第一線員工處置行為之管理：壓力源、因應資源與情感承諾之角色

Management of Discretions excised by Frontline Employees: The Roles of Stressors, Coping Resources and Affective Commitment

本研究發展壓力源（工作負荷、角色模糊及角色衝突）、因應資源（工作控制、上司支持及同事支持）以及情感承諾影響第一線員工處置行為的模式，並且以170位業務人員為樣本從事實證檢驗，以了解這些與個人關係密切的因素影響處置行為的機制。研究結果顯示：(1)所有壓力源及工作控制、社會支持都不影響例行性處置行為，但都會影響創新性及越軌性處置行為，只是影響途徑不同（直接、中介或交互效果）；(2)情感承諾與角色衝突是直接影響處置行為的關鍵因素；上司支持、同事支持及角色模糊主要是經由情感承諾的中介，而工作控制與工作負荷則經由交互效果影響處置行為；(3)因應資源是影響壓力源與處置行為關係的重要干擾變項，同時因應資源具有緩衝及增強雙重效果。本研究討論研究發現對第一線員工處置行為管理的理論與實務上的意涵。

To understand mechanisms that govern the discretion excised by frontline employees, the study developed and examined the model that interlinked stressors (work overload, role ambiguity and role conflict), coping resources (job control, supervisor support and coworker support), affective commitment and discretions. Data were provided by 170 salespersons. The results revealed that (1) all of stressors, coping resources and affective commitment did not influence routine discretion but affected creative and deviant discretion through different paths including direct, intervening and interactive effects; (2) affective commitment and role conflict were key factors that directly influenced discretions. Supervisor support, coworker support, and role ambiguity affected discretion mainly through affective commitment. Job control and work overload influence discretions through interactive effects; (3) coping resources were important interactive variables and the interaction indicated both buffering and enhancing effects. The implications for theory and practice regarding management of discretions exercised by frontline employees were discussed. How to determine service positioning has been an important issue pertaining to competitive advantage. In the field of service marketing, researchers have considered standardization and customization as two service-positioning strategies (Anderson, Fornell & Rust, 1994; Levitt, 1972, 1976; Suprenant & Solomon, 1987; Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry, 1985). Stostack (1987) noted that divergence considered the amount of discretions allowed or inherent in the task related to service delivery. She concluded that standardization would require lower divergence in service delivery process and customization would require higher divergence. Kelley (1993) proposed three distinct types of discretions as routine, creative and deviant discretion. Different amount of divergence would result in the exercise of various types of discretions. Therefore, service-positioning strategy determined the discretions exercised by frontline employees. Moreover, how to manage frontline employees to exercise the appropriate discretions would be a key issue of effectively implementing service-positioning strategy. Though the issue was important, few studies have explored the antecedents of discretions. Kelly (1993), and Kelley, Longfellow and Malehorn (1996) were two exceptions. Kelley (1993) developed a theoretical framework including organizational and individual antecedents of discretions. Kelley et al. (1996) investigated the organizational determinants of discretions. However, no empirical attention has drawn about individual factors. This research considered the influence of the individual factors, including stressors, coping resources, affective commitment, on discretions exercised by frontline employees. Thus, the purpose of this study was to develop and examine the model that interlinked stressors, coping resources, affective commitment and discretions in order to understand mechanisms that govern the exercise of discretion. In the mold, stressors (job overload, role ambiguity and role conflict) were the independent variables; coping resources (job control, supervisor support and coworker support) were both independent and moderating variables; affective commitment was intervening variable, and three types of discretions were the dependent variables. Data were provided by 170 salespersons. The results revealed that (1) all of stressors, coping resources and affective commitment did not influence routine discretion but affected creative and deviant discretion through different paths including direct, intervening and interactive effects; (2) affective commitment and role conflict were key factors that directly influenced discretions. Both positively affected creative discretion but negatively affected deviant discretion. Supervisor and coworker support (positively/negatively), and role ambiguity (negatively/positively) affected (creative/deviant) discretion mainly through affective commitment. Supervisor support buffered the relationship between work overload and affective commitment. Job control (coworker support) enhanced the relationship between work overload (role ambiguity) and deviant discretion; (3) coping resources were important interactive variables and the interaction indicated both buffering and enhancing effects. To managerial practices, the findings suggest that managers should avoid high role conflict to reduce the exercise of deviant discretion but maintain moderate conflict to enhance creative discretion. In addition, supervisor support reduces deviant discretion but enhances creative discretion through both direct and indirect effects. However, job control and coworker support enhance the deviant discretion through interactive effects. Thus, managers should increase the supervisor support but reduce the job control and coworker support in managing the discretions excised by salespersons whose works were done outside the office. Finally, because affective commitment positively influences creative discretion and negatively affects deviant discretion, managers should try to improve any positive determinants of commitment and to diminish those negative factors in order to manage effectively the exercise of discretions.