Employee versus supervisor ratings of performance in the retail customer service sector: Differences in predictive validity for customer outcomes

Based on data from Maxham and Netemeyer [Maxham, J. G. and R. G. Netemeyer (2003). “Firms Reap What They Sow: The Effects of Employee Shared Values and Perceived Organizational Justice on Customer Evaluations of Complaint Handling,” Journal of Marketing, 67, 46–62], the authors present two field samples to examine predictive validity differences of service employee ratings of their performance versus supervisor ratings of employee performance with respect to customer satisfaction and customer likelihood of spreading positive word-of-mouth (WOM) after a service recovery attempt. The results generally show that supervisor ratings are more strongly positively related to customer satisfaction and WOM than are employee ratings of their own performances. The results also show that both supervisor ratings and employee ratings are related to customer satisfaction and WOM in a curvilinear fashion (as well as linear fashion). Employee extra-role performances (toward customers and the firm) show increasing returns at the higher levels of performance, and employee in-role customer performance generally shows a decreasing return at the higher level of customer in-role performance.These results suggest two managerial implications. First, supervisor ratings of customer service employee performances may be the preferred form of measurement for predicting customer outcomes. Second, maximizing in-role performance inputs may have decreasing returns for customer evaluations in the service recovery context; but maximizing extra-role performance inputs may actually “delight” customers, i.e., increasing returns for customer evaluations.