An Empirical Investigation of Customer Satisfaction after Service Failure and Recovery

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to specifically consider two interactional aspects that are likely to contribute to the success of an explanation of why a service failed: the adequacy of information provided and role of the person providing the information. Design/methodology/approach – Two empirical studies were conducted using a between-subjects 2 (information: low vs high) × 2 (employee: frontline vs manager) experimental design. The first study was designed to better understand when the information provided might have a more positive impact on the customer. The second study was conducted to understand why the effects exist. Findings – In Study 1, an interaction effect was seen that suggests that the most positive outcome is when the manager (vs the frontline employee) provides a full explanation (vs limited explanation) of the mishap. Results from Study 2 indicate that source credibility is in play. Research limitations/implications – Participants were asked to respond to service failure and recovery scenarios using the same service context. The means of the outcome variables suggest that the recovery effort could be improved upon with other methods. Practical implications – Contrary to suggestions that frontline employees be responsible to resolve service failures, our studies reveal that service recovery initiatives involving an explanation only are best received when the manager provides the customer a full account of what went wrong. Originality/value – This research provides empirical evidence of when and why more information regarding the cause of a service failure is most positively received by the customer.

Download Full-text

Service recovery for moderate and high involvement services

Journal of Services Marketing ◽

10.1108/jsm-05-2014-0155 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 29 (5) ◽

pp. 331-343 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Silke Bambauer-Sachse ◽

Landisoa Eunorphie Rabeson

Keyword(s):

Customer Satisfaction ◽

Design Methodology ◽

Service Failure ◽

Service Recovery ◽

Level Of Service ◽

High Involvement ◽

Content Type ◽

Failure Severity ◽

Future Consumption ◽

Practical Implications

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to determine which level of tangible compensation for a service failure leads to high levels of customer satisfaction for moderate- versus high-involvement services as well as for different conditions of responsibility for the failure and failure severity. Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on a 4 (tangible compensation: gift, discount, credit for future consumption, refund) × 2 (responsibility for the failure: restaurant vs customer) × 2 (failure severity: low vs high) × 2 (involvement: moderate vs high) design using scenarios in a restaurant context. Findings – The results reveal that, for moderate-involvement services, all types of compensation are equally appropriate, except for when customers are responsible for a severe failure. In this condition, they expect tangible compensation of higher benefit. For high-involvement services, the more severe the failure, the higher the benefit of tangible compensation should be, independent of responsibility. Practical implications – The findings suggest that managers should consider the level of service involvement as well as responsibility for and severity of the failure when choosing the level of tangible compensation. Originality/value – The results of this study provide new insights into how to choose appropriate and efficient service recovery measures.

Download Full-text