Operationalization of study variables

Measures used in this study were taken from existing measures found in the marketing, business research as well as organizational behavior literature. Few items were adapted slightly to make them more consistent with the banking environment where the study was conducted. Sample items for each measure can be viewed in Appendix I.

Demographics

1. Gender: divided into two groups, male(1) or female (2)

2. Age: based on respondent’s actual age, divided into six age groups, age 25 and under (1); 26 to 30 age group (2); 31 to 35 age group (3); 36 to 40 age group(4);

41 to 45 age group (5) and over 46 age group(6).

3. Marital Status: divided into three categories, married(1), single(2),and others (3) 4. Education Level: divided into four groups, namely, high school and under(1);

college(2); university(3), graduate school(4)

5. Financial Advisory Related Experience: for the purpose of this research, the financial advisory related experience is only relevant to the position the respondent is in, i.e. wealth management service related experiences. Divided into five categories: less than one year (1); 1 to 3 years (2); 4 to 6 years (3); 7to 9

years (4); over 10 years (5)

6. Banking Related Experience: for the purpose of this study, it include all banking experiences both operational and other department experiences and does not exclude previous banking related experiences with other employers. Similar to previous question, it is also divided into five groups: less than one year (1); 1 to 3 years (2); 4 to 6 years (3); 7to 9 years (4); over 10 years (5)

Perceived quota difficulty (QD)

In this study, the focus is only limited to externally assigned quota. Most often, sales quotas are reconsidered to be task goals or performance targets assigned by management team or by sales managers. Unlike self-set performance targets, the externally assigned goals may result two offsetting effects must be considered, i.e. if the managers set the quotas too high, the salesperson may be discouraged and decrease his/her motivation; on the other hand, if goals are set too easy, individuals may not work to their maximum potential.

It was measured with a three-item scale developed by Schwepker Jr. and Good (1999) via discussions with several sales managers and salespeople. Two items used five-point Likert scales ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree”, while the third asked respondents to assess their chances of achieving their assigned quota on a five-point scale ranging from (1) “under 20% achievement” to (5) “over 80% achievement. After reverse coding items two and three, responses were summated such that higher scores indicate more difficult quotas. Since Schwepker Jr.

and Good (1999)’s questionnaire has already been used and adopted in relevant studies in Taiwan, and has been translated into Mandarin. (Chen, 2002) Hence, this study has adopted the same questionnaire to avoid translation bias and used it as a reference. Higher score for this section signify the individual’s perception of his/her assigned goal as being more difficult.

Customer Orientation (CO)

It was assessed by adapting relevant items from the existing Saxe and Weitz (1982) SOCO scale (selling orientation-customer orientation scale). All four questions used five-point Likert scales ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5)

“strongly agree”. Adaptations to the customer orientation scale such as those proposed in the study are reported in prior published researches (e.g. Brown et al., 2002; Cravens et al., 1993). Higher score for this question stands for the salespeople’s favorable customer orientation. The Saxe and Weitz (1982) SOCO scale questionnaire has been widely used and adopted in relevant studies in Taiwan, and has been translated into Mandarin Chinese (Chu, 2002). Hence, the same questionnaire has been adopted in this study to avoid translation bias and used it as a reference.

Job Satisfaction (JS)

It was derived from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) short form.

This form consists of 20 items from the long-form MSQ that best represent each of the 20 scales. Factor analysis of the 20 items resulted in two factors—Intrinsic (JSI) and Extrinsic (JSE) Satisfaction. Scores on these two factors plus a General (JSG) Satisfaction score may be obtained. All 20 questions used a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree”. The higher the score, the more satisfied the respondent is related his/her existing job. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) short form has been widely used and adopted in relevant studies in Taiwan, and has been translated into Mandarin Chinese (Yu, 2001).

Hence, the same questionnaire has been adopted to avoid translation bias and used it as a reference.

Of the twenty questions related to job satisfaction, they are divided into three subgroups namely: intrinsic job satisfaction, extrinsic job satisfaction and general job satisfaction. The questions corresponding to the three subsections are as follow:

Factor 1: Intrinsic Job Satisfaction (Questions: 1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10,11,15,16,20) JS1 Being able to keep busy all the time.

JS2 The chance to work alone on the job.

JS3 The chance to do different things from time to time JS4 The chance to be “somebody” in the community.

JS7 Being able to do things that don’t go against my conscience . JS8 The way my job provides for steady employment

JS9 The chance to do things for other people.

JS10 The chance to tell people what to do.

JS11 The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities JS15 The freedom to use my own judgment

JS16 The chance to try my own methods of doing the job JS20 The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job.

Factor 2: Extrinsic Job Satisfaction (Questions: 5,6,12,13,14,19) JS5 The way my boss handles his/her workers.

JS6 The competence of my supervisor in making decisions.

JS12 The way company policies are put into practice JS13 My pay and the amount of work I do.

JS14 The chances for advancement on this job JS19 The praise I get for doing a good job

Factor 3: General Job Satisfaction (Sum all 20 questions together) JS17 The working conditions

JS18 The way my co-workers get along with each other

Turnover Intention (TI)

It was measured with four items from the literature (Horn & Griffeth, 1995;

Mowday, Koberg, & McArthur, 1984). Propensity to leave was assessed using a four item instrument (Lyons, 1971). Subjects were asked to rate their intention that

they would quit the existing job or change work units in the near future. Anchor points on 5-point Likert item scales ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5)

“strongly agree”, with higher scores signify stronger intention to resign from existing job. The turnover intention questionnaire has been widely used and adopted in relevant studies in Taiwan, and has been translated into Mandarin Chinese (Hsueh, 2002). Hence, the same questionnaire has been adopted to avoid translation bias and used it as a reference.