exploring theoretical and personality based moderators in ... · web viewrecovery expectations...
TRANSCRIPT
Abstract # 008-0161
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR ME LATELY? THE IMPACT OF FAILURE SEVERITY, PRIOR FAILURE, AND COMPANY
CONTROL ON SERVICE RECOVERY OUTCOMES
Matthew S. WoodSuresh K. Tadisina
Southern Illinois University
POMS 19th Annual ConferenceLa Jolla, California, U.S.A.
May 9 to May 12, 2008
ABSTRACTThis study empirically investigates the role of service failure severity, prior service failures, and the level of company control on service recovery outcomes. A scenario based experimental design is used to manipulate the factors followed by the measurement of the levels of customer satisfaction, recovery disconfirmation, and word of mouth. The context of academic advisement services is adopted which captures the influence of high switching cost, a commonly overlooked factor in existing service research. The anticipated results of this study highlight the importance of individual contextual variables, but also points out the influence of the interaction of contextual variables on service recovery outcomes. The paper concludes with a discussion of the practical implications and limitations of the study.
INTRODUCTION
Service failure recovery is a critical issue effecting customer satisfaction and
retention in today’s highly competitive markets. The importance of managers
understanding the criticality of effective service recovery cannot be underestimated.
Service failure has been identified as a key driver in customer switching behavior and
successful recovery can make the difference between customer retention or defection
(Roos, 1999). This is important because the cost of finding new customers far outweighs
1
the cost of retaining existing customers. Under some conditions, a five percent reduction
in customer defections can increase profits by as much as one hundred percent (Reicheld
and Sasser, 1990). As such, increasing our understanding of the service recovery process
and its relevant outcomes has become a salient research objective.
Research on the service recovery process and its impact on customer satisfaction
has steadily grown (e.g. McCollough, Berry and Yadav, 2000; Maxham and Netemeyer,
2002). Much of this research has focused on satisfaction and repurchase intentions as
main recovery outcomes. As such, Matos, et al., (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of the
service recovery literature and recently called for more attention to additional salient
outcome variables, such as word of mouth and corporate image. Additionally, these
authors highlight that many important factors such as switching cost, previous service
failure experiences, and the level of perceived company control over the failure have
received limited empirical attention. Hence, the purpose of this study is to explore the
impact of some of these neglected factors on important outcome variables that have also
been commonly overlooked within the extant service recovery literature. More
specifically, this study explores the research question: what is the effect of the perceived
level of prior failures, degree of company control, and failure severity on customer
satisfaction, word of mouth, and recovery disconfirmation?
Existing research on service recovery has also remained limited in terms of its
contextual range. By this we mean that most service recovery research is limited to a
subset of common service industries. Most common among these are banks, airlines, and
hotels (e.g. Levesque and McDougall, 2000). While greatly enhancing our understanding
of service recovery outcomes within these contexts, they are limited in their application
2
to other service industries where switching costs may be extraordinarily high or where
other unique factors influence the service recovery process. In an effort to address this
current gap this study is conducted using higher education as the context for the service
recovery. More specifically, the service recovery variables are applied to an academic
advisement service scenario. This unique setting is important because the switching costs
are inordinately high within this environment.
In the academic advisement service context it can be argued that once a student
has actually attended a specific university they become involved in a path dependent
process. Obviously, the student has the ability to switch to another education provider;
however, there are credit transfer and program compatibility issues to be considered. As
such, the cost associated with credit loss and the extra time required for the completion of
idiosyncratic courses at an alternate university become very salient switching cost
considerations. Thus, it can be logically inferred that the longer a student is in a program
at a given university the higher the switching costs associated with a change in the
education service provider. The advantage of considering high switching costs in this
study is that we capture the effects on service recovery outcomes and the results of the
study are likely to inform similar high switching cost service contexts, which have been
largely neglected within the extant literature (Matos et al., 2007).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES
A service failure is defined as “a flawed outcome that reflects a breakdown in
reliability” (Berry & Parasuraman, 1991). A service failure implies a negative imbalance
in an exchange relationship, whereby the customer does not receive what is expected. At
the point of failure, the perceived economic or social losses of the customer form the
3
basis for recovery expectations (Smith, Bolton and Wagner, 1999). Some studies have
explored customer evaluations of service recovery efforts using social exchange theory
and equity theory as a conceptual foundation (e.g. McCollough, Berry, and Yadav, 2000).
Additional research has evolved that focuses on justice based theories for the explanation
of service recovery outcomes (Oliver, 1997). This literature suggests that consumers
form satisfaction judgments and behavioral intentions based on the level of perceived
justice (Andreessen, 2000). As such, if the customer experiences a service failure and
seeks remedy, satisfaction and repurchase intentions will be closely tied to whether or not
the recovery efforts were perceived as being fair and just in both the process and the
outcome. It has been shown that customers who experience just and fair recovery have
higher levels of customer satisfaction and repurchase intention (Goodwin and Ross,
1992).
As an outgrowth of equity theory, one of the most widely adopted models for
understanding customer responses to service failures is the disconfirmation paradigm
(Oliver and Bearden, 1985; Oliver and Burk, 1999). The disconfirmation paradigm has
provided insights into understanding customer reactions to service recovery, which is the
focus of this paper. The disconfirmation paradigm holds that customers compare
perceived service performance to expectations. There are two types of disconfirmation:
initial disconfirmation and recovery disconfirmation. Initial disconfirmation is the
discrepancy between the customer’s expectation that the service will be provided without
a failure and the actual initial service performance. Recovery disconfirmation is the
discrepancy between the consumers expectations regarding what the service provider will
do given a service failure and perceptions of the actual steps taken by the service provider
4
in response to a failure (McCollough, Berry, and Yadav, 2000). The focus of this
research is on the recovery disconfirmation dimension of the paradigm.
Recovery expectations have become the standard for the evaluation of service
recovery performance within modern service firms (Kelly and Davis, 1994). This seems
appropriate given the large literature that asserts that many customers do not complain
when service is below expectations, but those that do are motivated by recovery
expectations (e.g. Richens, 1983; Singh, 1990). However, there are likely to be many
factors that impact the relationship between the service recovery efforts and satisfaction
based outcomes. In simple terms, factors such as, the customers previous experience and
criticalitly of the service provided, could easily impact the recovery expectations of the
customer which in turn effects their evaluation of the effectiveness of the service
recovery activities. This research seeks to explore three of these expectation altering
factors: failure severity, prior failure, and company control of the service failure.
Failure SeverityFailure severity is defined as the degree to which the service failure impacts the
customer. When failure severity is high the customer is much more likely to react
negatively to the recovery process and the recovery outcome (Levesque and McDougal,
2000). For example, if an auto repair shop customer comes to pick up their car at the
agreed upon time and the repairs are not completed this is obviously a service failure. If
the customer has other transportation it may not be considered severe. However, if it is
their only mode of transportation and the customer is leaving for a business trip, the
perceived level of severity would likely be high. In the later case we would expect to see
5
the customer’s level of disconfirmation to rise rapidly and the level of satisfaction to be
much lower, despite recovery efforts.
Interestingly, a recent study by Craighead, Karwan, and Miller (2004) found that
customers were often the most upset with minor service failures. According to the
authors their findings indicated that severe failures are sometimes inevitable, but may be
understandable as long as adequate reparations are quickly made. The findings from the
Craighead et al. (2004) study point to the idea that severe failures may not have as
significant an impact on service recovery outcomes as originally thought. In contrast,
other researchers found that severe service failures were related to lower levels of
customer satisfaction and repurchase intentions (Ok, Back, and Shanklin, 2006). In light
of the contradictory findings on the role of severity in service recovery outcomes, the
conceptualizations in this research follow studies that have shown support for the
negative relationship between severity and satisfaction. As such, the exploration of
service recovery within the academic advisement service setting is conceptualized to
follow a similar pattern as reflected by the following hypothesis:
H1: Higher levels of failure severity will have a negative effect on post service recovery outcomes.
Prior FailureService consumers usually have a history of interactions with the firm. This history
can be thought of as cumulative satisfaction that is based on their evaluations of multiple
experiences with the firm over time (Bolton and Drew, 1991). Alternatively, customers
may visit the service firm only one time with the outcome being transaction-specific
satisfaction or dissatisfaction. While transaction-specific satisfaction is certainly
important, it is often the satisfaction of repeat customers that enable the success of a
6
service business. Hence, the focus in this paper is on the cumulative aspect of the
customer-provider relationship.
Customers form expectations, which are internal standards or benchmarks against
which they judge the quality of service they receive. Previous research has indicated that
prior experiences with the organization are key determinates of customers’ expectations
(Parasuraman, Zeithmal, and Berry, 1985). Thus, for customers with satisfactory past
experiences, expectations for recovery tend to be high, this makes the process of service
failure recovery especially important (Kelley and Davis, 1994). From a relationship
perspective, when a regular customer experiences a failure they will feel they deserve to
be granted voice and reward in return for their loyalty. This phenomenon is likely to be
even more salient in situations where there are high switching costs. Before a customer
engages the services of a provider in a high switching cost situation, they are likely to
closely evaluate the provider during the provider selection process. Once the customer
selects the service provider they are likely to view the selection as a large commitment on
their part and, in turn, expect a similar type of commitment from the provider. In this
case, the customer is likely to have very high expectations of what the provider will do in
the case of a service failure. In this way, the magnitude of the switching costs directly
impact service recovery expectations, a phenomenon explored in this study.
In a similar vein, Maxham and Netemeyer (2002) posit that satisfactory recoveries
will only yield short term satisfaction gains because multiple failures will lead to
customer inferences that the service problems are inherent to the firm. As such, when a
customer experiences a failure for the second time they are much more likely to attribute
the cause of the failure to the firm, rather than when the customer experienced failure for
7
the first time (Maxham and Netemeyer, 2002). Applying this logic to the context of
academic advisement services we would expect to find that prior service failures will
have a significant negative impact on post service recovery outcomes. As such, we
hypothesize that the relationship between perceived prior failures and service recovery
outcomes is negative as stated in the following hypothesis:
H2: Higher levels of prior failure will have a negative effect on post service recovery outcomes.
In contrast to the one-way linear relationship discussed above, higher levels of
perceived prior failure may have the opposite effect on service recovery outcomes. It is
possible that perceived prior failures may have lowered the customer expectations to such
a degree that the service recovery will have a greater positive effect than if the prior
failures had not occurred. This logic is consistent with the literature on the service
recovery paradox (e.g., Magnini et al., 2007). The service recovery paradox occurs when
a customer experiences a high level of satisfaction, because of the failure-recovery
incident, than if the failure had not occurred at all. Empirical support for the existence of
the service recovery paradox has been limited (for a review see: Matos, 2007), but
provides the basis for a valid counter argument to the idea that higher levels of perceived
prior failure will always lead to lower levels of post service recovery outcomes.
However, our study focuses on the hypothesis as stated earlier.
Company Control of the Service Failure
Another key factor in service recovery outcomes is likely to be the level of
perceived company control over the service failure. If the service failure is perceived to
8
be out of the control of the company customers may be more likely to excuse the failure.
For example, when an airline cancels a flight due to weather it is likely that customers
may be more understanding than if the weather is clear and there is no externally
attributable cause for the cancellation. This logic is borne out in research that indicates
when a customer perceives the service failure as outside of the control of the company
they are more likely to forgive the problem (Maxham and Netemeyer, 2002). It is also
consistent with product based research that indicates the perceived reason for a product’s
failure is an important predictor of how customers will react to the product failure
(Folkes, 1984). Consistent with this literature we would expect to find that the level of
perceived company control within the academic advisement service will greatly impact
service recovery outcomes as highlighted by the following hypothesis:
H3: Higher levels of perceived company control will have a negative effect on post service recovery outcomes.
Each of the key service recovery factors identified above can be conceptualized as being
entirely independent. However, in reality, there is a high probability that the factors will
interact with each other to impact service recovery outcomes. Previous research has
shown that the interaction between situational factors impacts the relative effectiveness of
service recovery strategies. For example, Levesque and McDougall (2000) conducted an
empirical study that showed compensation strategies were only effective when in low
criticality scenarios. This means that the interaction between severity and the service
recovery compensation strategy was a significant predictor of service recovery
satisfaction. In the context of this study, one could argue, for example, that a prior
service failure coupled with a severe service failure would result in higher levels of
negative service recovery outcomes than when either of these factors is considered alone.
9
Thus, the interaction effects of failure severity, prior failure, and company control on
service recovery outcomes will be explored by the following hypotheses:
H4: Failure severity will have a greater negative impact on service recovery outcomes when the level of prior service failure is higher (Fig. 4a-c).
H5: Failure severity will have a greater negative impact on service recovery outcomes when the degree of company control is higher (Fig. 5a-c).
H6: The level of perceived prior failure will have a greater negative impact on service recovery outcomes when the degree of company control is higher (Fig. 6a-c).
METHODS
Experimental Design and ScenarioThis study will use a 2 x 2 x 2 between subject’s factorial experimental design
with 2 levels of severity, 2 levels of prior failure, and 2 levels of company control as the
three factors being manipulated. The research hypotheses will be tested through the use
of role playing (scenario-based) experiments wherein participants read scenarios and
respond accordingly. The scenarios for each condition portray a service failure followed
by a recovery while the levels of the other factors are varied. The instructions on the
questionnaire will ask participants to carefully read the scenario and assume that the
scenario had just happened to them.
The scenario based experiments will be conducted to investigate the impact of
varying the levels of failure severity, prior failure, and company control on satisfaction
based outcome variables. The scenario approach has several advantages. Bitner et al.
(1990) informs us that scenario based experiments allow difficult manipulations to be
more readily operationalized and provide the researchers with control over otherwise
unmanageable variables. A scenario approach also avoids the ethical considerations
10
associated with observing or enacting actual service failures (Smith and Bolton, 1998).
Finally, it eliminates the undesirability of subjecting customers to failure situations.
Due to its many advantages service scenarios are frequently utilized in service
failure and recovery research (e.g. Matilla and Patterson, 2004). In this case, the use of
scenarios allows controlled manipulation of the service failure variables while avoiding
the response bias due to memory limitations and rationalizations likely to be present with
recollections of actual service failure experiences (McCullough, et al., 2000).
Additionally, the selection of academic advisement services as the context for this study
ensures that participants are familiar with the service and thus are able to readily adopt
the role of the consumer in each of the scenarios.
Treatment ConditionsThe scenarios developed for the manipulation of severity, prior service failure,
and company control were cast in the setting of academic advisement services. All
participants will be given common background information as follows:
You are an undergraduate student at a major state university. It is the summer before your senior year and you have scheduled an appointment with your academic advisor. During your summer advisement meeting you are informed that one of the classes you need to graduate is only offered during the summer and you have just missed it. As it currently stands this means that your graduation date will be pushed back until after the completion of the next summer semester.
As you discuss the situation with your advisor you are informed that because of the advisement office’s failure to inform you of the course scheduling problem the tuition and fees for the missed course will be waived. You will be able to take the course the following summer at no charge.
For the manipulation of failure severity the following language will be added to the
background information:
11
Low condition: Pushing back your graduation date is a minor concern because you have already accepted a job offer, but you are not scheduled to start until late August – after the summer graduation date. High condition: Pushing back your graduation date is a major concern because you have already accepted a job offer and you are scheduled to start in early June – well before the summer graduation date. It is unlikely that your employer will hold the job until after the completion of the summer term.
For the manipulation of prior failure the following language will be added to the
background information:
Low condition: You have had no previous problems with your academic advisement and course scheduling. All of your advisement sessions up to this point have gone smoothly and indicated that you were on schedule to graduate.
High condition: A similar incident has happened before. During your sophomore year you had to take an overload in one semester in order to stay on pace for graduation.
For the manipulation of company control the following language will be added to the
background information:
Low condition: The advisor informs you that the class was changed to a summer course at the last minute because the instructor abruptly resigned. High condition: The advisor informs you that the class has been offered during the summer semester for several years and it was simply overlooked.
The set of scenario conditions are reflected in Table 1 below which identifies all of the
eight cells associated with a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design.
Table 1: Experimental ConditionsPrior Failure - Low Prior Failure - High
Company Control - Low
Company Control - High
Company Control - Low
Company Control - High
Severity - Low LLL LHL LLH LHH
Severity - High HLL HHL HLH HHH
12
Manipulation ChecksThree variable specific manipulation check questions will be used. Each of the
questions is designed to asses whether or not the participant’s accurately recognized the
manipulations associated with the given conditions. The manipulation check questions
are as follows:
Failure Severity: The academic advisement problem that I experienced was a:____ Minor problem____ Major problem
Prior Failure: The academic advisement problem that I experienced has happened to me:
____ At least one time prior to this incident____ Never before this incident
Company Control: The academic advisement problem that I experienced was:____ Out of the advisement office’s control____ Within the advisement office’s control
Measures of Outcome Variables
Post-recovery Satisfaction: The antecedent to satisfaction is the service recovery
remedy. The remedy is defined as the method the firm uses to rectify the customer’s
unsatisfactory experiences (offering of the missed class at no charge). Satisfaction with
the remedy is then defined as the subject’s evaluation of the service failure recovery
efforts (Harris, et al., 2006). As such, post recovery satisfaction will be measured using
four items on a nine point Likert-type scale, anchored by strongly disagree (1) and
strongly agree (9). The four item scale was adopted directly from Maxham and
Netemeyer (2002) and has proven to be a reliable scale with a Cronbach’s alpha of .87.
The response scores for the four items will be averaged to form an overall measure of
post-recovery satisfaction. The individual scale items are as follows:
13
1. On this particular occasion, the academic advisement office provided a satisfactory resolution to my problem.
2. The academic advisement experience met my needs3. I am not satisfied with the academic advisements office’s handling of this
particular problem.4. Overall, I am satisfied with my academic advisement experience
Word of Mouth: Word of mouth is defined as the customer’s propensity to speak
negatively or positively to others about the service provider. Word of mouth will be
measured using five items on a nine point Likert-type scale, anchored by strongly
disagree (1) and strongly agree (9). The four item scale was adopted directly from Wood
and Karau (2007) and has proven to be a reliable scale with a Cronbach’s alpha of .83.
The response scores for the five items will be averaged to form an overall measure of
word of mouth. The individual scale items are as follows:
1. I would complain to friends about this university.2. I would say negative things to others in the community about this
university.3. I would speak highly of this university.4. If asked by a media representative I would likely speak negatively about
this university.5. I would speak positively about this university to family and friends.
Recovery Disconfirmation: Recovery disconfirmation is defined as the difference
between the customer’s expectations regarding what the service provider will do given a
service failure and perceptions of the actual steps taken by the service provider in
response to a failure (McCollough, Berry, and Yadav, 2000). Recovery disconfirmation
will be measured using three items on a nine point Likert-type scale, anchored by
strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (9). The three item scale was adopted directly
from McCollough, Berry, and Yadav, (2000) and has proven to be a reliable scale with a
Cronbach’s alpha of .81. The response scores for the three items will be averaged to
14
form an overall measure of recovery disconfirmation. The individual scale items are as
follows:
1. The compensation for my problem was much better than I expected.2. The university should have done more for me in response to the
scheduling problem.3. The university responded very well to the scheduling problem.
Validity and Reliability of MeasuresThe suggested measures and the corresponding instrument will be analyzed for
reliability and validity. All the scales will be evaluated for reliability using Cronbach’s
Alpha. Once reliability has been established the next step is to evaluate validity of the
scales examining content, criterion, and construct validity.
Participants
Upper level undergraduate students will be recruited for participation in this
study. The students will be offered an incentive of extra course credit in exchange for
their participation in the study. When considering the number of participants required for
a successful experimental study it is important to consider the level of statistical power
desired. Power is defined as the probability of correctly rejecting a false hypothesis when
a particular alternative hypothesis is true (Howell, 2007). Thus, a more powerful
experiment is one that has a better chance of rejecting the null hypothesis. For this study
a statistical program (G*Power) was used to calculate the required sample size for the
recommended power level of .80 or greater (Howell, 2007). This analysis revealed that a
sample size of 50 per cell is required to reach sufficient power. Thus a total sample size
of 400 would be required for this study.
Achieving sufficient statistical power has been identified as an important goal for
service recovery research. In their recent meta-analysis of service recovery literature
15
Matos et al. (2007) found that majority of service recovery studies have relatively low
statistical power. They go on to assert that low power can lead to conflicting results
between similar studies, which is what they found in their meta-analysis. As such, this
study takes heed of these authors’s suggestion that future studies should provide
sufficient statistical power in order to strengthen the study’s results and the body of
service recovery literature as a whole.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The results of this study are anticipated to reveal a statistically significant main
effect for severity on satisfaction, word of mouth, and disconfirmation, such that the
greater the severity of the service failure the lower the levels of satisfaction and word of
mouth, and the higher the levels of disconfirmation. This finding would support the first
hypothesis. This main effect is graphically represented by Figure 1 in the Appendix. For
prior failure the expectation is that prior service failure is significantly related to the
outcome variables in that a previous service failure will negatively impact the recovery
related outcomes of the current service failure. As such, prior service failures would lead
to higher levels of disconfirmation, but lower levels of satisfaction and word of mouth,
which follows the predictions of hypothesis 2. For company control the study is
anticipated to reveal that the more control the organization is perceived to have over the
service failure, the more negative the outcome. Thus, higher levels of company control
will be significantly related to lower levels of satisfaction, and word of mouth, but higher
levels of disconfirmation. These findings would support the third hypothesis.
The results of this study are also expected to reveal several interaction effects.
Three two-way have been hypothesized. It is highly likely that each of the manipulated
16
variables will interact to impact the relationships with the outcome variables. More
specifically, we expect to find that higher levels of prior service failure combined with
higher levels of company control will lead to a more negative service recovery outcome
than when the level of prior service failures is lower. Likewise, when higher levels of
failure severity are combined with higher levels of prior failure or higher levels of
company control we expect to see a more negative outcome than when the level of failure
severity is lower. In short, we anticipate the interaction effects to reveal that the
relationship between each variable and service recovery outcomes is strengthened in the
presence of high levels of another variable. All of the anticipated two-way interaction
effects are graphically represented in the appendix by Figures 4, 5, and 6. Finally,
several other examples of possible interactions could be conjectured; however, these
relationships would require actual data to demonstrate the interaction relationships
beyond the general relationships predicted by the hypotheses.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The anticipated results of this study indicate that the contextual factors of prior
service failure, failure severity, and company control significantly impact service
recovery outcomes. In general, the anticipated results of this study indicate that higher
levels of each of these variables directly impact the probability that the customer will be
satisfied with the service recovery process. In addition, these variables interact with each
other in a way that makes effective service recovery even more difficult. As such, this
study is designed to provide an increased recognition of these salient factors, which may
lead to increased effectiveness in actual service recovery processes.
17
At a more detailed level, the anticipated finding that prior service failures have an
impact on the outcome of current service recovery efforts indicates the importance of
cumulative satisfaction and the history of the relationship between the provider and the
customer. Additionally, the anticipated finding that recovery disconfirmation plays an
important role is also of significance. This means that the remedy for the service failure
must match the expectations of the customer. This study attempts to show that this
element is even more important when switching costs are high. When the customer is
unable to easily change service providers, as in the academic advisement setting, the
remedy becomes a crucial determinate of overall satisfaction and other recovery
outcomes. Finally, the anticipated interactions between the contextual factors also
provide us with important insights into the service recovery process. The anticipated
interaction effects demonstrate the ‘perfect storm’ of service failure. By this we mean,
that the cumulative affects of high levels of each of these variables leads to an
overwhelming negative service recovery outcome, which may be an insurmountable
obstacle for service providers. As such, service providers need to pay close attention to
the cumulative effects of multiple contextual factors in evaluating appropriate service
recovery actions. In short, this means that service recovery processes and remedies
should be evaluated within the context of multiple factors.
This study makes important contributions to the service recovery literature. The
exploration of contextual variables in a new setting, higher education, provides us with
new insights. This context is especially valuable because it introduces the latent factor of
high switching cost, which has been neglected in prior service recovery research (Matos,
et al., 2007). Additionally, this study explores the contextual factors of failure severity,
18
prior failure, and company control simultaneously. While each of these factors has
received some empirical attention, this study adds to our understanding by considering
these factors individually, but more importantly it considers the interaction between these
factors. The interaction effects provide us with new insights that increase our
understanding of the service recovery process.
Practical ImplicationsThis study informs the practice of service recovery in several ways. First, service
providers should recognize the importance of contextual factors when developing their
service recovery processes and procedures. For example, a severe service failure will
likely require a remedy that is substantial in order to achieve a successful resolution to
the problem. When there is an existing history of service failures the service provider
must be especially diligent in their handling of the service recovery process.
Second, service providers should recognize that the service environment matters.
By this I mean that the switching cost associated with the service has a significant impact
on how service recovery processes and procedures should be designed. When a
consumer engages the services of an organization that is inherently difficult to change if
they experience poor service, then that customer feels that they have made a heavy
investment in the provider. As such, the consumer is likely to have high expectations in
the event of a service failure. These idiosyncrasies have been represented in this study
and should be recognized by practitioners in these high switching cost environments.
Finally, service providers should recognize that several factors can interact to
impact the outcome of the service recovery process. Thus, the design of service recovery
processes should recognize the salience of things like the prior service history when
19
addressing service failures. Taking into account these factors would allow for remedy
adjustments to be made and thereby increase the likelihood that the service recovery
process is successful. By accounting for these important interactions the overall
effectiveness of the organizations service recovery efforts may be improved, which is the
goal of both academicians and practitioners.
LimitationsScenario based experimental research designs always raises questions of
generalizability, because scenarios can only attempt to simulate the complexity of real
world service recovery processes. To avoid potential problems, scenarios were carefully
and deliberately developed. A second threat to external validity is the reliance on students
for data collection. Of course students are not necessarily representative of the
population as a whole and their experiences with service recoveries may be limited.
However, given that the context of this study was academic advisement services it seems
logical to suggest that undergraduate students are the appropriate target for this study.
Students should easily be able to envision themselves in a service failure recovery
situation in this setting. As such, the generalizability of the findings from this study is
actually enhanced through the use of students as participants. Additionally, the use of
students allows for the collection of data in a controlled environment that reduces the
outside factors that would normally be associated with employees in actual organizations.
Future studies should consult the reactions of actual customers and managers in real
organizations in order to increase the generalizability of these and future service recovery
research findings. Despite its limitations, this study provides an important initial step
20
towards increasing our understanding of the effects of specific contextual factors on
service recovery outcomes.
21
REFERENCES
Andreassen, A. 2000. Antecedents to satisfaction with service recovery. European Journal of Marketing, 34: 156-175.
Berry, L. and Parasuraman, A. 1991. Marketing Services. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bitner, M. Benard, B. and Tetreault, S. 1990. The service encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54: 71-84.
Bolton, R. and Drew, J. 1991. A multi-stage model of customers’ assessments of service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17: 375-384.
Churchill, G. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16: 64-73.
Craighead, C., Karawan, K. and Miller, J. 2004. The effects of severity of failure and customer loyalty on service recovery strategies. Productions and Operations Management, 13: 307-321.
Flynn, B, Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R., Bates, K. and Flynn, J. 1990. Empirical research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 9: 25-284.
Folkes, V. 1984. Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10: 398-409.
Goodwin, C. and Ross, I (1992). Consumer responses to service failures: Influence of procedural and interactional fairness perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 25: 149-163.
Harris, K., Grewal, D., Mohr, L. and Bernhardt, K. 2006. Consumer responses to service recovery strategies: The moderating role of online versus offline environment. Journal of Business Research, 59: 425-431.
Howell, D. 2007. Statistical Methods for Psychology. Belmont, CA: Thompson.
Kelly, S. and Davis, M. 1994. Antecedents to customer expectations to service recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22: 52-61.
Levesque, T. and McDougall, G. 2000. Service problems and recovery strategies: An experiment. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 17: 20-37.
Magnini, V., Ford, J., Markowski, E., and Honeycut, E. 2007. The service recovery paradox: Justifiable theory or smoldering myth? Journal of Services Marketing, 21 (3): 213-225.
22
Matiila, A. and Patterson, P. 2004. Service recovery fairness perceptions in collectivist and individualist contexts. Journal of Service Research, 36: 356-372.
Matos, C., Henrique, J. and Rossi, C. 2007. Service recovery paradox: A meta-analysis. Journal of Service Research, 10: 60-77.
Maxham, J. and Netemeyer, R. 2002. A longitudinal study of complaining customer’s evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery efforts. Journal of Marketing, 66: 57-71.
McCollough, M., Berry, L. and Yadav, M. 2000. An empirical investigation of customer satisfaction after service failure and recovery. Journal of Service Research, 3: 121-37.
Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ok, C., Back, K-J, Shanklin, C. 2006. Service recovery paradox: Implications from an experimental study in a restaurant setting. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 14: 17-33.
Oliver, R. 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavior Perspective on the Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. and Bearden, W. 195. Disconfirmation processes and consumer evaluations in product usage. Journal of Business Research, 13: 235-246.
Oliver, R. and Burke, R. 1999. Expectation processes in satisfaction formation. Journal of Service Research, 1:196-214.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithamal, V. and Berry, L. 1985. A conceptual model of service quality and its implication for future research. Journal of Marketing, 58: 111-124.
Reicheld, F. and Sasser, E. 1990. Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review, 68: 105-111.
Richins, M. 1983. Negative word-of –mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot study. Journal of Marketing, 47: 68-78.
Roos, I. 1999. Switching processes in customer relationships. Journal of Service Research, 1: 68-85.
Singh, J. 1990. Voice, exit, and negative word-of-mouth behaviors: An investigation across three service categories. The Academy of Marketing Sciences, 18: 1-15.
23
Smith, A. and Bolton, R. 1998. An experimental investigation of customer reactions to service failure and recovery paradox. Journal of Service Research, 1: 65-81.
Smith, A., Bolton, R. and Wagner, J. 1999. A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36: 356-362.
Wood, M. and Karau, S. 2007. Preserving employee dignity during the termination interview: and empirical examination. Working paper, Southern Illinois University – Department of Management.
24
APPENDIX
Failure Severity
Out
com
e
Satisfaction
Word of Mouth
Disconfirmation
Prior Failure
Out
com
e
Satisfaction
Word of Mouth
Fig 2: Prior Failure Main Effect
Disconfirmation
25
Fig 1: Failure Severity Main Effect
Company Control
Out
com
e
Satisfaction
Word of Mouth
Fig 3: Company Control Main Effect
Disconfirmation
Severity
Satis
fact
ion
Fig 4a: Severity x Prior Failure (PF) Interaction Effect
High PF
Low PF
26
Severity
Wor
d of
Mou
thFig 4b: Severity x Prior Failure (PF) Interaction Effect
High PF
Low PF
Severity
Dis
conf
irmat
ion
Fig 4c: Severity x Prior Failure (PF) Interaction Effect
High PF
Low PF
27
Severity
Satis
fact
ion
Fig 5a: Severity x Company Control (CC) Interaction Effect
High CC
Low CC
Severity
Wor
d of
Mou
th
Fig 5b: Severity x Company Control (CC) Interaction Effect
High CC
Low CC
28
Severity
Dis
conf
irmat
ion
Fig 5c: Severity x Company Control (CC) Interaction Effect
High CC
Low CC
Prior Failure
Satis
fact
ion
Fig 6a: Prior Failure x Company Control (CC) Interaction Effect
High CC
Low CC
29
Prior Failure
Wor
d of
Mou
th
Fig 6b: Prior Failure x Company Control (CC) Interaction Effect
High CC
Low CC
Prior Failure
Dis
conf
irmat
ion
Fig 6c: Prior Failure x Company Control (CC) Interaction Effect
High CC
Low CC
30