Influences of Customer Feedback, Work Motivation, and Supervisor Support on Job Satisfaction

全文

(1)Influences of Customer Feedback, Work Motivation, and Supervisor Support on Job Satisfaction. by Lahelakuupokii Cleveland. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: C. Rosa Yeh, Ph.D. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan June, 2015.

(2) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research is dedicated to every individual who has helped me along the way. Without you, the end result would not be what it is. I owe thanks to many people for getting me to where I am today. To my late mother, it’s through your example of hard work, dedication and unconditional love that I was able to persevere. Dad, firstly thank you for sharing your work and life experiences that inspired the topic of my research. That along with your enthusiasm, encouragement and support carried me through this entire process. I hoped to make you proud and help fellow working-classmen with the results in this study that emerged from the knowledge you shared. Thank you to my sister for lending a listening ear when times got tough. I would also like to acknowledge my close relatives and family friends. Without their help, this part of my academic journey would not have been realized. The friends I made during these past two years and my friends from back home are the ones who carried me through my academic and personal struggles while living abroad. This program gave me the opportunity to meet lifelong friends from all over the world. I have never laughed so much in my life. I even have the laugh lines to prove it. Life in Taiwan would not have been the same without these amazing individuals. I’d also like to thank my professors, program managers, NTNU and TECO Los Angeles staff members, and so many others I am unable to mention by name because the list would be longer than my thesis itself. You have my deepest gratitude. Words cannot express how thankful I am for all the help and guidance I have received. Last but not least, to my advisor Dr. Chu-Chen Rosa Yeh. Thank you for never rushing me, and allowing me to work at my own pace. Thank you for making my ideas become reality, for never limiting me, instead encouraging me to follow my curiosity and to push the boundaries of my research abilities. I am grateful for all the knowledge you have given me..

(3) ABSTRACT Employee job satisfaction is of dire concern to organizations utilizing human capital. Although numerous factors contribute to employee job satisfaction, researchers often dedicate their approach to this problem by focusing on internal organizational influences. However, this study proposed to examine the influences of customer feedback, work motivation and supervisor support on employees’ job satisfaction. The study collected 313 valid questionnaires from Hawaii’s business, public and nonprofit service industry employees working face-to-face with customers and clients. Statistical methods used to answer and test research questions included Pearson’s correlation analysis and one-way ANOVA using SPSS 21. Analysis of moment structures (AMOS) was used for structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the five hypotheses of this research. Statistical analysis results show support all five hypotheses. Customer feedback, work motivation and supervisor support were all found to positively influence job satisfaction. Additionally, customer feedback as well as supervisor support indicate to positively influence work motivation. Keywords: job satisfaction, supervisor support, customer feedback, work motivation. I.

(4) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... I TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................II LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................ IV LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................... V CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1 Background of the Study .................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................2 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................4 Research Questions ..........................................................................................................4 Limitations and Delimitations..........................................................................................5 Significance of the Study .................................................................................................5 Definition of Terms..........................................................................................................6. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 8 Perceived Customer Feedback .........................................................................................8 Perceived Supervisor Support ........................................................................................10 Work Motivation............................................................................................................11 Employee Job Satisfaction .............................................................................................14 Relationships between and among Variables ................................................................15. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................ 20 Research Framework .....................................................................................................20 Hypotheses .....................................................................................................................20 Research Procedure ........................................................................................................21 Research Design.............................................................................................................24 Data Collection ..............................................................................................................24 Sample............................................................................................................................24 Method of Data Analysis ...............................................................................................26 Measurements ................................................................................................................30 Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................33. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS................................ 47 One-Way ANOVA.........................................................................................................47 Correlation Analysis ......................................................................................................48 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) ............................................................................51 Summary of Analyses Results .......................................................................................55. II.

(5) CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ............................ 57 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................57 Research Implications ....................................................................................................58 Practical Implications.....................................................................................................59 Research Limitations .....................................................................................................59 Future Research Suggestions .........................................................................................60. REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 62 APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................ 70 . III.

(6) LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5. Table 4.3 Table 4.4. Descriptive Statistics on Sample Characteristics…………………………….25 Index of Model Fits…………………………………………………….....….29 Perceived Customer Feedback Measurement Items………………………….31 EJS Model Fit Summary……………………………………………………..37 Multi-Group Comparison Result for Cross Validation of Measurement Model (EJS).………………………………………………………………….37 Employee Job Satisfaction Variable Items…………………………………...38 PSS Model Fit Summary………………………………………………….….40 Multi-Group Comparison Result for Cross Validation of Measurement Model (PSS)……………………………………………………….………....40 Perceived Supervisor Support Variable Items………………………………..40 PCF Model Fit Summary…………………………………………………….41 Multi-Group Comparison Results for Cross Validation of Measurement Model (PCF)………………………………………….......…………………..42 Perceived Customer Feedback Variable Items……………………………….43 WM Model Fit Summary……………………………………………………..43 Multi-Group Comparison Result for Cross Validation of Measurement Model (WM)………………………………………………………………….44 Work Motivation Variable Items……………………………………………..45 Cronbach’s Alphas..………………………………………………………….46 Descriptives of Employee Job Satisfaction among Work Sectors……………47 One Way Analysis of Variance in Employee Job Satisfaction among Work Sectors…………………………………………………………………………48 Scheffe’s Post Hoc Test……………………………………………………….48 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability…………………...50. Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8. Model Fit Summary of Structural Model………………………………………………..53 Standardized Coefficients of Structural Equation Modeling………………….54 Results from Structural Equation Modeling…………………………………..55 Hypotheses Testing Results Summary………………………………………..56. Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 3.10 Table 3.11 Table 3.12 Table 3.13 Table 3.14 Table 3.15 Table 3.16 Table 4.1 Table 4.2. IV.

(7) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1. Figure 3.2. Figure 3.3. Figure 3.4. Figure 3.5. Figure 3.6. Figure 4.1.. Research framework …………………..………………………………….20 Research procedure …………………..…………………………………...23 Employee job satisfaction CFA measurement model ……………..……...36 Perceived supervisor support CFA measurement model ………..………..39 Perceived customer feedback CFA measurement model………..………...42 Work motivation CFA measurement model…………………..………….. 44 Structural equation model……..…………………………………………...52. V.

(8) CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The contents of chapter one include the background of the study, problem statement, purpose of the research, research questions, significance of the study, and delimitations and limitations of the study follow suit. The first chapter concludes with several key terms and definitions.. Background of the Study The service industry is categorized under the tertiary sector and includes various job descriptions. Whether services range from retail sales, financial services, or education, these industries provide products or assistance to customers. Customer service is the act in which service industries conduct a series of activities that are intended to enhance a customer’s level of satisfaction (Turban et al., 2002). The basic concept of the service sector requires that a service provider supplies services according to the needs and requests of customers, because the service provider cannot function without customers. The tertiary sector involves a further discrimination of for-profit, nonprofit, and public sectors. The for-profit sector includes corporations and businesses that operate for the purpose of gaining profit from services. On the other hand, the nonprofit sector provides services not for profit, that neither for-profit nor public sector provides for the public’s benefit (Lee, 2014). As for the public sector, this division offers services yielded by the government. Transaction services are for the most part executed through an exchange of face-to-face interactions. Yet, due to the acceleration of technological development, there has been less need of manpower for organizations to operate. Services that benefit from face-to-face interaction with customers are also reducing the number of individuals needed for employment. Fortunately, the need for human capital within organizations still exists. Nevertheless, along with the continuance of human interaction within organizations, issues in 1.

(9) the workplace continue; not just those related to customer-employee relations, but also among employees themselves, for example, job satisfaction. The success and survival of companies or organizations is often heavily contingent upon the performance of its employees (Wiley, 1997). Nevertheless, to maintain high levels of performance, organizations must understand what motivates employees. Similarly, the relationship between job satisfaction and performance is of great importance. Siding with the concept that job satisfaction causes job performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001), organizations should strive to keep employees satisfied in order to obtain optimal performance levels. On the other hand those that believe job performance causes job satisfaction should also understand what motivates employees to increase performance, and in turn, job satisfaction. A study conducted by Frey, Bayón, and Totzek (2013) revealed employee satisfaction to be positively affected by positive client feedback. Some studies showed that positive performance feedback increases intrinsic motivation and in reverse performance criticism diminishes it (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Grandey and Diamond (2010) stated that customer feedback heightens motivation. More specifically, Harackiewicz (1979) hypothesized that free from reward effects, positive performance feedback has the potential to enhance intrinsic motivation. Herzberg’s motivational theory claims that showing signs of appreciation (positive feedback) for an individual’s work and performance acts as a motivator to stimulate job satisfaction (Frey et al., 2013). In addition, researchers hypothesized that customers are active participants in service interactions (Ma & Qu, 2011). Therefore, to suggest customers’ actions and reactions, such as feedback, may impact employees’ actions and reactions is not altogether preposterous.. Statement of the Problem There is a continuing problem of employees’ job satisfaction – an issue that is of importance to all organizations with human resources. However, there are various 2.

(10) components that factor into employee job satisfaction. Therefore, it is unrealistic to generalize or generate standard measures defining precisely what level criteria define job satisfaction across all industries. Nevertheless, it is crucial for researchers to continue to pursue the solution to this issue. Oftentimes the approach to job satisfaction issues is narrowed down by limiting scopes of studies to contextual domains (Cleveland & Yeh, 2015). Dating back to the 1930s, job satisfaction assessment used tactics such as employee anonymous surveys and has since continued in practice (Latham & Budworth, 2007). Nevertheless, the solution to job satisfaction remains unsolved and has driven researchers to battle this problem from multiple perspectives (e.g. Babin & Boles, 1996; Frey et al., 2013; Griffin, Patterson, & West, 2001; Locke, & Latham, 1990; Parvin & Kabir, 2011). This issue has lead much research dedicating resources to understanding the phenomenon of job satisfaction. Many studies (e.g. Brown & Lam, 2008; Evanschitzky, Groening, Mittal, & Wunderlich, 2011; Grandey, Goldberg, & Pugh, 2011) have also examined how customer satisfaction is affected by employee satisfaction (Frey et al., 2013). Furthermore, a similar amount of studies have examined the relationship between and effects of motivation and job satisfaction (e.g. Locke & Latham, 1990; Parvin and Kabir, 2011; Tietjen & Myers, 1998). Moreover, recent research has begun investigating the reverse effect of how customer satisfaction affects employee job satisfaction (e.g. Frey et al., 2013). Yet studies incorporating constructs linking employees’ job satisfaction to relationships with customers, supervisors and work motivation in unison are limited, though some theories demonstrate support for linkages among these relationships (e.g. Locke, 1976). As mentioned before, previous research has predominantly focused on internal elements of organizations environment (Parvin & Kabir, 2011), and achievement orientation (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004) as sources influencing job satisfaction. Fairly few studies have inquired into customer satisfaction as impacting employees’ job satisfaction, even fewer 3.

(11) looking at customer feedback. Perhaps altering the approach to the issue of job satisfaction through a different perspective, such as customer feedback as an independent variable and through its effect on work motivation, may add to the understanding of job satisfaction. In addition to the aforementioned, effects of work motivation and interactions with supervisors and customers on employees’ job satisfaction are oftentimes solely researched in the context of for-profit organizations. However, these issues are also relevant to non-profit organizations (NPO) and government-run organizations, and have not been widely addressed in these circumstances (Cleveland & Yeh, 2015).. Purpose of the Study While observing employee job satisfaction, there are many components to keep in mind. Working environment, relationships with customers and colleagues, and motives are few examples that may influence an employees’ perception of job satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to compare among the influences of perceived customer feedback, work motivation and perceived supervisor support on employee job satisfaction. Furthermore, this study proposed not only to do a comparison among the three independent variables mentioned above, but also a comparison of employee job satisfaction among the for-profit, nonprofit, and public sector employees’ perceptions.. Research Questions Subsequent to the previous section, the following questions were generated to explore a possible comparison among for-profit, nonprofit, and public customer service employees. •. Does perceived customer feedback or perceived supervisor support have more influence on employees’ work motivation?. •. Is perceived customer feedback or perceived supervisor support more positively associated with employee job satisfaction?. •. Does work motivation influence employee job satisfaction?. 4.

(12) •. Are there significant differences among for-profit, nonprofit and public sector employees’ job satisfaction when looking at perceived customer feedback, work motivation and perceived supervisor support as independent variables?. Limitations and Delimitations While customs and cultures vary among countries, this study narrowed its scope to individuals working within the United States, more specifically, Hawaii. Within this study, delimitations comprise of the size to which this research was conducted. Limitations are obstacles encountered within the study, such as access to participants, organizational information and time constraints. This study consists of several delimitations. Firstly, this study is delimited to Hawaii. Additionally, this study focused on influences of supervisors and customers on employees of for-profit, nonprofit, and public sectors within the service industries. The sample size to this study was limited to employees within for-profit, nonprofit and public sectors who interact with customers face-to-face. The study targeted perceived supervisor and employee relationships in the organizations as well as perceived customer feedback. As follows, findings through the analysis of data collected are applicable to only the perception of employees’ relationship between his or her superior, or customers as well as perceptions of their own work motivation.. Significance of the Study According to Frey et al. (2013), previous studies have focused on the effects such as leader-member exchange on job satisfaction. Studies also often focus on directional employee-customer relationships starting from employee satisfaction affecting customer satisfaction. In comparison, few studies have looked into customer satisfaction’s effect on job satisfaction; even less on perceived customer feedback and job satisfaction. By looking at customer satisfaction as an independent variable, the issue arises in how an employee is affected by it. Unless it is perceived, customer satisfaction will have no influence 5.

(13) on an employee, let alone his or her job satisfaction. This study proposed a solution of this predicament by using perceived customer feedback to convey customer satisfaction. By employees receiving acknowledgement of positive service experiences from customers, this interaction allows customers to influence employees in various aspects. While portraying customer feedback to influence job satisfaction is somewhat unusual, this approach gave further insight to attributing factors to job satisfaction. In combination with looking at perceived customer feedback, this study also aimed to investigate work motivation, and perceived supervisor support influences on employee job satisfaction.. Definition of Terms Perceived Customer Feedback Customer feedback adopted Frey et al.’s (2013) definition of perceived customer appreciation in a service context, by characterizing it as an employee’s belief his or her performance and/or actions as an individual are valued by a customer.. Perceived Supervisor Support Researchers (e.g. Babin & Boles, 1996; Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003) identify perceived supervisor support as the extent to which employees perceive supervisors offer employees support, encouragement and concern. It is also described as how employees formulate broad views regarding how much a supervisor values a subordinate’s work inputs and care about his or her well-being.. Work Motivation Locke and Latham’s (1990) definition of work motivation is the intention and desire to perform a job task well. This definition of work motivation is regardless of concrete performance outcome or output evidence while it focuses solely on the employees’ psychological motive. Work motivation in this context may also be seen as an immediate precursor to work engagement. 6.

(14) Employee Job Satisfaction Employee job satisfaction outlines how content an individual is with his or her job (Parvin & Kabir, 2011). This term may be applied to specific aspects of a job or the job as a whole. For the purpose of this research, the meaning adopted was applied to overall job satisfaction.. 7.

(15) CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 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 8.

(16) 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). 9.

(17) 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).. 10.

(18) 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 11.

(19) 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) 12.

(20) 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 13.

(21) 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.. 14.

(22) 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 15.

(23) 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 16.

(24) 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 17.

(25) 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.. 18.

(26) 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.. 19.

(27) CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter outlines in detail the methodological steps and procedures for the proposed study. It contains the research framework, hypotheses, research procedures, research design, data collection, sample, method of analysis, and measurements, followed by validity and reliability.. Research Framework The research framework is based on research questions stated in chapter 1, as well as hypotheses formulated after the review of literature. The purpose of this research is to compare the relative influences of perceived customer appreciation, work motivation and perceived supervisor support on employee job satisfaction.. Figure 3.1. Research framework.. Hypotheses General hypotheses are derived from the research framework and stated as follows: 20.

(28) Hypothesis 1: Perceived customer feedback positively influences employee job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2: Perceived supervisor support positively influences employee job satisfaction. Hypothesis 3: Perceived customer feedback positively influences work motivation. Hypothesis 4: Perceived supervisor support positively influences work motivation. Hypothesis 5: Work motivation positively influences employee job satisfaction.. Research Procedure The research procedure describes the sequence in which the researcher took to carry out this study. Figure 3.2 illustrates the steps that were taken to formulate and complete this study. In addition, each stage is described below. The researcher first read through journal articles in order to find a topic of interest. This introduced the researcher to many different research questions, findings, and implications for possible future researches. From here, the researcher formulated broad questions before narrowing down to a specific topic of interest. After narrowing down research questions to the topic of interest, the researcher developed multiple research frameworks before settling on one to appropriately illustrate the relationships among variables chosen for this study. More literature was then reviewed to describe and clarify the relationships between and among variables in the research framework and proposed study. Throughout the first 5 stages of this research, the researcher continued to develop hypotheses until after the framework was finalized. The researcher chose a quantitative research approach while it was identified as the most appropriate method for collecting data for this study. In addition, appropriate scales of measurement for quantitative data collection were found and utilized. Scales of measurement for this research are from developed questionnaires and were adopted or adapted in order to measure the variables of this study. 21.

(29) The researcher conducted a pilot study to test the feasibility of the full-scale study. After collecting and analyzing results from the pilot study, the researcher reviewed the instrument, and made adjustments to modify the instrument by reordering the questionnaire. Surveys were administered in questionnaire form. The questionnaires were distributed through personal distribution, referrals and online tactics. Data collected was analyzed through various statistical tools including, but not limited to descriptive statistics, factor analysis, alpha coefficient tests, correlation analysis, regression, and structural equation modeling. Lastly, analysis of the data allowed the researcher to conclude findings that corresponded with the study. The researcher then provided suggestions and implications for future studies.. 22.

(30) Review of Literature IdentiCication of Research Questions Selection of Topic of Interest Design of Framework Collection of Relative Literature Development of Hypothses Research Design Adoption of Instruments Pilot Study Review of Instrument Data Collection Data Analysis Conclusion and Suggestions Figure 3.2. Research procedure.. 23.

(31) Research Design The research design for this study took a quantitative approach in order to test the five hypotheses. Through a cross-sectional and causal research approach, this study conducted a survey on service industry personnel and collected quantitative data through questionnaire instruments. Once data was collected, the study utilized inferential statistics to test the hypotheses.. Data Collection Since this study proposed to adopt a quantitative research approach, it employed datagathering methods in survey form by distribution of questionnaires. The questionnaires were personally distributed and handed out through referrals as well as was accessible online. Each questionnaire recipient received a cover letter, followed by items from the measurements of this research’s four variables. The questionnaire adopted, adapted, and utilized items from developed instruments. Detailed descriptions of each measurement scale are described below under the appropriate headings. The questionnaire consisted of 62 items to measure the four variables, as well as 12 questions of demographic or screening nature. Scores were rated on either 5-point or 7-point Likert scales and totals averaged out to find mean scores.. Sample This study proposed to employ a cross-sectional research design by collecting data from individuals employed in any area within the service industry. The population of this study consisted of individuals working under the supervision of supervisors in the service industry who have face-to-face interactions with customers. Since there was no available sampling frame for this population, convenience sampling method was used. Survey respondents were from for-profit, nonprofit, and public sector organizations based in and who worked within the state of Hawaii. The cover letter provided for the questionnaire guaranteed anonymity of respondent’s answers.. 24.

(32) Sample Profile For the full-scale study, 328 questionnaires were returned (70 online respondents, 258 hardcopy respondents). A total of 313 questionnaires were useable for this study. Eight hardcopies were excluded due to missing sections and seven online responses did not pass all screening questions; namely having face-to-face interaction with customer or clients and currently working in Hawaii. After reviewing the 313 questionnaires some of the following demographics were revealed. A majority of respondents at a rate of 74.12% reported as working in Honolulu, the capital of Hawaii. Responses came primarily from females at a rate of 60.70%. The majority of respondents reported as being between the ages of 26 to 35. Most respondents reported working for their current employers between 1 and 5 years. A rate of 70.62% reported to work in the business sector, while 13.73% and 15.66% stated as working in the public and nonprofit sectors, respectively. Reported levels of education completed are as follows: 53.67% high school; 7.35% certificate; 10.23% associates; 23.64% bachelor’s; 4.47% master’s; 0.64% other. A full summary of the sample’s characteristics is depicted in Table 3.1. Table 3.1. Descriptive Statistics on Sample Characteristics Item. Frequency. Percentage Item. Frequency. Percentage. 6. Years with current organization. 1. City of employment. Honolulu. 232. 74.12. Less than 1 year. 10. 3.20. Pearl City. 12. 3.83. 1-5 years. 178. 56.87. Kaneohe. 9. 2.88. 6-10 years. 37. 11.82. Kapolei. 9. 2.88. 11-20 years. 41. 13.10. Other. 51. 16.29. 21-30 years. 33. 10.54. Total. 313. 100. 31-47 years. 14. 4.47. Total. 25. 313. 100 (continued).

(33) Table 3.1. (continued) 2. Frequency of Interaction with customer/client. Daily Weekly Yearly Total. 7. Age. 267 38 0 313. 85.30 12.14 0 100. 18-20 21-25 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 Total. 157. 50.16. 8. Gender. 99 38 19 313. 31.63 12.14 6.07 100. Male Female Total. 3. Familiarity with customer Not at all Name or face Personal background Family background Total 4. Sector of employment . Business Public Nonprofit Total. 13.43 17.89 15.01 15.34 13.41 4.79 100. 123 190 313. 39.30 60.70 100. High School Certificate Associate’s Bachelor’s Master’s Ph.D. 168 23 32 74 14. 53.67 7.35 10.23 23.64 4.47. 2. 0.64. Total. 313. 100. 9. Education completed . 221 43 49 313. 70.62 13.73 15.66 100. 5. Job Title . Customer Service Agent Customer Service Cargo Agent Sales Associate Porter Assistant Cashier Server Office Manager Other Total. 42 56 47 48 42 15 313. 71. 22.68. 16 16 13 12 11 10 5 4 155 313. 5.11 5.11 4.15 3.83 3.51 3.20 1.60 1.29 49.52 100. Method of Data Analysis The data collected from the sample was analyzed through statistical software IBM SPSS 21 and SPSS Amos using statistical analysis methods indicated in the following sections. 26.

(34) Descriptive Statistics Since this study did not employ a random sampling method, the purpose of descriptive statistics mainly helped to calculate important features of the data such as sample mean, median, mode, standard deviation, demographics, and sample distribution. Descriptive statistics was beneficial towards this study while it summarized, described and characterized the prominent features of the quantitative data collected.. Factor Analysis This study conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in SPSS and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in AMOS to establish construct validity of the measurements. EFA was used to distinguish properties based on the data collected. EFA also maximized the amount of variance explained. Harmon’s single factor test is observable in EFA, which tests for common method variance (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). While this research proposed to collect data through self-report questionnaires, there was no doubt this study would run into common method variance (CMV). CMV occurs when two or more measures come from the same source. Recommendation to minimize CMV include scale reordering, while keeping items within the same variable domain, as well as varying measurement scales. In contrast to EFA, CFA is a statistical tool often used to observe relationships among latent variables (Jackson, Gillaspy Jr., & Purc-Stephenson, 2009) and evaluates a priori the study’s hypotheses. In order to utilize CFA, the researcher is required in advance to hypothesize a number of factors, and identify whether or not those factors are correlated. Therefore, CFA tests whether the data collected fits the theorized measurement model of a variable.. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is a statistical tool that tests whether or not the means of several groups are equal. It’s purpose is similar to t-test analysis, however, it can be used to test and compare data of more than two groups. ANOVA was used to compare the means of different working 27.

(35) sector groups within the service industry among this study’s variables (customer feedback, perceived supervisor support, work motivation, and employee job satisfaction).. Correlation Analysis This study used Pearson’s correlation analysis to test the relationship between variables. This analysis method results in correlation coefficients, thus allowing the observation of when a variable changes, whether or not another variable will change. In addition, this analysis allows for the observation of strengths and significances of relationships between variables and selected demographic features.. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a statistical procedure used to test and estimate causal relationships (Jackson et al., 2009). SEM technique uses both statistical data and causal assumptions. Despite the intricate amount of analysis output yielded in SEM, there is no set rule on what figures should be reported. The data collected for this study was analyzed using AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structures), which is a type of SEM, in SPSS software. The distinctiveness of AMOS is that it automatically incorporates estimation of variances for all independent factors. AMOS also allows for creating path diagrams and CFA (Byrne, 2013).. In addition, AMOS uses. maximum likelihood estimation as its default feature (Bryne, 2001). In SEM, confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis were conducted, producing results that answered several research questions as well as hypotheses. Each variable was independently analyzed in SPSS AMOS for confirmatory factor analyses, then path analysis was run to test the study’s hypotheses. Outputs of highest interest for this study included X2/df, RMR, GFI, AGFI, RMSEA, AVE and CR to examine measurement models’ goodness of fit. X2/df refers to Chi-square divided by degrees of freedom, which is also known as the relative chi-square. It is a guide showing what the fit of data to the model is when dropping 28.

(36) pathways. The root mean square residual (RMR) is an indicator of how much estimated variances and covariances are different from the observed ones. Goodness of fit (GFI) is a statistic that analyzes the proportion of variance that is accounted for by the projected population covariance. Adjusted goodness of fit (AGFI), is an index of adjusted GFI parameter. Root mean square error or approximation (RMSEA) compares lack of fit to the saturated model (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). Table 3.2 is a summary of model fit indices of X2/df, RMR, GFI, AGFI, and RMSEA. By meeting all cutoff criteria, this indicates goodness of fit. Table 3.2. Index of Model Fits Good fit X2/df. Acceptable fit. 2-5. Author’s notes. <5. 0≤2 <.08 Root mean square error or approximation (RMSEA). Goodness-of-fit statistic (GFI). Adjusted-goodness-of-fit (AGFI). Root mean square residual (RMR). .08-.1. 0 ≤.05. .05≤.08. >.95. 0-1.0. >.95. >.90. >.90. .90. >.90. >.85. <. 05. ≤.08. <.03 indicates excellent fit. .08≤.10 (mediocre fit); >.10 poor fit Higher values indicate better model fit.. The smaller the value, the better.. 0 indicates perfect fit.. Note. Summary based on Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen (2008) (top rows) and Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, and Müller (2003) (bottom rows). 29.

(37) Reliability of constructs in measurement and structural models are represented by composite reliability (CR) (Bacon, Sauer, & Young, 1995).. As for average variance. extracted (AVE), this is the average sum of a construct’s squared standardized loadings. Henseler, Ringle and Sarstedt (2015) state AVE signifies the “average amount of variance that a construct explains in its indicator variables relative to the overall variance of its indicators.” Following Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criteria, acceptable CR is above .80 and AVE is above .50. However, when factor loadings are above .707 for individual items within a construct, this is also considered adequate reliability (Khosrow-Pour, 2006).. Measurements The survey questionnaire used the following instruments of measurement for each variable. The next section details each instrument of measurement that was adopted or adapted for this study. Permission for use of four instruments was obtained. Authors of the work motivation measurement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) have indicated the scale may be used for free for noncommercial scientific research. Below are descriptions of each measurement and are written in the order presented in the full-scale study survey.. Employee Job Satisfaction (EJS) To measure the dependent variable this study adopted Weiss et al.’s (1967) Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) short form, which included 20 items. After correspondence with Vocational Psychology Research of University of Minnesota, permission was granted to use the 1977 MSQ short form version upon payment of Royalty fees. Items statements of the MSQ asked respondents to rate their level of satisfaction with their current job. Example statements are “The chance to do things for other people” and “The chance for advancement on this job.” Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Very Dissatisfied; 5 = Very Satisfied). Cronbach’s alphas from previous researches using this measurement reported ranges between .85 and .91 (Fields, 2002).. 30.

(38) Work Motivation (WM) Work motivation was measured using Schaufeli and Bakker’s (2003) “Utrecht Work Engagement Scale” (UWES) (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). The scale reported Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .70 to .90 in past studies. Similar to Bakker and Demerouti’s (2008) study that acknowledges motivation as an antecedent of engagement, this study also adopted the same perspective. Recognizing motivation as a predictor of engagement, by measuring engagement, results ought to reflect levels of motivation. The measurement contains 17 self-report items, for example, “When I am working, I forget everything else around me,” and “I am immersed in my work.” Items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Never; 7 = Always).. Perceived Customer Feedback (PCF) An adequate number of perceived customer feedback measurement items were limited in availability. Therefore, items for this variable were adapted and combined from Frey et al.’s 2013 and Ma and Qu’s 2011 studies. The nine items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, to 7 = Strongly Agree). Questions included statements such as “I have received positive customer feedback.” Items were slightly modified to reflect measuring the perceived customer feedback variable more accurately. Ma and Qu’s (2011) measurement reported a Chronbach’s alpha level of .791 whereas Frey, et al.’s (2013) measurement reported .90. Original and modified items are indicated in Table 3.3. Table 3.3. Perceived Customer Feedback Measurement Items Source Frey, Bayón, & Totzek, (2013). Original Item Descriptions I have received positive feedback from this client.. Modified Item Descriptions I have received positive feedback from customers. (continued). 31.

(39) Table 3.3. (continued). Frey, Bayón, & Totzek (2013). It seems to me that my client satisfied with my performance or expertise. This client has made remarks on my performance or expertise. I have the feeling that my expertise is valued by the client.. I have the feeling that my expertise is valued by customers.. Most guests are polite.. Most of my customers are polite.. I feel that my services are appreciated by our guests. Ma & Qu (2011). It seems to me that my customers are satisfied with my performance or expertise. Customers have made positive remarks on my performance or expertise.. I feel that my services are appreciated by my customers.. I rarely receive complaints from our guests.. I rarely receive complaints from my customers.. I feel our guests are satisfied with the services provided by our hotel.. Customers have told me they are satisfied with the services provided by my organization.. I feel our guests are happy to stay in our hotel.. Customers have expressed they are happy with my services.. Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS) Eisenberger, Hungtington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) developed a 36-item scale known as the “Survey of Perceived Organizational Support” (SPOS). Several articles including Eisenberger et al.’s 2002 study (e.g. Hutchison, 1997a, 1997b; Roades et al., 2001; Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988) adapted the SPOS to measure perceived supervisor support by replacing the word “organization” with “supervisor” (as cited in Eisenberger et al., 2002). To measure perceived supervisor support (PSS), this study adopted Kottke and Sharafinski’s (1988) questionnaire containing 16 items that reported a coefficient alpha of .98 in the original study. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree). An example statement is “My supervisor takes my best interest into account when 32.

(40) he/she makes decisions that affect me.” In addition, the original study contained two items (“If my supervisor could hire someone to replace me at a lower salary he/she would do so” and “If given the opportunity my supervisor would take advantage of me”) that were reverse coded.. Control Variables A total of 9 questions were used to collect demographic data; (1) city of employment, (2) frequency of interaction with customers, (3) level of familiarity with customers to conduct work, (4) sector of employment, (5) job title, (6) years with current organization, (7) age, (8) gender, and (9) education completed. Continuous variables (years with current organization and age) were kept in original form during statistical analysis. Categorical and ordinal variables were assigned numeric values in SPSS and dummy coded for use in analyses. Dichotomous variables (gender) were dummy coded as well with female being 0 and male as 1. For variables with more than two possible responses, some of the most frequently selected answers were chosen for dummy coding, using the same response as 1 and all others 0. Following suggestions from previous literature (e.g. Blackburn & Bruce, 1989; Clark, 1997; Hunt & Saul, 1975), two demographic variables which were gender and education completed, also acted as control variables on employee job satisfaction when running SEM.. Validity and Reliability Validity of the instruments is determined by content validity and construct validity. Content validity refers to the extent at which a questionnaire reflects the intended domain of the content. That is, the instrument measures what it purports to measure. Content validity is established for all instruments measurements (Schaufeli & Bakker, & 2003; Frey, et al., 2013; Kottke, & Sharafinski, 1988; Ma & Qu, 2011; Weiss et al., 1967) while the instruments were adopted or adapted from the aforementioned studies. The combined items for measuring customer feedback (Frey et al., 2013; Ma & Qu, 2011) underwent expert review while the questions were slightly modified. A pilot test was conducted to evaluate feasibility and 33.

(41) statistical variability of the study (Cleveland & Yeh, 2015). This helped improved the study’s design before the main research project was executed. During the pilot as well as in the main study, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to examine the factor structure and the potential threat of common method variance (CMV). Construct validity was established through the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the main study. The results of EFA and CFA are reported below under their respective headings. While all items for each survey were self-reported by individual sources in this study, potential threat of CMV needed to be observed. This study used Podsakoff and Organ’s (1986) procedural method recommendations to minimize CMV. The questionnaire items, though still kept within each variable’s domain, were reordered (scale reordering). The first set of questions measured the dependent variable, while the following sets measured work motivation, perceived supervisor support, then perceived customer feedback. EFA results in the pilot test indicated groupings between items in perceived supervisor support and employee job satisfaction, signifying respondents tended to answer items measuring both variables in a similar way. Therefore, in order to reduce CMV in the full-scale study, the questionnaire format was reordered, placing perceived supervisor support at the very end. Reliability refers to how well an instrument yields stable and consistent results. Studies of which these instruments were adopted from (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003; Frey et al., 2013; Kottke, & Sharafinski, 1988; Ma & Qu, 2011; Weiss et al., 1967) have already run reliability analyses. However, a Cronbach’s alpha test was also run for each variable of this study to establish internal consistency of measurements.. Exploratory Factor Analysis EFA was conducted to observe factor loadings and cross factor loadings of all items within the study. In a simple factor structure all factor loadings were above the recommended threshold of .5 (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Straham, 1999), which was to be expected since all items were previously established measurements. 34.