Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AND
COMMUNICATIONS
110
111
employee service performance. We believe that part of the
difficulty stems from an omitted variable problem: None of
the prior studies attempted to account for a construct that
directly measures a service employee's disposition to be
customer oriented.
A Hierarchical Model of Customer Orientation
In our work, we employ a hierarchical model of the
effects of personality on behavior. Many theorists and
researchers have argued that personality traits exist at various levels of abstraction (e.g., Allport 1961; Eysenck 1947;
Lastovicka 1982; Mowen and Spears 1999; Paunonen
1998). Consistent with Mowen and Spears (1999), we
employ a hierarchical model in which basic personality
traits (i.e., introversion, emotional stability, conscientiousness, agreeability, openness to experience, and need for
activity) combine with a specific context for performance
(i.e., the role of the service worker) to produce surface traits
(i.e., customer orientation) or enduring dispositions, inclinations, or tendencies to behave within the context. It is important to include surface traits in the model, because basic personality traits may be too far removed from focal service
behaviors to be able to predict service worker performance
well. The surface trait (i.e., customer orientation) is closer in
the personality hierarchy to the specific behaviors needed to
achieve high performance and therefore should enhance the
prediction of specific behaviors and performance ratings.
Allport (1961) first used the term "surface trait" to
describe summaries of surface behaviors (as opposed to
specific focal behaviors). Working from this viewpoint,
Mowen and Spears (1999) define a surface trait as an enduring disposition to behave within a specific situational context. They propose that the press of the situation, such as the
role demands of a job as a server in a restaurant, exerts pressures to behave in specific ways. These situational pressures
combine with more basic personality traits to create the surface traits.' Surface traits are contextual, because a given
person's general disposition to perform behaviors may
diverge in different aspects of life (e.g,, the service worker
who is attuned to the needs of customers when at work yet
is seemingly insensitive to the needs of family members
when at home). They are classified as traits because they
represent an enduring tendency to behave, albeit within particular situational contexts. These ideas are consistent with
those of theorists who have noted that situations interact
with dispositions to influence behavior (e.g.. Bowers 1973;
Endler and Rosenstein 1997; Mischel 1968). Because our
interest is in understanding service worker customer orientation, we limit our research to the context in which it operates (i.e., the employee's degree of customer orientation in
a service setting).
In our research, we distinguish four types of constructs:
basic traits, surface traits, specific service behaviors, and performance evaluations. First, basic traits (e.g., agreeability)
are enduring dispositions to behave across diverse situational
contexts. Second, surface traits (e.g., customer orientation)
are enduring dispositions to behave within specific situa'Other examples of surface trails within the marketing literature include
compulsive buying (Faber and O'Guinn 1989) and coupon proneness
(Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, and Burton 1990), In each case, the trait
describes individual differences that influence behavior within the context
of a speciflc consumption situation.
112
113
basis of a series of preliminary multiple regression analyses), which left 249 cases for analysis.
The median age of the employees in our analysis sample
was 22 years. Median length of time on the job was 11
months. Furthermore, 63% were women, 31% worked in
some type of supervisory capacity, and 43% were full-time
employees.
Measures
Measures for the basic personality traits, introversion,
instability, agreeability, conscientiousness, and openness,
were identical to those used by Mowen and Spears (1999)
and are reported along with their estimates of reliability in
the Appendix, Because the construct validity of each of
these scales had been established previously, we created an
index score (i,e,, mean across items) to represent each construct. We used the index scores as single-item indicants in
structural equations models by fixing the path coefficients
and error variances on the basis of estimated reliabilities and
variances of the index scores (Hair et al, 1998), We developed a measure for the activity personality trait on the basis
of Buss's (1988) ideas; preliminary factor and reliability
analyses and substantive review of items resulted in a threeitem measure of activity (see the Appendix; a = ,79), To be
consistent with procedures used with other basic personality
traits, we again created an index score and used it in the
structural equations models,^
The customer orientation surface trait was conceptualized as having a needs dimension and an enjoyment dimension. To measure the needs component, we adapted a sixitem Likert-type scale from the measures developed by
Saxe and Weitz (1982) by taking the six items with the
highest factor loadings on the customer orientation dimension in their research (see the Appendix), Coefficient alpha
for this measure of customer orientation was ,87,** We
measured the enjoyment component of customer orientation (i,e,, the degree to which service workers enjoy providing service to customers) using a six-item Likert-type
measure developed on the basis of discussions with practitioners in the banking and hospitality industries (see the
Appendix; a = ,88), In these discussions, we asked participants to describe the distinguishing characteristics of
high- and low-performing service employees. Their
responses indicated that customer-oriented service
employees enjoyed several different aspects of meeting
customer needs. Their responses guided the development
of the items that were intended to tap the enjoyment
dimension, A principle components factor analysis with
oblique rotation of the 12 items (i,e,, 6 needs and 6 enjoyment items) indicated a two-factor solution, with all items
^As a check on the appropriateness of using the index scores for the six
basic personality traits in our model, we conducted a principle components
factor analysis with oblique rotation across all items that formed the six
measures, A six-factor solution emerged based on the eigenvalue rule; each
item loaded significantly on its appropriate factor, and there were no significant cross-loadings based on the standards suggested by Hair and colleagues (1998). Furthermore, the absolute value interfactor correlations
ranged from .01 to .36 with a mean of .13,
"Saxe and Weitz (1982) used both customer orientation items and selling
orientation items in their measure. Because the customer orientation and
selling orientation items split into separate dimensions when factor analyzed (in both their original research and our current research), we elected
to use only customer orientation items for our measure of the needs component of customer orientation.
114
Table 1
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND BIVARIATE CORRELATIONS
Number
of Items
Coefficient
Alpha
(X,)
(X2)
.86
.88
(XJ)
3
4
3.39
3.90
7.04
6.52
6.20
5.71
6.87
7.06
5.64
5.79
5.41
5.39
Variable
Introversion
Instability
Agreeability
Conscientiousness
Openness
Activity
Enjoyment
Needs
Self 1
Self 2
Supervisor 1
Supervisor 2
(X4)
(X5)
(Xfi)
(Y,)
(Y2)
(Y3)
(Y4)
(Y5)
(Y6)
5
5
3
6
6
1
1
1
1
.85
.73
.83
.79
.88
.87
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Standard
Deviation
<X,)
(Xi)
(XJ)
(X4)
(X5)
(y,)
(y2)
.65
.35
.38
.08
.09
.31
.32
.10
.12
(YJ)
(Y4)
(Ys)
.82
.79
.51
.35
.53
.80
.47
.33
.02
().96
.23
.27
.41
-.04
-.10
-.07
-.18
-.23
-.16
-.10
-.13
-.07
-.06
-.21
-.08
.06
-.01
-.30
-.15
-.07
-.21
-.06
-.08
.21
.26
.16
.41
.32
.16
.20
-.07
-.07
.11
.18
.20
.19
.12
.23
.17
.19
.30
.16
.24
.13
.16
-.08
-.11
.28
.29
.17
.13
.01
-.04
.72
.23
.28
.22
.28
.86
Notes: n = 249. Mean scores are used for all multi-item scales. All are nine-point scales except Yj-Y^ (seven-point). N.A. = not applicable.
loading on the appropriate factor, no significant cross-loadings, and a relatively strong interfactor correlation of .57.
Index scores were created for each set of items and served
as separate indicants of customer orientation in the structural equations models.
Two global items were used to assess overall service
worker performance (i.e., "overall quantity of work performed" and "overall quality of work performed"). Each
item was assessed on seven-point scales bounded by "among
the worst in the company"/"among the best in the company."
Both employees and supervisors rated the employees' performance using these scales. In the structural equations
models, the items were used as separate indicants of performance for self- and manager ratings of performance.
ANALYSES AND RESULTS
Our primary method of analysis was structural equations
modeling by means of LISREL 8 (Joreskog and Sorbom
1993); before analysis, we replaced remaining missing values through mean substitution. We used the covariance
matrix as input to the structural equations analysis. Table 1
presents descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for
the variables included in the model.
To examine the mediational role of customer orientation,
we estimated two models. The first model, depicted graphically in Figure 1, Panel A, positions customer orientation in
a fully mediational role between the basic personality traits
and performance outcomes. The second model, shown in
Figure 1, Panel B, allows for both direct and indirect effects
(mediated through customer orientation) of the personality
traits on the performance outcomes. Because the first model
is nested within the second, we can perform a x^ difference
test to determine whether customer orientation fully mediates or only partially mediates the influence of the basic personality traits on self- and supervisor ratings of performance.
Table 2 presents the results of the structural equations
analyses. The table includes results for the full and partial
mediation models presented in Figure 1. The initial measurement model results (not shown) provided support for the
validity of our measures, with strong loadings for all
observed variables and acceptable overall model fit (x^, 24
degrees of freedom [d.f.] = 29.53; root mean square error of
approximation = .03; nonnormed fit index = .98; and com-
115
Figure 1
BASIC MODELS TESTED IN STUDY
Instability
Agreeability
Conscientiousness
Customer
Orientation
Openness
Performance
Ratings
(Supervisor)
Activity
Performance
Ratings
(SelO
Performance
Ratings
(Supervisor)
116
Table 2
RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS ANALYSES FOR FULL MEDIATION AND PARTIAL MEDIATION MODELS
Full Mediation
Path
Standardized
Path
Coefficient
Partial Mediation
t-Value
Standardized
Path
Coefficient
t-Vatue
Structural Paths
.41
.03
.26
.42
.19
-1.27
-.75
2.15*
1.46
-.63
-.08
-.39
-2.20*
3.14**
-1.28
-.96
-1.24
-2.21*
4.37**
1.16
.37
3.14**
4.10**
1.95
NA
.31
NA
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
11.95**
11.34**
12.24**
12.46**
12.99**
12.97**
.93
.94
.92
.86
.91
.89
.89
.74
.76
.95
.89
.97
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
11.59**
11.35**
12.08**
12.35**
14.28**
14.61**
-.11
-.07
.17
.11
-.05
-.01
-.04
-.20
.26
.49
.11
-1.21
-2.31*
4.34**
1.38
.57
3.12**
6.02**
1.50
.33
93
94
92
-.10
-.19
.35
.10
.04
.25
86
91
89
88
74
80
91
93
93
-.11
-.09
-.10
-.18
.36
.09
.03
53.65
36
.04
.96
.98
29.53
24
.03
.98
.99
.40
.24
.01
.39
.26
.12
*p < .05.
**p<.Ol.
Notes: n = 249. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI comparative fit index.
117
might improve its predictive ability. Similarly, performance
evaluations might be taken for more specific aspects of performance, in contrast with the global measures used herein,
to enhance the performance of the model. Furthermore, our
study did not include measures of specific service behaviors;
further research might include direct measures of things
such as number of mistaken orders, accuracy of order taking, and so on.
A second possible reason for the weaker-than-expected
effects may be that supervisors in the restaurant industry do
not focus on customer-oriented behaviors, choosing instead
to focus on more operational issues when evaluating
employees. Further research might address the degree to
which different companies believe that individual-level customer orientation matters and, more important, whether
companies that recognize value in customer-oriented behaviors ultimately perform better in the marketplace. In addition, there may be industry and regional differences that
affect the relationships between customer orientation and its
outcomes (or determinants). Our study investigated only one
industry in a limited geographic area. It seems reasonable to
expect that some personality traits have greater or lesser
influence on customer orientation depending on the industry
studied. For example, in the current industry context, introversion may play less of a role because of strong prescribed
scripts for employee behavior in the particular role.
A third possible limitation of our results may have been
the exclusion of additional personality traits that might have
helped better explain service employee performance ratings.
For example, in a personal selling context. Brown, Cron,
and Slocum (1998) find that the trait of task-specific selfefficacy may be a predictor of performance. Further research
should investigate additional basic personality traits and surface traits that may influence customer orientation and/or
ratings of employee performance. On the basis of Buss's
(1988) work, we added the trait of need for activity to the
basic traits represented in five-factor models of personality.
Additional scale development is required with respect to
need for activity. Our three-item measure demonstrated reasonable reliability (a = .79), but more thorough conceptual
and psychometric development is desirable.
In summary, our research suggests that a service worker's
degree of customer orientation is based in part on more fundamental personality variables and is related to evaluations of
his or her performance. In our view, further research should
include (1) measure development and validation for customer
orientation, specific service behaviors, perfomiance evaluations, and need for activity; (2) closer investigation of the
potential dual influences of agreeability on customer orientation and performance ratings; (3) further conceptualization
and empirical testing of the predictors of customer ortentation,
with particular attention to the role of need for activity and the
identification of additional determinants; (4) establishment of
the generalizability of our results across industries and geographic regions; (5) incorporation of performance evaluation
as judged by customers; and (6) development and validation of
instruments, based on the hierarchical personality model, to be
used for recruiting and training of service employees. With
respect to this final point, our research suggests that a direct
measure of customer orientation should be included in instruments to select and train employees. However, it is too early to
begin to use our scales for selection and training purposes.
118
REFERENCES
Allport, Gordon W. (1961), Pattern and Growth in Personality.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Block, Jack (1995), "A Contrarian View of the Five-Factor
Approach to Personality Description," Psychological Bulletin,
117 (March), 187-215.
Bowers, Kenneth S. (1973), "Situationism in Psychology: An
Analysis and a Critique," Psychological Review, 80 (September), 307-36.
Brown, Steven P., William L. Cron, and John W. Slocum Jr. (1998),
"Effects of Trait Competitiveness and Perceived Intraorganizational Competition on Salesperson Goal Setting and Performance," Journal of Marketing, 62 (October), 88-98.
Buss, David M. (1988), "Evolutionary Personality Psychology,"
Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 459-91.
Costa, Paul T , Jr., and Robert R.R. McCrae (1985), The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Day, David V. and Stanley B. Silverman (1989), "Personality and
Job Performance: Evidence of Incremental Validity," Personnel
Psychology, 42 (Spring), 25-36.
Day, George S. (1994), "The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations," Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 37-52.
Deshpande, Rohit, John U. Farley, and Frederick E. Webster Jr.
(1993), "Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Ouadrad Analysis," Journal of
Marketing, 57 (January), 23-37.
Endler, Norman S. and Alvin J. Rosenstein (1997), "Evolution of
the Personality Construct in Marketing and Its Applicability to
Contemporary Personality Research," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 60), 55-66.
Eysenck, Hans J. (1947), Dimensions of Personality. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Faber, Ronald J. and Thomas C. O'Guinn (1989), "Classifying
Compulsive Consumers: Advances in the Development of a
Diagnostic Tool," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16,
T.K. Snill, ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,
738-44.
Frei, Richard L. and Michael A. McDaniel (1998), "Validity of
Customer Service Measures in Personnel Selection: A Review of
Criterion and Construct Evidence," Human Performance, II (1),
1-27.
Goldberg, Lewis R. (1992), 'The Development of Markers for the
Big-Five Factor Structure," Psychological Assessment, 4 ( 1 ) ,
26-42.
(1993), 'The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits,"
American Psychologist, 48 (January), 26-34.
Hair, Joseph F, Jr., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and
William C. Black (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hogan, Joyce, Robert Hogan, and Catherine Busch (1984), "How
to Measure Service Orientation," Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (February), 167-73.
Hurley, Robert F (1998a), "A Customer Service Behavior in Retail
Settings: A Study of the Effect of Service Provider Personality,"
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 26 (2), 115-227.
(1998b), "Service Disposition and Personality: A Review
and a Classification Scheme for Understanding Where Service
Disposition Has an Effect on Customers," Advances in Services
Marketing and Management, 1, 159-91.
Jaworski, Bernard J. and Ajay K. Kohli (1993), "Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences," Journal of Marketing, 57
(July), 53-70.
Jdreskog, Kari G. and Dag Sorbom (1993), USREL 8. Chicago:
Scientific Software International.
Kotler, Philip (1997), Marketing Management, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
119
Rust, Roland T, Anthony J. Zahorik, and Timothy L. Keiningham
(\996), Service Marketing. New York: HarperCollins.
Saucier, Gerard (1994), "Mini-Markers: A Brief Version of Goldberg's Unipolar Big-Five Markers," Journal of Personality
Assessment, 63 (3), 506-16.
Saxe, Robert and Barton A. Weitz (1982), 'The SOCO Scale: A
Measure of the Customer Orientation of Salespeople," Journal
of Marketing Research, 19 (August), 343-51.
Spivey, W. Austin, J. Michael Munson, and William B. Locander
(1979), "Meeting Retail Staffmg Needs via Improved Selection,"
Journal of Retailing, 55 (4), 3-19.
Tadepalli, Raghu (1995), "Measuring Customer Orientation of a
Salesperson: Modiftcations of the SOCO Scale," Psychology
and Marketing, 12 (May), 177-87.
Venkatraman, Meera P. and Linda L. Price (1990), "Differentiating
Between Cognitive and Sensory Innovativeness: Concepts, Measurement, and Implications," Journal of Business Research, 20
(June), 293-315.
Wiggins, Jerry S. (1996), The Five-Factor Model of Personality.
New York: Guilford Press.