Using the Kano Model of customer satisfaction to define and communicate supervisor expectations.

Emery, Charles R. ; Tolbert, Samuel H.

ABSTRACT

The primary principle of Total Quality Management suggests that providers achieve success by understanding and satisfying customers' needs. This study uses a paradigm of the "supervisors are the customers" and the Kano Model of customer satisfaction to clarify and quantify supervisor expectations. Supervisor expectations are examined in terms of "basic needs", "satisfiers", and "delighters" as well as a variety of demographic variables (e.g., gender, age, experience, industry, supervisory level) from 257 supervisors and 30 manufacturing and service organizations. The findings indicate consistent and quantifiable differences in the levels of supervisor expectations. Recommendations are offered to improve the communication of expectations between supervisor and subordinate.

INTRODUCTION

A supervisor's primary responsibility is to influence his or her employees to accomplish organizational goals. The clear communication of expectations is central to this process of influencing or motivating the employees. While most supervisors understand their responsibility to communicate expectations, the employees may not understand how critical it is that they understand the supervisor's expectations. In a sense, the employee must view "the supervisor as the customer." As such, subordinate employees are the providers and it is their responsibility to determine and satisfy their supervisor's (customer's) expectations. However, it is not enough for the subordinates to merely understand customer needs or expectations; they must be able to quantify them. All needs or expectations are not created equal, and the resolution of all needs does not have the same impact on customer satisfaction or in this case, the employee's acceptance by the supervisor and performance rating or promotion.

Research in higher education indicates that students who better understand the vagaries of professor expectations get higher grades in that particular course and maintain higher grade point averages (Emery, 2002). As such, it is reasonable to believe that employees, who better understand their supervisor's expectations, will perform better. The purpose of this study is to help supervisors (customers) qualify and quantify their expectations for their employees. Additionally, the relationships between various supervisor expectations will be examined across a variety of variables (e.g., gender, age, experience, industry, supervisory level) to offer recommendations for improving the communication of expectations between supervisor and subordinate.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The setting and evaluation/control of expectations, as well as the degree of employee awareness, are important parts of any performance model. Surprisingly, the supervisor's role in communicating performance expectations to subordinates has been relatively neglected in leadership research. Bass's (1990) revised and expanded edition of Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership exhausts the topic of "Leaders as Molders of Expectations" in one short paragraph including only three references. Early researchers stressed the communication of expectations as a key responsibility of a leader and critical to influencing employee performance. For example, Likert (1961) stressed the communication of clear and high expectations by supervisor to subordinates as an important component of leadership behavior. Similarly, Edwards (1973) showed that the most effective supervisors are those who create high performance expectations for subordinates. House (1977) included the communication of high expectations for follower performance as an important feature of charismatic leadership. In addition to these declarations by noted researchers of leadership, the setting and communication of expectations is solidly grounded in the Expectancy Theory, Goal Theory, Leader-Member Exchange Theory and the Theory of Self-fulfilling Prophecy. Further, the notion of the "supervisor as the customer" suggests that customer satisfaction theories and literature are relevant to the supervisor-subordinate dyad. A discussion of the Kano Model for determining and classifying customer requirements is used to illustrate that all customer expectations are not created equal. As such, one might infer that under the "supervisor as the customer" paradigm, the achievement of supervisor expectations provide varying levels of reward and recognition.

Goal Theory

The Goal Theory proposes that goals and the process of setting goals are the primary determinants of behavior. Goal setting has four motivational mechanisms: (1) directing one's attention, (2) regulating one's effort, (3) increasing one's persistence, (4) encouraging the development of goal-attainment strategies or action plans (Locke & Latham, 1990). Goal specificity and the communication thereof are essential to the goal setting process. A supervisor's expectations are nothing more than his/her behavior goals. As such, it is critical that the supervisor clearly communicate his/her expectations.

Expectancy Theory

The Expectancy Theory holds that people are motivated to behave in ways that produce desired combinations of expected outcomes. Critical to the magnitude of motivation is the concept of instrumentality. Instrumentality represents a person's belief that a particular outcome is contingent on accomplishing a specific level of performance or expectation. As such, it is essential that the employee understands the supervisor's expectations and that employee believes that his or her goals can be achieved by meeting or exceeding the supervisor's expectations (Vroom, 1964).

Leader-Member Exchange Theory

The Leader-Member Exchange Theory suggests a leader classifies subordinates into in-group members and out-group members based on how well they match the leader's values and expectations (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). Research indicates that in-group members are likely to receive more challenging assignments and more meaningful rewards. In-group members, in turn, are more positive about the organization culture and have higher job performance and satisfaction than employees in the out-group. An out-group member isn't considered to be the type of person the leader prefers to work with, and this attitude is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Out-group members receive less challenging assignments, receive little positive reinforcement, become bored with their jobs, and may ultimately quit (Engle & Lord, 1997).

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Theory

Important variations of the theory of Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Merton, 1948) are the Pygmalion (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) and Galatea (Eden, 1984) effects. Basically, these two effects suggest that a leader's (teacher or supervisor) expectancies affect a subordinate's performance and a subordinate's expectations affect his or her performance. While not much research on these effects has been done in a work situation, evidence from classroom experimentation indicates that expectations have a profound affect on raising productivity.

Kano Model

The Kano model (Kano et al., 1984) was developed within the Japanese manufacturing industry to determine and prioritize/weight customer requirements or expectations. It illustrates that all needs are not created equal, and the resolution of all needs does not have the same impact on customer satisfaction or a performance report. Referring to Figure 1, the horizontal axis shows the extent to which customers' expectations are achieved. The vertical axis shows the customer satisfaction associated with this achievement. Three types of needs are identified in this model: BASIC NEEDS, SATISFIERS, and DELIGHTERS.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The first type expectation is the "basic need" or assumptions that customers have about a service (e.g., the availability of a restroom in a restaurant or clean silverware). In a management setting, the manager may have a basic need of employee punctuality. While achievement of these needs do not satisfy the customer (supervisor), their absence quickly causes dissatisfaction. The second type of expectation is the "satisfier" or the list of items that customers (supervisors) would normally mention as keys to their satisfaction, i.e. a responsive server in a restaurant or employees who meet deadlines in a management setting. Achievement of the satisfiers increases customer satisfaction, but only at a linear rate. The third type of expectation is the "delighter". These are needs that a customer does not have conscious knowledge of or fall into the category of "wouldn't it be great if someday an employee provided....". For example, a fine restaurant that provides baby-sitting facilities or an employee that synthesizes material into new way of looking at things. A provider that does not provide delighters will still have satisfied customers (supervisors), but those that provide delighters will experience a nonlinear increase in customer satisfaction. The dotted lines graphically depicted that all needs are not created equal, and the resolution of all needs does not have the same impact on customer satisfaction. For example, the additive effect of failing to fulfill basic needs or expectations is a geometric increase in dissatisfaction. The additive effect of providing "delighters" is a geometric increase in satisfaction. Lastly, the additive effect of providing "satisfiers" is tantamount to a linear increase in the customer's satisfaction.

This model suggests four important points to the employees wishing to successfully market their product. First, all basic needs must be fulfilled. Failure to satisfy a basic need has a dramatic affect on customer satisfaction. In other words, one "ah shucks" outweighs ten "atta boys". Second, the provider must determine and provide as many linear satisfiers as possible. Each satisfier has an additive effect toward total customer satisfaction or customer loyalty. The customer will enter a zone of moderate satisfaction if the provider fulfills all of the customer's "basic needs" and a few of the satisfiers. Third, the provider needs to create "delighters," since it is through their production that real service differentiation can be created. Each time a provider produces a "delighter" it is a memorable event for the customer and his or her satisfaction is geometrically increased. As such, one might say that one "delighter" outweighs a number of "satisfiers". Fourth, any advantage gained by delighting customers only holds temporarily until the competition catches up. Continuous innovation is necessary in order to maintain an edge. Lastly, this model suggests to supervisors the notion that all employees should clearly understand their expectations. Employees that don't understand the subtleties of expectations have a low "pattern sense" and as such, will have poor performance.

METHOD

An expectation survey instrument was developed and pilot tested on 35 supervisors attending local area Rotary and Chamber of Commerce meetings. As a result of the pilot test, several modifications were made to the survey instrument (appendix 1) and a letter of introduction was added to improve the respondents' understanding of their role and the classification of expectations. Subsequently, a random sample of 270 supervisors was selected from 30, for-profit and not-for-profit, local area business organizations (12 manufacturing and 18 service).

The research concept and a request for participation were presented to each of the organizations' Human Resource managers. Rather than have us administer the instrument, each Human Resource manager preferred to administer the survey using our set of instructions and the assurance of internal and external confidentiality. In addition to the supervisors' top two to three expectations in each category, information was requested on several variables (e.g., organizational discipline, supervisory level, the type of business and industry, number of direct and indirect subordinates, gender, experience, and age) to explore variances in supervisory expectations. The expectations and the relationships between the expectations and demographic variables were examined for variances (p>.05) using SPSS cross-tabulation and chi-square analysis and PHstat chi-square analysis of proportions

RESULTS

Usable questionnaires were obtained from 257 supervisors across 30 business organizations (12 manufacturing and 18 service). The following number of comments were obtained by demographic variable: (1) Gender-male 1275, female 450; (2) Age-under 40, 942, 40 and over 766; (3) Supervision level-first line and middle level, 1124, upper level, 552, (4) Total Experience-10 years or less 792, greater than 10 years 916; (5) Industry-manufacturing 903, service 814; and (6) Level of Expectations-basic needs 646, satisfiers 585, and delighters 498. As anticipated, the supervisory expectations varied across a wide range terminology. As such, a list of the expectations (1,729) was given to a Delphi panel of six supervisors (three from manufacturing and three from service) for consolidation to a workable number. After three iterations, the following consolidated list of 32 expectations was developed: Accountability, Appearance, Attendance, Attitude, Behavior, Commitment, Competitiveness, Continued Learning and Goal Setting, Customer-Oriented, Decision-Making, Entrepreneurial Spirit, Improvement-Oriented, Initiative, Innovativeness, Integrity, Interpersonal skills, KSAs (knowledge, skills and abilities), Leadership, Multitasking, Oral Communication, Performance, Personality, Planning, Problem-Solver, Resource Management, Safety, Social Responsibility, Stress Management, Team Player, Time Management, Written Communication, and Willingness to Change. Following data entry, the list of 32 expectations was reduced to the 12 expectations that were mentioned by more than five percent of the respondents. The consolidation at five percent and above was based on what appeared to be a natural breakpoint in the data and to have sufficient cell sizes for chi-square testing.

Overall, the chi-square testing indicated only two differences within the variables. First, there was a significant different between the levels (basic needs, satisfiers, delighters) of the 12 expectations presented by the supervisors (p<.001). Specifically, the supervisor indicated four "basic needs" (attendance, attitude, performance, and accountability), four "satisfiers" (initiative, team player, time management, and continued learning and goal setting, and three "delighters" (innovativeness, leadership, and problem-solving ability) (Figure 2). The expectation of KSAs was equally distributed across all three levels of expectation. Second, there was a significant difference in expectations between the two age groups (i.e., 40 and under and over 40) (p<.011). There were no significant differences within gender (p<.103), industry (p<.123), supervisory experience (p<.084), and supervisory level (p<.151). It is particularly interesting that supervisory experience and supervisor level were not significantly different despite the significant differences in expectations noted between the age groups. This is no doubt the result of a relatively even distribution of age and experience across the management levels. For example, many of the first line supervisors in manufacturing may have been older employees who were promoted to supervisory positions after years functioning in non-supervisory capacities.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

The results, however, indicated several significant relationships between the demographic variables and the 12 supervisor expectations (Table 1). For example, the expectation of "attendance" was significantly different between the age groups, supervisory levels, and expectation levels. Specifically, the "40 and under" supervisors, lower to mid-level supervisors, and "basic need" level of expectations significantly emphasized "attendance". The expectation of "attitude" was significantly different between the age groups, industries, and expectation levels. Specifically, the "40 and under" supervisors, "manufacturing" supervisors, and "basic need" level of expectations significantly emphasized "attitude". The expectation of "leadership" was significantly different between the expectations levels. Specifically, it was significantly reported as a "delighter". The expectation of "continued learning and goal setting" was significantly different by gender, age, industry, and experience level. Specifically, it was significantly emphasized by the following supervisory demographics: females, "over 40", service sector, and "10 years or more experience". The expectation of being a "team player" was significantly different across the age groups and experience levels. Specifically, being a "team player" was significantly reported by the "40 and under" group and the supervisors with "10 years or more experience". Lastly, the expectation of "time management" was significantly different between the expectations levels. Specifically, it was significantly reported as a "satisfier".

Although there was not a significant difference by gender across all expectations, there were some interesting and significant differences between the expectation levels by gender (Table 1). For example, males significantly more often reported the expectations of accountability and having the proper "attitude" as a "basic need". Females significantly more often indicated the ability for problem-solving as a "basic need"; males more often reported an expectation for problem-solving as a "satisfier". Females significantly more often reported the expectations of having KSAs and continued learning and goal setting as a "satisfier". Males significantly more often indicated that being a "team player" was an expected "satisfier". There weren't any significant differences between the genders for "delighters".

The following tables (2-7) indicate cross-tabulations of the demographic variables against supervisor expectations. The supervisor expectations are ordered within each variable by reported frequency (%). In general, these tables illustrate how similar each variable group reported the expectations. In other words, one group might state "performance" as their third most popular expectation, while the other group might have it as their second most popular expectation.

DISCUSSION

Overall, the results indicate a surprising uniformity across the various demographic variables. One might have expected remarkable differences between gender, level of management, type of industry and experience level, but few were found. This is good news, from a subordinate's perspective. The findings indicate there is a core of expectations that cut across these demographic variables. As such, a subordinate can consider these expectations as instrumental to success in most organizational environments. Further, it is important to note that the core expectations were differentiated within the Kano model. In other words, all expectations were not considered equal. The lowest level or "basic needs" expectations were the everyday behaviors that one expects of an employee, i.e. attendance, attitude, accountability, and performance. An employee must meet all of these expectations or the supervisor is dissatisfied. It's interesting to note that attendance was the most frequently mentioned expectation at this level.

Once the "basic needs" are met, an employee can raise his or herself linearly in the eyes of the supervisor by performing the "satisfiers". Although only four expectations (i.e., initiative, team player, time management, and continuous learning and goal setting) were most frequently identified as "satisfiers", this level of expectation had the widest range of comments. As one might suspect, "satisfiers" are very job specific. However, it is interesting to note that "initiative" was the most frequently mentioned expectation at this level. This would suggest that an employee's initiative is an important factor in a supervisor's mental assessment of performance. Lastly, the "delighters" (i.e., leadership, innovation, and a problem-solving ability) offer the employee an opportunity to geometrically raise his or herself in the supervisor's eyes. These are unexpected actions and when exhibited, they readily grab a supervisor's attention. It is not surprising that these expectations are more cerebral in nature and often mentioned as sure tickets for promotion.

These findings on supervisory expectations appear to have a strong correlation with the research conducted by Parasuraman, et al. (1988) on how customers judge service quality. They indicated that the expectation of "reliability" (e.g., dependable and accurate performance as promised) was the key "deal breaker", not "deal maker". In other words, one expects "reliability" and therefore you are not rewarded for meeting the expectation. This thought process is analogous to Kano's level of "basic needs". One is not rewarded for meeting the "basic needs". In order to receive rewards, one needs to concentrate in areas where the expectations are lowest. This is the realm of the "delighters". Meeting or exceeding expectations in this area geometrically increase the customer's (supervisor's) satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Determining the customers' needs and measuring the gap between expected service and perceived service is a routine customer feedback process that is practiced by leading service companies. Employees provide service to their supervisors and therefore, should be subject to the theories and strategies governing service quality and customer satisfaction. As such, a key to developing improvement strategies within the supervisor-subordinate dyad lies in examining the discrepancy between customer (supervisor) expectations and the provider's (subordinate's) perceptions of those expectations. Strategies for closing this gap or discrepancy should be approached from several aspects (i.e., the supervisor, employee and organization).

The first step is to ask the supervisors to determine, and perhaps even chart, their expectations (i.e., "basic needs", "satisfiers", and "delighters"). Supervisors could reference these expectations during the orientation of new employees and during employee performance reviews. Further, the supervisors could put their expectations as additional items on the company's employee appraisal form. Also, the supervisor needs to ask his or herself the question: "How well do my employees understand my expectations?" If the answer to this question is anything other than "perfectly", the supervisor needs to ask: "Why not?" This type of mental exercise may highlight areas to improve communication.

A second step would be to train the employees to recognize the levels of various expectations using a Kano seminar. Once the training is accomplished, employees should be asked to write down their perception of the supervisor's expectations (i.e., "basic needs", "satisfiers", and "delighters). The differences or gaps between the expectations and perceptions can be the basis for a unit or departmental discussion. An additional objective of subordinate expectancy training would be to make subordinates aware of the effects of expectations-their supervisors' and their own-on their performance. Subordinates could be taught how to behave in a manner that would evoke more effective leadership from their supervisors. This would be harnessing Pygmalion in reverse, subordinates "treating" their supervisors in such a way that they mold their supervisory leadership behavior in accordance with subordinate desires (Eden, 1984).

The third step might be to have the president or CEO publish his or her expectations. In general, organizational culture is spawned from top management's values, beliefs, and norms. As such, one might consider developing a Kano model for the organization's culture. Subsequently, all the supervisors could self-assess their differences from the organizational culture and modify their expectations. This continuous cycle of recognition and modification would continuously improve the strength of the organizational culture. Additionally, it may be worthwhile for the Human Resources organization to ask the employees to rate their understanding of their supervisor's expectations. This rating would provide the organization with a valuable indication of climate and supervisor-subordinate communication.

In closing, communication is the glue that holds organizations together. The communication of expectations affects organizational performance (e.g., behavior, productivity, change, coordination, etc.) and culture. While it is important for subordinates to understand the expectations on their performance evaluation instrument, it is equally, if not more import to understand the expectations in the supervisor's mind. As noted in the Leader-Member Exchange Theory, it is the supervisor's mental software that determines whether the employee is in the "in group" or the "out group", not the formal performance ratings. Understanding what's on the supervisor's mind requires listening, pattern analysis and asking questions. In other words, the transmission, translation and performance of expectations require all the functions of a successful communication model.

Lastly, this study used "open-ended" questioning techniques that required respondents to identify their expectations of workers with little aid or prompting. The 12 key expectations were derived from the open-ended responses. The results of this study could be further refined by a follow-up study that specifically used these 12 expectations and a ranking scale or paired comparisons. This would permit the respondents to focus more clearly on their views on these expectations rather than needing to identify them. This follow-up study could also tease out any more subtle differences between the independent variables. A more in depth examination of the gender differences with regard to supervisory levels would be an excellent candidate for this type of analysis.

REFERENCES

Bass, B. M. (1990). Stogdill's handbook of leadership theory research and managerial application. New York: Free Press.

Eden, D. (1984). Self-Fulfilling prophecy as a management tool: Harnessing Pygmalion. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 64-73.

Edwards, M. T. (1973). Leader influence and task set. Master's thesis, State University of New York.

Emery, C. R. (2002). Determine and quantify professor expectations in course work: An application of the Kano Model of customer requirements. Unpublished Lander Foundation Research Grant final report, Lander University, SC.

Engle, E. M. & R. G. Lord. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, (August), 988-1010.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale (pp. 58-72), IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Kano, N., N. Seraku, F. Takahashi & S. Tsuji (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu (Quality, The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control),14(2), 39-48.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Locke, E. A. & G. P. Latham. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.

Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml & L. L. Berry. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.

Rosenthal, R. & L. Jacobson. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectations and pupils' intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Sparrowe, R, T. & R. C. Linden. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, (April), 522-552.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Zeithaml, V. A., L. L. Berry & A. Parasuraman. (1988). Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 52, 31-42.

Charles R. Emery, Lander University

Samuel H. Tolbert, Lander University

Table 1. Significant Relationships between Supervisor Expectations and
Demographic Variables

Variable/ 1 2 3 4 5 6
Attribute

Gender
Age .029 .028
Industry .019
Supv
Experience
Supv Level .001
Expect .001 .001
Levels
Gender * .015 .022
Exp 1
Gender * .012
Exp 2
Gender *
Exp 3

 7 8 9 10 11 12

Gender .037
Age .002 .016
Industry .004
Supv .012 .001
Experience
Supv Level
Expect .001 .001
Levels
Gender * .015
Exp 1
Gender * .039 .013 .012
Exp 2
Gender *
Exp 3

Attribute Code: (1) accountability, (2) attendance, (3) attitude, (4)
initiative, (5) innovativeness, (6) KSAs, (7) leadership, (8) continued
learning & goals setting, (9) performance, (10) problem-solving, (11)
team player, (12) time management

Note: Cells indicate those relationships with significant differences
(p<.05) using chi-square proportional testing.

Table 2. Supervisory Expectations by Age Group

Under 40

Initiative 9.6%
Attendance 8.7%
Performance 7.5%
Team Player 7.5%
Attitude 7.3%

40 and Over

Initiative 10.1%
Performance 6.4%
Attendance 6.0%
Team Player 7.2%
Learning and Goals 5.9%

Table 3. Supervisory Expectations by Gender

Male

Initiative 9.3%
Team Player 7.9%
Attendance 7.3%
Performance 7.2%
Attitude 6.8%

Female

Initiative 11.3%
Attendance 8.2%
KSAs 6.2%
Performance 6.0%
Learning and Goals 6.0%

Table 4. Supervisory Expectations by Supervision Level

Lower and Middle Level

Initiative 10.0%
Attendance 8.7%
Performance 7.7%
Team Player 7.2%
Attitude 6.5%

Upper Level

Initiative 9.4%
Team Player 7.6%
Attitude 6.0%
Time Management 6.0%
Innovation 5.8%

Table 5. Supervisory Expectations by Experience Level

Less than 10 years of supervision

Initiative 9.6%
Attendance 8.5%
Performance 7.6%
Team Player 7.4%
Attitude 7.2%

10 years or more of supervision

Initiative 9.9%
Team Player 7.3%
Attendance 6.7%
Performance 6.6%
KSAs 5.7%

Table 6. Supervisory Expectations by Industry

Manufacturing

Initiative 9.7%
Attendance 8.6%
Performance 7.9%
Attitude 7.5%
Performance 7.0%

Service

Initiative 10.1%
Attendance 7.1%
Performance 6.9%
Innovation 5.9%
KSAs 5.9%

Table 7. Supervisor Expectations Frequencies by Expectation Levels

Basic Needs

Attendance 17.3%
Attitude 12.5%
Performance 8.7%
Accountability 5.6%

Satisfiers

Initiative 13.8%
Team Player 9.2%
Time Management 9.1%
Learning & Goals 6.0%

Delighters

Innovative 16.9%
Leadership 9.0%
Problem-Solving 5.8%

Note: The expectation for KSAs was evenly distributed
across all three levels