Determinants of Customer-Focused Voice and Related Performance Outcomes–Model Inventory

Abstract

The Determinants of Customer-Focused Voice and Related Performance Outcomes—Model Inventory (Gazzoli et al., 2023) is an advanced psychometric measurement model engineered to assess the interpersonal, intrapersonal, and contextual drivers of frontline employees’ customer-focused voice behavior, alongside its subsequent impacts on individual and organizational performance. Customer-focused voice represents an extra-role, prosocial, and change-oriented communicative act wherein customer-facing personnel challenge existing operational routines or organizational constraints to advocate for customer welfare and enhance service delivery. Developing a nuanced assessment of this behavioral phenomenon requires disentangling the differential social influences exerted by supervisors versus coworkers, while simultaneously accounting for employees’ cognitive and motivational dispositions.

The measurement instrument operationalizes eight interrelated focal constructs: Customer-Focused Voice, Supervisor Support, Coworker Relationship Quality, Psychological Safety, Customer Orientation, Perspective Taking Self-Efficacy, Employee Performance, and Customer/Patient Compliments. Incorporating both newly generated indicators and rigorously adapted items from foundational organizational behavior and occupational psychology literature (Vinokur et al., 1987; Morrison et al., 2011; Grant & Berry, 2011), the instrument was validated in multi-wave empirical studies among frontline service professionals in Brazil. The translation and cultural adaptation process adhered to the gold-standard English-to-Portuguese back-translation methodology (Brislin, 1986) and incorporated both "insider" (emic) and "outsider" (etic) analytical perspectives to secure semantic, conceptual, and measurement equivalence (Schaffer & Riordan, 2003).

Psychometric evaluations across independent frontline samples demonstrated exceptional psychometric integrity. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) affirmed that all latent dimensions achieve convergent validity, with average variance extracted (AVE) values consistently exceeding 0.50. Internal consistency and scale reliability were confirmed via composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding the 0.80 threshold across all dimensions. Structural and measurement model fit indices conformed to rigorous structural equation modeling standards (Sample 1: χ² = 241, df = 142, CFI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.07, RMSEA = 0.07; Sample 2: χ² = 471, df = 349, CFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.05). In addition, marker-variable testing with the construct of hope confirmed the absence of distortive common method variance. The inventory provides scholars, organizational psychologists, and human resource practitioners with a robust, diagnostically precise tool for evaluating frontline advocacy and service-related performance.

Keywords

Customer-Focused Voice, Supervisor Support, Coworker Relationship Quality, Psychological Safety, Customer Orientation, Perspective Taking Self-Efficacy, Frontline Employee Performance, Prosocial Voice Behavior, Service Management, Organizational Communication

Authors

The Determinants of Customer-Focused Voice and Related Performance Outcomes—Model Inventory was developed and validated by an international research team specializing in services marketing, organizational behavior, and psychometric assessment:

• Gabriel Gazzoli, Ph.D. — Parker College of Business, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia, United States. (Email: [email protected]; Correspondence Address: Georgia Southern University, Parker College of Business, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA).
• Siddeeq M. Shabazz, Ph.D. — College of Business, Department of Marketing, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, United States.
• Todd J. Arnold, Ph.D. — School of Marketing & International Business, Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, United States.
• Peter B. Kim, Ph.D. — School of Hospitality & Tourism, Faculty of Culture and Society, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. (ORCID: 0000-0003-1063-5264).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Determinants of Customer-Focused Voice and Related Performance Outcomes—Model Inventory is to systematically identify, operationalize, and quantify the multifaceted personal, relational, and environmental determinants that compel frontline employees (FLEs) to speak up on behalf of customers, as well as to capture the specific individual-level performance outcomes that emerge from these communicative acts. In frontline service environments—ranging from healthcare organizations and hospitality operations to retail banking and professional client services—boundary-spanning employees occupy a singular observational vantage point. They directly witness operational breakdowns, policy deficits, service delivery failures, and unmet consumer needs that upper-level management cannot observe directly. Despite this strategic positioning, speaking up to challenge organizational inertia involves considerable personal risk, including potential social friction, peer resentment, or supervisory retaliation.

Historically, organizational research on employee voice has primarily treated speaking up as an internally targeted, generic initiative aimed at broad organizational improvement or grievance voicing. The model developed by Gazzoli et al. (2023) refines this conceptual scope by isolating customer-focused voice as a distinct, prosocially motivated form of extra-role communicative behavior. Customer-focused voice is explicitly intended to alter internal service processes or operational policies to benefit external customers, clients, or patients. Understanding why certain frontline workers actively champion customer interests while others remain silent demands an integrated diagnostic framework that captures both interpersonal social capital (supportive supervision vs. lateral coworker relationship quality) and intrapersonal cognitive-motivational capacities (perspective taking self-efficacy and customer orientation).

From an applied organizational standpoint, the instrument fulfills three essential diagnostic functions:

• Diagnosing Frontline Communication Climates: It permits human resource professionals and operations managers to audit whether organizational climates cultivate sufficient psychological safety, allowing service personnel to articulate constructive criticisms without fear of censure.
• Delineating Supervisory versus Lateral Influences: By disaggregating vertical leadership cues (supervisor support) from lateral social cues (coworker relationship quality), the inventory clarifies the relative weight of direct managers versus immediate peer networks in fostering constructive upward feedback.
• Mapping Upward Voice to Tangible Performance Outcomes: The instrument establishes an empirical link between voice behavior and objective/subjective performance metrics, such as formal supervisor-rated or self-rated job performance and documented customer or patient compliments.

By measuring these constructs within a cohesive, psychometrically unified system, researchers can execute complex structural equation modeling (SEM) to evaluate boundary conditions, direct paths, and mediated mechanisms governing frontline advocacy.

Psychological Construct

The model inventory operationalizes eight core psychological constructs, integrating cognitive, affective, relational, and behavioral facets of frontline service work:

1. Customer-Focused Voice

Customer-focused voice is conceptualized as an upward, extra-role, change-oriented communicative behavior wherein frontline employees voluntarily express ideas, suggestions, or concerns regarding policies, procedures, and service delivery systems to managerial personnel with the explicit objective of improving customer outcomes. Unlike standard operational voice, which may focus strictly on task efficiency or internal cost reduction, customer-focused voice is inherently prosocial and externally oriented. Employees demonstrating high customer-focused voice actively challenge the status quo when organizational protocols inadvertently impede customer satisfaction, convenience, or well-being.

2. Supervisor Support

Grounded in perceived organizational support theory, supervisor support reflects employees’ global perceptions regarding the degree to which their immediate superiors value their contributions, care about their professional and personal well-being, and demonstrate openness to their constructive input. In the context of voice behaviors, supportive supervisors serve as secure relational anchors who mitigate the perceived interpersonal risk of offering critical feedback regarding organizational procedures.

3. Coworker Relationship Quality

This construct captures the affective tone, mutual trust, instrumental assistance, and reciprocity characterizing lateral interactions among frontline team members. Lateral workplace relationships form an immediate socio-emotional climate. When coworker relationship quality is high, employees experience mutual camaraderie and psychological validation, creating a collective buffer against workplace stress and fostering collective voice tendencies.

4. Psychological Safety

Psychological safety is the shared cognitive belief that the immediate work environment is secure for interpersonal risk-taking (Edmondson, 1999). Within this measurement model, psychological safety represents the crucial intrapsychic bridge connecting social support mechanisms to overt voice actions. Frontline employees must feel confident that expressing dissenting opinions, pointing out administrative shortcomings, or advocating for complex customer exceptions will not result in ridicule, marginalization, or punitive evaluation.

5. Customer Orientation

Customer orientation represents an individual-level dispositional and motivational orientation wherein an employee consistently strives to identify, understand, and fulfill customer needs. Frontline professionals with high customer orientation view their core job identity through the lens of client advocacy. They possess an intrinsic desire to generate customer satisfaction, making them naturally more attuned to procedural barriers that compromise service quality.

6. Perspective Taking Self-Efficacy

Adapted from the socio-cognitive literature on perspective taking and social self-efficacy (Grant & Berry, 2011), perspective taking self-efficacy measures an employee’s confidence in their cognitive capacity to accurately adopt customers’ internal viewpoints, infer unstated emotional states, and anticipate their expectations. Rather than merely reflecting passive empathy, this construct captures an active, agentic competence: the worker’s conviction that they can decipher complex customer predicaments and translate those insights into actionable organizational solutions.

7. Employee Performance

Employee performance evaluates the overall effectiveness, technical competence, and role execution of frontline personnel. The scale captures whether an employee consistently meets organizational benchmarks, executes core tasks proficiently, and contributes positively to operational productivity, positioning voice as a complementary extra-role behavior that enhances rather than distracts from in-role duties.

8. Customer / Patient Compliments

This construct serves as a tangible, client-generated indicator of frontline service excellence. It assesses the frequency and regularity with which service recipients (e.g., customers in hospitality/retail or patients in healthcare facilities) spontaneously voice gratitude, praise, or formal written commendations regarding the exceptional care, diligence, or advocacy exhibited by the focal frontline employee.

Theoretical Framework

The Determinants of Customer-Focused Voice and Related Performance Outcomes—Model Inventory is theoretically rooted in an interdisciplinary synthesis of four foundational frameworks in organizational psychology and social interaction:

1. Social Information Processing Theory

According to Salancik and Pfeffer’s (1978) Social Information Processing (SIP) Theory, individuals form workplace perceptions, attitudes, and subsequent behavioral patterns by attending to and interpreting social cues from their proximal work environment. Gazzoli et al. (2023) utilize SIP to unpack how vertical cues (supervisor support) and lateral cues (coworker relationship quality) are processed by frontline employees. Because supervisors possess structural authority, formal evaluative power, and control over administrative resources, supervisory cues convey whether the organizational hierarchy truly welcomes upward voice or penalizes disruption. Concurrently, lateral coworker cues inform the employee about peer norms, collective solidarity, and team-level tolerance for deviation. The inventory captures these distinct informational streams, elucidating how external social cues shape internal psychological states.

2. Psychological Safety and Voice Climates

Building upon the foundational work of Edmondson (1999) and Morrison et al. (2011), the inventory operationalizes voice as an inherently hazardous discretionary behavior. Voice is fundamentally change-oriented; by pointing out operational deficiencies, employees inadvertently risk offending supervisors who established those systems or coworkers who sustain them. Under this theoretical framework, psychological safety acts as an indispensable cognitive mediator. High supervisor support and healthy coworker bonds reduce perceived vulnerability, fostering a psychological safe harbor wherein the perceived benefits of speaking up on behalf of customers outweigh the social and career risks of doing so.

3. Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory

Hobfoll’s (1989) Conservation of Resources Theory provides the theoretical rationale for the role of intrapersonal resources—specifically customer orientation and perspective taking self-efficacy. COR theory posits that individuals strive to acquire, retain, and protect valued personal resources. Frontline service work is emotionally and cognitively demanding. Employees who possess strong internal resources, such as high perspective taking self-efficacy, operate from a position of psychological abundance: they possess the cognitive bandwidth to decode customer frustration and formulate constructive recommendations without experiencing acute cognitive burnout. Consequently, these personal resources synergize with environmental resources (social support) to motivate constructive, resource-investing voice actions.

4. Prosocial Motivation and Extra-Role Performance

Drawing on Grant and Berry’s (2011) conceptualization of prosocial motivation, customer-focused voice is framed as a prosocial initiative rather than a self-promotional strategy. Employees speak up because they care about resolving customer pain points. This theoretical mechanism links customer-focused voice directly to distal performance outcomes: when employees successfully voice solutions that eliminate operational friction for customers, service interactions become smoother, resulting in elevated overall job performance and higher frequencies of customer or patient compliments.

Validity

The construct validity of the Determinants of Customer-Focused Voice and Related Performance Outcomes—Model Inventory was empirically evaluated across two independent field studies in Brazil, comprising rigorous multi-step analytical protocols (Gazzoli et al., 2023).

Cross-Cultural and Semantic Equivalence

To establish rigorous cross-cultural adaptation and conceptual equivalence between English and Portuguese iterations, the authors followed the classical back-translation protocol established by Brislin (1986). The English inventory was first translated into Portuguese by bilingual organizational scholars and then back-translated into English by an independent professional translator blind to the study’s underlying hypotheses. Following the emic-etic measurement validation guidelines established by Schaffer and Riordan (2003), the survey was scrutinized from both insider (local frontline service cultural norms in Brazil) and outsider (universal psychometric constructs in organizational behavior) perspectives. Cognitive pre-testing with frontline professionals verified that all indicators maintained their intended operational meaning and idiomatic clarity without introducing cultural skew.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity across all eight latent constructs was evaluated following the definitive psychometric criteria outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Gerbing and Anderson (1988). All standardized factor loadings were statistically significant (p < .001) and substantial in magnitude. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values for all constructs consistently exceeded the benchmark threshold of 0.50, demonstrating that the latent constructs account for more than 50% of the variance observed across their respective measurement indicators.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established through multiple rigorous tests. In accordance with the Fornell-Larcker criterion, the square root of the AVE for every individual latent construct was larger than any bivariate correlation between that construct and any other latent variable in the model. Additionally, nested confirmatory factor analysis model comparison tests were conducted, comparing the hypothesized eight-factor measurement model against various constrained alternative models (e.g., combining supervisor support and coworker relationship quality into a single relational factor, or loading customer-focused voice and general performance onto a solitary performance factor). In all instances, the baseline eight-factor model demonstrated a significantly superior chi-square fit, confirming that the eight constructs reflect empirically distinct psychological phenomena.

Common Method Bias Assessment

Given that frontline employees completed self-report survey measures, the authors rigorously assessed the risk of common method variance (CMV). To implement an unmeasured latent method factor approach, the authors incorporated an independent marker variable—specifically, employee dispositional "hope"—into the measurement CFA. Inclusion of this method factor did not produce meaningful shifts in indicator loadings, nor did it alter inter-construct correlations or structural path coefficients. The statistical stability of the model under marker-variable control confirms that common method bias does not artifactually explain the observed structural relationships.

Reliability

The scale reliability and internal consistency of the Determinants of Customer-Focused Voice and Related Performance Outcomes—Model Inventory were evaluated using multiple robust psychometric indices:

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): Across both validation studies, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all eight subscales exceeded the standard psychometric cutoff of 0.70, with all operational constructs surpassing 0.80. This indicates exceptionally high internal consistency and homogeneous item-to-total correlation profiles across items within each latent domain.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Because traditional Cronbach’s alpha assumes tau-equivalence (equal factor loadings across all items) and can underestimate reliability in structural equation modeling, composite reliabilities were calculated for each construct. The composite reliability values for all constructs surpassed 0.80, satisfying the rigorous psychometric thresholds established by Fornell and Larcker (1981).
• Measurement Invariance and Stability: The cross-sample replication across two separate employee cohorts demonstrated cross-validation stability. Item-to-construct relationships remained stable and uniform across both independent samples of frontline service workers.

Factor Analysis

The underlying factorial architecture of the inventory was examined and confirmed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) within a covariance-based structural equation modeling framework, adhering strictly to the goodness-of-fit thresholds defined by Hu and Bentler (1999).

Sample 1 Measurement Model Fit

In the initial validation sample of frontline employees, the eight-factor measurement model exhibited good fit to the empirical data:

• Chi-Square Statistic (χ²): 241
• Degrees of Freedom (df): 142
• Statistical Significance: p < .01
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.93
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): 0.07
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.07

These fit indices confirmed that the hypothesized multi-dimensional structure cleanly reflected the empirical covariance matrix, satisfying the accepted cutoff values for complex multi-construct measurement inventories.

Sample 2 Replication Measurement Model Fit

To substantiate model generalizability and prevent capitalization on chance, the entire measurement architecture was evaluated in an independent second sample of frontline workers. The confirmatory factor analysis replicated and improved upon the initial findings:

• Chi-Square Statistic (χ²): 471
• Degrees of Freedom (df): 349
• Statistical Significance: p < .01
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.95
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): 0.05
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.05

The excellent CFI (≥ 0.95), low SRMR (≤ 0.05), and low RMSEA (≤ 0.05) in Sample 2 provide conclusive psychometric evidence of model stability, strong configural invariance, and minimal parameter distortion.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Determinants of Customer-Focused Voice and Related Performance Outcomes—Model Inventory is structured as a standardized, multi-scale survey questionnaire suitable for field surveys, diagnostic climate audits, and behavioral research.

• Test Type: Multi-dimensional self-report inventory and measurement model.
• Format: Structured survey questionnaire administered electronically or in paper-and-pencil format.
• Target Population: Adult frontline employees (aged 18 years and older) in customer-facing, boundary-spanning occupations across diverse industries (e.g., healthcare, hospitality, banking, telecommunications, retail).
• Target Settings: Organizational field research, workplace climate assessments, customer experience audits, and academic studies in organizational behavior and service management.
• Languages Available: English and Portuguese (validated via back-translation).
• Response Scale: Standardized 5-point rating scales (e.g., 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree, or equivalent anchored 5-point metric).
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Customer-Focused Voice: Assesses proactive upward communication intended to advocate for customer welfare and refine service processes.
  • Supervisor Support: Measures perceptions of direct managerial care, instrumental help, and receptivity to employee input (Vinokur et al., 1987).
  • Coworker Relationship Quality: Captures peer trust, social cohesion, and mutual workplace assistance.
  • Psychological Safety: Evaluates perceptions of safe interpersonal risk-taking and fearlessness regarding potential social backlash (Morrison et al., 2011).
  • Customer Orientation: Assesses individual dispositional commitment to meeting customer expectations.
  • Perspective Taking Self-Efficacy: Evaluates self-efficacy in understanding customers’ viewpoints and internal states (Grant & Berry, 2011).
  • Employee Performance: Quantifies core in-role technical and behavioral task proficiency.
  • Customer / Patient Compliments: Measures the frequency of positive praise and unsolicited commendations received from service recipients.
• Scoring Procedures: Dimension scores are calculated by averaging the individual item ratings within each respective subscale. Higher composite scores correspond to higher levels of the target construct (e.g., higher perceived psychological safety, higher frequency of voice). Construct-level aggregate indices can be employed as observed indicators or latent variables in structural equation models.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Year: 2023
• Commercial Status: Non-commercial instrument.
• Fee: None. No fee is required for non-commercial, academic, or scientific research usage.
• Permissions and Access: Researchers wishing to utilize, adapt, or translate the full inventory are instructed to contact the corresponding author, Dr. Gabriel Gazzoli, at Georgia Southern University Parker College of Business via email at [email protected]. The original research article was published in the Journal of Business Research by Elsevier (Gazzoli et al., 2023).

References

• Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Sage Publications.
• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Gazzoli, G., Shabazz, S. M., Arnold, T. J., & Kim, P. B. (2023). Why do frontline employees speak up on behalf of customers? The influence of supervisors versus coworkers and the role of intrapersonal factors. Journal of Business Research, 156, Article 113514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113514
• Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378802500207
• Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others: How prosocial motivation increases the idea usefulness of creative ideas. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.59215085
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Speaking up in workgroups: A multilevel examination of group-level story and psychological safety. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 518–534. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61968037
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
• Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563
• Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6(2), 169–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103251542
• Vinokur, A., Caplan, R. D., & Rai, C. C. (1987). Social support and mental health: Conceptualization, measures, and tests of a hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.437

Items of the Scale