The influence of culture on perceptions of service employee behavior

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm

The influence of culture on perceptions of service employee behavior Mikyoung Kong and Giri Jogaratnam

Perceptions of employee behavior 275

Hotel and Restaurant Management, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of the study is to explore and compare customer perceptions of service encounter behavior in the USA and the Republic of Korea and to identify the relationship of the underlying behavioral dimensions to customer satisfaction. Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire was designed to collect data in the USA and Korea. Exploratory factor analysis was employed to extract the most distinct set of behavioral dimensions underlying each culture. Predictive validity was examined using correlations and regression analysis. Findings – Key differences were found between US and Korean restaurant customers’ perceptions of wait-staff behavior and their impact on performance. While personalization was a significant predictor of satisfaction in the US sample, concern was a significant predictor for the Koreans. Courtesy and civility were important to both samples. Practical implications – Customer satisfaction is strongly influenced by employee behavior. To ensure success in international markets, service providers should recognize and understand the differences that potentially exist based on nationality and culture. Resources allocation decisions pertaining to training and service provision should be designed to effectively respond to local customer needs. Originality/value – Previous research seeking to explain customer satisfaction has for the most part overlooked the interaction between the customer and the service provider. This research extends previous work by examining cross-cultural differences and intends to provide a better understanding of restaurant customers in the USA and Korea, as well as to enable restaurant operators and managers to better service their clientele in the global marketplace. Keywords Cross-cultural management, Customer satisfaction, Service levels, Employee behaviour, Food service, Restaurants Paper type Research paper

Introduction The service encounter is an important component of the service quality construct (Raajpoot, 2004; Imrie et al., 2002) and involves critical moments of truth where customers often develop indelible impressions of the firm (Bitner et al., 2000). Yet, there has been little effort to conceptualize and assess the behavioral aspects of encounters (Malhotra et al., 1994). Previous research seeking to explain customer satisfaction has primarily focused on the customer expectation-disconfirmation paradigm, while for the most part overlooking the interaction between the customer and the provider in determining customer satisfaction (Bianchi, 2001; Oliver, 1993). Moreover, recent studies suggest that culture may play a critical role in determining how consumers evaluate the quality of a service (Liu et al., 2001; Winsted, 1997, 1999; Imrie et al., 2002, Furrer et al., 2000). Even though aspects of service quality have been examined there is

Managing Service Quality Vol. 17 No. 3, 2007 pp. 275-297 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0960-4529 DOI 10.1108/09604520710744308

MSQ 17,3

276

a dearth of literature examining cross-cultural differences in the service exchange relationship, especially as it pertains to the interaction between customer and provider, and subsequent satisfaction (Bianchi, 2001; Donthu and Yoo, 1998; Woodruff, 1997; Mattila and Choi, 2006; Hopkins et al., 2005; Laroche et al., 2005). The SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988) provides the most accepted and most used conceptualization of service quality. Yet, replications in non-western cultures have failed to validate its dimensional structure (Akan, 1995; Lam, 1995, 1997; Jabnoun and Khalifa, 2005). Recent studies have also found that consumers in different countries evaluate service encounter quality along dimensions not captured by SERVQUAL (Winsted, 1997, 1999; Imrie et al., 2000, 2002, Witkowski and Wolfinbarger, 2002). Researchers have also argued that consumers in different countries assign different meanings to existing SERVQUAL dimensions (Donthu and Yoo, 1998; Mattila, 1999b, Furrer et al., 2000). Moreover, due to cultural differences, consumers in different countries may differently experience service encounters even in the same type of restaurant. Research on the impact of culture on customer perceptions of service quality have found that attempts to adopt global service standards may be ill advised and without merit. (e.g. Winsted, 1997; Kim and Jin, 2002; Witkowski and Wolfinbarger, 2000; Donthu and Yoo, 1998; Imrie et al., 2002). Along these lines, Winsted (1997) has argued that studies examining service encounters should be sensitive to differences in culture. Rapid global expansion in the hospitality industry along with increased competition has made it critically important for restaurateurs to function profitably in both domestic and foreign markets. As such, managers and employees are expected to successfully interact with customers from widely differing cultures (Kandampully et al., 2001; Heo et al., 2004, Sizoo et al., 2005). In this vein, casual-theme restaurants (e.g. Bennigan’s, O’Charley’s, Hard Rock Cafe´, Ruby Tuesday) can be expected to achieve competitive advantage in international markets by developing not only product modifications but also differentiated intangible service interactions (Becker and Murrmann, 1999; Chase et al., 2006). Focusing on the cultural perspective, this study explores and compares customer expectations of wait-staff behavior in two countries, the USA and the Republic of Korea. Given differences in consumer expectations of service, this study attempts not only to examine differences in the underlying behavioral dimensions associated with the service encounter in both the USA and Korea but also to identify the relationship of these dimensions to customer satisfaction. By examining cross-cultural differences, this study intends to provide a better understanding of restaurant customers in each country as well as to enable US casual-theme restaurant operators and managers to better serve their clientele in the global market. Research context – American casual-theme restaurants The restaurant industry faces the challenge of cultural diversity not only because the number of the international travelers is growing but also because the market is expanding internationally (Lockyer, 2006; Ruggless, 2006). Opportunities inherent in a huge and profitable potential market abroad coupled with a maturing domestic market are the primary reasons why many American restaurant companies have begun doing business in European and Asian markets (Kandampully et al., 2001; Lockyer, 2005). Multinational restaurant firms have had significant success compared to domestic

firms in terms of growth of income and sales, and these restaurant firms are also proving more efficient than domestic firms in converting sales into profits (Singh et al., 2003). These restaurant firms yield greater profits in spite of the fact that their managements have taken many risks in the process. Given that American casual-theme restaurants are expanding internationally, customer behavior must be reevaluated from a cultural prospective (Becker and Murrmann, 1999), thus necessitating studies of the expectations of international customers. As Mattila (2000) suggests, cultural customization is critical, especially in the training of customer-contact employees. This study focuses on service encounters in American casual-theme restaurants, the type of restaurant firm that both represents a growing segment of the hospitality sector in the USA (Walkup, 2003) and that is expanding internationally including to Korea (Ortiz, 1996; Lockyer, 2006; Ruggless, 2006). The National Restaurant Association estimates that sales in full-service restaurants such as T.G.I. Friday’s and Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar are expected to grow faster through 2010 than limited-service outlets such as McDonald’s and Burger King (Davis and Stewart, 2002; Walkup, 2003). Korea is one of the many countries in which such companies have proven successful. Despite the considerable influence of foreign-brand casual restaurants, however, little research has been done in terms of restaurant service quality in Korea (Kim et al., 2003). Since fast-food came to Korea in the late 1980s, foreign casual-theme restaurants have grown rapidly in the Korean food market given lifestyle changes and income growth (Ortiz, 1996). In Korea, the casual-theme restaurant market began developing in late 1994, growing at a rate of 40-50 percent annually until the economic crisis of 1997 (Industry Sector Analysis, 1998). Per the Korea Herald (2003), TGIF has achieved a 32 percent market share as the industry leader among foreign restaurants. Nonetheless, TGIF experiences strong competition, including Bennigans’ 25 percent market share, Outback Steakhouse’s 22 percent market share, and the Swiss company Marche’s 21 percent market share. T.G.I. Friday’s is regarded as the most successful casual-theme restaurant in Korea with respect to customer satisfaction and public recognition (Korea Herald, 2001). The most important explanation for this success appears to reside in the restaurant’s cultural adaptation, as for instance in the inauguration of “Puppy Dog service” in which servers kneel at the table while taking the order so that the server is at the customer’s eye level, a unique service that accords with traditional Korean custom (Korea Herald, 2001). Another American restaurant chain, Ponderosa, struggled to survive in the Korean market because of its service concept of “pre-meal payment” (Industry Sector Analysis, 1998). The pre-payment method was received very poorly by Koreans because it ran against the grain of Korean culture in demanding payment before service. It was estimated that the pre-meal payment method resulted in losses valued at 60 million won (US$ 43,000). Advisedly, then, American casual-dining chains seeking a Korean start-up will need to fully grasp domestic cultural values and adapt their concepts accordingly much as did T.G.I. Friday’s in Korea. American restaurant firms need to understand Korea’s cultural perspectives, as well as to reflect those understandings in their front-line service in their efforts to wrest success from their competitors. The service-related literature (see Chase et al., 2004) suggests that casual-theme restaurants involve medium-contact encounters, where service customers and service


MSQ 17,3

278

providers interact face-to-face in limited, low-involvement encounters. Casual-theme restaurants are defined as full-service operations offering table service and a variety of menu items (Cichy and Hickey, 2005). There are casual-theme restaurants for virtually every market running the gamut from traditional to exotic. They are considered to be more than just places to eat and drink and tend to offer escape, fun, variety and convenience (Cichy and Hickey, 2005). These authors point out that competition in this segment is fierce and providing guest-driven service is an absolute necessity, as are continuous efforts to create and deliver guest service that distinguishes a restaurant from the clutter of the competition. In this type of environment where the type of service is generic, rather than professional, courtesy and promptness of the service provider are considered to be important service attributes (Winsted, 1999).

Cultural differences Different cultures imply different mental programming that governs activities, motivations, and values (Hofstede, 1984). Moreover, the experience of culture in everyday life is highly complex and thus a source of confusion to foreign firms, this in spite of the fact that culture is generally accepted by marketing theorists as being one of the underlying determinants of customer behavior (Gilmore and Carson, 1992). Based on this basic awareness of cultural differences, cross-cultural consumer research was launched in the 1970s with an examination of international marketing practices (Costa and Bamossy, 1995). However, little has subsequently been done to examine the effects of culture on buyer perceptions of employee behaviors cross-nationally, with but a few authors having examined the influence of culture on perceptions of service provision (e.g. Winsted, 1997, 1999; Donthu and Yoo, 1998; Mattila, 1999b, 2000; Furrer et al., 2000). In cross-cultural research, the individualistic/collectivistic dichotomy has been commonly adopted to compare cultures (e.g. Triandis, 1995; Hofstede, 1980, 1991) and explain differences in service expectations (Laroche et al., 2005; Furrer et al., 2000). Broadly speaking, individualists are independent, autonomous entities that only look out for themselves and their immediate families. Collectivists, on the other hand, belong to in-groups that look after them in exchange for loyalty (Laroche et al., 2005; Hofstede, 1991). In individualistic cultures customers are more likely to demand more efficient service when compared to customers in collectivist cultures (Furrer et al., 2000). Similarly, customers in individualistic cultures may value error-free service, whereas sincerity shown by service employees may be the most important concern in a collectivist culture (Raajpoot, 2004). Individualistic customers will also be more demanding of others and expect prompt services than people in more collectivistic cultures (Furrer et al., 2000). Individualists may also expect service providers to respect and care about them and show empathy and attention (Donthu and Yoo, 1998). Consumers in individualistic countries also consider personalized treatment as being quite important relative to those in collectivistic countries, where consistency is more important than personalized treatment (Winsted, 1999). In western cultures, efficiency of service encounters is more highly valued than in the Asian service style (Riddle, 1992) in which an orientation toward people and high level of service is anticipated (Schmitt and Pan, 1994).

Culture and service encounter expectations In the service management literature, the term service encounter is widely used to indicate the existence of a contact situation between the service customer and the service provider (Voss et al., 2004; Bitner et al., 2000). This implies that customers participate in the production process and actively influence the quality of the output (Stauss and Mang, 1999). Service encounters and their outcomes are influenced by the three factors of client perceptions, provider characteristics, and production realities (Czepiel et al., 1985). Among those factors, client perceptions represent the form of the expectations that leave clients satisfied or dissatisfied with service encounters. Client and provider characteristics such as attitude, skills, and behaviors in service encounters are affected by cultural factors (Czepiel et al., 1985). Interactions between these factors additionally play an important role in affecting customer assessments of service quality (Stauss and Mang, 1999). When a hospitality firm delivers its service in the international marketplace, problems can emerge given the differing perspectives of the interaction partners in a service encounter, and service may not be delivered at the customary level because the service providers’ performance fails to meet customer expectations (Bianchi, 2001; Sizoo et al., 2005). Previous research indicates that customers from different cultural backgrounds have different expectations as well as different perceptions of service quality (Kandampully et al., 2001; Mattila, 1999b; Heo et al., 2004; Furrer et al., 2000; Kim and Jin, 2002, Witkowski and Wolfinbarger, 2002). The intangible and inseparable characteristics of services are especially susceptible to cultural influences. In attempting to satisfy their customers, it is therefore critical that service providers clearly comprehend those differences. An unambiguous understanding of service differences and preferences of customers from different cultural backgrounds will make it possible to provide compelling service and exceed customer expectations (Kandampully et al., 2001; Heo et al., 2004; Sizoo et al., 2005). Customers from Asian and Western countries alike perceive differences in what constitutes good service (e.g. Schmitt and Pan, 1994; Mattila, 2000). Customer perceptions of face-to-face interaction with front-line employees have traditionally been one of the most important determinants of service satisfaction and loyalty. This understanding proves even more fundamental for front-line employees in direct interaction with customers (Heo et al., 2004). In relation to ferry travel between Scandinavia and the UK, for example, Gilmore and Carson (1992) claimed that the cultural differences between the two markets lead to substantial variances in the standard of service and customer behavior as well as expectations. Similarly, on the basis of their comparative analysis of fast-food customers in America and Korea, Lee and Ulgado (1997) argue that cultural background influences service expectations. Likewise, Gilbert and Tsao (2000) found that doing business in traditional Chinese cultural settings stresses the importance of human interaction and personal relationship to a degree substantially exceeding the Western concept of networking. Witkowski and Wolfinbarger (2000), based on their research in Thailand and Japan argue that it is important to consider service dimensions that might be relevant to non-US cultures. In support of this suggestion, Mattila (1999b) found that cultural background influences the choice of cues used in evaluating services, with customers from western cultures more likely to rely on tangible cues of the physical environment when compared to Asian customers. This author also reported that Asian travelers


MSQ 17,3

280

displayed fewer emotions than Anglo travelers (Mattila, 1999a). Similarly, Winsted (1997) reported differences in restaurant service experiences in a study comparing students from Japan and the USA. On the issue of service quality perceptions, Furrer et al. (2000) found that the importance attached to service quality dimensions varied from one culture to another. Likewise, while Herbig and Genestre (1996) reported that Mexican consumers had more favorable perceptions of various service quality attributes relative to US consumers, Kim and Jin (2002) found that US consumers had more favorable perceptions of service quality dimensions when compared to Korean consumers, and Mattila (1999b) found that customers’ evaluations of service encounters were lower for Asian travelers than for Anglo travelers. Clearly, cross-cultural evidence pertaining to service encounters is mixed and therefore warrants further study. Research suggests that differences between cultures, especially those pertaining to managerial cultural differences, limit the ability of service multinationals to expand internationally (Kogut and Singh, 1988; Li and Guisinger, 1991, 1992). When expanding into the Asian market it is important to consider service quality dimensions that might be relevant to customers in those particular cultures (Witkowski, and Wolfinbarger, 2000; Winsted, 1997, 1999). If customer perception and preference for service behaviors differ and in the process are influenced by cultural factors, American hospitality firms that seek to establish and expand operations overseas would be well advised to examine customer expectations of the services they offer. Therefore, it appears worthwhile to explore the concept of service encounter behavior, particularly wait-staff behavior, at casual-theme restaurants in the USA and Korea as customers from different cultures seem to have different perceptions of what good service represents in terms of employee behaviors (Winsted, 1997). Adopting cultural differences as the basis, previous researchers have argued that efforts to adopt standardized or universalistic conceptualizations of service encounter quality will be of little value – rather, the need is to develop culturally relevant conceptualizations of quality (Kim and Jin, 2002; Raajpoot, 2004). Along these lines, Wong (2004, p. 962) argues that it is crucial that researchers today reinterpret models and theories “from the perspective of different cultural and social realities”. Although this study is exploratory in nature and no cultural variables are examined, it is expected that there will be identifiable differences between Americans and Koreans in the perception of wait-staff behaviors as well as the behavioral dimensions associated with service interactions in each culture and the extent to which those dimensions explain customer satisfaction. Method In this study, we adopt the service encounter dimensions that emerged from Winsted’s (1997) study of a Japanese sample, as well as the items associated with them. Winsted (1997) followed a systematic procedure in identifying a substantial pool of behaviors that could serve as measurements for service encounter components and went on to explore how the underlying dimensions differed between the USA and Japan. This study employed the six behavioral dimensions that were effective in measuring satisfaction in a Japanese sample and are defined as: (1) Civility. Focuses on “non-negative” behavior. Basic minimally acceptable or civil behavior.

(2) Basics. Reflects the bare essentials including behaviors that a wait-person must avoid to provide “adequate” service. (3) Personalization. Refers to individualized attention, recognition, and familiarity as expressed by name usage, remembering and greeting. (4) Conversation. Amicable conversation, use of humor, restricting your conversation to a minimum – not talkative (5) Concern. Relates to behaviors that help service providers surpass expectations and includes concern for the customer, attentiveness, caring and kindness. (6) Formality. Focuses on respectful reserve expressed by proper form of address, appropriate language and dress. According to Hofstede (1991), Chinese societies in Asian countries have similar cultural boundaries in terms of Confucian values and represent a similar degree of power distance, societal collectivism, and other components. Japan and Korea are considered to be nationhood States, both of which are influenced by Confucian philosophy. Although the scales are adopted from the Japanese context, it is not clear how well the dimensions and especially the items developed to measure them will apply to the Korean culture. According to Veloutsou et al.(2005) multi-item measures developed from a given context should not be considered universally reliable and valid. These authors also caution that “it is not certain that the same multi-item constructs will validly and reliably describe a phenomenon in different cultural contexts” (Veloutsou et al., 2005, p. 611). Moreover, Churchill and Peter (1984, p. 370) suggest that “measures developed for particular subject populations may have to be redesigned for other populations.” Given these concerns we adopt an exploratory approach to determine which items and scales capture the construct and which dimensions emerge within the Korean context. Questionnaire design The questionnaire consisted of three main sections. In the first section, respondents were asked to provide demographic information including age, gender, nationality, and income level. The second section was designed to cover the six service encounter dimensions – civility, basics, personalization, conversation, concern, and formality. For each dimension, approximately six questions were posed. A seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ¼ Strongly Disagree to 7 ¼ Strongly Agree was used to measure the level of agreement with attributes representing a variety of service encounter behaviors. Survey respondents were asked to recall their most recent visit to an American casual-theme restaurant and to report their level of agreement with statements addressing 35 wait-staff behaviors. The respondents were also asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the service encounter. Five questions were adopted to measure customer satisfaction as expressed in general feelings such as pleasure, happiness, favorable impressions (Crosby et al., 1990), and decision-regret likelihood (Westbrook and Oliver, 1991), and semantic differential scales ranging from “better than expected” to “worse than expected” were used to measure satisfaction. The questionnaire was designed in English and then translated into Korean using the blind translation-back-translation method as described by Brislin (1976). In an attempt to avoid translation errors, the English language version of the instrument was


MSQ 17,3

282

translated into Korean by four bilingual Koreans, after which this translated version was examined and retranslated by a professional interpreter in Korea to assure that the meaning was the same in both languages. Data collection and analysis The study employed a convenient random sampling approach that targeted two study population groups: casual-theme restaurant customers in both America and South Korea. Data were collected over the period February-March 2005 and service encounter expectations were assessed using a self-administered questionnaire with closed-ended items. Field interviewers, who had been previously instructed to perform their job in a consistent manner across the range of respondents, visited public areas such as shopping malls and parks in close proximity to casual-dining restaurants in both America and South Korea. The Korean sample was obtained in downtown Seoul, South Korea and the American sample was obtained in the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area. The field interviewers randomly approached stationary individuals or passers-by in malls and asked them if they had previously dined at a casual-theme restaurant, and if they had, whether they would be willing to respond to a survey. The questionnaire was individually administered to the respondents and the interviewers explained the researcher’s purpose in order to facilitate respondents’ voluntary participation in the survey. This resulted in a total of 298 completed questionnaires in South Korea and 202 in America. Descriptive statistical methods including simple frequencies and percentages were adopted to ascertain whether the two sampling groups shared similar demographic characteristics. To determine if there were significant differences in the ratings attributed to each behavioral item between the two countries, the independent sample test (t-test) was employed. In addition, factor analysis and coefficient alpha were employed to judge data dimensionality and reliability. Principal components analysis with varimax rotation was also used to assess the number of underlying dimensions in the data as well as to identify items associated with each factor. This method narrowed down the large pool of behaviors to allow the simplest interpretations and to extract the most distinct set of indicators. Finally, correlations were examined followed by regression analysis to assess overall variance explained by several factors and then to relate them to levels of customer satisfaction, thereby examining predictive validity. Results Demographic characteristics Table I shows the demographic profile of the study participants. It also presents the respondents’ frequency of visit, perception of price, and purpose of visit. It is evident that there are differences in aggregate between the responses obtained in the two countries. Approximately 85 percent of the American sample had visited a casual-theme restaurant within the previous month compared to 60 percent of the Korean sample. Americans as compared to their Korean counterparts were more familiar with casual-theme restaurants with approximately 70 percent dining at one at least once per month relative to approximately 49 percent for the Koreans. The Korean diners also seemed to perceive American casual-theme restaurants as being somewhat up-scale with about 50 percent considering them to be expensive versus 5 percent for

Korean (n ¼ 298) Frequency Gender Female Male

164 134

American (n ¼ 202) Frequency

%

%

55.0 45.0

Gender Female Male

63 53 83

31.2 26.2 41.1

123 78

60.9 38.6

283

Age 18-25 26-35 36+

90 147 60

30.2 49.3 20.1

Age 18-25 26-35 36+

Income (1,000 Won) Under 10,000 10,001-19,999 20,000 -29,999 30,000 and over

20 84 80 110

6.7 28.2 26.8 36.9

Income Under $25,000 $25,001-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000 and over

51 48 36 62

25.2 23.8 17.8 30.7

Educational attainment Graduated High school Some college Graduated college Postgraduate/Professional Other

30 78 163 17 9

10.1 26.2 54.7 5.7 3.0

Educational attainment Graduated High school Some college Graduated college Postgraduate/Professional Other

21 54 79 41 7

10.4 26.7 39.1 20.3 3.5

Frequency of visit Less than once a month Once or twice a month 3-4 times a month . 4 times a month

152 108 34 4

51.0 36.3 11.4 1.3

Frequency of visit Less than once a month Once or twice a month 3-4 times a month . 4 times a month

61 69 39 32

30.2 34.2 19.3 15.8

Price perception Inexpensive Moderately priced Expensive Other

5 133 152 8

1.7 44.6 51.0 2.7

Price perception Inexpensive Moderately priced Expensive Other

45 144 10 3

22.3 71.3 4.9 1.5

45 72 61 45 75

15.1 24.1 20.5 15.1 25.2

Last visit was , a week prior 1-2 weeks ago Two weeks to a month ago 1-2 months ago . two months ago

78 57 42 16 9

38.6 28.2 20.8 7.9 4.5

Last visit was , a week prior 1-2 weeks ago Two weeks to a month ago 1-2 months ago . two months ago

Perceptions of employee behavior

Americans. This suggests Koreans’ higher expectations of service encounters at American casual-theme restaurants in Korea. Independent sample t-test The study applied an independent samples t-test to examine differences in the mean scores associated with the behavioral items in each sample. Statistical significance was tested at p , 0:05. The variance analysis revealed that the importance of many behavioral items differed significantly between the two samples (Table II). The mean

Table I. Respondent characteristics

MSQ 17,3

284

Table II. Results of independent samples t-test

Dimensions Abrupt Arrogant Bad attitude Business only Impatient Genuine No smile Rough Rude Order customer Rushed Serve others first Asked name How are you Introduction Remembered me Used name Conversation Humor Talkative Attentive Caring Enthusiastic Nice Manners Quick greeting Quick response Small talk Sincere Body language Dress nicely Proper language Quick attention Understanding Body language

Americans

Koreans

Mean difference

t-value

2.47 1.90 1.94 2.97 2.09 2.73 2.14 2.00 1.89 1.73 2.10 2.17 2.17 4.55 5.16 2.62 1.89 3.36 3.41 3.20 4.67 4.40 4.68 5.39 5.44 5.07 5.18 4.23 4.73 4.52 4.98 5.28 4.93 4.95 4.67

2.33 2.23 1.97 2.91 2.53 3.06 2.39 2.17 1.95 1.80 1.77 2.74 2.08 3.55 3.60 2.51 2.10 3.41 3.84 3.58 4.60 4.73 4.63 5.09 5.13 4.89 4.79 4.16 4.53 3.86 4.94 4.96 4.66 4.61 4.32

0.13 20.33 20.02 0.06 20.44 20.33 20.25 20.17 20.06 20.07 0.33 20.57 0.09 1.00 1.56 0.10 20.20 20.04 20.43 20.38 0.06 20.33 0.04 0.30 0.31 0.17 0.38 0.07 0.19 0.65 0.04 0.31 0.26 0.34 0.35

0.90 2 2.59 * * 2 0.17 0.37 2 3.13 * * 2 1.98 * 2 1.61 2 1.30 2 0.53 2 0.62 2.55 * 2 3.72 * * * 0.54 4.81 * * * 7.72 * * * 0.51 2 1.26 2 0.25 2 2.64 * * 2 2.43 * 0.42 2 2.10 * 0.28 1.98 * 2.11 * 1.19 1.17 0.49 1.36 4.71 * * * 0.29 2.28 * 1.87 2.46 * 2.41 *

Notes: *significant at p , 0:05; * *significant at p , 0:01; * * *significant at p , 0:001

scores of personalization behaviors in America were far greater than those in Korea. The mean difference was greatest in the two personalization items - “the server asked me how I was” and “the server introduced himself or herself to me”. The results showed that 16 of the 35 items differed significantly between the Americans and Koreans. Exploratory factor analysis The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO ¼ 0:88) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity (Chi Square 5604.71, df 561, p , 0:000) were employed to test whether the data were acceptable for factor analysis and the model was found appropriate. Principal components factor analysis using a varimax rotation was used to discover patterns among the behavioral items measured in the survey. Items under

the loading value of 0.50, those cross-loading on two factors at . 0.30, single-item factors, or two-item factors that were difficult to label as a dimension were deleted from further factor analysis (Hair et al., 1992, p. 239). After removing problematic items (ten in all), the remaining 25 behavioral items were subject to further factor analysis. The number of factors to be extracted was determined by evaluating the scree plot and the eigenvalues. In all cases, the numbers of factors retained were those with eigenvalues greater than one (Hair et al., 1992, p. 237). These factors and the items loading on them are reported in Table III. All behavioral items extracted by factor analysis were examined using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha to test inter-item reliability. Alpha coefficients ranging from 0.73 to 0.93 were obtained in all but one case, specifically that pertaining to personalization in the US sample where the 3-item measure returned an alpha of 0.66. The principal components analysis identified three different factors in the US sample and four factors in the Korean sample and the total variance explained by the solution was 62 percent in each case (see Table III). The underlying factors associated with the US sample in order of variance explained were – civility, courtesy, and personalization and those associated with the Korean sample were – courtesy, civility, personalization, and concern. Dimensions of wait-staff behavior Although the factors emerging in this study were similar to Winsted’s dimensions with similar items loading on each factor, it is apparent that the Americans and Koreans emphasized them to different degrees. The courtesy dimension emerging in both samples was a combination of the a priori formality and concern items. This factor emerged as the most important factor for the Koreans accounting for over 32 percent of variance explained. For the Americans this factor accounted for 13 percent of variance explained. It is also significantly correlated with customer satisfaction for both samples at 0.436 (p # 0:01) for the Koreans and at 0.534 (p # 0:01) for the Americans. This factor encompasses politeness, respect and consideration of contact personnel. Courtesy demands a more respectful and formal attitude (Goodwin and Smith, 1990) and includes consideration for the consumer’s property as well as clean and neat appearance of contact personnel (Bowers et al., 1994). In fact, courtesy has been mentioned many times in previous service encounter research (Bateson and Langeard, 1982; Bitner et al., 1990; Bolton and Drew, 1991; Goodwin and Smith, 1990; Carman, 1990) and has also appeared as an important dimension in focus group studies (Winsted, 1997), especially as it pertains to the Japanese. Moreover, the frequent appearance of courtesy in previous hospitality-related research, including courtesy as a part of the SERVQUAL assurance dimension acknowledging employee courtesy along with their knowledge (Parasuraman et al., 1988), and new notions of courtesy (Bolton and Drew, 1991) may all justify labeling the newly emerging factor as “courtesy”. As for the civility dimension, virtually all items that loaded on the factor were similar with respect to both countries’ samples. The civility factor emerged as the most important dimension for the Americans, accounting for 42 percent of variance explained. This factor accounted for 14 percent of the overall variance explained for the Koreans. In American society, the “civility” construct is quite important and represents “non-negative” behavior or basic, minimally acceptable, civil behavior (Winsted, 1997). The civility construct is significantly correlated with service encounter satisfaction at 0.458 (p # 0:01) in the American sample and at 0.370 (p # 0:01) in the Korean sample.


Table III. Factor analysis results

Note: a ¼ reverse coded

Overall

Personalization (alpha 0.51)

Courtesy (alpha 0.93)

Civility (alpha 0.93)

Use name Remember Ask name

Understanding Proper language Nice Manners Quick response Body language Dress nicely Sincere Attentive Quick greeting

Impatienta Bad attitudea Rudea Arroganta Rougha Order customera Rusha Smile Genuine Serve others firsta

Americans

0.752 0.657 0.646

0.815 0.780 0.771 0.759 0.755 0.743 0.733 0.730 0.713 0.704

0.841 0.836 0.828 0.771 0.766 0.752 0.730 0.725 0.675 0.674

1.5

3.1

9.6

Loadings Eigen-value

62.15

6.76

13.65

41.75

% variance explained

Concern (alpha 0.87)

Personalization (alpha 0.73)

Courtesy (alpha 0.93)

Civility (alpha 0.89)

Dimensions

Attentive Caring Enthusiasm

Use name Remember How are you Introduction Ask name

Manners Proper language Quick greeting Quick attention Nice Quick response Dress nicely Understanding Sincere

Arroganta Smile Abrupta Impatienta Rougha Genuine Bad attitudea Business onlya

Koreans

0.848 0.799 0.781

0.762 0.748 0.694 0.647 0.614

0.829 0.821 0.810 0.798 0.792 0.783 0.775 0.734 0.695

0.827 0.765 0.747 0.740 0.733 0.721 0.719 0.715

1.4

2.6

8.0

3.5

Loadings Eigen-value

286

Dimensions

5.89

10.79

32.07

14.02

% variance explained

MSQ 17,3

Next, the personalization dimension appeared among both American and Korean samples. Personalization refers to recognition, familiarity and individualized attention (Bitner et al., 1990) and is a part of the empathy dimension in SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1988). The three items “asked name,” “remembered me,” and “used name” emerged as important service behaviors for the Americans whereas all five of Winsted’s original items loaded on the factor for the Koreans. Personalization for Koreans includes “greeting” and “introduction” while personalization for Americans does not encompass these items. Winsted (1997) obtained similar outcomes based on a Japanese sample. This factor accounted for almost 11 percent of the variance explained for the Koreans and about 7 percent of the variance explained for the Americans. Further, personalization is significantly correlated with customer satisfaction for the Americans (p # 0:01), but it is only marginally significant at the 10 percent level (p # 0:1) for the Koreans. Moreover, the beta score associated with personalization for the Koreans (0.09) in this study is about the same in magnitude as for the Japanese (0.08) in Winsted’s study (1997). The positive behaviors related to “attentiveness. “caring,” and “enthusiasm” were also identified as an additional dimension in the Korean sample. These behaviors associated with the concern dimension are closely related to the caring dimension in other literature. The concern dimension is significantly associated with service encounter satisfaction in the Korean sample (p # 0:05). This factor did not emerge within the US sample. Regression with customer satisfaction Though factor analysis shows which items group together in the customers’ mind, regression analyses specifically determines whether the resulting dimensions are in fact related to consumers’ satisfaction with wait-staff behavior. Factor scores were computed for each emerging factor and these scores then regressed on the average sum score of the five different encounter-related satisfaction measures while controlling for age, gender, income, and education (see Table IV). Regression analysis showed that each of the three factors extracted from principal components analysis reliably predict satisfaction among American diners (adjusted R 2 ¼ 0:575, p # 0:000) with about 58 percent of the variance in service satisfaction explained by the three factors. For the Korean respondents, the identified factors explain approximately 34 percent of the variance in service satisfaction (adjusted R 2 ¼ 0:341, p # 0:000). Each of the factors was a significant predictor of satisfaction (p , 0:01) except for personalization that was a marginal predictor only significant at the 10 percent level (p , 0:1). Notably, when the regressions were run without controlling for age, gender, income and education, the personalization factor for Koreans indicated a relationship with satisfaction although the degree of correlation was marginal (at 0.042, p # 0:05). Possibly those four variables (i.e. age, gender, income and education) may have an impact on the personalization dimension. Discussion In the factor analysis civility, courtesy, and personalization emerged as important dimensions underlying the construct of wait-staff behavior for both country samples, and the concern dimension appears additionally in the Korean sample. The courtesy and civility dimensions were identified as important predictors in both American and


Table IV. Regression analysis 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.458 * * 0.534 * * 0.299 * *

Correlation with satisfaction

Koreans Significance level

Courtesy 0.452 0.000 Civility 0.379 0.000 Personalization 0.095 0.052 Concern 0.111 0.021 All factors R 2 ¼ 0:341 (p # 0:000)b

Beta scoresa

0.436 * * 0.370 * * 0.096 0.117 *

Correlation with satisfaction

Notes: aBeta scores are for each factor regressed together on satisfaction, controlling for income, education, gender, and age; bR 2 refers to variance explained in a regression analysis of all variables including the encounter factors and control variables; * *correlation is significant at the 0.01 level; *correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)

All factors R 2 ¼ 0:575 (p # 0:000)b

0.451 0.518 0.315

Americans Significance level

288

Civility Courtesy Personalization

Beta scoresa

MSQ 17,3

Korean samples. In addition, while the personalization dimension was a significant predictor of satisfaction in the US sample, the concern dimension was a significant predictor in the Korean sample. For the Koreans the courtesy dimension exerts a greater relative impact on service satisfaction than do the other dimensions while the civility and concern dimensions have a significant effect on Korean customer satisfaction as well. That is, the importance of courtesy, civility, and concern behaviors that are part of the assurance and empathy dimensions in SERVQUAL were confirmed in the Korean sample. This maybe explained by the so-called large power differential associated with the Korean culture. Generally, Koreans expect and accept that member status and power is distributed unequally, thus creating social hierarchies. The implication is that Korean diners expect service employees to be polite and courteous to their customers because of the cultural perceptions of the lower social status of service employees. Per Reisinger and Turner (2002), Koreans recognize two major differences in the public perception of service employees as they significantly affect satisfaction – that is the performance of employee service should be both punctual and respectful. In contrast, the American culture is characterized by smaller power differentials (Hofstede, 1991) given perceived egalitarian principles that underlie American service encounters. In confirming Winsted’s (1997) findings, the personalization dimension that proved important for American diner satisfaction was of little consequence for Korean diners. As opposed to Western culture, for instance, individual recognition and personalization are less important for Korean diners because Korean culture represents a strong collectivist culture (Hofstede, 1980). Generally, Koreans tend to be integrated into intimate “in-groups” of family and friends whereas Americans are associated with an individualistic culture in which the “in-group” is defined as people who share similar social class, race, beliefs, attitudes, and values (Triandis, 1972). This would seem to suggest that in collectivist cultures business interactions, especially those involving generic services such as those in evidence at casual-dining restaurants, are generally considered “out-group” interactions (Liu and McClure, 2001) where customers may not desire familiarity with service providers whose social status differs from their own (e.g. Goodwin and Smith, 1990). Thus, Koreans are likely to avoid any unnecessary involvement in service encounter transactions compared to Americans in their individualistic culture (Liu and McClure, 2001). As such, respect for social distance and recognition of status may require Korean service providers to avoid expressions of familiarity (Goodwin and Smith, 1990). In comparison to Winsted’s (1997) findings, the number and order of dimensions appears to differ and there is also a small difference in terms of the items loading on each dimension. This may result from the use of customer-based data as opposed to the use of a student sample in Winsted’s study or from attributing data to a different nationality, say to Korea rather than Japan. Service interactions are dynamic, and customers contribute to the process and outcome of encounters based on their cultural values and assumptions (Bitner et al., 1997; Grove et al., 1998; Lorenzoni and Lewis, 2004). On this basis, it can be argued that the perceptual differences between American and Korean customers arise not only from the fact that cultural values are likely to affect customer evaluation of service encounters but also because civility, courtesy, personalization, and concern behaviors influence the service interaction and its


MSQ 17,3

290

outcomes. Therefore, it is evident that customers’ service expectations vary from country to country. The combined concern-formality dimension, now labeled “courtesy. exerts a significant influence on service encounter satisfaction within both US and Korean samples. In the main, the behavioral aspects loading on the courtesy dimension arise from the concern and formality dimensions identified by Winsted (1997). Kim et al. (2003) confirmed the existence of the combined SERVQUAL dimension of responsiveness and assurance among Korean restaurant customers. Thus, the individual and distinct responsiveness and assurance items might seem ambiguous to Korean diners, for whom responsiveness and assurance together form one uni-dimensional concept. These two factors are not likely to be considered separately in the Korean mind (Kim et al., 2003), thus giving rise to the ambiguity of behavioral items along each dimension. For instance, responsiveness showed a substantial overlap with assurance (Parasuraman et al., 1991). Therefore, the validity issue has once again been raised in terms of evaluating service quality in the imported casual dining segment in Korea. Future research on service quality measurement within the Korean context must endeavor to clarify such issues. Managerial implications Generally speaking, customer evaluations of service encounters, especially of food or travel service transactions, can be expected to be strongly influenced by employee behavior (Liljander and Mattsson, 2002). Moreover, the perception and expectation of service quality differs from culture to culture and nation to nation (Sultan and Simpson Jr, 2000). To ensure success in international markets, American casual-theme restaurant chains should recognize and understand the differences that potentially exist based on nationality and culture. This research confirms that there are significant differences as well as some similarities in the perception of employee behaviors between the USA and Korea. By collecting field data from restaurant customers, this study extended and confirmed many of Winsted’s findings with regard to the existence of important employee behaviors and their effect on service encounter satisfaction within the casual-dining restaurant industry. In Korean culture, Confucian philosophy still thrives in the face of westernization. This study focused on the differences between Americans and Koreans in terms of perceptions of service employee behaviors and determined that there are different types of behaviors indicative of good service. Restaurant customers in the two countries assigned different aggregate ratings to a series of wait-staff behaviors. Based on cultural differences, American casual-theme restaurant companies should customize marketing strategies designed for maximal local impact and then invest in employee training and service provision to more effectively respond to local customer needs. As this research shows, it should not be assumed that service delivered successfully in one country will meet the expectations of customers in another country (Bitner et al., 1990). The “routine” or “ordinary” customer-employee service encounters in the western context would not necessarily satisfy Korean customers because these ignore the importance of status differences or “in-group” perceptions of the Koreans (Mattila, 1999a, b). For example, Koreans expect a formal relationship in a service encounter, especially when the restaurant is up-scale and relatively expensive. Also, as members of a collectivist society Koreans are most likely

to revisit or return to a restaurant where they have previously enjoyed dining with their family and friends. Given that Koreans’ choice of restaurant is highly influenced by favorable word of mouth, it can thus be posited that American casual-theme restaurant chains should adapt their marketing strategies to accommodate Korean views while focusing on front-line employees’ service attitude. Koreans seem to believe that service providers should be punctual and respectful, and display behavior that is courteous, civil, and caring – rather than focusing on the personalization of services. To serve the Korean market, resource allocation decisions should reflect the importance attributed to these areas and restaurant chains should emphasize training and development as well as empowerment efforts that highlight appropriate behaviors associated with these key areas. Specifically, in order to respect traditional norms of status differences and social distance, Korean service providers should avoid expressions of familiarity. In contrast, with regard to the US market, efforts focused on caring for the needs of individual customers as well as equipping and empowering employees to provide customized or personalized service should be emphasized.

Limitations and future research The results of this study are limited in scope since behavior associated with other service settings and other cultures may differ. Yet, the findings offer evidence that there are key differences in the underlying dimensions and their relationship with satisfaction. However, further research is necessary in order to generalize the findings reported here. Such research could expand the study by including data from other countries as well as other service settings. The non-probability sample that was used indicates that the adoption of a more systematic sampling method would render results that were more conclusive and would also enhance external validity. Moreover, the use of items intended to measure service behaviors in a Japanese sample may not fully capture the unique features associated with the Korean culture and therefore may limit the results of this study. Further, the numbers of dimensions and behavioral items used were kept to a minimum to avoid producing a lengthy questionnaire, meaning that other dimensions that more appropriately capture the construct of wait-staff behavior may exist that were not captured in this study. The fact that only 34 percent of the variance in Korean customer satisfaction was explained by the dimensions that emerged in this study further supports this contention. In addition, there appears to be some overlap in the behavioral items. For instance, one of the behavioral items, “attentive” behavior can be considered along the personalization dimension or the concern dimension; also the behavioral items such as “manner” and “nice” behavior can be included as aspects of the formality dimension or concern dimension. These overlapping items may contribute to concerns over construct validity. The findings of this study suggest the necessity of devising more objective and systematic indices of employee service behaviors, perhaps based on individual cultural values. Moreover, certain other issues should be considered. This study does not consider the prevailing level of service quality among American casual-theme restaurant chains in America and Korea. Those differences should be controlled for in future studies. Finally, future research should consider the problem of over-reliance on respondents’ recall from past dining experiences.


MSQ 17,3

292

Conclusion Overall, this study intends to contribute to a better understanding of cultural preferences in service encounters as well as to establish a relationship between employee behaviors and customer satisfaction through comparison of the two cultural contexts in place in America and Korea. Clearly, this study once again questions the generalizability of measures created for one context to another. Although Japan and Korea are both collectivist cultures and share common cultural traits, it does not appear that the measures can be generalized without adaptation. This further confirms the conclusions of previous researchers who have argued for the creation of measures that are culture specific. Despite these measurement concerns, the results of this study suggest that more attention should be paid to the key behavioral dimensions emerging in this study. If consumer perceptions of wait-staff behavior do not differ across cultures, international restaurant chains would not need to focus on modifying employee behavior in the service exchange relationship. However, in this study, we found that there are key differences between US and Korean restaurant customers’ perceptions of wait-staff behavior and their impact on customer satisfaction. These finding confirm the previous general conclusions of researchers that have observed differences in service expectations across cultures. American restaurant companies doing or planning on doing business in Korea need to attend more closely to the management of both service encounter behaviors and the sources of customer satisfaction. Customer perceptions and expectations of service quality are increasingly used to forecast company profitability and to boost market share. Operating with a heightened understanding of the cultural differences between countries, restaurant management can create the kind of customer franchise that leads to increased sales and long-term profitability. References Akan, P. (1995), “Dimensions of service quality: a study in Istanbul”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 39-43. Bateson, J.E.G. and Langeard, E. (1982), “Consumer uses of common dimensions in the appraisal of services”, in Mitchell, A.A. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research,Vol. 9, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 173-6. Becker, C. and Murrmann, S.K. (1999), “The effect of cultural orientation on the service timing preferences of customers in casual dining operations: an exploratory study”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 59-65. Bianchi, C. (2001), “The effect of cultural differences on service encounter satisfaction”, American Marketing Association Conference Proceedings, AMA, Chicago, IL, Vol. 12, pp. 46-52. Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), “The service encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 71-84. Bitner, M.J., Brown, S.W. and Meuter, M.L. (2000), “Technology infusion in service encounters”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Services, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 138-49. Bitner, M.J., Faranda, W.T., Hubbert, A.R. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1997), “Customer contributions and roles in service delivery”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 193-205. Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.D. (1991), “A multistage model of customers’ assessments of service quality and value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 40, pp. 375-97.

Bowers, M.R., Swan, J.E. and Koehler, W.F. (1994), “What attributes determine quality and satisfaction with health care delivery?”, Health Care Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 49-55. Brislin, R.W. (1976), “Comparative research methodology: cross-culture studies”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 215-29. Carman, J.M. (1990), “Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 33-55. Chase, R.B., Jacobs, F.R. and Aquilano, N.J. (2004), Operations Management for Competitive Advantage, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA. Churchill, G. and Peter, P. (1984), “Research design effects on the reliability of rating scales: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21, pp. 360-75. Cichy, R.F. and Hickey, P.J. (2005), Managing Service in Food and Beverage Operations, The Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Lodging Association, Lansing, MI. Costa, J.A. and Bamossy, G.J. (1995), Marketing in a Multicultural World: Ethnicity, Nationalism, and Cultural Identity, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990), “Relationship quality in services selling: an interpersonal influence perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 68-81. Czepiel, J.A., Solomon, M.R. and Surprenant, C.F. (1985), The Service Encounter: Managing Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Business, Lexington Books, Washington, DC. Davis, E.D. and Stewart, H. (2002), “Changing consumer demands create opportunities for US food system”, Food Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 19-23. Donthu, N. and Yoo, B. (1998), “Cultural influences of service quality expectations”, Journal of Service Resarch, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 178-86. Furrer, O., Liu, B.S. and Sudharshanan, D. (2000), “The relationships between culture and service quality perceptions: basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 355-71. Gilbert, D. and Tsao, J. (2000), “Exploring Chinese cultural influences and hospitality marketing relationships”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 45-55. Gilmore, A. and Carson, D. (1992), “Ferry travel: a case study of comparative services”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 16-20. Goodwin, C. and Smith, K.L. (1990), “Courtesy and friendliness: conflicting goals for the service provider?”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5-20. Grove, S.J., Fisk, R.P. and Dorsch, M.J. (1998), “Assessing the theatrical components of the service encounter: a cluster analysis examination”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 116-34. Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1992), Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY. Heo, J.K., Jogaratnam, G. and Buchanan, P. (2004), “Customer-focused adaptation in New York City hotels: exploring the perceptions of Japanese and Korean travelers”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 31-53. Herbig, P. and Genestre, A. (1996), “An examination of the cross-cultural differences in service quality: the example of Mexico and the USA”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 43-53.


MSQ 17,3

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture’s Consequences, Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, CA. Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organization: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London.

294

Hopkins, S.A., Hopkins, W.E. and Hoffman, K.D. (2005), “Domestic inter-cultural service encounters: an integrated model”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 329-43. Imrie, B.C., Cadogan, J.W. and McNaughton, R. (2002), “The service quality construct on a global stage”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 10-18. Imrie, B.C., Geoff, D. and Cadogan, J.W. (2000), “Towards a conceptualization of service quality in the global market arena”, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 143-62. Industry Sector Analysis (1998), “Korea: family restaurant franchises market”, June, p. 1. Jabnoun, N. and Khalifa, A. (2005), “A customized measure of service quality in the UAE”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 374-88. Kandampully, J., Mok, C. and Sparks, B. (2001), Service Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure, The Haworth Press, Inc., New York, NY. Kim, H.J., McCahon, C. and Miller, J. (2003), “Service orientation for contact employees in Korean casual-dining restaurants”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 67-83. Kim, S. and Jin, B. (2002), “Validating the retail service quality scale for US and Korean customers of discount stores: an exploratory study”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 Nos 2/3, pp. 223-37. Kogut, B. and Singh, H. (1988), “The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 1-24. Korea Herald (2001), “T.G.I. Friday’s to open 20th store next March to mark 10th Anniversary”, 29 November, p. 1. Korea Herald (2003), “Family restaurants pump up competition”, 24 June, p. 1. Lam, S.W.K. (1995), “Measuring service quality: an empirical analysis in Hong Kong”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 182-8. Lam, S.W.K. (1997), “SERVQUAL: a tool for measuring patients’ opinions of hospital service quality in Hong Kong”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 145-52. Laroche, M., Kalamas, M. and Cleveland, M. (2005), “‘I’ versus ‘we’: how individualists and collectivists use information sources to formulate their service expectations”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 279-308. Lee, M. and Ulgado, F.M. (1997), “Consumer evaluations of fast-food services: a cross-national comparison”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 39-52. Li, J. and Guisinger, S. (1991), “Comparative business failures of foreign-controlled firms in the United States”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 209-24. Li, J. and Guisinger, S. (1992), “The globalization of service multinationals in the ‘Triad’ regions: Japan, Western Europe and North America”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 675-96. Liljander, V. and Mattsson, J. (2002), “Impact of customer preconsumption mood on the evaluation of employee behavior in service encounters”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 837-60.

Liu, R.R. and McClure, P. (2001), “Recognizing cross-cultural differences in consumer complaint behavior and intentions: an empirical examination”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 54-74. Liu, S., Furrer, O. and Sudharshanan, D. (2001), “The relationships between culture and behavioral intentions towards services”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 118-29. Lockyer, S.E. (2005), “Brinker declares first dividend, eye growth to 5,000 units”, Nation’s Restaurant News, Vol. 39 No. 39, p. 11. Lockyer, S.E. (2006), “Raising the bar”, Nation’s Restaurant News, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 45-8. Lorenzoni, N. and Lewis, B.R. (2004), “Service recovery in the airline industry: a cross-cultural comparison of the attitudes and behaviors of British and Italian front-line personnel”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 11-25. Malhotra, N.K., Ulgado, F.M., Agarwal, J. and Baalbaki, I.B. (1994), “International services marketing: a comparative evaluation of the dimensions of service quality between developed and developing countries”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 5-15. Mattila, A.S. (1999a), “The role of culture and purchase motivation in service encounter evaluations”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 376-89. Mattila, A.S. (1999b), “The role of culture in the service evaluation process”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 250-61. Mattila, A.S. (2000), “The impact of culture and gender on customer evaluations of service encounters”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 263-73. Mattila, A.S. and Choi, S. (2006), “A cross-cultural comparison of perceived fairness and satisfaction in the context of hotel room pricing”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 25, pp. 146-53. Oliver, R.L. (1993), “A conceptual model of service quality and service satisfaction: compatible goals, different concepts”, in Swartz, T.A. (Ed.), Advances in Service Marketing and Management,Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 65-85. Ortiz, E. (1996), “Look at what’s cooking in Seoul”, Business Korea, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 46-7. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991), “Understanding customer expectations of service”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 39-48. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40. Raajpoot, N. (2004), “Reconceptualizing service encounter quality in a non-western context”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 181-201. Reisinger, Y. and Turner, L.W. (2002), “Cultural differences between Asian tourist markets and Australian hosts: part 2”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 374-84. Riddle, D. (1992), “Leveraging cultural factors in international service delivery”, in Swarz, T.A., Bowen, D.E. and Brown, S.W. (Eds), Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 297-322. Ruggless, R. (2006), “Global ambitions”, Nation’s Restaurant News, Vol. 40 No. 38, pp. 47-51.


MSQ 17,3

296

Schmitt, B. and Pan, Y. (1994), “Managing corporate and brand identities in the Asia-Pacific region”, California Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 32-48. Singh, A., Upneja, A. and Dalbor, M.C. (2003), “Analysis of relative growth rates between domestic and international earning of US-based publicly traded restaurant firms”, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 25-41. Sizoo, S., Plank, R., Iskat, W. and Serrie, H. (2005), “The effect of intercultural sensitivity on employee performance in cross-cultural service encounters”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 245-55. Stauss, B. and Mang, P. (1999), “‘Culture shocks’ in inter-cultural service encounters?”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 329-46. Sultan, F. and Simpson, M.C. Jr (2000), “International service variants: airline passenger expectations and perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 188-216. Triandis, H.C. (1972), The Analysis of Subjective Culture, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Westview, Boulder, CO. Veloutsou, C., Gilbert, R.G., Moutinho, L.A. and Goode, M.M.H. (2005), “Measuring transaction-specific satisfaction in services”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 5/6, pp. 606-28. Voss, C.A., Roth, A.V., Rosenzweig, E.D., Blackmon, K. and Chase, R.B. (2004), “A tale of two countries’ conservatism, service quality, and feedback on customer satisfaction”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 212-30. Walkup, C. (2003), “Top 100: family chains nurture familiar, down-home image while welcoming new”, Nation’s Restaurant News, Vol. 37 No. 26, p. 110. Westbrook, R.A. and Oliver, R.L. (1991), “The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 84-91. Winsted, K.F. (1997), “The service experience in two cultures: a behavior perspective”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 337-60. Winsted, K.F. (1999), “Evaluating service encounters: a cross-cultural and cross-industry exploration”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 106-23. Witkowski, T.H. and Wolfinbarger, M.F. (2000), “The formality dimension of service quality in Thailand and Japan”, unpublished paper presented at the 2000 Annual Conferences of the Association for Consumer Research, Salt Lake City, UT. Witkowski, T.H. and Wolfinbarger, M.F. (2002), “Comparative service quality: German and American ratings across service settings”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, pp. 875-81. Wong, N.Y. (2004), “The role of culture in the perception of service recovery”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 957-63. Woodruff, R. (1997), Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive Advantage, Blackwell, Cambridge, UK.

Further reading Bolton, R.N. and Myers, M.B. (2003), “price-based global market segmentation for services”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, pp. 108-28. Economic Research Service (2003), “Food market structures: food service”, 23 March, available at: www.ers.usda.gov (accessed 10 January 2005).

Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Tsikriktsis, N. (2002), “Does culture influence website quality expectations? An empirical study”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 101-17. Verma, R., Pullman, M.E. and Goodale, J.C. (1999), “Designing and positioning food services for multicultural markets”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 76-87. About the authors Mikyoung Kong earned a Master of Science in Hotel and Restaurant Management from Eastern Michigan University. She was previously employed at Korean Airlines and her research interests include cross-cultural marketing and consumer behavior. Giri Jogaratnam is Professor of Hotel and Restaurant Management at Eastern Michigan University. His current research interests focus on strategic hospitality management, entrepreneurship, employee relations, and cross-cultural management. He has published extensively in the first-tier hospitality journals. Giri Jogaratnam is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
