unlimited access with print and download

Free

Continue searching

How personality traits and job satisfaction influence service quality in housing agencies

Dissertation
Author: Donna E. Robinson
Abstract:
Human service organizations are intended to stabilize low-income families and promote self-sufficiency by providing much needed services and benefits. Recipients, however, often do not get everything they need in terms of either benefits or service quality. Understandably, clients want the help they are entitled to and promised from providers who are reliable, responsive and understanding. The quantitative surveys done in this research study were administered at a local housing agency in Washington DC to help identify factors impacting the overall quality of service provided by human service organizations. Participants responding to the surveys included 18 resident counselors and 51 housing residents. Resident counselors completed an Occupational Stressors Questionnaire which identified 16 stressors that negatively impacted job performance. Resident counselors also completed a Job Satisfaction Survey and a Mini-Marker Personality Questionnaire. Housing residents completed the SERVQUAL Questionnaire. Analysis of data collected showed correlations between the Job Satisfaction Survey, the Mini-Marker Personality Questionnaire and the SERVQUAL Questionnaire completed by residents. SERVQUAL results showed service quality was slightly less than residents expected. These scores were correlated to providers' personality traits and levels of job satisfaction. Fifty-six percent of providers scored negatively for emotional and resource stressors. These negative occupational stressors were correlated to neurotic personality types and decreased job satisfaction relative to pay, promotion and communication. Conversely, service quality was positively correlated to providers with extraverted personalities and to providers with high job satisfaction in terms of the nature of work and quality of supervisory relations. These findings were consistent with prior and current research in the field. The results confirmed the researcher's PSJS Model used in this study. According to this model, occupational stressors influence service quality both directly and indirectly. Stressors relating to emotions, resources, job duties or administration pose challenges to providers trying to deliver services to clients. Their behavioral response to these stressors, based on certain personality traits and level of job satisfaction, influences the service encounter. This ultimately impacts the quality of the service experience and how clients perceive service quality. This research confirms the need to understand the underlying causes of poor service, before determining performance interventions.

vi Table of Contents Dedication..........................................................................................................................iv

Table of Contents...............................................................................................................vi

List of Tables.....................................................................................................................ix

List of Figures.....................................................................................................................x

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................1

Introduction to the Problem....................................................................................1

Background of the Study........................................................................................5

Statement of the Problem......................................................................................14

Purpose of the Study.............................................................................................18

Rationale...............................................................................................................19

Research Questions...............................................................................................23

Significance of the Study......................................................................................25

Definition of Terms...............................................................................................27

Definition of Research Factors.............................................................................30

Assumptions..........................................................................................................32

Limitations and Delimitations...............................................................................33

Nature of the Study...............................................................................................36

Organization of the Remainder of the Study........................................................37

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................38

Occupational Stress for Human Service Workers................................................38

vii Personality and Service Provision........................................................................46

Job Satisfaction and Performance.........................................................................52

Measuring Service Quality...................................................................................59

Summary of the Literature....................................................................................64

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY....................................................................................68

Researcher’s Philosophy.......................................................................................69

HPT as the Framework.........................................................................................70

Restatement of the Research Questions................................................................71

Type of Research Design......................................................................................72

Sampling Design: Population, Sampling Method and Sample Size....................74

Instrumentation.....................................................................................................76

Instrument Validity and Reliability......................................................................79

Data Collection Procedures...................................................................................82

Data Analysis Procedures.....................................................................................86

Ethical Considerations..........................................................................................86

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS................................................89

Profile of Research Participants............................................................................92

Initial Data Preparation.........................................................................................92

Demographics of Survey Respondents.................................................................97

Questionnaire: Descriptive Statistics..................................................................105

Reliability Analysis for the Variables.................................................................122

viii Summary of Survey Results................................................................................135

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............140

Introduction.........................................................................................................140

Summary of the Study........................................................................................140

Summary of Results............................................................................................145

Occupational Stressors........................................................................................146

Personality Traits................................................................................................147

Job Satisfaction...................................................................................................150

Service Quality....................................................................................................154

Conclusions.........................................................................................................158

Implications for Practice.....................................................................................165

Recommendations for Further Research.............................................................167

REFERENCES...............................................................................................................173

APPENDIX A. Provider Questionnaire..........................................................................182

APPENDIX B. Customer Service Provider Questionnaire............................................192

APPENDIX C. Matching Research Questions to Survey Questions………………...…208 APPENDIX D. Provider Job Satisfaction Survey Scores...............................................211

APPENDIX E. Ratings for Service Providers’ Personality Traits.................................214

ix List of Tables Table 1. Responses by Participating Social Service/Housing Agency Providers ………95

Table 2. Responses by Housing Residents……………………………………………...96

Table 3. The Four Dimensions of Occupational Stressors………………..………..…. 106

Table 4. Resident Counselors’ Levels of Occupational Stressors…….………..…….. 107

Table 5. Overall Job Satisfaction among Customer Service Providers……………......109 Table 6. Levels of Job Satisfaction among Customer/Client Service Providers….…...110 Table 7. Means and Satisfaction Levels for Job Satisfaction Categories……….……. 111

Table 8. Mean Scores for Responding Providers’ Five-Factor Personality Traits….…113 Table 9. Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for each SERVQUAL Statement….....117 Table 10. Customers/Clients Mean Scores using SERVQUAL Dimension……….…..119 Table 11. GAP between Respondents Expected and Perceived Levels of Service…….120 Table 12. Residents’ Overall Un-weighted and Weighted SERVQUAL Scores……....120 Table 13. Residents’ Scores on Levels of Importance………………………………… 121 Table 14. Cronbach’s α Value for Survey Instruments…………………………….…..122

Table 15. Relationship between Personality Traits and Occupational Stressors…….…125 Table 16. Correlation between Occupational Stressors and Communication………..…128 Table 17. Correlation of Occupational Stressors and Promotion………………….…...129 Table 18. Correlation of Occupational Stressors to Pay…………………………….….130

x List of Figures Figure 1. Maslow's Hierarchy of Social Needs.................................................................13

Figure 2. HPT Model........................................................................................................20

Figure 3: The PSJS Model Tested in this Study.............................................................24

Figure 4. Behavior Engineering Model. ..........................................................................54

Figure 5. Age Range of Provider Respondents…………………………………………..97

Figure 6. Gender of Provider Respondents.......................................................................98

Figure 7. Length of Employment Among Provider Respondents. ...................................99

Figure 8. Provider Respondents’ Length of Time in Current Position………………....100 Figure 9 Age Range of Customer/Client Respondents………………………………...100 Figure 10. Gender of Customer/Client Respondents......................................................101

Figure 11: Ethnicity of Customer/Client Respondents..................................................102

Figure 12: Level of Education of Customer/Client Respondents……………………...103

Figure 13: Frequency of Client Contact with Evaluated Service Providers in Last Year …………………………………………………………………………………………..103 Figure 14: Overall Frequency of Service Encounters by Residents in the Last Year….104 Figure 15. Personality, Stressors and Job Satisfaction (PSJS) Model……………….....156

1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem “Survival of the fittest” is what a growing number of social workers feel when it comes to providing services to low-income families who access human service agencies. Most of these agencies are categorized as “wrap around” because they deliver services to meet a range of clients’ needs, such as housing, welfare assistance, mental health services, disability services, and/or emergency assistance. Often, agencies in the same geographic area share the same clients. In addition, many providers within these various agencies also share the emotional stress associated with working in human service occupations (Dollard, Dormann, Boyd, Winefield, & Winefield, 2003; Miller, Considine, & Garner, 2007). “The idea that social work is a potentially stressful profession is not new” (Moran & Hughes, 2006, p. 502). Many providers working in human service agencies are social workers, or they perform the role of social workers. As such, they routinely deal with stress induced both by organizational expectations and clients who are themselves stressed. Organizational Stress (OS) is based on several elements: employers’ expectations of the way providers should behave; huge case loads; staff shortages; massive amounts of paperwork; organizational changes; demands to comply with constantly changing rules and federal regulations; funding limitations; strict timelines, rigid guidelines; and limited managerial support.

2 Customer related Social Stressors (CSS) or Inter-Personal Stressors include the day-to-day interactions associated with the adverse behavior of clients, many of whom take their frustrations and stress out on the same providers who are trying to help them (Dollard et al., 2003; Vargas, 2005). Clients may present themselves as defensive, aloof, argumentative, and/or uncooperative. Meanwhile, service providers are expected to suppress their own emotions and render quality service in a polite and professional manner despite the challenges inherent in this profession. Organizations that receive federal funding must comply with federal expectations and guidelines. The primary expectation is to provide services that will stabilize low- income families and promote self-sufficiency; the other is to enforce compliance. The two often conflict, especially when performance outcomes are largely related to client encounters. These outcomes are greatly impacted when both social service workers and clients are dissatisfied. In human service agencies, the demands are many, the stress is high, and service delivery is diminished when providers lack what is needed to cope with the realities of the job (Dollard et al., 2003; Miller et al., 2007; Moran & Hughes, 2006). This is a reality shared by human service agencies and workers nationwide. In this study, the focus was on service delivery in housing agencies. In housing agencies, like other social service agencies, the emotional stress associated with the job can be very challenging. Some days are worse than others. On a typical day the phone is constantly ringing, and there is little time to process the mounting paper work. There is a steady stream of clients coming in all day or calling and

3 expressing their dissatisfaction over the phone; many complain that the agency has failed them in one way or another. Client after client comes into the office with one crisis after another requiring immediate attention; often there are few resources available to offer them. Some have lost their jobs and are in need of immediate benefits and services. Others have violated program guidelines that jeopardize their benefits, or come in complaining about the limited benefits provided to them. They come into the office crying, yelling, fussing, cursing, and sometimes threatening. Despite all this service providers are supposed to solve their problems with a smile, despite clients’ bad attitudes and open hostility. From an organizational perspective, stress continues to mount for most service providers. In housing agencies, like many other government funded social service agencies, management expects providers to suppress their emotions and keep up with the requirements of their job without unnecessary delays; this expectation creates additional stress. In addition, providers may need training but cannot be pulled away from their jobs because their services are needed from the day of hire. Organizational changes, job expectations, concerns with funding, policy changes, and high staff turnover all place strain on providers. Furthermore, coaching or other forms of support may not be available due to limited staff resources. This means that management is usually unavailable to provide support because they are also busy managing complaints, completing reports and attending meetings. Meanwhile, providers are expected to do what they have been hired to do, regardless of circumstances confronting them daily on the job.

4 Despite the ongoing demands and constant stress, human service providers cope the best way they can. Some have personalities that enable them to better manage the emotional stress that comes with all human service professions (Dollard et al., 2003; Miller et al., 2007; Moran & Hughes, 2006). These inherent coping mechanisms enable most providers to develop some level of resistance towards the negativity of clients’ behaviors and not allow them to affect their own behaviors and attitudes. Most learn effective ways to manage the overall stress that comes with the job. One helpful element for coping is the level of environmental support they can engender. Whether this support comes from supervisors, other colleagues, additional training, work incentives, resources or tools to make the job easier, it augments the performance of social workers and enhances job satisfaction (O’Brien, Terry, & Jimmieson, 2008; Sullivan, Antle, Barbee, & Egbert, 2009; Cox, Frank, & Philbert, 2006). Conversely the absence of environmental support factors results in poor job performance, low service quality, high turnover, and/or burnout. Signs of a deteriorating workforce can be seen in providers’ attitudes towards their job and their clients. Poor performance may be seen in a lack of patience, or cold and indifferent behavior in response to the clients’ needs. At times, emotional suppression does not work, and providers respond in kind to clients who are overtly hostile. Telephone calls may go ignored, and a general dislike for their work may result in increased absenteeism and high turnover rates. As a whole, service delivery deteriorates and clients remain dissatisfied. Their dissatisfaction is, consequently, transferred to the next provider or becomes

5 manifest in noncompliance with program requirements. This circular behavior continues to intensify negative interactions between clients and agents, which further impairs the quality of service provided. Management may recognize that service quality is poor due to the volume of clients’ complaints, failure to meet deadlines and/or lack of attentiveness to job requirements. Efforts to improve service delivery continue to fail because the changes that do occur are often not what are needed, as perceived by clients. Furthermore, management only focuses on desired outcomes without looking at the underlying causes of evident performance gaps. The gap between management solutions and what clients expect is not filled because the actual causes of clients’ dissatisfaction remain largely unknown. This means that any changes made in service delivery are short lived because the underlying causes for performance deficiency are not properly addressed, and the emotional strain associated with trying to help dissatisfied clients is unabated.

Background of the Study Human service providers are faced with the challenge of working day after day with a population that is by definition troubled, in need, and faced with many stressors (Bakker, Van Der Zee, Lewig, & Dollard, 2006). The stress of clients is most commonly exhibited through negative behaviors. Many have little to no income and must depend on government assistance to provide for themselves and their families. Though assistance is available to most, individuals must comply with rigid guidelines to receive and retain

6 assistance. Congress changes these guidelines continuously, thereby creating more of a burden for families to comply with said requirements. An overview of the various government programs and their requirements gives further insight into the frustration and stress that many clients end up transferring to their providers, as well as the associated stress caused by organizational demands on providers. Historical Overview of Government Assistance There are numerous federal programs designed and implemented to benefit low- income families. These include housing assistance, cash assistance, food stamps, child care assistance, and medical assistance. These human service programs are generally funded by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Congress has set strict compliance guidelines for service and delivery agencies receiving these funds. The guidelines come with a lot of paperwork and rigid timelines. Human service providers are thus challenged to provide quality service while also ensuring compliance with these guidelines which continually change; these changes are not always beneficial to clients. Housing and welfare assistance are two federal programs that have historically had the biggest impact on clients; they are supposed to stabilize low-income families. Established in the early 1930s, these programs were intended to help reduce hardship for the poor and provide a better quality of life. Berger, Heintze, Naidich, & Meyers, (2008) define these hardships as “high rental cost, housing stability and the inability to pay utilities” (p. 935). The cost of housing in the general marketplace is more than low-

7 income families can afford on a regular basis. Housing assistance allows such families to afford housing and avoid homelessness. Assistance is offered in the form of rental subsidies that are unit or tenant based. Unit based assistance provides direct subsidized rental units to recipients; typically known as public housing or project-based housing. While this was the most common form of housing provided in the past, it is gradually being replaced with tenant-based housing. Tenant-based assistance provides vouchers to help eligible households find approved subsidized rental units in the private market. Previously, households with income below 80 percent of area median income generally qualified for both types of assistance (Olsen, 2003; Shroder, 2002). However, these numbers have changed. Currently, HUD stipulates that under CFR Title 24, Part 982.201 (2000) a “family's income may not exceed 50% of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live. By law a PHA must provide 75 percent of its vouchers to applicants whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the area median income.” (p. 577). Obtaining housing assistance does not mean recipients receive quality housing. In some areas, housing may be located in bad neighborhoods, be of poor quality, or have infestations of bugs and/or rodents. Historically, public housing has been located been in the poorest neighborhoods, and residents could not move without giving up their subsidies. However, not all housing agencies have units located in poor neighborhoods.

8 Some locations have a combination of multi-family and scattered site units. The scattered sites units are located in mixed income neighborhoods, and so families share the benefits of living in nice communities. The multi-family sites, historically known as project- based sites, may have fewer opportunities afforded to clients who are more likely to encounter problems in these communities. On the other hand, tenant-based subsidy holders are able to rent from the private sector. Depending on their income level, rental history, credit history and availability of housing, some rental subsidy holders still end up living in poor neighborhoods; others have to settle for housing they can afford or landlords willing to accept subsidies (Berger et al., 2008). The growing shortage of affordable rental units over the past decade has made it even more difficult for low-income individuals to use their housing vouchers optimally (Nichols & Gault, 2003). With fewer housing choices, voucher holders with poor credit and rental histories often have to take what they can get, and a delay in processing paperwork can also result in the loss of a vacant unit, which then goes to someone else. Furthermore, individuals who do not have the income for a security deposit also lose out on potentially available housing opportunities. Even with a housing subsidy, many families have to work to cover all of their housing expenses. Recent changes in federal guidelines require that individuals report employment immediately rather than delaying for two months as was the case in previous years. Depending on the amount that income increases, a change in employment status can result in an increase or decrease in the rental subsidy. Amounts not covered by the

9 subsidy are the tenants’ responsibility. By the same token, tenants who lose income are still required to pay their portion of the rent until they receive written notification of any changes. Service providers are allowed up to 30 days to process rental adjustments. This creates additional hardship for extremely low-income families who lack the income to pay additional rent during this period. The second federal program that has benefited very low-income families is welfare assistance. Very low-income families, in many areas, rely on welfare assistance to provide income to sustain their housing and living needs. In the 1960s, welfare assistance in the form of food stamps, child care and cash assistance was intended to stabilize families. However, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 made families more accountable for receipt of cash assistance and welfare benefits (Nichols & Gault, 2003). Families now have to comply with program guidelines to receive benefits which are provided for only a limited period of time. Under these new guidelines, individuals are required to get a job, or volunteer in exchange for benefits, file for child support, or get married. Time limits have also been imposed on benefits which are only provided to individuals who are in full compliance with program guidelines; recipients are forced to comply or forego these benefits. In many cases, individuals will lose their benefits, if they get them at all, after a certain period of time. Low wage jobs have further reduced welfare benefits such as food stamps, cash assistance, or child care assistance. The burden to make up the loss in benefits creates

10 stress on individuals; some recipients have to move because they can no longer afford their rent. Mostly, such moves are not positive because individuals must seek housing that is cheaper, and the residential areas they find are of lower quality which leads to more problems. Because of higher rental costs and lower welfare benefits, many poor families have difficulty meeting their housing expenses. Consequently, basic necessities, such as utility costs, food, childcare and transportation costs, are often lacking. “An inability to pay utilities is a common material hardship for those without welfare assistance” (Nichols & Gault, 2003, p. 107). Even those who receive welfare assistance have difficulty paying utilities when they do not have steady incomes. Housing agencies provide utility allowances, but often this is not generally enough to cover the entire cost of monthly utilities. The ability to replace welfare benefits with work that provides a living wage is difficult for many individuals. Hartman and Robinson, as stated by Nichols & Gault (2003), indicate that “…threats of eviction can be a particularly serious problem for welfare recipients who lose benefits” (p. 107) because they are unable to pay their portion of the rent. In addition changing regulations can also contribute to a loss of housing in other ways. One way individuals lose their housing subsidies is by failing to report an increase in income. Individuals are required to immediately report income changes. When this is not done in a timely manner, subsidies are overpaid. Clients are required to recertify annually and when overpayments are discovered, they must repay the difference.

11 Repayments up to a specific limit can be arranged with the agency; however, amounts over the pre-established limit can result in termination of the rental subsidy. Another way in which housing subsidies can be lost is related to the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA) of 1998. This Act, passed by Congress, allows public and assisting housing agencies to set admissions criteria for rental housing assistance, Crowley (2003) stated that “Public housing agencies and private owners of federally subsidized developments can exclude occupants involved in drug-related or violent activity to include any family member, even minors, or any guest, involved in drug-related or violent activity on or off the premises” (p 30). For this reason, low- income families who often live in crime and drug-infested neighborhoods can permanently lose their rental subsidies and housing if they are adversely impacted by these negative influences. Individuals may also lose their subsidies if the rental property is damaged due to violence, community disturbances, or domestic violence. Furthermore, anyone with a criminal background may not be eligible for a subsidy, nor live with anyone who receives a subsidy. As a result, single mothers may be faced with the choice of removing significant others and children from their lease if they get in trouble, in order to retain housing. Failure to do so puts them out of compliance with program guidelines. Families found to be noncompliant with federal guidelines can end up losing their rental subsidies and thus their housing.

12 In the long run, these issues create stress for low-income families and are the root causes behind the many frustrations they bring with them when interacting with human service workers. Many low-income people live in poor neighborhoods that have negative influences on their households. Schools are often inferior which means many children end up dropping out of school and/or not going on to higher education and improving their quality of life. They have difficulty moving due to housing restrictions, bad credit and rental history problems or unavailable housing anywhere else. As a result, some recipients cannot afford to move into better neighborhoods and so lose out on better housing and educational opportunities due to unemployment or limited income. Consequently, the cycle of poverty continues; they cannot find jobs that pay more than minimum wage because they are not well educated. They are forced to rely on welfare benefits for their daily living needs, but these limited benefits do not cover their basic needs and expenses. Overview of Client Service Encounters Delivering adequate services can be very stressful in the field of human services; this is specifically, though not exclusively true, when it comes to housing. When one considers Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (see Figure 1), one recognizes that clients receiving benefits from human service agencies require the basic needs of food, shelter, finances, and caring for their families. These needs fall at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid. In short, clients must meet these basic needs before other needs can be adequately addressed.

13

Figure 1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. From Motivation and Personality (p. 7), by A. Maslow, Motivation and Personality, New Jersey: Pearson Education. Copyright 1987 by Pearson Education. Adapted with permission.

According to Maslow (1987) very low-income families are focused on meeting their basic physiological and safety/security needs. These needs are housing, food and basic utilities. Clients come to human service agencies stressed because they lack these basic needs which are essential for survival; they seek relief and access to resources. For the most part, they experience personal and financial stress while trying to access needed resources. Any delay in obtaining relief intensifies clients’ emotional stress and frustration which, in turn, can negatively impact the quality of service received. The social stressors associated with service encounters and delivery within human service agencies therefore, adversely impact the quality of service delivered. Providers

14 must balance the demands of their clients with the demands of the organization to ensure both quality service and compliance with federal regulations. Providers must have the ability to manage this kind of daily stress if they are to avoid having it negatively influence the quality of service they provide. Workers with poor coping skills react negatively to the ongoing stress of clients with unreasonable demands, or expectations that cannot be met. The mix of verbally aggressive client behavior and overwhelming agency demands can be overwhelming. Often service quality declines, further frustrating clients whose perceived and actual needs end up not being met. Clients harboring negative feelings tend to act on them during future encounters with the same or other service providers. These negative patterns continue because no one is trying to find out what clients expect in terms of quality service. Any changes that occur in service are seen as inconsistent and contrary to clients’ views and needs. As a result, service providers continue to experience negative interactions with the majority of their clients, and the cycle of pessimism and poor compliance continues. Meanwhile, workers are at continuous risk of letting their suppressed emotions leak out or decide to remove themselves from the situation by leaving the organization and seeking employment elsewhere ((Dollard et al., 2003; Pugh, 2001).

Statement of the Problem The problem addressed in this study focused on the occupational stressors and job dissatisfaction that result in service providers’ poor performance which often results in

Full document contains 227 pages
Abstract: Human service organizations are intended to stabilize low-income families and promote self-sufficiency by providing much needed services and benefits. Recipients, however, often do not get everything they need in terms of either benefits or service quality. Understandably, clients want the help they are entitled to and promised from providers who are reliable, responsive and understanding. The quantitative surveys done in this research study were administered at a local housing agency in Washington DC to help identify factors impacting the overall quality of service provided by human service organizations. Participants responding to the surveys included 18 resident counselors and 51 housing residents. Resident counselors completed an Occupational Stressors Questionnaire which identified 16 stressors that negatively impacted job performance. Resident counselors also completed a Job Satisfaction Survey and a Mini-Marker Personality Questionnaire. Housing residents completed the SERVQUAL Questionnaire. Analysis of data collected showed correlations between the Job Satisfaction Survey, the Mini-Marker Personality Questionnaire and the SERVQUAL Questionnaire completed by residents. SERVQUAL results showed service quality was slightly less than residents expected. These scores were correlated to providers' personality traits and levels of job satisfaction. Fifty-six percent of providers scored negatively for emotional and resource stressors. These negative occupational stressors were correlated to neurotic personality types and decreased job satisfaction relative to pay, promotion and communication. Conversely, service quality was positively correlated to providers with extraverted personalities and to providers with high job satisfaction in terms of the nature of work and quality of supervisory relations. These findings were consistent with prior and current research in the field. The results confirmed the researcher's PSJS Model used in this study. According to this model, occupational stressors influence service quality both directly and indirectly. Stressors relating to emotions, resources, job duties or administration pose challenges to providers trying to deliver services to clients. Their behavioral response to these stressors, based on certain personality traits and level of job satisfaction, influences the service encounter. This ultimately impacts the quality of the service experience and how clients perceive service quality. This research confirms the need to understand the underlying causes of poor service, before determining performance interventions.