Customer Service Providers’Attitudes Relating to Customer Service and Customer Satisfaction in the Customer-Server Exchange Alex M. Susskind, Carl P. Borchgrevink,

Presentation on theme: "Customer Service Providers’Attitudes Relating to Customer Service and Customer Satisfaction in the Customer-Server Exchange Alex M. Susskind, Carl P. Borchgrevink,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Customer Service Providers’Attitudes Relating to Customer Service and Customer Satisfaction in the Customer-Server Exchange Alex M. Susskind, Carl P. Borchgrevink, K. Michele Kacmar Journal of Applied Psychology (2003) 第六組：蔡昀靜、吳韋廷、林芝伊、成宇

2 Introduction Service Attitudes Customer Service Providers’Attitudes Relating to Customer Service and Customer Satisfaction in the Customer-Server Exchange Customer Satisfaction ?

3 Introduction “ We know less about what specifically drives or supports customer service behavior and about how service-oriented behavior and attitudes among service-based employees ultimately translates into customer satisfaction. ” Service Attitudes Customer Satisfaction What? How?

4 Hypothesis Service Attitudes Customer Satisfaction What? How?

5 Hypothesis Supervisor Standards for Service Customer Delivery
Orientation Satisfaction Coworker Support Supervisor Hypothesized model of the customer service process and organizational outcomes

6 Hypothesis Service providers who routinely modify their service delivery to anticipate and meet the needs of their customers are described as customer oriented. Supervisor Support Mediators Support Functions Standards for Service Delivery Customer Orientation Customer Satisfaction Coworker Support Service Standards as a key part of an organization’s service climate. But, standards in place is not guarantee that service providers will “walk the talk” when delivering service.

7 Social Exchange Theory
Hypothesis Standards for Service Delivery Customer Orientation Satisfaction Coworker Support Supervisor H1 H3 H2 H4 Social Exchange Theory

8 Social Exchange Theory
Hypothesis Standards for Service Delivery Customer Orientation Satisfaction Coworker Support Supervisor H1 H3 Role Theory H5 H2 H4 Social Exchange Theory

9 Method Participants 354 level-line service workers across 26 of 28 organizations 269 customers across 28 organizations

10 Method - Measurement and Analyses
Pilot study 400 master’s of business administration students Standards for service delivery (11 items)　　4 items Coworker support (7 items)　　 3 items Supervisor support (7 items)　　4 items Customer orientation (8 items)　　5 items 208 (52%) 192 (48%) by ANOVA & Duncan’s multiple range tests

11 1=strongly disagree...5=strongly agree
Method Line-level employees The participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each question on a 5-choice metric with anchors ranging from Confirmatory factor analyses Goodness-of-Fit：RMR of .05 and a CFI of .95 1=strongly disagree...5=strongly agree

12 Method Customers Customer satisfaction (6 items) 5-choice metric
The responses to the customer satisfaction questions were aggregated to the organizational level, producing an organizational mean ranging from 1.40 (SD=0.30) to 4.57(SD=0.39). The measure was reliable ( 𝛂 = .96) and yielded a single-factor solution using exploratory factor analysis, explaining 82.46% of the variance.

13 Method Data aggregation
Examine Interclass correlations (ICC[1] and ICC[2]) - 檢定組織成員填答的一致性 ICC(1) 是在估計變項的總變異能夠被所屬組織的差異所解釋的比率 ICC(2) 估計組織層級的信度 ICC(1) .13 and ICC(2) .50 for standards for service delivery, ICC(1) .16 and ICC(2) .59 for coworker support, ICC(1) .15 and ICC(2) .56 for supervisor support, ICC(1) .31 and ICC(2) .83 for customer orientation Although the ICC(1) levels fell within the recommended range of values, the ICC(2) values were low but were mainly consistent with estimates reported in prior studies of this type as follows

14 Method Data aggregation 為了將員工個體變數加總代表群體層級變數，因此須評價組內一致性
使用群體內部信賴係數rwg(j) 2 of the 28 organizations did not show sufficient agreement on the supervisor support and standards for service delivery scales. Thus, 2 organizations were excluded from the sample.

15 Method Structural equation modeling
To compensate for measurement error in the scale values within the path model, the paths from the latent variables to the indicators were set to the square root of the scale reliability at the group level. Additionally, the error variance was set to equal the variance of the scale multiplied by one minus the reliability. These procedures fix the proportion of error variance assigned to each factor on the basis of the scale reliabilities and the relevant variance associated with each factor (Hayduk, 1987).

16 Results Test of the Hypothesized Model
The initial model estimation revealed that the hypothesized model produced a very good fit to the data The fit statistics confirmed a non-significant chi-square result (5, N＝26) ＝ 5.19, p = .39 ,CFI = 1.00, RMR = .02 As predicted, all of the paths were positive. 測試假設模型：首先檢查是配度檢定，利用卡方檢定評估，檢定結果為不顯著，p=.39>0.5，CFI與RMR都有超過臨界值，表示觀測到的數據與假設模型是配適的，具有足夠解釋力。並且正如預測的，所有的路徑都是正向的。 Cfi>0.95 rmr<0.08

17 Results Post Hoc Analyses -- Two alternative-mediating model.
To determine whether Figure 2 is the best approximation of the data, two alternative models were tested. Alternative Model 1 評估兩個支持功能是否應被視為內生變數或外生變數 Alternative Model 2 檢查標準是否由支持功能部分中介 事後比較檢定 為了確定圖2是否是數據的最佳近似模型，作者測試了兩個替代中介模型來證明。 模型1是為了評估了兩個support function該被視為內生變量(依變量)還是外生變量(自變量)，在原本的figure 2中support function是被視為依變數，因此這個模型則把support fuction作為自變數，即翻轉support與標準之間的關係，將標準作為support與顧客導向之間的中介變數 而模型2是為了檢查標準是否會由support function部分中介，因此加上在標準與顧客導向之間加上直接鏈結。

18 Results Model 1 : (5, N＝26) ＝ 9.10 , p = .11, CFI = .90, RMR = .04
Post Hoc Analyses -- An alternative moderating model. Model 1 : (5, N＝26) ＝ 9.10 , p = .11, CFI = .90, RMR = .04 Model 2 : (4, N＝26) ＝ 5.65 , p = .23, CFI = .96, RMR = .02 Figure 2: (5, N＝26) ＝ 5.19, p = .39, CFI = 1.00, RMR = .02 Although both fit the data well, the hypothesized model presented as Figure 2 best captures the data in this study. 結果顯示雖然兩個模型的卡方檢定都是不顯著的表示數據與模型配適，但相較於假設模型如figure 2所呈現的還是有比較好的配飾度

19 Results Post Hoc Analyses -- An alternative moderating model.
It is also possible that the support functions act as moderating influences between standards for service and customer orientation. A four-step regression equation was used to test for interactive effects. 作者又指出支持功能也可能會扮演服務標準與顧客導向之間的調節變數 為了測試這個可能性，遵循Baron and Kenny (1986)的建議，將顧客導向作為唯一依變量，在分析中省去了顧客導向與顧客滿意度之間的關係 使用四步回歸方程來測試交互效應。 第一：加入服務標準 第二：加入supervisor support 第三：加入coworker support 最後：Standards Ｘ Coworker Support 及Standards Ｘ Supervisor Support 被加入

20 Results Post Hoc Analyses -- An alternative moderating model.
如table 2 所示，p value都不顯著，表示增加support function作為調節變數後，服務標準與顧客導向之間的關係並不顯著 這些事後分析指出，不論是透過支持功能完全調節或部分中介，相較於figure 2的假設模型都沒有提供好的配飾度。 Ｒ：模型配飾度 Ｒ改變量：顯示模式適合度時 ，R2的改變量 越大越好

21 Results Post Hoc Analyses -- Influence of perceived organizational support. As prior research would suggest (cf. Eisenberger et al., 1990), the alternative model fit the data well (3, N＝26) ＝ 3.98 , p = .26 CFI = .97, RMR = .03 But did not demonstrate a superior fit to the hypothesized model presented as Figure 2. 單一維度的組織支持 作者為了測試感知組織支持的影響，利用E學者單一維度的組織支持，替換掉coworker和supervisor support，來測試將感知維度分為兩個維度的效用。 如同先前的研究表明雖然模型具有好事配度，但FIGURE 2表現得配飾度更佳

22 Discussion Customer satisfaction is related directly and indirectly to a number of service-related factors Some factors are under management’s control Other factors rest solely with the front-line serviece providers 整個實驗的研究結果可以看出，顧客滿意度會直接或間接的受到很多與服務相關的因素所影響，有些因素是在管理的控制之下，而有的因素僅僅只與第一線的服務提供者相關

23 Discussion 我們可以進一步的分析實驗最後的結果。從上面完全中介的模型中可以看出主要四點，第一，標準會影響個體看待自己與服務相關責任的方式（也就是說如果員工了解組織對於服務的目標以及標準在其中的重要性的話，那他們就會更好地進行服務），但是模型中服務功能作為標準對於顧客導向的中介作用就表示出僅僅有標準是不夠的，而來自同伴或是上司對於標準的支持和引導才能導致更好的服務導向。 不過我們要注意到，當標準提高時，來自上司的支持是明顯高於同伴支持的。 第二點是，同伴的支持顯著影響顧客導向，而上司的支持卻沒有 。原因可能在於，在服務環境中，員工對支持性同伴的存在感知會使得他對顧客更加的用心。意味著，我們如果要員工更好地服務顧客的話，可以建立互助性的同伴小組。 第三點是，顧客對於服務的滿意度與顧客導向的水平是顯著正相關的 最後一點是，通過測試不同模型，我們認為本模型更加適合我們的假設與數據。

24 Future Research Assess the relationship between standards, support, custmer orientation, customer satisfaction, and additional measures of performance beyond customer satisfaction, such as employee performance or firm performance Secure a matched sample of employees, managerial , and customer responses to test this model entirely at the individual level Increase the sample to organizational level or individual level