Service quality, trust, commitment and service differentiation in business relationships

Abstract

PurposeWhile service quality, trust and commitment are frequently cited as critical to achieving important firm outcomes, the role of service differentiation in this framework is largely unknown. Yet, differentiation is important because a firm's distinctiveness is linked to client‐perceived value, competitive advantage, and a target market focus. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the role of service differentiation in business‐to‐business relationships.Design/methodology/approachHypotheses were tested using a sample of business clients from a large European financial services firm. The senior primary contact in each client firm was contacted by phone/e‐mail to arrange for completion of the survey. Using the survey instrument, respondents provided information on their relationship with the provider organization.FindingsResults indicated that service quality had an impact on trust, differentiation and relationship outcomes. Trust was found to drive service differentiation. Differentiation, in turn, drove commitment which ultimately had an impact on both satisfaction and word‐of‐mouth. Importantly, it was found that service differentiation is a full mediator of the impact that service quality and trust have on client commitment towards the firm.Originality/valueThe findings clearly show the importance of service differentiation in achieving high levels of relationship commitment and ultimately satisfaction and positive word‐of‐mouth. As the role of differentiation in business‐to‐business relationships has received limited research focus, this paper offers managers new insights into relationship development. Importantly, differentiation is a managerially controlled variable that firms can use to influence relationship outcomes.

Technology readiness in a B2B online retail context: An examination of antecedents and outcomes

“…Recent findings confirm the common sense expectation that perceived service quality is a key contributor to satisfaction with the service provider (Rauyruen & Miller, 2007;Molinari, Abratt & Dion, 2008;Chenet et al, 2010). Given the significant amount of research on the links between service quality and satisfaction in both offline (Williams, Khan, Ashill & Naumann., 2011) and online contexts (Rafiq et al, 2012), it is suggested that the same relationship will operate in the B2B domain:…”

“…A high level of service quality is positively associated with satisfaction, and loyalty, in both offline (Fullerton, 2005;Rauyruen & Miller, 2007;Williams, Khan, Ashill & Naumann, 2011) and online contexts (Rafiq, Lu & Fulford, 2012), and can give service providers competitive advantage (Chenet, Dagger & O'Sullivan, 2010). Gounaris (2005) suggested that there are four determinants of service quality in a B2B environment: Potential, Hard Process, Soft Process and Output Quality.…”

Industrial Ingredient Co-branding: A Brand Relationship Approach

“…Since the strength of ingredient brands constitutes a quality signal (Rao & Ruekert, 1994), in line with signaling theory (Kirmani & Rao, 2000;Nelson, 1974), in which brand quality influences customer trust (Caceres & Paparoidamis, 2007;Chenet, Dagger, & O'Sullivan, 2010), we also propose the existence of a direct relationship between brand strength and brand trust and offer the following hypotheses:…”

The dark side of customer relationship management: Exploring the underlying reasons for pitfalls, exploitation and unfairness

“…61 If customers become less trusting of a fi rm ' s behaviour, over repeated transactions, they will spread negative word of mouth and thereby reduce the fi rm ' s value-creation pie if they hold beliefs about a fi rm ' s misbehaviour. 56,62 If a fi rm does not consider these issues, CRM activities will potentially cross the line in terms of what the consumers consider fair. As a result, this may decrease trust in fi rm activities and cause dissatisfaction and loss of potential key advantages.…”

“…In the past, trust has been defi ned as a willingness of an exchange party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party in whom one has confi dence . 63 (For more about the trust concept, see Morgan and Hunt, 17 Chenet et al , 62 Bart et al , 64 and Fang et al 65 ).…”