The contact employee support continues to receive considerable attention from scholars and business professionals especially in well developed countries. Both the contact employees and their customers reveals that the customer contact employee support like organizational support, supervisory support and customers participation exert its impact on several employee outcomes like employee service effort, job satisfaction and commitment and consequently effects customer’s perception of service quality. Perceived organizational support (pos) is conceived as employee’s cognitive assessment of organizational support (or) the degree to which they perceive their organization to be considerable, supportive and responsive to their contribution.

This support can result in several desired outcome. Among these outcomes, this study focuses the work engagement and organizational performance as a consequence of such support. Perceived organizational support is positively related to their responses like attendance, diligence, commitment, innovation, compliance (Ellenberger et al., 1990); service efforts (Mohr and Bitner; 1995); and sense of obligation towards their organization (Shore and Wayne, 1993).The current study would explore the relationship between contact employee support, work engagement and organizational performance

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Organization support, supervisory support, and customer’s participation collectively referred as contact employee support are proposed to affect the attitudes and behaviors of employees, and consequently affect customer’s comparison of employees’ service quality. Contact employees deliver the promises of the firm, create an image for the firm and sell the firm’s services. Some of the top firms and several scholars suggested a relationship between the fair treatment of employees and excellence in service delivery of employees. The combination of perceptions from customers and their contact employees shows that three sources of support for employees contribute significantly to employee attitude and consequent employee performance.

Perceived customer support: Customer participation is a behavioral concept referring to the actions and resources supplied by customers for service production or delivery which includes customer’s mental effort, physical effort and emotional inputs (e.g. patient or pleasant behavior). In most meetings, customers credited their own positive behavior towards employees with producing high effort on the part of employees. Especially, from the contact employees’ perspective, customer participation at a dyadic interaction encounter is an important human factor that can influence employees work efforts and emotional state (i.e., job satisfaction).If an employee perceives friendliness, respect, courtesy, and clear and attentive communication from a customer, this will stimulate the employee’s efforts based on the norm of reciprocity and it will also increase the employee’s job satisfaction.

Perceived supervisory support: Perceived supervisory support is defined as employees’ general views concerning the degree to which supervisors value their contributions and care about their well-being. Studies have indicated that perceived supervisory support is related to a host of outcome variables, including work-related behaviors and attitudes as well as psychological stress and strains. Factors such as individual characteristics and job characteristics are significantly predictive of perceived supervisory support.

Perceived organizational support: It refers to employee feeling of support in terms of both psychological as well as infrastructural that helps them to be able to deliver quality services. Organizational support helps employees to satisfy their social, self esteem needs and also help them to understand their organizational needs and compensate their extra rewards. Moreover, perceived organizational support also leads to better performance through increased job satisfaction. The contact employee support continues to receive considerable attention from scholars and business professionals especially in well developed countries. Both the contact employees and their customers reveals that the customer contact employee support like organizational support, supervisory support and customers participation exert its impact on several employee outcomes like employee service effort, job satisfaction and commitment and consequently effects customer’s perception of service quality.

WORK ENGAGEMENT:

Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one’s work and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, and challenge. Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). People employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, emotionally and mentally during role performances. Three aspects of work motivation are cognitive, emotional and physical engagement.

Engaged workers are mentally present to entirely express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally in their work roles. It has three dimensions, first-how much a worker is attached to his /her work, second-the mental extent to which a worker feels safe that his/her work will not lead to any un-expected result and third- how many resources can be required to develop the worker’s performance in the work environment. Also, these decisive factors are positively and significantly related with work engagement. These dimensions of work engagement help us in handling the work and to handle the customers and its effects on job demands and customer satisfaction. The concept of work engagement and its impact on marketing performance continues to put the attention of research scholars and business professionals in developed countries. Kahn (1990) is recognized as first work on work engagement as it is a positive, affective-motivational state of fulfillment.

Bakker et al., (2002) viewed engagement as a three dimensional; first, vigor, where a worker feels excited and invest his effort as a result of work. Second, dedication where a worker experiences eager enjoyment by a sense of pride and inspiration; third and final, absorption, where a worker is fully concentrated and happily engrossed in his work. The first work indicated three dimensions of worker’s engagement: first how much a worker is attached to his work .second, the mental extent to which a worker feels safe that his/her will not lead to any un-expected result finally how many resources can be required to develop the worker’s performance in the work environment. Psychological safety can be secured by interpersonal relationships, management styles and organizational procedures. Several authors such as Burke et al., (2006) suggested that control; rewards, recognition and value are suitable for the work engagement, which results in employee job satisfaction and the desired psychological outputs. The engagement of the employees make a proper way to present them in a positive feeling and in return presents a work behavior.

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE:

Richardo (2001) revealed that achieving organizational goals and objectives is known as organizational performance. Employees are focused on the organizations commitment for employees. The organization serves as an important source of social and emotional resources, such as wages and medical benefits. Organization helps to meet employee’s needs for approval of esteem and affiliation (Hostage G.M. (1975). The organizational performance can be both objective and subjective. Objective performance refers to return on investment, market share, profitability while as subjective performance refers to customers and employees satisfaction level with the firm. In this study customers feeling in terms of customer satisfaction and service quality perception is measured. Additionally contact employees feeling in terms of their satisfaction and commitment is also measured as components of organizational performance.

Organizational Performance includes service quality perception and customer satisfaction. Perceived service quality can be defined as the customer's perception of the overall quality or superiority of a product or service with respect to its intended purpose, relative to alternatives. Perceived quality is, first, a perception by customers about firm’s service quality. It is as a result of comparison made by customer between expectations and actual experience with the services. Customer satisfaction is a term frequently used in marketing. It is a measure of how products and services supplied by a company meet or surpass customer expectation. Customer satisfaction provides a leading indicator of consumer purchase intentions and loyalty. Customer satisfaction data are among the most frequently collected indicators of market perceptions. Customer satisfaction is important because it provides marketers and business owners with a metric that they can use to manage and improve their businesses.

Organizational performance is connected to the level of success of the mission and the spot of work that makes up an employee job (Casio, 2006). Various researchers have different idea about performance mainly researcher’s used the term performance to show clearly the scope of dimensions in detail of business competence and input and output competence (Stannack, 1996) incompliance with Barney (1991) performance a continuous process to disagreement issue between organizational researcher’s. The organization serves as an important source of social and emotional resources, such as wages and medical benefits. Organization helps to meet employees needs for approval esteem and affiliation (Hostage G.M. (1975). There are several types of organizational performance like objective performance and subjective performance. Objective performance comprises of elements such as Market share, profitability, return on assets and return on investment. While as Subjective performance comprises of elements such as Customer satisfaction, employee job satisfaction, customer loyalty, customer retention, customer service quality performance and company image.

Relevance of Contact employee support in work engagement:

The perception among the contact employees and their customers reveals that the contact employee support like supervisory support and customer’s participation exerts its impact on several employee outcomes like employee service effort, job satisfaction and commitment and also effects customer’s perception of service quality. The engagement of the employees make a proper way to present them in a positive feeling and them in return presents a work behavior that is desired by management and customers. The engagement not only enables workers to be present mentally but also help them to feel connected unite, attentive and focused at their job places. Burke et al., (2006) suggested that control rewards, recognition and value are suitable for the work engagement, which results in employee job satisfaction and the desired psychological output employees from different occupations such as health, safety, service and pension Fund Company etc. After, going through above discussion, we, therefore propose that:

H1: Contact employee support positively influences work engagement of employees:

Relevance of Work engagement to organizational Performance:

Work engagement and organizational performance are interrelated to each other and there are number of evidences which support the link between them. (May et al., 2004) viewed that psychological safety is resolved the causal relationship between job enrichment and work engagement. Burke et al., (2006) suggested that control, rewards, recognition and value are suitable for the work engagement which results in employee job satisfaction and the desired psychological outputs. A one perception about the organizational support help employees satisfy their social, self esteem needs and also help them to understand their organizations, readiness to compensate their extra rewards it leads to better performance through increased job satisfaction .There is a strong relationship between employee job satisfaction and customer satisfaction. The powerful predictor of job satisfaction and employee service effort is Perceived supervisory support. After, going through above discussion, we, therefore propose that:

H2: Work engagement positively influences organizational performance:

Relevance of contact employee support in performance:

The sources of support, Organization support, supervisory support and customer’s participation are the main sources of support and they are proposed to affect the attitudes and behaviors of employees, and consequently affect customer’s perceptions of employees’ service quality. Perceptions from customers and their contact employees which combine and show the three sources of support for employees contribute significantly to job satisfaction and employee service quality, while perceived organizational support and customer participation affect service effort. Also, the empirical results indicate that both employee service effort and job satisfaction play strong, central roles in determining customers’ perceptions of employee service quality. They were found to be effective mediators linking employees’ cognitive appraisal of various sources of support to service quality.

There is a Hemotional attachment of engaged employees to their organization and they are highly involved in their job with a great interest for the success of their employer, going extra mile beyond the employment contractual agreement (Markos and Sridevi, 2010). The concept of contact employee support gets more attention from business professionals and research scholars especially in developed countries like India. (Siddiqi, 2013). The experience and research demonstrate the difficulty of such an execution, but little research in marketing has focused on strategy implementation, particularly at the employee level. (Cadwallader et al., 2009).After, going through above discussion, we, therefore proposes that:

H3: Contact employee support positively influences organizational performance.

Figure:-1 Model of Influence of Contact employee support on Work engagement and Organizational performance.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The methodology includes objectives, hypothesis, data collection, sample size and Research Instruments and is discussed below:

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

The present study is undertaken with the following objectives:

· To examine the nature of relationship between the contact employee support, their work engagement and organizational performance.

· To understand the concept of work engagement with special reference to the service organizations in retail banking setting.

· To study the influence of contact employee support on work engagement and organizational performance.

Hypotheses of the study:

The study proposes the following hypotheses:

· H1: Contact employee support positively influences work engagement of employees.

· H2:Work engagement positively influences organizational performance.

· H3: Contact employee support positively influences organizational performance.

Data Collection:

Survey method was adopted for collection of data and the survey instrument was hand distributed among the employees and customers of almost all the branches of J&K bank. A personalized letter explaining the objectives of the study accompanied the questionnaire, guaranteeing anonymity, yet a brief session for instructing employees and customers was found useful before they were asked to complete the questionnaire. The response rate was as high as 83% for employees and 80% for customers. The high response rates are due to personal contact and follow up approach used by personal visits and telephonic reminders. The researcher received the completed questionnaires directly by hand, thus resulting into an overall response rate of above 80%.

The Sample:

Simple random sampling procedure was adopted. However, it was ensured to include all the possible categories like rural, semi rural and urban in the sample. The service employees were requested to react to a survey instrument to share their perspective about various dimensions of contact employee support and work engagement. The customers were requested to reveal their satisfaction and perception again by reacting to a different survey instrument. Each service employee was requested to respond to one employee survey instrument and collect three (03) customer survey instruments completed by any three customers of his/her choice. A common identification number as allotted to employee and those of three customers’ survey instruments facilitated the matching process. The aggregated mean scores of customer responses were then matched with those of service employee as recommended by several researchers in past (Schneider and Bowen, 1985). Out of 200, as many as 166 (83%) completed and usable employee survey instruments and of 600, as many as 480 (80%) customer survey instruments were received and found usable for final analysis. The average response of number of customer per employee was 2.89.

Research Instruments and the Rationale:

The present study used the Likert’s five point scale. In this scale, the respondent’s agreement or disagreement was ascertained on a level varying from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The present study employed item-scale correlation and exploratory factor analysis to exclude and filter the data items. All the items with factor loading less than 0.40 have been excluded from the analysis. The filtering process ensured that only the statistically significant items are included for the final analysis.

The instruments used in this study for various constructs are explained bellow:

Eight items were initially developed to measure the extent to which contact employees perceive that their customers participate in the delivery of service. Customer participation was operational zed in terms of how the service customer as a partial employee behaves to the employee during service provision, reflecting the attentive communication and the interpersonal aspects such as attentiveness, courtesy, respect, and friendliness.

Seven items from the scale developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986) were used to measure perceived organizational support. However, a third question in the scale of Eisenberger (1986) “My bank strongly considers my goals and values” was analyzed separately in the scale of this study as “My bank strongly considers my goals” and “My bank strongly considers my values” because it was thought that the meaning of goal and value is distinct.

Five items from Teas’ (1983) scale were used to measure contact employees’ perceptions of psychological support from their immediate supervisor. This scale has been often used in industrial salesperson studies (Singh, 1993; Teas, 1983). One item perceived supervisory support was deleted based on its lack of statistical significance in the confirmatory factor analysis. The four items showed a unidimensionality of scale. Items in perceived customer support were generated mainly based on field interviews with contact employees and discussions with supervisors in the retail bank because previous measures did not exist. After deleting two items, the final six items provided for a one-dimensional scale, with all coefficients significant. To catch the idea of employee level of work engagement, seventeen-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) originally developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002) was used.

The scale specifically takes the view of all the three domains of the work engagement like ‘vigour’, ‘dedication’ and ‘absorption’. In order to examine the work engagement in employees, the scholar used the the scales assessing vigor (six items), dedication (five items) and absorption (six items) to assess the core dimensions of engagement. Examples are: when I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work (vigor), I am enthusiastic about my work (dedication) and I am immersed in my work (absorption). Pertinently the Cronbach alphas of the work engagement items were either satisfactory or acceptable.

Customer satisfaction is measured using a nine-item scale developed by Maloles (1997). The items of the scale were, however, adjusted both linguistically as well as contextually in order to appropriately capture the needs of the current research. None of the nine items were dropped during the scale purification process (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) as the same was loaded sufficiently on the construct. As a result, the final analysis is based on nine measures.

The most widely used and the most acceptable measure of service quality ‘SERVQUAL’ is used in the present study. SERVQUAL was originally developed by Parasuramanet al. (1988) and included the measurement of service quality. A total of 6 items were utilized to measure the dimensions.

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS:

The scholar estimated a measurement model prior to examining the relationships through path analysis. Table 1 shows, the measurement model, that provides a reasonable ﬁt to the data, whereas the x² value is statistically signiﬁcant (x² = 837.2, df = 347, p< .05, RMR = 0:049, GFI = 0:87, AGFI =0:78, CFI = 0:91). The goodness-of- ﬁt index (GFI) and the adjusted goodness-of-ﬁt index (AGFI) were 0.87 and 0.78 respectively. The CFI showed a high value of 0.91. Thus, slightly low Cronbach’s alpha value in a few constructs is not considered to be a problem with the analysis. Further, generally the alpha- estimates are nearer the cutoff point (0.70).

The result in table 2, clearly indicate that almost all the three employee supports drive the contact employee response (Work engagement). However, Perceived organizational support is obviously more influential antecedent of the contact employees work engagement (b =21, p <0.01). Both perceived supervisory support and customer support participation also influence upon their responses, however perceived customer support influencing with lower significance. This is followed by the perceived supervisory support influencing organizational commitment (b = 0.20, p value = <0.001).

Table 2: Coefficients using path analysis between Contact employee support and their response (Work engagement)

Independent Variables (Contact Employee Support)	Dependent Variable (Work Engagement)
1.POS	0.21**
2.PSS	0.19*
3.PCS	0.16****
R²	0.33

Note: * <0.001 ;**< 0.01;*** <0.05; and ns = not significant. (POS): Perceived organizational support; (PSS): Perceived supervisory support; (PCS): Perceived customer support.

Keeping in view the results of Table 2, it is quite safe to accept that greater the perceived contact employee support, greater will be the level of contact employee outcome (work engagement), thereby proving hypothesis one.

Table 3: Coefficient from path analysis between employee response (Work Engagement, Employee and Organizational Performance (Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality Perception).

Independent Variable (Work Engagement	Dependent Variables (Organizational Performance)
Independent Variable (Work Engagement	Customer Satisfaction	Service Quality Perception
1.WE	0.23***	0.19***
R²	0.37	0.31

Note: * < 0.001 ;**< 0.01;*** <.05; and ns = not significant. (WE): Work engagement.

The statistics in Table 3, reveals that the employee outcome (work engagement) considered in the present study positively influence customers’ service quality perception and their satisfaction. The estimated R² suggests that a variation of 37 percent in customer satisfaction and 31 percent in service quality perception is explained by the employee outcome. The coefficient

and p values suggest the relationship between work engagement and service quality perception is significant at <.05. Therefore, considering the overall results of the present study, ample evidence is found in support of the hypothesis that greater the employee outcome (work engagement in the present study), greater the organizational performance (service quality perception and their satisfaction), therefore, proving hypothesis two.

Table 4: Coefficient from path analysis between Contact employee support and Organizational Performance (Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality Perception).

Independent Variable (Work Engagement	Dependent Variables (Organizational Performance)
Independent Variable (Work Engagement	Customer Satisfaction	Service Quality Perception
1.POS	0.17***	0.17***
2.PSS	0.19**	0.21*
3.PCS	0.23*	0.19**
R²	*0.36*	*0.35*

Note: * < 0.001 ;**< 0.01;*** <.05; and ns = not significant. (WE): Work engagement.

The statistics in Table 4, reveals that the contact employee support considered in the present study positively influence customers’ satisfaction and their service quality perception. The estimated R² suggests that a variation of 36 percent in customer satisfaction and 35 percent in service quality perception is explained by the employee outcome. The coefficient and p values suggest the relationship between work engagement and service quality perception is significant at <.05. Therefore, considering the overall results of the present study, ample evidence is found in support of the hypothesis that greater the contact employee support, greater the organizational performance (service quality perception and their satisfaction), therefore, proving hypothesis three.

Table 5 below depicts the direct, indirect and total effects of contact employee support dimensions on organizational performance dimensions, all values are significant and validates the fact that positive relationship exists between different dimensions of contact employee support and organizational performance.

FINDINGS:

The statistical coefficients clearly indicate that almost all the three dimensions of contact employee support positively influence Work engagement. However, Perceived organizational support is obviously more influential antecedent of the contact employees work engagement (b =21, p <0.01). Both perceived supervisory support and customer support participation also influence upon their responses, however perceived supervisory support influencing with lower significance ((b =19, p <0.01). This is followed by the perceived customer support influencing work engagement (b = 0.16, p value = <0.001). Similarly, the statistics reveals that the employee outcome (work engagement) considered in the present study positively influence customers’ service quality perception and their satisfaction. The estimated R² suggests that a variation of 37 percent in customer satisfaction and 31 percent in service quality perception is explained by the employee outcome. The coefficient and p values suggest the relationship between work engagement and service quality perception is significant with (b= 0.23 and 0.19) at p<.05 for both dimensions of organizational performance. Finally, the statistics also, reveals that the contact employee support considered in the present study positively influence customers’ satisfaction and their service quality perception. The estimated R² suggests that a variation of 36 percent in customer satisfaction and 35 percent in service quality perception is explained by the employee outcome. The coefficient and p values suggest the relationship between contact employee support dimensions and organizational performance dimensions (Customer’s satisfaction and service quality perception) is significant with (b=0.17, 0.19 and 0.23) and (b=0.17, 0.21 and 0.19) at significance of p <.05. Further, the Direct and Indirect Effects of Contact employee support on Organizational Performance ascertained are presented as follows:

The Direct and Indirect Effects of Contact employee support on Organizational Performance:

The ascertained direct as well as indirect causal effects of contact employee support dimensions on organizational performance are presented as follows:

Direct effects: On comparing the magnitude of direct effects, it is observable that perceived customer support is the most powerful element of contact employee support that directly drives customer satisfaction (b = 0.254, p<.05). Also, perceived supervisory support is second more influential element of contact employee support that drives service quality perception (b = 0.148, p<.05).Both perceived supervisory support and perceived customer support is substantially (around half of the total effect) and significantly influencing service quality perception.

Indirect effects: In case of customer satisfaction, both perceived organizational and perceived supervisory support, indirectly contributes more than half of the total effect (b = 0.320 and 0.239 respectively. Both are significant at <0.01).Contributing above 86 and 70 percent respectively of the total effect, perceived organizational support appears to be the most significant indirect driver (b = 0.320, p<.01) of customer satisfaction.

In case of service quality perception the indirect effects mostly trigger from perceived organizational support (b = 0.227, p<.01) and perceived customer support (b = 0.194, p<.01), thus both contributing more than half of the total effect indirectly. The indirect effect of perceived supervisory support on service quality perception is not so substantial and contributes less than half of the total effect (b = 0.116, p<.01).

Mediating effect: in case of customer satisfaction, perceived customer support exert a substantial (around half of the total effect) and significant indirect effect, thus suggests a partial mediating role of the intermediating variable. Similarly, in case of service quality perception, all perceived organizational support, perceived supervisory support and perceived customer support also exerts significant and substantial indirect effects (around half of the total effect) on service quality perception, thereby, again indicating a partial mediation of the mediating variable. The important observation is the most substantial and significant indirect effect (above 86 percent of the total effect) of perceived organizational support on the customer satisfaction. This suggests a full mediation of intermediating variables here. Overall the indirect effects also contribute to a considerable extent in shaping desired organizational performance (Service quality perception and Customer satisfaction) in the present analysis.

IMPLICATIONS:

Research has supported the idea that the meaningful work can yield benefits for organizations’ and lead to positive work outcomes such as satisfied, engaged, loyal employees; individual, organizational fulfillment, productivity and retention. The relationship between meaningful work, organizational commitment and work engagement can be viewed as advantageous to human resource development practitioners and managers, enabling them firstly to develop workplace strategies and secondly to contribute towards improving positive workplace outcomes. The employees who are satisfied with their job accept their organization’s goals and values, willingness to work on behalf of their organization and strong motivation or feel a greater sense of obligation to remain in their organization. Subordinate perceived organizational support and positive mood have the potential to positively influence on important organizational outcomes such as performance, citizenship behaviour and creativity.

Contact employees deliver the promises of the firm, create an image for the firm and sell the firm’s services. Some of the top firms and several scholars suggested a relationship between the fair treatment of employees and excellence in service delivery of employees. The most important characteristics to complaint customers are the contact employees’ authenticity, competence and active listening skills. These concepts are linked with several consequences and values such as “justice”, “well-being” and “security”. Frontline employees who listen actively and who are competent give complaining customers the impression that their complaints are dealt with appropriately.

The frontline employees who have high job engagement will have high level of normative commitment and affective commitment. On the other hand, high employees’ job engagement can meaningfully affect employees’ continuance commitment. Frontline employees are identified with the organization and customers as a function of how many the employees perceive management and customers to support the company’s corporate social responsibility activities. The customer orientation influences frontline employees’ job outcomes through its effects on stress and engagement.

Engagement at work has appeared as an important job attitude influencing employee performance. A growing body of evidence supports the relationship between engagement of the employee at work and organizational outcomes, including those which are performance based. The triggering factors of employee work engagement in Indian service setting are employee autonomy, employee advancement, employee role clarity, and organizational support.

The contact employees and their customers reveals that the customer contact employee support like organizational support, supervisory support and customers participation exert its impact on several employee outcomes like employee service effort, job satisfaction and commitment and consequently effects customer’s perception of service quality.

Perceived organizational support (pos) is conceived as employee’s cognitive assessment of organizational support (or) the degree to which they perceive their organization to be considerable, supportive and responsive to their contribution. This support can result in several desired outcome like employee engagement. The engagement of the employees make a proper way to present them in a positive feeling and them in return presents a work behavior that is desired by management and customers. The engagement not only enables workers to be present mentally but also help them to feel connected unite, attentive and focused at their job places. The concept of contact employee support receives considerable attention from research scholars and business professionals especially in developed countries. A one perception about the organizational support help employees to satisfy their social, self esteem needs and also help them to understand their organizations, readiness to compensate their extra rewards, it leads to better performance through increased job satisfaction. Perceived organizational support is positively related to their responses like attendance, diligence, commitment, innovation, compliance (Ellenberger et al., 1990); service efforts (Mohr and Bitner; 1995); and sense of obligation towards their organization (Shore and Wayne, 1993). This study indicates that greater the perceived contact employee support, greater the level of contact employee outcome (Service effort).

CONCLUSIONS:

The statistical values are in favour of positive behaviour regarding variables like Contact employee support (comprising of perceived customer support, perceived organizational support and perceived supervisory support); employee work engagement and organizational performance (comprising of service quality perception and customer satisfaction). The statistics reveals the following facts with regard to various dimensions of contact employee supports and employee work engagement and organizational performance. The findings from the current study report that positive influence of contact employee support (perceived customer support, perceived organizational support and perceived supervisory support) on employee work engagement and organizational performance (service quality perception and customer satisfaction). Also, the present study found positive relationship between the employee work engagement and organizational performance.

Regarding Work engagement resulting into a mean score of 3.13 with a standard deviation of 0.760 falls within the moderate range of %age of mean score (60 to <70%).Similarly, the statistical coefficients also indicate that almost all the three employee supports drive the overall employee Work engagement However, Perceived organizational support is obviously more influential antecedent of the contact employees work engagement (b = 0.21, p <0.01). Therefore, it is quite safe to accept that greater the perceived contact employee support, greater will be the level of employee work engagement.

Regarding Organizational performance (comprising of service quality perception and customer satisfaction) ranking one among the three constructs with an overall mean score of 3.60 and% age mean score of 72%.Contact employee support ranking second among the three constructs with an overall mean score of 3.55and overall percentage of mean score is 71%.As its % age of mean score falls within the range (70 to 80%), it reflects fair picture of the organization. Perceived customer support, measuring the level of improvement in the behaviour of customers has secured a mean score of 3.63 with a standard deviation of 0.692 that falls within the moderate range (70 to <80%).Perceived organizational support believes that there must be a supportive organizational climate that cares about the well being of employee’s scores at a lowest mean score of 3.24 with a standard deviation of 0.987. The mean score lies within the range of (60 to <70%). Regarding perceived supervisory support, the majority of the respondents are satisfied with the overall supervisory support, resulting into a mean score of 3.78 with a standard deviation of 0.901 which falls well within the high range of %age of mean score(70 to 80%).

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

All the items used in the survey were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale. Measuring all construct using one type of scale might create a mono-method bias, which can decrease the validity of the study. Also, the given study is cross sectional and data were collected at a particular time. So, variable analysis is restricted to particular time. Further, the co-operation and interest of respondents in general and that of bank employees in particular was one of the common problems faced during the survey. Next, in the present study, customers’ questionnaires were distributed by the customer contact employees themselves. It is possible that this kind of data-collection process, although convenient for matching customers’ and employees’ perceptions, might have introduced some bias into the final results of the research. Moreover, since, the survey is conducted in the Indian context with samples from its banking sector within a limited geographic area; there are always concerns of generalization. Therefore, research in other service sectors with samples from different geographic areas is needed. Finally, greater number of participants should be sampled to enhance the reliability and validity of studies and a longitudinal research design and diary method (gathering data on a daily basis for a period of time) should be considered to gain better insight through making causal attributions into meaningful work.

REFERENCES:

1. Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 1(17): 99-120.

2. Cadwallader, S., Jarvis, C. B., Bitner, M. J., and Ostrom, A. L. (2009).Frontline employee motivation to participate in service innovation implementation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 219-239.

3. Cascio, w.f. (2006).Managing human resources: productivity, quality of life, profits. Me Graw-hill Irwin.

4. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500‐7.Heffermen, M.M. and flood, p.c. (2000).

5. Hostage, G.M. (1975). “Quality control in a service business”, Harvard business Review, july-Aug.pp.98-106.

6. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.

7. Koyuncu, M., Burke, R. J., and Filksenbaum. (2006). Work engagement among women managers and professions in a Turkish bank: potential antecedents and consequences. Equal opportunities international, 25, 299-310.

8. Maloles, C.M.1997. The determinants of customer retention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of the City of New York, New York, NY.

9. Markos, S., and Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89.

10. May, D.R., Gilson, R. L., and Harter, l. M. (2004).The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at Work. Journal of Occupational and organizational psychology, 77, 11-37.

11. Mohr, L. and Bitner, M. J (1995), "Process factors in service delivery: What employee effort means to customers, in Svvartz. T. A. Bowen. D. E. and Brown, S, W (Eds), Ad\>ances in Sendees marketing and management, Vol 4, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,pp.91-117.

12. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12‐40.

13. Richardo, R, and wade, D. (2001). Corporate performance management: How to build a better organization through measurement driven strategies alignment. Butter worth Heinemann.

14. Schaufeli, W. B., and Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.

15. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., and Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1), 71-92.

16. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., and Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1), 71-92.

17. Schaufeli, W.B., and Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315

18. Schneider, B.and Bowen, D. E. (1985), “Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks: replication and extension". Journal o f Applied Psychology, Vol.70, pp.423-33.

19. Shore, L. M., and Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behaviour: Comparison of Affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,78: 774-780

20. Siddiqi, M. A. (2013). Identifying Some Roots of Frontline Employee Attitude in Market Orientation. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Œconomica, 9(6).

21. Singh, J. (1993). Boundary role ambiguity: Facets, determinants, and impacts. The journal of Marketing, 11-31.

22. Stannack, p. (1996).Perspective on employees’ performance. Management research news, 119(4/5) 38-40.

23. Teas, K. (1983), “Supervisory behavior, role stress, and the job satisfaction of industrial salespeople”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20 February, pp. 84‐91.

Received on 19.07.2017 Modified on 22.08.2017

Asian J. Management; 2017; 8(4):1159-1167.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2017.00176.7

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. POS	3.24	0.77	1.00
2.PSS	3.78	0.81	0.21*	1.00
3.PCS	3.63	0.95	0.56*	0.39	1.00
4.WE	3.13	0.76	0.45*	0.11	0.21*	1.00
5.CS	3.68	0.94	0.31*	0.11	0.18*	0.13*	1.00
6.SQP	3.52	1.00	0.32*	0.16*	0.19*	0.19*	0.40*	1.00
*Cronbach’s alpha*			*0.69*	*0.72*	*0.67*	*0.68*	*0.71*	*0.69*

Independent Variables (Contact Employee Support)	Dependent Variables (Organizational Performance)
	Customer Satisfaction			Service Quality Perception
	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Total effect	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Total effect
1.POS	0.052*	0.320*	0.372*	0.064*	0.227*	0.291*
2.PSS	0.098*	0.239*	0.337**	0.148**	0.116*	0.264**
3.PCS	0.254*	0.235**	0.489*	0.147*	0.194*	0.341*