Ocp On Bat

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT,
SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE, AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE

QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO
BANGLADESH
by
Sultan Saad Andaleeb.

ID: 0220219
An Internship Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Business Administration
INDEPENDENT UNIVERSITY, BANGLADESH

August, 2006
A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT,
SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE, AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE
QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO
BANGLADESH
by

ID: 0220219
has been approved

August 2006
______________________
Mr. Shubhankar Shil

Lecturer
School of business
Independent University, Bangladesh
August 31, 2006
Shubhankar Shil
Lecturer, School of Business
Independent University, Bangladesh
Sir:
I want to submit my internship report on “A Relational Study on Perceived Organizational
Support, Supervisory Support, Work Climate, and Employee Service Quality in the context of
British American Tobacco Bangladesh”. I am submitting this report as a part of my internship
program in British American Tobacco Bangladesh. This report is going to provide valuable
assistance to the organization in finding out the factors which have influence on the employee
service quality.
Therefore, I need your kind attention to assess my report considering the limitations of the study.
Your kind suggestion will encourage me to perform better research work in future.
Yours sincerely,
ID# 0220219
Acknowledgement
In the preparation of this internship report, I acknowledge the encouragement and assistance
given by a number of people from British American Tobacco Bangladesh Ltd. I am grateful to Mr.
Riazul Haque, Manager of R&RS department of British American Tobacco Bangladesh Ltd., for his
valuable suggestions and assurance. Besides, I was well-guided by Ms. Romana Rahman, Talent &
Resource Manager.
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Mr. Shubhankar Shil, for sharing his ideas
and interests with me about my study. His contribution boosted my confidence and helped me
finish my study on time. Lastly, I want to show my gratefulness to all the respondents who spared
their precious time in answering my questionnaires.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables
List of Figure
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose of the study 3
1.2 Problem Statement 4
1.3 Research timeline 5
1.4 Limitations of study 5
2.0 Review of related literature 6
2.1 Definition of perceived organizational support 6
2.2 Definition of supervisory support 6
2.3 Definition of work climate 7
2.4 Definition of employee service quality 8
2.5 Relationship between perceived organ. support and employee service quality 11
2.6 Relationship between supervisory support and employee service quality 13
2.7 Relationship between price work climate and employee service quality 16
3.0 Operational Definition 17
3.1 Research Questions 18
3.2 Research Hypothesis 18
3.3 Conceptual Framework 19
4.0 Research Methodology 19
4.1 Research design 19

4.2 Research approach 20
4.3 Sampling method 20
4.4 Survey instrument 21
4.5 Data collection procedure 21
4.6 Data analysis 22
5.0 Findings from questionnaires 23
5.1 Reliability and Descriptive statistics of the Instruments 23
5.2 Correlation Analysis 24
5.3 Stepwise Regression Analysis 26
6.0 Assessment of research hypothesis 28
7.0 Recommendation 28
8.0 Conclusion 29
References 30
Appendices 38
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Operational Definition of Measured Variables 17
2. Descriptive statistics, and Reliability Coefficient of Measured Variables 24
3. Correlation Matrix for Measured Variables 25
4. Stepwise regression on willingness on employee service quality 27
LIST OF FIGURE
Page
1. Conceptual Framework of Research Variable and their Relationships 19

Executive Summary
This research intends to investigate the relationships of in context of on Perceived
Organizational Support, Supervisory Support, Work Climate, and Employee Service Quality in the
context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh (BATB). Perceived organization support (POS) –
the extent to which employees believe that their employer is concerned about and aware of their
well being and contribution – can help employees’ self-esteem and, therefore performance. POS is
more likely to increase the employees’ expectancies that greater efforts toward meeting
organizational goals will be rewarded, and consequently these expectancies may increase their
efforts in service works to meet the organizational goals. Support from supervisors is also of
importance to employee performance but the employees may take it for granted, considering it to be
part of the supervisor’s job, and it might, therefore, not have the degree of positive influence on
service effort that might have been expected. Nevertheless, it is important that, to produce greater
job satisfaction, service management should render on-the-spot supervisory support to employees,
design and implement supportive supervisory practices and reward positive results. Work climate
also have significant impact on employee service quality. It’s found in the study that employee
perceptions of work climate have important effects on their work effort & thus the quality of the
service they rendered. Total 102 questionnaires were distributed among the respondents of BATB
and received data were used for data analysis. SPSS 12.0 was used to analyze the collected data.
Correlational analysis and stepwise regression analysis were performed for testing hypothesis. The
correlational analysis and stepwise regression analysis provided meaningful support to the
hypothesis. Finally, considering the time and resource constraints, the researcher tried to follow
every possible guideline to establish the relationship between the variables.

1.0 Introduction
The British American Tobacco Group is one of the world’s leading international manufacturers
of some of the best tasted cigarettes whose brands are sold in 180 markets around the world.
Although it is operating in one of the most controversial market it has been doing an impressive
business in spite a number of restrictions and barriers.
BAT produces high quality tobacco products to meet the diverse preferences of millions of
consumers, and work in all areas of business. In the shortest sentence, their business can be
described as “From Seed to Smoke”. The companies are committed to providing consumers with
pleasure through excellent products, and to demonstrating that they are meeting its goals in ways
that are consistent with reasonable societal expectations of a reasonable tobacco group in the 21st
century.
British American Tobacco Company P.L.C. is one of the world’s leading international tobacco
companies operating with 85 factories in 66 countries and producing about 800 billion cigarette per
year. The company represents more than 300 brands in its portfolio. For more than 100 years,
British American Tobacco has been building an international reputation for producing high quality
tobacco products to meet the diverse preferences of consumers. Leading edge manufacturing, focus
on quality and excellent distribution capabilities enable the company to deliver consistent quality
premium products in 180 markets contributing to a global market share of 14.6% (as in 2002) and
more than 15% (as in 2003). The company is based in London, UK, operating globally with
strength of almost 90,000 employees.
British American Tobacco Company (BATCo.) is one of the pioneers in Tobacco manufactures
of the world. The journey of this company started long back. BATB was established back in 1910
as imperial Tobacco Company Ltd. in the beginning, it was known as Imperial Tobacco Company
Limited in the undivided India in 1910. Having its head office in Calcutta, in the year 1926 a
A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZARIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE QUALITY
2
branch office was made in the Sales Depot of Moulovi Bazar After independence, Bangladesh
Tobacco Company (Pvt.) Limited was formed in 1972 under the Companies Act 1913, with the
assets and liabilities of PTC. In 1973 BTC (Pvt.) was converted into a public limited company.
British American Tobacco played a pivotal role in BTC's creation in 1972 and since then has been
involved in BTC's development every step of the way. BTC has proved to be the perfect
representative of BAT by manufacturing and marketing quality brands, which met BAT standards.
The company was formed with an objective to establish a worldwide business. British American
Tobacco Bangladesh (previously known as Bangladesh Tobacco company), has changed its name
on March 22, 1998 was incorporated under the company Act 1913 on 2nd February 1972, as a
subsidiary of British American Tobacco Bangladesh (BATCo.).
Main business of BATB is tobacco, which involves the growing and processing of leaf tobacco
and manufacturing, marketing and distribution of cigarettes and pipe tobacco through out
Bangladesh. The company has been exporting tobacco to the markets in developed countries like
U.K., Germany, Poland, Russia and New Zealand. BATB is one of the highest contributors of
national revenue. “Quality First” is the main theme of the company and due to its total commitment
to the quality of the product the company has been doing very well in the local market.
Operating in the country since pre-independence, the company headquarters and cigarette factory
are based in Dhaka, with a tobacco threshing plant in Kushtia. The company currently employees
more than 200 managers and has a work force of 1,300 workers and 14,000 registered farmers in its
Kushtia threshing plant producing the world finest tobacco and exporting to other countries and
other tobacco companies locally for their living standards. British American Tobacco Bangladesh
(BATB) is listed in the Dhaka Stock Exchange (DSE) with an authorized share capital of Tk.
600,000,000 comprised of 60,000,000 ordinary shares of Tk. 10 each. With a market share of 48%,
65.91% of the company’s shares are held by Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd, UK; 26.99% by
3
Investment Corporation of Bangladesh; 2.86% by Shadharan Bima Corporation; 0.84% by
Bangladesh Silpa Rin Sangstha; 0.65% by the Government of Bangladesh; 0.52% by Sena Kalyan
Sangstha and 2.23% by others.
British American Tobacco recently suffered a sharp fall into its revenue. Its profit after tax was
drastically reduced by 44,04,30,000 taka. So, management concern is to check out whether the
service quality of the employee by any means is related with the circumstances occurred. In order
to do so, the researcher intent to examine the relationship among perceived organizational support,
supervisory support & work climate (Independent Variables) with employee service quality
(dependent variable).
1.1 Purpose of the Study
The objectives of this research is to present & examine the relationship between perceived
organizational support, supervisory support, customer participation, work climate (Independent
Variables) and employee service quality (Dependent Variables) in the context of British American
Tobacco in Bangladesh.
Employee service quality is perceived as an essential variable for the organization as the quality
of the product depends on the service provided by these employees. So, if the service qualities of
these employees are not efficient, then the organizations profitability in the long run will be at stake.
Therefore it is necessary for the management to know the factors that influences the employees to
upgrade the quality of the service they provide. Now, the researchers initiated this study to
understand whether employee service quality is influenced by perceived organizational support,
supervisory support, and work climate. This type of study in the context of British American
Tobacco in Bangladesh was not conducted before & hence this is an urgency to conduct similar
kind of research.
4
1.2 Problem Statement
Eisenberger et al.(1986,1990), “Perceived organizational support (POS hereafter) refers to the
extent to which employees perceive that the organization recognizes their contribution and cares
about their well being.” Organizations care and valuation towards its employee is also
acknowledged by the employees to satisfy their social needs for approval, affiliation, and esteem,
and to determine the organization’s readiness to compensate increased effort with greater rewards.
This concept has been suggested for integrating and extending the calculative and affective
interpretation of organizational commitment in a social exchange framework (Eisenberger et al.,
1986). POS is expected to increase as the employee will have the expectation of getting reward by
accomplishing organizational goals, and consequently, these expectancies may increase their efforts
in service works to meet the organizational goals, especially, providing superior service to
customers at each encounter.
House (1971), “Supervisory support refers to the socioemotional concerns of the supervisor, and
represents the degree to which the supervisor creates a facilitative climate of psychological support,
mutual trust, friendliness, and helpfulness.” Once the contact employees recognize that their
performance is constantly monitored by their immediate supervisor who is concerned for them as
well as provides adequate socioemotional support for them, employees’ positive enthusiasm
towards their jobs will boost up (Babin & Boles, 1996; Kopelman et al., 1990;, & Michaels et al.,
1987), and will exert more effort in the workplace (Brown & Peterson,1994).
Schneider et al. (1998), “Work climate refers to the shared perception of employees concerning
practices, procedures and kinds of behavior that get rewarded and supported in a particular setting.”
Hence, in the current study, the researchers will utilize service climate as an added variable to
investigate the relationship between work climate and employee service quality in context of British
American Tobacco in Bangladesh.

5
The problem statement, therefore, is stated as follows: the present study will investigate the
relationship between perceived organizational support, supervisory support, work climate
(Independent Variables) and employee service quality (Dependent Variables) in the context of
British American Tobacco in Bangladesh.
1.3 Research Timeline
2006 June Research Proposal Writing.
2006 June Literature Review.
2006 June Development of conceptual framework.
2006 July Data collection procedure.
2006 July Data analysis and interpretation of the findings.
2006 August Submission of draft copy.
2006 August Submission of research paper.
1.4 Limitations of the study
The study was limited by a number of factors. Firstly, the study was confined only to Dhaka
city. Secondly, sample size was too small to represent the proposed scenario. Thirdly, time
constraint led to get narrower outcomes, and finally the knowledge constraint of the researcher was
another limitation for the study.

6
2.0 Review of related literature
2.1 Definition of Perceived organizational support
Perceived organizational support can be defined as the “global beliefs concerning the extent to
which the organization values their contributions & cares about their well being” (Eisenberger et al.,
1986). Gouldner (1960), in his reciprocity norm of the social exchange theory explains employees
perceiving support from the organization value their organization at a greater scale and tend to
actively collaborate to achieve the company’s goals (e.g. Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rousseau, 1989;
Wayne et al., 1997). One of the first studies on the influence of social support on work was run by
LaRocco et al. (1980) who pointed out that employees that feel supported show better psychological
well-being, higher job satisfaction and better performance. Furthermore, it has been found
unanimously, that support is positively related to job satisfaction (Beehr et al., 1990; Thomas and
Ganster, 1995; Nye & Witt, 1993) which leads to an enhancement of employee service quality.
2.2 Definition of Supervisory Support
In 1975, C.A Shriesheim, and R.M Stodgigill uphold their doctrine in the book of Personnel
Psychology and they opined that Supervisory consideration refers to leader behaviors concerned
with promoting the comfort and wellbeing of subordinates. It is hypothesized that employees who
believe their superiors are considerate leaders will be more committed to their organizations than
those who do not perceive their managers as such (Johnston, M.W., Parasuraman, A., Futrell, C.M.
and Black, B.C, 1990). According to Schriesheim, C.A. and Stogdill, R.M. (1975), supervisory
consideration refers to leader behaviors concerned with promoting the comfort and wellbeing of
subordinates.
DeCotiis and Summers (1977), Morris and Sherman (1981) and Zaccaro and Dobbins (1989) all
found empirical support for this view. Supervisory consideration again refers to the degree to which
7
supervisors are supportive, friendly and considerate, consult subordinates and recognize their
contribution. Fry (1986) and Johnston (1990) found that consideration reduces role conflict among
the employees & thus the service quality of the employees increase. Supervisory support refers to
the extent to which supervisors, as persons “in the middle” have to reconcile conflicting demands
from workers for whom they are responsible, from senior management, from trade unions, and from
own needs for esteem and self-respect (Gelfand, L, 1990). If they do not know just what the total
organization wants, supervisors will be unable to fulfill an important part of their job, that of co-
ordinating the work of their section with that of others so that the strategic objectives of the
organizations are met. It is clear that the role of supervisor has now become increasingly
challenging as well as extremely critical as he has to work as a bridge between the management &
the employees. Now a day, Supervisory support refers to the “socioemotional concerns of the
supervisor, and represents the degree to which the supervisor creates a facilitative climate of
psychological support, mutual trust, friendliness, and helpfulness” (House, 1971). Representing the
organization, the supervisor generally determines the returns to subordinates and enacts the formal
and informal procedures of the organization. In a social contract setting, inputs of subordinates
influence the distribution of rewards by the supervisor. Thus, perceived distributive justice would
likely enhance trust in the supervisor. How supervisors interact with subordinates in
communicating procedural fairness, which is interactional justice, is more important than actual fair
behavior (Greenberg, 1988).
2.3 Definition of Work Climate
The concept of work climate is usually attributed to Lewin (1951) with his field theory
motivation. Guion (1973) suggested that the concept of corporate or work climate is one of the most
important to enter the thinking of industrial/organizational psychologists in many years. Climate

8
perceptions are observed as a critical determinant of individual behavior in organizations that
mediating the relationship between objective characteristics of the work environment and
individuals’ responses (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970). Organizational climate has
described an employees’ perception of his or her work environment (Hellriegel, D & J. Slocum,
1974). According to Schneider and Snyder (1975), “the molar or holistic nature of climate
perceptions is such that perceptions function as a frame of reference for the attainment of some
congruity between behavior and the system’s practices and procedures”. Furthermore, Schneider
(1975) studied employees’ performance in the workplace. According to him work climate is an
important determinant of employee performance, and that performance equals ability and climate,
which stress the display of individual differences. Work climate refers to how employees perceive
and interpret the organizational environments (James & James, 1989, 1990; James & Jones, 1974).
Organizational climate consists of more empirically accessible elements such as behavioral and
attitudinal characteristics (Drexler, 1977; O'Driscoll & Evans, 1988; Moran & Volkwein, 1992).
Moran and Volkwein (1992) defined climate as,
a relatively enduring characteristic of an organization which distinguishes it from other

organizations ,and (a) embodies members’ collective perceptions about their organization with
respect to such dimensions as autonomy, trust, cohesiveness, support, recognition, innovation,
and fairness; (b) produced by member interaction; (c) serves as a basis for interpreting the
situation; (d) reflects the prevalent norms and attitudes of the organization’s culture, and (e) acts
as a source of influence for shaping behavior (p. 20).
So we can say that individual perceptions of the work environment are usually referred
psychological climate and when we considered to a level for sufficient aggregation then termed as
organizational climate. Organizational climate highlights on the processes, practices, and behaviors
those are rewarded and supported in an organization (Schneider, 1990). Indeed, work climate
nowadays is more important than it was in the 1960s and 1970s, because the external and internal
environments of work organizations are less stable and less predictable than before. Hence, Kim
9
and Mauborgne (2003) pointed out to the fact that one of the major challenges that is faced by
today’s managers is to create a climate in which employees volunteer their creativity and expertise.
Besides, work climate has strong influence on employees’ decision to carry on with the organization
or quitting the job. Barnard (1997) argued that most employee work related decisions, such as
participating, producing and quitting, are influenced by the work climate of which he/she is part. A
work environment persuades work happiness, organization, organization obligation, employee
turnover, professional adjustment, and business stability (Holland, 1985; O’Reilly et al., 1991). A
powerful influence on employee recognitions, attitudes and behavior are the renowned
characteristics of an organization’s work environment (Ostroff, 1993). Climate in an organization is
the perception of the employees’ share of importance in the organization; achievement through their
experience on the job and their observations of the kinds of behaviors management expects and
supports (Schneider and Bowen, 1995). According to James and James (1990) and Brown and
Leigh (1996), perceptions of the organizational atmosphere obtain on personal significance for
employees through assessment, in which a cognitive illustration of the features of the work
environment is interpreted in terms of the individual’s standards. Environmental attributes appeared
from situational referents, these referents consist of safety (Zohar, 1980), innovation (Abbey and
Dickson, 1983), customer service (Schneider, 1980; Schneider and Bowen, 1985; Schneider et al.,
1998), support, cost-cutting, and others. From an earlier study by Pritchard and Karasick
operationalzed climate using 11 dimensions, those are autonomy, conflict versus cooperation, social
relations, structure, level of rewards, performance- reward dependency, motivation to achieve,
status polarization, flexibility, and innovation, decision centralization, and supportiveness. They
discover that all the dimensions except autonomy were related to job satisfaction. So we can come
up with the thought that if the work climate influences the employee positively then he or she will
be satisfied with the job and once job satisfaction is ensured he or she might deliver better service.
10
One of the major work climate variables out of variety of work climates is supportive management.
Supportive management defines how managers and supervisors support, help, trust, and create a
supreme working environment for the employees. Brown and Leigh (1996) describe supportive
management as a most important element of employees’ psychological safety in the workplace.
Therefore we can conclude work climate as the collective current impressions, expectations, and
feelings of the members of local work units, which in turn affect members’ relations with
supervisors, with one another, and with other units. In short, climate has been established as a
construct of considerable interest within the field of organizational behavior research,
predominantly as a result of its demonstrable influence on organizational effectiveness (Likert,
1961; Franklin, 1975; Kanter, 1983; Mudrack, 1989), as well as its relationship to individual
motivation and behavior (Litwin & Stringer, 1968; Bowers, 1976).
2.4 Definition of Employee Service Quality
Employee service quality is closely related to employee service effort. According to Brown &
Peterson (1994) and Walker et al. (1977) work effort considered to be the mediator between
motivation and job performance. In some other earlier study we got significant influence of work
effort on performance (e.g. Blau, 1993; Gardner et al, 1989). Schneider (1980) refers if the
employee is satisfied with his or her job then his/ her delivered service quality will be better.
Committed employees are believed to dedicate more of their time, energy and talents to the
organization than those who are not committed. This reflects an individual’s willingness to work
towards and accept organizational goals (Reichers, A.E., 1985). In other words, committed
employees are more likely to be better service quality performers due to their willingness to engage
in discretionary effort beyond the normal call of duty (Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry,
L.L, 1990). The employee’s commitment to the organization and its long-term goal of excellence in
11
service delivery is, however, strongly influenced by managerial action (Zeithaml, V.A.,
Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L, 1990; Young, M., 1991). An organization which truly pursues
service excellence needs middle-level managers and supervisors who rise above mere managing and
leading. It requires managers who establish and reinforce a service vision, who create a culture of
teamwork and performance, and who remove obstacles from the paths of employees who want to
satisfy the service quality needs of their customers. The quality of leadership provided by middle
management will thus strongly influence the level of service quality provided by employees at the
lower organizational levels (Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L, 1990).
2.5 Relation between perceived organ. support & employee service quality
Perceived organizational support (POS) represents employee’s perception of the organizational
commitment to him or her. Earlier back in 1964, Blau narrates the concept of POS as a means of
social exchange interpretation of organizational commitment whereby the employees amplify their
efforts and allegiance to the organization in return for material commodities and social rewards.
Churchill et al. (1985) in his studies found that organizational variable depends on specific
organizational action which is exercised by the managers as a means of influencing employee job
outcomes where as POS appears to be particularly rely on firm-administrative actions. Eisenberg et
al. (1986) later urged that when employees develop their perceptions of organizational support, they
depend highly on the frequency and extremity of formal organizational recognition such as
payment, rank, job enrichment and influence over organizational policies.
One of the first studies on the influence of social support on work was run by LaRocco et al.
(1980). He pointed out whenever employees feel supported they tend to show better psychological
well-being, higher job satisfaction and better performance. In terms of a social exchange
framework, Mohr & Bitner (1995) shows that POS has a direct impact on contact employees’
12
service efforts which can be defined as the amount of energy put into service works. Thus, the
more the employees perceive greater organizational support, their sense of obligation to reciprocate
with helpful behaviors towards the organization increases (Bettencourt & Brown, 1997; Shore &
Wayne (1993). Thus organizational support generates further positive work attitude. Organizational
support can be of different forms. Frone et al. (1997) found that colleague and supervisor support
have a positive influence on job satisfaction. Bennet et al. (2001) have observed that the
supervisory support and organizational acknowledgement are related to job satisfaction. Moreover,
there is wide evidence of social support related to organizational commitment (Eisenberger et al.,
1990; Guzzo et al., 1994; Wayne et al., 1997). Frone et al. (1997) found that supervisory support is
positively related to temporal work commitment. Schaubroeck and Fink (1998) also obtained
positive relationships between support and organizational commitment. Eisenberger et al. (2001)
using a structural equation causal model, concluded that support has a direct and positive influence
on affective commitment with the organization. In a longitudinal research, Stinglhamber and
Vanderbergue (2003) found that organizational support is related to organizational commitment and
that supervisory support and organizational support have different links as well as highlighting the
importance of distinguishing between both dimensions. The meta-analysis of Roadhes and
Eisenberger (2002) established evidence of the connection support-commitment: the relationship
between organizational support and affective commitment with the organization is strong, whereas
the relationship between organizational support and job involvement is just moderated. However,
even though most literature on organizational support is focused on relationships involving
satisfaction and commitment (Randall et al., 1999), there is also evidence of positive relationships
between organizational support and performance (Armeli et al., 1998; Eisenberger et al., 1986,
1990). Organ (1988) points out that employee perceiving themselves as correctly treated by the
organization will respond with extra-effort, which will affect their job performances as well as the
13
extra-role behavior. Summarizing, the meta-analysis made by Roadhes and Eisenberger (2002)
shows that the relationships between organizational support and extra-role performance are positive
which in terms exerts the quality services from the employees.
One way of supporting the teams is improving the group efficiency with training. The main
models of group performance sustain this idea (Campion et al., 1993; Gladstein, 1984; Hackman,
1987; Sundstrom et al., 1990; Tannenbaum et al., 1996). With the implementation of working
teams, employees need specific training in different areas (technical and professional updating,
interpersonal and team working skills, etc.). In this situation it has been found that those employees
getting more support show higher job satisfaction (Campion et al., 1993; Hackman, 1987; Teague et
al., 1995) and that satisfaction leads to higher work effort which results higher quality of the
service. Training also improves group performance by means of providing the skills needed to
work as a part of a team (Sundstrom et al., 1990). Another form of support is the appreciation and
rewards offered to employees. Employee acknowledgement and rewarding on account of their
group contribution is one of the most effective ways that organizations have to promote team
working (Hackman, 1987; Larson & LaFasto, 1989). Hyatt and Ruddy (1997) found that the teams
obtaining the necessary support of superiors and organization tended to be more effective.
2.6 Relation between supervisory support and employee service quality
Supervising has a positive effect on an employee’s professional and career success (Noe (1988)
& Ragins (1989)). It is proved that “the degree of supervisory support may influence the
subordinate’s motivation, job satisfaction, and performance (Babin & Boles, 1996; Michaels et al.,
1987)”. Frone et al. (1997) found that job satisfaction increases when employee get a positive
support from colleague and supervisor. Bennet et al. (2001) have also observed the positive
relationship among supervisory support and organizational acknowledgement to job satisfaction.

14
Recently, in a study with traffic police which is conducted by Baruch-Feldman et al. (2002) has also
found that supervisor support is related to job satisfaction. Schaubroeck and Fink (1998) also
obtained positive relationships between support and organizational commitment of the employees.
Eisenberger et al. (2001) in his structural equation causal model, concluded that support has a direct
and positive influence on affective commitment with the organization. Again employee’s
commitment towards organization & achieving its long term goal in service delivery is strongly
influenced by the action taken by the manager (Zeithmal, 1990). When employees notice that their
immediate supervisor is concerned for them & provides adequate support to get the job done,
employees feel more positive towards their work (Babin & Boles, 1996; Kopelman et al., 1990;
Michaels et al., 1987), which in turns, pulls out extra work effort (Brown & Peterson, 1994) from
them and this extra work effort enhance the service quality of the employees. Organization
generally takes strategic decisions which generally create a wave of sub decisions. These sub
decisions have to be carefully implemented in order to achieve the strategic goals (Mintzberg et al.,
1976). Typically, the manager-leader (middle managers and supervisors) is held accountable for the
implementation of these sub-decisions. Sub-decision implementation is defined as a sequence of
tasks carefully executed so that a favorable business outcome can be achieved in the medium to
short term. It is clear that the particulars of such implementation vary widely from decision to
decision, but virtually all decisions require efficient implementation to be successful (Nutt, 1993).
Efficiency in implementing the decisions is crucial which is guided by the supervisor to the base
level employees. Or in other words, a brilliant decision can prove worthless without its efficient
implementation. The implementation of decisions is a critical dimension of leadership effectiveness
(Robie et al., 2001) and in most of the case; supervisor is the key man to play that leadership role.
Even the best decisions fail to be implemented due to the inadequate supervision of subordinates,
among other reasons (Hill, 1978). From a contract perspective, interactions between an employee
15
and specific organization agents such as supervisors result in psychological contracts between the
employee and the organization (Shore and Tetrick, 1994). As an agent of the organization, the
supervisor discharges the organization’s legal, moral, and financial responsibilities (Robinson and
Morrison, 1995). Therefore, how the supervisor upholds the psychological employee-employer
contract significantly influences the elicitation (Robinson and Morrison, 1995). To enhance the
service quality of the employee a supervisor must look after their well & woes. Trust on supervisor
helps the employees to enhance the service effort. Podsakoff et al. (1990) reported strong support
for the direct influence of trust in supervisor. The employee’s commitment to the organization and
its long-term goal of excellence in service delivery is, however, strongly influenced by managerial
action (Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L., 1990; Young, M., 1991). An organization
which truly pursues service excellence needs middle-level managers and supervisors who rise above
mere managing and leading. It requires managers who establish and reinforce a service vision, who
create a culture of teamwork and performance, and supervisors who remove obstacles from the
paths of employees who want to satisfy the service quality. The quality of leadership provided by
supervisor will thus strongly influence the level of service quality provided by employees
(Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L., 1990). Supervisors behavior towards its employee
also influence the service quality of the employees. Cohen et al. (1996) identified the supervisory
behaviors in the same way that Manz and Sims (1986, 1987) had previously done. Manz and Sims.
(1987), opined that leadership of self-managed teams is a paradox that is dealt with by illuminating
six leadership behaviors that assist self-managed teams in managing themselves. A supervisor must
concentrate on these leadership behaviors. These behaviors are: encouraging self-observation/self
evaluation, encouraging self-goal setting, encouraging self-reinforcement, encouraging self-
criticism, encouraging self-expectation and encouraging rehearsal. Self-observation/evaluation
facilitates the performance evaluation process. In this behavior, the leader encourages the work
16
group to monitor, be cognizant of, and continuously assess his/her performance levels. Self-goal
setting facilitates the setting of performance goals. This behavior allows for the group to set
realistic but challenging goals. Self-reinforcement facilitates the recognition and behavior the
leader urges the group itself to be self-reinforcing of high performance standards. Self-criticism
facilitates critical self-evaluation and discouragement of poor performance. Self-expectation
facilitates heightened expectations for group performance. Finally, rehearsal facilitates practicing
an action before performing it. The leader encourages the group to review an activity and go
through the steps involved in the activity before action occurs. By encouraging these behaviors,
leaders aid their subordinates in developing self-control (Manz and Angle, 1986). This self-control,
or self-regulation, is the key component of self-management (Manz and Sims, 1987). Self-
management, in turn, enables team members to exhibit performance-enhancing behaviors that lead
to increased group effectiveness. Once the positive performance norms are established, they work to
increase the efficiency of the group by eliminating the need to control members and instilling a
sense of ownership for the quality of work, which reduces process losses (Leibowitz & Holden,
1995; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). As group identity, grows, it should promote a healthy work
cycle in which the supervisor takes on the role of facilitator (Hackman, 1977).
2.7 Relationship between work climate and employee service quality
According to Schneider and his colleagues (Schneider &Bowen, 1985; Schneider et al., 1980,
1998), there is a straight relationship between employees’ perceptions of work climate. Al-rahimi
(1990) investigated the relationship between employee work outcomes and work climate. He called
for creating the proper environment in which employees can develop to their fullest potential. Al-
rahimi suggested that providing a conducive work environment is essential for enhancing employee
satisfaction and commitment, and increasing their performance. Similarly, Al-shammari (1994)
17
argued that researchers and academics must be aware about the role that work climate plays in
shaping the level of organizational performance. Burruss (1996) argued that managing for
motivation and performance improvement is essential for work organisations, and that providing a
supportive work climate is directly related to employees’ motivation and performance. He argued
that when the environment is positive, people are motivated and excited about what they are doing.
However, when it is negative, people are relatively depressed and angry. Therefore, Burruss
suggested that it is no surprise that work climate is an excellent predictor of organizational and
employee performance. Again, the contact employees will feel positively towards their jobs if they
get enough support and control over their work (Babin & Boles, 1996; Kopelman et al., 1990;
Michaels et al., 1987) and they will be more devoted in the workplace (Brown & Peterson, 1994).
Blau (1993) and Gardner (1989) also found a positive relation between work effort and
performance of the employee.
3.0 Operational Definition
From the literature review the operational definition of the measured variables are identified as
follows:
Table: 1
Operational Definition of Measured Variables
Measured Variables Operational Definitions

Employee Service quality Will be operationally defined by Parasuraman et al.(1988).
Perceived Organizational Support Will be operationally defined by Eisenberger et al.(1986).
Supervisory Support Will be operationally defined by Teas (1983).
Work Climate Will be operationally defined by Brown & Leighs (1996).

18
3.1 Research Questions

This study proposes to investigate the following questions:
1. Is there any significant relationship between perceived organizational support and employee
service quality in the context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh?
2. Is there any significant relationship between supervisory support and employee service
quality in the context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh?
3. Is there any significant relationship between work climate and employee service quality in
the context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh?
3.2 Research Hypotheses
The hypotheses derived from research questions are as follows:
1. There is significant relationship between perceived organizational support and employee in
the context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh.
2. There is significant relationship between supervisory support and employee service quality
in the context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh.
3. There is significant relationship between work climate and employee service quality in the
context of British American Tobacco Bangladesh.

19
3.3 Conceptual Framework
The conceptual frame work for the proposed research is as follows:
Perceived Organizational Support

Employee Service Quality
Supervisory Support.
Work Climate
Figure1: Conceptual Framework of Research Variable and their Relationships
4.0 Research Methodology
4.1 Research Design
The conceptual framework mention earlier in Figure1 represents the relationships among the set
of measured variables. In this case, the model is clearly defined by the research question and
hypothesis. The purpose of the study is to determine correlations among variables.
The present study will investigate the relationship among perceived organizational support,
supervisory support and work climate & employee service quality within the context of British
American Tobacco in Bangladesh. (Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S., 1998) refers the relationship
between two or more variables as a correlational study. To find out the appropriate answers to the
research questions and to test the hypotheses the correlational research design is needed. The model
(Figure 1) also suggests this type of design. Here perceived organizational support, supervisory
support, and work climate as independent variables and employee service quality is being
considered as a dependent variable. Here we broke down the work climate into two major segments
as service climate and supportive management. We will use a correlational study to establish the
20
existence relationships between the measured variables. In this research, the researchers try to find
out whether there is any relationship exists between these measured variables or not. A
correlational study provides a measure of the degree between two or more variables. Therefore, the
present study will be characterized as a correlational study.
4.2 Research approach
In order to get the answer of our research questions, the researchers will collect information from
the contact employees of the British American Tobacco. The context of the research will be
explained to the participants. The respondents will be chosen in a random manner & each of the
respondents will participate voluntarily.
4.3 Sampling Method
The population would be all the employees’ of British American Tobacco. The total population
size is 1300 (employees’ numbers). First of all, as the employee listing could be drawn, probability
sampling technique would be appropriate to draw a sample from the sampling frame. In this regard,
for the current study a simple random sampling method would be utilized. Cooper and Schindler
(1998) stated that in this type of probability sampling method each population element is known and
has an equal chance of selection. Many researchers also followed the similar sampling method in
their respective studies for instances (Ranaweera & Prabhu, 2003; Andreas, 2001; Sharma &
Patterson, 2000).
British American Tobacco possesses 1300 employees’ through out the country. The researcher
used non-probability convenience sampling technique and decided to gather data by distribution
questionnaires over 102 employees whose are working in the Mohakhali factory of British
American Tobacco.
21
4.4 Survey Instrument
Like most other researches, questionnaire had been adapted from previous empirical studies.
The Psychometric Properties of the Scale items were assessed using Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha,
which was reported to be the preferred method (William & Anuchit, 2002). In general, the
acceptable range of alpha value is greater than 0.50.
4.5 Data Collection Procedure
Selected questionnaires will be used to acquire data. The questionnaire survey is the most
effective method for this study to collect the data for the following reasons-
• Respondents’ identity can be kept hidden & secured.
• The researchers will conduct survey on 102 respondents. It will not be possible to
conduct personal interview because of time limitation. Therefore, a questionnaire survey
will be the most appropriate one for the current study.
• As mail survey will require immense amount of time researcher will not consider this
option for current study.
• The internet facility is not widespread and even many of the employees are not
efficient enough to use internet properly. Therefore, online survey will also be inappropriate
for the study.
• The data gathered through questionnaire is easy to put in quantitative analysis.
• Questionnaire provides the flexibility to the respondents to fill it up very quickly &
conveniently. Therefore, the customers will not be reluctant in providing accurate data.
A Structured questionnaire will be used in this study to collect data from customers. The
researchers will utilize four different sets of questionnaires to measure the variables Perceived
22
organizational support will be measured by using 5 items (quest 1 to 5) developed by Eisenberger et
al. (1986).
Supervisory support will be measured by using 4 items (quest. 6 to 9). This scale is developed
by Teas (1983) and is often used in industrial salesperson studies (Micheal et al,.1987; Singh,1993;
Teas 1983).
Work climate will be measured by using 4 items (quest 10 to 13). This scale is developed by
Brown and Leigh’s (1996).
Employee service quality will be measured by 5 items (quest 14 to 18). This scale is developed
by Parasuraman et al. (1988).
4.6 Data Analysis
Pearson’s Correlation analysis had been used to find out the relationship between the
independent and dependent variables. Correlation analysis is the statistical tool that can be used to
describe the degree to which one variable is linearly related to another (William, and Anuchit,
2002).
After collecting the data, Pearson’s correlational matrix for the variables was prepared and the
researcher looked for significant correlations. The researchers used descriptives, correlations, and
regressions to test the strength of associations between the studied variables.
The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 12 software was employed to analyze
the data collected from the actual survey.

23
5.0 Findings from Questionnaires
5.1 Reliability and Descriptive statistics of the Instruments
Reliability refers to the notion of consistency emerges (Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S., 1998).
Gregory, R. (1996) defined “reliability” as the extent to which measurements of the particular test
are repeatable. Malhotra, N.K. (1996) narrates reliability as the extent to which a scale produces
consistently same result if repeated measurement is made. Now, regarding measurement,
Parameswaram, Greenberg, & Bellenger (1979) argued that a measurement must meet two criteria.
According to them measurement must be an operationally definable process & the outcome of the
process should be consistently equal if the measurement is repeated. So, the more consistent the
output given by repeated measurements, the greater the reliability of the procedure (Carminees,
E.G. & Zeller, R.A.,1979).
Estimation of the reliability coefficient can be conducted in four ways (Malhotra, N.K., 1996).
They are: test-retest reliability (repeating method), alternative form reliability, split-half reliability
and the internal consistency reliability.
Now, the most widely used internal consistency is provided by coefficient alpha (α) or
Cronbach’s alpha (1951) as it provides a good reliability estimate in most situations. Coefficient
alpha is a kind of average of all possible split-half coefficients which is resulted from different ways
of splitting the item of the scale. This coefficient varies from 0 to 1. The closer the value of alpha
(α) to 1, the greater the reliability. If the value is low or tends to close to 0 then it signifies that
there lies unsatisfactory internal consistency reliability which may occur from either there are too
few items or there is very little commonality among the items (Churchill, G.A. JR., 1979).
24
Table: 2
Descriptive statistics, and Reliability Coefficient of Perceived Organizational Support,

Supervisory Support, Work Climate & Employee Service Quality.
Scale No. of Items Alpha Mean SD
Perceived Organizational Support 4 0.78 4.32 0.58
Supervisory Support 4 0.71 4.22 0.66
Work Climate 4 0.70 4.41 0.50
Employee Service Quality 5 0.80 4.34 0.54
Note: n=102
According to Nunnally (1978) the reliability is acceptable if it lies between 0.50-0.60. However,
according to Hair (1998) a coefficient of 0.70 is enviable.
In this study, the coefficient alphas for the different constructs were computed using the
reliability procedure in SPSS (version 12.0). From the table it can be easily seen that the
reliabilities of most constructs in this study lies within the acceptable range (0.70-0.80).
Mean scores have been computed by equally weighting the mean scores of all items. On a five
point scale mean score for Perceived Organizational Support is 4.32 (sd = .58). The mean score for
Supervisory Support is 4.22 (sd = .66). The mean score for Work Climate is 4.41 (sd = .50). The
mean score for Employee Service Quality is 4.34 (sd =.54).
5.2 Correlation Analysis
A correlation analysis was conducted on all the variables to explore the relationship between
variables. In interpreting the strength of relationships between variables, the guidelines suggested
by Rowntree, D. (1981) were followed his classification of the correlation coefficient (r) is as
follows:
25
0.0 to 0.2 Very weak, negligible
0.2 to 0.4 Weak, low
0.4 to 0.7 Moderate
0.7 to 0.9 Strong, high marked
0.9 to 1.0 Very strong, very high
The bivariate correlation procedure was a subject to a two tailed test of statistical significance at
two different levels highly significant (p<.001) and significant (p<.01) or (p<.05). The results of
the correlational analysis are shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Correlation Matrix for Per. Org. Support, Supervisory Support, Work climate & Employee
Service Quality.
Per. Org.Support Supervisory Support Work Climate Employee

Service Quality
Per. Org.Support .40 ** .61** .58**
Supervisory Support .60** .51**
Work Climate .78**
Note: *p<.05, **p<01, ***p<.001
The result of correlation analysis for all the variables is shown in Table 3. It examines the
correlation among Perceived Organizational Support (Per. Org. Support), Supervisory Support,
Work Climate & Employee Service Quality.
Perceived Organizational Support (Per. Org. Support) (r= .58, p<.01), Supervisory Support (r=
.51, p<.01), Work Climate (r= .78, p<.01) are significantly positively correlated with Employee
service quality.
26
5.3 Stepwise Regression Analysis
Regression analysis is a statistical procedure for analyzing associate relationships between a
metric dependent variable & one or more independent variables (Malhotra, N.K., 1996). In this
study a stepwise regression was conducted to asses the relationship between variables. Stepwise
regression refers to the procedure in which the predictor (independent) variables enter or leave at a
time (Malhotra, N.K., 1996). This means that from a large number of predictor variables a small
subset of variables that can explain most of the variation in the criterion (dependent) variable.
Hanushek and Jackson (1977) suggested that stepwise regression is a useful procedure in
determining most significantly related variables in explaining the behavior in question and this
procedure not only gives an indication of how comprehensive the effect of the independent variable
is, but also details which aspects of a grossly defined variable have been differentially affected
(Jahangir, N., 2003). Again, Cohen and Cohen (1975) opine that, when an investigator has a large
pool of potential independent variables and very little theory to guide selection among them, he may
be benefited by using stepwise regression. The authors noted that in the use of stepwise regression
analysis probably the most serious problem arises when a relatively large number of independent
variables are used. Since the significant test of an independent variable’s contribution to R2
proceeds in ignorance of the large number of other such tests being performed at the same time for
the other competing independent variables, there can a be very serious capitalization by chance
(Jahangir, N., 2003). So, in this study small numbers of independent variables were considered.
27
Table 4
Stepwise Regression on Employee Service Quality.
Variable B Standard Error β R2 ∆ R2
Step 1 .612
Work Climate .840 .067 .782***
Step 2 .629 .017
Work Climate .733 .083 .683***
Per. Org. Support .151 .072 .163*
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.
Now, p values show the significance of each predictor at each step for stepwise regression.
Three different levels of significance can be described by p values: highly significant (p <.001),
significant (p<.01) and (p<.05) (Hair er al., 1998; Lee, & Lee, 2000; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
Table 4 signifies that in British American Tobacco work climate (p <.001) and perceived
organizational support (p <.05) were found to be statistically significantly related with employee
service Quality. Supervisory Support failed to enter into the regression equation, which indicates it
was not that significantly related with Employee Service Quality like the other variables. These
results provided a partial support for hypothesis. These two predictor variables together explained
63% (almost) of the variance in Employee Service Quality. Work climate can explain 61% & of the
variance in Employee Service Quality. However, Perceived Organizational Support can explain
1.7% variance in Employee Service Quality.

28
6.0 Assessment of research hypothesis
Research Hypothesis
There is a significant relationship between Perceived Organizational Support, Supervisory
Support, Work Climate and Employee service Quality.
From the findings, the variables significantly correlated with Employee Service Quality were
Perceived Organizational Support (Per. Org. Support) (r= .58, p<.01), Supervisory Support (r= .51,
p<.01), Work Climate (r= .78, p<.01). So the results of correlational analysis have provided support
for research hypothesis.
Now, the result of stepwise regression analysis depicts that in the context of British American
Tobacco Work Climate (p <.001) and Perceived Organizational Support (p <.05) were found to be
statistically significantly related with Employee Service Quality. Supervisory Support failed to
enter into the regression equation, which indicates it was not that much statistically significantly
related with Employee Service Quality. These results provided a partial support for hypothesis.
These two predictor variables together explained 63% of the variance in Employee Service Quality.
Work Climate & Perceived Organizational Support can explain 61% & 1.7% variance in Employee
Service Quality respectively. These results provided a partial support for hypothesis.
7.0 Recommendation
From the above discussions, work climate proves to have a significant impact on employee
service. Therefore, firms should concentrate to create a congenial working atmosphere to enhance
the employee service quality.
Organizational support is a key factor for employee service quality. If the organization values its
employee’s contribution, opinion and well being then the employees will certainly feel the
association to the company’s long term goals & objectives & thus a company can become
29
successful in the long run by integrating its employees thought, ideas & opinions. So, a company
should create such an environment where the sense of organizational support will exist among its
employees.
Correlational study suggests that supervisory support is also important for the employee to keep
the quality of the service to an outstanding level. It is the supervisor of the employee who is
directly related with the workers. So, any difficulties faced by the employees should be mitigated
by the supervisor. A supervisor must try continuously to crate the job as interesting as possible &
every supervisor should looks out the welfare of the employees of his group. This creates the sense
of affiliation among the employees & thus the service qualities of the employees improve. For this
the company should train its supervisor to deal with the employees, for the welfare of the company
8.0 Conclusion
The researcher, therefore, proves the relationship between employee service quality (dependent
variable) and perceived organizational support, supervisory support & work climate (independent
variables). In the long run, we can say that the above relationship provides significant insight to
enhance the quality of the employees.

30
References
Al-Shammari (1994), An analysis of the organisational climate and effectiveness in Jordanian

industrial companies. Dirasat, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 43-58.
Al-Rahimi, F. (1990). An analytical study of job satisfaction in Saudi Arabian public sector.
Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.
Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R.T., Fasolo, P. & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived organizational support and
police performance: the moderating influence of socio-emotional needs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 88-297.
Babin, B.J. & Boles, J.S. (1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor
support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction. Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 57-75.
Barnard, J. (1997). The workplace environment: what do technical workers want? Industrial
Management, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 14-16.
Beehr, T.A., King, L. & King, D. (1990). Social support and occupational stress: talking to
supervisors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 61-81.
Bennet, P., Lowe, R., Mattwes, V., Dourali, M. & Tattersall, A. (2001). Stress in nurses: coping,
managerial support and work demand. Stress and Health: Journal of the International
Society for the Investigation of Stress, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 55-63.
Bettencourt, L.A. & Brown, S.W. (1997). Contact employees: relationships among workplace
fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behavior. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1,
pp. 39-61.
Blau, G.J. (1993). Operationalizing direction and level of effort and testing their relationships to
individual job performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 55
No. 1, pp. 152-70.
Brown, S.P. & Peterson, R.A. (1994). The effect of effort on sales performance and job satisfaction.
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 70-80.
Brown, S.P. & Leigh, T.W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job
involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp.
358-68.
Burruss, J. (1996). Managing for motivation and performance improvement. In Boulter, N., Dalziel,
M. and Hill, J. (Eds). People and Competencies: The Route to Competitive Advantage,
London: Kogan Page.
Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. & Weick, K.E. (1970), Managerial Behaviour,
Performance and Effectiveness, NY: McGraw-Hill.
31
Campion, M.A., Medsker, G. & Higgs, A.C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics
and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 823-50.
Carminees, E.G., & Zeller, R.A (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. CA: Sage Publications.
Churchill, G.A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures for marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73.
Churchill, G.A. Jr, Ford, N.M., Hartley, S.W. & Walker, O.C. Jr. (1985). The determinants of
salesperson performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22, pp. 103-
18.
Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E. Jr & Spreitzer, G.M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work
team effectiveness. Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 643-76.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral
sciences. NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P.S. (1998). Business research Methods (6th ed.). Boston: Erwin
McGraw – Hill.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, Vol. 16,
pp. 297-334.
DeCotiis, T.A. & Summers, T.P. (1977). A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and
consequences of organizational commitment. Human Relations, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 445-70.
Drexler, J.A. (1977). Organizational climate: its homogeneity within organizations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 38-42.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-7.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75
No. 1, pp. 51-9.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S. & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support,
discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 5,
pp. 812-20.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S. & Rexwinkel, B. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Franklin, J.L. (1975). Down the organization: influence processing across levels of hierarchy.
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 153-64.
32
Frone, M., Yardley, J.K. &Markel, K.S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the
work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 145-67.
Fry, L.W., Futrell, C.M., Parasuraman, A. & Chmielewski, M.A. ( 1986), An analysis of alternative
causal models of salesperson role perceptions and work-related attitudes. Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 153-63.
Gardner, D.G., Dunham, R.B., Cummings, L.L. & Pierce, J.L. (1989). Focus of attention at work:
construct definition and empirical validation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 62,
pp. 61-77.
Gelfand, L. (1990). Communicate through Your Supervisor. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89, pp.
99-112.
Gladstein, D.L. (1984). Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 499-517.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological
Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-78.
Greenberg, J. (1988). Cultivating an image of justice: looking fair on the job. Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 2, pp. 155-7.
Gregory, R. (1996). The quest for a: developments in multiple comparison procedures in the
quarter century since Games (1971). Review of Educational Research, Vol. 66, pp. 269-306.
Guion, R. (1973). A note on organisational climate. Organisational Behaviour and Human

Performance, Vol. 9, pp. 120-5
Guzzo, R., Noonan, K.A. & Elron, E. (1994). Expatriate managers and the psychological contract.
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 617-26.
Hackman, J.R. (1977). Designing work for individuals and for groups. In Hackman, J.R., Lawler,
E.E. & Porter, L.W. (Eds). Perspectives on Behavior in Organizations, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work Redesign. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Hackman, J.R. (1987). The Design of Work Teams: Handbook of Organizational Behavior, NY:
Prentice-Hall..
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E.., Tatham, R.L. & black, W.C. (1998). Multiple data analysis (5th ed.).
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hanushek, E. A., & Jackson, J.E. (1977). Statistical methods for social scientists. NY: Academic
Press Inc.
Hill, P.H. (1978). Making Decisions: A Multi-disciplinary Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Reading,

MA.
33
Holland, J.L. (1985), Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work
Environments, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
House, R. (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,

Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 321-9.
Hyatt, D.E. & Ruddy, T.M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group
characteristics and performance: once more into the breach. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50
No. 3, pp. 553-85.
James, L.A. & James, L.R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: explorations into the
measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 739-51
James, L.R. & James, L.A. (1990). The meaning of organizations: he role of cognition and values.
In Czepiel, J.A., Solomon, M.R. & Surprenant, C.F. (Eds). The Service Encounter,
Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 127-47.
James, L.R. & Jones, A.P. (1974). Organizational climate: a review of theory and research.
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 81, pp. 1096-112.
Jahangir, N. (2003). Perceptions of Power: A CognitivePerspective of Nationalised Commercial

Banks of Bangladesh(1st ed.). Dhaka: Centre for Social Studies.
Johnson, J.W. (1996). Linking employee perceptions of service climate to customer satisfaction.
Personal Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 831-51.
Johnston, M.W., Parasuraman, A., Futrell, C.M. & Black, B.C. (1990). A longitudinal assessment
of the impact of selected organizational influences on salespeople’s organizational
commitment during early employment. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp.
333-44.
Kanter, R.M. (1983). The Change Masters, NY: Random House.
Kim, W. & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Fair process: management in the knowledge economy. Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 127-36.
Kopelman, R.E., Brief, A.P. & Guzzo, R.A. (1990). The role of climate and culture in productivity.
In Schneider, B. (Ed.). Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA, pp. 282-313.
LaRocco, J.M., House, J.S. & French, J.R. (1980). Social support, occupational stress, and health.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 202-18
Larson, C.E. & LaFasto, F.M. (1989). Teamwork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lee, F., Lee, J.C., & Lee, A.C. (2000). Statistics for Business and Financial Economics (2nd ed.).
Singapore: World Scientific.
34
Leibowitz, S.J. & Holden, K.T. (1995). Are self-managing teams worthwhile? A tale of two
companies. SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 11-17.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Litwin, G.H. & Stringer, R.A. (1968). Motivation and Organizational Climate. Boston: Harvard
University Press.
Manz, C.C. & Angle, H. (1986). Can group self-management mean a loss of personal control:
triangulating on a paradox. Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 11, pp. 309-34.
Manz, C.C. & Sims, H.P. (1986). Leading self-managed groups: a conceptual analysis of a paradox.
Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 7, pp. 141-65.
Manz, C.C. & Sims, H.P. (1987).Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership of
self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 106-28.
Michaels, R.E., Day, R.L. & Joachimsthaler, E.A. (1987). Role stress among industrial buyers: an
integrative model. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 28-45.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure of ‘unstructured’ decision
processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 246-75.
Mohr, L. & Bitner, M.J. (1995). Process factors in service delivery: what employee effort means to
customers. In Swartz, T.A., Bowen, D.E. & Brown, S.W. (Eds). Advances in Services
Marketing and Management, 4, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 91-117.
Moran, E.T. & Volkwein, J.F. (1992). The cultural approach to the formation of organizational
culture. Human Relations, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 19-47.
Morris, J.H. & Sherman, J.D. (1981). Generalizability of an organizational commitment model.
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 512-26.
Mudrack, P.E. (1989). Group cohesiveness and productivity: a closer look. Human Relations, Vol.
42 No. 9, pp. 771-85.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). NY: McGraw Hill.
Nutt, P.C. (1993). The formulation processes and tactics used in organizational decision-making.
Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 246-75.
Nye, L.G. & Witt, L.A. (1993). Dimensionality and construct validity of the perceptions of
organizational politics scale (POPS). Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 53
No. 3, pp. 821-9.
35
O'Driscoll, M.R. & Evans, R. (1988). Organizational factors and perceptions of climate in three
psychiatric units. Human Relations, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 371-88.
Ostroff, C. (1993). The effects of climate and personal influence on individual behaviour and
attitudes in organizations. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol.
56 No. 1, pp. 56-91.
Organ, D.W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of

Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 547-57.
Parameswaran, R., Greenberg, B.A., & Bellenger, D.N. (1979). Measuring reliability: A
comparison of alternative techniques. Journal of Marketing research, Vol. 16, pp. 18-25.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 107-42.
Randall, M., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C.A. & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and
organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 159-74.
Reichers, A.E. (1985). A review and re-conceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy

of Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 465-76.
Roadhes, L. & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature.
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 698-714.
Robie, C., Johnson, K.M., Nilsen, D. & Hazucha, J.F. (2001). The right stuff: understanding cultural
differences in leadership performance. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20 No. 7,
pp. 639-49.
Robinson, S.L. & Morrison, E.W. (1995). Psychological contracts and organizational citizenship
behavior: the effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, pp. 289-98.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 121-39.
Rowntree, D. (1981). Statistics without tears. NY: Penguin Books.
Schaubroeck, J. & Fink, L.S. (1998). Facilitating and inhibiting effects of job control and social
support on stress outcomes and role behavior: a contingency model. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 167-95.
Schneider, B. (1975). Organisational climate. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 447-79.
Schneider, B. & Snyder, R.A. (1975). Some relationships between job satisfaction and
organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 318-28.
36
Schneider, B. (1980). The service organization: climate is crucial. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 8,
pp. 52-65.
Schneider, B. & Bowen, D.E. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks
replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70, pp.423-33.
Schneider, B. & Bowen, D.E. (1995). Winning the Service Game, Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Schneider, B., White, S.S. & Paul M.C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions
of service quality: test of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp.
150-63.
Schriesheim, C.A. & Stogdill, R.M. (1975). Differences in factor structure across three versions of
the Ohio state leadership scales. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 189-206.
Shore, L.M. & Tetrick, L.E. (1994). The psychological contracts as an explanatory framework in
the employment relationship. In Cooper, C.L. & Rousseau, D.M. (Eds). Trends in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Shore, L.M. & Wayne, S.J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective
commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 774-80.
Stinglhamber, F. & Vanderbergue, C. (2003). Organizational and supervisors as sources of support

and targets of commitment: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.
24, pp. 251-70.
Sundstrom, E., de Meuse, K.P. & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: applications and effectiveness.
American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 120-33.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). NY: Harper
Collins.
Tannenbaum, S.I., Salas, E. & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1996). Promoting team effectiveness. In West,
M.A. (Ed.). Handbook of Work Group Psychology, London: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 503-
29.
Teague, G.B., Drake, R.E. & Ackerson, T.H. (1995). Evaluating use of continuous treatment teams
for persons with mental illness and substance abuse. Psychiatric Services, Vol. 46 No. 7,
pp. 689-95.
Teas, R.K., (1983). Supervisory behavior, role stress, and the job satisfaction of industrial
salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 84-91.
Thomas, L. & Ganster, D.C. (1995), Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family
conflict and strain: a control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp.
6-15.
37
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M.& Liden, R.C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-
member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.
40 No. 1, pp. 82-111.
Young, M. (1991). Middle managers must be the drivers of service quality. Marketing News, Vol.
25 No. 1, p. 16.
Zaccaro, S.J. & Dobbins, G.H. (1989). Contrasting group and organizational commitment: evidence
for differences among multi-level attachments. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10,
pp. 267-73.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L. (1990). Delivering Service Quality: Balancing
Perceptions and Expectations. NY: Free Press.
Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications.
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 96-102.
38
Appendices
The Questionnaire for the employees of British American Tobacco
Are you willing to spend some time to answer the survey? We guarantee that your responses will be
treated as strictly confidential. You are under no obligation to answer and you are free to terminate
the interview at any time.
Following questions will ask your opinions about the provided perceived organizational support,
supervisor support, work climate & employee service quality in the context of “British American
Tobacco Bangladesh”. Please circle one number per statement using the following scale:
1= Strongly Disagree 2= Disagree 3= Neutral 4=Agree 5= Strongly Agree
Perceived organizational support
My organization values my contribution to its well-being 1 2 3 4 5

My organization strongly considers my goals and values 1 2 3 4 5
My organization cares about my opinions 1 2 3 4 5
My organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work 1 2 3 4 5
My organization tries to make my job as interesting as possible 1 2 3 4 5
Supervisor support
My supervisor is friendly and approachable 1 2 3 4 5

My supervisor helps make my job more pleasant 1 2 3 4 5
My supervisor treats all workers as his equals 1 2 3 4 5
My supervisor looks out for the personal welfare of group
members 1 2 3 4 5
Work Climate
My boss is flexible about how I accomplish my job objectives 1 2 3 4 5

My boss is supportive of my ideas & ways of getting things done 1 2 3 4 5
My boss gives me the authority to do my job as I see fit 1 2 3 4 5
I can trust my boss to back me up on decisions I take in the field 1 2 3 4 5
Providing prompt service 1 2 3 4 5

Never being too busy to respond to my request 1 2 3 4 5
Instilling confidence in me 1 2 3 4 5
Adequate knowledge to answer my questions 1 2 3 4 5
Courteousness of employee 1 2 3 4 5
39
Reliability of Perceived Organizational Support

Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 102 100.0
Excluded
0 .0
(a)
Total 102 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.782 4
Reliability of Supervisory Support

N %
Excluded
0 .0
(a)
Total 102 100.0

.718 4
Reliability of Work Climate

N %
Excluded
0 .0
(a)
Total 102 100.0

.707 4
40
Reliability of Employee Service Quality

N %
Excluded
0 .0
(a)
Total 102 100.0

.801 5
Correlations
Correlations
Employee_
Per_org_sup Super_sup Work climate severqual
Per_org_sup Pearson Correlation 1 .409 ** .612 ** .581 **
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .000 .000
N 102 102 102 102
Super_sup Pearson Correlation .409 ** 1 .604 ** .515 **
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .000 .000
N 102 102 102 102
Work climate Pearson Correlation .612 ** .604 ** 1 .782 **
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 . .000
N 102 102 102 102
Employee_severqual Pearson Correlation .581 ** .515 ** .782 ** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .
N 102 102 102 102
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
41
Regression
Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-
F-to-enter
Work climate
. <= .050,
Probabilit
y-of-
F-to-remo
ve >= .
100).
2 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-
F-to-enter
Per_org_
. <= .050,
sup
Probabilit
y-of-
F-to-remo
ve >= .
100).
a. Dependent Variable: Employee_severqual
Model Summary
Change Statistics
Adjusted Std. Error of R Square
Model R R Square R Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .782a .612 .608 .34042 .612 157.895 1 100 .000
2 .793b .629 .621 .33471 .017 4.441 1 99 .038
a. Predictors: (Constant), Work climate
b. Predictors: (Constant), Work climate, Per_org_sup
42
ANOVA c
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 18.298 1 18.298 157.895 .000 a
Residual 11.589 100 .116

Total 29.887 101
2 Regression 18.796 2 9.398 83.885 .000 b
Residual 11.091 99 .112

Total 29.887 101
a. Predictors: (Constant), Work climate
b. Predictors: (Constant), Work climate, Per_org_sup
c. Dependent Variable: Employee_severqual
a
Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) .634 .297 2.133 .035
Work climate .840 .067 .782 12.566 .000
2 (Constant) .453 .304 1.489 .140
Work climate .733 .083 .683 8.817 .000
Per_org_sup .151 .072 .163 2.107 .038
a. Dependent Variable: Employee_severqual
c
Excluded Variables
Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
1 Per_org_sup .163 a 2.107 .038 .207 .625
Super_sup .067 a .850 .397 .085 .635
2 Super_sup .057 b .736 .464 .074 .632
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Work climate
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Work climate, Per_org_sup
c. Dependent Variable: Employee_severqual

Ocp On Bat

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ocp On Bat

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT,

SUPERVISORY SUPPORT, WORK CLIMATE, AND EMPLOYEE SERVICE

Sultan Saad Andaleeb.

An Internship Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment

INDEPENDENT UNIVERSITY, BANGLADESH

Sultan Saad Andaleeb.

has been approved

Mr. Shubhankar Shil

Lecturer, School of Business

Independent University, Bangladesh

I want to submit my internship report on “A Relational Study on Perceived Organizational

British American Tobacco Bangladesh”. I am submitting this report as a part of my internship

Sultan Saad Andaleeb.

their precious time in answering my questionnaires.

1.1 Purpose of the study 3

1.2 Problem Statement 4

1.3 Research timeline 5

1.4 Limitations of study 5

2.0 Review of related literature 6

2.1 Definition of perceived organizational support 6

2.2 Definition of supervisory support 6

2.3 Definition of work climate 7

2.4 Definition of employee service quality 8

2.6 Relationship between supervisory support and employee service quality 13

3.0 Operational Definition 17

3.1 Research Questions 18

3.2 Research Hypothesis 18

3.3 Conceptual Framework 19

4.0 Research Methodology 19

4.1 Research design 19

4.3 Sampling method 20

4.4 Survey instrument 21

4.5 Data collection procedure 21

4.6 Data analysis 22

5.0 Findings from questionnaires 23

5.1 Reliability and Descriptive statistics of the Instruments 23

5.2 Correlation Analysis 24

5.3 Stepwise Regression Analysis 26

6.0 Assessment of research hypothesis 28

1. Operational Definition of Measured Variables 17

2. Descriptive statistics, and Reliability Coefficient of Measured Variables 24

3. Correlation Matrix for Measured Variables 25

4. Stepwise regression on willingness on employee service quality 27

1. Conceptual Framework of Research Variable and their Relationships 19

This research intends to investigate the relationships of in context of on Perceived

every possible guideline to establish the relationship between the variables.

business in spite a number of restrictions and barriers.

strength of almost 90,000 employees.

subsidiary of British American Tobacco Bangladesh (BATCo.).

Investment Corporation of Bangladesh; 2.86% by Shadharan Bima Corporation; 0.84% by

Sangstha and 2.23% by others.

1.1 Purpose of the Study

organizational support, supervisory support, customer participation, work climate (Independent

understand whether employee service quality is influenced by perceived organizational support,

1.2 Problem Statement

Eisenberger et al.(1986,1990), “Perceived organizational support (POS hereafter) refers to the

interpretation of organizational commitment in a social exchange framework (Eisenberger et al.,

customers at each encounter.

American Tobacco in Bangladesh.

relationship between perceived organizational support, supervisory support, work climate

British American Tobacco in Bangladesh.

1.3 Research Timeline