Abstract
Abusive supervision is quite common in the service industry. Employees’ proactive customer service performance is essential for the long-term development of service enterprises. This study enriches the antecedents of proactive customer service performance from a new theoretical perspective by incorporating the analysis of abusive supervision into the theoretical framework and fills the research gap between customer orientation and proactive customer service performance. Based on Affective Events Theory and Social Cognitive Theory, this study established the structure equation model between abusive supervision and proactive customer service performance mediated by affective commitment and customer orientation. Utilizing structural equation modeling, a negative association between abusive supervision and proactive customer service performance was found, and affective commitment and customer orientation act as the mediators between abusive supervision and proactive customer service performance. In addition, the implications for future study were also discussed.
Highlights
In the era of the service economy, consumers pay more attention to the service value and experience quality rather than the cheap price (Zhou Z., 2016)
Since there are few studies on the promoting effect of customer orientation on proactive customer service performance (PCSP), this study provides a theoretical deduction for the influence of customer orientation on PCSP from the perspective of Social Cognitive Theory and explores their relationship empirically, which will fill the gap in this issue
There are not many studies that have been made on destructive leadership as one of the important antecedents of PCSP
Summary
In the era of the service economy, consumers pay more attention to the service value and experience quality rather than the cheap price (Zhou Z., 2016). There are some influencing factors for PCSP It is significantly and positively associated with trait personal initiative, affective organizational commitment, task complexity, and participative leadership (Rank et al, 2007). It is positively associated with self-efficacy at the individual level and initiative climate at the establishment level (Raub and Liao, 2012; Lau et al, 2017) and negatively affected by leadermember exchange differentiation (Cheng T. et al, 2020) and workplace mistreatment, such as workplace sexual harassment (Li et al, 2016).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
