The Impact of Supportive Work Practices on Customer-Contact Employees

This study examines the impact of supportive work practices on the perceptions, motivation, and behavior of customer-contact employees. It explores the relationship between employees' perceptions of the service climate and their motivation, job performance, and intentions to leave. The findings provide insights into effectively managing customer-contact staff and improving retention.

Cornell University School of Hotel Administration
The Scholarly Commons
Articles and Chapters School of Hotel Administration Collection
5-2013
Got Support? The Impact of Supportive Wo
Practices on the Perceptions, Motivation, an
Behavior of Customer-Contact Employees
John W. Michel
Loyola University
Michael J. Kavanagh
State University of New York, Albany
J. Bruce Tracey
Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, [e-mail]
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles
Part of the Performance Management Commons
This Article or Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Hotel Administration Collection at The Scholarly Commo
been accepted for inclusion in Articles and Chapters by an authorized administrator of The Scholarly Commons. For more information, plea
[e-mail].
Recommended Citation
Michel, J. W., Kavanagh, M. J., & Tracey, J. B. (2013). Got support? The impact of supportive work practices on the perceptio
motivation, and behavior of customer-contact employees. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2), 161-173. doi:10.1177/
1938965512454595

Got Support? The Impact of Supportive Work Practices on the
Perceptions, Motivation, and Behavior of Customer-Contact Em
Abstract
While scholars know a great deal about the operational challenges faced by customer-contact employ
the hospitality industry, there is much to be learned about the factors associated with the work conte
influences employee motivation, performance, and retention. In this study, the authors examined the
and impact of perceptions about an organization’s customer service climate on ratings of self-efficacy
customer service job performance, and intentions to leave among employees in customer-contact po
Results demonstrated that employees’ perceptions about the climate for service quality were signific
related to motivation, supervisor ratings of service job performance, and self-rated intentions to leave
results offer insights regarding the role of service climate perceptions and the means for effectively m
customer-contact staff and generating higher levels of retention.
Keywords
service climate, motivation, performance, retention
Disciplines
Performance Management
Comments
Required Publisher Statement
© Cornell University. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
This article or chapter is available at The Scholarly Commons: https://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/8

Cornell Hospitality Quarterly
54(2) 161 –173
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1938965512454595
http://cqx.sagepub.com
rnell Hospitality Quarterly XX(X)Michel et al.
2012
Numerous factors in the work environment may influence
the extent to which employees in customer-contact posi-
tions are motivated to perform their roles effectively and
remain committed to the organization. In a recent study of
the service and hospitality firms included on Fortune maga-
zine’s list of “best companies to work for,” Hinkin and
Tracey (2010) found that an employee-focused environ-
ment that puts a premium on service quality plays a central
role in distinguishing the firms on this list. Given the critical
role of customer-contact employees in maintaining a high-
quality hospitality environment, it is important to under-
stand the nature and role of employee perceptions about the
work environment that may influence their attitudes, moti-
vation, and performance regarding customer service.
Such perceptions are commonly referred to as service
climate perceptions. In general, service climate refers to
employee perceptions regarding the extent to which service
quality behaviors are rewarded, supported, and expected by
an organization (Schneider and White 2004). Two primary
approaches have been taken to examine the role and impact
of service climate perceptions. The first approach focuses
on the collective impact of perceptions about the work con-
text, typically characterized as organizational service cli-
mate perceptions. Researchers who have utilized this
approach have examined the impact of aggregate-level ser-
vice climate perceptions on various firm- or business-level
measures of performance as well as individual-level out-
comes such as job attitudes, motivation, and job perfor-
mance (e.g., Borucki and Burke 1999; Schneider and White
2004; Way, Sturman, and Raab 2010). The findings have
shown consistently positive relationships between an orga-
nization’s service climate and such outcomes as customer
satisfaction with service quality.
The second approach to understanding the influence of
perceptions about the work context in service firms focuses
on the impact of individual-level or psychological service
climate perceptions. James (1982) argued that climate per-
ceptions are best conceptualized at the psychological level
since these are perceptions of individual employees. In
support of this contention, research has demonstrated a sig-
nificant relationship between psychological climate percep-
tions for service and such important outcomes as employee
affect (Tsai 2001), job satisfaction (Carless 2004), job
1Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA
2Towson University, Towson, MD, USA
3University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA
4Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Corresponding Author:
John W. Michel, Sellinger School of Business & Management, Loyola
University Maryland, 4501 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21210, USA
Email: [e-mail]
Got Support? The Impact of Supportive
Work Practices on the Perceptions,
Motivation, and Behavior of Customer-
Contact Employees
John W. Michel1,2
, Michael J. Kavanagh3, and J. Bruce Tracey4
Abstract
While scholars know a great deal about the operational challenges faced by customer-contact employees in the
industry, there is much to be learned about the factors associated with the work context that influenc
motivation, performance, and retention. In this study, the authors examined the nature and impact of perceptio
an organization’s customer service climate on ratings of self-efficacy, customer service job performance, and in
to leave among employees in customer-contact positions. Results demonstrated that employees’ perceptions a
climate for service quality were significantly related to motivation, supervisor ratings of service job performance
rated intentions to leave. The results offer insights regarding the role of service climate perceptions and the me
effectively managing customer-contact staff and generating higher levels of retention.
Keywords
service climate, motivation, performance, retention
Focus on Human Resources

162 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(2)
performance (Brown and Leigh 1996), and customer loy-
alty and satisfaction (Johnson 1996).
Positive service climate perceptions are important for
customer-contact employees because they represent the
organization’s image and brand to their customers
(Schneider and White 2004). The provision of good service
by customer-contact employees helps to ensure that cus-
tomers’ service expectations are met. Moreover, inconsis-
tent service delivery due to factors such as high employee
turnover among frontline staff may compromise service
quality (Tracey and Hinkin 2008). While research has sub-
stantiated the relationship between psychological service
climate perceptions and service performance (Borucki and
Burke 1999; Brown and Leigh 1996), it is not clear how
such climate perceptions affect employees’ motivation to
engage in behaviors aimed at providing high-quality service
to customers.
Moreover, little is known about the influence of psycho-
logical service climate perceptions on intentions to leave
among customer-contact employees. Because turnover is an
especially vexing concern in the hospitality industry (Tracey
and Hinkin 2008), it is important to understand the factors
that may ameliorate this problem (Griffeth, Hom, and
Gaertner 2000). Furthermore, most of the service climate
literature has examined the direct effects of climate on indi-
vidual outcomes. It is likely that the relationships between
an individual’s perceptions about the service climate and
customer service job performance are mediated by motiva-
tional factors. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to
examine the relationships among a psychological climate to
support customer service, motivation, customer service job
performance, and intentions to leave among customer-
contact employees.
We begin by discussing previous research on psycho-
logical climate in service and hospitality contexts. Then, we
present the results from a study that examined the relation-
ships between individual climate perceptions among
customer-contact employees and a number of outcome
variables that are critical to maintaining a high-quality ser-
vice environment. Finally, we discuss the implications of
our findings and present some prescriptive guidelines that
may enhance efforts to cultivate a more effective, customer-
centric workplace.
Service Climate
Psychological climate refers to the meanings that people
ascribe to various aspects of their work environment. While
these perceptions can focus on the work environment in
general, they can also be focused on specific aspects of the
work environment (e.g., customer service). For example,
Schneider and his colleagues have demonstrated that per-
ceptions of service climate are significantly related to cus-
tomer perceptions of service quality (Schneider, White, and
Paul 1998). Building on Schneider’s research, Burke,
Borucki, and Hurley (1992) developed a psychological
service climate model that included two primary dimen-
sions: (1) concern for employees and (2) concern for cus-
tomers. This concern-based model stems from employee
perceptions about a wide array of HR policies and practices
that promote effective customer service performance and
morale among customer-contact employees.
Burke, Borucki, and Hurley’s model has been shown to
relate directly to individual sales performance and indi-
rectly to unit-level sales performance through individual
sales performance (Borucki and Burke 1999). While the
Burke, Borucki, and Hurley model provides valuable
insight into the importance of psychological service climate
perceptions, additional research is needed to determine the
impact of such perceptions on various attitudes, motivation,
and performance of customer-contact employees within the
hospitality industry. For example, Brown and Leigh (1996)
demonstrated that employee involvement mediated the rela-
tionship between psychological climate perceptions and job
performance. It is likely that psychological service climate
perceptions and customer service job performance are
mediated by other motivational factors. Furthermore, given
the prevalence of turnover among employees in the hospi-
tality industry, consideration should be given to retention-
related attitudes, particularly an individual’s intention to
leave the firm.
A More Refined Model
Building on the work of Borucki and Burke (1999) and
Tracey and Tews (2005), we contend that a supportive
service climate comprises three main dimensions: human
resource (HR) support, management support, and job sup-
port. It is important to note that our supportive service
climate construct focuses primarily on the importance of
support in service contexts. In fact, Schneider, White, and
Paul (1998, 151) suggested that “a climate for service
rests on a foundation of fundamental support in the way of
resources, training, managerial practices, and the assis-
tance to perform effectively.” Support is important
because it suggests to employees that the organization
values their contribution and cares about their well-being,
which makes them feel more committed and satisfied, less
stressed, and more motivated to perform well (Rhoades
and Eisenberger 2002). As such, we define supportive
service climate as employees’ perceptions that their abil-
ity to provide customers with quality service is supported
by the HR practices utilized by the organization, how
employees are managed, and the way in which employ-
ees’ jobs are designed.
As previously noted, climate perceptions are shaped by
the policies, practices, and procedures that direct employee
behavior at work, including HR practices used by the

Michel et al. 163
organization, the behaviors exhibited by managers, and the
ways in which jobs are designed (Bowen and Ostroff 2004).
Accordingly, we argue that when these three workplace
characteristics emphasize support for providing good cus-
tomer service, employees will perceive that they are sup-
ported, rewarded, and expected to provide good service.
Consistent with previous psychological climate research
(James 1982), we argue that the supportive service climate
reflects a single higher-order dimension because each of the
subdimensions focuses on the support given to employees
for providing good service.
HR support for service quality. The first dimension, HR
support for service quality, represents aspects of the organi-
zational system (Tracey and Tews 2005) and is defined as
the extent to which employees perceive that the organiza-
tion’s HR policies and programs demonstrate an emphasis
on supporting its employees in providing high-quality cus-
tomer service. HR support reflects employee-centered HR
practices, such as service-related training programs, sys-
tematic performance appraisals for assessing good per-
formance, and competitive compensation systems for
rewarding good performance and focused on improving
service employees’ job performance and intentions to
remain with the organization (Cheng-Hua, Shyh-Jer, and
Shih-Chien 2009; Nishii, Lepak, and Schneider 2008).
These HR practices suggest to employees that the organiza-
tion will ensure they have the skills, resources, and motiva-
tion needed to adapt to various customer demands and
provide effective customer service (Kusluvan et al. 2010).
HR support is similar to two aspects from Burke, Borucki,
and Hurley’s (1992) framework: monetary reward orienta-
tion and means emphasis.
Management support for service quality. Management sup-
port for service quality represents a major part of the orga-
nization’s social support system (Tracey and Tews 2005).
This dimension is defined as the extent to which employees
perceive that managers both encourage and reinforce the
delivery of high-quality customer service and provide sup-
port to ensure the customers’ and employees’ needs are
met. As such, it reflects the extent to which managers
emphasize service quality (Susskind, Kacmar, and Borch-
grevink 2007). By setting service-related goals, providing
recognition and rewards to employees for providing good
service, and removing obstacles that prevent employees
from effectively serving customers, managers send clear
signals to employees that managers will give them the sup-
port necessary to provide good customer service (Clark,
Hartline, and Jones 2009; Hinkin and Schriesheim 2004).
Management support is similar to three aspects from Burke,
Borucki, and Hurley’s framework: nonmonetary reward ori-
entation, goal emphasis, and management support.
Job support for service quality. Job support for service
quality represents work-related and technical system factors
(Tracey and Tews 2005). This dimension is defined as the
extent to which employees perceive that jobs are designed
to promote high-quality customer service by providing the
tools, equipment, and staff necessary to support employees
in the provision of good customer service. When organiza-
tions design jobs in a way that helps employees serve cus-
tomers, employees perceive that the organization wants to
make it possible for them to provide good customer service.
According to both the service-profit chain and service cli-
mate frameworks, the manner in which the job is designed
and the extent to which customer-contact employees have
the necessary resources can have a substantial impact on an
employee’s capacity for delivering high-quality customer
service (Heskett, Sasser, and Schlesinger 1997; Schneider,
White, and Paul 1998). Job support is similar to two aspects
from Burke, Borucki, and Hurley’s framework, HR-related
obstacles and merchandise-related obstacles, except that we
are considering job support practices that facilitate service,
rather than the obstacles that impair service quality.
Supportive Service Climate
and Customer Service Performance
Customer service performance includes job behaviors that
service employees perform to drive customers’ perceptions
of service quality and satisfaction (Ryan and Ployhart
2003). These behaviors are directed at customers with the
intention of benefiting or helping the customer, and as a
result they represent a form of prosocial organizational
behavior comprising both in-role and extrarole forms of
behavior (George 1991).
Research suggests that employees tend to perform better
when they perceive that the organization demonstrates con-
cern through the provision of various forms of work-related
support. For example, Borucki and Burke (1999) demon-
strated that a concern for employees was related to unit-
level service performance. Similarly, researchers have
shown that related constructs such as perceived organiza-
tional support (POS; Bettencourt, Gwinner, and Meuter
2001), equipment and supply support (Schneider and White
2004), and high-commitment HR practices (Nishii, Lepak,
and Schneider 2008) are related to service performance. By
utilizing supportive HR practices, such as service-related
training and performance incentives for providing good ser-
vice, organizations can provide employees with the skills
and resources necessary for providing high-quality service
(Liao and Chuang 2004). Similarly, when supportive man-
agers set service-related goals, provide recognition to
employees when they provide good service, help employ-
ees work together, and remove obstacles that prevent them
from providing good service, they send clear signals regard-
ing the importance of high-quality service (Schneider, White,
and Paul 1998). Finally, designing jobs that ensure employ-
ees have the necessary tools, resources, and staff to handle
customer demands helps employees deliver high-quality

164 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(2)
service (Heskett, Sasser, and Schlesinger 1997). These
practices suggest to employees that they have the support
necessary to provide good customer service; therefore, we
hypothesize the following relationship:
Hypothesis 1: Supportive service climate is positively
related to service performance.
Supportive Service Climate
and Intentions to Leave
Given that turnover is an important concern and that inten-
tions to leave have been shown to be related to actual turn-
over, researchers often focus on intentions to leave (Fishbein
and Ajzen 1975). An employee who reports greater leave
intentions is in fact more likely to leave, and measures of
intentions to leave have been empirically related to actual
turnover (Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner 2000). Because
customer-contact employees represent the organization’s
image and brand to their customers, high turnover among
these employees substantially increases costs and compro-
mises service quality (Tracey and Hinkin 2008). Such
turnover may ultimately have a negative impact on cus-
tomer satisfaction and loyalty (Batt 2002).
While little evidence demonstrating the relationship
between psychological climate and intentions to leave
exists, researchers have shown a negative relationship
between similar constructs and turnover. For example,
Shaw et al. (1998) found that high-commitment HR prac-
tices were negatively associated with voluntary turnover.
Similarly, Ng and Sorensen (2008) demonstrated that when
managers provide recognition to employees, motivate
employees to work together, and remove obstacles prevent-
ing effective performance, employees feel more obligated
to stay with the company. Furthermore, providing the nec-
essary tools and resources to employees enables them to
respond effectively to customer demands, but also creates a
more flexible, multifunctional internal workforce that can
adapt quickly to the constantly shifting competitive land-
scape. These practices suggest to employees that the organi-
zation values their contribution and wants them to succeed;
therefore, we hypothesize,
Hypothesis 2: Supportive service climate is negatively
related to intentions to leave.
The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Service environments that emphasize HR, management,
and job support for service quality should promote employee
self-efficacy regarding customer service performance
(Maurer, Pierce, and Shore 2002). Self-efficacy is a per-
son’s belief about whether he or she can successfully per-
form a specific task (Bandura 1986). According to Gist and
Mitchell (1992), self-efficacy is an important motivational
construct because it influences (1) goal level and commit-
ment, (2) choice of activity, and (3) interpretation of feed-
back. Bandura has suggested that self-efficacy is predicted
by positive emotional support, models of success with
which people identify, and experience mastering a task.
Employees’ perceived capabilities to effectively perform
their jobs, their sense of self-worth, their confidence, and
their belief that their work is important and meaningful can
be enhanced through the use of organizational practices
such as the provision of developmental training, financial
reinforcements, high performance expectations and feed-
back, and the resources necessary to perform their jobs
(Liao et al. 2009). Furthermore, self-efficacy has been
shown to improve the personal mastery or “can-do” atti-
tude of service employees (Liao and Chuang 2007) moti-
vating them to work harder, display more effort, and
perform better in demanding situations with customers
(Ahearne, Mathieu, and Rapp 2005). Therefore, we hypoth-
esize the following relationship:
Hypothesis 3: Self-efficacy mediates the supportive ser-
vice climate and service performance relationship.
Research has also demonstrated a negative relationship
between self-efficacy and intentions to leave (Martin, Jones,
and Callan 2005). People with higher self-efficacy experi-
ence less self-doubt and undertake new challenges at work
(Wood and Bandura 1989). As stated previously, the sup-
port from HR practices, managerial behaviors, and effec-
tive job design will help employees develop a sense of
self-worth and confidence in their ability to perform their
job. Employees should have less self-doubt about their job
performance and consequently will be less likely to want to
leave the organization. Therefore, we hypothesize the fol-
lowing relationship:
Hypothesis 4: Self-efficacy mediates the supportive
service climate and intentions to leave relationship.
The hypothesized relationships tested in this study are
depicted in Exhibit 1.
Method
Organizational Setting
The sponsor for our study was a company that owns and
operates 119 grocery stores in six states in the northeastern
United States. While grocery stores may not represent a
traditional hospitality context, they are quite similar to
hotels and restaurants in several respects (cf. Hinkin and
Tracey 2010). In particular, grocery store employees have
direct and significant interactions with customers, engage

Michel et al. 165
in shift work, work in jobs characterized by low complexity
and high repetition (Tracey, Sturman, and Tews 2007), are
paid around the minimum wage, and are given minimal train-
ing. Moreover, as with hospitality organizations, turnover is
generally high in grocery stores (Hinkin and Tracey 2010).
For this study, we were granted access to six stores with
multiple departments, including general grocery, front end,
meat, seafood, produce, floral, general merchandise, and
bakery. The average number of supervisors in each store
was twelve, and the average number of employees per store
ranged from one hundred for small stores to four hundred
for large stores.
Participants and Procedure
Employees. Using a stratified sampling procedure we
selected every third employee listed on the schedule
sorted by department, gender, and shift within each store.
If a selected employee was not working on the day the
data were collected or did not want to participate in the
study, the next participant on the list was selected. For
departments with five or fewer employees, all employees
were selected for participation. Employees voluntarily
completed the survey during their regularly scheduled
work hours in break rooms at each store. The respondents
were given both oral and written assurance that their
responses would be kept confidential and that only group
data would be reported to the organization. Surveys were
distributed and collected by the authors in sealed enve-
lopes to encourage candid responses. Participants pro-
vided their employee identification number on the front
of the survey so that we could match their responses to
their supervisors’ ratings of job performance. Of partici-
pants, 96 percent (n =158) returned fully completed ques-
tionnaires. The high response rate can be attributed to the
support that managers gave to allow employees time to
complete the survey during their shift. The participants’
average age was thirty-three years, 49 percent were female,
and most had at least a high school degree. The partici-
pants had been with the company for an average of eight
years. There were no significant differences between the
employee participants in the six stores in terms of age,
gender, education level, or tenure.
Supervisors. Supervisors were given time away from
work to complete performance rating forms for their subor-
dinates who had returned questionnaires. Obtaining service
performance ratings from supervisors in this way meant
that some of the relationships would be tested using data
from two independent sources, thus minimizing concerns of
common method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003). All supervi-
sors (n =45) of the 158 participants completed the perfor-
mance ratings for their employees. The average age of
supervisor participants was thirty-six, 47 percent were
female, and 48 percent had some college experience. The
supervisors had been with the organization an average of
fourteen years and had an average of eleven years manage-
rial experience. There were no significant differences
between the supervisors from the six stores in terms of age,
gender, education level, or tenure.
Matched sample. It was possible to match all 150 employee
and supervisor surveys, making the final response rate for
the matched sample 95 percent. No differences between the
matched and unmatched surveys were found for any of the
variables of interest.
Exhibit 1:
Proposed model of outcomes of supportive service climate
Supportive
Service Climate Self-Efficacy
Service
Performance
Intentions to Leave
H1
H2
H3
H4

166 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(2)
Measures
Supportive service climate. We developed the supportive
service climate questionnaire using scale development pro-
cedures suggested by Hinkin (1998) and others. Twenty-
one items were chosen from the extant literature to reflect
the three constructs and adapted to reflect support for ser-
vice quality. Survey items reflected the three first-order fac-
tors, namely, HR support, management support, and job
support, according to what happens in their organization
and work unit. Responses in this and other sections were
made on 7-point Likert-type scales, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
The HR support dimension included six adapted items
from Tracey and Tews (2005) and one item from Lytle,
Hom, and Mokwa (1998). A sample item for HR support is,
“There are rewards and incentives for providing high qual-
ity service to customers.” The management support dimen-
sion was measured using five items adapted from Schneider
et al. (2000), one item adapted from Schneider, White, and
Paul (1998), and one item adapted from Tracey and Tews
(2005). A sample item for management support is, “My
manager sets definite quality standards of good customer
service.” The job support dimension was measured using
seven items adapted from Schneider, White, and Paul
(1998). A sample item for job support is, “We have suffi-
cient staff in my work unit to deliver high-quality service to
customers.”
The fit of a higher-order supportive service climate
model, in which the three first-order factors were fit to a
second-order factor, was compared to a single-factor model
with Mplus 6.0 (Muthén and Muthén 2007) using the sam-
ple covariance matrix as input and a maximum likelihood
solution. Three item parcels were created as indicators of
each latent construct in the model by randomly assigning
the items to parcels, which allowed us to maintain an ade-
quate sample size to parameter ratio (Little et al. 2002).1
The overall chi-square test of the higher-order model was
significant, χ2(24, N =158) =53.21, p < .01; however, the
individual fit indexes provided support for the proposed
model—the comparative fit index (CFI) was .97, the root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was .09, and
the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was .04
(Hu and Bentler 1999). Despite the high correlations among
the first-order factors (r =.81 to r =.86), the single-factor
model did not fit the data well, χ 2(27, N =158) =127.38,
p < .001, CFI =.89, RMSEA =.15, and SRMR =.06, and
was a worse fit (χ2
Difference (3) =74.17, p < .001) than the pro-
posed model. The supportive service climate model’s com-
posite reliability was .87.
Service self-efficacy beliefs. Employee self-efficacy was
measured using a reduced eight-item version of the self-
efficacy scale from Phillips and Gully (1997). These items
were adapted to reflect employees’ perceptions of their
self-efficacy for providing high-quality service to custom-
ers. An example item is, “I feel confident in my ability to
effectively provide high quality service to customers.”
Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .81
Intentions to leave. Employee intentions to leave were
measured with the six-item Staying or Leaving Index devel-
oped by Bluedorn (1982). The six items formed one turn-
over intention scale; however, to minimize response bias,
the two sets of items were located in two different sections
of the survey, as recommended by Bluedorn. Placed in the
beginning of the survey were three items asking partici-
pants to rate their chances of working with the organization
three, six, and twelve months from now. The other three
items, which asked participants to rate their chances of
leaving the organization three, six, and twelve months from
now, were placed at the end of the survey. Participants rated
these six items on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very
unlikely) to 7 (very likely). Cronbach’s alpha was .93.
Control variables. Control variables in the regression anal-
ysis included demographic variables such as gender, age,
highest level of education. We also controlled for work shift
because the organization’s management explained that the
shift a person works is determined by his or her organiza-
tional tenure and job performance, and the most desirable
shift is the day shift. We also controlled for organizational
tenure because we felt that those who had been with the
organization longer remain employed because they are bet-
ter performers and thus would have fewer intentions
of leaving because they have more invested into the
organization.
Customer service job performance. Supervisors were asked
to rate the customer service performance of each participat-
ing employee in the previous six months based on the
frequency with which they displayed behaviors on a twelve-
item multidimensional customer-centered behavior (CCB)
measure, which has been found to have good psychometric
qualities (Michel, Tews, and Kavanagh 2010). The measure
consists of one second-order dimension and three first order
dimensions of customer service behavior—customer assur-
ance behaviors (four items; α = .92), customer respon-
siveness behaviors (four items; α = .90), and customer
recommendation behaviors (four items; α =.88). Example
items include “Acknowledges customers’ presence promptly”
and “Offers substitutes for services or products not cur-
rently available.” These behaviors were rated on a scale
ranging from 1 (the employee has engaged in the behavior
0–44 percent of the time) to 7 (the employee has engaged in
the behavior 95–100 percent of the time). The CCB’s com-
posite reliability was .92.
Analyses
Prior to assessing the hypothesized relationships, it
was important to determine whether supportive service

Michel et al. 167
climate was best reflected at the individual or unit level of
analysis prior to testing the hypotheses (Borucki and Burke
1999).2 Three estimates, ICC(1), ICC(2), and rwg(j), were
calculated to assess the statistical justification for aggregat-
ing these data. The ICC(1) indicates the amount of variance
explained between units compared to total variance. The
ICC(2) is an assessment of reliability of the group means.
The F test associated with these analyses indicates whether
the individual-level responses differ significantly by groups.
In addition, the r wg(j) statistic was computed to provide an
estimate of interrater agreement within each department
(James 1982).
There was no meaningful between-group variance for
the supportive service climate construct. The F and intra-
class correlation values for supportive service climate,
F(46, 111) =1.42, p =ns, ICC(1) =.11, ICC(2) =.29, were
well below the values typically considered acceptable in
organizational research (Bliese 2000). The median rwg(j) for
supportive service climate was .52, which is below the .70
cutoff discussed by James (1982), indicating low agreement
among employees within each department. As such, these
analyses do not support aggregating the supportive service
climate construct to the department level.
Results
Examination of the statistical analysis presented in Exhibit 2
suggests that supportive service climate was significantly
related to service performance (r=.23, p < .01) and intentions
to leave (r=–.38, p < .01), demonstrating support for hypoth-
eses 1 and 2. To test the mediated relationships, we estimated
the model presented in Figure 1 using Mplus 6.0 (Muthén and
Muthén 2007) with the covariance matrix as input and a
maximum likelihood solution. In the structural model, sup-
portive service climate was the exogenous variable and self-
efficacy, service performance, and intentions to leave were
endogenous variables (see Exhibit 3). Self-efficacy was
presented as a mediator of the relationships between sup-
portive service climate and both customer service perfor-
mance and intentions to leave. We assessed the fit of the
model using (1) the global chi-square test of model fit,
(2) model fit statistics such as CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR,
and (3) the significance of each path in the model.
Overall, the hypothesized model produced a reasonable
fit to the data, χ2(703, N =150) =1119.17, p< .001, CFI=.91,
RMSEA =.06, and SRMR =.09. As depicted in Exhibit 3,
all of the hypothesized path coefficients were statistically
significant, thereby providing additional support for the
model. To determine whether the hypothesized model is
the best approximation to the data, two alternative models
were tested. Alternative model 1 assessed whether the rela-
tionship between supportive service climate and service
performance was partially mediated by self-efficacy, and
alternative model 2 assessed whether the relationship
between supportive service climate and intentions to leave
was partially mediated by self-efficacy.3 While the fit statis-
tics for both alternative models were within the conven-
tional values, some of the paths became nonsignificant with
the inclusions of the partially mediated paths. As such, the
hypothesized model provided the best fit to the data.
Although not hypothesized, we found a significant rela-
tionship (see Exhibit 2) between intentions to leave and cus-
tomer service job performance (r = –.22, p < .01). This
relationship may suggest that customer-contact employees
who had greater success serving customers were ultimately
happier because of their positive interactions with custom-
ers and more likely to stay in their jobs than were employ-
ees who had less success serving customers.4
Discussion
One of the key findings from this study was the signifi-
cant relationship between supportive service climate and
supervisor ratings of customer service job performance
Exhibit 2:
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Shift 1.22 0.42 —
2. Gender 1.49 0.50 –.16* —
3. Age 33.28 14.36 –.23** .03 —
4. Education 2.47 1.03 .02 –.15 .00 —
5. Organizational tenure101.02 112.05 –.22** .02 .58** .02 —
6. Service climate 4.91 1.21 –.14 .15 .03 –.17* –.10 —
7. Self-efficacy 6.05 1.04 –.15 .19* .03 .13 –.03 .29** —
8. Intentions to leave 2.33 1.67 .25** –.20 –.36** .12 –.23** –.38** –.26** —
9. Service performance 5.24 1.19 –.17* .03 .03 –.09 .11 .23** .16* –.22** —
Note: N= 150. Means and standard deviations are reported on the basis of a 7-point scale. Means and standard deviations for time employe
organization are represented in months. Service performance and supportive service climate represent multidimensional constructs.
*p < .05. **p< .01.

168 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(2)
(Way, Sturman, and Raab 2010). This finding demon-
strates that an individual’s perception regarding support
for customer service comes from a variety of work char-
acteristics, and this support appears to be an important
factor in driving customer-contact employee service per-
formance. For example, one of the ways to enhance
customer-contact employee service performance is to
establish employee-centered HR programs, such as ensur-
ing that rewards and incentives are tied to the delivery of
high-quality customer service and providing training to
develop employee skills necessary for providing high-
quality customer service. In addition, it appears that super-
visors play an important role in creating a high-quality
service context that supports effective customer service
behaviors among customer-contact employees—a finding
that is consistent with previous research (Susskind, Kacmar,
and Borchgrevink 2007). Finally, our results suggest that
the design of jobs can affect employee customer service
performance, particularly by ensuring that employees
have the right supplies and equipment and that sufficient
staff members are available during each shift to assist in
the provision of high-quality service to customers. Thus,
this study provides needed insights regarding the impact
of employee service perceptions on service-specific job
performance.
The results also showed that supportive service climate
was significantly related to employees’ intentions to leave
the organization. While previous research has demonstrated
the link between HR practices, manager behaviors, and job
design with turnover, to our knowledge this is the first study
to examine the relationship between psychological climate
perceptions of support and retention-specific outcomes.
The results also showed that supportive service climate was
positively related to self-efficacy and that self-efficacy
mediated the supportive service climate-service perfor-
mance and supportive service climate-intentions to leave
relationships. In other words, providing support to employ-
ees gives them the confidence to perform their jobs better
and the motivation to stay with the organization. Taken
together, it appears that supportive service climate has a
fairly broad and ubiquitous impact on customer-contact
employees. Moreover, these findings provide a more com-
prehensive conceptual explanation of the nature and impact
of individual climate perceptions with respect to support for
creating and sustaining high levels of service quality.
One avenue of future research is to examine the ways in
which supportive service climate may be related to other
climate and support constructs. For example, given that
supportive service climate is a psychological climate con-
struct reflecting work-related support, future research
should determine its relationship with constructs such as
POS. That concept is conceptually distinct from supportive
service climate in that the latter reflects descriptive cogni-
tive appraisals of specific aspects of their work environ-
ment that may influence service job performance, while
POS reflects employees’ general affective reactions regard-
ing the organization’s commitment to their personal well-
being. As such, it may be worthwhile to investigate the
extent to which supportive service climate may be an ante-
cedent of POS since employees’ cognitive appraisals of
Exhibit 3:
Model of outcomes of supportive service climate
Supportive Service
Climate
Self-Efficacy
Service
Performance
Intentions to Leave
-.24**
(.08)
.22*
(.10)
.47**
(.08)
.16*
(.08)
-.08*
(.04)
Note: The standard errors for the path coefficients appear in parentheses; dashed lines reflect the mediated effects.
*p < .05. **p< .01.

Michel et al. 169
support may influence their feelings regarding the degree to
which the organization cares about their well-being.
Similarly, Schneider, White, and Paul (1998) demonstrated
that supportive practices are an important determinant of
global service climate perceptions. As such, future research
should investigate the relationship between the supportive
service climate and global service climate perceptions.
A second area of future research concerns the level of
analysis at which supportive service climate should be con-
ceptualized. Given that supportive service climate is an
assessment of psychological climate, it is plausible to
aggregate this construct to the unit level of analysis (Borucki
and Burke 1999). However, in our study, assessments of the
interrater agreement and reliability indicated that service
climate was best conceptualized at the individual level of
analysis. These estimates can be attributed to the number of
groups included in the sample (n= 45) and the average
number of participants (3.33) within each group (Bliese
1998). Another reason for these low estimates may be our
use of the individual as the referent within the survey ques-
tions, as opposed to the group. Chan (1998) suggests that
with the referent-shift consensus model, individuals’ rate
the group’s perception of climate rather than only their
own. Future research should use this latter perspective to
ascertain the unit-level relationship between supportive ser-
vice climate and service quality and customer satisfaction
and the cross-level relationship between supportive service
climate and service performance and intentions to leave.
Limitations
The results of this study should be interpreted within the
context of three limitations. First, although we provided
tests of the direct and indirect relationships hypothesized in
this study, the data are cross-sectional. Therefore, the direc-
tion of causality between the study’s variables cannot be
ascertained by our results. It may be, for example, that
effective customer service performance affects the amount
and kind of support for service quality provided by the
organization. It could also be that support for service
quality influences employees’ customer service job perfor-
mance. Finally, the causal relationship between these two
variables may be bidirectional. Thus, longitudinal research
should investigate these possible causal linkages.
A second limitation is that supportive service climate,
self-efficacy, and intentions to leave were all collected from
the same source, potentially leading to common method
bias (CMB) and thereby providing possible alternative
explications for the observed relationships between vari-
ables. Concerns of CMB were assuaged using statistical and
procedural remedies recommended by Podsakoff et al.
(2003). Using a statistical approach, two CFAs were con-
ducted to demonstrate the discriminate validity of these
factors. The model including the higher-order supportive
service climate dimension, self-efficacy dimension, and
turnover intention dimension fit the data, χ2(83, N =158) =
110.53, p < .05, CFI =.98, RMSEA =.05, and SRMR =.07,
better than a single-factor model, χ2(90, N =158) =847.90,
p < .001, CFI =.55, RMSEA =.23, and SRMR =.14, pro-
viding evidence for the discriminant validity of the three
constructs.
Three procedural remedies were also used in the mea-
surement of the variables as suggested by Podsakoff et al.
(2003) to reduce CMB. First, we reduced evaluation appre-
hension by providing respondents with verbal and written
assurances of confidentiality and that there were no right or
wrong answers. Second, we obtained attitude and percep-
tion measures from employees and service performance rat-
ings from managers. Third, the response format used to
assess intentions to leave was operationally distinct from
those used to measure the other self-report constructs.
Finally, recent literature suggests that CMB is not as perva-
sive as once assumed and has taken on the characteristics of
an “urban legend” (Spector 2006). Spector argues that if
CMB were so prevalent, we would expect a baseline of cor-
relations among all variables measured with the same self-
report survey. This baseline did not appear in the results of
this study. The correlations among the self-reported vari-
ables depicted in Table 1 ranged from –.38 to .29. This dif-
ference represents a significant magnitude, rather than a
baseline, among these variables.
A third limitation of this study was that data were col-
lected from grocery store employees rather than hospitality-
specific employees (typically, those in hotels and restaurants).
Hinkin and Tracey (2010) used grocery stores in a sample
of more traditional hospitality organizations as part of a
study in which they determined the HR practices used by
organizations listed on the Fortune 100 best companies to
work for list. In support of the inclusion of grocery stores in
their study, Hinkin and Tracey noted that grocery stores are
similar to traditional hospitality organizations in various
ways such as heavy customer interactions, extensive operat-
ing hours, and jobs characterized by low complexity, repeti-
tion, minimal training, and high turnover (Hinkin and
Tracey 2010). With this said, future research should be con-
ducted with a sample of traditional hospitality organizations
to ensure that our findings can be generalized.
Managerial Implications
This research provides a number of practical implications
for hospitality organizations. In particular, our findings
suggest that shaping perceptions of support is especially
important in motivating customer-contact employees to
provide consistent, high-quality service and remain com-
mitted to the organization. In addition, our study provides a
framework for diagnosing a firm’s service climate as well as
formalizing employee competencies through job descriptions,

170 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(2)
staffing procedures, training programs, performance man-
agement systems, management practices, and redesigning
jobs. Thus, organizations can utilize the supportive service
climate measure to learn more about their HR policies,
practices, and procedures that may influence employee
perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors associated with cus-
tomer service.
Our results suggest that one way to shape supportive ser-
vice climate perceptions in employees is through the imple-
mentation of employee-centered HR practices that help
employees deliver quality service to customers, such as job
design, staffing systems, training programs, and compensa-
tion plans (Nishii, Lepak, and Schneider 2008). As noted
above, Hinkin and Tracey (2010) identified a wide array of
HR practices that have been implemented by various
service and hospitality companies that are included on
Fortune’s list of most admired companies to work for.
Some of these practices included the use of flexible sched-
uling initiatives such as job sharing and compressed work
weeks and innovative staffing practices such as promoting
an employee-centric brand by publicizing awards received
by the company and providing referral awards to employ-
ees. In addition, increasing the rigor of staffing procedures
and emphasizing the importance of customer service are
necessary for promoting a high-quality, service-focused
environment. For example, Publix Supermarkets requires
job candidates to take a twenty-five-minute online test to
assess their customer service knowledge and skills (Hinkin
and Tracey 2010). Doing so ensures that employees have
the skills needed to deal with customer demands, thereby
increasing the chance of success in the job. Other practices
include continuous developmental opportunities for all
employees and utilizing a clearly defined performance eval-
uation system that accounts for customer service processes
and outcomes. For example, Harrah’s entertainment pro-
vides quarterly bonuses to employees based on the quality
of service provided to customers (Tracey and Way 2011).
This sends a message to employees that quality customer
service is important for the success of Harrah’s and for its
employees.
Another way of shaping the supportive service climate
perceptions of employees is to ensure that managers set
service-related goals, provide recognition and rewards to
employees for good service, and remove obstacles that pre-
vent employees from effectively serving customers. The
behavior of a service employee’s immediate supervisor
may be the most salient factor that can affect employees’
perceptions of the supervisor’s support for them (Testa and
Ehrhart 2005). Supervisors can be trained to provide non-
monetary recognition to service employees through behav-
ioral modeling programs (Taylor, Russ-Eft, and Chan
2005). Similarly, managers can be trained to effectively set
goals related to service quality, remove obstacles that pre-
vent employees from achieving desired quality standards,
and provide feedback and recognition to employees to build
their self-efficacy and motivate them to provide quality ser-
vice and to remain with the organization. Similarly, manag-
ers could be more flexible in scheduling employees and
designing the work in support of their employees. This is
especially important in hospitality because these organiza-
tions typically operate around the clock and have a nontra-
ditional workforce, such as parents with child care issues
and younger workers concerned with balancing work,
school, and life issues (Hinkin and Tracey 2010). For exam-
ple, Marriott offers employees the opportunity to work
compressed workweeks (i.e., four 10-hour days or three
12-hour days), and Stew Lenard’s “Moms Program” allows
working mothers to schedule their work around child care
or other child activities (Hinkin and Tracey 2010). This
suggests to employees that their managers care about
employees’ well-being, thereby motivating them to recipro-
cate this favorable treatment by providing quality customer
service (Susskind, Kacmar, and Borchgrevink 2003).
Conclusion
Creating and sustaining a competitive advantage in the
hospitality industry requires an unwavering focus on cus-
tomer service. The results from our study demonstrate the
importance and impact of cultivating a supportive work
climate that promotes effective service performance and
motivation among customer-contact employees. By imple-
menting service-focused HR practices, ensuring that man-
agers place a priority on service quality, and designing jobs
that provide the necessary resources and support to deliver
exceptional customer service, employees will be more
engaged and committed to their work and deliver on the
firm’s customer service promises. Over time, hospitality
organizations will realize a stronger competitive position
and achieve superior levels of efficiency, quality, and
financial performance.
Authors’ Note
This article is based on the first author’s dissertation.
Acknowledgments
We thank Gary Yukl and Raymond Van Ness for their assistance
with this research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The
Faculty Development and Research Committee of Towson University

Michel et al. 171
and the Summer Research Grant Program in the College of Business
& Economics at Towson University provided valuable financial sup-
port for the preparation of this article.
Notes
1. Items were assigned to parcels within factor. The items from
the HR support scale were used to create three parcels for the
HR support factor, items from the management support scale
were used to create three parcels for the management support
factor, and items from the job support scale were used to create
three item parcels for the job support factor.
2. It is important to note that climate perceptions emanate from
an individual’s cognitive appraisals of the environment. As a
result, it is most appropriate to measure these perceptions at the
individual level of analysis and treat the construct as an organi-
zational climate only when the perceptions can be meaningfully
aggregated to the unit or organizational level (James 1982).
3. Results from the alternative model tests can be obtained from
the first author.
4. We would like to thank one of the anonymous reviewers for
suggesting this point.
References
Ahearne, M., J. E. Mathieu, and A. Rapp. 2005. “To Empower
or Not to Empower Your Sales Force? An Empirical Exami-
nation of the Influence of Leadership Empowerment Behav-
ior on Customer Satisfaction and Performance.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 90:945-955.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Batt, R. 2002. “Managing Customer Services: Human Resource
Practices, Quit Rates, and Sales Growth.” Academy of Man-
agement Journal 45:587-97.
Bettencourt, L. A., K. P. Gwinner, and M. L. Meuter. 2001. “A
Comparison of Attitude, Personality, and Knowledge Predic-
tors of Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behav-
iors.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86:29-41.
Bliese, P. D. 1998. “Group Size, ICC Values, and Group-Level
Correlations: A Simulation.” Organizational Research Meth-
ods 1:355-73.
Bliese, P. D. 2000. “Within-group agreement, non-independence,
and reliability.” In Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods
in Organizations, edited by K. J. Klein and S. W. J. Kozlowski,
pp. 349-81. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bluedorn, A. C. 1982. “A Unified Model of Turnover from Orga-
nizations.” Human Relations 35:135-53.
Borucki, C. C., and M. J. Burke. 1999. “An Examination of
Service-Related Antecedents to Retail Store Performance.”
Journal of Organizational Behavior 20:943-62.
Bowen, D. E., and C. Ostroff. 2004. “Understanding HRM-
Firm Performance Linkages: The Role of the “Strength”
of the HRM System.” Academy of Management Review
29:203-21.
Brown, S. P., and T. W. Leigh. 1996. “A New Look at Psychologi-
cal Climate and Its Relationship to Job Involvement, Effort
and Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 81:358-68.
Burke, M. J., C. C. Borucki, and A. E. Hurley. 1992. “Recon-
ceptualizing Psychological Climate in a Retail Service Envi-
ronment: A Multiple Stakeholder Perspective.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 77:717-29.
Carless, S. A. 2004. “Does Psychological Empowerment Medi-
ate the Relationship between Psychological Climate and Job
Satisfaction?” Journal of Business and Psychology 18:405-25.
Chan, D. 1998. “Functional Relations among Constructs in the
Same Content Domain at Different Levels of Analysis: A
Typology of Composition Models.” Journal of Applied Psy-
chology 83:234-46.
Cheng-Hua, T., C. Shyh-Jer, and F. Shih-Chien. 2009. “Employ-
ment Modes, High-Performance Work Practices, and Orga-
nizational Performance in the Hospitality Industry.” Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly 50:413-31.
Clark, R. A., M. D. Hartline, and K. C. Jones. 2009. “The Effects
of Leadership Style on Hotel Employees’ Commitment to Ser-
vice Quality.” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50:209-31.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitudes, Intention, and
Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
George, J. M. 1991. “State or Trait: Effects of Positive Mood on
Prosocial Behavior at Work.” Journal of Applied Psychology
76:299-307.
Gist, M. E., and T. R. Mitchell. 1992. “Self-Efficacy: A Theoreti-
cal Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability.” Academy
of Management Review 17:183-211.
Griffeth, R. W., P. W. Hom, and S. Gaertner. 2000. “A Meta-
analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover:
Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the
Next Millennium.” Journal of Management 26:463-88.
Heskett, J. L., W. E. Sasser, Jr., and L. A. Schlesinger. 1997. The
Service Profit Chain. New York: Free Press.
Hinkin, T. R. 1998. “A Brief Tutorial on the Development of
Measures for Use in Survey Questionnaires.” Organizational
Research Methods 1:104-21.
Hinkin, T. R., and C. A. Schriesheim. 2004. “If You Don’t Hear
from Me You Know You Are Doing Fine: The Effects of Man-
agement Nonresponse to Employee Performance.” Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 45:362-72.
Hinkin, T. R., and J. B. Tracey. 2010. “What Makes It So Great?
An Analysis of Human Resources Practices among Fortune’s
Best Companies to Work For.” Cornell Quarterly 51:158-70.
Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in
Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus
New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling 6:1-55.
James, L. R. 1982. “Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual
Agreement.” Journal of Applied Psychology 67:219-29.
Johnson, J. W. 1996. “Linking Employee Perceptions of Service
Climate to Customer Satisfaction.” Personnel Psychology
49:831-51.

172 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(2)
Kusluvan, S., Z. Kusluvan, I. Ilhan, and L. Buyruk. 2010. “The
Human Dimension: A Review of Human Resources Manage-
ment Issues in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry.” Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly 51:171-214.
Liao, H., and A. Chuang. 2004. “A Multilevel Investigation of Fac-
tors Influencing Employee Service Performance and Customer
Outcomes.” Academy of Management Journal 47:41-58.
Liao, H., and A. Chuang. 2007. “Transforming Service Employ-
ees and Climate: A Multilevel, Multisource Examination of
Transformational Leadership in Building Long-Term Service
Relationships.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92:1006-19.
Liao, H., K. Toya, D. P. Lepak, and Y. Hong. 2009. “Do They
See Eye to Eye? Management and Employee Perceptions of
High-Performance Work Systems and Influence Processes on
Service Quality.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94:371-91.
Little, T. D., W. A. Cunningham, G. Shahar, and K. F. Widaman.
2002. “To Parcel or Not to Parcel: Exploring the Question,
Weighing the Merits.” Structural Equation Modeling 9:151-73.
Lytle, R. S., P. W. Hom, and M. P. Mokwa. 1998. “SERV*OR: A
Managerial Measure of Organizational Service-Orientation.”
Journal of Retailing 74:455-89.
Martin, A. J., E. S. Jones, and V. J. Callan. 2005. “The Role of
Psychological Climate in Facilitating Employee Adjustment
during Organizational Change.” European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology 14:263-89.
Maurer, T. J., H. R. Pierce, and L. M. Shore. 2002. “Perceived
Beneficiary of Employee Development Activity: A Three-
Dimensional Social Exchange Model.” Academy of Manage-
ment Review 27:432-44.
Michel, J. W., M. J. Tews, and M. J. Kavanagh. 2010. “Develop-
ment and Validation of the Customer-Centered Behavior Mea-
sure.” Working paper, Towson University.
Muthén, L. K., and B. O. Muthén. 2007. Mplus Users Guide. 5th
ed. Los Angeles: Muthén and Muthén.
Ng, T. W. H., and K. L. Sorensen. 2008. “Toward a Further Under-
standing of the Relationships between Perceptions of Support
and Work Attitudes: A Meta-Analysis.” Group & Organiza-
tion Management 33:243-68.
Nishii, L. H., D. P. Lepak, and B. Schneider. 2008. “Employee
Attributions of the ‘Why’ of HR Practices: Their Effects on
Employee Attitudes and Behaviors, and Customer Satisfac-
tion.” Personnel Psychology 61:503-45.
Phillips, J. M., and S. M. Gully. 1997. “Role of Goal Orientation,
Ability, Need for Achievement, and Locus of Control in the
Self-Efficacy and Goal-Setting Process.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 82:792-802.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff.
2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A
Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Rem-
edies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88:879-903.
Rhoades, L., and Eisenberger, R. 2002. “Perceived organizational
support: A review of the literature.” Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 87:698-714.
Ryan, A. M., and R. E. Ployhart. 2003. “Customer Service
Behavior.” In Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Orga-
nizational Psychology, vol. 12, edited by W. C. Borman,
D. R. Ilgen, and R. J. Klimoski, Vol. 12, pp. 377-97. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley.
Schneider, B., D. E. Bowen, M. G. Ehrhart, and K. M. Holcombe.
2000. “The Climate for Service: Evolution of a Construct.” In
Handbook of Organizational Culture & Climate, edited by W.
C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, and R. J. Klimoski, pp. 21-36. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, B., and S. S. White. 2004. Service Quality: Research
Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, B., S. S. White, and M. C. Paul. 1998. “Linking Service
Climate and Customer Perceptions of Service Quality: Test of
a Causal Model.” Journal of Applied Psychology 83:150-63.
Shaw, J. D., J. E. Delery, G. D. Jenkins, Jr., and N. Gupta. 1998.
“An Organization-Level Analysis of Voluntary and Involun-
tary Turnover.” Academy of Management Journal 41:511-25.
Spector, P. E. 2006. “Method Variance in Organizational Research:
Truth or Urban Legend?” Organizational Research Methods
9:221-32.
Susskind, A. M., K. M. Kacmar, and C. P. Borchgrevink. 2003.
“Customer Service Providers’ Attitudes Relating to Customer
Service and Customer Satisfaction in the Customer-Server
Exchange.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88:179-87.
Susskind, A. M., K. M. Kacmar, and C. P. Borchgrevink. 2007. “How
Organizational Standards and Coworker Support Improve Res-
taurant Service.” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 48:370-79.
Taylor, P. J., D. F. Russ-Eft, and D. W. L. Chan. 2005. “A Meta-
Analytic Review of Behavior Modeling Training.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 90:692-709.
Testa, M. R., and M. G. Ehrhart. 2005. “Service Leader Interaction
Behaviors: Comparing Employee and Manager Perspectives.”
Group & Organization Management 30:456-86.
Tracey, J. B., and T. R. Hinkin. 2008. “Contextual Factors and
Cost Profiles Associated with Employee Turnover.” Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly 49:12-27.
Tracey, J. B., M. C. Sturman, and M. J. Tews. 2007. “Ability ver-
sus Personality: Factors That Predict Employee Job Perfor-
mance.” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 48:313-22.
Tracey, J. B., and M. J. Tews. 2005. “Construct Validity of a Gen-
eral Training Climate Scale.” Organizational Research Meth-
ods 8:353-74.
Tracey, J. B., and S. A. Way. 2011. “Making the Most of Your Human
Capital.” In The Cornell School of Hotel Administration on Hospi-
tality: Cutting Edge Thinking and Practice, edited by M. C. Sturman,
J. C. Corgel, and R. Verma, 444-54. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Tsai, W. 2001. “Determinants and Consequences of Employee Dis-
played Positive Emotions.” Journal of Management 27:497-512.
Way, S. A., M. C. Sturman, and C. Raab. 2010. “What Matters
More? Contrasting the Effects of Job Satisfaction and Service
Climate on Hotel Food and Beverage Managers’ Job Perfor-
mance.” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51:379-97.

Michel et al. 173
Wood, R., and A. Bandura. 1989. “Social Cognitive Theory
of Organizational Management.” Academy of Management
Review 14:361-84.
Bios
John W. Michel is an assistant professor of management in the
Joseph A. Sellinger, S.J. School of Business & Management at
Loyola University Maryland ([e-mail]).
Michael J. Kavanagh is professor emeritus in the School of
Business at the University at Albany, State University of New
York ([e-mail]).
J. Bruce Tracey is an associate professor in the School of Hotel
Administration at Cornell University ([e-mail]).