You are on page 1of 20

1

2012 TOPCO


Exploring Customer Participation in
Value Creation from Customers and
Employees Perspective: for Professional
Financial Service







_______D0093________________
2

Exploring Customer Participation in Value Creation from Customers
and Employees Perspective: for Professional Financial Service
Abstract
This study delineates and empirically tests hypotheses regarding the effect of
customer participation on value creation and satisfaction for both customers and
employees with different customer ability and employee emotional intelligence in the
context of professional financial services. Using data collected from 383 pairs of
customers and professional financial advisors from several public sectors banks and
private banks in Taiwan, this research examines how (1)customer participation drives
customer satisfaction and employee job satisfaction, through the relational values
creation, and (2)the moderating effect of customer ability on customer relational values
creation and customer satisfaction; and (3) the moderating effect of emotional
intelligence on employee relational values creation and employee job satisfaction.
The research findings are as follows: first, customer participation can drive
customer satisfaction through relational value creation. Second, customer participation
not entirely creates positive employee relational value, also increases employees job
stress and hampers job satisfaction. Third, the result of moderating effect states
customer ability can facilitate customer satisfaction, but employees emotional
intelligence not completely affect the relationship between value creation and job
satisfaction.
Keywords: customer participation, employee job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, emotional intelligence, common method variance
Chapter OneResearch Background and Motivation
With the changes in economic structure, gradual growth of the global bank services
industry. However, due to the low barriers to entry of the bank service industry,
resulting in a highly competitive market for services. To maintain competitive
advantage, businesses must be innovative and provide a variety of products and services
to meet customer needs. Therefore, firms must learn from and collaborate with
customers to create values that meet their individual and dynamic needs.
Value co-creation is a central tenet of the service-dominant logic and the main
premise of customer participation. Customer participation should deliver value to both
customers and firms (Auh et al. 2007; Lovelock and Young 1979), and customers who
perceive more value from their service encounters tend to be more satisfied (Ouschan,
3

Sweeney, and Johnson 2006; Patterson and Smith 2001). Such customer participation
should benefit customers through improved service quality, more customization, and
better service control (Dabholkar 1990; Xie, Bagozzi, and Troye 2008), and it should
benefit firms through increased customer satisfaction and productivity gains.
However, little empirical research has examined or confirmed the value co-creation
process in the business-toconsumer context, particularly from a dyadic (i.e., customers
and employees) perspective. In this research, we empirically test how customer
participation drives service outcomes (i.e., customer satisfaction, employee job
satisfaction, and employee organizational commitment) through the creation of
relational values for both customers and service employees in the business-to-consumer
context of Taiwance professional financial service.
Chapter TwoLiterature Review and Hypothesis Development
About Common Method Variance (CMV)
Then before to understand what is common method variance, we must to know
method variance, according to Campbell and Fiske (1959) defined method variance
as because of the error due to measurement tools, they explained the result of
psychometric measurement can divided into random error variance and systematic
variance. And systematic variance also can divided into trait variance and method
variance, among this random error variance and method variance are all the error from
measurement method, and all effect the validity of measurement tools. Be further
inferred, if simultaneous detection of two or more constructs, the result of correlation
between the constructs is very high, while in fact, the result of high correlation may be
not real high correlation between the constructs, but due to measure tools, it is result of
method variance appear in both the constructs, brings common method variance, which
led to inflation of correlation between the constructs.
However, the two common ways to avoid common method variance are separation
approach of data collecting and design approach of instrument developing. And scholars
considers that for reduce the effect of common method variance, the most basic practice
is the arrangement of the questionnaires (i.e reverse question and random arrangement)
and feasible isolation method as the first step of data collection. On this research we use
design approach of instrument developing and the way of isolation customer and
employee to avoid common method variance occur.
4

Effect of Customer Participation on Satisfaction Through Relational
Value Creation
In regard to create on the value of customer participation, this study focuses on
relational value creation for customer and employees. Prior studies have suggested
that participation can be intrinsically attractive (Bateson, 1985) and enjoyable
(Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002). Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Malhotra (2005) call for
more research on the experiential aspects of enjoyment and fun in service encounters.
Therefore, customer participation may increase communication and relationship
building between customers and employees (Claycomb, Lengnick-Hall, and Inks,
2011). In addition, on the service provider side, employees may fulfill their social
needs for approval when they co-create service with customers, similar to the way
their perceptions of being valued by the organization enable them to satisfy their
social needs for approval, affiliation, and esteem (Eisenberger et al, 1986). Thus,
every interaction between employees and customers symbolize an opportunity to
create relational value for both parties (Fleming, Coffman, and Harter 2005). And
then we define customers and employees could co-create relational value through
their sense of enjoyment and by building relationships.
Based on the above literature, this customer participationrelational value
satisfaction link, for both customers and employees, is particularly evident when the
service is long term, customers depend heavily on credence qualities for their service
evaluation, and employees have more personal connections with customers (Fleming,
Coffman, and Harter, 2005), such as in the professional services context. Therefore,
we hypothesized customer participation have positive relationship satisfaction through
relational value creation. The assumptions as follow :
H1: Customer participation positively influences customer relational value creation
H2: Customer participation positively influences employee relational value creation
H3: Customer relational value creation positively influences customer satisfaction
H4: Employee relational value creation positively influences employee job
satisfaction
Effect of customer satisfaction on customer loyalty
Oei et al, (2006) empirical prove satisfaction will effect coproduction with direct
or indirect short-term loyalty is that when the other better alternative choices come up,
the customers will change the other one without any hesitation. However, customer
satisfaction has been proven to be a key factor to affect the long-term relationships
between customers and suppliers (Geyskens et al, 1999). Many studies have shown
that customer satisfaction will affect customer loyalty, and shape of long-term
relationship (Ganesan, 1994; Mittal and Kamakura, 2001; Mittal et al, 1998). When
customers are satisfied with the service provider, customer will patronize again or
5

recommended the service provider to other customers. Heskett et al, (1997) also
believe that customer loyalty will be rapid increase after customer satisfaction. Based
on above, we can find that have a strong correlation between customer satisfaction
and customer loyalty, and we hypothesize as follows:
H5: Customer satisfaction positively influences customer loyalty
Effect of job satisfaction on organizational commitment
The research basis of Heskett et al, (1994) proposed the Service-Profit Chain,
points out employees intention of stay have affection with job attitude, and employee
organization commitment will be the impact of internal service quality and employee
satisfaction. Furthermore, Loveman, (1998) proposed to simplify the Service-Profit
Chain model, empirical research in the bank sector to explore the relationship
between employee satisfaction, organizational commitment and financial performance.
Based on above, we can find that have a strong correlation between employee
satisfaction and organizational commitment, and we hypothesize as follows:
H6: Employee job satisfaction positively influences organizational commitment
The Moderator Role of Customer Ability
Schneider and Bowen (1995) advocated that when customer have high ability
and be able to provide information immediate, will lead to higher quality process of
co-production. Auh et al. (2007) use the expertise of customer to as a representative of
customer, because expertise can promote effectively implement of service, and
customer can provide accurate and appropriate information to employees. Based on
above, we find ability and result of co-production have significant relationship, and
generates the following hypothesis.
H7: Customer ability positively moderate the relationship between customer
relational value creation and customer satisfaction
The moderator role of emotional intelligence
In the early 1980, similar conceptual of emotional intelligence had begun. And
we know that high emotional intelligence individual tries to understand self emotions
and adapts appropriate emotional management instead of avoiding or accusing
negative emotions. In many vocations, especially high-contact service, emotional
competencies are essential to facilitate performance (Stough and De Guara, 2003;
King and Gradner, 2006). The higher emotional intelligence employees, the more
likely they are satisfied their jobs (Dong and Howard, 2006). Based on above, we find
high emotional intelligence person is likely able to control some interference or at
least moderate them to an acceptable degree, further affect performance (i.e.
satisfaction), however, very few studies as it the role of moderator. Thus, in this study,
we expects emotional intelligence as moderator of employee relational value creation
and job satisfaction, and generates the following hypothesis.
6

H1
H2
H3
H4
H6
H5
H7
H8
H8: Emotional intelligence positively moderate the relationship between
employee relational value creation and employee job satisfaction
Chapter ThreeResearch Design and Methodology
Research Framework
According to the result of literature review in Chapter Two, this study develops
the framework which is illustrated as below (Figure 3.1). In this study the examining
variables are including customer participation, relational value creation of customer
and employee respectively, satisfaction of customer and employee, customer loyalty,
employee organizational commitment, customer ability and emotional intelligence.
The research framework describes the relationship between customer
participation, value creation and satisfaction. That contains customer participation
will have an influence on the value creation of customer and employee respectively
then affects satisfaction of customer and employee, finally makes an impact on
customer loyalty and employee organizational commitment for professional financial
services in Taiwan. Moreover, it also investigates moderating effect of customer
ability and emotional intelligence.
















Conceptual Development and variable measurement
In this study the examining variables are including customer participation,
customer relational value creation, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, customer
ability, employee relational value creation, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and emotional intelligence. The operational definition and each variable
Figure 3. 1Framework
Customer
Participation
Customer Relational
Value Creation
Employee Relational
Value Creation
Customer
Satisfaction
Employee Job
Satisfaction
Customer
Loyalty
Organizational
Commitment
Customer
Ability
Emotional
Intelligence
7

measurement as follow. Because our research purpose is to understand the value
creation process when customers participation and interact with employees in service,
and this research with particular emphasis on the value creation of the relationship
between customers and employees, so we do not consider firm and customer
production (e.g., self-service technologies). Based on previous research we adapt
definition s of customer participation to our research context (i.e., professional
financial service) by conceptualizing customer participation as a behavioral construct
that measures the extent to which customers provide or share information, make
suggestions and become involved in decision making during the service value
creation and delivery process (Auh et al, 2007; Bettencourt, 1997; Bolton and
Saxena-Iyer, 2009; Hsieh, Yen, and Chin, 2004), and measurement scales from Auh et
al, (2007).
In this study the relational value creation is divided into the customer side of the
relationship value and employee side of the relational value. And in this research we
defined customer relational value comprises items that represent an enjoyable
interaction with and relational approval from the providers. Similar measures assess
employee relational value perception. The measurement scales and definition are
quoted from Hartline and Ferrell (1996), Zeithaml (1988). And this questionnaire
designed is the same question exchange the subject of customer side and employee
side. For example, in customer side the question is my participation helps me build a
better relationship with the service provider; in employee side the question is
customers participation helps me build a better relationship with the customer.
Based on view of Oliver (1999), we define customer satisfaction as the result of
customer co-production, feeling pleasurable and to recognize its right decision. The
measurement scales and definition are quoted from Lam et al, (2004), Oliver and
Swan (1989). For employee satisfaction, we based on view of Locke (1969) defines
job satisfaction as the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of
ones job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of ones value. Thus, we rely
on two four-item scale to measure customers satisfaction with the service provided
and employees job satisfaction. The employee of measurement scales and definition
are quoted from Hackman and Oldham (1975), Hartline and Ferrell (1996).
For customer satisfaction, we according to Zeithaml et al. (1996) defined loyalty
as customer will continue to buy the co-production service provider's products, and
recommend it to others, and develop this questionnaire. However, about
organizational commitment, we according to Mowday and Steers (1997) proposed the
normative point of organization commitment to development organization
commitment questionnaire (OCQ), defined commitment as the relative degree of
individual recognition and participation organization, due to past studies have shown
8

that the organization commitment questionnaire (OCQ) is high reliability and validity,
and it is the most popular piece measuring tool to measure organizational commitment
currently. Thus we measure employees' organizational commitment with organization
commitment questionnaire (OCQ).
Regarding to customer ability, Meuter et al, (2005) advocate customer readiness
will affect whether the customer use self-service technology, that is status and extent
of whether the customer is ready to use innovative. Therefore, we according to Meuter
(2005) defined customer ability as customer participation to co-creation value must to
have skills and expertise, and under it to develop questionnaire. Furthermore, In this
research we defined emotional intelligence as individual competence to aware,
regulate, and utilize emotions effectively in self and others (Salovey and Mayer, 1990
1997; Goleman, 1995). This self-report emotional intelligence test (SREIT) was
developed by Schutte et al, (1998) comprises 33 items. It is one of best-known tests
and widely used in the literature. So we adapt SREIT which is one factor to measure
emotional intelligence. And we selected from the 33 questions 13 questions to
measure emotional intelligence.
Questionnaire Design and Pretest
In this study, the design of the questionnaire is divided into two versions, one
version for customers to fill in, and it contains the questions of customer participation,
customer relational value creation, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and
customer ability; another one is for financial advisors to fill in, and it contains the
questions of employee relational value creation, employee job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, emotional intelligence. The measure were assessed in
five-point scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagreement, to 5 = strongly agreement ).
And the control variable of customer aside is bank category, sex, age, level of
education, career, salary, the years of trade with financial advisor, the average times of
to the bank in a month, the average times of consult with the financial advisor in a
month. Then the control variable of employee aside is bank category, sex, age, the
years of engaged in financial advisor, the average times of consult with the customer
in a month, the years of work in the bank. Furthermore, for avoiding common method
variance we use reverse question, random arrangement and feasible isolation method
as the first step of data collection.
The pretest is researched from February 3, 2012 to February 20, 2012. We
collected on 50 valid samples which focus on the financial advisors who had done the
professional financial investment services, for example personal loans, insurance,
financial planning, and asset/fund management ,etc. After recovering the
questionnaires, we use Cronbachs as criterion to measure the reliability in order to
let the questionnaires to be stable and consistency. we can clear know the Cronbachs
9

of every constructs are higher than 0.7 (Cronbachs of customer participation is
0.90; customer relational value is 0.97; customer satisfaction is 0.75; customer loyalty
is 0.77; customer ability is 0.97; employee relational value is 0.97; employee job
satisfaction is 0.91; emotional intelligence is 0.99; organizational commitment is
0.92), which demonstrate the reliability of this measurement scale is good. Therefore,
we can develop the formal questionnaire.
Population Information and Data Collection
We started to do the formal questionnaire investigating from February 25 to May
30 in 2012. The data for this study come from 383 pairs of customers and professional
financial advisors of the public sectors banks and private banks. We sample
respondents from eight public sectors banks and seven private banks and focus on
professional financial services such as personal loans, insurance, financial planning,
and asset/ fund management. The employee respondents bear job titles such as
financial advisors. Furthermore, the questionnaire is through executives to grant to
every professional financial advisor who have to pick out a customer from all
customer lists to finish the questionnaire, and form the relationship of pairs. We
selected professional financial advisor respondents whose titles are representative and
high frequency contact with customer in process of service to disseminate 450 pairs of
questionnaires in Taiwan. After selecting ineffective questionnaires, we have 383
effective samples of paper questionnaires. And respond rate is 85.7%.
The target population of this study focuses on financial advisors in the fortune
department of top 15 Taiwan domestic retailing banks, including seven public and
eight private banks. According to Banking Bureau, Financial Supervisory
Commission, Executive Yuan, R.O.C, top 15 Taiwan domestic retailing banks this
study selected, except industrial banks, were ranked by equities of 2011 in Taiwan.
Financial advisors are defined as professional financial consultants providing
customers with investment planning, insurance, loan project, fortune management and
so on. Because it must to form pairs, it increase the difficulty of the data collection, so
we total spent three months to collection samples. In process, we was constantly
remind and request by telephone, even to more banks visited financial advisors in
person, it is very hard and difficult. The final we withdrew 450 pairs of customer and
employee, and have 383 pairs effective samples of paper questionnaires.
Analytical Method
After the questionnaire recovering, we exanimate and encode the data artificially
and then login the database. In this research we use SEM to do sampling statistic
examination and adopt the Amos 18.0 software to analyze the data. The data analysis
uses descriptive statistic analysis to understand the population statistic description of
respondents.
10

Chapter FourEmpirical Analysis and Discussion
Sample Structure Description
The data for this study come from 383 pairs of customers and financial advisors
from public and private banks in Taiwan. And about financial advisors sample
structure is as follows: the percentage of male gender in all respondents is 35.2%
(135), and the female in all respondents is 64.8% (248); the level of age of most
respondents is between 31-year-old and 35-year-old is 36.6% (140); as to the most
years of engaged in financial advisors is between 1-year and 3-years is 52.7% (202),
the most service times of within one month is between five and seven times is 44.1%
(169); the most years of service in this bank is between 1-year and 3-years is 45.4%
(174). Furthermore, about customer sample structure is as follows: the percentage of
male gender in all respondents is 39.9% (153), and the female in all respondents is
60.1% (230); the level of age of most respondents is between 36-year-old and
40-year-old is 32.6% (125); as to the level of education most of the respondents are
colleges 71.8% (275); the career of most respondents is business is 43.1% (165); the
salary of most respondents is between 50001 and 60000 is 48% (184); the years of
trade with this financial advisors of most respondents is between 1-year and 3-years is
58.5% (224); the most discuss times with this financial advisors within one month is
between two and four times is 60.8% (233).
Reliability Analysis
In this part we do the reliability test, and according as Nunnally (1978) indicates
if value is under than 0.35, that represents the reliability is too low; between 0.5 and
0.7 shows the acceptable measurement scale; higher than 0.7 indicate the
measurement items have consistency. From the result of this research, we can know
all Cronbachs are higher than 0.7 (customer participation is 0.85; customer
relational value is 0.95; customer satisfaction is 0.75; customer loyalty is 0.82;
customer ability is 0.97; employee relational value is 0.93; employee job satisfaction
is 0.92; emotional intelligence is 0.98; organizational commitment is 0.96), which
means the items correspond high reliability and reach the measurement standards. The
result of implies that this scale item shows the good reliability and further we can do
the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
This study is based on the confirmatory factor analysis method to evaluate the
measured model. And the common indexes of evaluating the confirmatory factor
analysis are Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and
Squared Multiple Correlation (SMC). A high composite reliability implies that there
are high relationship between indicators and indicators. Hair et. al. (1998) think if the
11

composite reliability indicator is higher than or equal to 0.5, and other scholar think
the composite reliability indicator is higher than or equal to 0.6 (Fornell and Larck,
1981; Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), the observe variable can measure latent variable
effectively. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) computes the variances of latent
variable. Bagozzi and Yi (1988), Fornell and Larch (1981) suggest that value should
higher than 0.5 that implies the scale is stable. About Squared Multiple Correlation
(SMC) can reflect the percentage of measuring item variable which can be explained
by latent variable, and the value should higher than 0.3 (Chin, 1998).
From Table 4.1, we can see the CR values are above 0.5, even all construct are
higher than 0.7. Although some of AVE values are reluctantly higher than 0.5 but
most of CR value are still higher in presupposition. Based on above description the
reliability is in the acceptable area. The results demonstrate that all the measurement
items have acceptable reliabilities.
Validity Analysis
In this study, execute confirmatory factor analysis with Amos 18.0 to testing
validity of questionnaires. Construct Validity can be separated to convergent validity
and discriminant validity that means the level of measuring the constructs or traits in
questionnaire or scale. And then convergent validity must meet three standards: (1)
the factor loading of items must between 0.5 and 0.95, and T-test significant
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988); (2) Composite Reliability (CR) must higher than 0.6
(Fornell and Larck, 1981; Bagozzi and Yi, 1988); (3) and every Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) must higher than 0.5 (Fornell and Larck, 1981). From Table 4.1 we
can see every factor loading, CR and AVE are fits the standard of good validity.
According to Anderson and Gerbing (1988), with Confidence Interval test
discriminant validity, and it means construct correlation coefficient plus or minus two
standard errors to from upper and lower limit, as long as the confidence interval of the
correlation coefficient does not contain a "1", the constructs to each other with good
discriminant validity (Smith and Barclay, 1997). The result is under below in Table
4.2, and we can see every confidence interval of the correlation coefficient does not
contain a "1", which fits the standard of validity.
12


Table 4.1 CR, AVE and SMC
Dimension () SMC t value
Customer Participation
(Cronbachs = 0.853, CR = 0.86, AVE = 0.55 )
Customer participation 1
Customer participation 2
Customer participation 3
Customer participation 4
Customer participation 5

0.68
0.75
0.70
0.78
0.79

0.47
0.57
0.49
0.61
0.63

14.50
***

16.37
***

14.95
***

17.44
***

17.65
***

Customer Relational Value
(Cronbachs = 0.950, CR = 0.95, AVE = 0.87 )
Customer relational value 1
Customer relational value 2
Customer relational value 3

0.94
0.95
0.91

0.89
0.91
0.83

13.39
***

13.56
***
13.18
***

Customer Satisfaction
(Cronbachs = 0.742, CR = 0.81, AVE = 0.52 )
Customer satisfaction 1
Customer satisfaction 2
Customer satisfaction 3
Customer satisfaction 4

0.65
0.71
0.72
0.79

0.43
0.51
0.52
0.63

10.36
***

11.40
***

12.95
***

14.96
***

Customer Loyalty
(Cronbachs = 0.821, CR = 0.84, AVE = 0.51 )
Customer loyalty 1
Customer loyalty 2
Customer loyalty 3
Customer loyalty 4
Customer loyalty 5

0.64
0.77
0.83
0.71
0.56

0.41
0.59
0.69
0.51
0.32

10.54
***

11.53
***

11.99
***

11.16
***

8.98
***

Customer Ability
(Cronbachs = 0.973, CR = 0.97, AVE = 0.89 )
Customer ability 1
Customer ability 2
Customer ability 3
Customer ability 4

0.90
0.95
0.97
0.97

0.81
0.90
0.94
0.94

22.87
***

24.98
***

25.94
***

26.03
***

Employee Relational Value
(Cronbachs = 0.943, CR = 0.94, AVE = 0.83 )
Employee relational value 1
Employee relational value 2

0.91
0.90

0.83
0.81

22.66***
22.51***
13

Employee relational value 3 0.92 0.85 22.95***
Employee Job Satisfaction
(Cronbachs = 0.924, CR = 0.93, AVE = 0.77 )
Employee Job Satisfaction 1
Employee Job Satisfaction 2
Employee Job Satisfaction 3
Employee Job Satisfaction 4

0.85
0.83
0.86
0.97

0.73
0.69
0.74
0.94

17.95***
17.45***
18.17***
20.30***
Emotional Intelligence
(Cronbachs = 0.980, CR = 0.98, AVE = 0.79 )
Emotional Intelligence 1
Emotional Intelligence 2
Emotional Intelligence 3
Emotional Intelligence 4
Emotional Intelligence 5
Emotional Intelligence 6
Emotional Intelligence 7
Emotional Intelligence 8
Emotional Intelligence 9
Emotional Intelligence 10
Emotional Intelligence 11
Emotional Intelligence 12
Emotional Intelligence 13

0.88
0.86
0.88
0.91
0.91
0.89
0.85
0.91
0.93
0.93
0.89
0.81
0.88

0.78
0.74
0.77
0.83
0.83
0.79
0.72
0.83
0.86
0.86
0.79
0.66
0.77

21.99***
21.12***
21.67***
23.32***
23.11***
22.22***
20.84***
23.39***
23.95***
23.83***
22.60***
21.44***
21.83***
Organizational Commitment
(Cronbachs = 0.963, CR = 0.96, AVE = 0.71 )
Organizational Commitment 1
Organizational Commitment 2

0.84
0.89

0.71
0.79

19.82***
21.43***
Organizational Commitment 3
Organizational Commitment 4
Organizational Commitment 5
Organizational Commitment 6
Organizational Commitment 7
Organizational Commitment 8
Organizational Commitment 9
Organizational Commitment 10
Organizational Commitment 11
0.79
0.87
0.88
0.90
0.86
0.83
0.76
0.78
0.88
0.63
0.76
0.77
0.81
0.74
0.69
0.58
0.61
0.77
18.09***
20.94***
21.33***
22.03***
20.44***
19.18***
16.89***
17.48***
21.18***

14

Table 4.2 Discriminant Validity of Potential Constructs
Correlation Construct Phi
Standard
Error
Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
C. R.V <--> E. J. S -0.096 0.029 -0.154 -0.038
C. R.V <--> C. S 0.129 0.013 0.103 0.155
C. R.V <--> C. L 0.47 0.022 0.426 0.514
C. R.V <--> C. A. B 0.854 0.013 0.828 0.88
C. R.V <--> E. I -0.078 0.036 -0.15 -0.006
C. R.V <--> O. C -0.059 0.032 -0.123 0.005
C. R.V <--> E. R.V -0.056 0.037 -0.13 0.018
C.P <--> C.R.V 0.898 0.037 0.824 0.972
C.P <--> E.R.V -0.052 0.016 -0.084 -0.02
C.P <--> O.C -0.018 0.018 -0.054 0.018
C.P <--> E.R.V -0.039 0.02 -0.079 0.001
C.P <--> E.I -0.041 0.02 -0.081 -0.001
C.P <--> C.S 0.224 0.008 0.208 0.24
C.P <--> C.L 0.525 0.013 0.499 0.551
C.P <--> C.A.B 0.901 0.038 0.825 0.977
C.S <--> E.J.S -0.022 0.009 -0.04 -0.004
C.S <--> O.C -0.117 0.01 -0.137 -0.097
C.S <--> E.I 0.000 0.011 -0.022 0.022
C.S <--> E.R.V 0.008 0.011 -0.014 0.03
C.S <--> C.L 0.735 0.009 0.717 0.753
C.S <--> C.A.B 0.132 0.013 0.106 0.158
C.L <--> E.JS -0.028 0.012 -0.052 -0.004
C.L <--> O.C -0.108 0.013 -0.134 -0.082
C.L <--> E.I 0.009 0.014 -0.019 0.037
C.L <--> E.R.V 0.016 0.015 -0.014 0.046
C.L <--> C.A.B 0.476 0.023 0.43 0.522
E.J.S <--> C.A.B -0.087 0.03 -0.147 -0.027
C.A.B <--> E.I -0.077 0.037 -0.151 -0.003
O.C <--> C.A.B -0.043 0.033 -0.109 0.023
E.R.V <--> C.A.B -0.064 0.038 -0.14 0.012
E.J.S <--> E.I 0.866 0.036 0.794 0.938
Note: C.P Customer Participation; C.R.VCustomer Relational Value
C.S Customer Satisfaction; C.L Customer Loyalty; C.A.B Customer Ability
E.R.V Employee Relational Value; E.J.S Employee Job Satisfaction
E.I Emotional Intelligence; O.C Organizational Commitment
15

Hypotheses Testing and Structure Model Analysis
The common indexes of evaluating the overall fitness of model are Chi-square
test, GFI (goodness-of-fit index), AGFI (adjusted GFI), RMR (root mean square
residual) et al. From Table 4.3, we can discover the Chi-square/df is 2.39 which is
smaller than 5, the result is acceptable. And others values of goodness of freedom in
this model such as GFI = 0.826, AGFI = 0.802 which are larger than 0.8, the result is
acceptable; RMR = 0.038, RMESA = 0.06 which are smaller than 0.08, the result is
acceptable; NFI = 0.912, CFI = 0.929 which are larger than 0.9, the result all is
acceptable. That are all fit the standard so that overall measured model is good
enough to do the validity test.
Table 4.3 Goodness of Freedom Standard and the Value of this Model
Fit index Standard Result Resource
Chi-square As small as
possible
1325.6
P = 0.00
df = 554
2.39
Bagozzi &Yi (1988)
Hair et. al (1998)
Tanaka (1993)
Bollen (1989)
p P > 0.05
/df 2~5
Goodness of fit
GFI > 0.8 0.83 Doll et. al. (1994)
AGFI > 0.8 0.81
CFI > 0.9 0.93 Bagozzi &Yi (1988)
NFI > 0.9 0.91 Bentler &Bonett (1980)
PGFI > 0.5 0.726 Hair et. al. (2006)
Alternative index RMSEA < 0.08 0.06 Hair et. al. (2006)
Residuals analysis RMR < 0.05 0.038 Hu & Bentter (1999)
Furthermore, according to result in Table 4.8 we can know H1: customer
participation positively influences customer relational value creation; H3: Customer
relational value creation positively influences customer satisfaction; H4: Employee
relational value creation positively influences employee job satisfaction; H5:
Customer satisfaction positively influences customer loyalty; H6: Employee job
satisfaction positively influences organizational commitment, above all are support.
However, only H2: Customer participation positively influences employee relational
value creation is not support. Most of SMC are above 0.5 except SMC of employee
relational value and customer satisfaction. Although the value of 0.43 and 0.47, which
is close to the standard, does not reach the value of 0.5, we still accept it. The detail
data is under below on Table 4.4.
16

Table 4.4 Structural Model Results
Hypothesis Path
Excepted
Symbol
Standardized
Solution
t value Reslut
H1 C.P C.R.V + 0.899 10.52
***
Support
H2 C.P E.R.V + -0.053 -0.95 Not
Support
H3 C.R.V C.S + 0.267 4.20
***
Support
H4 E.R.V E.J.S + 0.805 13.08
***
Support
H5 C.S C.L + 0.774 8.68
***
Support
H6 E.J.S O.C + 0.524 9.31
***
Support
SMC
Employee Relational Value
Customer Relational Value
Customer Satisfaction
Employee Job Satisfaction
Customer Loyalty
Organizational Commitment

0.43
0.80
0.47
0.65
0.60
0.74
Note: * p<0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001
C.P Customer Participation; C.R.VCustomer Relational Value
C.S Customer Satisfaction; C.L Customer Loyalty; C.A.B Customer Ability
E.R.V Employee Relational Value; E.J.S Employee Job Satisfaction
E.I Emotional Intelligence; O.C Organizational Commitme
Result of Moderating effect
From Table 4.5, we can see the interaction term of customer aspect of customer
relational value and customer ability is significant (H7 is support). It means that
customer ability have moderating effect in the relationship between customer
relational value and customer satisfaction, and the factor of interaction term is
positive which states that the higher individual customer ability, the strong positive
relationship between customer relational value and customer satisfaction.
From Table 4.6, we can see the interaction term of employee aspect of employee
relational value and emotional intelligence is not significant (H8 is not support). It
means that emotional intelligence have not moderating effect in the relationship
between employee relational value and employee job satisfaction.
17

Table 4.5 Result of Moderating Effect of Customer
Customer Satisfaction
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Control variables
Bank classification -0.382
***
-0.384
***
-0.398
***
-0.397
***

Sex 0.013 -0.004 0.002 -0.003
Number of trading years -0.003 0.008 0.017 0.02
Independent variable
Relational Value 0.139
*
-0.282 -0.25
Moderating variable
Customer ability 0.440 0.465
*

Interaction term
Relational Value * ability 0.130
**

Table 4.6 Result of Moderating Effect of Employee
Employee Job Satisfaction
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Control variables
Bank classification -0.112 -0.137
***
-0.095
**
-0.097
**

Sex 0.120
*
0.03 -0.004 -0.006
Number of trading/ month -0.131
*
-0.046 -0.042 -0.041
Independent variable
Relational Value 0.756
***
0.225
***
0.156
Moderating variable
Emotional intelligence 0.635
***
0.662
***

Interaction term
Relational Value * Emotional
intelligence
-0.054
Chapter FiveDiscussion and Suggestion
Discussion of the Insignificant Path
In this model we discover have one path is not significant such as customer
participation to employee relational value, and one moderating effect also not support,
in this section we will discuss the part of insignificant and provide some empirical
evidences explain it. Although we understand that value co-creation is a central tenet
of the service dominant logic and the main premise of customer participation.
However, customer participation may not unequivocally create positive value;
customers increased involvement in the service process may shift more power from
18

service employees to customers and thereby increase employee workloads and role
conflict, thus the shift of power and control away from employee could lead to job
stress.
Furthermore, in this case, employee job satisfaction may be affected by bank
classification has a different strength, because in private bank the financial advisors
have more performance pressure than in public bank, that will affect the job
satisfaction of financial advisors. On the other hand, in high customer-contact service,
employees must not only provide services but also engage in emotional labor
(Hochschild 1983), by demonstrating polite and pleasant manners, regardless of
customers behaviors. Emotional labor is a key employee job stressor that causes
burnout and hampers work performance. Therefore, emotional intelligence as a
precondition factor of job satisfaction is better than as a moderating factor.
Theoretical and Managerial Implication
In this study we find customer participation adds a new dynamic to the customer
and employee relationship that engages customers directive in the co-creation of value.
Therefore, understanding how companies can harness the benefits and circumvent the
drawbacks of customer participation is of great importance. The findings have several
implications for firms that are considering or have engaged their customers in
co-creation of value in the service process. And we suggest manager in professional
financial service may motivate customers to be co-creators, and customers also need
to be trained to know what to expect and how to behave in given situations,
particularly in professional services in which the service is more complex and
customers are usually less familiar with the situations. Furthermore, we can cultivate a
customer participation culture. Just as customers need to learn their co-creation roles,
employees must adjust to their new roles. The view of customers as co-creators
dictates that employees include customers new roles and expectations in their
planning and execution of daily operations. Employees also must recognize the
business value of the new approach, their responsibilities, and the way it might bring
them personal benefits.
Study Limitation
The interpretation and application of the findings in the research are constrained
by some limitations and they will be as the suggestions for future research. There are
several limitations in this research. First, limitation of this study is related to special
workplaces of the sample. The study explored the role of co-creation value among
financial advisors and customer in Taiwan. As a result, one should be extremely
cautious while generalizing the results. Second, limitation of the study sample of this
research for the professional financial advisors in the banking industry, therefore,
financial advisors in the insurance industry is not included in the sample of this study.
19

In addition, we also limit financial advisors and customers must have the experience
of consulting. Therefore, this study does not consider the relationship less than one
year.
Future Research
Based on the research findings and limitations in this study, several suggestions
for future research are as follows. First, future research should explore other industry,
or compare the differences between western organizations and eastern organizations
to generalize the results of this study. Second, according to result of this study that we
can find the control variable bank classification have significant affect on value
creation and satisfaction for both customer and employee. Therefore, further research
might to test it as a moderate variable, whether there are have difference result from
public sectors bank and private bank.
Reference
1. Auh, S., S. Bell, C. McLeod, and E. Shih (2007), Co-production and customer loyalty in
financial services, Journal of Retailing, 83(3): 359-370.
2. Auh, Seigyoung, Simon J. Bell, Colin S. McLeod, and Eric Shih (2007), Co-Production and
Customer Loyalty in Financial Service, Journal of Retailing, 83 (3), 359-70.
3. Bateson, John E.G (1985), Self-Service Customer: An Exploratory Study, Journal of
Retailing, 61 (3), 49-76
4. Bettencourt, Lance A. (1997), Customer Voluntary Performance: Customers as Partners in
Service Delivery, Journal of Retailing, 73 (3), 383406.
5. Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W, (1959).Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the
Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix, Psychological Bulletin, 56(2)81-105.
Competition Fourm, 4 (2), 381-388
6. Dabholkar, Pratibha A.(1990), How to Improve Perceived Service Quality by Increaseing
Customer Participation, in Developments in Marketing Science, Vol13, B.J Dunlap, ed.
Cullowhee, NC: Academy of Marketing Science, 438-487.
7. Dong, Q. & Howard, T. (2006). Emotional intelligence, trust and job satisfaction.
8. Eisenberger, Robert, Robin Huntington, Steven Hutchison, and Debora Sowa (1986),
Perceived Organizational Support, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3),
500507.Experience, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp: 6-12.
9. Fleming, John H.,Curt Coffman, and James K. Harter (2005)Manage Your Human
Sigma, Harvard Business Review, 83 (78), 106114.
10. Gremler, Dwayne D. and Kevin P. Gwinner (2000), Customer-Employee Rapport in
Service Relationships, Journal of Service Research, 3 (August), 82104
11. Hartline, Michael D. and O.C. Ferrell (1996), The Management of Customer-Contact
Service Employees: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Marketing, 60 (October),
5270.
20

12. Hartline, Michael D. and O.C. Ferrell (1996), The Management of Customer-Contact
Service Employees: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Marketing, 60 (October), 5270
13. King, M. & Gradner, D. (2006). Emotional intelligence and occupational stress among
professional staff in New Zealand. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 14(3),
186-203.
14. Lovelock, Christopher H. (1983), Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Marketing
Insights, Journal of Marketing, 47 (Summer), 920
15. Lovelock, Christopher. and R. Young(1979), Look to Consumers to Increase to increase
Productivity, Harvard Business Review
16. Lovelock, Christopher. and R. Young(1979), Look to Consumers to Increase to increase
Productivity, Harvard Business Review
17. Meuter, M. L., Ostrom, A. L, Roundtree, R. I., and Bitner, M. J.(2000), Self-Service
Technologies: Understanding Customer Satisfaction with firms
18. Oei, Fuk Jin and Ogunlana, Stephen O. (2006), Assessment of the Development role of a
statutory body from a customer perceptive :A relationship Marketing Approach, Journal of
construction in Developing Countries , Vol.11 (2), pp.31-52
19. Oliver, Richard L. and John E. Swan (1989), Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity
and Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach, Journal of Marketing, 53
(April), 2135.
20. Ouschan, Robyn, Jillian Sweeney, and Lester Johnson (2006),Customer Empowerment
and Relationship Outcomes inHealthcare Consultations, European Journal of Marketing,
40(910), 10681086.
21. Parasuraman, A.,Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Arvind Malhotra(2005), E-S-QUAL: A
Multiple-Item Scale for Assessing Electronic Service Quality, Journal of Service Research,
7 (3),21333
22. Patterson, Paul G., Elizabeth Cowley, and Kriengsin Prasong-sukarn (2006),and Tasman
Smith (2001), Modeling RelationshipStrength Across Service Types in a South-East Asian
Context,International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12 (2),90113
23. Stough, C. & De Guara (2003). Examining the relationship between emotional intelligence
and job performance, paper presented at the 5th Industrial/ Organizational Psychology
Conference, Melbourne, July.
24. Xie, Chunyan, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Sigurd V. Troye (2008),Trying to Prosume:
Toward a Theory of Consumers as Co-Creators of Value, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36 (1), 109122.
25. Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988), Consumer Perceptions of Price,Quality, and Value: A
Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence, Journal of Marketing, 52 (July), 222.

You might also like