Based on data from Maxham and Netemeyer [Maxham, J. G. and R. G. Netemeyer (2003). “Firms Reap What They Sow: The Effects of Employee Shared Values and Perceived Organizational Justice on Customer Evaluations of Complaint Handling,” Journal of Marketing, 67, 46–62], the authors present two field samples to examine predictive validity differences of service employee ratings of their performance versus supervisor ratings of employee performance with respect to customer satisfaction and customer likelihood of spreading positive word-of-mouth (WOM) after a service recovery attempt. The results generally show that supervisor ratings are more strongly positively related to customer satisfaction and WOM than are employee ratings of their own performances. The results also show that both supervisor ratings and employee ratings are related to customer satisfaction and WOM in a curvilinear fashion (as well as linear fashion). Employee extra-role performances (toward customers and the firm) show increasing returns at the higher levels of performance, and employee in-role customer performance generally shows a decreasing return at the higher level of customer in-role performance.
These results suggest two managerial implications. First, supervisor ratings of customer service employee performances may be the preferred form of measurement for predicting customer outcomes. Second, maximizing in-role performance inputs may have decreasing returns for customer evaluations in the service recovery context; but maximizing extra-role performance inputs may actually “delight” customers, i.e., increasing returns for customer evaluations.
Frontline service employees are often the primary contact customers have with retail firms, and as such, service employee performance can play a key role in affecting customer outcomes (Heskett et al., 2003 and Schneider and Bowen, 1995). This contact between service employees and customers may have even stronger implications in a service recovery context as customers seeking redress after a service failure may require service employees to perform “extra” behaviors to enhance customer evaluations (de Jong and de Ruyter, 2004 and Morrison and Phelps, 1999). As such, the construct of service employee job performance remains a critical area of study for retail managers and scholars.
Still, there is little evidence as how to best gauge service employee performances, particularly in a service recovery context. Should supervisors act as the primary source of service employee performance ratings? Should employees rate themselves? Should some combination of the two be used? Further, should just in-role performance (i.e., that formerly prescribed in an employee's job description) be assessed and rewarded, or should performance beyond in-role requirements (i.e., extra-role) be assessed and rewarded as well?
Though studies have focused on the convergence of employee self-ratings of performance with supervisor ratings (Conway and Huffcutt, 1997 and Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988), research has yet to investigate the issue of predictive validity of self- versus supervisor ratings for customer outcomes. Further, we are not aware of any studies examining extra-role performances with respect to this issue. Given the customer complaint/service recovery setting of our samples, the focus on extra-role performances is an important one, as it has been suggested that extra-role performance (toward customers and fellow employees) may have pronounced effects on customer evaluations in addition to the effects of in-role performance (Bettencourt et al., 2001 and de Jong and de Ruyter, 2004).
As currently stands then, little is known if employee self- or supervisor ratings of in-role or extra-role performances are more predictive of customer outcomes. Some research suggests that service employees are in the best position to gauge the relationships between their in-role performances and customer outcomes (Schneider et al. 1996), while other research suggests that supervisor ratings of employee performance are more predictive of outcomes than employee ratings of their own performance (Atkins and Wood 2002). Further, how employees vis-à-vis their supervisors view the in-role/extra-role distinction, particularly in customer service jobs, is not well understood (Borman and Motowidlo 1993).
Based on the preceding discussion, our study investigates the following question: do the relationships of employee- and supervisor-rated measures of performance differ with respect to the key outcomes of customer-rated satisfaction and customer-rated favorable word-of-mouth (WOM)? Given the importance of customer satisfaction in retaining current customers and favorable WOM in generating new customers, this question has implications for what source of ratings has the stronger predictive validity to customer outcomes.
