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 explore the mechanism by which a service company’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives influence the Job Performance of Frontline Service Employees (FSEs). This comprehensive measurement model seeks not only to confirm a direct relationship but also to identify crucial contextual variables that moderate the effect of CSR on FSEs.

The measurement model specifically focuses on assessing the moderating role of coworker behavior, particularly incivility, in the relationship between perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and FSE outcomes. The items employed in the survey were adapted from established psychological and organizational research, ensuring theoretical grounding. To guarantee cross-cultural accuracy and consistency for the Korean sample, the survey items underwent a rigorous back-translation procedure, as originally detailed by Brislin (1970).

The scale was administered to a sample of frontline employees working in hotels throughout South Korea. The subsequent analysis confirmed the structural integrity of the model, reporting strong evidence for its factor structure, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.85 to 0.94), and robust validity measures, including both convergent and discriminant 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 primary purpose of this measurement model is to systematically assess the impact of perceived Corporate Social Responsibility on frontline service employees, specifically investigating the role of moderating variables. The model is designed to gauge how the positive effects of a company’s CSR activities are altered or weakened by negative workplace interactions.

The core objective is to evaluate the moderating effect of coworker incivility and other coworker behaviors on the relationship between an organization’s CSR standing and the resulting job-related outcomes, such as employee job performance and affective states.

Construct

The Corporate Social Responsibility and Frontline Service Employee Job Performance–Model Inventory is a multi-dimensional scale measuring seven distinct psychological and organizational constructs relevant to the service industry context. These constructs examine employee perceptions, interpersonal conflict, emotional states, and behavioral outcomes.

The seven constructs assessed by the 34-item measure include: Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions, Customer Incivility, Coworker Incivility, Positive Affect, Negative Affect, Customer Orientation, and Job Performance. This holistic approach allows researchers to model complex relationships between organizational values (CSR) and employee well-being and productivity in high-stress service environments.

Validity

Validity was established through rigorous statistical testing, specifically focusing on the structure of the measurement model. To investigate both Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity, a Multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MCFA) was performed, encompassing all seven constructs.

The results confirmed a good fit of the measurement model to the collected data. Crucially, sufficient convergent and discriminant validity were demonstrated by ensuring that all Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values were greater than the squared correlation between the focal variable and any other variable in the model. This finding confirms that each scale component measures a distinct construct while internally correlating appropriately.

Reliability

The internal consistency reliability of the scales was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The values obtained across the various constructs within the model ranged from 0.85 to 0.94.

These high reliability coefficients are indicative of strong internal consistency, suggesting that the items within each subscale reliably measure the intended underlying construct, thus establishing the measure’s dependability for research purposes.

Factor Analysis

A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate how well the hypothesized measurement model fit the empirical data. The fit indices yielded strong results, supporting the proposed seven-factor structure.

The reported fit indices were: χ²(1012) = 1431.76, p < 0.05; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.03; SRMR[within] = 0.04. Generally, CFI and TLI values above 0.95, and RMSEA and SRMR values below 0.08, are considered indicators of excellent fit, confirming the structural integrity of the measurement model.

Instrument

Test Type: Original

Format: Items are rated using 5-point Likert-type scales, with specific anchors detailed for different subscales (e.g., “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” or frequency scales).

Language Available: Korean

Population Group: Human; Male; Female

Age Group: No data is Available

Population Details: The sample consisted of frontline service employees located in South Korea, specifically those working in the hotel sector.

Test Methodology: The methodology involved establishing the model’s psychometric properties through a comprehensive assessment of Test Validity (Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity), Test Reliability (Internal Consistency via Cronbach’s alpha), and Factor Analysis (Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analysis) to ensure the robustness and suitability of the measurement instrument.

Keywords

Corporate Social Responsibility, Employee Job Performance, Frontline Service Employees, Organizational Behavior, Hotel Industry, Psychometrics.

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 Email addresses:

• Choi, Wook-Hee (Dongguk University-WISE Division of Hotel, Tourism, and Foodservice Management): [email protected]

• Oh, Se-Hyung (Hanyang University School of Business): [email protected]

• Kim, Kihyon (Korea University, Korea University Business School BK21 FOUR R&E Center for Business Administration): [email protected]

• Hur, Won Moo (Inha University College of Business Administration): [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 Inventory

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

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.