Process and Outcome Interdependency in Frontline ...

1

Process and Outcome Interdependency in Frontline Service Encounters

Zhenfeng Ma Assistant Professor of Marketing Faculty of Business and Information Technology, University of Ontario Institute of Technology Email: [email protected] Laurette Dubé Professor and James McGill Chair of Consumer and Lifestyle Psychology and Marketing, Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University Email: [email protected]

2

Abstract Although marketing researchers have emphasized the interactive nature of service encounters, there has been scant research regarding how dyadic behaviors in a service encounter are interrelated. We recognize two distinct forms of dyadic interdependency, namely process interdependency whereby one party’s behavior influences the other’s behavior, and outcome interdependency whereby the impact of one party’s behavior on service outcome is dependent upon the other’s behavior. Based on the Interpersonal Circumplex Model and its related concept of complementarity, we examined both forms of dyadic interdependency by directly observing provider-client interpersonal behaviors in a natural frontline service setting over an extended period of time. Findings on process interdependency indicated that dyadic behaviors elicited or inhibited each other largely in a complementary manner. Findings on outcome interdependency showed that complementary interactions between the provider and the client generally enhanced the client’s satisfaction through a mechanism of mutual enhancement, mutual mitigation, or enhancement-mitigation. In contrast, anticomplementary interactions generally dampened the client’s satisfaction through a mechanism of mutual aggravation, mutual inhibition, or aggravation-inhibition. Keywords: frontline service encounters, dyadic interdependency

3

Business transactions often involve frontline service encounters, that is, the face-to-face interactions between the clients and the frontline employees (‘providers’). The interactions between a shopper and a sales clerk, a diner and a restaurant waiter, and a customer and a bank teller are all examples of frontline service encounters. The quality of the interpersonal processes in a service encounter has significant impact on various service outcomes including clients’ satisfaction (Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990; Solomon et al. 1985). Because a frontline service encounter is a dyadic and interactive process, the provider and the client are interdependent in that each party’s activity and experience influence, and are influenced by, the other’s activity and experience. The notion of dyadic interdependency is not new to marketing researchers, who have emphasized the interactive nature of service encounters and viewed the provider and the client as co-creators of value (Neeli and Leone 2003; Solomon et al. 1985; Vargo and Lusch 2004; Weitz 1981). However, extant theorizing has not been informative on exactly how provider behavior and client behavior are interdependent. Although dyadic behaviors in a service encounter can be interrelated in different ways, prior research has treated dyadic interdependency primarily as a unitary construct without looking into its typology (Solomon et al. 1985). Moreover, the existing literature has been silent on the specific patterns of dyadic interdependency and their mechanisms. Because service encounters are purposive processes governed by shared scripts and social norms (Bitner, Booms, and Mohr 1994; Solomon et al. 1985; Surprenant and Solomon 1987), provider and client behaviors would be interrelated in a predictable manner and would therefore result in stable patterns of dyadic interdependency. Uncovering the various patterns could enhance the conceptual richness and predictive utility of dyadic interdependency. The theoretical development of dyadic interdependency is partly hindered by some methodological limitations. To date, empirical inquiry into dyadic interdependency has been extremely scarce, partly because provider role and client role have been examined separately (Solomon et al. 1985). Prior

4

research has investigated the effects of providers’ personality traits, abilities, motivation, communication styles, and specific behaviors (e.g., smiling and listening) on various service outcomes (Bitner 1990; Weitz 1981; Friedman and Churchill 1987; Soldow and Thomas 1984; Comer and Drollinger 1999). Researchers also examined the impact of clients’ own behaviors, such as complaining and emotional display (Menon and Dubé2000; Price, Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998). Although these lines of research have provided important insights into the individual roles of the provider and the client, their exclusive focus on one dyad member has seriously limited our insights into the interdependent nature of service encounters. Our understanding of dyadic interdependency is also limited by the measurement of interpersonal behavior. Because dyadic interdependency reflects the interpersonal contingencies that naturally unfold during provider-client interactions, the examination of dyadic interdependency requires a measurement protocol that can objectively quantify the within-process discrete behaviors of the dyad members. However, past research has measured the interpersonal aspects of service encounters primarily through retrospective reports (e.g., Williams and Spiro 1985; Friedman and Churchill 1987), which often capture the respondents' recollection of a dyad member’s general interaction styles rather than individual behaviors. To further our understanding of dyadic interdependency, a within-process measurement protocol that can objectively quantify the realtime dyadic behaviors would be necessary. In the present research, we propose that provider behavior and client behavior in a frontline service encounter are interrelated in two distinct forms, namely process interdependency and outcome interdependency. Based on the Interpersonal Circumflex Model and its related concept of complementarity, we identify predictable patterns of both forms of dyadic interdependency. Specifically, we examine how a party’s behavior elicits or inhibits the other’s behavior (process interdependency) and how the behaviors of both parties jointly influence the client’s satisfaction

5

(outcome interdependency). Different from prior research on service encounters (e.g., Williams and Spiro 1985; Friedman and Churchill 1987), we examine dyadic interdependency using a withinprocess, prospective design whereby both provider and client behaviors in a natural frontline service setting were directly observed and coded over an extended period of time.

Conceptual Background

Process Interdependency and Outcome Interdependency The service encounter is a form of social exchange in which the provider and the client interact with each other to achieve pre-defined outcomes (Solomon et al. 1985). Thus, service encounters have both process and outcome components (Mohr and Bitner 1995; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985). Broadly speaking, service outcome encompasses all results or consequences associated with the encounter, whether functional or experiential in nature. As a multi-faceted construct, service outcome can be operationalized either in functional (objective) terms such as timely delivery and correct diagnosis, or in subjective (attitudinal) terms such as evaluation and satisfaction. Some researchers also defined service outcome more narrowly as the functional results of the service transactions (e.g., correct diagnosis, the quality of a haircut) (Mohr and Bitner 1995; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985). The service outcome examined in the present study is clients’ satisfaction, which has been identified as a major success driver across diverse service industries (Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990; Cronin and Taylor 1992; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985). Service process refers to the manner in which the service transactions are accomplished. Although service process could encompass both operational procedures and interpersonal exchange, we are primarily interested in examining the provider-client interpersonal exchange in the present study.

6

Given the distinction between service process and outcome, two questions are central to our understanding of service encounters, namely how the interpersonal process unfolds such that each party’s behavior influences the other’s behavior, and how the behaviors of both parties jointly impact client satisfaction. These two questions pertain to different forms of dyadic interdependency, which we refer to as process interdependency and outcome interdependency, respectively. Process interdependency occurs when a party’s enactment of behavior influences, and is influenced by, the other’s behavior. For example, the friendly behavior of a restaurant waiter (e.g., complimenting) is likely to elicit friendly response (e.g., smiling or small social talk) and unlikely to elicit hostile behavior of the client. Outcome interdependency occurs when the impact of a party’s behavior on client satisfaction is dependent on the other’s behavior. For example, a restaurant waiter’s recommendations for alternative beverages could increase the client’s satisfaction, if the client is unsure of his/her choice and asked for advice. However, this provider behavior could also decrease the client’s satisfaction, if the client is confident of his/her choice and clearly indicated his/her preferences. Process interdependency and outcome interdependency partly stem from the purposive and rulebased nature of frontline service encounters. Providers and clients in a service encounter seek to fulfil both task-oriented and relationship-oriented goals (Solomon et al. 1985; Williams and Spiro 1985). Task-oriented goals pertain to the fulfilment of purposive and functional duties (e.g., timely order processing), whereas relationship-oriented goals pertain to the nurturance (or in rare cases, curtailment) of an affiliative connection. However, the goals in a service encounter cannot be accomplished by one party’s behavior. Rather, they are fulfilled through a process of mutual adaptation whereby each party adjusts to the other’s behavior according to shared interaction rules or social norms (Burgoon, Stern, and Dillman 1995; Neeli and Leone 2003; Solomon et al. 1985). Because of the goal-driven and rulebased nature of service encounters, provider and client behaviors would elicit or constrain each other in

7

a predictable manner and would therefore result in lawful patterns of process interdependency. Likewise, the frontline service encounter would also be characterized by stable patterns of outcome interdependency, because the impact of a party’s behavior on client satisfaction would be influenced by the degree to which the two parties’ behaviors jointly facilitate or retard the client’s goal attainment. Identifying the patterns of process and outcome interdependency requires a unified theoretical framework that makes provision for 1) the dyadic nature of service encounters, 2) the distinction between process interdependency and outcome interdependency, and 3) the predictability of both forms of interdependency. These criteria are well satisfied by the Interpersonal Circumplex Model (ICM) and its related concept of complementarity, which we detail below. The Interpersonal Circumplex Model (ICM) The ICM recognizes agency and communion as two fundamental human needs, with agency reflecting an individual’s need for mastery and control and communion reflecting the need for affiliation with others (Bakan, 1966; Wiggins 1991). According to the ICM, all interpersonal behaviors can be organized into a circle defined by agency and communion (Figure 1). Behaviors on the agency dimension range from submissiveness to dominance. Examples of dominant behaviors include voicing an opinion and asking others to do things (Moskowitz 1994). Submissive behaviors include giving in to others and avoiding being responsible. Some behaviors examined in the marketing domain, such as expert power behavior (Friedman and Churchill 1987) and control (Soldow and Thomas 1984), generally fall on the agency dimension. Behaviors on the communal dimension range from agreeableness to quarrelsomeness. Sample agreeable behaviors include smiling and praising others, whereas sample quarrelsome behaviors include criticizing and showing impatience (Moskowitz 1994). Specific behaviors or dispositions examined by marketing researchers, such as empathic listening (Comer and Drollinger 1999), interaction-oriented behavior (Williams and Spiro 1985), and

8

friendliness (Price and Arnould 1999; Weitz 1981), generally fall on the communal dimension. Note that the intermediate points on the ICM between the four traits can be defined to divide the interpersonal circle into segments. Although the ICM has several variants, which differ in the number of segments divided and the labels assigned to different polar coordinates, the quadrant model shown in Figure 1 is considered a parsimonious framework for examining interpersonal behaviors in various contexts (Tracey 1994). -----------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here -----------------------------------Because each behavior represents a combination of varying degrees of agency and communion, the enactment of a behavior or exposure to others’ behavior can either facilitate or impede the fulfilment of one’s agentic or communal needs. Specifically, the expression of dominance and agreeableness generally enhances one’s interaction enjoyment, as it satisfies one’s agentic and communal needs. Conversely, the expression of submissiveness and quarrelsomeness generally dampens one’s interaction experience, as it impedes the fulfilment of one’s agentic and communal needs (Moskowitz and Coté1995; Hall and Horgan 2003; Roos and Cohen 1987). Similarly, an individual’s exposure to others’ submissiveness and agreeableness generally enhances the individual’s satisfaction (Friedman and Churchill 1987; Hall and Horgan 2003), whereas exposure to others’ dominance and quarrelsomeness generally decreases satisfaction (Newton and Bane 2001; Buller and Buller 1987). However, the above-reviewed effects pertain to the basal effects of behaviors, that is, the average effects when holding constant the partner’s behavior. As discussed later, the net impact of a party’s behavior on interaction outcome is also contingent upon the other’s behavior. The Concept of Complementarity

9

An important proposition underlying the ICM is that each party’s behavior influences, and is influenced by, the other’s behavior. Thus, the ICM offers a useful basis for theorizing process interdependency. Patterns of process interdependency can be summarized by the principle of complementarity, which holds that every behavior conveys expectations regarding how others should respond. Dyadic interactions are complementary if the induced response fits the invitation implied by a behavior (Tracey 1994). Complementarity on the communal dimension is characterized by similarity. That is, agreeable behavior tends to invite agreeable response but inhibits quarrelsome response, whereas quarrelsome behavior tends to invite quarrelsome response but inhibits agreeable response. Complementarity on the agency dimension is characterized by reciprocity, that is, dominant behavior invite submissive response but constrains dominant response, whereas submissive behavior invites dominant response but inhibits submissive response (Kiesler 1983). Although dyadic interactions generally adhere to the principle of complementarity, the likelihood of complementarity can be influenced by intervening variables such as the interaction setting, personality traits, and the relative social rank of dyadic parties (Bluhm, Widiger, and Miele 1990; Moskowitz, Ho, and TurcotteTremblay 2007). Situational contingencies could result in patterns of interactions that are inconsistent with the complementary norm. An alternative category of dyadic patterns that is particularly pertinent to frontline service encounters is anticomplementary behaviors, which occur when two parties act in ways that are opposite to the complementary norm, for example, when both parties act submissively. The concept of complementarity also offers a useful perspective for examining outcome interdependency in a frontline service encounter, because research has shown that dyadic complementarity (or anticomplementarity) can significantly influence the interaction outcome. Compared with alternative dyadic patterns, complementary interactions generally enhance relationship harmony or work performance (Kiesler 1983; Tracey 1994; Tiedens and Fragale 2003; Dryer and

10

Horowitz 1997; Horowitz et al. 1991). In contrast, anticomplementary interactions generally result in higher relationship stress and less satisfying interaction outcome (Horowitz et al. 1991; Kiesler 1983). However, prior research on complementarity has been conducted mainly in lab settings, whereas research based on naturalistic contexts is scarce. Moreover, because prior research has focused on comparing the effect of complementary versus anticomplementary behaviors, the underlying mechanisms for the effects of complementarity or anticomplementarity remain unclear. The present study seeks to build upon this literature by examining the mechanisms that underlie the effects of complementarity and anticomplementarity in a natural service encounter.

Hypotheses

Process Interdependency As discussed earlier, dyadic interactions in a frontline service encounter are governed by shared goals and social norms. Because complementarity is a universally shared social norm and instrumental for fulfilling task-oriented and relationship-oriented goals, process interdependency would generally conform to the complementary norm. Complementarity on the communal dimension is particularly vital for fulfilling relationship-oriented goals (Bluhm, Widiger, and Miele 1990; Moskowitz 1994). In general, the provider and the client need to maintain a positive relationship with each other (Price and Arnould 1999; Weitz 1981). Because agreeable behavior signals the intention to maintain affiliative connections with others, the partner would respond with agreeable behavior to foster the intended connections, and refrain from quarrelsome behavior to avoid straining the relationship. However, when a party feels the need to terminate affiliative connections with the other by acting in a quarrelsome manner (e.g., showing impatience), the partner would respond with affiliation-denying (quarrelsome)

11

behavior and unlikely to respond with affiliation-supporting (agreeable) behavior. We thus have the following hypothesis on process interdependency on the communal dimension: H1: In a frontline service encounter, a party’s agreeable (quarrelsome) behavior elicits agreeable (quarrelsome) response and inhibits quarrelsome (agreeable) response from the other. Dyad members also need to complement each other on the agency dimension, because agentic complementarity is necessary for fulfilling task-oriented goals. Even the simple task of ordering meals in a restaurant requires complementary behavior of the client (e.g., stating preferences) and the provider (e.g., doing what has been requested) on the agency dimension. When a party expresses submissiveness (e.g., requesting approval), the other would need to act dominantly (e.g., giving permission) in order for the service transactions to unfold smoothly. However, if the partner also acts submissively (e.g., waiting for the other to act), it would be difficult to fulfil the service transactions. Thus, a party’s submissive behavior would elicit dominant response but inhibit submissive response from the other. Similarly, when a party acts dominantly (e.g., making a request), the other’s submissive response (e.g., going along with the request) would help fulfil the service transactions. Thus, a party’s dominant behavior would elicit the other’s submissive behavior. However, a party’s dominant behavior in a frontline service encounter would also elicit, rather than constrain, the other’s dominant response. This anticomplementary pattern of mutual dominance stems from dyad members’ status perceptions in a frontline service encounter. Unlike some professional service encounters (e.g., doctor-patient encounters), frontline service encounters are often characterized by small and ambiguous status difference between dyad members. On the one hand, the providers may view themselves as the primary agents of service delivery, thereby assuming status superiority over the clients. On the other hand, as the clients in a frontline service encounter are often familiar with the service and have well-defined preferences, they may view themselves as equally knowledgeable, if not more so, regarding how the

12

service should be delivered. The self-superiority bias held by dyad parties would cause each party to perceive him/herself as more legitimate to exert control. Consequently, each party may bid for control by acting dominantly to the other’s dominant behavior. For example, instead of going along with the other’s suggestions, a dyad member may request an alternative course of action. We thus have the following hypothesis on process interdependency on the agency dimension: H2: In a frontline service encounter, a party’s submissive behavior elicits dominant behavior and inhibits submissive behavior from the other, whereas a party’s dominant behavior elicits both dominant and submissive behaviors from the other. Outcome Interdependency As discussed previously, a provider behavior or a client behavior often has a basal (or average) effect on the client’s service experience, because the client’s enactment of a behavior or exposure to the provider’s behavior generally enhances or dampens the client’s agentic or communal needs. However, the net impact of a behavior on client satisfaction depends not only on the basal effect of the behavior but also on the manner in which the partner reacts to the behavior. This expectation is based on the goal-driven nature of service encounters. As discussed earlier, the provider and the client seek to fulfil both task-oriented and relationship-oriented goals through a process of mutual adaptation. In a sense, each behavior enacted by the client conveys the client’s interaction goals, the fulfilment of which depends on the provider’s reactions. Because interpersonal complementarity is vital for accomplishing the client’s interaction goals, the net impact of a party’s behavior on the client’s goal attainment (and thereby satisfaction) would be influenced by the partner’s complementary (or anticomplementary) behaviors and may therefore deviate from the basal effect of the behavior. Cohen et al. (2003, p. 285-286) suggests that a useful way to examine the joint effect of two variables is to compare the direction of their interactive effect relative to the direction of the basal

13

effect of each variable. When two variables have an interactive effect, the effect of one variable can be strengthened, weakened, or even reversed relative to its basal effect by the other variable. Thus, two variables could jointly influence the outcome through various mechanisms, depending on the direction of their interactive effect and the direction of the basal effects (Cohen et al. 2003). Because dyadic complementarity is pivotal for fulfilling the client’s interaction gaols, the effect of a dyad party’s behavior on client satisfaction could move either in the same or in the opposite direction of the basal effect of the behavior, depending on the partner’s complementary (or anticomplementary) reactions. For a behavior that has a positive basal effect on client satisfaction, such an effect can be either enhanced or inhibited, depending on how well the partner complements the behavior. Likewise, for a behavior that has a negative basal effect, such an effect can be either mitigated or aggravated by the partner’s behaviors. Thus, dyadic behaviors in a frontline service encounter could produce either positive or negative synergy through various mechanisms of outcome interdependency. Positive synergy can result from one of three mechanisms, namely mutual enhancement, mutual mitigation, and enhancement-mitigation. Mutual enhancement occurs when two parties’ behaviors both have positive basal effects on client satisfaction and the positive effect of each party’s behavior intensifies with the other’s behavior. Mutual mitigation occurs when two parties’ behaviors both have negative basal effects and the negative effect of each party’s behavior decreases with the other’s behavior. Enhancement-mitigation occurs when one party's behavior has a positive basal effect and the other's behavior has a negative basal effect, yet the fusion of both parties increases the first party’s positive effect and decreases the second party's negative impact. Similarly, negative synergy can stem from one of three mechanisms, namely mutual aggravation, mutual inhibition, and aggravation-inhibition. Mutual aggravation occurs when two behaviors that both have negative basal effects intensify each other's negative effect. Mutual inhibition occurs when two behaviors that both have positive basal

14

effects mutually inhibit each other's positive effect. Aggravation-inhibition is a situation in which both the aggravation of a negative effect and the inhibition of a positive effect occur. Based on the foregoing discussion, we next detail our hypotheses about outcome interdependency and its underlying mechanisms on the two dimensions of the ICM. The agency dimension. Client’s submissive behavior generally has a negative basal effect on their service experience, because such behavior generally impedes the clients’ agentic needs. However, the fulfilment of task-oriented goals in a frontline service encounter often requires the client to act submissively (e.g., seeking advice or accepting recommendations). When expressing submissiveness, the client generally expects the provider to act dominantly (e.g., giving advice) in order to accomplish the service transactions. However, if the provider also acts submissively (e.g., waiting for the client to act), the client’s task-oriented goals will be impeded. We expect that the anticomplementary pattern of mutual submissiveness would dampen client satisfaction through an inhibition-aggravation mechanism. On the one hand, although the provider’s submissive behavior generally supports the client’s agency, its agency-supporting utility will be inhibited because the client has low need for agency when acting submissively. On the other hand, the potential negative impact of the client’s own submissive behavior on the client’s service experience would intensify because the client’s interaction goals associated with the submissive behavior are foiled by the provider’s submissive response. H3: The co-occurrence of provider submissive behavior and client submissive behavior negatively impacts the client’s satisfaction through a mechanism of inhibition-aggravation. Provider submissive behavior and client dominant behavior both tend to have positive basal effects on client satisfaction, because both behaviors tend to support the client’s agency. The fusion of the two behaviors could further increase client satisfaction through a mechanism of mutual enhancement. The client’s dominant behavior conveys the client’s need for status and for exerting control over the service

15

transactions. Because the clients’ need for status and control conveyed by their dominant behavior is best satisfied by the providers’ submissive behavior, the potential positive effect of client dominance on satisfaction would increase with provider submissiveness. Conversely, the potential positive effect of provider submissive behavior on client satisfaction would also increase with client dominance, because the agency-supporting and goal-facilitating utility of provider submissive behavior to the client would be greater the more the client conveys the need for status and control by acting dominantly. H4: The co-occurrence of provider submissive behavior and client dominant behavior positively impacts the client’s satisfaction through a mechanism of mutual enhancement. Client submissive behavior and provider dominant behavior both tend to have negative basal effects on client satisfaction because they both tend to weaken the client’s agency. However, when enacted together, the two behaviors result in complementary interactions that would enhance client satisfaction through a mechanism of mutual mitigation. When acting submissively, clients convey their willingness to concede control and expect the providers to take the lead (i.e., to be dominant). Thus, the potential negative basal impact of client submissiveness on client satisfaction would be mitigated because the client’s task-oriented goals are satisfied by the provider’s dominant behavior. Conversely, the potential negative impact of provider dominant behavior on client satisfaction would also be mitigated because such behavior helps fulfil the client’s task-oriented goals. H5: The co-occurrence of provider dominant behavior and client submissive behavior positively impacts the client’s satisfaction through a mechanism of mutual mitigation. However, when both parties engage concurrently in dominant behaviors, the resulting anticomplementary interactions could dampen the client satisfaction through an aggravation-inhibition mechanism. On the one hand, the potential negative basal impact of provider dominant behavior on client satisfaction would intensify, because such behavior obstructs the client’s need for status and

16

control conveyed by the client’s own dominance. On the other hand, the potential positive basal effect of the client’s dominant behavior would be inhibited because the client’s request for status and control conveyed by his/her dominant behavior are impeded by the provider’s expression of dominance. H6: The co-occurrence of provider dominant behavior and client dominant behavior negatively impacts the client’s satisfaction through a mechanism of aggravation-inhibition. The communal dimension. The client’s agreeable behavior generally satisfies the client’s communal needs and is necessary for accomplishing the client’s affiliative goals. However, the potential positive effect of client agreeable behavior could be inhibited by the provider’s quarrelsome response, because such response conveys the provider’s intention to curtail affiliations and would therefore obstruct the affiliative goals associated with the client’s agreeable behavior. Conversely, the generally negative impact of provider quarrelsome behavior on client satisfaction would intensify with the client’s agreeable behavior, because the relationship-dampening effect of provider quarrelsomeness would be more deleterious when the client conveys high need for affiliation by acting agreeably. Thus, the fusion of client agreeableness and provider quarrelsomeness would decrease the client satisfaction through a mechanism of aggravation-inhibition. H7: The co-occurrence of provider quarrelsome behavior and client agreeable behavior negatively impacts the client’s satisfaction through a mechanism of aggravation-inhibition. On average, both client quarrelsome behavior and provider quarrelsome behavior tend to decrease the client’s service experience, as they both tend to impede the client’s communal needs. However, the total negative impact of mutual quarrelsomeness may not increase linearly with each party’s quarrelsomeness. When the client’s quarrelsomeness reaches a high level, he/she conveys the intention to curtail affiliations with the provider. Such an interaction goal would be satisfied by the partner’s quarrelsome behavior. As long as the provider meets such an interaction goal by acting quarrelsomely,

17

the negative impact of the client’s quarrelsomeness on client satisfaction could be temporarily mitigated. Conversely, when the provider exhibits a high level of quarrelsomeness, the client’s increased quarrelsome behavior may help the client feel ‘equalized’ with the provider, thereby temporarily mitigating the negative impact of provider quarrelsome behavior. We thus hypothesize: H8: When provider quarrelsome behavior and client quarrelsome behavior increase concurrently, the total negative impact of both parties’ quarrelsome behaviors on client satisfaction is moderated through a mechanism of mutual mitigation. When both parties engage in agreeable behavior, the resulting complementary pattern would enhance the client’s satisfaction through a mechanism of mutual enhancement. Since the client’s agreeable behavior signals the client’s affiliative goals, the interactions would be more satisfying to the client the more the provider responds with affiliation-supporting (i.e. agreeable) behavior. Thus, the positive effect of client agreeable behavior on client satisfaction would increase with provider agreeable behavior. Likewise, the potential positive effect of provider agreeable behavior would also increase with client agreeable behavior. This is because the provider’s affiliative gestures would be more satisfying to the client the more the client conveys the need for affiliation by acting agreeably. H9: The co-occurrence of provider agreeable behavior and client agreeable behavior positively impacts the client’s satisfaction through a mechanism of mutual enhancement. Method

We tested the hypotheses using a prospective, within-episode design whereby data on interpersonal behaviors and subsequent client satisfaction were collected over a series of service episodes in a natural frontline service setting. This method strengthens causal inferences because it establishes temporal precedence between the interpersonal process and service outcome and at the same time permits

18

aggregation of multiple service episodes related to a client (Brown and Moskowitz 1997). Interpersonal behaviors were measured through direct observation, whereas client satisfaction was measured by clients’ self-reports1. Direct observation has several advantages for collecting interpersonal data, compared with retrospective verbal reports used in prior research. First, this method reduces measurement confounds and facilitates the distinction between process data and outcome data. Prior research has shown that people’s perceptions of interpersonal behaviors could be biased by their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the interactions (Dryer and Horowitz 1997). Thus, process data could be confounded with outcome data if both sets of data were obtained from dyad parties’ subjective reports. Second, while retrospective reports often capture recollections of dyad members’ interaction styles, direct observation facilitates the examination of discrete behavior, which is the focal level of analysis for dyadic interdependency. Our study design requires a field setting that allows observation in a reliable yet unobtrusive manner over a sufficient number of service episodes. With these criteria, we chose the dining room of a geriatric health care facility in Eastern Canada as the study setting. Clients in this facility stay for 4 weeks on average and eat their meals in a common dining room. Standard portions of meals pre-selected by the clients are served by a team of service employees. Measures of interpersonal behaviors and client satisfaction were obtained for all three meals within a day, every other day of clients’ stay, until the client checks out or for a maximum of six weeks. Each meal is considered a service episode, which on average lasted 32 minutes. A total of 1477 episodes were observed, averaging 46.80 ( 26.80) episodes per client. Participants Clients were elderly individuals admitted into the facility for rehabilitation from health problems such as hip fractures. To ensure non-clinical status at both the cognitive and emotional levels, participants must have scores above 23 on the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE; Folstein et al.

19

1975) and below 9 on the Geriatric Depression Style (GDS; Yesavage et al. 1983). Of the 83 eligible clients admitted to the facility over the study period, 32 completed the study (21 females and 11 males; mean age: 78.80  6.50; all Caucasians), resulting in a participation rate of 39%. Chief among the reasons for declining participation were unwillingness to eat meals in the dining room, concurrent enrollment in other research projects, and extended length of participation period. The eligible individuals who declined to participate did not differ from the participants in terms of the screening criteria. The team of providers consisted of 25 service employees (21 females and 4 males), who worked on a rotating basis to provide meal services. Typically only one provider interacted with a client during a service episode. However, in some service episodes, different providers interacted with the same client. On average, 1.12 providers (SD = .95) interacted with a client during an episode. The data collection protocol was approved by the institute’s Research Ethics Committee. Provider and client participants were informed that their interactions would be observed by trained observers during the study period and that the data would be used solely for research purposes. Measures of Interpersonal Behavior Provider and client verbal and nonverbal behaviors were observed and coded by trained observers over a series of two-minute observation intervals. Observers were seated approximately two meters away from participants. This point of observation was selected to minimize the obtrusiveness of the observers’ presence while still being within the hearing range of participants. The observers were instructed to exercise great care in making the data collection as unobtrusive as possible. Either one or two observers were present during an episode and a maximum of two clients could be observed by an observer. Within each episode, an average of 4.40 observation intervals was recorded for a client. Dyadic behaviors were coded using the Social Behavior Inventory (SBI) (Moskowitz 1994), which consists of four subscales corresponding to the four interpersonal domains on the ICM. Dominance was

20

sampled through such items as “Expressed an opinion” and “Made a suggestion.” Submissiveness was measured by items such as “Did not state own views,” and “Gave in.” Examples of agreeable behavior include “Expressed affection with words or gestures.” Quarrelsome behavior is represented by items such as “Made a sarcastic comment.” The SBI has consistently demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity (Moskowitz 1994; Moskowitz and Coté1995). To minimize habitual response due to repeated use of the same form, three equivalent coding forms were rotated in a counterbalanced order over the 3 meal episodes within a day. Each form had a selection of 16 items (4 items for each interpersonal domain). The full set of SBI items used in the present study is shown in the Appendix. Each observer received 30 hours of training that involved detailed discussion of all coding items and extensive coding practice using videos of client-provider exchanges filmed in the actual setting. When training ended, inter-observer reliability reached 85% to 95%. As an additional check on inter-observer reliability, a total of 36 episodes were double-coded by two observers. The average inter-observer agreement over the 36 episodes ranged from .85 to .90 across all interpersonal domains. Despite the reliability of the data, it seemed likely that there were differences in rates of checking items among the observers. To minimize differences among observers, we used ‘ipsative’ frequency scores (Cunningham et al. 1997; Moskowitz 1994). An ipsatized score was constructed by subtracting the mean of all scale scores from each scale score. For example, the ipsative score for dominance is: dominance score – (sum of four scale scores)/4. Thus, an ipsative scale score reflects the frequency with which a behavior was endorsed after adjusting for the general rate of endorsement in an episode. Measures of Client Satisfaction We measured client satisfaction at the end of each service episode, using a three-item semantic scale. Specifically, clients indicated the extent to which they (1) were satisfied with the personal interactions with the providers, (2) liked the attitude of the providers, and (3) were satisfied with the service

21

received. To minimize client burden, all satisfaction measures were obtained using a 15-cm visual analogue with a sliding rule. Clients moved the sliding rule from “not at all” (= 0) to “very much” (= 15) to reflect their current level of satisfaction. Note that the first two items focus on client satisfaction with the personal interactions and the third one reflects clients’ overall satisfaction with the service transactions. Thus, all three measures tap into the subjective (or attitudinal) dimension of service outcome. Factor analysis on the three items yielded a single factor of satisfaction, which accounted for 74% of total variance. Given the satisfactory internal consistency (α = .84), an average of the three items was used as an index of satisfaction.

Analyses and Results

Preliminary Analyses We first assessed the reliability of the four interpersonal subscales using the corresponding item scores for each subscale. Because the frequency scores did not correlate with the coding form, we assessed reliability using pooled data across forms. Reliability was satisfactory for all subscales (dominance,  = .85; submissiveness,  = .70; agreeableness,  = .77; quarrelsomeness,  = .62). Thus, all subscales were indexed by the average scores of the corresponding items. Table 1 shows the mean frequency of provider and client behaviors for each subscale. These scores were calculated by dividing the total frequency of each subscale for the entire study period by the total number of observation intervals. Dominant behavior was the most frequently enacted behavior for both parties, followed by agreeable behavior and submissive behavior. Quarrelsome behavior was the least frequently enacted. Simple t-tests showed that providers and clients were equally likely to engage in dominant and

22

submissive behaviors. However, the providers engaged more frequently in agreeable behavior and less frequently in quarrelsome behavior than the clients. ------------------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here -----------------------------------------Testing Process Interdependency We examined the patterns of process interdependency using the correlations between provider behavior and client behavior. Table 2 presents the correlation matrix on the agency and communal dimensions. ----------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here ---------------------------------Because our primary purpose is to examine the complementary patterns of dyadic behaviors, we focus on the correlations between provider and client behaviors within each dimension (shown in bold type in Table 2). A positive correlation coefficient in Table 2 indicates that one party’s behavior tends to elicit the other’s behavior, whereas a negative correlation indicates that one party’s behavior tends to inhibit the other’s behavior. On the communal dimension, a party’s agreeable behavior elicits the other’s agreeable behavior, as shown by the positive correlation between provider and client agreeable behaviors (r = .50). Likewise, one party’s quarrelsome behavior elicits the other’s quarrelsome behavior, as indicated by the positive correlation between provider quarrelsomeness and client quarrelsomeness (r = .23). In contrast, one party’s agreeable behavior inhibits the other’s quarrelsome behavior, and vice versa, as shown by the negative correlation between provider agreeableness and client quarrelsomeness (r = – .26), and between provider quarrelsomeness and client agreeableness (r = – .10). Thus, consistent with H1, a party’s agreeable behavior in a frontline service encounter elicits agreeable response but inhibits quarrelsome response, whereas a party’s quarrelsome behavior elicits quarrelsome response but inhibits agreeable response.

23

On the agency dimension, a person’s submissive behavior elicits the other’s dominant behavior, and vice versa, as shown by the positive correlation between client submissiveness and provider dominance (r = .26), and between provider submissiveness and client dominance (r = .14). In contrast, a person’s submissive behavior inhibits the other’s submissive behavior, as shown by the negative correlation between the dyads’ submissive behaviors (r = .17). However, the correlation between provider dominance and client dominance is positive (r = .15), suggesting that a party’s dominant behavior tends to elicit, rather than inhibit, the other’s dominant behavior. This anticomplementary pattern is consistent with our expectation based on the status perceptions in frontline service encounters. Thus, consistent with H2, a party’s submissive behavior elicits dominant response but inhibits submissive response, whereas a party’s dominant behavior elicits both dominant and submissive responses. The cross-dimension correlations between dyadic behaviors are also noteworthy, although they are not central to our research objectives. The negative correlations between provider dominance and client quarrelsomeness (r = – .19) and between client dominance and provider quarrelsomeness (r = – .17) suggest that one party’s dominance tends to inhibit the other’s quarrelsomeness, and vice versa. Also notably, both types of provider behaviors on the agency dimension tend to inhibit clients’ agreeableness (and vice versa), as shown by the negative correlations between provider dominance and client agreeableness (r = – .21), and between provider submissiveness and client agreeableness (r = – .21). Finally, provider submissiveness and client quarrelsomeness tend to elicit each other (r = .20). Testing Outcome Interdependency Analytical strategy. We have hypothesized that the impact of a party’s behavior on client satisfaction depends on the partner’s behavior (H3 through H9). We tested these hypotheses using the multilevel modeling technique (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). Preliminary analysis based on an unconditional mean model showed considerable clustering of satisfaction within clients (intraclass correlation

24

coefficient ρ = .36), suggesting that the multilevel modeling approach is appropriate because it captures both between- and within-client variance in client satisfaction. We tested a two-level model, in which service episodes were treated as the level-one unit and clients the level-two unit. The level-one predictors include: 1) the four provider behaviors and the four client behaviors, which captured the basal effects of behaviors; and 2) the products of provider behavior and client behavior, which captured the joint (interaction) effects of behaviors. Central to our hypotheses testing, the following four interaction effects on the agency dimension were tested: (1) provider dominance × client dominance, (2) provider dominance × client submissiveness, (3) provider submissiveness × client dominance, and (4) provider submissiveness × client submissiveness. The following four interaction effects on the communal dimension were tested: (1) provider agreeableness × client agreeableness, (2) provider agreeableness × client quarrelsomeness, (3) provider quarrelsomeness × client agreeableness, and (4) provider quarrelsomeness × client quarrelsomeness. We initially also included the interactions between behaviors from different dimensions (e.g. provider dominance × client agreeableness). Since none of those interactions were significant, they were excluded from the final model. Both provider behavior and client behavior were mean-centered to minimize multicollinearity. Because a client interacted with several providers during some episodes, we also incorporated in the level-one model a series of dummy indicators of providers to capture the variance associated with the providers (Raudenbush 1993). We initially specified all level-one predictors as random effects. Since none of the interaction effects or the effects of provider dummies varied across clients (based on the Wald tests of the covariance parameter estimates), we opted for a more parsimonious model that treated the provider-client interaction terms and the provider dummies as fixed effects. Client gender and age were specified as the level-two covariates. Mathematically, the following model was tested: (i) The Level-one Model

25

Yij = π0j + ∑πpjIpij + ∑πmjPmij + ∑πnjCnij + ∑πkjPmijCnij + eij (ii) The Level-two Model π0j = β00 + β01(client age) + β02(client gender) + u0j πpj = βp0 + βp1(client age) + βp2(client gender) πmj = βm0 + βm1(client age) + βm2(client gender) + umj πnj = βn0 + βn1(client age) + βn2(client gender) + unj πkj = βk0 + βk1(client age) + βk2(client gender) In the level-one model, Yij represents satisfaction of client j in episode i. π0j is the intercept corresponding to client j, and eij is the residual associated with client j and episode i. ∑πpjIpij (p = 24) represents the vector of the provider dummies. ∑πmjPmij (m = 4) is the vector of parameter estimates for the simple (basal) effects of the four provider behaviors, whereas ∑πnjCnij (n = 4) represents the simple effects of the four client behaviors. Because all behaviors were mean-centered, the simple effect of a behavior reflects the effect of that behavior when all other behaviors were at their mean levels (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). ∑πkjPmijCnij (k = 8) denotes the vector of the parameter estimates for the eight interaction terms between provider behavior and client behavior. By the above model specification, positive parameter estimates of the interaction terms reflect one of the dyadic patterns that enhance service outcome, namely mutual enhancement, mutual mitigation, or enhancementmitigation. Conversely, a negative parameter estimate indicates one of the interaction patterns that dampen service outcomes, namely mutual aggravation, mutual inhibition, or aggravation-inhibition. The model was tested using the SAS MIXED procedure (version 8). All fixed effects were estimated using the maximum likelihood method. We tested several covariance structures for the random effects, including the unrestricted and the first-order autoregressive structures. Since all structures yielded essentially the same parameter estimates, we report the results based on the unrestricted structure.

26

Table 3 presents the parameter estimates for the fixed effects. Since the estimates for the provider dummies reflected only idiosyncratic effects, they were omitted from Table 3 to ease presentation. -----------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here ------------------------------------Table 3 shows that clients’ age had a positive main effect on satisfaction (β = .04, p < .001). There was no main effect of gender. Neither gender nor age interacted with provider or client behaviors (ps > .10). On the agency dimension, provider submissive behavior had a positive simple effect on satisfaction (β = .28, p < .05), whereas client submissive behavior had a negative simple effect (β = – .23, p < .05). These simple effects suggest that holding other behaviors at mean levels, provider submissiveness generally enhanced client satisfaction, whereas client submissiveness dampened satisfaction. On the communal dimension, both provider quarrelsome behavior and client quarrelsome behavior showed negative simple effects (β = – .49 and β = – .25, respectively, ps < .05). More importantly, several interaction terms between provider behavior and client behavior on both dimensions were significant, providing initial support for the existence of outcome interdependency. Below we detail our analyses of these interaction effects, separately for each dimension. The agency dimension. All four interaction terms on the agency dimension were significant and in the expected direction. The interaction between provider submissiveness and client submissiveness was negative, providing initial support for the hypothesized inhibition-aggravation mechanism (H3). The interaction between provider submissiveness and client dominance is positive, providing initial support for the mutual enhancement relationship (H4). The positive interaction between provider dominance and client submissiveness, and the negative interaction between provider dominance and client dominance provided initial support for the mutual mitigation and aggravation-inhibition mechanisms, respectively (H5 and H6). To gain further insights into these interaction effects, for each interaction

27

term we estimated the effect of one party’s behavior at the low, medium, and high levels of the other’s behavior. We defined the low, medium, and high levels of behavior as one standard deviation below, at, and one standard deviation above, the mean frequency of behavior, respectively (Jaccard and Turisi 2003, p29-32). The resulting parameter estimates for each interaction term are presented in Table 4(a). ------------------------------------------------Insert Table 4(a) about here ------------------------------------------------For the negative interaction between provider submissive behavior and client submissive behavior, Table 4(a) (upper panel) shows that the positive effect of provider submissive behavior on client satisfaction decreased (from β = .30 to n.s.) as client submissive behavior increased. Conversely, the negative impact of client submissive behavior intensified (from n.s. to β = – .48) as provider submissive behavior increased (lower panel of Table 4(a)). These findings suggest that client submissiveness inhibited the potential positive effect of provider submissiveness, whereas provider submissiveness aggravated the negative impact of client submissiveness. Thus, the hypothesized inhibition-aggravation mechanism (H3) is supported. Figure 2(a) is a surface plot that illustrates this interactive mechanism. The curved (rather than smooth) surface in this figure indicates an interaction effect between provider submissiveness and provider submissiveness. As provider submissiveness increases, the effect of client submissiveness (see the series of front-back lines) became increasingly negative. As client submissiveness increases, the effect of provider submissiveness (see the series of right-left lines) changed from positive to negative. For the positive interaction between provider submissiveness and client dominance, Table 4(a) (upper panel) shows that the effect of provider submissiveness became increasingly positive (from n.s. to β = .32) as client dominance increased. Conversely, the impact of client dominance was reversed from a negative impact (β = .22) to a borderline positive effect (β = .18) as provider submissive

28

behavior increased (lower panel of Table 4(a)). Thus, consistent with H4, provider submissiveness and client dominance mutually enhanced each other’s positive impact on client satisfaction. -----------------------------------------------Insert Figure 2(a) and 2(b) about here ------------------------------------------------

Similar analysis of the positive interaction between provider dominance and client submissiveness indicates that the negative impact of provider dominant behavior was reversed (from β = –.24 to β = .21) as client submissive behavior increased from low to high. Conversely, the negative impact of client submissive behavior was mitigated (from β = –.39 to n.s.) as provider dominant behavior increased. Thus, consistent with H5, client submissiveness and provider dominance mutually mitigated each other’s negative impact on client satisfaction. Finally, an examination of the negative interaction between provider dominance and client dominance suggests that the impact of provider dominant behavior became increasingly negative (from n.s. to β = –.13) with the increase of client dominant behavior. Conversely, the effect of client dominant behavior became increasingly negative with the increase of provider dominant behavior (from n.s. to β = –.12). Thus, consistent with H6, provider dominant behavior and client dominant behavior mutually aggravated each other’s negative influence on clients’ satisfaction. The communal dimension. On the communal dimension, there emerged a negative interaction between provider quarrelsomeness and client agreeableness (β = –.30, p