Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association

2007, Vol. 92, No. 4, 1177–1187 0021-9010/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1177

An Examination of the Role of Perceived Support and Employee

Commitment in Employee–Customer Encounters

Christian Vandenberghe Kathleen Bentein

École des Hautes Études Commerciales Université du Québec à Montréal

Richard Michon Jean-Charles Chebat

Ryerson University École des Hautes Études Commerciales and Reims Management
School

Michel Tremblay Jean-François Fils

École des Hautes Études Commerciales Université Catholique de Louvain

The authors examined the relationships between perceived organizational support, organizational com-
mitment, commitment to customers, and service quality in a fast-food firm. The research design matched
customer responses with individual employees’ attitudes, making this study a true test of the service
provider– customer encounter. On the basis of a sample of matched employee– customer data (N ⫽ 133),
hierarchical linear modeling analyses revealed that perceived organizational support had both a unit-level
and an employee-level effect on 1 dimension of service quality: helping behavior. Contrary to affective
organizational commitment, affective commitment to customers enhanced service quality. The 2 subdi-
mensions of continuance commitment to the organization—perceived high sacrifice and perceived lack
of alternatives— exerted effects opposite in sign: The former fostered service quality, whereas the latter
reduced it. The implications of these findings are discussed within the context of research on employee–
customer encounters.

Keywords: perceived organizational support, organizational committment, commitment to customers,

service quality

Western economies are increasingly dominated by services, burger in a fast-food restaurant or purchasing a ticket from an
which has stimulated employee– customer linkage research during airline company (Gutek, Bhappu, Liao-Troth, & Cherry, 1999).
the past decade (Pugh, Dietz, Wiley, & Brooks, 2002) and has The challenge of organizations providing services through en-
encouraged researchers to identify the driving forces that lead to counters is to keep customer-contact employees motivated to
higher customer satisfaction and loyalty (Snipes, Oswald, LaTour, maintain a reliable and constant quality of service. In pursuing this
& Armenakis, 2005). Service firms are increasingly using encoun- objective, organizations typically use display rules that prescribe
ters as the vehicle to deliver services. Encounters refer to situations the emotions to be expressed during encounters (Rafaeli & Sutton,
in which the service is designed to be quick, reliable, and of a 1987; Sutton & Rafaeli, 1988; Wilk & Moynihan, 2005). These
standard quality; is purported to address customers’ instrumental emotions are thought to lead, through contagion processes, to
needs; and occurs when the service provider and customer do not positive evaluations of services by customers (Grandey, Fisk,
expect to interact again in the future (Gutek, Groth, & Cherry, Mattila, Jansen, & Sideman, 2005; Pugh, 2001; Rafaeli & Sutton,
2002). Examples of service encounters include buying a ham- 1990; Tan, Foo, & Kwek, 2004; Tsai & Huang, 2002). However,
because employees in firms providing services through encounters
are not empowered to provide reliable and high-quality services
Christian Vandenberghe, Department of Management, École des Hautes (Gutek et al., 2002), the extent to which they comply with emo-
Études Commerciales, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Kathleen Bentein, De- tional display rules is uncertain. An indicator of such a disposition
partment of Organization and Human Resources, Université du Québec à might be found in employees’ attitudes in the workplace, particu-
Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Richard Michon, School of Retail larly commitment. In support of this view, Gosserand and Dief-
Management, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Jean-Charles endorff (2005) found that emotional display rules were related to
Chebat, Department of Marketing, École des Hautes Études Commerciales, high affective delivery of services only if employees were com-
and Reims Management School, Reims, France; Michel Tremblay, Depart- mitted to these rules. Similarly, when employees feel supported by
ment of Human Resource Management, École des Hautes Études Com-
their organization, they are also more inclined to perform better
merciales; Jean-François Fils, Department of Psychology, Université
Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
during encounters (Susskind, Kacmar, & Borchgrevink, 2003).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christian The purpose of this study was to examine the role of customer-
Vandenberghe, École des Hautes Études Commerciales, 3000, Chemin de contact employees’ attitudes toward the organization and its custom-
la Côte Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3T 2A7. E-mail: ers in the achievement of service quality within the fast-food industry,
christian.vandenberghe@hec.ca a context in which services are typically provided through encounters.

1177
1178 RESEARCH REPORTS

We postulated that perceived organizational support (POS), organi- al., 1997). In their review, Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) found
zational commitment, and commitment to customers will influence POS to be positively related to in-role and extrarole performance
the effective delivery of services as perceived by customers. and negatively associated with intended and actual turnover.
Aside from its function as a catalyst of social exchange processes,
Employee Attitudes and Service Quality POS may also “serve as a socio-emotional resource for employees”
(Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Lynch, 1998, p. 289). Armeli et al.
Most research on the service provider– customer linkage has (1998) found that POS was more strongly associated with work
adopted a unit-level framework. This research has shown that performance among police patrol officers when their need for socio-
employee satisfaction or commitment was significantly related to emotional support was stronger. The need for support might also be
such outcomes as customer satisfaction (Harter, Schmidt, & salient for contact employees providing services through encounters
Hayes, 2002; Koys, 2001; Ryan, Schmit, & Johnson, 1996), dis- because they have to expend efforts at constantly displaying pre-
cretionary service behavior (Simons & Roberson, 2003), and ser- scribed emotions (Grandey, 2003) and have little freedom in how to
vice quality (Schmit & Allscheid, 1995). Related findings within deliver services (Gutek et al., 2002). According to the conservation of
this line of research include the positive associations reported resources theory (Hobfoll, 1998; Hobfoll & Freedy, 1993), the inter-
between climate for service and customer perceptions of service personal job demands typically experienced by service employees
quality (Johnson, 1996; Rogg, Schmidt, Shull, & Schmitt, 2001; constrain them to tap into their resources. To the extent that the efforts
Schneider & Bowen, 1985; Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998), and produced result in the depletion of one’s energy, emotional exhaustion
between team maturity and effectiveness and customer satisfaction and reduced performance will ensue (Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne,
(Subramony, Beehr, & Johnson, 2004). There is thus compelling 2003; Schaufeli & Buunk, 1996). POS thus “provides resources that
evidence suggesting that aggregate employee attitudes influence enable workers to accomplish work objectives” (Hochwarter, Witt,
service quality in a variety of contexts. Treadway, & Ferris, 2006, p. 483), thereby helping contact employees
Although interesting, these studies did not address the individual maintain service quality. On the other hand, perceptions of support
service provider– customer encounter, which is a key aspect of tend to be collectively shared by employees within the same unit.
services because contact employees are boundary spanners who These perceptions are often included as an element of a climate for
interact with customers on an individual basis (Chung & Schnei- service contributing to customer satisfaction (Johnson, 1996; Schmit
der, 2002; Payne & Webber, 2006). To address this question, one & Allscheid, 1995; Schneider et al., 1998; Susskind et al., 2003). We
needs to go beyond shared perceptions to examine the service thus expect POS to affect customer perceptions of service quality at
provider– customer encounter at the employee level, which only a both the employee- and the unit- (i.e., restaurant) level.
few studies have done. For example, Masterson (2001) found
students’ perceptions of their instructors’ efforts and prosocial Hypothesis 1a: Employee-level POS will be positively related
behaviors to be related to the instructors’ reports of organizational to service quality.
commitment. Homburg and Stock (2004) showed that salespeo-
ple’s job satisfaction affected customer satisfaction in dyadic re- Hypothesis 1b: Unit-level POS will be positively related to
lationships within a business-to-business environment. Other stud- service quality after controlling for employee-level POS.
ies reported customer-oriented attitudes and behaviors and job
satisfaction to be related to service quality (Snipes et al., 2005; Organizational Commitment
Stock & Hoyer, 2005), service-oriented organizational citizenship Organizational commitment has been shown to be a strong
behaviors, and customer satisfaction and loyalty (Payne & Web- predictor of a variety of work outcomes, including intended and
ber, 2006). However, these studies were conducted within “service actual turnover and in-role and extrarole performance (Mathieu &
relationships” environments in which providers and customers Zajac, 1990; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).
have repeated interactions over time, not within service encounters We contend that it should also be predictive of customer reactions,
contexts. The objective of the present study was to extend this particularly at the employee level. The dominant framework in the
research by building on well-known frameworks of individual literature, Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model, pro-
attitudes to predict service quality in fast-food restaurants. vides a strong basis for delineating the proposed effects of com-
mitment on service quality. Affective commitment (AC) indicates
Perceived Organizational Support an emotional bond between the employee and the organization that
is based on identification with the organization’s goals and values.
Researchers conceive the employment relationship as an ex- Research has shown that such commitment is facilitated by the
change of effort and loyalty against the receipt of material and positive work experiences provided by the organization (Meyer et
psychological benefits (Blau, 1964; Etzioni, 1961; Mowday, Por- al., 2002). In a service context, affectively committed individuals
ter, & Steers, 1982). According to the norm of reciprocity that will tend to help the organization provide quality services (Allen &
underlies social exchange processes in organizations (Gouldner, Grisaffe, 2001).
1960), employees are expected to reciprocate the favorable treat-
ment received from their employer by producing higher perfor- Hypothesis 2: Organizational AC will be positively related to
mance (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997). Accord- service quality.
ingly, research has shown that (a) employees form global
perceptions of the extent to which they are valued and cared about Continuance commitment (CC) reflects commitment based on
by the organization (POS; Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & the perceived costs of leaving the organization. Since the original
Sowa, 1986) and (b) use such perceptions as a basis for determin- proposition, research has shown that two subdimensions better
ing the strength of their obligations to reciprocate (Eisenberger et characterize CC: (a) the perceived sacrifice associated with leaving
 RESEARCH REPORTS 1179

(HiSac) and (b) the costs resulting from a lack of employment alter- expectations might be relationship-oriented (Bansal, Irving, &
natives (LoAlt; Bentein, Vandenberg, Vandenberghe, & Stinglham- Taylor, 2004; Dube & Shoemaker, 2000; Mohr & Bitner, 1995), as
ber, 2005; Jaros, 1997; McGee & Ford, 1987; Meyer, Allen, & illustrated by research on employees’ customer orientation (Peccei
Gellatly, 1990; Powell & Meyer, 2004). HiSac and LoAlt consistently & Rosenthal, 1997; Stock & Hoyer, 2005). However, no study has
have been found to be related to one another but differentially related addressed the possibility that employee attitudes toward customers
to other constructs. Although they have never been studied in relation can take different forms. On the basis of the generalized model of
with service quality, it is likely that they will relate to it differentially. employee commitment (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001), we argue
First, the notion of sacrifice underlying HiSac refers to a variety of ties that the three-component model provides a useful basis for depict-
with the organization, with one set being instrumental but others being ing employees’ attitudes toward customers.
motivational. In the latter case, the ties reflect the fact that the
AC to customers should reflect a mindset of desire to pursue a
individual has invested a lot of him- or herself in the job or the
course of action of relevance to customers, such as exerting extra
organization. This is in line with work by Mitchell, Holtom, Lee,
effort to satisfy their expectations. In line with research on emo-
Sablynski, and Erez (2001) on job embeddedness, according to which
tions in service encounters (Homburg & Stock, 2004; Pugh, 2001;
the organization-related sacrifice factor includes such motives as
having freedom in doing one’s job, being respected by and enjoying Tsai & Huang, 2002), we expect employees with a strong AC to
positive relations with one’s coworkers, or having good promotional customers to experience positive emotions that will be transmitted
opportunities. All these aspects should be associated with a strong to customers through a process of emotional contagion. AC to
motivation to complete one’s tasks effectively and thus characterize a customers, thus, should be positively related to customer percep-
positive inclination toward satisfying customers in the context of this tions of service quality, which is consistent with the finding that
study. The reverse might be true for LoAlt, which reveals negative AC to customers among sales executives is related to customer-
perceptions regarding opportunities in the external environment. relevant objective performance (Siders et al., 2001). NC to cus-
Those staying with their organization because of a lack of alternatives tomers implies a perceived obligation to meet the customers’
may feel trapped, which makes them more anxious and less willing to expectations. In line with the arguments of Meyer et al. (2004), the
invest themselves in providing quality services to customers. The somewhat externally controlled form of motivation accompanying
preceding discussion leads to the following hypotheses: NC to customers should increase service performance because it
helps employees gain respect from customers and, hence, pro-
Hypothesis 3a: HiSac will be positively related to service motes their sense of self-worth. Finally, CC to customers can be
quality. viewed as being based on the perceived cost of failing to pursue a
Hypothesis 3b: LoAlt will be negatively related to service course of action of relevance to customers, such as meeting their
quality. expectations.1 The motivational mindset accompanying CC to
customers would thus be one of providing services of minimal
Normative commitment (NC) is the last commitment form. NC quality to prevent customers from becoming dissatisfied. Together,
refers to a loyalty driven by a sense of moral obligation toward the these arguments led to the following hypotheses:
organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Research has shown that it is
positively associated with in-role and extrarole performance Hypothesis 5a: AC to customers will be positively related to
(Meyer et al., 2002). Accordingly, we expected NC to be posi- service quality.
tively related to service performance in the present study. As
highlighted by Meyer, Becker, and Vandenberghe (2004), employ- Hypothesis 5b: NC to customers will be positively related to
ees with a strong NC tend to introject the organization’s goals and service quality.
work toward their accomplishment through a sense of obligation.
In so doing, they experience a “motivational mindset” that is Hypothesis 5c: CC to customers will be unrelated to service
somewhat externally controlled. However, their motivated behav- quality.
ior is sustained by the sense of self-worth they derive from gaining
the organization’s respect. Although the motivational basis under-
lying NC is less strong than the identification motive underlying
1
AC, its effect on behavior should nonetheless be positive. We thus Note that our measure of CC to customers does not include a distinc-
made the following hypothesis: tion between sacrifices and alternatives, as is the case for CC to the
organization. Conceptually, we view CC to customers as the perceived cost
Hypothesis 4: Organizational NC will be positively related to of failing to meet customers’ expectations. This is reflected in the content
service quality. of the items of this scale as reported in the Appendix. Future research
should determine whether a distinction between sacrifices and alternatives
should be made within the construct domain of CC to customers. As noted
Commitment to Customers by an anonymous reviewer of this article—whom we thank for the sug-
gestion—the alternatives component of CC to customers may derive from
As boundary spanners, service employees are likely to experi-
employees perceiving few alternatives within the restaurant to serving
ence a dual commitment, that is, to both the organization and
customers (e.g., working at the grill, stocking materials, etc.). On the other
customers (Chung & Schneider, 2002). Because customers are hand, HiSac to customers could be conceptualized as the extent to which
external to the organization, the nature and strength of employees’ employees perceive that there are sacrifices associated with failing to meet
commitment to them should be particularly relevant for predicting customers’ expectations. Clearly, our conceptualization of CC to customers
the extent to which they will try to meet the goals and expectations departed from the content domain of these potential subcomponents of the
of customers (Siders, George, & Dharwadkar, 2001). One of these construct.
1180 RESEARCH REPORTS

Method back-translated by a second translator (Brislin, 1980). The human

resources department staff added a 13th item: “This employee was
Sample and Procedure considerate toward me.”
The study was conducted in 12 restaurants of a fast-food firm Employee attitudes. POS was measured via a French version
located in Belgium. We met with the human resources department (Vandenberghe & Peiro, 1999) of the eight-item Survey of POS
staff to plan the survey and build the measure of service quality. The originally developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986). We used the
study was conducted between January and April 2001. A student met French version of the organizational commitment scales developed
restaurant managers and left them a specified number of envelopes by Bentein et al. (2005) to measure Meyer and Allen’s (1991)
including questionnaires to be distributed to employees. A cover letter commitment forms. AC and NC were measured via six items, and
explained that the study was about employee attitudes and invited HiSac and LoAlt were captured by three items. Note that one item
employees to fill out the questionnaire and then to return it to the was removed from the HiSac scale because it reduced the scale
researchers’ office using a prepaid envelope. Employees were in- reliability. To measure commitment to customers, we used a
formed that customers would be surveyed later about their satisfaction measure of the three-component model of commitment targeted to
with the restaurant and food in general. After 2 weeks, the student customers (Stinglhamber, Bentein, & Vandenberghe, 2002): AC
asked managers to verbally remind employees to respond. A few days and NC were captured by six items, and CC was measured via five
after the employee surveys were completed, the student spent 3 items. The full commitment scales are provided in the Appendix.
consecutive days (Friday–Sunday) at each restaurant to deliver cus- A 5-point Likert scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree; 5 ⫽ strongly
tomer surveys. He stayed behind the queues that faced the cash desks agree) was used for all items.
and distributed the survey to customers personally after they were Control variables. Employee sex, organizational tenure, em-
served. Customers were informed that the survey asked about their ployment status (⬍20 hr worked per week vs. ⱖ20 hr or more), type
perception of the service provided by the employee who served them. of labor contract (student contract vs. regular contract), and size of
Customers seated themselves somewhere in the restaurant to eat, then restaurant (number of staff employed) were used as controls.
filled out the questionnaire and left it in a sealed box at the exit door.
Cashier and customer questionnaires were coded to allow their pair-
ing. For each cashier, 10 randomly selected customers received the
Analyses
service quality questionnaire. To determine whether customers agreed reasonably well in their
In total, 420 employee questionnaires were distributed. Among evaluations of service interactions with target employees, we used
them, 266 were sent back (63.34%). Among respondents, 133 were the average mean deviation (ADM) index of agreement suggested
cashiers (contact employees). The customer surveys were distrib- by Burke and colleagues (Burke & Dunlap, 2002; Burke, Finkel-
uted to 1,976 customers. Of those, 1,774 participated (89.78%). stein, & Dusig, 1999; Dunlap, Burke, & Smith-Crowe, 2003). The
Overall, 1,116 customer surveys could be matched to the 133 ADM index is a measure of average absolute deviation relative to
cashiers, for an average 8.39 customers per employee. The average the mean of scores provided by independent raters on a scale or
number of employee responses per restaurant was 11.09 (range ⫽ item and was preferred over the rwg index because “it allows for a
7–19), whereas the average size of restaurants in terms of staff clear conceptualization of agreement in the metric of the original
employed was 35 (range ⫽ 28 –39). scale” (Goldberg, Finkelstein, Perry, & Konrad, 2004, p. 814).
Although we were not able to collect information regarding em- Smaller ADM indices indicate stronger agreement among raters.
ployee age in the employee survey, information received from the
Burke and Dunlap (2002) suggested .83 as a critical value from
human resources department revealed that the overall population
both a practical and a statistical standpoint for determining the
working in the restaurants was young, with 24.70% younger than 20
agreement among raters who use a 5-point Likert scale. Ideally,
years of age, 29.80% aged 20 –21, 27.70% aged 22–24, and 17.80%
each item should display an ADM value of .83 or below for every
aged 25 or older. Within the sample of 133 cashiers retained for
employee being rated by customers. As there might be variation in
substantive analyses, 53% were female, average organizational tenure
the level of agreement among raters from one item to another, we
was 1.01 years (SD ⫽ 1.42), 63.4% worked fewer than 20 hours per
used the rule of thumb that the mean ADM index for each item
week, and the remaining 34.6% worked more than 20 hours per week;
should be .83 or less. We report the mean ADM values across items
66.2% had school demands in addition to their work.2
in Table 1. All values are below .83, except for one item that we
dropped from the analyses. In addition, we calculated the intraclass
Measures correlation (ICC[1]) for the two factors reported in Table 1. In this
Service quality. We used the SERVPERF scale of the SERV- study, ICC(1) represented an estimate of the proportion of variance
QUAL (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988) as the starting point in the evaluations of customers that is accounted for by the
for developing scale items. The SERVPERF measures the extent to employee (N ⫽ 133) to whom they referred. The ICC(1) values
which customers perceive employees as performing a series of service (.20 and .18, respectively) compared favorably with those reported
behaviors (Brady, Cronin, & Brand, 2001; Cronin & Taylor, 1992). in similar studies (cf. Schneider et al., 1998; Susskind et al., 2003).
Two criteria guided our work in adapting the scale to the purpose of
this study. First, the items had to fit the fast-food industry, which is 2
Workers who have school demands in addition to their job are em-
characterized by brief but numerous contacts between service em- ployed under a specific labor contract often called a “student contract” in
ployees and customers. Second, the items had to describe the behavior Belgium. These contracts are popular because employers’ social security
of individual employees. Among the 22 SERVPERF items, 12 were contributions, which, according to Belgian law, are calculated as a per-
judged as relevant to the industry context. They were slightly adapted centage of employees’ salaries, are lower. Hiring students, therefore,
and then translated into French by a first translator and independently reduces overhead costs.
 RESEARCH REPORTS 1181

Table 1
Principal Components Analysis of Service Quality Items

Helping
Item Self-presentation behavior Mean ADM SD

1. This employee was neat-appearing .86 .23 .57 .28

2. The appearance of this employee did inspire me with confidence .80 .08 .82 .26
3. This employee was courteous with me .72 ⫺.14 .64 .27
4. This employee felt at ease with me .70 ⫺.12 .73 .28
5. This employee had the knowledge to answer my questions .59 ⫺.37 .65 .25
6. This employee gave me personal attention .54 ⫺.20 .75 .30
7. This employee gave me prompt service .36 ⫺.36 .60 .30
8. This employee was never too busy to answer my requests ⫺.17 ⫺.90 .79 .29
9. When I had a problem, this employee showed a sincere interest in solving it .05 ⫺.82 .77 .27
10. This employee was always willing to help me .12 ⫺.77 .67 .23
11. This employee understood my specific needs .07 ⫺.77 .82 .26
12. This employee was considerate towards me .46 ⫺.47 .71 .24

Note. N ⫽ 133. Item main loadings are underlined. ADM ⫽ average deviation agreement index.

The structure of the 12 service quality items that reflected consen- This provides good evidence that commitment dimensions were
sual assessments among customers was examined at the employee distinguishable across forms and foci in this study.
level through principal components analysis using an oblique rotation. Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations for the
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. Two factors with study variables. All variables displayed good internal consistency
eigenvalues greater than unity (5.87 and 1.44, respectively, account- (␣s ⬎ .70). Correlations among independent variables were low to
ing for an overall amount of 60.84% of the variance) were extracted. moderate, with only the correlation between organizational AC
The first factor (6 items) dealt with the general appearance and and NC exceeding .50 (r ⫽ .52, p ⬍ .01 [one-tailed]). Also, the
presentation of employees toward customers, which we labeled Self- two service quality dimensions were only moderately associated
presentation. The second factor (4 items) referred to the extent to with one another (r ⫽ .49, p ⬍ .01 [one-tailed]), signaling that they
which employees were responsive to customer needs. We called it tapped into separate domains. Finally, one dimension of service
Helping Behavior. Two items were excluded from further analyses quality, helping behavior, but not the other, was significantly
because of a substantial cross-loading (Item 12) or main loading being associated with two theorized predictors, that is, POS (r ⫽ .23, p ⬍
less than .40 (Item 7; see Table 1). .01 [one-tailed]) and HiSac (r ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .05 [one-tailed]), in the
Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to examine the direction predicted by Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 3a.
relationships between predictors and customer data (Raudenbush & The results of HLM analyses are presented in Tables 4 and 5. For
Bryk, 2002). HLM is suitable for analyzing data at multiple levels and self-presentation, although POS exerted no effect at the restaurant
accounts for the nesting of data at different levels. In the present study, level, the Level 2 variance component was significant, ␹2(10, N ⫽
customer data and employee responses were nested within restau-
12) ⫽ 48.13, p ⬍ .01, suggesting that there was significant variation
rants. Although customer data are nested within employees, the rela-
across restaurants on self-presentation. The pooled Level 1 predictors
tionships between employee variables and service quality were not
explained a small 10% of the variance of self-presentation (ns),
handled at the customer level because there was no independent
leaving a large amount of its variance unexplained. For helping
variable at that level. Our HLM thus included two levels, the em-
behavior, the HLM analysis also revealed significant variation across
ployee and restaurant levels, and used dependent variables derived
restaurants, as exemplified by its significant (Level 2) between-groups
from customer responses aggregated at the employee level. All Level
variance component, ␹2(10, N ⫽ 12) ⫽ 22.71, p ⬍ .01. Its associated
1 variables were grand-mean centered, as recommended by Hofmann
and Gavin (1998). We first ran the HLM using our control and R2 was 22% ( p ⬍ .001), indicating that the model accounted for a
independent variables as predictors. As none of the control variables sizeable amount of variance of helping behavior.3 It is obvious from
proved to be significant, they were dropped from the models. these results that helping behavior is better explained by our HLM
analysis than self-presentation.
Level 1 POS had no effect on self-presentation, ␥ ⫽ .02, t(111) ⫽
Results
.49, ns (one-tailed), but was significantly related to helping behavior,
We examined the dimensionality of commitment items using
confirmatory factor analysis. Because of the small sample size
3
(N ⫽ 133), we created three indicators per commitment construct Rather than using pseudo-R2 estimates, the effect size assessments for
by balancing the quality and content of the items (Drasgow & self-presentation and helping behavior were derived from ordinary least
squares (OLS) regression. As noted by Hofmann, Morgeson, and Gerras
Kanfer, 1985). Results are presented in Table 2. The seven-factor
(2003), OLS regression provides an unbiased assessment of the percentage
model yielded a good fit, ␹2(149, N ⫽ 133) ⫽ 221.129, p ⬍ .001, of variance accounted for by a model, which may not be the case for model
comparative fit index (CFI) ⫽ .96, nonnormed fit index (NNFI) ⫽ parameters. We preferred this approach to using available pseudo-R2,
.95, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) ⫽ .05, whose computation differs depending on the formula proposed by authors
and was superior to any simpler representation of the data as (e.g., Kreft & de Leeuw, 1998; Snijders & Bosker, 1999) and whose
obtained by merging factors on a two-by-two basis ( p ⬍ .001). meaning is different from the R2 obtained via OLS regression.
1182 RESEARCH REPORTS

Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Fit Indices for Commitment Models

Model ␹2 df CFI NNFI RMSEA ⌬␹2 ⌬df

***
1. Seven-factor 221.129 149 .96 .95 .05
2. Six-factor (HiSac & LoAlt ⫽ 1 factor) 340.507*** 155 .90 .88 .09 119.378*** 6
3. Six-factor (AC-ORG & NC-ORG ⫽ 1 factor) 291.851*** 155 .93 .91 .08 70.722*** 6
4. Six-factor (AC-CUS & NC-CUS ⫽ 1 factor) 313.198*** 155 .92 .90 .09 92.069*** 6
5. Six-factor (AC-ORG & AC-CUS ⫽ 1 factor) 310.851*** 155 .92 .90 .09 89.722*** 6
6. Six-factor (NC-ORG & NC-CUS ⫽ 1 factor) 371.653*** 155 .89 .86 .10 150.524*** 6
7. Five-factor (HiSac, LoAlt, & CC-CUS ⫽ 1 factor) 404.486*** 160 .87 .85 .11 183.357*** 11
8. Four-factor (AC-ORG, NC-ORG, HiSac, & LoAlt ⫽ 1
factor) 443.707*** 164 .86 .83 .12 222.578*** 15
9. Five-factor (AC-CUS, NC-CUS, CC-CUS ⫽ 1 factor) 445.632*** 160 .85 .82 .13 224.503*** 11
10. One-factor 759.963*** 170 .69 .66 .18 538.834*** 21

Note. N ⫽ 133. CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; NNFI ⫽ nonnormed fit index; RMSEA ⫽ root-mean-square error of approximation; AC-ORG ⫽ affective
commitment to the organization; NC-ORG ⫽ normative commitment to the organization; HiSac ⫽ continuance commitment ⫺ high sacrifice; LoAlt ⫽
continuance commitment ⫺ perceived lack of alternatives; AC-CUS ⫽ affective commitment to customers; NC-CUS ⫽ normative commitment to
customers; CC-CUS ⫽ continuance commitment to customers. Values reported in the ⌬␹2 column refer to contrasts with the seven-factor model.
***
p ⬍ .001.

␥ ⫽ .06, t(111) ⫽ 2.04, p ⬍ .05 (one-tailed). Hypothesis 1a was thus tailed), and helping behavior, ␥ ⫽ .07, t(111) ⫽ 2.81, p ⬍ .01
partly supported. Using the intercepts-as-outcomes model (Hofmann, (one-tailed). Hypothesis 3a was thus supported. On the other
Griffin, & Gavin, 2000), Level 2 POS was again unrelated to self- hand, LoAlt was negatively related to both self-presentation,
presentation, ␥ ⫽ –.02, t(10) ⫽ –.12, ns (one-tailed), yet exerted a ␥ ⫽ –.05, t(111) ⫽ –1.90, p ⬍ .05 (one-tailed), and helping
significant effect on helping behavior, ␥ ⫽ .23, t(10) ⫽ 2.36, p ⬍ .05 behavior, ␥ ⫽ –.05, t(111) ⫽ –1.82, p ⬍ .05 (one-tailed),
(one-tailed), suggesting that the restaurant-level POS influenced the supporting Hypothesis 3b. Counter to Hypothesis 4, organiza-
extent to which employees exhibited helping behavior. Hypothesis 1b tional NC was unrelated to both self-presentation, ␥ ⫽ –.01,
was thus partly supported. t(111) ⫽ –.26, ns (one-tailed), and helping behavior, ␥ ⫽ –.04,
Counter to Hypothesis 2, organizational AC was not signif- t(111) ⫽ –1.03, ns (one-tailed). AC to customers was positively
icantly related to self-presentation, ␥ ⫽ –.09, t(111) ⫽ –2.33, ns related to both self-presentation, ␥ ⫽ .09, t(111) ⫽ 2.19, p ⬍
(one-tailed), nor to helping behavior, ␥ ⫽ –.12, t(111) ⫽ –3.04, .05 (one-tailed), and helping behavior, ␥ ⫽ .08, t(111) ⫽ 1.82,
ns (one-tailed). We also predicted that HiSac would be p ⬍ .05 (one-tailed), lending support to Hypothesis 5a. NC to
positively and LoAlt negatively related to service quality customers had no effect on self-presentation, ␥ ⫽ –.01,
(see Hypotheses 3a and 3b). HiSac was significantly related to t(111) ⫽ –.31, ns (one-tailed), or on helping behavior, ␥ ⫽ –.04,
both self-presentation, ␥ ⫽ .04, t(111) ⫽ 1.67, p ⬍ .05 (one- t(111) ⫽ –.92, ns (one-tailed), disconfirming Hypothesis 5b.

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for the Study Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Sex 1.47 0.50 —

2. Organizational
tenure 1.01 1.42 ⫺.02 —
3. Employment status 1.37 0.48 .07 .19† —
4. Type of contract 1.34 0.48 .06 .17† .81†† —
5. Size of restaurant 33.97 3.59 .23†† .03 ⫺.14 ⫺.15† —
6. POS 2.87 0.97 ⫺.11 ⫺.17† .07 .09 .07 (.93)
7. Organizational AC 2.82 0.84 .07 ⫺.09 ⫺.03 .02 ⫺.12 .42†† (.78)
8. Organizational NC 2.36 0.98 .06 ⫺.20† .04 ⫺.01 ⫺.17† .38†† .52†† (.84)
9. HiSac 2.63 1.20 .07 ⫺.10 ⫺.22† ⫺.20† ⫺.06 .18† .30†† .42†† (.73)
10. LoAlt 2.19 1.09 ⫺.05 .02 .08 .02 .19† ⫺.15† ⫺.27†† ⫺.12 .14 (.77)
11. AC to customers 2.93 0.79 .09 ⫺.07 .19† .20† .01 .32†† .40†† .39†† .16† ⫺.02 (.74)
12. NC to customers 3.86 0.79 .10 ⫺.03 .06 .10 .12 .25†† .23†† .17† .26†† ⫺.05 .40†† (.78)
13. CC to customers 2.05 0.92 .03 ⫺.10 ⫺.05 ⫺.07 ⫺.03 .26†† .35†† .48†† .31†† .05 .43†† .09 (.86)
14. Self-presentation 4.14 0.31 ⫺.09 .08 .12 .13 .03 .00 ⫺.10 ⫺.02 .04 ⫺.10 .11 .06 ⫺.10 (.84)
15. Helping behavior 3.98 0.33 ⫺.05 .06 ⫺.07 ⫺.12 .03 .23†† ⫺.10 ⫺.04 .18† ⫺.12 .11 .02 .07 .49†† (.85)

Note. ns ⫽ 121–133. Alpha coefficients are reported in parentheses on the diagonal. For sex, 1 ⫽ female, 2 ⫽ male; for employment status, 1 ⫽ fewer
than 20 hours worked per week, 2 ⫽ 20 hours or more worked per week. For type of contract, 1 ⫽ student; 2 ⫽ regular employee. Self-presentation and
helping behavior represent aggregate perceptions of customers regarding these aspects of the quality of service received from employees. POS ⫽ perceived
organizational support; AC ⫽ affective commitment; NC ⫽ normative commitment; HiSac ⫽ continuance commitment ⫺ high sacrifice; LoAlt ⫽
continuance commitment ⫺ perceived lack of alternatives.
†
p ⬍ .05 (one-tailed). †† p ⬍ .01 (one-tailed).
 RESEARCH REPORTS 1183

Table 4 examine whether personality traits are differentially related to

Results of Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analysis Predicting self-presentation and helping behavior.
Self-Presentation POS was positively related to helping behavior both at the
restaurant level and at the employee level.4 Its influence at the
Unstandardized
restaurant level is consistent with research finding supportive
Variable coefficient SE t df
management practices to be a key component of a climate for
Final estimation of fixed effects service leading to customer satisfaction (Johnson, 1996; Schmit &
Allscheid, 1995; Schneider et al., 1998; Susskind et al., 2003). The
Level 1
Intercept 4.17††† .39 10.73 10
fact that POS also acted on helping behavior at the individual level
POS .02 .03 0.49 111 illustrates that it may “serve as a socio-emotional resource for
Organizational AC ⫺.09 .04 ⫺2.33 111 employees” (Armeli et al., 1998, p. 289). Conservation of re-
Organizational NC ⫺.01 .04 ⫺0.26 111 sources theory (Hobfoll, 1998; Hobfoll & Freedy, 1993) states that
HiSac .04† .03 1.67 111
LoAlt ⫺.05† .03 ⫺1.90 111
service employees typically experience chronic interpersonal job
AC to customers .09† .04 2.19 111 demands that lead them to tap into their resources to continue
NC to customers ⫺.01 .04 ⫺0.31 111 working efficiently. The socioemotional needs of such employees
CC to customers ⫺.04 .03 ⫺1.14 111 might be salient within encounter-based firms where they typically
Level 2
POS ⫺.02 .14 ⫺0.12 10 have to comply with role scripts and constantly monitor emotions
R2 .10 (Gosserand & Diefendorff, 2005; Grandey et al., 2005). As an
antidote against resource depletion (Hochwarter et al., 2006), POS
Variance may help contact employees maintain service performance (Cro-
component ␹2 df
panzano et al., 2003; Schaufeli & Buunk, 1996). Note that our
Final estimation of variance components finding is at odds with research showing that organizational AC
mediates the effect of POS on work outcomes (e.g., Rhoades,
Level 2 (restaurant mean) .030 48.13†† 10 Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001).5 However, these views are not
Level 1 variables .072
incompatible. That is, POS’s role as a socioemotional resource
Note. The HLM model for customers’ perception of employee self- might be more relevant for predicting service performance,
presentation is as follows: Level 1: Self-presentation ⫽ ␤0 ⫹ ␤1 (POS) ⫹ whereas its social exchange function might be more influential on
␤2 (Organizational AC) ⫹ ␤3 (Organizational NC) ⫹ ␤4 (HiSac) ⫹ ␤5 organization-directed outcomes such as membership decisions. In
(LoAlt) ⫹ ␤6 (AC to customers) ⫹ ␤7 (NC to customers) ⫹ ␤8 (CC to
customers) ⫹ r. Level 2: ␤0 ⫽ ␥00 ⫹ ␥01 (POS) ⫹ u0; ␤1 ⫽ ␥10; ␤2 ⫽ ␥20; the latter case, the effect of POS should be mediated by organi-
␤3 ⫽ ␥30; ␤4 ⫽ ␥40; ␤5 ⫽ ␥50; ␤6 ⫽ ␥60; ␤7 ⫽ ␥70; ␤8 ⫽ ␥80. POS ⫽ zational AC. Future research should examine whether these two
perceived organizational support; AC ⫽ affective commitment; NC ⫽ functions operate simultaneously in service environments.
normative commitment; HiSac ⫽ continuance commitment - high sacri- Counter to predictions, organizational AC was not significantly
fice; LoAlt ⫽ continuance commitment - perceived lack of alternatives.
†
p ⬍ .05 (one-tailed). †† p ⬍ .01 (one-tailed). ††† p ⬍ .001 (one-tailed). associated with service quality. Like Payne and Webber (2006),
who examined the relationship between AC and customer satis-
faction at the employee level, we found that the sign of the
organizational AC–service quality relationships was negative. This
Finally, as predicted by Hypothesis 5c, CC to customers was contradicts the foundations of commitment theory, which states
not significantly related to self-presentation, ␥ ⫽ –.04, t(111) ⫽ that employees with high AC to the organization, due to their
–1.14, ns (one-tailed), or to helping behavior, ␥ ⫽ –.03,
t(111) ⫽ –.74, ns (one-tailed).
4
Note that, contrary to POS, commitment variables were not considered
as potential predictors of service quality at Level 2 in our HLM analyses.
Discussion This is because POS refers to perceptions of the organization’s actions, for
which consensus should exist among employees insofar as the organization
This study counts among the few studies that have addressed the treats its employees in the same manner, and commitment refers to indi-
link between employee attitudes and customers at the individual vidual attitudes that should vary widely across individuals on the basis of
level (e.g., Homburg & Stock, 2004; Payne & Webber, 2006; a variety of influences among which the organization’s actions are only a
Snipes et al., 2005; Stock & Hoyer, 2005). The use of service subset.
quality perceptions from multiple customers and the reliance on 5
We considered the possibility that organizational AC actually mediated
well-established models from organizational behavior, namely the POS–service quality relationship at the individual level by checking
POS and employee commitment, also add to the contribution of whether the four conditions for a mediated effect to be observed were met.
this study. HLM analyses revealed that employee helping behavior These conditions state that (a) the independent variable must be signifi-
was better explained by our independent variables than self- cantly related to the dependent variable, (b) the mediator must be signifi-
presentation. This suggests that other variables than those consid- cantly related to the dependent variable, (c) the independent variable must
be significantly related to the mediator, and (d) the effect of the indepen-
ered in this study might influence self-presentation. For example,
dent variable should be significantly reduced when the effect of the
past research has identified personality as an individual-level de- mediator is controlled for (Baron & Kenny, 1986). For both self-
terminant of service behavior. Using the Big Five personality presentation and helping behavior, at least one of the above conditions was
model, Liao and Chuang (2004) found conscientiousness and not met, suggesting that organizational AC did not mediate the POS–
extraversion to be predictors of employee service performance in service quality relationship in this study. The results of these analyses are
a sample of stores of a restaurant chain. Future research should available on request from the first author.
1184 RESEARCH REPORTS

Table 5 some researchers have treated LoAlt as a potential antecedent to

Results of Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analysis Predicting HiSac (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 2000; Jaros, 1997; McGee & Ford,
Helping Behavior 1987; Powell & Meyer, 2004), we think it may represent the
negative side of CC, which is thought to render employees reluc-
Unstandardized tant to do anything more than the minimum required to maintain
Variable coefficient SE t df
their employment. It is plausible that the mindset of employees
Final estimation of fixed effects with a lack of alternatives is one of entrapment and disgruntlement
that is easily perceived by customers via the service encounter.
Level 1 Besides organizational commitment, commitment to customers
Intercept 3.33††† .28 11.70 10
may be important in the context of service encounters (Payne &
POS .06† .03 2.04 111
Organizational AC ⫺.12 .04 ⫺3.04 111 Webber, 2006). This study found support for the factorial validity
Organizational NC ⫺.04 .04 ⫺1.03 111 of a three-component model of commitment to customers and for
HiSac .07†† .03 2.81 111 its distinctiveness with respect to organizational commitment. AC
LoAlt ⫺.05† .03 ⫺1.82 111 to customers was positively related to service quality. Although
AC to customers .08† .04 1.82 111
NC to customers ⫺.04 .04 ⫺0.92 111 theory helps understand this positive effect (Meyer & Herscovitch,
CC to customers ⫺.03 .04 ⫺0.74 111 2001), more work is needed to fully comprehend the role of its CC
Level 2 and NC counterparts. For example, it might be that the sense of
POS .23† .10 2.36 10 obligation toward customers and the cost incurred from having to
R2 .22
invest time to know their needs are more relevant in service
Variance component ␹2 df relationships contexts where there is a continuing pattern of inter-
actions among employees and customers (Gutek et al., 1999).
Final estimation of variance components This study has limitations. First, our sample was limited in size
(N ⫽ 133). Of course, this constraint made this study a conservative
Level 2 (restaurant mean) .010 22.71†† 10
Level 1 variables .077 test of our hypotheses. Nevertheless, future research should attempt to
collect data over larger samples of employees and customers. Second,
Note. The HLM model for customers’ perception of employee helping there is a need to investigate whether the present findings could be
behavior is as follows: Level 1: Helping behavior ⫽ ␤0 ⫹ ␤1 (POS) ⫹ ␤2 replicated in environments where employees engage in long-term
(Organizational AC) ⫹ ␤3 (Organizational NC) ⫹ ␤4 (HiSac) ⫹ ␤5
(LoAlt) ⫹ ␤6 (AC to customers) ⫹ ␤7 (NC to customers) ⫹ ␤8 (CC to
relationships with customers. Third, as we found no effect for NC on
customers) ⫹ r. Level 2: ␤0 ⫹ ␥00 ⫹ ␥01 (POS) ⫹ u0; ␤1 ⫽ ␥10; ␤2 ⫽ ␥20; service quality, the current study also addresses the recurrent concern
␤3 ⫽ ␥30; ␤4 ⫽ ␥40; ␤5 ⫽ ␥50; ␤6 ⫽ ␥60; ␤7 ⫽ ␥70; ␤8 ⫽ ␥80. POS ⫽ as to the usefulness of NC regarding the prediction of important work
perceived organizational support; AC ⫽ affective commitment; NC ⫽ outcomes (Ko, Price, & Mueller, 1997). Finally, there remains some
normative commitment; HiSac ⫽ continuance commitment - high sacri- uncertainty regarding the causal nature of relationships among con-
fice; LoAlt ⫽ continuance commitment - perceived lack of alternatives.
†
p ⬍ .05 (one-tailed). †† p ⬍ .01 (one-tailed). ††† p ⬍ .001 (one-tailed). structs in the present study. It might be that when employees perceive
that customers evaluate services positively, they feel more committed
to them, yielding a kind of reverse contagion effect. The use of panel
internalizing the organization’s goals and values, should be in- surveys that track both employee attitudes and service quality over
clined to work hard in favor of its customers (Allen & Grisaffe, time might help researchers draw more solid conclusions in terms of
2001). However, it could be that the nature and strength of the causality.
association between organizational AC and service quality depend
on the extent to which the organization’s goals are compatible with References
customers’ goals and expectations. Future research should exam-
ine whether organization– customer goal compatibility moderates Allen, N. J., & Grisaffe, D. B. (2001). Employee commitment to the
the organizational AC–service quality relationship. On a related organization and customer reactions: Mapping the linkages. Human
note, we found organizational NC to be unrelated to service quality Resource Management Review, 11, 209 –236.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of
as well. As the same result was observed for NC to customers, this
affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization.
suggests that introjecting the organization’s and customers’ goals Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
is not enough to sustain service performance. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (2000). Construct validation in organizational
This study also provides new insights into the meaning and behavior research: The case of organizational commitment. In R. D.
dimensionality of CC. HiSac was positively and LoAlt was neg- Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assess-
atively associated with service quality. For one, there might be a ment (pp. 285–314). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
strong motivational basis underlying HiSac, which we postulated Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived
would be involved in its positive effects on service quality. HiSac organizational support and police performance: The moderating influ-
refers to the sacrifice that would be incurred if employees left their ence of socioemotional needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 288 –
organization. As exemplified in the work of Mitchell et al. (2001), 297.
Bansal, H. S., Irving, P. G., & Taylor, S. F. (2004). A three-component
the roots of organization-related sacrifice partly refer to the value
model of customer commitment to service providers. Journal of the
and meaning of a job, the freedom with which it can be accom- Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 234 –250.
plished, or the respect it entails from others. These aspects sound Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
motivational and should characterize employees who invest much distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
of themselves in their job, hence providing high-quality services. statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
In contrast, LoAlt negatively affected service quality. Although 51, 1173–1182.
 RESEARCH REPORTS 1185

Bentein, K., Vandenberg, R. J., Vandenberghe, C., & Stinglhamber, F. relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and
(2005). The role of change in the relationship between commitment and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
turnover: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psy- 268 –279.
chology, 90, 468 – 482. Hobfoll, S. (1998). Stress, culture, and community: The psychology and
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. philosophy of stress. New York: Plenum Press.
Brady, M. K., Cronin, J. J., & Brand, R. R. (2001). Performance-only Hobfoll, S., & Freedy, J. (1993). Conservation of resources: A general
measurement of service quality: A replication and extension. Journal of stress theory applied to burnout. In W. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T.
Business Research, 55, 17–31. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written research (pp. 115–134). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross- Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2006).
cultural psychology (pp. 398 – 444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. The interaction of social skill and organizational support on job perfor-
Burke, M. J., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). Estimating interrater agreement with mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 482– 489.
the average deviation index: A user’s guide. Organizational Research Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierar-
Methods, 5, 159 –172. chical linear models: Theoretical and methodological implications for
Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average organizational science. Journal of Management, 23, 623– 641.
deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application
Research Methods, 2, 49 – 68. of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein
Chung, B. G., & Schneider, B. (2002). Serving multiple masters: Role & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods
conflict experienced by service employees. The Journal of Services in organizations (pp. 467–511). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marketing, 16, 70 – 88. Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A moderator of the relationship between leader–member exchange and
reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55– 68. content-specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of Applied Psychology, 88, 170 –178.
emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organiza- Homburg, C., & Stock, R. M. (2004). The link between salespeople’s job
tional citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 160 – satisfaction and customer satisfaction in a business-to-business context:
169.
A dyadic analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32,
Drasgow, F., & Kanfer, R. (1985). Equivalence of psychological measure-
144 –158.
ment in heterogeneous populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70,
Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-
662– 680.
component model of organizational commitment and turnover inten-
Dube, L., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Brand switching and loyalty for
tions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 319 –337.
services. In T. A. Swartz & D. Iacobucci (Eds.), Handbook of services
Johnson, J. W. (1996). Linking employee perceptions of service climate to
marketing and management (pp. 381– 400). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 49, 831– 851.
Dunlap, W. P., Burke, M. J., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2003). Accurate tests of
Ko, J.-W., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and
statistical significance for rwg and average deviation interrater agreement
Allen’s three-component model of organizational commitment in South
indexes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 356 –362.
Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 961–973.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational
organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction.
citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812– 820.
unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54, 101–114.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Per-
ceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500 – Kreft, I., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. London:
507. Sage.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2004). A multilevel investigation of factors
York: Free Press. influencing employee service performance and customer outcomes.
Goldberg, C. B., Finkelstein, L. M., Perry, E. L., & Konrad, A. M. (2004). Academy of Management Journal, 47, 41–58.
Job and industry fit: The effects of age and gender matches on career Masterson, S. S. (2001). A trickle-down model of organizational justice:
progress outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 807– 829. Relating employees’ and customers perceptions of and reactions to
Gosserand, R. H., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2005). Emotional display rules and fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 594 – 604.
emotional labor: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Ap- Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the
plied Psychology, 90, 1256 –1264. antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commit-
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. ment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.
American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of
Grandey, A. A. (2003). When the show must go on: Surface and deep organizational commitment: Reexamination of the Affective and Con-
acting as predictors of emotional exhaustion and service delivery. Acad- tinuance Commitment Scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 638 –
emy of Management Journal, 46, 86 –96. 642.
Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. A. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization
(2005). Is “service with a smile” enough? Authenticity of positive of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review,
displays during service encounters. Organizational Behavior and Hu- 1, 61– 89.
man Decision Processes, 96, 38 –55. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Affective and contin-
Gutek, B. A., Bhappu, A. D., Liao-Troth, M. A., & Cherry, B. (1999). uance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and
Distinguishing between relationships and encounters. Journal of Applied analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 218 –233. Psychology, 75, 710 –720.
Gutek, B. A., Groth, M., & Cherry, B. (2002). Achieving service success Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee
through relationships and enhanced encounters. Academy of Manage- commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative
ment Executive, 16(4), 132–144. model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991–1007.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace:
1186 RESEARCH REPORTS

Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, J. Winnubst, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of work and health psy-
299 –326. chology (pp. 311–346). New York: Wiley.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Schmit, M. J., & Allscheid, S. P. (1995). Employee attitudes and customer
Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: satisfaction: Making theoretical and empirical connections. Personnel
A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Psychology, 48, 521–536.
Vocational Behavior, 61, 20 –52. Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. of service in banks: Replication and extension. Journal of Applied
(2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary Psychology, 70, 423– 433.
turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102–1121. Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate
Mohr, L. A., & Bitner, M. J. (1995). The role of employee effort in and customer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model.
satisfaction with service transactions. Journal of Business Research, 32, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 150 –163.
239 –252. Siders, M. A., George, G., & Dharwadkar, R. (2001). The relationship of
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee– internal and external commitment foci to objective job performance
organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and measures. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 570 –579.
turnover. New York: Academic Press. Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational
multi-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 432– 443.
Journal of Retailing, 64, 12–37. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to
Payne, S. C., & Webber, S. S. (2006). Effects of service provider attitudes basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.
and employment status on citizenship behaviors and customers’ attitudes Snipes, R. L., Oswald, S. L., LaTour, M., & Armenakis, A. A. (2005). The
effects of specific job satisfaction facets on customer perceptions of
and loyalty behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 365–378.
service quality: An employee-level analysis. Journal of Business Re-
Peccei, R., & Rosenthal, P. (1997). The antecedents of employee commit-
search, 58, 1330 –1339.
ment to customer service: Evidence from a U.K. service context. Inter-
Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Extension of
national Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 66 – 86.
the three-component model of commitment to five foci: Development of
Powell, D. M., & Meyer, J. P. (2004). Side-bet theory and the three-
measures and substantive test. European Journal of Psychological As-
component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational
sessment, 18, 123–138.
Behavior, 65, 157–177.
Stock, R. M., & Hoyer, W. D. (2005). An attitude– behavior model of
Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the
salespeople’s customer orientation. Journal of the Academy of Market-
service encounter. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1018 –1027.
ing Science, 33, 536 –552.
Pugh, S. D., Dietz, J., Wiley, J. W., & Brooks, S. M. (2002). Driving
Subramony, M., Beehr, T. A., & Johnson, C. M. (2004). Employee and
service effectiveness through employee– customer linkages. Academy of
customer perceptions of service quality in an Indian firm. Applied
Management Executive, 16, 73– 84. Psychology: An International Review, 53, 311–327.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the Susskind, A. M., Kacmar, K. M., & Borchgrevink, C. P. (2003). Customer
work role. Academy of Management Review, 12, 23–37. service providers’ attitudes relating to customer service and customer
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1990). Busy stores and demanding customers: satisfaction in the customer–server exchange. Journal of Applied Psy-
How do they affect the display of positive emotion? Academy of Man- chology, 88, 179 –187.
agement Journal, 33, 623– 637. Sutton, R. I., & Rafaeli, A. (1988). Untangling the relationship between
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: displayed emotions and organizational sales: The case of convenience
Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: stores. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 461– 487.
Sage. Tan, H. H., Foo, M. D., & Kwek, M. H. (2004). The effects of customer
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: personality traits on the display of positive emotions. Academy of
A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698 –714. Management Journal, 47, 287–296.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment Tsai, W. C., & Huang, Y. M. (2002). Mechanisms linking employee
to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational sup- affective delivery and customer behavioral intentions. Journal of Ap-
port. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825– 836. plied Psychology, 87, 1001–1008.
Rogg, K. L., Schmidt, D. B., Shull, C., & Schmitt, N. (2001). Human Vandenberghe, C., & Peiro, J. M. (1999). Organizational and individual
resource practices, organizational climate, and customer satisfaction. values: Their main and combined effects on work attitudes and percep-
Journal of Management, 27, 431– 449. tions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8,
Ryan, A. M., Schmit, M. J., & Johnson, R. (1996). Attitudes and effec- 569 –581.
tiveness: Examining relations at an organizational level. Personnel Psy- Wilk, S. L., & Moynihan, L. M. (2005). Display rule “regulators”: The
chology, 49, 853– 882. relationship between supervisors and worker emotional exhaustion.
Schaufeli, W., & Buunk, B. (1996). Professional burnout. In M. Schabracq, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 917–927.
 RESEARCH REPORTS 1187

Appendix

Commitment Items
Type of commitment Item

Organizational commitment

Affective commitment 1. I really feel that I belong in this organization.

2. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.a
3. I am proud to belong to this organization.
4. I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization.a (reverse scored)
5. I do not feel like part of the family at my organization.a (reverse scored)
6. I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.a
Normative commitment 7. It would not be morally right for me to leave this organization now.
8. It would not be right to leave my current organization now, even if it were to my advantage.
9. I think I would be guilty if I left my current organization now.
10. I would violate a trust if I left my current organization now.
11. If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere, I would not feel it was right to leave my organization.a
12. I would not leave my organization right now, because I have a sense of obligation to certain people who work there.
Perceived high sacrifice 13. I would not leave this organization because of what I would stand to lose.b
14. For me personally, the costs of leaving this organization would be far greater than the benefits.b
15. I continue to work for this organization because I don’t believe another organization could offer me the benefits I
have here.b,c
Perceived lack of 16. I have no choice but to stay with this organization.
alternatives 17. I stay with this organization because I can’t see where else I could work.
18. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization.a

Commitment to customers

Affective commitment 1. I feel close to my customers.

2. I feel emotionally attached to my customers.
3. My customers mean a lot to me.
4. I do not feel especially attached to my customers. (reverse scored)
5. In general, I have a liking for my customers.
6. I identify little with the expectations of my customers. (reverse scored)
Normative commitment 7. I think I am morally responsible for meeting the needs of my customers.
8. I feel I have a moral obligation to respond to the needs of my customers.
9. I would fail in my duty if I neglected my customers.
10. It would be wrong on my part to neglect the needs of my customers.
11. I feel obligated to meet the expectations of my customers.
12. I think I would be violating an implicit contract if I failed to respond to my customers’ needs.
Continuance 13. I have acquired so much knowledge concerning the expectations of my customers that it would not be possible for
commitment me to change employment.
14. I am so specialized in the services I provide to my clientele that I could not imagine doing anything else.
15. It would be difficult for me, given the skills that I have acquired, to reinvest in working with another clientele.
16. I have expended so much effort to get to know the needs of my clientele that it would not be advantageous for me
to quit my present job.
17. Mastering the necessary skills for working with another clientele would require me a great deal of time and energy.
a
From “The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization,” by N. J. Allen and J. P. Meyer,
1990, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63. Copyright 1990 by the British Psychological Society. b Item taken from “Side-Bet Theory and the
Three-Component Model of Organizational Commitment,” by D. M. Powell and J. P. Meyer, 2004, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65. c This item was
removed because it reduced the reliability of the scale.

Received April 4, 2005

Revision received November 1, 2006
Accepted November 20, 2006 䡲