Research Note

Role of Customers and Employees

in Service Delivery and Customer
Satisfaction: Survey Evidence
from Banks in Rajasthan
Introduction
Customer satisfaction is the core of all
marketing efforts and essential for survival
in the market. The principal purpose of a
business is to create satisfied customers
(Drucker, 1954). Burns et al. (2003) describe
negative disconfirmation as an occurring
when performance is less than expectations.
Positive disconfirmation is evident when
performance is greater than expectations.
Customer satisfac tion resul ts in the
disconfirmation of prior expectation, i.e., if
the service provider meets or exceeds
expectations, then the customer is more likely
to be satisfied (Rust et al., 1995). According
to Oliver (1993), customer satisfaction is
defined as the consumers cognitive
evaluation of and emotional reaction to his/
her perception of whether the characteristic
met or exceeded is to his/her expectations.

Objectives of the Study

The importance of human interaction/
intervention in service delivery has been
reiterated by various researchers (Schneider et
al., 1994). More importance is given to the
human aspect in services as favorable
interpersonal interactions between customers
and employees can improve customer
satisfaction (Hartline et al., 2000). According
to Armando (2005), successful service
providers are able to meet and, whenever

2012 IUP
. All Rights Reserved.
Research
Note

possible, exceed consumers needs and wants

in delivering services due to certain specific
characteristics of services (e.g., intangibility,
simultaneity, variability and perishability) and
human elements, in particular the face-toface interaction with the customer.
The human aspects are very important
drivers of service performance in Indian banks
(Dash et al., 2007), as improved human
aspects of service quality increase customer
satisfaction (Lenka et al., 2009).
This study, therefore, proposes that the
perceived employee role in service delivery has
a positive influence on customer satisfaction.
H1: Perceived employee role in service
delivery has a positive impact on
customer satisfaction.
Similarly, customers too play a variety of
roles. Three main roles of customers may be
identified as:
The customer as a productive
resource: Customer input can affect
the organizations productivity
through both the quality of what
they contribute and the resulting
quality and quantity of output
generated. Customers inputs help in
increasing the productivity of the firm.
The customer as a contributor to
quality, satisfaction and value:
Effective customer participation can
121

increase the chances of customers

needs being fulfilled.
The customer as a competitor to
the service organization: When
customers perform entire or partial
service, they play the role of a
competitor. Examples are childcare,
home maintenance, etc.
These roles are not mutually exclusive, i.e.,
an individuals co-productive behaviors in a
specific situation may apply to more than one
of the three roles.
Customer role is defined as a set of
behavioral patterns learned through experience
and communication, performed by an
individual in a certain social interaction to
attain maximum effectiveness in goal
accomplishment (Bateson, 1989).
Customers and employees both participate
in service delivery. Their participation is
unavoidable in service delivery. So, both are
responsible for customer satisfaction.
Customers cannot be separated from the
production process of service firms and can
contribute to their own satisfaction. But the
level of participation may be different across
different service firms (Hubbert, 1995).
In banking services, customers inputs are
required for producing services like opening an
account, granting loan or other services, etc.
So customer participation is considered as
moderate.
According to Chervonnaya (2003), there
are 10 customer roles in services. If the
customers believe they are partially (or totally)
to blame for the failure, they will be less
dissatisfied with the service provider than when
they believe the provider is responsible and
could have avoided the problem (Bitner,
1990). Customers are contributors to their own
satisfaction by their participation in service
delivery (Bitner et al., 1990). When customers
122

participate in the service delivery, they can

actually contribute to their satisfaction
(Schneider and Bowen, 1995). Southwest
Airlines was dependent on customers to
perform critical service roles for themselves,
thus increasing the overall productivity of the
airline: passengers were asked to carry their
own bags when changing flights, get their own
food and seat themselves. A study conducted
on bank customers indicated customers
perceptions of both what they did and how
they did were significantly related to customers
satisfaction with the service they received from
the bank (Kelly et al., 1992).
This study, therefore, proposes that the
perceived customer role in service delivery has
a positive influence on customer satisfaction.
H2: Perceived customer role in service
delivery has a positive impact on
customer satisfaction.

Methodology
Apart from demographic variables like age and
gender, data on employee role, customer role
and customer satisfaction were collected.
Demographic profile of the customers is shown
in Table 1.
Primary and secondary data have been
used for the study. Primary data was collected
from 200 customers from three commercial
banks in Rajasthan through convenience
sampling (see item-wise description in Table 2).
Out of three banks, two banks were from public
sector and one from private sector.
Four items depicting customer role were
adapted from the scale developed by Kelly et al.
(1992); six items depicting employee role were
adapted from the scale of Sureshchandar et al.
(2002); and customer satisfaction was measured
using a three-item scale developed by Cronin
et al. (2000). The response categories were on a
five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XI, No. 4, 2012

Table 1: Demographic Profile

of the Customers
Variable

21-25

150

75

26-30

50

25

Female

40

20

Male

160

80

Age

Gender

Results
The data were subjected to factor analysis using
principal component with varimax rotation as
they appeared to be interrelated with each
other. The items with the highest loading were
considered to be the representative of the
respective scales. Factors of all the scales
obtained from factor analysis were further
subjected to statistical analysis to draw
inferences. The summary of factor analysis
results for all the scales used in the research is
presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of Factor Analysis

I.
No.
(a) Customer Role Scale

Variable

Loading

1. I clearly explain what I want the bank employee to do regarding banking services

0.94

2. I give the bank employee the required information

0.92

3. I try to cooperate with bank employees

0.90

4. I understand the procedure associated with this bank service

0.88

Eigenvalue
Percent of variance

3.33
83.27

(b) Employee Role Scale

1. Bank employees are willing to help customers

0.95

2. Employees have knowledge to answer customers specific queries

0.92

3. Employees deal with customers grievance effectively

0.84

4. Employees give prompt services to their customers

0.83

5. Employees provide services as per promised schedule

0.77

6. Employees of this bank understand your specific needs

0.73

Eigenvalue
Percent of variance

4.31
71.93

(c) Customer Satisfaction Scale

1. My decision to avail this bank service is a wise one

0.93

2. I did the right thing when I chose this bank for its services

0.79

3. Services of this bank exactly meet my requirements

0.77

Eigenvalue
Percent of variance
Research Note

2.10
70.06
123

It is observed from Table 2 that factor

analysis performed for four-item scale of
customer role resulted in one factor. No item
was dropped from the scale. The scale had
an eigenvalue of 3.33 and explained a
variance of 83.27%.
Factor analysis performed for six-item scale
of employee role resulted in one factor. No
item was dropped from the scale. The scale
had an eigenvalue of 4.31 and explained a
variance of 71.93%.
Factor analysis performed for three-item
scale of customer satisfaction resulted in one
factor. It confirmed the original scale. No item
was dropped from the scale. The scale had
an eigenvalue of 2.10 and explained a
variance of 70.06%.
In order to examine the strength of
association between predictor and criterion
variables, Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA)
was performed.
To identify whether customer role and
employee role have influence on customer

satisfaction, regression analysis was used. R2

indicates that 10% change in customer
satisfaction is due to customer role and
employee role (Table 3). The relative
importance of variables in predicting customer
satisfaction can be determined by comparing
standardized regression coefficients (Beta
coefficient). Values of beta are 0.261 and
0.210 for customer role and employee role,
respectively (Table 3). This indicates that
customer role has more impact on customer
satisfaction than employee role. The
unstandardized parameter (B, regression
coefficient) estimates how much the
dependent variable changes when the
independent variable changes one unit and
other independent variables are held constant.
When there is one unit change in customer
role, there will be 0.26 units change in
satisfaction. Similarly, one unit change in
employee role will lead to 0.21 units change
in satisfaction (Table 3). T-statistics help to
determine which variables in the model are
good explanatory variables of the dependent

Table 3: Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Results Considering

Customer Role and Employee Role as Independent Variables and Customer
Satisfaction as Dependent Variable
Unstandardized
Coefficients

Standardized
Coefficients

T-Value

Significance

1.2*

0.000

Beta

Std. Error

Constant

1.700

0.062

Customer Role

0.261

0.068

0.261

3.8*

0.000

Employee Role

0.210

0.068

0.210

3.1*

0.002

0.320

R2

0.100

Adjusted R

0.090
11.690*

0.000

Note: * p < 0.05; and Dependent Variable: Satisfaction.

124

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XI, No. 4, 2012

variable. Table 3 indicates that all variables in

the model are explanatory variables of the
dependent variable. F-test helps in testing the
model. F-statistics value is significant at 5%
level. Therefore, the model can be said to be
good overall.

Conclusion
The findings reveal that customer role and
employee role help in increasing customer
satisfaction. These results confirm the past
research results (Bitner, 1990; Bitner et al.,
1990; Kelly et al., 1992; Dabholkar, 1996;
Hartline et al., 2000; Dash et al., 2007; and
Lenka et al., 2009).
However, the findings of this study indicate
that customer role has more impact on
customer satisfaction than employee role. If
the bank customers participate by providing
all the required information to the employees
for producing services like opening an account,
granting loan or other services, then services
are delivered without delay. For pensioners,
submission of live certificate is a must once in
a year, otherwise pension will be stopped.
Therefore, customer role is important.
Customers contribute to their own
satisfaction by participating in service delivery.
Bank customers may enjoy using the computer
to obtain airline tickets, or may like to do all
of their banking via ATMs and automated
phone systems. Therefore, in this study, it is
found that customer role has more impact on
customer satisfaction than employee role.
Limitations: This study is restricted to the
state of Rajasthan and the sample size is also
small. Therefore, caution should be exercised
while generalizing results. To have a better
insight, it is suggested to increase the sample
size. Another limitation is that demographic
variables are considered as constant. Future
Research Note

researches should consider the impact of

demographic variables also because young
people may like to use technology compared
to old people. Apart from these, more
antecedents of customer satisfaction like the
other dimensions of service quality, value and
price should also be considered. H

References
1. Anderson E W, Fornell C and Lehmann
D R (1994), Customer Satisfaction,
Market Share, and Profitability: Findings
from Sweden, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 53-66.
2. Armando V ( 2005 ), Delivering Quality
Service: All for One?, Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism,
Vol. 6, Nos. 1 & 2, pp. 25-42.
3. Bateson John E G (1989), Managing
Services Marketing: Text and Readings,
Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL.
4. Bedi M (2010), An Integrated Framework
for Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction
and Behavioral Responses in Indian
Banking Industry: A Comparison of
Public and Private Sector Banks, Journal
of Service Research, Vol. 10, No. 1,
pp. 157-172.
5. Bitner M J (1990), Evaluation of Service
Encounters: The Effects of Physical
Surroundings and Employee Responses,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 2,
pp. 69-82.
6. Bitner M J, Booms B H and Tetreault M S
(1990), The Service Encounter:
Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable
Incidents, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54,
pp. 71-84.
7. Burns R C, Graefe A R and Absher J D
(2003), Alternate Measurement
Approaches to Recreational Customer
125

Satisfaction: Satisfaction-Only Versus

Gaps Scores, Leisure Sciences, Vol. 25,
pp. 363-380.
8. Chervonnaya O (2003), Customer Role
and Skill Trajectories in Services,
International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 14, Nos. 3 & 4, p. 347.
9. Dabholkar P A (1996), Consumer
Evaluations of New Technology-Based
Self-Service Options: An Investigation of
Alternative Models of Service Quality,
International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 29-51.
10. Dash S, Bruning E and Guin K K (2007),
Antecedents of Long-Term Buyer-Seller
Relationships: A Cross Cultural
Integration, Academy of Marketing
Science Review, Vol. 11, pp. 1-29.
11. Drucker P F (1954), The Practice of
Management, Harper & Row, New York.
12. Hartline M D, Maxham J G III and McKee
D O (2000), Corridors of Influence in
the Dissemination of Customer-Oriented
Strategy to Customer Contact Service
Employees, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 35-50.
13. Hubbert A R (1995), Customer CoCreation of Service Outcomes: Effects of
Locus of Causality Attributions, Doctoral
Dissertation, Arizona State University,
Arizona.
14. Kelly S W, Skinner S J and Donnelly Jr. J H
(1992), Organizational Socialization of
Service Customers, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 25, pp. 197-214.
15. Lenka Usha, Suar Damodar and
Mohapatra Pratap K J (2009), Service
Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and
Customer Loyalty in Indian Commercial
126

Banks, Journal of Entrepreneurship,

Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 47-64.
16. Oliver R L (1993), Cognitive, Affective,
and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction
Response, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 418-430.
17. Reichheld F F (1996), The Loyalty Effect,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
18. Rust R T, Zahorik A J and Keiningham T L
(1995), Return on Quality (ROQ):
Making Service Quality Financially
Accountable, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 59, pp. 58-70.
19. Schneider B and Bowen D E (1995),
Winning the Service Game, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston.
20. Schneider B, Gunnarson S K and NilesJolly K (1994), Creating the Climate and
Culture of Success, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 17-28.
21. Sureshchandar G S, Rajendran C and
Anantharaman R N (2002), The
Relationship Between Managements
Perception of Total Quality Service and
Customers Perception of Service
Quality, Total Quality Management,
Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 69-88.
Vinita Kaura* and
Saroj Kumar Datta**
* Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management Studies,
Mody Institute of Technology and Science (Deemed
University u/s 3 of the UGC Act, 1956),
Lakshmangarh 332311, Dist. Sikar, Rajasthan,
India. E-mail: kaura2005@ rediffmail.com
** Professor and Dean, Faculty of Management Studies,
Mody Institute of Technology and Science
(Deemed University u/s 3 of the UGC Act, 1956),
Lakshmangarh 332311, Dist. Sikar, Rajasthan,
India. E-mail: dean.fms@mitsuniversity.ac.in

Reference # 10J-2012-11-08-10

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XI, No. 4, 2012

Copyright of IUP Journal of Bank Management is the property of IUP Publications and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.