| Literature DB >> 33935908 |
Dexia Zang1, Chang Liu1, Yan Jiao2.
Abstract
Abusive supervision is quite common in the service industry. Employees' proactive customer service performance is essential for the long-term development of service enterprises. This study enriches the antecedents of proactive customer service performance from a new theoretical perspective by incorporating the analysis of abusive supervision into the theoretical framework and fills the research gap between customer orientation and proactive customer service performance. Based on Affective Events Theory and Social Cognitive Theory, this study established the structure equation model between abusive supervision and proactive customer service performance mediated by affective commitment and customer orientation. Utilizing structural equation modeling, a negative association between abusive supervision and proactive customer service performance was found, and affective commitment and customer orientation act as the mediators between abusive supervision and proactive customer service performance. In addition, the implications for future study were also discussed.Entities:
Keywords: abusive supervision; affective commitment; affective events theory; customer orientation; proactive customer service performance
Year: 2021 PMID: 33935908 PMCID: PMC8081850 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648090
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Theoretical framework and proposed research model.
Model items and their descriptive statistics (35 items).
| Construct | Item’s label | Question item | s.d. | Mean |
| Abusive Supervision | AS1 | Ridicules me | 0.896 | 1.70 |
| AS2 | Tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid | 0.898 | 1.73 | |
| AS3 | Gives me the silent treatment | 0.905 | 1.72 | |
| AS4 | Puts me down in front of others | 0.894 | 1.67 | |
| AS5 | Invades my privacy | 0.873 | 1.65 | |
| AS6 | Reminds me of my past mistakes and failures | 0.984 | 1.82 | |
| AS7 | Doesn’t give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort | 0.981 | 1.89 | |
| AS8 | Blames me to save himself/herself embarrassment | 0.983 | 1.99 | |
| AS9 | Breaks promises he/she makes | 0.972 | 1.83 | |
| AS10 | Expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for other reasons | 0.997 | 1.90 | |
| AS11 | Makes negative comments about me to others | 0.886 | 1.67 | |
| AS12 | Is rude to me | 0.838 | 1.64 | |
| AS13 | Does not allow me to interact with coworkers | 0.859 | 1.65 | |
| AS14 | Tells me I’m incompetent | 0.904 | 1.74 | |
| AS15 | Lies to me | 0.862 | 1.66 | |
| Affective Commitment | AC1 | I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization | 0.933 | 3.66 |
| AC2 | I enjoy discussing my organization with others outside it | 1.047 | 3.35 | |
| AC3 | I really feel as if this organization’ problems are my own | 0.957 | 3.61 | |
| AC4 | I think that I couldn‘t easily as attached to another organization as I am to this organization | 0.999 | 3.58 | |
| AC5 | I feel like part of a family at my organization | 0.996 | 3.91 | |
| AC6 | I feel emotionally attached to this organization | 1.113 | 3.41 | |
| AC7 | This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me | 0.823 | 3.62 | |
| AC8 | I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization | 0.896 | 3.63 | |
| Customer Orientation | CO1 | Tries to figure out a customer’s needs | 0.765 | 3.98 |
| CO2 | Has the customer’s best interests in mind | 0.870 | 3.91 | |
| CO3 | Takes a problem-solving approach in selling services to customers | 0.836 | 3.97 | |
| CO4 | Recommends services that are best suited to solving problems | 0.850 | 3.86 | |
| CO5 | Tries to find out which kinds of services would be most helpful to customers | 0.849 | 3.97 | |
| PCSP | PCSP1 | My staff member anticipates issues or needs customers might have and proactively develops solutions | 0.863 | 3.80 |
| PCSP2 | My staff member proactively shares information with customers to meet their financial needs | 0.952 | 3.64 | |
| PCSP3 | My staff member uses own judgment and understanding of risk to determine when to make exceptions or improve solutions | 1.007 | 3.61 | |
| PCSP4 | My staff member takes ownership by following through with the customer interaction and ensures a smooth transition to other service representatives | 0.872 | 3.94 | |
| PCSP5 | My staff member actively creates partnerships with other service representatives to better service customers | 0.792 | 3.99 | |
| PCSP6 | My staff member takes initiative to communicate client requirements to other service areas and collaborates in implementing solutions | 0.840 | 3.97 | |
| PCSP7 | My staff member proactively checks with customers to verify that customer expectations have been met or exceeded | 0.836 | 3.96 |
Demographic profile of the respondents (subordinates).
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Male | 84 | 31.82 |
| Female | 180 | 68.18 |
| 18-25 | 83 | 31.44 |
| 26-30 | 86 | 32.57 |
| 31-35 | 28 | 10.61 |
| 36-40 | 30 | 11.36 |
| Over 41 | 37 | 14.02 |
| High school or less | 174 | 65.91 |
| College degree | 76 | 28.79 |
| Bachelor degree | 12 | 4.54 |
| Master degree | 2 | 0.76 |
Reliability and Convergent validity of the measurement model.
| Construct | Question item | Std. Loadings | CA | CR | AVE |
| Abusive Supervision | AS1: Ridicules me | 0.777 | 0.966 | 0.969 | 0.677 |
| AS2: Tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid | 0.825 | ||||
| AS3: Gives me the silent treatment | 0.847 | ||||
| AS4: Puts me down in front of others | 0.886 | ||||
| AS5: Invades my privacy | 0.852 | ||||
| AS6: Reminds me of my past mistakes and failures | 0.830 | ||||
| AS7: Doesn’t give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of efforts | 0.770 | ||||
| AS8: Blames me to save himself/herself embarrassment | 0.746 | ||||
| AS9: Breaks promises he/she makes | 0.858 | ||||
| AS10: Expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for other reasons | 0.815 | ||||
| AS11: Makes negative comments about me to others | 0.862 | ||||
| AS12: Is rude to me | 0.869 | ||||
| AS13: Does not allow me to interact with coworkers | 0.801 | ||||
| AS14: Tells me I‘m incompetent | 0.824 | ||||
| AS15: Lies to me | 0.763 | ||||
| Affective Commitment | AC1: I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization | 0.804 | 0.913 | 0.929 | 0.623 |
| AC2: I enjoy discussing my organization with others outside it | 0.679 | ||||
| AC3: I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own | 0.866 | ||||
| AC4: I think that I couldn’t easily as attached to another organization as I am to this organization | 0.822 | ||||
| AC5: I feel like part of a family at my organization | 0.826 | ||||
| AC6: I feel emotionally attached to this organization | 0.748 | ||||
| AC7: This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me | 0.776 | ||||
| AC8: I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization | 0.780 | ||||
| Customer Orientation | CO1: Tries to figure out a customer’s needs | 0.862 | 0.927 | 0.944 | 0.773 |
| CO2: Has the customer’s best interests in mind | 0.870 | ||||
| CO3: Takes a problem-solving approach in selling services to customers | 0.927 | ||||
| CO4: Recommends services that are best suited to solving problems | 0.886 | ||||
| CO5: Tries to find out which kinds of services would be most helpful to customers | 0.847 | ||||
| Proactive Customer Service Performance | PCSP1: My staff member anticipates issues or needs customers might have and proactively develops solutions | 0.806 | 0.901 | 0.921 | 0.627 |
| PCSP2: My staff member proactively shares information with customers to meet their financial needs | 0.672 | ||||
| PCSP3: My staff member uses own judgment and understanding of risk to determine when to make exceptions or improve solutions | 0.737 | ||||
| PCSP4: My staff member takes ownership by following through with the customer interaction and ensures a smooth transition to other service representatives | 0.823 | ||||
| PCSP5: My staff member actively creates partnerships with other service representatives to better service customers | 0.818 | ||||
| PCSP6: My staff member takes initiative to communicate client requirements to other service areas and collaborates in implementing solutions | 0.801 | ||||
| PCSP7: My staff member proactively checks with customers to verify that customer expectations have been met or exceeded | 0.869 |
Discriminant validity of the measurement model.
| Fornell-Larcker criterion | Heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) | |||||||
| AS | AC | CO | PCSP | AS | AC | CO | ||
| AS | AS | |||||||
| AC | −0.387 | AC | 0.403 | |||||
| CO | −0.191 | 0.312 | CO | 0.197 | 0.321 | |||
| PCSP | −0.188 | 0.243 | 0.237 | PCSP | 0.194 | 0.260 | 0.248 | |
Results of hypotheses testing.
| Path coeff(β) | Statistics | P Values | BOOTSTRAP 95% CI | Supported | ||
| Lower | Upper | |||||
| −0.387 | 7.964 | 0.000 | −0.472 | −0.283 | ||
| 0.312 | 5.129 | 0.000 | 0.176 | 0.417 | ||
| 0.187 | 2.744 | 0.006 | 0.038 | 0.305 | ||
| 0.179 | 2.699 | 0.007 | 0.034 | 0.296 | ||
| AS– > AC– > PCSP | −0.072 | 2.284 | 0.023 | −0.134 | −0.014 | |
| AS– > AC– > CO | −0.121 | 4.229 | 0.000 | −0.176 | −0.070 | |
| AS– > AC– > CO– > PCSP | −0.022 | 2.178 | 0.030 | −0.043 | −0.005 | |
| R2: AC = 0.439, CO = 0.607, PCSP = 0.218 | ||||||
| Q2: AC = 0.437, CO = 0.605, PCSP = 0.214 | ||||||
FIGURE 2Final research model.