Content uploaded by John W Lounsbury
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John W Lounsbury on Apr 13, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Key personality traits and career
satisfaction of customer
service workers
John W. Lounsbury
Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee,
USA and eCareerFit.Com, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Nancy Foster and Patrick C. Carmody
Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
Ji Young Kim
Keukdong College, Eumseong, South Korea
Lucy W. Gibson
Resource Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA and eCareerFit.Com, Atlanta,
Georgia, USA, and
Adam W. Drost
eCareerfit.com, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the present study is to identify key personality traits which
distinguish customer service (CS) employees from other occupations and are related to
their career satisfaction. As hypothesized, 2,610 CS employees were differentiated from
other occupational groups by higher levels of conscientiousness, customer service orientation,
and lower tough-mindedness. Conscientiousness, customer service orientation, emotional
stability, extraversion, and tough-mindedness were significantly, positively related to
customer service representatives’ (CSRs’) career satisfaction. Results are discussed in terms of
the adaptive value of these traits for the recruitment, selection, and management of customer
service employees.
Design/methodology/approach – Data for this study were extracted from an archival database
containing information on individuals’ many different occupations and industries, including 2,641
CSRs and 76,788 individuals in other occupations. Measures included demographic items and the Big
Five personality traits as well six other narrow personality traits.
Findings – As hypothesized, CS employees differed from other occupational groups by having
higher levels of conscientiousness, customer service orientation, and lower tough-mindedness.
Also, conscientiousness, customer service orientation, emotional stability, extraversion, and
tough-mindedness were significantly, positively related to career satisfaction. Using hierarchical
multiple regression, the Big Five traits (Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion,
and Emotional Stability) accounted for 22 percent of the variance in CSR career satisfaction, while the
narrow traits added an additional 6 percent.
Originality/value – The findings of the present study are original in that the authors used a
relatively large sample to identify key personality traits which distinguish CS employees from other
occupations and are related to their career satisfaction. An empirically validated personality profile
of CS workers was presented. The typical CS representative is more: conscientious, optimistic,
intrinsically motivated, tender-minded, deferential, conventional, willing to serve other people, and
reluctant to work long hours or become workaholics.
Keywords Big Five, Narrow personality traits, Customer service, Career satisfaction, Vocational fit,
Customer service management, Personality
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm
Managing Service Quality
Vol. 22 No. 5, 2012
pp. 517-536
rEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0960-4529
DOI 10.1108/09604521211281404
517
Career
satisfaction
of CS workers
Introduction
The customer service (CS) industry is vital to the current US economy, employing over
two million CS personnel (Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor, 2010).
Moreover, CS and related work accounts for an estimated 64 percent of the nation’s
gross domestic product (Chung and Schneider, 2002). Estimates of job market growth
forecast approximately 400,000-500,000 job openings in CS by 2018 (Dohm and
Shniper, 2007; Hecker, 2005; Lacey and Wright, 2009). Also, high-quality CS is directly
related to increased consumer spending (American Express global customer service
barometer, April, 2011), as well as profitability and repeat business (Zeithaml, 2000).
Quality service is considered an antecedent to customer satisfaction (Durvasula et al.,
2005), which, in turn, is related to customer retention and positive word-of mouth
communication (Durvasula et al., 2005; Szymanski and Henard, 2001). On the other
hand, poor CS is associated with increased customer switching and lower corporate
profitability (Keaveney, 1995; RightNow Technologies Inc., 2010) as well as a difficult
and expensive problem to remediate (Bitner et al., 2000). It is hardly surprising, then,
that the study of characteristics of CS and customer dynamics has become a
burgeoning research domain (e.g. Rod and Ashill, 2009; Kantsperger and Kunz, 2010;
Wang and Mattila, 2010). The present study informs the CS knowledge base by
identifying key personality characteristics of customer service representatives (CSRs),
using Holland’s (1996) vocational theory. We investigated traits which we expected
would differentiate CS jobs from other occupations and those traits which would be
related to the career satisfaction of CS workers. Before addressing the particulars of
our study, we note first what we mean by the terms “personality” and “personality
traits.” Following Cervone and Pervin (2010), as a field of inquiry, we view personality
as the study of what is generally true of people by examining consistencies in
individual difference variables. We focussed on personality traits as the variable of
interest for studying CS personnel because of the common meaning of individual traits
over time and across many different situations. More specifically, we investigated
personality traits from the perspective of the Big Five model – for which a general
consensus has emerged that all, or nearly all, normal personality traits can be
parsimoniously depicted by five main traits which are conceptually broad and
inclusive of more narrow-scope traits. These Big Five traits of agreeableness,
conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion, and openness (de Raad, 2000) have
been replicated in many different contexts and have been validated against a number
of different criteria, including job satisfaction ( Judge et al., 2002), career satisfaction
( Judge et al., 1999), life and nonwork satisfaction (DeNeve and Cooper, 1998), and both
job and academic performance Lounsbury et al., 2003a). Recent studies have found that
the Big Five model may be too broad and that more narrow-scope personality
constructs may be needed to enhance validity in both work and nonwork domains
(Lounsbury et al., 2003a; Paunonen and Ashton, 2001). As a case in point, Lounsbury
et al. (2003b) found that six narrow traits (assertiveness, CS orientation, optimism,
image management, intrinsic motivation, and work drive) were positively related to
career satisfaction for individuals in various occupational fields.
Previous work research on personality characteristics of CS employees has mainly
been of a job-analytic nature. For example, a job analysis of CS work found that
the typical CS worker is “friendly, attentive, and empathetic” (Baydoun et al., 2001).
Subject matter experts with the US Department of Labor’s Occupational Information
Network (O*NET, Occupational Information Network, 2012) list a number of attributes
important for CS work: attention to detail, integrity, and dependability; stress tolerance
518
MSQ
22,5
and self-control; and social orientation and concern for others. The attributes cited
by O*NET can be interpreted in terms of personality traits, particularly the Big
Five model.
A number of investigators interested in CS research have utilized the Big Five in
their studies. For example, in their meta-analysis involving 6,945 employees, Frei and
McDaniel (1998) found that CS measures were positively and strongly related to the
personality dimensions of agreeableness, emotional stability, and conscientiousness,
moderately related to extraversion, but unrelated to openness. Along slightly different
lines, but with similar results, Mount et al. (1998) meta-analysis (n¼1,586 employees)
observed that conscientiousness, emotional stability, agreeableness, and openness were
positively related to job performance for CS occupations. Additionally, in a series of
four related studies, Hurley (1998) found that extraversion and agreeableness were
positively related to superior CS.
The above findings underscore the importance of the broad-spectrum, Big Five
personality traits in CS work. However, with few exceptions, research on CS has not
attended to narrow personality traits. Narrow-scope personality constructs are useful
because they augment the validity of the Big Five traits by contributing additional,
unique variance above and beyond broad traits in the prediction of work outcomes,
such as job performance and job satisfaction (Paunonen and Ashton, 2001; Schneider
et al., 1996) as well as both job and career satisfaction (Lounsbury et al., 2003b). With
regard to narrow traits and CS research, one of the 14 different occupations in which
personality traits were related to job and career satisfaction in the Lounsbury et al.
(2003a) study was CSR. They found that a number of broad and narrow traits were
related to the job and career satisfaction of individuals in CS occupations.
CS research has also not addressed whether the personality traits implicated as
being important for CS work are different in magnitude from those same traits
measured in other occupations. The aforementioned Lounsbury et al. (2003a) study
did not compare personality traits between occupations for any group – including
CS workers – nor has any other study we could locate. Accordingly, it is presently an
open question whether, for example, extraversion and CS orientation are actually
higher in CS jobs than other occupations.
Identifying personality traits which differentiate CS from other occupations can
help us better understand the nature of CS work and affirm the importance of some of
the attributes emphasized for the field by occupational classification schemes such as
O*NET, as well as indicate some additional important attributes which might need to
be included in future revisions. In addition, drawing on the construct specifications of
the broad and narrow traits, we can offer explanations of how each distinctive trait has
functional utility for the work of CSR and for the management of CS personnel,
including selection, training, and ongoing supervision. Some of the traits under study
here – like optimism, extraversion, and conscientiousness – have such rich theoretical
traditions with elaborate networks of empirical findings that they can readily be
applied to the context of CS work. Ultimately, the use of validated constructs in
research on CSR’s can help advance the larger body of CS knowledge by identifying the
enduring and distinctive traits of CSR’s. The current study is based on an appropriate
conceptual model – Holland’s (1985, 1996) vocational theory. Holland’s central thesis is
that individuals gravitate toward, are satisfied with, and remain in occupations where
there is a good fit between their personality and the work environment. There are two
logical corollaries of Holland’s fit model which have been generally verified by
subsequent research and are germane to the present study. First, there are differences
519
Career
satisfaction
of CS workers
in mean scores on personality characteristics associated with occupations which help
determine fit; and second, higher scores on these personality characteristics are related
to higher levels of satisfaction with the occupation.
Rather than studying job satisfaction in CS workers as other studies have done (Brown
et al., 2002; Lebreton et al., 2004), we were concerned with career satisfaction. Career
satisfaction is defined as an individual’s subjective appraisal of their level of success they
have achieved with their career as a whole (Judge et al.,1999).Lounsburyet al. (2008)
further describes career satisfaction as being the sum of one’s feelings about their work
throughout their lifetime, as it changes and develops during the duration of their life span.
The present study utilized a measure of career satisfaction of CS personnel rather than
job satisfaction for several reasons. First, career satisfaction is conceptually closer than
job satisfaction to Holland’s notion of satisfaction with an occupation. Additionally, career
satisfaction represents a person’s subjective attitudes about a lifetime of work – estimated
to be about 100,000 hours for the typical American (Career Strategists, 2004) – rather than
a singular job. It has also been shown that career satisfaction is a component of and is
related to overall life satisfaction (Lounsbury et al., 2004d).
In line with the two corollaries noted above, we advanced two main types of
hypotheses. The first type specifically deals with whether trait levels for CS workers
are different from those of individuals in other occupations, while the second deals with
whether specific traits are related to career satisfaction. Thus, each hypothesis pairing
first examines the trait relative to CS work: if that broad or narrow trait differentiates
CS workers, and that trait has functional value for CS jobs, we expect that workers will
experience higher levels of career satisfaction. Both types of hypotheses are presented
below for Big Five and narrow traits followed by a brief rationale for each trait:
H1a. CS workers will score higher on conscientiousness than other occupations.
H1b. Conscientiousness will be positively correlated with career satisfaction for CS
workers.
CS workers must perform their work reliably, dependably, and according to a set
protocol, replete with standard answers for customer questions, established procedures
for handling unresolved issues and complaints, and well-defined guidelines for proper
language, decorum, pricing, record-keeping, and time spent on customer transactions.
Moreover, as noted earlier, O*NET lists several conscientiousness-related traits among
the work styles for CSR, including dependability, integrity, and attention to detail.
Further, researchers have found that individuals who are high in conscientiousness
perform well in the CS field (Mount et al., 1998). In addition, successful CS requires that
a service provider honor their commitments dependably and accurately, and routinely
follow approved rules and procedures (Berry et al., 1994), – all attributes which
correspond to the trait of conscientiousness:
H2a. CS workers will score higher on emotional stability than other occupations.
H2b. Emotional stability will be positively correlated with career satisfaction for
CS workers.
Owing to the stressful nature of CS work, individuals who can effectively control their
emotions should manage challenging interactions better, such as multiple customer
520
MSQ
22,5
requests, complaints, or demands. Conversely, individuals who are quick to express
negative emotions should have a harder time dealing effectively with customers,
coworkers, or supervisors. O*NET includes two essential work styles related to
emotional stability – stress tolerance and self-control – when describing CS jobs.
In addition, studies by Ones and Viswesvaran (1996) and Frei and McDaniel (1998)
found CS orientation to be positively related to the trait of emotional stability (also with
agreeableness and conscientiousness), although other researchers report more mixed
findings (e.g. Hurley, 1998; Liao and Chuang, 2004):
H3a. CS workers will score higher on extraversion than other occupations.
H3b. Extraversion will be positively correlated with career satisfaction for CS workers.
CS work often pertains to the management of social relationships; customer encounters
are frequent, and social alacrity and communication skills are crucial to maintaining
positive customer experience (Parasuraman et al., 1985). “Social orientation” is listed as
an O*NET work style for CS occupations. Further, researchers have found that
extraverts are more likely to have well-developed social skills which can inspire
customer commitment and help maintain customer relationships over time (Beatty
et al., 1996; Hurley, 1998):
H4a. CS workers will score higher on CS orientation than other occupations.
H4b. CS orientation will be positively correlated with career satisfaction for CS workers.
Individuals’ CS orientation (the extent to which a person shows willingness to serve
others and derives pleasure from doing so) is already used as a predictor in CS selection
instruments, and is a known correlate of emotional stability and conscientiousness
(Frei and McDaniel, 1998). Readiness to respond to customer needs has also been
identified as a determinant of service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985) and is
associated with more positive supervisor performance ratings (Brown et al., 2002). As
CS work provides no shortage of opportunities for addressing the requests, inquiries,
and grievances of customers, this trait is both distinctive and important for CS careers:
H5a. CS workers will score lower on tough-mindedness than other occupations.
H5b. Tough-mindedness will be negatively correlated with career satisfaction for
CS workers.
Empathy, warmth, and responsiveness are distinguishing qualities of CS workers,
and have been associated with improved customer evaluations of service quality
(Hurley, 1998). Such attributes should be partly accounted for in CS orientation, but
also in the narrow trait of tender-mindedness (low tough-mindedness), or the extent
to which a person is motivated by sentimental, subjective rather than analytical,
objective concerns. Consonant with Hurley’s findings, O*NET work styles include
“concern for others,” suggesting an ability to discern and be motivated by customers’
needs and feelings:
H6. Inclusion of narrow traits will predict incremental variance in career
satisfaction above and beyond the Big Five.
521
Career
satisfaction
of CS workers
Numerous studies have examined the influence of narrow traits over and above broad
traits (Paunonen and Ashton, 2001; Paunonen et al., 1999; Schneider et al., 1996). Thus,
we expected that the inclusion of narrow traits would add to the predictable variance in
career satisfaction.
Owing to the lack of a clear rationale for making predictions about their relationship
to the career satisfaction of CS personnel, the following traits were examined via
nondirectional research questions: agreeableness/teamwork, openness to experience,
optimism, assertiveness, and intrinsic motivation. While we could not make a priori
predictions about whether CS employees would be higher or lower on these traits
compared to other occupations, or whether they would be related to career satisfaction
based on Holland’s model, we believed that answering these research questions could
further inform the construct validity of personality traits in CS occupations.
Method
Data for this study were extracted from an archival database provided by
eCareerfit.com, a company which offers online, personality-based career assessments
to companies for employee career development, succession planning, leadership
development, mentoring, coaching, workforce planning, and outplacement/transition
services. We acknowledge some advantages and disadvantages of using archival data
sources for research (see, e.g. Hoyle et al., 2001; Jex and Britt, 2008), but the former
are considered by many to outweigh the latter as secondary analyses are becoming
more frequently used as large-scale archival data sources continue to be made available
to researchers (Shultz et al., 2011). We chose to study an archival data source for the
following reasons: the responses represented data from reliable and previously
validated (Lounsbury et al., 2003b; Lounsbury and Gibson, 2011) scales which were
readily available from the internet and, were collected via a nonreactive form of
measurement in that respondents were not participating in a research study.
Because participants were providing responses to questions so that they could receive
information about their personality and personal style for purposes of self-awareness
and career planning, the threat of positive response bias which typically characterizes
personality assessment (cf. Pervin and John, 1997) was minimized. The database
contained information on individuals from a wide range of occupations and industries.
All data were originally collected on the internet as part of a career planning service
offered by an international strategic human resources company. Data were collected
from March of 2003 to January of 2010, including all available cases, though the career
satisfaction measure was added later than the personality measures and data for this
measure were available from August 2005 to January 2010.
Participants
The sample was comprised of 2,610 CS employees employed by a wide range of
companies throughout the USA, where CS was one option on a pull-down menu of
occupations which included broad occupational groups such as accounting and
finance, CS, education, engineering, management, and sales. Many participants also
listed their individual job titles, which, in the case of CS, were too many to list or to
readily categorize as they included such diverse titles as these which began
with the term customer service: customer service administrative representative,
customer service advisor, customer service advocate, customer service
agent, customer service analyst, customer service assistant, customer service
associate, customer service coordinator, customer service engineer, customer
522
MSQ
22,5
service manager, customer service professional, CSR (I, II, and II), customer service
sales, customer service supervisor, customer service team leader, customer
service technical analyst.
CS trainer, and CS VP
Of the total 2,641 sample CS participants in the present study, 65 percent were male;
35 percent were female. Relative frequencies by age group were: under 30 – 35 percent;
30-39 – 25 percent; 40-49 – 33 percent; 50-59 – 28 percent; and 60 and over – 4 percent.
Race/ethnic data were not available. The participants came from a variety of industries,
banking and financial services (16 percent), telecommunications (14 percent),
technology services (11 percent), communications (7 percent), manufacturing
(6 percent), professional and consulting services (6 percent), consumer products
(5 percent), and hospitality (4 percent).
For the 78,127 individuals in the non-CS sample, 54 percent were male; 46 percent
were female. Relative frequencies by age group were: under 30 – 8 percent; 30-39 – 26
percent; 40-49 – 36 percent; and 50 and over – 30 percent. Relative frequencies by
occupational group were: accounting – 9 percent, business-general – 6 percent, clerical
– 2 percent, consultant – 5 percent, engineering – 8 percent, executive – 4 percent,
financial services – 4 percent, human resources – 6 percent, information technology –
15 percent, manager – 14 percent, manufacturing – 4 percent, marketing – 8 percent,
and sales – 8 percent; and “other” – 7 percent.
Measures
Resource associates’ personal style inventory (PSI) was used to assess Big Five traits
and narrow personality traits. The PSI is a work-based instrument that has been used
in a variety of organizational settings, such as career development and pre-employment
screening, and demonstrates criterion-related and construct validity (Lounsbury et al.,
2003b, 2004a, c, d; Williamson et al., 2005). Items are rated on five-point response scales
with bipolar verbal anchors. For example, a sample item from the optimism scale reads
as follows.
Detailed descriptions of Big Five and eight narrow traits follow along with the number
of items in each scale.
Big Five personality traits
Agreeableness/Teamwork. Propensity for being agreeable and working as part of
a team as well as functioning cooperatively on work group efforts (six items).
Conscientiousness. Dependability, reliability, trustworthiness, and inclination to
adhere to company norms, rules, and values (eight items).
Emotional stability. Overall level of adjustment and emotional resilience in the face
of job stress and pressure (six items).
Extraversion. Tendency to be sociable, outgoing, gregarious, expressive,
warmhearted, and talkative (seven items).
Openness. Receptivity/openness to change, innovation, novel experience, and new
learning (nine items).
When the future is uncertain,
I tend to anticipate positive outcomes
12345 When the future is uncertain,
I tend to anticipate problems
523
Career
satisfaction
of CS workers
Narrow personality traits
For the present study, we used two criteria to select narrow traits likely to add variance
beyond the Big Five: first, trait definition and meaning not readily subsumed by
accepted Big Five taxonomies (e.g. De Raad, 2000; Digman, 1990); and second,
established, empirical relationships with career satisfaction for occupations in general
(Lounsbury et al., 2003b). Based on prior research by the second author (Lounsbury
et al., 2002, 2003b), we selected six narrow traits for inclusion in the present study –
assertiveness, CS orientation, intrinsic motivation, optimism, tough-mindedness, and
work drive.
Assertiveness. Tendency to express ideas and opinions confidently, speaking up on
important matters, defending personal beliefs, seizing the initiative, and exerting
influence in a forthright, non-aggressive manner (eight items).
CS orientation. Striving to provide highly responsive, personalized, quality service
to (internal and external) customers; putting the customer first; and trying to make the
customer satisfied, even if it means going above and beyond the normal job description
or policy (seven items).
Intrinsic motivation. A disposition to be motivated by intrinsic work factors, such as
challenge, meaning, autonomy, variety and significance (six items).
Optimism. Having an upbeat, hopeful outlook concerning situations, people,
prospects, and the future, even in the face of difficulty and adversity; a tendency to
minimize problems and persist in the face of setbacks (eight items).
Tough-mindedness. Appraising information, drawing conclusions, and making
decisions based on logic, facts, and data rather than feelings, values, and intuition;
disposition to be analytical, realistic, objective, and unsentimental (seven items).
Work drive. Disposition to work for long hours (including overtime) and an irregular
schedule; investing high levels of time and energy into job and career, and being
motivated to extend oneself, if necessary, to finish projects, meet deadlines, be
productive, and achieve job success (eight items).
Career satisfaction
A five-item scale was used to measure career satisfaction (Lounsbury et al., 2004b). The
scale includes items evaluating satisfaction with career progress and trajectory, career
advancement, future career prospects, and career as a whole. As with personality
traits, career satisfaction items were framed on a five-point response scale with
verbally opposed anchors at each end (e.g. “I am very satisfied with the way my career
has progressed so far” vs “I am very dissatisfied with the way my career has
progressed so far”). Coefficient awas 0.82 for career satisfaction. The career
satisfaction measure was added eight years ago to the inventory on which the database
was derived; thus, the sample size for statistics involving career satisfaction was
smaller (n¼653) than the sample size for the personality traits.
Results
Cronbach’s coefficient afor the personality scales is presented in Table I – indicating
generally good internal consistency reliability. We computed ttests comparing the
average personality trait scores of CS workers and other occupations as well as
Pearson correlations for each trait with career satisfaction within the CS group.
Findings are presented in Tables II and III. Before turning to the comparisons of mean
trait scores, we should note that we first performed a series of parallel analyses
separately for males vs females and older vs younger employees and did not find
524
MSQ
22,5
significant differences (at the po0.01 level, to correct for the large relatively number of
statistical tests) between the two groups as a function of either gender or age. We also
tested for nonlinearity by examining variable plots for the correlations and did not
detect any nonlinearity. For the regression analysis, we examined the plot of residuals
against predicted values and did find any evidence of nonlinearity. Regarding
nonnormality and any possible associated biasing of the data, we employed
a multi-sample bootstrapping procedure (Manly, 1997) with 2,000 re-samples using
identical sample sizes of 484 for both the CS and other occupations group for the
correlations and regression analysis, which replicated the results presented here.
In the case of the ttests, we ran 10,000 re-samples using identical sample sizes of 2,610
for the CS and other occupations groups and found that results for the observed ttests
were replicated for all traits, except optimism and agreeableness/teamwork; however,
in these two cases the differences were minor.
Trait Coefficient a
Big Five traits
Agreeableness/teamwork 0.82
Conscientiousness 0.75
Emotional stability 0.85
Extraversion 0.84
Openness 0.79
Narrow traits
Assertiveness 0.81
Customer service 0.74
Intrinsic motivation 0.84
Optimism 0.88
Tough-mindedness 0.79
Work drive 0.82
Note: n¼653
Tabl e I.
Coefficient asfor
the broad and
narrow traits
Trait Customer service M(SD) All other occupations M(SD) t
Big Five traits
Agreeableness/teamwork 3.46 (0.77) 3.50 (0.79) 2.58**
Conscientiousness 3.53 (0.73) 3.36 (0.73) 11.57**
Emotional stability 3.43 (0.71) 3.42 (0.70) 0.96
Extraversion 3.78 (0.77) 3.76 (0.78) 1.24
Openness 3.55 (0.73) 3.74 (0.73) 13.07**
Narrow traits
Assertiveness 3.32 (0.84) 3.53 (0.84) 12.52**
Customer service 4.31 (0.70) 4.20 (0.70) 7.61**
Intrinsic motivation 3.66 (0.77) 3.51 (0.81) 9.15**
Optimism 3.85 (0.76) 3.80 (0.78) 2.74**
Tough-mindedness 2.94 (0.80) 3.21 (0.84) 11.54**
Work drive 3.19 (0.77) 3.33 (0.79) 8.87**
Notes: For t-tests, n¼2,610 for customer service jobs; n¼78,127 for all other occupations.
**po0.01
Table II.
Results of ttests
comparing mean trait
differences
between customer
service and all
other occupations
525
Career
satisfaction
of CS workers
As can be seen in Tables II and III, and as we hypothesized, CS personnel scored
higher than other occupations in conscientiousness (t¼11.57, po0.01), and this trait
correlated positively with their career satisfaction (r¼0.19, po0.01). As for emotional
stability, CS workers did not differ significantly from other occupations, but emotional
stability was positively related to their career satisfaction (r¼0.42, po0.01). CS
personnel did not differ in extraversion from other types of jobs, though CS workers’
extraversion was positively related to their career satisfaction (r¼0.18, po0.01).
CS workers scored higher in CS orientation than members of other occupations
(t¼7.61, po0.01) and CS orientation was positively correlated with career satisfaction
(r¼0.18, po0.01). Interestingly, CS personnel scored lower on tough-mindedness
than members of other occupations (t¼11.54, po0.01), but higher levels of
tough-mindedness were not significantly related to career satisfaction (r¼0.11,
po0.05).
We ran a two-step hierarchical regression analysis to evaluate whether narrow
traits accounted for additional variance in career satisfaction over and above the
traditional Big Five. The five Big Five traits were entered as a set on the first step
while the six narrow traits were entered as a set on the second step. As can be seen in
Table IV, the set of Big Five traits was highly correlated with career satisfaction
(r¼0.47, po0.01), accounting for 22 percent of the variance in career satisfaction.
Trait Correlation with career satisfaction
Big Five traits
Agreeableness/teamwork 0.26**
Conscientiousness 0.19**
Emotional stability 0.42**
Extraversion 0.18**
Openness 0.21**
Narrow traits
Assertiveness 0.16**
Customer service 0.18**
Intrinsic motivation 0.07
Optimism 0.34**
Tough-mindedness 0.11*
Work drive 0.29**
Notes: n¼653. *po0.05; **po0.01
Table III.
Results of correlations
of broad and narrow
traits with career
satisfaction for customer
service workers
Step Variable
Multiple
RR
2
R
2
change
1Big Five traits (agreeableness, (conscientiousness,
emotional stability, extraversion, openness) 0.473** 0.224** 0.224**
2Narrow traits (assertiveness, customer service, intrinsic motivation,
optimism, tough-mindedness, work drive) 0.533** 0.284** 0.060**
Notes: n¼653. ** po0.01
Tabl e IV.
Results of hierarchical
multiple regression
analysis for customer
service representatives
with broad and narrow
traits predicting career
satisfaction
526
MSQ
22,5
The addition of the set of narrow traits increased the multiple correlation to r¼0.53,
which means that narrow traits contributed an additional six percent of the variance
in career satisfaction (R
2
change ¼0.06, po0.01). Thus, the sixth hypothesis was also
confirmed.
Regarding our non-directional research questions, the CS group scored higher than
other occupations in intrinsic motivation (t¼9.15, po0.01) and optimism (t¼2.74,
po0.01); also, intrinsic motivation was not significantly related to career satisfaction of
CS employees (r¼0.07, p40.05) while optimism was positively related to career
satisfaction (r¼0.34, po0.01). The CS group scored lower than other occupations on
assertiveness (t¼12.52, po0.01), openness to experience (t¼13.07, po0.01),
agreeableness/teamwork (t¼2.58, po0.01), and work drive (t¼8.87, po0.01).
The following traits were all positively related to career satisfaction for CS
personnel: assertiveness (r¼0.16, po0.01), openness (r¼0.21, po0.01),
agreeableness/teamwork (r¼0.26, po0.01), tough-mindedness (r¼0.11, po0.05),
and work drive (r¼0.29, po0.01).
While the correlations between the personality traits and career satisfaction are
generally modest, they can, nevertheless, lead to substantive differences in career
satisfaction. For example, consider work drive, for which there is a 0.29 correlation
with career satisfaction. Using an expectancy table approach (Bittner and Wilder,
1946), we can group CS workers in our sample into roughly equal thirds on the work
drive variable and list the percent in each group who were “satisfied” (had a score of 4.0
or greater) on the career satisfaction measure. As can be seen in Table V, only 10 percent
of the low work drive group were satisfied on the career satisfaction measure; 22 percent
of the middle group were satisfied with their careers; and 33 percent of the upper third
were satisfied with their careers. Thus, it can be seen that there is a definitive trend here
with a more than a threefold increase in the percent of CS employees who were satisfied
with their careers as we move from low to high work drive groups.
Discussion
The present findings indicate that CS workers are markedly distinctive, differing from
other occupations on ten of the 11 personality dimensions examined. In each case,
these differences are consistent with what organizational theorists and CS
management would interpret as an adaptive fit for CS work. Consistent with most
descriptions of CS workers (e.g. O*NET, Occupational Information Network, 2012), we
found that CS workers are more conscientious, CS-oriented, optimistic, interested more
in the nature of the work itself than money (high intrinsic motivation), empathetic
(low tough-mindedness), deferential (low assertiveness), and more independent and
self-reliant in their work style (low teamwork-agreeableness) than members of
Work drive group Percent satisfied with their careers
Low (n¼162) 10
Middle (n¼165) 22
High (n¼155) 33
Tabl e V.
Percent of CS
employees who reported
that they were
satisfied (average
score of 4.0 or
higher) with their careers
for low, middle, and high
work drive groups
527
Career
satisfaction
of CS workers
other occupations. Additionally, all personality traits but one (intrinsic motivation)
were positively correlated with career satisfaction. Thus, all of the first five study
hypotheses were supported. In the following paragraphs, we review the results for
each trait and discuss theoretical and managerial implications.
Conceptual and theoretical implications
The current findings offer partial support for Holland’s theory, in that person-
environment (P-E) fit was found with regard to three traits, but not with the other eight.
By way of illustration, CS workers exhibited higher levels of conscientiousness
compared to other occupations, and conscientiousness was positively associated with
their career satisfaction, as hypothesized. It may be the case that conscientious (detail
oriented, organized, and dutiful) individuals are differentially attracted to CS work
more than other careers, and their level of conscientiousness is related to their career
satisfaction. These results are generally consonant with previous findings on CS
performance and conscientiousness (Baydoun et al., 2001; Frei and McDaniel, 1998;
Mount et al., 1998). However, the same P-E fit scenario was not found with regard to
emotional stability. Counter to our hypothesis, CS workers did not differ from other
occupations on emotional stability; yet, as hypothesized, emotional stability was highly
correlated with career satisfaction. Thus, higher levels of emotional stability and
resilience appear to have adaptive value for CS workers, as it could help them in
handling the multiple, ongoing stressors associated with CS work (cf. Batt, 1999; Deery
et al., 2002; Grandey et al., 2004; Witt et al., 2004).
CS personnel could also not be differentiated from other occupations on
extraversion, though extraversion was positively related to career satisfaction for CS
workers. One possible reason for the latter result may be that extraversion includes
being more sociable, outgoing, expressive, warmhearted, and energized by
interpersonal interaction – all of which have functional value for CS work.
As hypothesized, and importantly for CS work, CS orientation was higher for CS
workers than other occupations, and was related to higher levels of their career
satisfaction – exemplifying good P-E fit from the perspective of Holland’s theory.
The present results indicate that workers with a tendency to “go the extra mile” and
extend themselves to serve customers are, appropriately, more attracted to CS work
than those with lower levels of CS orientation.
Also as hypothesized, CS workers were more tender-minded (more intuitive, feeling-
driven, and sentimental) than other occupations. However, counter to our hypothesis
and what Holland’s theory would predict, tough-mindedness (objective, logic-oriented)
was positively correlated with career satisfaction. One explanation for such a seeming
inconsistency is that CS careers are differentially rewarding of objective, impartial
job behavior vs subjective, and preferential job behavior, so that tough-minded
employees are more satisfied than their tender-minded counterparts.
Additional research questions
Our non-directional research questions yielded a number of interesting findings.
In particular, CS workers were found to be more optimistic than workers in other
careers, and optimism was strongly correlated with career satisfaction. Such a result
aligns well with a person-job fit perspective. CS work provides many opportunities for
those with persistent, “can-do” attitudes, as their jobs are often centered on resolving
conflicts and complaints (O*NET, Occupational Information Network, 2012).
Optimism is defined in part by experiencing spillover of positive affect, such that
528
MSQ
22,5
optimists favorably construe most all situations and experiences, including the
multiple events and evaluation that make up overall career satisfaction.
The present results also indicate that CS workers are more deferential (low-
assertiveness) than other occupations, yet CS workers report greater career satisfaction
if they score higher in assertiveness. One possible explanation of such a pattern of
results is that some employees are attracted to CS work because they are more
deferential and respectful, which helps them project a caring image and avoid
confrontation in customer interactions. That more assertive CS employees are more
career-satisfied may result from them being more inclined to make difficult decisions,
speak up for their own interests, and make requests of others – all of which may
contribute to satisfaction of their desired job and career objectives.
Work drive, though positively correlated with career satisfaction, is lower in the CS
group than in other occupations. It appears that CS workers typically prefer not to have
to work long hours and may not be willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of
their work. This may reflect them perceiving relatively few advancement opportunities
or other incentives for hard work. CS workers scored lower in terms of teamwork than
other occupations, though teamwork was positively related to their career satisfaction.
Since CS jobs usually entail solo work performed in individual contributor roles
(O*NET, Occupational Information Network, 2012), it is not surprising that individuals
with lower levels of teamwork disposition would be differentially attracted to CS
jobs. What seems, at first glance, counter-intuitive is that more teamwork-oriented
CS employees reported higher levels of career satisfaction. It may be that CS
supervisors and managers who often need to adopt an interdependent, team
perspective are reinforcing those CS workers who display team-mindedness and are
willing to work supportively and cooperatively with other employees (Garavaglia and
McDaniel, 2010).
Our findings also indicate that CS workers tend to be lower in openness to
experience than other occupations, but there is a positive relationship between
openness and career satisfaction within CS workers. Being high in openness is
associated with a preference for variety and novelty, which might not be desirable for
most CS jobs in which tasks are relatively mundane, routine, and there is little need for
employee creativity. However, some researchers have suggested that creativity is
necessary for improved CS, since creative representatives can better handle the flux of
customer interactions and adjustments to changing marketplace conditions while also
striving to address unique customer demands (Coelho and Augusto, 2010).
Intrinsic motivation was also found to be higher among CS workers than other
occupations, but it was unrelated to satisfaction. Intrinsically motivated workers may
be more attracted to CS jobs because such jobs typically do not entail high salaries
or other external benefits. Or, individuals seeking CS jobs may find the mix of
customers and the diverse interactions with customers intrinsically interesting. As for
intrinsically motivated employees not reporting higher levels of career satisfaction, one
problem facing CS occupations is that their work environments often involve
“controlling aspects” (Shalley et al., 2004) and situations in which external forces (e.g.
upper management; corporate requirements) exert pressure on employees to perform,
which can have an adverse impact on employees who prefer to operate on the basis of
autonomy and self-directedness (Coelho and Augusto, 2010). So, while intrinsically
motivated employees are well-represented in CS jobs, they might be coerced by
external job characteristics that deny them the autonomy and discretion they prefer
(Coelho and Augusto, 2010; Coelho et al., 2011).
529
Career
satisfaction
of CS workers
Managerial and human resources implications
Below, we reference some of the main human resource management implications
of the present study in two main areas. First, CS employers may want to consider
recruiting and selecting candidates for CS positions based on traits which distinguish
CS workers from those in other occupations and/or are related to their career
satisfaction. In addition, for these traits, employers may want to provide specific
coaching and training to help reinforce and cultivate workplace behaviors related to
the trait.
With regard to conscientiousness, employers may want to consider recruiting and
selecting candidates for CS positions based on higher levels of this trait. In addition,
they may want to provide specific coaching and training to help reinforce
conscientiousness-related behaviors – like time-management and organizational
skills – for already hired CS personnel. All other factors being equal, employers could,
in addition, endeavor to hire more extraverted candidates for CS positions. They
could also train new hires and current incumbents on interpersonal and
communication skills. Human resource managers may want to consider developing
activities and programs which facilitate the expression of extraversion for CS
employees, such as company-sponsored luncheons, happy hours, recreation programs,
retirement parties, company picnics, and other social events that promote extraversion-
related behaviors.
It has been suggested by some that optimism is trainable (e.g. Seligman, 1991). To
the extent that this is true, CS employers should try to coach and encourage optimistic
mindsets and dispositions among their CS employees, in addition to hiring individuals
with higher levels of optimism. This might help CS personnel deal with one of the key
challenges facing CS workers – handling customer complaints and resolving
interactional conflict, which can lead to improved customer relations, more
customer retention and word-of-mouth referrals (Stauss and Seidel, 2004). Similarly,
it might be helpful to hire more resilient, emotionally stable individuals for CS
positions to better deal with dissatisfied customers and the stress or resolving
customer complaints. In this vein, employers may want to hire more assertive
candidates for CS positions and engage CS employees in assertiveness training to help
them stand their ground and defend the interests of the company when dealing with
angry, irate, or even hostile customers (cf. Goodman, 2009, Chapter 1). A similar
case could be made for hiring individuals with higher levels of CS orientation,
as well as training and coaching CS employees on high-quality CS in line with the
company’s mission, corporate values, and customer mix (Goodman, 2009; Lovelock
and Wirtz, 2011).
In the case of work drive, there may be a need to consider organizational tradeoffs in
associated recruitment and hiring strategies. In view of the finding of lower mean work
drive scores of CS vs non-CS occupations, it would appear that either individuals with
lower levels of work drive are more attracted to CS jobs than their more hard-working
peers – which may be because CS jobs are not overly demanding in terms of hours
worked and they often offer flexible schedules (O*NET, Occupational Information
Network, 2012) – or the company is recruiting individuals with lower levels of work
drive because of lower pay rates or lack of advancement opportunity. Since work drive
is related to job performance for many occupations (Lounsbury et al., 2004c) – and
likely also for CSR jobs – and it is positively related to career satisfaction for CS
employees, the obvious implication might seem to be to hire individuals with higher
levels of work drive. However, even if this were possible, doing so might set the stage
530
MSQ
22,5
for voluntary turnover owing to unmet expectations or increased odds of those
individuals finding a more high-paying job elsewhere.
One issue which might be seen as calling into question the practical utility of the
present findings concerns the relatively small magnitude of observed differences
(typically in the first decimal point on a five-point scale) in average trait scores for CS
vs all other employees. In the “real world” of practice, particularly in the context of HR
management for CS employees, there are several reasons why such small differences
for individual traits are less problematic than one might think. First, it is more common
to deal with combinations of traits, whether in aggregation or sequentially, when
making, for example, hiring, placement, or training and career development decisions.
By way of illustration, a pre-employment assessment battery might rely on a combined
score derived from multiple traits, in which case the total scores may vary
substantially between candidates. In actual pre-employment testing work in which the
first author has been involved, eight to ten personality factors are routinely used to
make hiring recommendations for candidates for CS positions in many different
companies in the USA and elsewhere. Second, where a trait score is used to screen
candidates, the differences between acceptable and unacceptable candidates can
regularly range up to two to three scale points on a five-point scale. Third, one purpose
of studies such as the present one is not to make fine discriminations between
employees based on average score value, but to identify traits which are important for
the recruitment, hiring, placement, training, and development of individuals for CS
positions. In such cases, precise score values are less important than knowing whether
or not, for example, a trait such as tender-mindedness is one which recruiters should
attend to when identifying and influencing viable candidates. From a broader
perspective, as companies focus more on personality traits important for CS work, the
observed scores may increase for CS job incumbents, and, as such a trend extends over
time and across employing organizations, the differences between CS workers and
other occupations may increase as the CS field becomes more differentiated on the
basis of personality characteristics. Finally, as was demonstrated in the expectancy
table analysis, even relatively small differences in scores on a personality trait can
translate to relatively large differences in a criterion variable such as career
satisfaction. In the case of work drive, a difference of only 0.8 on the work drive score
between the upper and lower third work drive groups was associated with nearly more
than a threefold increase in the percent of CS employees satisfied with their careers. In
our experience, similar differences are likely to be found on job performance,
absenteeism, turnover, and other important outcome measures when the correlation
between the trait and the outcome measure is in the 0.20-0.30 range.
Limitations and future directions
The current study has a number of limitations. Participants self-selected for this study,
which creates the possibility for range restriction in our sample. Additionally, our data
is cross-sectional, whereas longitudinal assessments of career satisfaction might offer
different explanations as to the relationship between personality traits and satisfaction
over time and help clarify causal directions of the study variables. Our sample is also
limited by gaps in demographic and job-related information, and lacks information
such as race, ethnicity, marital status, distance/time to commute, and a variety of
career-related measures, such as tenure in the service role, number and types of jobs
held, career continuity, and career advancement or progression, among others.
Examination of such variables, particularly the career variables, might help us
531
Career
satisfaction
of CS workers
understand the linkages between personality traits and career satisfaction. As but one
example, we might find that career tenure moderates the correlation between relevant
personality traits and career satisfaction such that stronger correlations are observed
with longer tenure in a career because personality traits have had more opportunity to
manifest themselves and exert their influence on a person’s work and work-related
experiences (Pervin and John, 1997). In support of such a proposition, one can see in
Lounsbury et al.’s (2003b) study of job and career satisfaction in relation to personality
traits for different occupational groups, that for each trait the common
trait-satisfaction correlations are of larger magnitude for the correlations between
the personality traits and career satisfaction than for the correlations between the
personality traits and job satisfaction – because of the greater opportunity for the trait
to have influence. As for other limitations, in terms of Holland’s theory, a number of the
traits we studied represented good P-E fit in CS work, while some did not. This may
be due to a number of uncontrolled factors. For instance, maybe certain subgroups of
the general population with regard to certain traits (e.g. teamwork-agreeableness, work
drive) are not attracted to CS work, or perhaps there are not adequate means of pre-
employment selection procedures in place. Furthermore, it is possible there is not
enough being done to coach or encourage trait expression within existing CS
employees. Future research should attempt to replicate and extend some of the current
findings, perhaps correlating CS traits with measures of CS performance in the interest
of validation and improving pre-employment selection measures. In particular, such
studies should examine the relationship of CS extraversion, emotional stability, and
tough-mindedness with job performance. Expanding research into personality trait
profiles of CS employees could be helpful in improving the recruitment and selection
of future workers.
Summary and conclusion
We observed several consistent patterns of traits which are theoretically consonant
with Holland’s theory in an important job class: CS occupations. Given our sample’s
size and diversity, we believe that the results obtained are relatively robust and
generalizable. Based on the present findings, we offer the following personality profile
of CS workers. The typical CS representative is more: conscientious, optimistic,
intrinsically motivated, tender-minded, deferential, conventional, willing to serve other
people, and reluctant to work long hours or become workaholics. The current findings
carry implications for additional theory- and policy-oriented research as well as for
human resource management in the areas of recruitment, selection, coaching, training,
and career development of CS personnel.
References
American Express global customer service barometer, (2011), available at: www.thatscustomer
focus.com/global_service_barometer_press_release.html (accessed January 31, 2011).
Batt, R. (1999), “Work organization, technology, and performance in customer service and sales”,
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 539-64.
Baydoun, R., Rose, D. and Emperado, T. (2001), “Measuring customer service orientation: an
examination of the validity of the customer service profile”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 605-20.
Beatty, S.E., Mayer, M.L., Coleman, J.E., Reynolds, K.E. and Lee, J. (1996), “Customer-sales
associate retail relationships”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 223-47.
532
MSQ
22,5
Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Adsit, D., Hater, J., Vanetti, E.J. and Veale, D.J. (1994),
“Improving service quality in America: lessons learned [and executive commentary]”,
The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 32-52.
Bitner, M., Brown, S. and Meuter, M. (2000), “Technology infusion in service encounters”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 138-49.
Bittner, R.H. and Wilder, C.E. (1946), “Expectancy tables: a method of interpreting correlation
coefficients”, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 245-52.
Brown, T.J., Mowen, J.C., Donavan, D.T. and Licata, J.W. (2002), “The customer orientation of
service workers: personality trait determinants and effects on self- and supervisor
performance ratings”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 110-9.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor (2010), “Customer service representatives”,
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 edition, available at: www.bls.gov/oco/
ocos280.htm (accessed July 1, 2010).
Career Strategists (2004), “What we do”, available at: www.careerstrategists.net/what.htm
(accessed May 20, 2010).
Cervone, D. and Pervin, L.A. (2010), Personality Theory and Research, Wiley, New York, NY.
Chung, B.G. and Schneider, B. (2002), “Serving multiple masters: role conflict experienced by
service employees”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 70-87.
Coelho, F. and Augusto, M. (2010), “Job characteristics and the creativity of frontline service
employees”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 426-38.
Coelho, F., Augusto, M. and Lages, L.F. (2011), “Contextual factors and the creativity of frontline
employees: the mediating effects of role stress and intrinsic motivation”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 31-45.
Deery, S., Iverson, R. and Walsh, J. (2002), “Work relationships in telephone call centres:
understanding emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 471-96.
DeNeve, K.M. and Cooper, H. (1998), “The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality
traits and subjective well-being”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 542-75.
de Raad, B. (2000), The Big Five Personality Factors: The Psycholexical Approach to Personality,
Hogrefe and Huber, Seattle, WA.
Digman, J.M. (1990), “Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model”, Annual Review
of Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 417-41.
Dohm, A. and Shniper, L. (2007), “Occupational employment projections to 2016”, Monthly Labor
Review, Vol. 130 No. 11, pp. 86-125.
Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S. and Mehta, S. (2005), “Service encounters: the missing link between
service quality perceptions and satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 15-26.
Frei, R.L. and McDaniel, M.A. (1998), “Validity of customer service measures in personnel
selection: a review of criterion and construct evidence”, Human Performance, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 1-27.
Garavaglia, B. and McDaniel, G.E. (2010), “Team building in the workplace: you first
have to understand what a team is”, Journal of Business Leadership Today, Vol. 1 No. 7,
pp. 2-22.
Goodman, J. (2009), Strategic Customer Service, AMACOM, American Management Association,
New York, NY.
Grandey, A.A., Dickter, D.N. and Sin, H. (2004), “The customer is not always right: customer
aggression and emotion regulation of service employees”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 1-22.
533
Career
satisfaction
of CS workers
Hecker, D.E. (2005), “Occupational employment projections to 2014”, Monthly Labor Review,
Vol. 128 No. 11, pp. 70-101.
Holland, J.L. (1985), Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work
Environments, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
Holland, J.L. (1996), “Exploring careers with a typology: what we have learned and some new
directions”, American Psychologist, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 397-406.
Hoyle, R.H., Harris, M.J. and Judd, C.M. (2001), Research Methods in Social Relations, Wadsworth,
Belmont, CA.
Hurley, R.F. (1998), “Customer service behavior in retail settings: a study of the effect of service
provider personality”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences,Vol.26No.2,pp.115-227.
Jex, S.M. and Britt, T. (2008), Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Judge, T.A., Heller, D. and Mount, M.K. (2002), “Five-factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol.87No.3,
pp. 530-41.
Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., Thoresen, C.J. and Barrick, M.R. (1999), “The big five personality
traits, general mental ability, and career success across the lifespan”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 621-52.
Kantsperger, R. and Kunz, W.H. (2010), “Consumer trust in service companies: a multiple
mediating analysis”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-25.
Keaveney, S.M. (1995), “Customer switching behavior in service industries: an exploratory
study”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 71-82.
Lacey, T.A. and Wright, B. (2009), “Occupational employment projections to 2018”, Monthly
Labor Review, Vol. 132 No. 11, pp. 82-123.
Lebreton, J.M., Binning, J.F., Adorno, A.J. and Melcher, K.M. (2004), “Importance of personality
and job-specific affect for predicting job attitudes and withdrawal behavior”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 300-25.
Liao & Chuang (2004), “A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service
performance and customer outcomes”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47
No. 1, pp. 41-58.
Lounsbury, J.W. and Gibson, L.W. (2011), Resource Associates Personal Style Inventory: A Work-
Based Personality Measurement System, Resource Associates, Knoxville, TN.
Lounsbury, J.W., Gibson, L.W. and Hamrick, F.L. (2004a), “The development and validation
of a personological measure of work drive”, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 347-71.
Lounsbury, J.W., Loveland, J.M. and Gibson, L.W. (2002), “Job performance validity of optimism”,
paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto.
Lounsbury, J.W., Steel, R., Gibson, L. and Drost, A. (2008), “Personality traits and career
satisfaction of human resource professionals”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 351-66.
Lounsbury, J.W., Sundstrom, E.D., Loveland, J.M. and Gibson, L.W. (2003a), “Broadversus narrow
personality in predicting academic performance of adolescents”, Learning and Individual
Differences, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 67-77.
Lounsbury, J.W., Gibson, L.W., Steel, R.P., Sundstrom, E.D. and Loveland, J.L. (2004b), “An
investigation of intelligence and personality in relation to career satisfaction”, Personality
and Individual Differences, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 181-9.
Lounsbury, J.W., Gibson, L.W., Sundstrom, E., Wilburn, D. and Loveland, J.M. (2004c), “An
empirical investigation of the proposition that ‘school is work’: a comparison of
534
MSQ
22,5
personality-performance correlations in school and work settings”, Journal of Education
and Work, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 119-31.
Lounsbury, J.W., Park, S., Sundstrom, E., Williamson, J.M. and Pemberton, A.E. (2004d),
“Personality, career satisfaction, and life satisfaction: test of a directional model”, Journal
of Career Assessment, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 395-406.
Lounsbury, J.W., Loveland, J.M., Sundstrom, E.D., Gibson, L.W., Drost, A.W. and Hamrick, F.L.
(2003b), “An investigation of personality traits in relation to career satisfaction”, Journal of
Career Assessment, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 287-307.
Lovelock, C. and Wirtz, J. (2011), Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Manly, B.F.J. (1997), Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology, Chapman
and Hall, London.
Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R. and Stewart, G.L. (1998), “Five-factor model of personality and
performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions”, Human Performance, Vol. 11
Nos 2/3, pp. 145-65.
Ones, D.S. and Viswesvaran, C. (1996), “What do pre-employment customer-service scales
measure? Explorations in construct validity and implications for personnel selection”,
paper presented at the annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) (2012), “O*NET: customer service representatives”,
available at: http://online.onetcenter.org (accessed March 20, 2012).
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Paunonen, S.V. and Ashton, M.C. (2001), “Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of
behaviour”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 524-39.
Paunonen, S.V., Rothstein, M.G. and Jackson, D.N. (1999), “Narrow meaning about the use of
broad personality measures for personnel selection”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 389-405.
Pervin, L.A. and John, O.P. (1997), Personality: Theory and Research, Wiley, New York, NY.
RightNow Technologies Inc (2010), “Customer experience impact: North America”, available at:
www.rightnow.com/resources (accessed March 15, 2011).
Rod, M. and Ashill, N.J. (2009), “Symptoms of burnout and service recovery performance: the
influence of job resourcefulness”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 60-84.
Schneider, R.J., Hough, I.M. and Dunnette, M.D. (1996), “Broadsided by broad traits: how
to sink science in five dimensions or less”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 639-55.
Seligman, M. (1991), Learned Optimism, Knopf, New York, NY.
Shalley, C., Zhou, J. and Oldham, G.R. (2004), “The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here?”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 933-58.
Shultz, K.S., Hoffman, C.C. and Reiter-Palmon, R. (2011), “Using archival data for I-O research:
advantages, pitfalls, sources, and examples”, available at: www.siop.org/tip/backissues/
Jan05/07schultz.aspx (accessed August 4, 2011).
Stauss, B. and Seidel, W. (2004), Complaint Management: The Heart of CRM, Thomson,
South-Western, Cincinnati, OH.
Szymanski, D.M. and Henard, D.H. (2001), “Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the
empirical evidence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 16-35.
535
Career
satisfaction
of CS workers
Wang, C. and Mattila, A.S. (2010), “A grounded theory model of service providers’ stress,
emotion, and coping during intercultural service encounters”, Managing Service Quality,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 328-42.
Williamson, J.M., Pemberton, A.E. and Lounsbury, J.W. (2005), “An investigation of career and
job satisfaction in relation to personality traits of information professionals”, The Library
Quarterly, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 122-41.
Witt, L.A., Andrews, M.C. and Carlson, D.S. (2004), “When conscientiousness isn’t enough:
emotional exhaustion and performance among call center customer representatives”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 149-60.
Zeithaml, V.A. (2000), “Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers: what
we know and what we need to learn”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 67-85.
Corresponding author
John W. Lounsbury can be contacted at: jlounsbu@utk.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
536
MSQ
22,5
