TOM J. BROWN, JOHN C. MOWEN, D. TODD DONAVAN, and JANE W.

LICATA*

Prior research indicates that market orientation is associated with pos-

itive outcomes for firms. For service organizations, a market orientation is
implemented largely through individual service workers. The authors
investigate the mediational role of customer orientation in a hierarchical
model of the influence of personality traits on self-rated and supervisor-
rated performance. The results support a partially mediated hierarchical
model. Three basic personality traits (emotional stability, agreeability, and
the need for activity) account for 39% of the variance in the customer ori-
entation of employees. In turn, the customer orientation measure and
conscientiousness account for 26% of the variance in self-rated perform-
ance. The customer orientation measure, along with the direct effects of
conscientiousness and agreeability, account for 12% of the variance in
manager ratings. The authors discuss the results and their implications
for marketing researchers and managers.

The Customer Orientation of Service

Workers: Personality Trait Effects on Self-
and Supervisor Performance Ratings

Marketers who espouse the marketing concept believe
that organizations ultimately achieve success by satisfying
customer needs (Desphande, Farley, and Webster 1993;
Kotler 1997). As described by Day (1994), a growing body
of literature indicates that the market orientation of the firm
is positively associated with the superior performance of
*Tom J. Brown is Associate Professor of Marketing (e-mail:
tomb@okstate.edu), and John C. Mowen is Noble Chair of Marketing
Strategy (e-mail: jcmmkt@okstate.edu), College of Business Administra-
tion, Oklahoma State University. D. Todd Donavan is Assistant Professor of
Marketing, College of Business Administration, Kansas State University
(e-mail: tdonavan@ksu.edu). Jane W. Licata is Associate Professor of Mar-
keting, E.J. Ourso College of Business, Louisiana State University (e-mail:
jlicata@lsu.edu). The authors thank Robert Hurley, the JMR reviewers,
Kevin Tarr, and Cristy Morrison for their contributions to the project.
that firm. For example, the market orientation of the firm is
positively related to profitability (Narver and Slater 1990) as
well as employee commitment and esprit de corps (Jaworski
and Kohli 1993).
For most types of service organizations, individual serv-
ice workers are direct participants in implementing the mar-
keting concept. Rust, Zahorik, and Keiningham (1996, p.
391) note that the “personal interaction component of serv-
ices is often a primary determinant of the customer’s overall
satisfaction.” In our research, we investigate what we
believe is an important but heretofore underexamined trait
of service employees—their degree of customer orientation,
or disposition to meet customers’ needs. Customer orienta-
tion is an individual-level construct that we believe is central
to a service organization’s ability to be market oriented. We
have two goals in examining the construct. First, we seek to

Journal of Marketing Research

Vol. XXXIX (FEBRUARY 2002), 110–119 110
Customer Orientation of Service Workers
identify its basic personality trait determinants so that we
can obtain an improved understanding of factors that lead
some employees to be more customer oriented than others.
Second, we investigate the effects of customer orientation
and the more basic traits on overall service performance
evaluations as judged by the service workers themselves and
the workers’ supervisors.
CUSTOMER ORIENTATION
Despite the apparent importance of employees’ customer
orientation to the implementation of the marketing concept
in the market-driven company, research on the construct has
been limited. The first attempt to directly measure customer
orientation at the individual level was performed by Saxe
and Weitz (1982). They developed a 24-item scale with two
dimensions (i.e., 12 positively phrased customer orientation
items and 12 negatively phrased selling orientation items) to
measure the extent to which a salesperson seeks to increase
long-term customer satisfaction. Although their research
indicates that customer orientation is related to sales per-
formance, neither Saxe and Weitz (1982) nor researchers
conducting follow-up studies (i.e., Michaels and Day 1985;
Tadepalli 1995) have investigated the possible determinants
of customer orientation.
In our research, we define customer orientation as an
employee’s tendency or predisposition to meet customer
needs in an on-the-job context. Furthermore, we propose
that customer orientation in a service setting is composed of
two dimensions. The needs dimension represents employ-
ees’ beliefs about their ability to satisfy customer needs and
is based on Saxe and Weitz’s (1982) conceptualization of
customer orientation. The enjoyment dimension represents
the degree to which interacting with and serving customers
is inherently enjoyable for an employee. We believe that
both components are necessary to fully understand a service
worker’s ability and motivation to serve customers by meet-
ing their needs.
Personality Trait Determinants and Performance Outcomes
of Customer Orientation
Several researchers have investigated employee personal-
ity and performance in various contexts. Spivey, Munson,
and Locander (1979) find that an outgoing personality is
predictive of sales success in retail sales. Hogan, Hogan, and
Busch (1984) define service orientation as a combination of
three basic personality traits (i.e., adjustment, sociability,
and agreeableness) and find that these traits are predictive of
supervisor service performance ratings. Day and Silverman
(1989) find that work orientation and interpersonal orienta-
tion are predictive of client relations. More recently, Hurley
(1998a) has found that extroversion and agreeableness are
positively associated with workers’ service performance rat-
ings that are provided by managers. These investigations
assess the direct relationship between “basic” personality
traits (e.g., extroversion, agreeability) and manager evalua-
tions, ratings by colleagues, or actual measures of perform-
ance. In a meta-analysis of this literature, Frei and McDaniel
(1998) find that the personality traits agreeableness, emo-
tional stability, and conscientiousness are predictive of
supervisory ratings of job performance.
Hurley (1998a) notes (and his results confirm) that meas-
ures of basic personality traits do not seem to account for a
particularly sizable proportion of variance in ratings of
111
employee service performance. We believe that part of the
difficulty stems from an omitted variable problem: None of
the prior studies attempted to account for a construct that
directly measures a service employee’s disposition to be
customer oriented.
A Hierarchical Model of Customer Orientation
In our work, we employ a hierarchical model of the
effects of personality on behavior. Many theorists and
researchers have argued that personality traits exist at vari-
ous levels of abstraction (e.g., Allport 1961; Eysenck 1947;
Lastovicka 1982; Mowen and Spears 1999; Paunonen
1998). Consistent with Mowen and Spears (1999), we
employ a hierarchical model in which basic personality
traits (i.e., introversion, emotional stability, conscientious-
ness, agreeability, openness to experience, and need for
activity) combine with a specific context for performance
(i.e., the role of the service worker) to produce surface traits
(i.e., customer orientation) or enduring dispositions, inclina-
tions, or tendencies to behave within the context. It is impor-
tant to include surface traits in the model, because basic per-
sonality traits may be too far removed from focal service
behaviors to be able to predict service worker performance
well. The surface trait (i.e., customer orientation) is closer in
the personality hierarchy to the specific behaviors needed to
achieve high performance and therefore should enhance the
prediction of specific behaviors and performance ratings.
Allport (1961) first used the term “surface trait” to
describe summaries of surface behaviors (as opposed to
specific focal behaviors). Working from this viewpoint,
Mowen and Spears (1999) define a surface trait as an endur-
ing disposition to behave within a specific situational con-
text. They propose that the press of the situation, such as the
role demands of a job as a server in a restaurant, exerts pres-
sures to behave in specific ways. These situational pressures
combine with more basic personality traits to create the sur-
face traits.1 Surface traits are contextual, because a given
person’s general disposition to perform behaviors may
diverge in different aspects of life (e.g., the service worker
who is attuned to the needs of customers when at work yet
is seemingly insensitive to the needs of family members
when at home). They are classified as traits because they
represent an enduring tendency to behave, albeit within par-
ticular situational contexts. These ideas are consistent with
those of theorists who have noted that situations interact
with dispositions to influence behavior (e.g., Bowers 1973;
Endler and Rosenstein 1997; Mischel 1968). Because our
interest is in understanding service worker customer orien-
tation, we limit our research to the context in which it oper-
ates (i.e., the employee’s degree of customer orientation in
a service setting).
In our research, we distinguish four types of constructs:
basic traits, surface traits, specific service behaviors, and per-
formance evaluations. First, basic traits (e.g., agreeability)
are enduring dispositions to behave across diverse situational
contexts. Second, surface traits (e.g., customer orientation)
are enduring dispositions to behave within specific situa-
1Other examples of surface traits within the marketing literature include
compulsive buying (Faber and O’Guinn 1989) and coupon proneness
(Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, and Burton 1990). In each case, the trait
describes individual differences that influence behavior within the context
of a specific consumption situation.
112
tional contexts. Surface traits differ from basic traits because
they are context specific and result from the interaction of
basic traits and the situational context. Third, specific service
behaviors are on-the-job actions, the measurement of which
entails the recording of the actions of the service worker (e.g.,
number of smiles, mistaken orders, time to respond). These
specific actions might be considered in part behavioral out-
comes of one or more surface traits; again, surface traits rep-
resent dispositions, inclinations, or tendencies to behave in
certain ways in certain situations and are more abstract than
concrete behaviors. Fourth, performance evaluations, regard-
less of their source (e.g., self, supervisor, consumer, peers),
refer to evaluative judgments of employees’ behavior in a par-
ticular context. Performance evaluations differ from basic
traits, surface traits, and specific service behavior because of
their appraisal, or valencing, component (e.g., good/bad,
positive/negative). Specifically, for our research, customer
orientation is a self-assessment of an employee’s tendency to
try to meet customer needs and the degree to which he or she
enjoys doing so, rather than a measure of the service actions
of the service worker or an evaluation of the employee’s on-
the-job performance.
We hypothesize and test relationships among basic traits,
customer orientation, and overall performance ratings of
service providers within the food service industry. Consis-
tent with the hierarchical model, we anticipate that the dis-
position to serve customers (i.e., customer orientation) will
mediate the relationships between basic personality traits
and performance evaluations. Furthermore, we expect that
this mediational model will account for more variance in
performance ratings than will a model that does not include
customer orientation. On the basis of these ideas, we
develop our first propositions:
P1: Customer orientation will mediate the relationships between
basic personality traits and performance ratings.
P2: The hierarchical model, with the customer orientation medi-
ation variable, will account for a greater proportion of vari-
ance in performance ratings than will a direct model with no
mediation.
Basic Personality Trait Determinants
Scholars have long studied basic personality traits as pre-
dictors of human behavior (Wiggins 1996). Researchers
such as Costa and McCrae (1985), Goldberg (1992), and
Saucier (1994) have generally supported the existence of
five basic dimensions of personality. Mowen and Spears
(1999) employ structural equation modeling to investigate
the five-factor dimensions developed by Saucier (1994).
Descriptions of the traits are (1) extraversion (or introver-
sion), representing the degree to which a person is outgoing
or shy; (2) (in)stability, which captures the evenness or
steadiness of a person’s general emotional makeup; (3)
agreeability, or general warmth of feelings toward others;
(4) conscientiousness, representing the degree of orderli-
ness, organization, and precision; and (5) openness to expe-
rience (or creativity), which represents the person’s degree
of imagination or originality.
Previous work investigating customer service behaviors
primarily has focused on investigating the relationship
between five-factor model traits and the criterion variable of
managerial ratings of service performance. Although results
differ across studies, the traits of conscientiousness, emo-
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 2002
tional stability, and agreeability (Frei and McDaniel 1998)
as well as extroversion (Hogan, Hogan, and Busch 1984;
Hurley 1998a; Spivey, Munson, and Locander 1979) have
been found to be predictive of service worker performance
ratings. Using our hierarchical model, we investigate the
degree to which these effects may be fully or partially medi-
ated through customer orientation.
As Hurley’s (1998a) and Spivey, Munson, and Locander’s
(1979) findings suggest, service workers who are high in
introversion can be expected to reveal lower customer ori-
entation levels. Such employees may not enjoy customers or
want to work with them long enough to identify and satisfy
their needs. Accordingly, we expect introversion to exert a
negative influence on customer orientation:
P3: Introversion will exert a negative influence on customer
orientation.
Emotional stability, or the degree to which the worker’s
emotions vary widely, is also expected to be related to the
worker’s customer orientation (Hogan, Hogan, and Busch
1984). Emotional instability may result in a fluctuating
desire to serve customers and meet their needs. The incon-
sistency of emotion may be associated with weakened abil-
ity and/or motivation to serve customers well.
P4: Instability will exert a negative influence on customer orien-
tation.
Consistent with Hogan, Hogan, and Busch’s (1984) and
Hurley’s (1998a) finding, employees high in agreeability
may naturally feel an empathy with their customers and pos-
sess a desire to solve their problems through the service they
provide. Such employees may well derive personal satisfac-
tion from being able to help others satisfy needs. Therefore,
P5: Agreeability will exert a positive influence on customer
orientation.
Conscientiousness, as noted previously, represents a ten-
dency toward precision and organization. In a sense, consci-
entiousness may reflect a task orientation, or a need on the
part of the service worker to get the job done correctly (i.e.,
satisfy the customer). In addition, consistent with Frei and
McDaniel’s (1998) meta-analytic findings, we expect that
the behavioral results of conscientiousness (e.g., precision in
order taking, showing up for work on time) are relatively
concrete and can readily be observed by supervisors and the
employees themselves, which leads to a positive relationship
between conscientiousness and both supervisor ratings and
self-ratings of performance.
P6: Conscientiousness will exert a positive influence on cus-
tomer orientation.
P7: Conscientiousness will exert a positive influence on self-
and supervisor ratings of performance.
Although we do not develop propositions with respect to
openness to experience, we include a measure of the con-
struct in our empirical analysis because of its presence in
“big five” models of personality.
A central issue in research on personality involves
whether the fundamental factors that delineate individual
differences among humans are limited to five constructs. For
example, in personal communications to Goldberg (1993),
the respected psychologist R.B. Cattell argues that many
more than five factors make up human personality. Simi-
Customer Orientation of Service Workers
larly, in a critical analysis of the five-factor approach, Block
(1995, p. 187) notes that five factors may emerge because of
“unrecognized constraints on the variable sets analyzed.” Of
particular interest for the present study is another personal-
ity variable, need for activity. Buss (1988) proposes that
variations in activity levels represent a primary trait among
people, on the basis of individual differences in chronic lev-
els of activity found in mammals. People with a high need
for activity will tend to complete more tasks and do more
things in everyday life. Although we find no prior empirical
research on need for activity, we believe that this desire to
keep busy and stay active is an important predictor of cus-
tomer orientation in a services context. Service workers with
low need for activity are less likely to be motivated to work
at meeting customer needs in a context that requires a degree
of activity.
P8: The need for activity will exert a positive influence on cus-
tomer orientation.
Performance Rating Outcomes
We expect that customer orientation leads service
employees to perform service behaviors that meet customer
needs and that both supervisors and the service workers
themselves will evaluate these behaviors positively.
Accordingly, overall evaluations (by both employees and
supervisors) of employee performance should be positively
associated with customer orientation.
P9: Customer orientation will exert a positive influence on self-
and supervisor ratings of overall performance.
METHOD
We tested our propositions in a field study of service
workers in the food services industry. Specifically, respon-
dents were frontline employees and their supervisors work-
ing in restaurants that were located in a midsize community
dominated by a large university. A research assistant con-
tacted managers in 35 of the largest restaurants (by number
of employees, including both full-service restaurants and
fast-food operations) to solicit participation in a study of
employee motivation. The local Chamber of Commerce
assisted our efforts by writing a letter of support on our
behalf. Ultimately, we received matched employee/supervi-
sor responses from 27 firms. The number of matched
responses per firm ranged from 2 to 42, with a mean of 10.4
per company.2
Employees completed a questionnaire in which the basic
personality traits, customer orientation, and self-ratings of
performance were assessed on multi-item scales. To maxi-
mize privacy and minimize bias, employees placed com-
pleted surveys in sealed envelopes that were gathered and
returned to us. Supervisors rated employees on the same
performance scales as were completed by employees. We
received a total of 280 matched cases; of these, 29 were
unusable because of unacceptable levels of missing data,
and 2 cases were identified and eliminated as outliers (on the
2To ensure that our results were not overly driven by the employees of
any particular company, we repeated our primary analyses after excluding
(independently) the responses of employees for the two companies that had
each provided more than 10% of the responses. In each case, the results
were similar to those reported in our “Results” section.
113
basis of a series of preliminary multiple regression analy-
ses), which left 249 cases for analysis.
The median age of the employees in our analysis sample
was 22 years. Median length of time on the job was 11
months. Furthermore, 63% were women, 31% worked in
some type of supervisory capacity, and 43% were full-time
employees.
Measures
Measures for the basic personality traits, introversion,
instability, agreeability, conscientiousness, and openness,
were identical to those used by Mowen and Spears (1999)
and are reported along with their estimates of reliability in
the Appendix. Because the construct validity of each of
these scales had been established previously, we created an
index score (i.e., mean across items) to represent each con-
struct. We used the index scores as single-item indicants in
structural equations models by fixing the path coefficients
and error variances on the basis of estimated reliabilities and
variances of the index scores (Hair et al. 1998). We devel-
oped a measure for the activity personality trait on the basis
of Buss’s (1988) ideas; preliminary factor and reliability
analyses and substantive review of items resulted in a three-
item measure of activity (see the Appendix; α = .79). To be
consistent with procedures used with other basic personality
traits, we again created an index score and used it in the
structural equations models.3
The customer orientation surface trait was conceptual-
ized as having a needs dimension and an enjoyment dimen-
sion. To measure the needs component, we adapted a six-
item Likert-type scale from the measures developed by
Saxe and Weitz (1982) by taking the six items with the
highest factor loadings on the customer orientation dimen-
sion in their research (see the Appendix). Coefficient alpha
for this measure of customer orientation was .87.4 We
measured the enjoyment component of customer orienta-
tion (i.e., the degree to which service workers enjoy pro-
viding service to customers) using a six-item Likert-type
measure developed on the basis of discussions with practi-
tioners in the banking and hospitality industries (see the
Appendix; α = .88). In these discussions, we asked partic-
ipants to describe the distinguishing characteristics of
high- and low-performing service employees. Their
responses indicated that customer-oriented service
employees enjoyed several different aspects of meeting
customer needs. Their responses guided the development
of the items that were intended to tap the enjoyment
dimension. A principle components factor analysis with
oblique rotation of the 12 items (i.e., 6 needs and 6 enjoy-
ment items) indicated a two-factor solution, with all items
3As a check on the appropriateness of using the index scores for the six
basic personality traits in our model, we conducted a principle components
factor analysis with oblique rotation across all items that formed the six
measures. A six-factor solution emerged based on the eigenvalue rule; each
item loaded significantly on its appropriate factor, and there were no sig-
nificant cross-loadings based on the standards suggested by Hair and col-
leagues (1998). Furthermore, the absolute value interfactor correlations
ranged from .01 to .36 with a mean of .13.
4Saxe and Weitz (1982) used both customer orientation items and selling
orientation items in their measure. Because the customer orientation and
selling orientation items split into separate dimensions when factor ana-
lyzed (in both their original research and our current research), we elected
to use only customer orientation items for our measure of the needs com-
ponent of customer orientation.
114 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 2002

Table 1
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND BIVARIATE CORRELATIONS

Number Coefficient Standard

Variable of Items Alpha
x Deviation (X1) (X2) (X3) (X4) (X5) (X6) (Y1) (Y2) (Y3) (Y4) (Y5)
Introversion (X1) 3 .86 3.39 1.82
Instability (X2) 5 .88 3.90 1.79 .41
Agreeability (X3) 3 .85 7.04 1.51 –.04 –.21
Conscientiousness (X4) 4 .73 6.52 1.35 –.10 –.08 .21
Openness (X5) 5 .83 6.20 1.53 –.07 .06 .26 .11
Activity (X6) 3 .79 5.71 1.80 –.18 –.01 .16 .18 .30
Enjoyment (Y1) 6 .88 6.87 1.47 –.23 –.30 .41 .20 .16 .28
Needs (Y2) 6 .87 7.06 1.33 –.16 –.15 .32 .19 .24 .29 .65
Self 1 (Y3) 1 N.A. 5.64 1.02 –.10 –.07 .16 .12 .13 .17 .35 .31
Self 2 (Y4) 1 N.A. 5.79 0.96 –.13 –.21 .20 .23 .16 .13 .38 .32 .72
Supervisor 1 (Y5) 1 N.A. 5.41 1.23 –.07 –.06 –.07 .17 –.08 .01 .08 .10 .23 .28
Supervisor 2 (Y6) 1 N.A. 5.39 1.27 –.06 –.08 –.07 .19 –.11 –.04 .09 .12 .22 .28 .86
Notes: n = 249. Mean scores are used for all multi-item scales. All are nine-point scales except Y3–Y6 (seven-point). N.A. = not applicable.

loading on the appropriate factor, no significant cross-load-
ings, and a relatively strong interfactor correlation of .57.
Index scores were created for each set of items and served
as separate indicants of customer orientation in the struc-
tural equations models.
Two global items were used to assess overall service
worker performance (i.e., “overall quantity of work per-
formed” and “overall quality of work performed”). Each
item was assessed on seven-point scales bounded by “among
the worst in the company”/“among the best in the company.”
Both employees and supervisors rated the employees’ per-
formance using these scales. In the structural equations
models, the items were used as separate indicants of per-
formance for self- and manager ratings of performance.
ANALYSES AND RESULTS
Our primary method of analysis was structural equations
modeling by means of LISREL 8 (Jöreskog and Sörbom
1993); before analysis, we replaced remaining missing val-
ues through mean substitution. We used the covariance
matrix as input to the structural equations analysis. Table 1
presents descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for
the variables included in the model.
To examine the mediational role of customer orientation,
we estimated two models. The first model, depicted graphi-
cally in Figure 1, Panel A, positions customer orientation in
a fully mediational role between the basic personality traits
and performance outcomes. The second model, shown in
Figure 1, Panel B, allows for both direct and indirect effects
(mediated through customer orientation) of the personality
traits on the performance outcomes. Because the first model
is nested within the second, we can perform a χ2 difference
test to determine whether customer orientation fully medi-
ates or only partially mediates the influence of the basic per-
sonality traits on self- and supervisor ratings of performance.
Table 2 presents the results of the structural equations
analyses. The table includes results for the full and partial
mediation models presented in Figure 1. The initial meas-
urement model results (not shown) provided support for the
validity of our measures, with strong loadings for all
observed variables and acceptable overall model fit (χ2, 24
degrees of freedom [d.f.] = 29.53; root mean square error of
approximation = .03; nonnormed fit index = .98; and com-
parative fit index = .99).5 Both structural models reported in
Table 2 meet accepted standards for overall model fit.
Customer Orientation as Mediator
P1 states that customer orientation mediates the relation-
ship between basic personality traits and performance rat-
ings, consistent with a hierarchical model of personality and
its effects on individual behavior (i.e., Allport 1961). The
results reported in Table 2 suggest that several basic person-
ality traits influence customer orientation, which in turn is
related to performance evaluations.6 Furthermore, a χ2 dif-
ference test comparing the full and partial mediation models
suggest that the partial mediation model provides the best fit
for the data (∆χ2, 12 d.f. = 24.12; p < .05).
P2 argues that customer orientation mediation accounts
for a greater proportion of variance explained in perform-
ance ratings than does the direct effects of basic personality
traits alone. Because it is not possible to conduct a direct test
in LISREL of the improvement in R2 that results from
including customer orientation as a mediator, we formally
tested P2 using hierarchical regression after creating index
scores for customer orientation, self-ratings of performance,
and supervisor ratings of performance. For both self-ratings
and supervisor ratings of performance, the improvement in
R2 from including customer orientation was statistically sig-
nificant (self-ratings: ∆R2 = .09, ∆F1, 241 = 25.77, p < .001;
supervisor ratings: ∆R2 = .02, ∆F1, 241 = 4.32, p < .05),
which offers support for our proposition.
Taken together, the results for P1 and P2 suggest that a
hierarchical model for the effects of personality, in particu-
5As one reviewer noted, it is especially important to establish that the
customer orientation measures are not simply alternative measures of per-
formance, especially as rated by workers themselves. Neither the standard-
ized residuals nor the modification indices indicated that the customer ori-
entation measures should be treated as indicants of self-reported
performance. Furthermore, a χ2 difference test comparing the original
measurement model with a revised model, in which the customer orienta-
tion and self-rated performance measures were predicted by a single latent
construct, indicated that modeling customer orientation and self-rated per-
formance as separate constructs is appropriate (∆χ2 = 148.88, p < .01).
6We conducted a χ2 difference test for the partial mediation model
reported in Table 2 and a direct model in which the paths from customer
orientation to self- and supervisor-rated performance were deleted. The test
provided support for the mediational role of customer orientation (∆ χ2,
2 d.f. = 19.46; p < .05).
Customer Orientation of Service Workers
Figure 1
BASIC MODELS TESTED IN STUDY
A: Full Mediation Model
Introversion
Instability
Agreeability
Customer
Conscientiousness Orientation
Openness
Activity
B: Partial Mediation Model
Introversion
Instability
Agreeability
Conscientiousness
Openness
Activity
lar the inclusion of the customer orientation surface trait, is
appropriate and that the hierarchical model enhances the
predictive power of personality on performance, especially
for self-rated performance.
Determinants and Consequences of Customer Orientation
Consistent with prior research on the effects of personal-
ity variables on performance, we predict in P3 that introver-
sion is negatively related to customer orientation. Though
directionally appropriate, the results do not support this
proposition (t = –1.24, p > .10). The results support P4,
which states that instability is negatively related to customer
orientation (standardized path coefficient = –.18; t = –2.21,
p < .05).
We predict in P5 that agreeability also is positively asso-
ciated with customer orientation, and the results support the
prediction (standardized path coefficient = .36; t = 4.37, p <
.01). Agreeability also exerts a negative, direct effect on
supervisors’ performance ratings (standardized path coeffi-
cient = –.20; t = –2.20, p < .05). We interpret these results to
mean that agreeability is an important component of cus-
tomer orientation but that supervisors in the food services
industry may perceive too much agreeability as a liability,
particularly if it stands in the way of productivity (e.g., a
server who spends more time visiting with customers and/or
peers than serving customers).
P6 and P7 state that conscientiousness exerts a positive
influence on customer orientation and performance ratings,
respectively. The results indicate that both employee rat-
ings (standardized path coefficient = .17; t = 2.15, p < .05)
and supervisor ratings (standardized path coefficient = .26;
t = 3.14, p < .01) are positively related to conscientious-
ness. However, conscientiousness is not significantly
115
Performance
Ratings
(Self)
Performance
Ratings
(Supervisor)
Customer
Orientation
Performance
Ratings
(Self)
Performance
Ratings
(Supervisor)
related to customer orientation (t = 1.16, p > .10). P8 states
that a need for activity (i.e., Buss 1988) leads to greater
levels of customer orientation, and the results show that
this is the case (standardized path coefficient = .26; t =
3.14, p < .01).
Finally, in P9 we predict that customer orientation will
affect self- and supervisor ratings of performance. The
results demonstrate that customer orientation is related to
enhanced self-ratings of performance (standardized path
coefficient = .42; t = 4.10, p < .01) and supervisor ratings of
performance (standardized path coefficient = .19; t = 1.95,
p < .051). These results suggest that customer-oriented serv-
ice workers are ultimately regarded as better performers.
DISCUSSION
The basic premise of our research was that implementing
the marketing concept is the job of individual service
employees for most organizations. We proposed that a
worker’s degree of customer orientation, or disposition to
meet customers’ needs, is an important construct that is deter-
mined by more basic personality traits and by the press of the
specific situational context. Furthermore, we suggested that
customer orientation is predictive of service worker perform-
ance ratings. Although our results are more suggestive than
conclusive, they support each of these proposals.
To our knowledge, we are the first researchers to investi-
gate the relationship between basic psychological traits and
a measure of customer orientation, which we offer as a key
situational determinant of service worker performance in a
hierarchical model of the effects of personality on behavior.
The combination of six basic psychological traits accounted
for 39% of the variance in our measure of customer orienta-
tion. In particular, the results reveal that emotional instabil-
116 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 2002

Table 2
RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS ANALYSES FOR FULL MEDIATION AND PARTIAL MEDIATION MODELS

Full Mediation Partial Mediation

Standardized Standardized
Path Path
Path Coefficient t-Value Coefficient t-Value
Structural Paths
Introversion → performance (self) .03 .41
Instability → performance (self) –.11 –1.27
Agreeability → performance (self) –.07 –.75
Conscientiousness → performance (self) .17 2.15*
Openness → performance (self) .11 1.46
Activity → performance (self) –.05 –.63
Introversion → performance (supervisor) –.01 –.08
Instability → performance (supervisor) –.04 –.39
Agreeability → performance (supervisor) –.20 –2.20*
Conscientiousness → performance (supervisor) .26 3.14**
Openness → performance (supervisor) –.11 –1.28
Activity → performance (supervisor) –.09 –.96
Introversion → customer orientation –.10 –1.21 –.10 –1.24
Instability → customer orientation –.19 –2.31* –.18 –2.21*
Agreeability → customer orientation .35 4.34** .36 4.37**
Conscientiousness → customer orientation .10 1.38 .09 1.16
Openness → customer orientation .04 .57 .03 .37
Activity → customer orientation .25 3.12** .26 3.14**
Customer orientation → performance (self) .49 6.02** .42 4.10**
Customer orientation → performance (supervisor) .11 1.50 .19 1.95
Correlated Variables
Performance (self) ↔ performance (supervisor) .33 NA .31 NA
Measurement Paths
Lambda X1 .93 Fixed .93 Fixed
Lambda X2 .94 Fixed .94 Fixed
Lambda X3 .92 Fixed .92 Fixed
Lambda X4 .86 Fixed .86 Fixed
Lambda X5 .91 Fixed .91 Fixed
Lambda X6 .89 Fixed .89 Fixed
Lambda Y1 .88 11.95** .89 11.59**
Lambda Y2 .74 11.34** .74 11.35**
Lambda Y3 .80 12.24** .76 12.08**
Lambda Y4 .91 12.46** .95 12.35**
Lambda Y5 .93 12.99** .89 14.28**
Lambda Y6 .93 12.97** .97 14.61**
Model Fit Statistics
χ2 53.65 29.53
d.f. 36 24
RMSEA .04 .03
NNFI .96 .98
CFI .98 .99
Variance Explained (R2)
Customer orientation .40 .39
Performance (self) .24 .26
Performance (supervisor) .01 .12
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
Notes: n = 249. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index.

ity of service workers reduces customer orientation, whereas
agreeability and the need for activity raise customer orienta-
tion. Conscientiousness is directly related (without media-
tion) to both self-rated and supervisor-rated performance.
These results are consistent with prior research (e.g., Frei
and McDaniel 1998) that has found a relationship between
conscientiousness and manager ratings of performance.
Accordingly, it appears that within our services context, the
conscientiousness of service workers is a significant consid-
eration in evaluations of performance. This makes sense in a
food services context, in which showing up on time for work
shifts, correctly taking customers’ orders, and efficiently
managing multiple customers concurrently are key compo-
nents of the job for many workers.
One unexpected finding was a negative, direct relation-
ship between agreeability and supervisor ratings in the hier-
archical model. The supervisors in our study may have
viewed the part of agreeability that is not associated with
customer orientation as having negative consequences on
the performance of employees. For example, high agree-
ability may lead employees to spend more time interacting
with other employees or with customers on matters that are
Customer Orientation of Service Workers
unrelated to the job. However, we believe that managers
should look at the positive effect of agreeableness on cus-
tomer orientation and use job training to bring out the posi-
tive aspects and minimize the negative aspects of high
agreeability. Further research should investigate the influ-
ence of agreeability on specific service behaviors to under-
stand why managers might lower performance ratings for
more agreeable workers.
The strong relationship between the need for activity and
customer orientation has not been previously found in the
literature. These results support Buss’s (1988) proposal that
need for activity may be an important basic trait that influ-
ences human responses. Further research might investigate
the relationship of this construct with other managerially
relevant variables, such as competitiveness (Brown, Cron,
and Slocum 1998) and innovativeness (Venkatraman and
Price 1990).
We employed a hierarchical model of the effects of per-
sonality on performance evaluations that included customer
orientation as an important surface trait. The results confirm
the appropriateness of the hierarchical model and indicate
that including customer orientation in the model signifi-
cantly improves the explanation of both self-rated and
supervisor-rated overall performance. This hierarchical
approach to understanding the performance of service per-
sonnel is new to the literature and has important practical
relevance for managers. First, it reveals that directly meas-
uring the surface trait accounts for more variance than using
only the more basic personality traits. Second, it reveals that
a combination of surface and basic traits increases the abil-
ity to explain performance ratings. In the employee selection
and training process, the manager needs to identify both the
relevant surface traits (e.g., customer orientation) and the
deeper psychological traits. The hierarchical model provides
a means of identifying the underlying dispositions associ-
ated with higher levels of performance.
Note that customer orientation is related to supervisors’
performance ratings even though the industry studied is not
one in which employee personality would be expected to be
especially influential on customer satisfaction and retention
(Hurley 1998b). Although a surly server can certainly affect
the atmosphere of a meal, the low relationship content, short
duration of the service encounter, and generally low degree
of behavioral discretion of the worker may limit the poten-
tial relationship between customer orientation and supervi-
sors’ evaluations. The strength of conscientiousness as a
direct predictor of performance evaluations compared with
the influence of customer orientation is likely indicative of
the control supervisors wield in this industry. Further
research should investigate industries in which the potential
role of customer orientation is likely to be stronger (e.g., a
personal trainer at a fitness center).
Limitations and Additional Future Research Issues
There are several potential limitations to our research, the
most important of which is the relatively weak effect of cus-
tomer orientation and the basic personality traits on supervi-
sor ratings of performance in our empirical results. There
are several possible reasons for this result. First, the meas-
ures of customer orientation and employee performance
need further development and validation. It is possible that
additional dimensions of customer orientation exist that
117
might improve its predictive ability. Similarly, performance
evaluations might be taken for more specific aspects of per-
formance, in contrast with the global measures used herein,
to enhance the performance of the model. Furthermore, our
study did not include measures of specific service behaviors;
further research might include direct measures of things
such as number of mistaken orders, accuracy of order tak-
ing, and so on.
A second possible reason for the weaker-than-expected
effects may be that supervisors in the restaurant industry do
not focus on customer-oriented behaviors, choosing instead
to focus on more operational issues when evaluating
employees. Further research might address the degree to
which different companies believe that individual-level cus-
tomer orientation matters and, more important, whether
companies that recognize value in customer-oriented behav-
iors ultimately perform better in the marketplace. In addi-
tion, there may be industry and regional differences that
affect the relationships between customer orientation and its
outcomes (or determinants). Our study investigated only one
industry in a limited geographic area. It seems reasonable to
expect that some personality traits have greater or lesser
influence on customer orientation depending on the industry
studied. For example, in the current industry context, intro-
version may play less of a role because of strong prescribed
scripts for employee behavior in the particular role.
A third possible limitation of our results may have been
the exclusion of additional personality traits that might have
helped better explain service employee performance ratings.
For example, in a personal selling context, Brown, Cron,
and Slocum (1998) find that the trait of task-specific self-
efficacy may be a predictor of performance. Further research
should investigate additional basic personality traits and sur-
face traits that may influence customer orientation and/or
ratings of employee performance. On the basis of Buss’s
(1988) work, we added the trait of need for activity to the
basic traits represented in five-factor models of personality.
Additional scale development is required with respect to
need for activity. Our three-item measure demonstrated rea-
sonable reliability (α = .79), but more thorough conceptual
and psychometric development is desirable.
In summary, our research suggests that a service worker’s
degree of customer orientation is based in part on more fun-
damental personality variables and is related to evaluations of
his or her performance. In our view, further research should
include (1) measure development and validation for customer
orientation, specific service behaviors, performance evalua-
tions, and need for activity; (2) closer investigation of the
potential dual influences of agreeability on customer orienta-
tion and performance ratings; (3) further conceptualization
and empirical testing of the predictors of customer orientation,
with particular attention to the role of need for activity and the
identification of additional determinants; (4) establishment of
the generalizability of our results across industries and geo-
graphic regions; (5) incorporation of performance evaluation
as judged by customers; and (6) development and validation of
instruments, based on the hierarchical personality model, to be
used for recruiting and training of service employees. With
respect to this final point, our research suggests that a direct
measure of customer orientation should be included in instru-
ments to select and train employees. However, it is too early to
begin to use our scales for selection and training purposes.
118 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 2002
APPENDIX
MEASURES USED IN ANALYSES
Introversion (Nine-Point, “Never”/“Always”; α = .86)
Feel bashful more than others.
Quiet when with people.
Shy.
Conscientiousness (Nine-Point, “Never”/“Always”; α = .73)
Precise.
Organized.
Sloppy. (reverse-coded)
Orderly.
Instability (Nine-Point, “Never”/“Always”; α = .88)
Moody more than others.
Temperamental.
Envious.
Emotions go way up and down.
Testy more than others.
Openness (Nine-Point, “Never”/“Always”; α = .83)
Frequently feel highly creative.
Imaginative.
Appreciate art.
Find novel solutions.
More original than others.
Agreeability (Nine-Point, “Never”/“Always”; α = .85)
Tender hearted with others.
Sympathetic.
Kind to others.
Activity (Nine-Point, “Never”/“Always”; α = .79)
Have a hard time keeping still.
Extremely active in my daily life.
Have a hard time sitting around.
Customer Orientation (Reliability for the Linear
Composite = .92)
Enjoyment dimension (nine-point, “strongly disagree”/
“strongly agree”; α = .88)
I find it easy to smile at each of my customers.
I enjoy remembering my customers’ names.
It comes naturally to have empathy for my customers.
I enjoy responding quickly to my customers’ requests.
I get satisfaction from making my customers happy.
I really enjoy serving my customers.
Needs dimension (nine-point, “strongly disagree”/
“strongly agree”; α = .87)
I try to help customers achieve their goals.
I achieve my own goals by satisfying customers.
I get customers to talk about their service needs with me.
I take a problem-solving approach with my customers.
I keep the best interests of the customer in mind.
I am able to answer a customer’s questions correctly.
Performance Evaluations (seven-point, “among the worst
in the company”/“among the best in the company”)
Overall quantity of work performed.
Overall quality of work performed.
(Identical scales used for self and supervisor performance
evaluation.)
REFERENCES
Allport, Gordon W. (1961), Pattern and Growth in Personality.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Block, Jack (1995), “A Contrarian View of the Five-Factor
Approach to Personality Description,” Psychological Bulletin,
117 (March), 187–215.
Bowers, Kenneth S. (1973), “Situationism in Psychology: An
Analysis and a Critique,” Psychological Review, 80 (Septem-
ber), 307–36.
Brown, Steven P., William L. Cron, and John W. Slocum Jr. (1998),
“Effects of Trait Competitiveness and Perceived Intraorganiza-
tional Competition on Salesperson Goal Setting and Perfor-
mance,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (October), 88–98.
Buss, David M. (1988), “Evolutionary Personality Psychology,”
Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 459–91.
Costa, Paul T., Jr., and Robert R.R. McCrae (1985), The NEO Per-
sonality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assess-
ment Resources.
Day, David V. and Stanley B. Silverman (1989), “Personality and
Job Performance: Evidence of Incremental Validity,” Personnel
Psychology, 42 (Spring), 25–36.
Day, George S. (1994), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven Orga-
nizations,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 37–52.
Deshpande, Rohit, John U. Farley, and Frederick E. Webster Jr.
(1993), “Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innova-
tiveness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis,” Journal of
Marketing, 57 (January), 23–37.
Endler, Norman S. and Alvin J. Rosenstein (1997), “Evolution of
the Personality Construct in Marketing and Its Applicability to
Contemporary Personality Research,” Journal of Consumer Psy-
chology, 6 (1), 55–66.
Eysenck, Hans J. (1947), Dimensions of Personality. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Faber, Ronald J. and Thomas C. O’Guinn (1989), “Classifying
Compulsive Consumers: Advances in the Development of a
Diagnostic Tool,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16,
T.K. Srull, ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,
738–44.
Frei, Richard L. and Michael A. McDaniel (1998), “Validity of
Customer Service Measures in Personnel Selection: A Review of
Criterion and Construct Evidence,” Human Performance, 11 (1),
1–27.
Goldberg, Lewis R. (1992), “The Development of Markers for the
Big-Five Factor Structure,” Psychological Assessment, 4 (1),
26–42.
——— (1993), “The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits,”
American Psychologist, 48 (January), 26–34.
Hair, Joseph F., Jr., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and
William C. Black (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hogan, Joyce, Robert Hogan, and Catherine Busch (1984), “How
to Measure Service Orientation,” Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 69 (February), 167–73.
Hurley, Robert F. (1998a), “A Customer Service Behavior in Retail
Settings: A Study of the Effect of Service Provider Personality,”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 26 (2), 115–227.
——— (1998b), “Service Disposition and Personality: A Review
and a Classification Scheme for Understanding Where Service
Disposition Has an Effect on Customers,” Advances in Services
Marketing and Management, 7, 159–91.
Jaworski, Bernard J. and Ajay K. Kohli (1993), “Market Orienta-
tion: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Marketing, 57
(July), 53–70.
Jöreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sörbom (1993), LISREL 8. Chicago:
Scientific Software International.
Kotler, Philip (1997), Marketing Management, 9th ed. Upper Sad-
dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Customer Orientation of Service Workers
Lastovicka, John L. (1982), “On the Validation of Lifestyle Traits:
A Review and Illustration,” Journal of Marketing Research, 19
(February), 126–38.
Lichtenstein, Donald R., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Scot Burton
(1990), “Distinguishing Coupon Proneness from Value Con-
sciousness: An Acquisition-Transaction Utility Theory Perspec-
tive,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (July), 54–67.
Michaels, Ronald E. and Ralph L. Day (1985), “Measuring Cus-
tomer Orientation of Salespeople: A Replication with Industrial
Buyers,” Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (November), 443–46.
Mischel, Walter (1968), Personality and Assessment. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Mowen, John C. and Nancy Spears (1999), “A Hierarchical Model
Approach to Understanding Compulsive Buying Among College
Students,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8 (4), 407–30.
Narver, John C. and Stanley F. Slater (1990), “The Effect of a Mar-
ket Orientation on Business Profitability,” Journal of Marketing,
54 (October), 20–35.
Paunonen, Sampo V. (1998), “Hierarchical Organization of Per-
sonality and Prediction of Behavior,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74 (2), 538–56.
119
Rust, Roland T., Anthony J. Zahorik, and Timothy L. Keiningham
(1996), Service Marketing. New York: HarperCollins.
Saucier, Gerard (1994), “Mini-Markers: A Brief Version of Gold-
berg’s Unipolar Big-Five Markers,” Journal of Personality
Assessment, 63 (3), 506–16.
Saxe, Robert and Barton A. Weitz (1982), “The SOCO Scale: A
Measure of the Customer Orientation of Salespeople,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 19 (August), 343–51.
Spivey, W. Austin, J. Michael Munson, and William B. Locander
(1979), “Meeting Retail Staffing Needs via Improved Selection,”
Journal of Retailing, 55 (4), 3–19.
Tadepalli, Raghu (1995), “Measuring Customer Orientation of a
Salesperson: Modifications of the SOCO Scale,” Psychology
and Marketing, 12 (May), 177–87.
Venkatraman, Meera P. and Linda L. Price (1990), “Differentiating
Between Cognitive and Sensory Innovativeness: Concepts, Mea-
surement, and Implications,” Journal of Business Research, 20
(June), 293–315.
Wiggins, Jerry S. (1996), The Five-Factor Model of Personality.
New York: Guilford Press.