11924953
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 11924953
1/20
128 / Journal of Marketing, January 2004Journal of Marketing
Vol. 68 (January 2004), 128146
D. Todd Donavan, Tom J. Brown, & John C. Mowen
Internal Benefits of Service-WorkerCustomer Orientation: Job
Satisfaction, Commitment, andOrganizational Citizenship BehaviorsImplementation of the marketing concept in service firms is accomplished through individual service employeesand their interactions with customers. Although prior research has established a link between service-worker cus-tomer orientation and performance outcomes, little research has addressed other potentially important outcomesof customer orientation. Drawing from the literature on personsituation interaction and fit theory, the authorsdevelop and test a model that explains how service-worker customer orientation affects several important jobresponses, including perceived job fit, job satisfaction, commitment to the firm, and organizational citizenshipbehaviors. Across three field studies in two distinct services industries, the results indicate that the positive influ-ence of customer orientation on certain job responses is stronger for service workers who spend more time in directcontact with customers than for workers who spend less time with customers. The authors discuss the implications
of the results for services marketing managers and researchers.
D. Todd Donavan is Assistant Professor of Marketing, College of BusinessAdministration, Kansas State University (e-mail: [email protected]). TomJ. Brown is Associate Professor of Marketing and Ardmore Professor ofBusiness Administration (e-mail: [email protected]), and John C.Mowenis Noble Foundation Chair in Marketing Strategy (e-mail: [email protected]), College of Business Administration, Oklahoma State Uni-versity. The authors thank Kevin Gwinner for his comments on a previousversion of this article, the four anonymous JM reviewers, and the restau-rant chains and bank that provided data for our analyses.
Marketing theorists have long argued that firms thatfocus on their customers needs are better posi-tioned to achieve long-term success than are com-
panies that do not (Deshpand, Farley, and Webster 1993;Kotler 2000). Indeed, empirical research has demonstratedseveral positive outcomes of a market orientation, includingenhanced profitability (Narver and Slater 1990), employeecommitment, and esprit de corps (Jaworski and Kohli 1993).Implementation of the marketing concept in service firms isaccomplished through service employees and their interac-
tions with customers. At the individual service-worker level,customer orientation (CO) has been shown to exert positiveeffects on performance outcomes (e.g., Brown et al. 2002).
One purpose of our research is to investigate additionalbenefits of service-worker CO beyond its effects on perfor-mance. Theorists have noted the importance of worker satis-faction and commitment in retaining service workers, aswell as the importance of worker retention to the success ofthe services organization (Heskett et al. 1994; Schneider andBowen 1993). Other scholars have noted the significant roleof organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), oremployee behaviors that go beyond specified job require-ments, in promoting positive outcomes for an organization(e.g., Bateman and Organ 1983; Podsakoff and MacKenzie
1994). As we describe in the theory section, we predict thatCO is associated with higher levels of job satisfaction, com-mitment, and OCBs. Such findings further highlight thevalue of hiring and retaining customer-oriented serviceworkers.
Another goal of our research is to begin to establishboundary conditions on the influence of CO. Substantialresearch suggests that individual characteristics and situa-tional variables often jointly determine outcomes. For exam-ple, the interaction between person and situation has been
shown to affect job performance (Caldwell and OReilly1990), job burnout (Maslach and Goldberg 1998), job retal-iation (Skarlicki, Folger, and Tesluk 1999), and retention(Hayward and Everett 1983). Drawing from fit theory (e.g.,Chatman 1989, 1991; Kristof 1996; Nadler and Tushman1980; OReilly, Chatman, and Caldwell 1991; Super 1953),we argue that CO (a personal characteristic) will be moreinfluential on service-worker satisfaction and commitmentas workers spend more time in contact with customers (a sit-uational variable).
The article is organized as follows: We initially reviewprior theory and research pertaining to CO and fit theory. Wethen develop hypotheses about the internal consequences ofCO. Next, we present the methods and results from threefield studies with workers in the financial services and hos-pitality industries. We conclude by discussing the implica-tions for services marketing researchers and managers.
Literature ReviewResearchers have investigated the implementation of themarketing concept at both the organizational and the indi-vidual levels. Researchers working at the organizationallevel have identified several organizational outcomes of
-
8/10/2019 11924953
2/20
Service-Worker Customer Orientation / 129
1Personality research has a long history in marketing (see Kas-sarjian 1971). Attention in recent years has focused on using per-sonality to predict such things as salesperson and service-providerperformance (Brown et al. 2002; Hakstian et al. 1997; Hurley1998); ad-evoked feelings (Mooradian 1996); consumerspostpur-chase outcomes, such as satisfaction, loyalty, and word-of-mouthbehavior (Mooradian and Olver 1997); and brand attitude (Aaker1999).
market orientation (e.g., Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Kohliand Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990). Narver andSlater (1990) find evidence that as organizations increasetheir level of market orientation, their organizational perfor-mance increases as well. Narver and Slater propose thatmarket orientation involves three behavioral components:(1) CO (i.e., focus on customers), (2) competitor orientation(i.e., focus on competitors), and (3) interfunctional coordi-nation (i.e., coordinated use of company resources).
However, our research addresses how the marketing
concept is implemented at the level of the individual worker.Work in this research stream can be traced to a seminal arti-cle by Saxe and Weitz (1982), who found evidence that atwo-dimensional selling orientationcustomer orientationmeasure (i.e., SOCO) was connected to salesperson perfor-mance. They propose (p. 344) that customer-oriented sellingis a behavioral concept that refers to the degree to whichsalespeople practice the marketing concept by trying to helptheir customers make purchase decisions that will satisfycustomer needs. Follow-up research has investigated sales-person CO as consumers and organizational buyers view it(i.e., Brown, Widing, and Coulter 1991; Michaels and Day1985; Tadepalli 1995) and has examined the relationships
among CO and customer satisfaction (e.g., Reynierse andHarker 1992), salespeoples ethical behavior (Howe, Hoff-man, and Hardigree 1994), commitment to the organization(Kelley 1992; Pettijohn, Pettijohn, and Taylor 2002), job sat-isfaction (Hoffman and Ingram 1991, 1992; Pettijohn, Petti-john, and Taylor 2002), and market orientation of the orga-nization (Siguaw, Brown, and Widing 1994).
Recently, Brown and colleagues (2002, p. 111) definedCO as an employees tendency or predisposition to meetcustomer needs in an on-the-job context. They found thatCO was influenced by deeper personality traits and, in turn,influenced worker performance. This perspective is consis-tent with traditional views of personality. For example, Per-
vin and John (1997, p. 4) define personality as the charac-teristics of the person that account for consistent patterns offeeling, thinking, and behaving.1
As do Brown and colleagues (2002), we treat CO as asurface-level personality trait within a hierarchical personal-ity model. As Mowen (2000) proposes, surface traits areenduring dispositions to act within context-specific situa-tions. From this perspective, CO is an enduring disposition(i.e., consistent over time) to meet customer needs. Thecontext-specific situation is the interaction that takes placebetween the service provider and the customer. In a hierar-chical model, CO is influenced by more basic traits (e.g.,agreeability, emotional stability, activity needs); in turn, itinfluences outcome variables, such as service-worker per-
formance on job-related tasks. Although viewing CO as atrait is inconsistent with Saxe and Weitzs (1982) approach,
2As a reviewer noted, the distinction between dispositional COand behavioral CO is not great. Allport (1961) describes surfacepersonality traits as summaries of behaviors, and many personalitytraits are measured by means of items that assess behavioral ten-dencies (e.g., frugality [Lastovicka et al. 1999], need for unique-ness [Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001], consumer susceptibility tointerpersonal influence [Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel 1989]).
it is consistent with the research that takes a hierarchicalapproach to personality (e.g., Allport 1961; Lastovicka1982; Mowen 2000). Brown and colleagues (2002) demon-strate that CO mediates the relationships between morebasic personality traits and service performance. Further-more, the approach is consistent with the proposal thatbehavior is a function of both person and environment(Bowers 1973; Magnusson and Endler 1977); that is, anyparticular customer-oriented behavior will result from thecombination of person (e.g., personality, goals, functional
motives) and environment (e.g., nature of the job, short-termsituational effects). We explore this interactive relationshipin our research.2
To develop a four-dimensional conceptualization of CO(i.e., need to pamper the customer, need to read the cus-tomers needs, need for personal relationship, and need todeliver the service required), we use extensive qualitativeresearch and measure development efforts. We argue thatCO can produce internal benefits to the service employee(i.e., enhanced satisfaction and commitment) and ultimatelyto the firm through the performance of OCBs. Furthermore,we believe that the magnitude of the effects of CO on sev-eral of the outcomes is contingent on a key aspect of the
work environment, that is, the relative amount of time thatthe service worker spends with customers.
PersonSituation Fit in Organizations
Fit theory offers a rationale for the CO hypotheses that wedevelop herein. Fit theory derives from interactional psy-chology, which suggests that the person and the environ-ment or situation combine to affect the persons behavior(Chatman 1991; Nadler and Tushman 1980). Moreover, theinteraction between the two variables increases the amountof variance explained.
In an organizational context, organizational behaviorand marketing researchers have approached the notion of fit
between worker and environment in several ways. AsKristof (1996) notes, there is a distinction between the orga-nization itself and the specific job tasks expected of anemployee. Accordingly, in general, prior approaches toworkerenvironment fit can be grouped into two categories:(1) fit between the worker and the specific organization and(2) fit between the worker and the tasks associated with aparticular job. The latter type of fit, usually labeled personjob (PJ) fit, is the type of personsituation fit that weaddress herein.
The PJ fit pertains to the degree of match between thepersonality, skills, and ability of the worker and the require-ments of specific jobs or job tasks. People select themselvesinto jobs that best match their abilities and interests (Wilk,Desmarais, and Sackett 1995). Edwards (1991) defines PJ
-
8/10/2019 11924953
3/20
130 / Journal of Marketing, January 2004
fit as the congruence between the persons abilities and thedemands of a job. However, note that PJ fit is more thanjust a persons abilities, and it extends to the personality ofthe worker. For example, Supers (1953) theory of voca-tional development suggests that people choose vocationson the basis of fit between their own personalities and thecareer. Holland (1977, 1985) notes both that the worker andthe particular job have personalities and that fit is deter-mined by the congruence between the two personalities.Nadler and Tushman (1980) argue that when the demands of
the job tasks match the characteristics of the worker, perfor-mance is enhanced. In our research, we consider other con-sequences of the match between the worker and the servicesjob.
Consequences of COOur goal is to examine the effect of CO on service workersresponses to their jobs. In particular, we identify three out-comes of service workersenhanced CO: higher levels of (1)organizational commitment, (2) job satisfaction, and (3)OCBs. We focus on commitment and satisfaction because oftheir implications for service-worker retention (e.g., Mobley
1977; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Porter and Steers 1973).Because of OCBs role in the ongoing functioning of theorganization, they are notable (e.g., Organ 1988; MacKen-zie, Podsakoff, and Fetter 1993).
Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment
On the basis of a PJ fit mechanism, we propose that serviceworkers who have higher degrees of CO will express higherlevels of job satisfaction (e.g., Edwards 1991; Super 1953).In contexts in which the primary task is the serving of cus-tomer needs, customer-oriented employees fit the servicesetting better than employees who have lower CO becausethey are predisposed to enjoy the work of serving customers.
Consequently, service employees who have higher degreesof CO will be more satisfied with their jobs than willemployees who have less CO.
Researchers have investigated the possible relationshipbetween job satisfaction and CO (Hoffman and Ingram1991, 1992; Pettijohn, Pettijohn, and Taylor 2002). Usingthe behaviorally oriented SOCO scale (Saxe and Weitz1982), each research team concluded that increasing levelsof satisfaction produce higher levels of CO. We argue that asa characteristic of the employee, dispositional CO will leadto job satisfaction, not vice versa. That is, a customer-oriented service worker is a more natural fit in a service joband, as a result, will experience greater job satisfaction. Thedirection of causality is a key issue because of the resultingrecruiting implications for services managers. If CO is aconsequence of job satisfaction, less emphasis can be placedon identifying customer-oriented job prospects. Conversely,if satisfaction results from CO, managers should devoteeffort to hiring workers who possess a customer-orientedpersonality. We address the direction of the causality issue inour empirical work.
H1: Service-worker CO will exert a positive influence on jobsatisfaction.
3Contact time is largely a function of job requirements, but itmay be influenced by individual differences, including CO. Thus,two workers may have identical job descriptions but spend differ-ent amounts of time with customers. In our empirical work, weaccount for the possible influence of CO on contact time.
In their research on organizational market orientation,Jaworski and Kohli (1993; Kohli and Jaworski 1990) findthat employees experience greater commitment to the orga-nization when they believe the company practices the mar-keting concept. We suggest that the same effect is also foundat the individual level for service workers. Service firmsimplement the marketing concept through their employees.Thus, as the service workers experience deeper levels of CO,they will become more committed to the organization.
Similar to COs effects on job satisfaction, we expect
that customer-oriented employees will fit the job setting bet-ter than employees who have lower levels of CO. Conse-quently, these workers will experience higher levels of com-mitment to their organizations. Kelley (1992) and Pettijohn,Pettijohn, and Taylor (2002) argue that organizational com-mitment is an antecedent of CO rather than an outcome ofCO, as we position it. However, we posit that it is the fit ofthe context and the workers predisposition toward meetingcustomer needs that produces the opportunity for organiza-tional commitment to develop. This leads to the followinghypothesis:
H2: Service-worker CO will exert a positive influence on orga-nizational commitment.
Previous research suggests that job satisfaction has apositive influence on commitment (e.g., Brown and Peterson1993, DeCotiis and Summers 1987; Williams and Hazer1986). Thus, the influence of CO on commitment will bepartially mediated through satisfaction.
H3: The influence of service-worker CO on organizationalcommitment will be partially mediated by job satisfaction.
We have argued that workers disposed toward meetingcustomer needs fit better in a service organization than doworkers who are less disposed toward meeting customerneeds. However, different jobs, even in the same organiza-tion, require different amounts of actual time spent with cus-
tomers, a variable that we label contact time.3 Conse-quently, we propose that the positive influence of CO oncommitment and satisfaction will be stronger (weaker) forworkers who spend more (less) time in contact with cus-tomers. For example, a service worker who has higher lev-els of CO will be especially satisfied with and committed toa job when that job requires higher amounts of time spentwith customers. In contrast, the degree of CO may be lessrelevant to job outcomes for workers who spend little timein contact with customers.
The literature on personsituation interactions offerssupport for our ideas. Individual responses are often drivenby the interplay of personal and environmental factors rather
than either factor alone (e.g., Bowers 1973; Magnusson andEndler 1977). A person brings certain characteristics withhim or her into a situational context, and the resulting behav-iors and responses depend on the interaction of the personal
-
8/10/2019 11924953
4/20
Service-Worker Customer Orientation / 131
characteristics and situational variables. Thus, we argue thatthe degree of CO (a personality characteristic) will interactwith customer-contact time (a situational variable) in thefollowing manner:
H4: The positive influence of service-worker CO on service-worker (a) job satisfaction and (b) organizational commit-ment will be stronger when contact time is high than whencontact time is low.
OCBs
We define OCBs as the noncompulsive, helpful, and con-structive behaviors that are directed to the organization or toits members (Bateman and Organ 1983; Podsakoff andMacKenzie 1994). Although OCBs are not a part of generaljob requirements (Organ 1988), they can affect supervisorsevaluations of employees (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Fet-ter 1993). Although employees may not be objectively eval-uated on OCBs, research suggests that OCBs positivelyinfluence the work environment.
Although several OCB dimensions have been identified,altruism appears to be especially important in the currentcontext.Altruistic OCB (hereafter, OCB-altruism) is defined
as one employee helping another employee who has a work-related problem (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter 1993).We posit that customer-oriented employees are motivated tohelp fellow employees as a means of ultimately satisfyingcustomers; that is, customer-oriented employees recognizethat for successful exchanges with customers to occur, effec-tive internal exchanges must occur first (George 1990;Grnroos 1990). Contact employees who are inclined tomeet customer needs will go beyond the call of duty to assistcoworkers. As a result, higher levels of CO will lead tohigher levels of OCB-altruism:
H5: Service-worker CO will exert a positive influence onOCB-altruism.
We further suggest that as service employees becomemore satisfied with their jobs, helpful behaviors willincrease. It has been shown that job satisfaction is correlatedwith altruism (Bateman and Organ 1983; Organ and Ryan1995; Smith, Organ, and Near 1983). Consequently:
H6: The influence of service-worker CO on OCB-altruism willbe partially mediated by job satisfaction.
We do not anticipate that the degree of contact time willmoderate the relationship between CO and OCB-altruism.On the one hand, it seems reasonable that as a response toCO, OCB-altruism should be subject to the same personsituation influences as other responses (i.e., job satisfaction,
commitment). As a result, the match of personality and envi-ronment should produce a corresponding enhancement ofOCB-altruism. On the other hand, there is a potential coun-tervailing effect: Workers who have high CO but are con-strained in lower-contact-time environments may be moreinclined than workers in high-contact-time positions to per-form OCB-altruism as a means of ultimately satisfying cus-tomer needs. That is, if the workers cannot directly meetcustomer needs as frequently as they would like, they mightperform OCB-altruism at an increased rate. As a result, we
offer no hypothesis about the possible moderating role ofcontact time on the relationship between CO and OCB-altruism, though we test the effect in our empirical work.
In the following sections, we present three field studiesthat test our hypotheses. In Studies 1 and 2, we develop ameasure of CO and test our hypotheses in two distinct ser-vices contexts, which provides evidence of generalizability.In Study 3, we examine the mediational role of a direct mea-sure of job fit.
Study 1In Study 1, we collected data from the employees of a finan-cial institution. The financial services industry was appro-priate for testing our hypotheses for various reasons. Finan-cial institutions employ millions of people in jobs rangingfrom low customer contact (e.g., internal auditing, creditanalysis) to high customer contact (e.g., consumer lending,commercial lending, customer service). Furthermore, finan-cial services are pure services in the sense that transac-tions involve few tangibles. Many of the services that finan-cial institutions offer are continuous in nature rather thandiscrete.
We collected data from the employees of a midsize banklocated in a Midwestern city. After bank managements par-ticipation was secured, blank questionnaires and self-addressed stamped envelopes were distributed by the man-agers of each of the banks departments. We assured allparticipants that their individual answers would be held inconfidence. All 250 of the banks employees were asked tocomplete the survey during work time and to mail it directlyto one of us. We received 156 completed surveys, for aresponse rate of 62%. The questionnaire included measuresof CO, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, OCB-altruism, and contact time, presented in that order.
Most respondents were female (81%); the median tenure
at the bank was 19 months. Contact time ranged from 20%to 100%; 55% of respondents reported spending at least60% of their time with customers.
Measures and Analysis
CO. In developing a measure of CO, we used appropri-ate measurement development techniques (e.g., Andersonand Gerbing 1988; Churchill 1979). In particular, we soughtto explore the potential dimensionality of the construct. Wegathered extensive qualitative data to better define the natureof CO. We conducted personal interviews with six servicemanagers from diverse service settings (e.g., food service,financial services, travel agency) and two focus groups, one
with customers and one with nonmanager customer-contactemployees. Two judges independently analyzed writtentranscripts from the interviews and focus groups to identifyCO themes.
On the basis of a review of literature and our qualitativeresearch, we developed 98 statements that reflected differentaspects of CO. Five academicians who study services mar-keting and five managers who did not participate in theinterviews evaluated the items for face validity. Using theirfeedback and multiple rounds of data collection and
-
8/10/2019 11924953
5/20
132 / Journal of Marketing, January 2004
exploratory factor analysis, we reduced the number of itemsto 23 across four dimensions. We subsequently discuss thesedimensions and their relationship to another measure of COrecently introduced into the literature.
Employees need to pamper the customer represents thedegree to which service employees desire to make cus-tomers believe they are special, that is, individually impor-tant to the service provider. The service providers need toread the customer reflects the employees desire to pick upon customers verbal and nonverbal communication. The
service employees need for personal relationship capturesthe employees desire to know or connect with the customeron a personal level. Finally, customer-oriented employeesneed to deliver reflects their desire to perform the servicesuccessfully. We included the items that assess these fourproposed dimensions as our measure of CO.
A review of the items we used to assess CO (see theAppendix) reveals that they are complementary to the needsand enjoyment facets of CO that Brown and colleagues(2002) developed. Indeed, both the desire to meet customerneeds and the enjoyment of doing so are reflected across thefour dimensions. In Study 3, we compare our results withthose we obtained using Brown and colleagues measure.
Other measures. To assess an employees organizationalcommitment, we used three items adapted from Morgan andHunts (1994) research (e.g., The relationship my firm haswith me is something to which I am very committed). Weused a global measure of job satisfaction that asked respon-dents to rate the level of satisfaction with their overall jobon a 7-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied and 7 = very sat-isfied). The use of a global scale enabled us to capture anoverall assessment without either focusing on any one of theseveral reported dimensions of job satisfaction or includingmany items (e.g., Churchill, Ford, and Walker 1974). Toassess OCB-altruism, we used three items that measured thealtruism dimension, adapted from MacKenzie, Podsakoff,
and Fetters (1993) work. We assessed the proportion oftime spent with customers, or contact time, on an 11-pointscale that ranged from 0% to 100% in 10% increments (i.e.,0%, 10%, 20%, and so on). We used this measure in tests ofmoderation. Finally, we included a six-item measure ofsocially desirable responding (SDR) based on Strahan andGerbasis (1972) short version of Crowne and Marlowes(1960) scale. (For all the measures we used in our analyses,see the Appendix.)
We analyzed our data using structural equations model-ing with Amos 4.0 (Arbuckle 1997). Because we used a sin-gle item to assess overall job satisfaction, we assumed a reli-ability level of .85 to allow for measurement error, and wefixed the path coefficient and error variance accordingly (seeHair et al. 1998; Jreskog and Srbom 1993).
To test the moderation hypotheses, we created twogroups of employees (i.e., high contact and low contact)based on the measure of contact time. Because the amountof time that a worker spends with a customer might be influ-enced by the workers degree of CO, thereby possibly con-founding the interpretation of the proposed moderationeffect, we removed the effect of CO on contact time beforewe formed groups. We regressed the contact time measureon CO and then performed a median split on the residuals
from the regression analysis to form the high- and low-customer-contact groups. Because of the importance ofgroup formation, we used robust regression (Neter et al.1996) to control for the effects of outliers on the estimationof the regression equation. As a result of these procedures,any differences in the relationships between CO and its pro-posed consequences (i.e., job satisfaction, commitment)across groups cannot be an artifact of the relationshipbetween CO and contact time. We then performed a two-group structural equation modeling analysis.
Validation of the CO measure. To purify further the mul-tidimensional measure of CO, we performed a confirmatoryfactor analysis in which we loaded the indicators on theirappropriate dimensions. Of the 23 items, we dropped 9 atthis stage because of poor loadings in the confirmatoryanalyses and/or evidence of cross-loading on one or moreadditional dimensions. In addition, we deleted one item onthe grounds of insufficient face validity: It appeared to beconceptually dissimilar to the other items in its dimension.The remaining items loaded on the four dimensions of CO.According to the criteria recommended by Fornell and Lar-cker (1981), a confirmatory factor analysis with the fourdimensions as latent constructs confirmed discriminantvalidity between the dimensions. We also tested the validityof our conceptualization by using a second-order factormodel. The results (2 = 119.72, degrees of freedom [d.f.] =61,p < .01; comparative fit index [CFI] = .96; TuckerLewisindex [TLI] = .95; and root mean square error of approxi-mation [RMSEA] = .08) indicate that each CO dimensionloaded strongly on the second-order factor. Consequently,we computed mean scores for each of the four dimensionsof CO and treated them as separate indicators of the COlatent variable in our structural equations analyses.
Results
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and pairwise correla-tions for Study 1. Model fit for the measurement model wasgood (2 = 81.11, d.f. = 39, p < .01; CFI = .95; TLI = .93;and RMSEA = .08). Composite reliability and average vari-ance extracted were strong for all latent variables (see Table1). In addition, all model constructs exhibited discriminantvalidity with respect to the standards Fornell and Larcker(1981) suggest. Given the discriminant validity and evi-dence of nomological validity (see the subsequent section),we conclude that all measures exhibited construct validity.
Structural model results. We derived the full structuralmodel from our hypotheses; the model is presented in Fig-ure 1. Structural model fit was good (2 = 81.33, d.f. = 40,p < .01; CFI = .95; TLI = .94; and RMSEA = .08). Table 2presents the standardized path coefficients (SPCs) and asso-ciated t-values for all relationships in the structural model.
A purpose of our research is to consider the effects ofservice-worker CO on job satisfaction, organizational com-mitment, and OCB-altruism. H1 suggests that as theemployees level of CO increases, his or her level of job sat-isfaction also increases. The results reported in Table 2 sup-port this effect (SPC = .34, t = 4.03). We also predicted thatCO exerts a positive influence on service-worker commit-ment to the organization; the results support our hypothesis
-
8/10/2019 11924953
6/20
Service-Worker Customer Orientation / 133
TABLE1
Study1:Descrip
tiveStatisticsandPairwiseCorrelations(Bank)
Average
Standard
Composite
Variance
Variable
Mean
Deviation
Reliability
Extracted
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11
)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(1)OCBs
4.8
0
1.2
0
.91
.77
1.0
0
(2)CO
5.5
2
.91
.88
.65
.43
1.0
0
(3)Sa
tis
fac
tion
4.7
8
1.4
9
.92b
N.A.
.48
.30
1.0
0
(4)Comm
itmen
t
5.8
1
.86
.96
.90
.27
.52
.18*
1.0
0
IndividualIndicators
(5)Pamper
5.4
9
1.0
3
.41
.91
.31
.55
1.0
0
(6)Rea
d
4.7
0
1.1
2
.28
.80
.20*
.39
.66
1.00
(7)De
liver
6.1
9
.88
.35
.79
.14a
.37
.67
.49
1.0
0
(8)Persona
l
relations
hip
5.7
0
1.2
6
.30
.87
.31
.42
.75
.52
.60
1.0
0
(9)OCB1
4.6
7
1.3
8
.88
.33
.50
.21
.29
.24
.29
.29
1.0
0
(10)OCB2
5.4
3
1.2
9
.79
.48
.26
.26
.47
.36
.44
.35
.60
1.0
0
(11)OCB3
4.3
1
1.5
9
.86
.30
.44
.21
.31
.16
*
.20*
.33
.65
.48
1.0
0
(12)COM1
5.5
0
1.2
3
.18*
.38
.12a
.85
.38
.30
.27
.31
.14a
.13a
.2
0*
1.0
0
(13)COM2
5.9
6
.85
.28
.51
.22
.86
.57
.33
.38
.44
.23
.33
.1
7*
.50
1.0
0
(14)COM3
5.9
7
.89
.26
.48
.17*
.91
.54
.36
.35
.38
.22
.26
.1
8*
.60
.85
1.0
0
(15)SD
4.6
1
.98
.17*
.21
.12a
.24
.30
.09
a
.15a
.17*
.19*
.14a
.1
0a
.11a
.28
.26
1.0
0
*p .10).
Follow-up tests. Follow-up tests on the potential influ-
ences of SDR again led us to conclude that the factor cannotaccount for the obtained results. Although SDR exerted sig-nificant influences on CO and commitment, the hypothe-sized relationships were still statistically significant (seeTable 4). We then tested for the effect of common methodvariance. As shown in Table 4, only three indicators loadedon the method factor (i.e., COM2, COM3, OCB2), and thestructural results were essentially unchanged.
As was true for Study 1, the results indicate that CO is adeterminant of both job satisfaction and organizational com-mitment, not vice versa (see Figure 2). For both job
-
8/10/2019 11924953
10/20
Service-Worker Customer Orientation / 137
TABLE3
Study2:Descriptiv
eStatisticsandPairwiseCorrelations(Restaurant)
Average
Standard
Composite
Variance
Variable
Mean
Deviation
Reliability
Extracted
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(1)OCBs
5.1
7
1.2
4
.91
.77
1.0
0
(2)CO
5.7
0
.89
.88
.64
.63
1.0
0
(3)Sa
tis
fac
tion
5.5
2
1.2
0
.92a
N.A.
.65
.50
1.0
0
(4)Comm
itmen
t
5.6
5
1.1
4
.95
.86
.50
.60
.57
1.0
0
IndividualIndicators
(5)Pamper
5.6
3
1.0
4
.55
.90
.45
.53
1.0
0
(6)Rea
d
5.4
4
1.0
6
.37
.85
.24
.36
.64
1.0
0
(7)De
liver
6.2
0
.95
.40
.82
.37
.53
.69
.58
1.0
0
(8)Persona
l
relations
hip
5.6
2
1.2
7
.41
.76
.25
.37
.63
.52
.53
1.0
0
(9)OCB1
4.9
8
1.4
5
.91
.51
.55
.40
.53
.38
.38
.40
1.0
0
(10)OCB2
5.5
8
1.2
2
.87
.51
.46
.43
.53
.34
.41
.44
.75
1.0
0
(11)OCB3
4.9
5
1.5
6
.86
.36
.45
.34
.40
.25
.27
.25
.64
.58
1.0
0
(12)COM1
5.5
6
1.4
2
.35
.49
.45
.87
.47
.38
.47
.30
.31
.34
.2
8
1.0
0
(13)COM2
5.6
6
1.2
0
.39
.47
.44
.90
.48
.27
.50
.34
.38
.37
.2
9
.63
1.0
0
(14)COM3
5.7
2
1.2
0
.44
.48
.47
.92
.48
.30
.46
.37
.39
.44
.3
4
.67
.81
1.0
0
(15)SD
4.0
1
.91
.26
.23
.15*
.26
.26
.15*
.20
.17*
.21
.27
.2
1
.16*
.31
.24
1.0
0
*p