This chapter provides a review of literature relevant to the variables in this study:
perceived customer feedback, work motivation, perceived supervisor support, and employee job satisfaction. Each section examines literature on each variable separately, after which it focuses on the relationship between variables. Hypotheses are stated at the end of each segment describing relationships between and among variables.
Perceived Customer Feedback
As reviewed under definition of terms, customer feedback is the extent to which an employee feels his or her performances or actions of a service are valued by a customer (Frey et al., 2013). Positive feedback may sometimes be construed as appreciation in a positive situation. The meaning of appreciation is not only contextual, but also contingent upon individual situations (Barge & Oliver, 2003). Praise is often a sign of appreciation. Satisfied customers are likely to express their disposition of satisfaction with an employee’s service through verbal gratitude or positive feedback (Frey et al., 2013), constituting positive customer feedback.
Feedback may be defined as a message that comprises of information about the recipient (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). The more feedback one receives, supposedly the greater possibility of increased motivation. However, feedback in general needs to be positive to increase motivation. In a service context, positive feedback may be construed as perceived appreciation.
Frey et al.’s (2013) study measured perceived appreciation by including questionnaire items such as asking employees whether or not he or she ever received positive feedback from clients. Another sample item asked if the employee ever felt his or her performance was appreciated or met the client’s satisfaction. The study focused on the effects of client satisfaction on employee project satisfaction and showed positive results using the mediation
of perceived (client) appreciation.
Frey et al.’s (2013) study demonstrates a link between perceived appreciation and customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is generally defined as a customer‘s reaction to the capacity at which a service is fulfilled and judgment of that fulfillment (Kim, Park, &
Jeong, 2004). In other words, customer satisfaction results from the customer’s perception of the service quality received (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000). The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) illustrates overall customer satisfaction has three antecedents:
perceived quality, perceived value, and customer expectations (Fornell, Johnson, Anderson, Cha, & Bryant, 1996). Szymanski and Henard (2001) add to this field of research by stating influences on levels of customer satisfaction include “expectations, disconfirmation of expectations, performance, affect, and equity.” The term customer satisfaction is often explained through expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm process theory (Caruana, 2002). As mentioned before, customer’s who are satisfied are more likely to give positive feedback.
In the expectation-disconfirmation paradigm, expectation of a service quality is divided into anticipation or comparative referents (Szymanski & Henard, 2001). Expectation as anticipation implies a customer expects a certain quality of service, even before the service is delivered. Expectation as comparative referent is where customers anchor and compare judgment of service to past experiences.
The link between customer satisfaction and expectation-disconfirmation paradigm reasons that customer satisfaction should be treated as a post-purchase or post-performance construct (Eggert & Ulaga, 2002). As an example, frontline employees predominantly provide customers with service through face-to-face interactions (Ma & Qu, 2011). How employees interact with customers is a large indicator of how a customer will perceive the quality of service. Customers perceive the quality of a service during and after it is given as either satisfactory or dissatisfactory, which influences his or her subsequent attitudes (Bolton, 1998).
Customers’ behavioral response during a service interaction has an influence on employees’ perceptions and service performance (Ma & Qu, 2011). Satisfaction is often a strong predictor of behavior (Eggert & Ulaga, 2002). Customers who are satisfied with a service commonly practice the expression of appreciation, for instance, through monetary means – tipping (Hornik, 1992). Lynn and Grassman's 1990 study that examined the rationale behind tipping in restaurants revealed one reason customers behave this way was to convey appreciation for the service provided (as cited in Hornik, 1992). Alternatively, verbal gratitude or positive feedback from customers also communicates appreciation (Frey et al., 2013).
Perceived Supervisor Support
Perceived supervisor support may be regarded as feelings of support (Babin & Boles, 1996), encouragement (Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003), and concern for the individual’s well-being (Eisenberger et al., 2002) an employee believes his or her supervisor offers (Cleveland & Yeh, 2015). The term also includes an employees’ outlook of how much a supervisor values an employee’s contribution to the organization. Babin and Boles (1996) point out the importance of supervisors providing essential resources to facilitate employee performance connotes supervisor support. In contrast, unsupportive supervisors oftentimes do not exercise good communication skills with subordinates.
Job satisfaction is often linked to studies on supervisor support (e.g. Frye & Breaugh, 2004; Griffin et al., 2001; Parvin, & Kabir, 2011; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010). In addition, other studies have found supervisor support to have a direct positive impact on work attitudes (Brough, & Pears, 2004) as well as work environment (Griffin et al., 2001).
Examples of additional findings on the relationship between supervisors and employees include affective commitment (Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003) and reduction of work stress (Babin & Boles, 1996).
Janssen and Van Yperen (2004) propose an employees’ relationship with their supervisor might be influenced by his or her goal orientation. In a broad sense, goal orientation is defined as aspiration to advance, accomplish, or establish competence of an activity (Cerasoli
& Ford, 2014). Thus, goal orientations may impact the level of supervisor-subordinate relationships.
Perceived supervisor support and positive emotional attachment (affective commitment) to a supervisor are respectable gauges of measuring the level or quality of exchange relationships between employees and supervisors (Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003).
Generally as employees form comprehensive perceptions concerning their assessment of the organization, employees additionally develop general views of the degree to which supervisors value his or her contributions and care about his or her well-being. The valuation results in perspectives of either high-quality or low-quality exchanges of a supervisor’s relationship with an employee.
High-quality exchange relationships between supervisors and employees are described by shared trust, respect, and obligation. Low-quality exchange relationships on the contrary are characterized by formal, role-defined interactions. This is commonly identified as a sequence of formal exchanges that result in hierarchy-based downward interactions that create distance between the supervisor and subordinate (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). Therefore, the opinion of the level of quality an employee has with his or her supervisor directs the perception of supervisor support.
Work Motivation Motivation
Ryan and Deci (2000) stated, “to be motivated means to be moved to do something.”
Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) quoted Kahn (1990, 1992), suggesting that the greater an individual invests energy into his or her work, the greater the motivation. Motivation can be understood as the degree to which a person wishes and chooses to engross himself or herself
in a specific behavior (Cadwallader, Jarvis, Bitner, & Ostrom, 2010). The term motivation is often separated into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. However, Ryan and Deci (2000) include amotivation (lack of motivation) and further subcategorize extrinsic motivation (regulation, introjection, identification, integration), arguing that the level of autonomy vary in different states of extrinsic motivation. In turn, people vary in orientations and levels of types of motivation.
Ryan and Deci (2000) adopted Hull’s learning theory to further explain intrinsically motivated activities: those that offered satisfaction of inherent psychological need for feelings of competence, autonomy and relatedness – all of which may be categorized as psychological drives to behaviors. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, relates to activities conducted with the intention of attaining some separable outcome. It also proposed a model illustrating the various levels of extrinsic motivation and which included the process of internalization. It has been argued that extrinsic motivation has the potential to become intrinsic by moving along the motivation continuum. Therefore, through Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), motivation may be separated based on the fundamental reasons or goals that instigate an action (as cited in Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Motivation in the Workplace
Locke and Latham (1990) state, “The motivation to work (produce) is best explained by integrating elements of three theories, namely goal setting theory, expectancy theory and social-cognitive theory.” Goal setting theory proposes individuals’ behaviors and actions of performing a task are motivated by a goal. Vroom’s expectancy theory suggests individual performance is increasingly related to motivation and ability (Galbraith & Cummings, 1967).
As for Bandura’s social-cognitive theory, it mentions individuals control their behavior based on perceived interest of gains (Locke & Latham, 1990).
Motivation in a work setting (work motivation) is said to be governed by job characteristics meeting three psychological conditions of (1) meaningfulness of task, (2)
safety in conducting task, and (3) psychological and physical availability (Rich et al., 2010).
Since motivation is a construct, it is commonly researched in studies as types (e.g.
Cadwallader et al., 2010; Cerasoli, & Ford, 2014; Harackiewicz, 1979; Ryan, & Deci, 2000) instead of levels. To maneuver around this issue, and in order to observe the construct on a level, rather than type basis, some researchers prefer to link motivation with engagement and other work outcomes.
Wellins and Concelman recognized engagement as a force that motivates employees’
performance levels, thus proposing engagement as an antecedent of motivation (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2008). However, in other studies, researchers defined engagement as experiences of high states of internal motivation or positive affective-motivation. In these cases, motivation is stated to precede engagement.
Some researches have found job aspects for example social support from supervisors and colleagues, performance feedback; opportunities for learning, and autonomy often exemplify motivation (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Such job resources either play an intrinsic or extrinsic motivational role for employees. With regards to intrinsic motivational role, job resources foster development and learning in employees; whereas extrinsic motivational job resources contribute towards achieving work goals. Predictors of engagement include job and personal resources (motivation). Furthermore, Gagné and Deci (2005) highlighted a previous study of environmentally protective behaviors that stated engagement could be predicted by autonomous motivation.
Apart from engagement, there are many other job related aspects associated with motivation. Several work aspects related to motivation include, but are not limited to supervisor support (Ma & Qu, 2011), job satisfaction (Parvin, & Kabir, 2011), and client relationship (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1993). Ma and Qu’s (2011) study showed employees’ motivation in performing organizational citizenship behaviors was highly influenced by support from managers. In another study, Parvin and Kabir (2011) emphasized
job satisfaction’s close relationships with organizational behaviors, among which is motivation. As a last example, Herzberg et al. (1993) found that client relationship is central to motivation and job satisfaction.
Employee Job Satisfaction
Employee job satisfaction refers to an employee’s evaluation and reaction to current work aspects that the employee reflects on positively (Rich, et al., 2010). Sergeant and Frenkel (2000) refer to Porter and colleagues’ 1974 study that portrays job satisfaction as an antecedent of work commitment and a product of work environment conditions. Locke (1976) defines job satisfaction as a positive emotional state that occurs after the evaluation of one’s job experiences (Tietjen & Myers, 1998). In contrast, job dissatisfaction may be identified in certain behaviors such as voluntary absenteeism or lack of commitment to an organization (Sagie, 1998). The nature of a job and an employee’s expectations of the job affect outcomes of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Parvin &Kabir, 2011).
Due to the popularity in studying job satisfaction, many researchers have developed different measurement instruments (Fields, 2002). Some instruments measure from facet job satisfaction to overall job satisfaction. Measurements vary in item length from single to triple digits. Example scales include Weiss, Dawis, England, and Lofquist’s (1967) Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley’s (1990) Career Satisfaction Measurement, Smith, Kendall, and Hulin’s (1969) Job Descriptive Index (JDI), and Warr, Cook, & Wall’s (1979) Global Job Satisfaction Survey (as cited in Fields, 2002).
Individuals sometimes link together engagement and satisfaction. Others often confuse job satisfaction with engagement; yet Macey and Schneider (2008) recognize a difference between the two constructs. Job satisfaction may simply be defined by an employees’
satisfaction with working conditions. In comparison, engagement differs in that it captures the aspect of commitment and passion one has in regards to his or her job.
Some researchers recognize levels of job satisfaction to fluctuate due to changes in work conditions (Currivan, 2000). Many different aspects factor into job satisfaction, for instance goal orientation (Jannsen & Van Yperen, 2004), and leader-member exchange (e.g. Gerstner
& Day, 1997; Jannsen & Van Yperen, 2004). Going by conventional human resource management literature, employment satisfaction definitions largely intellectualize developmental satisfaction constructs to include aspects such as working conditions, compensation, or relationships with superiors or combinations for these facets (Frey et al., 2013; Parvin & Kabir, 2011).
Just as researchers found a relationship between supervisor-subordinate and goal orientation, studies have suggested that goal orientation also influences employees’ job satisfaction (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). Other examples link relationships of practical supervisor support directly predicting job satisfaction (Brough & Pears, 2004) as well as motivation and job satisfaction (Parvin & Kabir, 2011). Customer-employee relationships in service jobs have also been recognized as a source influencing satisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1993). More recent studies have looked into customer satisfaction as an influence on job satisfaction (Frey et al., 2013).
Relationships between and among Variables Perceived Customer Feedback and Employee Job Satisfaction
There are few studies that have examined customer satisfaction affecting employee job satisfaction, let alone customer feedback. Studies by Ryan, Schmidt, and Johnson (1996), Schneider and Bowen (1985), and Tornow and Wiley (1991), have found correlational relationships between customer and employee satisfaction, though without emphasis on causal directions (as cited in Frey et al., 2013). Studies done by Brown and Lam (2008), Evanschitzky et al. (2011), Grandey, Goldberg, and Pugh (2011) are examples of researches that examined the effects between client and employee satisfaction (as cited in Frey et al., 2013). The hypotheses of those researches propose that the causal direction of satisfaction
starts with the employee and affects the customer. In other words employee satisfaction should affect client satisfaction.
From a different perspective, Ma and Qu’s (2011) study of hotel service addresses the outcomes of employee and customer interactions. The study hypothesized that customers are not passive, but in fact participate in service interactions, which impacts the perception of the service outcome. Rephrased, the result of a service experience is contingent upon both employee and customer participation. Thus, it is reasonable to propose customers’ actions and reactions may impact employees’ actions and reactions.
Deviating from traditional approaches, but not undermining previous literature, Frey et al.
(2013) argue that client satisfaction is a crucial element of employee satisfaction. The literature mentioned above points out that a relatively low amount of previous studies indicated that customer satisfaction had potential influences on employees. Frey et al.’s (2013) study, to clarify why an attitudinal exchange from clients to professional service employees might happen, incorporated an indirect effect of perceived appreciation as a mediator. Results of the study showed that the more the professional workers felt they shared a mutual opinion with their clients (relatedness), the more the client’s satisfaction influenced the employee’s satisfaction. Customer satisfaction and customer feedback is thus in accordance with Herzberg’s motivational theory that asserts showing signs of appreciation for one’s work and performance serves as a motivator to incite job satisfaction (Frey et al., 2013).
Given the review of literature tying together customer feedback and employee job satisfaction, this thesis proposes the first hypothesis:
H1: Perceived customer feedback positively influences employee job satisfaction.
Perceived Supervisor Support and Employee Job Satisfaction
There is a large amount of literature that supports the relation between supervisor support and job satisfaction. Janssen and Van Yperen (2004) suggest that supervisor support and
autonomy influence employees’ level of job satisfaction. Other researchers (e.g. Brough &
Pears, 2004) have found supervisor support to have a direct positive impact on work attitudes. Frye and Breaugh’s (2004) study generated significant results indicating supervisor support predicts job satisfaction. Griffin et al. (2001) imply aside from providing information and feedback to employees, supervisor support also has a strong impact on employees’ job satisfaction levels in many work setting aspects.
Based on the literature review and substantial support linking supervisor support and employee job satisfaction:
H2: Perceived supervisor support positively influences employee job satisfaction.
Perceived Customer Feedback and Work Motivation
Going by Kluger and DeNisi’s (1996) description of performance feedback, it generally alludes to information with respect to a level of performance and/or the manner and proficiency in which performance methodologies have been executed (as cited in Stajkovic &
Luthans, 2001). Hence, positive performance feedback may be seen as an indicator of customer appreciation. As Herzberg’s motivational theory indicates, appreciation for one’s work and performance often acts as motivation to the individual (Frey et al., 2013). A few early studies have demonstrated that positive performance feedback increases intrinsic motivation, while performance criticism lessens it (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In addition, Harackiewicz (1979) hypothesized that intrinsic motivation, independent of reward effects, may be enhanced by positive performance feedback.
When a customer provides positive performance feedback to an employee the act recognizes the employee’s level of competence of the performed service. Although an employee might perform his or her job due to extrinsic motivational reasons, it is possible receiving positive performance feedback may cause an employee to internalize these extrinsic behaviors; thus advancing towards intrinsic motivational reasons. Individuals internalize extrinsic behaviors when wanting to feel relatedness to others deemed as of
significant value (Ryan and Deci 2000). Ryan and Deci (2000) also stated, “The more one internalizes the reasons for an action and assimilates them to the self, the more one’s extrinsically motivated actions become self-determined.”
Therefore, review of literature suggests the third hypothesis:
H3: Perceived customer feedback positively influences work motivation.
Perceived Supervisor Support and Work Motivation
Supervisors can have noteworthy impacts in improving the motivational attributes of a workplace, for example, in areas of work autonomy. Employees' perception of positive autonomy experiences increases when supervisors provide constructive feedback about roles and tasks performed (Griffin et al., 2001). An example of feedback includes social recognition, which is an act of indicating to employees the value of their work through expression of authentic personal appreciation for good performance (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). Social recognition by nature is a form of positive feedback, and in turn the act of feedback is recognition.
As acknowledged when discussing perceived customer feedback and work motivation, perceived supervisor support may be identified through feedback. By supervisors giving performance feedback to an employee, the act addresses the employee’s level of competence of the performed task. Provided positive feedback for simple job tasks may have little to no effect on motivation, while routine duties do not call for specialized skill sets. Therefore, employees do not feel a great sense of accomplishment or heightened levels of competence (Stajkovic & Luthans, 2001). However, if an employee receives positive performance feedback for tasks that satisfy the psychological need for competence, this may increase an employees’ motivation level (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In addition, it may stimulate the internalization process of motivation, which leads to the fourth hypothesis:
H4: Perceived supervisor support positively influences work motivation.
Work Motivation and Employee Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction and motivation constructs are arguably not the same, however both are related. Stimulating job satisfaction and motivation relationships has earned widespread recognition when combined with explanation of its importance to organizations (Parvin &
Kabir, 2011). Yet, tactics to approaching this issue vary. Many organization use methods such as training, pay increase, or skills development as incentives to stimulate the motivation and job satisfaction relationship.
Explaining the relationship between work motivation and job satisfaction has several approaches. Janssen and Van Yperen (2004) suggest that job satisfaction depends on the employee’s goal orientation. Some researchers argue that goal orientation precedes motivation, while others believe motivation comes before goal orientation (Cerasoli & Ford, 2014). Regardless of the goal orientation and motivation order of sequence, previous studies support the relationship between the two constructs. Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivators and hygiene factors insinuates that motivators (e.g. recognition for a job well done or challenging work) lead to job satisfaction whereas hygiene factors (e.g. pay or job security) do not instigate positive job satisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1993). On the other hand, Locke’s theory of job satisfaction proclaims agents cause events or conditions, which in turn cause employee satisfaction (Tietjen & Myer, 1998). In this context, agents may include supervisors, customers, coworkers, etc. and events are motivators such as responsibility, verbal recognition, or task activity.
Accordingly, the last hypothesis of this study was formulated from the reviewed literature:
H5: Work motivation positively influences employee job satisfaction.