1043.docx

Applied mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology 1 (4) 2013:35-39 Relation between Job Invol
vement and Service Quality
Malikeh Beheshtifar
Mohammad Emambakhsh
Abstract
Job involvement is the internalization of values about the work or the importance of
work according to the individual. Job involvement may appraise the ease with which
a person can be further socialized by an organization.The construct of job
involvement is somewhat similar to organizational commitment in that they are both
concerned with an employee’s identification with the work experience. However the
constructs differ in that job involvement is more closely associated with
identification with one’s immediate work activities whereas organizational
commitment refers to one’s attachment to the organization. Employees with high
levels of job involvement are considered as an important asset to an organization
and motivated and committed employees are more productive and higher
productivity usually results in higher profits. Studies show job involvement could
lead to better service quality. Service qualityfocus on meeting the customers’ needs
and requirements, and how well the service delivered matches the customers’
expectations of it. The re-emergence of interest in employee involvement in the
managerial literature was premised on the increasing importance of product and service quality in an increasingly
competitive environment and failure of involvement leads to employees being dissatisfied and unwilling to summon the
effort needed to provide a higher standard of service quality to customers.The study shows that employee involvement can
support employers’ objectives to raise levels of work performance and can also enhance the quality of employees’ lives at
work. Employee involvement is a critical element of work quality, both in itself and for other key dimensions of work
quality such as physical working conditions and work intensity.

Keywords: job involvement, quality, service quality
1. Introduction
Human behavior plays a significant role in maximizing organizational effectiveness, regardless of technological
development. In particular, any effort to maximize organizational effectiveness requires a higher degree of job
involvement among members of an organization (Elankumaran, 2004).Job involvement is how people see their
jobs as both a relationship with the working environment, the job itself and how their work and life are
commingled. Having low job involvement contributes to employees’ feelings of alienation of purpose,
alienation in the organization or feeling of separation between what the employees see as their “life” and the job
they do (Hirschfeld& Field, 2000).
Fostering the job involvement is an essential organizational objective because lots of organizational researchers
claim it to primary source of organizational effectiveness (Pfeffer, 1994). So, motivated and committed
employees with high levels of job involvement are considered as an important asset to an organization and
keeping the employee motivation, commitment and job involvement up is always rewarding to a business as
motivated and committed employees are more productive and higher productivity usually results in higher
profits (Denton, 1987).Studies show job involvement could lead to better service quality.
Japanese companies find the old suggestion of quality, “the degree of conformance to a standard”, too narrow
and, consequently, have started to use a new definition of quality of “customer satisfaction” (Wayne,
1983).Asthiyaman (1997) defined service quality as perceived service quality is defined as an overall evaluation
of the goodness or badness of a product or service.

Applied mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology 1 (4) 2013 It is clear that job involvement and service quality are of ongoing research interest. It has led to theoretical
attentions among researchers in the area of organizational behavior. It seems that we are still far from
understanding what exactly fosters organization members’ job involvement and service quality. Therefore, it is
necessary to investigate them; although, there are not a comprehensive research that combines them as a vital
subject in the organizations.
2. Job involvement
The concept of job involvement was first introduced by Lodahl and Kejiner (1965).They related the job
involvement to the psychological identification of an individual with the work orimportance of work in the
individual’s self-image. It has a direct correlation with job satisfaction and alsoinfluences the work
performance, sense of achievement and unexplained absenteeism. However, there is asignificant difference in
the level and extent of job involvement in different types of work (Khan&Nemati,2011).
Job involvement is the degree of importance an individual assigns the job in his or her life (i.e., central life
interest) (Elloy, et al. 1995).Paullay, Alliger and Stone-Romero (1994) defined the job involvement as ‘‘The
degree to which one iscognitively preoccupied with, engaged in, and concerned with one’s present job’’(p.
225). Also, job involvement is defined as “a belief descriptive of the present job and tends to be a function of
howmuch the job can satisfy one’s present needs” (Carmeli, 2005).Li and Long (1999) define jobinvolvement
as degree to which one show emotional or mental identification with his job.
Lawler and Hall (1970) believed the job involvement as; the degree to which a person perceives his totalwork
situation to be an important part of his life and to be central to him and his identity because of theopportunity it
affords him to satisfy his important needs (Ekmekçi, 2011).Job involvement is the internalization of values
about the work or the importance of work according to theindividual. Job involvement may appraise the ease
with which a person can be further socialized by anorganization. Organizational socialization is the process by
which an individual understands the values,abilities, behaviors, and social knowledge indispensable for an
organizational role and for taking part in asa member (Ramsey et al., 1995).
The construct of job involvement is somewhat similar toorganizational commitment in that they are both
concerned with an employee’s identification with the workexperience. However the constructs differ in that job
involvement is more closely associated withidentification with one’s immediate work activities whereas
organizational commitment refers to one’sattachment to the organization (Brown, 1996).Job involvement is
grouped into four diverse categories. These categories:
1) work as a central life interest,
2) active participation in the job,
3) performance as central to self-esteem, and
4) performance compatiblewith self-concept.
In work as a central life interest, job involvement is thought of as the degree to which aperson regards the work
situation as important and as central to his/her identity because of the opportunityto satisfy main needs. In
active participation in the job, high job involvement hints the opportunity to makejob decisions, to make an
important contribution to company goals, and self-determination. Activeparticipation in the job is thought to
ease the achievement of such needs as prestige, self-respect, autonomy,and self-regard. In performance as
central to self-esteem, job involvement implies that performance on thejob is central to his/her sense of worth
(Balay, 2000).
3. Service quality
Shonk& et al (2008) argued that the service quality construct evolved out of the quality literature in
manufacturing. Quality initiatives date back to the 1920s when manufacturers began to focus on controlling the
physical production of goods and the internal measurements of the production process.
Service quality need be neither illusory nor elusive, it can be measured and the elementswhich cause problems
can be pinpointed and rectified (Nel, D. and Pitt, 1993).Numerous scientific papers have already attempted to
define quality, and most of the authors agree that it isnot possible to arrive at a correct and unambiguous
definition (Macukow, 2000)
Applied mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology 1 (4) 2013 It has beenproved by researchers that quality of service is an important determinant of satisfaction (Shemwell,
1998).Definitions of service quality, therefore, focus on meeting the customers’ needsand requirements, and
how well the service delivered matches the customers’ expectations of it (Pitt and Jeantrout, 1994).
Sasseret al.(1974) list seven service attributes which they believe adequately embrace the concept of service
quality. These include:
• security– confidence as well as physical safety;
• consistency– receiving the same each time;
• attitude– politeness and social manners;
• completeness– ancillary services available;
• condition – of facilities;
• availability– access, location and frequency; and
• training.
Grönroos (1984) shows that service quality includethree dimensions. The first is the technical quality which
refers to the results or what is being delivered toor what the customer gains from the service. The second
dimension is the functional quality which refers tothe manner in which the service is delivered or how it is
delivered. Finally, the corporate image whichrefers to store’s image which is mainly based on both the quality
of technical, artistic, and to some extentother factors such as traditional marketing activities.
Harvey and Knight (1996) stated that quality can be viewed as exceptional, as perfection (or consistency),as
fitness for purpose, as value for money and as transformative:
• Quality viewed as “exceptional”, very high standard • Quality viewed in terms of “consistency” in the process • Quality viewed in terms of achieving customer satisfaction • Quality viewed in term of value for money • Quality viewed as “transformative” Also, Parasuramanet al.(1995), offer the most widelyreported set of service quality dimensions. They suggest
that the criteria usedby consumers that are important in molding their expectations andperceptions of delivered
service fit into ten dimensions:
(1) tangibles;(2) reliability;(3) responsiveness;(4) communication;(5) credibility;(6) security;(7) competence;(8)
courtesy;(9) understanding/knowing the customer; and(10) access.
However, service quality has been linked to outcomes such as customer satisfaction (Ko&Pastore, 2004),
customer loyalty (Kandampully, 1998; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1990), value (Laroche, Ueltschy,
Shuzo, & Cleveland, 2004), and repurchase intention (Fornell, 1992).

4. Effect of job involvement on service quality
The re-emergence of interest in employee involvement in the managerial literature was premised on the
increasing importance of product and service quality in an increasingly competitive environment (Wall et al,
2002).
Employees with high job involvement are more focused towards their jobs (Hackett, Lapierre, &Hausdorf,
2001), and it is a critical factor in shaping worker outcomes (Diefendorff et al., 2002). Having employees with
high levels of job involvement may benefit organizations because when individualsimmerse themselves in
work, their motivation may increase, which may positively influence their jobperformance (Hackman &
Lawler, 1971). Organization’s point of view for job involvement is the major factor to encourage employees
and retain andcreate competitive advantages. So, for the growth and development of organizations, the
employee’sinvolvement with job is very valuable to put all energies and capabilities at work. Therefore,
organizationshave to allocate resources and time to enhance job commitment and involvement to keep
employees asdiligent workers (Kiyani, et al. 2011), and, managers should find factors which promote job
involvement for better service quality.
Lawler (1986) sees job involvement as significant key factor for creating and increasing motivation of
employees in view of organization and motivation play important role in productivity and performance of
individual. If we see job involvement from the view of individual it may be believed as significant to
Applied mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology 1 (4) 2013 individual’s own growth and satisfaction within the work environment as well as motivation and attitude
directed to goal (Kahn, 1990). It could leads to promote service quality in workplace.
Regarding the relationship between job involvement and service quality, Dimitriades (2000) states that: “Total
involvement is the integrating concept in quality management, comprising the participation and contribution of
three major organizational stakeholders to continuous improvement- all members, from shop floor employees to
senior managers; suppliers; and customers.” The importance of involvement in total quality was well
established and known in the Total Quality Management (TQM) literature.
Lo et al. (2009) argues that failure of involvement leads to employeesbeing dissatisfied and unwilling to
summon the effort needed to provide a higher standard ofservice quality to customers.Mansour &Nusairat
(2012) found that work related attitudes (job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment with
its three components (affective, normative, and continuance)) had significant statistical effect on the quality of
service delivered by customer-contact employees at call centers.

5. Conclusion
Organizational researchers from all around the world consider the job involvement as an important factor which
influence both employees’ as well as organizational outcomes (Lawler, 1986), such as service quality. Workers
today are more and more being asked by management to join employee involvement programs in order to
improve the quality of their work.
Job involvement is also considered as an important employees’ job related behavior (Kanungo, 1982), and well-
motivated and committed employees with high levels of job involvement are considered to be the most
important asset for any organization which serves as key to quality and productivity improvements (Mohsan, et
al., 2008)
The study shows that employee involvement can support employers’ objectives to raise levels of work
performance and can also enhance the quality of employees’ lives at work. Employee involvement is a critical
element of work quality, both in itself and for other key dimensions of work quality such as physical working
conditions and work intensity.
The study is recommended using an experimentally one so that job involvement and service quality canbe
analyzed in order to determine if the findings will be duplicated. It is imperative for managers to identify the
various causes and reasons for promoting job involvement and service quality, and plan to grow them.
Managers should succinctly improve service quality by different ways, because they have the mission to
contribute to the achievement of organizational goals and as well as the personal goals of the members.
References:
1. Balay, R. (2000). ÖrgütselBaglılık. Ankara: Nobel YayınDagıtım.Brown, SP. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement.Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235-255. 2. Carmeli, A. (2005). Exploring determinants of job involvement: an empirical test among senior executives,International Journal of Manpower, 26(5), 457 3. Denton, K. (1987). Effective Appraisals: Key to Employee Motivation. Industrial Engineering, 19(12). 24.
4. Dimitriades, Z. S. (2000). Total involvement in quality management. Team Performance Management: An
5. Ekmekçi, AK. (2011). study on involvement and commitment of employees in Turkey, Journal of PublicAdministration and Policy Research, 3(3), 69 6. Elankumaran, S. (2004). Personality, organizational climate and job involvement: An empirical study, Journal of Human Values, 10, 117 – 130.
7. Diefendorff, J., Brown, D., Kamin, A., & Lord, R. (2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 93–108. 8. Elloy, D., Everett, J., & Flynn, W. (1995). Multidimensional mapping of the correlates of job involvement. 9. Gronross, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications, European Journal ofMarketing, Applied mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology 1 (4) 2013 10. Hackett, R. D., Lapierre, L. M., &Hausdorf, P. A. (2001). Understanding the links between work commitment constructs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 392-413. 11. Hackman, JR. & Lawler, EE. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics, Journal of AppliedPsychology, 12. Harvey, L. and Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,18(1), 9-34 13. Hirschfeld, R. R., & Field, H.S. (2000). Work centrality and work alienation: Distinct aspects of a general commitment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 789-800. 14. Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Work alienation: An integrative approach. New York: Praeger Publishers. 15. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy 16. Khan, K. &Nemati, AR. (2011). Impact of job involvement on employee satisfaction: A study based onmedical doctors working at Riphah International University Teaching Hospitals in Pakistan, AfricanJournal of Business Management, 5 (6), 2242- 2243 17. Kiyani, A. Haroon, M. Khattak, MA. Liaqat, AS. Bukhari, SJ. andAsad, R. (2011). Impact of careersalience on universities teachers’ job involvement: A study on public and private universities in Pakistan,African Journal of Business Management , 5(5), 1796-1797 18. Lawler, E. E. (1986). High involvement management: participative strategies for improving organizational 19. Lo, M; Ramayah, T. & Min, H. W. (2009). Leadership styles and organizationalcommitment: A test on Malaysia manufacturing industry. African Journal ofMarketing Management 1(6) 133-13. 20. Macukow, B. (2000). Education Quality in the Warsaw University of Technology. European Journalof 21. Mansour, K. &Nusairat, F., 2012, The Effect of Work-Related Attitudes on the Quality of Service Delivered by 22. Mohsan, F., Musarrat Nawaz, M., Khan, M.S., Shaukat, Z. &Shaukat, N. (2008). Are Employee Motivation, Commitment and Job Involvement Inter-related: Evidence from Banking Sector of Pakistan,International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 17 23. Nel, D. and Pitt, L., “Service quality in a retail environment: closing the gaps”, Journal ofGeneral Management, 24. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L, “A conceptual model of service qualityand its implications for future research”, Journal Of Marketing, Vol. 49, Fall 1985, pp. 41-50 25. Paullay, I., Alliger, G., and Stone-Romero, E. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed tomeasure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 224-8. 26. Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
27. Pitt, L.F. and Jeantrout, B., Management of customer expectations in service firms: a studyand a checklist, The
Services Industries Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, April 1994, pp. 170-89. 28. Ramsey, R., Lassk, F.G., & Marshall, G.W. (1995). A critical evaluation of a measure of job involvement:The use of the Lodahl and Kejner (1965) scale with salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement, 15 (3): 65-74. 29. Sasser, W.E., Olsen, R.P. and Wyckoff, D.D., (1978).Management of Service Operations. Allyn&Bacon, Boston, 30. Shemwell, D.J., Yavas, U. &Bilgin, Z. (1998). Customer service provider relationship: an empiricaltest of a model of service quality, satisfaction and relationship oriented outcomes. InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management, 9(2), 155-168. 31. Shonk J. David, PackianathanChelladurai, (2008). Service Quality, Satisfaction, and Intentto Return in Event Sport Tourism, Journal of Sport Management, 2008, 22, 587-602 32. Wall, T. D., Cordery, J. L. and Clegg, C. W. (2002). Empowerment, performance, and operational uncertainty: A theoretical integration’, Applied Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 146–169. 33. Wayne, S.R. (1983). Quality control circle and companywide quality control, Quality Progress,October, 14-17

Source: http://amiemt.megig.ir/test/vol1-4/4.pdf