Daily customer mistreatment and employee sabotage against customers: Examining emotion and resource perspectives.
By Mo Wang, Hui Liao, Yujie Zhan, Junqi Shi. 2011
527 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/01032b77705ab4af7fbb16d9c2586dedd2a24db5
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
- Nai‐Wen Chi
- Markus Groth
- Alicia A. Grandey
- Mo Wang
- Junqi Shi
- Russell E. Johnson
- Yihao Liu
- Yifan Song
In Sociology and Political Science
- Alicia A. Grandey
- Nai‐Wen Chi
- Markus Groth
- Mo Wang
- Junqi Shi
- Yihao Liu
- Yifan Song
- Russell E. Johnson
Citations in the corpus
- Four Decades of Frontline Service Employee Research: An Integrative Bibliometric Review (2021, background): “In contrast, resources such as service rule commitment can weaken the effect of customer mistreatment on FLE-initiated sabotage (Wang et al. 2011).”
- A social mindfulness approach to understanding experienced customer mistreatment: A within-person field experiment (2017, methodology): “daily phenomenon in customer service contexts (Wang et al., 2011).”
- Effects of customer incivility on frontline employees and the moderating role of supervisor leadership style (2020, background): “These forms of customer incivility breach the norms of social interactions and place greater job demands (emotional and interpersonal) on FLEs, since service rules expect from FLEs to handle customers with professionalism, respect and courtesy (Grandey, Kern, & Frone, 2007; Sliter et al., 2010).”
- Office Chit-Chat as a Social Ritual: The Uplifting Yet Distracting Effects of Daily Small Talk at Work (2020, unknown): “…at Level 1 were modeled as random effects; the direct effects of small talk on each outcome (i.e., end-of-day well-being, OCB) and control variables were modeled as fixed effects to reduce model complexity (Wang, Liao, Zhan, & Shi, 2011; Wang, Liu, Liao, Gong, Kammeyer-Mueller, & Shi, 2013).”
- Empowering supervision and service sabotage: a moderated mediation model based on conservation of resources theory. (2018, methodology): “In addition, the majority of this research has focused on antecedents of service sabotage: customer mistreatment (Skarlicki et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2011), customer-caused stressors (Kao et al., 2014), and negative emotions and moods among employees (Chi et al., 2015; Lee & Ok, 2014).”
- A review and agenda for examining how technology-driven changes at work will impact workplace mental health and employee well-being (2020, background): “…of burnout and poorer mental health (Schaufeli et al., 2009), as well as increasing employee withdrawal behaviours such as increased sick leave (Nguyen et al., 2016), turnover (Goodwin et al., 2011), and employee sabotage against customers such as abruptly ending a service call (Wang et al., 2011).”
- Customer Mistreatment: A Review of Conceptualizations and a Multilevel Theoretical Model (2015, methodology): “For example, Wang et al. (2011), using a sample of call center employees, reported that customer mistreatment was positively related to employee sabotage and this positive association was mitigated by job tenure (i.e., cognitive resource) and service rule commitment (i.e., motivational resource).”
- Service Employee Responses to Angry Customer Complaints (2017, background): “…employees may be more likely to show negative emotional and behavioral responses (Dallimore, Sparks, and Butcher 2007; Harris and Reynolds 2003; Wang et al. 2011) as such responses are not suppressed by strong service expectations, policies, and routines that come with a strong service climate.”
- Why We Plan: The Impact of Nascent Entrepreneurs' Cognitive Characteristics and Human Capital on Business Planning (2015, methodology): “Cognitive characteristics To be consistent with the PSED II design and the cognition literature (Cassar and Friedman, 2009; Wang et al., 2011), we consider two cognitive variables.”