|
FIGURE 1 Proposed model.
METHOD
Sample and Procedure
Data were collected from one chain of casual dining restaurants located
in Seoul, Korea. A total of seven restaurants in the chain participated in
this study. Frontline employees who made frequent face-to-face contacts
with diners (i.e., waitpersons and bartenders) were invited to this study. A
total of 169 usable questionnaires assessing service orientation were gath-
ered from contact employees, while 508 usable questionnaires measuring
service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty were gathered
from diners. Questionnaires for customers were distributed by participating
employees during the lunch (noon to 3:00 p.m.) and dinner (5:00 p.m. to
8:00 p.m.) periods. The employees were instructed to solicit male and female
customers of various age groups at the time of the survey distribution and
to recruit a minimum of three customers. Customer participants completed
the questionnaire after receiving service from the employee who attended
to them.
The researcher coded employee surveys numerically and assigned one
specific number to each contact employee. Customer questionnaires were
coded with the same number assigned to the particular server or bar-
tender so that the researcher could match employee questionnaires with
customer evaluations. Customers placed the completed questionnaire in an
envelope, sealed it, and handed it to the employee. The employee kept
customers’ questionnaires, along with their own questionnaire, in a large
envelope until all questionnaires in the unit had been completed. Then, all
the questionnaires were collected and handed to the researcher. As a token
626
H. J. Kim
of appreciation, a cash incentive (equivalent to US$200) was offered to each
unit to be used for employee socials.
Survey Instrument
To assess employee service orientation, Groves’ (1992) scale was selected.
Groves’ (1992) scale, which originated in the United States, was subject to
factor analysis in order to assess its validity in Korean culture (Kim et al.,
2003). The factor analysis by Kim et al. (2003) indicated that four factors
(customer focus, prior customer relationship, service under pressure, and
organizational support) were more appropriate for Groves’ (1992) measure
and several items were eliminated because of low factor loadings. Therefore,
the shortened version with four factors (after the elimination of low-factor-
loading items) was used to assess contact employees’ service orientation
in this study. The sample items for the four factors are: “I will go out of
my way to provide good service to customers” (Customer Focus); “People
I have served before ask for me” (Prior Customer Relationship); “Our ser-
vice procedures make it easy for me to give excellent customer service”
(Organizational Support); and “Sometimes I forget to smile when the restau-
rant is really busy” (Service Under Pressure). The four factors each yielded a
coefficient alpha of
>.70, with an overall coefficient alpha of .78. All of the
statements were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree).
To evaluate service quality of the participating restaurants, the per-
ceptions battery of DINESERV was utilized. DINESERV consists of 29 items
with five service quality dimensions (tangibles, assurance, reliability, respon-
siveness, and empathy), which originated from the SERVQUAL measure of
Parasuraman et al. (1988). Five dimensions of DINESERV were not con-
firmed using the customer data of this study. Previous studies have also
reported inconsistent outcomes on the five-factor structure of SERVQUAL
(Carman, 1990; Babakus & Boller, 1992). The results of this study suggested
the existence of three subdimensions in tangibles and indistinguishability
between the responsiveness and assurance dimensions. The first tangibles
dimension focused on appearance of physical facilities and staff; the second
pertained to menu of the restaurant; and the third emphasized comfort and
cleanliness of facilities. Consequently, six factors (Tangibles I, Tangibles II,
Tangibles III, Reliability, Combination of Responsiveness and Assurance, and
Empathy) were used for this study. The alpha values for the six constructs
of DINESERV ranged from .78 to .93, with an overall coefficient alpha of .96.
All DINESERV items used a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree).
Customer satisfaction was assessed with two items (
α = .76). The first
item assessed the “summary psychological state” derived from a consumer’s
dining experience. The item was stated as “Overall, I am satisfied with this
Service Orientation, Service Quality, Satisfaction and Loyalty
627
restaurant” and rated using a seven-point scale from 1 ( strongly disagree) to
7 (strongly agree). The second item was a modification of the Circles Scales
(Andrews & Withey, 1976); it has a rectangular shape with a 7-point graphic
rating. The first rectangle containing all minuses represents the worst dining
experience; the seventh rectangle containing all plusses represents the most
pleasant. Customer loyalty was also measured with two items (
α = .83).
The first item pertained to behavioral loyalty (“I would come back to this
restaurant to dine”) and the second item related to attitudinal loyalty (“I feel
attached to this restaurant”). Both items were rated on a seven-point scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Data Analysis
Prior to data analysis, the questionnaires from customers, collected by each
employee, were averaged and then paired with the questionnaire from the
employee who attended to the customers. Hypotheses were tested using a
structural equation modeling (SEM) method with LISREL 8.71 (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 2004). Input for the LISREL 8.71 program consisted of a 14
× 14
covariance matrix. Four latent variables and 14 indicators were constructed
for the model (see Figure 2). The four latent variables included service ori-
entation, service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty. The 14
indicators included: (a) four from employee service orientation (Customer
Service
Orientation
Customer
Loyalty
Service Quality
Customer
Satisfaction
T1
T2
T3
R
R/A
E
CF
PCR
OS
SUP
S1
S2
RI
EA
0.47
0.52
0.61
0.49
0.29*
0.08
0.75
0.89
0.08
0.60
0.58
0.67
0.81
0.85
0.84
0.90
0.78
0.73**
0.84**
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: | 
