (calculated by Cronbach’s Alphas) was
assessed. A Cronbach’s Alpha greater than 0.70 is considered acceptable, according to
Nunnally (1978). Furthermore, construct validity of the measurement was assessed.

Path model (hybrid model). Once the appropriate measurement model was
obtained after revising it and testing against the competing measurement model, a full

structural model was tested. In assessing the path model, the hypothesized relationships

43

(both magnitudes and directions) were examined. The initial path model was modified
and revised by removing non-significant paths. One advantage to using SEM is that it
allows for testing potential alternative models in order to determine which provides best
fit for the data. Other competing models were compared against the revised path model,
based on chi-square difference statistics and other fit indices such as CFI (comparative fit
index), NNFI (non-normed fit index), and RMSEA (root mean square error of

approximation).

Chapter Summary

This chapter explained three stages of data collection and procedures. Semi-
structured interviews (stage 1) were conducted to explore the dimensions of constructs
(e. g., service climate and service orientation) relevant to the context of foodservice
establishments. Pre-test (stage 2) involved evaluating content and face validity for the
measurement models. Data collection from the field survey (stage 3) resulted in 452
usable responses from frontline employees working in 31 different foodservice
establishments. This chapter discussed the criteria considered good fit to the data for
both measurement and path models, and how the revised and/or alternative models need

to be compared to select the better-fit model than others.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Chapter Overview

This chapter describes the findings of data analyses for both measurement models
and structural path models. Both measurement and structural models are considered to
evaluate construct validity. Following the steps suggested by Anderson and Gerbing
(1988) and the Mulaik and Millsap (2000) procedures, the estimations of appropriate
measurement models are explained first, and then the evaluations of structural models,
including hypotheses testing are explained next. This chapter further identifies the best
fitting and most parsimonious models (both measurement and structural paths). The
initial proposed models and other competing or revising models are compared, guided by

the overall goodness-of-fit indices and a chi-square difference tests (Bollen, 1989).

Preliminary Analyses

The skewness and kurtosis for each item was examined to determine if the data
meet the normality assumption for the maximum likelihood estimation method. The
values for univariate skewness and kurtosis ranged from —1.5 to 1.4 and from -.7 to 2.5
respectively. All these values for univariate skewness and kurtosis were within acceptable
range (-3 to 3 for skewness and -8 to 8 for kurtosis), according to Kline (1998). The
scatterplots indicated unclear patterns of linearity for two hypothesized relationships
between service climate and service role ambiguity, and service role ambiguity and

SOBCZ-helping coworkers.

 

2 SOBC: service oriented organizational citizenship behaviors

45

Testing Measurement Models

The first step in SEM was to determine the appropriate measurement model for
the data. Thus, a confirmatory factor analysis (CF A) was conducted to assess the
psychometric properties of the measurement models. Prior to testing a full measurement
model, analyzing all latent constructs together, a series of CF As were performed
separately for the constructs of service climate (higher order vs. first-order), service
orientation (dispositional, attitudinal, and behavioral service orientation), and service role
ambiguity. When an initial model required improvement in fit, modification procedures
were conducted, guided by theoretical and empirical considerations.
Factor Structure of Service Climate

Model specifications and procedures. As discussed in Chapter 2, the literature is
inconsistent in defining dimensions of service climate and whether service climate should
be conceptualized as a higher-order construct or multidimensional first-order construct.
Accordingly, the goodness of fit of service climate was tested in comparison with
alternative and competing models. First, a one-factor model of service climate, with all
items loadings into one factor, was estimated. Second, an initial first four-factor of
service climate, comprising four latent variables - service vision, supervisor support,
service training, and reward and recognition - was tested. Third, the initial first four-
factor of service climate was modified to improve in fit, guided by standardized residual
matrix, modification index, and the size of factor loadings. Fourth, based on the modified
items from the revised first-order four-factor model, the second-order factor of service

climate was tested and evaluated.

46

Overall fit indices for service climate. Table 4-1 shows the comparisons of overall
fit indices for alternative measurement models of service climate. According to overall
fit indices, a one-factor model did not produce a good fit with the data, x2 (405, N = 452)
= 2196.55, p < .001, (xz/df= 5.4, CFI = .78, NNFI = .76, RMSEA = .10). An initial four-
factor model, on the other hand, was a significantly better fit than the one factor-model,
A78 (6, N = 452) = 1040.18, p < .001 (xZ/df= 2.7, CFI = .93, NNFI = .93, RMSEA = .06),
yet the standardized residual matrix and modification indices showed that the initial four-
factor is required for improvement in model fit. After deleting six items in total, a
revised four-factor model showed a significant improvement in fit, A752 (175, N = 452) =
548.77, p < .001 (xz/df = 2.7, CFI = .93, NNFI = .93, RMSEA = .06). Next, the second-
order four-factor model was tested, with the remaining 24 items. The second-order four-
factor model showed further significant improvement in fit, A12 (19, N = 452) = 102.73, p
< .001 (1241f: 2.5, CFI = .95, NNFI = .94, RMSEA = .06), compared to the revised first-

order four-factor of the service climate.

 

 

Table 4-1
Overall Fit Indices for Alternative Models of the Service Climate (N = 452)
Model :8 df xz/ajf A x2 Adf CFI NNFI RMSEA
One factor 2197 405 5.4 - - .78 .76 .10
:“St'mde’ mm" 1156 399 3.0 1040‘” 6 .91 .90 .07
actor

Rev‘sed fi’S’f’de’ 608 224 2.7 549‘" 175 .93 .93 .06
four-factor
R . ' on

“we“ sewn“ 505 205 2.5 103 19 .95 .94 .06

order four- factor

Note: CFI = comparative fit index; NNFI = non-normed fit index;
RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; "* p < .001

47

Final measurement model of service climate. Figure 4-1 posits the factor
structure of higher-order service climate. Overall, results of the CFA for the service
climate indicate that a second-order four-factor structure for the service climate
represents a substantively best fit to the data, compared to all alternative models. Table
4-2 shows the items corresponding to the four-factor of service climate and their
standardized factor loadings. All standardized factor loadings for sub-dimensional of
service climate were significant at p < .001. The standardized Cronbach’s coefficient
alpha scores for service vision, service training, supervisor support, and rewards and

recognitions were a = .83, a = .90, a = .86 and a = .87 respectively.

Service
climate

.89 .89 .76 .73

Service Supervisor Re &ward
training support recognition

IEEI EEIEEIE EEEEIE EEEEE

Figure 4-1
The Second-Order Four-Factor Measurement Model of Service Climate

48

Table 4-2
Standardized Factor Loadings for Revised Second-Order Four-Factor Model of Service
Climate (N = 452)

 

Items Factor C.R.

loadings
# t *

 

Service Vision (10
V3 Management constantly communicates the importance and value of

. . 0.80 14.1
servrce quality.
V4 Management makes every effort to ensure that service quality is 0 78 14 0
the top priority of this foodservice establishment. ' '
V2 Management makes clear that the goal of pleasing customers is an 0 69 13 1
important part of my job in this foodservice establishment. ' '
V1 Management emphasizes that customer satisfaction is the number 0 67 _
one priority of this foodservice establishment. '
Service Training (1)
T6 Service training is emphasized in this foodservice establishment. 0.85 17.8
T3 This foodservice establishment spends much time and effort in
. . . . . . . . 0.84 17.3
tramrng me In delrverrng hlgh quality servrce.
T2 This foodservice establishment offers extensive customer service 0 75 15 4
training before my initial contact with customers. ' '
T5 Service training is part of the routine in this foodservice 0 75 15 6
establishment. ' '
T4 This foodservice establishment trains me to have competent food 0 72 15 0
and beverage knowledge about the menu. ' '
T8 The procedure of service training is clearly understandable to me. 0.72 -
T7 This foodservice establishment trains me on how to solve customer
. 0.65 13.3
complarnts.
Supervisor Support (S)
82 My supervisor supports me so that I can perform my service duties 0.76 15.7
well.
S8 Management supports my service activities to serve customers best. 0.76 15.2
S1 1 find my supervisor very helpful in my performance of customer 0 73 _
service duties. '
SS My supervisor provides me with important work-related
. . . . . 0.72 14.6
information and advrce that makes my job easrer.
S4 My supervisor regularly spends time on the floor to support me
. . . . . . 0.71 14.4
to facrlrtate servrce actrvrtres.
S7 I can receive assistance from supervisors when performing my
. . 0.69 14.0
servrce dutres.
Reward and Recognition (R)
R4 1 will be rewarded if I deal effectively with customer problems. 0.81 18.8
R6 "Wowing" customers contributes to my potential recognition. 0.81 -
R5 This foodservice establishment celebrates top service
. 0.80 18.5
accomplrshments.
R3 The reward system is linked to my service performance. 0.69 15.4
R1 If I improve the level of service offered to customers, the supervisor 0 53 1 l 2

recognizes my service performance.
*** Factor loadings were all significant at p < .001

49

Factor Structure of Service Orientation

Model specifications and procedures. Previous studies have not explicitly
proposed and tested the dimensions of service orientation from dispositional, attitudinal
and behavioral concepts.3 In this study, dispositional service orientation (dispositional
SO) was not included as one of the latent constructs in the proposed model (Figure 2-1),
but the measurement items for this construct were included in the questionnaire, so as to
check the measurement validity of the concept of service orientation. First, a one-factor
model of service orientation, specified with all items loading onto a single factor, was
tested. Second, an initial first four-factor of the service orientation, comprising four latent
constructs - dispositional service orientation, service commitment toward customers,
conscious job dedication toward customers, and helping co-workers was estimated to
compare the model fit with the one-factor model. Third, an initial first four-factor was
revised to improve an overall fit of the model to the data.

Overall fit indices for service orientation. All fit indices suggested a poor fit of
the one-factor model of service orientation to the data, as expected, x2 (409, N = 452) =
2213.44, p < .001, (xz/df= 4.47, CF I = .78, NNFI = .76, RMSEA = .09). An initial first-
order four-factor of service orientation also did not fit well with the data, x2 (489, N =
452) = 1356.38, p < .001, (x2/df= 2.77, CFI = .88, NNFI = .87, RMSEA = .0.06.
Although the RMSEA was within recommended range, the other indices were not.
Furthermore, examining correlations between some pairs of factors showed evidence of

lacking discriminant validity. For example, the observed correlations between conscious

 

3 As discussed in the literature review (Chapter 2), the construct of service commitment toward customers
represents an attitudinal service orientation toward customers. Service-oriented organizational citizenship
behaviors were proposed to consist of two separate dimensions such as helping coworkers and conscious
job dedication toward customers, which represent behavioral service orientation.

50

job dedication toward customers and service commitment toward customers, and between
conscious job dedication toward customers and helping co-workers were r = .95 and

r = .85 respectively, when all of the original items were used for the estimation.

Although the correlation between conscious job dedication toward customers (behavioral
SO) and service commitment toward customers (attitudinal SO) was extremely high, the
items from these two factors were not combined, due to the lack of theoretical
justifications. The examination of modification indices suggested that the model had too
many correlated errors and cross-loadings of the items, which required revising the initial
four-factor of service orientation.

Testing two revised-models of service orientation. The following two revised
models of service orientation (revised first-order four-factor vs. revised first-order three-
factor) were estimated to compare the model fit. First, the revised first-order four-factor
model composed a five-item dispositional SO, a six-item service commitment toward
customers (attitudinal SO), a fOur-item conscious job dedication toward customers
(behavioral SO), and a five-item helping coworkers (behavioral SO). The revised first-
order four-factor model of service orientation reflects the deletions of some measurement
items, guided by the standardized residual matrix and modification indices when
estimating the initial four-factor model. This revised four-factor model showed a good fit
,ofthe data, :8 (146) = 302.13, p < .001, (ledf= 2.07, CFI = .96, NNFI = .95, RMSEA =
.049). When examining the correlation between each pair of factors, the correction
coefficients for two pairs - between conscious job dedication toward customers and
service commitment toward customers (r = .834) and between conscious job dedication

toward customers and helping co-workers (r = .836) were still high. Although none of

51

these confidence intervals approach 1, the magnitudes of these correlation coefficients
seem large. Next, another revised three-factor model of service orientation reflects three
latent constructs, comprising a five-item dispositional SO, a six-item service commitment
toward customers, and a five—item helping co-workers. This alternative model of service
orientation was exactly similar to the revised four-factor model of service orientation,
except that the construct of conscious job-dedication toward customers was deleted. The
option of estimating the alternative model of service orientation, with a deletion of
conscious job—dedication toward customers was made, due to 1) this construct having
extremely high correlations with other two constructs, and 2) the reliability of this
construct being low (a = .65). Three-factor of service orientation showed excellent fit to
the data, x2 (129) = 240.68, p < .001, (ledf= 1.87, CFI = .97, NNFI = .96, RMSEA =
.044). The values of overall goodness-of-fit indices for the revised three-factor of service
orientation were slightly higher than those for the revised four-factor of service
orientation. To examine if the revised three-factor model significantly improved over the
revised four-factor of service orientation, a chi-square difference test (likelihood ratio
test) was conducted (Bollen, 1989). As shown in Table 4-3, the revised three-factor of
service orientation showed significant improvement in fit, compared to the revised four-
factor of service orientation, of (59, N = 452) = 139.03, p < .001 (xz/df= 1.88, CFI =
.97, NNFI = .97, RMSEA = .04). That is, the deletion of conscious job dedication toward
customers resulted in a significant increase in model fit for the three-factor, over the

revised four-factor of service orientation.

52

Table 4-3
Overall Fit Indices for Alternative Models of Service Orientation (N = 452)

 

 

Model x2 df xz/df A x2 Adf CFI NNFI RMSEA
One-factor 2214 495 4.47 - - .78 .76 .090
Initial four-factor 1356 489 2.77 877’” 6 .89 .89 .063
Revised four-factor 302 146 2.07 1054‘" 343 .96 .95 .049

Revised three-factor 163 87 1.88 139... 59 .97 .97 044

Note: CFI = comparative fit index; NNFI = non-normed fit index; RMSEA = root mean
square error of approximation; *" p < .001

Final measurement model of service orientation. Overall, a series of CFA found
that a revised three-factor of service orientation, comprising innate service orientation,
service commitment toward customers, and helping coworkers (service-oriented
organizational citizenship behaviors), had a substantively best fit to the data, compared to
all alternative models. Innate service orientation, service commitment toward customers,
and helping coworkers represent the dispositional, attitudinal and behavioral service
orientation respectively. As Table 44 shows, all standardized factor loadings for the
revised three-factor of service orientation are statistically significant at p < .001, ranging
from .48 to .81, providing support for construct validity. Latent factor correlations for
each of three pairs ranged from .58 to .82, evidencing further construct validity. Namely,
when 95 percent confidence interval was calculated, none of the pairs included the value
1.00. The standardized coefficient alpha was employed to assess the reliability of each
measurement model, and was found to be .87, and .85, and .74 for innate service
orientation, service commitment toward customers, and SOCB-helping coworkers
respectively. The standardized Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for SOCB-helping
coworkers (01 = .74) appeared lower than other scales, but was still an acceptable

reliability coefficient, since it was greater than Nunnally’s suggested value of .70.

53

Table 4-4
Standardized Factor Loadings for Revised Three-Factor Model of Service Orientation
(N = 452)

 

Items Factor C.R.
loadings

tit

 

Dispositional Service Orientation (DS):
I have a natural tendency to

DS6 enjoy providing fiiendly service to customers. 0.80 15.3
DS9 enjoy delivering intended services on time to customers. 0.79 15.0
DS1 1 gain satisfaction by pleasing customers. 0.76 14.4
DS8 enjoy keeping customers informed. 0.74 14.4
DS4 achieve my own goals by satisfying customers' needs. 0.69 -
Service Commitment Toward Customers (SC)
SC4 As an employee responsible for providing service, customers
. 0.81 17.0
are very 1mportant to me.
SC5 I feel that the needs of our customers always come first. 0.75 -
SC3 I am willing to meet all requests made by my customers, if
. 0.74 15.5
possrble.
SC2 It is best to ensure that our customers receive the best
. . . 0.69 14.3
possrble servrce available.
SCl When performing my job, the customer is most important to 0 63 13 1
me. ' '
Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior -
Helping Coworkers (HC)
HC6 I always am ready to help other servers who are occupied in
. . . . 0.76 -
servrng and mteractrng wrth customers.
HC4 I help other servers' service activities that are not assigned to
. . . 0.64 12.1
me in busy srtuatrons.
HCl I help other servers who have heavy service workloads. 0.61 11.6
HC3 I help new or inexperienced servers learn to perform service
. . . . . . 0.57 10.8
actrvrtres, even 1f management does not require this.
HC2 I help to take orders for another server's table, if he or she is 0 48 9 1

too busy.

 

*Factor loadings were all significant at p < .001
Factor Structure of Service Role Ambiguity

Model specifications and procedures. First, a single-factor model of service role
ambiguity, indicated by six measured variables was estimated. Next, the initial one-
factor model of service role ambiguity was modified, based on the standardized residual

matrix, and modification indices.

54

Overall fit indices of service role ambiguity. Overall fit indices showed that a
prior one-factor model of service role ambiguity had good fit data in general, )8 (9) =
34.71, p < .01, (ledf= 3.85, CFI = .98, NNFI = .97, RMSEA = .08). However, (xz/df =
3.85 was larger than the recommended range (3), by Kline (1998). Furthermore, the
modification indices and standardized residual matrix indicated one item of six needs to
be deleted to improve the fit of model. That particular item had a problem of cross-
loadings with another. Thus, another CF A was run, with the revised one-factor model of
service role ambiguity. This five-item model of service role ambiguity showed an
excellent fit to the data, x2 (5) = 13.45, p < .01, (xz/df= 2.69, CFI = .99, NNFI = .99,
RMSEA = .06). As Table 4-5 indicates, chi-square difference test showed the five-item
one-factor model had a significant improvement in fit, compared to the six-item one-

factor model of service role ambiguity, Ax: (4, N = 452) = 21.26, p < .001.

 

 

Table 4-5
Overall Fit Indices for Alternative Models of Service Role Ambiguity (N = 452)
Model 7:2 df xz/df A x2 Adf CFI NNFI RMSEA
Initial one-factor 35 9 3.85 - - .98 .97 0.08
Revised one-factor 14 5 2.69 22'" 4 .99 .99 0.06

 

Note: CFI = comparative fit index; NNFI = non-normed fit index; RMSEA = root mean
square error of approximation; *** p < .001

Final measurement model of service role ambiguity. Five of six items were
retained to show a unidimensional solution as indicators for service role ambiguity. As
Table 4-6 shows, all standardized factor loadings are statistically significant at p < .001,
ranging from .66 to .78. The standardized Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for service role

ambiguity was (a = .85).

55

Table 4-6
Standardized Factor Loadings for Service Role Ambiguity (N = 452)

 

 

Items Factor C.R.
loadings“
Service Role Ambiguity (RA)
RA4 I feel uncertain about how to interact with customers. .83 17.7
RA5 I feel uncertain about how to solve customer complaints, 82 1.7 5
if they occur. ' '
RA6 I feel uncertain about how to approach some customers. .78 16.7
RA3 I feel uncertain about how to identify customer needs. .77 -
RAl I feel uncertain about what service customers expect. .66 14.1

 

*Factor loadings were all significant at p < .001

A Full Measurement Model

Model specifications and procedures. As shown in Figure 4-2, the full

measurement model consists of eight latent variables: higher-order service climate, which

was indicated by four latent constructs comprising service vision, service training,

supervisor support, and rewards and recognition; service commitment toward customers,

indicated by five measured variables; service role ambiguity, which was indicated by five

measured variables; and helping coworkers, which was indicated by five measured

variables (Appendix B shows all initial measurement items.)

&
recognitio

Figure 4-2
A Full Measurement Model of Theoretical Constructs

56

 

Overall fit indices of a full measurement model. The model fit indices presented
in Table 4-7 revealed good fit to the data. All fit indices suggested a good fit of data, x2

(619) = 1225.9, p < .01, (xz/df= 1.99, CFI = .93, NNFI = .92, RMSEA = .05).

 

 

Table 4.7
Overall Fit Indices for A Full Measurement Model (N = 452)
Model 12 Df xz/df CFI NNFI RMSEA
“W’s“ “mm 1226 619 2.0 .93 .92 0.05
model

 

Note: CFI = comparative fit index; NNFI = non-normed fit index; RMSEA = root mean
square error of approximation

Descriptive statistics. Mean, standard deviations, reliabilities, and inter-item
correlation are presented in Table 4-8. Reliability scores range from a = .74 to a = .90.
The indicators should have a Cronbach's alpha of .7 or higher to judge as reliable
measures (Nunnally, 1978). All other scales demonstrated good reliability. Inspections
of distribution for each scale revealed some degree of negatively skewed distribution,
representing positive responses from many participants. The Maximum Likelihood
estimation method employed in this is known to be less sensitive to the violation of

normal distribution assumption, than are other estimation methods (Kline, 1998).

 

 

Table 4-8
Descriptive Statistics and Standardized Cronbach’s constructs (N = 452)
Constructs Number M SD (1 Inter-item
of items correlation
Service climate
Service vision 4 4.43 .59 .83 .55
Service training 7 4.07 .71 .90 .57
Service support 6 4.15 .61 .86 .51
Reward and recognition 5 3.72 .84 .87 .56
Service role ambiguity 5 2.06 .95 .88 .59
Service commitment toward customer 5 4.55 .47 .85 .52
Helping with coworkers (SOCB)l 5 4.27 .49 .74 .37

 

I SOCB: Service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors

57

Convergent and discriminant validity. Taken together fi'om all series of CFA
explained above, the final measurement model (see Figure 4-1) provided supports for
both convergent and discriminant validity. Kline (1998, pp. 197-198) described the
concepts of convergent and discriminant validity as the evaluation of measures against
one another: “a set of indicators presumed to measure the same construct shows
convergent validity if their intercorrelations are at least moderate in magnitude. If the
estimated correlations of the factors that underlie sets of indicators that are supposed to
measure different constructs are not excessively high, then there is evidence for
discriminant validity.” Indicators specified to measure each of the latent constructs in a
full measurement model all have relatively high loadings (statistically significant at p
< .05), ranging from .48 to .83, which supports the evidence of convergent validity. As
Table 4-9 shows, estimated correlations between the factors were not excessively high,
and none of the pairs for the 95% confidence interval approached 1.00, providing support

for the discriminant validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).

 

 

Table 4-9
Intercorrelated Factors in Theoretical Model
1 2 3 4
1. Service climate 1
2. Service role ambiguity -.09 1
3. Service commitment toward customer 52*" -.37*** 1
4. socn‘: helping with coworkers .50*** -.23M 74*" 1

 

I SOCB: service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

58

Testing Full Structural Model and Hypotheses

According to Muliak and J ames (1995), the measurement model must be
empirically satisfactory before proceeding to hypotheses testing. In this study, the
appropriate measurement model was determined by a series of confirmatory factor
analyses. Thus, the next step was to test the full structural model, including both the
appropriate measurement model and the hypothesized relationships among the latent
constructs. To reach this goal, first the entire model fit of an initial conceptual model and
hypothesized relationships were tested, guided by goodness-of-fit indices and critical
ratios associated with path coefficients respectively. Next, the initial model was revised
by deleting non-significant paths to produce a most parsimonious conceptual model.
Finally, an altemative/competing model was compared to ensure the revised model was
superior to the alternative model of the data.
Testing the Proposed Structural Model

Model specifications and procedures. Initially, an original conceptual model
included two dimensions of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors, namely
conscious job dedication toward customers and helping coworkers. Subsequent analyses
of hypotheses testing and entire model fit did not include the construct of conscious job
dedication toward customers, because this construct was found to cross-loaded severely
with two other constructs, as explained above. Thus, the path model, displayed in Figure
4-3, reflects the effect of higher-order service climate on employees’ service-oriented
citizenship behaviors (SOCB) - helping coworkers - are mediated by both service role
ambiguity (a partial mediator) and service commitment toward customers. This proposed

model included two distinct concepts of service orientation (SO). More specifically, the

59

service commitment toward customers represents the attitudinal SO while the construct

of SOCB-helping coworkers represents the behavioral SO.

 
   
    
   
  
     
   

Service role
ambiguity

   
     

 

H4
SOCB —
Service climate — H3 Helping
coworkers
+
H5

  

Service
commitment
toward
customers

Figure 4-3
Proposed Structural Model (N=452)

Overall fit indices of the proposed model. The overall fit of the structural model
was very reasonable, x2 (620) = 1232.91, p < .01, (ledf= 1.99, CFI = .93, NNFI = .92,

RMSEA = .05), as shown in Table 4-10.

 

 

Table 4-10
Overall Fit Indices for the Proposed Structural Model (N = 452)
Model 112 df f/df CFI NNFI RMSEA
Proposed structural model 1233 620 2 .93 .92 0.05

 

Note: CF I = comparative fit index; NNFI = non-normed fit index; RMSEA = root mean
square error of approximation

Path coefficients obtained in the test of the proposed structural model are presented in
Figure 4-3. All values of fit indices were acceptable, namely, within recommended

ranges, but a number of the path coefficients were not statistically significant.

60

According to squared multiple correlations, provided by Amos output, 39.5 percent of
variance in service commitment toward customers among the frontline employees was
explained by both the service climate and service role ambiguity, perceived by the
frontline employees. Only 7% of variance in perceived service role ambiguity among the
frontline employees was explained by the service climate, perceived by the frontline
employees. Fifty-seven percent of variance in helping coworkers (service-oriented

citizenship behaviors) was explained by all indirect and direct indicators in the model.

 
 

Service vision

Service role
ambiguity

      
 

06

Service training

 
  
 

  
 

  

SOCB-
Helping
coworkers

-.32“

  
 

Service climate

     
  

   

Supervisor
support

 

 
 
 

.78...

   

Service
commrtment

 
     
        

   

Reward toward
& customers
recognition

  

————> : Supported relationship -------------------------------- > : Not supported relationship

”p < .01; *"p < .001

Figure 4-4
Obtained Structural Model with Standardized Path Coefficients (N = 452)

61

Testing of Hypotheses for the Proposed Structural Model

Service climate —r Service role ambiguity (H1). H1 proposes that overall service
climate, as perceived by frontline employees, influences negatively their perceived
service role ambiguity. A weak, negative relationship between these latent variables was
observed, but it was not statistically significant ()8 = .09, t = -1.61, p > .05). Thus, H1 was
not supported.

Service climate —> Service commitment toward customers (H2). H2 postulates
that overall service climate, as perceived by frontline employees, influences positively
their service commitment toward customers. As expected, the path between these two
latent variables was strongly positive and significant (,8 = .52, t = 9.1, p < .01). Thus, H2
was strongly supported.

Service role ambiguity —-> Service commitment toward customers (H3). H3
suggests that frontline employees’ service role ambiguity influences negatively their
service commitment toward customers. A strong, negative relationship between these
two latent constructs was found; moreover, this relationship was statistically significant
()3 = -.32, t = 6.5, p < .01). Thus, H3 was strongly supported as well.

Service role ambiguity -+ SOCB-Helping coworkers (H4). H4 proposes that
frontline employees’ service role ambiguity influences negatively their service-oriented
citizenship behaviors, conceptualized as helping coworkers. The standardized path
coefficient from service role ambiguity and helping coworkers indicated empirically no
relationship between these two latent variables ()3 = .06, t = 1.09, p > .05). Thus, H4 was

not supported.

62

Service commitment toward customers —> SOCB-Helping coworkers (H5). Last,
H5 postulates that the frontline employees’ service commitment toward customers
influences positively their service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors (helping
coworkers). The standardized path coefficient between these two suggested a strong and
positive relationship (,6 = .78, t = 8.28, p < .01).

Summary of hypotheses testing. A summary of the results relative to each
hypothesis can be found in Table 4-12. Overall, three of the standardized path estimates
were statistically significant, while two hypothesized relationships were not statistically
significant at p < .05. Taken together from the test of entire model fit and hypotheses

testing, the proposed model had partial support for model fit to the data.

 

 

Table 4-11
Standardized Path coefficients of Proposed Structural Mode1
Path Path t-value Results
coefficient
Service climate —> Service role ambiguity (H1) -.087 -1.6 Not supported

Service climate —> Service commitment toward
customers (H2)

Service role ambiguity -—> Service commitment
toward customers (H3)

Service role ambiguity —> SOCBl-Helping
coworkers (H4)

Service commitment toward customers ->
SOCBI- Helping coworkers Q—IS)

.512 91"" Supported
- .323 -6.5** Supported
.055 1.1 Not supported

.775 83*" Supported

 

I SOCB = service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors; ** p < .01; "* p < .001
Indirect eflects. In addition to direct effects (hypotheses testing), indirect
relationships were estimated via structural equation modeling. In fact, an ability to
estimate indirect effects is an advantage of using SEM, over the multiple regressions.
Table 4-12 presents standardized direct, indirect, and total effects of all endogenous and

exogenous variables. As expected, service climate was found to have significant direct

63

effect on service role ambiguity ()6 = .51), but insignificant indirect effect on service role
ambiguity (B = .03). Most importantly, service climate showed significant indirect effect
on service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors, helping-coworkers (fl = .41).
Service role ambiguity was proposed to influence service-oriented organizational
citizenship behaviors, helping-coworkers both directly and directly. As shown in Table
4-12, service role arnbiguity’s direct effect on service-oriented organizational citizenship
behaviors-helping coworkers was trivial (fl = .06), yet its indirect effect on service-
oriented citizenship behaviors-helping coworkers was significant (,8 = -.250).

Table 4-12
Standardized Estimate for Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects

 

Exogenous variables Endogenous variables Direct Indirect Total
effect effect effect

Service climate Service role ambiguity -.09 .00 -.09
Servrce commrtrnent .51 .03 .54
toward customers
SOCB: helping coworkers 0 .41 .41

Service role ambiguity Service commitment _ 32 00 _ 32
toward customer ' ' '
SOCB": helping coworkers .06 -.25 -. 19

Servrce comrrntrnent SOCB': helping coworkers .78 .00 .78

toward customer

 

I SOCB: Service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors
Testing Revised Structural Model

Model specifications and procedures. After estimating the proposed structural
model, the next step was to conduct model modification to achieve a better model fit to
the data. Proposed structural model was found to have two non-significant path

coefficients such as the link between service climate and service role ambiguity and the

64

link between service role ambiguity and SOCB-Helping coworkers. These non-
significant paths were deleted, and then this revised structural model was compared to the
proposed structural model in terms of the improvement in fit, and overall fit indices. An

obtained revised structural model is depicted in Figure 4-5.

Service vision

  

Service training

  
    
 

Service climate

.Szttt

   

Supervisor
support

  
  

 
     
 

Service
commrtrnent

SOCB-
Helping
coworkers

      

   

Service role
ambiguity

  

**p<.01; ***p<.001

Figure 4-5.
Revised Structural Model (N = 452)

Overall fit indices of revised structural model. All fit indicators showed good fit
of the revised structural model to the data, x2 (622) = 1236.99, p < .01, (xz/df= 1.99, CFI
= .93, NNFI = .92, RMSEA = .047), as shown in Table 4-12. The chi-square difference

test, comparing the proposed (more complex model) and revised structural models

65

(simpler model with dropping two paths), showed that the chi-square difference was not
significant statistically, A)? (2, N = 452) = 3.88, p < .05. Thus, a null hypothesis,
indicating no significant difference in model fit between these two nested models, was
not rejected. Put simply, the fit of the simpler model (revised structural model) is not

significantly worse than for the more complex model (proposed structural model).

 

 

Table 4-13
Overall Fit Indices of Revised Structural Model (N = 452)

Model )8 df xz/df A12 Adf CFI NNFI RMSEA
Proposed structural model 1233 620 1.99 - - .93 .92 0.05

Revised Structural Model 1237 622 1.99 39* 2 .93 .92 0.05

Note: CFI = comparative fit index; NNFI = non-normed fit index; RMSEA = root mean
square error of approximation; * p > .05

Squared multiple correlations show that 37.6% of variance in service commitment toward
customers is explained by service climate and service role ambiguity, while 56% of
variance in SOCB-helping coworkers is explained by service commitment toward
customers. The deletion of two non-significant paths only resulted in the decrease of
approximately 2 % and 1 % for service commitment toward customers and SOCB-
helping coworkers respectively. Overall, the deletion of these two non-significant paths
produced the more parsimonious model, compared to the proposed structural model.
Testing an Alternative Structural Model

Evidence for the validity of the theoretical model depends on the fact that the
hypothesized model cannot be falsified (Burke, 1993). Thus, the last step of SEM was to
ensure that the revised model (Figure 4-5) was superior to an alternative model or
competing model of the data.

Model specification. The revised structural model was compared with a

competing structural model. The revised model (Figure 4-5) posits that the effects of

66

perceived service climate and service role ambiguity on employees’ service-oriented
organizational citizenship behavior are mediated by employees’ service commitment
toward customers. The alternative model includes two additional direct paths: 1)
between service climate and SOCB-helping coworkers, and 2) between role ambiguity
and SOCB-helping coworkers in the model. Figure 4-6 shows obtained path coefficients

for this alternative model.

Service climate

  
 
 
   
   
   

‘:
‘a
0.
'-
c._
n..
v._
*-
I.
c
.....
u
0.
-..
'-
'-
'a
I.
‘-
u
'-
~._
'-

I...
9..
e.-
l-
I.
'-
a...
'u
e._

'-
'-
'-
‘o
'o
'-
o
0-
.....
.-
I.
,
'n
I.
‘-
'-
o
e

  
    

Service """""""""""

 
 
  
 

commitment Helping
toward coworkers
customers ............

.c
.o
.-
.-
_.
,.
.c
.c
.-
.o
-"
.
o'.
O..‘
o
.c
.c
c
.-
..
.‘
.u
0'
.b'
.t'
o.-
....
u‘.-

.o
.
,c
.
.
.
.
u
.
.
.
.
n
.
a
.v
..
Q...
o
v
.-
.-
r
u
.
.
.I'
.
.-
.c
.u
..

Service role
ambiguity

———> : Supported relationship -------------------------------- b : Not supported relationship

** Significant atp < .01

Figure 4-6
Saturated Structural Model — Alternative Structural Model (N = 452)

Overall fit indices of competing structural model. Table 4-13 shows overall fit
indices for alterative model and the chi-square difference test examining the incremental
fit of the alternative model over the revised structural model. Overall, adding these two
direct paths (more complex model) did not cause the model to have a better fit over the

revised structural model (simpler model). The evidence suggests that the revised model

67

is more efficient - explaining the most variance with the least propositions, than the
alternative model - with more paths. First, the overall fit indices are almost identicd
between the revised structural model and alternative model. Second, a significant chi-
square difference test showed that adding these two additional direct paths results in a
better fit for the more complex model (alternative model), than for the simpler (revised
model) at p < .05. However, this chi-square difference test was not significant at p < .01.
Again, the chi-square difference test is sensitive to sample size, like the chi-square test.
This significant result at p < .05 may be attributed, simply, to the relatively large sample
size (N = 452). Last, and most importantly, the direct path coefficients for 1) between
service climate and SOCB-helping coworkers (5 = .15), and 2) service role ambiguity and
SOCB-helping coworkers ([9 = .03), were not statistically significant at p < .05. All

together, these analyses indicate that alternative models do not offer a better fit to the data

 

 

than the revised model.
Table 4-14
Overall Fit Indices of Alternative Structural Model (N = 452)
Model 1:2 df f/df A x2 Adf CFI NNFI RMSEA
Revised Structural Model 1237 622 2 - - .93 .92 0.05
Alternative Model 1229 620 2 8.0"“ 2 .93 .92 0.05

 

Note: CFI = comparative fit index; NNFI = non-normed fit index; RMSEA = root mean
square error of approximation, * p < .05

68

Chapter Summary

This chapter summarized the findings of the proposed and modified structural
equation model, comprising both measurement and structural models. The psychometric
properties of the measurement model were assessed first, before estimating the structural
model and testing the hypotheses. Three criteria (i.e. absolute, incremental, and
parsimonious fit measures) as well as standardized residual matrix were used to evaluate
the fit of model to the data. For the measurement model, a second-order four-factor
model of service climate had best fit to data, compared to competing models. SOCB-
conscious job dedication toward customers had to be deleted due to cross-loading
problems with other related constructs in the model for subsequent analyses. The
proposed model shows partial support for the data; three of five hypotheses were
supported. The chi-square difference test was used to compare the proposed model with
alternative models. The revised model, with deletion of non-significant paths showed the
best fit of the data. The revised model posits that the effects of service climate and
service role ambiguity, perceived by frontline employees on their service-oriented
organizational citizenship behaviors (helping coworkers) is fully mediated by their

service commitment toward customers.

69

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Chapter Overview
This final chapter presents a summary of key results: 1) the factor structure of
service climate and service orientation, 2) a mediating model predicting service-oriented
organizational citizenship behavior, and 3) non-significant paths in the model. This
chapter provides explanations for ambiguous and conflicting findings, based on current
theoretical and empirical evidence. This study discusses both theoretical and practical

implications and addresses some limitations as well as future research.

Summary of Key Findings

Factor Structures of Service Climate and Service Orientation

Findings of semi-structured interviews (stage 1) and pre-test (stage 2), together
with the literature review, resulted in the development of the questionnaire. This present
study recognized emerging evidence suggesting that a specific climate is predictive of a
specific outcome. In this example, to predict frontline employees’ service-related
outcomes (e. g., service role ambiguity, service commitment toward customers, service-
oriented organizational citizenship behavior), specific dimensions for service climate,
applied to foodservice establishments, were identified. Thus, a series of confirmatory
factory analyses were performed to test the construct validity of measurement models

using Amos 5.0. The following explains the key findings of the measurement models.

70

Service climate. Service climate was proposed as the exogenous variable.
Components of service climate were anticipated to differ across organizations, since the
organizational events, practices, policies, and procedures that help shape climate differ
across organizations. Given that the majority of studies for service climate have been
conducted in bank settings, by Schneider and his colleagues (e. g., Schneider & Bowen,
1985; Schneider, Parkington, & Buxton, 1980; Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002;
Schneider, Wheeler, & Cox, 1992; Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998), the dimensions of
service climate in foodservice establishments were expected to differ from those found
for banks. After conducting a series of confirmatory factor analyses, a second-order four-
factor model of service climate was found to have the most parsimonious and best fit
among all alternatives. The second-order four-factor model of service climate comprises
four latent constructs: service vision, service training, supervisor support, reward and
recognition. This higher-order model of service climate provides a parsimonious picture
of how employee perceive overall service climate in a particular foodservice
establishment.

Service orientation. This study addressed inconsistencies in the way the term
“service-oriented employees” has been used in the literature. Accordingly, this study
attempted to distinguish between four dimensions of service orientation - a
unidimensional innate service orientation (SO), a unidimensional service commitment
toward customers, and two dimensions of service-oriented organizational citizenship
behavior (SOCB), namely helping coworkers and conscious job dedication toward
customers. A series of confirmatory factor analyses showed that these concepts differ

from each other in general; however, several items from SOCB-conscious job dedication

71

toward customers showed cross-loading problems on two other factors, namely service
commitment toward customers and SOCB-helping coworkers. The factor correlation
between SOCB-conscious job dedication toward customers and service commitment
toward customers was very high (r = .95), when all initial items were used. Although the
service commitment toward customers differs theoretically from the SOCB-conscious job
dedication toward customers, both constructs capture service orientation toward
customers. A likely explanation for the high correlation between the construct is twofold.
First, both constructs were measured using frontline employee self-reports. Secondly the
respondents may not have been able to empirically distinguish their own attitudinal SO
(service commitment toward customers) from their own behavioral SO (SOCB-conscious
job dedication). There was no theoretical rationale for combining the items from these
two constructs. Instead, the construct of SOCB-conscious job dedication toward
customers was deleted from subsequent analyses. The revised model of service
orientation shows three dimensions of service orientation, reflective of dispositional SO,
attitudinal SO (service commitment toward customers) and behavioral SO (SOCB-
helping coworkers), respectively.
Mediating Model

The main objective of this study was to examine the direct and indirect effects of
service climate, perceived by frontline employees, on their service-related attitudinal and
behavioral outcomes, in the context of foodservice establishments. In particular, this
study proposed two mediating variables to examine the relationship between service
climate and service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. These two mediating

variables were service role ambiguity and service commitment toward customers. As

72

posited in Figure 4-3, service commitment toward customers was expected to play a
mediating role to link service climate and service-oriented organizational citizenship
behaviors. Service role ambiguity was proposed as a partial mediator. Perceived service
role ambiguity was expected to influence service-oriented organizational citizenship
behaviors both directly and indirectly via service commitment toward customers.
Findings from structural equation modeling, however, showed that service role ambiguity
did not play the role of full- or partial- mediator. The revised and final model (see Figure
4-5) shows that service commitment toward customers (attitudinal service orientation)
firlly mediated the relationships between both endogenous variables (service climate and
service role ambiguity) and service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. The
revised model had a good fit to the data, x2 (622) = 1236.99, p < .01, (ledf= 1.99, CF I =
.93, NNFI = .92, RMSEA = .047). When this revised model was compared to the initial
model (Figure 4-4) as well as to an alternative model (Figure 4-6), chi-square difference
statistics showed evidence that the revised model had the best and most parsimonious fit
to the data.
Non-significant Paths

Findings were generally consistent with the hypotheses that frontline employees’
perceived service climate is an important factor in shaping employees’ affective attitude
(service commitment toward customers), and this consequently influenced service-
oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Initially five hypotheses were proposed in
the initial path model (Figure 4-3; Figure 4-4). Only three of five hypotheses were
supported. Two hypotheses linking service climate and service role ambiguity (H1) and

service role ambiguity and service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors (H4)

73

were not supported. More specifically, the link between service climate and service role
ambiguity was identified as a negative (,6 = .09) and statistically insignificant. Path
coefficients between service role ambiguity and service oriented organizational
citizenship behaviors approached zero (,6 = .06), while a negative relationship was
expected. Overall, the findings of this study showed that frontline employees’ perceived
service role ambiguity did not mediate the relationship between service climate and
service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Possible explanations for this
finding follow.

Link between service climate and service role ambiguity (H1). The climate
literature in general and the service climate literature specifically, suggest that the role
ambiguity construct is one of the dimensions of organizational climate. This present
study did not consider service role ambiguity as one of the dimensions for service climate
in the context of foodservice establishments, but proposed service climate as
antecedent to service role ambiguity, as perceived by frontline employees. The present
study argued that perceptions of service climate would provide role information, and as
such be negatively associated with frontline employees’ service role ambiguity. It is
possible that fi'ontline employees establish their perception of service roles about their
service job activities, including priorities and expectations while interacting with
customers, from their previous and current working experiences. Frontline employees
who have extensive work experience may have well-defined understandings of service
roles, and current perceptions of service climate experience may have little influence on
their perceived service role ambiguity. In comparing the respondents’ length of

employment at their current foodservice establishment to their total experiences as

74

service staff established that the majority of the sample has (averaged total working
experience = 69.2 months) experience working in other foodservice establishments, prior
to working at the current foodservice establishments.

Link between service role ambiguity and SOCB-helping coworkers (H4). The
non-significant path between frontline employees’ perceived role ambiguity and their
service oriented organizational citizenship behaviors (H4) was inconsistent with other
findings (Jaworski, Stathakopoulos, & Krishnan, 1993; Singh, 1993; Singh, Verveke, &
Rhoads, 1996; Tubre & Collins, 2000), which showed a positive relationship between
role ambiguity and job performance. Several post-hoe analyses4 were conducted to find
explanations for this obtained relationship. When examining the zero-order correlation
between service role ambiguity and SOCB-helping coworkers, the obtained correlation
was r = -.20 (p = .05) When controlling for service commitment toward customers to
examine the relationship between service role ambiguity and SOCB-helping coworkers,
the correlation (r = -.03) between the two was no longer statistically significant (p = .05).
SEM analyses provided comprehensive analyses of indirect and direct effect of each
endogenous variable (see Table 4-12). When examining the indirect effect of service role
ambiguity on SOCB-helping coworkers, mediated by service commitment toward
customers, the standardized coefficient ([3 = -.25) was statistically significant, while the
direct relationship between these two (,6 = .06) was statistically insignificant. These

empirical findings strongly support that service role ambiguity influences the service-

 

‘ The possibility of an interaction effect was investigated. Testing different patterns of relationship
between service role ambiguity and SOCB-helping coworkers, depending on the level of working
experience did not uncover any significant result. P studies showing that work experience is an important
predictor for behavioral performance (Crant, 1995, Hunter and Hunter, 1984; Rowe, 1988) provided the
impetus for this exploration.

75

oriented organization through the mediating variable, service commitment toward

CUSIOIITCI‘S.

Implications

The findings of this current study have important implications for both academic
researchers and practitioners in the field of service marketing, organizational behaviors,
and hospitality business. The following describes both practical and theoretical
implications for service climate, service role ambiguity and service orientation among
frontline employees in the foodservice establishments.
Practical Implications

In many service organizations, including the foodservice industry,

frontline employees are identified as a source of differentiation and competitive
advantage critical to the success of service organizations. Previous studies showed that
customer evaluation of service quality and/or customer satisfaction are influenced
significantly by the attitudes and behaviors of these frontline employees who act as the
organization’s representatives (c.f., Bettencourt, Gwinner, & Meuter, 2001; Bitner, 1995;
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988; Petrillose, Shaklin, & Downey, 1998). The
intangibility of services often leads customers to evaluate their service quality
experiences via their interactions with frontline restaurant employees (Zeithaml & Bitner,
1996). For example, the work of Stevens, Knutson and Patton (1995) established the
important role frontline employees play in customer perceptions of service quality. It is

essential for managers of foodservice establishments to recognize the important roles

76

 

frontline employees play, and to find ways to positively influence service-related
outcome variables.

Managers of service businesses such as foodservice establishments have less
opportunity than managers of manufacturing companies to directly control customer
perceptions of quality. Yet this present study explains how managers of foodservice
establishments can indirectly influence customer perceptions of quality via fiontline
employees’ service-related attitudes and behaviors. That is, this present study provides a
fiamework for motivating and improving service-oriented attitudes and behaviors among
frontline employees in foodservice establishments, via of service climate. Four key
components of service climate apply to foodservice establishments: service vision,
service training, supervisor support, and reward and recognition. The frontline
employees’ perceptions of service climate depend on: 1) frontline employee perceptions
of receiving training to improve their skills in dealing with customers, 2) frontline
employee perceptions that management has a well-articulated service vision, articulating
service goals and objectives for service excellence, 3) frontline employee perceptions
that their supervisor supports them in their service-work, and 4) fi'ontline employee
perceptions that they are recognized and rewarded for service excellence.

Most importantly this study suggests that frontline employees’ perceptions of
service climate and service role ambiguity, influence fiontline employees’ service
commitment toward customers and service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior.
Perception of service climate results from the frontline employees’ individual experiences,
of the internal functions of the organization (Schneider & White, 2004). Frontline

employees’ cognitive evaluations of the emphasis, value and expected delivery of service

77

quality depends on frontline employees’ experiences with the internal functions of the
organizations as demonstrated in daily routines, events, and practices.
Theoretical Implication

This present study provides evidence of construct validity for service climate and
service orientation. Service climate was found to have four dimensions, representing
important organizational practices, policies, and events. This study establishes that
frontline service employee service orientation consists of dispositional, attitudinal, and
behavioral elements. Furthermore, the high correlation between service commitment
toward customers and conscious job dedication toward customers offers the insight that
employees may be unable to distinguish their own service-oriented attitude from their
own service-oriented behaviors. Alternatively, it may be a problem of both being
measured by self-report.5

Most importantly, this study supported the mediating model that affective
attitudinal service orientation, called service commitment toward customers, mediates the
relationships between effects of service climate and service role ambiguity, and service-
oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. These findings differ from the majority of
studies that found direct relationships between employees’ perceived service climate and
individual or organizational behavioral outcome variables. Schneider, White, and Paul
(1998) called these types of studies, linkage research, in that the service climate
experienced by employees was consistent with the experiences of the customers. This
present research, however, attempted to distinguish attitudinal service orientation from
behavioral service orientation among frontline employees, and argued that attitudinal

service orientation plays an important affective mediator, examining the relationship

 

5 The issue of self-report is discussed further in the section of limitation and future research.

78

between service climate and service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. This
finding is meaningful in the field of service climate. Ostroff, Kinicki, and Tarnkins
(2003) observed that one of the recently identified research gaps in climate research is
research regarding the mediating linkages between climate and outcomes. The findings
of this study are generally consistent with Baggozzi’s attitudinal model (1992),
Kopelman, Brief, and Guzzo’s (1990), and Carr, Schmidt, Ford, & Deshon’s (2003)
mediation models. Although this current research was unable to obtain data from
customers, still the finding that service climate and service role ambiguity influence the
behavioral outcome variable through service commitment toward customers, could add

to the mediating models discussed above.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Although this present study contributes to the literature on service climate, service
role ambiguity, and service orientation, four issues may limit such contribution, and
future studies may be required. Those four issues are: 1) ignoring organizational
membership in data analysis, 2) problems with common method variance and social
desirability, 3) requiring further validation for service orientation and 4) generalizeability.
Level of Analysis — Ignoring Organizational Membership

All hypothesized relationships were proposed and tested at the employee-level
(individual level), and the data were collected from 31 different foodservice
establishments. The data analysis ignores the nested data structure. To explore the nested
data, Hierarchical Linear Modeling analysis (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2001) a two-level one-

way AN OVA model was examined on a post-hoe basis, to partition the total variance

79

into individual-level and organization-level variances for two variables — service climate
and service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors.6 When the ICC (1) was
calculated for service climate, it showed that 23 percent of the variances in the service
climate can be explained by the between-group (organization) differences. This means
that a significant proportion of total variance in responses to service climate is explained
by the organizational membership, which the current study was unable to take into
consideration when examining hypothesized relationships. Furthermore, when ICC (l)
was calculated for the outcome variable, service-oriented organizational citizenship
behaviors, it showed that 10 % of variances in the outcome variable were due to the
between-group (organization) differences. These 10% may be considered to be trivial,
yet, all taken together, firture researchers may need to examine different possible models
of levels of analysis.

The ICC (1) suggests that service climate can be conceptualized as an
organizational attribute, rather than an individual attribute. Specifying service climate at
the individual-level acknowledges that each member of the organization may differ in
how he or she interprets and perceives organizational routines, practices, and policies
(defined as climate). On the other. hand, when service climate is defined as an
organizational attribute, it indicates that an objective service climate exists in an
organization and is perceived similarly by all organizational members. Although the
literature supported specifying service climate as an individual attribute, there is also
support for explaining how individual perceptions of service climate may emerge to

become a shared perception of service climate as the organizational attribute. First,

 

6 HLM’s one-way ANOVA normally is conducted on the outcome variable. The reason ICC (1) was
calculated for service climate (IV in this present study) was simply to inspect the extent to which total
variance of service climate is explained by the between-group differences.

80

according to the atnaction-selection-atnition cycle proposed by Schneider (1987), people
are attracted to organizations based on their dispositional characteristics or personalities.
The theory posits that people of similar type would be attracted to an organization of a
particular sort, and would stay in that organization, arguing that employees within an
organization are most likely to share a similar experience. Another approach, the theory
of symbolic interaction, based on the original work of Mead (1934) explains that climate
emerges from the interaction of members within a workgroup or organization. The
emergence of climate can be seen as similar to the process of newcomer socialization or
newcomers’ sense-making process (Gupta, 1998). Thus, through social interaction and
socialization process, the organization may facilitate creating the shared perceptional
interpretation, because members of the organization learn from each other (Kozlowski &
Hults, 1987).

Taken together, the emergence of service climate (specifying service climate as an
organizational attribute), from individual perceptions of interpreting their work
environments, seems another plausible explanation, which the current study initially did
not incorporate. Accordingly, a cross-level model7 that tests relationships among the
organizational level-service climate, attitudinal mediators, and behavioral outcome
variable, may need to be explored further, using a different sample. For example, Glisson
and James (2002) examined the cross-level relationship that links team-level
organizational climate to individual-level work attitudes and service quality. They found
that work attitudes and behaviors at the individual level were explained by a function of

climate at the group level.

 

7 Cross-level occurs when relations among variables at one level are inferred from analyses performed at a
different level (Mossoholder & Bedeian, 1983).

81

Common Method Variance and Social Desirability

Respondents may provide socially desirable responses rather than describe what
they actually believe or do; this is known as social desirability (Crant, 1995). To
minimize social desirability bias, strict confidentiality was ensured participants.
Although, Moorman and Podsakoff (1992) argue that social desirability bias is not
usually a threat when examining organizational perceptions, this study cannot completely
rule out a social desirability response bias. For example, despite strict instructions that
frontline employees’ surveys will not be shared with their supervisors, frontline
employees may have hesitated to respond honestly to the surveys items tapping their
service-orientation. The potential for social desirability bias may have influenced
findings of this study. A more important limitation of this study was that all data sources
were self-report data from frontline employees, which may cause common method
variance. Common method variance tends to inflate hypothesized correlations, due to the
same source bias, rather than represent the true relationship (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,
& Podsakoff, 2003; Straub, Gefen, & Boudreau, 1999). For example, the obtained path
coefficient for the link between service commitment toward customers and service-
oriented organizational citizenship was .78. Care must be taken in interpreting this result,
considering the potential of common method bias. To avoid biases from both social
desirability and common method variance, future research measuring service-oriented
organizational citizenship behavior of frontline employees should be collected from

supervisors, coworkers, or customers.

82

 

Measurement Validation of Service Orientation

The outcome variable of this study is the frontline employees’ service-oriented
organizational citizenship behavior. Initially, two components of service-oriented
organizational citizenship behavior were proposed, namely conscious job dedication
toward customers and helping coworkers. These two dimensions were included in order
to be consistent with the service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior literature
(c.f., Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; George, 1991; Kelly & Hoffman, 1997; Stamper &
Dyne, 2003). Consequential to CFAs, only one of the two dimensions of SOCB was
retained: behavioral service-orientation toward customers, namely SOCB-helping
coworkers was the only dimension testing hypotheses and evaluating the model fit. This
implies a potential lack of content validity for the construct of service-oriented
organizational citizenship behavior. Behavioral service orientation toward customers,
namely, SOCB-conscious job dedication had to be deleted due to the severe cross-loading
problem with the other two constructs. As explained above, if the service-oriented
organizational citizenship behaviors is measured by a third person (customers, coworkers,
or supervisor), it is expected that the distinction between attitudinal and behavioral
service orientation may become clearer than the finding obtained from the self-report
study such as this one.
Generalizability

Participants were self-selected, rather than randomly selected. This researcher
was unable to obtain from participating restaurants an agreement to random selection of
frontline employees. Surveys had to be delivered to the restaurant general manager, thus

there was little control of data collection procedures. Furthermore, all data were

83

collected from foodservice establishments. There may be some possible systemic
differences, depending on characteristics of organizations (e.g., independent restaurant,
franchising restaurants, banquet operations in hotel, and contract foodservice
establishment), but due to the small number of subjects, systemic analysis of this was not
possible. It would also be informative to determine whether this study’s findings would

be obtained from other frontline employees working in different service organizations.

Conclusion

This present study proposed to examine the impact of perceived service climate
perception on service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior, mediated by two
affective states — 1) service commitment toward customers, and 2) service role ambiguity.
The testing of both the measurement model and the structural model was done via a field
survey of 452 frontline employees working in 31 different foodservice establishments.
The perception of service climate among frontline employees was emphasized, in
defining service climate, since individuals do not respond to work environment, but to
their perceptions and interpretation their environments (Carr, Schmidt, Ford, & Deshon,
2003). The proposed model partially supported the data. The findings showed that
service role ambiguity did not act as a mediator in the proposed model. The revised
model indicated that service role ambiguity had an indirect effect on service-oriented
organizational citizenship behaviors, through service commitment toward customers.
Overall, the findings of this study added to the literature of service climate, service role
ambiguity, and service orientation, and suggest it is necessary to differentiate the concept

of attitudinal service orientation from behavioral service orientation. This study also

84

 

identified service role ambiguity as one of the important predictors of frontline

employees’ service-oriented attitude and behaviors.

Chapter Summary

This chapter showed key findings of the study that could contribute to the topics
of service climate, service orientation, and service role ambiguity, especially in the
context of the foodservice industry. Findings included: 1)a higher-order factor model of
service climate; 2) differentiating dispositional, attitudinal and behavioral service
orientation; 3) a mediating model, in which both service climate and service role
ambiguity indirectly influence service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors,
emphasizing the mediating role of service commitment toward customers. This chapter
also discussed the possibility of examining current individual-level fiamework as a cross-
level framework for future study, using different data. This chapter further explained
potential biases of social desirability and common method variance, due to the self-report

method, and how this may be remedied in future study.

85

 

 

APPENDICES

86

Appendix A.
Semi-structured interview questions and protocol
Part 1: Job experience in general

“Thank you for participating in my study. My name is J aemin Cha. I am developing a
dissertation proposal to study the relationship between the service climate in foodservice
establishments, and employees’ service-oriented attitudes and behaviors. In this interview,
I mainly will ask about your motivation to deliver excellent service to customers.

The terms service climate and service-oriented may be unfamiliar to you, but my
interview questions will make them clear. In fact, your experiences and discussions will
help me define the real meaning of service climate and service-oriented attitudes or
behaviors that occur in foodservice organizations. Your experiences and responses also
will help me to develop my survey instrument.

Please read the consent form and sign it if you agree to participate in this study (give
them time to read the consent form and verify with them that I can record). May I tape-
record this interview? As the consent form says, your identity and that of organizations
you work/ed for will not be revealed in any form. Only I have access to the recording
(wait for the interviewee’s answer). This interview will take not more than 40 minutes.
If you have questions or concerns, please tell me. Also, if my questions are uncertain or
unclear to you, please ask for clarification.”

1. How long have you been working in any type of foodservice organizations
(including part-time jobs during spring or fall semesters and summer internships)?

2. Please name the organizations you worked (or have been working) for and the
employment period for each? (If names of organizations are unfamiliar to me, the
researcher, ask interviewee to explain categories of restaurants such as fme-
dining, casual, theme etc., or types of foods they serve).

3. What was your job position at each organization and what were your general job
duties?

87

Appendix A.
Semi-structured interview questions and protocol (continued)
Part 11: Service orientation

“Now, we move to the second part of interview. The second part of the interview
addresses two issues: 1) customer service in general and 2) in particular, various aspects
of service orientation in restaurant settings. In this part, 1 will ask your opinions/beliefs
about customer service and your level of commitment toward customer service. I will
ask you about your service practices that please your customers."

1. What does customer service mean to you?

2. Do you agree with the statement “the customers always are right?” Explain why.

3 Have you worked in restaurants where you build relationships with your repeat
customers? (If participants are unclear about this question, I will ask
immediately: Do customers remember your name when they come back? and/or
Do you talk to your customers in a personal way when they come in)?

4. What makes you serve your customers best?

5. Who/what is your most important priority at work?

6. (If answers for questions 4 and 5 do not mention anything about their gratitude or
gratuities): Do gratuities/tips influence your service performance?

7. How do you characterize your personality? Do you think your personality make

differences when you serve your customers?

When do you most enjoy serving customers?

At peak and busy times at foodservice, establishments, what happens to your

attitude or level of commitment towards providing excellent service to customers?

10. Please give me service-related examples of going out of your way to provide
excellent service to your customers.

 

>090

88

Appendix A.

Semi-structured interview questions and protocol (continued)

Part III: Organizational Service Clirge

“The last main part of this interview asks you not about yourself but about foodservice
establishments’ service atmosphere. To find out foodservice establishments’ service
atmospheres, I will ask you to describe procedures, practices and systems that address the
importance of customer service in your restaurant. If you have worked for the
foodservice establishments that belong to hotel organization, you will be asked to
describe the general organizational service atmosphere.”

1.

What was and/or is the working atmosphere like in that/those foodservice
establishment/s? Please tell me about this for each foodservice establishment you
worked for. If you have worked for restaurants belonging to hotels, please
describe the service atmosphere of your restaurant and of the hotel generally?
What kinds of training (and/or orientation) were you have given prior to serving
customers?

Were standards for service explicitly discussed during orientation and training
sessions?

Do you remember the foodservice establishment’l organizations' missions? If so,
what did the mission statement emphasize? If your foodservice
establishments’/organizations' mission focus on service excellence toward
customers, how were those messages taught?

Did your management evaluate your performance in any way? If yes, what
criteria were applied?

How can you tell your management and foodservice establishments
(organizations) truly are concerned about excellence of service?

What resources do management and foodservice establishments (organizations)
offer for you to deliver the best service to customers?

What kinds of reward system were offered to you by management or foodservice
establishments (organizations) in recognition of your high performance?

Are your service-related attitudes (passion for service) and your service
performance influenced by your coworkers’ and/or management's values toward
service?

10. Who in your foodservice establishments/organizations discusses service

excellence most?

11. Why is it important to create a service climate?
12. Who plays the most important role in creating a service climate at your

foodservice establishments/orgmizations?

13. What obstacles prevent you from providing good service? Describe incidents

when you could not deliver good service, despite wanting to.

89

Appendix B.

Pretest protocol

1.

A researcher first introduces herself, and then explain to participants the purpose
of this study.

Before participants start evaluating the survey instrument, the researcher asks
each subject to read and sign the consent forms.

After participants sign the consent form, they will receive $20 cash.

The researcher distributes to the participants the sheet describing the conceptual
definitions of

1)dispositiona1 service-orientation,

2) service climate,

3) service-commitment toward customers,

4) service role ambiguity, and

5) service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior.

Participants also received the scale (measurement items) of these constructs with
the instruction of how to evaluate and judge the quality of scale.

Participants are asked to evaluate how well each item reflects the relevant domain
of constructs based on the given conceptual definitions using a seven-point Likert
scale, such as 1: very unclearly representative, 7: very clearly representative.

After participants finish the quantitative evaluation of scales, they are encouraged

to comment verbally on uncertain and unclear items on the questionnaire, and the
researcher makes notes of them.

90

Appendix C.

Recruiting letter

My name is JaeMin Cha. I am a doctoral candidate at Michigan State University. I am a
1998 graduate of the Master of Science Hospitality Business Program at MSU. Dr. Carl
Borchgrevink at MSU HB School, chairman of my dissertation committee, has
recommended that I contact you.

I am contacting you to ask an academic kindness. For my dissertation study I am asking
selected foodservice establishments to permit me to collect data from their servers who
interact with customers. In this regard, I would be most gracious if you permit me access
to your servers at your restaurant to complete my questionnaire.

My dissertation work focuses on a) how your server perceptions of organizational or
managerial practices, procedures, and policies can positively influence his or her service
commitment toward customers, while b) decreasing their uncertainty about service roles.
In particular, my study focuses on how to improve your server’s performance. My
intended study has the potential to help restaurant companies identify areas of
organizational functioning to improve their service staffs service attitude and service
performance.

Some aspects about which you may have questions:

1. Survey takes about 15 minutes according to the pre-test.

2. I will not intrude on busy operations. I do not need to be present to administer the
survey, and staff do not all have to take the survey on the same day.

3. The responses to this survey will remain strictly anonymous. Together with
questionnaires, I will either mail or deliver two drop-boxes: one drop-box for collecting
actual surveys; another drop-box for subjects’ contact information. Thus, there is no way
to link individual response and identity. Also, the name of your operation will not be in
any part of the writing-up of the data.

4. Returning of an individual’s contact information to the drop-box is completely
voluntary; these cards are used for prize-drawing purposes only. Five participants will be
selected, randomly, to win $100 cash each.

5. Most importantly, of course, 1 will make accessible to YOU my findings regarding
your data. I will analyze the data focusing on your company, and present a written
smnmary of your restaurant’s data compared to the sample at large for you.

I enclose the questionnaire herewith for your reference. I am ready to collect data the
moment you grant permission.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, in advance, for your kind consideration. I look forward to
your response. Email (chajaemi@msu.edu) is always the best way to reach me, but I am
also available at (517) 862—1572 (cell); 417 Wildwood Drive, East Lansing MI 48823. If
you indicate to me when it is best to reach you, I will call you to discuss this further.

My personal best wishes,

J aemin Cha

91

Append D.
Consent Form for Main Study

Thank you for your participation in this study, titled “The Effect of Service Climate on
Perceived Role Ambiguity, Service Commitment Toward Customers, and Service-
Oriented Citizenship Performance.” The main purpose of this project is to study the
relationship between your perception of work environment and your actual service
activity. This survey asks you for information about your experiences in your workplace
environment, about your service attitude and performance, and about your relationship
with co-workers and supervisors. This survey also asks you about your working
experience in the restaurant industry and your general demographic information.

The survey takes about 15 minutes. Participation is completely voluntary but, of course,
greatly appreciated. Your responses to this survey will remain strictly anonymous. There
is no way to link your response and your identity. Also, your restaurant information will
remain strictly confidential. The name of your restaurants will not be shown in any
writing. Your data will be aggregated in a summary report. Your and your restaurant’s
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Only the researchers
listed below will be allowed access to the data. You may decline to answer certain
questions or at any point may discontinue your participation.

Returning your contact information card to the drop-box is completely voluntary. These
cards are used for prize-drawing purposes only. Five participants will be selected,
randomly, to win $100 each. If you are one of those five, a $100 money order will be
delivered at the end of August to the address you provide.

Please direct any questions about this study to Dr. C. Borchgrevink at email:
carlb@msu.edu. phone: (517) 353- 9211, fax: (517) 432 -1170 or to Jaemin Cha at
Qrgjgemi@m_su.edu . If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a study
participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact -
anonymously, if you wish - Peter Vasilenko, PhD, Chair of the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS), by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517)
432-4503, e-mail: ucrih§@msu.edu , or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI
48824.

By completing and returning the survey, you indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate in this study.

(Afier completing the survey, please seal it in the envelope provided, and drop that
envelope into the box labeled Survey Collection. Then, please fill out your contact
information on the pink card, and drop this pink card into the other box labeled
Drawing.)

92

Appendix E.

Original Full Measurement Scales (N = 452)
(* represents the deleted items for testing structural model)

Service Vision (10

V1
V2
V3

V4

*V5
*V6
*V7

Management emphasizes that customer satisfaction is the number one priority
of this foodservice establishment.

Management makes clear that the goal of pleasing customers is an important
part of my job in this foodservice establishment.

Management constantly communicates the importance and value of service
quality.

Management makes every effort to ensure that service quality is the top
priority of this foodservice establishment.

Management sets definite quality standards for good customer service.
Management has clearly explained service excellence to me.

Management ensures that I pay attention to every small detail.

Service Training (T)

*T1
T2

T3

T4

T5
T6

T7
T8

1 have received continued training to provide good service in this restaurant.
This foodservice establishment offers extensive customer service training
before my initial contact with customers.

This foodservice establishment spends much time and effort in training me in
delivering high quality service.

This foodservice establishment trains me to have competent food and beverage
knowledge about the menu.

Service training is part of the routine in this foodservice establishment.
Service training is emphasized in this foodservice establishment.

This foodservice establishment trains me on how to solve customer
complaints.

The procedure of service training is clearly understandable to me.

Supervisor Support (S)

81

32
*S3

S4

SS

*S6
S7
88

I find my supervisor very helpful in my performance of customer service
duties.

My supervisor supports me so that I can perform my service duties well.
My supervisor helps me to solve problems, when they arise during service.
My supervisor regularly spends time on the floor to support me to facilitate
service activities.

My supervisor provides me with important work-related information and
advice that makes my job easier.

I can count on my supervisor to do the right thing when serving customers.
I can receive assistance from supervisors when performing my service duties.
Management supports my service activities to serve customers best.

93

 

Appendix E.

Original Full Measurement Scales (N = 452) (continued)
("I represents the deleted items for testing structural model)

Reward and Recognition (R)

R1

*R2

R3
R4
R5
R6
*R7

If I improve the level of service offered to customers, the supervisor
recognizes my service performance.

My excellence in customer service assists me to gain monetary reward in this
restaurant.

The reward system is linked to my service performance.

I will be rewarded if I deal effectively with customer problems.

This foodservice establishment celebrates top service accomplishments.
"Wowing" customers contributes to my potential recognition.

My management recognizes me for delivering high quality service.

Dispositional Service Orientation (DS)

*DSl
*DSZ
*DS3
DS4
*DSS
DS6
*DS7
DS8
DS9
*DSlO
D81 1
*DSIZ

I have a natural tendency to ......

enjoy remembering customers' names.

get customers to talk with me about their service needs.
keep customers’ best interests in mind.

achieve my own goals by satisfying customers' needs.
enjoy nurturing customer relationships.

enjoy providing friendly service to customers.

enjoy anticipating the service needs of customers

enjoy keeping customers informed.

enjoy delivering intended services on time to customers.
enjoy responding quickly to customers' needs.

gain satisfaction by pleasing customers.

take pleasure in getting customers to communicate their service need.

Service Commitment toward Customers (SC)

SC]
SC2
SC3
SC4

SC5
*SC6
*SC7

When performing my job, the customer is most important to me.

It is best to ensure that our customers receive the best possible service
available.

I am willing to meet all requests made by my customers, if possible.
As an employee responsible for providing service, customers are very
important to me.

I feel that the needs of our customers always come first.

I am willing to do my best to help solve customer complaints.

Every customer's problem is important to me.

94

Appendix E.

Original Full Measurement Scales (N = 452) (continued)
(* represents the deleted items for testing structural model)

Service-oriented Citizenship Behavior — Helping Coworkers (HC)
HCl 1 help other servers who have heavy service workloads.
HC2 I help to take orders for another server's table, if he or she is too busy.
H C3 1 help new or inexperienced servers learn to perform service activities, even if
management does not require this.
H C 4 I help other servers' service activities that are not assigned to me in busy
situations.
*HC5 I willingly help other servers who have service-related problems.
HC 6 I always am ready to help other servers who are occupied in serving and
interacting with customers.

Service Role Ambiguity (RA)
RAl I feel uncertain about what service customers expect.

*RA2 I feel uncertain about how to resolve service problems efficiently.
RA3 I feel uncertain about how to identify customer needs.
RA4 I feel uncertain about how to interact with customers.
RA5 I feel uncertain about how to solve customer complaints, if they occur.
RA6 I feel uncertain about how to approach some customers.

95

 

REFERENCES

96

References

Abbey, A., & Dickson, J. (1983). RD work climate and innovation in semiconductors.
Academy of Management Journal, 26, 362-368.

Anderson, J ., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

Andrews, T., & Rogelberg, S. (2001). A new look at service climate: its relationship with
owner service values in small businesses. Journal of Business and Psychology,
16(1), 119-131.

Babakus, E., Yavas, U., Karatepe, O., & Avci, T. (2003). The effect of management
commitment to service quality on employees’ affective and performance
outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 272-286.

Babin, B., & Boles, J. (1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and
supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance and job
satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72(1), 57-75.

Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and
psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45.

Bagozzi, R. (1992). The Self-Regulation of Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178-204.

Beehr, T., & Newman, J. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational
effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665-698.

Benoy, J. (1996). Internal marketing builds service quality. Journal of Heath Care
Marketing, 16(1), 54-59.

Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 23 8-246.

Bentler, P. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate
Software.

Bentler, P., & Bonnett, D. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

97

 

Betttencourt, L., Gwinner, K., & Meuter, M. (2001). A comparison of attitude,
personality, and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 29-41.

Bienstock, C., DeMoranville, C., & Smith, R. (2003). Organizational citizenship
behavior and service quality. Journal of Service Marketing, I 7(4/5), 357-3 78.

Bitner, M., Bernard, H., Tetreault, M. (1990). The service encounter: diagnosing
favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 5 4(January), 71-84.

Boles, J ., & Bain, B. (1996). On the frontlines: stress, conflict, and the customer service
provider. Journal of Business Research, 3 7, 41 -50.

Bollen, K. (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Bollen, K., & Long, J. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage
Publication.

Borman, W., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include
elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.),
Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Borucki, C., & Burke, M. (1999). An examination of service-related antecedents to retail
store performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 943-962.

Bowen, D., Siehl, C., & Schneider, B. (1989). A framework for analyzing customer
service orientations in manufacturing. Academy of Management Review, 14(1),
75-95.

Brief, A., & Motowidlo, S. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of
Management Review, 11, 710-725.

Brown, S. & Leigh, T. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to

job involvement, effort and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4),
358-368.

Brown, T., Mowen, J ., & Donavan, D., Licata, J. (2002). The customer orientation of
service workers: personality trait effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1),
1 7-39.

Bryne, B., (2001 ). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

98

Burke, M., Borucki, C., & Hurley, A. (1992). The reconceptualizing psychological
climate in a retail service environment: a multiple-stakeholder perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 717-729.

Butcher, A. (1994). Supervisors matter more than you think: components of a mission-
centered organizational climate. Journal of Healthcare Management, 39(4), 505-
520.

Carless, S. (2004). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between
psychological climate and job satisfaction? Journal of Business and Psychology,
18(4), 405-425.

Carlzon, J. (1989). Moments of truth. New York: HarperCollins. i

Carr, J ., Schmidt, A., Ford, K., & DeShon, R. (2003). Climate perceptions matter: a meta- I
analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and
individual level work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 605-621.

Chebat, J ., & Kollias, P. (2000). The impact of empowerment on customer contact

employees’ roles in service organizations. Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 66-
81.

Chemish, W. (2001). Empowering service personnel to deliver quality service. In J.
Kandarnpully, C. Mok, & B. Sparks (Eds). Service quality management in
hospitality, tourism, and leisure. New York: The Haworth Hospitality.

Chung, B., & Schneider, B. (2002). Serving multiple masters: role conflict experienced
by service employees. The Journal of Service Marketing, 16(1), 70-87.

CIA’s Work F actbook (2005). World fact book 2004. Retrieved September 12, 2005,
fiom http://www.ciJa,gov/cia/publications/factbook/

Conway, J. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for
managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 3-19.

Cook, J ., Hepworth, 8., Wall, T., & Warr, P. (1981). The experience of work. a
compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. New York: Academic
Press.

Cran, D. (1994). Towards validation of the service orientation construct. The Service
Industries Journal, 14(1), 34-44.

Crant, J. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance
among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532—537.

99

Dale, A. & Wooler, S (1991). Strategy and organization for service, In S. Brown, E
Gummesson, B. Edvardsson and B. O. Gustavsson (Eds), Service quality:
multidisciplinary and multinational perspectives (pp. 191-204), Lexington, MA:
D.C. Heath/Lexington Books.

DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Diehart, J ., Gregoire, M., Downey, R. (1991). Service orientation of restaurant
employees. Hospitality Research Journal, 14(2), 421-429.

Donavan, T. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of the contact employee ’ service
orientation: fiom personality traits to service behaviors. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Oklahoma State University.

Donavan, T., Brown, T., & Mowen, J. (2004). Internal benefits of service-worker
customer orientation: job satisfaction, commitment, and organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Marketing, 68, 128-146.

Dubinsky, A., & Hartley, S. (1986). A path-analytic study of a model of salesperson
Performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 4, 36-46.

Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). The effects of sample size, estimation
methods, and model specification on SEM fit indices. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 56-83.

Fitzgerald, L, F ., Drasgow, F ., Hulin, C., Gelfand, M., & Magley, V (1997). Antecedents
and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578-5 89.

George, J. (1991). State of trait: effects of positive mood on pro social behavior at work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299-307.

Glick, W. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological
climate: pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3),
601 -6 l 6.

Glisson, C., & James, L. (2002). The cross-level effects of culture and climate in human
service teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 767-794.

Griffin, M., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking
safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5(3), 347-358.

Groves, J. (1992). Perceived service orientation of restaurant employees. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.

100

Gupta, A. (1998). The relationship between employee perceived service climate and
customer satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland
College Park.

Hartline, M, & Ferrell, O. (1996). The management of customer-contact
Service employees: an empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 60, 52-70.

Hartline, M., Maxham, J ., & McKee, D. (2000). Corridors of influence in the
dissemination of customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service
employees. Journal or Marketing, 64(2), 35-50.

Hogan, J ., Hogan, R., & Busch, C. (1984). How to measure service orientation. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 167-173. '

Homburg, C., Hoyer, W., & Fassnacht, M. (2002). Service orientation of a retailer’s

business strategy: dimensions, antecedents, and performance outcomes. Journal
of Marketing, 66(4), 86- 101.

Hoyle, E. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Hunter, J ., & Hunter, R. (1984). The validity and utility of alternative prediction of job
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.

Ilgen, D., & Hollenbeck, J. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles. In M.
Dunnette and L. Hough's (Eds.), Handbook of industrial/organizational
psychology (165-207), Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

James, L. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 67(2), 219-229.

James, L., Demaree, R., & Wolf, G. (1993). ng: an assessment of within-group
interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306-309.

James, L., & James, L. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions:

explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 73 9-75 1.

James, L., & James, L. (1990). The meaning of organizations: the role of cognition and
values, In J. Czepiel, M. Solomon, & C. Surprenant (Eds). The Service
encounter, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 127-147.

101

James, L., & James, L., Ashe, D. (1990). The meaning of organizations: the role of
cognition and values. In B. Schneider (Eds). Organizational climate and
culture: 40-84, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

James, L., & Jones, A. (1974). Organizational climate: a review of theory and practice.
Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1096—1112.

James, L., & McIntyre, M. (1996). Perceptions of organizational climate. In K. Murphy
(Ed), Individual diflcrences and behavior in organizations. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Jaworski, B., Stathakopoulos, V., & Krishnan, H. (1993). Control combinations in
marketing: conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Marketing,
5 7, 57-69.

Johlke, M., & Dunhan, D. (2001). Supervisor Communication Practices and Boundary
Spanner Role Ambiguity. Journal of Management Issues, 13(1), 87-101.

Johnson, J. (1996) Linking employee perceptions of service climate to customer
Satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 49(4), 831-851.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations, 2”" Ed, New
York: Wiley.

Kelly, S. (1992). Developing customer orientation among service employees. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 20, 27-36.

Kelly, S., & Hoffman, K. (1997). An investigation of positive affect, pro social
behaviors, and service quality. Journal of Retailing, 73, 407-442.

King, L., & King, D. (1990). Role conflict and role ambiguity: a critical assessment of
construct validity. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 48-64.

Kim, H., McCahon, C., & Miller, J. (2003). Service orientation for contact employees in
Korean casual-dining restaurants. Hospitality Management, 22, 67-83.

Klein, K., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data
collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195-229.

Kopelman, R., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1990). The role of climate and culture in
productivity. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture, San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S. W. J. and Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within-group

agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus, Journal of
Applied Psycholog, 77, 161-167.

102

Kozlowski, S., & Hults, B. (1987). An exploration of climates for technical.
updating and performance, Personnel Psychology, 40, 539-563.

Larsson, S. (2005). Constructing safety: influence of safety climate and psychological
climate on safety behavior in construction industry. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Chalmers University of Technology.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-
299.

Lytle, R., Horn, P., & Mowka, M. (1998). SER*OR: A Managerial Measure of
Organizational Service-Orientation. Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 455-489.

Martin, L. & Fraser, S. (2002). Customer service orientation in managerial and non-
managerial employees: an exploratory study. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 16(3), 477-484.

Mead, G. (1934). Mind, self and society. In C. Morris. (Ed). University of Chicago
Press

Medsker, G., Williams, L., & Holahan, P. (1994). A review of current practices for
evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources
management research. Journal of Management, 20, 439-464.

Meyer, J. & Allen, N. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
Commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

Mills, P., & Margulies, N. 1980. Toward a pure typology of service organizations,
Academy of Management Review, vol. 5, 255—265.

Mossholder, K., & Bedeian, A. (1983). Cross-level inference for organizational research:

Perspectives on interpretation and application. Academy of Management Review,
8. 547-558.

Moorman, R., & Podsakoff, P. (1992). A meta-analytic review and empirical test of
the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in
organizational behavior research. The Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 65, 131-149.

Mulaik, S. & Millsap, R. (2000). Doing the four-step right. Structural Equation
Modeling, 7, 36-73.

National Restaurant Association (2005). 2005 Restaurant Industry Forecast. Retrieved
March 8, 2005, from http://www.restaurantog/research/forecast.cfin

103

Nevitt, J ., & Hancock, G. (2000). Improving the Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation for nonnorrnal conditions in structural equation modeling. Journal
of Experimental Education, 68(3), 251-268.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Organ, D. (1988) Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.

Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A., Clark, M. (2003). Substantive and operational issues of response
bias across levels of analysis: an example of climate-satisfaction relationships.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 355-368.

Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A., & Tamkins, M. (2003). Organizational climate and culture. In
W. Borman, D. Ilgen, & R. Klirnoski (Eds), Comprehensive handbook of
psychology, Volume 12: Industrial and organizational psychology.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale
‘ for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1),
12-40.

Parker, C., Baltes, 3., Young, S., Huff, J ., Altrnann, R., Lacost, H., & Roberts, J. (2003).
Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: a
meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 389-416.

Petrillose, M., Shanklin, C., & Downey, R. (1998). An empirical analysis of service
orientation and its impact on employee job performance in upscale hotels.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 22(1), 39-56.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Paine, J ., & Bachrach, D. (2000). Organizational
citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature
and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.

Poole, M. S. (1985). Communications and organizational climates: Review, critique, and
new perspective. In P. Tompkins & R. D. McPhee (Eds), Organizational
communication: traditional themes and new directions. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage Publications.

Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data
analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

104

Reardon, K., & Enis, B. (1990). Establishing a company-wide customer orientation
through persuasive internal marketing. Management Communication Quarterly,
3, 376-3 87.

Reisinger, Y. (2001). Unique characteristics of tourism, hospitality, and leisure services.
In J. Kandarnpully, C. Mok, & B. Sparks (Eds). Service Quality Management in
Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure (pp. 15-47). New York: The Haworth
Hospitality Press.

Rentsch, J. (1990). Climate and culture: interaction and qualitative differences in
organizational meanings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 , 668-681.

Rhoads, G., Singh, J ., & Goodell, P. (1994). The multiple dimensions of role ambiguity
and their impact upon psychological and practical outcomes of industrial
salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 14, 1-22.

Rizzo, J ., House, R., & Lirtzman, S. (1970). Role conflict and role ambiguity in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15 (June), 150-163.

Ross, 6., (1995) Interpersonal stress reactions and service quality responses among
hospitality industry employees. The Service Industries Journal, 15(3), 314-331.

Rosse, J ., Miller, H., & Barnes, L. (1991). Hiring for personality and ability: the case of
service orientation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 431-445.

Rowe, P. (1988). The nature of work experience. Canadian Psychology, 29(1), 109-115.

Sanchez, J ., & Fraser, S. (1996). Customer Service Inventory (CSSI): Research and
Interpretation Manual. New York: McGraw Hill/London House.

Sawyer, J. (1992). Goal and process clarity: specification of multiple constructs of role
ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 130-142.

Schmitt, M. (1994). Method bias: the importance of theory and measurement. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15, 393-398.

Schmit, M., & Allsheid, S. (1995). Employee attitudes and customer satisfaction: making
theoretical and empirical connections. Personnel Psychology, 48, 521-536.

Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: individual preferences and organizational
realities revisited. \Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 459-465.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453.

105

Schneider, B. (1990). The climate for service: an application of the climate construct. In
Schneider, B. (Ed). Organizational Climate and Culture. San Francisco: J ossey-
Bass.

Schneider, B., & Bartlett, C. (1970). Individual differences and organizational climate 1:
the research plan and questionnaire development. Personnel Psychology, 21, 323-
333.

Schneider, 3., & Bowen, D. (1985). Employees and customer perceptions of service in
banks: replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 423 -433.

Schneider, 3., & Bowen, D. (1993). The service organization: human resources
management is crucial. Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 39-52.

Schneider, B., Bowen, B., Ehrhart, M., & Holcombe, K. (2000). The climate for service:
evolution of a construct. In Ashkansay, N., Wilderom, C., & Peterson, M. (Eds).
Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 21 —36). CA: Sage
Publications.

Schneider, B., Parkington, J ., & Buxton, V. (1980). Employee and customer perceptions
of service in banks. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 25, 252-267.

Schneider, B., & Rentsch, J. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology,
36, 19-39.

Schneider, B., & Rentsch, J. (1988). Managing climates and cultures: a futures
perspective. In J. Hage (Ed.). Futures of organization, Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.

Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A., & Subirats, M. (2002). Climate strength: a new direction for
climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8 7(2), 220-229.

Schneider, B., Wheeler, J ., & Cox, J. (1992). A passion for service: using content
analysis to explicate service climate themes, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,
705-716.

Schneider, 3., & White, C. (2004). Service Quality: Research Perspectives, Thousand
Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Schneider, B., White, S., & Paul, M. (1997). Relationship marketing: an organizational
perspective. In Sawartz, T., Bowen, D., & Brown, S. (Eds), Advances in Service
Marketing and Management. Greenwich, CT: J AI Press.

Schneider, 3., White, 8., Paul, M. (1998). Linking service climate and customer

perceptions of service quality: test of a causal model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2), 150-163.

106

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1998). A beginner ’s guide to structural equation
modeling. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

Seibert, 8., Silver, S., & Randolph, W. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: a
multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy
of Management Journal, 4 7(3), 332-349.

Shames, G., & Glover, G. (1989). World class service. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural
Press.

Shepherd, C., & fine, L. (1994). Role conflict and role ambiguity reconsidered. Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 14, 57-65.

Shewchuk, R., & O’Connor, S. (1995). Health care executives: subjective well-being as a
function of psychological type. Journal of Psychological Type, 32, 23-29.

Singh, J. (1993). Boundary role ambiguity: facets, determinants, and impacts. Journal of
Marketing, 5 7, 1 1-31.

Singh, J ., Verveke, W., & Rhoads, G. (1996). Do organizational practices matter in role
stress processes? A study of direct and moderating effects for marketing-oriented
boundary spanners. Journal of Marketing, 60, 69-86.

Surnrall, D., & Sebastianelli, R. (1999). The moderating effect of managerial sales
orientations on salespersons’ role stress-job satisfaction relationships. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(1), 72-79.

Stamper, C., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship

behavior: a field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 22, 517-536.

Stamper, C., & Van Dyne, L. (2003). Organizational citizenship: a comparison between
part-time and full-tirne service employees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 33-42.

Stevens, P., Knutson, B., & Mark, P. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring service
quality in restaurant. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36
(2), 56-61.

Straub, D., Boudreau, M, & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for IS
positivist research. Communications of AIS, 13, 380-427.

Susskind, A., Borchgrevink, C., Kacmar, M., Brymer, R. (2000). Customer service
employees’ behavioral intentions and attitudes: an examination of construct

validity and a path model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 19
(1), 53-77.

107

Susskind, A., Kacmar, K., & Borchgrevink, C. (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

Tabachnick, B. & F idell. L. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Thomas, K., & Velthouse, B. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: an
Interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management
Review, 15, 666-681.

Tucker, L., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor
analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10

Tracy, L., & Johnson, T. (1981). What do the role conflict and role ambiguity scales
measure? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(4), 464-469.

Tubre, T., & Collins, J. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analytic
review of the relationship between role stress and job performance. Journal of
Management, 26, 155-169.

Tuten, R., & Neidenneyer, P. (2004). Performance, satisfaction, and turnover in call

centers: the effect of stress and optimism. Journal of Business Research, 5 7, 26-
34.

Van Dyne, L, & LePine, J. (1998). Helping and Voice Extra-role Behaviors: Evidence of
Construct and Predictive Validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 109-
1 19.

Van Dierdonck, R., Gemmel, P, and Van Looy, B. (1998). Service Management: An
Integrated Approach, WA: Pitrnan Publishers.

Van Scotter, J ., & Motowidlo, S. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as

separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5),
525-531.

Van Scotter, J ., & Motowidlo, S. (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual
performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 526-
535.

Vroom, V. (1964). Work and Motivation. Wiley: New York.

Webster, C. (1993). Refinement of the marking culture scale and the relationship between

marketing culture and profitability of a service firm. Journal of Business
Research, 26(2), 1 1 1-131.

108

 

Wetzels, M., Ruyter, Ko, & Bloemer, J. (2000). Antecedents and consequences of role
stress of retail sales persons. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 7, 65-
75. '

Williams, M., & Attaway, J. (1996). Exploring salespersons’ customer orientation as a
mediator of organizational cultures’ influence on buyer-seller relationships.
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, I 6, 33-52.

Wong, P., & He, Z. (2003). The moderating effect of a firm’s internal climate for
innovation on the impact of public R&D support programs. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 3(5), 525

Wright, N., Pearce, J ., & Busbin, J. (1997). Linking customer service orientation to
competitive performance: does the marketing concept really work? Journal of

Marketing Theory and Practice, 5(4), 23-34.

Yagil, D., & Gal, 1. (2002). The role of organizational service climate in generating
control and empowerment among workers and customers. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 9, 215-226.

Yousef, D. (2000). The interactive effects of role conflict and role ambiguity on job
satisfaction and attitudes toward organizational change: a moderated multiple
regression approach. International Journal of Stress Management, 7(4), 289-
303.

Zeithaml, V., & Bitner, M. (1996). Service Marketing, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. (1990). Service marketing: integrating
customer focus across the firm (2"d ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Zohr, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group
climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(4), 587-597.

Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2004). Climate as a social-cognitive construction of supervisory
safety practices: scripts as proxy of behavior patterns. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 89(2), 322-341.

109