Corporate Social Responsibility and Frontline Service Employee Job Performance–Model Inventory

Abstract

The Corporate Social Responsibility and Frontline Service Employee Job Performance–Model (Choi et al., 2023) was developed to investigate how a service company’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities enhance frontline service employees’ (FSEs) job performance and to identify contextual variables that moderate the effect of CSR on FSEs. This measurement model aims to assess the moderating effect of coworker behavior on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and frontline service employees’ job performance. The proposed items for the model were adapted from existing research. The survey items underwent a back-translation procedure, as outlined by Brislin (1970), which involved translating the original English items into Korean and then back-translating them into English to ensure accuracy and consistency. Four bilingual academic scholars reviewed the back-translated version, confirming its comparability to the original questionnaire and deeming the Korean version acceptable for use. The measure was then administered to a sample of frontline employees in hotels in South Korea. The study reported findings related to factor structure, reliability, and validity.

Keywords

Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions; Coworker Incivility; Customer Incivility; Customer Orientation; Frontline Service Employees; Job Performance; Negative Affect; Positive Affect.

Authors

Choi, Wook-Hee; Oh, Se-Hyung; Kim, Kihyon; Hur, Won Moo

---

Purpose

The purpose of this measurement model is to assess the moderating effect of coworker behavior on the effects of corporate social responsibility on frontline service employees.

Validity

Convergent and Discriminant validity: To investigate the convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement model, multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) was conducted. The measurement model, which included CSR perceptions, customer orientation, job performance, customer incivility, coworker incivility, positive affect, and negative affect, demonstrated a good fit for the data. All the average variance extracted (AVE) values were found to be larger than the squared correlation between the focal variable and any other variable, indicating sufficient convergent and discriminant validity.

Reliability

Internal consistency: The internal consistency reliability of the scales, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, ranged from 0.85 to 0.94, which were indicative of strong reliability for the constructs within the model.

Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis: A confirmatory factor analysis was performed, yielding the following fit indices: χ²(1012) = 1431.76, p < 0.05; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.03; SRMR[within] = 0.04. These values suggest a good fit of the measurement model to the data.

Instrument: Corporate Social Responsibility and Frontline Service Employee Job Performance–Model

Test Type: Original
Format: Items are rated using 5-point Likert-type scales.
Language Available: Korean
Population Group: Human; Male; Female
Age Group: No data is Available
Population Details: The study sample consisted of frontline service employees located in South Korea, specifically working in hotels.
Test Methodology: The methodology involved assessing Test Validity (Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity), Test Reliability (Internal Consistency), and Factor Analysis (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) to establish the robustness of the Measurement Model.

Keywords

Corporate Social Responsibility; Employee Job Performance

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier:

• Oh, Se‐Hyung: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0381-1266

• Kim, Kihyon: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4666-0771

• Hur, Won Moo: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8042-2603

Affiliation:

• Choi, Wook-Hee: Dongguk University-WISE Division of Hotel, Tourism, and Foodservice Management

• Oh, Se-Hyung: Hanyang University School of Business

• Kim, Kihyon: Korea University, Korea University Business School BK21 FOUR R&E Center for Business Administration

• Hur, Won Moo: Inha University College of Business Administration

Email addresses:

• Choi, Wook-Hee: [email protected]

• Oh, Se-Hyung: [email protected]

• Kim, Kihyon: [email protected]

• Hur, Won Moo: [email protected]

Correspondence Address:
Kim, Kihyon: Korea University, Korea University Business School, BK21 FOUR R&E Center for Business Administration, 145 Anam-Ro, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 02841, [email protected]

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: May be used for Research/Teaching purposes.
Fee: No fee is required for its use.
Test Year: 2023

References

Choi, W.-H., Oh, S.‐H., Kim, K., & Hur, W. M. (2023). Losing the meaning of being a socially responsible service worker: Moderating effects of customer and coworker incivility. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 56, 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.07.004

Items of the Corporate Social Responsibility and Frontline Service Employee Job Performance–Model

This is a 34-item measure. The items are structured around the following constructs:

• Corporate social responsibility perceptions

• Customer incivility

• Coworker incivility

• Positive affect

• Negative affect

• Customer orientation

• Job performance

CSR perceptionsª

• My organization is a socially responsible company.

• My organization is concerned about improving the well-being of society.

• My organization behaves responsibly regarding the environment.

Customer incivilityᵇ

• Customers take out anger on employees.

• Customers make insulting comments to employees.

• Customers treat employees as if they are inferior or stupid.

• Customers show that they are irritated or impatient.

• Customers do not trust the information I give them and ask to speak with someone of higher authority.

• Customers are condescending to me.

• Customers make comments that question the competence of employees.

• Customers make personal verbal attacks against me.

• Internal or external customers make unreasonable demands.

Coworker incivilityᵇ

• How often do coworkers ignore or exclude you while at work?

• How often do coworkers raise their voices at you while at work?

• How often are coworkers rude to you at work?

• How often do coworkers do demeaning things to you at work?

Positive affectª

• Active

• Determined

• Attentive

• Inspired

• Interested

Negative affectª

• Afraid

• Nervous

• Upset

• Hostile

• Ashamed

Customer orientationª

• I make every customer feel like they are the only customer.

• I respond very quickly to customer requests.

• I always have the customer’s best interests in mind.

• My number one priority is always customer loyalty.

Job performanceª

• This employee adequately completed their assigned duties.

• This employee fulfilled the responsibilities specified in their job description.

• This employee performed the tasks that were expected of them.

• This employee met the formal performance requirements of their job.

Note.
ª Items measured on a scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”).
ᵇ Items measured on a 1-to-5 scale: 1 never; 2 rarely; 3 sometimes; 4 quite often; and 5 very often.