USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Emotional exhaustion and its role in service sabotage among boundary spanners

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Emotional exhaustion and its role in service sabotage among boundary spanners
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Edmondson, Diane R
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Service sabotage
Boundary spanners
Emotional exhaustion
Perceived organizational support
Perceived supervisory support
Dissertations, Academic -- Marketing -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate how emotional exhaustion (EE) impacts a boundary spanning employee's usage of service sabotage behaviors (SSB). This dissertation also investigates how perceived organizational support (POS) and perceived supervisory support (PSS) alleviate a boundary spanning employee's EE and SSB. Furthermore, this dissertation examines how extraversion (EXT) and imagination (IMAG) moderates the relationship between POS and SSB and between PSS and SSB. A boundary spanning employee is any organizational employee who "engages in job-related interactions with a person who is considered part of the environment, who is not a member of the organization" (Robertson 1995, p. 75). These employees are important as research has shown that consumers use the attitudes and behaviors of these employees to positively or negatively impact their perceptions of the service encounter (e.g. Bitner 1990; Bowen and Schneider 1985; Pugh 2001).SSB are overt or covert behaviors which negatively affect the relationship between the organization and the customer (Harris and Ogbonna 2006, 2002). Rather than the boundary spanning employee engaging in negative behaviors towards other employees or the organization as a whole, SSB are acted upon the customer. EE occurs when an employee believes they are overextended by their work (Maslach and Jackson 1981). Boundary spanning employees are forced to display organizationally desired emotions even when encountering negative customers (Cordes and Dougherty 1993; Mulki, Jaramillo and Locander 2006). This interaction between the customer and employee may result in discontent and the employee may engage in SSB as a way to show this discontent. A boundary spanner's EE is hypothesized to positively impact SSB; therefore, it is important to investigate what will reduce or mitigate a boundary spanner's EE.Two constructs that are hypothesized to reduce both EE and SSB are POS and PSS. In order to test the hypotheses developed in this dissertation, 490 non-management retail sales and customer service employees across a variety of organizations were sampled. Results found that EE positively impacts SSB. EE also partially mediates the relationship between POS and SSB. The hypotheses associated with PSS, EXT and IMAG were not supported.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Diane R. Edmondson.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 141 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002046202
oclc - 495794412
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002632
usfldc handle - e14.2632
System ID:
SFS0026949:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Emotional Exhaustion and Its Role in Se rvice Sabotage among Boundary Spanners by Diane R. Edmondson A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Marketing College of Business University of South Florida Major Professor: Sajeev Varki, Ph.D. Barbara Lafferty, Ph.D. Yancy Edwards, Ph.D. Michael Barnett, Ph.D. Terry Sincich, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 18, 2008 Keywords: service sabotage, boundary spa nners, emotional exhaustion, perceived organizational support, perceived su pervisory support, personality Copyright 2008, Diane R. Edmondson

PAGE 2

Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my family who has provided unconditional support throughout my entire docto ral program. Without my family’s love and support, this degree would not have been possible. Th ere are no words which can be said to fully express my gratitude to my pa rents and my son, Aaron, for a ll of their help and support that was necessary to pursue this degree. I thank both my mother and father for th eir dedication and sacr ifices that they have made. I also thank my son who was my inspiration for continuing my education. Finally, I thank my many friends and family who have encouraged me throughout this journey.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements There are numerous people at the Univers ity of South Florida that helped make this dissertation a possibility. I am very grat eful to my dissertation chair, Dr. Sajeev Varki. Without him, I would not have been able to complete this dissertation. I also thank Dr. Barbara Lafferty, Dr. Yancy Edwa rds, Dr. Michael Barnett and Dr. Terry Sincich for their advice, time and guidance through the disserta tion process. My dissertation committee’s feedback and suggestio ns significantly improved the quality of this dissertation. I especially want to thank Dr. Terry Si ncich for giving me my first glimpse at a professor’s life while I was an undergraduate and graduate student. In addition, I thank Dr. David Ortinau for his insightful comments on my dissertation. Finally I thank my colleagues, Robert Riggl e and Stefanie Boyer, for their friendship throughout the doctoral program.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables iv List of Figures v Abstract vi Chapter One: Introduction Introduction 1 Research Propositions 9 Proposed Contributions of the Dissert ation 9 Managerial Implications 11 Organization of the Dissertation 13 Chapter Two: Literature Review Boundary Spanning Personnel and the Service Encounter 15 Service Sabotage Behavior and Prevalen ce in Service Industry 18 A Comparison between Service Sa botage Behavior and Other Conceptualizations 20 Previous Models of Service Sabotage 21 Limitations of Prior Service Sabotage Be havior Research 23 Proposed Model in Dissertation Employees’ Emotional Exhaustion 25 Perceived Organizational Support 28 Perceived Supervisory Support 29 The Mediating Role of Emotional Exhaustion 31 Employees’ Personality as a Moderator 33 Chapter Summary 37 Chapter Three: Methodology Research Setting and Sample 38 Data Collection Procedures Pilot Study 39 Final Study 42 Measures Service Sabotage Behavior Measure 43 Emotional Exhaustion 45 Perceived Organizational and Supervisory Support 45 Personality 46

PAGE 5

ii Harris and Ogbonna (2006) Antecedents 46 Data Analysis Technique Regression Procedures 47 Test of the Mediating Part of Model using Structural Equation Modeling 54 Comparison of Proposed Model to Harris and Ogbonna 2006 Model 55 Chapter Summary 56 Chapter 4 Pilot Study Participants 57 Principal Components Analyses 57 Reliability and Validity Analysis 59 Final Study Participants 60 Principal Components Analyses 60 Reliability and Validity Analysis 62 Regression Analysis 63 Moderation in Structural Equati on Modeling 66 Mediation in Structural Equati on Modeling 68 Comparison of Proposed Model to Harris and Ogbonna 2006 Model 71 Summary 74 Chapter 5 Discussion 75 Impact on Service Sabotage Behavior Emotional Exhaustion 76 Perceived Organizational and Supervisory Support 77 Personality 79 Comparison of Dissertation Model to Ha rris and Ogbonna 2006 Model 81 Limitations and Directions for Future Research 82 References 102 Appendices Appendix A: Possible Service Sabotage Items 113 Appendix B: Emotional Exhaustion, Support and Personality Measures 116 Appendix C: Harris and Ogbonna’s ( 2006) Antecedents 119 Appendix D: Testing of the Regr ession Assumptions and Influential Observation Analysis 121 Appendix E: Pilot Study Factor Analysis Results 123 Appendix F: Final Study Factor An alysis Results 127 Appendix G: Final Study Inter-Item Correlations 131

PAGE 6

iii Appendix H: Inter-Item Correlati ons for Final Service Sabotage Behavior Measure 132 Appendix I: Measurement Model 133 Appendix J: Testing of the Regre ssion Assumptions and Influential Observation Analysis 135 Appendix K: Interaction Term Ca lculations 138 Appendix L: Moderation in Structural Equation Modeling 140 End Page

PAGE 7

iv List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Model Hypotheses 91 Table 2 Sample Characteristics of Pilot Study 92 Table 3 Reliabilities and Correlations fo r Pilot Study 93 Table 4 Inter-Item Correlation Results 94 Table 5 Sample Characteristics of Final Study 95 Table 6 Reliabilities and Correlations fo r Final Study 96 Table 7 Discriminant Validity Results 97 Table 8 Regression Results 98 Table 9 Summary of Model Hypothesi s Results 99 Table 10 Model Comparison using Harris and Ogbonna 2006 Measure 100 Table 11 Model Comparison using Ne w SSB Measure 101 Table 12 Service Sabotage Behavior 123 Table 13 Emotional Exhaustion 124 Table 14 Perceived Organizational Support 124 Table 15 Perceived Supervisory Support 125 Table 16 Extraversion 125 Table 17 Imagination 126 Table 18 Service Sabotage Behavior 127 Table 19 Emotional Exhaustion 128 Table 20 Perceived Organizational Support 128 Table 21 Perceived Supervisory Support 129 Table 22 Extraversion 129 Table 23 Imagination 130 Table 24 Emotional Exhaustion 131 Table 25 Perceived Organizational Support 131 Table 26 Perceived Supervisory Support 131 Table 27 Extraversion 132 Table 28 Imagination 132 Table 29 Inter-item Correlations fo r Final Service Sabotage Behavior Measure 133 Table 30 Regression Weight Estimate s, Error Variances, and Factor Variances from Measurement Model 138 Table 31 Regression Weights an d Error Variance Interaction Calculations for Structural Model 139

PAGE 8

v List of Figures Figure 1 Proposed Model of Service Sabot age Behaviors 85 Figure 2 Harris and Ogbonna’s 2002 Propos ed Model 86 Figure 3 Harris and Ogbonna’s 2006 Model 87 Figure 4 Emotional Exhaustion Mediation Tests 88 Figure 5 Harris and Ogbonna’s 2006 Model Tested in This Dissertation 89 Figure 6 Model Results 90

PAGE 9

vi Emotional Exhaustion and Its Role in Se rvice Sabotage among Boundary Spanners Diane R. Edmondson ABSTRACT The purpose of this dissertation is to i nvestigate how emotional exhaustion (EE) impacts a boundary spanning employee’s usage of service sabotage behaviors (SSB). This dissertation also investigates how perceived organizational support (POS) and perceived supervisory suppor t (PSS) alleviate a boundary spanning employee’s EE and SSB. Furthermore, this dissertation examin es how extraversion (EXT) and imagination (IMAG) moderates the relationship between POS and SSB and between PSS and SSB. A boundary spanning employee is any organizational employee who “engages in job-related interactions with a person who is considered part of the environment, who is not a member of the organization” (Robe rtson 1995, p. 75). These employees are important as research has shown that consum ers use the attitudes and behaviors of these employees to positively or negatively impact their perceptions of the service encounter (e.g. Bitner 1990; Bowen and Schneider 1985; Pugh 2001). SSB are overt or covert behaviors wh ich negatively affect the relationship between the organization and the custom er (Harris and Ogbonna 2006, 2002). Rather than the boundary spanning employee engagi ng in negative behaviors towards other employees or the organization as a whole, SSB are acted upon the customer.

PAGE 10

vii EE occurs when an employee believes they are overextended by their work (Maslach and Jackson 1981). Boundary sp anning employees are forced to display organizationally desired emotions even wh en encountering negative customers (Cordes and Dougherty 1993; Mulki, Jaramillo and Loca nder 2006). This interaction between the customer and employee may result in discontent and the employee may engage in SSB as a way to show this discontent. A boundary spanner’s EE is hypothesized to positively impact SSB; therefore, it is important to investigate what will redu ce or mitigate a boundary spanner’s EE. Two constructs that are hypothesi zed to reduce both EE and SSB are POS and PSS. In order to test the hypotheses deve loped in this dissertation, 490 nonmanagement retail sales and customer service employees across a variety of organizations were sampled. Results found that EE positively impacts SSB. EE also partially mediates the relationship between POS and SSB. The hypotheses associated with PSS, EXT and IMAG were not supported.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER ONE Introduction Boundary spanning employees have long been of interest to marketing academics and managers because of the importance that these employees have on overall organization performance (Schwepker and Hartline 2005). Boundary spanning employees are employees who engage in in teractions with individuals who are not members of the organizati on (Robertson 1995). Boundary spanning employees include salespeople, customer service representative s, nurses, teachers, policemen, and fast food employees. These employees have three unique role s which distinguish them from other organizational employees. First, boundary spanning employees disseminate information coming from the external environment back to the organization (Bettencourt, Gwinner, and Meuter 2001; Schneider and Brown 1984). Second, they repres ent the face of the organization to the customer (Bettencourt, Gwinner, and Meuter 2001; Schneider and Brown 1984). Third, they must exhibit or ganizationally desired emotions during interactions with customer s (Arnold and Barling 2003) even if these emotions are not a reflective of their true feelings (Adelmann 1996). After examining the boundary roles, th e critical role of boundary spanning employees is the employees’ ability to e xhibit organizationally desired emotions. Gronroos (1990) defined the serv ice encounter as the “moment of truth” where customers perceive service quality. It is during the interaction between the customer and the

PAGE 12

2 employee that service quality is most sali ent (Bitner, Booms and Mohr 1994). If an employee fails to exhibit the proper emotions or manage the image of the organization during the service encounter, the customer may develop less favorable impressions about the organization (Howard and Gengler 2001; Pugh 2001; Verbeke 1997). Furthermore, Yoon, Beatty and Suh (2001) found that an em ployee’s satisfaction affects the service evaluation by customers. That is, if an empl oyee is not satisfied with his or her job then this dissatisfaction will negatively impact service quality. For the boundary spanning employee, job satisfaction may be impacted by dealing with irate, hostile, and rude customers. Job satisfaction may also be a ffected by issues with the organization. In essence, boundary spanning employees ar e subject to pressures and strains not found in other positions in the organizati on (Mulki, Jaramillo and Locander 2006). Research has found that boundary spanning employ ees are subject to a great deal of stress because they “are caught in a difficult position when they perceive that client demands cannot or will not be met by the organizat ion” (Cordes and Dougherty 1993, p. 644). These employees are in a “three-cornered fight ” as the customer and the organization are at competing ends with the boundary spanni ng employee caught in the middle (Bateson 1985; Singh 2000). If boundary spanning employees do not have the ability to get rid of the conflict between customer and organizational demands, the employees may engage in service sabotage as a way to show their unhappiness w ith the organization. Service sabotage examines voluntary, overt and covert behaviors that negatively affect the relationship between the organi zation and the customer (Harris and Ogbonna 2006, 2002). Service sabotage is only conducte d by boundary spanning employees to the final customer in service settings; theref ore, only behaviors which would negatively

PAGE 13

3 affect the customer-organization relationshi p are included. Some examples of service sabotage include a boundary spanning employe e being rude to a customer, purposely overcharging or undercharging a customer’s pur chase, intentionally working slower than expected, and showing favoritism to certain cu stomers. The limited research in service sabotage has found that more than 85% of customer-contact employees admitted to engaging in some form of service sabotage in a one week period (Harris and Ogbonna 2002). This indicates that these negative service sabotage behaviors may be common in the services industry. Harris and Ogbonna (2006) examined six si gnificant factors that influenced service sabotage. In this st udy, they found that an employee’s risk taking proclivity, need for social approval and perceptions of labor market fluidity positively impacted service sabotage behaviors. An employee’s desire to stay with his or her current firm, perceptions of surveillance and perceptions of cultural cont rol inversely impacted service sabotage behaviors. These are factors that influence a boundary spanner’s engagement in service sabotage, but they do not examin e why a boundary spanning employee is willing to engage in service sabotage in the first place. Except for risk taking proclivity, Harris and Ogbonna (2006) predominantly examine or ganizational and job related factors; however, these factors do not explain why an employee is willing to engage in service sabotage at an individual level. Therefore, one of the aims in this dissertation is to uncover why a boundary spanning employee is willi ng to engage in service sabotage. This dissertation proposes that emoti onal exhaustion is the key reason why boundary spanning employees engage in serv ice sabotage. Emotional exhaustion has been defined as “the feeling of being emo tionally overextended by ones’ work” (Maslach

PAGE 14

4 and Jackson 1981, p. 101). According to C onservation Resources Theory, emotional exhaustion occurs when an employee does not have the ability to face excessive job demands or job conflict. Boundary spa nning employees are more susceptible to emotional exhaustion because of the organi zation’s requirement that these employees display organizationally desire d emotions even when deal ing with hostile customers (Cordes and Dougherty 1993; Mulki, Jara millo and Locander 2006). This negative interaction between the empl oyee and customer can cause a boundary spanning employee to resent both the customer and the organiza tion. Furthermore, the emotional exhaustion of a boundary spanning employee may lead that employee to withdraw from the organization or provide decr eased performance (Cordes and Dougherty 1993). One behavior that an emotionally exhausted boundary spanning employee may engage in to express his or he r disgruntlement with the orga nization is service sabotage. Although emotional exhaustion has not been pr eviously tested with service sabotage, there has been one study that found that em otional exhaustion is positively related to deviant behavior. Research has found that hi gher levels of emotional exhaustion led to higher engagement in deviant behavior (Mulki, Jaramillo and Locander 2006). Some examples of deviant behavior include cal ling in sick when the employee was not, neglecting to follow a boss’s instructions, a nd leaving work early without permission. Conservation resources theory suggests that stress (e.g. dealing with hostile customers) reduces an employee’s available resources (e .g. self-esteem, satisfaction, time) such that a loss of resources will negatively impact the employee’s ability to do his or her job (e.g. Halbesleben and Buckley 2004, Hobfoll 1989). This loss in resources can cause the boundary spanning employee to be emotionally e xhausted as he or she is unable to face

PAGE 15

5 the excessive job demands, which can cause resentment towards both the organization and customer. This resentment may lead th e employee to engage in negative behaviors such as service sabotage. It is proposed th at emotional exhaustion is a key construct and explains why boundary spanning employees are willing to engage in service sabotage, even though there are nega tive consequences for the employees if caught by the organization. It is important to investigate what an organization can do to reduce or mitigate a boundary spanner’s emotional exhaustion and se rvice sabotage because of the negative ramifications that service sabotage can ha ve on the organization. The following quote by a regional hotel manager sums up the negative effects that a single episode of service sabotage can do to an organiza tion, especially since customers like to share negative experiences with others (e.g. negative word-of-mouth): “If service slips for any reason, sales will fall. If you’ve got staff intentionally sabotaging service I’d suspect that sales plummet! Poor service is something people enjoy telling others about. The business travelers are a good example of this—one bad incident and you’ll lose an entire company—that can literally cost millions” (Harris and Ogbonna 2002, p.177). Basically employees engaging in behavior s that negatively affect the customerorganization relationship may cost the service organization sales and customers and ultimately may cause the organization to fail. Hence this dissertation considers two c onstructs that could possibly mitigate a boundary spanner’s emotional exha ustion and service sabotage. These two constructs are perceived organizational support and perc eived supervisory support. Perceived

PAGE 16

6 organizational support (POS) is defined as employees’ “global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values th eir contribution and car es about their wellbeing” (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutc hinson and Sowa 1986, p. 501). Perceived supervisory support (PSS) deals with the empl oyees’ global beliefs concerning the extent to which the supervisor values their contri bution and cares about their well-being (Kottke and Sharafinski 1988). Employees who believe that their organizati on or supervisor is committed to them will be committed to the organization or supervisor (e.g. Eisenberger, Lynch, Aselage and Rohdieck 2004; Ko ttke and Sharafinski 1988). When an employee is in a supportive envi ronment, then the employee is given the necessary tools to complete his or her job. A supportive organizat ional and supervisory environment will also help boundary spanning employees deal with the pressures and challenges associated with their job. By re ducing the pressures asso ciated with the job because of adequate supervisory and organizational support, it is proposed that boundary spanning employees will exhibit less emo tional exhaustion. This is supported by conservation resources theory such that employees who are in a supportive work environment will be given the resources necessary to complete their job which will result in a reduced amount of emotional exha ustion (Halbesleben and Buckley 2004). Furthermore, in a supportive environment, boundary spanning employees desire to help the organization reach their organizati onal and supervisory goals. This desire to help their supervisor and organization reach their goals may lead boundary spanning employees to be less inclined to engage in service sabotage behaviors. According to the norm of reciprocity, an employee that believ es the organization cares about them will desire to help the organization by engagi ng in organizationally desired behaviors

PAGE 17

7 (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, and Rhoades 2001). It is proposed that perceived organizational and supervisor y support will reduce a boundary spanner’s service sabotage behavior. Perceived organizational and supervisor y support involves relationships between individuals. Since individuals have personalities, the personality of the employee is an important moderator that must be considere d. Service organizati ons typically desire hiring individuals who are ex traverted, imaginative, agre eable, conscientious, and emotionally stable (e.g. Barrick and Mount 1991; Bettencourt and Gwinner 1996; Hurley 1998). Two of these characteristics, extrav ersion and imagination, may lend to higher levels of service sabotage behavior; therefore, these two are the focus of this dissertation. An extraverted employee is gregarious, sociab le, active, assertive, playful, impulsive, expressive, spontaneous, and dominant (John and Srivastava 1999). An imaginative employee is more original, creative, comp lex, analytical, artistic, and daring than individuals low in imagination (John and Sriv astava 1999). Unfortunately, little research exists which investigates the importance of personality on service sabotage. In this dissertation, it is hypothesized that extrav ersion and imagination will moderate the relationships between percei ved organizational support and service sabotage as well as between perceived supervisory s upport and service sabotage. This dissertation also utilizes a direct measure of service sabotage behavior. The prior measure of service sabotage uses an indi rect measure of servic e sabotage such that respondents were asked if people in their organization engaged in negative service sabotage behaviors (Harris and Ogbonna 2006) This is a weakness in Harris and Ogbonna’s (2006) approach as it is not possibl e to determine if this measure would hold

PAGE 18

8 at the individual level. Usi ng an indirect approach, it is impossible to determine if the respondent was the one who actually engaged in the behavior or if other employees in the organization were the ones that engaged in these behaviors. Based on similar measures, such as counterproductive work behavior and workplace deviance (e.g. Mulki, Jaramillo and Locander 2006; Spector and Fox 2005), th ere is precedence fo r using a direct measure to determine if a particular empl oyee has actually engaged in these negative behaviors so a direct measure is being used. Given the model described above and show n in Figure 1, this dissertation is going to compare and contrast this model with the significant antecedents of Harris and Ogbonna’s (2006) model. The aim is to show that a parsimonious model such as the one developed in this dissertation explains service sabotage better than the Harris and Ogbonna (2006) model. Overall, this dissertation investigat es why boundary spanning employees are willing to engage in service sa botage as well as what an organization can do to lessen the effects of service sabotage. It is importa nt to understand the motivations behind why boundary spanning employees might engage in service sabotage. By understanding a boundary spanning employees’ motivations, rese archers and practitioners can develop guidelines organizations can us e to avoid or reduce service sabotage and the organization can be successful (Caudron 1995; Harris and Ogbonna 2002).

PAGE 19

9 Research Propositions Figure 1 is a visual aid designed to understand th e theoretical framework guiding the current empirical investiga tion. The model is constructed to develop a rationale for why employees are willing to engage in servi ce sabotage behaviors. This model is also constructed to show what an organizati on can do to reduce service sabotage and emotional exhaustion. A more detailed discussi on of the model is discussed in Chapter 2. As the model shows, the four research pr opositions that guide the current research endeavor are: (1) Does emotional exhaustion positively impact a boundary spanner’s engagement of service sabotage behavior? (2) Does perceived organizational support and perceived supervisory support mitigate a boundary spanner’s emotional exhaustion? (3) Does emotional exhaustion partially medi ate the relationships between perceived organizational support and service sabot age behavior and between perceived supervisory support and service sabotage behavior? (4) Do the personality factors of extraversion and imagination moderate the relationships between perceived organizati onal support and service sabot age behavior and between perceived supervisory support a nd service sabotage behavior? Proposed Contributions of the Dissertation There are contributions in th is dissertation. One contri bution of this dissertation is that it will create a better understand ing as to why boundary spanning employees are willing to engage in these negative serv ice sabotage behaviors through an empirical

PAGE 20

10 investigation of emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaus tion is proposed to be the leading reason behind why boundary spanning empl oyees are willing to engage in service sabotage. This dissertation also investigates what an organization can do to mitigate emotional exhaustion and service sabotag e through perceived organizational and supervisory support. By provi ding adequate organizational and supervisory support, the boundary spanning employee will not be as emotionally exhausted, which will lead to less service sabotage. Finally, the personality characteristic s of extraversion and imagination are considered as moderators. Organizations typically desire hiring extraverted and imaginative individuals (Barrick a nd Mount 1991; Bettencourt and Gwinner 1996, Hurley 1998). This dissertation examines thes e personality factors as possible individual characteristics that would lead to an increase in service sabotage. Furthermore, this dissertation examines se rvice sabotage at an individual level by investigating why a boundary spanning employee is willing to engage in these negative behaviors. Prior models of service sabotage (Harris and Ogbonna 2002, 2006) have investigated the factors that influence service sabotage. Wh ile certain factors exist that influence a boundary spanner’s usage of serv ice sabotage such as those found by Harris and Ogbonna (2006), more investigation is need ed at the individual level in order to determine why a boundary spanning employee is willing to engage in these types of behaviors in the first place. In this way, this dissertati on will shed more light on the process of service sabotage. In addition, this dissertation will also measure all of the factors that Harris and Ogbonna (2006) found to be significant indicators of service

PAGE 21

11 sabotage (risk-taking proclivity, n eed for social approval, labor market fluidity, desire to stay with firm, perceptions of surveillance, perceptions of cult ural control) so that Harris and Ogbonna’s (2006) model can be compared a nd contrasted to the model developed in this dissertation. By comparing these two mode ls, one aim in this dissertation is to show that emotional exhaustion does impact serv ice sabotage, above and beyond the prior significant antecedents. Another contribution of this dissertation is a direct measure of service sabotage that asks respondents how often the boundary spanning employees have done a list of service sabotage behaviors. The prior measur e of service sabotage utilizes an indirect measure in which boundary spanners are asked if other people in their organization have engaged in service sabotage. The indirect measure asks responde nts if they know of anyone in their organization that has engaged in service sabotage. By using an indirect measure, it is impossible to determine if the respondent actually engaged in service sabotage or if someone else did. There ar e other measures, such as counterproductive work behavior and workplace deviance (e.g. Mulki, Jaramillo and Locander 2006; Spector and Fox 2005; Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh and Kessler 2006) that have successfully used a direct approach by candidly asking the respondents how often they have engaged in thes e negative behaviors. Managerial Implications As the service industry expands and competition among service providers increases, it is important that managers and academics appreciate and understand why

PAGE 22

12 boundary spanning employees would engage in service sabotage behaviors and what can be done to minimize these behaviors. Because of this, one proposed managerial implication is that this dissertation will show that managers and organizations mu st provide supervisory and organizational support in order to lessen the negative effect s of service sabotage behavior. Boundary spanning employees, who do not believe that th e organization or supervisor cares about their well-being and values their contri bution, will not be as committed to the organization or supervisor. These employees wi ll be more inclined to engage in service sabotage behaviors. However by providing an adequate amount of organizational and supervisory support, the organization and superv isor can reduce the possibility that their employees will engage in service sabotage behavior. Furthermore, managers need to adap t the hiring process at their service organization by considering the applicant’s pers onality so that service sabotage behavior is minimized. This dissertation examines th e impact of extraversion and imagination on the relationships between organizational suppor t and service sabotage as well as between supervisory support and service sabotage. Us ually managers are interested in hiring employees who are extraverted as these employ ees tend to do better in their job (Hurley 1998). Managers are also interested in hiri ng imaginative employees as these employees have the ability to customize the service de livery to the customer’s needs (Bettencourt and Gwinner 1996). However, it is possible that these types of individuals are also more likely to engage in service sabotage behavior For example, extraverted employees may be more inclined to engage in service sabot age since they are impulsive and not affected by any punishment received from the organi zation (John and Srivastava 1999).

PAGE 23

13 Finally managers must recognize the signs of emotional exha ustion in boundary spanning employees as this can lead to se rvice sabotage behavior. Boundary spanning employees in a service organization must e xhibit organizationally desired emotions in front of customers at all times (Mulki Jaramillo and Locander 2006). If these organizationally desired emotions do not equate to the employee’s actual feelings, then emotional exhaustion can occur as the boundary spanning employee will feel physically and/or psychologically and emotionally drai ned. Due to the emotional exhaustion, boundary spanning employees may engage in servi ce sabotage as this is the one way that these employees can show their discontent with their organization. Because of this, it is important that managers are able to recogni ze the signs of emotiona l exhaustion so that service sabotage behaviors can be minimize d. Overall, with the knowledge gained from this dissertation, managers will have the oppor tunity to make informed decisions when managing the service encounter. Organization of the Dissertation To examine the relationships among the c onstructs, this diss ertation will be divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 pres ented a brief introduc tion of the background, research propositions, and importance of the di ssertation. Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature as well as the development of each hypothesis that will be examined in this dissertation. Chapter 3 presents the proposed methodology for this dissertation. It is in this chapter that a discussi on of the proposed research de sign, the sampling procedure, the research and analytical procedures, and the measures to be employed are discussed. Chapter 4 presents the results of both the pi lot test and the final study. Chapter 4 also

PAGE 24

14 presents the results of the hypot heses tests. Finally, Chapte r 5 discusses the findings and implications of the results as well as avenues for additional research.

PAGE 25

15 CHAPTER TWO Literature Review This chapter will first present an overview of boundary spanning personnel and the service encounter. Second, a review of the service sabotage literature and related conceptualizations will be completed. Th ird, an overview of emotional exhaustion, perceived organizational support, perceive d supervisory support, extraversion, and imagination literatures is reviewed. Res earch hypotheses, based upon theory and prior empirical research, are also developed. A summary of the hypotheses is presented in Table 1. Boundary Spanning Personnel and the Service Encounter A boundary spanning employee is any organizational employee who “engages in job-related interactions with a person who is considered part of the environment, who is not a member of the organization” (Robertson 1995, p. 75). Particularly in the services literature (e.g. Chung-Herrera Goldschmidt and Hoffman 2004; Hartline and Ferrell 1996; Yoon, Seo and Yoon 2004), the boundary spanning employee is also known as a front-line service employee or customer-contact employee. The number of employees in boundary spanning positions has been increa sing such that the proportion of boundary spanners to non-boundary spanners is an expanding proportion of many organizations’ labor forces (Babin and Boles 1996; Stam per and Johlke 2003). Boundary spanning

PAGE 26

16 positions include salespeople, customer service representatives, service technicians, retail employees, delivery personnel, teachers, nur ses, and professional buyers (e.g. McNeilly and Russ 1992; Russ, McNeilly, Comer and Light 1998; Singh, Verbeke and Rhoads 1996). Historically, boundary spanning employees ha ve been charged with three roles in the organization. First of all, boundary sp anning employees disseminate information coming from the external environment and rela y it to the organization. In other words, the boundary spanning employee provides information about the customer’s needs to the organization (Bettencourt, Gwinner, and Meut er 2001; Schneider and Brown 1984). Secondly, boundary spanning employees are a representative of the firm to outsiders. This external repr esentation of the organization is the second responsibility of the boundary spanning employee whereby they are charged with being the face of the organization to the customer (Bettencourt, Gwinner, and Meuter 2001; Schneider and Brown 1984; Stock 2006). This is a significan t responsibility because the customer may only interact with the organization through that one person. Therefore, the boundary spanning employee must make sure to manage the image of the organization. In fact, boundary spanning employees can positively or negatively impact the image of the organization (Bettencourt, Gwinner, and Me uter 2001; Schneider and Brown 1984). Finally, in order to manage the image of the organization, these employees are often required to exhibit organizationally de sired emotions during interactions with customers (Arnold and Barling 2003); even if these emotions do not reflect the employee’s true feelings (Adelmann 1996). A failure to exhibit the proper emotions or manage the image of the organization during the service encounter may cause the

PAGE 27

17 customer to develop less favorable perm anent impressions about the organization. Because of this, it has been said that th e boundary spanning employee is the link between the organization and the outside worl d (Aldrich and Herker 1977). Research has shown that boundary spanni ng employees are directly responsible for service quality (Bitner 1990; Hartline a nd Ferrell 1996). A se rvice encounter has been defined as any interaction between the customer and the organi zation. It is during the service encounter where the customer develops permanent impressions about the organization (e.g. Bitner, Booms and Mohr 1994; Bitner 1992) because this is where service quality is most salient (Bitner, Boom s and Mohr 1994). Furthermore, the moment of truth regarding whether the service received is satisfactory occurs when the customer interacts with the service employee (Bitn er, Booms and Mohr 1994; Bitner 1992). Because of the intangibility of servic es, service quality and satisfaction are considerably more difficult fo r the consumer to evaluate than product quality (Hong and Goo 2004). Therefore, consumers use the attitudes and behaviors of the boundary spanning employees to positively or negatively impact their perceptions of service quality and satisfaction (e.g. Bitner 1990; Bowen and Schneider 1985; Grnroos 1983; Pugh 2001; Yoon, Beatty and Suh 2001). Research has shown that the attitudes and actions of boundary spanning employees are one of the most salient factors in the determination of service performance by the customer (Har ris and Ogbonna 2002; Hartline and Ferrell 1996; Sergeant and Frenkel 2000). Service firms are subject to service deliv ery failure because they are forced to depend on boundary spanning employees to de liver this service to the customers (Hartline and Ferrell 1996). This is especially true si nce boundary spanning employees

PAGE 28

18 must exhibit organizationally desired emo tions during interactions with customers (Arnold and Barling 2003). The customer ma y develop less favorable impressions about the organization if the customer observes the employee failing to exhibit the proper emotions or during the service encounter (Howard and Gengler 2001; Pugh 2001; Verbeke 1997). In addition, boundary spanning employees al so work without close supervision; therefore, these “employees have ample opportu nity to engage in unethical behaviors” (Schwepker and Hartline 2000, p. 378). One type of unethical behavior a boundary spanning employee can engage in is service sabotage, the focus of this dissertation. Service sabotage behaviors are unethical because they are in violation of the organization’s rules and norms. Service Sabotage Behavior and Prevalence in Services Industry Service sabotage is any voluntary, inte ntional overt or covert behavior by boundary spanning employees that disrupts serv ice encounters and negatively affects the dynamics between the boundary spanning employ ee and the customer. In other words, service sabotage involves intentional acts by boundary spanning employees that will negatively affect the service received by customers (Harris a nd Ogbonna 2002; 2006). Some examples of possible service sabot age behaviors are being rude to the customer; arguing with the customer; publicly embarrassing or laughi ng at the customer; stealing from the customer; blaming the cu stomer when something goes wrong; showing off in front of a customer; ignoring a cust omer; purposely overcharging or undercharging

PAGE 29

19 on services provided to the customer; and ta king longer than necessary to complete the service. This negative effect by customers occurs immediately as sabotage behavior of a service encounter is likely to negatively affect a customer’s evaluations of that service encounter immediately (e.g. service quality perceptions, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty) (Harris and Ogbonna 2006). In a service sabotage be havior, the target is the customer rather than other empl oyees (Harris and Ogbonna 2006), even though the customer may have done nothing to warrant the service sabo tage. In fact, front-line service employees may engage in service sabo tage behaviors since th is type of sabotage is the central means through which boundary sp anning employees are able to manifest their discontent with the organization (Harri s and Ogbonna 2006). It should be noted that the customer or manager does not have to actu ally perceive the service sabotage behavior for service sabotage to exist (Harris and Ogbonna 2002; Murphy 1993; Slora 1989). In summary, the main characterist ics of service sabotage include: An overt or cover behavior Completed by boundary spanning employees In a service encounter That negatively affects some aspect of the service received by customers Research on boundary spanning employees in a services cont ext intentionally engaging in emotions in behaviors that are detrimental to the organization’s goals has largely been ignored in the existing serv ices research (Har ris and Ogbonna 2002). However in other literature streams, primar ily management and psychology, research has found that the percentage of employees engaging in dishonest behavior ranges from 5%

PAGE 30

20 (Murphy 1987) to 96% (Slora 1991). Re search on counterproductive workplace behaviors has found that the pe rcentage of employees who engage in these negative behaviors varies between 69% (Boye and Slora 1993) and 80% (Boye and Jones 1997). In the services literature, research has f ound that more than 85% of customer-contact employees admitted to engaging in some form of service sabotage in the past week (Harris and Ogbonna 2002). Furthermore, 100% of the service employees claimed to have witnessed some form of service sabotag e behavior in the pa st (Harris and Ogbonna 2002). These figures exemplify that these ne gative service sabotage behaviors may be common in the services industry. These fi gures also show how important it is to investigate these types of behaviors, especia lly since there are nega tive ramifications of these behaviors on the organization. A Comparison between Service Sabotage Behavior and Other Conceptualizations Although the construct, service sabotage, is relatively ne w to the literature, other constructs, primarily in the psychology and management literatures, which deal with negative actions on the part of the employee have been investigated over the past few decades. Some of these related constructs include counterproductive work behavior, workplace aggression, antisocial behavi or, workplace deviance, organization misbehavior, and workplace sabotage (e.g. J udge, Scott and Ilies 2006; Mulki, Jaramillo and Locander 2006; Spector and Fox 2005; Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh and Kessler 2006). The main differences between service sabotage and the re lated constructs mentioned above is that service sabotage deals with a broad range of acts by boundary

PAGE 31

21 spanning employees that will negatively aff ect the service encounter while the other related constructs are not speci fic to employee-customer intera ctions, service situations or boundary spanning employees. In other words, service sabotage is more specific in that it is only conducted by boundary spanning employees to the final custom er in service settings whereas the other related constructs can be completed by any company employee and can be geared towards the organization, employees or ot her stakeholders (S pector and Fox 2005; Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh and Kessl er 2006). This implies that many of the aspects (e.g. employee absenteeism, acts ag ainst other employees, production deviance, and organizational theft) considered in the ot her related construct conceptualizations are not pertinent in service sabotage behavior. Previous Models of Service Sabotage In the literature, two previous models of service sabotage have been developed, with only one being empirically investigate d. In a qualitative study, Harris and Ogbonna (2002) created a conceptual model of servic e sabotage after interviewing 182 executives, senior managers, middle mangers, front-line managers, and front-line customer-contact employees from four hospitality industry firm s (two hotel and restau rant chains and two solely restaurant chai ns). In this conceptual fram ework, nineteen propositions were created. First of all, this model labeled the anteced ents of service sabotage behaviors into four categories (individual, gr oup or role, organizational, a nd environmental). For the individual category, five propositions dealing with an employee’s at titude towards risk

PAGE 32

22 taking, career orientation, personality (i.e. extroversion), and dem ographic factors (age and gender) were developed. For the group or role category, four propositions dealing with the nature of work (i.e. extent of cust omer-contact), informal socialization practices, on-the-job training practices, a nd sub-cultural prevalence a nd strength were created. Only two organizational and two environm ental propositions were developed. The organizational propositions involved the surv eillance techniques and culture control initiatives while the environmental propositions dealt with the percep tion of labor market fluidity and the perception of skill transferability between firms. Finally, in this same model, three type s of consequences of service sabotage behaviors were developed. The first cons equence type was employee consequences, which included status, self-esteem, stress, a nd satisfaction. The second consequence type was service performance which included serv ice quality, customer satisfaction, rapport, and customer loyalty. The final consequen ce type was firm performance and included profitability and sales growth. The final model developed in the Harris and Ogbonna (2002) study is shown in Figure 2. Unfortunately the model previously disc ussed has not yet been fully tested empirically; however Harris and Ogbonna (2006) did test a smaller version of the above model. In this model, Harris and Ogbonna ( 2006) examined seven antecedents of service sabotage including employees’ risk-taking procli vity; need for social approval; desire to stay with current firm; per ceptions of surveillance; perceptions of cultural control; perceptions of employee-custom er contact; and perceptions of labor market fluidity.

PAGE 33

23 This model also tested five consequences of service sabotage, incl uding: self-esteem, perceptions of team spirit, customer ra pport; perceptions of functional quality; and perceptions of company performance. This model is shown in Figure 3. After surveying informants from 259 front -line customer-contact personnel in the food and beverage sector of the hospitality industry (e.g. restaurants), Harris and Ogbonna (2006) found that all but one of th e hypotheses was supported (i.e. extent of employee-customer contact was not supported). For the antecedents to service sabotage, risk taking, need for social approval and per ceptions of labor market fluidity positively impacted service sabotage behaviors while desire to stay with current firm, perceptions of surveillance and perceptions of cultural control inversel y impacted service sabotage behaviors. For the consequences, from the employee’s point of view, service sabotage behaviors positively impacted self-esteem and perceptions of team spirit while service sabotage behaviors inversely impacted cust omer rapport, perceptions of functional quality and perceptions of company performance. Limitations of Prior Service Sabotage Behavior Research In the one empirical stu dy on service sabotage by Harris and Ogbonna (2006), the six significant antecedents were all factors that infl uence a boundary spanner’s engagement in service sabotage. These f actors were predominantly organizational and job related factors, with only one individual related factor being measured (i.e. risktaking proclivity). Each factor examines th e influence that the factor has on service sabotage but none of the factors explains why a boundary spanning employee is willing to engage in service sabotage. While it is useful to determine what factors exist that

PAGE 34

24 influence service sabotage engagement; more investigation is needed at the individual level in order to determine why a boundary spanning employee is willing to engage in service sabotage in the first pl ace. A goal of this dissertation is to fill this gap through a development of a service sabot age model that is designed to shed more light on the process of service sabotage. Another issue with the Harris and O gbonna (2006) study is the usage of an indirect measure of service sabotage. In the Harris and Ogbonna (2006) study, respondents were asked if people in their organization engaged in negative service sabotage behaviors. For example, one of th e items in the indirect measure is “People here hurry customers when they want to.” The usage of the indirect measure is a weakness as it is very difficult to determine if the respondent was the one who actually engaged in the behavior or if someone else at work engaged in the behavior. Because of this, it is impossible to determine if this measure would hold at the individual level. Another weakness of this measure is that it uses a Likert-type scale. By asking the respondent the extent to which he or she agre es or disagrees with each statement, it is impossible to determine how frequently with which each item occurs. However when examining other measures such as count erproductive work behaviors, employee deviance, and workplace deviance (e.g. Be nnett and Robinson 2000; Hollinger and Clark 1983; Spector et al 2006), it is evident that a direct measure has also been effective in measuring these negative behaviors. In the direct measure, respondents would be asked how frequently they have engaged in a list of service sabotage behaviors.

PAGE 35

25 Proposed Model in Dissertation Since service sabotage is a human beha vior, understanding the motivations behind why employees might engage in service sabot age is important in order for researchers and practitioners to develop ways organizations can avoid or reduce service sabotage. In this dissertation, it is proposed that a key to boundary spanne rs’ usage of service sabotage is emotional exhaustion. Employee’s Emotional Exhaustion Emotional exhaustion is a topic of in terest in marketing and organizational behavior (Wright and Cropanzano 1998), primar ily because of the negative implications of emotional exhaustion on employees and or ganizations (Cordes and Dougherty 1993). Emotional exhaustion has been defined as “the feeling of being em otionally overextended by ones’ work” (Maslach and Jackson 1981, p. 101) It occurs when an employee feels physically fatigued and/or psychologically and emotionally drained (Wright and Cropanzano 1998). According to conservation resources theo ry (COR), emotional exhaustion occurs when individuals perceive a threat to some thing they value (Hal besleben and Buckley 2004; Hobfoll 1988). This threat can be due to the depleti on of emotional resources or when the investment of personal effort does not garner the expected results (Wright and Cropanzano 1998). Resources have been defined as “those objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or en ergies that are valued by the individual or that serve as a means for attainment of these objects” (H obfall 1989, p. 516). For example, emotional resource depletion can occur when an employ ee is faced with excessive job demands and

PAGE 36

26 continuous work stress (Shiron 1989; Wri ght and Cropanzano 1998). Another example of emotional exhaustion is when an employee spends a great deal of time helping another employee or customer without any return favor from that coworker or customer (Halbesleben and Buckley 2004). Employees may decide to stockpi le “the resources necessary to meet their current work needs a nd protect themselves fr om further resource depletion” (Wright and Cropanzano 1988; p. 488). However, prolonged emotional exhaustion will cause these employees to percei ve that they no longer have the resources necessary to handle the stress they ar e faced with (Lee and Ashforth 1996). Research has shown that emotional exhaustion is positively affected by role ambiguity and role conflict (Babakus, Crav ens, Johnston, and Moncrief 1999; Lee and Ashforth 1996). Interpersonal conflict and wo rk overload have also been viewed as factors which lead to emo tional exhaustion (Narayanan, Menon and Spector 1999; Singh, Goolsby and Rhoads 1994). Emotional exha ustion has a negative impact on employees and organizations (Mulki, Jaramillo and Locander 2006). Research has found that emotional exhaustion is negatively relate d to organizational commitment (Mulki, Jaramillo and Locander 2006; Singh 2000), j ob involvement (Lee and Ashforth 1996), job satisfaction (Babakus, Cravens, Johnston and Moncrief 1999; Mulki, Jaramillo and Locander 2006; Wright and Cropanzano 1998) organizational citi zenship behavior (Cropanzano, Rupp and Byrne 2003), and job performance (Babakus, Cravens, Johnston and Moncrief 1999; Cordes and Dougherty 2003; Lee and Ashforth 1999; Wright and Cropanzano 1998). Research has found that emotional exhaustion positively impacts turnover intentions (Moore 2000; Wright and Cropanzano 1998).

PAGE 37

27 Furthermore, emotional exhaustion is view ed as a chronic type of work-related strain and “occurs frequently among indivi duals who do ‘people-work’ of some kind” (Maslach and Jackson 1981, p. 99). In f act, research has shown that emotional exhaustion is especially prev alent in settings where employees must deal with people (Cordes and Dougherty 1993), such as se rvice settings. Since boundary spanning personnel are the face of the organization and are responsible for all customer interactions, organizations exp ect them to exhibit organizat ionally desired emotions in front of customers at all times (M ulki, Jaramillo and Locander 2006). Engaging in organizationally desired emo tions, especially when these emotions do not equate to the employee’s actual fee lings may result in emotional exhaustion. Furthermore, an employee that is forced to maintain these desired emotions while also encountering customers who are aggressive or negative on a frequent basis (Cordes and Dougherty 1993; Mulki, Jaramillo and Locander 2006) may have employees that resent not only the customer but the or ganization as well. In fact, it has been shown that the presence of emotional exhaustion can cause th e employee to withdraw from the situation by changing his or her beha vior (i.e. leave the organi zation or provide decreased performance) (Cordes and Dougherty 1993). This decreased performance by front-lin e service employees due to emotional exhaustion may result in the usage of service sabotage since this type of sabotage is the central means through which boundary spanning employees are able to manifest their discontent with the organization (Harri s and Ogbonna 2006). Although emotional exhaustion has not been tested empirically wi th service sabotage, research has found that emotional exhaustion is positively related to deviant behavior. Mulki, Jaramillo and

PAGE 38

28 Locander (2006) found that higher levels of emotional exhaustion led to higher engagement in deviant behavior. Therefore, emotional exhaustion should have a positive impact on a boundary spanner’s usage of service sabotage. H1: Emotional exhaustion will positively impact service sabotage behavior. Perceived Organizational Support Perceived organizational support (POS) is defined as employees’ “global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organizati on values their contri bution and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger, Hunti ngton, Hutchinson and Sowa 1986, p. 501). POS uses the norm of reciprocity to help expl ain how employees view their organization’s commitment to them through the support re sources the organization provides and how that level of support influences the level of commitment the employee provides back to the organization (Eisenberger, H untington, Hutchinson and Sowa 1986; Emerson and Cook 1978; Gouldner 1960). The norm of reciprocity states that em ployees will feel obligated to repay favorable treatment (Eisenberger, Lynch, Aselage and Rohdieck 2004; Rousseau 1990; Mowday, Porter and Steers 1982). In other words, if an organization treats their employees well, then the employees will feel obligated to act in ways that are of value (i.e. meeting the organizations goals and obj ectives) to the organi zation (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, and Rhoades 2001). Employees will return benefits desired by the organization as payback for benefits given to them by the organization. Research has shown that POS is positively related to organizational commitment, job satisfaction and in-role and extra-role pe rformance as well as negatively related to

PAGE 39

29 withdrawal behavior (Edmondson and Riggl e 2005; Rhoades a nd Eisenberger 2002; Stamper and Johlke 2003). It is also likely that POS would be negatively related to service sabotage. The rationale for why a ne gative relationship is expected between POS and service sabotage is that if an employee perceives that the orga nization supports them, then the employee will recipr ocate this support by abiding by the organizational norms (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt and Barrick 2004). For example, employees that feel the organization cares about their well-being may not want to engage in service sabotage behaviors such as saying something hurtful or acting rudely to customers. On the other hand, employees who do not believe the organi zation supports them would be more likely to engage in these service sabotage behaviors. Therefore, based on the norm of reciprocity, it is hypot hesized that: H2: Perceived organizational support will negativ ely and directly impa ct service sabotage behavior. Perceived Supervisory Support Perceived supervisory support is defined as employees’ global beliefs concerning the extent to which the immediate supervisor values their contribution and cares about their well-being (Kottke and Sharafinski 1988). The notion of perceived supervisory support (PSS) stems from social exchanges be tween the individual and the supervisor and is also based on the norm of reciprocity. Initially, the concept of PSS was created in order to better explain the development of em ployee commitment to a supervisor via the norm of reciprocity, which presumes that so cial exchanges are the reciprocation of valuable resources that promote the build ing and preservation of interpersonal

PAGE 40

30 relationships (Lynch, Eisenberger and Armeli 1999; Shanock and Eisenberger 2006). In other words, employee commitment is a two wa y street, in that empl oyees perceive that their effort and commitment to the supervis or should be exchanged for benefits and rewards from the supervisor that are both ta ngible and intangible (K ottke and Sharafinski 1988). High levels of PSS create employees’ feelings of obligation toward the supervisor as well as the desire by the employees to reciprocate the supervisor’s commitment by engaging in behaviors that support the supervisor’s goals. Here, employees seek a balance in their exchange relationships with supervisors by having attitudes and behaviors commensurate with the degree of supervisor commitment to them as individuals. Research has shown that PSS is related to autonomy, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and performance (Armst rong-Stassen, Mantler and Horsburgh 2001; Boyer and Edmondson 2006; Edmondson and Boyer 2008; Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe 2004). Research has also shown that PSS is negatively related to turnover intentions (Edmondson and Boyer 2008) yet no re search exists whic h investigates the relationship between PSS and service sabotage behaviors, but it is proposed that PSS will be negatively related to service sabotage behaviors. This is because employees who do not feel that they are supported by their supe rvisor will not be motivated to engage in behaviors, such as kindness to customers, which will support the supervisor’s goals and instead may exhibit service sabot age behaviors that will disr upt the service encounter and negatively affect the employee-customer dynamics.

PAGE 41

31 H3: Perceived supervisory support will negativel y and directly impact service sabotage behavior. The Mediating Role of Emotional Exhaustion Emotional exhaustion exists when a bounda ry spanning employee feels physically fatigued and/or psychologically and emotiona lly drained (Wright and Cropanzano 1998). Employees which are faced with excessive j ob demands or continuous hassles from other employees or customers will become emoti onally exhausted (e.g. Wright and Cropanzano 1998) as they will not have enough emotional resources to handle the stress they are constantly faced with (L ee and Ashforth 1996). However if an organization provides an adequate amount of organizational support, then the organization will be able to help boundary spanning employees deal with these stresses and challe nges associated with their job. Perceived organizational support examines the extent to which the empl oyee believes that the organization values the employee’s contribution and cares about the employee’s wellbeing (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson and Sowa 1986). Research has shown that providing adequate support reduces the amount of aversive psyc hological and psychosom atic reactions (i.e. strains) to stressors (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). This is due to the fact that by providing organizational support, employees will perceive that they have the emotional and physical (e.g. providing the supplies necessary to complete the job) support needed to face the challenges associated with their job. These strains include employee fatigue (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey and Toth 1997) and anxiety (Robbl ee 1998). Although the strains previously investig ated do not include emotional exhaustion, it is hypothesized

PAGE 42

32 that a similar negative relationship will exist, such that perceived organizational support will negatively impact a boundary sp anner’s emotional exhaustion. According to the conservation resources theory, if an organization does not provide enough support, then the employee wi ll perceive that they do not have the resources to complete their job, which will lead to higher levels of emotional exhaustion. Due to the emotional exhaustion, the boundary spanning employee will change his or her behavior, such as engaging in service sabot age behaviors, as a way to show their discontent with the organization. Because of this, it is also likely that POS would be negatively related to emotional exhaustion. In other words, it is hypothesized that providing an adequate level of organizational support wi ll reduce a boundary spanner’s emotional exhaustion. H4: Perceived organizational support will nega tively impact emotional exhaustion. In other words, emotional exhaustion will part ially mediate the perceived organizational support and service sabo tage relationship. Besides the negative rela tionship hypothesized between perceived organizational support and emotional exhaustion, a negative re lationship is also hypothesized to exist between perceived supervisory support a nd emotional exhaustion. If adequate supervisory support is provided to boundary sp anning employees, then the supervisor will be able to help the employees deal with stresso rs and challenges associated with their job. Prior research has shown that supervisory support can alleviate th e negative effects of emotional exhaustion incurred by employees coping with high job demands (BaruchFeldman, Brondolo, Ben-Dayan and Schw arz 2002; Maslach and Jackson 1981; Thompson and Cavallaro 2007). According to the conservation resource theory, supervisors that support and care about the well-being of their employees will have

PAGE 43

33 employees that are better able to handle st ress and challenges associated with their job. Employees that can better handle their job st ress will not feel as emotionally exhausted because they will perceive th at they have the resources necessary to do their job. Therefore, it is hypothesized that providi ng supervisory support will ease a boundary spanning employee’s emotional exhaustion. H5: Perceived supervisory support will negativel y impact emotional exhaustion. In other words, emotional exhaustion will partially mediate the perceived supervisory support and service sabotage relationship. Employee’s Personality as a Moderator There has been a renewed interest in personality research in the marketing literature (e.g. Weaven, Herington and Dant 2008). The norm of reciprocity focuses on relationships between employees and organi zations as well as relationships between employees and supervisors. Because relati onships deal with people and people have personalities, the personality characteristics of the employees need to be considered. Overall, the personality of the empl oyee may be a big indicator regarding whether the employee will choose to enga ge in service sabotage behaviors. Unfortunately little to no research exists which has investigated the importance of a boundary spanning employee’s personality on wh ether that employee will or will not engage in service sabotage behaviors. Personality traits involve emotional, c ognitive, and behavioral tendencies that constitute the underlying dimensions on whic h individuals vary. When looking at the personality literature, it is evident that th ere is no one set struct ure of personality; however, there is a general c onsensus on a general taxonomy of personality traits (John

PAGE 44

34 and Srivastava 1999). This general consensu s is the Big 5 taxonomy; therefore, this taxonomy will be utilized in this dissertation. The five-factor personality model, also known as the Big Five, was conceptualized back in the mid-1930s, with A llport and Odbert's seminal lexical study of personality-relevan t terms from an unabridged English dictionary. Another study in this area was completed by Cattell (1943), who redu ced the personality-rel evant list of 4,500 terms by Allport and Odbert into 35 bipolar va riables, which then factor-analyzed into about a dozen factors (John and Srivastava 1999). Although Cattell's study was unable to be replicated due to unfortunate clerical errors (Digman and Takemoto-Chock 1981), it was later determined that instead of the dozen or so factors Cattell originally perceived existed, there were really only five (Goldberg 1993). There have been numerous other researchers such as Fiske (1949), Norman (1963), and Smith (1967) that have also reproduced similar five-factor struct ures: Agreeableness, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stabil ity, and Imagination/Intellect. Although each of these dimensions may impact a boundary spanner’s usage of service sabotage, only two will be focused on in this dissertation. These two traits are extraversion and imagination. The reason these two traits are being investigated in this dissertation is that service firms want to hire individuals who are extraverted and imaginative; however, these same individuals may also be more likely to engage in service sabotage. This means that there is a disconnect between the organization’s desires to hire these types of individuals and the possibilitie s that these same individuals will engage in service sabotage, which can have serious negative ramifications for the organization. Both of these traits will be discussed in more detail below.

PAGE 45

35 Extraversion Extraversion relates to an employee’s sociability, a ssertiveness, and positive emotionality. A boundary spanning employee w ho is deemed an extravert would be gregarious, playful, expressive, spontaneous assertive, dominant, and ambitious. An introvert, on the other hand, is someone who is withdrawn, quiet, shy, inhibited, reserved, passive, and pessimistic (John and Srivastava 1999). Prior studies have found that an extravert talks more and sooner when they meet someone as well as engage in more eye contact than an introvert. An extravert will also seek out or be drawn to profe ssions that involve dealing with other people. Furthermore, an extravert will tend to be more impulsive and gamble mo re as well as respond less to any punishment received (John and Srivastava 1999). Service firms like to hire ex traverted individuals because research has found that these employees tend to do better in their job (Barrick and Mount 1991; Hurley 1998). Research has also shown that extraversion predicts job performance (Judge and Erez 2007). However hiring extraverted individuals can be problematic to service organizations. Because service sabotage involves behaving in a negative way to consumers, this type of behavior is ri sky as it could result in serious negative repercussions if the boundary spanning empl oyee is caught exhibiting this type of behavior. Since research has shown that extraverted employees tend to be more impulsive, like to gamble more, and are not affected by punishment received than introverted employees (John and Srivastava 1999 ), it is possible that organizational and supervisory support will not be as relevant to these extraver ted employees. Therefore, it

PAGE 46

36 is expected that extraverts will be more likely to engage in these negative service sabotage behaviors, regardless of the support provided by the organizati on or supervisor. H6a: The more extraverted a boundary spanning employee is, the weaker the effect of perceived organizational support on service sabotage behavior. H6b: The more extraverted a boundary spanning employee is, the weaker the effect of perceived supervisory support on service sabotage behavior. Imagination, Intellect, or Openness to Experience This dimension of personality is the most controversial. Besides being interpreted as imagination or intellect, it has also b een called openness to expe rience (Barrick and Mount 1991). This dimension describes the breadth, depth, originality, and complexity of an individual’s mental and experiential life (John and Srivastava 1999). An employee high in imagination is original, creati ve, complex, curious, daring, independent, analytical, untraditional, artistic, liberal, a nd insightful. An employee low in imagination, on the other hand, is conventional, nonanalyti cal, conservative, tr aditional, and narrow (John and Srivastava 1999). Prior studies have found that individual s who have a higher imagination welcome change and enjoy challenge. These individuals also have a more differentiated fantasy life; have a greater variety of experiences; and more psychological insights (John and Srivastava 1999). Research has shown that a key to custom er satisfaction is the ability of the boundary spanning employee to customize the service delivery to meet the needs and desires of the customer (Bettencourt a nd Gwinner 1996). This implies that hiring employees who are imaginative will be benefici al to the organization as these employees will be better able to adapt the serv ice to the customer’s needs.

PAGE 47

37 However hiring individuals who exhibit hi gher imagination as these individuals may also be more likely to engage in risky service sabotage behaviors. This is because boundary spanning employees who are more creative, daring, and open to new experiences are more likely to engage in risky service sabotage behaviors. Organizational and supervisory support may not be as rele vant to imaginative boundary spanning employees as these employees enjoy ch allenges and like to engage in a variety of experiences. Since these employees are capab le of adaptability in the services setting, they will not need to rely on the orga nization or supervis or to support them. H7a: The more imaginative a boundary spanning employee is, the weaker the effect of perceived organizational support on service sabotage behavior. H7b: The more imaginative a boundary spanning employee is, the weaker the effect of perceived supervisory support on service sabotage behavior. Chapter Summary The preceding chapter includes a comprehensiv e review of the literature of all of the constructs and theories used to explain the model pr esented in Figure 1. This literature review also explai ned the prior service sabotage behavior research and other conceptualizations. The next chapter focuses on the methodology used to test the model displayed in Figure 1. The chapter begins with a discussion of the research setting and sample. It also includes a discussion of the measures as well as the data collection pr ocedures. Finally, a description of the analytical t echnique being used to analyze the model is presented.

PAGE 48

38 CHAPTER THREE This chapter describes the methodology used to test the relationships among the service sabotage behavior model’s constructs developed in the prev ious two chapters. First, the research setting and the sample ch aracteristics are descri bed. Second, a detailed explanation of the measures used and the data collection procedures are presented. Finally, the justification of the analytical tech nique utilized in this dissertation is offered. Research Setting and Sample The target population for this disse rtation consists of boundary spanning personnel in a services setti ng. Although it would be interest ing to compare a variety of different boundary spanning posit ions (i.e. customer service representative, salespeople, service personnel, nurses, teachers), this dissertation sampled only non-management retail sales and customer service employees fr om a variety of organizations. Because of the sensitivity of the topic area of service sabotage, co llecting data from a single organization is impractical as the likelihood that the employee would be open and honest in their responses is greatly limited since the employee may believe that their employing organization will be able to see each employee’s responses. For the final study, the data was coll ected using panel data from Zoomerang. Zoomerang is an online panel in which in terested individuals can complete selfadministered surveys in exchange for chances to win prizes. In orde r to be a member of one of these panels, the individual must co mplete a detailed screening tool. This

PAGE 49

39 screening tool is completed so that only applicable surveys will be sent to the individual. In other words, this screening information can be used so that only non-management retail sales and customer service employees wi ll be sent the survey instrument. This information is also used so that Zoomerang can validate the potential individual to assure that the individual is who and where he or she says he or she is. This is done by comparing the information supplied by the in dividual against databases with objectively validated consumer demographics (Markett ools.com 2007). For co mpleting the survey, the non-management retail sales and customer service employees will be entered in a monthly sweepstakes prize package totaling $50 00 as well as be entered into the annual sweepstakes for a large grand prize (e.g. automobile). Zoomerang panels have been used in other dissertations su ch as Hansen (2006). Data Collection Procedures The data collection process included two parts: a pilot study and a final study. The pilot study was used to test the measures while the final study was used to test the hypotheses posited. Each stage is briefly discussed below: Pilot Study In the pilot study, a small convenience sample of non-management retail sales and customer service employees were asked to complete the questionnaire. The sample was obtained by having students in several marke ting classes obtain comp leted questionnaires from adults who work as either retail sale s or customer service employees in exchange for extra credit. Three screening questions were used to guarantee that the individual

PAGE 50

40 does meet the criteria for inclusion. The fi rst screening question as ked the respondent if they are in management or non-management. The last two screeni ng questions asked the respondent about the nature of th eir job. First, a question was as ked as to their job title so that only those in retail sales or customer service positions will be included. Second, a question was asked regarding the extent of cu stomer contact that th e respondent has in a typical day. Only those indivi duals who are in non-management positions with a job title of retail sales or customer service and who have a great deal of customer contact were allowed to continue the survey. Prior to administering the survey instru ment, the students were given detailed instructions on who should be asked to comple te the questionnaire and how to administer the study. The questionnaire was completed on line and the link to th e questionnaire was given out with the instructions. Hard copies of the instructions were given to each student to ensure that the procedure was followed and that any bias associated with survey administration was minimized. Furthe rmore, the respondent was also asked to give their telephone number. Ten percent of these respondents were randomly contacted to ensure that they filled out the survey and that the directions were followed. In order to ensure anonymity, the names and contact in formation of the respondent were kept separate from the rest of the survey data. It is expected that this sample was made up of predominately parents, other adult relativ es, or co-workers of the students. The pilot study was used to assess the time needed to complete the survey, the clarity of the instructions, a nd reliability and validity. On average, it took participants approximately 22 minutes to complete the survey. This time figure is expected to be reduced once the items in each scale are purified.

PAGE 51

41 Reliability and validity are related construc ts. The reliability of each measure will be determined using Cronbach’s Alpha, in whic h any measure with an estimate of at least .7 is considered reliable (Nunnally 1978). Fo r any multi-dimensional measure, reliability will be determined using a composite reliability. Reliability, while necessary fo r validity, is not, by itsel f, sufficient (Kerlinger and Lee 2000). In other words, just because a m easure is reliable does not mean the measure is valid. However, if the measure is deemed valid, then the measure will also be deemed reliable. Because of this, va lidity was also examined. Cons truct validity, which includes both convergent and discriminant validity, wa s assessed using the pi lot study responses. Convergent validity examines the degree to which the operationalization is similar to other operationalizations that it theoretically should be similar to while discriminant validity examines the degree to which the operationalization is not similar to other operationalizations that it theoretically should not be similar to (Hair, Bush and Ortinau 2006). Convergent and discriminant validity we re examined through confirmatory factor analyses. These factor analyses were also us ed to confirm the unidimensionality of each scale. When assessing conve rgent validity, th ere should be high factor loadings for the items that are supposed to measure the construc t of interest. When assessing discriminant validity, the factor loadings for multiple constructs will be examined. If the items corresponding to a particular construct only load high on that construct’s latent factor while the items load low on all other construct’ s latent factors, then discriminant validity will be shown. Furthermore, discriminant validity will be assessed by examining the average variance explained such that a measur e will be viewed as valid if the average

PAGE 52

42 variance explained is greater th an the squared correlation of all the factors (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). SPSS was used in the pilot study to test re liability and validity. Final Study A web-based survey posted on zoomerang.c om was developed and used to collect the data. After the web-based survey was de veloped, the survey link was sent to the nonmanagement retail sales and customer service em ployees via email. The text in the email described the study, requested the employee’ s participation, ensu red the complete confidentiality of the employ ee’s responses, described the incentive, and provided the survey link. Two weeks after the initial ema il wave was sent out, another email was sent out to the non-management retail sales a nd customer service employees who had not already completed the survey in order to remind them about the survey. Prior to data analysis, a test for respon se bias was completed using Armstrong and Overton’s (1977) approach which compares early versus late respondents across the demographic variables being asked in the su rvey. No differences between answers of early and late respondents were found at = 0.05. Measures Except for the service sabotage behavior measure, all of the scales proposed in this study have been taken and modified from the extant literature. Prior literature has also utilized these scales in a services setting (e.g. Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski and Rhoades 2002). Each scale was measured on a 7-point scale as Churchill and Pete r (1984) found that using 7-poi nt scales increases the

PAGE 53

43 reliability of the data findings. An assessment of reliability for all measures taken from the extant literature is also presented. Service Sabotage Behavior Measure The service sabotage behavior measure was created from the prior service sabotage (Harris and Ogbonna 2006), counterpro ductive work behavior (Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh and Kessler 2006), employee deviance (Hollinger and Clark 1983), and workplace deviance (Bennett and Robinson 2000) measures. The prior service sabotage measure was an indirect measure asking respondents to answer the service sabotage items on the basis of what other people at thei r workplace have done rather than on the respondent’s personal us age of service sabotage behaviors (Harris and Ogbonna 2006). Using an indir ect approach can be an i ssue as it is impossible to determine if the respondent was the one who engaged in the service sabotage behavior. A direct approach has been used for year s in the counterproductive work behavior, employee deviance, and workplace deviance literatures (e.g. Bennett and Robinson 2000; Hollinger and Clark 1983; Spector et al 2006), therefor e, there is precedence that a direct approach is also effective. This dissertation employs a direct approach by asking re spondents how often they have personally engaged in any of these se rvice sabotage behavior s rather than asking respondents if they know of anyone that has en gaged in these types of behavior. This new service sabotage behavior measure will examine how frequently employees have engaged in certain sabotage behaviors with in the past twelve months. The service sabotage behavior measure differs from th e counterproductive work behavior, employee

PAGE 54

44 deviance, and workplace deviance measures in that these measures focus on employee to employee and employee to organization inter actions instead of employee to consumer interactions. Thus, items from these measures have been modified so that they are applicable to employee-customer interactions. For example, the Spector et al (2006) counterproductive work behavior measure asks respondents if th ey have ever stolen something belonging to another employee while, in the new service sa botage behavior measure, the item has been modified to ask respondents if they have ever stolen something belonging to the customer. Some other possible items for the service sabotage behavior measure include stealing customer’s possessions, gossiping a bout customer, purposely overcharging or undercharging services provided to the custom er, and intentionally working slower than the employee could have worked. In order to compare the new service sa botage behavior measure with that of Harris and Ogbonna’s (2006) measure, both the new direct measure as well as Harris and Ogbonna’s indirect measure were asked. By asking both the indirect and the direct measure, a comparison of the effectiveness of each scale can be completed. This indirect measure has been shown to have a relia bility of .75 (Harri s and Ogbonna 2006). The items which were used in the new se rvice sabotage behavior scale as well as where each item was adapted is in Appendix A. It is expected that the number of items in the new service sabotage behavior measure wi ll be greatly reduced after the pilot study has been completed. Appendix A also show s the items used in Harris and Ogbonna’s 2006 measure.

PAGE 55

45 Emotional Exhaustion The emotional exhaustion measure is taken from the current literature. Emotional Exhaustion was measured using a 9-item scal e from Maslach and Jackson (1981). This scale utilizes a 7 point scale where 1 equals never and 7 equals very often. Reliability indices of .89 for this measure have been pr eviously found in the li terature (e.g. Maslach and Jackson 1981; Mulki, Jaramillo and Lo cander 2006; Wright and Cropanzano 1998). The items that make up Emotional Exhaustion can be found in Appendix B. Perceived Organizational and Supervisory Support Both perceived organizational support and perceived superv isory support are taken from the extant literature. Percei ved organizational suppor t was measured using the 8-item shortened version of the POS s cale by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002). The scale was measured using a 7-poi nt Likert scale. In the literature, the POS scale has shown reliabilities rangi ng from .6 to .98, with a majority of studies having reliabilities above .7 (Edmondson and Riggle 2005). Perceived supervisory support was measured using an 8-item, 7-point Likert scale from Kottke and Sharafinski (1988). The reporte d reliabilities for this scale have ranged from .7 to .98 (Boyer and Edmondson 2006; Edmondson and Boyer 2008). The items representing perceived organizational s upport and perceived supervisory support are listed in Appendix B.

PAGE 56

46 Personality The two personality dimensions, extraver sion and imagination, were measured using a portion of Goldberg’s (1992) 50 item IPIP-B5 scale. In this scale, each of the five dimensions was measured using 10 item, 7point Likert type scal es. Therefore, both extraversion and imagination will be measured using 10 item, 7-point Likert type scales from Goldberg (1992). The scale descriptors will range from 1 = Very Inaccurate and 7 = Very Accurate. Goldberg (1992) reported sa tisfactory reliability for each dimension. Weaven, Herington and Dant (2008) also reported acceptable reliabilities for each dimension, finding reliabilities of .82 for extr aversion and .75 for imagination/intellect. The items being used to measure extraversion and imagination are shown in Appendix B. Harris and Ogbonna (2006) Antecedents In order to compare the proposed mode l to Harris and Ogbonna’s (2006) model, each of the significant antecedents from the pr ior model were also asked. All of the measures used 7-point Likert scales. Employees’ risk-taking proclivity ( = .81) was measured using an 8-item scale and is based off of Raju’s (1980) measure. Employees’ need for social approval by work colleagues (5 items; = .90) was measured using an adapted measure from Fisher (1993). Employees ’ desire to stay with and pursue career with current firm (9 items; = .87) was adapted from Meyer and Allen’s organizational commitment scale (1991). The employees’ pe rception of the extent of surveillance ( = .83) and perception of cultural control ( = .77) were both taken from Jaworski and MacInnis’ (1989) 4-item work control (process) and 3-item work control (self) scales, respectively. Finally employees’ per ception of labor market fluidity ( = .71) was a 3-

PAGE 57

47 item scale from Noe, Steffy and Barber (1988) Each of these measures is shown in Appendix C. Data Analysis Technique Because both extraversion and imaginati on are hypothesized to moderate the relationships between percei ved organizational support and service sabotage and between perceived supervisory support and service sa botage (see Figure 3), the data analytic technique utilized was multiple regression. St ructural equation modeling was also used to fit the mediating part of the model as SE M is a more powerful test since it allows the researcher to use latent vari ables in the analysis. Prior to running the regre ssion, the scales were summate d so that they can be treated as a measured variable in the regression. Before th is summation could occur, it was necessary to determine that the scales were unidimensional. This was accomplished using a principal components analysis (PCA) on each of the measures in the survey. The following section discusses the procedures involved when employing regression. SPSS was used to test the regression component of data analysis while AMOS was used to test the structural equation modeling portion. Regression Procedures Multicollinearity Before creating the regression model, th e issue of multicollinearity between the independent variables will be examined. Multicollinearity exists when two or more independent variables in the model contri bute redundant information (McClave, Benson

PAGE 58

48 and Sincich 2001). If highly correlated indepe ndent variables are utilized in the model, then the model results would be confusi ng. Therefore, the Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients will be examined between the inde pendent variables in order to determine if multicollinearity exists. Alt hough multicollinearity is not ex pected since prior research between the independent variab les in this model has not di splayed a high correlation (e.g. Edmondson and Boyer 2008), it is still imperative that multicollinearity be investigated. If the correlation between tw o of the correlation coefficients exceeds .95, then only one of the highly correlated indepe ndent variables will be include d in the final model. If multicollinearity exists, the decision of which variable to include in the final model will be made by conducting a stepwise regression. Examining Scatterplots After the correlation analysis has been completed and any multicollinearity issues have been resolved, the scatterplots will be examined in order to look for trends in the data collected. In these scatterplots, the dependent variable, serv ice sabotage behavior, will be on the y-axis and one of the indepe ndent variables will be on the x-axis. Testing of the Assumptions via a Residual Analysis and the Influential Observation Analysis Regression has four key assumptions that must be tested prior to running the regression analysis. In addition, an influen tial observation analysis must be conducted. Information on how these two analyses will be conducted is available in Appendix D.

PAGE 59

49 Model Building Stage and Testing of Hypotheses After all of the variable screening tool s are completed, the initial overall model will be created. The initial model being tested is as follows: ) ( 9 ) ( 8 ) ( 7 ) ( 6 ) ( 5 ) ( 4 ) ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 0 IM PSS IM POS Ext PSS Ext POS IM Ext PSS POS EE SSB where: SSB = Service Sabotage Behavior; EE = Emotional Exhaustion; POS = Perceived Organizational Support; PSS = Perceived Superv isory Support; Ext = Extraversion; and IM = Imagination. After the initial model has been establis hed and the assumptions and outliers have been checked, this model will be interpreted by looking at several important statistics as well as the parameter estimates. The important statistics to be examined include the Global F test, the Root MSE, and the Adjusted R-square. The Global F test examines if the overall model is adequate for predicti ng service sabotage behavior. Conducting a Global F test is preferred over testing each parameter individually as this reduces the chances that the researcher has made one or more Type I errors. The null and alternative hypothesis for this test is as follows: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 : 0 H Ha: At least one of the parameters is nonzero. The Root MSE represents the standard deviat ion. When interpreting the Root MSE, the larger the standard deviation, the greater the error that will exist when estimating the model parameters (Mendenhall a nd Sincich 1996). The adjusted R-square represents the amount of sample variation that is explained in the model. An R-square of 0 implies a complete lack of model fit to the data while an R-square of 1 implies a perfect fit

PAGE 60

50 (Mendenhall and Sincich 1996). Instead of us ing just R-square, adjusted R-square will be utilized as it takes into account bo th the sample size and the number of parameters in the model (Mendenhall and Sincich 1996). After investigating ove rall model fit, the hypotheses created in Chapter 2 will be tested. Testing Moderation Eff ects of Personality A moderator is a variable that influences the strength or direction of a relationship between an independent variable, such as perceived organizational support, and the dependent variable, service sa botage behavior. Prior to the testing for the mediating effects of emotional exhaustion, the tests examining moderation will be completed. First of all, a partial F test will be completed which examines all of the interaction terms in the model in order to determine if any moderation exists. This test allows the researcher to test all four moderating variab les simultaneously in order to determine if any of these terms are necessary in the model. The follo wing is the null and alternative hypothesis for this test: 0 9 8 7 6 : 0 H while Ha: At least one does not equal 0. If it is determined that mode ration exists, then t-tests will be completed for each of the interaction terms in order to determine what moderators are significant. If each of the ttests is significant, then hypotheses 6a, 6b, 7a, and 7b will be supported as results would show that extraversion and imagination moderates the support and service sabotage relationships. If the t-tests are deemed in significant, then hypotheses 6a, 6b, 7a, and 7b will not be supported and the interaction terms will be removed from the model.

PAGE 61

51 Testing Mediation Effects of Emotional Exhaustion A mediating variable is a variable that accounts for the relationship between the independent variable, such as supervisory support, and the dependent variable, service sabotage behavior (Baron and Kenny 1986). A mediating variable can also be considered a facilitating, intervening, or process vari able. The mediation of emotional exhaustion will be investigated after Hypotheses 6a, 6b, 7a, and 7b have been tested using the procedure established by Baron and Kenny (1986). In this proposal, it is assumed that the moderating effect of personal ity is significant a nd thus personality is retained in the model. If the moderating effect is deem ed insignificant, then structural equation modeling may be utilized to test for mediati on instead of the procedure outlined below. This procedure to determine if emotiona l exhaustion is a mediator involves the completion of several steps. Figure 4 displa ys a graphical represen tation of the steps being employed when testing mediation. Th e first step involves determining if the independent variables, perceived organi zational support and perceived supervisory support, are associated with the dependent va riable, service sabotage. This is done by regressing service sabotage on both percei ved organizational support and perceived supervisory support. In this step, the following regression equation will be tested: ) ( 9 ) ( 8 ) ( 7 ) ( 6 ) ( 5 ) ( 4 ) ( 3 ) ( 2 0 IM PSS IM POS Ext PSS Ext POS IM Ext PSS POS SSB By completing this step, the researcher is esta blishing that there is an effect which may be mediated. In order to do this, two tests will be conducted using partial F-tests. This test compares nested models. The first partial-F test will be testing if perceived organizational support is associated with serv ice sabotage while the second partial-F test

PAGE 62

52 will be testing if perceived supervisory support is associated with service sabotage. The null and alternative hypotheses for eac h of these tests are shown below: For perceived organizational support:0 8 6 2 : 0 H while Ha: At least one does not equal 0 For perceived supervisory support:0 9 7 3 : 0 H while Ha: At least one does not equal 0 If it is found that both perceived organizational suppor t and perceived supervisory support are good predictors of serv ice sabotage, then the second step will be completed. It is in step one that Hypothesis 2 and 3 will be tested to determine if perceived organizational support and perceived superv isory support negatively impacts service sabotage behavior. The second step involves examining if the independent variable, organizational and supervisory support, is associated with th e mediator variable, emotional exhaustion. In this step, the mediating variable, emo tional exhaustion, is being treated as the dependent variable. The following is the regr ession equation being i nvestigated in this step: ) ( 9 ) ( 8 ) ( 7 ) ( 6 ) ( 5 ) ( 4 ) ( 3 ) ( 2 0 IM PSS IM POS Ext PSS Ext POS IM Ext PSS POS EE In order to test if organizational and supe rvisory support is a good predictor of emotional exhaustion, partial-F tests comparing nested models will be completed. The null and alternative hypotheses for each of the tests are shown below: For perceived organizational support:0 8 6 2 : 0 H while Ha: At least one does not equal 0 For perceived supervisory support:0 9 7 3 : 0 H while Ha: At least one does not equal 0

PAGE 63

53 If it is found that both perceived organizational suppor t and perceived supervisory support are good predictors of emotional e xhaustion, then the third step will be completed. In the second step, Hypothesis 4 and 5 will also be tested in order to determine if perceived organizational suppor t negatively impacts emotional exhaustion and if perceived supervisory support ne gatively impacts emotional exhaustion. The third step involves regressing serv ice sabotage on the mediator, emotional exhaustion. A t-test will be used to determine if em otional exhaustion is a good predictor of service sabotage. The regression equation bein g utilized in this st ep as well as the null and alternative hypotheses are shown below: ) ( 9 ) ( 8 ) ( 7 ) ( 6 ) ( 5 ) ( 4 ) ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 0 IM PSS IM POS Ext PSS Ext POS IM Ext PSS POS EE SSB 0 1 : ; 0 1 : Ha Ho If it is determined that emotional exhaustion positively impacts service sabotage, then the final step will be completed in order to determine if emotional exhaustion mediates the support and sabotage relationships. By s howing that emotional exhaustion positively impacts service sabotage, then Hypothesis 1 will al so be supported. In order to determine if emotional exhaustion partially mediates the support and sabotage relationships, then Sobel’s (1982) test as well as Baron and Kenny’s (1986) modified test will be completed. This test is an indirect and approximate test which can be used to determine if a mediating effect exists. The formula for determining mediation (Baron and Kenny 1986) is as follows: s s b sb a b aa b axb2 2 2 2 2 2/ ) (

PAGE 64

54 where: a represents the path from the support to emotional exhaustion; sa represents the standard error for path a; b represents th e path from emotional exhaustion to service sabotage; sb represents the standard error for path b Sobel’s method omits the final term, s sb a 2 2 and is useful when the model is complicated. Overall, mediation exists if the effect of support on service sa botage is less in the equation in which emotional exhaustion is used to predict service sabotage (Step 3) than in the equation in which support is used to predic t service sabotage (Step 1). Test of the Mediating Pa rt of Model Using Struct ural Equation Modeling SEM will be used to fit the mediating part of the model as SEM is a more powerful test since it can test multiple depende nt relationships at one time and allows the researcher to use latent vari ables in the analysis. SEM al so accounts for the measurement error in the latent variables. The SEM model is tested by first examining the measurement model to determine if the s cales had adequate measurement properties based upon the final sample. Next the structur al model is calculated It is during the structural model analysis in which the goodness of fit indices such as root mean square error approximation (RMSEA), comparative fi t index (CFI), and normed fit index (NFI) will be used to determine if the model fits the data well. A model will be determined as having a close fit if RMSEA is .08 or below, CFI is .9 or above, and NFI is .9 or above. Additional indices such as the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) could also be used to address model fit. The hypotheses (H1-H5) will only be examined once the model is determined to fit the data well. AMOS is used to r un the SEM portion of this dissertation.

PAGE 65

55 Comparison of Proposed Model to Harris and Ogbonna’s 2006 Model In order to compare the proposed model (See Figure 1) with Harris and Ogbonna’s 2006 model (See Figure 5), a Nested F-test is used. Prior to running the Nested F-test, three regression models will have to be run. The first regression model is the model proposed above. This model will only include the constructs proposed in Figure 1. The second regression model will include only the antecedents of Harris and Ogbonna’s 2006 model. This regression equation will look as follows: ) ( 6 ) ( 5 ) ( 4 ) ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 0 LMF CC ES DSF SA RTP SSB where SSB = Service Sabotage Behavior; RTP = Risk-taking Proclivi ty; SA = Need for Social Approval; DSF = Desire to Stay with and Pursue Career in Current Firm; ES = Extent of Surveillance; CC = Extent of Cult ural Control; LMF = Labor Market Fluidity The third model will incorporate Harris and Ogbonna’s (2006) model into the model proposed in this dissertation. This regression equation will look as follows: ) ( 9 ) ( 8 ) ( 7 ) ( 6 ) ( 11 ) ( 10 ) ( 9 ) ( 8 ) ( 7 ) ( 6 ) ( 5 ) ( 4 ) ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 0 IM PSS IM POS Ext PSS Ext POS LMF CC ES DSF SA RTP IM Ext PSS POS EE SSB A Nested F-test will then be run on the s associated with the Harris and Ogbonna 2006 model in order to determine if these cons tructs are useful pr edictors of service sabotage (Mendenhall and Sincic h 1996). Furthermore, the adjusted R-square will be used to determine how much variance is expl ained in each model. This will show which model explains the most variance in service sabotage. If the proposed model explains more variance than the Harris and Ogbonna 2006 model, then there will be evidence that the proposed model is better at explaining service sabotage.

PAGE 66

56Chapter Summary Chapter three includes a discussion of the sample, the measures, the procedures for collecting the data, and the procedures fo r analyzing the data. The sample for this dissertation is non-management retail sales a nd customer service employees. Prior to the final study, a pilot test was c onducted in order to validate th e measures being utilized in the questionnaire. One measure, the service sabotage behavior measure, is a new scale while the remaining measures have been adapte d from scales in the existing literature. The final study was conducted via a web-ba sed survey and the resulting data was analyzed using regression analysis and structural equation modeling.

PAGE 67

57 CHAPTER FOUR Results This chapter presents the results of the pi lot study and the fina l study. First, the pilot study results are discussed. Second, th e final study results are discussed. Finally, each of the hypotheses develope d in Chapter 2 are tested. Pilot Study Participants Overall, there were 141 participants in the pilot study (36.4% male and 63.6% female). Of these 141 participants, 43.3% we re retail sales employees and 20.6% were customer service employees. The remaining 36.1% classified their job as other (e.g. restaurant server). 113 out of the 141 participants (80.1%) stated that they had contact with the customer on a daily basis while 17.7% of the participants had customer contact 2 to 3 times per week. The sample characteristic s for the pilot study are shown in Table 2. Principal Components Analyses In order to determine the adequacy of the newly created service sabotage behavior measure as well as all of the other measures in the proposed model, principal components analyses were completed on each construct. The results of these component analyses are shown in Appendix E. Out of the six measur es included in the disse rtation model, four were unidimensional. These measures included Emotional Exhaustion, Perceived

PAGE 68

58 Organizational Support, Perceived Supervisor y Support, and Extraversion. In each of these measures, there was only one component (w ith eigenvalue greater than 1) with the component loadings of each item exceeding .4. For the newly created Serv ice Sabotage Behavior measure, a three component solution was created. Because there were mu ltiple components, a factor analysis using Varimax rotation was completed. During this analysis, 17 items were removed either due to the low variability in the responses or due to the item cross loading across multiple components. The final Service Sabotage Beha vior scale contained 25 items. The three component solution can best be described as a measure of the severity of the service sabotage offenses. There were a total of 9 items which could be classified as minor offenses such as gossiping about a customer and talking with a co-worker instead of working. There were a total of 6 items that were classified as medium offenses such as intentionally making errors and lying to a customer about impo rtant information. Finally, there were 9 items which were classified as major offenses such as sexually harassing a customer and deliberately mistreating a cust omer. There was one item, neglecting to say thank you to a customer, which was retained in the scale even though this item cross loaded on both the minor offense and medium offense components. For the imagination scale, a three component solution was obtained.

PAGE 69

59Reliability and Validity Analysis Results of the reliability and correlation analysis are shown in Table 3. Overall, all variables exhibited accepta ble reliabilities above the .7 threshold established by Nunnally (1978). Besides the reliability analysis, the corre lations between the variables were also examined. Overall, the correlation matrix reve aled some interesting associations between the variables. First, the correlation matrix confirms ma ny of the hypothetical relationships proposed in Chapter 2. Results from the correlational an alysis revealed that service sabotage behavior was positivel y related to emotional exhaustion while negatively related to perceived organizati onal support, perceived supervisory support, imagination, and extraversion. While the hypot heses cannot be tested using strictly the correlation matrix, it does s how that the findings in both the regression and structural equation model should be favorable. During the correlation analysis, the interitem correlations within each construct’s scale were also analyzed (Nunnally 1978). By analyzing the inter-item correlations, redundant items in each scale can be iden tified and possibly eliminated. When examining the inter-item correla tions, the inter-item correlati ons should ideally be greater than .39 (Nunnally 1978). For the model de veloped in Chapter 2, overwhelmingly the inter-item correlations in each construct exceed ed .39 while the correlations between the constructs did not. One case where interitem correlations betw een two constructs exceeded the .39 was with perceived organi zational support and perceived supervisory support; however, given the moderate corre lation between POS and PSS, this was not unexpected. The major construct of concern from the model developed in Chapter 2 is

PAGE 70

60 imagination. The inter-item correlations fo r the imagination scale ranged from -.049 to .726; however, this is not unexpe cted considering the factor an alyses found that this scale was multi-dimensional. Table 4 shows the range of the inter-item correlations for each measure. While analyzing the inter-item co rrelations for each construct is important, no action was taken prior to runni ng the final study. Final Study Participants A total of 490 non-management retail sales and customer service employees were sampled. There were 240 retail sales empl oyees and 250 customer service employees in the final sample, with 53.3% being male and 46.7% being female. Participants worked, on average, 38.6 hours per week and have been employed with their current employer an average of 5.7 years. 81.6% of participants have contact with the customer on a daily basis with an additional 11% having contact two to thr ee times per week. Table 5 summarizes the demographic information of the sample. Principal Components Analyses Although each of the measures were ex amined in the pilot study, principal components analyses were completed on each co nstruct on the final study data as well. This was done in order to ensure that th e newly created service sabotage behavior measure and all of the other measures in the proposed model were valid and reliable. The results of these analyses are shown in Appendi x F. Out of the six measures included in the dissertation model, five were unidimens ional (single component with an eigenvalue

PAGE 71

61 greater than 1). These measures in cluded Emotional Exhaustion, Perceived Organizational Support, Percei ved Supervisory Support, Extrav ersion, and Imagination. In each of these measures, there was only one component with the component loadings of each item exceeding .4. For the newly created Serv ice Sabotage Behavior measure, a three component solution was created. Because there were mu ltiple components, a factor analysis with Varimax rotation was completed. During this analysis, 5 additional items were removed either due to the low variability in the respons es or due to the item cross loading across multiple components. The final Service Sa botage Behavior scal e contained 20 items. The three component solution can best be desc ribed as a measure of the severity of the service sabotage offenses. There were a tota l of 11 items which coul d be classified as minor offenses, 5 items that were classified as medium offenses, and 4 items which were classified as major offenses. It is also impor tant to note that 16 of the items loaded on the same factor as in the pilot study, while four of the items loaded on a different component than in the original classification structure. For the imagination scale, two of the ten items were dropped due to having component scores less than .4. Once thes e two items were dropped, the measure was unidimensional.

PAGE 72

62Reliability and Validity Analysis Results of the reliability and correlation an alysis are shown in Ta ble 6. All of the measures exhibited acceptable re liabilities (Nunnally 1978). Besides the reliability analysis, the corre lations between the variables were also examined. Overall, the correlation ma trix confirms many of the hypothetical relationships proposed in Chapter 2. Results from the correlational an alysis revealed that service sabotage behavior was positively re lated to emotional exhaustion (.266) while negatively related to perceived organizat ional support (-.254), perceived supervisory support (-.193), imagination (-.118), and ex traversion (-.110). While the hypotheses cannot be tested using strictly the correlation matrix, it does show that the findings in both the regression and structural equation model should be favorable. During the correlation analysis, the inter-it em correlations within each construct’s scale were also analyzed (Nunnally 1978). For the model developed in Chapter 2, overwhelmingly the inter-item correlations in each construct exceeded .39. The only case where the inter-item correlations did not exceed .39 was in the imagination scale; however, each of the inter-item correlations was statistically significant. It should be noted that the service sabotage behavior scal e also had some inter-item correlations that did not exceed the recommended .39; however, considering this scale is a behavioral scale which incorporates a range of offenses this is not unexpected. Appendix G shows the inter-item correlations for all of the m easures except for service sabotage behavior while Appendix H shows the inter-item corre lations for the newly created service sabotage behavior measure.

PAGE 73

63 In addition to the principal component s analyses, the measurement model was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis by assessing each scale in the model established in Chapter 2 simultaneously, which provi des a stronger test of convergent and discriminant validity than assessing each fact or independently. AMOS was the statistical package used to estimate the measurement model. Overall, there is a fairly good fit of the model to the data. The 2 for the measurement model was significant at 3368.2; however, this is not unexpected given the large sample size. The CFI, NFI, and TLI were .91, .84, and .90, respectively and the RMSEA was .049 ( 90% CI of .047 to .051). In addition, all the indicators for the model loaded highly a nd significantly on their hypothesized latent variable (p < .01), demonstr ating the convergent validity of the measures (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Furthermore, the scales exhibite d satisfactory discrimi nant validity as the average variance extracted (AVE) of a give n factor was greater than the squared correlation between this factor and all the ot her factors in the mode l (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Each of the AVEs as well as the square d latent correlations are found in Table 7. In addition, discriminant vali dity was exhibited as none of the confidence intervals for the construct correlations included 1.0 (Anders on and Gerbing 1988). A diagram of the measurement model is found in Appendix I. Regression Analysis Based on the factor analyses and reliab ility analyses, the regression analysis described in Chapter 3 was completed on the pr oposed model in Chapter 2. For each of the constructs, the scale items in each constr uct were summed prior to the completion of the regression equation. Since the service sabotage measure was determined to have

PAGE 74

64 three components, only the first component wa s summed and utilized in the regression analysis. Model Building Stage and Testing of Hypotheses After testing the assumptions and influe ntial observations (see Appendix J), the initial model being tested is as follows: ) ( 9 ) ( 8 ) ( 7 ) ( 6 ) ( 5 ) ( 4 ) ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 0 ) 1 log( IM PSS IM POS Ext PSS Ext POS IM Ext PSS POS EE Factor SSB The log of the dependent variable was us ed because the constant error variance assumption was violated. Table 8 displays th e results of this regr ession equation. The Global F test is significant meaning that at least one of the ’s is nonzero (F = 5.216). The Root MSE is .26993 while the Adjusted R-square is .078. Testing Moderation Eff ects of Personality In order to determine if personality is a m oderator, a partial F-test was completed. The partial F-statistic was .32 (p = .8641). Because of this, it was determined that extraversion and imagination do not moderate the support an d service sabotage behavior relationships. Therefore, hypotheses 6a, 6b, 7a, and 7b ar e not supported. The four interaction terms (POS x Ext, PSS x Ext, POS x IM, PSS x IM) were removed from the model. Even though moderation did not ex ist, mediation was tested using both regression and structural equation modeling. Testing Mediation Effects of Emotional Exhaustion In order to test mediation using regressi on, the approach established by Baron and Kenny (1986) was utilized. This approach i nvolved the completion of three regression equations. The first regre ssion equation examined if the perceived organizational support

PAGE 75

65 and perceived supervisory support are associat ed with the dependent variable, service sabotage behavior. The mode l tested was as follows: ) ( 3 ) ( 2 0 ) 1 log( PSS POS Factor SSB The results of the regression s how that the model is statisti cally significant at predicting service sabotage behavior (F = 8.834; p < .001). By conducting t-tests on perceived organizational support and perceived supe rvisory support, results found that only perceived organizational support was a significant predictor of service sabotage behavior (POS: = -.006; t = -3.080; p < .01; PSS: = .001; t = .428, p > .05). In other words, these results show that perceived organi zational support negative ly impacts service sabotage behavior, providing support for Hypot hesis 2. Perceived supervisory support, on the other hand, does not negatively impact service sabotage support, so Hypothesis 3 is not supported. The second step in testing mediation ex amined if perceived organizational support and perceived supervisory suppor t is associated with the me diator variable, emotional exhaustion. The model tested in this step is as follows: ) ( 3 ) ( 2 0 PSS POS EE The results of the regression show that the model with pe rceived organizational support and perceived supervisory support is statis tically significant at predicting emotional exhaustion (F = 111.329; p < .001). By conduc ting t-tests on perceived organizational support and perceived supervisory suppor t, results found that only perceived organizational support was a significant predic tor of emotional exhaustion (POS: = .5; t = -8.311; p < .01; PSS: = -.115; t = -1.930, p > .05) These results show that perceived organizational support negatively impacts emotional exhaustion, supporting

PAGE 76

66 Hypothesis 4. Perceived supervisory suppor t did not significantly impact emotional exhaustion; therefore, Hypothe sis 5 is not supported. The last stage of the mediation test ing involves regressing service sabotage behavior on emotional exhaustion, using the equation shown below: ) ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 0 ) 1 log( PSS POS EE Factor SSB The results of the regression show that the model with em otional exhaustion, perceived organizational support and perceived supervis ory support is statisti cally significant at predicting service sabotage behavior (F = 9. 662; p < .001). By conducting a t-test on emotional exhaustion, results find that emot ional exhaustion has a significant positive impact on service sabotage behavi or, supporting Hypot hesis 1 (EE: = .005; t = 3.305; p < .01). In order to determine if the relationsh ip between perceived organizational support and service sabotage behavior is mediated by emotional exhaustion, Sobel’s (1982) test as well as Baron and Kenny’s (1986) modified te st was completed. Sobel’s test yielded a test statistic of -2.3946 (p < .05) and Bar on and Kenny’s modified te st (1986) yielded a test statistic of -2.3789 (p < .05). Both of th ese test statistics are significant; therefore, emotional exhaustion mediates the perceive d organizational support and service sabotage behavior relationship, suppor ting Hypothesis 4. Moderation in Structural Equation Modeling Although moderation was tested using re gression, structural equation modeling was also utilized using an approach establ ished by Ping (1996) (see Li, Harmer, Duncan, Duncan, Acock and Boles (1998) for a review of this approach). Ping’s (1996) approach

PAGE 77

67 allows for the testing of moderation in SE M through the creation of latent variable interactions. Because of the complexity of the model shown in Figure 1 as well as the number of items utilized to represent each c onstruct, only the highest three items, based on the principal components analysis result s in Appendix F, were used to represent perceived organizational support, perceive d supervisory support, extraversion and imagination. All of the items for construc ts not involved in m oderation (e.g. service sabotage behavior and emotional exhaustion) were kept in the model. Before the model could be run in AMOS, each item was mean centered. Following the procedures outlined by Li et al (1998), a 2-step approach to moderation in SEM was completed. The first step involves the creation of the measurement model so that the factor loadings and error variances for the indicators of the constructs could be estimated. In the measurement model (see Appendix K), no interactions were included. Instead the measurement model contained service sabotage behavior, emotional exhaustion, perceived organizational su pport, perceived supervisory support, extraversion and imagination. Overall, there is a fairly good fit to the data. As expected, the 2 for this measurement model was si gnificant at 1860.1. The RMSEA was .056 (90% CI of .053 to .06). The CFI, TLI, and NFI was .89, .89, and .83, respectively. Using the regression weights, factor va riances, and error variances from the measurement model, the next step involved calculating the vari ances and regression weights for each of the interactions so that these numbers could be utilized as fixed values in the structural mode l (Li et al 1998). For example, the regression weight for the interaction term, POS4 x Ext2, was calculate d by multiplying the regression weight of POS4 by the regression weight of Ext2. The calculation for the variance of each

PAGE 78

68 interaction was completed usi ng the following formula: (re gression weight for POS4 x factor variance for POS x error variance for Ex t2) + (regression weight for Ext2 x factor variance for Ext x error variance for POS4) + (error variance for POS4 x error variance for Ext2). These calculations are available in Appendix K. After all of the regression weights and error variances were fixed for the interaction terms, the structural model was run. The structural model is shown in Appendix L. Overall, the structural intera ction model does not fit the data well. The 2 for this model was significant at 17455. The RMSEA was .106 (90% CI of .104 to .107). The CFI, TLI, and NFI was .58, .57, and .53, re spectively. Because of this, it is evident that the model with interaction provides additional evidence that extraversion and imagination do not moderate the perceived or ganizational support and service sabotage behavior relationships or pe rceived supervisory support and service sabotage behavior relationships. Extraversion and imagination were thus dropped from the model. Mediation in Structural Equation Modeling In addition to testing the mediating role of emotional exhaustion on service sabotage behavior with regressi on, the mediating impact was al so tested using structural equation modeling. In this SEM model, all items for each construct were included. Measurement Model When using SEM, the measurement model is first examined in order to assess the measurement properties of the study variable s. Results from the measurement model indicate that the measurement model adequately fits the data Although the chi-square is significant ( 2 = 3170.14, df = 944, p < .0001), the RMSEA was .073 (CI = .07 to .076).

PAGE 79

69 In addition, the factor loadings were all significant using an of .05. Of all of the scales, the only four factor loadings that did not exceed the recommended .6 cutoff by Hu and Bentler (1999) were the four loadings associated with the major service sabotage behavior items (sexually ha rassed a customer, took persona l property of customers, deliberately mistreated a customer, and publicly embarrassed the customer). When examining the data associated with these items, it is clear that variability is lacking in the respondent’s responses. This is not unexpected since these four item s are the most severe forms of service sabotage behavior in the service sabotage behavior scale. For the purposes of this dissertation, these items we re removed from the model; however, future research is needed in order to determine if it is beneficial to keep these four items in the service sabotage behavior scale. Structural Model Before the hypotheses were tested, the st ructural model was evaluated. Several indices were used to determine how well the model fits the da ta. The first fit index used was the Root Mean Squared Error of A pproximation (RMSEA). RMSEA values less than or equal to .05 are viewed as having a “close approximate fit” whereas values between .05 and .10 are “reasonably approxi mate fit” (Hu and Bentler 1999). Any RMSEA value exceeding .10 is considered a poo r fit. In this case, the RMSEA was .060 with a 90% confidence interval ra nging from .057 to .063. This initially indicates that the model adequately fits the data. Besides RM SEA, other fit indices which were examined include the comparative fit index (CFI), th e Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the normed fit index (NFI). The current model’s CFI, TLI, and NFI are almost all above the acceptable levels (CFI = .912; TLI = .907; NFI = .866). When taking into account both

PAGE 80

70 the RMSEA and the other fit indices, it is de termined that this model has an acceptable fit. Because of this, the hypotheses can now be tested. Testing of Hypotheses In order to test each of the remaini ng hypotheses developed in Chapter 2, the structural path coefficients were examined Based on the moderation results discussed previously, hypotheses 6a, 6b, 7a, and 7b were not supported. Therefore the structural model will be used to test hypotheses 1 th rough 5. A summary of the hypotheses results can be found in Table 8. Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 examined if emotional exha ustion had a positive impact on service sabotage behavior. Results in dicate that the path betw een emotional exhaustion and service sabotage is positive (.092, p < .05). This finding indicates that the more the employee is emotionally exhausted, the highe r is his/her service sabotage behavior. Therefore, hypothesis is supported. Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 examined if perceived orga nizational support had a direct negative impact on service sabotage behavior. Result s indicate that the path between POS and service sabotage behavior is significant a nd negative (-.109, p < .001); therefore, this hypothesis is supported. This suggests th at the more the employee perceives the organization supports him/her and cares about his/her well-being; his/her usage of service sabotage behaviors lessens.

PAGE 81

71 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3 examined if perceived s upervisory support had a direct negative impact on service sabotage behavior. Unfortunate ly, the results show that this path is not significant, suggesting that the perception of supervisor y support by the employee does not play a role in the employee’s us age of service sabotage behaviors. Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4 states that emotional exhaus tion will partially mediate the perceived organizational support-service sa botage behavior relationship. Findings suggest that this hypothesis is supported as POS did have a si gnificant, negative impact on emotional exhaustion (-.367, p < .001). This finding indi cates that the more supportive an employee perceives the organization to be, the less em otionally exhausted that employee will be. Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 5 examines if emotional exha ustion partially mediates the perceived supervisory support-service sa botage behavior relationshi p. This hypothesis was not supported as perceived supervisory support did not have a significant impact on either emotional exhaustion or service sabotage behavior. Comparison of Proposed Model to Harris and Ogbonna’s 2006 Model In order to adequately compare the final model proposed in this dissertation to the Harris and Ogbonna 2006 model, two series of regr essions were run. The first series of regressions used the service sabotage measure by Harris and Ogbonna (2006) as the dependent variable. The second series of re gressions used the newly developed service

PAGE 82

72 sabotage behavior measure as the dependent variable. A summary of the regression results for each series of regressi on models is shown in Table 10. Regressions using Harris and O gbonna’s Service Sabotage Measure The first regression was the be st fitting model from this dissertation. This model is as follows: ) ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 0 PSS POS EE SS The second regression equation utilized wa s from Harris and Ogbonna’s 2006 model. Each measure from Harris and Ogbonna ’s (2006) model were summed. ) ( 6 ) ( 5 ) ( 4 ) ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 0 LMF CC ES DSF SA RTP SS The final model incorporated the two mode ls shown above, leading to the following model: ) ( 9 ) ( 8 ) ( 7 ) ( 6 ) ( 5 ) ( 4 ) ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 0 LMF CC ES DSF SA RTP PSS POS EE SS A Nested F-test was completed in order to examine if the measures by Harris and Ogbonna are useful predictors of service sabot age. Results found that the six measures included in Harris and Ogbonna’s (2006) study are not useful pr edictors of the Harris and Ogbonna (2006) service sabotage measure (F = 1.27; p > .05). When examining the regression results for each model, only two of the constructs in the original Harris and Ogbonna model were significant. These tw o constructs were social approval and Employees’ Desire to Stay with and Pursue Career with Current Firm. In the model developed in this dissertation, emotional e xhaustion and perceived organizational support were both significant predictors of service sabotage. Additionally, the Harris and Ogbonna (2006) model explained 4.1% of the variance (adjusted R-square) while the

PAGE 83

73 dissertation model explained 21. 1%. The Bayesian informati on criterion (BIC), a model comparison statistic, was also calculated. Th is criterion can be used to compare models even if the models are not nested (Schwa rz 1978). For the Ha rris and Ogbonna model, the BIC was 2000.34 while for the proposed model, the BIC was 1897.49. Since the proposed model has the lower BIC, this is th e preferred model. Because of this, it is determined that the model developed in this dissertation is better at explaining Harris and Ogbonna’s service sabotage measure. Regressions using New Servic e Sabotage Behavior Measure The first regression was the best fitting model from this dissertation, which did not include the interaction terms. This model is as follows: ) ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 0 ) log( PSS POS EE SSB The second regression equati on utilized was from Harris and Ogbonna’s 2006 model in which the new measure, service sabotage behavi or, was used as the dependent variable. ) ( 6 ) ( 5 ) ( 4 ) ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 0 ) 1 log( LMF CC ES DSF SA RTP Factor SSB The final model incorporated the two mode ls shown above, leading to the following model: ) ( 9 ) ( 8 ) ( 7 ) ( 6 ) ( 5 ) ( 4 ) ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 0 ) 1 log( LMF CC ES DSF SA RTP PSS POS EE Factor SSB In order to determine if the measures by Harris and Ogbonna are useful predictors of service sabotage, a Nested F-test was comp leted (Mendenhall and Sincich 1996). Results found that the six measures included in Harri s and Ogbonna’s (2006) study are not useful predictors of service sabotage behavior (F = .92; p > .05). This is further exemplified

PAGE 84

74 when examining the regression results for each model. The model using the constructs identified in Harris and Ogbonna (2006) lead to a non-signif icant model (F = 1.242; p > .05). The adjusted R-square is also only .003 in the Harris and O gbonna model while it is .07 in the model developed in this dissertation. The BIC was also calculated in which the BIC was 1809.23 for the Harris and Ogbonna model while the BIC was 1770.1 for the proposed model. Since the proposed model ha s the lower BIC, this is the preferred model. Overall, it is determined that the m odel developed in this di ssertation is better at explaining the newly developed service sabo tage behavior measure. Summary This section presented the results from th e pilot study as well as the final study. The hypotheses developed in Chapter 2 were tested. Support was found for three out of the seven hypotheses developed in Chapter 2. The best fitting mode l developed in this chapter was then compared to the mode l developed in Harris and Ogbonna (2006). Chapter 5 presents a discussion of these re sults followed by a discussion of the study’s limitations and areas for future research.

PAGE 85

75 CHAPTER FIVE Discussion The purpose of this dissertation was to build and test a model investigating the role that emotional exhaustion, perceived or ganizational support, perceived supervisory support, extraversion and imagination has on a boundary spanner’s usage of service sabotage behaviors. This model was then compared to the mode l developed by Harris and Ogbonna 2006. With respect to boundary spanner employees, emotional exhaustion is positively related to service sabotage be havior. In addition, a boundary spanner’s perceptions of organizational support lessen one’s usage of se rvice sabotage behaviors. Overall, the model developed in this dissertation also expl ains more variance than the model developed in Harris and Ogbonna’s 2006 study. In this final chapter, I discuss and summarize these findings in three sections. In the first section, I discuss the effe cts that emotional exhaustion, perceived organizational support, perceived supervisory support, extraversion, and imagination has on service sabotage behavior. In the second se ction, I compare the model created in the dissertation to that of Harris and Ogbonna’s 2006 model. In the final section, I discuss the study limitations and direc tions for future research.

PAGE 86

76Impact on Service Sabotage Behavior Emotional Exhaustion The impact of emotional exhaustion on a boundary spanner’s usage of service sabotage behavior was the major focus of this dissertation. Because boundary spanning employees directly interact w ith the customer, they are subj ect to pressures not found in other organizational positions (Mulki, Jaramillo and Locander 2006). I hypothesized these pressures lead to em otional exhaustion; a key reason why a boundary spanning employee may engage in service sabotage beha viors. This is because engaging in these types of behaviors is one way that the em ployee can show their discontent with the organization. My first research proposition proposes that emotional exhaustion positively impacts service sabotage behavior. As shown in Figure 8, results support this proposition. This finding bolsters the belief that wh en a boundary spanning employee faces excessive job demands or job conflic ts, that employee will become emotionally exhausted leading to service sa botage behaviors. This findi ng also supports conservation resource theory which stipulates that em otional exhaustion occurs when an employee does not have the necessary resources to comp lete their job. When an employee has a depletion of resources, then this depletion positiv ely impacts service sabotage behaviors. These findings also support the work done in deviant behavior (Mulki, Jaramillo and Locander 2006). Similarly prior research has shown that emotional exhaustion can result in lower job performance (e.g. Baba kus et al 1999; Cropanzano, Rupp and Byrne 2003). Lower job performance may be due to the employee engaging in these service sabotage behaviors.

PAGE 87

77 Managers should consider the impact of emotional exhaustion when attempting to combat the effects that service sabotage behaviors have on the organization. The organization can help minimize service sabot age behavior by pursuing ways to reduce emotional exhaustion of their employees. Orga nizations and managers need to be skilled at looking for indications of emotional exhaustion in employees. An emotionally exhausted employee will show signs of fatigue, burn out, frus tration, and be emotionally stressed from their work. Perceived Organizational and Supervisory Support I hypothesized that perceived organizati onal support and perc eived supervisory support would both directly impact service sabot age behavior as well as a mediate service sabotage behavior through emotional exhausti on. Furthermore these relationships would be negative. However, only pe rceived organizational support wa s statistically significant. Results indicate that a bounda ry spanner’s perception of organizational support lessens the employee’s usage of service sabotage beha vior directly as we ll as through emotional exhaustion. By providing ad equate organizational support, an organization can reduce or mitigate a boundary spanner’s emotional exhaustion and service sabotage behavior. Boundary spanning employees who percei ve the organization supports them will be more committed and thus engage in organizationally desired behaviors. This provides support for the norm of reciprocity and conservation resources theory. Organizations can help increase a boundary spanner’s perceptions of organizational support by communicating to t hose employees that the organization does indeed care about their empl oyees’ well being. One way to show that the organization

PAGE 88

78 cares and appreciates their employees is through the creation of policies and programs which exemplify these perceptions. Some examples include provi ding genuine “thankyous” to employees for work well done, o ffering an open communication environment and flexible scheduling to employees. I was surprised perceived supervisor y support did not significantly impact emotional exhaustion nor service sabotage beha viors. Results from Table 6 showed a significant negative relations hip between perceived supe rvisory support and service sabotage behavior (-.193) as well as be tween perceived supervisory support and emotional exhaustion (-.480). These results also showed a strong positive relationship between perceived organizati onal support and perceived supe rvisory support (.765). Although this correlation is strong, it does s how that employees can differentiate the support perceived from the organization from that of their supervisor. One possible explanation for why per ceived supervisory support did not negatively impact both emotional exhaustion an d service sabotage beha vior is due to the role the supervisor plays in boundary spanni ng positions. It is possible that in many boundary spanning positions, there are numerous supervisors that an employee must associate with on a daily basis. For example, a retail sales employee may have his or her immediate supervisors, several assistant ma nagers and the store manager as possible supervisors. In many retail sales positions, one ’s supervisor also changes frequently such that a supervisor may work a va riety of shifts in the organizat ion (e.g. night) or may work in a variety of locations (e.g. work in multiple stores). This lack of consistency in a supervisor could be problematic when examin ing the perceptions of supervisory support by the respondents.

PAGE 89

79 When considering the perceived supervis ory support scale does not specify a particular supervisor (e.g. immediate supervis or), it is also possib le that respondents did not have a specific supervisor in mind when co mpleting that scale. Instead it is likely that some respondents answered the scale ite ms based on the average of all his or her supervisors while other respondents answ ered the scale items based on a single supervisor. By making the scale more speci fic to a single supervisor, this possible confound may be eliminated or reduced. Personality I hypothesized that extraversion and imag ination, two of th e five personality dimensions from the Big Five Factor Model, moderates the relationship between perceived organizational support and service sa botage behavior. These two dimensions would also moderate the rela tionship between perceived supervisory support and service sabotage behavior. Most service organizations desire out going, ambitious employees capable of adapting to the needs of the customer. Res earch has shown that ex traverted individuals are better able to do their job and have higher job perf ormance than introverted individuals (Barrick and Mount 1991; Hurley 1998; Judge and Erez 2007). Service organizations also desire hiring imaginativ e employees as these employees are creative individuals who are better able to meet the needs and desires of the customers (Bettencourt and Gwinner 1996). However because extraverted and imaginat ive employees are also more likely to take chances such as engaging in service sabotage behaviors, I posited that the more

PAGE 90

80 extraverted or imaginative an employee is, th e weaker the relations hip between perceived organizational and supervisory support and service sabotage behavi or. Unfortunately, these hypotheses were no t statistically significant. In other wo rds, personality did not moderate the support and service sabotage behavi or relationships. When examining the correlations betw een the extraversion, imagination, perceived organizational support, perceived su pervisory support, a nd service sabotage behavior, several interesti ng implications can be drawn. Based upon the hypotheses developed in Chapter 2, it would be expected that there would be a negative relationship between the two personality dimensions and perceived organizational support and perceived supervisory support. It would also be expected that ther e would be a positive relationship between extraversi on/imagination and se rvice sabotage behavior. Instead the opposite was found in both cases. Extraversion and imagination were positively related to both perceived organizational support (. 119 Ext; .136 Imag) and perceived supervisory support (.134 Ext; .136 Imag). This implie s that more extraver ted and imaginative boundary spanning employees perceived grea ter support from their organization and supervisor. This greater pe rception of support may be due to the fact that these employees do not need as much support in the first place as hypothesized in Chapter 2. Because of this, these employees perceive even minimal support as adequate. In addition, the correlation between both pers onality variables and service sabotage behavior was negative (-.110 Ext; -.118 Imag). This implies that the more extraverted and imaginative boundary spanning employees ar e, the less these employees were willing to engage in service sabotage behavi ors. These negative relationships are counterintuitive to what was predicted in Chapter 2; however, the limited amount of

PAGE 91

81 research in this area shows that additional i nvestigation is necessary. It is possible that there are other individual charac teristics such as agreeableness which are better predictors of service sabotage behavior. Comparison of Dissertation Mode l to Harris and Ogbonna 2006 Model When comparing the model developed by Harris and Ogbonna 2006 to that of the model developed in this disserta tion, it is evident that the di ssertation model is better at explaining both Harris and Ogbonna’s service sabotage measure as well as the service sabotage behavior measure developed in this di ssertation. In fact, only social approval and desire to stay with firm explained Harris and Ogbonna’s measure while none of the measures explained service sabotage behavior (see Table 10). Em otional exhaustion and perceived organizational support, on the othe r hand, did explain both service sabotage and the newly created service sabota ge behavior measure. However this discrepancy may be due to th e samples in both studies. The original study by Harris and Ogbonna 2006 was completed using 259 front-line customer contact personnel from the restaurant industry. In this dissertation, paneled data was used such that the retail sales and customer servi ce employees sampled came from a variety of industries and companies. Only 6.9% of the respondents were from the food and beverage industry. By having a variety of industries and comp anies, it is expected that these dissertation findings are more generali zable than those collected from a single industry. It would be useful to complete a second study us ing the restaurant industry in order for a true comparison between this di ssertation model and that of Harris and Ogbonna 2006 can be made.

PAGE 92

82 Besides the differences in the sample, several of the measures (labor market fluidity and extent of cultur al control) used in Harris and Ogbonna’s original 2006 model were also found to be unreliable. Other m easures such as service sabotage and risktaking proclivity were also problematic as th ese measures were multi-dimensional. These discrepancies in the measures could have impacted the results obtained in this dissertation. Therefore additional res earch is needed on these measures. Limitations and Directions for Future Research There are several limitations a ssociated with this study. First of all, all of the measures were based on self-reports rather than observation. This means that respondents personally reported how often they engaged in the service sabotage behavior measure. Steps were taken to ensure that respondents answered appropriately by putting in some measurement checks in which the res pondent was asked to answer in a certain way (i.e. answer strongly agree for this item ). Any respondent which did not fill out the appropriate response was removed from the st udy. An additional check placed in the survey was the measurement of social desirability. This scale examines if the respondent is answering in a socially desirable ma nner. Any respondent found answering in a socially desirable manner was removed from the study. However because of the nature of the study (service sabotage), it is possi ble that the responden ts did not answer truthfully regarding the exte nt to which they engage in service sabotage behavior. Considering significant results regarding emotional exhaustio n, perceived organizational support and service sabotage behavior were obtaine d in this dissertation; it is likely that these results would only be greater if responde nt honesty was indeed an issue. It would

PAGE 93

83 be prudent if additional work using observational, longitudinal, or experimental research techniques is completed. Although a pilot study was conducted, the ma in findings are based off of a single sample. This one-shot study needs to be replic ated with additional samples. In addition, the service sabotage behavior measure was create d in this dissertation as a direct measure of a boundary spanning employee’s usage of these negative service behaviors. Additional work is needed on the measure in order to determine if the major service sabotage behavior items (e.g. sexuall y harass a customer) are necessary. Service sabotage behavior is defined as a resource-conserving activity. This means that an employee will engage in servi ce sabotage behaviors as a means to conserve his remaining resources. Because of this, service sabotage behavior does not take into consideration situations in which an employee purposely de cides to utilize additional resources in order to engage in service sa botage. For example, an employee may spend time strategizing ways to engage in service sabotage. This time is a resource that the employee could have devoted to other tasks; however, the employee has selected to use these resources in order to engage in thes e negative service behaviors. Therefore additional research is necessary in order to examine situations in which service sabotage behavior is an activity that requires additional effort and resources. In this dissertation, emotional exhaus tion and perceived organizational support were found to directly imp act service sabotage behavior s; however the explained variance (R-square adjusted) in service sabot age behavior was low (.07). This implies that there are other variables that might be tter explain service sa botage behavior. For example, it is possible that personality characte ristics such as agreeab leness, the effect of

PAGE 94

84 co-workers or teams, pay satisfaction, tu rnover intentions, ethical climate of the organization, and role stressors may also e xplain service sabotage be havior. Because of this, future research is needed to determ ine what other factors might help explain a boundary spanner’s usage of service sabotage behavior.

PAGE 95

85FIGURE 1 Proposed Model of Service Sabotage Behavior H6ab: H7ab: H1: + Perceived Organizational Su pp or t Perceived Supervisory Su pp or t Service Sabotage Behavio r Emotional Exhaustion Personality Extraversion Ima g ination H2: H3: H4: H5:

PAGE 96

86FIGURE 2 Harris and Ogbonna’s 2002 Proposed Model (pg. 173 and 176) INDIVIDUAL FACTORS Attitude toward risktaking Career orientation Personality traits Demo g ra p hic factors GROUP & ROLE FACTORS Nature of work Socialization & on-the-job training Sub-cultural prevalence & strength Demographic factors ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS Surveillance techniques Culture control initiatives ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS Labor market conditions SERVICE SABOTAGE BEHAVIORS EMPLOYEE CONSEQUENCES Status Self-Esteem Stress Satisfactio n SERVICE PERFORMANCE Service quality Customer satisfaction Rapport Customer loyalty FIRM PERFORMANCE Profitability Sales Growth

PAGE 97

87FIGURE 3 Harris and Ogbonna’s 2006 Model (pg. 545 and 551) + + ns + + + Employees’ Risk-Taking Proclivity Employees’ Need for Social Approval Employees’ Desire to Stay with and Pursue Career with Current Firm Employees’ Perceptions of the Extent of Surveillance Employees’ Perceptions of the Extent of Cultural Control Employees’ Perceptions of the Extent of the Employee-Customer Contact Service Sabotage Behaviors Employee SelfEsteem Employees’ Perceptions of Team Spirit Employees’ Perceptions of Rapport with Customers Employees’ Perceptions of Functional Qualit y Employees’ Perceptions of Company Performance Employees’ Perceptions of Labor Market Fluidit y

PAGE 98

88FIGURE 4 Emotional Exhaustion Mediation Tests Step 2: a Step 2: a Step 3: b Step 1: c Step 1: c Organizational Support (Independent Variable) Supervisory Support (Independent Variable) Emotional Exhaustion (Mediator) Service Sabotage (Dependent Variable)

PAGE 99

89FIGURE 5 Harris and Ogbonna’s 2006 Model Tested in This Dissertation + + + Service Sabotage Behaviors Employees’ Risk-Taking Proclivity Need for Social Approval Desire to Stay with and Pursue Career with CurrentFirm Perceptions of the Extent of Surveillance Perceptions of the Extent of Cultural Control Perceptions of Labor Market Fluidity

PAGE 100

90FIGURE 6 Model Results Note: p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 H5: ns H4: -.367*** H6ab: ns H7ab: ns H1: .092* Perceived Organizational Su pp or t Perceived Supervisory Su pp or t Service Sabotage Behavio r Emotional Exhaustion Personality Extraversion Ima g ination H2: -.109** H3: ns

PAGE 101

91TABLE 1 Summary of Model Hypotheses H1: Emotional Exhaustion will positively impact Service Sabotage Behavior. H2: Perceived Organizational Support wi ll negatively and directly impact Service Sabotage Behavior. H3: Perceived Supervisory Support will ne gatively and directly impact Service Sabotage Behavior. H4: Perceived Organizational Support will negatively impact Emotional Exhaustion. In other words, Emotional Exhaustion will partially mediate the perceived organizational support and service sabotage relationship. H5: Perceived Supervisory Support wi ll negatively impact Emotional Exhaustion. In other words, Emotional Exhaustion will partially mediate the perceived supervisory support and service sabotage relationship. H6a: The more extraverted a boundary sp anning employee is, the weaker the effect of perceived organizational support on service sabotage behavior. H6b: The more extraverted a boundary sp anning employee is, the weaker the effect of perceived supervisory s upport on service sabotage behavior. H7a: The more imaginative a boundary sp anning employee is, the weaker the effect of perceived organizational support on service sabotage behavior. H7b: The more imaginative a boundary sp anning employee is, the weaker the effect of perceived supervisory s upport on service sabotage behavior.

PAGE 102

92TABLE 2 Sample Characteristics of Pilot Study N % Gender Males 51 36.4 Females 89 63.6 Age 18 to 25 104 74.3 26 to 35 19 13.6 36 to 45 9 6.4 46 to 55 7 5.0 56 to 65 1 0.7 Over 65 0 0.0 Education High school or less 9 6.4 Attending/attended college 1-3 years 92 65.7 Graduated from 4 year college 33 23.6 Postgraduate study or degree 6 4.3 Marital Status Single 112 80.0 Married 22 15.7 Divorced or Separated 6 4.3 Widowed 0 0.0 Income Under $20,000 49 35.0 $20,000 $29,999 17 12.1 $30,000 $39,999 18 12.9 $40,000 $49,999 13 9.3 $50,000 $59,999 7 5.0 $60,000 $74,999 14 10.0 $75,000 $99,999 11 7.9 $100,000 or more 11 7.9 Commission Solely Commission Based 9 6.4 Salary or Hourly Wage Plus Commission 33 23.6 Solely Salary or Hourly Wage 98 69.5 Hours Worked Per Week Under 10 2 1.4 10 to 19 17 12.1 20 to 29 52 37.1 30 to 39 30 21.4 40 to 49 34 24.3 50 to 59 2 1.4 60 to 69 2 1.4 Over 70 1 0.7 Length of Employment Less than 1 year 46 32.9 1 – 3 years 60 42.9 4 – 6 years 24 17.1 7 – 9 years 6 4.3 10 – 12 years 4 2.9 13 – 15 years 0 0.0 More than 15 years 0 0.0

PAGE 103

93TABLE 3 Reliabilities and Correlations for Pilot Study SSB SS POS PSS EE Ext Imag SSB .90 SS .410** .81 POS -.309** -.377** .91 PSS -.287** -.355** .761** .93 EE .338** -.311** -.494** -.393** .92 Ext -.199** -.060 .258** .176* -.255** .90 Imag -.257** -.089 .199** .233** -.095 .268** .81 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level; Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level Note : SSB = Service Sabotage Behavior; SS = Service Sabotage; POS = Perceived Organizational Support; PSS = Perceived Supervisory Support; EE = Emoti onal Exhaustion; Ext = Extraversion; Imag = Imagination Note: Reliability of the construct is on the diagonal.

PAGE 104

94TABLE 4 Inter-item Correlation Results Construct Range of Inter-item Correlations Service Sabotage -.052 .570 Perceived Organizational Support .376 .661 Perceived Supervisory Support .374 .765 Emotional Exhaustion .331 .758 Extraversion .227 .627 Imagination -.049 .726 Social Approval .298 .674 Extent of Surveillance .036 .546 Intent to Remain .032 .751 Labor Market Fluidity .094 .292 Cultural Control -.391 .292 Risk-Taking Proclivity -.028 .485

PAGE 105

95TABLE 5 Sample Characteristics of Final Study N % Gender Males 259 53.3 Females 227 46.7 Age 18 to 25 61 12.6 26 to 35 95 19.5 36 to 45 106 21.8 46 to 55 137 28.2 56 to 65 58 11.9 Over 65 29 6 Education High school or less 106 21.8 Attending/attended college 1-3 years 231 47.5 Graduated from 4 year college 112 23 Postgraduate study or degree 37 7.6 Marital Status Single 145 29.8 Married 254 52.3 Divorced or Separated 76 15.6 Widowed 11 2.3 Income Under $20,000 56 11.5 $20,000 $29,999 80 16.5 $30,000 $39,999 72 14.8 $40,000 $49,999 57 11.7 $50,000 $59,999 51 10.5 $60,000 $74,999 58 11.9 $75,000 $99,999 67 13.8 $100,000 or more 45 9.3 Commission Solely Commission Based 49 10.1 Salary or Hourly Wage Plus Commission 87 17.9 Solely Salary or Hourly Wage 350 72.0 Hours Worked Per Week Under 10 9 1.9 10 to 19 31 6.4 20 to 29 62 12.8 30 to 39 117 24.1 40 to 49 203 41.8 50 to 59 51 10.5 60 to 69 12 2.5 Over 70 1 .2 Length of Employment Less than 1 year 75 15.4 1 – 3 years 152 31.3 4 – 6 years 102 21 7 – 9 years 46 9.5 10 – 12 years 31 6.4 13 – 15 years 19 3.9 More than 15 years 61 12.6

PAGE 106

96TABLE 6 Reliabilities and Correlations for Final Study SSB SS POS PSS EE Ext Imag SSB .83 SS .473** .85 POS -.254** -.442** .95 PSS -.193** -.397** .762** .97 EE .266** .361** -.568** -.480** .94 Ext -.110* -.066 .119** .134** -.204** .93 Imag -.118** -.034 .136** .136** -.083 .392** .85 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level; Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level Note : SSB = Service Sabotage Behavior; SS = Service Sabotage; POS = Perceived Organizational Support; PSS = Perceived Supervisory Support; EE = Emoti onal Exhaustion; Ext = Extraversion; Imag = Imagination Note: Reliability of the construct is on the diagonal

PAGE 107

97TABLE 7 Discriminant Validity Results SSB POS PSS EE Ext Imag SSB .32 POS .07 .68 PSS .04 .60 .80 EE .07 .38 .27 .64 Ext .03 .01 .02 .03 .56 Imag .02 .02 .01 .01 .19 .41 Note: AVE is on the diagonal.

PAGE 108

98TABLE 8 Regression Results Model Unstandardized Beta Coefficient Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized Beta Coefficient t Sig. Constant 3.3034 .341 8.904 .000 EE .005 .002 .166 2.894 .004 POS -.004 .012 -.128 -.315 .753 PSS .007 .011 .248 .619 .536 Ext .000 .004 -.009 -.058 .954 Imag -.001 .009 -.027 -.157 .875 POSxExt .000 .000 -.242 -.733 .464 PSSxExt -.000026 .000 .058 .171 .864 POSxImag .000 .000 -.268 -.509 .611 PSSxImag .000 .000 .208 .405 .685 Note: Global F = 4.458 (p=.000); R-square = .084; Adjusted R-square = .065; Root MSE = .33303

PAGE 109

99TABLE 9 Summary of Model Hypothesis Results H1: Emotional Exhaustion will positively impact Service Sabotage Behavior. Supported H2: Perceived Organizational Support will negatively and directly impact Serv ice Sabotage Behavior. Supported H3: Perceived Supervisory S upport will negatively and directly impact Serv ice Sabotage Behavior. Not Supported H4: Perceived Organizational Support will negatively impact Emotional Exhaustion. In other words, Emotional Exhaustion will partially mediate the perceived organizational support and serv ice sabotage relationship. Supported H5: Perceived Supervisory Suppor t will negatively impact Emotional Exhaustion. In other words, Emotional Exhaustion will partially mediate the perceived supervisory support and servic e sabotage relationship. Not Supported H6a: The more extraverted a boundary spanning employee is, the weaker the effect of pe rceived organizational support on service sabotage behavior. Not Supported H6b: The more extraverted a boundary spanning employee is, the weaker the effect of pe rceived supervisory support on service sabotage behavior. Not Supported H7a: The more imaginative a boundary spanning employee is, the weaker the effect of pe rceived organizational support on service sabotage behavior. Not Supported H7b: The more imaginative a boundary spanning employee is, the weaker the effect of pe rceived supervisory support on service sabotage behavior. Not Supported

PAGE 110

100TABLE 10 Model Comparison using Harris and Ogbonna 2006 Measure Final Model from Dissertation Model Unstandardized Beta Coefficient Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized Beta Coefficient t Sig. Constant 34.626 2.442 14.178 .000 EE .101 .038 .136 2.638 .009 POS -.206 .052 -.271 -3.950 .000 PSS -.094 .048 -.125 -1.954 .051 Note: Global F = 40.859 (p=.000); R-square = .217; Adjusted R-square = .211; Root MSE = 8.16337 Harris and Ogbonna (2006) Model Model Unstandardized Beta Coefficient Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized Beta Coefficient t Sig. Constant 43.892 4.173 10.518 .000 RTP -.063 .058 -.051 -1.081 .280 SA -.171 .078 -.106 -2.196 .029 DSF -.122 .049 -.132 -2.506 .013 ES -.126 .091 -.068 -1.391 .165 CC -.034 .198 -.009 -.170 .865 LMF -.232 .134 -.085 -1.733 .084 Note: Global F = 4.156 (p=.000); R-square = .054; Adjusted R-square = .041; Root MSE = 9.00365; where RTP = Risk-taking proclivity; SA = Social approval; DSF = Desire to Stay with and Pursue Career with Current Firm; ES = Extent of surveillance; CC = Cultural control; LMF = Labor market fluidity Combined Model Model Unstandardized Beta Coefficient Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized Beta Coefficient t Sig. Constant 33.795 4.600 7.347 .000 EE .091 .040 .122 2.288 .023 POS -.222 .055 -.292 -4.073 .000 PSS -.120 .050 -.159 -2.403 .017 RTP -.053 .053 -.043 -1.003 .316 SA -.116 .071 -.072 -1.630 .104 DSF .001 .046 .001 .014 .989 ES .174 .092 .093 1.889 .060 CC .144 .181 .037 .796 .426 LMF .109 .126 .040 .861 .390 Note: Global F = 14.515 (p=.000); R-square = .230; Adjusted R-square = .214; Root MSE = 8.14854

PAGE 111

101TABLE 11 Model Comparison using New SSB Measure Final Model from Dissertation Model Unstandardized Beta Coefficient Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized Beta Coefficient t Sig. Constant 2.963 .100 29.575 .000 EE .005 .002 .186 3.305 .001 POS -.004 .002 -.126 -1.685 .093 PSS .001 .002 .051 .732 .464 Note: Global F = 12.157 (p=.000); R-square = .076; Adjusted R-square = .070; Root MSE = .27118 Harris and Ogbonna (2006) Model Model Unstandardized Beta Coefficient Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized Beta Coefficient t Sig. Constant 3.399 .159 21.328 .000 RTP -.002 .002 -.050 -1.036 .301 SA -.001 .003 -.018 -.375 .708 DSF -.001 .002 -.029 -.542 .588 ES .003 .003 .040 .811 .418 CC -.008 .008 -.057 -1.100 .272 LMF -.002 .005 -.079 -1.578 .115 Note: Global F = 1.242 (p=.283); R-square = .017; Adjusted R-square = .003; Root MSE = .34389 Combined Model Model Unstandardized Beta Coefficient Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized Beta Coefficient t Sig. Constant 3.011 .189 15.923 .000 EE .005 .002 .162 2.770 .006 POS -.005 .002 -.165 -2.092 .037 PSS .001 .002 .025 .342 .732 RTP -.002 .002 -.046 -.978 .328 SA .001 .003 .011 .220 .826 DSF .001 .002 .042 .770 .442 ES .006 .004 .089 1.640 .102 CC -.004 .007 -.025 -.499 .618 LMF -.001 .005 -.008 -.164 .870 Note: Global F = 3.833 (p=.000); R-square = .073; Adjusted R-square = .054; Root MSE = .33501

PAGE 112

102 REFERENCES Adelmann, P. K. (1996), “Emotional Labor as a Potential Source of Job Stress,” In S. L. Sauter and L. R. Murphy (Eds.), Organizational Risk Factors for Job Stress 371381, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Aldrich, H. and D. Herk er (1977), “Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure,” The Academy of Management Review 2(2): 217 Anderson, J.C. and D. W. Gerbing (1988), “S tructural Equation Modelin g in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach,” Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411-423. Armstrong, S. J. and T. S. Overton (1977) “Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Survey,” Journal of Marketing 14(3): 396-402. Armstrong-Stassen, M., J. Mantler and M. Ho rsburgh. (2001). “The Impact of Hospital Amalgamation on the Job Attitudes of Nurses,” Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 18(3): 149-162. Arnold, K. A. and J. Barling (2003), “Prostitution: An Illust ration of Occupational Stress in ‘Dirty Work’,” In M. F. Dollard, A. H. Winefield and H. R. Winefield (Eds.), Occupational Stress in the Service Professions 261-280, London, UK: Taylor and Francis. Babakus, E., D. Cravens, M. Johnston, and W. Moncrief (1999), “The Role of Emotional Exhaustion in Sales Force Attitude and Behavior Relationships,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27: 58-70. Babin, B. J. and J. S. Boles (1998), “Empl oyee Behavior in a Service Environment: A Model and Test of Potential Diffe rences Between Men and Women,” Journal of Marketing 62(2): 77-91. Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny (1986), “The Mo derator-Media tor Variable Di stinction in Social Psychological Research: Concep tual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 11731182. Barrick, M. R. and M. K. Mount (1991), “The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” Personnel Psychology 44(1): 1-26.

PAGE 113

103 Baruch-Feldman, C., E. Brondol o, D. Ben-Dayan and J. Schwarz (2002), “Sources of Social Support and Burnout, Job Satisfaction, and Productivity,” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7: 84-93. Bateson, J. (1985), “Perceived Cont rol and the Service Encounter,” in Service Encounter: Managing Employee/Customer Intera ction in Service Businesses J. Czepiel, M. Solomon and C. Surprenant, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 67-82. Bennett, R. J. and S. L. Robinson (2000), “Development of a Measure of Workplace Deviance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3): 349-360. Bettencourt, L. A., K. P. Gwinner and M. L. Meuter (2001), “A Comparison of Attitude, Personality, and Knowledge Predictors of Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behaviors,” Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1): 29-41. Bettencourt, L. A. and K. Gwinner (1996), “C ustomization of the Se rvice Experience: The Role of the Frontline Employee,” International journal of Service Industry Management 7(2): 3. Bitner, M. J. (1992), “Servicescapes: The Im pact of Physical Su rroundings on Customers and Employees,” Journal of Marketing 56 (April), 57-71. Bitner, M. J. (1990), "Evaluating Servi ce Encounters: The Ef fects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses," Journal of Marketing 54 (2): 69-82. Bitner, Mary Jo, B. H. Booms, and L. A. Mohr (1994), “Critical Service Encounters: The Employee’s Viewpoint,” Journal of Marketing 58 (4), 95-111. Bowen, D. E. and B. Schneider (1985), “Boundary-Spanning-Role Employees and the Service Encounter: Some Guidelines for Management and Research,” In J. A. Czepiel, M. Solomon and C. F. Surprenant (Eds.), The Service Encounter: Managing Employee/Customer Intera ction in Service Businesses 127-147, Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company. Boye, M. W. and J. W. Jones (1997), “Org anizational Culture and Employee Counterproductivity,” In R. A. Giacalone and J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations 172-184, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Boye, M. and K. Slora (1993), “The Severi ty and Prevalence of Deviant Employee Activity within Supermarkets,” Journal of Business and Psychology 8: 245-253. Boyer, S. and D. R. Edmondson (2006), “Perceived Supervisory Support: A MetaAnalytic Review,” Academy of Marketi ng Science Conference San Antonio, TX Caudron, S. (1995), “Figh ting the Enemy Within,” Industrial Week 36-39.

PAGE 114

104 Chung-Herrera, B. G., N. Goldschmidt a nd K. D. Hoffman (2004), “Customer and Employee Views of Critical Service Incidents,” Journal of Services Marketing 18(4/5): 241-254. Churchill, G. A. and P. J. Peter (1984), “R esearch Design Effects on the Reliability of Rating Scales: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research 21(4): 360376. Colbert, A. E., M. K. Mount, J. K. Harter, L. A. Witt and M. R. Barrick (2004), “Interactive Effects of Pe rsonality and Perceptions of the Work Situation on Workplace Deviance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 89(4): 599-609. Cordes, C. L. and T. W. Dougherty (1993), “A Review and an Integration of Research on Job Burnout,” Academy of Management Review 18(4): 621-656. Cropanzano, R., J. Howes, A. Grandey a nd P. Toth (1997), “The Relationship of Organizational Politics and Support to Work Behaviors, Attitudes, and Stress,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 22: 159-180. Cropanzano, R., D. E. Rupp and Z. S. Byrn e (2003), “The Relationship of Emotional Exhaustion to Work Attitudes, Job Performance, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors,” Journal of Applied Psychology 88(1): 160-169. Digman, J. M. and N. K. Takemoto-Chock ( 1981), “Factors in the Natural Language of Personality: Re-analysis, Comparison and Interpretation of Six Major Studies,” Multivariate Behavioral Research 16(2): 149-170. Edmondson, D. R. and S. L. Boyer (2008) “Examining the Boundary Spanning Role Through a Meta-Analytic Review of Perceived Supervisory Support,” National Conference in Sales Management Dallas, TX Edmondson, D. R. and R. J. Riggle (2005), “T he Effects of Percei ved Organizational Support on Boundary Versus Non-Boundary Spanning Employees: A MetaAnalytic Review,” Society of Marketing Advances San Antonio, TX. Eisenberger, R., F. Stinglhamb er, C. Vandenberghe, I. L. Sucharski and L. Rhoades (2002), “Perceived Supervisor Support: Contributions to Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Retention,” Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (3): 565573. Eisenberger, R., P. Lynch, J. Aselage a nd S. Rohdieck (2004), “Who Takes the Most Revenge? Individual Differences in Ne gative Reciprocity Norm Endorsement,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30(6): 787-799.

PAGE 115

105 Eisenberger, R., S. Armeli, B. Rexwinkel, P. D. Lynch and L. Rhoades (2001), “Reciprocation of Perceive d Organizational Support,” Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1): 42-51. Eisenberger, R., R. Huntington, S. Hutc hison and D. Sowa (1986), “Perceived Organizational Support,” Journal of Applied Psychology 71(3): 500-507. Emerson, R. M. and K. S. Cook (1978), "Pow er, Equity and Commitment in Exchange Networks," American Sociological Review 43(5): 721-39. Fisher, R. J. (1993), “Social De sirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning,” Journal of Consumer Research 20(September): 303-315. Fiske, D. W. (1949), “Consistency of the Factorial Structures of Personality Ratings from Different Sources,” Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology 44: 329-344. Fornell, C. and D. F. Larcker (1981). "S tructural Equation Mode ls with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics," Journal of Marketing Research 18(3): 382-388. Goldberg, L. R. (1993), “The Structur e of Phenotypic Personality Traits,” American Psychologist 48: 26-34. Goldberg, L. R. (1992), “The Development of Markers for the Big-Five Factor Structure,” Psychological Assessment 4: 26-42. Gouldner, A. W. (1960), “The Norm of Reciprocity,” American Sociological Review 25, 165-167. Grnroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Competition, Massachusetts: Maxwell MacMillan. Grnroos, C. (1983), Strategic Management and Mar keting in the Service Sector Marketing Science Institute Working Pa per Series, Report No. 83-104, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Scie nce Institute. Hair, J. E., R. P. Bush, and D. J. Ortinau (2006), Marketing Research: Within a Changing Information Environment New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Halbesleben, J. R. B. and M. R. Buckle y (2004), “Burnout in Or ganizational Life,” Journal of Management 30(6): 859-879. Hansen, J. D. (2006), The Relationship Development Process in a Retail Context Doctoral Dissertation, University of Alabama.

PAGE 116

106 Harris, L. C. and E. Ogbonna (2006), “Service Sabotage: A Study of Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34(4): 543-558. Harris, L. C. and E. Ogbonna (2002) “Exploring Service Sabotage,” Journal of Service Research 4(3): 163-183. Hartline, M. D. and O. C. Ferrell (1996), “The Management of Customer-Contact Service Employees: An Empiri cal Investigation,” Journal of Marketing 60: 52-70. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989), “Conservation of Re sources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress,” The American Psychologist 44: 513-524. Hobfoll, S. E. (1988), Stress, Culture, and Community New York: Plenum. Hollinger, R. C. and J. P. Clark (1983), Theft by Employees Lexington, MA: Lexington. Hong, S. C. and Y. J. J. Goo (2004), “A Causal Model of Consumer Loyalty in Professional Service Firm s: An Empirical Study,” International Journal of Management 21(4): 531-540. Howard, D. J. and C. Gengler (2001), “Emotional Contagion Effects of Product Attitudes,” Journal of Consumer Research 28: 189-201. Hu, L. and P. M. Bentler (1999), “Cutoff Crite ria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives,” Structural Equation Modeling, 6 1-55. Hurley, R. F. (1998), “Customer Service Be havior in Retail Settings: A Study of the Effect of Service Pr ovider Personality,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 26(2): 115-127. Jaworski, B. J. and D. J. MacInnis (1989), “Marketing Jobs and Management Controls: Toward a Framework,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (November): 406-419. John, O. P. and S. Srivastava (1999), “T he Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives,” Handbook of Personality New York, The Guilford Press: 102-138. Judge, T. A. and A. Erez (2007), “Interacti on and Intersection: The Constellation of Emotional Stability and Extraversion in Predicting Personality,” Personnel Psychology 60(3): 573-596. Judge, T. A., B. A. Scott and R. Ilies ( 2006), “Hostility, Job Attitu des, and Workplace Deviance: Test of a Multilevel Model,” Journal of Applied Psychology 91(1): 10.

PAGE 117

107 Lee, R. T. and B. E. Ashforth (1996), “A Me ta-Analytic Examination of the Correlates of the Three Dimensions of Job Burnout,” Journal of Applied Psychology 81(2): 123-133. Li, F., P. Harmer, T. Duncan, S. Duncan, A. Acock and S. Boles (1998), “Approaches to Testing Interaction Effects using St ructural Equation Modeling Methodology,” Multivariate Behavioral Research 33(1): 1-39. Lynch, P., R. Eisenberger and S. Arme li (1999), Perceived Or ganizational Support: Inferior Versus Superior Pe rformance by Wary Employees, Journal of Applied Psychology 84: 467-483. Kerlinger, F. and H. Lee (2000), Foundations of Behavioral Research, London: Thompson Learning. Kottke, J. L. and C. E. Sharafinski (1 988) “Measuring Perceived Supervisory and Organizational Support.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 48, 10751079. MarketTools.com (2008), “The Market Re search Industry’s First Quality-Assured Sample,” Accessed 8 April 2008 at http://www.markettools.com. Maslach, C. and S. E. Jackson (1981), “The Measurement of Expe rienced Burnout,” Journal of Occupational Behavior 2(2): 99-113. McClave, J. T., P. G. Be nson and T. Sincich (2001), Statistics for Business and Economics Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. McNeilly, K. M. and F. A. Russ (1992), “T he Moderating Effect of Sales Force Performance on Relationships Involving Antecedents of Turnover,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 12(1): 9-21. Mendenhall, W. and T. Sincich (1996), A Second Course in Statistics: Regression Analysis Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Meyer, J. P. and N. J. Allen (1991), “A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment,” Human Resource Management Review, 1 (1): 6198. Moore, J. E. (2000), “Why is This Happening: A Causal Attribution Approach to Work Exhaustion Consequences,” Academy of Management Review 25(2): 335-349. Mowday, R. T., L. W. Port er and R. M. Steers (1982), Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitmen t, absenteeism, and turnover San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

PAGE 118

108 Mulki, J. P., F. Jaramillo and W. B. Locander (2006), “Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational Deviance: Can the Right Job and a Leader’s Style Make a Difference?,” Journal of Business Research 59: 1222-1230. Murphy, K. R. (1993), Honesty in the Workplace Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Murphy, K. R. (1987), “Detect ing Infrequent Deception,” Journal of Applied Psychology 72: 611-614. Narayanan, L., S. Menon and P. E. Spect or (1999), “Stress in the Workplace: A Comparison of Gender and Occupations,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 20: 63-73. Noe, R. A., B. D. Steffy and A. E. Barb er (1988), “An Investigat ion of the Factors Influencing Employees’ Willingness to Accept Mobility Opportunities,” Personnel Psychology, 41(Autumn): 559-580. Norman, W. T. (1963), “Toward and Adequa te Taxonomy of Persona lity Attributes: Replicated Factor Structure in Pe er Nomination Personality Ratings,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66: 574-583. Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ping, R. A. (1996), “Latent Variable Interac tion and Quadratic Effect Estimation: A TwoStep Technique using Struct ural Equation Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 119: 166-175. Pugh, D. S. (2001), “Service with a Smile : Emotional Contagion in the Service Encounter,” Academy of Management Journal 44(5): 1018-1027. Raju, P. S. (1980), “Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to Personality, Demographics, and Expl oratory Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (December): 272-282. Rhoades, L. and R. Eisenberger (2002), "Per ceived Organizational Support: A Review of the Literature," Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4): 698-714. Robblee, M. (1998), Confronting the Threat of Organi zational Downsizing: Coping and Health Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Carl eton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Robertson, P. J. (1995), “Involvement in B oundary-Spanning Activity: Mitigating the Relationship between Work Setting and Behavior,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 5(1): 73-98.

PAGE 119

109 Rousseau, D. M. (1990), "New Hire Percep tions of Their Own a nd Their Employer's Obligations: A Study of Ps ychological Contracts," Journal of Organizational Behavior 11(5): 389. Russ, F. A., K. M. McNeilly, J. M. Comer and T. B. Light (1998), “E xploring the Impact of Critical Sales Events, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 18(2): 19–34. Schneider, B. and D. E. Brown (1984), “The Service Organization: Human Resources Management is Crucial,” Organizational Dynamics 21: 39-52. Schwarz, G. (1978), "Estimating the Dimension of a Model," Annals of Statistics, 6(2): 461-464. Schwepker, C. H., Jr., and M. D. Hartlin e (2000), “Managing the Ethical Climate of Customer-Contact Service Employees,” Journal of Service Research 7(4): 377397. Sergeant, A. and S. Frenkel (2000), “When Do Customer Contact Employees Satisfy Customers,” Journal of Service Research 3(1): 18-35. Shanock, L. R. and R. Eisenberger (2006) “When Supervisors Feel Supported: Relationships with Subordinates’ Per ceived Supervisor S upport, Perceived Organizational Support, and Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 91(3): 689-695. Shiron, A. (1989), “Burnout in Work Organizations,” in International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Eds. Cary L. Cooper and Ivan T. Robertson, Chichister, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 25-48. Singh, J. (2000), “Performance Productivity and Quality of Frontline Employees in Service Organizations,” Journal of Marketing 64(2): 15-33. Singh, J., J. R. Goolsby and G. K. Rhoads (1994), “Behavioral and Psychological Consequences of Boundary Spanning Burnout for Customer Service Representatives,” Journal of Marketing Research 31(November): 558-569. Singh, J., W. Verbeke and G. K. Rhoads ( 1996), “Do Organizational Practices Matter in Role Stress Processes? A Study of Direct and Moderati ng Effects for Marketing Oriented Boundary Spanners,” Journal of Marketing 60 (July): 69-86. Slora, K. B. (1991), “An Empirical Approach to Determining Employee Deviance Base Rates,” In J. Jones (Ed.), Preemployment Honest Tes ting: Current Research and Future Directions Westport, CT: Quorum.

PAGE 120

110 Slora, K. B. (1989), “An Empirical Approach to Determining Employee Deviance Base Rates,” Journal of Business and Psychology 4: 199-219. Smith, G. M. (1967), “Usefulness of Peer Ratings of Personality in Educational Research,” Journal of Educational and Psychological Measurement 27: 967-984. Spector, P. E., S. Fox, L. M. Penney, K. Br uursema, A. Goh and S. Kessler (2006), “The Dimensionality of Counterproductivity: Are All Counterproductive Behaviors Created Equal,” Journal of Vocational Behavior 68: 446-460. Spector, P. E. and S. Fox (2005), “A Model of Counterproductive Work Behavior,” In S. Fox and P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive Workplace Behavior: Investigation of Actors and Targets (pp. 151-174), Washington, D.C.: APA. Sobel, M. E. (1982), “Asymptotic Confidence Inte rvals for Indirect Eff ects in Structural Equation Models,” In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1982 (pp. 290-312), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stamper, C. L. and M. C. Johlke (2003), “The Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on the Relationship between Bounda ry Spanner Role Stress and Work Outcomes,” Journal of Management 29(4): 569-588. Stinglhamber, F. and C. Vandenberghe (2004), “Favorable Job Conditions and Perceived Support: The Role of Organi zations and Supervisors,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34(7): 1470-1493. Stock, R. M. (2006), “Interorganizationa l Teams as Boundary Spanners Between Supplier and Customer Companies,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34(4): 588-599. Thompson, B. M. and L. Cavallaro (2007), “Gender, Work-Based Support and Family Outcomes,” Stress and Health 23(2): 73-85. Verbeke, W. (1997), “Individual Differences in Emotional Contagion of Salespersons: Its Effects on Performance and Burnout,” Psychology and Marketing 14(6): 617636. Weaven, S. K., C. Herington, and R. P. Dant (2008), “Franchisee Personality Traits as Predictors of Franchise-Franchisee Relationship Strength,” American Marketing Association Winter Conference Austin, TX. Wright, T. A. and R. Cropanzano (1998), “E motional Exhaustion as a Predictor of Job Performance and Voluntary Turnover,” Journal of Applied Psychology 83(3): 486-493.

PAGE 121

111 Yoon, M. H., J. H. Seo and T. S. Yoon ( 2004), “Effects of Contact Employee Supports on Critical Employee Responses and Customer Service Evaluation,” The Journal of Services Marketing 18(5): 395-412. Yoon, M. H., S. E. Beatty and J. Suh (2001), “The Effect of Work Climate on Critical Employee and Customer Outcomes: An Employee-Level Analysis,” International Journal of Service Industry Management 12(5): 500-521.

PAGE 122

112 APPENDICES

PAGE 123

113APPENDIX A Possible Service Sabotage Items 7-point scale where 1 = Never to 7 = Daily How often have you done each of the following… 1. Stolen customer’s possessions? and ** 2. Gossiped about a customer? 3. Started negative rumors about your organization? 4. Sexually harassed a customer? ***** 5. Purposely overcharged on serv ices provided to customer? **** 6. Purposely under-rang a customer’s purchase? **** 7. Intentionally made errors? 8. Covered up mistakes made? ***** 9. Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked? *, ** and *** 10. Endangered the customer by not following safety procedures? ***** 11. Acted foolishly in front of customers? ***** 12. Verbally abused customers? 13. Shown favoritism to certain customers? ***** 14. Talked with a co-worke r instead of worked? ***** 15. Was rude or nasty to customers? 16. Insulted customers? 17. Lied to customers about important information? ***** 18. Placed a false order? ** 19. Lost important customer files and papers? ***** 20. Disclosed secret information ab out organization to customers? ** 21. Argued with customers? 22. Intentionally worked carelessly? ***** 23. Pretended to work to av oid helping a customer? ***** 24. Blamed the customer when something went wrong? 25. Took personal property of customers? **** 26. Said something hurtful to the customer? 27. Cursed the customer? ** 28. Told the customer about the lousy place where you work? 29. Publicly embarrassed the customer? ** 30. Lied to a customer? ***** 31. Left a mess unnecessarily where customers can see it? ** 32. Failed to give customers required information? ***** 33. Neglected to say thank you to customer? ***** 34. Took revenge on rude customers? ***

PAGE 124

114APPENDIX A (CONTINUED) 35. Hurried customers when desired? *** 36. Showed off in front of customers? *** 37. Deliberately messed things up wh en customers aren’t looking? *** 38. Ignored a customer? 39. Laughed at a customer? *** 40. Ignored company service rules to make things easier for you? *** 41. Deliberately mistreated a customer? *** 42. Made an ethnic, religious, or racial rem ark or joke in front of a customer? ** Note: Adapted from Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh and Kessler (2006) ** Adapted from Bennett and Robinson (2000) *** Adapted from Harris and Ogbonna (2006) **** Adapted from Hollinger and Clark (1983) ***** New Item Italics represent items dropped during pilot study. Bold represents items dropped during final study.

PAGE 125

115APPENDIX A (CONTINUED) Harris and Ogbonna’s (2006) Service Sabotage Measure 7-point scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree 1. People here take revenge on rude customers. 2. People here hurry customers when they want to. 3. It is common practice in this indu stry to “get back” at customers. 4. People here ignore company service rules to make things easier for themselves. 5. Sometimes, people here “get at customer s” to make the rest of us laugh. 6. People here never show off in front of customers. (R) 7. Sometimes, when customers aren’t looking, people here deliberately mess things up. 8. At this outlet, customers are never deliberately mistreated. (R) 9. People here slow down serv ice when they want to.

PAGE 126

116APPENDIX B Emotional Exhaustion, Support and Personality Measures Employees’ Emotional Exhaustion (Adapted from Maslach and Jackson 1981) 7-point scale where 1 = Never and 7 = Very Often 1. I feel emotionally drained from my work. 2. I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the job. 3. I feel burned out from my work. 4. I feel frustrated by my job. 5. I feel used up at the end of the workday. 6. I feel like I’m at the end of my rope. 7. I feel I am working too hard on my job. 8. Working with people all day is really a strain for me. 9. Working directly with people puts too much stress on me. Perceived Organizational Support (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002) 7-point scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree 1. The organization values my c ontribution to its well being. 2. The organization fails to appreciate any extra effort from me. (R) 3. The organization would ignore any complaint from me. (R) 4. The organization really car es about my well being. 5. Even if I did the best job possible, th e organization would fail to notice. (R) 6. The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work. 7. The organization shows very little concern for me. (R) 8. The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work.

PAGE 127

117APPENDIX B (CONTINUED) Perceived Supervisory Support (Kottke and Sharafinski 1988) 7-point scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree 1. My supervisor values my cont ribution to its well being. 2. My supervisor fails to appreciate any extra effort from me. (R) 3. My supervisor would ignore any complaint from me. (R) 4. My supervisor really cares about my well being. 5. Even if I did the best job possible, my supervisor would fail to notice. (R) 6. My supervisor cares about my general satisfaction at work. 7. My supervisor shows very little concern for me. (R) 8. My supervisor takes pride in my accomplishments at work. Extraversion (Adapted from Weaven, Heringt on and Dant 2008; Goldberg 1992) 7-item scale where 1 = Very Ina ccurate and 7 = Very Accurate 1. Am quiet around strangers (R) 2. Keep in the background (R) 3. Don’t like to draw attention to myself (R) 4. Talk to a lot of diffe rent people at parties 5. Don’t talk a lot (R) 6. Don’t mind being the ce nter of attention 7. Have little to say (R) 8. I am the life of the party 9. Start conversations 10. Feel comfortable around people

PAGE 128

118APPENDIX B (CONTINUED) Imagination/Intellect (Adapted from Weaven, Heringt on and Dant 2008; Goldberg 1992) 7-item scale where 1 = Very Ina ccurate and 7 = Very Accurate 1. Am quick to understand things 2. Am feel of ideas 3. Have excellent ideas 4. Do not have a good imagination (R) 5. Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas (R) 6. Have a vivid imagination 7. Spend time reflecting on things 8. Have a rich vocabulary 9. Use difficult words 10. Am not interested in abstract ideas (R)

PAGE 129

119APPENDIX C Harris and Ogbonna (2006) Measures Employees’ Risk-Taking Proclivity 1. I am the kind of person who would try any new product once. 2. When I go to a restaurant, I feel it is safer to order dishes that I am familiar with. (R) 3. I am cautious in trying new/different products. (R) 4. Even for an important date, I wouldn’t be wary of trying somewhere new. 5. I would rather stick with a brand I usually buy than try something new. (R) 6. I never buy something I don’t know about at the risk of making a mistake. (R) 7. I will buy only well-established brands. (R) 8. I enjoy taking chances in buying unfamiliar brands. Employees’ Need for Social Approval by Work Colleagues 1. It’s very important to me that my work colleagues approve the way I do my job. 2. It’s not important to me that my work colleagues approve the way I talk to customers. (R) 3. It’s very important to me that my work colleagues approve how I get on with the manager. 4. It’s not important to me that my work colleagues approve the way I organize my work. (R) 5. It’s very important to me that my wo rk colleagues approve how quickly I work. Employees’ Desire to Stay With and Pursue Career in Current Firm 1. I have put too much into this job to consid er changing now. 2. Changing jobs now would be difficult for me to do. 3. Too much of my life woul d be disrupted if I were to change my job. 4. It would be costly for me to change my job now. 5. Changing jobs now would require co nsiderable personal sacrifice. 6. I feel a sense of pride and accomplishment as a result of the type of work I do. 7. I very much dislike the work I am doing for this firm. (R) 8. My job performance improves form year to year. 9. My job offers me a career path that I am pleased with. Employees’ Perceptions of the Extent of Surveillance 1. My line manager monitors the extent to which I follow established procedures. 2. My line manager evaluates the procedures I use to accomplish a given task. 3. My line manager modifies my procedures when desired results are not obtained. 4. I receive no feedback on my performance. (R)

PAGE 130

120APPENDIX C (CONTINUED) Employees’ Perceptions of the Extent of Cultural Control 1. The major satisfactions in my life do not come from my job. 2. The work I do on this job is very meaningful to me. 3. I feel that I should take credit or blame for the results of my work. Employees’ Perceptions of Labor Market Fluidity 1. If I left my current job, I could easily get another. 2. Given my experience, there are other jobs I could do. 3. There are few opportunities for promo tion outside of this firm. (R)

PAGE 131

121APPENDIX D Testing of the Regression Assumptions and Influential Observation Analysis Assumption #1: Constant Error Varian ce for All Levels of the Independent Variables The constant error variance assumption tests if the model is homoscedastic. In order to determine if this assumption is satisfied, plots of the residuals will be completed in which the residual is on the y-axis and the predicted dependent variable, service sabotage behavior, is on the x-ax is. If the plots reveal hetero scedasticity (e.g. plot has a cone, funnel, or football shape), then a vari ance-stabilizing transf ormation will be made to the dependent variable (y), service sabotage behavior. For example, if the plot shows a poisson distribution, then the appropriat e variance-stabilizing transformation is y. If the plot shows a binomial proportion dist ribution, then the transformation is 1siny. If the plot shows a multiplicative distribution, th en the appropriate transformation is log y (Mendenhall and Sincich 1996). Assumption #2: Mean Error of 0 The mean error of 0 assumption occurs wh en the model is misspecified. This is usually due to terms being omitted from the model. In order to check model misspecification, a plot of the residuals will be completed where the residual is on the yaxis and the independent variable is on the x-axis. If a curvilinear pattern is observed in the plot, then including a curvature term for that independent variable in the model is necessary. In order to determine what type of curvature best fits the model, three curvature types will be tested. These types include the usage of a squared term for the independent variable, the usage of 1 divided by the independent variable, or the usage of the log of the independent variable (M endenhall and Sincic h 1996). The decision regarding what curvature term is best will be based on what model has the best fit. In other words, what model has the lowest sta ndard deviation and th e highest adjusted Rsquare. If the difference be tween the model without the curvilinear term and the model with the curvilinear term is small, using the model without the curvilinear term will be used as it will give a more parsimonious model which is easier to interpret.

PAGE 132

122APPENDIX D (CONTINUED) Assumption #3: Errors are Normally Distributed In order to test the assumption, errors are normally distributed, a histogram of the residuals will be used. If it is shown in th is histogram that the distribution is not too badly skewed, then no modifications will be necessary and this assumption will be deemed reasonably satisfied. This is becau se this assumption is robust in nature; therefore, the assumption holds tr ue even if the data is sli ghtly skewed. Although there is a statistical test which can determine if this assumption is satisfied, this test will not be used in this dissertation. The reason is that this test, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality, is extremely sensitive to any type of skewness which may lead the test to show that the data is non-normal even when the da ta is only slightly sk ewed (Mendenhall and Sincich 1996). Because of this, it has been decided that only the histogram will be utilized to examine if this assumption is satisfied. Assumption #4: Errors are Independent Since the data being collected in this di ssertation is not time-series in nature, the assumption of independent errors is not an issue; therefore, this assumption is satisfied. No tests are needed to satisfy this assumption. Influential Observation Analysis After testing the assumptions and creating th e initial model, a test for influential observations or outliers will be completed usi ng two different tests. These tests include the Leverage Test and Cook’s Distance. Outliers or influent ial observations are observations which do not fall within three standa rd deviations of the mean. The first test which will be run is the Leverage Test. This test creates leverage values which show the influence that each observation has. The final test used to look for influential observations is Cook’s Distance. This test is a combination of the leverage and jackknife methods. Any Cook’s Distance value close to 1 is considered an influential observation (Mendenhall and Sincich 1996). After running th ese three tests, a decision needs to be made regarding what to do with the influential observations. First of all, each influential observation will be checked to make sure no proble ms with data entry exist. If it is found that no data entry errors exist in regards to the influential observations, then these influential observations will be eliminated from the data set.

PAGE 133

123APPENDIX E Pilot Study Factor Analysis Results Table 12 Service Sabotage Behavior 25 items; = 0.90 Statement N Min Max Mean St. Dev Factor Analysis* 1 2 3 Gossiped about a customer? 180 1 7 3.32 1.66 .71 Started negative rumors about your organization? 180 1 5 1.50 0.94 .67 Covered up mistakes made? 180 1 7 2.78 1.41 .80 Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked? 180 1 7 2.71 1.41 .57 Showed favoritism to certain customers? 180 1 7 3.28 1.57 .70 Talked with a co-worker instead of worked? 180 1 7 3.64 1.61 .75 Pretended to work to avoid helping a customer? 180 1 7 2.59 1.54 .71 Hurried customers when desired? 180 1 7 2.70 1.42 .66 Ignored company service rules to make things easier for you? 180 1 7 2.58 1.44 .74 Neglected to say thank you to customer? 180 1 7 2.17 1.23 .42 .48 Purposely overcharged on services provided to customer?** 180 1 6 1.33 0.85 .75 Intentionally made errors? 180 1 6 1.54 0.97 .81 Lied to customers about important information? 180 1 7 1.57 1.07 .63 Failed to give customers required information? 180 1 6 1.77 1.08 .62 Deliberately messed things up when customers aren’t looking? 180 1 6 1.63 1.05 .75 Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark or joke in front of a customer? 180 1 5 1.36 0.88 .77 Sexually harassed a customer? 180 1 6 1.17 0.69 .66 Was rude or nasty to customers? 180 1 4 1.39 0.79 .51 Disclosed secret information about organization to customers? 180 1 6 1.26 0.76 .77 Blamed the customer when something went wrong? 180 1 4 1.44 0.81 .55 Took personal property of customers? 180 1 7 1.22 0.78 .91 Told customer about the lousy place where you work? 180 1 7 1.44 1.02 .85 Publicly embarrassed the customer? 180 1 7 1.32 0.94 .88 Took revenge on rude customers? 180 1 5 1.44 0.96 .47 Deliberately mistreated a custom er? 180 1 7 1.29 0.82 .80 Three factor solution; Eigenvalues = 9.889, 3.795, 1.165 (61.81% variance explained); Labels: 1 = Minor Offense, 2 = Medium Offense, 3 = Major Offense. ** Changed item to “Purposely incorrectly charged a customer’s purchase” for Final Study

PAGE 134

124APPENDIX E (CONTINUED) Table 13 Emotional Exhaustion 9 items; = 0.92 Statement N Min Max Mean St. Dev. PCA* I feel emotionally drained from my work. 182 1 7 3.19 1.58 .76 I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the job. 182 1 7 3.53 1.64 .60 I feel burned out from my work. 182 1 7 3.54 1.58 .66 I feel frustrated by my job. 182 1 7 3.59 1.54 .72 I feel used up at the end of the workday. 182 1 7 3.66 1.58 .65 I feel like I’m at the end of my rope. 182 1 7 2.69 1.69 .67 I feel I am working too hard on my job. 182 1 7 3.44 1.54 .46 Working with people all day is really a strain for me. 182 1 7 3.01 1.55 .44 Working directly with people puts too much stress on me. 182 1 7 2.77 1.42 .57 Eigenvalue = 5.526 with 61.4% variance explained. Table 14 Perceived Organizational Support 8 items; = 0.91 Statement N Min Max Mean St. Dev PCA* The organization values my contribution to its well being. 185 1 7 5.17 1.44 .76 The organization fails to appreciate any extra effort from me. (R) 185 1 7 4.83 1.60 .72 The organization would ignore any complaint from me. (R) 185 1 7 5.24 1.46 .77 The organization really cares about my well being. 185 1 7 4.96 1.51 .85 Even if I did the best job possible, the organization would fail to notice. (R) 185 1 7 5.17 1.58 .78 The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work. 185 1 7 4.94 1.57 .81 The organization shows very little concern for me. (R) 185 1 7 5.15 1.63 .82 The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work. 185 1 7 5.01 1.48 .77 Eigenvalue = 4.929 with 61.62% variance explained.

PAGE 135

125APPENDIX E (CONTINUED) Table 15 Perceived Supervisory Support 8 items; = 0.93 Statement N Min Max Mean St. Dev PCA* My supervisor values my contribution to its well being. 183 1 7 5.14 1.41 .75 My supervisor fails to appreciate any extra effort from me. (R) 183 1 7 5.09 1.62 .84 My supervisor would ignore any complaint from me. (R) 183 1 7 5.33 1.41 .79 My supervisor really cares about my well being. 183 1 7 5.06 1.60 .81 Even if I did the best job possible, my supervisor would fail to notice. (R) 183 1 7 5.24 1.53 .84 My supervisor cares about my general satisfaction at work. 183 1 7 5.07 1.50 .84 My supervisor shows very little concern for me. (R) 183 1 7 5.14 1.65 .88 My supervisor takes pride in my accomplishments at work. 183 1 7 5.04 1.48 .76 Eigenvalue = 5.289 with 66.11% variance explained. Table 16 Extraversion 10 items; = 0.90 Statement N Min Max Mean St. Dev PCA* Am quiet around strangers (R) 182 1 7 4.30 1.74 .72 Keep in the background (R) 182 1 7 4.99 1.46 .83 Don’t like to draw attention to myself (R) 182 1 7 4.25 1.66 .63 Talk to a lot of different people at parties 182 1 7 5.10 1.36 .74 Don’t talk a lot (R) 182 1 7 5.26 1.54 .75 Don’t mind being the center of attention 182 1 7 4.98 1.51 .75 Have little to say (R) 182 1 7 5.43 1.37 .74 I am the life of the party 182 1 7 4.40 1.58 .73 Start conversations 182 1 7 5.37 1.26 .76 Feel comfortable around people 182 1 7 5.52 1.25 .63 Eigenvalue = 5.331 with 53.31% variance explained.

PAGE 136

126APPENDIX E (CONTINUED) Table 17 Imagination 10 items; = 0.81 Statement N Min Max Mean St. Dev Factor Analysis* Am quick to understand things 182 1 7 5.45 1.14 .58 Am full of ideas 182 2 7 5.51 1.15 .71 Have excellent ideas 182 1 7 5.50 1.17 .78 Do not have a good imagination (R) 182 1 7 5.29 1.65 .65 Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas (R) 182 1 7 5.12 1.37 .74 Have a vivid imagination 182 1 7 5.48 1.33 .70 Spend time reflecting on things 182 1 7 5.40 1.38 .65 Have a rich vocabulary 182 1 7 4.86 1.35 .82 Use difficult words 182 1 7 4.18 1.56 .77 Am not interested in abstract ideas (R) 182 1 7 4.93 1.43 .74 3 Factor Solution; Eigenvalues = 5.289, 1.255; and 1.105 with a total of 63.89% variance explained; Rotated using Varimax

PAGE 137

127APPENDIX F Final Study Factor Analysis Results Table 18 Service Sabotage Behavior 20 items; = 0.83 Statement N Min Max Mean St. Dev Factor Analysis* 1a 2a 3a Covered up mistakes made? 490 1 7 1.87 1.16 .60 Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked? 490 1 7 1.90 1.16 .57 Showed favoritism to certain customers? 490 1 7 2.36 1.50 .68 Talked with a co-worker instead of worked? 490 1 7 2.62 1.39 .62 Failed to give customers required information? 490 1 7 1.63 .97 .56 Pretended to work to avoid helping a customer? 490 1 7 1.55 1.00 .58 Hurried customers when desired? 490 1 7 2.03 1.25 .68 Ignored company service rules to make things easier for you? 490 1 7 1.82 1.17 .69 Neglected to say thank you to customer? 490 1 7 1.75 .96 .41 Gossiped about a customer? 490 1 7 2.51 1.50 .73 b Blamed the customer when something went wrong? 490 1 5 1.47 .87 .49b Purposely incorrectly charged a customer’s purchase? 490 1 7 1.16 .59 .77 Lied to customers about important information? 490 1 6 1.18 .57 .67 Deliberately messed things up when customers aren’t looking? 490 1 5 1.14 .49 .76 Started negative rumors about your organization? 490 1 7 1.27 .74 .63b Told customer about the lousy place where you work? 490 1 6 1.29 .75 .59b Sexually harassed a customer? 490 1 4 1.03 .23 .82 Took personal property of customers? 490 1 5 1.07 .40 .76 Deliberately mistreated a custom er? 490 1 7 1.15 .58 .69 Publicly embarrassed the customer? 490 1 6 1.10 .46 .71 Was rude or nasty to customers?** 490 1 5 1.52 .86 Disclosed secret information about organization to customers?** 490 1 5 1.14 .53 Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark or joke in front of a customer?** 490 1 7 1.21 .65 Took revenge on rude customers?** 490 1 7 1.30 .77 Intentionally made errors?** 490 1 6 1.20 .64 Three factor solution; Eigenvalues = 7.108, 2.112 and 1.184 with 52% variance explained (33.916%, 10.160% and 5.981% of variance explained per component) ** Dropped Items a Labels: 1 = Minor Offense, 2 = Medium Offense, 3 = Major Offense b Represents a difference between original classifi cation structure and final classification structure

PAGE 138

128APPENDIX F (CONTINUED) Table 19 Emotional Exhaustion 9 items; = 0.94 Statement N Min Max Mean St. Dev PCA* I feel emotionally drained from my work. 490 1 7 3.48 1.72 .88 I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the job. 490 1 7 3.51 1.69 .86 I feel burned out from my work. 490 1 7 3.60 1.75 .89 I feel frustrated by my job. 490 1 7 3.77 1.69 .85 I feel used up at the end of the workday. 490 1 7 3.88 1.71 .84 I feel like I’m at the end of my rope. 490 1 7 3.00 1.74 .86 I feel I am working too hard on my job. 490 1 7 3.66 1.71 .80 Working with people all day is really a strain for me. 490 1 7 3.00 1.57 .76 Working directly with people puts too much stress on me. 490 1 7 2.89 1.50 .74 Eigenvalue = 6.233 with 69.26% variance explained. Table 20 Perceived Organizational Support 8 items; = 0.95 Statement N Min Max Mean St. Dev PCA* The organization values my contribution to its well being. 490 1 7 4.73 1.70 .86 The organization fails to appreciate any extra effort from me. (R) 490 1 7 4.26 1.94 .84 The organization would ignore any complaint from me. (R) 490 1 7 4.75 1.71 .81 The organization really cares about my well being. 490 1 7 4.41 1.75 .89 Even if I did the best job possible, the organization would fail to notice. (R) 490 1 7 4.54 1.86 .84 The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work. 490 1 7 4.38 1.75 .88 The organization shows very little concern for me. (R) 490 1 7 4.51 1.90 .90 The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work. 490 1 7 4.54 1.70 .86 Eigenvalue = 5.916 with 73.95% variance explained.

PAGE 139

129APPENDIX F (CONTINUED) Table 21 Perceived Supervisory Support 8 items; = 0.97 Statement N Min Max Mean St. Dev PCA* My supervisor values my contribution to its well being. 490 1 7 5.02 1.58 .89 My supervisor fails to appreciate any extra effort from me. (R) 490 1 7 4.82 1.83 .89 My supervisor would ignore any complaint from me. (R) 490 1 7 5.09 1.62 .85 My supervisor really cares about my well being. 490 1 7 4.82 1.67 .92 Even if I did the best job possible, my supervisor would fail to notice. (R) 490 1 7 4.98 1.81 .92 My supervisor cares about my general satisfaction at work. 490 1 7 4.77 1.64 .91 My supervisor shows very little concern for me. (R) 490 1 7 4.97 1.75 .93 My supervisor takes pride in my accomplishments at work. 490 1 7 4.82 1.64 .92 Eigenvalue = 6.539 with 81.742% variance explained. Table 22 Extraversion 10 items; = 0.93 Statement N Min Max Mean St. Dev PCA* Am quiet around strangers (R) 490 1 7 3.74 1.79 .81 Keep in the background (R) 490 1 7 4.06 1.68 .83 Don’t like to draw attention to myself (R) 490 1 7 3.56 1.64 .71 Talk to a lot of different people at parties 490 1 7 4.35 1.75 .81 Don’t talk a lot (R) 490 1 7 4.42 1.77 .80 Don’t mind being the center of attention 490 1 7 4.11 1.75 .78 Have little to say (R) 490 1 7 4.76 1.64 .77 I am the life of the party 490 1 7 3.40 1.61 .75 Start conversations 490 1 7 4.75 1.57 .81 Feel comfortable around people 490 1 7 5.18 1.47 .73 Eigenvalue = 6.08 with 60.80% variance explained.

PAGE 140

130APPENDIX F (CONTINUED) Table 23 Imagination 8 items; = 0.85 Statement N Min Max Mean St. Dev PCA* Am quick to understand things 490 1 7 5.59 1.12 .70 Am full of ideas 490 1 7 5.31 1.22 .85 Have excellent ideas 490 1 7 5.35 1.12 .80 Do not have a good imagination (R) 490 1 7 5.50 1.42 .72 Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas (R) 490 1 7 5.10 1.38 .57 Have a vivid imagination 490 1 7 5.36 1.29 .77 Spend time reflecting on things 490 1 7 5.34 1.21 .52 Have a rich vocabulary 490 1 7 5.15 1.37 .68 Use difficult words** 490 1 7 4.34 1.59 Am not interested in abstract ideas (R)** 490 1 7 4.79 1.37 Eigenvalue = 4.033 with 50.41% variance explained ** Dropped Item

PAGE 141

131APPENDIX G Final Study Inter-Item Correlations Table 24 Emotional Exhaustion EE1 EE2 EE3 EE4 EE5 EE6 EE7 EE8 EE2 .74** EE3 .80** .76** EE4 .74** .71** .77** EE5 .76** .68** .74** .69** EE6 .73** .72** .77** .74** .69** EE7 .66** .61** .68** .65** .67** .62** EE8 .57** .60** .58** .51** .53** .57** .55** EE9 .55** .57** .56** .50** .49** .58** .53** .82** Table 25 Perceived Organizational Support POS1 POS2 POS3 POS4 POS5 POS6 POS7 POS2 .61** POS3 .61** .68** POS4 .78** .67** .63** POS5 .64** .77** .69** .66** POS6 .77** .67** .64** .80** .63** POS7 .72** .75** .72** .77** .78** .74** POS8 .79** .64** .59** .79** .65** .77** .71** Table 26 Perceived Supervisory Support PSS1 PSS2 PSS3 PSS4 PSS5 PSS6 PSS7 PSS2 .73** PSS3 .69** .73** PSS4 .81** .77** .74** PSS5 .75** .86** .75** .80** PSS6 .80** .75** .74** .85** .78** PSS7 .76** .84** .79** .85** .87** .82** PSS8 .83** .79** .71** .84** .82** .85** .80**

PAGE 142

132APPENDIX G (CONTINUED) Table 27 Extraversion EXT1 EXT2 EXT3 EXT4 EXT5 EXT6 EXT7 EXT8 EXT9 EXT2 .65** EXT3 .56** .61** EXT4 .63** .63** .42** EXT5 .62** .66** .51** .59** EXT6 .55** .58** .60** .57** .53** EXT7 .60** .59** .54** .51** .69** .53** EXT8 .54** .59** .50** .61** .53** .65** .45** EXT9 .60** .58** .44** .71** .62** .56** .56** .55** EXT10 .52** .54** .39** .63** .51** .49** .51** .47** .65** Table 28 Imagination IMAG1 IMAG2 IMAG3 IMAG4 IMAG5 IMAG6 IMAG7 IMAG2 .54** IMAG3 .57** .71** IMAG4 .32** .59** .46** IMAG5 .39** .38** .35** .34** IMAG6 .39** .63** .54** .63** .32** IMAG7 .28** .38** .33** .30** .17** .36** IMAG8 .47** .46** .46** .40** .41** .38** .30**

PAGE 143

133APPENDIX H Table 29 Inter-item Correlations for Final S ervice Sabotage Behavior Measure # 2 3 4 5 8 9 13 14 17 23 24 25 28 29 32 33 35 37 40 3 .25** 4 .12** .39** 5 .22** .53** .28** 8 .40** .40** .24** .38** 9 .36** .33** .15** .31** .35** 13 .44** .27** .12** .24** .44** .31** 14 .39** .20** .09* .21** .28** .39** .36** 17 .23** .40** .27** .50** .30** .33** .24** .23** 23 .35** .41** .30** .30** .43** .39** .45** .33** .38** 24 .35** .31** .24** .30** .39** .27** .38** .26** .36** .40** 25 .17** .38** .51** .32** .23** .17** .17** .11* .31** .27** .24** 28 .24** .44** .22** .37** .29** .35** .25** .19** .42** .43** .38** .24** 29 .15** .40** .55** .36** .30** .17** .18** .11* .37** .29** .24** .48** .29** 32 .42** .38** .23** .37** .45** .42** .37** .30** .36** .40** .30** .27** .34** .31** 33 .24** .35** .25** .30** .37** .36** .33** .20** .29** .41** .24** .22** .29** .31** .35** 35 .48** .26** .12** .29** .35** .44** .39** .37** .34** .44** .36** .08 .30** .13** .43** .33** 37 .23** .53** .32** .62** .26** .32** .25** .15** .48** .37** .27** .25** .35** .39** .32** .26** .26** 40 .45** .25** .14** .24** .46** .44** .36** .32** .23** .41** .31** .14** .31* .13** .37** .27** .42** .21** 41 .29** .41** .55** .42** .31** .26** .32** .20** .37** .43** .40** .47** .23** .50** .32** .29** .29** .44** .26**

PAGE 144

134APPENDIX I Measurement Model Note: Dotted line represents the additional it ems in each construct not shown graphically on this measurement model. Each additional item not shown also has an error term associated with it. POS PSS SSB EE POS1 POS7r POS8 POS2r PSS1 PSS2r PSS7r PSS8 EE1 EE2 EE8 EE9 Ext Imag SSB1 SSB2 SSB24 SSB25 Ext1r Ext2r Ext9 Ext10 Imag1 Imag2 Imag7 Imag8 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

PAGE 145

135APPENDIX J Testing of the Regression Assumptions and Influential Observation Analysis Multicollinearity By examining the Pearson’s Correlation Coeffi cients in Table 6, it is evident that multicollinearity is not an issue as none of the correlations between the independent variables exceeded .95. Because of th is, stepwise regression was not needed. Assumption #1: Constant Error Varian ce for All Levels of the Independent Variables In order to check if a variance-stabiliz ing transformation was necessary, a scatter plot was created with the residuals on the y-axis and the predicte d dependent variable, service sabotage behavior, on the x-axis. This plot is shown in the figure below. This figure clearly shows that this assumption is violated. Because the pattern shows a multiplicative distribution, the dependent variable, service sabotage behavior, was transformed using the log y. Scatterplot of Residuals vs. Predicted Value 3.25000 3.00000 2.75000 Unstandardized Predicted Value 0.90000 0.60000 0.30000 0.00000 -0.30000 -0.60000 -0.90000 Unstandardized Residual

PAGE 146

136APPENDIX J (CONTINUED) Assumption #2: Mean Error of 0 In order to determine if this assumption was satisfied, scatter plots were created with the residuals on the y-axis and each of the independent variables (emotional exhaustion, perceived orga nizational support, perceive d supervisory support, extraversion, and imagination). No patterns were evident in these five scatter plots; therefore, the model was not misspeci fied and no curvature is necessary. Assumption #3: Errors are Normally Distributed By examining a histogram of the residuals (see below), it was determined that this assumption was reasonably satisfied. Because this assumption is robust in nature, the assumption holds true even if the data is slightly skewed. Histogram of Standardized Residuals 3.00000 2.00000 1.00000 0.00000 -1.00000 -2.00000 -3.00000 Standardized Residual 40 30 20 10 0 Frequency Assumption #4: Errors are Independent The last assumption was deemed satisfied since the data being collected is not time series in nature.

PAGE 147

137APPENDIX J (CONTINUED) Influential Observation Analysis Only three observations existed where th e standardized residuals exceeded 3 standard deviations from the mean. However before determining what to do with these observations, several tests were completed in order to determine how influential these observations were. First of a ll, the Leverage Test was comp leted. The possible range of leverage scores is 0 to (N-1)/N or .998. The range of leverage scores obtained in the data fell from .001 to .160. The rule of thumb is that any cases with a leverage statistic above .2 should be examined for possible undue leve rage. In this disser tation, no observations were found with a leverage value exceeding .2 ; therefore, no influential observations were found. Finally, Cook’s Distance was comp leted. The range of distances obtained in the data fell from 0 to .101. Since no obser vations had a Cook’s Dist ance close to 1, no influential observations were found. B ecause both Cook’s Distance and the Leverage Test revealed no influential observations, no observations were removed from the study.

PAGE 148

138APPENDIX K Interaction Term Calculations Table 30 Regression Weight Estimates, Error Variances and Factor Variances from Measurement Model Regression Weights Variance POS 2.576 4 0.958521270.581594 6 0.938319480.694427 7 10.943812 PSS 2.053 4 1.078590520.347564 7 1.132469720.419651 8 10.532992 Ext 1.323 2 11.339537 4 1.275535160.83383 9 1.139188860.666783 Imag 1.03 2 10.324328 3 0.807443870.472381 6 0.862514780.818615

PAGE 149

139APPENDIX K (CONTINUED) Table 31 Regression Weight and Error Variance Interaction Calculations for Structural Model Constructs Regression Weights Error Variances Constructs Regression Weights Error Variances POS Ext POSxExt POSImagPOSxImag 4 2 0.958521274.8560354 2 0.95852127 1.588483 6 2 0.938319485.0867486 2 0.93831948 1.724417 7 2 15.9635837 2 1 2.113699 4 4 1.2226275813.525264 3 0.773952124 1.924807 6 4 1.1968594883.7663616 3 0.757640312 2.047364 7 4 1.275535164.5276377 3 0.80744387 2.44763 4 9 1.0919367532.9107324 6 0.826738762 3.014067 6 9 1.0689230993.1213246 6 0.80931442 3.164073 7 9 1.139188863.7694147 6 0.86251478 3.719843 PSS Ext PSSxExt PSS ImagPSSxImag 8 2 14.1691828 2 1 1.387691 7 2 1.132469724.2317087 2 0.80744387 1.322394 4 2 1.078590523.8916034 2 0.86251478 1.18889 8 4 1.275535163.0557198 3 0.80744387 1.664846 7 4 1.4445049452.9967147 3 0.914405733 1.645513 4 4 1.3757801322.7227234 3 0.870901304 1.499256 8 9 1.139188862.5275938 6 0.86251478 2.590436 7 9 1.2900968892.4625367 6 0.976771871 2.619594 4 9 1.2287183052.2320694 6 0.930300265 2.405991

PAGE 150

140APPENDIX L Moderation in Structural Equation Modeling Measurement Model Note: Dotted line represents the additional it ems in each construct not shown graphically on this measurement model. Each additional item not shown also has an error term associated with it. POS PSS SSB EE POS6 POS7 POS4 PSS4 PSS7 PSS8 EE1 EE2 EE8 EE9 Ext Imag SSB1 SSB2 SSB24 SSB25 Ext2 Ext4 Ext9 Imag2 Imag3 Imag6 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

PAGE 151

141APPENDIX L (CONTINUED) Structural Model Note: Dotted line represents the additional it ems in each construct not shown graphically on this structural model. Each additiona l item not shown also has an error term associated with it. POS PSS SSB EE POS6 POS7 POS4 PSS4 PSS7 PSS8 EE1 EE2 EE8 EE9 Ext Imag SSB1 SSB2 SSB24 SSB25 Ext2 Ext4 Ext9 Imag2 Imag3 Imag6 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E POSxExt PSSxExt POSxImag PSSxImag O4xE2 O7xE9 S4xE2 S8xE9 O4xI2 O7xI6 S4xI2 S8xI6 E E E E E E E E Resid Resid

PAGE 152

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Diane R. Edmondson is currently an Assi stant Professor of marketing at Middle Tennessee State University. She earned her Bachelor’s degree in General Business Administration and Masters in Business Admi nistration from the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida. While in the Ph.D. program, Diane presente d papers at conferences such as the Academy of Marketing Science, the American Marketing Association, the Society for Marketing Advances, and the National Conference in Sales Management. Her work has also been published in seve ral journals including the Journal of Business Research and Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Diane resides in Murfreesboro, Te nnessee with her son, Aaron.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200397Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 002046202
005 20100105085534.0
007 cr bnu|||uuuuu
008 100105s2008 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002632
035
(OCoLC)495794412
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
HF5415 (Online)
1 100
Edmondson, Diane R.
0 245
Emotional exhaustion and its role in service sabotage among boundary spanners
h [electronic resource] /
by Diane R. Edmondson.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2008.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 141 pages.
Includes vita.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
520
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate how emotional exhaustion (EE) impacts a boundary spanning employee's usage of service sabotage behaviors (SSB). This dissertation also investigates how perceived organizational support (POS) and perceived supervisory support (PSS) alleviate a boundary spanning employee's EE and SSB. Furthermore, this dissertation examines how extraversion (EXT) and imagination (IMAG) moderates the relationship between POS and SSB and between PSS and SSB. A boundary spanning employee is any organizational employee who "engages in job-related interactions with a person who is considered part of the environment, who is not a member of the organization" (Robertson 1995, p. 75). These employees are important as research has shown that consumers use the attitudes and behaviors of these employees to positively or negatively impact their perceptions of the service encounter (e.g. Bitner 1990; Bowen and Schneider 1985; Pugh 2001).SSB are overt or covert behaviors which negatively affect the relationship between the organization and the customer (Harris and Ogbonna 2006, 2002). Rather than the boundary spanning employee engaging in negative behaviors towards other employees or the organization as a whole, SSB are acted upon the customer. EE occurs when an employee believes they are overextended by their work (Maslach and Jackson 1981). Boundary spanning employees are forced to display organizationally desired emotions even when encountering negative customers (Cordes and Dougherty 1993; Mulki, Jaramillo and Locander 2006). This interaction between the customer and employee may result in discontent and the employee may engage in SSB as a way to show this discontent. A boundary spanner's EE is hypothesized to positively impact SSB; therefore, it is important to investigate what will reduce or mitigate a boundary spanner's EE.Two constructs that are hypothesized to reduce both EE and SSB are POS and PSS. In order to test the hypotheses developed in this dissertation, 490 non-management retail sales and customer service employees across a variety of organizations were sampled. Results found that EE positively impacts SSB. EE also partially mediates the relationship between POS and SSB. The hypotheses associated with PSS, EXT and IMAG were not supported.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor: Sajeev Varki, Ph.D.
653
Service sabotage
Boundary spanners
Emotional exhaustion
Perceived organizational support
Perceived supervisory support
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Marketing
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2632