The Bright Side of Stressed Frontline Employees in Service Recovery: The Combination Causes of Organizational Empowerment and Self-Regulation Processes

Figures & data

Figure 1 Research model.

Notes: This figure describes the research model in this study, the causing configurations, including organizational empowerment, service recovery awareness, work engagement, emotional exhaustion, that resulting in service recovery performance.

Figure 2 Procedure for the application of fsQCA.

Notes: This figure describes the analytic processes following by Ragin.⁵² The processes in dotted line square are conduct by fsQCA software.

Table 1 Summary of Variables (Fuzzy-Set Scores)

Variable	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max	oe_cal	sra_cal	we_cal	ee_cal	srp_cal
oe_cal	0.52	0.30	0	0.99	1
sra_cal	0.51	0.29	0	0.95	0.418**	1
we_cal	0.53	0.32	0	0.99	0.460**	0.476**	1
ee_cal	0.53	0.32	0	0.99	0.086	0.109	0.035	1
srp_cal	0.54	0.30	0	0.99	0.487**	0.458**	0.435**	−0.041	1

Notes: **Significant at the 1% level, number of observations = 287, _cal was the variable name after calibration.

Table 2 Configurations of Binary States of Variables

oe_cal	sra_cal	we_cal	ee_cal	Number of Cases	%
●	○	●	●	41	14%
○	○	○	○	41	28%
○	○	○	○	36	41%
●	●	●	○	30	51%
●	●	○	●	15	56%
●	●	○	○	15	62%
●	○	●	●	15	67%
○	●	●	○	13	71%
●	○	○	○	12	76%
○	●	●	●	11	79%
○	●	○	●	11	83%
○	○	●	●	10	87%
○	○	●	○	10	90%
●	○	○	●	10	94%
○	●	○	○	9	97%
●	○	●	○	8	100%
				287	100%

Notes: Black circles indicate the presence of the condition, and write circles indicate their absence.

Table 3 Summary of Variables and Calibration Values

Variables	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max	N Cases	Missing	Median	Calibration Values
								95%	50%	5%
oe	3.8895	0.48	3.9992	4.999	2	0	3.9107	4.3869	3.9107	3.5416
sra	4.2466	0.43	2.8263	4.9995	290	0	4.3116	4.9995	4.3116	3.4879
we	4.0298	0.49	2.828	5	290	0	3.8257	3.7686	3.8257	3.4685
ee	3.5918	0.69	2.2468	4.999	290	0	4.5046	3.2373	4.5046	3.9992
srp	3.9931	0.47	4.0000	4.6906	290	0	3.8678	4.8272	3.8678	3.8554

Table 4 Three Types of fsQCA Intermediate Solutions

Solution 1				Solution 2				Solution 3
(sra_cal, we_cal, ee_cal)→(srp_cal)				(sra_cal, we_cal, ee_cal)→(srp_cal)				(sra_cal, we_cal, ee_cal)→(~srp_cal)
Frequency threshold = 8 (keep 100% of the cases) Frequency cutoff: 8.00; consistency cutoff: 0.88				Frequency threshold = 15 (keep 67% of the cases) Frequency cutoff: 8.00; consistency cutoff: 0.70				Frequency threshold = 8 (keep 100% of the cases) Frequency cutoff: 8.00; consistency cutoff: 0.88
oe_cal*~ee_cal	0.50	0.02	0.87	oe_cal*sra_cal	0.63	0.16	0.86	~oe_cal*~we_cal*~sra_cal	0.57	0.14	0.88
~ee_cal*we_cal	0.49	0.02	0.84	~oe_cal*~we_cal*~sra_cal	0.35	0.10	0.64	~oe_cal*ee_cal*~sra_cal	0.49	0.06	0.88
~ee_cal*sra_cal	0.49	0.02	0.86	oe_cal*ee_cal*we_cal	0.48	0.04	0.87	~oe_cal*ee_cal*~we_cal	0.47	0.04	0.86
oe_cal*we_cal	0.65	0.04	0.85
oe_cal*sra_cal	0.63	0.04	0.86
Solution coverage: 0.84; solution consistency: 0.79				Solution coverage: 0.79; solution consistency: 0.73				Solution coverage: 0.67; solution consistency: 0.84

Ragin CC. Using qualitative comparative analysis to study causal order comment on Caren and Panofshy (2005). Sociol Methods Res. 2008;36:431–441. doi:10.1177/0049124107313903

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar