1.1. Introduction Many of the organizations have grown and focused on improving its service delivery. Quality service delivery refers to the best techniques that employees employ to ensure customer needs are met, whereas employee dynamism refers to various characteristics that an employee possesses(beliefs, culture, personality and behavior)(Andreeva&Ritala, 2016). A comprehensive quality service delivery is important in ensuring customer satisfaction is achieved(Kelley & Kelley, 2016). The effect of a good employee quality service delivery is for an organization to remain a market force in any competitive environment(Peng, Schaubroeck, McDonough, Hu & Zhang, 2016). A good quality customer service is a vital component of any organization, and if that is overlookedit affects the organization ability to achieve customers satisfactionsin long run (Kunas, 2012).Attributes of a good employee in offering quality service delivery is to pay attention to customer needs, prompt service, provision of courteous assistance, and responding to feedback(Webber, Payne & Taylor, 2012). Profitable organizations state that quality service delivery provision is a good recipe for retaining and satisfaction of customers(Dhar, 2015). 1.2. Statement of the problem Although there are several theoretical kinds of literature that support the impact of employee quality service delivery to organization performance, thefocus has been on thecontribution of market-related factors (prices, operational costs, and economies of scale) to organization performance(Lam & Mayer, 2014).Despite a competitive dynamic environment organizations have only focused on embracing quality service delivery not taking consideration of how employee personal dynamics can influence quality service delivery(Helo, Gunasekaran&Rymaszewska, 2017). Employees have different personalities, behaviors, beliefs, and cultures this directly influences how theydeliver quality service to its employee. Organizations should study employee dynamism to establish how they impact quality service delivery. 1.3. Aim and objectives of the study The aim of the study is to establish the impact of employee dynamism on quality service delivery in organizations. The aim will be guided by the following objectives: i. To find out how employee dynamics impact quality service delivery in organizations ii. To establish which of the employee dynamics impact quality service delivery in organizations. 1.4. Significance of the study The findings of the study will be useful to organization managers, employees, and scholars. Managers will use thefinding to make valuable policies; employees can use findings to improve their quality service delivery. Future scholars can use findings for further studies. 2.1. Study methodology Literature review: The study will be reviewing books, peer-reviewed journals to obtain information both theoretical and empirical to explain employee dynamism and quality service delivery in organizations. Research design: The study will use both documentary review and survey methods(Rutting, Post, De Roo, Blad, & De Greef, 2016). The documentary review will involve gathering information from secondary sources of data, while survey will involve seeking opinions of organizational managers. Data collection tools and procedure: Secondary data will be collected from written materials like books, journals, magazines, and authorized sites. Primary data through surveys will be collected using interviews, opinion forums, and focus groups. A period of 10 working days will be for collection of data. The content review panel will be formed to analyze thesuitability of secondary data(Northrup, 2017). Study indicators- Indicators of quality service delivery will include: (responsiveness, promptness, relational support). Employee dynamism variables include beliefs, culture, behavior, and personality. Analysis of data- Primary data will be qualitatively analyzed using opinions, focus groups, and interviews from representative managers. Secondary data will be coded and analyzed quantitativelyusing descriptive statistics of mean, percentages and frequencies(Northrup, 2017). The final report will be presented using charts, graphs, statements and frequency tables. References Andreeva, T., &Ritala, P. (2016). What are the sources of capability dynamism? Reconceptualising dynamic capabilities from the perspective of organizational change. Baltic Journal of Management, 11(3), 238-259. Retrieved on 5/4/2017 fromhttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=employee+dynaminism+in+organizations&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2013 Dhar, R. L. (2015). Service quality and the training of employees: The mediating role of organizational commitment. Tourism Management, 46, 419-430. Retrieved on 5/04/2017 fromhttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2013&q=employee+quality+service+delivery&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Helo, P., Gunasekaran, A., &Rymaszewska, A. (2017). Managing Service Delivery. In Designing and Managing Industrial Product-Service Systems (pp. 49-56). Springer International Publishing. Retrieved on 6/04/2017 fromhttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=quality+service+delivery&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2013 Kelley, S. W., & Kelley, S. W. (2016). Retrospective: efficiency in service delivery: technological or humanistic approaches?Journal of Services Marketing, 30(2), 133-135.Retrieved on 6/04/2017 from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=quality+service+delivery&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2013 Kunas, M. (2012). Service delivery processes. In Implementing Service Quality based on ISO/IEC 20000: A Management Guide (pp. 62-78). IT Governance Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hh7xq.17 Lam, C. F., & Mayer, D. M. (2014). When do employees speak up for their customers? A model of voice in a customer service context. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 637-666. Retrieved on 5/04/2017 from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2013&q=employee+quality+service+delivery&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Northrup, J. (2017). Pamphlets: An Introduction to Research Techniques. The English Journal,86(6), 53-56. doi:10.2307/820369 Peng, A. C., Lin, H. E., Schaubroeck, J., McDonough III, E. F., Hu, B., & Zhang, A. (2016). CEO intellectual stimulation and employee work meaningfulness: the moderating role of organizational context. Group & Organization Management, 41(2), 203-231. Retrieved on 5/04/2017 from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=employee+dynaminism+in+organizations&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2013 Rutting, L., Post, G., De Roo, M., Blad, S., & De Greef, L. (2016). The interdisciplinary research process. In Menken S. &Keestra M. (Eds.), An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research: Theory and Practice (pp. 51-56). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Retrieved from:http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1bc540s.11 Webber, S., Payne, S., & Taylor, A. (2012). Personality and Trust Fosters Service Quality. Journal of Business and Psychology,27(2), 193-203. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41474917