An examination of the gap between supervisory job expectations and student perceptions of those expectations using the Kano Model of customer satisfaction.

Emery, Charles R. ; Tolbert, Samuel H. ; Barker, Katherine J. 等

ABSTRACT

A principle complaint of today's supervisors is that graduating seniors do not understand job expectations. This study examines the validity of this argument using the Kano Model of customer satisfaction to clarify and quantify the gap between supervisor job expectations and student perceptions of those expectations. Supervisor and student expectations are examined in terms of "basic needs", "satisfiers", and "delighters" as well as a variety of demographic variables. The findings indicate that the students have a relatively strong understanding of supervisory expectations. Differences in the understanding of job expectations are examined and recommendations are provided to reduce the gaps and improve the supervisor's communication with newly hired college graduates.

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. This misunderstanding seems to be particularly apparent in newly hired college graduates (Kruger, 2004). In a sense, the employee (or the newly hired college grad) 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 examine the gap between supervisory job expectations and student perceptions of those expectations. Recommendations will be offered to higher education for reducing the gap and thereby improving the communication of job expectations between supervisors and potential job candidates.

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

The supervisory survey and expectation results were taken from a study by Emery and Tolbert (in press) which examined the expectations of 270 first level supervisors using the Kano model of customer satisfaction and across a wide variety of variables (e.g., organizational discipline, the type of business and industry, number of direct and indirect subordinates, gender, experience, and age). The survey contained the following list of 32 typical expectations: 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. In turn, the survey used in the Emery and Tolbert study was administered to 673 undergraduate business seniors at four universities and colleges. Students were asked to pretend that they were first level supervisors when completing the survey. In other words, they were asked to clarify and quantify the expectations that they would have of employees. Subsequently, a comparison was made between the supervisor and student expectations to determine gaps in the students' understanding of the "real world." Further, 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 662 business seniors across the following demographic variables: (1) State university (437)--Private college (225); (2) Male (310)--Female (352); (3) GPA above 3.0 (163), between 2.5 and 3.0 (282), 2.5 and below (217); and (4) Working while attending school (at least 10 hours per week) (158)--Not working (504). A chi-square analysis of the demographic variables indicated two significant differences in the perceptions of expectations. There was a significant difference (p<.001) in the perception of job expectations between those students who worked while attending college and those who did not. The perceptions of students who worked while attending school were more closely aligned with the supervisors' expectations. Also, there was a significant difference (p<.001) in the perception of job expectations between those students who had above a 3.0 GPA and those that had below a 2.5 GPA. Work expectations of those students with the higher grade point average were more closely aligned with the supervisors' expectations.

Overall, however, there were surprising similarities in the attributes that first-level supervisors and students expected of employees on the job. In fact, eight of the eleven work attributes (73%) chosen by the supervisors were also selected by the students. Specifically, both groups selected attendance, attitude, performance, accountability, initiative, leadership, problem-solving, and team player/team skills. There were, however, some notable gaps or disagreements. For example, the supervisors listed time management, learning and goals, and innovation as important work attributes while the students listed appearance, commitment, and improvement. Also, surprisingly, the supervisors and students agreed on the level of expectations (e.g., basic needs) in most cases. The two exceptions were that the supervisors saw "performance" as a "basic need" and the students saw it as a "satisfier" and the supervisors saw "initiative" as a "satisfier" and the students saw it as a "delighter."

DISCUSSION

Overall, there is little evidence to support claims that business seniors don't understand the expectations of the workplace. The findings indicate that students have a reasonably accurate perception of what is expected of them and have a good understanding of expectation levels. This was particularly apparent in the students with higher GPAs and/or students who were working (more than 10 hours per week) while attending college. This isn't surprising because students with higher GPA have a higher "pattern sense" and more readily discuss expectations with a superior (Emery, 2002). Further, those with more work experience have a better understanding on what it takes to survive and prosper in the "work world." Also, it was particularly reassuring to note the lack of perceptual differences between genders and types of universities. Additionally, it was particularly reassuring to note that the students recognized "attendance", "accountability", and "attitude" as the same "basic needs" chosen by the supervisors. This indicates that the students understand the essential requirements of "real world" employment and as such, won't be completely out-of-step with management.

There were, however, some differences between the students and supervisors that merit discussion. The students failed to see "time management" as a critical attribute. According to the supervisors, the essence of time management is the setting of priorities and then organizing and executing resources to satisfy them. Many supervisors believe that "self-management" may be a better term, because it implies that we manage ourselves, in the allotted time, for maximum effectiveness. This is no doubt a key in today's highly competitive environment and the reason that recruiters often look for evidence of "time management" in a candidate's background. Also, it is interesting to note that the students, who did suggest "time management" as a critical attribute, were the small percentage who had both a high GPA and part-time employment.

Also, students failed to see "learning and goal setting" as a critical job attribute. Supervisors see this attribute as evidence of one's desire to be challenged, willingness to learn and motivation and process for self-improvement. Many believe this attribute is central to the culture of a "learning organization" and as such, have placed it high on recruiters' checklists. Most students, however, have not grasped the importance of how continued learning affects an organization's success. Students also failed to see "innovation" as a critical attribute. They did, however, identify "improvement" as a critical attribute. Perhaps this difference occurred because the students failed to understand the true nuances between innovation and improvement.

On the other hand, the students selected two interesting attributes that the supervisors didn't. Specifically, the students selected "appearance" as the second most popular "basic need" while the supervisors didn't select this attribute in the "top three" at any expectation level. This difference may be partially explained because "appearance" in the work force has been often emphasized to students whose appearance in the classroom has been less than business-like. Further, students must understand that while "appearance" is important in the workforce, it doesn't take the place of some other more important attributes (e.g., performance). The other difference was that the students listed "commitment" as a key attribute while the supervisors didn't select this attribute in the "top three" at any expectation level. The question concerning this difference is why didn't the supervisors believe this was a key attribute? Most of the literature on successful organizations suggests that you get the right people on the bus and that commitment is part of the definition of "right people" (Collins, 2001). Perhaps first level supervisors aren't looking for commitment as much as they are just looking for performance.

Additionally, it is interesting to note that the students saw two job attributes at higher levels of expectation than the supervisors. The students saw performance as a "satisfier" rather than as a "basic need." This is particularly worrisome because the supervisors see this attribute as a "basic need" or something expected without question. In other words, if satisfactory job performance isn't provided, the supervisor is dissatisfied. Also, since job performance is expected, it is particularly hard to "delight" the supervisor in this area. Also, the students saw "initiative" as a "delighter" rather than a "satisfier." This suggests that the students believe that "initiative" is a rather rare commodity and something that isn't really expected by supervisors. This is also worrisome because "initiative" is a "satisfier," i.e., one of the attributes that a supervisor uses to mentally judge a subordinate's overall performance.

Lastly, the levels of supervisory expectations (e.g., basic needs, satisfiers, delighters) 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 or student's) perceptions of those expectations. Strategies for closing this gap or discrepancy can be approached from several aspects by higher education.

The first step is to insure that the students understand their organizational success is dependent upon how well they view their "supervisors as the customer." In other words, students should consider supervisor expectations as a road map for their organizational success. The second step is to insure that the students understand the typical first-level supervisor's expectations. Further, students need to be reminded to discuss their supervisor's expectations with them. The third step would be to train the students to recognize the levels of various expectations using a Kano seminar. Once the training is accomplished, students should discuss the implications of gaps between the supervisor's expectation and the subordinate's perception of those expectations. Also, it is important to insure that the students understand the importance of meeting the "basic needs" while attempting to understand those attributes that delight the supervisor (e.g., leadership, innovation, and problem-solving).

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 (Engle & Lord, 1997), 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. In short, it is paramount for organizational and personal success that the newly hired employees' understand their supervisor's expectations.

REFERENCES

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

Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others don't. New York: HarperCollins.

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.

Kruger, J. B. (2004). Hire the right person the first time: HR expert Debra Thompson shares steps to finding the best employees. Mark Photo Marketing, 79(6), 41-43.

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 Katherine J. Barker, SUNY-Fredonia

Table 1: Supervisor and Student Expectation
Frequencies by Expectation Levels

Supervisor Basic Needs Percent

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

Supervisor Satisfiers

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

Supervisor Delighters

Innovative 16.9%
Leadership 9.0%
Problem-Solving 5.8%

Student Basic Needs

Attendance 19.4%
Appearance 10.2%
Accountability 9.1%
Attitude 8.6%

Student Satisfiers

Performance 8.6%
Commitment 7.6%
Team Skills 7.6%

Student Delighters

Problem-Solving 10.8%
Initiative 8.6%
Leadership 8.1%
Improvement 8.1%