Structural Relationships

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-4233.htm
Structural
Structural relationships between relationships
organizational service
orientation, contact employee job
23
satisfaction and citizenship
behavior Received February 2004
Revised May 2005
Accepted November 2005
José Varela González and Teresa Garcı́a Garazo
Department of Business Administration and Marketing, University of Santiago
de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the knowledge of how organization service
orientation (OSO) influences job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of
customer-contact employees.
Design/methodology/approach – Questionnaires were carried out in 149 hotel firms. One
customer-contact employee and the manager provide the data in each hotel. The constructs were
measured using existing scales. Structural equation models were used to examine the effects.
Findings – The empirical results enable one to identify the dimensions of OSO on which the managers of
hotel firms should place greater emphasis in order to stimulate employee job satisfaction and OCB.
Research limitations/implications – The results are limited by the specificity of the geographic
context. It would be of interest to complete the model by incorporating other variables, such as
employees’ trust of management, role conflict and role ambiguity, and measures of performance such
as service quality.
Practical implications – The results indicate that managers must use service communicative
leadership and service encounter practices to influence directly employee OCB and human resource
management to improve employee job satisfaction and OCB.
Originality/value – The paper provides empirical evidence about the positive effect of the OSO on
employee job satisfaction and citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry.
Keywords Organizational effectiveness, Service control, Job satisfaction, Customer-relations,
Service industries
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In service firms, the employees who make direct contact with the customer
represent the organization and “produce” the service (Suprenant and Solomon, 1987;
Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996). Customer-contact employee attitude and behavior influence
the consumer satisfaction and service quality (Bowen and Schneider, 1985;
Parasuraman, 1987; Crosby and Stephens, 1987; Bitner et al., 1990; Grönroos, 1990; International Journal of Service
Schneider et al., 1992; Podsakoff and Mackenzie, 1994; Hartline and Ferrell, 1996; Industry Management
Vol. 17 No. 1, 2006
Kelley and Hoffman, 1997; Barroso et al., 2004; Dean, 2004). pp. 23-50
More specifically, Morrison (1996) and Bienstock et al. (2003) indicate that q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0956-4233
customer-contact personnel discretional behaviors not formally prescribed by the DOI 10.1108/09564230610651561
IJSIM organization – organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) – influence the quality of
17,1 service delivered to the consumer. Thus, it is of interest to identify the antecedents
of OCB to stimulate this behavior and to increase service quality.
Researchers have examined relevant antecedents of employee OCB, such as job
satisfaction (Netemeyer et al., 1997; Mackenzie et al., 1998; Bettencourt et al., 2001),
organizational commitment (Podsakoff et al., 1996; Mackenzie et al., 1998), fairness
24 perception (Moorman, 1991; Netemeyer et al., 1997) and personal disposition (Bolino,
1999; Bettencourt et al., 2001). However, OCB research has paid relatively little
attention to organizational activities (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Mackenzie et al., 2001).
Morrison (1996) argues that the set of organizational activities designed to create and
deliver an excellent service has potential to affect employee OCB.
Our research focuses on organizational service practices. We propose that
organizational service orientation (OSO) influences customer-contact employee job
satisfaction, and that job satisfaction affects OCB. We also examine the mediating
effect of employee job satisfaction on the relationship between OSO and OCB. Since
OSO is made up of many activities, it is of interest to identify which of them most
stimulate employee job satisfaction and OCB. These relationships have not been
sufficiently investigated in the hospitality industry.
In order to achieve these objectives, the paper is structured as follows: Firstly,
we review the theoretical literature on OSO, employee job satisfaction and OCB.
Later, we show an empirical analysis of data gathered from 149 hotel firms, from both
managers and reception staff. Structural equation models were used to carry out
simultaneous treatment of the causal relationships among OSO, employee job
satisfaction and OCB. The OSO was assessed by the hotel manager; customer-contact
employee job satisfaction was rated by the employees themselves, and employee OCB
was indicated by a measure that integrates the perceptions both of the manager and of
the employee[1]. The paper ends by indicating its principal conclusions, its limitations
and possible future lines of research.
2. Conceptual framework and hypotheses

Research into services marketing has shown that service-oriented practices affect
employee job satisfaction and in-role behavior (Lytle, 1994; Sparrowe, 1994; Hartline
and Ferrell, 1996; Lee et al., 2001; Dean, 2004). It is also probable that employees who
feel satisfied and secure in the workplace will develop OCB (Organ and Ryan, 1995;
Netemeyer et al., 1997; Mackenzie et al., 1998; Bettencourt et al., 2001).
2.1 Organizational citizenship behavior

Employee behaviors have been differentiated conceptually between in-role
(task-dependent behavior) and extra-role (individual behavior that extends beyond
the standard normally expected by employers) (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; Organ,
1988). Over the past decade, many researchers have examined extra-role behavior.
However, they have not been completely consistent in the terminology used and have
given different labels to these behaviors (Table I): prosocial organizational behavior
(Brief and Motowidlo, 1986), organizational spontaneity (George and Brief, 1992),
and OCB (Organ, 1988; Van Dyne et al., 1994). Extra-role behavior is characterized
by the following characteristics (Organ, 1988; Mackenzie et al., 1993; Podsakoff and
Mackenzie, 1994):
Prosocial organizational behavior Organizational spontaneity OCB OCB
Brief and Motowidlo (1986) George and Brief (1992) Organ (1988) Van Dyne et al. (1994)
Definition:
“Behavior which is performed by a “Extra-role behaviors that are “Individual behavior that is “All relevant positive behaviors
member of a organization, directed performed voluntarily and that discretionary, not directly or individuals within organization.
towards an individual, group or contribute to organizational explicity recognized by the formal Traditional in-role job performance
organization with whom he or she effectiveness” reward systems, and that in the behaviors, organizationally
interacts while carrying out his or aggregate promotes the effective functional extra-role behaviors and
her organizational role, and functioning of the organization” political bahaviors, such as full and
performed with the intention of responsible organizational
promoting the welfare of the involvement”
individual, group or organization”
Dimensions
Suggesting improvements Helping coworkers, protecting Helping other members of the Carrying out tasks conscientiously;
conscientious objection; assisting organization; making constructive organization; preventing problems promotion to third parties; interest
coworkers; extra effort; staying with suggestions; developing onself; deriving from the work; not and involvement in organizational
firm despite hardships; volunteering spreading goodwill complaining about trivial matters; development and governance
for additional assignments responsible participation in the the
firm; conscientious role performance
Note: Derived from discussion of Bettencourt (1998)
relationships
Structural
extra-role behavior
Comparison of employee
25
Table I.
IJSIM .
it goes beyond the formally prescribed role;
17,1 .
it is based on individual initiative;
.
it does not appear in the context of the organization formal reward structure; and
.
it is important for the effective functioning of the organization.
26 One example of OCB is when an employee stays late to finish work when not
specifically asked to do so, or he/she goes out of his/her way to help a co-worker who is
having difficulty when that is not part of the job requirement. Although OCB has been
widely studied from the management perspective (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Borman
and Motowidlo, 1993; Morrison, 1996), it has only recently been of increasing interest in
the field of services marketing (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Bell and Menguc, 2002).
Employee OCB has several behavior dimensions. The first studies have identified
two dimensions – altruism and generalized compliance (Smith et al., 1983) – or four
dimensions – conformity, cooperation, punctuality and expense (Bateman and Organ,
1983). However, the dimensions most widely acknowledged and used in research are
those proposed by Organ (1988):
.
Altruism. Helping other members of the organization in their tasks
(e.g. voluntarily helping less skilled or new employees, and assisting
co-workers who are overloaded or absent and sharing sales strategies).
.
Courtesy. Preventing problems deriving from the work relationship
(e.g. encouraging other co-workers when they are discouraged about their
professional development).
.
Sportsmanship. Accepting less than ideal circumstances (e.g. petty grievances,
real or imagined slights).
.
Civic virtue. Responsibly participating in the life of the firm (e.g. attending
meetings/functions that are not required but that help the firm, keeping up with
changes in the organization, taking the initiative to recommend how procedures
can be improved).
.
Conscientiousness. Dedication to the job and desire to exceed formal
requirements in aspects such as, punctuality or conservation of resources
(e.g. working long days, voluntarily doing things besides duties, keeping the
organization’s rules and never wasting work time).
Despite the acceptance of the original OCB construct, some researchers (Graham, 1991;
Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Morrison, 1994; Van Dyne et al., 1994) have expressed
doubts about the existing boundary between in-role and extra-role behaviors. It can be
difficult to differentiate in-role versus extra-role behaviors. Some may be inconstant
across time, employees, organizations and situations (Graham, 1991; Bienstock et al.,
2003). Graham (1991) proposed that OCB is better defined from the standpoint of civic
citizenship (responsible organizational participation). In this new approach of OCBs,
Graham (1991) suggests three dimensions: obedience, loyalty and participation.
Employee organizational obedience includes carrying out tasks conscientiously,
responsibility, showing respect for organizational rules (e.g. punctuality), showing a
positive attitude, using company resources responsibly, and trying to keep promises
made to customers. Employee organizational loyalty indicates promotion of the firm to
third parties (e.g. an employee may speak favorably about the firm to others both Structural
inside and outside the organization), protection and defense against external threats, relationships
and commitment to the firm even in adverse circumstances. Finally, employee
organizational participation reflects an interest in organizational issues (e.g. attending
meetings), providing information for customer’s needs, and making suggestions to
improve service.
Our study adopts the approach of Graham (1991) because the three dimensions 27
correspond especially to the basic aspects of customer-contact employees (Bettencourt
et al., 2001). Firstly, these employees act as representatives of the firm to outsiders, so,
it is important for these employees to engage in organizational loyalty behavior.
Secondly, customer-contact employees provide information about customer needs and
suggest improvements in service delivery, so their organizational participation is
fundamental to the firm. Finally, these employees should carry out their tasks in a
conscientious manner and follow company regulations in a responsible way, whilst
adapting to the individual customer needs. Given the importance of carrying out
reliable and responsible behavior of service delivery, Bettencourt et al. (2001) has
proposed substituting the term “organizational obedience” with “service delivery”.
2.2 Employee job satisfaction and OCB

Employee job satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the
valuation of his/her work (Locke, 1976). This definition is very broad, as it includes
characteristics relating to the job itself (wages, promotion . . .) and work environment.
Some studies consider employee job satisfaction as an overall variable, while others
consider its different dimensions – satisfaction with the work, supervisor, pay,
opportunities for promotion, workmates and customers – and examine them
separately (Brown and Peterson, 1993).
Employee job satisfaction is considered to be positively related to the development
of employee OCB. Two theories underpin this relationship: the theory of social
exchange (Konovsky and Pugh, 1994) and the theory of the psychological contract
(Robinson and Morrison, 1995). In both, the base of the relationship lies in the
“reciprocity rule”: a satisfied employee reciprocates OCB towards those who have
benefited him/her (Bateman and Organ, 1983). Greater employee satisfaction favors
organizational commitment, which in turn motivates the employee to behave in a
citizen-like manner. As employees committed to the organization are capable of
making an effort beyond what is expected of them in order to contribute to the interest
of the firm (Schneider et al., 1992; Mackenzie et al., 1998). Rogers et al. (1994) believe it
very unlikely that employees will deliver an exceptional service when they are not
satisfied with their work. In general, studies that analyzed this relationship empirically
found that employee job satisfaction influences OCB (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Organ
and Ryan, 1995; Netemeyer et al., 1997). Hence, the first hypothesis is as follows:
H1. Customer-contact employee job satisfaction will be positively related to
employee OCB.
2.3 Organizational service orientation and employees job satisfaction

OSO is defined as the set of organizational activities designed to create and deliver an
excellent service (Bowen and Schneider, 1988; Schneider et al., 1992; Johnson, 1996; Lytle
et al., 1998). OSO translates into a set of relatively long-lasting organizational practices;
IJSIM these activities affect the attitude and behavior of employees (Bowen and Schneider,
17,1 1985; Hofstede et al., 1990). Management must internally commercialize “a service
mentality” and manage such practices effectively so that their contact employees show
attitudes and behaviors that provide a quality service (Bowen and Schneider, 1988). The
commitment to providing an excellent service to the customer must exist in
organizations both at the highest and at the lowest level (contact employee).
28 In their study of OSO, Lytle et al. (1998) initially identified ten activities. By means
of a confirmatory factor analysis of data from the financial sector, the ten activities are
reduced to eight, grouped into four basic dimensions:
(1) servant leadership;
(2) human resource management practices;
(3) service encounter practices; and
(4) service systems designed to ensure quality customer service.
Using the same scale, but studying the hospitality industry, Lee et al. (2001) confirmed
the four dimensions. The activities identified in the two studies related as shown in
Table II.
2.3.1 Servant leadership. “Leaders set service standards by their own behaviors and
management styles” (Lytle et al., 1998, p. 460). Such servant leadership is a critical
ingredient for creating and maintaining an effective and positive service orientation.
Leaders manage their organizations through example rather than by simply dictating
service policy for the organization. They spend a great deal of time with customers and
employees (Grönroos, 1990; Schlesinger and Heskett, 1991; Heskett et al., 1994).
Servant leadership has developed in the applied literature on organizations (Spears,
1998). Graham (1991) argued that servant leadership acknowledges the responsibility
of the leader not just to the organization’s goals and to the employee’s development, but
also to a wider range of organizational stakeholders. The basic idea behind servant
leadership is that the leaders recognize their moral responsibility not only to the
organizational success, but also to their subordinates, the customers, and other
organizational stakeholders (Greenleaf, 1977).
OSO Activities Activities

Dimensions Lytle et al. (1998) Lee et al. (2001)
Lytle et al. (1998) SERV*OR RSOS
Servant leadership Servant leadership Servant leadership

Service visiona
Human resource management Service training Service training/technology
Service rewardsa Service rewards
Customer treatment Customer focus
Service encounter practices Employee empowerment Employee empowerment
Service failure prevention Service failure/prevention
Service failure recovery (prevention þ recovery)
Service technology S. Standards communication
Table II. Service systems practices S. Standards communication
Organizational service
orientation dimensions Note: aVariable was dropped during CFA
Manager commitment to the delivery of an excellent service is important because it Structural
helps to direct the firm towards this common objective. Leadership behaviors in the relationships
workplace affect service quality and organizational performance (Heskett et al., 1994;
Parasuraman et al., 1994; Church, 1995).
Some researches have examined the relationships between leadership styles
and job satisfaction. Hinkin and Tracey (1994) showed that transformational[2]
leadership had a positive influence on employee job satisfaction. If leaders take care to 29
help and support the contact employees and are concerned about their needs, these
employees will feel more satisfied (Church, 1995; Hallowell et al., 1996). Leader
supportiveness behavior has also been found to be related to employee job satisfaction
(Netemeyer et al., 1997).
Consequently, we propose the following hypothesis:
H2. Servant leadership will be positively and directly related to customer-contact
employee job satisfaction.
2.3.2 Human resource management practices. Bowen and Schneider (1985) have
argued that in service organizations, human resources should be managed differently
than in the goods sector. They recognize that the work environment of service
employees has a strong influence on how customers experience the service, and
they understand that human resource practices – service training and reward
practices – can ultimately influence the service experiences of customers.
Service human resource training must be designed in accordance with the specific
needs of the service. Employees have to know what they are doing and why they are
doing it in order to provide a higher level of service to the customer. Customer-contact
employees must possess technical and interpersonal skills (Rust et al., 1996). Most of
the contact personnel’s tasks are performed in the presence of the customer. Service
encounters demand that the contact employee incorporates empathy, develops
intimacy and exchanges friendship (Price et al., 1995). The results of Lemmink and
Mattsson (2002) support the idea that services firm should train employees to deal with
their emotions and learn behaviors that incorporate aspects of empathy on the basis of
critical service encounters.
Organizations that wish to deliver an excellent service must ensure that the
behaviors that they wish the personnel to develop are rewarded. Behavior-based
rewards are a positive reinforcement to ensure that the excellence of service is the main
priority in the firm (Cone, 1989).
Researchers in the area of services have indicated that to ensure quality, the
organization should reward the contact employees on the basis of their behavior
rather than their results (Bowen and Schneider, 1985; Hartline and Ferrell, 1996).
Behavior-based control has a positive influence on:
.
employee job satisfaction (Brown and Mitchell, 1993; Oliver and Anderson, 1994;
Livingstone et al., 1995);
. employee self-efficacy (Hartline and Ferrell, 1996); and
.
adaptation of the service during the delivery (Spiro and Weitz, 1990; Hartline and
Ferrell, 1996; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Mackenzie et al., 2001).
Hence, we hypothesize the following:

IJSIM H3. Human resource management practices will be positively and directly related
17,1 to customer-contact employee job satisfaction.
2.3.3 Service encounter practices. Service encounter is important within the OSO
because brief encounters often form the basis of customer service quality evaluations
(Parasuraman et al., 1988). Lytle et al. (1998) find employee empowerment and
customer treatment to be fundamental elements within the service encounter.
30 Empowerment refers to the employees’ degree of discretion to make daily decisions
about activities relating to their work (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Bowen and Lawler,
1992; Lashley, 1995).
Although during service encounters the contact employees must have responsibility
and authority to take decisions “close to the customer”, in many cases managers are
not flexible and the personnel do not have capacity to seek solutions that will provide
the level of service required (Grönroos, 1990; Rust et al., 1996). Empowerment allows
the contact employees to provide rapid responses to customer needs, to be more
courteous when interacting with customer and to provide ideas for improving
customer service (Bowen and Lawler, 1992; Hubrecht and Teare, 1993; Morrison, 1996).
Customer treatment means contact employees must pay attention to customer
needs, attitudes and preferences, giving an individualized response to each one, to
make each customer feel special. This component is measured by assessing to what
extent contact employees put the needs of customers ahead of their own (Lytle et al.,
1998). Organizations that are able to establish this culture in their contact employees
will have greater possibilities of developing positive perceptions of confidence and
empathy in the customer (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
The empirical evidence shows that employee empowerment and customer
treatment are positively associated with employee job satisfaction (O’Hara et al.,
1991; Bowen and Lawler, 1992; Sparrowe, 1994; Menguc, 1996). Sternberg (1992)
recognized that empowerment has a positive influence on employee attitude and
behavior. Contact personnel discretion to decide the best way of carrying out the task
will improve satisfaction and reduce stress (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Gist and
Mitchell, 1992; Hartline and Ferrell, 1996). This empirical evidence leads us to propose
the following hypothesis:
H4. Service encounter practices will be positively and directly related to
customer-contact employee job satisfaction.
2.3.4 Service systems practices. OSO requires service systems. These systems include
service failure prevention and recovery practices, service technology and service
standards communication.
Service failure prevention and recovery is formed by activities carried out to prevent
failures of service and to respond effectively to customer complaints with regard to
failed services. Service technology focuses on the degree to which the organization is
leveraging technology to provide a service advantage for the customer and it assesses
the extent to which service quality is enhanced through the use of new technology.
The service standards communication system values the degree to which the
organization measures, controls and communicates the standards of service quality.
Preventing service failure and recovering from it are key determinants of service
quality (Parasuraman et al., 1994). If an organization fails to prevent and solve
customer problems, it fails the customer twice over, once with the initial failure and
again with its failure to attempt to correct its initial error. The role of the contact Structural
employee during recovery of service (to deal swiftly with complaints) is important for relationships
the customer (Lytle et al., 1998; Boshoff and Allen, 2000). Contact personnel must
provide logical explanations for service failure as part of a recovery strategy in which
the service objective is zero defects (Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996). This requires
establishing working groups in which the contact personnel seek solutions to the
problems posed by customers. Bitner et al. (1990) found that rapid and satisfactory 31
responses by contact personnel to failed services can lead to customer satisfaction.
It is necessary for the firm to develop effective forms of recovery of a service that
has failed and to provide some guarantee as a way to accelerate the recovery (Callan
and Moore, 1998). Managers must identify alternative actions that the contact
employees can follow in different situations of service failure, adapting their responses
to each specific incident. Boshoff and Allen (2000) found that effective service recovery
affects the job satisfaction of the contact employees.
Researches have only recently begun to explore the role of technology in the
delivery of service (Mick and Fournier, 1998; Meuter et al., 2000). New technology is
critical to creating a system for delivery of outstanding service quality (Zeithaml and
Bitner, 1996; Heskett et al., 1997). Technology can influence employee job satisfaction
and behavior. Alder (1992) showed that slow and inflexible technology caused
dissatisfaction in employees. Murrel and Sprinkle (1993) showed that discontent with
the effectiveness of the technology was associated with poor performance and
employee dissatisfaction.
Managers must improve the service, and employee job satisfaction, through
effective communication of quality standards (Parasuraman et al., 1988; O’Connor and
Shewchuk, 1995). There is evidence that communication between employees and
managers is an important factor in achieving service quality. The personnel will feel
more involved and satisfied when they better understand the service and the problems
of the delivery process (Dienhart et al., 1992).
Consequently, the hypothesis can be defined as follows:
H5. Service systems practices will be positively and directly related to
customer-contact employee job satisfaction.
2.4 Organizational service orientation and employee job satisfaction and OCB
As mentioned above, we argue that OSO practices will affect employee job satisfaction.
Given that employees who feel satisfied are typically inclined to OCB (O’Hara et al.,
1991; Bowen and Lawler, 1992; Menguc, 1996; Netemeyer et al., 1997; Boshoff and
Allen, 2000; Chebat et al., 2002), we further expect that employee job satisfaction will
mediate the relationship between OSO practices and employee OCB. In other words, it
is likely that those organizations who utilize servant leadership, human resource
management practices, service encounter practices and service systems practices have
satisfied employees and that job satisfaction motivates them to be good organizational
citizens.
In summary, we believe the connection between OSO and employee job satisfaction
is likely to be nearer than the link between OSO and employee OCB. Accordingly, we
expect that the relationship between OSO practices and employee OCB is mediated by
employee job satisfaction.
IJSIM In particular, some researches have examined the relationships between leadership
17,1 styles and employee OCB. Niehoff and Moorman (1993) found a positive relationship
between leader monitoring and employee OCB. Other studies have indicated an
indirect effect of leader behavior on OCB (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Church, 1995;
Hallowell et al., 1996). Smith et al. (1983) argue that the leader serves as a model for
subordinates, forming quality relationships with them and helping them grow and
32 develop. If the contact employee receives excellent services from his/her manager,
he/she will probably feel satisfied and will display OCB reciprocally towards those
who have benefited them. Thus, it is likely that employee job satisfaction mediates the
effect of servant leadership on employee OCB.
H6. The relationship between servant leadership and employee OCB will be
mediated by employee job satisfaction.
Very few studies have examined the relationship between human resource
management practices and employee OCB. George (1990) and Niehoff and Moorman
(1993) argued that the employees develop perceptions of the organizational
service-related activities during their training, and these perceptions subsequently
influence their behavior, but they did not find a direct effect on employee OCB.
Livingstone et al. (1995) showed a direct effect on sales personnel job satisfaction and
an indirect effect on salesmen OCB. Chebat et al. (2002) also argued a indirect effect on
employee OCB mediated by job satisfaction. Hence, we hypothesize the following:
H7. The relationship between human resource management practices and
employee OCB will be mediated by employee job satisfaction.
Sternberg (1992) recognized that empowerment is important for the development of
customer-contact personnel, as it positively influences their attitude and behavior.
Granting contact personnel the discretion to decide the best way of carrying out the
task will improve their satisfaction and increase their OCB (Gist and Mitchell, 1992;
Hartline and Ferrell, 1996; Morrison, 1996). Bettencourt et al. (2001) show that the
treatment of customers influences employee OCB. These results lead us to propose
the following:
H8. The relationship between service encounter practices and employee OCB will
be mediated by employee job satisfaction.
Technology can influence employee job satisfaction and behavior. Very little empirical
research has examined the relationship between service systems practices and
employee OCB. The majority of the studies have focused on employee job satisfaction
(Murrel and Sprinkle, 1993; Boshoff and Allen, 2000). We propose that when contact
employees are committed to the firm’s aim of recovering the service, using new
technology and effective communication, they will be more satisfied and they will be
more likely to develop OCB. Consequently, the hypothesis can be enunciated as
follows:
H9. The relationship between service systems practices and employee OCB will
be mediated by employee job satisfaction.
3. Research method Structural
To verify the hypotheses proposed, hotel firms were approached. The hospitality relationships
industry was viewed as an ideal environment to test this model for several reasons.
First, the delivery of hotel service requires considerable customer contact (Hartline and
Ferrell, 1996); the hotel receptionist is the person who has the first contact with
customer. Second, the intangibility of transaction means that the behavior of
customer-contact employees has a strong effect on perceived service quality. Third, 33
most of the studies carried out in the hospitality industry examine the effect of
organizational practices on employees’ “in-role” behavior. Fourth, in recent years, the
Spanish hospitality industry has increased its importance as result of institutional
investment and development in tourism.
The sample frame consisted of hotels in Galicia (northwest region of Spain) listed
in the hotel guide, in categories higher than “economical”. Two hundred and
fifty-five hotels met these requirements. We invited all hotels to participate. The
information-gathering means chosen was a questionnaire, and the interviews took
place during January and February 2002. We received a total of 168 matched cases; of
these, 19 were unusable because of unacceptable levels of missing data, which left 149
cases for analysis. This number gives a rate of 58 percent. Regarding those hotels that
did not respond, 33 were closed for the season, and 54 were unwilling to cooperate.
A preliminary analysis of the 149 hotels shows that 24 percent are luxury hotels,
35 percent are beach hotels and 15 percent are affiliated to a chain. The average size
was 57 rooms. The “rooms per employee” ratio was 2.94.
At each hotel, first, we obtained the collaboration of the hotel management to carry
out the study. Second, we delivered a questionnaire to a customer-contact employee
(receptionist) selected at random and we asked them to answer questions about their
demographic characteristics, job satisfaction and OCB. The employee is the only one
who can comment on his/her own job satisfaction. For OCB, employee self-evaluation
can provide a more complete view, as many genuine actions can escape the attention of
the manager, who may only notice those that impress him most (Organ, 1988).
The employees had the following profile. Most respondents were female (72 percent)
and younger than 35 years of age (65 percent). With regard to length of service,
17 percent of the employees had been working in the hotel for less than a year,
44 percent between one and three years, and 39 percent for more than three years.
Virtually all respondents had training to diploma or certificate level (76 percent).
Third, we gave a questionnaire to the hotel managers and asked them to answer the
questions on hotel characteristics, OSO and employee OCB. Hotel managers were
chosen as the respondent for OSO because the service literature suggests that he/she is
the individual with the best knowledge of organizational practices. The hotel manager
was also chosen as the respondent for the employee OCB because he/she is responsible
for evaluating the employees (Mackenzie et al., 1993; Organ and Ryan, 1995).
So, following the recommendations of Bettencourt (1998), employee OCB was
evaluated by aggregating (averaging) hotel manager and employee responses.
This ensured that “common variance error” was eliminated.
Because some hotels failed to return the questionnaires, we tested for non-response
bias using a time-trend extrapolation test (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). We found no
differences in OSO, job satisfaction or OCB between early and late respondents and
no differences in demographic characteristics between early and late respondents.
IJSIM 3.1 Measures
17,1 Given the latent character of variables considered in the study, multi-item Likert-type
scales of seven points were used (1 ¼ “strongly disagree” and 7 ¼ “strongly agree”).
3.1.1 Job satisfaction. We use the scale developed by Hackam and Oldham (1975),
with five items. This scale is an overall measure of the employee job satisfaction.
The scale was administered to reception employees. The Cronbach’s a value of the
34 scale was 0.74.
3.1.2 OCB. We use the scale proposed by Bettencourt et al. (2001), of 15 items, which
incorporates the contributions of Van Dyne et al. (1994). The scale was administered
both to customer-contact employees and to hotel managers. The item scores were
subjected to an exploratory factor analysis, generating three factors which fit the
dimensions posited by Bettencourt et al. (2001): participation (four items, a ¼ 0.85),
service delivery (five items, a ¼ 0.81) and loyalty (three items, a ¼ 0.76).
3.1.3 Organizational service orientation. The OSO was assessed through the 35-item
SERV*OR scale developed by Lytle et al. (1998). The scale was measured by the hotel
manager. As a first step, we carried out an exploratory factor analysis. After eliminating
some items that did not load clearly on any factor, we obtained six factors: service
communicative leadership (six items, a ¼ 0.80), empowerment (four items, a ¼ 0.81),
customer treatment (three items, a ¼ 0.82), service training (three items, a ¼ 0.92),
service rewards (three items, a ¼ 0.94); and service failure prevention and recovery
(three items, a ¼ 0.72). The factor that we call Service communicative leadership groups
together the servant leadership and service standards communication dimensions.
4. Analysis of data
Taking as reference the items resulting from the exploratory analysis, we carried out a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the Amos 5.0 module of the SPSS 12.0
statistical package.
To begin with validity of employee OCB, we carried out a second order CFA
(Table III). From the estimation of the model by the method of maximum likelihood,
we obtain three dimensions that represent substantial factor loadings on the OCB
construct (participation: 0.91; service delivery: 0.94; and loyalty: 0.89).The
goodness-of-fit is satisfactory, obtaining a x 2 of 23.747 (24 df), GFI and CFI close to
1 and an RMSEA index that takes the value 0. The choice of this model implied the
elimination of three items. The remaining indicators that assess measurement
properties revealed that the scale has convergent and discriminant validity. The
estimations of the weights of the indicators of each variable are statistically significant
(critical ratios higher than 1.96) and the magnitudes of their loadings are substantial
(. 0.5), so the existence of convergent validity is confirmed. We also verified their
discriminant validity, as the value 1 was not found within the confidence intervals
among their correlations (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
Having verified that second order CFA presents a good fit, we followed the
recommendations of Anderson and Gerbing (1988) and verified the internal
consistency of the variables after refining the initial scales of measurement.
Cronbach’s a and composite reliability of each variable were calculated to test
reliability of the measures. In Table III it can been seen that the coefficients
reveal evidence of internal consistency. The scale finally obtained presents valid and
reliable results.
Structural
Factor Cronbach’s Composite Mean
Constructs/items loading t-value a reliability (SD) relationships
Factor analysis (level 1)
Participation 0.850 0.848 5.60 (0.92)
Contributes many ideas for customer
promotions 0.780 –* 35
Makes const. suggestions for service
improvement 0.812 10.149
Frequently presents to others creative
solutions to customer problem 0.837 10.471
Service delivery 0.702 0.700 5.70 (0.81)
Adapts behaviour depending upon
customer need 0.671 –
Conscientiously follows through
promises to custo. 0.677 6.872
Follows up in a timely manner to
customer requests 0.631 6.488
Loyalty 0.759 0.761 5.30 (0.76)
Actively promotes the firm’s products 0.796 –
Willingly work extra hours if needed 0.664 7.767
Tells outsiders this is a good place to
work 0.689 8.069
Factor analysis (level 2)
OCB 0.845 0.801 5.53 (0.72)
Participation 0.915 –
Service delivery 0.940 6.828
Loyalty 0.898 7.657
Table III.
Notes: Goodness-of-fit statistics: x 2 23.747 (24 df); p ¼ 0.476; GFI ¼ 0.967; AGFI ¼ 0.938; Results for second-order
NFI ¼ 0.960; CFI ¼ 1.00; RMSEA ¼ 0.000; *parameter set equal to 1.0 for identification model citizenship behaviors
p , 0.05-t . 1.96; p , 0.01-t . 2.576 model
The average scores allow us to verify that high valuations are obtained in the
development of these behaviors and that in the three dimensions very similar results
are obtained both in average values and in the dispersions of the responses.
We next analyze the validity of the OSO and employee job satisfaction scales.
Taking into account the results of the exploratory factor analysis, we performed a
CFA. As shown in Table IV, “service communicative leadership” has resulted in
grouping together the two factors: servant leadership and service standards
communication. “Service systems practices” dimension has been refined by
discarding technology, because of its low significance. “Service encounter practices”
dimension includes the empowerment and customer treatment. “Human resource
management” dimension is formed by service training and rewards practices.
First, we verified the multi-dimensionality of service encounter and service human
resource management. We considered that both factors were formed by a single
dimension, and carried out a first order CFA (x 2 ¼ 469.447; 53 df; p ¼ 0.000; GFI ¼ 0.667;
CFI ¼ 0.623; RMSEA ¼ 0.228). The results indicated a bad fit, so we carried out a second
order factor analysis (x 2 ¼ 46.541; 49 df; p ¼ 0.573; GFI ¼ 0.950; CFI ¼ 1.00;
RMSEA ¼ 0.000). The goodness-of-fit indicators of the second model showed a great
36
17,1
IJSIM
Table IV.
Final measurement items
Factor Cronbach’s Compos.
Constructs/items loading t-value a reliability Mean (SD)
Service communicative leadership 0.753 0.755 5.79 (0.89)

Management constantly communicates the importance of service 0.679 –
Management shows they care by giving of themselves 0.571 5.855
Every employee understands all of the service standard 0.791 7.332
Service performance measures are communicated 0.591 6.027
Human resource management 0.883 0.932 4.27 (1.45)
Service training 0.883 4.545 0.921 0.924 4.40 (1.71)
Every employee receives personal skills training 0.867 –
We spend much time and effort in simulated training 0.924 15.489
During training sessions we work through exercises to identify and improve
attitudes toward customers 0.882 14.438
Service rewards 0.532 – 0.940 0.940 4.12 (1.70)
Management provides excellent incentives and rewards for service quality, not
just productivity 0.966 20.104
This organization celebrates excellent service 0.869 16.076
Employees are paid by excellent service performance 0.909 –
Service systems practices
Service failure recovery – 0.614 0.623 5.04 (1.60)
We have established problem-solving groups 0.724 –
We provide every customer with an service guarantee 0.600 4.060
Service tecnology –
Tecnology is used to build service quality ns
Quality technology supports contact employees ns
Service encounter practices 0.790 0.790 5.54 (0.88)
Empowerment 0.631 4.212 0.763 0.768 5.43 (1.16)
Employees have freedom and authority to act independ. 0.684 6.970
Decision are made “close to the customer” 0.788 –
Employees to use their own judgement in solving problems 0.698 7.054
(continued)
Factor Cronbach’s Compos.
Constructs/items loading t-value a reliability Mean (SD)
Customer treatment 0.851 – 0.820 0.801 5.65 (0.92)

Employees care for customer as they would like . . . 0.705 –
There’s a true commitment to understands its c. needs 0.896 9.027
We are noticeably courteous with customers 0.744 8.219
Job satisfaction 0.816 0.814 5.179 (1.12)
Generally speaking, I’m very satisfied with this job 0.824 –
I frequently think of quitting this job 0.699 8.157
I’m generally satisfied with the kind of work I do 0.787 8.922
Notes: Goodness-of-fit statistics: x 2 201.007 (175 df); p ¼ 0.087; GFI ¼ 0.891; TLI ¼ 0.980; CFI ¼ 0.983; RMSEA ¼ 0.032; *parameter set equal to 1.0 for
identification model p , 0.05-t . 1.96; p , 0.01-t . 2.576
relationships
Structural
37
Table IV.
IJSIM improvement, obtaining a lower x 2, GFI and CFI indexes close to 1 and an RMSEA index
17,1 equal to 0. Following to Hair et al. (1998), these results show that service encounter and
service human resource management are formed, respectively, by two factors.
We then introduced all the variables into a CFA in order to evaluate the validity of
the scales. By means of successive estimations and on the basis of the analysis of the
standardized residuals and of the modification indexes, we chose the model that
38 presented the best fit. The choice of this model implied the elimination of five items.
These results appear in Table IV together with the average values and the standard
deviations of these variables.
In relation to the average scores, it emerges that the hotels are characterized by
being service oriented. The development of service communicative leadership, service
encounter and service failure recovery practices present high average scores (. 5);
human resource management practices to a lesser extent (, 5). However, we must take
these results with caution due to the wide dispersion of the responses, mainly with
regard to training in interpersonal skills and rewarding the quality of service provided.
After verifying that the CFA presents a good fit, we verified the internal consistency
of the variables after refining the initial scales of measurement.
Table IV shows that scales for the model variables exceed the traditional criteria for
Cronbach’s a and composite reliability. Therefore, we are also confident of the
reliability of our measures.
We next assessed the validity of our measures. According to the CFA results, the
remaining indicators have convergent and discriminant validity. The estimations of
the indicator weights of each variable are statistically significant and the magnitudes
of their loadings are substantial, so the existence of convergent validity is confirmed
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). For discriminant validity, we used two tests. The first
was the confidence interval test (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988), which consists of
verifying that the value 1 is not found in the confidence intervals among the
correlations of the latent variables. The second test assumes that discriminant validity
is when their squared correlation is lower then their extracted variances. These
conditions are fulfilled (Table V). Therefore, we can confirm the discriminant validity
of the scales.
The correlations provide the initial test of the hypothesized relationships without
consideration of the effects of other variables. The correlations between each OSO
dimension with employee OCB are significant. The correlations between
communicative leadership, service encounter, and human resource management with
Average
extracted
CL HR RF SE JS variance
CL: S. Comm. leadership 0.461

HR: human resource M. 0.434 * * 0.820
RF: service systems P. 0.305 * * 0.356 * * 0.460
SE: service encounter 0.409 * * 0.323 * * 0.260 * * 0.570
Table V. JS: job satisfaction 0.313 * * 0.336 * * 0.123 0.410 * * 0.595
Discriminant validity and OCB 0.526 * * 0.313 * * 0.239 * * 0.560 * * 0.414 * * 0.651
correlations between
study variables Notes: *p , 0.05-t . 1.96; * *p , 0.01-t . 2.57
employee job satisfaction are significant and in the hypothesized direction. However, Structural
the correlation between service systems practices (service failure recovery) and job relationships
satisfaction is not significant.
In the present study, because the main objective was to establish the cause-effect
relationships between the different variables involved, structural equation modeling
was applied. This method was used to determine the relationships among them.
39
5. Structural model results and test of hypotheses
Our first model positions employee job satisfaction in a fully mediated role between
OSO dimensions and employee OCB.
Following the pattern of previous studies (Babin and Boles, 1998; Mackenzie et al.,
1998), we decided to simplify the model using single indicators. Thus, we replaced the
constructs by the average score of the indicators, grouping them in a single measure.
The goodness-of-fit indices are presented in Table VI and the estimations of the
parameters in Figure 1. These results show that there is not a good fit (x 2 ¼ 58.612; 4
df; GFI ¼ 0.902; AGFI ¼ 0.484; CFI ¼ 0.726; RMSEA ¼ 0.304). So, we proceeded to
change the model.
According to the correlation matrix, each of the four OSO dimensions (service
communication leadership, human resource management practices, service encounter
practices, and service systems practices) is significantly correlated with employee OCB.
Hence, we propose and estimate a second model. This alternative model included
both direct and indirect effects (mediated through employee job satisfaction) of OSO
dimensions on employee OCB (a partially mediated model). Moreover, in order to test
for mediation, we follow the method proposed by Brown et al. (2002)[3].
The fit indices for this model were good (x 2 ¼ 0.750; 1 df; GFI ¼ 0.998;
AGFI ¼ 0.965; CFI ¼ 1.00; RMSEA ¼ 0.000). However, two tests were used to
determine if employee job satisfaction fully mediates or only partially mediates the
influence of OSO dimensions on employee OCB. First, a x 2-difference test revealed that
the difference in x 2 of 57.862 and 3 df was statistically significant ( p , 0.05), which
indicates that the additional paths significantly improve the fit of the model. Second,
following to Cheung and Rensvold (2002), we examined the DCFI between these
models. Here, the difference in CFI also indicates that these two models are
significantly different.
Nevertheless, in the partially-mediated model, two direct paths to employee OCB
were not significant. Based on these results, we propose a third model. In this model,
we added just the two significant paths: service communicative leadership to OCB and
service encounter to OCB (Table VI). This model improves significantly from that of
the original mediated model (x 2 ¼ 0.210; 2 df; GFI ¼ 1.00; AGFI ¼ 0.995; CFI ¼ 1.00;
RMSEA ¼ 0.000). A x 2-difference test revealed that the difference between third and
first models in x 2 was statistically significant (x 2 diff. ¼ 58.402; 2 df; p , 0.05). Thus,
this partially-mediated model should be accepted (Figure 2).
As depicted, employee job satisfaction was positively related to employee OCB
(b ¼ 0.171; p , 0.05), confirming the results obtained by Netemeyer et al. (1997) and
Mackenzie et al. (1998). Thus, H1 was supported.
Also as hypothesized, service encounter practices and human resource management
present a significantly effect on employee job satisfaction (b ¼ 0.313; p , 0.05;
b ¼ 0.210; p , 0.05, respectively). Therefore, H3 and H4 were supported.
40
17,1
models
IJSIM
Table VI.
Result of structural
First model Second model Third model
Relation causal Factor loading t-value Factor loading t-value Factor loading t-value
Service C. leadership ! job satisfaction 0.115 (1.352 ns) 0.105 (1.242 ns) 0.115 (1.352 ns)
Human resource M. ! job satisfaction 0.210 (2.495) 0.192 (2.550) 0.210 (2.495)
Service encounter P. ! job satisfaction 0.313 (3.864) 0.305 (3.780) 0.313 (3.864)
Service systems P. ! job satisfaction 2 0.069 (2 0.867 ns) 20.060 (2 0.865 ns) 2 0.069 (20.867 ns)
Job satisfaction ! OCB 0.414 (5.537) 0.167 (2.395) 0.171 (2.402)
Service com. leadership ! OCB – – 0.323 (4.439) 0.328 (4.796)
Human resource M. ! OCB – – 20.009 (2 0.121 ns) – –
Service encounter P. ! OCB – – 0.355 (4.926) 0.359 (5.042)
Service systems P. ! OCB – – 0.031 (0.460 ns) – –
Goodness-of-fit
x2 df GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA
First model 58.612 4 0.902 0.484 0.726 0.304
Second model 0.750 1 0.998 0.965 1.00 0.000
Third model 0.210 2 1.00 0.995 1.00 0.000
Notes: p , 0.05 2 t . 1.96; p , 0.01 2 t . 2.576
Service Comm..
Structural
Leadership relationships
0.115
Human Resource
Management 0.210*
41
Employee Job 0.414*
Employee OCB
Satisfaction
Service Systems 0.069
Practices
0.313*
Service Encounter
Practices
Figure 1.
First model
* t-value>1.96 (p < 0.05)
0.328*
Service Comm..
Leadership
0.115
Human Resource
Management 0.210*
Employee Job 0.171*

Employee OCB
Satisfaction
Service Systems 0.069
Practices
0.313*
Service Encounter
0.359*
Practices
Figure 2.
Third model
*t-value>1.96 (p < 0.05)
However, the paths between service communication leadership and service systems
practices, and employee job satisfaction were not statistically significant, thereby not
supporting H2 and H5.
H6-H9 proposed that the link between OSO dimensions and employee OCB would be
mediated by employee job satisfaction. According to the results, we supported the
H7: the relationship between human resource management and employee OCB is fully
mediated by employee job satisfaction. Also, as expected, we confirm the H8: the
relationship between service encounter practices and employee OCB is partially
mediated by employee job satisfaction: the direct relationship between service encounter
and OCB is significant (b ¼ 0.359; p , 0.05). This relationship is consistent with De Jong
et al. (2004, p. 18), who argue that:
IJSIM . . . delegation of authority to the front line allows for greater flexibility and adaptability in
performance of service activities through better problem solving, closer employee
17,1 cooperation, and more efficient knowledge transfer.
We did not support H6 and H9. However, we found a direct relationship between
service communicative leadership and employee OCB. Thus, service communicative
leadership had a positive and significant influence on employee OCB (b ¼ 0.328;
42 p , 0.05).
To assess the effect of the respondents on the findings, we repeated the analyses,
measuring employee OCB only through their self-valuation (not averaging with the
manager perception). The results were similar and the same relationships were
supported. The service encounter variable still has the greatest influence, and only the
effect of employee job satisfaction on employee OCB increased significantly (b ¼ 0.26;
p , 0.05).
We also analyzed the relations of OSO dimensions and employee job satisfaction
with each of the individual dimensions of OCB. The best predictors of employee
participation and service delivery were service communicative leadership and service
encounter practices. Employee loyalty was explained by employee job satisfaction,
with a greater effect than service communicative leadership and service encounter
practices. Employee job satisfaction seemed to be the main guide for the employee to
represent the hotel favorably to third parties. This result is consistent with that of
Bettencourt et al. (2001).
6. Discussion and managerial implications

Contact-customer employee job satisfaction and the development of OCBs are critical
constructs for managers of hotel firms because they affect service quality and others
organizational outcomes.
Our study analyses the influence of the OSO on customer-contact employee job
satisfaction and OCB. We tested our hypotheses in a field study in the hospitality
industry.
Employee OCB is a multidimensional construct of three categories: participation,
service delivery and loyalty. The scale of measurement, the suitability of which had
been tested mainly in other sectors and geographical settings, proved to be a valid and
reliable instrument for valuing OCB in the hospitality industry.
To assess the OSO effect on employee job satisfaction, it is best to consider the
dimensions constituting OSO separately, and not in the aggregate. It has been shown
that each OSO dimension has a different effect on employee job satisfaction. The effect
achieved on employee job satisfaction is greater through service encounter than
through the rest of the variables. Also, human resource management practices
positively affect to employee job satisfaction; other OSO dimensions do not influence it.
Thus, an important result of the study is to have verified that not all OSO dimensions
can increase employee job satisfaction. By enhancing freedom to take decisions during
service encounters, increasing service training, and rewarding for service, the hotel
management will contribute to increase this construct.
Employee job satisfaction positively affects employee OCB. Then, employees who
are more satisfied, will be more motivated to do OCB. At the level of each individual
OCB dimension, employee job satisfaction was found to have a significant relationship
only with employee loyalty, not with service delivery or with participation. The fact
that employee job satisfaction directly affects only loyalty may be because promoting Structural
the firm (speaking positively about the firm to third parties) does not depend so much relationships
on the personnel being involved in carrying out tasks successfully, as in the case of
participation and service delivery.
Employee job satisfaction mediates the relationship between two OSO dimensions
(human resource management practices and service encounter practices) and employee
OCB. These organizational practices create a favorable attitude in the employee, make 43
him/her feel more satisfied and, in turn, promote OCB. Service encounter practices also
influence directly on employee OCB. Our results show that service encounter is key
variable to improve employee OCB.
Another important outcome is the positive, direct and significant relationship
between service communicative leadership and employee OCB. Although this variable
has no capacity to augment employee job satisfaction, it directly leads the contact
employee to participate more through suggestions relating to the service; to be more
effective in their delivery of the service, and to promote the firm to third parties.
Therefore, hotel managers who want their contact employees to develop behaviors
with extraordinary dedication should inspire the personnel and change their complacency
for a set of expectations or challenges to go further than their current way of serving
customers. Managers must try to clarify its quality standards and the role of the
customer-contact employee, through open and effective communication. It is important to
have leaders who help, show interest in knowing employee ideas and opinions, and use
internal marketing to implant a vision of service among the customer-contact employees.
Only one OSO dimension (service failure recovery) does not affect to employee job
satisfaction or OCB. One possible explanation of this result may be that the
relationship is indirect, and mediating variables not considered in the study are
important. Previous studies have shown that role ambiguity, task fit and other,
exercise a great influence on employee job satisfaction.
Our results have important repercussions. Hotel firms who wish their personnel
to develop more OCB will have: to place greater emphasis on service leadership, to
incentive a culture of customer orientation and of empowerment in service encounters,
and to achieve greater job satisfaction among customer-contact employees. The greater
the manager’s emphasis on these actions, the more the contact employees will tend to
show OCB which, in turn, will lead to higher quality of service.
In particular, although some managers see empowerment as a threat to their
authority, they must understand that it is important for empowerment to become a part
of the service culture of the organization.
7. Limitations and future research

The principal limitations of this study derive from three aspects: the scope of the study,
the task type, and the “simplicity” of the model. The data are taken from a survey of a
single sector, the hospitality industry, so the results may be conditioned by the
characteristics of its specific environment. For this reason, the conclusions may not
be generally applicable, though the study does add empirical evidence to some of the
theoretical postulates developed.
Also, the service delivered by the employees who responded is a routine
service. The results may vary in non-routine services (Stewart and Barrick, 2000;
De Jong et al., 2004).
IJSIM The results and the limitations mentioned suggest future lines of research. To
17,1 progress in the study of the relationship between OSO and employees’ behavior – two
important concepts in services marketing – it would be interesting to incorporate
mediating variables, such as employees’ trust of management, role conflict, role
ambiguity and motivation, which may possibly help to explain better the relationships
among these variables. We also suggest incorporating moderating variables, such as
44 task type.
It would be of interest to complete the model by incorporating service quality and
other measures of performance. Finally, we propose the application of the model in
other sectors.
Notes
1. Bettencourt (1998) has suggested that it is better to evaluate employee OCB by aggregating
(averaging) the perception of the employee and that of his/her supervisor.
2. According to Burns (1978), a transformational leader is one who is oriented to creating and
communicating a vision of the organization, as well as adapting the organization to the rapid
changes in the environment.
3. One reviewer suggests testing the mediating effects following the method proposed by
Baron and Kenny (1986). First, there is a significant correlation between each OSO
dimension (predictor variable) and employee OCB (outcome variable). Second, there is a
significant correlation between employee job satisfaction (mediating variable) and employee
OCB (outcome variable). Third, three of four OSO dimensions are significantly correlated
with employee job satisfaction (not service systems practices). Fourth, after controlling for
employee job satisfaction, two partial correlations (human resource management-OCB and
serviced systems practices-OCB) are not significant at level 0.01. We also conducted a
regression analysis. The hierarchical model, with the employee job satisfaction mediation
variable, accounts for a greater proportion of variance in employee OCB that a direct model
with no mediation (DR 2 ¼ 0:271; p , 0:001).
References
Alder, P.S. (1992), Technology and the Future of Work, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, J.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 396-402.
Babin, B.J. and Boles, J.S. (1998), “Employee behavior in a service environment: a model and test
of potential differences between men and women”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 77-91.
Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable destination in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.
Barroso, C., Martin, E. and Martin, D. (2004), “The influence of employee organizational
citizenship behavior on customer loyalty”, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 27-53.
Bateman, T. and Organ, D. (1983), “Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationship
between affect and employee citizenship”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 587-95.
Bell, S. and Menguc, B. (2002), “The employee organization relationship, organizational Structural
citizenship behavior, and superior service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78, pp. 131-46.
relationships
Bettencourt, L. (1998), “The service-orientated citizenship performance of customer-contact
employees”, UMI Dissertation Services, Arizona State University.
Bettencourt, L., Meuter, M. and Gwinner, K. (2001), “A comparison of attitude, personality and
knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 29-41. 45
Bienstock, C., DeMoranville, C. and Smith, R. (2003), “Organizational citizenship behavior and
service quality”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 357-78.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), “The service encounter: diagnosing
favourable and unfavourable incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 71-84.
Bolino, M.C. (1999), “Citizenship and impression management: good soldiers or good actors?”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 82-98.
Borman, W. and Motowidlo, S. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance”, in Schmidt, N., Borman, W.C., Howard, A., Krant, A., Ilgen, D.,
Schnider, B. and Zedeck, S. (Eds), Personnel Selection in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA, pp. 71-98.
Boshoff, C. and Allen, J. (2000), “The influence of selected antecedents on frontline staff’s
perceptions of service recovery performance”, International Journal of Service Industry
Bowen, D.E. and Lawler, E.E. (1992), “The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how and
when”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33, pp. 31-9.
Bowen, D.E. and Schneider, B. (1985), “Boundary-spanning-role employees and the service
encounter: some guidelines for management and research”, in Czepiel, J.A., Solomon, M.R.
and Suprenant, C.F. (Eds), The Service Encounter, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Bowen, D.E. and Schneider, B. (1988), “Services marketing and management: implications for
organizational behavior”, Research in Organizational Behavior, pp. 43-80.
Brief, A. and Motowidlo, S. (1986), “Prosocial organizational behaviors”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 710-25.
Brown, K. and Mitchell, T. (1993), “Organizational obstacles: links with financial performance,
customer satisfaction, and job satisfaction in a service environment”, Human Relations,
Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 725-57.
Brown, S. and Peterson, R. (1993), “Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job
satisfaction: meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 30, pp. 63-77.
Brown, T., Mowen, J., Donavan, D. and Licata, J. (2002), “The costumer orientation of service
worker: personality trait effects on self- and supervisor performance ratings”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 39, pp. 110-9.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Callan, R.J. and Moore, J. (1998), “Service guarantee: a strategy for service recovery”, Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 56-71.
Chebat, J., Babin, B. and Kollias, P. (2002), “What makes contact employees perform? Reactions to
employee perceptions of managerial practices”, International Journal of Bank Marketing,
Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 325-32.
Cheung, G.W. and Rensvold, R.B. (2002), “Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 9, pp. 233-55.
IJSIM Church, A.H. (1995), “Linking leadership behaviours to service performance: do managers make
a difference?”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 26-31.
17,1
Cone, J. (1989), “The empowered employee”, Training & Development Journal, pp. 97-108, June.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and
practice”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, pp. 471-82.
Crosby, L.A. and Stephens, N. (1987), “Effects of relationship marketing on satisfaction,
46 retention, and prices in the life insurance industry”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24,
pp. 404-11.
Dean, A.M. (2004), “Links between organisational and customer variables in service delivery:
evidence, contradictions and challenges”, International Journal of Service Industry
De Jong, A., de Rugter, J.C. and Lemmink, J.G. (2004), “Antecedents and consequences of service
climate in boundary spanning self-managing service teams”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68
No. 2, pp. 18-35.
Dienhart, J.R., Gregoire, M.B., Downey, R.G. and Knight, P.K. (1992), “Service orientation of
restaurant employees”, International Journal Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 331-46.
George, J. and Brief, A. (1992), “Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at
work-organizational spontaneity relationship”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112, pp. 310-29.
George, W.R. (1990), “Internal marketing and organizational behavior: a partnership in
developing customer-conscious employees at every level”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 20, pp. 63-70.
Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992), “Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17, pp. 183-211.
Graham, J. (1991), “An essay on organizational citizenship behavior”, Employee Responsibilities &
Rights Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 249-70.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership, Paulist Press, New York, NY.
Grönroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Hackam, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), “Development of the job diagnostic survey”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 159-70.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed., Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hallowell, R., Schlesinger, L.A. and Zornitsky, J. (1996), “Internal service quality, customer and
job satisfaction: linkages and implications for management”, Human Resource Planning,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 20-30.
Hartline, M.D. and Ferrell, O.C. (1996), “The management of customer-contact service employees:
an empirical investigation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 52-70.
Heskett, J.L., Jones, T., Loveman, G., Sasser, W. and Schlesinger, L. (1994), “Putting the
service-profit chain to work”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 164-74, March-April.
Heskett, J.L., Sasser, E. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1997), The Service Profit Chain: How Leading
Companies Link Profit and Growth to Loyalty, Satisfaction and Value, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Hinkin, T.R. and Tracey, J.B. (1994), “Transformational leadership in the hospitality industry”,
Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 49-64.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D. and Sanders, G. (1990), “Measuring organizational Structural
cultures. A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 286-316. relationships
Hubrecht, J. and Teare, R. (1993), “A strategy for partnership in total quality service”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 5 No. 3.
Johnson, J.W. (1996), “Linking employee perceptions of service climate to customer satisfaction”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 831-51. 47
Kelley, S. and Hoffman, D. (1997), “An investigation of positive affect, prosocial behaviors and
service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73, pp. 407-27.
Konovsky, M. and Pugh, D. (1994), “Citizenship behavior and social exchange”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 656-69.
Lashley, C. (1995), “Towards an understanding of employee empowerment in hospitality
services”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 27-32.
Lee, Y.K., Park, D.H. and Yoo, D.K. (2001), “The structural relationship between service
orientation, mediators and business performance in Korean hotel firms”, Tourism Sciences,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 49-65.
Lemmink, J. and Mattsson, J. (2002), “Employee behavior, feelings of warmth and customer
perception in service encounters”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Livingstone, L.P., Roberts, J.A. and Chonko, L.B. (1995), “Perceptions of internal and external
equity as predictors of outside salespeoples’ job satisfaction”, Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, Vol. 15, pp. 33-46.
Locke, E. (1976), “The nature and consequences of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally College
Publishing Co., Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-349.
Lytle, R.S. (1994), “Service orientation, market orientation, ans performance: an organizarional
culture perspective”, dissertation, UMI.
Lytle, R.S., Hom, P.W. and Mokwa, M.P. (1998), “SER*OR: a managerial measure of
organizational service-orientation”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 455-89.
Mackenzie, S., Podsakoff, P. and Ahearne, M. (1998), “Some possible antecedents and
consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 62, pp. 87-98.
Mackenzie, S., Podsakoff, P. and Fetter, R. (1993), “The impact of organizational citizenship
behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57,
pp. 70-80.
Mackenzie, S., Podsakoff, P. and Rich, G. (2001), “Transformational and transactional
leadership and salesperson performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 115-34.
Menguc, B. (1996), “The influence of market orientation of the firm on sales force behaviour and
attitudes: further empirical results”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 13, pp. 277-91.
Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.I. and Bitner, M.J. (2000), “Self-service technologies:
understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, pp. 50-64.
Mick, D.G. and Fournier, S. (1998), “Paradoxes of technology: consumer cognizance, emotions,
and coping strategies”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 123-43.
IJSIM Moorman, R. (1991), “Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship”, Journal of Applied
17,1 Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 845-55.
Morrison, A. (1994), “Marketing strategic alliances: the small hotel firm”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 25-30.
Morrison, E. (1996), “Organizational citizenship behavior as critical link between HRM practices
48 and service quality”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 35, pp. 493-512.
Murrel, A.J. and Sprinkle, J. (1993), “The impact of negative attitudes toward computers on
employee’s satisfaction and commitment within a small company”, Computers in Human
Behaviour, Vol. 9, pp. 57-63.
Netemeyer, R., Boles, J., Mckee, D. and Mcmurrian, R. (1997), “An investigation into the
antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 85-98.
Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 527-56.
O’Connor, S.J. and Shewchuk, R.M. (1995), “Doing more with less, and doing it nicer: the role of
service orientation in health care organization”, Academy of Management Journal,
pp. 120-9, Best papers proceedings.
O’Hara, B.S., Boles, J.S. and Johnston, M.W. (1991), “The influence of personal variables on
salesperson selling orientation”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 11,
pp. 61-7.
Oliver, R. and Anderson, E. (1994), “An empirical test of the consequences of behavior and
outcome based sales control systems”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, pp. 21-35.
Organ, D. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Organ, D. and Ryan, K. (1995), “A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48,
pp. 775-802.
Parasuraman, A. (1987), “Customer-oriented corporate cultures are crucial to services marketing
success”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 39-46.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumers perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64,
pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994), “Reassessment of expectations as a
comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 111-24.
Podsakoff, P. and Mackenzie, S. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit
effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 351-63.
Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S. and Bommer, W. (1996), “Transformational leader behaviors and
substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust
and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 259-98.
Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Paine, J. and Bachrach, D. (2000), “Organizational citizenship
behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for
future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-63.
Price, L.L., Arnould, E.J. and Tierney, P. (1995), “Going to extremes: managing service encounters Structural
and assessing provider performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 883-97.
Robinson, S. and Morrison, E. (1995), “Psychological contracts and OCB: the effects of unfulfilled
relationships
obligations on civic virtue behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 289-98.
Rogers, J.D., Clow, K.E. and Kash, T.J. (1994), “Increasing job satisfaction of service personnel”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 14-26. 49
Rust, R., Zahorik, A.J. and Keiningham, T.L. (1996), Service Marketing, Harper Collins College
Publishers, New York, NY.
Schlesinger, L.A. and Heskett, J.L. (1991), “The service-driven service company”, Harvard
Business Review, pp. 71-81, September-October.
Schneider, B., Wheeler, J. and Cox, J. (1992), “A passion for service: using content analysis to
explicate service climate themes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 705-16.
Smith, C., Organ, D. and Near, J. (1983), “Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and
antecedents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 653-63.
Sparrowe, R.T. (1994), “Empowerment in the hospitality industry: an exploration of antecedents
and outcomes”, Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 51-74.
Spears, L.C. (1998), Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit and Servant Leadership,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Spiro, R.L. and Weitz, B.A. (1990), “Adaptative selling: conceptualization, measurement, and
nomological validity”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27, pp. 61-9.
Sternberg, L.E. (1992), “Empowerment: trust vs control”, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, p. 69.
Stewart, G.L. and Barrick, M.R. (2000), “Team structure and performance assessing the
mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 135-48.
Suprenant, C.F. and Solomon, M.R. (1987), “Predictability and personalization in the service
encounter”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, pp. 86-96.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behavior:
construct redefinition, measurement and validation”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 765-802.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1996), Services Marketing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Further reading
Bettencourt, L. and Brown, S. (1997), “Contact employees: relationships among workplace
fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73,
pp. 39-61.
Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Moorman, R. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational
citizenship behavior”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 107-42.
About the authors

José Varela González is professor of marketing in the Economics and Business School at the
University of Santiago González Compostela (Spain). He holds a PhD in Business Administration
from this university. Dr Varela’s research interests include the management of new
product development and launching, marketing mix reactions to new products entry and
IJSIM market orientation. His current research focuses on new product development, international
marketing and services marketing. His last papers have been published in Marketing Intelligence
17,1 Planning, Service Industries Journal, Tecnovation, Revista Europea de Dirección y Economı́a de la
Empresa, Información Comercial Española.
Teresa Garcı́a Garazo received her PhD in Business Administration from the Department of
Management Science and Marketing of the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain). She is
currently a lecturer in marketing in the same university and she has taught services marketing
50 for over ten years. Her research interests are in service orientation and service quality. Teresa
Garcı́a is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: oetere@usc.es
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Structural Relationships

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Relationships

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

2. Conceptual framework and hypotheses

2.1 Organizational citizenship behavior

2.2 Employee job satisfaction and OCB

2.3 Organizational service orientation and employees job satisfaction

OSO Activities Activities

Servant leadership Servant leadership Servant leadership

Hence, we hypothesize the following:

Service communicative leadership 0.753 0.755 5.79 (0.89)

Customer treatment 0.851 – 0.820 0.801 5.65 (0.92)

CL: S. Comm. leadership 0.461

Employee Job 0.171*

6. Discussion and managerial implications

7. Limitations and future research

About the authors

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

You might also like