The right fit: how the alignment between customer orientation and service climate boosts employee commitment and customer loyalty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Drawing on the need–supply fit perspective, this study aims to examine how (mis)alignment between customer orientation (CO) and the service climate (SC) influences the affective organizational commitment and indirectly impacts employees’ customer-oriented behavior (COB) and customers’ word-of-mouth (WOM). Design/methodology/approach This paper used data from three different sources. The data set comprises 1,420 time-lagged observations from 725 employees surveyed at multiple time points, a total of 19,630 customers from 34 retail stores across multiple time points and the managers of the 34 stores, surveyed multiple times. Findings Employees’ affective commitment was found to be higher when CO and SC were both high. In case of misalignment, commitment is higher when the SC is stronger than the CO (compared to when the CO is stronger than SC). Employees’ commitment was positively related to subsequent store-level COBs, which in turn boosted customers’ WOM. Originality/value Very few studies have looked for impact of (mis)alignment of frontline employee characteristics with business unit features and how it relates to employees and customers responses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".