Examining the Relationships Between Employee Development,
Engagement, and Service Climate
Andrea D. Ellinger, Ph.D.
Professor of Human Resource Development
The University of Texas at Tyler
3900 University Boulevard
Tyler, TX 75799
903 566 7310
Email: Andrea_Ellinger@uttyler.edu
Carolyn (“Casey”) Findley Musgrove, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Marketing
Indiana University Southeast
4201 Grant Line Road
New Albany, IN 47150
812 941 2052
Email: Musgrove@ius.edu
Alexander E. Ellinger, Ph.D.
Professor of Marketing and Supply Chain Management
The University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL
205 348 8941
Email: aellinge@cba.ua.edu
Stream 14: Vocational Education, Training and Workplace Learning
Submission Type: Working Paper
1
Abstract
The concept of employee engagement has garnered considerable attention in recent
years as research has suggested that highly engaged employees are more customer
focused, productive, less likely to turnover, and often generate higher levels of revenue
(Shuck and Reio 2011). Within the service industry context, frontline service employees
become critical to the success of their organizations because their interactions with
customers influence perceptions of service quality. Yet, research exploring individual
and organizational antecedents and consequences of employee engagement is limited
but even more so within the service context (Menguc, Auh, Fisher and Haddad, 2012;
Wollard and Shuck 2011). Some previous research has suggested that the roles of
managers in providing clear expectations and promoting a supportive work climate are
linked to engagement, however, developmental interventions such as managerial
coaching and training have not been examined, although providing feedback and
opportunities for learning have been identified as likely organizational antecedents.
Therefore, to address various calls in the literature, this study sought to explore the
relationships between managerial coaching, training, employee engagement and
service climate. The findings are reported here along with implications for practice and
future research recommendations.
Key Words: training, managerial coaching, employee engagement, job engagement,
organizational engagement, service climate
2
Examining the Relationships Between Employee Development,
Engagement, and Service Climate
1. Introduction
The concept of employee engagement has garnered considerable scholarly and
pragmatic attention in recent years as research has suggested that highly engaged
employees are more customer focused, productive, less likely to turnover, often display
higher levels of discretionary effort, affective commitment and often generate higher
levels of revenue (Shuck and Reio 2011). The meta-analysis reported by Harter,
Schmidt and Hayes (2002) also reported that employee engagement was positively
associated with customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. Within the service industry
context, frontline service employees become critical to the success of their
organizations because their interactions with customers influence perceptions of service
quality. A compelling issue confronting service organizations is improving customers’
service experiences by identifying and maintaining positive service climates (Schneider,
& Bowen, 2010). Service climate has been defined as the “meaning employees attach
to the policies, practices, and procedures and the behavior that gets rewarded,
supported, and expected in an organization” (Schneider, Macey, Lee, & Young, 2009, p.
3).
Frontline service employees, therefore, are critical to the success of service
organizations because their attitudes and behaviors are manifested in their daily
interactions with customers which influence customers’ perceptions of service quality,
satisfaction, and value. Positive service climates have been found to produce beneficial
results in terms of service quality and other performance outcomes (de Jong, de Ruyter
& Lemmink, 2004). Yet, service employee engagement has received limited empirical
investigation (Menguc, Auh, Fisher and Haddad 2012). Although managers and leaders
within service organizations are increasingly recognizing the importance of developing
and engaging their frontline service employees, research exploring individual and
organizational antecedents and consequences of employee engagement is limited but
even more so within the service context (Menguc, Auh, Fisher and Haddad 2012;
Wollard and Shuck 2011).
Some previous research has suggested that the roles of managers in providing
clear expectations and promoting a supportive work climate are linked to engagement
(Wollard and Shuck, 2011). However, developmental interventions such as managerial
coaching and training have not been examined, although providing feedback and
opportunities for learning have been identified as likely organizational antecedents.
Therefore, to address various calls in the literature, this study sought to explore the
relationships between managerial coaching, training, employee engagement and
service climate because scholars contend that a better understanding of how
developmental interventions and management actions influence frontline service
employee behaviors and their engagement is required (Ostrom et, al., 2010; Russ-Eft,
2004).
3
2. Abbreviated Review of the Literature and Theoretical Orientation
The concepts of employee engagement, managerial coaching, and formal training have
garnered significant attention in the services literature as they relate to enhancing
service climate (Hannah, 2004; Slatten, Svensson, & Svaeri, 2011; Wirtz, Heracleous, &
Nitin, 2008) and will be briefly reviewed here. Various definitions of employee
engagement have been offered, however, Shuck and Reio (2012) have acknowledged
that “the construct consists of three separate facets: cognitive engagement, emotional
engagement, and behavioral engagement. Employee engagement, as initially described
by Kahn, refers to the “harnessing of an employee’s full self in terms of physical,
cognitive, and emotional energies to work role performance” (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford,
2010, p. 617). Shuck and Wollard (2010), building upon Kahn and others’ seminal
work, define employee engagement as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional
and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes” (p. 103).
Although the base of empirical research is growing, and recent findings suggest that
engaged employees often outperform disengaged employees, how employee
engagement can be influenced by management is relatively under-developed (Kular,
Gatenby, Rees, Soane, & Truss, 2008).
Kahn (1990) proposed that psychological safety was an antecedent condition of
employee engagement and “offers the most potential for leadership to influence
engagement” (Xu & Thomas, 2011 p. 401). In particular, scholars suggest that
“leadership that provides a supportive, trusting environment allows employees to fully
invest their energies into their work roles” (p. 401). Previous research has suggested
that supportive supervisor relationships contribute to an environment in which
employees feel engaged (May, Gilson, & Harter 2004). While Wollard and Shuck (2011)
acknowledge that the role of managers has been empirically explored in terms of
organizational antecedents, for example, in providing clear expectations, promoting a
supportive organizational culture, and perceptions of workplace safety, issues such as
feedback, encouragement, and opportunities for learning have not received attention.
More recently, Menguc et al. have reported that supervisory feedback and perceived
autonomy promoted service employee engagement, but found, in contrast to the
existing literature that supervisory support was not positively and significantly related to
engagement.
Building upon the notions of feedback and expectations, the concept of
managerial coaching represents a highly supportive, trusting, and developmental
intervention that may influence employee engagement. Managerial coaching is often
defined as “a manager or supervisor serving as a coach or facilitator of learning in the
workplace setting, in which he or she enacts specific behaviors that enable his/her
employee (coachee) to learn and develop” (Ellinger, Beattie and Hamlin 2010). While
the literature base on managerial coaching is growing and empirical research has linked
managerial coaching to job satisfaction, job performance, enhanced knowledge,
improved communications and interpersonal relationships, linkages between
managerial coaching, employee engagement and service climate are not well
established.
While managerial coaching may afford informal opportunities for learning, formal
4
opportunities for learning, like formal training, and its links to engagement have not
been examined relative to other developmental interventions. Training refers to a
“systematic approach to learning and development to improve individual, team, and
organizational effectiveness” (Aguinis and Kraiger 2009) and more than $126 billion is
spent annually in the United States on employee training and development. Formal
training has been positively linked to job-related behaviors or performance and other
indirect benefits at the organization level include reduced employee turnover,
organizational reputation, and social capital.
Therefore, this research study responds to these various calls in the literature to
explore the relationships between alternative developmental interventions, employee
engagement, and service climate. Drawing upon social exchange theory, this study
hypothesized that formal training and managerial coaching would be positively related
to job and organizational engagement and service climate. Four research hypotheses
guide this study as illustrated in Figure 1:
Figure 1. Conceptual Model
Job
Engagement
Managerial
Coaching
Service
Climate
Formal
Training
Organization
al
Engagement
H1: Managerial coaching has a positive relationship with a) job engagement, b)
organizational engagement, and c) service climate.
H2: Formal training has a positive relationship with a) job engagement, b)
organizational engagement, and c) service climate.
5
H3: Job engagement is positively related to service climate.
H4: Organizational engagement is positively related to service climate.
3. Design of the Study
A cross sectional survey design was used for this study. To obtain a sample comprised
of a wide range of full-time employees who work in multiple organizations within a broad
range of service industries, undergraduate students in a marketing research course
were trained as data collectors consistent with established methods (Gwinner, Gremler
& Bitner, 1998). The students identified and contacted potential respondents in person,
online, or by telephone to request participation in the research study. An online survey
was developed based upon established and validated measures of managerial
coaching, formal service-related training, job engagement, organizational engagement,
and service climate. Participants were given the URL to an online survey. A total of 516
surveys were completed. Fourteen of the surveys contained insufficient data, leaving a
total of 502 usable questionnaires. The data collection process continued for
approximately three weeks. Random follow-up calls were made to 10% of the sample to
confirm respondents’ demographic information and to verify actual participation. The
fact that more than two-thirds of the trained student data collectors obtained a
respondent suggests that non-response bias is not a problem in this study. The
respondent pool consisted of a convenience sample of 502 full-time service employees
who work in multiple organizations in a wide range of service industries. Just over half
of the respondents are female (50.9%) and mean respondent age is 35.8 years (SD =
11.82). The mean organizational tenure is 8.26 years (SD = 8.09) and the mean industry
tenure is 11.52 (SD = 9.97). The most frequently represented service industries include:
retail (20.16%); restaurant and hospitality (17.64%); banking and financial services
(12.21%); sales (6.98%); healthcare (6.40%); real estate (4.26%); and education
(2.33%). The remaining 30.04% of the respondents come from a wide variety of other
service industries.
3.1.
Measures
Established, validated measures were used for the five constructs examined in the
survey. The measures are shown in Table 1. All items are measured on a seven-point
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree/very poor) to 7 (strongly agree/very excellent).
Managerial coaching was measured with an eight-item scale developed by Ellinger,
Ellinger, and Keller (2003), which indicates the degree to which employees’ perceive
that their managers facilitate their learning and growth through informal coaching
behaviors. Service-related formal training, which was measured using five items
(Boshoff and Allen 2000), indicates the degree of formal instruction and education that
the service organization provides for their service employees. Job engagement, or the
extent of an individual’s psychological presence in their job, was measured with a fiveitem scale (Saks 2006), while organizational engagement, or the extent of an
individual’s psychological presence in their organization, was measured with a six-item
scale (Saks 2006). The endogenous variable, service climate was measured by
6
Schneider, White, and Paul’s (1998) eight-item global service climate scale. This scale
provides a summary measure of the service employees’ perceptions of their
organization’s climate for service.
Table 1. Measures and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results
Measure
Informal Coaching
1. My supervisor uses analogies, scenarios, and examples to help me learn.
2. My supervisor encourages me to broaden my perspectives by helping me to see the
big picture.
3. My supervisor provides me with constructive feedback.
4. My supervisor solicits feedback from me to ensure that his/her interactions are
helpful to me
5. My supervisor provides me with resources so I can perform my job more effectively.
6. To help me think through issues, my supervisor asks questions, rather than provide
solutions.
7. My supervisor sets expectations with me and communicates the importance of those
expectations to the broader goals of the organization.
8. To help me see different perspectives, my supervisor role-plays with me.
Service-related Formal Training
1. At my company, customer service contact employees receive extensive formal
training before they come into contact with customers.
2. At my company, customer service contact employees receive ongoing formal
training on how to serve customers better.
3. At my company, customer service contact employees are formally trained to deal
with customer complaints
4. At my company, customer service contact employees receive ongoing formal
training on resolving customer problems.
5. At my company, customer service contact employees receive ongoing formal
training on our company's services.
Job Engagement
1. I really “throw” myself into my job.
2. Sometimes I am so into my job that I lose track of time.
3. This job is all consuming; I am totally into it.
4. My mind often wanders and I think of other things when doing my job (R).
5. I am highly engaged in this job.
Std.
Coeff.
0.79
0.77
0.83
0.78
0.76
0.72
0.57
0.71
0.78
0.84
0.84
0.87
0.82
0.75
0.65
0.74
0.57
0.82
7
Organizational Engagement
1 Being a member of this organization is very captivating.
2. One of the most exciting things for me is getting involved with things happening in
this organization.
3. I am really not into the “goings-on” in this organization (R).
4. Being a member of this organization make me come “alive.”
5. Being a member of this organization is exhilarating for me.
6. I am highly engaged in this organization.
Service Climate
1. How would you rate the job knowledge and skills of employees in your business to
deliver superior quality work and service?
2. How would you rate efforts to measure and track the quality of the work and service
in your business?
3. How would you rate the recognition and rewards employees receive for the delivery
of superior work and service?
4. How would you rate the overall quality of service provided by your business?
5. How would you rate the leadership shown by management in your business in
supporting the service quality effort?
6. How would you rate the effectiveness of your firms' communications efforts to
employees?
7. How would you rate the effectiveness of your firms' communications efforts to
customers?
8. How would you rate the tools, technology, and other resources provided to
employees to support the delivery of superior quality work and service?
0.79
0.79
0.78
0.79
0.83
0.84
0.66
0.73
0.70
0.65
0.81
0.77
0.76
0.78
Note: N = 502, χ2 (451) = 1255.71 (p < .01), χ2 / df = 2.78, NNFI = .98, SRMR = .044, IFI = .98,
RMSEA = .060
4. Results
4.1 Reliability and Validity
LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog and Sorböm 2001) was used to test both the measurement and
structural model. Results from the confirmatory factor analysis conducted to test the
measurement model are presented in Table 1. Overall, this analysis yields adequate fit
for the hypothesized five-factor model (χ2 (451) = 1255.71 p < .01). While chi-square
values are typically significant for samples of this size, several other key fit indices
demonstrate good fit (Kenny, Kashy, and Cook 2006). For example, the mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) is .060, the non-normed fit index (NNFI) is 0.98, the
incremental fit index (IFI) is 0.98, and the standardized RMR is .044. The error
covariances of one pair of items from managerial coaching, one pair of items from
organizational engagement, and one pair of items from service climate are allowed to
correlate within the same scales, as items within the same scale are expected to be
correlated with one another. As seen in Table 1, each of the standardized factor
loadings is significant (p < .01), at a moderately high level, with the lowest loading
being .57. A Harman’s single factor test was used to determine whether common
8
method variance is a problem in this data. Another measurement model is estimated
with a measurement factor in place of the latent variables. This method factor model
produces a worse fit than the hypothesized measurement model (χ2 (461) = 7365.80, p
< .01, RMSEA = .173, NNFI = .89, IFI = .90, SRMR = .11). A χ2 difference test confirms
that the difference in the fits is significant (χ2 diff (10) = 6,110.09, p < .001). Thus, a
common underlying factor is not the best representation of the data and common
method variance is not a pervasive problem in this data.
Table 2 reports alpha reliabilities, average shared variance estimates, and interconstruct correlations. Construct reliability is evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. All of
the measures exhibit acceptable levels of reliability with the minimum coefficient alpha
at .82. Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) index of the average variance in each latent factor
accounted for by its indicators is above .50 for all constructs. Evidence for discriminant
validity comes from the fact that the shared variance among any two constructs is less
than the average variance explained in the items (ρυс(η)) by their intended construct.
Collectively, these results provide evidence of adequate convergent and discriminant
validity and indicate that it is appropriate to test the study hypotheses.
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, Inter-Correlations, and Square-roots of the Average
Variance Extracted
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
1. Informal Coaching
3.54
0.72 (.91/.74)
2. Formal Training
3.61
0.80
0.55 ** (.92/.83)
3. Job Engagement
3.66
0.69
0.35 **
0.25 ** (.82/.71)
4. Organizational Engagement
3.59
0.77
0.53 **
0.41 **
0.66 ** (.92/.80)
5. Service Climate
3.88
0.64
0.58 **
0.56 **
0.40 **
0.56 ** (.90/.73)
Note. N = 502 for all correlations.
( ) = Diagonal entries are coefficient alpha reliability estimates and the square roots of the average variance extracted.
** = p < .01, one-tailed.
4.2 Hypothesis Tests
To test the four aforementioned hypotheses, a structural equation model was estimated,
using the maximum likelihood method of parameter estimation. Figure 2 displays the
final structural model. The overall fit of the model is acceptable (χ2 (451) = 1348.51, p
< .01). Several key fit indices provide supporting evidence of good fit; the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) is .063, the non-normed fit index (NNFI) is .98,
incremental fit index (IFI) is 0.98, and the standardized RMR is .045. The same
correlated error covariances from the measurement model are present in the structural
model. The structural error terms in the Psi matrix are allowed to correlate between job
engagement and organizational engagement. This correlation is reasonable given that
both variables are types of employee engagement. As shown in Table 2, the correlation
between these two variables is significant at the p < .01 level.
9
Figure 2. Final Structural Results
Job
Engagement
.36
.03
Managerial
Coaching
.46
.33
Service
Climate
.08
.28
Formal
Training
.29
.18
Organization
al
Engagement
Note: N = 502, χ2 (451) = 1348.51 (p < .01), χ2 / df = 2.99, NNFI = .98, SRMR = .045, IFI
= .98, RMSEA = .063, Dotted arrows indicate non-significant relationships. The error
terms in the psi matrix are correlated between job engagement and organizational
engagement.
The structural results support all three parts of hypothesis 1, managerial
coaching has a significant direct positive relationship with job engagement (γ = .36, tvalue = 5.82, p < .01), organizational engagement (γ = .46, t-value = 8.08, p < .01), and
service climate (γ = .33, t-value = 6.43, p < .01). In terms of the relationships predicted
in hypothesis 2, the results do not support the hypothesized direct relationship between
formal training and job engagement (γ = .08, t-value = 1.29, p < ns). However, the
results do support direct relationships between formal training and organizational
engagement (γ = .18, t-value = 3.31, p < .01) and service climate (γ = .28, t-value =
5.91, p < .01).
Hypothesis 3 predicts a direct positive relationship between job engagement and
10
service climate. The results do not support this hypothesis (β = .03, t-value = 0.38, p =
ns). Hypothesis 4 predicts that organizational engagement is positively related to
service climate. The results support the fourth hypotheses (β = .29, t-value = 3.89, p
< .01).
As can be seen in Figure 2, the pattern of effects between the variables in the
model produces both direct and indirect relationships. To further assess the complex
relationship between the exogenous variables and service climate, an examination of
the indirect effects is essential for more complete understanding of the findings.
Decomposition of effects is used to examine the mediation, as is recommended for use
of in structural equation models by Brown (1997) and Kline (2005). In addition to the
significant direct relationship between managerial coaching and service climate (H1c),
an indirect relationship also exists through organizational engagement (standardized
indirect effect = .14, t-value = 5.34, p < .001). Therefore, this pattern indicates that
organizational engagement partially mediates the relationship between managerial
coaching and service climate (Kline 2005). Moreover, consistent with Brown (1997), a
comparison of the direct, indirect, and total effects reveals that 70.2% of the covariance
between managerial coaching and service climate is explained by the direct effect, with
the remaining 29.8% being explained by the indirect effect through organizational
engagement.
Likewise, formal training has a significant indirect relationship with service
climate through organizational engagement (standardized indirect effect = .05, t-value =
2.81, p < .01). Because the direct relationship between formal training and service
climate (H2c) is also significant, this pattern of effects indicates that organizational
engagement serves as a partial mediator between formal training and service climate
(Kline 2005). Moreover, consistent with Brown (1997), a comparison of the direct,
indirect, and total effects reveals that 84.8% of the covariance between formal training
and service climate is explained by the direct effect, with the remaining 15.2% being
explained by the organizational engagement.
5. Discussion and Contributions to Human Resource Development
Practice and Research
The findings from this respond to various calls for research made by scholars and offer
contributions to the engagement, managerial coaching, training, services, and human
resource development literatures. Specifically, these findings contribute to the existing
engagement literature by further exploring organizational antecedents, managerial
coaching and training, which have not been previously examined, although components
of managerial coaching have been examined (i.e. feedback and clear expectations).
The findings of this study also offer insights on how managerial coaching is linked to
engagement and service climate, and how training is linked to engagement and service
climate which further support the efficacy of these two performance based interventions.
The findings from this study also promote a better understanding of developmental
interventions focused on employee learning and development and their linkages to
service climate which also addresses calls within the human resource development
literature for research that evaluates such interventions to improve customer service
(Russ-Eft 2004).
11
The engagement literature has suggested that leaders and managers’ behaviors
are important for the development of employee engagement. Specifically, previous
empirical work has suggested that managers’ feedback and clear expectations promote
service employee engagement, yet supervisory support, which has typically been
positively associated with employee engagement was not positively and significantly
related to engagement in the Menguc et al. study. While Menguc and colleagues
suggest that more communication and dialogue is a consequence of providing
feedback, supervisory support may be redundant in their study. In the current study,
managerial coaching is inclusive of setting clear expectations, providing constructive
feedback as well as soliciting feedback along with other actions that provide resources
and enhance employee learning. The results suggest that managerial coaching is
significantly directly positively related to job and organizational engagement as well as
directly significantly related to service climate to the extent that 70.2% of the variance
between managerial coaching and service climate is explained by the direct effect with
the remaining 29.8% being explained by the indirect effect through organizational
engagement. Our findings, therefore, suggest that managerial coaching is an important
developmental intervention that can influence both employee engagement and service
climate which supports and extends previous research.
In contrast, formal training is not directly related to job engagement but is directly
related to organizational engagement and service climate. Further analysis reveals that
84.8% of the covariance between formal training and service climate is explained by the
direct effect with the remaining 15.2% being explained by organizational engagement.
While both managerial coaching and training are developmental interventions that are
positively, significantly and directly linked to service climate, it appears that managerial
coaching may be more influential in fostering job and organizational engagement with a
more potent indirect impact through organizational engagement on service climate.
While both interventions appear necessary to promote service climate, managerial
coaching may be more impactful on developing job engagement than training. It is
important, however, to recognize that some limitations accompany this research in
terms of the convenience nature of the sample, and the fact that quality and frequency
of managerial coaching and training were not assessed which would be avenues for
future research. Ultimately, this study provides some additional insights into how two
organizational antecedents, managerial coaching and formal training, influence front line
employees’ engagement and service climate which should inform organizational leaders
and managers who aspire to create work environments that foster service employee
engagement and encourage customer-focused service.
References
Aguinis, H & Kraiger, K, 2009, ‘Benefits of training and development for individuals,
teams, organizations, and society,’ The Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 60, pp.
451-474.
Boshoff, C., & Allen, J., 2000, ‘The influence of selected antecedents on frontline staff's
perceptions of service recovery performance’, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 63−90.
12
Brown, R. L., 1997, ‘Assessing specific meditational effects in complex theoretical
models’, Structural Equation Modeling, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 142-156.
de Jong, A, de Ruyter, K & Lemmink, J 2004, ‘Antecedents and consequences of the
service climate in boundary-spanning self-managing service teams’, Journal of
Marketing, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 18-35.
Ellinger, AD, Beattie, RS, & Hamlin, RG, 2010, ‘The ‘Manager as Coach,’’ In E Cox, T
Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck, Eds., The Complete Handbook of Coaching, Sage
Publications: London.
Ellinger, AD., Ellinger, AE & Keller, SB, 2003, ‘Supervisory coaching behavior,
employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic
perspective in the distribution industry’, Human Resource Development
Quarterly vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 435–458.
Fornell, C, & Larcker, DF, 1981, ‘Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error’, Journal of Marketing
Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gwinner, KP, Gremler, DD, & Bitner, MJ 1998, ‘Relational benefits in services
industries: The customer's perspective’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 101-114.
Hannah, CJ, 2004, ‘ Improving intermediate skills through workplace coaching: A
case study within the UK rail industry’, International Journal of Evidence Based
Coaching and Mentoring, vol. 2, no.1, pp. 22-49.
Harter, JK, Schmidt, FL, & Hayes, TL, 2002, ‘Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A metaanalysis,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. April, pp. 268-279.
Kahn, WA 1990, ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement
at work’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 692-724.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W.L., 2006, Dyadic data analysis, New York:
Guilford Press.
Kline, R. B., 2005, Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, New York:
Guilford Press.
Kular, S, Gatenby, M, Rees, C, Soane, E & Truss, K 2008, ‘Employee engagement: A
literature review’, Kingston University, Kingston Business School.
13
Macey, WH & Schneider, B 2008, ‘The meaning of employee engagement’, Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3-30.
May, DR, Gilson, RL & Harter, LM 2004, ‘The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at
work’, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 1137.
Menguc, B, Auh, S, Fisher, M., & Haddad, A., 2012, ‘To be engaged or not to be
engaged: The antecedents and consequences of service employee engagement,’
Journal of Business Research, [Forthcoming].
Ostrom, AL, Bitner, MJ, Brown, SW, Burkhard, KA, Goul, M, Smith-Daniels, V,
Demirkan, H & Rabinovich, E 2010, ‘Moving forward and making a difference:
research priorities for the science of service’, Journal of Service Research, vol. 13,
no. 1, pp. 4-36.
Rich, BL, Lepine, JA & Crawford, ER 2010, ‘Job engagement: Antecedents and effects
on job performance’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 617-635.
Russ-Eft, D., 2004, ‘Customer service competencies: A global look’, Human Resource
Development International, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 211-231.
Saks, AM 2006, ‘Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement’, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 600-619.
Schneider, B & Bowen, DE 2009, ‘Modeling the human side of service delivery’, Service
Science, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 154-168.
Schneider, B, Macey, WH, Lee, WC & Young, SA 2009, ‘Organizational service climate
drivers of the American customer satisfaction index (ACSI) and financial and market
performance’, Journal of Service Research, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 3-14.
Schneider, B, White, SS, & Paul, MC, 1998, ‘Linking service climate and customer
perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model,’ Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 150-163.
Shuck, B & Reio, TG, 2011, ‘The employee engagement landscape and HRD: How do
we link theory and scholarship to current practice?, Advances in Developing Human
Resources, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 419-428.
Slåtten, T, Svensson, G & Sværi, S 2011, ‘Service quality and turnover intentions as
perceived by employees: Antecedents and consequences’, Personnel Review, vol.
40, no. 2, pp. 205-221.
14
Wirtz, J, Heracleous, L & Pangarkar, N 2008, ‘Managing human resources for service
excellence and cost effectiveness at Singapore Airlines’, Managing Service Quality,
vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 4-19.
Wollard, KK and Shuck, B, 2011, ‘Antecedents to employee engagement: A structured
review of the literature,’ Advances in Developing Human Resources, vol. 13, no. 4,
pp. 429-446.
Xu, J & Thomas, HC 2011, ‘How can leaders achieve high employee engagement?’,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 399-416.
15