Managerial choice and performance in service management—a comparison of private sector organizations with further education colleges

Abstract

The debate as to whether public sector organizations should emulate private sector managerial practices in light of contextual differences is long running. This paper reports the result of an empirical study comparing application of service management principles in one public sector area, further education (FE) colleges, with private sector service organizations. Although within our sample marked differences exist between the levels of service drivers and outcomes, our findings suggest that the same management model is applicable to both sectors. Based on a sample of 291 service organizations, we demonstrate that a managerial model, represented by the service profit chain, is valid in both our FE college and private sector sample. Specifically, progressive human resource management practices led to employee satisfaction, which in turn impacted both service quality and customer satisfaction in both the public and private organizations. The results indicate that the performance of FE colleges arose in part from the managerial choices made in adoption of practices, and that it is lack of employee focus that may be holding back performance. Relevant to both public and private sectors is that the research indicates that human resource factors have a stronger impact than quality procedures, on both service quality and customer satisfaction. #

Introducing management models in service organisations in developed and developing countries

“…This does not mean that the methodology is directly exportable; a real adaptation to the specificities of each country and institution may be necessary. This supports the literature about the importance of the context specificities (Voss et al, 2005;Williams & Lewis, 2008;Zhao et al, 2004). Consequently, services in HEIs may use the eight steps of self-assessment to introduce changes in the management of the service, taking into account the context-specific features of HEI services and developing countries.…”

“…With regard to higher education institutions (HEIs), self-assessment techniques are one way to develop QM systems (Davies, Hides, & Casey, 2001) and promote the introduction of changes in management practices, processes and structures to improve performance (Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009;Voss, Tsikriktsis, Funk, Yarrow, & Owen, 2005). These self-ISSN 0264-2069 print/ISSN 1743-9507 online # 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2010.540755 http://www.tandfonline.com assessment processes have been examined in developed countries in services and academic units (Clavo-Mora, Leal, & Roldán, 2006;Davies et al, 2001;Hides, Davies, & Jackson, 2004;Osseo-Asare & Longbottom, 2002;Ruben, Russ, Smulowitz, & Connaughton, 2007).…”

The impact of employee satisfaction on quality and profitability in high‐contact service industries

“…Goldstein (2003) illustrated the importance of employee development in service strategy design to managing service encounters in hospitals. Based on interviews in the private sector and further education colleges, Voss et al (2005) developed an empirical model to account for the impact of employee satisfaction on service quality and customer satisfaction. Though such stream of research is still rare, it provides some theoretical grounds and preliminary evidence for the importance of employee satisfaction in service operations.…”

Customer satisfaction and service quality in UK financial services

“…Whilst Silvestro and Cross (2000) cast some doubts on the strength of the relationship, the balance of evidence suggests that employee satisfaction is a key driver of service quality. Voss et al (2004 1 ), for example, find that 'employee satisfaction directly affects both service quality and customer satisfaction', whilst Vilares and Coehlo (2003) are so convinced about the fit that they recommend changes to one of the existing customer satisfaction indexes (ECSI) to recognise the 'cause and effect relationship between employee behaviour and customer satisfaction'.…”