This article was downloaded by: [University of Bristol]

On: 23 February 2015, At: 15:12

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Services Marketing Quarterly

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wsmq20

Organizational Service Orientation: A

Short-Form Version of the SERV*OR Scale
a a
Leroy Robinson JR. & Kathleen Williamson
a
Department of Economics, Finance, Marketing, and Decision
Sciences, School of Business, University of Houston–Clear Lake,
Houston, Texas
Published online: 14 Apr 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Leroy Robinson JR. & Kathleen Williamson (2014) Organizational Service
Orientation: A Short-Form Version of the SERV*OR Scale, Services Marketing Quarterly, 35:2, 155-172,
DOI: 10.1080/15332969.2014.885369

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2014.885369

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015
 Services Marketing Quarterly, 35:155–172, 2014
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1533-2969 print / 1533-2977 online
DOI: 10.1080/15332969.2014.885369

Organizational Service Orientation:

A Short-Form Version of the SERV∗ OR Scale

LEROY ROBINSON JR. and KATHLEEN WILLIAMSON

Department of Economics, Finance, Marketing, and Decision Sciences, School of Business,
University of Houston–Clear Lake, Houston, Texas
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

Lytle, Hom, and Mokwa (1998) developed the SERV∗ OR scale to

measure the construct they defined as organizational service ori-
entation. This measure consists of 35 items and has been used
extensively to demonstrate relationships between service orienta-
tion and other constructs. The purpose of this research is to develop
a short-form version of the SERV∗ OR scale, allowing managers and
researchers to more easily measure the impact of service orienta-
tion. An online sample of frontline service workers was used to test
this model. Confirmatory factor analysis supports a reduced-item
scale that represents all the original components posited by Lyle
et al. (1998).

KEYWORDS service orientation, scale refinement, SERV∗ OR

INTRODUCTION

The concept of service orientation has been of enduring interest to market-

ing managers and scholars since the nineteen eighties (Albrecht & Zemke,
1985; Hogan, Hogan, & Busch, 1984). Lytle, Hom, and Mokwa (1998) devel-
oped a comprehensive, multi-item measurement scale, called SERV∗ OR, to
capture the extent to which an organization is perceived by its employees as
having a service orientation (Lytle et al., 1998). Since the publication of the
SERV∗ OR scale (Lytle et al., 1998), it has been used in both scholarly and
applied research in many types of organizations around the world, includ-
ing banks, financial services firms, hotels, and hospitals (Lee, Park, & Yoo,
1999; Lynn & Lytle, 2000; Lytle & Timmerman, 2002; Yoon, Choi, & Park,

Address correspondence to Leroy Robinson Jr., Department of Economics, Finance, Mar-

keting, and Decision Sciences, School of Business, University of Houston–Clear Lake, 2700
Bay Area Boulevard, Houston, TX 77058. E-mail: robinsonjr@uhcl.edu

155
 156 L. Robinson Jr. and K. Williamson

2007). According to Google Scholar, the article has been cited 171 times
in scholarly publications. The scale has also been used, along with other
multi-item measures, to show relationships between service orientation and
other constructs, such as customer orientation, job satisfaction, employee
empowerment, and organizational performance (Gonzalez & Garazo, 2005;
Lee et al., 1999; Robinson, Neeley, & Williamson, 2011; Saura, Contri, Taulet,
& Velaszquez, 2005; Yoon et al., 2007).
As researchers explore the nomological network of interest, service ori-
entation is often only one of the several dimensions that the investigator is
examining. This issue may present data collection and respondent difficul-
ties to the research efforts. When researchers investigate multiple measures
of various constructs, it creates an opportunity for a short-form scale. This
version would require less space in the survey and allow for the additional
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

measures (Richins, 2004). In the case of service orientation, the relatively

large amount of items pertaining to service related topics can also be a prob-
lem. The challenge becomes disguising so many items by surrounding them
within other items on other topics of interest (Richins, 2004).
The current length of the SERV∗ OR scale (35 items) can be an imped-
iment to its use where response time is limited (Marteau & Bekker, 1992).
To further encourage its implementation in research and managerial practice
a reliable and valid short-form of marketing scales requires development
(Reynolds, 1982). Many researchers have developed various short-forms of
existing scales (e.g., de Jong, Steenkamp, & Veldkamp, 2009; Richins, 2004;
Shimp & Sharma, 1987; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1995; Thomas, Soutar, &
Ryan, 2001).
The purpose of this research is to develop a short-form version of the
SERV∗ OR measure of organizational service orientation that is both reliable
and nomologically valid. The continuing interest in the construct of service
orientation for applied research as well as the use of the construct in more
extensive theoretical models are evidence that a reduced-item scale would
be useful to managers and scholars alike.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The construct of service orientation has been defined from two fundamental
perspectives: as an individual trait of service employees or as the result
of an organization’s structure, climate, and culture. Researchers focused on
employees have conceptualized service orientation as measures of basic
predispositions such as helpfulness, courtesy, and friendliness (Cran, 1994;
Dale & Wooler, 1991; Hogan et al., 1984; Hurley, 1998; Keillor, Parker, &
Pettijohn, 1999). As such, service orientation emerges from the behavioral
expression of employee attitudes.
 Organizational Service Orientation 157

At the organizational level, researchers have examined to what extent

an organizational climate creates, cultivates and rewards practices that satisfy
customer expectations (Bowen, Siehl, & Schneider, 1989; Johnson, 1996;
Lytle et al., 1998; Schneider, Wheeler, & Cox, 1992; Webster, 1993). The
concept of an organization’s service orientation has also been examined from
the perspective of a business strategy, which measures the extent to which
services are an important element of a firms’ marketing strategy (Homburg,
Hoyer, & Fassnacht, 2002).
Marketing scholars have found evidence that customer satisfaction and
loyalty, as well as organizational profit and growth, are directly related to the
service orientation of an organization (Doyle & Wong, 1998; Heskett, Sasser,
& Schlesinger, 1997; Johnson, 1996; Wright, Pearce, & Busbin, 1997). Saura
et al. (2005, p. 499) demonstrated a direct, positive association between an or-
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

ganization’s service orientation practices and the customer orientation of the

firm, where customer orientation is defined as “the set of beliefs which place
the customer’s interests first.” They also found that organizational service ori-
entation was positively linked to job satisfaction. Lytle et al. (1998) undertook
to develop a comprehensive definition of the organizational service orien-
tation construct, which they described as a dimension of an organization’s
overall climate that was best understood and measured through employ-
ees’ perceptions. They formally defined organizational service orientation
as, “an organization-wide embracement of a basic set of relatively enduring
organizational policies, practices and procedures intended to support and
reward service-giving behaviors that create and deliver ‘service excellence’ ”
(p. 459).

The SERV∗ OR Scale

Lytle and his colleagues then developed SERV∗ OR through a comprehen-
sive, rigorous process of qualitative investigation and multiple quantitative
analyses (Lytle et al., 1998). Over two hundred possible scale items were
developed from the literature, in-depth interviews, and focus groups, with
the intention of measuring the “extent to which an organization is perceived
by its employees as having adopted or embraced a particular set of policies,
practices, and procedures that appear to infer an organizational service ori-
entation.” Two pretests and confirmatory factor analysis reduced the pool of
scale items to the final number of 35.
Next, the authors conducted a construct validation study within two
different service industries, using structural equation modeling to validate
the dimensions of organizational service orientation. The resulting SERV∗ OR
scale has been shown to be both reliable and valid. The scale consists of
35 self-report statements, with a Likert-type rating scale, that capture 10 fun-
damental components of service quality. These elements are categorized
 158 L. Robinson Jr. and K. Williamson

within four broad dimensions of service delivery: service leadership prac-

tices (servant leadership, service vision), service encounter practices (cus-
tomer treatment, employee empowerment), human resource management
practices (service training, service rewards), and service systems practices
(service failure prevention, service failure recovery, service technology, ser-
vice standards communication).
As mentioned, the scale has frequently been used to demonstrate re-
lationships between service orientation and other constructs. For example,
Yoon and colleagues (2007) developed a model of service factors contribut-
ing to business performance in a hospital setting, where business perfor-
mance was comprised of the profit growth rate, market share, number of
patients and overall business performance. In this model, the service orien-
tation of a firm had a direct effect on business performance, as well as an
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

effect on employee job satisfaction. Satisfied employees were more likely to

display greater customer orientation, which had a positive effect on busi-
ness performance (Yoon et al., 2007). Lee et al. (1999) found that service
image, employee job satisfaction, and organizational commitment played
mediating roles in the relationship between service orientation and business
performance. Lynn and Lytle (2000) found that the relationship between ser-
vice orientation and business performance was also present in transitional
economies converting from government or socialistic ownership to a more
market-based economy. Gonzalez and Garazo (2005) demonstrated that or-
ganizational service orientation practices lead to increased customer-contact
employee job satisfaction, which leads to increased organizational citizenship
behaviors. Saura et al. (2005) found a direct, positive association between
the service orientation practices of a financial services firm and the customer
orientation of its employees. Robinson et al. (2011) used the service recov-
ery subset of the SERV∗ OR scale in a larger model of customer relationship
management’s effect on service recovery.
Some researchers (Gonzalez & Garazo, 2005; Lee et al., 1999; Yoon et al.,
2007) have used an abbreviated measure of organizational service orientation
developed by Lee and colleagues (1999). This scale did not use the origi-
nal scale items from Lytle and colleagues’ SERV∗ OR (1998), but instead was
derived from a pool of 43 possible scale items generated by a panel of profes-
sors, managers and employees from the Korean luxury hotel industry. Factor
analysis reduced the 43 items to seventeen, within seven service dimen-
sions: customer focus, employee empowerment, service leadership, service
rewards/incentives, service training/technology, service failure/prevention,
and service standards communication. This shortened 17-item scale was de-
veloped for ease of use in a larger research model that included measures
of job satisfaction, service image, organizational commitment, and business
performance (Lee et al., 1999). However, this revised service orientation scale
does not preserve the original dimensions of the SERV∗ OR scale, which had
 Organizational Service Orientation 159

been demonstrated to be broadly applicable to diverse service settings (Lytle

et al., 1998).

Multi-Item Scales
Respondents face many issues when attempting to complete long multi-
item measurement scales. Typically, these issues escalate the data collec-
tion costs and may lead to exhaustion, annoyance, and ultimately attrition
(Benet-Martı́nez & John, 1998). These issues, along with others, present chal-
lenges for both the researcher and the practitioner. De Jong, Steenkamp, and
Veldkamp (2009) stated, “existing scales are often too long for effective ad-
ministration in nonstudent samples.” Short-form scales have inherent advan-
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

tages that can address these problematic matters. Burisch (1984) contended
that the use of short-form scales lead to shorter evaluation times and re-
duce the likelihood of respondent boredom and fatigue. In addition, Richins
(2004) posited that when used in surveys, shorter measures may reduce
demand effects or hypothesis guessing.
As Stanton, Sinar, Balzer, and Smith (2002, p. 168) pointed out; recent
trends have led to problems with the use of multi-item self-report instruments
in organizational research:

1. Constructs are often measured along with other constructs (Krosnick, 1999;
Stanton, 2000), which results in lengthy survey instruments and an in-
creased likelihood of “respondent fatigue” (Ruvio et al., 2007).
2. Many organizational members feel they are “over-surveyed” and are thus
more likely to be unwilling to participate (Rogelberg et al., 1998; Rogelberg
& Luong, 1998).
3. The increasing use of the Internet for survey research has demonstrated
the difficulty of displaying lengthy surveys online in a manner conducive
to ease of use on the part of respondents (Stanton, 1998).

Additionally, the need to analyze subgroups within the data requires

increased sample sizes (Sudman, 1976), which are more difficult to achieve
with lengthy surveys. Drolet and Morrison (2001) have argued that shorter
scales reduce monotony, costs, and the possibility of response bias. The au-
thors note that these trends make shortened, psychometrically sound mea-
sures of relevant constructs increasingly useful and the development of them
a worthwhile endeavor (Stanton et al., 2002).
In addition, Richins (2004) suggested that when only a long-form mea-
surement scale exists, the researcher might decide to not measure the con-
struct of interest due to survey length restrictions. In other cases, ad hoc
construct measures with unknown validity may be used. To deal with this
 160 L. Robinson Jr. and K. Williamson

issue Marteau and Bekker (1992) suggested that short-form scales should
consist of the smallest subset of items from the full-form version of the scale.
While this is important, Thomas et al. (2001, p. 63) stated, “it would be use-
ful to determine if the number of items in the scale could be reduced while
maintaining the scale’s dimensionality and consistency.”

METHODOLOGY
Sample Characteristics
To increase the generalizability of the results, a wide swath of front-line
service workers were contacted to comprehensively investigate the psycho-
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

metric properties of the SERV∗ OR scale. A diverse sample consisting of front-

line service workers representing many industries in the United States was
employed. The survey data were collected via self-report questionnaires
administered by utilizing an online survey instrument. Multiple service or-
ganizations were represented by the sample of 352 frontline employees.
The four largest sectors were 17% retail trade, 9% professional services, 9%
healthcare/medical, and 9% finance/banking/insurance (see Table 1).
The descriptive characteristics state that approximately 54% of the sam-
ple was in the 35−54 age range, 70% male, and 57% earned between
$25,000 and $74,999. The average length of service with current company
was 9.24 years. This indicates that the respondents were well versed in the
company’s operations. Approximately 90% of the respondents had at least
some college experience. The summary of descriptive statistics for the sam-
pled respondents is presented in Table 2.

TABLE 1 Service Industries Represented

Industries No. %

Retail trade 58 16.5

Professional services 32 9.1
Healthcare/medical 31 8.8
Finance/banking/insurance 30 8.5
Food & beverage service 23 6.5
Real estate 16 4.5
Government/military 12 3.4
Transportation 11 3.1
Telecommunications 8 2.3
Media/printing/publishing 7 2.0
Utilities 5 1.4
Entertainment/recreation 4 1.1
Hotels/other lodging 4 1.1
Other 111 31.5
 Organizational Service Orientation 161

TABLE 2 Respondent Characteristics

Characteristic No. %

Gender
Female 107 30.4
Male 245 69.6
Age
17 or younger 23 6.5
18−24 67 19.0
25−34 88 25.0
35−44 101 28.7
45−54 64 18.2
55−64 9 2.6
65 or older
Level of education
Some high school 0 0.0
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

High school graduate or equivalent 31 8.9

Some college 98 28.0
Associate degree 53 15.1
Bachelor’s degree 104 29.7
Graduate or professional degree 64 18.3
Household income
Under $15,000 56 15.9
$15,000−$24,999 62 17.6
$25,000−$49,999 94 26.7
$50,000−$74,999 108 30.7
$75,000−$99,999 25 7.1
$100,000 or more 7 2.0
Overall length of service with current company M = 9.24 SD = 8.30
Overall length of work experience M = 24.41 SD = 11.97

ANALYSIS

Evaluations of the different scales are specified in three components. Initially,

the psychometric properties of the original SERV∗ OR scale are assessed.
Based on the results, a short-form scale is developed. Next, the psychome-
tric properties of the new scale are examined and validity is established.
Following the model of Bearden and Netemeyer (1999), reliability, dimen-
sionality, and construct validity estimates are calculated for both the original
and short-form scale.

Reliability
When each item of a scale reflects only one underlying construct unidimen-
sionality is confirmed. The assessment of reliability can be used to demon-
strate unidimensionality (Bollen, 1989; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). Each
facet of the original scale was assessed for reliability using Cronbach’s co-
efficient alpha. The reliability statistic for service encounter practices was
0.887, service systems practices was 0.945, service leadership practices was
 162 L. Robinson Jr. and K. Williamson

0.950, and human resource management practices was 0.929. Each of the
measurements demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency and was above
the desired 0.70 level as prescribed by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). In
addition, the entire short-form scale held together as a unidimensional scale
with a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of 0.973.

Factor Analysis
The data collected was analyzed using SPSS 19 and LISREL 8.8 (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 2007). The original development study created to measure the entire
organization’s embracement of a service orientation the SERV∗ OR scale (Lytle
et al., 1998) for measuring service orientation. Since the original scale devel-
oped consisted of four facets, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

constraining the number of factors to four (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,
1998). The current study employed an iterated principal factor analysis with
item communality estimated from squared multiple correlations, maximum
likelihood as the estimation method, and varimax rotation (see Table 3). The
factor analysis revealed a four-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than
1. The results of the analysis substantiated the four-facet structure of the
SERV∗ OR scale. Overall, the amount of explained variance was 69.287%.

Construct Validity
In order to assess construct validity, structural equation modeling was used
to subject the full SERV∗ OR scale to confirmatory factory analysis (Gerbing
& Anderson, 1988). The measurement model was fit to the data using the
covariance matrix and specifying the measures to act as indicators for the
latent variables. The results show adequate fit of the model (χ 2 = 18142.41,
p < .0, df = 554, RMSEA = 0.14, GFI = 0.62, NNFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.95,
SRMR = 0.085). In general, the χ 2 statistic, which assesses the magnitude
of variance unexplained by the model, is expected to have a nonsignificant
value. However, this research has a large sample size and χ 2 is sensitive to
small deviations from the model especially when the sample sizes are large.
When the sample size becomes sizeable (i.e., N > 400) the method detects
almost any difference and is usually statistically significant (Hair et al., 1998).
According to Comrey and Lee (1992) a highly significant χ 2 statistic can
result from a moderately good fit. Models whose RMSEA is 0.10 or more
indicate a poor fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The goodness-of-fit index
(GFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), and comparative fit index (CFI) indicate
good fit above 0.90 (Bentler, 1990; Bentler & Bonnett, 1980). A value less
than .05 is generally considered a good fit for the standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR; Hu & Bentler, 1999). The GFI indices support the
posited structure, however, some indicators showed room for improvement.
 Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

TABLE 3 Items and Factor Loadings of SERV∗ OR

No. 1 2 3 4 Facet Item

SO01 0.68 0.15 0.17 0.12 Customer treatment Employees care for customers as they would like to be cared for.
SO02 0.72 0.13 0.18 0.15 Employees go the “extra mile” for customers.
SO03 0.70 0.18 0.17 0.11 We are noticeably more friendly and courteous than our competitors.
SO04 0.76 0.14 0.19 0.15 Employees go out of their way to reduce inconveniences for
customers.
SO05 0.44 0.14 0.18 0.17 Employee Decisions are made “close to the customer.” In other words,
empowerment employees often make important customer decisions without
seeking management approval.
SO06 0.50 0.16 0.31 0.20 Employees have freedom and authority to act independently in order
to provide excellent service.
SO07 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.79 Service technology We enhance our service capabilities through the use of “state of the
art” technology.
SO08 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.84 Technology is used to build and develop higher levels of service
quality.
SO09 0.26 0.31 0.18 0.79 We use high levels of technology to support the efforts of men and
women on the front line.
SO10 0.80 0.19 0.22 0.16 Service failure We go out of our way to prevent customer problems.
prevention
SO11 0.79 0.17 0.25 0.15 We go out of our way to “head off” or prevent customer problems
rather than reacting to problems once, they occur.
SO12 0.81 0.16 0.22 0.14 We actively listen to our customers.
SO13 0.60 0.37 0.27 0.16 Service failure We have an excellent customer complaint handling system for
recovery service follow-up.
SO14 0.30 0.57 0.13 0.25 We have established problem-solving groups to enhance our ability
to resolve service breakdowns.
SO15 0.39 0.47 0.22 0.23 We provide follow-up service calls to confirm that our services are
being provided properly.
SO16 0.40 0.44 0.21 0.23 We provide every customer with an explicit service guarantee.
SO17 0.51 0.38 0.27 0.18 Service standards We do not wait for customers to complain, we use internal standards
comm.. to pinpoint failures before we receive customer complaints.
SO18 0.46 0.51 0.30 0.22 Every effort is made to explain the results of customer research to
every employee in understandable terms.
(Continued on next page)

163
 Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

TABLE 3 Items and Factor Loadings of SERV∗ OR (Continued)

164
No. 1 2 3 4 Facet Item

SO19 0.48 0.42 0.37 0.19 Every employee understands all of the service standards that have
been instituted by all departments.
SO20 0.39 0.50 0.35 0.25 We have a developed chain of objectives linking together every
branch in support of the corporate vision.
SO21 0.43 0.44 0.41 0.18 Service performance measures are communicated openly with all
employees regardless of position or function.
SO22 0.65 0.27 0.49 0.17 Service vision There is a true commitment to service, not just lip service.
SO23 0.58 0.31 0.43 0.19 Customers are viewed as opportunities to serve rather than as
sources of revenue.
SO24 0.58 0.25 0.41 0.20 It is believed that fundamentally, the organization exists to serve the
needs of its customers.
SO25 0.43 0.33 0.48 0.14 Service leadership Management constantly communicates the importance of service.
SO26 0.29 0.25 0.72 0.13 Management regularly spends time “in the field” or “on the floor”
with customers and front-line employees.
SO27 0.37 0.42 0.55 0.15 Management is constantly measuring service quality.
SO28 0.33 0.30 0.81 0.15 Management shows that they care about service by constantly giving
of themselves.
SO29 0.36 0.33 0.77 0.20 Management provides resources, not just “lip service,” to enhance
employee ability to provide excellent service.
SO30 0.40 0.33 0.73 0.16 Managers give personal input and leadership into creating quality
service.
SO31 0.19 0.53 0.55 0.18 Service rewards Management provides excellent incentives and rewards at all levels
for service quality, not just productivity.
SO32 0.29 0.53 0.50 0.16 This organization noticeably celebrates excellent service.
SO33 0.19 0.70 0.39 0.20 Service training Every employee receives personal skills training that enhances
his/her ability to deliver high quality service.
SO34 0.11 0.88 0.27 0.17 We spend much time and effort in simulated training activities that
help us provide higher levels of service when actually
encountering the customer.
SO35 0.12 0.87 0.27 0.19 During training sessions we work through exercises to identify and
improve attitudes toward customers.
 Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

TABLE 4 Items and Factor Loadings of Short-Form SERV∗ OR

No. 1 2 3 4 Facet Item

SO2 0.68 0.21 0.19 0.10 Customer Employees go the “extra mile” for customers.
treatment
SO3 0.69 0.20 0.14 0.15 We are noticeably more friendly and courteous than our competitors.
SO4 0.73 0.22 0.18 0.11 Employees go out of their way to reduce inconveniences for
customers.
SO7 0.25 0.19 0.82 0.22 Service technology We enhance our service capabilities through the use of “state of the
art” technology.
SO8 0.25 0.19 0.87 0.21 Technology is used to build and develop higher levels of service
quality.
SO9 0.25 0.18 0.81 0.24 We use high levels of technology to support the efforts of men and
women on the front line.
SO10 0.84 0.22 0.19 0.15 Service failure We go out of our way to prevent customer problems.
prevention
SO11 0.82 0.26 0.17 0.12 We go out of our way to “head off” or prevent customer problems
rather than reacting to problems once, they occur.
SO12 0.82 0.23 0.17 0.12 We actively listen to our customers.
SO26 0.29 0.72 0.16 0.23 Service leadership Management regularly spends time “in the field” or “on the floor”
with customers and front-line employees.
SO28 0.32 0.83 0.18 0.28 Management shows that they care about service by constantly giving
of themselves.
SO29 0.35 0.77 0.24 0.31 Management provides resources, not just “lip service,” to enhance
employee ability to provide excellent service.
SO30 0.39 0.73 0.20 0.30 Managers give personal input and leadership into creating quality
service.
SO33 0.21 0.39 0.26 0.67 Service training Every employee receives personal skills training that enhances
his/her ability to deliver high quality service.
SO34 0.14 0.27 0.23 0.87 We spend much time and effort in simulated training activities that
help us provide higher levels of service when actually
encountering the customer.
SO35 0.15 0.26 0.24 0.88 During training sessions we work through exercises to identify and
improve attitudes toward customers.

165
 166 L. Robinson Jr. and K. Williamson

Accordingly, the results suggest that a reduced item version of the original
scale may be appropriate.

Short-Form Scale
In order to test the internal criterion all SERV∗ OR scale items were subjected
to exploratory factor analysis using structural equation modeling (Stanton
et al., 2002). As recommend by previous research (Garver & Mentzer, 1999;
Hulland, Chow, & Lam, 1996), low-loadings items (≤0.70) should be elim-
inated to ensure construct unidimensionality. The items for the facets of
employee empowerment, service failure recovery, service standards com-
munications, service vision, and service rewards did not load significantly
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

on any factors. In addition, those items that had substantial cross loadings
on the factors were deleted from the final short-form scale.
The items of employee empowerment and service vision marginally
loaded with the facet of customer treatment. This leads to the possible con-
clusion that both areas are ultimately manifested through the service or-
ganization’s direct treatment of the customer. Service failure recovery and
service standards communications marginally cross-loaded with the facets of
customer treatment and service training. While, not significant, it is under-
standable that organizational training programs play an important role in the
establishment and implementation of important customer handling strategies.
In addition, service rewards marginally cross-loaded with the facets of ser-
vice leadership and service training. Understandably, attainment of rewards
is a result of the employees training and the evaluation of organizational
leadership.
This process lead to 16 items representing the facets of: customer treat-
ment, service technology, service leadership, and service training (see Ta-
ble 4). Each of these facets were representative of the original components
of the SERV∗ OR scale (Lytle et al., 1998) with one exception. The scale items
for service failure prevention loaded together with the items for customer
treatment. Examining the items for service failure prevention leads to the sug-
gestion that all three also focus on treatment of the customer. They include
item like “prevent customer problems” and “listen to our customers.”
The short-form scale was then examined for reliability using Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha. The reliability statistic for service encounter practices was
0.929, service systems practices was 0.941, service leadership practices was
0.943, and human resource management practices was 0.933. In addition,
the entire short-form scale held together as a unidimensional scale with a
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of 0.944. Structural equation modeling is used to
assess convergent validity. The measurement model fit indices were model
(χ 2 = 1756.93, p < .0, df = 98, RMSEA = 0.09, GFI = 0.89, NFI = 0.97, CFI =
0.97, SRMR = 0.042). Browne and Cudeck (1993) indicated that models
 Organizational Service Orientation 167

whose RMSEA is less than 0.10 suggest an acceptable fit. Whereas, conven-
tionally it has been recommended for the GFI that a cut-off point of 0.90 is
acceptable, we believe that 0.89 is not enough to discount the findings. Hu
and Bentler (1999) suggested the cut-off criteria should be NFI ≥ 0.95. In ad-
dition, they suggest that the cut-off criterion of CFI ≥ 0.90 is required so that
misspecified models are not accepted (Hu & Bentler, 1999). It is generally
accepted that a well-fitting model demonstrates a SRMR value less than .05
(Byrne, 1998; Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000). Based on this discussion,
the short-form SERV∗ OR scale demonstrated a better fit to the data than the
original scale.

Validity Assessment
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

The short-form version of the SERV∗ OR was tested for nomological validity
by examination of the correlational coefficients between the measures of
job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and adaptive behavior. Robinson et al. (2011)
demonstrated the validity of the relationships between the aforementioned
constructs.
Job satisfaction was adapted from a scale developed by Brown and
Peterson (1994) to capture the degree that front-line employees assess eight
facets of satisfaction. Self-efficacy was developed by Jones (1986) to describe
the extent that front-line employees feel confident about their job skills, abil-
ities, qualifications, and confidence. Adaptability was developed originally
by Spiro and Weitz (1990) to measure the employees’ ability to adapt to
the changing front-line environment. The results of the correlations analysis
demonstrates that the short-form of SERV∗ OR is correlated significantly with
job satisfaction (0.680, p < .01), self-efficacy (0.392, p < .01), and adap-
tive behavior (0.337, p < .01). Therefore, the nomological validity of the
short-form SERV∗ OR is supported.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

The original 35-item SERV∗ OR scale has demonstrated its usefulness in a wide
variety of different work settings and with a broad range of personnel. De-
velopment of a short-form version of a scale adds measurement efficiency for
marketing practitioners (e.g., Robinson, Marshall, Moncrief, & Lassk, 2002).
According to Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007), practitioners favor single-item
measures due to practical grounds of minimizing respondent attrition and
cost. Whereas, service orientation is multifaceted and requires a multiple-
item scale, the pressure to reduce the number of items is still present.
The reduced 16-item scale captures the facets of servant leadership,
customer treatment, service training, and service technology and preserves
the original four facets of the construct: service leadership practices, service
 168 L. Robinson Jr. and K. Williamson
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

FIGURE 1 Factor structure revised.

encounter practices, human resource management practices, and service sys-

tems practices (see Figure 1). Managers interested in measuring their orga-
nization’s service orientation may now consider the shortened form, which
can more quickly and easily be completed by employees.
Our objective has been to create a more parsimonious and useful scale to
measure the service orientation of frontline service workers. The refinement
of the SERV∗ OR scale is a preliminary attempt to create a measure of service
orientation that will assist in continuing the stream of research involving
service orientation. Due to the diverse environments that the respondents of
the study represented, this new short-form scale has the flexibility to be used
in many managerial situations. In addition, managers at organizations want-
ing to measure service orientation can feel comfortable using an academic
survey instrument that will limit the amount of employee time sacrificed to
complete the scale items.

CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS

The purpose of this study was to develop a short-form version of the

SERV∗ OR measure of organizational service orientation that is both reliable
 Organizational Service Orientation 169

and nomologically valid. By using a very large sample of service workers rep-
resenting various industries, this study’s development offers substantiation of
the usability of the new short-form scale. The short-form scale provides a
substantial reduction in the number of scale items while maintaining the
scale’s dimensionality and consistency. The short-form version will allow
researchers to minimize respondents’ questionnaire fatigue when utilizing
a larger set of scales for other investigated constructs. In addition, to re-
duce potential demand effects and hypothesis guessing by respondents, the
short-form scale can be embedded among other measures.
One potential limitation of a study of this type is that the short-form scale
may represent a reduced scope from the original scale. This study posits that
the risk of this limitation is negligible due to a lack of difference in the
nomological validity of the short-form and full SERV∗ OR scales. Second,
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

the respondents for this study consisted of employees who performed front-
line service roles in their respective organizations. This group may be a more
homogenous group that may limit the generalizability of the results. Third,
this study utilized an online survey method, which may have excluded those
workers who did not have access to the Internet, and the researchers can-
not know with any surety that the survey was completed by the intended
respondent. Next, a possible limitation of this study is the use of respondent
data collected from the same questionnaire during the same time period
for scale refinement and validation. Since this study is an initial attempt to
reduce the SERV∗ OR scale, this increases the tolerability of this limitation.
In addition, this study utilized employee self-reporting with no independent
corroboration from management. This does not allow for the view of service
orientation from the perspective of the organization. In the future, determi-
nation of the customer’s perspective of the organizational service orientation
levels should be undertaken.

REFERENCES

Albrecht, K., & Zemke, R. (1985). Service America! Doing business in the service
economy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Bearden, W. O., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1999). Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-
item measures for marketing and consumer behavior research (2nd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Benet-Martı́nez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los cinco grandes across cultures and
ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the big five in Spanish and
English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729–750.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107(1), 238–246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
 170 L. Robinson Jr. and K. Williamson

Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007, May). The predictive validity of multiple-item
versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 44, 175–184.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY:
Wiley-Interscience Publications.
Bowen, D. E., Siehl, C., & Schneider, B. (1989). A framework for analyzing customer
service orientations in manufacturing. Academy of Management Review, 14(1),
75–95.
Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1994). The effect of effort on sales performance and
job satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 70–80.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In
K. Bollen & J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction. American
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

Psychologist, 39(3), 214–227.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS:
Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cran, D. J. (1994). Towards validation of the service orientation construct. Services
Industries Journal, 14(1), 34–44.
Dale, A., & Wooler, S. (1991). Strategy and organization for service: A process and
content model. In S. W. Brown, E. Gummesson, B. Edvardsson, & B. Gus-
tavsson (Eds.), Service quality: Multidisciplinary and multinational perspectives
(pp. 191–204). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
de Jong, M. G., Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2009). A model for the
construction of country-specific yet internationally comparable short-form mar-
keting scales. Marketing Science, 28(4), 674–689.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London, England:
Sage.
Doyle, P., & Wong, V. (1998). Marketing and competitive performance: An empirical
study. European Journal of Marketing, 32(5/6), 514–535.
Garver, M. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1999). Logistics research methods: Employing struc-
tural equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logis-
tics, 20(1), 33–57.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale develop-
ment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192.
Gonzalez, J. V., & Garazo, T. G. (2006). Structural relationships between organi-
zational service orientation, contact employee job satisfaction and citizenship
behavior. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(1), 23–50.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (5th ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E., Jr., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1997). The service profit chain:
How leading companies link profit and growth to loyalty, satisfaction and value.
New York, NY: Free Press.
 Organizational Service Orientation 171

Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Busch, C. M. (1984). How to measure service orientation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 167–173.
Homburg, C., Hoyer, W. D., & Fassnacht, M. (2002). Service orientation of a re-
tailer’s business strategy: Dimensions, antecedents, and performance outcomes.
Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 86–101.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-
ture analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Hulland, J., Chow, Y. H., & Lam, S. (1996). Use of Causal Models in Marketing
Research: A Review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2),
181–197.
Hurley, R. F. (1998). Customer service behavior in retail settings: A study of the effect
of service provider personality. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
26(2), 115–127
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

Johnson, J. W. (1996). Linking employee perceptions of service climate to customer

satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 49(4), 831–851.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments
to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 262–279.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2007). LISREL 8.30: Structural equation modelling.
Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Keillor, B. D., Parker, R. S., & Pettijohn, C. E. (1999). Sales Force Performance
Satisfaction and Aspects of Relational Selling: Implications for Sales Managers.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(1), 101–115.
Lee, Y. K., Park, D. H., & Yoo, D. K. (1999). The structural relationships between
service orientation, mediators and business performance in Korean hotel firms.
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 4(1), 59–70.
Lynn, M. L., & Lytle, R. S. (2000). Service orientation in transitional markets: Does it
matter? European Journal of Marketing, 34(3/4), 279–298.
Lytle, R. S., Hom, P. W., & Mokwa, M. P. (1998). SERV∗ OR: A managerial measure
of organizational service-orientation. Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 455–489.
Lytle, R. S., & Timmerman, J. E. (2006). Service orientation and performance: An
organizational perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(2), 136–147.
Marteau, T. M., & Bekker, H. (1992). The development of a six-item short-form of
the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). British
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31(3), 301–306.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Reynolds, W. M., (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1),
119–125.
Richins, M. L. (2004). The Material Values Scale: Measurement properties and devel-
opment of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 209–219.
Robinson, L., Jr., Marshall, G. W., Moncrief, W. C., & Lassk, F. G. (2002). Toward
a shortened measure of adaptive selling. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 22(2), 111–119.
 172 L. Robinson Jr. and K. Williamson

Robinson, L., Jr., Neeley, S., & Williamson, K. (2011). Implementing service recov-
ery through customer relationship management: Identifying the antecedents.
Journal of Services Marketing, 25(2). 90–100.
Saura, I. G., Contri, G. B., Taulet, A. C., & Velaszquez, B. M. (2005). Relationships
among customer orientation, service orientation and job satisfaction in financial
services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(5), 497–525.
Schneider, B., Wheeler, J. K., & Cox, J. F. (1992). A passion for service: Using content
analysis to explicate service climate themes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77(5), 705–716.
Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987, August). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction
and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 280–289.
Spiro, R. L., & Weitz, B. A. (1990). Adaptive selling: Conceptualization, measurement,
and nomological validity. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(2), 61–70.
Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues and strate-
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 15:12 23 February 2015

gies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55(1),
167–193.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1995). Development and cross-cultural
validation of a short form of CSI as a measure of optimum stimulation level.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(2), 97–104.
Sudman, S. (1976). Applied sampling. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Thomas, R. W., Soutar, G. N., & Ryan, M. M. (2001). The Selling Orientation-Customer
Orientation (S.O.C.O.) Scale: A proposed short form. Journal of Personal Selling
and Sales Management, 21(1), 63–69.
Webster, C. (1993). Refinement of the marketing culture scale and the relationship
between marketing culture and profitability of a service firm. Journal of Business
Research, 26(2), 111–131.
Wright, N. D., Pearce, J. W., & Busbin, J. W. (1997). Linking customer service ori-
entation to competitive performance: Does the marketing concept really work?
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 5(4), 23–24.
Yoon, S., Choi, D., & Park, J. (2007). Service orientation: Its impact on business
performance in the medical service industry. The Service Industries Journal,
27(4), 371–388.