JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 13, No. 3, Spring 1999
CUSTOMER SERVICE BEHAVIOR:
THE INTERACTION OF SERVICE
PREDISPOSITION AND JOB
CHARACTERISTICS
Steven G. Rogelberg
Bowling Green State University
Janet L. Barnes-Farrell
University of Connecticut
Victoria Creamer
International Business Machines
ABSTRACT: The achievement of customer satisfaction in service operations depends to a great extent on employee customer service behavior (CSB). In this
study, 123 service providers (77% response rate) responded to a survey assessing
service predisposition and job characteristics. Employees also completed a behaviorally based CSB measure developed after interviewing and surveying customers (n = 96). Analyses suggest that job characteristics, alone, accounted for a
significant amount of CSB variance. Job characteristics did not moderate the
relationship between service predisposition and CSB. In contrast to previous
work, service predisposition and CSB were not correlated. A service provider
typology is presented to explain these findings.
INTRODUCTION
One way for a company to differentiate itself from others in a competitive service environment is to advocate and provide excellent cusThis article is based on the first author's doctoral dissertation, completed at the University
of Connecticut. Portions of this paper were presented at the 10th annual conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology held in Orlando, Florida (May, 1995).
We wish to thank Peter Bachiochi, Harold Goldstein, Milt Hakel, Jim Holzworth,
Charles Lowe, Steven Mellor, and Ann Marie Ryan for their wisdom and assistance in
these research efforts.
Address correspondence to Steven Rogelberg, Department of Psychology, Bowling
Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to [email protected].
421
O 1999 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
422
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
tomer service (Bateson, 1989; Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry, 1990).
The rationale for this strategy is that excellent customer service leads to
customer satisfaction which, in turn, increases the customer's desire to
use the supplier's services in the future (Cronin & Taylor, 1992), thus
increasing company revenue (Burke & Borucki, 1995; Johnson, Ryan, &
Schmit, 1994; Rogelberg & Creamer, 1994).
The achievement of customer satisfaction in service operations depends to a great extent on employee customer service behavior (CSB). In
fact, the prominence of the service deliverer has led many researchers to
conclude that: 1) employees remain the key to success at the 'moments
of truth' (Carlzon, 1987; Normann, 1984); 2) the manner in which the
service is delivered is critical in consumers' evaluations of service quality (Czeipiel, Solomon & Supprenant, 1985); and 3) service employees
run the service operation, market the service and are equated by customers with the service (Lovelock, 1981). Unfortunately, not all employees are customer service oriented: employees differ in the extent and
frequency with which they correctly identify and fulfill customer needs
in a timely, ethical and courteous way. These differences in employee
CSB are typically attributed to dispositional variables associated with
the service provider (i.e., personality characteristics) and variables associated with the job or the organizational context in which the service
provider carries out his/her job.
Research has identified a number of service provider personality
traits that are related to external customer service ratings (Hogan,
Hogan & Busch, 1984; Rosse, Miller & Barnes, 1991; Paajanen, 1991;
Fogli & Whitney, 1991; Kwan, Horn & Kristen, 1993). Taken together,
these personality composites (e.g., likeability, adjustment, and
sociability) are commonly labeled service predisposition (e.g., Hogan's
Service Orientation Index). While service predisposition lends insight
into stable individual differences among employees in terms of their propensity to exhibit customer service behaviors, work climate has also
been shown to affect customer service behavior.
Individuals may not be encouraged to behave in a service oriented
manner unless an organizational climate exists that is supportive of customer service. In 1980, Schneider, Parkington, and Buxton identified a
positive relationship between employees' perceptions of organizational
practices and procedures and customer perceptions of service quality. In
1995, Schneider and Bowen replicated these results. Specifically, they
found that employees' perceptions of work facilitators, supervision, organizational career facilitation, socialization, management commitment,
systems support and logistics support were all positively related to customers' perceptions of service quality. Subsequent research by Jones
(1991, 1992), Tornow and Wiley (1991), Ulrich, Halbrook, Meder,
Stuchlik and Thorpe (1991) and Schmit and Allscheid (1995) has pro-
S. G. ROGELBERG, J. L. BARNES-PARRELL, AND V. CREAMER
423
vided additional support for the findings of Schneider and his colleagues. Taken together, it appears that an organization interested in
achieving customer satisfaction needs to establish an organizational climate for service and an organizational climate for employee well being.
The Present Study
Previous research has generally examined the independent relationship of one domain of variables (e g., job characteristics or personality)
with CSB, but has failed to examine the interactive effects of both types
of variables on CSB. This is surprising given the preponderance of
thought advocating the position that worker behavior is a function of the
interaction between organizational context and individual characteristics (Aronoff & Wilson, 1985; Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Ostroff, 1993;
Pervin & Lewis, 1978, Terborg, 1981). While research has examined the
interactionist perspective for general job performance (Barrick & Mount,
1993; Colarelli, Dean, & Konstans, 1987; Ostroff, 1993), extant research
has not examined the interactionist perspective with respect to the specific domain of customer service behavior. The following study examines
the interactive effects of service predisposition and job characteristics on
CSB. Specifically, we posed the question: Is the relationship between
service predisposition and CSB moderated by job characteristics that
encourage or hinder the display of CSB?
The sample used for this study is quite different from the samples
studied in past research on CSB. Previous research has typically examined service providers who interacted face to face with customers on a
short term basis (e.g., bank tellers; Schneider, Parkington, & Buxton,
1980; Schneider & Bowen, 1985). In this study, employment consultants
providing recruiting and/or job applicant screening services to customers
were examined. These service providers interacted with customers, generally via telephone, a number of times over a period of time (one week
to one month). In addition, these individuals generally worked independently of others, with the possible exception of their supervisors. Therefore, besides examining CSB using an interactionist perspective, this
study serves to replicate previous research on job characteristics and
service predisposition using a type of service provider that has not been
examined to date.
METHOD
Participants
A questionnaire was distributed to employees of an organization (24
sites) that provides employment services (e.g., recruiting, testing, and
424
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
screening of job applicants). Participation in the study was voluntary
and responses to the survey were anonymous. A total of 123 service providers (77% response rate) responded to the questionnaire. Of those responding, the following demographic characteristics were reported: 37%
reported being male; with regard to race, 76.8% of the sample was Caucasian, 15% African-American, and 8% Asian, Hispanic or Native American. In addition, 88% of the service providers sampled had been engaged in customer service work for over one year. Eight respondents
who reported not interacting with customers were dropped from all further analyses.
Employee Questionnaire
Service providers completed a questionnaire designed to assess
three classes of variables: 1) service predisposition; 2) job characteristics; and 3) customer service behavior. In addition, employees reported
how frequently they interacted with customers and provided information about the demographic characteristics noted above. All survey questions, excluding the true/false service predisposition questions, were answered on five-point rating scales.
Service Predisposition. A fourteen item subset of Hogan and Hogan's
(1995) 87-item service orientation index was used to measure service
predisposition. Hogan and Hogan (1995, pg. 64) report that the 14-item
measure (e.g., "I usually notice when I am boring people"), as a whole,
was correlated .71 with the 87-item measure and that test-retest reliability over a four-week period was .78. In turn, the 87-item measure
has been shown to be positively related to customer service behavior in a
number of contexts (Hogan, Hogan & Busch, 1984; Rosse, Miller &
Barnes, 1991).
Job Characteristics. Because the employee questionnaire used was designed primarily for management feedback purposes rather than research purposes, there were constraints on the number and type of
items we could include in the measure. Eight items assessing work characteristics were included in the survey. A principal axis factor analysis
of responses to these items revealed a "clean" three-factor structure.
Specifically, the eigenvalues for the first three factors all exceeded 1.0;
no commonality estimates were under .55; after a varimax rotation all
factor loadings were found to be above .6; and no items cross-loaded.
Additional information is available from the first author. Based on the
results of the factor analysis, three subscales were formed. The first subscale, labeled Autonomy, contained the following three items: "I am empowered to carry out my job responsibilities in the way I think best"; "I
am accountable for the results of my work"; and "I am encouraged to
S. G. ROGELBERG, J. L. BARNES-FARRELL, AND V. CREAMER
425
take reasonable risks in order to effectively fulfill my job responsibilities". The second subscale, labeled Requisite Time, contained three
questions that are quite similar to Beehr, Walsh and Taber's (1976) role
overload scale. The three items were: "Unnecessary work in my job
makes it hard for me to effectively service my customers"; "I sometimes
feel a lack of control over my job because too many customers demand
service at the same time"; and "I have enough time to serve my customer effectively". The final subscale, labeled Requisite Resources, contained the following two questions: "I feel like I have the necessary
equipment to provide high quality service to my customers"; and "I have
enough information to do my job well".
Customer Service Behavior. The design of our study also required an
individual-level measure of CSB. While, ideally customers should rate
each respective service provider, very rarely are we able to ascertain
customer ratings of service providers by "name". Typically, customers
complete a survey containing a series of questions assessing service/
product quality followed by a question as to what work location provided
the service. Customer responses are then aggregated by work location
and inferences are made about individual CSB. Individual CSB ratings
can come more readily from one of two sources: the supervisor and/or
the service provider themselves. Unfortunately, supervisors are generally not good sources of information concerning individual CSB for two
reasons: 1) large spans of control reduce the amount of direct information that they are likely to have regarding individual employees; and 2)
supervisors are usually not part of the service encounter. As a result, a
well-designed employee self-report measure may be the most viable
source of information concerning individual customer service behavior.
This position is supported by the research that has found a significant
relationship (r=.60 and above) between employees perceptions of service quality and customers perceptions of service quality (Schneider,
Parkington, & Buxton, 1980; Schneider & Bowen, 1985). Furthermore,
research has found that an employee self report measure (the SOCO)
assessing selling orientation was related to sales performance (Saxe &
Weitz, 1982). Therefore, while self-report measures tend to be inflated
(Beatty, Schneier, & Beatty, 1977), they still are correlated with important outcomes and can serve as an important source of information
when well constructed.
The present study introduces a self-report measure called the behavioral self assessment (BSA). The BSA asks employees to rate their
performance on certain critical customer service behaviors. Discussion
of this scale must begin with an elaboration of the careful process used
to identify the key service behaviors on which the measure was based.
The specific service behaviors used for the self-report measure were
426
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
Table 1
Criticality Study Results
Service Factor
Total (n = 45)
mean (s.d.)
Providing hiring managers with pre-interview information
Knowledge of the hiring company and employment process
Processing and handling of paperwork
Communication with the hiring manager
Providing information to job candidates
Handling of verifications and medical testing
Screening of job applicants
Tracking of job applicants in employment process
Handling of job candidate logistics and expenses
1.51 (.84)
1.62 (.76)
1.66 (.72)
1.70 (.84)
1.73 (.86)
1.77 (.83)
1.78 (.97)
1.86 (.75)
2.23 (.93)
Note. Means range from very critical (1) to not at all critical (5). Lower means reflect
greater criticality.
compiled after conducting and analyzing 50 critical incident interviews.
Randomly selected customers were asked to generate specific examples
of service behaviors that were either exemplary or poor. Two content
experts, then, independently sorted the 120 non-redundant critical incidents (e.g., "post-hire paperwork was processed accurately") into nine
categories based on their conceptual and logical similarity (85% agreement). The nine emergent categories, hereafter referred to as key service factors, are shown in Table 1.
To further assure the validity and representativeness of the nine
key service factors, 46 additional randomly selected customers completed a survey (response rate = 43%) that asked them to rate the criticality (five point rating scale, a value of one indicating "very critical") of
each service factor for achieving customer satisfaction. All criticality
means were less than 2.5 with standard deviations less that one. In
addition, customers did not identify any additional service behaviors related to their perceptions of service quality. Therefore, we concluded
that the nine key service factors captured the domain of important service behaviors for this organization. Note, however, that these nine factors may be endemic to the host organization and the services it provides. A summary of the findings can be found in Table 1.
The behavior self-assessment measure that employees completed
represented the nine key service factors identified above. Subject matter
experts identified one specific and representative behavior from each service factor. Employees, in turn, rated their performance on these nine
specific behaviors (e.g., "I communicated the candidate's status in the
employment process"). To facilitate honest responses and minimize the
S. G. ROGELBERG, J. L. BARNES-FARRELL, AND V. CREAMER
427
leniency bias that is typical of self-ratings of performance, two strategies
were used. First, service providers were encouraged to respond as accurately and honestly as possible to the measure. In addition, we utilized a
strategy adapted from work on leniency reduction by Farh and Werbel
(1986): Employees were told that that their customers responded to these
same questions via a customer satisfaction survey and that we wanted to
see if their self-assessments were in line with the customer ratings.
RESULTS
Summary Statistics
All experimental variables were examined for identification of excessive amounts of missing values, and the identification of skewed
variables that would tend to result in a violation of the assumptions
underlying the statistical tests employed in this study. Frequency distributions suggested minimal missing values. Furthermore, skewness indices did not exceed a value of one for any of the measured variables.
A summary of the means and standard deviations for all major variables assessed can be found in Table 2. Note that higher values reflect
more positive scores/perceptions on the various measures. The observed
service predisposition mean of 9.03 (s.d. = 1.47) was slightly below the
10.36 (s.d. = 2.52) norm reported by Hogan and Hogan (1995, pg. 65).
Average perceptions of the job characteristics ranged from a low of 3.21
for the requisite time scale to a high of 4.12 for the autonomy scale. On
average, CSB ratings were quite high at 4.40, with some variability
(s.d. = .40). However, it is worth noting that customers were independently surveyed by the host organization (shortly after collecting this
study^s data) to assess customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction ratings, using the same items found in the CSB, were quite high (£ = 4.12,
s.d. = .82), and thus consistent with the observed CSB self-report ratings
(Rogelberg, 1995).
Table 2
Summary Statistics and Intel-correlations of Measures
Measure
Mean (SD)
1
2
3
4
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
9.04 (1.47)
4.12 (.72)
3.21 (.76)
3.84 (.65)
4.40 (.40)
1.00
-.09
-.16
-.07
-.08
1.00
.27*
.34*
.31*
1.00
.31*
.24*
1.00
.21*
1.00
Service Predisposition
Autonomy
Requisite Time
Requisite Resources
CSB
*p<.05
428
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
Independence of Observations
As discussed earlier, the service providers in this sample generally
worked independent of the others in their work location. In fact, some
work locations contained only a few individuals. On average, five service
providers (s.d. = 3.34) worked at a site (this includes one supervisor at
each site). Given the nature of the work and size of the work location it
was quite reasonable to expect that employees would maintain different
perceptions of job characteristics. This proposition may be further supported because employees interacted with different customers and in
line with leader member exchange theory, each employee appeared to
have their own independent relationship with the supervisor (Graen &
Scandura, 1987). Empirical confirmation of this qualitative description
can come by examining the levels of agreement that exist within a site.
Organizational climate researchers typically assess the amount of
agreement that exists within a work location (rwg) before aggregating
the data. If employees are all in agreement about organizational elements then it is viewed as evidence of a shared perception (i.e., organizational climate). In this study, it is predicted that employees will not be
in agreement given that job characteristics did indeed differ for employees (see above). To test this proposition, rwg's were calculated for
each site for each respective job characteristic (i.e., autonomy, requisite
time, requisite resources). Using the procedures of James, Demaree, and
Wolf (1984) 72 rwg's were calculated under the assumption that the null
distribution was negatively skewed (typical of survey research). As expected, agreement among employees was quite low for the autonomy
scale (x rwg = .41, s.d. = .40), the requisite time scale (x rwg = .34,
s.d. = .38), and the requisite resources scale (x rwg = .41, s.d. = .40).
Therefore, variability in job characteristics were taken to exist at the
individual level of analysis, and job characteristics were treated as an
individual-level phenomenon in all analyses.
Relationships Among Predictor Measures.
Intercorrelations among respondent's perceptions of the three job
characteristics measured in the study (Autonomy, Requisite Time, and
Requisite Resources) ranged from .27 to .34. The correlations between
service predisposition and job characteristics were small and non-significant (r's ranged from -.07 to -.16).
Regression of CSB on Service Predisposition and Job Characteristics
Examination of Table 2 shows that all three job characteristics were
significantly correlated with CSB (p<.05): Autonomy (r= .31), Requisite
S. G. ROGELBERG, J. L. BARNES-FARRELL, AND V. CREAMER
429
Time (r = .24) and Requisite Resources (r = .21). Service predisposition
(r = — .08, p>.05) was not predictive of CSB.
To examine the interactive effects of job characteristics and service
predisposition on CSB, the moderated regression methodology recommended by Aiken and West (1991) was used. Aiken and West advocate
centering the independent variables to reduce multicollinearity, and
testing the interaction term after the main effects have been entered
into the regression model. This was done separately for each of the three
job characteristics included in the study. Therefore, three hierarchical
regression models were tested, one for each job characteristic.
CSB = Autonomy + Predisposition + Autonomy*Predisposition
CSB = Requisite Time + Predisposition + Requisite Time*Predisposition
CSB = Requisite Resources + Predisposition +
Requisite Resources*Predisposition
In all three regression equations job characteristics main effects accounted for significant variance in CSB. Autonomy accounted for 10% of
the CSB variance (p<.05), Requisite Time accounted for 6% of the CSB
variance (p<.05) and Requisite Resources accounted for 4% of the CSB
variance (p<.05) in their respective regression models, Service predisposition did not account for a significant amount of variance in any of
the three equations. With no exceptions, the job characteristic-service
predisposition interactions did not account for a significant amount of
incremental variance in CSB after accounting for the main effects, A
summary of these findings can be found in Table 3.
Because service predisposition and the interactions terms were not
significant, an additional analysis was conducted whereby CSB was regressed on all three job characteristics simultaneously. The complete
model was significant (F = 5.15, p<.05) and accounted for 13% of the
CSB variance. The beta weight associated with Autonomy was statistically significant (p<.05), the beta weights associated with Requisite
Time and Resources were not significant.
DISCUSSION
Customer Service Behavior
This study attempted to garner additional insight into customer service behavior by testing the interactionist perspective (i.e., the general
proposition that job characteristics and worker dispositional characteristics have an interactive influence on employee work behaviors). Consistent with prior work that has examined contextual influences on cus-
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
430
Table 3
Regression of CSB on Job Characteristics, Service Predisposition and
the Interaction Term
Variable
CSB
Step 1: Autonomy
Step 2:Disposition
Step 3: Interaction Term
CSB
Step l:Time
Step 2:Disposition
Step 3:Interaction Term
CSB
Step l:Resources
Step 2:Disposition
Step 3:Interaction Term
Total Model at Each Step
R2 Change at
Each Step
R2
AdjR2
P value
AR2
P value
.10
.10
.12
.09
.08
.10
.01
.01
.00
.02
.58
.11
.06
.06
.06
.05
.04
.04
.04
.07
.00
.00
.66
.42
.04
.05
.06
.03
.03
.04
.06
.06
.00
.01
.49
.19
Note. Step three included both main effects.
tomer service behavior (e.g., Schneider et al., 1980; Schmit & Allscheid,
1995), job characteristics were found to account for significant variance
in CSB. In contrast to previous work (Hogan et al., 1984; Rosse et al.,
1991; Paajanen, 1991; Fogli & Whitney, 1991; Kwan et al., 1993), service predisposition was not correlated with CSB. Furthermore, while
previous research on job performance has generally supported the interactionist perspective, this study found that the relationship between
worker service predisposition and CSB was not moderated by job characteristics.
The relationship observed between the job characteristics of autonomy, requisite time and requisite resources and CSB is important but
not surprising—a well-designed job that is conducive to the delivery of
service appears to be essential for service providers. More surprising
was the finding that neither the interaction of job characteristics and
service predisposition nor service predisposition itself were related to
CSB. While this is not the first study to find evidence contrary to the
interaction perspective (Ostroff, 1993), the research supporting this perspective for other classes of work performance makes it reasonable to
consider our findings in more detail.
Perhaps the lack of identified relationships between CSB and service predisposition and the interactions is a function of the type of service provider studied. Past research has not distinguished among types
of services providers. Instead, employees in the service profession are
S. G. ROGELBERG, J. L. BARNES-FARRELL, AND V. CREAMER
431
Figure 1
classified under the general rubric of "service provider". However, service provider positions differ in a number of ways that may be relevant
to the role of dispositional variables and context variables as they relate
to CSB. For example, service providers vary in terms of the extent to
which they interact with customers, how they interact with customers
and the type of service that is being created/designed. A typology of service providers based on these distinctions is presented in Figure 1. We
would speculate that the relationship of service predisposition, job characteristics and their interaction on CSB may be dependent upon the
type of service provider studied. For example, the relationship between
service predisposition and CSB may depend upon the medium by which
customer interactions take place (e.g., phone verses face to face communications).
To date, the majority of research on service behavior has focused on
service providers who typically interact with customers one to three
times on a face to face basis (service providers III, IV, VII, VIII in Figure
1) (e.g., Schneider, Parkington, & Buxton, 1980; Schneider & Bowen,
1985). This study examined service providers who generally would be
considered type V service providers (multiple interactions via phone to
create a relatively standard outcome). For customer service interactions
of this type, service predisposition may not be a salient variable for a
few reasons. First, having multiple interactions mitigates the need to be
exactly and perfectly sensitive to customer needs and expectations on
432
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
the very first interaction. Multiple interactions allow the service providers, even those less predisposed to service, to develop a rapport and
understanding of the customer and their needs over time. Second, service predisposition may be more related to CSB for service providers
who interact with customers on a face to face basis than for those who
interact via telephone. Types of skills and predispositions other than
general service predisposition may be more important for successful
telephone service encounters (e.g., an individual who does not rely on
non-verbal cues for communication or comprehension). Finally, because
the outcomes of the service encounters examined in this study were relatively standard, service predisposition may not be critical to effective
CSB. Instead, the most important components of service success may be
having the autonomy (i.e., no unnecessary management interference),
the requisite resources and the requisite time to do what is needed to
produce this desired outcome. Taken together, the propositions suggest
that for the type of service provider studied here, job characteristics may
positively relate to CSB regardless of the individual's service predisposition—hence the non-significant interaction terms. While we can
not directly infer from this study's findings whether or not the above
propositions are warranted, the typology provides a framework for
thinking about the generalizability of customer service research findings to the large variety of service-based occupations that have
emerged in the past decade. In retrospect, it would appear that the
interactionist perspective may be most appropriate when studying service providers who interact only once with a service provider and are
creating a custom product (i.e., service provider IV). For service providers of this type who are highly predisposed to service, we may find a
strong positive correlation between job characteristics and CSB. For
example, a highly service predisposed individual will be able to "capture" the customers needs and deliver high quality service to the extent that the job characteristics are conducive to delivery. Conversely,
for service providers of this type who are not predisposed to service, we
may find no relationship between job characteristics and CSB. For example, if the individual can not effectively "capture" customer needs,
then job characteristics are irrelevant.
Limitations and Future Research
Interpretation of these results must be tempered by the recognition that all variables included in the study were represented by selfreport measures from a single source. Self-report measures contained
in a single instrument are thought to artificially elevate covariation
among the measures. While Crampton and Wagner (1994) report that
S. G. ROGELBERG, J. L. BARNES-FARRELL, AND V. CREAMER
433
percept-percept inflation does not have the "broad, comprehensive effects envisioned by critics" (p. 67), several elements of this study would
be expected to mitigate the effects of method bias if it existed. First,
measures included a variety of different response formats. In addition,
the instructions directly addressed the importance of accurate and
honest responses. Furthermore, the CSB measure used was behavioral
and specific in nature; also, as noted earlier, instructions for the CSB
encouraged participants to think that their responses were verifiable.
Moreover, the pattern of results found in this study would not be expected given method bias. In particular, service predisposition and perceptions of job characteristics were not correlated—this would not be
the case in a study fraught with method bias. While we have no reason
to believe that method bias provides a compelling explanation for our
results, future research using different instruments to assess the constructs at different times may be appropriate.
As discussed earlier, self-report measures of behavior are not considered optimal. While they still provide meaningful information (employee perceptions and customer perceptions have been found to be
highly correlated), they tend to be inflated (i.e., lenient). Because leniency bias results in range restriction, the impact of this would be an
attenuation of intercorrelations between CSB and other variables. In
the future, research designs that link actual customer ratings to individual service providers would provide the most preferable form of CSB
measurement for examining individual-level relationships. It is worth
noting, that subsequent research in the host organization found that
CSB self-assessments were significantly correlated (r(22) = .42, p<.05)
with site level assessments of actual customer satisfaction (Rogelberg,
1995).
This study did not seek to nor does it establish causality. However,
this study did introduce a number of findings that may be important to
examine in a more causal framework. In addition, other workplace characteristics such as teamwork, reward systems and training mechanisms
should be studied in conjunction with service predisposition to determine their interactive effects on CSB. Finally, it is important to replicate this CSB research in different organizational settings using a variety of "types" of service providers. The typology of service provider
positions that we introduced earlier may provide guidance in systematically sampling such positions. The use of different types of organizations and positions to study CSB is essential to establishing the generalizability of research findings and the identification of boundary
conditions for recommendations to facilitate customer service behavior
in employees.
434
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
CONCLUSION
This study is the first of its kind to examine the interactionist perspective with regard to CSB. While this study possesses the typical limitations indigenous to field research, we hope that it will prompt additional exploration in this very important research domain using
organizations and jobs that cover the full range of service provider position characteristics. Certainly, replication of the findings of this study
will be the true test of its contribution to this growing area of research.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interaction.
London: Sage Publications.
Aronoff, I., & Wilson, J, P. (1985), Personality in the social process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships
between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 111-118.
Bateson, J. E. (1989). Managing Services Marketing. London: Dryden Press.
Beatty, R. W., Schneier, C. E., & Beatty, J. R. (1977). An empirical investigation of perceptions of ratee behavior frequency and ratee behavior change using behavioral expectation scales (BBS). Personnel Psychology, 30, 647-658.
Beehr, T., Walsh, J., & Tabor, T. (1976). Relationships of stress to individually and organizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 41-47.
Burke, M. J., & Borucki, C. C. (1995, August). Does a climate for service matter?. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, Canada.
Carlzon, J. (1987). Moments of truth. New York: Ballinger.
Colarelli, S. M., Dean, R. A., & Konstans, C. (1987). Comparative effects of personal and
situational influences on job outcomes of new professionals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 558-566.
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational
research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
67-76.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.
Czeipiel, J. A., Solomon, M. R., & Supprenant, C. (Eds.). (1985). The service encounter.
Lexington, MA: Heath.
Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Interactional psychology and personality. Washington, D. C.: Hemisphere.
Farh, J., & Werbel, J. D. (1986). Effects of purpose of the appraisal and expectation of
validation on self-appraisal leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 527-529.
Fogli, L., & Whitney, K. (1991, August). Service First: A test to select service oriented personnel. A symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Graen, G. B. & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L.
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 9). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,
Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Busch, C. (1984). How to measure service orientation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69, 167-173.
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1995). Personality Inventory Manual. Tulsa, Ok: Hogan Assessment Systems.
S. G. ROGELBERG, J. L. BARNES-FARRELL, AND V. CREAMER
435
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.
Johnson, R. H., Ryan, A. M., & Schmit, M. J. (1994, April). Employee attitudes and branch
performance at Ford Motor Credit. In Rotchford N. (Chair), Linking employee survey
data to organisational outcome measures. Practitioner Forum conducted at the Ninth
Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.
Jones, J. J. (1991, April). Relationship between employee perceptions of organizational
practices and customer satisfaction. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
Jones, J. J. (1992, May). Relationship between bank employee attitudes and customers'
ratings of service. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Montreal, Canada.
Kwan, J., Horn, A., & Kristen, G. (1993, May). Service orientation in health care setting:
Underlying attitudes and behaviors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.
Normann, R. (1984). Service Management. New York: Wiley.
Ostroff, C. (1993). The effects of climate and personal influences on individual behavior
and attitudes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 56-90.
Paajanen, G. (1991, August). Development and validation of the DPI Customer Service
Inventory. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Pervin, L. A., & Lewis, M. (1978). Overview of the internal-external issue. In L. A. Pervin
& M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspectives in interactional psychology. New York: Harper & Row.
Rogelberg, S. G. (1995). Customer satisfaction and CSB: 1995 Review of Findings. (Tech
Rep. No. 1-95A). Terrytown, NY: Employment Solutions Corporation.
Rogelberg, S. G., & Creamer, V. L. (1994, April). Customer satisfaction, purchase intentions
and profitability: Introducing a time lag. A paper presented at the annual convention
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.
Rosse, J. G., Miller, H. E. & Barnes, L. K. (1991). Combining personality and cognitive
ability predictors for hiring service oriented employees. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 431-445.
Ryan, A.M. & Schmit, M. J. (1994, April). Validation of the Ford pulse: Report to Ford
Motor Credit Corporation. A paper presented at the annual convention of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.
Schmit, M. J., & Allscheid, S. P. (1995). Employee attitudes and customer satisfaction:
Making theoretical and empirical connections. Personnel Psychology, 48, 521-536.
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions of service in
banks: Replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 423-444.
Schneider, B., Parkington, J. J., & Buxton, V. M. (1980). Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 252-267.
Saxe. R., & Weitz, B A (1982). The SOCO scale: A measure of the customer orientation of
sales people. Journal of Marketing Research. 19, 343-351.
Terborg, J. (1981). Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 6, 569-576.
Tornow, W. W, & Wiley, J. W. (1991). Service quality and management practices: A look at
employee attitudes, customer satisfaction, and bottom-line consequences. Human Resources Planning, 14, 105-115.
Ulrich, D., Halbrook, R., Meder, D., Stuchlik, M., & Thorpe, S. (1991). Employee and customer attachment: Synergies for competitive advantage. Human Resource Planning,
14, 89-104.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering Quality Service. New
York: The Free Press.