Correlation & Regression

Theme park employee satisfaction and customer orientation

Matt Wagenheim1 and Stephen Anderson2

1 Ferris State University, Recreation, Leisure Services and Wellness, Big Rapids, MI, USA and

2 Barry University, School of Human Performance and Leisure Sciences,

Miami Shores, FL, USA

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between front-line employee job satisfac-

tion and customer orientation. Data for this study were collected through the use of a survey instru-

ment completed by 146 front-line employees of a regional theme park in the southeast United States.

Simple Linear Regression analysis was used to test the relationships under review. Results of this

study showed that employees who are more satisfied with the relationship they enjoy with co-

workers have a higher customer orientation. Significant relationships were not found between

any other dimension of job satisfaction (including overall job satisfaction) and employee customer

orientation. In addition, no significant relationship was found between any demographic character-

istics reviewed and customer orientation. Results found in this study run contrary to previous results

of studies conducted in non-recreation-related work environments. The results of this study suggest

that employees of recreation-related organizations respond differently to job satisfactions as they

relate to customer orientation rather than employees of other business types. Results of this study

may help theme park managers better facilitate customer orientation through improved relation-

ships between front-line employees.

INTRODUCTION

Theme parks are a popular leisure-time

activity and tourist destination in the

United States and worldwide. There are

more than 450 theme parks in North

America alone (‘Wild Adventures buck indus-

try attendance trends’, 2003), with the top 50

parks attracting 168 million visitors in 2004

(‘Theme parks attendance increases in

2004’, 2004). There was a time when theme

parks represented a unique recreational

offering. Organizations were able to operate

with limited competition and could auto-

matically count on a share of increasing

tourism revenues. In the last 30 years,

however, the number of operating theme

parks has increased, driving competition.

An increased number of parks, coupled

with lower travel costs (e.g., airline deregula-

tion, more accessibility by car), have given

the traveler a greater choice. In addition to

direct competition, theme parks are compet-

ing for visitors with a variety of other attrac-

tions, including museums and galleries, state

and county parks, as well as natural areas

(Lewis and Clacher, 2001).

Increased access to a similar product has

resulted in greater consumer leverage and

demand for quality service. Consumers

today expect quality products and services

delivered in a way that satisfies their

unique expectations. Organizations can no

longer afford to compete with price or

product attributes alone. For organizations

(both service organizations and traditional

manufacturers of goods), the product itself

Managing Leisure ISSN 1360-6719 print/ISSN 1466-450X online # 2008 Taylor & Francis http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/13606710802200944

Managing Leisure 13, 242 – 257(July – October 2008)

is less a point of competitive advantage.

Even continuous product development typi-

cally will not lead to a sustainable competi-

tive advantage, only the associated service

remains for differentiation (Gronroos, 2004).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

For decades the American business model

focused on increasing market share as the

key to maximizing profits. To this end, organ-

izations concentrated on attracting new cus-

tomers instead of retaining existing ones

(Griffin, 2002). The business environment

changed drastically throughout the 1990s

and has continued to change in the new

century. Organizations have faced a variety

of challenges, like increased competition,

recession, downsizing, a more demanding

consumer, and increased government regu-

lation and intervention ( Burke, 1999). The

notion of a close relationship with custo-

mers, although not a new one, has become

a necessary component of a successful

business strategy (Gronroos, 2004). A

variety of research within services has

suggested that long-term relationships with

customers are necessary in order to gain a

competitive advantage ( Berry, 1983; Gron-

roos, 1981). Burke (1999) stated, ‘In an

increasing competitive environment, main-

taining current clients and attracting new

ones has become critical to survival,

let alone growth’ ( p. 53). At the same time,

researchers have argued that organizations

are not doing enough to stem customer

defection ( Reicheld, 1996). The traditional

marketing approach (addressing the

product, price, place of distribution, and pro-

motion dimensions) was inadequate in

addressing the unique challenges that

arose within the relationship context. An

increased emphasis on employee satisfac-

tion and customer orientation grew out of

this need to service customers on a more

intimate level.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The dependent variable used in this study

was a composite measure of customer orien-

tation. Independent variables included

measures of job satisfaction (individual

dimensions and a composite measure) and

various demographic and work variables

(age, gender, length of employment, full- or

part-time employment, and percentage of

time spent in direct customer contact). The

first objective of this study was to determine

the relationship between job satisfaction and

customer orientation among front-line

employees in a theme park setting. The

second objective of this study was to deter-

mine the relationship between various

demographic (age, gender) and work

(overall length of employment, overall

length of employment within the current

job category, full-time vs. part-time employ-

ment, percentage of time spent in direct cus-

tomer contact) characteristics and customer

orientation among front-line employees in a

theme park setting.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction encompasses all aspects of

employment that have an influence on the

employee including whether the employee

is happy to go to work, perceives the job as

meaningful, what perceptions the employee

holds of the organization, and any other

impact either physical or psychological

(Eskildsen and Nussler, 2000). Job satisfac-

tion has been studied in a variety of relation-

ships, including organizational climate

(Payne et al., 1976), job roles (Schuler,

1979), supervision (Downey et al., 1975),

and communication satisfaction (Pincus,

1986). Although studies vary methodologi-

cally, findings generally show that the more

trust, participation, and openness sub-

ordinates feel between themselves and a

superior, the more satisfied the subordinate

Theme park employee satisfaction and customer orientation 243

is likely to be with his or her job (and organi-

zation). Researchers have identified four key

factors that impact job satisfaction. First,

rewards and recognition have been shown

to contribute to job satisfaction. Some

researchers have identified extrinsic

rewards, including salary and benefits as

the most important factors for retaining

employees, while others contend that intrin-

sic rewards such as working conditions,

status, and security drive employee satisfac-

tion (Leavitt, 1996; Savery, 1996). Personal

choice and development have been ident-

ified as the second factor that impacts

employee satisfaction. Employees are not

driven by pay and benefits alone; some

value career development is important to

satisfaction (Leavitt, 1996). The third dimen-

sion shown to impact employee satisfaction

is a work and life balance. Some researchers

have argued that the interaction between

employee satisfaction and life satisfaction is

directional (i.e., either employee satisfaction

impacting life satisfaction or life satisfaction

impacting employee satisfaction; Bauer,

2000), while other researchers argue that it

is reciprocal (Hagedorn and Sax, 1999). A

final dimension shown to impact employee

satisfaction is training and development.

Howard and Frink (1996) showed that

employees who perceive growth opportu-

nities are more satisfied.

Service behaviors are those that occur

during interactions with customers ( Farrell

et al., 2001) and are the primary influence

on customers’ perceptions of service

quality ( Bitner et al., 1990; Parasuraman

et al., 1988). Employees’ service behaviors

are influenced by their level of job satisfac-

tion (Bettencourt, 1997; Bettencourt and

Brown, 1997). What exactly defines

employee service behavior, however, is still

debated (Bitner et al., 1994; Farrell et al.,

2001). Employee performance improves

with experience and has been shown to mod-

erate the effect of satisfaction on organi-

zational commitment (Russ and McNeilly,

1995). Some researchers have challenged

the link between the emotional state

driving job satisfaction and performance

(Organ, 1977), while others have shown pro-

ductivity and job satisfaction to be corre-

lated (Petty et al., 1984). Petty et al. (1984)

found that individual job satisfaction and

job performance are positively correlated.

Research has also shown a link between job

satisfaction and specific performance out-

comes, including organizational citizenship

behaviors (Smith et al., 1983) and employee

turnover (Price and Mueller, 1986; Rusbult

and Farrell, 1983).

Employee satisfaction is impacted by

employees’ perceptions of their job and the

organization for which they work (Eskildsen

and Nussler, 2000). Agho et al. (1993) found

that employees show less job satisfaction

when alternative jobs (for which they are qua-

lified) are available, when they do not receive

adequate information to perform their job,

and when superiors make incompatible

requests. In a study set in the real estate indus-

try, Harris et al. (2005) found that employees

holding a customer orientation (vs. a perform-

ance orientation) have higher levels of job sat-

isfaction and that a selling orientation does

not directly impact job satisfaction. Agho

et al. (1993) found that the ability to make

job-related decisions, working with friendly

people, fair reward, and opportunity for mobi-

lity within the organization were related to job

satisfaction. Personality dimensions brought

to the organization by the employee (as

opposed to created by the characteristics of

the organization) impact job satisfaction

(Agho et al., 1993). Employee outlook (either

negative or positive) impacts job satisfaction

appraisals.

Customer Orientation

A customer-oriented organizational culture

is critical for a service firm’s success

(Parasuraman, 1987). Customer-oriented

service providers behave in ways designed

244 Wagenheim and Anderson

to foster long-term customer satisfaction

(Howe et al., 1994). Because organizational

culture cannot be easily copied by the compe-

tition, it represents a sustainable competitive

advantage (Parasuraman, 1987). Deshpande

et al. (1993) view customer orientation as a

part of an overall corporate culture and

argue that simply focusing on the needs of

customers is inadequate without ‘consider-

ation of the more deeply rooted set of

values and beliefs that are likely to consist-

ently reinforce such a customer focus’

(p. 27). Customer-oriented employee beha-

vior leads to long-term satisfaction with an

emphasis on long-term rather than short-

term results (Dunlap et al., 1988; Saxe and

Weitz, 1982).

Brown et al. (2002) define customer orien-

tation as ‘an employee’s tendency or

predisposition to meet customer needs in

an on-the-job context’ (p. 111). This defi-

nition is composed of a ‘needs’ dimension

(an employee’s belief in the ability to

satisfy customer needs) and an ‘enjoyment’

dimension (degree to which serving custo-

mers is enjoyable). Brown et al. (2002) state

that ‘both components are necessary to

fully understand a service worker’s ability

and motivation to serve customers by

meeting their needs’ (p. 111).

In this study, we focused on the customer

orientation of front-line personnel, who are

not salespersons in the typical sense. This

research broadened the applicability of the

Selling Orientation – Customer Orientation

(SOCO) scale developed by Saxe and Weitz

(1982). This is critically important to man-

agers within service industries, where front-

line employees have direct customer

contact, but are paid by the hour and are

not dependent upon what they sell (e.g.,

retail outlets, restaurants, or, in this study,

a theme park). The interaction between

employee job satisfaction and their custo-

mer orientation was explored in this study.

To date, little research has explored the

impact job satisfaction has on customer

orientation. As far as can be discerned, no

research has studied this relationship

within a theme park setting.

METHODS

Dependent Variable

The scale used to measure customer orien-

tation was a shortened version of the

24-item SOCO instrument proposed by

Thomas et al. (2001). The SOCO instrument

is a self-assessment scale designed to evalu-

ate a salesperson’s desire to: help customers,

assess customer needs, offer satisfactory

products or services, adequately describe

products or services, and the use of decep-

tion or manipulation in selling (Thomas

et al., 2001).The SOCO instrument has been

used in a variety of settings (real estate,

advertising, industrial salespeople, insur-

ance) and from multiple viewpoints

(buyers, consumers of retail products). It

has been determined to be a generally

reliable and valid measure of the customer

orientation of salespeople (either from the

salesperson perspective or from the custo-

mer perspective) (Dunlap et al., 1988;

Michaels and Day, 1985; O’Hara et al., 1991).

In a study of 354 industrial buyers,

Tadepalli (1995) found the original 24-item

SOCO instrument and the modified version

put forth by Michaels and Day (1985), even

with slight modifications, including a purcha-

ser point of view toward a single salesper-

son, to be a reliable and valid measure of a

salesperson’s customer orientation. In a

study involving salespeople, sales managers,

and customers, Thomas et al. (2001) investi-

gated the reliability and validity of a shor-

tened (10 item) version of the SOCO

instrument. Thomas et al. did find that custo-

mer orientation of salespeople could be

measured ‘with little information loss’ by

using the shortened scale (p. 69). The orig-

inal SOCO scale was investigated and the

two-factor model results reported by Saxe

Theme park employee satisfaction and customer orientation 245

and Weitz (1982) was replicated. In a study of

354 marketing professionals, Periatt et al.

(2004) found the shortened version of the

SOCO scale proposed by Thomas et al.

(2001) to be a reliable and valid measure of

salespersons’ customer orientation.

Independent Variables

Job satisfaction was assessed using the Job

Descriptive Index (JDI) scale developed by

Smith et al. (1969). The JDI identifies six

dimensions of employee job satisfaction: sat-

isfaction with work, supervision, possibility

for promotion, co-workers, pay, and satisfac-

tion with the job in general. The JDI presents

a series of short phrases to which respon-

dents are asked to respond either in agree-

ment, disagreement, or not sure. The

scoring system for the items within each

scale is as follows: agreement responses

(yes) to positive items, and disagreement

responses (no) to negative items ¼ 3 points;

disagreement responses (no) to positive

items, and agreement responses (yes) to

negative items ¼ 0 points, a response of

‘don’t know’ (represented by a question

mark) given to either type of question ¼ 1

point. Hanisch (1992) studied the appropri-

ateness of the JDI scoring system. Specifically,

the researcher was interested in determining

if the use of a question mark (representing

more of a negative response, 1.0 vs. 1.5 on a

scale from 0 to 3 with 0 being a negative

response) was still a valid approach. Her find-

ings supported the use of a question mark

representing a more negative response, first

introduced in the original JDI.

The JDI has been shown to be reliable and

valid (Capella and Andrew, 2004; Parsons,

1998) and applicable in a wide range of set-

tings (Roznowski, 1989). Roznowski (1989)

stated, ‘In terms of both predictive power

and construct validity, the scales of the JDI

have impressive relations with measures of

organizationally and theoretically relevant

criteria’ (p. 805). Kinicki et al. (2002)

assessed the construct validity of the JDI

and found internal consistency, and test-

retest reliability to be ‘moderately high’

and recommended its use (p. 26). Roznowski

(1989) stated that the JDI was useful for com-

parisons across studies, organizational con-

texts, and longitudinally. Roznowski (1989)

used factor and correlation analysis to test

the original dimensions of the JDI, along

with additional updated questions designed

to replace original items outdated by a

modern business environment. Within each

of the original dimensions identified by

Smith et al. (1969), one to five items were

replaced. Reliability for each of the newly

defined dimensions increased.

RELIABILITY OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

To examine the reliability of the scales used

in this study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients

were calculated. Cronbach’s alpha indicates

how well a set of variables measures a

single latent construct. Cronbach’s alpha

coefficients range from 0.0 to 1.0 and indicate

the strength of relationship between items

within a scale. Alpha coefficients near 1.0

means that items are measuring similar

dimensions of the construct. Scales used in

this study were deemed reliable with an

alpha coefficient � 0.70 (Jeffreys et al.,

1997). Reliability coefficients for the scales

used in this study are reported in Table 1.

Job satisfaction was measured using the JDI

developed by Smith et al. (1969). Satisfaction

with work on present job contains five items

with a reliability coefficient equal to 0.80. Sat-

isfaction with present pay contains five items

with a reliability coefficient equal to 0.71. Sat-

isfaction with opportunities for promotion

has five items with a reliability coefficient

equal to 0.83. Satisfaction with supervision

contains five items with a reliability coeffi-

cient equal to 0.79. Satisfaction with people

at work contains five items with a reliability

coefficient equal to 0.78. Satisfaction with

246 Wagenheim and Anderson

the job in general contains eight items with a

reliability coefficient equal to 0.83.

Customer orientation was measured using

a shortened version of the SOCO scale devel-

oped by Saxe and Weitz (1982). Customer

orientation has five items with a reliability

coefficient equal to 0.85.

COLLECTION OF DATA

The population for this study was front-line

employees of a medium-sized theme park in

the southeast United States. ‘Front-line

employee’ was defined, in this study, as

hourly paid employees, who spend some

percentage of their work time in direct cus-

tomer contact and are in non-management

positions. In order to increase the reliability

of the survey instrument, a pilot study con-

sisting of 10 members of the population of

interest was conducted. Following the pilot

study, all front-line employees of the park

under study (n ¼ 301) were asked to com-

plete the survey questionnaire. Respondents

were contacted up to five times including a

total of three survey distributions. This pro-

cedure (including a variety of mailing

methods) was shown by Dillman (2000) to

improve overall response rate. Sampling

error, confidence level in the results, and

non-response bias were considered. To this

end, a formula recommended by Dillman

(2000) was used to determine an appropriate

sample size based on the population size, pro-

posed confidence level, and desired sampling

error. A total of 146 usable responses were

collected equaling a 48.5% response rate.

ANALYSIS

Simple linear regression is a general linear

model designed to explain the relationship

between a single continuous independent

variable and a single continuous dependent

variable. In this study, the method of least

squares was used to fit the regression line

(the simple linear regression equation is

also known as the least squares regression

equation) (Dallal, 2000). The method of

least squares minimizes the sum of the

squares of the residuals of the points of the

data (difference between the observed

values and fitted values in the equation).

The regression equation is: Y ¼ a þ bX þ e.

Y is the dependent variable, a ¼ is a constant

value (the value of Y when X ¼ 0), b ¼ the

slope of the regression line (Beta), that is,

how much Y changes for each one unit

change in X. X represents the independent

variable (customer orientation), and e rep-

resents an error term (Abrams, 2005).

Because the data for customer orien-

tation was kurtotic, an inverse transform-

ation was performed prior to analysis.

The variable was then checked again for

normality. Skewness and kurtosis values

within þ/22.0 are considered within the normal range (Baumgartner and Jackson,

1999; George and Mallery, 2001). After

transformation, customer orientation

(skewness ¼ 1.30, kurtosis ¼ 0.33) approxi-

mated a normal distribution. If data are

non-normal, it is appropriate to transform

them prior to analysis. Particularly if the

data are arbitrary values (including Likert

responses), transformation does not

increase the difficulty of interpreting the

results (Abrams, 2005).

Table 1 Reliability coefficients for job satisfaction and customer orientation scales used in the study

Variable Number of items

Reliability coefficient

Work on present job 5 0.80 Present pay 5 0.71 Opportunities for promotion 5 0.83 Supervision 5 0.79 People at work 5 0.78 Job in general 8 0.83 Customer orientation 5 0.85

Theme park employee satisfaction and customer orientation 247

FINDINGS

The average age of respondents was 36.36

years, with 45.10% between the ages of 16

and 24, 25.00% between 25 and 49, and

29.90% 50 or older. Respondents were

39.70% male and 60.30% female. They were

evenly split between full-time employment

(49.30%) and part-time employment (50.70%).

On average, respondents had worked at the

park under study for 18.90 months overall

with an average of 16.95 months in their

current department. Respondents spent on

average 76.15% of their work time in direct

customer contact (See Table 2 for complete

results).

Table 3 displays the means and standard

deviations, and the skewness and kurtosis

results for the six dimensions of job satisfac-

tion, including satisfaction with the job in

general. The statistical procedures used in

this study assume a normal distribution of

the variables for an accurate interpretation

of the results. Visual examination for normal-

ity was made using histograms. A statistical

check for normality was also made by analyz-

ing the skewness and kurtosis statistics.

Results within þ/22.0 indicate that the data are not significantly shifted toward one tail

or another (skewness) nor are they too

peaked or too flat (kurtosis) (Baumgartner

Table 2 Demographic characteristics of respondents

Characteristic M SD Number (%)

Age (Years) 36.36 18.13 144 16–24 65 45.10 25–49 36 25.00 50 þ 43 29.90

Gender 146 Male 58 39.70 Female 88 60.30

Job category 146 Full time 72 49.30 Part time 74 50.70

Length of employment 18.90 18.48 144 0–6 Months 52 36.10 7–12 Months 22 15.30 13–24 Months 29 20.10 .24 Months 43 28.50

Length of employment in current department 16.95 17.40 144 0–6 Months 58 40.30 7–12 Months 22 15.30 13–24 Months 31 21.50 .24 Months 33 22.90

Work time in direct customer contact 76.15 33.15 144 0–25% 24 16.70 26–50% 9 6.20 51–75% 14 9.70 .75% 97 63.40

248 Wagenheim and Anderson

and Jackson, 1999; George and Mallery, 2001).

For satisfaction with the job in general, a

score equal to 24 indicates complete satisfac-

tion. For all other dimensions, a score equal

to 15 indicates complete satisfaction. Respon-

dents were most satisfied with supervision

(M ¼ 10.02, SD ¼ 4.77). Respondents were

least satisfied with present pay (M ¼ 4.80,

SD ¼ 4.09). Overall, respondents were moder-

ately satisfied with their job in general

(M ¼ 14.47, SD ¼ 7.00).

Table 4 displays the means and standard

deviations for the five items measuring cus-

tomer orientation, the means and standard

deviations, and the skewness and kurtosis

of overall customer orientation. Because

the data were kurtotic (skewness ¼ 21.67,

kurtosis ¼ 23.58), we did an inverse trans-

formation of the data prior to analysis. The

data were subtracted from a constant equal

to the highest response, plus one (46) and

then divided into one (source on desk

comp at home). Respondents indicate the

proportion of customers with whom they

act as described, from Never to Always. The

average customer orientation score was

high (M ¼ 38.50, SD ¼ 6.76). The majority of

respondents (68.22%) ‘always’ or ‘almost

always’ acted with the best interest of the

customer in mind.

The following relationships were tested in

this study using simple linear regression

analysis (See Table 5 for complete results).

. Overall job satisfaction (B , 0.01, p ¼ 0.49) did not result in higher cus-

tomer orientation [F (1,144) ¼ 0.48,

p ¼ 0.49].

Table 3 Means and standard deviations for job satisfaction dimensions

Dimension Number M SD Skewness Kurtosis

Work on present job� 146 9.27 4.96 20.41 21.02 Present pay� 146 4.80 4.09 0.93 0.27 Opportunities for promotion� 146 6.00 4.91 0.55 20.88 Supervision� 146 10.02 4.77 20.49 20.94 People at work� 146 9.57 4.54 20.32 21.03 Job in general�� 146 14.47 7.00 20.24 20.96

�A score equal to 15 indicates complete satisfaction. ��A score equal to 24 indicates complete satisfaction.

Table 4 Means and standard deviations for customer orientation

Item Number M SD

I try to figure out what the customer needs are 146 6.91 2.04 A good employee has to have the customer’s best interest in mind 146 8.21 1.32 I try to bring the customer with a problem together with a product/ service that helps to solve that problem

146 7.88 1.78

I offer the product/service that is best suited to the customer’s problem

146 7.81 1.63

I try to find out what kind of product/services will be most helpful to a customer

146 7.71 1.68

Overall Customer Orientation�,�� 146 38.50 6.76

�A score equal to 45 indicates a complete customer orientation. ��Skewness ¼ 1.30, Kurtosis ¼ 0.31.

Theme park employee satisfaction and customer orientation 249

. Satisfaction with supervision (B , 20.01, p ¼ 0.67) did not result in a

higher customer orientation [F

(1,144) ¼ 0.18, p ¼ 0.67].

. No significant relationship was found between any demographic factor and

employee customer orientation.

. A significant linear relationship was found between satisfaction with people

at work (IV) and customer orientation

(DV). Results indicated that higher satis-

faction with people at work (B ¼ 0.01,

p ¼ 0.02) resulted in higher customer

orientation [F (1,144) ¼ 5.22, p ¼ 0.02];

with 3.5% of the variance in customer

orientation explained by satisfaction

with people at work.

DISCUSSION

The first objective of this study was to

determine the relationship between job sat-

isfaction and customer orientation among

front-line employees in a theme park

setting. This study showed that the custo-

mer orientation of front-line employees is

impacted by the satisfaction felt between

front-line employees and their co-workers.

No relationship was found between overall

job satisfaction and customer orientation, or

between satisfaction with supervisors and

customer orientation. The literature is incon-

sistent with regard to the nature of these

relationships. Jones et al. (2003) found

front-line employee’s perceptions of the

organization’s market orientation positively

impacts job satisfaction and organizational

commitment. However, they also showed

that employee customer orientation is not

impacted by their immediate supervisor

market orientation. Jones et al. (2003)

suggested that a perception of the organi-

zation’s market orientation represented

support for employee efforts to meet custo-

mer needs, but immediate supervisor orien-

tation did not infer the same support.

Results of this study were consistent with

what Jones et al. (2003) found. Although sat-

isfied with immediate supervisor actions,

employees in this study were very dissatis-

fied with organizational dimensions (includ-

ing pay and opportunities for promotion).

These dimensions may be perceived by

employees in this study to be out of the

control of their immediate supervisors. The

results found in this study may be reflecting

this inconsistent relationship felt by emplo-

yees. In this study, front-line employees

reported low levels of overall job satisfac-

tion. At the same time, they reported high

levels of customer orientation. This finding

implies that front-line employees are

getting their satisfaction from their relation-

ship with the customer and not from the

relationship they have with the organization.

No relationship was found between

employee satisfaction with their immediate

supervisors and customer orientation.

Respondents in this study did report a

general satisfaction with supervision, but

level of satisfaction with supervision did

not impact front-line employee customer

orientation. This finding implies that the

Table 5 Regression analysis summary predicting customer orientation

Variable B SEB b

Job in general ,0.01 ,0.01 ,0.01 Work on present job ,0.01 ,0.01 ,0.01 Supervision ,0.01 ,0.01 20.04 Opportunities for promotion ,0.01 ,0.01 0.09 People at work 0.01 0.01 0.19�

Present pay ,0.01 ,0.01 20.05

Age ,0.01 ,0.01 ,0.01 Length of employment ,0.01 ,0.01 0.02 Length of employment in current department

,0.01 ,0.01 0.03

Percentage of time spent in direct customer contact

,0.01 ,0.01 0.15

�p , 0.05.

250 Wagenheim and Anderson

immediate supervisor/front-line employee relationship is not nearly as important as

the relationship between front-line emplo-

yees and their customers. This finding

extends the finding that overall job satisfac-

tion (including satisfaction with the organiz-

ation in general) is not related to customer

orientation. Satisfaction with immediate

supervision represents a much closer

relationship than the more abstract relation-

ship between the organization and the front-

line employee.

A significant relationship was found in this

study between employee satisfaction with

his or her co-workers and customer orien-

tation. Leavitt (1996) and Savery (1996)

showed that some employees are motivated

as much by intrinsic rewards (including

working conditions) as extrinsic rewards

(pay and benefits). Co-workers contribute

greatly to working conditions. The results

of this study suggest that employees who

enjoy the company of their co-workers are

in a better position to concentrate their

efforts on external customers (increased cus-

tomer orientation). This is consistent with

Agho et al. (1993) who found working with

friendly people increased job satisfaction.

On the one hand, employees are satisfied

by supervisor actions but not satisfied with

the organization in general. This may par-

tially explain why the one dimension of job

satisfaction that was found to be associated

with customer orientation (satisfaction with

co-workers) is outside the control of both

immediate supervisors and the organization.

Bettencourt (1997) found that when the

effects of fairness perceptions are controlled

for, there is no relationship between job sat-

isfaction and prosocial employee behavior.

This finding is consistent with the lack of

relationship shown between satisfaction

with supervision and front-line employee

customer orientation. This finding implies

an ‘us vs. them’ mentality among front-line

employees in this study. Satisfaction with

the overall job and satisfaction with

immediate supervision did not impact

front-line employee orientation and rep-

resents ‘them’. Satisfaction with co-workers

and the implication that front-line employees

are getting satisfaction from their interaction

with customers did impact front-line

employee customer orientation and rep-

resents ‘us’. This further implies that front-

line employees who share some (as of yet

identified) intangibles (what is termed hom-

ogeneity of service providers) will be more

satisfied with each other.

Other dimensions of job satisfaction were

not shown to be related to customer orien-

tation in this study. This apparent inconsis-

tency (satisfaction with co-workers

impacting customer orientation but other

dimensions of job satisfaction showing no

relationship) can be explained in part by

the findings of other job satisfaction

research. Koys (2001) showed only a weak

association between individual job satisfac-

tion and organizational effectiveness. A

much stronger association was found

between a unit level measure of employee

satisfaction and organizational effectiveness.

Ryan et al. (1996) explained this in part by

making the argument that a unit level per-

formance is not simply a sum of individual

employee satisfaction. Other things may

impact unit effectiveness, including shared

values. The authors suggest that if an

environment of cooperation is fostered,

unit level productivity may increase. The

results of this study suggest that even

when other areas of job satisfaction have

no impact on customer orientation, satisfac-

tion with co-workers impacting customer

orientation may be due to the same operat-

ing environment characteristics (shared

value, cooperation) that impact unit levels

of productivity.

The second objective of this study was to

determine the relationship between various

demographic (age, gender) and work

(overall length of employment, overall

length of employment within the current

Theme park employee satisfaction and customer orientation 251

job category, full-time vs. part-time employ-

ment, percentage of time spent in direct cus-

tomer contact) characteristics and customer

orientation among front-line employees in a

theme park setting. No relationship was

found between demographic characteristics

or work characteristics and the customer

orientation of front-line employees. This

result is consistent with the results found

by Howe et al. (1994) in a study set in the

insurance industry. Length of employment

(including overall, or within their current

position) was not found to be related to cus-

tomer orientation in this study. Michaels and

Day (1985) found a negative association

between length of employment and custo-

mer orientation. Those employed longer

with the organization may be more resistant

to change to a customer orientation. The

Michaels and Day (1985) study, however,

focused on industrial salespersons, and

results may have been impacted by issues

occurring within the environment at the

time of the study (including industry layoffs).

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

Homogeneity of Service Providers

Results in this study showed that satisfac-

tion with co-workers impacted customer

orientation. Homogeneity of service

workers is not defined by an easily identified

characteristic. Management should find

some way to determine if new hires (or

potential interdepartmental transfers) will

interact well with current employees. One

recommendation would be to lay out organ-

izational philosophies (including policies

and procedures) to potential employees

before hire. Disney Corporation uses this

method of ‘self selection’ with great

success. Organizations should recruit front-

line employees with similar backgrounds.

In this study, employees reported rela-

tively high job satisfaction on the dimension

as it relates to direct supervisors. However,

employees were dissatisfied with the job

satisfaction dimension relating to the organ-

ization as a whole. This relationship between

the organization and the front-line employee

is critically important. Barnes and Morris

(2000) showed that organizations that focus

on the needs of front-line employees are in

a better position to satisfy the external cus-

tomer. Organizations can improve the

quality of staff performance through

employee training. Ballantyne et al. (1995)

caution that technical skill training is not

enough; employees must receive education.

Training and recruitment of front-line

employees should be done with the expec-

tation that every employee be considered a

part-time marketer for the organization. To

this end, Gronroos (1990) recommends

organizational strategies for ‘attracting,

keeping and motivating customer oriented

personnel’ (p. 162). This sentiment is

echoed by Berry and Parasuraman (1992)

who include attracting, motivating, and

retaining qualified employees in their defi-

nition of internal marketing. They argue

that organizations should resist the tempta-

tion to lower hiring standards in a tight

labor market.

Job Satisfaction

In this study, no relationship was found

between overall job satisfaction or satisfac-

tion with supervisors and front-line

employee customer orientation. However,

satisfaction with co-workers was found to

impact customer orientation.

Thakor and Joshi (2005) recommend that

managers provide more variety in employee

work (including job rotation). If job rotation

is not possible (those in positions that

require specialized knowledge as an

example), Thakor and Joshi (2005) found

that increasing organizational identification

is also effective. Managers can foster organiz-

ational identification among front-line

employees through considerate leader

252 Wagenheim and Anderson

behavior and through regular and construc-

tive feedback. Stock and Hoyer (2005)

found that customer-oriented attitudes are

distinct from customer-oriented behavior.

Even though customer-oriented behavior

provides a stronger impact on customer sat-

isfaction, both customer-oriented behavior

and customer-oriented attitudes impact cus-

tomer satisfaction directly. This is import-

ant, as it shows customers are attune to

employee ‘vibes’ and they impact satisfac-

tion. Focusing only on actual behaviors is

not enough. Management should also be con-

cerned with employee attitudes. Hartline

et al. (2000) showed that customer-oriented

attitudes can be influenced by supervisors’

leadership style. The results of this study

suggest that even when other areas of job

satisfaction have no impact on customer

orientation, satisfaction with co-workers

impacting customer orientation may be due

to the same operating environment charac-

teristics (shared value, cooperation) that

impact unit levels of productivity.

LIMITATIONS

This study was confidential but not anon-

ymous. The high levels of customer orien-

tation and relationship marketing

orientation identified by respondents may

have been artificially high due to this fact.

Future research should be conducted using

anonymous responses in order to control

this potential limitation. Because the focus

of this study was the experience of front-line

employees, those in supervisory positions

were intentionally excluded. Management

input would allow future researchers better

insight into the responses given by front-line

employees (e.g., the association between

front-line employees’ satisfaction with super-

vision and what this encompasses).

Although a variety of demographic and work

characteristics were considered in this study,

the list was not exhaustive. It is recommended

that future research increase the number of

demographic and work characteristics con-

sidered (including race and socioeconomic

status) and their impact on customer orien-

tation. A final limitation of this study was the

use of the SOCO scale developed by Saxe and

Weitz (1982) to measure the dependent vari-

able in this study. The SOCO scale has been

used in previous research predominately

with salespersons. The SOCO scale was used

in this study with front-line employees who

are not salespersons in the traditional sense

(they are paid by the hour and sales volume

does not impact pay received). Future

research using the SOCO scale to measure

customer orientation with other non-selling

populations is recommended.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Beyond the scope of this study was the

impact employee fairness perceptions have

on job satisfaction and the delivery of

quality service. Bettencourt and Brown

(1997) found that employee fairness percep-

tions were antecedent to the delivery of

quality service. They were able to show

that perceptions of fairness were related to

prosocial employee behaviors. Employee

comments, in this study, (although not ana-

lyzed qualitatively) indicated that employ-

ees in the park under study felt they were

treated unfairly on a variety of dimensions

(including pay and working conditions).

The results found in this study may be

impacted by fairness perceptions. Future

research should investigate the job satisfac-

tion/fairness perceptions/customer orien- tation relationship. In addition, because

both supervisory and organizational dimen-

sions of satisfaction were measured at the

same time and on a single instrument, the

validity of the results (showing no relation-

ship between most dimensions of job satis-

faction and customer orientation) may have

been impacted. Future research should be

Theme park employee satisfaction and customer orientation 253

conducted measuring each dimension of job

satisfaction independently.

Only one dimension of job satisfaction

measured in this study (satisfaction with

co-workers) was found to be related to custo-

mer orientation. The results of this study

imply that some other dimension of the co-

worker relationship is impacting customer

orientation. In addition, no relationship was

found between demographic or work charac-

teristics and customer orientation. It is rec-

ommended that future research explore the

co-worker relationship to determine what

specifically is impacting reported levels of

satisfaction and in what ways these dimen-

sions impact customer orientation.

The results of this study found no relation-

ship between satisfaction with supervisors

and customer orientation. This result may

be due in part to employee fairness percep-

tions. Respondents in this study viewed the

promotion practices in the studied organiz-

ation to be very unfair. Bettencourt and

Brown (1997) found that employee fairness

perceptions impacted the relationship

between job satisfaction and employee’s pro-

social behaviors. Fairness perceptions were

not considered in this study. Future research

testing the relationship between job satisfac-

tion and customer orientation (while consid-

ering fairness perceptions) is recommended.

zIn this study, no relationship was found

between length of employment (either

overall or within the current department)

and customer orientation. This result is incon-

sistent with the findings of Michaels and Day

(1985). Although the Michaels and Day

(1985) study was hindered due to the setting

of the study, future research should further

investigate the association between length of

employment and customer orientation.

REFERENCES

Abrams, D. (2005) Introduction to regression, avail-

able at http://dss.princeton.edu/online_help/

analysis/regression_intro.htm (Retrieved 7 December 2005).

Agho, A., Mueller, C. and Price, J. (1993) Determi-

nants of employee job satisfaction: An empiri-

cal test of a causal model, Human Relations,

46(8), 1007 – 1027.

Ballantyne, D., Christopher, M. and Payne, A.

(1995) Improving the quality of services mar-

keting: Service (re)design is the critical link,

Journal of Marketing Management, 11(1 – 3),

7 – 24.

Barnes, B. and Morris, D. (2000) Revising quality

awareness through internal marketing: An

exploratory study among French and

English medium-sized corporations, Total

Quality Management, 11(4/5&6), 473 – 483. Bauer, K. (2000) The front line: Satisfaction of

classified employees, New Directions for Insti-

tutional Research, 105, 87 – 97.

Baumgartner, T. and Jackson, A. (1999) Measure-

ment for Evaluation in Physical Education and

Exercise Science, sixth edition, Boston, W.C.

Brown.

Berry, L. (1983) Relationship marketing. In L. Berry,

G. Shostak and G. Upch (eds) Emerging Per-

spectives of Services Marketing, Chicago,

American Marketing Association, pp. 25 – 38.

Berry, L. and Parasuraman, A. (1992) Service mar-

keting starts from within, Marketing Manage-

ment, 1(1), 24 – 34.

Bettencourt, L. (1997) Customer voluntary

performance: Customers as partners in

service delivery, Journal of Retailing, 73(3),

383 – 406.

Bettencourt, L. and Brown, S. (1997) Contact

employees: Relationships among workplace

fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial beha-

viors, Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 39 – 61.

Bitner, M., Booms, B. and Mohr, L. (1994) Critical

service encounters: The employees view-

point, Journal of Marketing, 58, 95 – 106.

Bitner, M., Booms, B. and Tetreault, M. (1990)

Critical service encounters: Diagnosing favor-

able and unfavorable incidents, Journal of

Marketing, 54(1), 71 – 84.

Brown, T., Mowen, J., Donavan, T. and Licata, J.

(2002) The customer orientation of service

workers: Personality trait effects on self

and supervisor performance ratings,

Journal of Marketing Research, 39(February),

110 – 119.

254 Wagenheim and Anderson

Burke, R. (1999) Managerial feedback, organiz-

ational values and service quality, Managing

Service Quality, 9(1), 53 – 57.

Capella, M. and Andrew, J. (2004) The relationship

between counselor job satisfaction and

consumer satisfaction in vocational rehabili-

tation, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,

47(4), 205 – 214.

Dallal, G. (2000) Introduction to simple linear

regression, available at http://www.tufts.edu/ �gdalla/slr.htm (Retrieved December 7).

Deshpande, R., Farley, J. and Webster, F. (1993)

Corporate culture, customer orientation,

and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A

quadrad analysis, Journal of Marketing,

57(January), 23 – 27.

Dillman, D. (2000) Mail and Internet Surveys: The

Tailored Design Method, second edition,

New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Downey, H., Sheridan, J. and Slocum, J. (1975) An

analysis of relationships among leader beha-

vior, subordinate job performance and satis-

faction: A path goal approach, Academy of

Management Journal, 18, 253 – 262.

Dunlap, B., Dotson, M. and Chambers, T. (1988)

Perceptions of real-estate brokers and

buyers: A sales orientation, customer-

orientation approach, Journal of Business

Research, 17, 175 – 187.

Eskildsen, J. and Nussler, M. (2000) The manage-

rial drivers of employee satisfaction and

loyalty, Total Quality Management, 11(4/ 5&6), 581 – 588.

Farrell, A., Souchon, A. and Durden, G. (2001)

Service Quality Enhancement: The Role of

Employees’ Service Behaviours, Durden,

Australia.

George, D. and Mallery, P. (2001) SPSS for Windows

Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference -

10.0 Update, Boston, Allyn and Bacon.

Griffin, J. (2002) Customer Loyalty: How to Earn it,

How to Keep it, San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass.

Gronroos, C. (1981) Internal Marketing – Theory

and Practice. Paper presented at the American

Marketing Association Services Marketing

Conference.

Gronroos, C. (1990) Service Management and Mar-

keting: Managing the Moments of Truth in

Service Competition, Toronto, Lexington.

Gronroos, C. (2004) The relationship marketing

process: Communication, interaction,

dialogue, value, Journal of Business and Indus-

trial Marketing, 19(2), 99 – 113.

Hagedorn, L. and Sax, L. (1999) Marriage, Children,

and Aging Parents: The Role of Family-related

Factors in Faculty Job Satisfaction. Paper pre-

sented at the American Educational Research

Association, Montreal, Canada.

Hanisch, K. (1992) The Job Descriptive Index

revisited: Questions about the question

mark, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3),

377 – 382.

Harris, E., Mowen, J. and Brown, T. (2005) Re-

examining salesperson goal orientations: Per-

sonality influencers, customer orientation,

and work satisfaction, Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 33(1), 19 – 35.

Hartline, M., Maxham, J. and McKee, D. (2000) Cor-

ridors of influence in the dissemination of

customer-oriented strategy to customer

contact service employment, Journal of Mar-

keting, 64(April), 35 – 50.

Howard, J. and Frink, D. (1996) The effects of

organizational restructure on employee satis-

faction, Group and Organization Management,

21(3), 278 – 303.

Howe, V., Hoffman, K. and Hardigree, D. (1994) The

relationship between ethical and customer-

oriented service provider behaviors, Journal

of Business Ethics, 13(7), 497 – 506.

Jeffreys, M., Massoni, M. and O’Donnell, M. (1997)

Student evaluation of courses: Determining

the reliability and validity of three survey

instruments, Journal of Nursing Education,

36, 397 – 400.

Jones, E., Busch, P. and Dacin, P. (2003) Firm

market orientation and salesperson custo-

mer orientation: Interpersonal and intraper-

sonal influences on customer service and

retention in business-to-business buyer-

seller relationships, Journal of Business

Research, 56, 323 – 340.

Kinicki, A., McKee-Ryan, F., Schriesheim, C. and

Carson, K. (2002) Assessing the construct val-

idity of the Job Descriptive Index: A review

and meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 87(1), 14 – 32.

Koys, D. (2001) The effects of employee satisfac-

tion, organizational citizenship behavior,

and turnover on organizational effectiveness:

A unit-level, longitudinal study, Personnel

Psychology, 54, 101 – 114.

Theme park employee satisfaction and customer orientation 255

Leavitt, W. (1996) High pay and low morale – Can

high pay, excellen benefits, job security, and

low job satisfaction coexist in a public

agency? Public Personnel Management, 25(3),

333 – 341.

Lewis, B. and Clacher, E. (2001) Service failure and

recovery in UK theme parks: The employees’

perspective, International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(4),

166 – 175.

Michaels, R. and Day, R. (1985) Measuring custo-

mer orientation of salespeople: A replication

with industrial buyers, Journal of Marketing

Research, 22(November), 443 – 449.

O’Hara, B., Boles, J. and Johnston, M. (1991) The

influence of personal variables on salesper-

son selling orientation, Journal of Personal

Selling and Sales Management, 11(1), 61 – 68.

Organ, D. (1977) A reappraisal and reinterpretaion of

the satisfaction causes performance hypothesis,

Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 46 –53.

Parasuraman, A. (1987) Customer-oriented

corporate cultures are crucial to services

marketing success, The Journal of Services

Marketing, 1(1), 39 – 46.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, A. and Berry, L. (1988)

SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measur-

ing customer perceptions of service quality,

Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12 – 40.

Parsons, C. (1998) Review of the Job Descriptive

Index and the Retirement Descriptive Index.

In J. Mitchell (ed) The Mental Measurement

Yearbook, Lincoln, University of Nebraska,

pp. 513 – 515.

Payne, R., Fineman, S. and Wall, T. (1976) Organiz-

ational climate and job satisfaction: A syn-

thesis, Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 16, 45 – 62.

Periatt, J., LeMay, S. and Chakrabarty, S. (2004)

The Selling Orientation – Customer Orien-

tation (SOCO) scale: Cross – validation of the

revised version, Journal of Personal Selling

and Sales Management, 24(1), 49 – 54.

Petty, M., McGee, G. and Cavender, J. (1984) A

meta-analysis of the relationships between

individual job satisfaction and individual per-

formance, Academy of Management Review,

9(4), 712 – 721.

Pincus, J. (1986) Communication satisfaction, job

satisfaction, and job performance, Human

Communication Research, 12(3), 395 – 419.

Price, J. and Mueller, C. (1986) Absenteeism and

Turnover of Hospital Employees, London, JAI

Press Inc.

Reicheld, F. (1996) Learning from customer

defections, Harvard Business Review, 74(2),

56 – 69.

Roznowski, M. (1989) Examination of the measure-

ment properties of the Job Descriptive Index

with experimental items, Journal of Applied

Psychology, 74(5), 805 – 814.

Rusbult, C. and Farrell, D. (1983) A longitudinal

test of the investment model: The impact of

job satisfaction, job commitment, and turn-

over of variations in rewards, cost, alterna-

tives and investments, Journal of Applied

Psychology, 68, 429 – 438.

Russ, F. and McNeilly, K. (1995) Links among satis-

faction, commitment, and turnover inten-

tions: The moderating effect of experience,

gender, and perfornace, Journal of Business

Research, 34(1), 57 – 65.

Ryan, A., Schmit, M. and Johnson, R. (1996) Atti-

tudes and effectiveness: Examining relations

at an organizational level, Personnel Journal,

49, 853 – 882.

Savery, L. (1996) The congruence between the

importance of job satisfaction and perceived

level of achievement, Journal of Management

Development, 15(6), 18 – 28.

Saxe, R. and Weitz, B. (1982) The SOCO scale: A

measure of the customer orientation of sales-

people, Journal of Marketing Research,

19(August), 341 – 351.

Schuler, R. (1979) A role perception transactional

process model for organizational communi-

cation-outcome relationships, Organiz-

ational Behavior and Human Performance,

23, 268 – 291.

Smith, P., Kendall, L. and Hulin, C. (1969) The Mea-

surment of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement,

Chicago, Rand McNally.

Smith, P., Organ, D. and Near, J. (1983) Organiz-

ational citizenship behavior: Its nature and

antecedents, Journal of Applied Psychology,

68, 655 – 663.

Stock, R. and Hoyer, W. (2005) An attitude-beha-

vior model of salesperson’s customer orien-

tation, Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 33(4), 536 – 552.

Tadepalli, R. (1995) Measuring customer orien-

tation of a salesperson: Modifications of the

256 Wagenheim and Anderson

Soco scale, Psychology & Marketing, 12(3),

177 – 187.

Thakor, M. and Joshi, A. (2005) Motivating sales-

person customer orientation: Insights from

the Job Characteristics model, Journal of

Business Research, 58, 584 – 592.

Theme parks attendance increases in 2004 (2004),

available at http://abcnews.go.com/Busi ness/wireStory?id¼326307&CMP¼OTC-RSS Feeds0312 (Retrieved 10 April 2005).

Thomas, R., Soutar, G. and Ryan, M. (2001) The

Selling Orientation-Customer Orientation

(S.O.C.O.) scale: A proposed short form,

Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Manage-

ment, 21(1), 63 – 69.

Wild Adventures buck industry attendance

trends (2003), available at http://www. georgia.org/tourism/market_ga/media/2003_ relea ses/wild_adventures50.doc (Retrieved 10 April 2005).

Theme park employee satisfaction and customer orientation 257