Ocp On Bat

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE, AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO BANGLADESH

by

Sultan Saad Andaleeb. ID: 0220219

An Internship Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Business Administration

INDEPENDENT UNIVERSITY, BANGLADESH August, 2006

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE, AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO BANGLADESH

by

Sultan Saad Andaleeb. ID: 0220219

has been approved August 2006

______________________ Mr. Shubhankar Shil Lecturer School of business Independent University, Bangladesh

August 31, 2006

Shubhankar Shil Lecturer, School of Business Independent University, Bangladesh

Sir: I want to submit my internship report on “A Relational Study on Perceived Organizational Support, Supervisory Support, Work Climate, and Employee Service Quality in the context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh”. I am submitting this report as a part of my internship program in British American Tobacco Bangladesh. This report is going to provide valuable assistance to the organization in finding out the factors which have influence on the employee service quality. Therefore, I need your kind attention to assess my report considering the limitations of the study. Your kind suggestion will encourage me to perform better research work in future.

Yours sincerely, Sultan Saad Andaleeb. ID# 0220219

Acknowledgement In the preparation of this internship report, I acknowledge the encouragement and assistance given by a number of people from British American Tobacco Bangladesh Ltd. I am grateful to Mr. Riazul Haque, Manager of R&RS department of British American Tobacco Bangladesh Ltd., for his valuable suggestions and assurance. Besides, I was well-guided by Ms. Romana Rahman, Talent & Resource Manager. I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Mr. Shubhankar Shil, for sharing his ideas and interests with me about my study. His contribution boosted my confidence and helped me finish my study on time. Lastly, I want to show my gratefulness to all the respondents who spared their precious time in answering my questionnaires.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page List of Tables List of Figure Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction

1

1.1 Purpose of the study

3

1.2 Problem Statement

4

1.3 Research timeline

5

1.4 Limitations of study

5

2.0 Review of related literature

6

2.1 Definition of perceived organizational support

6

2.2 Definition of supervisory support

6

2.3 Definition of work climate

7

2.4 Definition of employee service quality

8

2.5 Relationship between perceived organ. support and employee service quality

11

2.6 Relationship between supervisory support and employee service quality

13

2.7 Relationship between price work climate and employee service quality

16

3.0 Operational Definition

17

3.1 Research Questions

18

3.2 Research Hypothesis

18

3.3 Conceptual Framework

19

4.0 Research Methodology 4.1 Research design

19 19

4.2 Research approach

20

4.3 Sampling method

20

4.4 Survey instrument

21

4.5 Data collection procedure

21

4.6 Data analysis

22

5.0 Findings from questionnaires

23

5.1 Reliability and Descriptive statistics of the Instruments

23

5.2 Correlation Analysis

24

5.3 Stepwise Regression Analysis

26

6.0 Assessment of research hypothesis

28

7.0 Recommendation

28

8.0 Conclusion

29

References

30

Appendices

38

LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Operational Definition of Measured Variables

17

2. Descriptive statistics, and Reliability Coefficient of Measured Variables

24

3. Correlation Matrix for Measured Variables

25

4. Stepwise regression on willingness on employee service quality

27

LIST OF FIGURE Page 1. Conceptual Framework of Research Variable and their Relationships

19

Executive Summary This research intends to investigate the relationships of in context of on Perceived Organizational Support, Supervisory Support, Work Climate, and Employee Service Quality in the context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh (BATB). Perceived organization support (POS) – the extent to which employees believe that their employer is concerned about and aware of their well being and contribution – can help employees’ self-esteem and, therefore performance. POS is more likely to increase the employees’ expectancies that greater efforts toward meeting organizational goals will be rewarded, and consequently these expectancies may increase their efforts in service works to meet the organizational goals. Support from supervisors is also of importance to employee performance but the employees may take it for granted, considering it to be part of the supervisor’s job, and it might, therefore, not have the degree of positive influence on service effort that might have been expected. Nevertheless, it is important that, to produce greater job satisfaction, service management should render on-the-spot supervisory support to employees, design and implement supportive supervisory practices and reward positive results. Work climate also have significant impact on employee service quality. It’s found in the study that employee perceptions of work climate have important effects on their work effort & thus the quality of the service they rendered. Total 102 questionnaires were distributed among the respondents of BATB and received data were used for data analysis. SPSS 12.0 was used to analyze the collected data. Correlational analysis and stepwise regression analysis were performed for testing hypothesis. The correlational analysis and stepwise regression analysis provided meaningful support to the hypothesis. Finally, considering the time and resource constraints, the researcher tried to follow every possible guideline to establish the relationship between the variables.

1.0 Introduction The British American Tobacco Group is one of the world’s leading international manufacturers of some of the best tasted cigarettes whose brands are sold in 180 markets around the world. Although it is operating in one of the most controversial market it has been doing an impressive business in spite a number of restrictions and barriers. BAT produces high quality tobacco products to meet the diverse preferences of millions of consumers, and work in all areas of business. In the shortest sentence, their business can be described as “From Seed to Smoke”. The companies are committed to providing consumers with pleasure through excellent products, and to demonstrating that they are meeting its goals in ways that are consistent with reasonable societal expectations of a reasonable tobacco group in the 21st century. British American Tobacco Company P.L.C. is one of the world’s leading international tobacco companies operating with 85 factories in 66 countries and producing about 800 billion cigarette per year. The company represents more than 300 brands in its portfolio. For more than 100 years, British American Tobacco has been building an international reputation for producing high quality tobacco products to meet the diverse preferences of consumers. Leading edge manufacturing, focus on quality and excellent distribution capabilities enable the company to deliver consistent quality premium products in 180 markets contributing to a global market share of 14.6% (as in 2002) and more than 15% (as in 2003). The company is based in London, UK, operating globally with strength of almost 90,000 employees. British American Tobacco Company (BATCo.) is one of the pioneers in Tobacco manufactures of the world. The journey of this company started long back. BATB was established back in 1910 as imperial Tobacco Company Ltd. in the beginning, it was known as Imperial Tobacco Company Limited in the undivided India in 1910. Having its head office in Calcutta, in the year 1926 a

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

2

branch office was made in the Sales Depot of Moulovi Bazar After independence, Bangladesh Tobacco Company (Pvt.) Limited was formed in 1972 under the Companies Act 1913, with the assets and liabilities of PTC. In 1973 BTC (Pvt.) was converted into a public limited company. British American Tobacco played a pivotal role in BTC's creation in 1972 and since then has been involved in BTC's development every step of the way. BTC has proved to be the perfect representative of BAT by manufacturing and marketing quality brands, which met BAT standards. The company was formed with an objective to establish a worldwide business. British American Tobacco Bangladesh (previously known as Bangladesh Tobacco company), has changed its name on March 22, 1998 was incorporated under the company Act 1913 on 2nd February 1972, as a subsidiary of British American Tobacco Bangladesh (BATCo.). Main business of BATB is tobacco, which involves the growing and processing of leaf tobacco and manufacturing, marketing and distribution of cigarettes and pipe tobacco through out Bangladesh. The company has been exporting tobacco to the markets in developed countries like U.K., Germany, Poland, Russia and New Zealand. BATB is one of the highest contributors of national revenue. “Quality First” is the main theme of the company and due to its total commitment to the quality of the product the company has been doing very well in the local market. Operating in the country since pre-independence, the company headquarters and cigarette factory are based in Dhaka, with a tobacco threshing plant in Kushtia. The company currently employees more than 200 managers and has a work force of 1,300 workers and 14,000 registered farmers in its Kushtia threshing plant producing the world finest tobacco and exporting to other countries and other tobacco companies locally for their living standards. British American Tobacco Bangladesh (BATB) is listed in the Dhaka Stock Exchange (DSE) with an authorized share capital of Tk. 600,000,000 comprised of 60,000,000 ordinary shares of Tk. 10 each. With a market share of 48%, 65.91% of the company’s shares are held by Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd, UK; 26.99% by

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

3

Investment Corporation of Bangladesh; 2.86% by Shadharan Bima Corporation; 0.84% by Bangladesh Silpa Rin Sangstha; 0.65% by the Government of Bangladesh; 0.52% by Sena Kalyan Sangstha and 2.23% by others. British American Tobacco recently suffered a sharp fall into its revenue. Its profit after tax was drastically reduced by 44,04,30,000 taka. So, management concern is to check out whether the service quality of the employee by any means is related with the circumstances occurred. In order to do so, the researcher intent to examine the relationship among perceived organizational support, supervisory support & work climate (Independent Variables) with employee service quality (dependent variable).

1.1 Purpose of the Study The objectives of this research is to present & examine the relationship between perceived organizational support, supervisory support, customer participation, work climate (Independent Variables) and employee service quality (Dependent Variables) in the context of British American Tobacco in Bangladesh. Employee service quality is perceived as an essential variable for the organization as the quality of the product depends on the service provided by these employees. So, if the service qualities of these employees are not efficient, then the organizations profitability in the long run will be at stake. Therefore it is necessary for the management to know the factors that influences the employees to upgrade the quality of the service they provide. Now, the researchers initiated this study to understand whether employee service quality is influenced by perceived organizational support, supervisory support, and work climate. This type of study in the context of British American Tobacco in Bangladesh was not conducted before & hence this is an urgency to conduct similar kind of research.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

4

1.2 Problem Statement Eisenberger et al.(1986,1990), “Perceived organizational support (POS hereafter) refers to the extent to which employees perceive that the organization recognizes their contribution and cares about their well being.” Organizations care and valuation towards its employee is also acknowledged by the employees to satisfy their social needs for approval, affiliation, and esteem, and to determine the organization’s readiness to compensate increased effort with greater rewards. This concept has been suggested for integrating and extending the calculative and affective interpretation of organizational commitment in a social exchange framework (Eisenberger et al., 1986). POS is expected to increase as the employee will have the expectation of getting reward by accomplishing organizational goals, and consequently, these expectancies may increase their efforts in service works to meet the organizational goals, especially, providing superior service to customers at each encounter. House (1971), “Supervisory support refers to the socioemotional concerns of the supervisor, and represents the degree to which the supervisor creates a facilitative climate of psychological support, mutual trust, friendliness, and helpfulness.” Once the contact employees recognize that their performance is constantly monitored by their immediate supervisor who is concerned for them as well as provides adequate socioemotional support for them, employees’ positive enthusiasm towards their jobs will boost up (Babin & Boles, 1996; Kopelman et al., 1990;, & Michaels et al., 1987), and will exert more effort in the workplace (Brown & Peterson,1994). Schneider et al. (1998), “Work climate refers to the shared perception of employees concerning practices, procedures and kinds of behavior that get rewarded and supported in a particular setting.” Hence, in the current study, the researchers will utilize service climate as an added variable to investigate the relationship between work climate and employee service quality in context of British American Tobacco in Bangladesh.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

The problem statement, therefore, is stated as follows: the present study will investigate the relationship between perceived organizational support, supervisory support, work climate (Independent Variables) and employee service quality (Dependent Variables) in the context of British American Tobacco in Bangladesh.

1.3 Research Timeline 2006

June

Research Proposal Writing.

2006

June

Literature Review.

2006

June

Development of conceptual framework.

2006

July

Data collection procedure.

2006

July

Data analysis and interpretation of the findings.

2006

August

Submission of draft copy.

2006

August

Submission of research paper.

1.4 Limitations of the study The study was limited by a number of factors. Firstly, the study was confined only to Dhaka city. Secondly, sample size was too small to represent the proposed scenario. Thirdly, time constraint led to get narrower outcomes, and finally the knowledge constraint of the researcher was another limitation for the study.

5

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

6

2.0 Review of related literature 2.1 Definition of Perceived organizational support Perceived organizational support can be defined as the “global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions & cares about their well being” (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Gouldner (1960), in his reciprocity norm of the social exchange theory explains employees perceiving support from the organization value their organization at a greater scale and tend to actively collaborate to achieve the company’s goals (e.g. Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rousseau, 1989; Wayne et al., 1997). One of the first studies on the influence of social support on work was run by LaRocco et al. (1980) who pointed out that employees that feel supported show better psychological well-being, higher job satisfaction and better performance. Furthermore, it has been found unanimously, that support is positively related to job satisfaction (Beehr et al., 1990; Thomas and Ganster, 1995; Nye & Witt, 1993) which leads to an enhancement of employee service quality.

2.2 Definition of Supervisory Support In 1975, C.A Shriesheim, and R.M Stodgigill uphold their doctrine in the book of Personnel Psychology and they opined that Supervisory consideration refers to leader behaviors concerned with promoting the comfort and wellbeing of subordinates. It is hypothesized that employees who believe their superiors are considerate leaders will be more committed to their organizations than those who do not perceive their managers as such (Johnston, M.W., Parasuraman, A., Futrell, C.M. and Black, B.C, 1990). According to Schriesheim, C.A. and Stogdill, R.M. (1975), supervisory consideration refers to leader behaviors concerned with promoting the comfort and wellbeing of subordinates. DeCotiis and Summers (1977), Morris and Sherman (1981) and Zaccaro and Dobbins (1989) all found empirical support for this view. Supervisory consideration again refers to the degree to which

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

7

supervisors are supportive, friendly and considerate, consult subordinates and recognize their contribution. Fry (1986) and Johnston (1990) found that consideration reduces role conflict among the employees & thus the service quality of the employees increase. Supervisory support refers to the extent to which supervisors, as persons “in the middle” have to reconcile conflicting demands from workers for whom they are responsible, from senior management, from trade unions, and from own needs for esteem and self-respect (Gelfand, L, 1990). If they do not know just what the total organization wants, supervisors will be unable to fulfill an important part of their job, that of coordinating the work of their section with that of others so that the strategic objectives of the organizations are met. It is clear that the role of supervisor has now become increasingly challenging as well as extremely critical as he has to work as a bridge between the management & the employees. Now a day, Supervisory support refers to the “socioemotional concerns of the supervisor, and represents the degree to which the supervisor creates a facilitative climate of psychological support, mutual trust, friendliness, and helpfulness” (House, 1971). Representing the organization, the supervisor generally determines the returns to subordinates and enacts the formal and informal procedures of the organization. In a social contract setting, inputs of subordinates influence the distribution of rewards by the supervisor. Thus, perceived distributive justice would likely enhance trust in the supervisor. How supervisors interact with subordinates in communicating procedural fairness, which is interactional justice, is more important than actual fair behavior (Greenberg, 1988).

2.3 Definition of Work Climate The concept of work climate is usually attributed to Lewin (1951) with his field theory motivation. Guion (1973) suggested that the concept of corporate or work climate is one of the most important to enter the thinking of industrial/organizational psychologists in many years. Climate

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

8

perceptions are observed as a critical determinant of individual behavior in organizations that mediating the relationship between objective characteristics of the work environment and individuals’ responses (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970). Organizational climate has described an employees’ perception of his or her work environment (Hellriegel, D & J. Slocum, 1974). According to Schneider and Snyder (1975), “the molar or holistic nature of climate perceptions is such that perceptions function as a frame of reference for the attainment of some congruity between behavior and the system’s practices and procedures”. Furthermore, Schneider (1975) studied employees’ performance in the workplace. According to him work climate is an important determinant of employee performance, and that performance equals ability and climate, which stress the display of individual differences. Work climate refers to how employees perceive and interpret the organizational environments (James & James, 1989, 1990; James & Jones, 1974). Organizational climate consists of more empirically accessible elements such as behavioral and attitudinal characteristics (Drexler, 1977; O'Driscoll & Evans, 1988; Moran & Volkwein, 1992). Moran and Volkwein (1992) defined climate as, a relatively enduring characteristic of an organization which distinguishes it from other organizations ,and (a) embodies members’ collective perceptions about their organization with respect to such dimensions as autonomy, trust, cohesiveness, support, recognition, innovation, and fairness; (b) produced by member interaction; (c) serves as a basis for interpreting the situation; (d) reflects the prevalent norms and attitudes of the organization’s culture, and (e) acts as a source of influence for shaping behavior (p. 20). So we can say that individual perceptions of the work environment are usually referred psychological climate and when we considered to a level for sufficient aggregation then termed as organizational climate. Organizational climate highlights on the processes, practices, and behaviors those are rewarded and supported in an organization (Schneider, 1990). Indeed, work climate nowadays is more important than it was in the 1960s and 1970s, because the external and internal environments of work organizations are less stable and less predictable than before. Hence, Kim

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

9

and Mauborgne (2003) pointed out to the fact that one of the major challenges that is faced by today’s managers is to create a climate in which employees volunteer their creativity and expertise. Besides, work climate has strong influence on employees’ decision to carry on with the organization or quitting the job. Barnard (1997) argued that most employee work related decisions, such as participating, producing and quitting, are influenced by the work climate of which he/she is part. A work environment persuades work happiness, organization, organization obligation, employee turnover, professional adjustment, and business stability (Holland, 1985; O’Reilly et al., 1991). A powerful influence on employee recognitions, attitudes and behavior are the renowned characteristics of an organization’s work environment (Ostroff, 1993). Climate in an organization is the perception of the employees’ share of importance in the organization; achievement through their experience on the job and their observations of the kinds of behaviors management expects and supports (Schneider and Bowen, 1995). According to James and James (1990) and Brown and Leigh (1996), perceptions of the organizational atmosphere obtain on personal significance for employees through assessment, in which a cognitive illustration of the features of the work environment is interpreted in terms of the individual’s standards. Environmental attributes appeared from situational referents, these referents consist of safety (Zohar, 1980), innovation (Abbey and Dickson, 1983), customer service (Schneider, 1980; Schneider and Bowen, 1985; Schneider et al., 1998), support, cost-cutting, and others. From an earlier study by Pritchard and Karasick operationalzed climate using 11 dimensions, those are autonomy, conflict versus cooperation, social relations, structure, level of rewards, performance- reward dependency, motivation to achieve, status polarization, flexibility, and innovation, decision centralization, and supportiveness. They discover that all the dimensions except autonomy were related to job satisfaction. So we can come up with the thought that if the work climate influences the employee positively then he or she will be satisfied with the job and once job satisfaction is ensured he or she might deliver better service.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

10

One of the major work climate variables out of variety of work climates is supportive management. Supportive management defines how managers and supervisors support, help, trust, and create a supreme working environment for the employees. Brown and Leigh (1996) describe supportive management as a most important element of employees’ psychological safety in the workplace. Therefore we can conclude work climate as the collective current impressions, expectations, and feelings of the members of local work units, which in turn affect members’ relations with supervisors, with one another, and with other units. In short, climate has been established as a construct of considerable interest within the field of organizational behavior research, predominantly as a result of its demonstrable influence on organizational effectiveness (Likert, 1961; Franklin, 1975; Kanter, 1983; Mudrack, 1989), as well as its relationship to individual motivation and behavior (Litwin & Stringer, 1968; Bowers, 1976).

2.4 Definition of Employee Service Quality Employee service quality is closely related to employee service effort. According to Brown & Peterson (1994) and Walker et al. (1977) work effort considered to be the mediator between motivation and job performance. In some other earlier study we got significant influence of work effort on performance (e.g. Blau, 1993; Gardner et al, 1989). Schneider (1980) refers if the employee is satisfied with his or her job then his/ her delivered service quality will be better. Committed employees are believed to dedicate more of their time, energy and talents to the organization than those who are not committed. This reflects an individual’s willingness to work towards and accept organizational goals (Reichers, A.E., 1985). In other words, committed employees are more likely to be better service quality performers due to their willingness to engage in discretionary effort beyond the normal call of duty (Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L, 1990). The employee’s commitment to the organization and its long-term goal of excellence in

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

11

service delivery is, however, strongly influenced by managerial action (Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L, 1990; Young, M., 1991). An organization which truly pursues service excellence needs middle-level managers and supervisors who rise above mere managing and leading. It requires managers who establish and reinforce a service vision, who create a culture of teamwork and performance, and who remove obstacles from the paths of employees who want to satisfy the service quality needs of their customers. The quality of leadership provided by middle management will thus strongly influence the level of service quality provided by employees at the lower organizational levels (Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L, 1990).

2.5 Relation between perceived organ. support & employee service quality Perceived organizational support (POS) represents employee’s perception of the organizational commitment to him or her. Earlier back in 1964, Blau narrates the concept of POS as a means of social exchange interpretation of organizational commitment whereby the employees amplify their efforts and allegiance to the organization in return for material commodities and social rewards. Churchill et al. (1985) in his studies found that organizational variable depends on specific organizational action which is exercised by the managers as a means of influencing employee job outcomes where as POS appears to be particularly rely on firm-administrative actions. Eisenberg et al. (1986) later urged that when employees develop their perceptions of organizational support, they depend highly on the frequency and extremity of formal organizational recognition such as payment, rank, job enrichment and influence over organizational policies. One of the first studies on the influence of social support on work was run by LaRocco et al. (1980). He pointed out whenever employees feel supported they tend to show better psychological well-being, higher job satisfaction and better performance. In terms of a social exchange framework, Mohr & Bitner (1995) shows that POS has a direct impact on contact employees’

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

12

service efforts which can be defined as the amount of energy put into service works. Thus, the more the employees perceive greater organizational support, their sense of obligation to reciprocate with helpful behaviors towards the organization increases (Bettencourt & Brown, 1997; Shore & Wayne (1993). Thus organizational support generates further positive work attitude. Organizational support can be of different forms. Frone et al. (1997) found that colleague and supervisor support have a positive influence on job satisfaction. Bennet et al. (2001) have observed that the supervisory support and organizational acknowledgement are related to job satisfaction. Moreover, there is wide evidence of social support related to organizational commitment (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Guzzo et al., 1994; Wayne et al., 1997). Frone et al. (1997) found that supervisory support is positively related to temporal work commitment. Schaubroeck and Fink (1998) also obtained positive relationships between support and organizational commitment. Eisenberger et al. (2001) using a structural equation causal model, concluded that support has a direct and positive influence on affective commitment with the organization. In a longitudinal research, Stinglhamber and Vanderbergue (2003) found that organizational support is related to organizational commitment and that supervisory support and organizational support have different links as well as highlighting the importance of distinguishing between both dimensions. The meta-analysis of Roadhes and Eisenberger (2002) established evidence of the connection support-commitment: the relationship between organizational support and affective commitment with the organization is strong, whereas the relationship between organizational support and job involvement is just moderated. However, even though most literature on organizational support is focused on relationships involving satisfaction and commitment (Randall et al., 1999), there is also evidence of positive relationships between organizational support and performance (Armeli et al., 1998; Eisenberger et al., 1986, 1990). Organ (1988) points out that employee perceiving themselves as correctly treated by the organization will respond with extra-effort, which will affect their job performances as well as the

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

13

extra-role behavior. Summarizing, the meta-analysis made by Roadhes and Eisenberger (2002) shows that the relationships between organizational support and extra-role performance are positive which in terms exerts the quality services from the employees. One way of supporting the teams is improving the group efficiency with training. The main models of group performance sustain this idea (Campion et al., 1993; Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom et al., 1990; Tannenbaum et al., 1996). With the implementation of working teams, employees need specific training in different areas (technical and professional updating, interpersonal and team working skills, etc.). In this situation it has been found that those employees getting more support show higher job satisfaction (Campion et al., 1993; Hackman, 1987; Teague et al., 1995) and that satisfaction leads to higher work effort which results higher quality of the service. Training also improves group performance by means of providing the skills needed to work as a part of a team (Sundstrom et al., 1990). Another form of support is the appreciation and rewards offered to employees. Employee acknowledgement and rewarding on account of their group contribution is one of the most effective ways that organizations have to promote team working (Hackman, 1987; Larson & LaFasto, 1989). Hyatt and Ruddy (1997) found that the teams obtaining the necessary support of superiors and organization tended to be more effective.

2.6 Relation between supervisory support and employee service quality Supervising has a positive effect on an employee’s professional and career success (Noe (1988) & Ragins (1989)). It is proved that “the degree of supervisory support may influence the subordinate’s motivation, job satisfaction, and performance (Babin & Boles, 1996; Michaels et al., 1987)”. Frone et al. (1997) found that job satisfaction increases when employee get a positive support from colleague and supervisor. Bennet et al. (2001) have also observed the positive relationship among supervisory support and organizational acknowledgement to job satisfaction.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

14

Recently, in a study with traffic police which is conducted by Baruch-Feldman et al. (2002) has also found that supervisor support is related to job satisfaction. Schaubroeck and Fink (1998) also obtained positive relationships between support and organizational commitment of the employees. Eisenberger et al. (2001) in his structural equation causal model, concluded that support has a direct and positive influence on affective commitment with the organization. Again employee’s commitment towards organization & achieving its long term goal in service delivery is strongly influenced by the action taken by the manager (Zeithmal, 1990). When employees notice that their immediate supervisor is concerned for them & provides adequate support to get the job done, employees feel more positive towards their work (Babin & Boles, 1996; Kopelman et al., 1990; Michaels et al., 1987), which in turns, pulls out extra work effort (Brown & Peterson, 1994) from them and this extra work effort enhance the service quality of the employees. Organization generally takes strategic decisions which generally create a wave of sub decisions. These sub decisions have to be carefully implemented in order to achieve the strategic goals (Mintzberg et al., 1976). Typically, the manager-leader (middle managers and supervisors) is held accountable for the implementation of these sub-decisions. Sub-decision implementation is defined as a sequence of tasks carefully executed so that a favorable business outcome can be achieved in the medium to short term. It is clear that the particulars of such implementation vary widely from decision to decision, but virtually all decisions require efficient implementation to be successful (Nutt, 1993). Efficiency in implementing the decisions is crucial which is guided by the supervisor to the base level employees. Or in other words, a brilliant decision can prove worthless without its efficient implementation. The implementation of decisions is a critical dimension of leadership effectiveness (Robie et al., 2001) and in most of the case; supervisor is the key man to play that leadership role. Even the best decisions fail to be implemented due to the inadequate supervision of subordinates, among other reasons (Hill, 1978). From a contract perspective, interactions between an employee

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

15

and specific organization agents such as supervisors result in psychological contracts between the employee and the organization (Shore and Tetrick, 1994). As an agent of the organization, the supervisor discharges the organization’s legal, moral, and financial responsibilities (Robinson and Morrison, 1995). Therefore, how the supervisor upholds the psychological employee-employer contract significantly influences the elicitation (Robinson and Morrison, 1995). To enhance the service quality of the employee a supervisor must look after their well & woes. Trust on supervisor helps the employees to enhance the service effort. Podsakoff et al. (1990) reported strong support for the direct influence of trust in supervisor. The employee’s commitment to the organization and its long-term goal of excellence in service delivery is, however, strongly influenced by managerial action (Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L., 1990; Young, M., 1991). An organization which truly pursues service excellence needs middle-level managers and supervisors who rise above mere managing and leading. It requires managers who establish and reinforce a service vision, who create a culture of teamwork and performance, and supervisors who remove obstacles from the paths of employees who want to satisfy the service quality. The quality of leadership provided by supervisor will thus strongly influence the level of service quality provided by employees (Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L., 1990). Supervisors behavior towards its employee also influence the service quality of the employees. Cohen et al. (1996) identified the supervisory behaviors in the same way that Manz and Sims (1986, 1987) had previously done. Manz and Sims. (1987), opined that leadership of self-managed teams is a paradox that is dealt with by illuminating six leadership behaviors that assist self-managed teams in managing themselves. A supervisor must concentrate on these leadership behaviors. These behaviors are: encouraging self-observation/self evaluation, encouraging self-goal setting, encouraging self-reinforcement, encouraging selfcriticism, encouraging self-expectation and encouraging rehearsal. Self-observation/evaluation facilitates the performance evaluation process. In this behavior, the leader encourages the work

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

16

group to monitor, be cognizant of, and continuously assess his/her performance levels. Self-goal setting facilitates the setting of performance goals. This behavior allows for the group to set realistic but challenging goals. Self-reinforcement facilitates the recognition and behavior the leader urges the group itself to be self-reinforcing of high performance standards. Self-criticism facilitates critical self-evaluation and discouragement of poor performance. Self-expectation facilitates heightened expectations for group performance. Finally, rehearsal facilitates practicing an action before performing it. The leader encourages the group to review an activity and go through the steps involved in the activity before action occurs. By encouraging these behaviors, leaders aid their subordinates in developing self-control (Manz and Angle, 1986). This self-control, or self-regulation, is the key component of self-management (Manz and Sims, 1987). Selfmanagement, in turn, enables team members to exhibit performance-enhancing behaviors that lead to increased group effectiveness. Once the positive performance norms are established, they work to increase the efficiency of the group by eliminating the need to control members and instilling a sense of ownership for the quality of work, which reduces process losses (Leibowitz & Holden, 1995; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). As group identity, grows, it should promote a healthy work cycle in which the supervisor takes on the role of facilitator (Hackman, 1977).

2.7 Relationship between work climate and employee service quality According to Schneider and his colleagues (Schneider &Bowen, 1985; Schneider et al., 1980, 1998), there is a straight relationship between employees’ perceptions of work climate. Al-rahimi (1990) investigated the relationship between employee work outcomes and work climate. He called for creating the proper environment in which employees can develop to their fullest potential. Alrahimi suggested that providing a conducive work environment is essential for enhancing employee satisfaction and commitment, and increasing their performance. Similarly, Al-shammari (1994)

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

17

argued that researchers and academics must be aware about the role that work climate plays in shaping the level of organizational performance. Burruss (1996) argued that managing for motivation and performance improvement is essential for work organisations, and that providing a supportive work climate is directly related to employees’ motivation and performance. He argued that when the environment is positive, people are motivated and excited about what they are doing. However, when it is negative, people are relatively depressed and angry. Therefore, Burruss suggested that it is no surprise that work climate is an excellent predictor of organizational and employee performance. Again, the contact employees will feel positively towards their jobs if they get enough support and control over their work (Babin & Boles, 1996; Kopelman et al., 1990; Michaels et al., 1987) and they will be more devoted in the workplace (Brown & Peterson, 1994). Blau (1993) and Gardner (1989) also found a positive relation between work effort and performance of the employee.

3.0 Operational Definition From the literature review the operational definition of the measured variables are identified as follows: Table: 1 Operational Definition of Measured Variables Measured Variables

Operational Definitions

Employee Service quality

Will be operationally defined by Parasuraman et al.(1988).

Perceived Organizational Support

Will be operationally defined by Eisenberger et al.(1986).

Supervisory Support

Will be operationally defined by Teas (1983).

Work Climate

Will be operationally defined by Brown & Leighs (1996).

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

18

3.1 Research Questions This study proposes to investigate the following questions: 1. Is there any significant relationship between perceived organizational support and employee service quality in the context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh? 2. Is there any significant relationship between supervisory support and employee service quality in the context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh? 3. Is there any significant relationship between work climate and employee service quality in the context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh?

3.2 Research Hypotheses The hypotheses derived from research questions are as follows: 1. There is significant relationship between perceived organizational support and employee in the context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh. 2. There is significant relationship between supervisory support and employee service quality in the context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh. 3. There is significant relationship between work climate and employee service quality in the context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

19

3.3 Conceptual Framework The conceptual frame work for the proposed research is as follows:

Perceived Organizational Support

Employee Service Quality

Supervisory Support. Work Climate

Figure1: Conceptual Framework of Research Variable and their Relationships

4.0 Research Methodology 4.1 Research Design The conceptual framework mention earlier in Figure1 represents the relationships among the set of measured variables. In this case, the model is clearly defined by the research question and hypothesis. The purpose of the study is to determine correlations among variables. The present study will investigate the relationship among perceived organizational support, supervisory support and work climate & employee service quality within the context of British American Tobacco in Bangladesh. (Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S., 1998) refers the relationship between two or more variables as a correlational study. To find out the appropriate answers to the research questions and to test the hypotheses the correlational research design is needed. The model (Figure 1) also suggests this type of design. Here perceived organizational support, supervisory support, and work climate as independent variables and employee service quality is being considered as a dependent variable. Here we broke down the work climate into two major segments as service climate and supportive management. We will use a correlational study to establish the

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

20

existence relationships between the measured variables. In this research, the researchers try to find out whether there is any relationship exists between these measured variables or not. A correlational study provides a measure of the degree between two or more variables. Therefore, the present study will be characterized as a correlational study.

4.2 Research approach In order to get the answer of our research questions, the researchers will collect information from the contact employees of the British American Tobacco. The context of the research will be explained to the participants. The respondents will be chosen in a random manner & each of the respondents will participate voluntarily.

4.3 Sampling Method The population would be all the employees’ of British American Tobacco. The total population size is 1300 (employees’ numbers). First of all, as the employee listing could be drawn, probability sampling technique would be appropriate to draw a sample from the sampling frame. In this regard, for the current study a simple random sampling method would be utilized. Cooper and Schindler (1998) stated that in this type of probability sampling method each population element is known and has an equal chance of selection. Many researchers also followed the similar sampling method in their respective studies for instances (Ranaweera & Prabhu, 2003; Andreas, 2001; Sharma & Patterson, 2000). British American Tobacco possesses 1300 employees’ through out the country. The researcher used non-probability convenience sampling technique and decided to gather data by distribution questionnaires over 102 employees whose are working in the Mohakhali factory of British American Tobacco.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

21

4.4 Survey Instrument Like most other researches, questionnaire had been adapted from previous empirical studies. The Psychometric Properties of the Scale items were assessed using Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha, which was reported to be the preferred method (William & Anuchit, 2002). In general, the acceptable range of alpha value is greater than 0.50.

4.5 Data Collection Procedure Selected questionnaires will be used to acquire data. The questionnaire survey is the most effective method for this study to collect the data for the following reasons•

Respondents’ identity can be kept hidden & secured.

•

The researchers will conduct survey on 102 respondents. It will not be possible to

conduct personal interview because of time limitation. Therefore, a questionnaire survey will be the most appropriate one for the current study. •

As mail survey will require immense amount of time researcher will not consider this

option for current study. •

The internet facility is not widespread and even many of the employees are not

efficient enough to use internet properly. Therefore, online survey will also be inappropriate for the study. •

The data gathered through questionnaire is easy to put in quantitative analysis.

•

Questionnaire provides the flexibility to the respondents to fill it up very quickly &

conveniently. Therefore, the customers will not be reluctant in providing accurate data. A Structured questionnaire will be used in this study to collect data from customers. The researchers will utilize four different sets of questionnaires to measure the variables Perceived

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

22

organizational support will be measured by using 5 items (quest 1 to 5) developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986). Supervisory support will be measured by using 4 items (quest. 6 to 9). This scale is developed by Teas (1983) and is often used in industrial salesperson studies (Micheal et al,.1987; Singh,1993; Teas 1983). Work climate will be measured by using 4 items (quest 10 to 13). This scale is developed by Brown and Leigh’s (1996). Employee service quality will be measured by 5 items (quest 14 to 18). This scale is developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988).

4.6 Data Analysis Pearson’s Correlation analysis had been used to find out the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Correlation analysis is the statistical tool that can be used to describe the degree to which one variable is linearly related to another (William, and Anuchit, 2002). After collecting the data, Pearson’s correlational matrix for the variables was prepared and the researcher looked for significant correlations. The researchers used descriptives, correlations, and regressions to test the strength of associations between the studied variables. The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 12 software was employed to analyze the data collected from the actual survey.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

23

5.0 Findings from Questionnaires 5.1 Reliability and Descriptive statistics of the Instruments Reliability refers to the notion of consistency emerges (Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S., 1998). Gregory, R. (1996) defined “reliability” as the extent to which measurements of the particular test are repeatable. Malhotra, N.K. (1996) narrates reliability as the extent to which a scale produces consistently same result if repeated measurement is made. Now, regarding measurement, Parameswaram, Greenberg, & Bellenger (1979) argued that a measurement must meet two criteria. According to them measurement must be an operationally definable process & the outcome of the process should be consistently equal if the measurement is repeated. So, the more consistent the output given by repeated measurements, the greater the reliability of the procedure (Carminees, E.G. & Zeller, R.A.,1979). Estimation of the reliability coefficient can be conducted in four ways (Malhotra, N.K., 1996). They are: test-retest reliability (repeating method), alternative form reliability, split-half reliability and the internal consistency reliability. Now, the most widely used internal consistency is provided by coefficient alpha (α) or Cronbach’s alpha (1951) as it provides a good reliability estimate in most situations. Coefficient alpha is a kind of average of all possible split-half coefficients which is resulted from different ways of splitting the item of the scale. This coefficient varies from 0 to 1. The closer the value of alpha (α) to 1, the greater the reliability. If the value is low or tends to close to 0 then it signifies that there lies unsatisfactory internal consistency reliability which may occur from either there are too few items or there is very little commonality among the items (Churchill, G.A. JR., 1979).

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

24

Table: 2 Descriptive statistics, and Reliability Coefficient of Perceived Organizational Support, Supervisory Support, Work Climate & Employee Service Quality. Scale

No. of Items

Alpha

Mean

SD

Perceived Organizational Support

4

0.78

4.32

0.58

Supervisory Support

4

0.71

4.22

0.66

Work Climate

4

0.70

4.41

0.50

Employee Service Quality

5

0.80

4.34

0.54

Note: n=102 According to Nunnally (1978) the reliability is acceptable if it lies between 0.50-0.60. However, according to Hair (1998) a coefficient of 0.70 is enviable. In this study, the coefficient alphas for the different constructs were computed using the reliability procedure in SPSS (version 12.0). From the table it can be easily seen that the reliabilities of most constructs in this study lies within the acceptable range (0.70-0.80). Mean scores have been computed by equally weighting the mean scores of all items. On a five point scale mean score for Perceived Organizational Support is 4.32 (sd = .58). The mean score for Supervisory Support is 4.22 (sd = .66). The mean score for Work Climate is 4.41 (sd = .50). The mean score for Employee Service Quality is 4.34 (sd =.54).

5.2 Correlation Analysis A correlation analysis was conducted on all the variables to explore the relationship between variables. In interpreting the strength of relationships between variables, the guidelines suggested by Rowntree, D. (1981) were followed his classification of the correlation coefficient (r) is as follows:

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

25

0.0 to 0.2

Very weak, negligible

0.2 to 0.4

Weak, low

0.4 to 0.7

Moderate

0.7 to 0.9

Strong, high marked

0.9 to 1.0

Very strong, very high

The bivariate correlation procedure was a subject to a two tailed test of statistical significance at two different levels highly significant (p<.001) and significant (p<.01) or (p<.05). The results of the correlational analysis are shown in Table 3. Table 3 Correlation Matrix for Per. Org. Support, Supervisory Support, Work climate & Employee Service Quality. Per. Org.Support Supervisory Support

Per. Org.Support Supervisory Support Work Climate

.40 **

Work Climate

Employee Service Quality

.61**

.58**

.60**

.51** .78**

Employee Service Quality Note: *p<.05, **p<01, ***p<.001 The result of correlation analysis for all the variables is shown in Table 3. It examines the correlation among Perceived Organizational Support (Per. Org. Support), Supervisory Support, Work Climate & Employee Service Quality. Perceived Organizational Support (Per. Org. Support) (r= .58, p<.01), Supervisory Support (r= .51, p<.01), Work Climate (r= .78, p<.01) are significantly positively correlated with Employee service quality.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

26

5.3 Stepwise Regression Analysis Regression analysis is a statistical procedure for analyzing associate relationships between a metric dependent variable & one or more independent variables (Malhotra, N.K., 1996). In this study a stepwise regression was conducted to asses the relationship between variables. Stepwise regression refers to the procedure in which the predictor (independent) variables enter or leave at a time (Malhotra, N.K., 1996). This means that from a large number of predictor variables a small subset of variables that can explain most of the variation in the criterion (dependent) variable. Hanushek and Jackson (1977) suggested that stepwise regression is a useful procedure in determining most significantly related variables in explaining the behavior in question and this procedure not only gives an indication of how comprehensive the effect of the independent variable is, but also details which aspects of a grossly defined variable have been differentially affected (Jahangir, N., 2003). Again, Cohen and Cohen (1975) opine that, when an investigator has a large pool of potential independent variables and very little theory to guide selection among them, he may be benefited by using stepwise regression. The authors noted that in the use of stepwise regression analysis probably the most serious problem arises when a relatively large number of independent variables are used. Since the significant test of an independent variable’s contribution to R2 proceeds in ignorance of the large number of other such tests being performed at the same time for the other competing independent variables, there can a be very serious capitalization by chance (Jahangir, N., 2003). So, in this study small numbers of independent variables were considered.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

27

Table 4 Stepwise Regression on Employee Service Quality. Variable

B

Standard Error

β

Step 1 Work Climate

R2

∆ R2

.612 .840

.067

.782***

Step 2

.629

Work Climate

.733

.083

.683***

Per. Org. Support

.151

.072

.163*

.017

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. Now, p values show the significance of each predictor at each step for stepwise regression. Three different levels of significance can be described by p values: highly significant (p <.001), significant (p<.01) and (p<.05) (Hair er al., 1998; Lee, & Lee, 2000; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Table 4 signifies that in British American Tobacco work climate (p <.001) and perceived organizational support (p <.05) were found to be statistically significantly related with employee service Quality. Supervisory Support failed to enter into the regression equation, which indicates it was not that significantly related with Employee Service Quality like the other variables. These results provided a partial support for hypothesis. These two predictor variables together explained 63% (almost) of the variance in Employee Service Quality. Work climate can explain 61% & of the variance in Employee Service Quality. However, Perceived Organizational Support can explain 1.7% variance in Employee Service Quality.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

28

6.0 Assessment of research hypothesis Research Hypothesis There is a significant relationship between Perceived Organizational Support, Supervisory Support, Work Climate and Employee service Quality. From the findings, the variables significantly correlated with Employee Service Quality were Perceived Organizational Support (Per. Org. Support) (r= .58, p<.01), Supervisory Support (r= .51, p<.01), Work Climate (r= .78, p<.01). So the results of correlational analysis have provided support for research hypothesis. Now, the result of stepwise regression analysis depicts that in the context of British American Tobacco Work Climate (p <.001) and Perceived Organizational Support (p <.05) were found to be statistically significantly related with Employee Service Quality. Supervisory Support failed to enter into the regression equation, which indicates it was not that much statistically significantly related with Employee Service Quality. These results provided a partial support for hypothesis. These two predictor variables together explained 63% of the variance in Employee Service Quality. Work Climate & Perceived Organizational Support can explain 61% & 1.7% variance in Employee Service Quality respectively. These results provided a partial support for hypothesis.

7.0 Recommendation From the above discussions, work climate proves to have a significant impact on employee service. Therefore, firms should concentrate to create a congenial working atmosphere to enhance the employee service quality. Organizational support is a key factor for employee service quality. If the organization values its employee’s contribution, opinion and well being then the employees will certainly feel the association to the company’s long term goals & objectives & thus a company can become

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

29

successful in the long run by integrating its employees thought, ideas & opinions. So, a company should create such an environment where the sense of organizational support will exist among its employees. Correlational study suggests that supervisory support is also important for the employee to keep the quality of the service to an outstanding level. It is the supervisor of the employee who is directly related with the workers. So, any difficulties faced by the employees should be mitigated by the supervisor. A supervisor must try continuously to crate the job as interesting as possible & every supervisor should looks out the welfare of the employees of his group. This creates the sense of affiliation among the employees & thus the service qualities of the employees improve. For this the company should train its supervisor to deal with the employees, for the welfare of the company

8.0 Conclusion The researcher, therefore, proves the relationship between employee service quality (dependent variable) and perceived organizational support, supervisory support & work climate (independent variables). In the long run, we can say that the above relationship provides significant insight to enhance the quality of the employees.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

30

References Al-Shammari (1994), An analysis of the organisational climate and effectiveness in Jordanian industrial companies. Dirasat, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 43-58. Al-Rahimi, F. (1990). An analytical study of job satisfaction in Saudi Arabian public sector. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Liverpool, Liverpool. Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R.T., Fasolo, P. & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived organizational support and police performance: the moderating influence of socio-emotional needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 88-297. Babin, B.J. & Boles, J.S. (1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 57-75. Barnard, J. (1997). The workplace environment: what do technical workers want? Industrial Management, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 14-16. Beehr, T.A., King, L. & King, D. (1990). Social support and occupational stress: talking to supervisors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 61-81. Bennet, P., Lowe, R., Mattwes, V., Dourali, M. & Tattersall, A. (2001). Stress in nurses: coping, managerial support and work demand. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 55-63. Bettencourt, L.A. & Brown, S.W. (1997). Contact employees: relationships among workplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behavior. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 39-61. Blau, G.J. (1993). Operationalizing direction and level of effort and testing their relationships to individual job performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 152-70. Brown, S.P. & Peterson, R.A. (1994). The effect of effort on sales performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 70-80. Brown, S.P. & Leigh, T.W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 358-68. Burruss, J. (1996). Managing for motivation and performance improvement. In Boulter, N., Dalziel, M. and Hill, J. (Eds). People and Competencies: The Route to Competitive Advantage, London: Kogan Page. Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. & Weick, K.E. (1970), Managerial Behaviour, Performance and Effectiveness, NY: McGraw-Hill.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

31

Campion, M.A., Medsker, G. & Higgs, A.C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 823-50. Carminees, E.G., & Zeller, R.A (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. CA: Sage Publications. Churchill, G.A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures for marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73. Churchill, G.A. Jr, Ford, N.M., Hartley, S.W. & Walker, O.C. Jr. (1985). The determinants of salesperson performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22, pp. 10318. Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E. Jr & Spreitzer, G.M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 643-76. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P.S. (1998). Business research Methods (6th ed.). Boston: Erwin McGraw – Hill. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, Vol. 16, pp. 297-334. DeCotiis, T.A. & Summers, T.P. (1977). A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment. Human Relations, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 445-70. Drexler, J.A. (1977). Organizational climate: its homogeneity within organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 38-42. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-7. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 51-9. Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S. & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 812-20. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S. & Rexwinkel, B. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 42-51. Franklin, J.L. (1975). Down the organization: influence processing across levels of hierarchy. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 153-64.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

32

Frone, M., Yardley, J.K. &Markel, K.S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 145-67. Fry, L.W., Futrell, C.M., Parasuraman, A. & Chmielewski, M.A. ( 1986), An analysis of alternative causal models of salesperson role perceptions and work-related attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 153-63. Gardner, D.G., Dunham, R.B., Cummings, L.L. & Pierce, J.L. (1989). Focus of attention at work: construct definition and empirical validation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 61-77. Gelfand, L. (1990). Communicate through Your Supervisor. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89, pp. 99-112. Gladstein, D.L. (1984). Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 499-517. Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-78. Greenberg, J. (1988). Cultivating an image of justice: looking fair on the job. Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 2, pp. 155-7. Gregory, R. (1996). The quest for a: developments in multiple comparison procedures in the quarter century since Games (1971). Review of Educational Research, Vol. 66, pp. 269-306. Guion, R. (1973). A note on organisational climate. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 9, pp. 120-5 Guzzo, R., Noonan, K.A. & Elron, E. (1994). Expatriate managers and the psychological contract. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 617-26. Hackman, J.R. (1977). Designing work for individuals and for groups. In Hackman, J.R., Lawler, E.E. & Porter, L.W. (Eds). Perspectives on Behavior in Organizations, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work Redesign. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Hackman, J.R. (1987). The Design of Work Teams: Handbook of Organizational Behavior, NY: Prentice-Hall.. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E.., Tatham, R.L. & black, W.C. (1998). Multiple data analysis (5th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall. Hanushek, E. A., & Jackson, J.E. (1977). Statistical methods for social scientists. NY: Academic Press Inc. Hill, P.H. (1978). Making Decisions: A Multi-disciplinary Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

33

Holland, J.L. (1985), Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments, NJ: Prentice-Hall. House, R. (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 321-9. Hyatt, D.E. & Ruddy, T.M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: once more into the breach. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 553-85. James, L.A. & James, L.R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 739-51 James, L.R. & James, L.A. (1990). The meaning of organizations: he role of cognition and values. In Czepiel, J.A., Solomon, M.R. & Surprenant, C.F. (Eds). The Service Encounter, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 127-47. James, L.R. & Jones, A.P. (1974). Organizational climate: a review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 81, pp. 1096-112. Jahangir, N. (2003). Perceptions of Power: A CognitivePerspective of Nationalised Commercial Banks of Bangladesh(1st ed.). Dhaka: Centre for Social Studies. Johnson, J.W. (1996). Linking employee perceptions of service climate to customer satisfaction. Personal Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 831-51. Johnston, M.W., Parasuraman, A., Futrell, C.M. & Black, B.C. (1990). A longitudinal assessment of the impact of selected organizational influences on salespeople’s organizational commitment during early employment. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 333-44. Kanter, R.M. (1983). The Change Masters, NY: Random House. Kim, W. & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Fair process: management in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 127-36. Kopelman, R.E., Brief, A.P. & Guzzo, R.A. (1990). The role of climate and culture in productivity. In Schneider, B. (Ed.). Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 282-313. LaRocco, J.M., House, J.S. & French, J.R. (1980). Social support, occupational stress, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 202-18 Larson, C.E. & LaFasto, F.M. (1989). Teamwork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Lee, F., Lee, J.C., & Lee, A.C. (2000). Statistics for Business and Financial Economics (2nd ed.). Singapore: World Scientific.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

34

Leibowitz, S.J. & Holden, K.T. (1995). Are self-managing teams worthwhile? A tale of two companies. SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 11-17. Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper and Row, New York, NY. Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management, NY: McGraw-Hill. Litwin, G.H. & Stringer, R.A. (1968). Motivation and Organizational Climate. Boston: Harvard University Press. Manz, C.C. & Angle, H. (1986). Can group self-management mean a loss of personal control: triangulating on a paradox. Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 11, pp. 309-34. Manz, C.C. & Sims, H.P. (1986). Leading self-managed groups: a conceptual analysis of a paradox. Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 7, pp. 141-65. Manz, C.C. & Sims, H.P. (1987).Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 106-28. Michaels, R.E., Day, R.L. & Joachimsthaler, E.A. (1987). Role stress among industrial buyers: an integrative model. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 28-45. Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure of ‘unstructured’ decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 246-75. Mohr, L. & Bitner, M.J. (1995). Process factors in service delivery: what employee effort means to customers. In Swartz, T.A., Bowen, D.E. & Brown, S.W. (Eds). Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 4, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 91-117. Moran, E.T. & Volkwein, J.F. (1992). The cultural approach to the formation of organizational culture. Human Relations, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 19-47. Morris, J.H. & Sherman, J.D. (1981). Generalizability of an organizational commitment model. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 512-26. Mudrack, P.E. (1989). Group cohesiveness and productivity: a closer look. Human Relations, Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 771-85. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). NY: McGraw Hill. Nutt, P.C. (1993). The formulation processes and tactics used in organizational decision-making. Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 246-75. Nye, L.G. & Witt, L.A. (1993). Dimensionality and construct validity of the perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS). Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 821-9.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

35

O'Driscoll, M.R. & Evans, R. (1988). Organizational factors and perceptions of climate in three psychiatric units. Human Relations, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 371-88. Ostroff, C. (1993). The effects of climate and personal influence on individual behaviour and attitudes in organizations. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 56-91. Organ, D.W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 547-57. Parameswaran, R., Greenberg, B.A., & Bellenger, D.N. (1979). Measuring reliability: A comparison of alternative techniques. Journal of Marketing research, Vol. 16, pp. 18-25. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 107-42. Randall, M., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C.A. & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 159-74. Reichers, A.E. (1985). A review and re-conceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 465-76. Roadhes, L. & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 698-714. Robie, C., Johnson, K.M., Nilsen, D. & Hazucha, J.F. (2001). The right stuff: understanding cultural differences in leadership performance. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 639-49. Robinson, S.L. & Morrison, E.W. (1995). Psychological contracts and organizational citizenship behavior: the effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, pp. 289-98. Rousseau, D.M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 121-39. Rowntree, D. (1981). Statistics without tears. NY: Penguin Books. Schaubroeck, J. & Fink, L.S. (1998). Facilitating and inhibiting effects of job control and social support on stress outcomes and role behavior: a contingency model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 167-95. Schneider, B. (1975). Organisational climate. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 447-79. Schneider, B. & Snyder, R.A. (1975). Some relationships between job satisfaction and organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 318-28.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

36

Schneider, B. (1980). The service organization: climate is crucial. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 8, pp. 52-65. Schneider, B. & Bowen, D.E. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70, pp.423-33. Schneider, B. & Bowen, D.E. (1995). Winning the Service Game, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Schneider, B., White, S.S. & Paul M.C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: test of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 150-63. Schriesheim, C.A. & Stogdill, R.M. (1975). Differences in factor structure across three versions of the Ohio state leadership scales. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 189-206. Shore, L.M. & Tetrick, L.E. (1994). The psychological contracts as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In Cooper, C.L. & Rousseau, D.M. (Eds). Trends in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Shore, L.M. & Wayne, S.J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 774-80. Stinglhamber, F. & Vanderbergue, C. (2003). Organizational and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 251-70. Sundstrom, E., de Meuse, K.P. & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 120-33. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). NY: Harper Collins. Tannenbaum, S.I., Salas, E. & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1996). Promoting team effectiveness. In West, M.A. (Ed.). Handbook of Work Group Psychology, London: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 50329. Teague, G.B., Drake, R.E. & Ackerson, T.H. (1995). Evaluating use of continuous treatment teams for persons with mental illness and substance abuse. Psychiatric Services, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 689-95. Teas, R.K., (1983). Supervisory behavior, role stress, and the job satisfaction of industrial salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 84-91. Thomas, L. & Ganster, D.C. (1995), Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: a control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 6-15.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

37

Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M.& Liden, R.C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange: a social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-111. Young, M. (1991). Middle managers must be the drivers of service quality. Marketing News, Vol. 25 No. 1, p. 16. Zaccaro, S.J. & Dobbins, G.H. (1989). Contrasting group and organizational commitment: evidence for differences among multi-level attachments. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, pp. 267-73. Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L. (1990). Delivering Service Quality: Balancing Perceptions and Expectations. NY: Free Press. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 96-102.

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

38

Appendices The Questionnaire for the employees of British American Tobacco Are you willing to spend some time to answer the survey? We guarantee that your responses will be treated as strictly confidential. You are under no obligation to answer and you are free to terminate the interview at any time. Following questions will ask your opinions about the provided perceived organizational support, supervisor support, work climate & employee service quality in the context of “British American Tobacco Bangladesh”. Please circle one number per statement using the following scale: 1= Strongly Disagree

2= Disagree

3= Neutral

4=Agree

5= Strongly Agree

Perceived organizational support My organization values my contribution to its well-being My organization strongly considers my goals and values My organization cares about my opinions My organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work My organization tries to make my job as interesting as possible

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4

Supervisor support My supervisor is friendly and approachable My supervisor helps make my job more pleasant My supervisor treats all workers as his equals My supervisor looks out for the personal welfare of group members Work Climate My boss is flexible about how I accomplish my job objectives My boss is supportive of my ideas & ways of getting things done My boss gives me the authority to do my job as I see fit I can trust my boss to back me up on decisions I take in the field Employee Service Quality Providing prompt service Never being too busy to respond to my request Instilling confidence in me Adequate knowledge to answer my questions Courteousness of employee

5 5 5 5 5

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

Reliability of Perceived Organizational Support Case Processing Summary N Cases

Valid Excluded (a) Total

102

% 100.0

0

.0

102

100.0

a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

.782

4

Reliability of Supervisory Support Case Processing Summary N Cases

Valid Excluded (a) Total

102

% 100.0

0

.0

102

100.0

a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha .718

N of Items 4

Reliability of Work Climate Case Processing Summary N Cases

Valid Excluded (a) Total

102

% 100.0

0

.0

102

100.0

a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha .707

N of Items 4

39

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

40

Reliability of Employee Service Quality Case Processing Summary N Cases

Valid Excluded (a) Total

102

% 100.0

0

.0

102

100.0

a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

.801

5

Correlations Correlations

Per_org_sup

Pearson Correlation

Per_org_sup 1

Sig. (2-tailed) Super_sup

Work climate

Employee_severqual

Super_sup .409 **

Work climate .612 **

Employee_ severqual .581 **

.

.000

.000

.000

N

102

102

102

102

Pearson Correlation

.409 **

1

.604 **

.515 **

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.

.000

.000

N

102

102

102

102

Pearson Correlation

.612 **

.604 **

1

.782 **

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.

.000 102

N

102

102

102

Pearson Correlation

.581 **

.515 **

.782 **

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

.

N

102

102

102

102

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

41

Regression Variables Entered/Removeda Variables Entered

Model 1

Variables Removed

Work climate

.

2

Per_org_ sup

.

Method Stepwise (Criteria: Probabilit y-ofF-to-enter <= .050, Probabilit y-ofF-to-remo ve >= . 100). Stepwise (Criteria: Probabilit y-ofF-to-enter <= .050, Probabilit y-ofF-to-remo ve >= . 100).

a. Dependent Variable: Employee_severqual

Model Summary Change Statistics Model 1 2

R .782a .793b

R Square .612 .629

Adjusted R Square .608 .621

Std. Error of R Square the Estimate Change .34042 .612 .33471 .017

a. Predictors: (Constant), Work climate b. Predictors: (Constant), Work climate, Per_org_sup

F Change 157.895 4.441

df1 1 1

df2 100 99

Sig. F Change .000 .038

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY

ANOVA c Model 1

2

Regression

Sum of Squares 18.298

df 1

Mean Square 18.298 .116

Residual

11.589

100

Total

29.887

101

Regression

18.796

2

9.398

Residual

11.091

99

.112

Total

29.887

101

F 157.895

Sig. .000

83.885

.000

a

b

a. Predictors: (Constant), Work climate b. Predictors: (Constant), Work climate, Per_org_sup c. Dependent Variable: Employee_severqual

Coefficients

a

Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 2

(Constant)

B .634

Std. Error .297

Work climate

.840

.067

(Constant)

.453

.304

Work climate

.733

.083

Per_org_sup

.151

.072

Standardized Coefficients Beta

t 2.133

Sig. .035

12.566

.000

1.489

.140

.683

8.817

.000

.163

2.107

.038

.782

a. Dependent Variable: Employee_severqual

Excluded Variables

Model 1

Per_org_sup Super_sup

2

Super_sup

Beta In .163

a

c

t 2.107

Sig. .038

Partial Correlation .207

Collinearity Statistics Tolerance .625

.067

a

.850

.397

.085

.635

.057

b

.736

.464

.074

.632

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Work climate b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Work climate, Per_org_sup c. Dependent Variable: Employee_severqual

42