Is more customer control of services always better?

Abstract

Purpose Research on empowerment and service co-production assumed that customers want more control and that more control is better. An empirical test of this assumption, however, is lacking. This study tests this assumption by not only focusing on the customer’s capacity and opportunity for control, but also taking into account the customer’s desire for control. Design/methodology/approach This study uses an experiment employing video clips depicting a service encounter in a banking context in which control beliefs are manipulated. Findings This study shows that more control in services is not always better because individuals vary in their desire for control; that state-measures of control are effective predictors of relevant attitudinal and behavioral effects like satisfaction and loyalty, and that the mechanism which produces these effects is the consistency between control beliefs. Research limitations/implications Future research on customer empowerment and service co-production should acknowledge the pivotal role of variations in desire for control, focus on inconsistencies in control beliefs to predict effects, and measure control beliefs as varying states rather than as stable personality traits. Practical implications Enhancing customer control of a service may primarily mean: giving the customer the option to control or not to control the service. Originality/value This study contributes to literature and marketing practice by demonstrating that more control may have negative effects and by demonstrating the mechanism by which these effects occur.

Smart service experience in hospitality and tourism services

“…The question is how many settings or options are necessary to accommodate customers' individual preferences and empower them. Too many options and a complicated interface may confuse or irritate customers ( Joosten et al, 2016), while offering only a limited number of options may exclude the option preferred. Thus, the problem is to design a smart service that predicts the setting required correctly, but also empowers the individual customer by letting her adjust the settings easily, without confusing or annoying her with too many options or an unfriendly customer interface.…”

The Effectiveness of Customer Participation and Affective Misforecasting in Online Post-Recovery Satisfaction

“…Dong et al [13] firstly discussed the role of customer participation in service recovery, and defined "customer participation in service recovery" as "the degree to which the customer is involved in taking actions to respond to a service failure." Literature related to service recovery has verified that customer participation positively influences customers' cognition in areas such as perceived justice [1,[14][15][16], perceived match [17], perceived value [18], perceived control [19,20], perceived co-creation [21], perceived recovery experience [8], and perceived service quality [22]. Customer participation can also lead to positive post-recovery behaviors, such as satisfaction and repurchase intentions [15,16], positive word of mouth [7,21], and future co-creation intentions [17,23].…”

Customer participation risk management: conceptual model and managerial assessment tool

“…While the research on CP risk and its mitigation is emerging, it is still sparse compared with research on its benefits. The risks associated with increased CP have been described in practitioner-oriented sources and news reports (Marous, 2013;Carter, 2014;Williams, 2014) as well as a growing body of scholarly research (Parasuraman, 2006;Xie et al, 2008;Zhu et al, 2013;Heidenreich et al, 2015;Jaakkola et al, 2015;Joosten et al, 2016;Mustak et al, 2016). Reported risks tend to mirror the intended benefits of increasing CP, with customer satisfaction and loyalty, as well as service quality and profitability, being negatively impacted.…”