See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/211380792

The Effects of Perceived Management Concern

for Frontline Employees and Customers on
Turnover Intentions.
Article May 2007

CITATIONS

READS

58

334

3 authors, including:
Aliosha Alexandrov
University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh
7 PUBLICATIONS 195 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Aliosha Alexandrov

Retrieved on: 08 May 2016

The Effects of Perceived Management

Concern for Frontline Employees and
Customers on Turnover Intentions
Moderating Role of Employment Status
Aliosha Alexandrov
Emin Babakus
University of Memphis

Ugur Yavas
East Tennessee State University

This study develops and tests a turnover intentions

model, which examines the effects of frontline employees
perceptions of management concern for employees and
customers on turnover intentions, mediated by job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Using
this model as a framework, the authors explore the role of
employment status (full-time vs. part-time) as a moderator of the aforementioned relationships. The results indicate that perceived management concern for employees
and customers has significant effects on employees
turnover intentions. Employment status moderates the
relationships between perceived management concern
for employees and affective organizational commitment,
perceived management concern for customers and job
satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment and
turnover intentions. Implications of the findings are discussed and future research avenues are offered.

Journal of Service Research, Volume 9, No. 4, May 2007 356-371

DOI: 10.1177/1094670507299378
2007 Sage Publications

Keywords:

frontline employees; employment status; turnover

intentions; structural equation modeling

In an era of intense competitive pressures, service

providers realize that creating and maintaining a loyal
customer base is a key to their survival and success (e.g.,
Reichheld and Teal 1996). Accordingly, they design multipronged strategies to enhance customer satisfaction and
loyalty. Service executives also recognize that no strategy
aimed at retention of external customers can be
considered complete unless it includes programs for
reaching and winning over internal customers (Schneider
and White 2004).
To such executives, retention of satisfied and committed
employees (in particular, frontline service employees) is
as important to business success as customer retention

Alexandrov et al. / PERCEIVED MANAGEMENT CONCERN

(Baldrige National Quality Program 2005; Reichheld and

Teal 1996). This is because employee turnover represents a
substantial cost to companies both in tangible as well as in
intangible terms, seriously hinders efficient and effective
customer service, and undermines competitiveness. Indeed,
according to one estimate, turnovers cost American companies around $5 trillion annually (cf. Frank, Finnegan, and
Taylor 2004). Such costs, among others, include additional
staffing or overtime payments to alleviate shortages, the
replacement of an experienced employee with an inexperienced new hire, and consequently increased cost of service due to new staffs inexperience, disrupted service,
increased turnover among remaining staff who feel pressured and overworked, low morale, and damage to
companys reputation (e.g., ACAS 1994; Hendrie 2004).
Furthermore, frontline service employees with high
turnover intentions not only provide poor service to customers but also can seriously undermine service recovery
so essential for customer retention (Tax and Brown 1998).
Given the facts that turnovers are costly and frontline
employees play a critical role in customer retention
(Babakus et al. 2003; Tax and Brown 1998), several questions beg answers: (a) What managerial practices are critical for reducing turnover among frontline service
employees? (b) What is the underlying process that motivates frontline service employees to remain in their jobs?
and (c) Should managerial employee retention/turnover
reduction practices be tailored according to the employment status (full-time vs. part-time) of frontline service
employees? Against this background, in this study, we
develop and test a turnover intentions model grounded in
Bagozzis (1992) (appraisal emotional response
behavior) attitude theory by considering two psychological climate dimensions that characterize a retail service
environment (perceived management concern for
employees and customers). We view these two psychological climate dimensions as the drivers of employee
turnover intentions, mediated by job satisfaction and
affective organizational commitment. We use the model
as an overall theoretical platform to examine the moderating effect of employment status (full-time vs. parttime) on the aforementioned relationships. To that end, we
formulate and test specific hypotheses by relying on the
precepts of the partial inclusion (Katz and Kahn 1978) and
social comparison (Festinger 1954; Kruglanski and
Mayseless 1990) theories.
In line with Forresters (2000) argument that
management desires and good intentions do not mean
much unless employees perceive them as such, we define
management concern for employees and customers from
employees perspective. Specifically, we adopt Burke,
Borucki, and Hurleys (1992) conceptualization and define
these two psychological climate constructs as employees

357

cognitive appraisals of the managerial actions to enhance

the well-being of a retailers employees and customers.
Likewise, we define job satisfaction as an affective state
resulting from ones evaluation of his or her job (Hartline
and Ferrell 1996), and we view organizational commitment
in terms of affective organizational commitment or the
strength of an employees emotional attachment to his or
her organization (Meyer and Herschovitch 2001). We
define turnover intentions as employees state of mind to
leave an organization (Singh, Verbeke, and Rhoads 1996).
In the next section, we briefly describe Bagozzis
(1992) attitude theory as a general theoretical framework
to guide our conceptual model and develop the specific
research hypotheses based on theoretical perspectives and
empirical evidence from services management, marketing,
and psychology literatures. We follow this with discussions of the method and results of a large-scale empirical
study we undertook among frontline employees of a
national retail chain. We conclude with implications of the
results and suggestions for further research.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Bagozzi (1992) argues that self-regulating processes,
which are embodied in distinct sequences of monitoring
and evaluation, emotional reactions, and coping responses
govern behavior. Under this conceptualization, an
individual appraises various past, present, and future
outcomes, and these outcomes produce particular emotions
and subsequently lead to various coping responses. For
instance, anticipating or experiencing a pleasant event leads
to satisfaction or joy, which in turn directs the individual to
take the necessary steps to attain that outcome. In other
words, cognitive evaluations of events, outcomes, and
situations precede affective reactions, and affective
responses influence an individuals intentions and behavior.
Thus, cognition is the preeminent antecedent of affect,
which consequently guides behavioral intentions and,
ultimately, behavior (Lazarus 1982, 1984).
Figure 1 presents the conceptual model developed
in this study based on Bagozzis (1992) framework.
The underlying premise of the model is that frontline
employees cognitive assessments of psychological
climate (represented by managements concern for
employees and customers) result in such affective
responses as job satisfaction and affective organizational
commitment. Feelings of satisfaction and affective
commitment, in turn, influence employees turnover
intentions. Hence, the model predicts that the influence
of psychological climate on turnover intentions is fully
mediated by affective responses.

358

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / May 2007

FIGURE 1
Research Model
Perceived Management

Concern for
Employees
(CE)

Research Model

H1a

Job
Satisfaction
(JS)

H1b (+)

H3 (-)
Turnover
Intentions
(TI)

H5 (+)

H2a (+)
Concern for
Customers
(CC)

H2b (+)

H4 (-)
Affective
Organizational
Commitment
(AOC)

Moderator:
Employment Status
(full-time vs. part-time)
Control Variable: Tenure
Appraisal

Emotional Response

Behavior

NOTE: Moderator hypotheses (H6H9), which predict varying strengths of the relationships in the model, are not shown to keep the diagram simple.

Perceived Management Concern

for Employees and Customers
The terms perceived management concern for employees
and perceived management concern for customers were first
introduced by Burke et al. (1992) to label the two critical
dimensions of psychological climate specifically within
the context of retail services. Under their conceptualization,
the concern-for-employees dimension refers to frontline
employees cognitive appraisals of management behaviors
and actions (e.g., teamwork, rewards and recognition,
listening to employees, eliminating fear or intimidation,
degree of walking the talk) as they relate to their own
well-being. Such cognitive evaluations by employees are
manifestations of the concern-for-employees dimension of
psychological climate.
Similarly, employees cognitive assessments of
management behaviors and actions (e.g., improving
customer support systems, offering high quality products and services, providing accurate information to

consumers, and keeping promises) with regard to

customers well-being are manifestations of the concernfor-customers dimension of psychological climate. These
dimensions vary across individual employees (Borucki
and Burke 1999; Burke et al. 1992).1
The two-dimensional conceptualization of the
psychological climate for a retail service provides a
succinct picture of frontline employees idiosyncratic
interpretations of their work environment in terms of what
is important to their own well-being as well as to the wellbeing of customers. This conceptualization is consistent
with the broader service climate research, where each
climate dimension refers to a particular situational
referent. In line with Schneiders (1975) compelling
argument about the existence of various climates as
climates for something, perceptions of management
concern for employees and customers collectively capture
the underlying psychological climate in reference to two
critical stakeholders of a service organization (i.e.,
employees and customers). These climate dimensions

Alexandrov et al. / PERCEIVED MANAGEMENT CONCERN

emerge as molar descriptions of the service environment

and they reflect employees understanding of what is
valued and emphasized by the organization (Schneider and
White 2004).
The immediate consequences of psychological climate
cognitions are affective (e.g., employee job satisfaction
and affective organizational commitment). Such affective
states influence employee behaviors that ultimately affect
customer satisfaction and loyalty. This proposition is
consistent with the customer linkage research pioneered
by Schneider and his colleagues (e.g., Schneider and
White 2004) and the service profit chain model
advocated by Heskett et al. (1994). Both frameworks
emphasize that the nature of the task environment, as
perceived by employees, has affective and behavioral
consequences, which in turn affect organizational
outcomes. For instance, researchers argue that management concern for employees and customers is a
prerequisite for customer acquisition and retention (cf.
Boshoff and Allen 2000; Sureshchandar, Rajendran, and
Anantharaman 2002) and that unless management is fully
committed to both employees and customers, any
customer retention efforts are doomed to failure from the
start (Reichheld and Teal 1996; Schneider, White, and Paul
1998). Furthermore, when employees perceive a lack of
management concern for themselves and customers, this
results in reduced job satisfaction and organizational
commitment (Borucki and Burke 1999; Parker et al. 2003).
On the contrary, when employees perceive that
management is genuinely concerned for their well-being
as well as the well-being of customers, they experience
higher levels of job satisfaction and exhibit stronger
commitment to their organization (Reichheld and Teal
1996; Rhoades, Eisenberger, and Armeli 2001; Schneider
et al. 1998). Such affective responses exert significant
influences on organizationally valued employee behaviors
including better customer service, effective service
recovery, and reduced turnover intentions (e.g., Babakus et
al. 2003). Hence, frontline employees job satisfaction and
affective organizational commitment play a critical
mediating role between psychological climate and
employee and customer outcomes (Parker et al. 2003;
Paulin, Ferguson, and Bergeron 2006). Thus, we advance
the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Perceived management concern for
employees has a positive effect on frontline
employees (a) job satisfaction and (b) affective
organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 2: Perceived management concern for
customers has a positive effect on frontline
employees (a) job satisfaction and (b) affective
organizational commitment.

359

Job Satisfaction, Organizational

Commitment, and Turnover Intentions
Evidence from theoretical as well as empirical writings indicates that turnover intentions represent a reliable
indicator of actual voluntary turnover and are heavily
influenced by job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Allen, Shore, and Griffeth 2003; Cohen 1993;
Hom and Griffeth 1995). For instance, Hom and Griffeth
(1995) maintain that employees decide to leave their
organization when they become dissatisfied with their
jobs and lose their commitment to the organization.
Likewise, Meyer and Herschovitch (2001) argue that
when employees are disaffected with their jobs, their
desire to remain in their organization starts to erode. In
fact, initial consequences of these negative affects, in the
form of low job satisfaction and organizational commitment, are turnover cognitions. Research by Allen and
Griffeth (2001), Allen et al. (2003), and Chiu and
Francesco (2003) shows that job satisfaction is a strong
predictor of turnover intentions. Elangovans (2001)
extensive research shows that job satisfaction predicts
both commitment and turnover intentions, and commitment predicts only turnover intentions. It is instructive to
note that, according to Jaros et al. (1993) and Wasti
(2003), of all commitment types (e.g., affective, normative, and continuance), affective organizational commitment depicts the strongest negative relationship with
turnover intentions.
Evidence also shows that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are interrelated. On theoretical
grounds, it is contended that job satisfaction precedes
organizational commitment, which develops over time
(Meyer and Herschovitch 2001). Paulin et al. (2006) add
that job satisfaction is more volatile and can be easily
affected by transitory events in the work environment,
although such events may not cause changes in employees affective organizational commitment. Indeed,
research shows that as an antecedent, job satisfaction
exerts a significant positive effect on affective organizational commitment (Babakus et al. 2003; Brashear,
Lepkowska-White, and Chelariu 2003; Brown and
Peterson 1993; Paulin et al. 2006; Singh et al. 1996).
Therefore, we posit the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3: Job satisfaction has a negative effect on
frontline employees turnover intentions.
Hypothesis 4: Affective organizational commitment has
a negative effect on frontline employees turnover
intentions.
Hypothesis 5: Job satisfaction has a positive effect
on frontline employees affective organizational
commitment.

360

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / May 2007

Employment Status as a Moderator

To provide a more rigorous test of the theoretical linkages in our model and to explore if managers can benefit
from differentiated employee retention practices, we
examine the moderating role of employment status (fulltime vs. part-time). It should be noted that a plethora of
past research has compared full-time versus part-time
employees in terms of their various work-related attitudes
and behaviors including turnover intentions (Thorsteinson
2003). However, such comparisons have been mostly
based on average scores (Stamper and Van Dyne 2001;
Steffy and Jones 1990). In this study, in line with Babin
and Boless (1998) and Boles, Wood, and Johnsons
(2003) discussions in the context of another employee
background characteristic (gender), we argue that research
on employment status should move from comparisons that
are based on average scores to the role of employment
status as a moderator of the strength of the relationships
among various constructs in job attitudes and outcomes
models. Examination of the strength of relationships
reveals the relative importance and consequences of managerial actions on various groups of frontline employees
that may not be captured by comparing average scores
(Darden, McKee, and Hampton 1993). For instance, fulltime and part-time employees may demonstrate similar
levels of job satisfaction, yet the effect of job satisfaction
on turnover intentions may be much more pronounced in
the case of full-time employees.
Part-time employment is a growing phenomenon in
the United States. Currently, about 37% of services jobs
are held by part-time workers (U.S. Department of Labor
2006). It is important that research suggests that parttime employees might have different psychology at
work (Peters, Jackofski, and Salter 1981). Thus, at a
time when part-time employees make up a significant
portion of the workforce, without sound evidence and
guidelines, managers run the risk of making wrong decisions when managing their full-time versus part-time
employees. On one hand, ignoring employment status
differences may create problems if there are differences.
On the other hand, an employment statussensitive
approach may be even more problematic if there are no
differences between employees. Thus, an understanding
of the presence (or absence) of differences between parttime and full-time employees is crucial to managers in
determining if a dual or employment statusdifferentiated
approach is warranted in managing frontline employees.
In this regard, an important research question is,
Does frontline service employees employment status
influence the strength and direction of the relationships depicted in Figure 1?

The literature does not provide clear directions for

answering this critical question. However, two major theoretical frameworks provide useful guidelines for developing relevant propositions. These are partial inclusion (Katz
and Kahn 1978) and social comparison (Festinger 1954;
Kruglanski and Mayseless 1990) theories. Partial inclusion
theory focuses on individuals multiple roles in a variety of
social systems and the degree to which individuals may be
fully or partially included in these systems. According to
this theory, depending on the level of inclusion (full or partial), the importance attached to each role varies across
social systems. In the context of organizational systems,
full-time employees who spend most of their time at work
are expected to be fully integrated into the system. The
organizational system is then the primary social system in
which the full-time employee plays his or her most vital
role. In contrast, part-time employees are partially
included in this social system and, hence, they may feel
that the work they do is not the most important role they
have. In fact, part-time employees may have other more
important roles outside the organization, including parttime jobs in other firms. Empirical evidence shows that
part-time employees feel excluded from the organization
(Barker 1993), feel less a part of the organization (Miller
and Terborg 1979), and feel less involved in their jobs
(Martin and Hafer 1995).
Based on partial inclusion theory, we argue that perceived management concern for employees will have a
more personal relevance and importance to full-time
employees job satisfaction and organizational commitment relative to part-time employees. Part-time employees can also notice managerial actions, but their
appraisals of management concern for employees may
not be as central and elaborate as those of full-time
employees because part-time employees are partially
included in the organization and perceive themselves as
outsiders (Stamper and Masterson 2002). In addition,
constructs such as job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment may not have as unambiguous meanings in the minds of part-time employees (Connelly and
Gallagher 2004). Partial inclusion in the system and lack
of unambiguous meanings may weaken the effect of perceived management concern for employees on part-time
employees job satisfaction and affective organizational
commitment. Therefore, we advance the following
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 6: The effects of perceived management
concern for employees on employees (a) job satisfaction and (b) affective organizational commitment will be weaker for part-time frontline
employees than for full-time frontline employees.

Alexandrov et al. / PERCEIVED MANAGEMENT CONCERN

Partial inclusion theory also provides guidance for

understanding the potential differences between parttime and full-time employees with regard to the effect of
perceived management concern for customers on
employees job satisfaction and affective organizational
commitment. Both part-time and full-time frontline
service employees play a critical role in connecting the
organization to its customers. However, due to their partial inclusion in the organization, part-time employees
may feel like an outsider looking in and, hence, feel
closer and more empathetic to another group of outsiders,
customers. Full-time employees, on the other hand, may
feel more strongly about following established bureaucratic rules and procedures as an insider looking out
and delicately try to balance their own self interests with
those of the organization and its customers. Such potential mental orientation differences between full-time and
part-time employees can carry implications about how
each group appraises customer-related signals coming
from management and how these signals influence their
affective states. It is likely that when part-time employees
observe manifestations of management concern for customers, their affective reactions will be more elevated.
This is because part-time employees will appreciate and
value management concern for customers (an outsider
group like themselves) more. Therefore, we posit the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 7: The effects of perceived management
concern for customers on employees (a) job satisfaction and (b) affective organizational commitment will be stronger for part-time frontline
employees than for full-time frontline employees.
Social comparison theory suggests that individuals
opinions and evaluations of themselves heavily depend
on their reference groups. Full-time employees may use
other full-time employees as a frame of reference in
making various affective judgments including job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment.
Similarly, part-time employees frame of reference will
be other part-time employees (Darden et al. 1993;
Eberhardt and Moser 1995). However, part-time employees may have other jobs and activities that serve as
frames of reference for them, whereas full-time employees may not have such additional comparison groups. As
Darden et al. (1993) cogently argue, because of these differences in frame of reference, one can expect a stronger
relationship between job satisfaction and organization
commitment for full-time employees compared with
part-timers. As they elaborate, the relationship between
these two affective states for the full-time employees is
strengthened by the lack of outside sources of comparison.

361

The standard of comparison for full-time employees job

satisfaction is largely their job environment, where they
spend a good portion of their waking hours. On the other
hand, this relationship for the part-timers is diluted due to
more frequent exposure to outside sources of social comparison (Darden et al. 1993). Furthermore, because parttime workers are less included in the organizational
system and spend less time there, they have less opportunity to develop feelings of dissatisfaction (cf. Still 1983).
Therefore, we posit the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 8: The effect of job satisfaction on affective
organizational commitment will be weaker for
part-time frontline employees than for full-time
frontline employees.
We propose that employment status also moderates
the effects of job satisfaction and affective organizational
commitment on turnover intentions. According to partial
inclusion theory, the organization is the main social system for the full-time employees, whereas part-time
employees are more strongly included in other social
systems (e.g., home, family, school, another job)
(Martin and Hafer 1995). These other social systems may
dominate a part-time employees turnover intentions
more so than his or her job satisfaction and affective
commitment to the organization. Indeed, evidence shows
that changes in part-time employees commitments outside of their work sphere play a much more important
role in their turnover decisions (Tansky, Gallagher, and
Wetzel 1997). This suggests that the buffering effects of
job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment
on turnover intentions will be significantly weaker
for part-time employees compared with their full-time
counterparts.
In addition, part-time employees may decide to follow
other employment options regardless of their job satisfaction and attachment to the current organization.
Potential for full-time employment in the future, for
instance, may lead part-time employees to switch to
another job easily because the switching cost is much
lower for them, especially during periods of economic
boom and low unemployment (Hom and Kinicki 2001).
In contrast, full-time employees will be more hesitant to
switch jobs as they have more to lose (e.g., health care
coverage, stock options). Hence, we advance the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 9: The effects of (a) job satisfaction and (b)
affective organizational commitment on employees turnover intentions will be weaker for parttime frontline employees than for full-time
frontline employees.

362

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / May 2007

Tenure as a Control Variable

Mounting evidence from the literature suggests that
organizational tenure influences job attitudes and turnover
intentions (Abbott, White, and Charles 2005;
Van Breukelen, Van der Vlist, and Steensma 2004). For
instance, Steers (1977) strongly agues that tenure is the
single best predictor of turnover because it represents an
employees past behavior and summarizes his or her relationship with the organization. The attraction-selectionattrition hypothesis (Schneider and Reichers 1983)
suggests that individuals are attracted to and selected by
organizations that satisfy their needs and goals. In those
cases where there is a good fit, we expect low levels of
attrition and, hence, longer tenure. In cases of mismatches,
however, we should expect high attrition rates and, hence,
shorter tenure, provided that other job opportunities are
readily available. Thus, tenure is expected to correlate with
climate perceptions, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. Therefore, in an effort to
better delineate the relationships in the model, we include
tenure as a control variable.

METHOD
Sample and Data Collection
Data for this study were collected as part of a comprehensive employee and customer survey sponsored by
a national retail chain. Store managers distributed 8,500
questionnaires, with a cover letter from the company
CEO, to frontline employees in 1,200 stores across 25
states that the retailer operates in. Store managers were
instructed, by a letter from the company CEO, not to
pressure respondents in any way. Employees were
assured of confidentiality and allowed to respond to the
questionnaire anonymously during work hours by keying
in their responses electronically via the companys internal e-mail system. Participation was totally voluntary.
The responses were transferred into a data file at the corporate office under the supervision of a member of the
research team. After a 3-week period, 5,591 usable
responses, for a response rate of 66%, were obtained. The
number of responses across the stores ranged from 1 to
20 with an average of 5 responses per store (there was no
response from 50 stores). About 63% of the respondents
were full-time employees. Seventy-six percent of fulltime and 79% of part-time employees were male. The
average tenure was 2.1 years for full-time and 1.1 years
for part-time employees. The relatively low average
tenure is a reflection of rapid growth (opening of new
stores) experienced by the retailer. A comparison of the

sample profile to the company records indicated that the

sample was representative of the population of frontline
employees. That is, the sample distribution of gender and
tenure across full-time and part-time respondents was not
significantly different from their respective populations.
Measures
The questionnaire was designed jointly by a research
team made up of academics and a management team
headed by the HR vice president of the sponsoring firm. An
initial survey was developed based on an extensive literature review, six focus group sessions with frontline employees, and discussions with several managers (four store
managers, three area supervisors, two district managers,
and two regional VPs). These sessions were designed to
gain qualitative insights about the current climate and identify matters that were important for frontline employees.
Rounds of review and discussions with the management
team led to substantial revision of the initial draft.
Multiple-item Likert-type instruments were used to
measure the study constructs (see Table 1). Responses to
each item were elicited on a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Burke et al.
(1992) provided empirical support for their two-dimensional conceptualization of psychological climate using
items from a proprietary survey, but they did not reveal
the contents of the items. Therefore, using their conceptualization, we initially operationalized management
concern for employees and management concern for customers with a set of nine items each. Of the resulting
nine-item scales for each dimension, seven items were
adapted from the literature (Day and Bedeian 1991;
Schneider et al. 1998) and two were suggested by the
management. In measuring perceived concern for
employees, the items, XYZ management promotes
teamwork throughout the company and praises
employees when they do something that really satisfies
customers were suggested by the management team.
Likewise, in measuring perceived management concern
for customers, the items suggested by management were
XYZ management helps to provide customer service
faster than in the past and looks for quality when
selecting suppliers.
Job satisfaction was measured using a seven-item
scale that tapped various aspects of a job as suggested by
the literature (e.g., Hartline and Ferrell 1996), including
satisfaction with pay, coworkers, promotion opportunities, and supervisors, and two items suggested by management (medical benefits and work schedules). Affective
organizational commitment was measured via an eightitem scale adopted from Mowday, Steers and Porter
(1979), and a three-item scale adopted from Singh et al.

Alexandrov et al. / PERCEIVED MANAGEMENT CONCERN

363

TABLE 1
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Measurement Properties of the Scales
Scale

Common Metric Standardized Loading

t-Value

Perceived management concern for employeesa

1. Cares about the personal growth and achievements of each employee
2. Encourages the employees to do whatever it takes to do the job right
3. Listens to what employees have to say
4. Motivates employees without using fear and intimidation
5. Inspires employees to give excellent service to customers
6. Practices what they preach
7. Promotes teamwork throughout the company

.74
.76
.77
.75
.79
.77
.79

62.2
65.0
66.3
64.6
69.1
66.5
69.9

Perceived management concern for customersb

1. Promotes high quality products and services
2. Is always improving its products and customer service
3. Has the customers best interest in mind
4. Provides accurate information to customers
5. Looks for quality when selecting parts suppliers
6. Lives up to the promises advertised to customers

.77
.79
.72
.63
.72
.69

65.5
67.6
59.5
49.8
59.2
56.8

Job satisfactionc
1. Coworkers
2. Store managers
3. Teamwork
4. Pay

.77
.75
.79
.53

63.1
60.9
65.5
39.6

Affective organizational commitmentd

1. I find that my values and this companys values are very similar
2. Im really glad that I chose to work for this company rather than for other companies
3. I really care about this companys future
4. I wouldnt hesitate to recommend this company as a good place to work
5. My work at this company gives me a sense of accomplishment

.69
.80
.71
.75
.67

56.3
69.1
58.0
62.8
54.2

Turnover intentionse
1. I frequently think of quitting my job
2. I am thinking about leaving my company

.83
.85

55.9
57.0

NOTE: Model fit statistics for metric invariance test: X2509 = 3,811.19, root mean square error of approximation = .053, goodness-of-fit index = .94, normed
fit index = .98, non-normed fit index = .98, comparative fit index = .99. Item scores range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
a. Full-time (FT): = .90, average variance extracted (AVE) = .57, 2 = .06.49; part-time (PT): = .92, AVE = .61, 2 = .04.49.
b. FT: = .86, AVE = .51, 2 = .08-.45; PT: = .87, AVE = .54, 2 = .03-.52.
c. FT: = .78, AVE = .50, 2 = .12-.41; PT: = .81, AVE = .53, 2 = .08-.50.
d. FT: = .84, AVE = .53, 2 = .26-.49; PT: = .84, AVE = .53, 2 = .15-.52.
e. FT: = .83, AVE = .71, 2 = .06-.26; PT: = .82, AVE = .70, 2 = .03-.15.

(1996) was used to measure turnover intentions. Before

finalizing, the revised instrument was pilot tested in two
stores with a total of 25 frontline employees. After completing the survey, respondents were briefed and their
comments were solicited. No changes were deemed necessary as a result of the pilot test. During data collection,
using respondent e-mail addresses as IDs, tenure and
employment status (part-time vs. full-time) were
matched to survey responses.

RESULTS
Measurement Results
The dimensionality, convergent, and discriminant
validity of the measures were initially assessed via a series

of exploratory factor analyses using the total sample as

well as full-time and part-time employee data separately.
The maximum likelihood exploratory factor analysis of
the 36 items designated to measure the five constructs in
the model (i.e., perceived management concern for
employees, perceived management concern for customers, job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intentions), based on the total sample,
produced five factors with eigenvalues larger than 1. The
factors collectively accounted for 55% of the variance and
the oblique rotated results indicated that the majority of
items loaded heavily on the expected factors. However,
two items in the perceived management concern for
employees scale and three items in the perceived management concern for customers scale had significantly lower
loadings on their intended factor (some items had relatively high cross-loadings on other factors). Similarly,

364

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / May 2007

three items each in job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment scales did not perform well (i.e.,
factor loadings were below the cutoff value of .50). One
item in the TURNOVER INTENTIONS SCALE heavily
loaded on a different factor. When the same analysis was
repeated using full-time and part-time sample data separately, similar results emerged. In addition, item-to-total
correlations identified the same set of items as weak contributors to their respective scales (corrected item-to-total
correlations < .50). Therefore, these items were discarded
and the exploratory factor and reliability analyses were
repeated using the remaining 24 items. The results indicated that all scale items loaded heavily on their respective underlying factors and none of the items showed a
large cross-loading. These results were consistent across
the subsamples and the total sample with slight differences in the magnitudes of the loading estimates.2
For each group, the remaining 24 items were subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis with a five-factor
measurement model using the sample covariance matrix
as input to LISREL 8.51 (Jreskog and Srbom 1993).
The fit statistics indicated that the measurement models
fit the data well for both groups (full-time employee sample: 2242 = 2,436.72, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .053, goodness-of-fit index [GFI] =
.94, normed fit index [NFI] = .98, non-normed fit index
[NNFI] = .98, comparative fit index [CFI] = .98, and parttime employee sample: 2242 = 1,340.07, RMSEA = .050,
GFI = .94, NFI = .99, NNFI = .99, CFI = .99).
Next, we examined measurement invariance following
the steps suggested by Hair et al. (2006). We first tested
the measurement model by simultaneously analyzing the
sample covariance matrices of full-time and part-time
groups with no restrictions. This result (2485 = 3,777.08)
served as the basis for testing measurement invariance.
Second, we repeated the analysis with equality constraints imposed only on factor loadings (2509 =
3,811.19). A 2 difference test at the .05 level between the
base model (with no equality constraints) and the
restricted model indicated no significant deterioration in
model fit. This result suggests that the measures exhibit
metric invariance across the two groups of frontline
employees. Third, we repeated the analysis with the additional constraint of equal covariance matrices across the
two groups (2519 = 3,871.54). The 2 difference test indicates a significant deterioration in model fit with the
additional constraint. This means that at least one of the
relationships among model variables will be significantly
different between full-time and part-time employees, a
requisite initial evidence for justifying the tests of
specific moderator hypotheses. Table 1 presents metric
invariance results, the list of items making up each scale,
scale reliabilities, average variance extracted (AVE), and
the range of shared variances (2).

As shown in Table 1, the reliability coefficients

(coefficient alpha) were well above the .70 level suggested by Nunnally (1978), ranging from .78 to .92. All
factor loadings were significant (t-values > 2.00), suggesting convergence of the indicators with the appropriate underlying factors (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). The
AVE by each underlying construct for both full-time and
part-time employee samples was above .50, and none
of the shared variances (2) between pairs of constructs
was larger than the AVE by each construct (Fornell and
Larcker 1981). Collectively, these results show that the
measures are unidimensional, reliable, and exhibit convergent and discriminant validity for both samples. The
correlations, means, and standard deviations of all indicators for both groups are presented in Table 2.
Tests of the Research Model
and Overall Hypotheses
The overall viability of the proposed model in
Figure 1 was first tested by using the total sample
(combined full-time and part-time employees) data.
The sample covariance matrix of the observed variables was used as input to LISREL 8.51 (Jreskog and
Srbom 1993). The initial results indicated that the
model fits the data well (2263 = 3,690.27, RMSEA =
.053, GFI = .94, NFI = .98, NNFI = .98, CFI = .99).
However, modification indices suggested significant
direct effects from perceived management concern for
employees (CE) and for customers (CC) to turnover
intentions. As presented in Table 3, these results that
include the direct effects of CE and CC on turnover intentions indicate a better fit (2261 = 3,572.20, RMSEA = .053,
GFI = .94, NFI = .98, NNFI = .98, CFI = .99). The model
accounts for 47% of the variance in job satisfaction,
61% in affective organizational commitment, and 26%
in turnover intentions.
A closer scrutiny of the path coefficients and t-values
in Table 3 indicates that CE exerts significant positive
influences on job satisfaction (1 = .41, t = 20.9) and
affective organizational commitment (3 = .23, t = 12.4).
Hence, Hypotheses 1a and 1b are supported. Similarly,
CC exerts significant positive influences on job satisfaction (2 = .32, t = 16.3) and affective organizational commitment (4 = .38, t = 20.0), indicating that Hypotheses
2a and 2b are also supported by the data. Job satisfaction
shows a significant negative effect on turnover intentions
(6 = .08, t = 3.3), which provides support for
Hypothesis 3. Consistent with Hypothesis 4, affective
organizational commitment has a significant negative
effect on turnover intentions (7 = .62, t = 20.7).
Finally, the significant positive effect of job satisfaction on
affective organizational commitment (5 = .29, t = 16.1)
lends support to Hypothesis 5.

365

1.000
.640
.489
.454
.614
.492
.332
.334
.337
.334
.366
.357
.344
.398
.380
.349
.378
.325
.288
.292
.264
.321
.154
.136
.143

.679
1.000
.550
.432
.579
.498
.378
.398
.377
.363
.412
.395
.401
.408
.425
.390
.424
.366
.291
.318
.287
.351
.171
.165
.103

CC2

3.96
.807

4.04
.785

4.00 4.09
.794 .835

3.96
.818

3.90
.797

.467
.474
.540
1.000
.398
.470
.305
.322
.314
.322
.358
.361
.349
.366
.334
.341
.329
.307
.267
.278
.195
.296
.113
.094
.091

CC4

3.75
.910

3.66
.933

.635
.604
.503
.453
1.000
.444
.373
.331
.381
.347
.350
.332
.338
.390
.350
.334
.354
.310
.273
.269
.268
.286
.139
.137
.137

CC5

4.10
.802

4.00
.846

.530
.535
.559
.504
.489
1.000
.346
.408
.357
.352
.426
.431
.398
.400
.384
.396
.411
.365
.310
.348
.240
.343
.192
.173
.098

CC6

3.35
1.035

3.29
1.065

.377
.407
.356
.335
.419
.330
1.000
.548
.680
.592
.525
.513
.544
.395
.394
.337
.404
.360
.297
.348
.387
.367
.201
.208
.118

CE1

3.81
.885

3.82
.905

.406
.452
.439
.421
.420
.442
.553
1.000
.534
.515
.635
.578
.597
.350
.365
.369
.360
.344
.282
.298
.301
.336
.158
.169
.066

CE2

3.43
.982

3.34
1.063

.381
.413
.384
.348
.424
.358
.710
.566
1.000
.655
.535
.546
.568
.409
.394
.324
.397
.372
.308
.354
.384
.374
.228
.223
.125

CE3

3.57
.966

3.49
1.032

.365
.402
.374
.338
.377
.355
.588
.567
.649
1.000
.570
.544
.580
.389
.386
.332
.391
.361
.310
.350
.349
.376
.198
.178
.091

CE4

3.85
.885

3.84
.900

.418
.452
.464
.382
.424
.430
.527
.650
.576
.613
1.000
.642
.638
.402
.392
.387
.391
.375
.297
.339
.306
.348
.166
.182
.069

CE5

3.72
.924

3.72
.959

.368
.428
.428
.363
.409
.415
.536
.605
.611
.586
.664
1.000
.628
.390
.382
.372
.365
.351
.282
.330
.302
.342
.168
.177
.056

CE6

3.80
.886

3.73
.941

.412
.460
.478
.394
.431
.435
.540
.674
.579
.595
.694
.664
1.000
.397
.392
.370
.388
.360
.341
.369
.323
.428
.194
.178
.070

CE7

3.70
.911

3.65
.950

.421
.431
.409
.362
.373
.396
.372
.371
.373
.364
.392
.406
.397
1.000
.539
.517
.495
.461
.294
.317
.288
.335
.254
.239
.104

AOC1

3.84
.864

3.81
.898

.426
.431
.422
.362
.358
.416
.362
.381
.373
.361
.395
.372
.420
.567
1.000
.600
.632
.537
.346
.382
.383
.385
.402
.397
.094

AOC2

3.88
.860

4.02
.815

.393
.411
.373
.366
.355
.357
.340
.379
.341
.316
.381
.354
.387
.502
.540
1.000
.520
.475
.296
.300
.251
.306
.286
.299
.049

AOC3

3.91
.921

3.83
.959

.404
.423
.397
.370
.365
.394
.378
.387
.376
.359
.408
.377
.421
.483
.598
.523
1.000
.499
.338
.411
.384
.391
.348
.350
.117

AOC4
.390
.411
.383
.322
.366
.380
.358
.395
.378
.374
.383
.381
.433
.360
.407
.362
.398
.364
1.000
.561
.351
.626
.187
.167
.130

JS1
.363
.402
.399
.334
.358
.393
.374
.403
.413
.408
.423
.422
.458
.401
.425
.363
.426
.375
.627
1.000
.386
.561
.250
.241
.135

JS2

3.77 3.77 3.85

.877 .911 .983

3.75 3.59 3.62

.900 .917 1.033

.369
.367
.357
.319
.322
.323
.375
.374
.370
.354
.402
.371
.384
.487
.532
.489
.496
1.000
.314
.355
.318
.353
.254
.291
.089

AOC5

3.30
.995

3.21
1.017

.321
.333
.304
.271
.343
.284
.422
.324
.386
.343
.321
.348
.344
.324
.397
.301
.379
.340
.387
.413
1.000
.367
.233
.209
.137

JS3

.118
.098
.093
.082
.062
.087
.124
.112
.106
.111
.131
.117
.109
.154
.277
.195
.236
.218
.163
.194
.154
.185
1.000
.717
.105

TI1

3.74 2.53
.983 1.181

3.52 2.57
1.014 1.195

.394
.429
.405
.366
.390
.411
.410
.434
.417
.388
.420
.420
.483
.390
.440
.391
.407
.391
.657
.579
.411
1.000
.234
.200
.120

JS4

2.57
1.173

2.57
1.190

.116
.125
.122
.101
.086
.115
.144
.123
.115
.106
.122
.121
.129
.190
.283
.240
.260
.242
.153
.205
.150
.190
.694
1.000
.117

TI2

1.00
1.156

2.06
1.156

.102
.081
.061
.054
.053
.083
.050
.024
.060
.070
.026
.006
.036
.071
.036
.006
.074
.057
.094
.102
.055
.103
.090
.023
1.000

TEN

NOTE: Perceptual measures were recorded on a 5-point scale, where a higher number indicates a more favorable rating. CC = Perceived management concern for customers; CE = Perceived management concern for employees; AOC = Affective organizational commitment; JS = Job satisfaction; TI = Turnover intentions; TEN = Tenure. Above the diagonal are the correlations for full-time, and below the diagonal are the correlations for part-time
frontline employees.

M
SD

.547
.568
1.000
.492
.456
.547
.364
.415
.375
.352
.434
.421
.399
.416
.375
.385
.393
.342
.288
.320
.253
.341
.179
.183
.102

CC3

3.97 4.04
.812 .845

Part-time (n = 2,057)

M
SD

Full-time (n = 3,534)

CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
CC6
CE1
CE2
CE3
CE4
CE5
CE6
CE7
AOC1
AOC2
AOC3
AOC4
AOC5
JS1
JS2
JS3
JS4
TI1
TI2
TEN

CC1

TABLE 2
Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations of the Observed Variables

366

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / May 2007

TABLE 3
Tests of Structural Model and Research Hypotheses
Two-Group Resultsa
(nFT = 3,534, nPT = 2,057)

Combined Sample
Results (n = 5,591)
Structural Model
Parameter

TEN
TEN
CE
CC
TEN
CE
CC
JS
TEN
JS
AOC
CE
CC
TEN
Total effects of:
CE on TI
CC on TI
Model fit statistics:

Standardized Estimate

CE
CC
JS
JS
JS
AOC
AOC
AOC
AOC
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI

(1)b
(2)b
(1)
(2)b
(3)
(3)b
(4)
(5)
(4)
(6)
(7)b
(8)c
(9)c
(5)b

.07
.12
.41
.32
.10
.23
.38
.29
.03
.08
.62
.06
.23
.05

t-Value

8.4
5.0
20.9
16.3
8.22
12.4
20.0
16.1
3.2
3.3
20.7
2.39
9.0
3.5

.01
.02

Common Metric
Standardized Estimate

.47

.61

.26

.19
8.4
.08
3.7
2 = 3,572.20, df = 261, RMSEA = .053,
GFI = .94, NFI = .98, NNFI = .98, CFI = .99

(FT/PT)
.04 / .17
.09 / .24
.41 / .42
.29 / .36
.07 / .11
.25 / .17
.39 / .35
.28 / .34
.02 / .01
.08 / .11
.66 / .53
.05 / .08
.23 / .24
.04 / .15

t-Value
(FT/PT)
2.5 / 7.3
5.0 / 10.4
16.7 / 13.9
10.6 / 12.0
4.4 / 5.8
10.9 / 5.7
16.9 / 11.5
12.7 / 11.0
1.7 / .6
2.7 / .2.5
18.3 / 10.8
1.69 / 2.0
7.2 / 5.4
2.09 / 6.2

R2
(FT/PT)

.01 / .03
.01 / .06

.42 / .56

.61 / .63

.30 / .21

.22 / .13
7.9 / 4.9
.10 / .05
3.6 / 1.9
2 = 4,758.16, df = 543, RMSEA = .055,
GFI = .93, NFI = .98, NNFI = .98, CFI = .98

NOTE: Measurement parameter estimates were almost identical to the results from confirmatory factor analysis. Therefore, they are not presented in
this table. FT/PT = Full-time/part-time; CC = Perceived management concern for customers; CE = Perceived management concern for employees; JS
= Job satisfaction; AOC = Affective organizational commitment; TI = Turnover intentions; TEN = Tenure; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; NFI = normed fit index; NNFI = non-normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index.
a. Two-group simultaneous analysis with all structural model parameters set free across groups.
b. Significant difference between full-time and part-time frontline employees.
c. Not hypothesized.

The results further show that the control variable

(tenure) has significant negative effects on CE (1 = .07,
t = 8.4) and CC (2 = .12, t = 5.0) and job satisfaction
(3 = .10, t = 8.22). However, tenure exerts small but
significant positive effects on affective organizational
commitment (4 = .03, t = 3.2) and turnover intentions
(5 = .05, t = 3.5).
As shown in Table 3, although the direct effects of CE
and CC on turnover intentions are positive, their total
effects on turnover intentions remain negative and significant. It should be noted that the total effect of CE on
turnover intentions (.19) is more than twice as strong as
the total effect of CC on turnover intentions (.08).
Tests of Moderator Hypotheses:
Role of Employment Status
To test for the potential moderator role of employment
status, the model in Figure 1 was tested simultaneously by
using full-time and part-time employee sample covariance

matrices as input to LISREL 8.51 (Jreskog and Srbom

1993). Because metric invariance of the measures was
established earlier, in testing the model, only the factor
loadings were constrained to be equal across groups (all
other parameters were freely estimated for each group).
As the model fit statistics and common metric standardized estimates of the structural model parameters presented in Table 3 indicate, the model fits the two-group
data well (2543 = 4,758.16, RMSEA = .055, GFI = .93,
NFI = .98, NNFI = .98, CFI = .98). These results served
as the benchmark for testing each one of the moderator
hypotheses (Hair et al. 2006).
We tested each moderator hypothesis by constraining the relevant structural parameters to be equal.
For instance, to test the first moderator hypothesis,
Hypothesis 6a (the effect of CE on job satisfaction will be
weaker for part-time employees), we constrained this structural parameter to be the same in both groups and conducted
a 2 difference test between the resulting value (2544 =
4,758.33) and the initial base value (2543 = 4,758.16). The

Alexandrov et al. / PERCEIVED MANAGEMENT CONCERN

result indicates that the effect of CE on job satisfaction is

not significantly different across groups. As shown in
Table 3, the standardized estimates of 1 without the
equality constraint are almost identical (.42 and .41 for
part-time and full-time groups, respectively). Hence,
Hypothesis 6a is not supported by the data. Following the
same procedure and by examining the magnitudes of the
corresponding parameter estimates across the two
groups, we conclude that Hypotheses 6b, 7a, and 9b are
supported. That is, CC exerts significantly stronger positive influence on the part-time employees job satisfaction (2PT = .36 vs. 2FT = .29), which supports Hypothesis
6b. In addition, CE exerts significantly weaker positive
influence on part-time employees affective commitment
(3PT = .17 vs. 3FT = .25), supporting Hypothesis 7a.
Finally, affective commitment has a significantly weaker
negative effect on part-time employees turnover intentions (7PT = .53 vs. 7FT = .66), providing support for
Hypothesis 9b. The model explains 30% of the variance
in turnover intentions of the full-time and 21% of the
part-time employees.
As shown in Table 3, the direct effect of CE on turnover
intentions is barely significant for the part-time employees
(8PT = .08, t = 2.00) and not significant for the full-time
group (8FT = .05, t = 1.69). However, the direct effect of
CC on turnover intentions is significant for both part-time
(9PT = .24, t = 5.4) and full-time (9FT = .23, t = 7.2)
groups. The total effects of CE on turnover intentions (.13
for PT and .22 for FT) and total effects of CC on turnover
intentions (.05 for PT and .10 for FT) are both negative.
Thus, the total effects for the full-time group are almost
twice as large as for the part-time group. Furthermore, an
examination of total effects within each group reveals that
CE has a much stronger total effect on turnover intentions
compared with the total effects of CC. The results also
show that, in the case of part-time employees, tenure
shows significantly stronger negative effects on CE and
CC but a stronger positive effect on turnover intentions.

DISCUSSION
We developed and tested a model to investigate the
effects of two critical dimensions of psychological climate (perceived management concern for employees and
customers) on frontline employees turnover intentions
and examined their differential effects across full-time and
part-time employees. Our model proved to be viable, and
all of the overall hypotheses and three of the seven
specific hypotheses concerning the moderating role of
employment status were supported.
Our study yields some insightful findings and makes
several contributions. First, our findings lend credence to

367

the appraisal affect behavior framework as a viable

theoretical lens for studying the effects of psychological
climate on organizationally valued affective and behavioral job outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first
study that examines the effects of the two-dimensional
psychological climate construct on important job outcomes in a retail service environment using the individual frontline employees as the unit of analysis. The
overall predictions based on this framework are consistent with the services marketing and management literature. That is, management concern for employees and
customers (as appraised by frontline employees) significantly increases employees job satisfaction and affective
organizational commitment and indirectly reduces their
turnover intentions. However, the relative influences
of these psychological climate dimensions vary. For
instance, job satisfaction is more strongly influenced by
perceived management concern for employees, whereas
affective organizational commitment is more heavily
influenced by perceived management concern for customers. In addition, our findings indicate that although
the total effects of perceived management concern for
employees and customers on turnover intentions are both
negative (reduce turnover intentions), perceived management concern for customers shows a strong positive
direct effect on turnover intentions. Hence, contrary to
our expectations, job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment do not fully mediate the effects of
psychological climate on turnover intentions. This unexpected finding may have two alternative explanations.
The first is the presence of a statistical suppression
effect, which may result from the nature of the relationships among predictor variables relative to their relationships with the criterion variable (Maassen and Bakker
2001). However, this explanation should be ruled out as
we examined alternative models by excluding one variable from the model at a time. In those analyses, the
effects of psychological climate variables on turnover
intentions were negative and significant when the mediators were removed altogether. However, when job satisfaction and/or affective commitment were in the model as
mediators, the positive direct effect of management concern for customers on turnover intentions persisted in
addition to its indirect negative effect. A second potential explanation may lie in the influence of variables not
included in our research model. Our conversations with
managers, for instance, suggested that the relationship
between perceived management concern for customers
and turnover intentions might be U-shaped. That is, the
relationship between perceived management concern for
customers and turnover intentions might be consistently
negative for frontline employees who hold light or
reasonable workloads. As the workload perceptions

368

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / May 2007

increase, the slope turns positive. In other words, for

those employees who feel that they have excessive workloads, perceived management concern for customers may
lead to increased turnover intentions.
Second, although statistically significant, the direct
influence of job satisfaction on turnover intentions is relatively small. Job satisfactions effect on turnover intentions
is transmitted primarily through affective organizational
commitment. Hence, the primary mediated route from
psychological climate to turnover intentions is through the
direct linkage between affective organizational commitment and turnover intentions. These results receive support
from earlier findings (e.g., Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner
2000; Williams and Hazer 1986).
Third, the results indicate that both partial inclusion and
social comparison theories provide viable guidance for
studying the effects of employment status. When the relationships in the model are examined from the viewpoint of
full-time and part-time employees using these theoretical
perspectives, a number of interesting results emerge. As
hypothesized, based on partial inclusion theory, the effect
of perceived management concern for employees on affective organizational commitment is significantly weaker
and the effect of perceived management concern for customers on job satisfaction is significantly stronger for parttime employees compared with full-time employees. In
addition, as predicted by the social comparison theory, the
effect of affective organizational commitment on turnover
intentions is significantly weaker for part-time employees.
Although not all the moderator hypotheses we developed
using these theories received support, the findings are
encouraging and suggest that the basic tenets of these theories can be used in further research to examine the moderating role of employment status.
Fourth, our control variable, tenure, showed significant
negative effects on perceived management concern for
employees, perceived management concern for customers,
and job satisfaction across the two groups of employees. In
all cases, the effect for part-time employees was significantly
stronger than the effect for full-time employees. It appears
that whereas all frontline employees may develop some
skepticism about management and their jobs as a function of
tenure, this skepticism is significantly stronger for the parttime group. Furthermore, tenure shows a significantly
stronger positive effect on part-time employees turnover
intentions. These results are contradictory to the attractionselection-attrition hypothesis (Schneider and Reichers 1983)
and recent empirical evidence (Van Breukelen et al. 2004)
that people with longer tenure are expected to be more satisfied, committed, and comfortable with the psychological
climate and less inclined to leave their jobs.
These findings suggest that, with the passage of time,
both groups develop negative views about management

and exhibit withdrawal cognitions, and this trend is

significantly more pronounced in the case of part-time
frontline employees. The insights we gained from our
discussions with frontline employees during the course
of the study may shed some light on these contradictory
findings. On one hand, several part-time employees indicated that they became frustrated with time as their
expectations to work full-time did not materialize. On the
other hand, our discussions also revealed that a good
number of both part-time and full-time employees
viewed their current jobs as dead end and short-term
solutions and that they were always on the look out
for greener pastures. Such sentiments are consistent
with the relatively low average tenures of both groups.
Finally, although our focus was not on scale development, our study generated viable measures of the two
critical dimensions of psychological climate on the basis
of a theoretically coherent and highly practical operationalization. Our measures meet stringent psychometric
criteria and demonstrate that, although these two dimensions are correlated, they are clearly distinguishable and
their relative effects on job outcomes vary.
Managerial Implications
Given the crucial role employees attribute to management concern for employees and management concern
for customers, managerial actions should consistently
show concern for both stakeholder groups in the eyes
of frontline employees. Having mission and vision statements that emphasize employee and customer well-being
do not mean much, and may even backfire, unless management walks the talk and makes the necessary investments in frontline employees and customer service
delivery systems. The strong effects of both dimensions
of psychological climate on turnover intentions observed
in this study and the fact that frontline employee turnover
leads to customer turnover (Schneider and White 2004)
suggest that improving the psychological climate is a
managerial imperative. Such actions can include training
and empowering frontline employees and rewarding
them in tangible and significant ways by clearly tying
rewards to customer service and satisfaction. Also, the
study result concerning the strong linkage between parttime employees affective commitment and turnover
intentions suggests that to enhance part-time employees
affective commitment, management should increase benefits and institute special programs to improve integration of part-time employees into the organizations social
life. Indeed, efforts to increase part-time employees perceptions of insider status may pay off handsomely
(Stamper and Masterson 2002). It should be remembered
that as part-time employees feel isolated, they become

Alexandrov et al. / PERCEIVED MANAGEMENT CONCERN

significantly more negative about the organization, and

such dysfunctional sentiments may also be transmitted
to full-time employees, leading to additional undesirable
consequences.
Our model explains a healthy portion of the variance
in both part-time and full-time employees turnover
intentions. Yet, the portion that remains unaccounted for
presents a formidable challenge for management. Thus,
management must identify and address additional factors
critical to employees turnover intentions. For instance, a
promising starting point could be to identify the motives
of part-time workers (e.g., working for economic vs.
noneconomic reasons) and try to cater to each groups
needs. Finally, management should monitor changes in
employees perceptions of psychological climate on a
periodic basis. When conducted over time, such assessments can provide early warning signs and can enable
management to take corrective actions before employee
appraisals are reflected in their affective states and
turnover intentions. Equally important, these measures of
frontline employees perceptions are also leading indicators of customers perceptions about the quality of
services offered by the firm (Schneider and White 2004).
In other words, it is important for astute service managers
to ask their employees now if they want to know what
their customers will think of soon.
Limitations and Further Research Avenues
It should be noted that although this study contributes
to our knowledge base, it has limitations and viable
prospects for further research remain. Our study was
conducted among employees of one retail chain.
This may delimit generalizations. Replications among
employees of different retailers and other service organizations would be illuminating in cross-validating our
results. Another limitation of our study is the fact that
full-time versus part-time employment designations were
based on information provided by the management. For
instance, we were not able to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary and between seasonal and continuous employees. There is a broad array of employment
arrangements under the rubric of contingent work that
can affect the relationships investigated in this study
(Connelly and Gallagher 2004). For instance, a mature
married female employee may prefer part-time employment in the morning shift because of children, a young
student may work only during the summer or in the
evening after school hours, whereas a retired individual
may want to keep a part-time job for some extra income
or to meet social interaction needs. Others may be
employed on a temporary and contractual basis for the

369

completion of a particular project or to alleviate seasonal

demand pressures. Hence, for finer insights, further
research should focus on employment status as a moderator with these distinctions in mind.
It should be noted that possible psychological climate
variances emanating from the unique aspects of each
store (e.g., store size, store managers behaviors and
management style) may pose a limitation. Our focus in
this study was on the individual frontline employee as a
unit of analysis. Thus, we did not differentiate between
employees of small versus large stores and our psychological climate questions specifically referred to top management as opposed to store management. However,
climate perceptions probably vary as a function of
employees appraisals of both top management and local
management behaviors and store size. Hence, explanation of various sources of psychological climate variance
is a worthy topic for further research.
Finally, although psychometrically sound and highly
practical, our psychological climate measures can
encompass a broader domain and be defined as higher
order constructs (Burke et al. 1992). Thus, further refinements in study constructs can potentially shed additional
light on the linkages we investigated. Also, inclusion of
other relevant constructs such as job contents, stress,
work-family conflict, and alternative job opportunities
(Connelly and Gallagher 2004) and control variables
(e.g., workload, marital status, number and age of dependents) into future models could provide more pointed
insights about the effects of psychological climate on
turnover intentions and actual turnover.
In conclusion, frontline employees appraisals of how
management treats employees and customers have significant consequences. At a time of a volatile service environment where various forms of nonstandard employment
practices continue to grow, the management of frontline
employees will be a challenge. Hence, the issues such as
the ones we addressed in our study should remain as a
research priority.

NOTES
1. It should be noted that when the variability of climate perceptions
across individuals is low, they also reflect organizational climate
(Schneider and White 2004). For the purposes of our study, the individual (frontline retail employee) is the unit of theory and analysis because
our focus is on the affective and behavioral consequences of psychological climate.
2. A set of tables summarizing the results of exploratory factor
analyses is available from the authors. We used relatively stringent criteria for retaining a scale item (i.e., factor loading > .50 and corrected
item-to-total correlation > .50) to prepare the scales for the examination
of measurement invariance across part-time and full-time groups via
confirmatory factor analysis.

370

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / May 2007

REFERENCES
Abbott, Geoffrey N., Fiona A. White, and Margaret A. Charles (2005),
Linking Values and Organizational Commitment: A Correlational
and Experimental Investigation in Two Organizations, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78 (4), 531-551.
ACAS (1994), Absence and Labor Turnover. London, UK: ACAS
Handbook.
Allen, David G. and Rodger W. Griffeth (2001), Test of a Mediated
Performance-Turnover Relationship Highlighting the Moderating
Roles of Visibility and Reward Contingency, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86 (5), 1014-1021.
Allen, David G., Lynn M. Shore, and Rodger W. Griffeth (2003), The
Role of Perceived Organizational Support and Supportive Human
Resource Practices in the Turnover Process, Journal of
Management, 29 (1), 99-118.
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), Structural
Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended TwoStep Approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411-423.
Babakus, Emin, Ugur Yavas, Osman M. Karatepe, and Turgay Avci
(2003), The Effect of Management Commitment to Service
Quality on Employees Affective and Performance Outcomes,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (3), 272-286.
Babin, Barry J. and James S. Boles (1998), Employee Behavior in a
Service Environment: A Model and Test of Potential Differences
between Men and Women, Journal of Marketing, 62 (2), 77-91.
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1992), The Self-Regulation of Attitudes,
Intentions, and Behavior, Social Psychology Quarterly, 55 (2),
178-204.
Baldrige National Quality Program (2005), Criteria for Performance
Excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST.
Barker, Kathleen (1993), Changing Assumptions and Contingent
Solutions: The Cost and Benefits of Women Working Full- and PartTime, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 28 (1/2), 47-71.
Boles, James D., John A. Wood, and Julie Johnson (2003),
Interrelationships of Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, and WorkFamily Conflict with Different Facets of Job Satisfaction and the
Moderating Effects of Gender, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 23 (2), 99-113.
Borucki, Chester C. and Michael J. Burke (1999), An Examination of
Service-Related Antecedents to Retail Store Performance, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 20 (6), 943-962.
Boshoff, Christo and Janine Allen (2000), The Influence of Selected
Antecedents on Frontline Staffs Perceptions of Service Recovery
Performance, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11 (1), 63-90.
Brashear, Thomas G., Elzbieta Lepkowska-White, and Christian
Chelariu (2003), An Empirical Test of Antecedents and
Consequences of Salesperson Job Satisfaction among Polish Retail
Salespeople, Journal of Business Research, 56 (12), 971-978.
Brown, Steven P. and Robert A. Peterson (1993), Antecedents and
Consequences of Salesperson Job Satisfaction: Meta-Analysis and
Assessment of Causal Effects, Journal of Marketing Research, 30
(1), 63-77.
Burke, Michael J., Chester C. Borucki, and Amy E. Hurley (1992),
Reconceptualizing Psychological Climate in a Retail Service,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 (5), 717-729.
Chiu, Randy K. and Anne Marie Francesco (2003), Dispositional
Traits and Turnover Intention: Examining the Mediating Role of Job
Satisfaction and Affective Commitment, International Journal of
Manpower, 24 (3), 284-299.
Cohen, Aaron (1993), Organizational Commitment and Turnover:
A Meta-Analysis, Academy of Management Journal, 36 (5),
1140-1157.
Connelly, Catherine E. and Daniel G. Gallagher (2004), Emerging
Trends in Contingent Work Research, Journal of Management, 30
(6), 959-983.

Darden, William R., Daryl McKee, and Ronald Hampton (1993),

Salesperson Employment Status as a Moderator in the Job
Satisfaction Model: A Frame of Reference Perspective, Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 13 (3), 1-15.
Day, David V. and Arthur G. Bedeian (1991), Predicting Performance
across Organizations: The Interaction of Work Orientation and
Psychological Climate, Journal of Management, 17 (3), 589-600.
Eberhardt, Bruce J. and Steven B. Moser (1995), The Nature and
Consequences of Part-Time Work: A Test of Hypotheses, Journal
of Applied Business Research, 11 (3), 101-109.
Elangovan, A. R. (2001), Causal Ordering of Stress, Satisfaction and
Commitment, and Intention to Quit: A Structural Equations
Analysis, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22
(4), 159-166.
Festinger, Leon (1954), A Theory of Social Comparison Processes,
Human Relations, 7 (2), 117-140.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement
Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50.
Forrester, Russ (2000), Empowerment: Rejuvenating a Potent Idea,
The Academy of Management Executive, 14 (3), 67-80.
Frank, Fredric D., Richard P. Finnegan, and Craig R. Taylor (2004),
The Race for Talent: Retaining and Engaging Workers in the 21st
Century, Human Resource Planning, 27 (3), 12-25.
Griffeth, Rodger W., Peter W. Hom, and Stefan Gaertner (2000),
A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee
Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications,
Journal of Management, 26 (3), 463-488.
Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, Rolph E. Anderson,
and Ronald L. Tatham (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hartline, Michael D. and O. C. Ferrell (1996), The Management
of Customer-Contact Service Employees: An Empirical
Investigation, Journal of Marketing, 60 (4), 52-70.
Hendrie, James (2004), A Review of a Multiple Retailers Labour
Turnover, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 32 (8/9), 434-441.
Heskett, James L., W. Earl Sasser, Thomas O. Jones, Garry W.
Loveman, and Leonard A. Schlesinger (1994), Putting the Service
Profit Chain to Work, Harvard Business Review, 72 (2), 164-175.
Hom, Peter W. and Rodger W. Griffeth (1995), Employee Turnover.
Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern College Publishing.
Hom, Peter W. and Angelo J. Kinicki (2001), Toward a Greater
Understanding of How Dissatisfaction Drives Employee Turnover,
Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5), 975-987.
Jaros, Stephen J., John M. Jermier, Jerry W. Koehler, and Terry Sincich
(1993), Effects of Continuance, Affective, and Moral Commitment on
the Withdrawal Process: An Evaluation of Eight Structural Equation
Models, Academy of Management Journal, 36 (5), 951-995.
Jreskog, Karl G. and Dag Srbom (1993), LISREL 8: Structural
Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Katz, Daniel and Robert L. Kahn (1978), The Social Psychology of
Organizations, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
Kruglanski, Arie W. and Ofra Mayseless (1990), Classic and Current
Social Comparison Research: Expanding the Perspective,
Psychological Bulletin, 108 (2), 195-208.
Lazarus, Richard S. (1982), Thoughts on the Relations between
Emotion and Cognition, American Psychologist, 37 (9), 1019-1024.
Lazarus, Richard S. (1984), On the Primacy of Cognition, American
Psychologist, 39 (2), 124-129.
Maassen, Gerard H. and Arnold B. Bakker (2001), Suppressor
Variables in Path Models, Sociological Methods & Research, 30
(2), 241-270.
Martin, Thomas N. and John C. Hafer (1995), The Multiplicative
Interaction Effects of Job Involvement and Organizational
Commitment on the Turnover Intentions of Full- and Part-Time
Employees, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46 (3), 310-331.

Alexandrov et al. / PERCEIVED MANAGEMENT CONCERN

Meyer, John P. and Lynn Herschovitch (2001), Commitment in the

Workplace: Toward a General Model, Human Resource
Management Review, 11 (3), 299-326.
Miller, Howard E. and James R. Terborg (1979), Job Attitudes of PartTime and Full-Time Employees, Journal of Applied Psychology,
64 (4), 380-386.
Mowday, Richard T., Richard M. Steers, and Lyman W. Porter (1979),
The Measurement of Organizational Commitment, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 14 (2), 224-247.
Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Parker, Christopher P., Boris B. Baltes, Scott A. Young, Joseph W. Huff,
Robert A. Altmann, Heather A. Lacost, and Joanne E. Roberts
(2003), Relationships between Psychological Climate and Work
Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24 (4), 389-416.
Paulin, Michele, Ronald J. Ferguson, and Jasmin Bergeron (2006),
Service Climate and Organizational Commitment: The Importance of
Customer Linkages, Journal of Business Research, 59 (8), 906-915.
Peters, Lawrence H., Ellen F. Jackofsky, and James R. Salter (1981),
Predicting Turnover: A Comparison of Part-Time and Full-Time
Employees, Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2 (2), 89-98.
Reichheld, Frederick F. and Thomas Teal (1996), The Loyalty Effect:
The Hidden Force Behind Growth, Profits, and Lasting Value.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Rhoades, Linda, Robert Eisenberger, and Stephen Armeli (2001),
Affective Commitment to the Organization: The Contribution of
Perceived Organizational Support, Journal of Applied Psychology,
86 (5), 825-836.
Schneider, Benjamin (1975), Organizational Climates: An Essay,
Personnel Psychology, 28 (4), 447-479.
Schneider, Benjamin and Arnon E. Reichers (1983), On the Etiology
of Climates, Personnel Psychology, 36 (1), 19-39.
Schneider, Benjamin and Susan S. White (2004), Service Quality:
Research Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, Benjamin, Susan S. White, and Michelle C. Paul (1998),
Linking Service Climate and Customer Perceptions of Service
Quality: Test of a Causal Model, Journal of Applied Psychology,
83 (2), 150-163.
Singh, Jagdip, Willem Verbeke, and Gary K. Rhoads (1996), Do
Organizational Practices Matter in Role Stress Processes? A Study
of Direct and Moderating Effects for Marketing-Oriented Boundary
Spanners, Journal of Marketing, 60 (3), 69-86.
Stamper, Christina L. and Suzanne S. Masterson (2002), Insider or
Outsider? How Employee Perceptions of Insider Status Affect Their
Work Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 (8), 875-894.
Stamper, Christina L. and Linn Van Dyne (2001), Work Status and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Field Study of Restaurant
Employees, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22 (5), 517-536.
Steers, Richard M. (1977), Antecedents and Outcomes of
Organizational Commitment, Administrative Science Quarterly,
22 (1), 46-56.
Steffy, Brian D. and John W. Jones (1990), Differences between FullTime and Part-Time Employees in Perceived Role Strain and Work
Satisfaction, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11 (4), 321-329.

371

Still, Leonie V. (1983), Part-Time Versus Full-Time Salespeople:

Individual Attributes, Organizational Commitment, and Work
Attitudes, Journal of Retailing, 59 (2), 55-79.
Sureshchandar, G. S., Chandrasekharan Rajendran, and R. N.
Anantharaman (2002), The Relationship between Managements
Perception of Total Quality Service and Customer Perceptions of
Service Quality, Total Quality Management, 13 (1), 69-88.
Tansky, Judith W., Daniel G. Gallagher, and Kurt W. Wetzel (1997),
The Effect of Demographics, Work Status, and Relative Equity on
Organizational Commitment: Looking among Part-Time Workers,
Revue Canadienne des Sciences de lAdministration, 14 (3), 315-326.
Tax, Stephen S. and Stephen W. Brown (1998), Recovering and
Learning from Service Failure, Sloan Management Review, 40 (1),
75-88.
Thorsteinson, Todd J. (2003), Job Attitudes of Part-Time vs. Full-Time
Workers: A Meta-Analytic Review, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 76 (2), 151-177.
U.S. Department of Labor (2006), Current Population Survey for 2005.
Available from Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site: www.bls.gov
Van Breukelen, Wim, Ren Van der Vlist, and Herman Steensma
(2004), Voluntary Employee Turnover: Combining Variables from
the Traditional Turnover Literature with the Theory of Planned
Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25 (7), 893-914.
Wasti, S. Arzu (2003), Organizational Commitment, Turnover
Intentions and the Influence of Cultural Values, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76 (3), 303-321.
Williams, Larry J. and John T. Hazer (1986), Antecedents and
Consequences of Satisfaction and Commitment in Turnover
Models: A Reanalysis Using Latent Variable Structural Equation
Methods, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (2), 219-231.

Aliosha Alexandrov is a doctoral student at the University of

Memphis. His research interests are in the areas of customer
relationship management and services marketing. He has published several papers in the proceedings of national and international conferences.
Emin Babakus is a professor of marketing at the University of
Memphis. His research has been published in the Journal of
Marketing Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Journal of Retailing, Decision Sciences, Journal of Business
Research, and Journal of Advertising Research.
Ugur Yavas is a professor of marketing at East Tennessee State
University. He has contributed to such journals as the Journal
of Marketing Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Journal of Business Research, International Journal
of Research in Marketing, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, and Long Range Planning.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.