Service orientation

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193

0278-4319/$ -

doi:10.1016/j

�CorrespoE-mail ad

yklee@chung

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Effect of service orientation on job satisfaction,organizational commitment, and intention ofleaving in a casual dining chain restaurant

Woo Gon Kima,�, Jerrold K. Leonga, Yong-Ki Leeb

aSchool of Hotel and Restaurant Administration, Oklahoma State University, 210 HESW,

Stillwater, OK 74078, USAbDepartment of Business Administration, Chungju National University, 123 Komdan-ri, Iryu-myon,

Chungju-si, Chungbuk 380–702, South Korea

Abstract

The service orientation program developed for restaurant employees can be a competitive

advantage for a restaurant operation. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship

between employee service orientation (customer focus, organizational support, and service

under pressure) and employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and employees’

intention of leaving. For these purposes, the authors developed structural equations modeling.

The empirical results are as follows. First, the customer focus of employees was negatively

associated with employees’ job satisfaction, but positively associated with their organizational

commitment. Second, organizational support was positively associated with job satisfaction.

Third, job satisfaction was positively associated with organizational commitment, but

negatively associated with employees’ intention of leaving. Finally, organizational commit-

ment was negatively associated with intention of leaving.

r 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Service orientation; Job satisfaction; Organizational commitment; Employee’s intention of

leaving; Structural equations modeling

see front matter r 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

.ijhm.2004.05.004

nding author. Tel.: +1-405-744-8433; fax: +1-405-744-6299.

dresses: [email protected] (W.G. Kim), [email protected] (J.K. Leong),

ju.ac.kr (Y.-K. Lee).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193172

1. Introduction

The service orientation program will enhance the competitive position of thefoodservice enterprise, as it provides cross-training opportunities for employees toimprove their professional competencies. Service orientation is an importantantecedent for the viability of the foodservice business to provide quality foodproducts and service. Service-oriented service providers will meet the expectations oftheir guests and ensure customer retention and repeat patronage.In general, there is an association between the service orientation program and

employee satisfaction. In turn, the satisfied employees render a higher quality ofservice to the guest. For example, Brown et al. (2002) indicated that the employee’scustomer orientation process is central to a service organization’s ability to be marketoriented. Furthermore, they suggested that customer orientation has a significantimpact on overall service performance. Service orientation at the organizational levelinfluences the level of the employee’s job satisfaction (Lee et al., 1999; Yoo et al.,2000), organizational commitment, service image, and business performance (Lee etal., 1999). The high level of commitment to employee satisfaction is supported by thefirm’s commitment to continuous quality improvement. The orientation of newemployees and the design of a comprehensive training program may be implementedto keep pace with the changes in consumer demand for products and services.Therefore, there is a need to identify those factors that influence the employee’s

job satisfaction level. The reason is that the level of employee’s job satisfaction mayinfluence the customer’s evaluation of the company. In particular, service orientationis a major way that a service provider delivers the type of service that createscustomer loyalty. According to Berry et al. (1994), service organizations with service-oriented cultures can attract new customers, obtain more business from existingcustomers, experience less customer attrition, remain protected from pricecompetition, and encounter fewer complaints from customers.In light of the importance of employee service orientation, the following research

questions are pursued: Which dimensions (customer focus, organization’s support,and customer service under pressure) of service orientation generate employeesatisfaction and employee retention? Which dimensions of service orientation buildorganizational commitment? To what extent do job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment affect the employees’ intention of leaving the company?

2. Review of the literature

2.1. Service orientation

There is a proliferation of research on the subject of service orientation and its rolein enhancing the competitive advantage of the foodservice enterprise. The purpose ofa service orientation program is to explain the corporation’s philosophy and cultureto its prospective employees. Hogan et al. (1984) defined service orientation as adisposition to be helpful, thoughtful, considerate, and cooperative at the individual

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193 173

level. In contrast, Lytle et al. (1998) regarded service orientation as internal designcharacteristics such as the organizational structure, climate, and culture at theorganizational level.Bowen et al. (1989) suggested that companies using a service orientation have a

stake in the successful implementation of a competitive strategy for improvingcustomer satisfaction. The implication is that service-oriented companies couldsatisfy their customers through specific service-oriented procedures, which may be acompetitive advantage in the restaurant sector. Thus, service orientation should beunderstood to be a major vehicle in which managers have established differentiationamong competing firms. Schneider and Bowen (1993) suggested that the employees’perceptions of service-related practices of the service organizations are associatedwith customer perceptions of service quality. In other words, the organizationalclimate that is visible only to the employees has a favorable carryover effect onthe customers. The consequence of the closeness between the employees and thecustomers during the service encounters allows the employee to anticipate thecustomer’s needs (Schneider and Bowen, 1993). The study conducted by Dienhartet al. (1992) presented the three dimensions of customer focus, organizationalsupport, and customer service under pressure, which related to measuring cognitiveand behavioral dimensions of service orientation and its effectiveness in creatingcustomer satisfaction and meeting the customer’s needs.

2.1.1. Customer focus

Dienhart et al. (1992) defined customer focus as the ability of the employees to enjoytheir jobs when interacting with the customer, achieving customer satisfaction, andreceiving respect from guests. Moreover, the study found that customer focus was a directconsequence of the management’s commitment to quality service, an efficiently designedwork environment, continuous training, and ease of service delivery. There were positiverelationships between customer focus and the employees’ favorable perceptions of jobinvolvement, job security, and job satisfaction (Dienhart et al., 1992). Hartline et al. (2000)contended that the customer-oriented firms would deliver exceptional service.Furthermore, McColl-Kennedy and White (1997) expressed the imperatives of

aligning the employees’ service orientation to improve their awareness of customerfocus. Awareness can be accomplished through the dissemination of servicestrategies to all employees who have direct contact with customers. The qualityservice standards and practices are enriched through continuous on-the-job training,which reiterates the priority of providing the best possible service. Lastly, Brady andCronin (2001) stated that the importance of being a customer-oriented firm would beinstrumental in meeting the customers’ service perceptions relative to the employees’service performance, product quality, and service environment. The results of thiscustomer focus study indicated that the customers’ quality expectations, customersatisfaction, and service value were all met.

2.1.2. Organizational support

Organizational support refers to management’s encouragement of service,training, design of service systems and organizational procedures for optimal service

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193174

delivery (Dienhart et al., 1992). Eisenberger et al. (1986) developed a measure ofperceived organizational support that has subsequently demonstrated a positiverelationship to employees’ affective commitment to the organization (e.g., Settoonet al., 1996; Shore and Wayne, 1993). Thus, it is possible that employees will also feela greater sense of obligation to remain if they view the organization as supportive.Because perceptions of organizational support increase affective attachment to anorganization and strengthen expectations that greater effort will be rewarded,employees who think that their organizations support them should exert more effortand thus will perform better than employees who do not think that theirorganizations support them (Orpen, 1994).Klein and Weaver (2000) examined six socialization dimensions to measure the

effectiveness of the organizational support (employee orientation training program)on the participant’s service performance. The employees who participated in theseprograms generally exhibited higher organizational commitment, supported thefirm’s mission, understood the firm’s corporate culture, adopted its values andbeliefs, and demonstrated a willingness to adapt to others within the workplace.Moreover, the level of employee training through a realistic job preview, jobshadowing opportunities, and core-standards training have instilled loyalty and apositive attitude among resort club employees.Empowerment allows the employees to make those important decisions that will

enhance the service expectations of their guests. Empowerment is linked to the levelof personal autonomy and job meaningfulness usually enables the employees towork effectively, increase productivity, streamline costs, and reduce operationalerrors. In general, empowerment may ultimately result in heightened job satisfaction,which translates into greater guest satisfaction and profitability through repurchasesand word-of-mouth endorsements.

2.1.3. Customer service under pressure

Service under pressure postulated by Dienhart et al. (1992) identified the level ofexpected employee performance when rendering service to customers during peakbusiness periods. They indicated that service under pressure is a combination ofcustomer expectations and management’s best practices in providing optimal serviceduring peak periods (Dienhart et al., 1992). The benefits of communicating with theemployees when they are asked to provide extraordinary service levels duringexceptionally busy periods may reinforce their self-confidence and job satisfaction.Lastly, service under pressure is driven by the expectations of customers andmanagement of an efficient service delivery system.

2.2. Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is the extent to which a worker feels positively or negatively abouthis or her job (Odom et al., 1990). Job satisfaction refers to the employees’ generalaffective evaluation of their job. In the hospitality industry, job satisfaction helps toensure that employees will treat customers with the utmost respect (Arnett et al.,2002). Because of the importance of customer contact in developing relationships

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193 175

with customers, employees’ job satisfaction is a primary concern for hospitalityorganizations that rely upon a loyal clientele. In general, job satisfaction leadsto good employee performance, which, in turn makes them less likely to leave(Arnett et al., 2002).Jerome and Kleiner (1995) stated that companies that exhibited high commitment

to improving the employees’ job satisfaction, motivation, and morale may realizelong-term benefits of corporate success, loyalty, productivity, and employeeretention. Job satisfaction has positive association with organizational commitment(e.g. Fletcher and Williams, 1996; Yavas and Bodur, 1999) and job performance (e.g.Babin and Boles, 1996; Birnbaum and Somers, 1993). Employees who are satisfiedwith their jobs have greater organizational commitment than do dissatisfiedemployees. Shaw (1999) argued that there is a strong negative relationship betweenjob satisfaction and the level of employee turnover, if an individual’s personaldisposition (positive affect) is taken into consideration. Moreover, Mobley (1977)contended that if the employees are dissatisfied with their respective jobs, they aremore likely to leave the organization for another position.

2.3. Employees’ organizational commitment

Organizational commitment is loyalty to the organization and mobilization of allemployees in the development of its goals, purposes, and infrastructure (Lee et al.,1999). Mathieu and Zajac (1990) define organizational commitment as anattachment to or identification with the organization. Such an attachment may beconsidered an emotional response, particularly when the individual believes stronglyin the organization’s goals and values and/or demonstrates a strong desire tomaintain membership in the organization.Empirical evidence suggests that job satisfaction is an antecedent to organizational

commitment (Brown and Peterson, 1994; Mathieu and Hamel, 1989; Reichers,1985). The consequences of organizational commitment include retention, atten-dance, and job productivity. If employees are morally committed to an organization,the following can be expected: increased likelihood of retention, consistentattendance, and increased productivity (McNeese-Smith, 1995; Reilly and Orsak,1991). The notion of the employees’ positive commitment to the organization mayresult in a lower probability of leaving the firm.

2.4. Intention of leaving

Intention of leaving is an important outcome in the behavior of restaurantemployees. Although intention of leaving is an undesirable outcome for organiza-tions, it is valuable to understand its predictors in order to minimize its negativeimpact on an organization’s effectiveness (Low et al., 2001). To reduce the turnoverrate in the hospitality industry, the firm must be sensitive to the intrinsicmotivational factors of employees. Woods and Macaulay (1989) stated that turnoverwas not an issue, since there was an abundant labor supply. However, the labor forceis shrinking and this shrinkage brings about high turnover and poor customer

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193176

service. The effects of turnover are related to a reduction in managerial readiness,loss of sales, and a decrease in the company’s profits. Researchers have theorizedthat low levels of organizational commitment will lead to willingness to search foranother job, intention of leaving, and turnover. Research results have shown thatorganizational commitment is negatively related to intention of leaving (e.g., Ingramand Kuen 1990; Sager 1990).

3. Hypothesis

This study investigates the structural relationships between service orientation(customer focus, organizational support, and customer service under pressure) andjob satisfaction, organizational commitment, and employees’ intention of leaving.The following relationships are hypothesized, based on the literature review.

H1: The greater the customer focus of a restaurant service provider, the higherthe service provider’s job satisfaction.

H2: The greater the customer focus of a restaurant service provider, the higherthe service provider’s organizational commitment.

H3: The greater the organizational support of a restaurant service provider, thehigher the service provider’s job satisfaction.

H4: The greater the organizational support of a restaurant service provider, thehigher the service provider’s organizational commitment.

H5: The greater the customer service under pressure of a restaurant serviceprovider, the higher the service provider’s job satisfaction.

H6: The greater the customer service under pressure of a restaurant serviceprovider, the higher the service provider’s organizational commitment.

H7: The greater the job satisfaction of a restaurant service provider, the higherthe service provider’s organizational commitment.

H8: The greater the organizational commitment of a restaurant service provider,the lower the service provider’s intention of leaving.

H9: The greater the job satisfaction of a restaurant service provider, the lowerthe service provider’s intention of leaving.

4. Model development

Based on the research presented in the literature review, a service orientationmodel is developed. The model postulates the relationship between threecomponents of service orientation and consequences of service orientation. Serviceorientation can be explained in terms of organizational support, customer focus, andservice under pressure. Consequences of service orientation are expressed in terms ofjob satisfaction, organizational commitment (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Lee et al.,1999), and turnover (Lahey, 1984). Job satisfaction and organizational commitmentare antecedents of employees’ intention of leaving (see Fig. 1).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Service Orientation

Customer focus

Organizational Support

CustomerService Under

Pressure

Job Satisfaction

Organizational Commitment

Intention of leaving

H1

H3

H4

H5

H6

H7

H9

H8

H2

Fig. 1. Model development.

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193 177

5. Methodology

5.1. Profile of a casual dining chain restaurant

All units of an international casual dining restaurant in Seoul, Korea were selectedbecause the chain dominates the casual restaurant industry. This restaurant has anexcellent reputation, provides superior employee training, and has been recognizedas the benchmark in the casual dining industry. We believe that this chain mayrepresent the majority of full-service restaurants that emphasize employee serviceorientation. This leading full-service, casual theme restaurant emphasizes great food,quality beverage, and outstanding service rendered in a festive dining environment.The interior design is distinctively decorated with authentic antiques/memorabiliathat showcases the specific location and decor. The restaurant’s menu reflects theneeds of its guests and caters to single adults, families, and seniors. The menu isupscale and reflects a variety of delicious and healthy entrees. The corporate cultureis to treat the guest with the greatest respect, provide optimal entrees at affordableprices, and deliver superior service. All service failures are addressed at theemployee/manager level and an equitable and complete service resolution isprovided. Most of the restaurant’s guests are between the ages of 21 and 49 yearsand enjoy an exciting dining experience. This chain recruits from four-yearhospitality universities and provides employees with an intensive 11–14 weekmanager-in-training program that combines on-the-job training with classroominstruction. This program trains employees in all positions within the restaurant andprovides administrative and leadership opportunities. This restaurant hires a mix ofpart- and full-time employees to staff its operations. The turnover is moderate,because the employment opportunities and promotion possibilities are attractive, but

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193178

employee compensation may not be attractive relative to other industries. Moreover,this casual restaurant has superior unit expansion records and favorable same-storesales. There are 700 restaurants located in 50 countries that are both company- andfranchise-owned.

5.2. Survey design

Researchers contacted a top executive of an international chain restaurant inSeoul, Korea and explained the purpose of this study. The chain restaurant decidedto cooperate with this survey to test the proposed causal relationship between serviceorientation and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention ofleaving. The subjects of this study were drawn from 10 available units of a singlechain during the time of the survey. Survey instruments were randomly given to 20front-of-house employees and managers scheduled to work on a given day.Twenty questionnaires were distributed to restaurant employees for the purpose of

pre-testing in July 2001. Based on the comments collected during the pre-testingperiod, a complete questionnaire was designed. The survey was conducted over athree-week period of September 2001. A letter introducing the purpose of this studyand a top executive’s cooperation letter encouraging the participant to complete andreturn the questionnaire was enclosed. Out of 450 questionnaires distributed, a totalof 350 (78.0%) questionnaires were returned. Of those collected questionnaires, 22were excluded since they had not been fully completed. After elimination, 328questionnaires with an effective response rate of 73.0% were coded and analyzed forfurther analysis.

5.3. Measurement

The survey instrument to measure service orientation, job satisfaction, organiza-tional commitment, and intention of leaving was based on previously validatedquestions adopted by other researchers. Items in all scales were measured on a five-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Service orientation: The service orientation scale developed by Dienhart et al.(1992) was used. The service orientation scale was comprised of nine items: (1)interacting with customers is enjoyable, (2) it is important to me that the customer issatisfied, (3) the employees at my restaurant provide excellent service, (4) mymanager encourages me to provide excellent service, (5) the training I receivedprepared me to provide excellent service, (6) customers treat me with respect, (7) atpeak hours it is so busy that we cannot provide excellent service, (8) our serviceprocedures make it easy for me to give excellent service, and (9) my manager expectsus to always follow procedures, even if it means giving less than excellent service.

Organizational commitment: Organizational commitment was measured by a five-item scale adapted from Jaworski and Kohli (1993). Those five items were: (1)employees feel as though their future is intimately linked to that of this organization,(2) employees would be happy to make personal sacrifices if it were important for thebusiness unit’s well-being, (3) the bonds between this organization and its employees

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193 179

are strong, (4) in general, employees are proud to work for this business unit, and (5)employees often go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure this business unit’swell-being.

Job satisfaction: The job satisfaction scale, adapted from Lytle (1994), wascomprised of five items: (1) I consider my job pleasant, (2) I feel fairly-well satisfiedwith my present job, (3) I definitely like my work, (4) my job is pretty interesting, and(5) I find real enjoyment in my work.

Intention of leaving: The intention of leaving scale was adapted from Lahey (1984)and comprised of five items: (1) if I have a good opportunity, I would like to findanother job, (2) I do not enjoy this job and have been searching for other positions, (3) Ihope that I can find another job in the same industry, (4) layoffs are a typical occurrencearound here, and (5) people often get fired from this organization without good reason.

6. Data analysis

To test the postulated hypotheses, factor analysis and structural equationsmodeling were utilized. First, a factor analysis was employed to derive theunderlying factors of the nine service orientation attributes, five organizationcommitments attributes, five job satisfaction attributes, and five intentions to leaveattributes. Second, structural equations modeling was used to determine thecause–effect relationships between three dimensions of service orientation and jobsatisfaction, organization commitment, and intention of leaving.

7. Results

Descriptive statistics of the respondents were presented in Table 1. Femaleemployees represented 57.2%, with male employees representing 42.8%. More thanone-half of respondents were under 25 years old. Approximately one-third of therespondents were between 26 and 30 years old. Approximately 88% of employeeswere single or divorced; the remaining 12% were married. Sixty percent of therespondents worked in the front-of-the house, 36% worked in the kitchen, and theremaining 4% worked in the back-of-the house area. Respondents who worked lessthan a year at a current chain restaurant accounted for approximately 45.9%,followed by three and four years of experience (22.6%), and one and two years ofexperience (21.9%). Part-time employees comprised 21.8%; 88.2% were full-timeemployees. Fifteen percent of the employees held a managerial position; 63.5% wereentry-level. Approximately one-half of respondents had undergraduate degrees inhospitality management.

7.1. Factor analysis and reliability test

A factor analysis was utilized to derive the dimensions of the respondent’sperceived service orientation level on the nine items developed by Dienhart et al.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Descriptive statistics of respondents

Variables Number %

Socio-demographics

Gender

Male 140 42.8

Female 187 57.2

Age

25 and under 186 56.7

26–30 118 36.0

31–39 16 4.9

40–49 4 1.2

50 and over 4 1.2

Marital status

Single or divorced 289 88.4

Married 38 11.6

Work place

Front-of-the house 193 59.6

Kitchen (Back-of-the house) 117 36.1

Other Back-of-the house 14 4.3

Position

Part-time employees 71 21.8

Entry level position 207 63.5

Managerial position 48 14.7

Years of experience

Less than 1 year 124 45.9

1–2 59 21.9

3–4 61 22.6

5–6 20 7.4

More than 6 year 6 2.2

Hospitality major

Yes 158 49.1

No 164 50.9

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193180

(1992). The analysis was conducted to understand the underlying dimensions ofgathered responses in perceived service orientation level and to apply the categorizedfactors to the subsequent structural equations modeling analysis. To assess thevalidity and reliability of each construct, factor analysis and reliability test wereused. Nine service orientation items were factor analyzed using the principalcomponent method and varimax rotation procedure. The most common and reliablecriterion is the use of eigenvalue in extracting factors, and all factors with eigenvaluesgreater than 1 were retained. In addition, all items with a factor loading above 0.5were included. Also, any items which cross-loaded on two factors with factorloadings greater than 0.4 were removed. As shown in Table 2, factor analysisproduced three factor structures. Unexpectantly, two items were loaded on otherfactors and eliminated.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Results of factor analysis and reliability test for service orientation

Items Factor

loading

Eigen

value

Variance

explained

(%)

Reliability

coefficient

Organizational support 2.08 26.05 .73

My manager encourages me to provide

excellent service (SO4)

.73

My manager expects us to always follow

procedures, even if it means giving less

than excellent service (SO9)

.72

Our service procedures make it easy for

me to give excellent service (SO8)

.60

The training I received prepared me to

provide excellent service (SO5)

.58

The employees at my restaurant provide

excellent service (SO3)

.54

Customer focus 1.94 24.22 .65

Interacting with customers is enjoyable

(SO1)

.87

It is important to me that the customer is

satisfied (SO2)

.74

Customer service under high pressure 1.09 13.61 —

At peak hours it is so busy that we cannot

provide excellent service (SO7)

.96

Total variance explained 63.88

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193 181

To test the appropriateness of factor analysis, two measures were used. TheKaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) overall measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) was.783, which falls within the acceptable level. In addition, the Bartlett’s test ofsphericity was 419.490, significant at p=.000 which showed a significant correlationamong the variables (Hair et al., 1998). The three-factor structure for serviceorientation resulted in a relatively more workable and meaningful number ofcomposite dimensions, which could be more easily interpreted and used for thesubsequent analysis. A three-dimension solution retained in the following factorlabels such as ‘‘organizational support’’ (factor 1), ‘‘customer focus’’ (factor 2), and‘‘customer service under high pressure’’ (factor 3), respectively. The three factorsexplained 63.9 percent of cumulative variances.The first factor, ‘‘organizational support’’, had five significant loadings with a

reliability coefficient of .73. It was composed of original variables: my managerencourages me to provide excellent service (so4), my manager expects us to alwaysfollow procedures (so9), our service procedures make it easy for me to give excellentservices (so8), the training I received prepared me to provide excellent service (so5),and the employees at my restaurant provide excellent service (so3). The factoraddressed mainly organization and managers’ supports for excellent service. Thesecond factor, ‘‘customer focus,’’ had two significant loadings with a reliability

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193182

coefficient of .65. It was composed of two original variables: interacting withcustomers is enjoyable (so1) and it is important to me that the customer is satisfied(so2). The factor reflected issues of service approach and the attitude of serviceprovider. The last factor, ‘‘customer service under high pressure’’ had one significantloading, composed of one original variable: at peak hours it is so busy that wecannot provide excellent service (reverse-code).In addition, a reliability test was run for each construct such as job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, and intention of leaving. The reliability test results forthe five job satisfaction elements showed that one item was not significantly inter-correlated: I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job (js2). The reliabilitycoefficient for job satisfaction was .80. The reliability test results for the five elementsrepresenting organizational commitment showed that one item was not significantlyinter-correlated: employees often go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure thisbusiness unit’s well-being (oc5). The reliability coefficient for organizationalcommitment was .75. Finally, the reliability test for the five elements representingintention of leaving showed that two items was not significantly inter-correlated:layoffs are a typical occurrence around here (tit4) and people often get fired from thisorganization without good reason (tit5). This reliability coefficient for intention ofleaving was .79.

7.2. Measurement model

Overall measurement quality was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis(Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). Although measurement quality is sometimes assessedfactor by factor, each multiple-item indicator was considered simultaneously toprovide for the fullest test of convergent and discriminant validity. Initial analysessuggested that eight items with low factor loadings (below .50) be dropped fromfurther analyses (see Table 3).All loadings exceed .5, and each indicator t-value exceeds 8.0 (po.001). The w2 fit

statistics is 164.20 with 90 degrees of freedom (po.001). The root mean squarederror of approximation (RMSEA) is .057, the comparative fit index (CFI) is .92, thegoodness-of-fit index (GFI) is .92, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) is .89,and the parsimony normed fit index (PNFI) is .66. All statistics support the overallmeasurement quality given a large sample and number of indicators (Anderson andGerbing, 1988). Furthermore, evidence of discriminant validity exists when theproportion of variance extracted in each construct exceeds the square of the Fcoefficients representing its correlation with other factors (Fornell and Larcker,1981). One pair of scales with a high correlation between them was customer focusand organizational commitment (F=.64, F2=.41) (see Table 4). The varianceextracted estimates were .51 and .51, respectively, indicating adequate discriminantvalidity. Although one might also be concerned about the discriminant validity ofthe customer focus and organizational support constructs, the correlation betweencustomer focus and organizational support was .63 (F2=.40). The variance extractedestimates for these scales were .51 and .44, respectively. Finally, the correlationbetween organizational support and organizational commitment was .56 (F2=.31).

ARTIC

LEIN

PRES

S

Table 3

Standardized measurement coefficients and t-values resulting from confirmatory factor analysisa

Customer focus Organizational

support

Customer service

under pressure

Job

satisfaction

Organizational

commitment

Intention of leaving

SO1 .58 ( 8.75)

SO2 .83 (12.04)

SO4 .60 (8.30)

SO5 .71 (9.28)

SO7 1.00 (22.23)

JS1 .55 ( 8.68)

JS4 .87 (15.44)

JS5 .82 (14.38)

JS6 .54 ( 8.56)

OC1 .65 (10.76)

OC2 .63 (10.37)

OC3 .84 (15.38)

OC4 .84 (15.47)

TIT1 .77 (12.62)

TIT2 .76 (10.25)

TIT3 .75 (12.38)

Variance extracted .51 .44 — .58 .51 .56

Composite

reliability

.67 .61 — .80 .75 .79

aw2=164.20, 90 degrees of freedom (po.001), GFI=.92, AGFI=.89, CFI=.92, PNFI=.66, RMSEA=.057.

W.G

.K

imet

al.

/H

osp

itality

Ma

na

gem

ent

24

(2

00

5)

17

1–

19

3183

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Correlation estimates (F) and construct means

1 2 3 4 5 Mean S.D

1. Job satisfaction 1.00 2.45 .76

2. Organizational commitment .32a 1.00 3.57 .73

3. Intention of leaving �.38a �.29a 1.00 3.10 .91

4. Customer focus �.14a .64a �.08 1.00 4.18 .74

5. Organizational support .21a .56a �.17 .63a 1.00 3.81 .63

6. Customer service under pressure .02 .10 �.03 .08 .08 3.14 1.03

apo.01.

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193184

The variance extracted estimates for each of theses scales are .44 and .51,respectively. Thus, according to this assessment, the measures appear to haveacceptable levels of validity.

7.3. Structural model results

The hypothesized model was tested across the sample (n=249). The resulting w2 is164.78 with 93 degrees of freedom (p=.000; GFI=.92; AGFI=.89; RMSEA=.056,NFI=.88, CFI=.94), which suggests that the hypothesized model fits the data(see Fig. 2).In Table 4, we present the resulting standardized parameter estimates. Within the

overall model, the estimates of the structural coefficients provide the basic tests ofthe proposed theory. Following the conceptual model, we first addressed the effectsof service orientation on job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and thendiscussed links between job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intentionof leaving.

7.3.1. Service orientation, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment

The set of hypothesis H1–H6 addresses the relationship among service orientation,job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. H1 and H2 predict that customerfocus has a positive impact on service provider’s job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment. For job satisfaction, this prediction suggests a stronger negativecoefficient (g11 ¼ �:46; po:01), whereas path coefficient for organizational commit-ment is positive and significant (g21 ¼ :66; po:01).Hypotheses, H3 and H4, suggest that organizational support affect service

provider’s job satisfaction and organizational commitment. For job satisfaction,results are consistent with this prediction as evidenced by a positive path estimate(g12 ¼ :49; po:01). Unlike the support shown for H3, the results of H4 are equivocal.As not expected, H4 has a positive and insignificant effect on organizationalcommitment (g22 ¼ :06, n.s.).Hypotheses, H5 and H6, predict that customer service under pressure affect

service provider’s job satisfaction and organizational commitment. As not expected,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Job Satisfaction

Intention of Leaving

Customer Focus

Organizational Support

CustomerService Under

Pressure

Organizational Commitment

-.46 (-2.95) a

.66 (3.91) a

.49 (2.97) a

.06 (.42)

.02 (.31)

.02 (.31)

.40 (4.55)a

-.32 (-3.94)a

-.19 (-2.42)a

Fig. 2. Standardized path coefficients for service orientation and intention of leaving model. w2 ¼ 164:78,93 degrees of freedom (po:001), GFI=.92, AGFI=.89, CFI=.94, NFI=.88, RMSEA=.056; apo:01;Solid line: significant relationship; Dashed line: non-significant relationship.

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193 185

path estimates for job satisfaction (g13 ¼ :02, n.s.) and organizational commitment(g23 ¼ :04, n.s.) are not significant.

7.3.2. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention of leaving

The set of hypotheses H7–H9 address the relationship between job satisfaction,organizational commitment, and intention of leaving. H7 suggests that jobsatisfaction affect organizational commitment. Results are consistent with thisprediction as evidenced by a positive path estimate (b21 ¼ :40; po:01). H8 predictsthat service provider will display a stronger negative relationship betweenorganizational commitment and intention of leaving. Path estimates are consistentwith this prediction as evidenced by a positive path estimate (b32 ¼ �:32; po:01).Finally, H9 predicts a negative relationship between job satisfaction and intention ofleaving. As expected, the path estimates is negative and significant(b31 ¼ �:19; po:01).Customer focus had an indirect, negative effect on organizational commitment

(�.18, po.05). And, organizational support had an indirect, positive effect onorganizational commitment (.20, po.01) and had an indirect, negative effect onintention of leaving (�.21, po.01). However, customer service under pressure had anindirect, insignificant effect on organizational commitment (.01, n.s.), and hadinsignificant effect on intention of leaving (�.02, n.s.).

8. Discussion

This study has described the effects of the three dimensions of service orientation:customer focus, organizational support, and service pressure. Job satisfaction and

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193186

organizational commitment were the mediating variables affecting the employees’intention of leaving. To further consider the effects of service orientation, the resultsof the structural equations modeling are summarized and the three hypotheses arediscussed. The direct and indirect relationships are noted in Table 5. The findingswill contribute to the knowledge of the measurable impact of service orientation onthe employee’s intention of leaving the organization.

8.1. Testing Hypotheses 1 and 2

The element of customer focus tends to erode job satisfaction. Although thisfinding is contrary to the general perception of the impact of customer focus on theemployees’ job satisfaction, it is nonetheless important. The overall mean forcustomer focus was high (4.18), but the mean for job satisfaction was low (2.45) forthis chain restaurant (See Table 4). In the subject casual restaurant, the employeeswho attempt to provide excellent service may experience less job satisfaction because

Table 5

Standardized structural path estimates

Standardized path estimates (t-value)

Direct effects

Customer focus-job satisfaction �.46 (�2.95)a

Customer focus-organizational commitment .66 (3.91)a

Organizational support-job satisfaction .49 (2.97)a

Organizational support-organizational commitment .06 (.42)

Customer service under pressure-job satisfaction .02 (.31)

Customer service under pressure-organizational commitment .04 (.65)

Job satisfaction-organizational commitment .40 (4.55)a

Organizational commitment-intention of leaving �.32 (�3.94)a

Job satisfaction-intention of leaving �.19 (�2.42)a

Indirect effects

Customer focus-organizational commitment �.18 (�2.19)b

Organizational support-organizational commitment .20 (2.33)a

Customer service under pressure-organizational commitment .01 (.31)

Customer focus-intention of leaving .05 (.68)

Organizational support-intention of leaving �.21 (�2.77)a

Customer service under pressure-intention of leaving �.02 (�.55)

Job satisfaction-intention of leaving �.08 (�2.22)b

w2 164.78

d.f. 93

P .000

R2

Job satisfaction .17

Organizational commitment .59

Intention of leaving .18

apo.01.bpo.05.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193 187

of low compensation, inadequate fringe benefits, and long working hours. Thoughthe negative impact is not a desirable condition, the organization remains responsiblefor providing a positive and continuous service orientation program that encouragesthe employees to strive to develop their skills and attain a level of job satisfaction. Inview of this rationale, Hypothesis 1 is not supported with an opposite sign to theoriginal postulation. (H1: The greater the customers focus of a restaurant serviceprovider, the higher the service provider’s job satisfaction.) However, customer focusdoes improve the organizational commitment. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported. (H2:The greater the customers focus of a restaurant service provider, the higher theservice provider’s organizational commitment.)On the other hand, there is an indirect effect between customer focus and

organizational commitment. A restaurant will attain a high organizationalcommitment by improving the employees’ job satisfaction, which may lead tobetter individual performance. The restaurant manager may motivate the employeesby providing more incentives, awards, job promotion opportunities, and recognitionfor those who are dissatisfied. According to Robbins and DeCenzo (2004), thenotion of equity theory is defined as the employees’ perception of what they get froma job situation (outcomes) as compared with their work efforts (input). Furthermore,they compare their own input-outcomes ratio with the input-outcome ratio of otheremployees. Under the existing circumstances, the employee may consider the futurejob prospects more important than the immediate-term gains in comparable wageand benefits. The employee may continue to exhibit a high degree of loyalty to theorganization, continue to work diligently, make inroads into their career paths, andreach their goals and aspirations in the future. They are willing to work under theseconditions in order to be eligible for future additional advancement opportunities.These foodservice employees are dedicated to performing their required taskswithout the benefits of a higher wage rate with hopes of attaining promotions tomanagerial positions.

8.2. Testing Hypotheses 3 and 4

The notion of organizational support has a positive effect on the employees’ levelof job satisfaction, notably, pleasant working environment, assignment to preferredtasks, interest in the job, and enjoyments of the work. Thus, Hypothesis 3 issupported. (H3: The greater the organizational support of a restaurant serviceprovider, the higher the service provider’s job satisfaction.) However, there is both adirect and an indirect relationship between organizational support and organiza-tional commitment. This indirect effect path can be expressed as a shared outcomethat organization commitment is reinforced through a combination of jobsatisfaction and organizational support efforts to raise the employee’s level ofperformance. The indirect effect, unlike the direct effect, is significant. Thus,Hypothesis 4 is not supported. (H4: The greater the organizational support of arestaurant service provider, the higher the service provider’s organizationalcommitment.)

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193188

8.3. Testing Hypotheses 5–8

With respect to customer service under pressure, there is no statistically significantimpact on job satisfaction and organizational commitment, thus Hypotheses 5 and 6are not supported. (H5: The greater the customer service under pressure of arestaurant service provider, the higher the service provider’s job satisfaction. H6: Thegreater the customer service under pressure of a restaurant service provider, thehigher the service provider’s organizational commitment.)The mediating component of job satisfaction derived specifically from customer

focus and organizational support has a positive effect on organizational commit-ment; thus, Hypothesis 7 is supported. (H7: The greater the job satisfaction of arestaurant service provider, the higher the service provider’s organizationalcommitment.)Lastly, increases in the employees’ organization commitment will have a negative

effect on the employees’ intention of leaving the organization; thus, Hypothesis 8 issupported. (H8: The greater the organizational commitment of a restaurantservice provider, the lower the service provider’s intention of leaving.) Likewise,job satisfaction, a mediating element, has a negative impact on reducing theemployees’ intention of leaving the organization, thus, Hypothesis 9 is supported.(H9: The greater the job satisfaction of a restaurant service provider, the lowerthe service provider’s intention of leaving.) The findings of the study emphasizethe importance of a high level of organizational support to maintaining a highlevel of employees’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment, which in turnfavor employee retention. New and seasoned employees who are trained on acontinuous basis are given the confidence to be successful and to attain higherperformance levels.

9. Conclusions and implications

9.1. Conclusions

The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of service orientation on jobsatisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention of leaving. Customer focus,organizational support, and service under pressure were the antecedents of jobsatisfaction and organizational commitment. The two elements of service orienta-tion, customer focus and organizational support have a significant influence on jobsatisfaction and organizational commitment. Moreover, even though employees’higher customer focus does not always lead to higher employees’ job satisfaction, theservice orientation emphasis will favorably affect organizational commitment, andreduce the employees’ intention of leaving the organization. In order to enhanceemployees’ job satisfaction, the restaurant firm should recognize the employees’work efforts with cash incentives, awards, recognition, and job promotion. Thus, afirm should improve its service orientation process to allocate scarce financialresources to improve the organizational commitment and reduce intention to leave.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193 189

9.2. Implications

The restaurant managers may implement a five-point service orientation programfor their employees to improve organizational commitment while minimizing thepossibility that employees will leave. The five points are as follows.First, even though customer focus has a negative impact on the employees’

perception of job satisfaction, management must nonetheless persevere to improvethe employees’ competencies. The employees’ service orientation may not alwayslead to the desired level of satisfaction. Even though the restaurant employeesare well-trained to provide excellent service for their guests, the employees’dissatisfaction may be partly due to the restaurant’s poor compensation andbenefits program, especially for the restaurant under consideration in this study. Thisfinding implies that employees can compare their rewards and benefits with thoseof their competitors, which may significantly influence their job satisfaction.Even with low job satisfaction, many employees may perceive their futureemployment prospects as positive. The foodservice firm’s customer focus willachieve high organizational commitment through job satisfaction by enhancing theemployees’ level of job satisfaction. This is especially true for the subject chainrestaurant, which is expanding internationally, and providing employee promotionand growth in a relatively short period of time. Furthermore, the employees may beconsulted in the design of the organizational structure that trusts, respects, andpromotes the highly motivated employees, who strive for continuous qualityimprovement. Moreover, an effective internal marketing program should beimplemented to improve employee satisfaction, which creates customer satisfaction.Implementing a good internal program requires a strong commitment frommanagement (Kotler et al., 1999). The manager must regularly monitor employees’satisfaction and evaluate their progress. If the employees’ job satisfaction improves,they will show greater organizational commitment. The customer focus program willreduce employee turnover, increase productivity, and contribute to the profitabilityof the firm.Second, organizational support has a positive effect on job satisfaction, which

increases organizational commitment. Moreover, organizational support in the formof educational resources, materials, equipment, and corporate philosophy has apositive impact on job satisfaction, and promotes organizational commitment. Theemployees demonstrate wisdom and judgment and rely on managerial support,vision, and best practices, and resource allocation, which may enable them to servetheir guests more effectively.However, there is no apparent linkage between organizational support and

organizational commitment. Organizational support may have a direct impact onemployees’ job satisfaction, but there is no direct linkage to organizationalcommitment. One implication is that management must realize that there is nonecessary association with the increased organization support, which contributes toemployees’ commitment and loyalty. In order to achieve organizational commit-ment, the firm must customize its support components to match the differing levelsof employee development with the educational needs of the individual employees.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193190

The organizational support afforded to the employees will allow them to thinkprogressively and to visualize the shared goals, articulate the shared vision andprovide optimal service to their guests.If the manager continues to provide effective organizational support for the

employees, then problems arising from the inability to deliver superior service,inconsistency in service delivery, unwillingness to conform to organizationalstandards, lack of accountability, and failure to follow instructions will be avoided.The competency level gained through mentoring and empowerment opportunitieswill establish a benchmark by which these employees will be able to judge their levelof performance.The employees should be delegated the authority to exceed their guests’

expectations. In some cases, restaurants allow the employees to resolve guestcomplaints up to a specific dollar amount. In this case the employees do what theycan to address the problem. Moreover, the employees are personally responsible andaccountable for resolving the guest’s complaint. The empowerment element drivesthe employee to reach higher levels of performance, either individually, orcollectively. Those employees who have been empowered may exhibit a higherdegree of self-confidence and initiative that may improve their job satisfaction andperformance. The vision of management and the resources of the organizationshould be articulated to work in concert.Third, although the notion of providing customer service under pressure is the

underlying principle of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, the findingsof this study do not support such a link. If the manager overemphasizes speedyservice delivery to the employees’, then the inability of the latter to resolve servicefailures expeditiously and properly, their impatience with the guests, potential burn-out, and verbal abuse of the employees by the guest, may undermine employeesatisfaction and organizational commitment. Direct customer-contact employeesmay experience high levels of stress, conflict, and confusion resulting from thecontinual interface with both customers and their superiors (Babin and Boles, 1996).Thus, service under pressure may have a potential indirect effect on the employees’intention of leaving. Their job requires accurate performance during intense workperiods while resolving the often contradictory demands of managers and customers(Babin and Boles, 1996). Accordingly, restaurant managers must find ways tomanage their customer-contact employees to reduce their stress and improve theirjob satisfaction outlook.Fourth, the study shows that job satisfaction is closely allied with the

organizational commitment and establishment of the firm’s competitive advantage.The manager must constantly monitor and evaluate the level of employeesatisfaction and reward workers for their productivity. Moreover, managementmust continually develop the employees’ skills, and provide equitable careerdevelopment opportunities to motivate their employees to be more committed tothe organization. If the manager concentrates on maximizing employee jobsatisfaction, then problems relative to employees’ inability to resolve managementconflicts, low morale, increased role conflicts, intergroup tensions, poor perfor-mance, and disciplinary problems may be minimized.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193 191

Fifth, the perceived level of job satisfaction and organization commitment has anegative relationship with the employees’ intention of leaving. The managers shouldfoster job satisfaction by showing a concern for the welfare of the employees byimproving their work environment. Those efforts will assist in reducing theemployees’ desire to leave the organization. Committed employees will have lessinclination to seek opportunities with other companies. The manager who providesgood job assignments, advancement opportunities, and training will achieve highemployee job satisfaction and organization commitment. In turn, this will reduce theemployee turnover rate, a serious obstacle to stability and quality service. If themanager nurtures and is genuinely interested in the employees’ welfare, thenproblems relative to high turnover, dysfunctional work teams, low confidence,inability to make decisions, hesitation, fear of failure, and loss of self-efficacy will beeliminated.

10. Limitations and suggestions for future research

This study has the following limitations. Less sophisticated current measures ofservice orientation may have created some reservations in generalizing our findings.The existing service orientation measurement items taken from Dienhart et al. (1992)may be further refined to better evaluate the impact of service orientation on jobsatisfaction. A chain casual dining restaurant segment was studied and the resultmay not be generalized for other segments of the restaurant industry and/or otherhospitality industries. This study was completed in Korea; the results may becarefully interpreted and applied to other international foodservice and hospitalitysectors. The findings between customer focus and employee job satisfaction shouldbe interpreted with some care. Additionally, more sophisticated measures of serviceorientation need to be developed depending on the unique characteristics of specificsegments of the hospitality industry.Further studies are needed to explore the other important antecedents of job

satisfaction and organizational commitment. For example, future researchfocus may include the extent to which individualized mentoring opportunities,which are not addressed in this study, influence job satisfaction and enhanceemployee retention. Future research may address the complex issue of employeecommitment. Each employee has different levels of commitment, depending on thespecific hierarchy of needs met (e.g., working for money, seeking careeradvancement, achieving respect from those in the restaurant work environment).The underlying structure and causal relationship of this study may be tested on othersegments of foodservice industry: quick-service and fine dining segments. Finally,a longitudinal research approach would make additional contributions to

our understanding of the consequences of service orientation. The longitudinalresearch could be directed toward a set of ‘‘core’’ constructs, making it possible toexplore and understand their inferences, their development over time, and theircausal sequence.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193192

References

Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-

step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3), 411–423.

Arnett, D.B., Laverie, D.A., McLane, C., 2002. Using job satisfaction and pride as internal-marketing

tools. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 43 (2), 87–96.

Babin, B.J., Boles, J.S., 1996. The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support on

service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Retailing 72 (1), 57–75.

Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., 1994. Improving service quality in America: lessons

learned. Academy of Management Executives 8 (2), 32–52.

Birnbaum, D., Somers, M.J., 1993. Fitting job performance into turnover model: an examination of the

form of the job performance–turnover relationship and path model. Journal of Management 49 (2),

1–11.

Bowen, D.F., Siehl, G., Schneider, B., 1989. A framework for analyzing customer service orientation in

manufacturing. Academy of Management Review 14 (1), 75–95.

Brady, M.K., Cronin Jr, J., 2001. Customer orientation: effects on customer service perceptions and

outcome behaviors. Journal of Service Research 3 (3), 241–251.

Brown, T.J., Mowen, J.C., Donava, D.T., Licata, J.W., 2002. The customer orientation of service workers:

personality trait effects on self and supervisor performance ratings. Journal of Marketing Research 34

(2), 110–119.

Brown, S.P., Peterson, R.A., 1994. The effect of effort on sales performance and job satisfaction. Journal

of Marketing 58 (2), 70–80.

Dienhart, J.R., Gregoire, M.B., Downey, R.G., Knight, P.K., 1992. Service orientation of restaurant

employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management 11 (4), 331–346.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., Sowa, D., 1986. Perceived organizational support.

Journal of Applied Psychology 71, 500–507.

Fletcher, C., Williams, R., 1996. Performance management, job satisfaction and organizational

commitment. British Journal of Management 7 (2), 169–179.

Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and

measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1), 39–50.

Gerbing, D.W., Anderson, J.C., 1988. An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating

unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research 25 (2), 186–192.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis, fifth ed.

Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Hartline, M.D., Maxham III, J.G., McKee, D.O., 2000. Corridors of influence in the dissemination of

customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees. Journal of Marketing 64 (2), 35–50.

Hogan, J., Hogan, R., Busch, C.M., 1984. How to measure service orientation. Journal of Applied

Psychology 69 (1), 167–173.

Ingram, T.N., Kuen, S.L., 1990. Sales force commitment and turnover. Industrial Marketing Management

19 (2), 149–154.

Jerome, L., Kleiner, B.H., 1995. Employee morale and its impact on service: what companies do to create

a positive service experience. Managing Service Quality 5 (6), 21.

Jaworski, B.J., Kohli, A.K., 1993. Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of

Marketing 57 (3), 53–70.

Klein, H.J., Weaver, N.A., 2000. The effectiveness of an organizational-level orientation training program

in the socialization of new hires. Personnel Psychology 53 (1), 47–66.

Kotler, P., Bowen, J., Makens, J., 1999. Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism, third ed. Prentice-Hall,

New Jersey.

Lahey, M.A., 1984. Job Security: its meaning and measure. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Kansas

State University, Kansas.

Lee, Y.-K., Park, D.H., Yoo, D., 1999. The structural relationships between service orientation,

mediators, and business performance in Korea hotel firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 4

(1), 59–70.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.G. Kim et al. / Hospitality Management 24 (2005) 171–193 193

Low, G.S., Cravens, D.W., Grant, K., Moncrief, W.C., 2001. Antecedents and consequences of

salesperson burnout. European Journal of Marketing 35 (5/6), 587–614.

Lytle, R.S., 1994. Service orientation, market orientation, and performance: an organizational culture

perspective. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University, Arizona.

Lytle, R.S., Hom, P.W., Mokwa, M.P., 1998. SERV*OR: a managerial measure of organizational service

orientation. Journal of Retailing 74 (4), 447–454.

Mathieu, J.E., Hamel, K., 1989. A causal model of the antecedents of organizational commitment among

professionals and nonprofessionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior 34, 299–317.

Mathieu, J.E., Zajac, D.M., 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and

consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin 108 (2), 171–194.

McColl-Kennedy, J.R., White, T., 1997. Service provider training programs at odds with customer

requirements in five-star hotels. The Journal of Services Marketing 11 (4), 249–264.

McNeese-Smith, D.K., 1995. Job satisfaction, productivity, and organizational commitment: the result of

leadership. Journal of Nursing Administration 25 (9), 17–26.

Mobley, W.H., 1977. Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee

turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology 62 (2), 237–240.

Odom, R.Y., Boy, W.R., Dunn, M.G., 1990. Organizational culture, commitment, satisfaction and

cohesion. Public Productivity and Management Review 14 (2), 157–168.

Orpen, C., 1994. The effects of exchange ideology on the relationship between perceived organizational

support and job performance. The Journal of Social Psychology 134 (3), 407.

Reichers, A.E., 1985. A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of

Management 10 (3), 465–476.

Reilly, N.P., Orsak, C.L., 1991. A career stage analysis of career and organizational commitment in

nursing. Journal of Vocational Behavior 39 (3), 311–330.

Robbins, S.P., DeCenzo, D.A., 2004. Fundamentals of Management: Essential Concepts and

Applications, fourth ed. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Sager, J.K., 1990. How to retain salespeople. Industrial Marketing Management 19 (2), 155–166.

Schneider, B., Bowen, D.E., 1993. The service organization: human resources management is crucial.

Organizational Dynamics 21 (4), 39–52.

Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N., Liden, R.C., 1996. Social exchange in organizations: perceived organizational

support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (3),

219–227.

Shore, L.M., Wayne, S.J., 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective and

continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (5),

774–780.

Shaw, J.D., 1999. Job satisfaction and turnover intentions: the moderating role of positive affect. The

Journal of Social Psychology 139 (2), 242–244.

Woods, R.H., Macaulay, J.F., 1989. Rx for turnover: retention programs that work. Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly 30 (1), 78–90.

Yavas, U., Bodur, M., 1999. Satisfaction among expatriate managers: correlates and consequences. Career

Development International 4 (5), 261–269.

Yoo, J.N., Lee, Y.J., Lee, Y.-K., 2000. The impact of service orientation on employee satisfaction by hotel

grade. Journal of Tourism Sciences 23 (2), 138–155.