Links between service climate,employee commitment andemployees’ service quality

capabilityMarie Mikic Little

Monash University, Churchill, Australia, and

Alison M. DeanThe University of Newcastle, Callghan, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – Studies have demonstrated that the service climate in an organisation, as perceived byemployees, is positively related to service quality, as perceived by customers. However, no studiesappear to have tested the link to service quality from an employee perspective. Hence, the major aim ofthis study was to investigate the relationships between service climate, employee commitment andemployees’ service quality capability (SQC).

Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected by a cross-sectional field study of frontlineemployees in a telecommunications call centre (n ¼ 167; 58 percent). A call centre was chosen becauseof the perceived poor service climate and the high levels of employee turnover.

Findings – Global service climate (GSC) in the call centre was found to be positively related toemployees’ SQC, with partial mediation by employee commitment. Regression analysis showed thatthree factors: managerial practices, customer feedback and human resource management contributedto GSC but, unexpectedly, customer orientation did not.

Research limitations/implications – The findings indicate that the service climate in a call centreaffects employees, both in terms of their commitment, and their self-reported feelings about thedelivery of service quality to customers. Unexpected findings suggest that further work on serviceclimate in call centres is warranted.

Practical implications – This study demonstrates the important effects of service climate ingeneral, and HRM in particular, on frontline employees in call centres. Managers should benefit fromnoting the links and the likely service quality outcome for customers.

Originality/value – This paper applies and extends theory developed in other contexts to callcentres.

Keywords Service climate, Job satisfaction, Customer services quality, Call centres, Australia

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionIn recent years the service sector has witnessed some extreme changes in theworkplace. Companies have linked information technology advances withtelecommunications to re-invent their customer service activities and sales via calland contact centres (Knights and McCabe, 2003). The call centre phenomenon suggestswhat some have described as a transfer from “routine” to “knowledge” work inemployment (Blackler et al., 1993; Frenkel et al., 1995). Frenkel et al. (1995) highlight theappearance of a new form of “info-normative” control, where administrativeprocedures are one of the main media of work. This situation involves performance

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm

MSQ16,5

460

Managing Service QualityVol. 16 No. 5, 2006pp. 460-476q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0960-4529DOI 10.1108/09604520610686133

benchmarks that allow automatic generation of performance data and managers canadopt practices to improve employees’ performance using specific objectives andtargets (Knights and McCabe, 2003). Such efficiency-focused practices generatequestions about control and employee stress (Knights and McCabe, 1998) and the roleand importance of the organisational climate in a centre set up with the specific goal ofproviding service to customers.

In tandem with their recent growth worldwide, call centres have received negativepublicity concerning how they are managed (Armistead et al., 2002). In general,researchers have found that managers do emphasise efficiency goals and productivitytargets (Singh, 2000), and that they frequently subject employees to high levels ofmonitoring and stressful working environments (Knights and McCabe, 1998; Taylorand Bain, 1999; Wallace et al., 2000). The reputed focus on efficiency, at the expense ofemployee well-being, suggests that a poor service climate may exist in call centres, andthat employees may have difficulty delivering high levels of service quality tocustomers. However, there are few studies that have investigated employees’perceptions about customer service in call centres (Armistead et al., 2002; Gilmore,2001) or the climate that contributes to it. This study aims to address that gap.

Service climate is defined as “the shared perceptions of employees concerning thepractices, procedures, and kinds of behaviours that get rewarded and supported withrespect to customer service and service quality” (Schneider et al., 1998, p. 151). That is,service climate is built on foundations of caring for both customers and employees(Burke et al., 1992; Schneider et al., 1992). The importance of the elements of serviceclimate to customers and employees has been demonstrated in various studies. Forexample, Rogg et al. (2001) found that service climate facilitates the delivery ofcustomer satisfaction, while Schneider et al. (1998) demonstrated a positive linkbetween the way employees perceive service climate and customers’ perceptions ofservice quality. More recently, Schneider et al. (2002) showed that the strength ofservice climate has a moderating effect on the link between employees and customers.Additionally, service climate has been found to be related to employee commitment(Lux et al., 1996) and to increase the empowering leadership behaviours of a serviceworker’s supervisor, with flow on effects to the worker (Yagil and Gal, 2002). With itspotential implications for both customers and employees, service climate is therefore ofconsiderable interest in call centre research.

Another issue of great concern in call centres is employee commitment, and the highlevels of employee withdrawal and turnover (Deery et al., 2002; Malhotra andMukherjee, 2004). In this study, employee commitment is defined in terms ofemployees’ beliefs in the goals and values of the organisation, their willingness to exerteffort, and their intention to maintain membership of the organisation (Mowday et al.,1979, p. 226). Thus, employee commitment encapsulates both employees’ feelingsabout the organisation and their desire to remain with it. In a related call centre study,de Ruyter et al. (2001) found an inverse relationship between job satisfaction andemployee turnover. Using a meta analysis of studies on employee commitment,Griffeth et al. (2000) found that employee commitment is a valid and reliable predictorof employee turnover. Hence, employee commitment is important in the call centrecontext of the study because it reflects turnover intentions.

Despite compelling findings on the importance of managerial policy and practice toservice climate (Schneider et al., 1998; Schneider et al., 1992), and the role of employee

Service climate

461

commitment in organisational success (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), few studies appear tohave explored the manner in which service climate affects employees and the resultanteffects on their ability to service customers. Exceptions include studies which havedemonstrated the partial mediation, by employee commitment, of the relationshipbetween organizational characteristics and service climate (Lux et al., 1996); themediation of the link between HRM practices and customer satisfaction byorganisational climate (Rogg et al., 2001); and the role of service climate inempowering the service worker’s supervisor which, in turn, enhances the serviceworker’s sense of empowerment (Yagil and Gal, 2002). Thus, the major aim of this studywas to investigate employees’ perceptions of, and responses to, the service climate withrespect to frontline positions in a call centre. In particular, relationships between theservice climate in the call centre, employees’ commitment to the organisation, and theirability to provide high levels of service quality to customers were proposed and tested.

Service climate can be investigated in terms of global service climate (GSC), or itsdimensions. Thus, a secondary aim of the paper was to investigate the directrelationships, if any, between the dimensions of service climate with employeecommitment and service quality capability. GSC is distinguished from the dimensionsof service climate by drawing on the explanation and scale development work ofSchneider et al. (1998, p. 153). They describe global service climate (GSC) as a“summary measure of the organization’s climate for service” and state that GSC is “nota composite of the three scales” (discussed below), but rather “it is its own distinct scaledesigned to tap the ‘molar’ aspect of service climate”.

Schneider et al. (1998, p. 157) showed that global service climate was significantlyrelated to each of three predictors: customer orientation (CO), managerial practices(MP) and customer feedback (CF), with the strongest link to CO. While Schneider et al.’s(1998) managerial practices included some aspects of human resource management,other literature emphasises the role that human resource management (HRM) and, inparticular, learning and development, has in influencing service climate and customerservice (Babin and Boles, 1996; Burke et al., 1992; Rogg et al., 2001). In the currentstudy, global service climate is therefore expected to consist of four dimensions: CO,MP, CF, and HRM. Precise definitions of these dimensions are included towards theend of the next section. All four dimensions were expected to relate positively to theglobal service climate variable but their relative contribution is unknown and,apparently, untested.

Development of hypothesesFirst, we test the relationship between global service climate and employeecommitment. As stated previously, Schneider et al. (1998) describe service climate interms of employees’ perceptions of the practices, procedures and behaviours that areexpected, supported and rewarded with respect to customer service and servicequality. That is, the service climate communicates a message to employees about whatis valued by the organisation, and the attitudes and behaviours that are desired andwill be rewarded. Thus, service climate can influence employee attitudes, and somescholars have suggested that businesses must be concerned with improvingemployees’ perceptions of service climate because those perceptions help to defineemployee attitudes (Lux et al., 1996). We propose that employee commitment is one

MSQ16,5

462

such attitude. However, few studies have examined organizational commitment inrelation to employee perceptions of organizational climate for service (Lux et al., 1996).

The existing studies have demonstrated various associations and links betweenelements of service climate and employee commitment. For example, Rogg et al. (2001)included employee commitment (the degree to which employees would supportorganisational goals and welfare) in their conceptualisation of service climate and foundthat it correlated with other components that are relevant to the definition of climate inthe current study, for example, management practices (0.59) and customer orientation(0.68). In a call centre study, Singh (2000) found that boss support reduced employees’burnout tendencies and enhanced their perceived commitment levels. Similarly, Luxet al. (1996) found strong support for the hypothesis that when management providessupport and resources to overcome technical and social obstacles encountered byemployees, employees will exhibit higher levels of commitment to the company. Finally,Schmit and Allscheid (1995) found that variables assessing climate (such asmanagement support) were strongly associated with employees’ affective response tothe organisation, which was strongly associated with service intentions. With the otherstudies mentioned above, Schmit and Allscheid’s (1995) link between climate and affectalso supports the relationship hypothesised here. That is:

H1. Global service climate will be positively related to employee commitment.

The present study also tests whether there is a relationship between global serviceclimate and employee’s service quality capability in a call centre. Service qualitymeasures how well the service level received by customers matches their expectations(Parasuraman et al., 1985). In call centres, service quality is delivered by frontlineemployees during encounters with customers, and is influenced by the extent to whichthe organisation supports employees in their endeavours (Singh, 2000). We areinterested in employees’ responses to the service climate and, more specifically,whether these responses influence employees’ self-reported service quality capability.Schlesinger and Zornitsky (1991) defined service quality capability (SQC) as the extentto which employees are satisfied with their ability to deliver service quality tocustomers. We adopt this definition.

As noted above, service climate is built on foundations of caring for customers andemployees (Burke et al., 1992), and it is designed to empower, assist and motivateemployees to provide superior customer service and high levels of service quality(Schneider, 1990). Various scholars, in linkage research studies, have found arelationship between the organisation’s attitude to its employees and outcomes forcustomers. Using empirical evidence from 29 studies that involved both employeesand customers, Dean (2004a) provides a review of major links between organisationaland customer variables in service delivery. The review shows studies that demonstraterelationships between organisational features and service quality (e.g. Parasuramanet al., 1992) or customer satisfaction (e.g. Johnson, 1996). While linkage studies usecustomer data to assess to service quality outcomes, it is alleged that where theseoutcomes are positive, employees will be relatively satisfied with their service qualitycapability. Hence, the second hypothesis is proposed:

H2. Global service climate will be positively related to employees’ service qualitycapability.

We now consider the possible relationship between employee commitment and servicequality capability. As defined above, employee commitment is concerned with

Service climate

463

employees’ identification, involvement, and intent to remain with an organisation, andhas been linked to employees’ attitudes and responses to their workplaces (Grebneret al., 2003; Lux et al., 1996; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Few studies appear to haveinvestigated employee commitment and employees’ opinions about the service theydeliver to customers (Malhotra and Mukherjee, 2004). However, scholars have foundthat service workers are more likely to deliver quality to customers when they perceivepositive management approaches to them (Gronroos, 1984; Singh, 2000) and are likelyto treat customers in the same way that they are treated by the organisation (Yagil andGal, 2002). Bettencourt and Brown (1997, p. 39) stated:

Leading firms and scholars propose a possible relationship between the fair treatment ofemployees and excellence in service delivery.

Similarly, using a sample from six occupations, Eisenberger et al. (1990) reportedpositive relationships between employees’ feelings of perceived organisational supportwith their commitment, job attendance and performance. Finally, a recent study byMalhotra and Mukherjee (2004), conducted in four call centres of a UK bank,demonstrated that the organisational commitment of employees had a significantimpact on their self-evaluated service quality performance. Hence, we propose:

H3. Employee commitment will be positively related to employees’ service qualitycapability.

Figure 1 provides a summary of the variables and hypotheses guiding the study.As well as testing the hypotheses shown in Figure 1, the study investigates whether

employee commitment mediates the proposed link between service climate and servicequality capability. That is, we are interested in whether employees’ feelings about theirorganisation transmit the effects of service climate to their satisfaction with theirability to deliver a quality service to customers. Based on the logic of internal quality inthe service profit chain, where employees’ attitudes are developed and reflected in theirdelivery of value to customers (Heskett et al., 1997), we propose that this will be thecase. Further, in a study closely related to the current one, Yoon et al. (2001) found thatboth service climate and supportive management contribute to employees’ jobsatisfaction and work effort, and indirectly impact on customers’ perceptions ofemployee service quality. Therefore we propose:

H4. Employee commitment will mediate the relationship between global serviceclimate and employees’ service quality capability.

Figure 1.Conceptual model guidingthe study

MSQ16,5

464

Dimensions of service climateThe secondary aim of the study was to investigate the proposed relationships betweenservice climate and the dependent variables, using the dimensions of service climate,rather than global service climate. We used the four dimensions shown in Figure 1,essentially adopted from Schneider et al. (1998), and defined as follows. Customerorientation measures the degree to which an organisation emphasizes, in multipleways, meeting customer needs and expectations for service quality. Customer feedbackmeasures the solicitation and use of feedback from customers regarding servicequality. Managerial practices reflect those actions taken by an employee’s immediatemanager that support and reward the delivery of quality service (Schneider et al., 1998).We have added a fourth dimension, human resource management, to be concernedspecifically with the policies, procedures and resources to support frontline staff. Itemphasises training, problem-solving, and the role of on-line e-learning in call centres.When investigating the dimensions of service climate, we aimed to identify whichdimension of service climate demonstrates the strongest relationship to each ofemployee commitment and service quality capability.

MethodThe research setting for the study was an outsourced telecommunications call centre,which meets the three identifying requirements of a call centre provided by Taylor andBain (1999). First, employees are dedicated to the customer service function. Second,they use telephones and computers concurrently and third, all the calls are processedby a computerised distribution system. The centre provides a 24-hour service forinbound customer enquiries. Frontline employees are divided into two departments. Inone department employees respond to a variety of customer enquiries including billing,new products and telecommunications contracts options, and they are expected tocomplete calls within an average handling time of three minutes. In contrast,employees in the other department provide a routine messaging service and areexpected to average 20 seconds for each call. The study had approximately equalnumbers of respondents from each department.

A cross-sectional survey design was utilised. An employee questionnaire wasdeveloped from the literature and pilot tested by 10 call centre staff prior to execution.Team Leaders in the call centre distributed surveys and covering letters (267) tofrontline staff, and the number of respondents (167) provided a response rate of 58 percent.

The sample was mostly female (77 per cent) and relatively young (average age 29.5years). Their work arrangements were predominantly permanent full time (71 percent), and half the sample had only been with the organisation for 1 to 2 years (52 percent). The human resources manager in the call centre considered the sample to berepresentative of the overall profile of frontline staff.

MeasuresThe survey used scales for global service climate, the dimensions of service climate,service quality capability, and employee commitment. Each item in the scales wasmeasured using a seven-point Likert scale. Bipolar anchors of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree) were used for all the scales except global service climate and servicequality capability. In these cases, anchors of 1 (poor) to 7 (excellent) were used. In

Service climate

465

addition, items in service quality capability that assessed satisfaction used anchors of 1(very dissatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied). Table I provides a summary of the measures,their source, and typical items.

The definitions and scales for global service climate (GSC) and the dimensions ofservice climate are drawn predominantly from the work of Schneider et al. (1998). Thescale for GSC by Schneider et al. (1998) was adopted in its entirety. The measure forhuman resource management drew on work facilitation issues (Schneider et al., 1998)and relevant HRM practices (Rogg et al., 2001). Four new items were included in HRMto encompass e-learning.

Three items of the service quality capability measure were developed based onareas noted in Schlesinger and Zornitsky (1991), namely employees’ satisfaction withtheir ability to meet customers’ needs, their assessment of the service quality delivered,and their evaluation of customers’ satisfaction with service quality. Three new itemswere added to encapsulate specific elements of capability relevant to call centres (Dean,2002). These three items covered job knowledge and skills, the time to perform tasks,and the authority to perform tasks. Other scales were adopted as shown in Table I.Alpha values for the scales are provided in Table II.

Prior to performing the regression analyses to test hypotheses, items and scaleswere checked for normality. Exploratory factor analyses of several variables togetherwere used to identify cross-loading items and to demonstrate discriminant validitybetween major variables. Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization was used and

Variable and sourceNo. ofitems Typical items

Global service climatea (Schneider et al.,1998)

7

How would you rate the job knowledgeand skills of employees to deliver superiorquality work and service?

Customer orientationa (Schneider et al.,1998) 6

We maintain a high level of commitmentto our customers

Customer feedbacka (Schneider et al.,1998)

5

This company informs us about customerevaluations of the quality of service thatwe deliver

Managerial practicesa (Schneider et al.,1998)

5

My immediate manager/team leader putsa lot of emphasis on giving good service tocustomers

Human resource managementa (eightitems customized from work facilitationissues in Schneider et al., 1998; four newitems) 12

Policies and procedures in theorganisation contribute to the delivery ofexcellent service. E-learning provides mewith adequate training on new products

Employee commitment (Mowday et al.,1979) 9

I talk up this company to my friends as agreat organisation to do business with

Service quality capability (three itemsfrom Schlesinger and Zornitsky, 1991; theother three developed for the study)

6

On average how would you rate yourdelivery of service quality to yourcustomers? How satisfied do you thinkyour customers are with the service thatyou provide?

Note: a Specific items provided by the lead author

Table I.Measures used in thestudy

MSQ16,5

466

items loading greater than 0.32 (10 per cent variance) were retained (Tabachnick andFidell, 2001). Pearson correlation coefficients and multiple regression analyses wereused to test the hypotheses outlined in the previous section.

Results and discussionPreliminary analysesAn exploratory factor analysis was performed on the items constituting thedimensions of service climate. Cross-loading items in customer orientation andcustomer feedback were deleted, reducing those scales to four items (from six), and fouritems (from five), respectively. Managerial practices constituted a separate factor withall five items loading between 0.77 and 0.95. The 12 items in HRM split into threefactors, representing policies and procedures, training and resources, and problemsolving. However, together the 12 items demonstrated a reliability of 0.88 so they wereretained as one scale in the current study. Other scales demonstrated the expectedfactor patterns.

Table II provides a summary of all major variables arising from the scales, theirmeans, standard deviations, Cronbach alpha values, and intercorrelations. Scales wereconsidered adequate if they exhibited a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.8 or higher (Nunnallyand Bernstein, 1994).

The dimensions of service climate as predictors of global service climateTable II shows that global service climate is positively associated with the fourdimensions of service climate adopted in the study (r values ranging from 0.52 to 0.63).To test the simultaneous associations of the dimensions with global service climate, thedimensions were used as independent variables in a multiple regression. Table IIIprovides the results.

Table III shows that all dimensions of service climate except customer orientationdemonstrated a significant relationship with global service climate. The AdjustedR-squared value indicates that 52.3 per cent of the variance is explained. Sincecustomer orientation is concerned with understanding and satisfying customers, andwas the best predictor in Schneider et al.’s (1998) study, this was an unexpectedfinding. It is possible that the unique nature of call centre work and call centre

Inter-correlations

Mean SDScalealpha GSC CO CF MP HRM EC

Global service climate (GSC) 4.42 0.97 0.86 1.00Customer orientation (CO) 4.96 1.02 0.86 0.52 * * 1.00Customer feedback (CF) 4.34 1.00 0.82 0.58 * * 0.60 * * 1.00Managerial practices (MP) 5.01 1.43 0.94 0.61 * * 0.50 * * 0.45 * 1.00Human resource management(HRM) 4.16 0.97 0.88 0.63 * * 0.62 * * 0.59 * * 0.52 * *

Employee commitment (EC) 4.35 1.15 0.88 0.49 * * 0.39 * 0.43 * 0.45 * 0.51 * *

Service quality capability(SQC) 5.37 0.78 0.80 0.41 * * 0.36 * 0.40 * 0.31 * 0.44 * 0.38 *

Notes: *p , 0.01; * *p , 0.001

Table II.Means and

inter-correlations for allmajor variables

Service climate

467

environments changes the emphases that employees perceive with respect to servicedelivery. A study by Dean (2004b) found that services theory is different in call centres.This possibility is reinforced by Grebner et al. (2003) who, in their comparative study ofcall centre agents with workers in traditional jobs, found that working conditions differfor call centre agents.

The dimension: managerial practices, is the best predictor of global service climatein the current study. Managerial practices consisted of items that measured theemphasis managers place on high quality work and service, their commitment toimproving quality and the example they set in doing so. Consequently, this findingreinforces the role that managers play in establishing the service focus of the callcentre.

Relationship between service climate and employees’ service quality capability (H1)Table II shows the correlation between global service climate and service qualitycapability was 0.41 ( p , 0.001). A regression confirmed this relationship(Fð1; 151Þ ¼ 30:6, p , 0.001) with a low adjusted R-squared value of 0.164. HenceH1 was supported but the effect was smaller than expected. It appears that otherfactors are contributing more to employees’ service quality capability than areexpectations and rewards with respect to customer service and service quality (that is,global service climate).

In order to investigate the relationship further, the dimensions of service climatewere used as independent variables in a regression with service quality capability asthe dependent variable. Human resource management (b ¼ 0:25, p , 0.05), emerged asthe only significant predictor of employees’ service quality capability, explaining 21.7per cent of the variance. Hence, specific activities with respect to HRM (policies andprocedures, training and resources, and facilitation of problem solving) appear to havethe most important influence on service quality capability in this call centre.

Relationship between service climate and employee commitment (H2)Table II shows an inter-correlation of 0.49 ( p , 0.001) between global service climateand employee commitment. As expected, a regression involving these two variablesshowed that 24.8 per cent of the variance in employee commitment is explained byglobal service climate (Fð1; 149Þ ¼ 48:3, p , 0.001). Thus, the second hypothesis issupported.

As for service quality capability, the relationship between service climate andemployee commitment was investigated further by performing a regression analysisusing the dimensions of service climate as independent variables and employeecommitment as the dependent variable. Again, human resource management

Dimensions of service climate Beta t-value Sig.

Constant 3.20 0.00Customer orientation 0.03 0.35 0.73Customer feedback 0.21 2.54 0.01Managerial practices 0.36 4.83 0.00Human resource management 0.29 3.29 0.00

Table III.Regression analysis forglobal service climateagainst the dimensions ofservice climate

MSQ16,5

468

(b ¼ 0:37, p , 0.001), was found to be the only predictor of employee commitment,explaining 28.2 per cent of the variance. These findings suggest that employees’feelings about overall service climate and, in particular, elements of HRM, are likely toinfluence employee commitment. Given the emphasis placed on “concern foremployees” in service climate studies (Borucki and Burke, 1999; Schneider et al., 1998)this finding makes intuitive sense. It also seems to indicate that employee commitmentis influenced neither by the extent of customer orientation and feedback in the callcentre, nor the priorities and leadership that managers demonstrate with respect tocustomer service and service quality.

The relationships between service climate and employee commitment with service qualitycapability (H3 and H4)Hypothesis three proposed that employee commitment would be positively related toservice quality capability. When regressed against service quality capability, employeecommitment had a beta value of 0.38 ( p , 0.001) for Fð1; 161Þ ¼ 27:13, p , 0.001.Hence H3 was supported but the adjusted R-squared value indicated that only 14.0 percent of the variance was explained.

To compare the effects on service quality capability due to global service climateand employee commitment, these latter two variables were entered together in aregression with service quality capability as the dependent variable. Table IV providesthe results. Table IV shows that global service climate and employee commitment areboth related to service quality capability, jointly explaining 27.4 per cent of thevariance (Fð2; 149Þ ¼ 29:11, p , 0.001).

H4 tested for mediation by employee commitment and was partially supported.Using the logic of Baron and Kenny (1986), the three requirements for mediation aremet. That is, the independent variable (global service climate) is related to both thedependent variable (service quality capability) (H1) and the mediator variable(employee commitment) (H2). When the independent variable and the mediator areregressed together (Table IV), the strength of the relationship between the independentvariable and dependent variables decreases. In this study, the beta value for the globalservice climate to service quality capability link changed from 0.41 (Table II) to 0.30(Table IV). However, Table IV shows that global service climate still demonstrated asignificant relationship with SQC, suggesting only partial mediation.

Rogg et al. (2001) found that service climate mediates the relationship betweenhuman resource practices and customer satisfaction in small business franchises buthas no direct effects on customer satisfaction. This study seems to suggest that theindirect effects may work, at least in part, through employee commitment and servicequality capability.

Beta t-value Sig.

Constant 12.76 0.36Global service climate 0.30 3.50 0.00Employee commitment 0.23 2.77 0.01

Table IV.Regression analysis for

service quality capabilityagainst global serviceclimate and employee

commitment

Service climate

469

SummaryIn applying the service climate concept, we tested relationships in terms of both globalservice climate and the four dimensions: CO, MP, CF and HRM. The hypothesisedrelationships shown in Figure 1 were supported, with partial mediation by employeecommitment of the global service climate to service quality capability link. This meansthat the way the organisation treats employees and emphasises customers, affects thefeelings and attitudes of employees, and their capability to deliver service quality. Incontrast to the hypotheses, the dimensions of service climate did not demonstraterelationships as expected. Figure 2 provides a summary of associations found in thecurrent study.

The findings shown in Figure 2 may indicate that managerial practices and humanresource management take precedence over customer factors (customer orientation andcustomer feedback), in influencing employees and determining their ability to providequality service to call centre customers. Managerial practices contribute to the serviceclimate in the call centre but human resource management appears to have a greaterinfluence on employees’ commitment and capability to provide high quality service.

Limitations and future researchThis study was conducted in one call centre in the telecommunications industry whereservice consultants receive inbound calls only. While the call centre met the definitionalrequirements of Taylor and Bain (1999), the definition could be applied to frontlineemployees in call centres representing vastly different types of service climate. Forexample, employees may be relatively low skilled and low paid service workers whorespond to customer requests within a tightly controlled, heavily monitored andtime-restricted system as in the current study. In contrast, they may be highly skilled

Figure 2.Findings with respect tothe dimensions of serviceclimate

MSQ16,5

470

employees, such as information technology assistants, who respond to customer callsin an environment where quality of service and interaction are emphasised (Dean,2002). It seems likely that the type of call centre (and its corresponding service climate)will affect employees’ abilities to deliver high levels of service. Therefore the findingsfrom the research would be strengthened by further testing and validation in differenttypes of call centres, preferably located at different ends of the call centrequality/quantity continuum provided by Taylor et al. (2002).

Literature on previous studies involving the constructs of service climate, employeecommitment and service quality capability is available but very little of it has beendeveloped or tested in call centres. Therefore, the theoretical foundation of this studyhad to be primarily derived from other frameworks. It is possible that the lack ofservices theory from call centres resulted in omissions, and has contributed to theunexpected findings and low R-squared values of the relationships. Further, the studyused only regression analysis to test hypothesised relationships. A morecomprehensive model using structural equations would be desirable, followingfurther preliminary studies to identify major variables that are necessary to specifyalternative structural models for testing.

More research in call centres is warranted because their frontline employees work inunique circumstances. They work in isolation, continually managing customerinteractions over the telephone; they are generally expected to adhere to strictefficiency targets, and they are subjected to high levels of monitoring and control(Knights and McCabe, 1998; Singh, 2000). At the same time, employees are expected toprovide quality customer service. Therefore gaining a greater understanding of thefactors that produce a positive service climate and help employees to feel committed,when compared to other service encounters, would be useful. This includes identifyingfactors, other than those in the current study, that increase employees’ feelings ofcapability to provide service quality to customers. Additionally, Yoon et al. (2001)found that work effort plays a central role in customers’ perceptions of service qualityso inclusion of this measure in future research may help us to better understand themeans by which organisational and employee factors lead to positive customeroutcomes.

Some limitations with respect to the measures used in the study are noteworthy.Consistent with their theoretical bases, the scales for the main variables have beendeveloped and tested in contexts other than call centres (Mowday et al., 1979;Schlesinger and Zornitsky, 1991; Schneider et al., 1998). Further, the inclusion of threenew items in the measure for service quality capability means that its psychometricproperties have not been previously tested. It would be useful to see the scale furtherdeveloped. Common method variance may have caused inflation of correlationsbecause all data were collected in the same form at the same time (Lindell and Whitney,2001). Finally, all the measures were self-reported which may have resulted inself-selection bias (Burns and Bush, 2000). Future researchers may wish to gather dataon service climate and service quality capability from sources other than employees,providing a degree of triangulation to the method.

Practical applicationsTwo major findings emerge from this research. First, global service climate is apredictor of both employee commitment and employees’ service quality capability in

Service climate

471

the call centre of the study. Second, managerial practices, HRM, and customer feedbackall contribute to global service climate. Hence, improving global service climate, and itsdimensions, is likely to benefit the workplace by contributing to a more involved andstable frontline; and to benefit customers who will be served by employees who aretrained and rewarded in the service endeavour. The two major findings highlightseveral specific areas for managerial attention and are now discussed in turn.

Global service climate (GSC) was defined in terms of expecting, supporting andrewarding employees for providing high quality service to customers. The relevantmeasure consisted of items that included ratings of the job knowledge and skills ofemployees to deliver superior quality work and service; the tools, technology andresources provided to employees to support them, efforts to measure and track thequality of work and service, and the overall quality of service provided. As GSC wasdirectly and indirectly related to the outcome variable, employees’ service qualitycapability, each of the above areas provides a practical focus that managers can use forchecking and improvement activities.

As well as service quality capability, GSC demonstrated a relationship to employeecommitment (Table II). Employee commitment was defined in terms of employees’identification and involvement in the organisation, and measured by items reflectingemployees’ feelings about the company, the work, and the likelihood that they willremain in the firm. Increasing employee commitment is therefore likely to contribute toemployees feeling valued and consequently delivering good service to customers.Other items in the GSC measure, which may contribute to such outcomes, includeevidence of leadership in service quality, the effectiveness of communication efforts toboth employees and customers, and the recognition and rewards that employeesreceive for the delivery of superior work and service. Recognition and rewards foremployees may be particularly important to employee commitment in the currentcontext because of the nature of call centre work, discussed previously. This studyseems to suggest that a manager’s emphasis on recognition and rewards via a positiveservice climate may be linked to higher levels of employee commitment.

The second major finding concerns the dimensions that contribute to global serviceclimate (Table III). These dimensions are first, managerial practices: emphasising andrecognising high quality work and service, providing definite quality standards andsetting a personal example. In call centres, team leaders have a role that appears to bedriven by time-based key performance indicators. Managers may wish to rethink theemphasis on time and commit to improving the quality of work and service, with thegoal of enhancing GSC and, subsequently, service quality. To achieve this, the currentstudy indicates the importance of providing front line staff with more autonomy anddiscretion in dealing with customer enquiries, for example, less stringent, more flexibletalk times and more emphasis on customer satisfaction, discussed next.

The second dimension contributing to GSC is customer feedback: seekingevaluations of the quality of work and service, informing frontline staff of feedbackand informing customers of changes that affect them. Providing employees withcustomer feedback should facilitate changes to practice, increased productivity, andsatisfaction from positive reports. Similarly, developing systems to ensure thatcustomer feedback is received and acted upon is likely to enhance customer service andsatisfaction.

MSQ16,5

472

Finally, human resource management emerged as a predictor of GSC (Table III) anddemonstrated separate links to employee commitment and service quality capability(Figure 2). Hence, HRM is worthy of special consideration by managers. HRM wasmeasured by items addressing organisational policies and procedures, training in newproducts, development of interpersonal and problem-solving skills, technology andresources to support employees, the role of e-learning in the call centre, and employees’attitude to it. The findings suggest that improved HRM would contribute to servicequality levels and organizational effectiveness via more committed employees.Comments from respondents indicated that e-learning has a negative impact onemployees’ ability to learn and then to help the customer. The employees noted thattraining should be facilitator lead and give adequate time for staff to practice,understand and comprehend the new knowledge, prior to service delivery.

In conclusion, many businesses use call centres as their only customer interface, andcall centres have the potential to provide a competitive basis for firms. Hence,understanding the delivery of service quality from call centres is important formanagers. This study has identified specific challenges and highlighted opportunitiesfor managers to create a positive service climate. Service climate has been shown tocontribute to the commitment of employees to the organisation, and to employees’service quality capability, potentially improving the service that the customerexperiences. Improved quality of service contributes to the overall consumer benefitpackage and should prove beneficial to firms in the long term.

References

Armistead, C., Kiely, J., Hole, L. and Prescott, J. (2002), “An exploration of managerial issues incall centres”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 246-56.

Babin, J.B. and Boles, S.J. (1996), “The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisorsupport on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction”, Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 57-75.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.

Bettencourt, L.A. and Brown, S.W. (1997), “Contract employees: relationships among workplacefairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73No. 1, pp. 39-61.

Blackler, F., Reed, M. and Whitaker, A. (1993), “Special issue on ‘knowledge workers andcontemporary organizations’”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 975-96.

Borucki, C. and Burke, M. (1999), “An examination of service-related antecedents to retail storeperformance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 943-62.

Burke, M.J., Borucki, C.C. and Hurley, A.E. (1992), “Reconceptualizing psychological climate in aretail service environment: a multiple-stakeholder perspective”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 717-29.

Burns, A.C. and Bush, R.F. (2000), Marketing Research, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Dean, A.M. (2002), “Service quality in call centres: implications for customer loyalty”, ManagingService Quality, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 414-23.

Dean, A.M. (2004a), “Links between organisational and customer variables in service delivery”,International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 332-50.

Service climate

473

Dean, A.M. (2004b), “Rethinking customer expectations of service quality: are call centresdifferent?”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 60-77.

Deery, S., Iverson, R. and Walsh, J. (2002), “Work relationships in telephone call centres:understanding emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal”, Journal of ManagementStudies, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 471-96.

de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M. and Feinberg, R. (2001), “Role stress in call centres: its effects onemployee performance and satisfaction”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2,pp. 23-35.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organizational support andemployee diligence, commitment and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75No. 1, pp. 51-9.

Frenkel, S., Korczynski, M., Donoghue, L. and Shire, K. (1995), “Re-constituting work: trendstowards knowledge work and info-normative control”, Work, Employment and Society,Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 773-96.

Gilmore, A. (2001), “Call centre management: is service quality a priority?”, Managing ServiceQuality, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 153-9.

Grebner, S., Semmer, N.K., Lo Faso, L., Gut, S., Kalin, W. and Elfering, A. (2003), “Workingconditions, well-being, and job-related attitudes among call centre agents”, EuropeanJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 341-65.

Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W. and Gaernter, G. (2000), “A meta-analysis of antecedents a correlates ofemployee turnover”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 463-88.

Gronroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its marketing implications”, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.

Heskett, J.L., Sasser, J.W.E. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1997), The Service Profit Chain How LeadingCompanies Link Profit and Growth to Loyalty, Satisfaction and Value, The Free Press,New York, NY.

Johnson, J.W. (1996), “Linking employee perceptions of service climate to customer satisfaction”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 831-51.

Knights, D. and McCabe, D. (1998), “What happens when the phone goes wild?: Staff stress andspaces for escape in a BPR telephone banking regime”, Journal of Management Studies,Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 163-94.

Knights, D. and McCabe, D. (2003), “Governing through teamwork: reconstituting subjectivity ina call centre”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1587-619.

Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance incross-sectional research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-21.

Lux, D., Jex, S. and Hansen, C. (1996), “Factors influencing employee perceptions of customerservice climate”, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 65-86.

Malhotra, N. and Mukherjee, A. (2004), “The relative influence of organisational commitment andjob satisfaction on service quality of customer contact employees in banking call centres”,Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 162-74.

Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2,pp. 171-94.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), “The measurement of organizationalcommitment”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 224-47.

MSQ16,5

474

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,NY.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1992), “Perceived service quality as acustomer-based performance measure: an empirical examination of organizational barriersusing an extended service quality model”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,pp. 335-64.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service qualityand its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.

Rogg, K.L., Schmidt, D.B., Shull, C. and Schmitt, N. (2001), “Human resource practices,organizational climate and customer satisfaction”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 4,pp. 430-49.

Schlesinger, L.A. and Zornitsky, J. (1991), “Job satisfaction, service capability and customersatisfaction: an examination of linkages and management implications”, Human Resource

Planning, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 141-9.

Schmit, M.J. and Allscheid, S.P. (1995), “Employee attitudes and customer satisfaction: makingtheoretical and empirical connections”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 521-36.

Schneider, B. (1990), “The climate for service: an application of the climate construct”,in Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, 383-412, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA.

Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A.N. and Subirats, M. (2002), “Climate strength: a new direction forclimate research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 220-9.

Schneider, B., Wheeler, J.K. and Cox, J.F. (1992), “A passion for service: using content analysis toexplicate service climate themes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 705-16.

Schneider, B., White, S.S. and Paul, M.C. (1998), “Linking service climate and customerperceptions of service quality: test of a casual model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83No. 2, pp. 150-63.

Singh, J. (2000), “Performance productivity and quality of frontline employees in serviceorganisations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 15-34.

Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed., Allyn & Bacon,Needham Heights, MA.

Taylor, P. and Bain, P. (1999), “‘An assembly line in the head’: work and employee relations in thecall centre”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 101-17.

Taylor, P., Hyman, J., Mulvey, G. and Bain, P. (2002), “Work organisation, control and theexperience of work in call centres”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 16 No. 1,pp. 133-50.

Wallace, C.M., Eagleson, G. and Waldersee, R. (2000), “The sacrificial HR strategy in callcentres”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 174-84.

Yagil, D. and Gal, I. (2002), “The role of organizational service climate in generating control andempowerment among workers and customers”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer

Services, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 215-26.

Yoon, M.H., Beatty, S.E. and Suh, J. (2001), “The effect of work climate on critical employee andcustomer outcomes: an employee-level analysis”, International Journal of Service Industry

Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 500-21.

Service climate

475

About the authorsMarie Mikic Little is a PhD student in the Department of Management, Monash University,Australia. She is currently investigating service climate and employees’ commitment, servicequality capability and work effort in several call centres. Marie’s interest has been stimulated byprior employment in the call centre industry. Marie Mikic Little is the corresponding author andcan be contacted: marie.little@buseco.monash.edu.au

Alison M. Dean, PhD is Associate Professor of Marketing at the University of Newcastle,Australia, specialising in services marketing and management. Her research has been publishedin a variety of journals including the International Journal of Service Industry Management, theJournal of Services Marketing, Managing Service Quality, Health Marketing Quarterly, andKnowledge and Process Management. Additionally, Alison has served as a guest editor ofManaging Service Quality.

MSQ16,5

476

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints