Toward service recovery strategies: the role of consumer-organization relationship norms

Abstract

Purpose Given the increasing importance of relationship management in service recovery encounters, this study aims to investigate the role of consumer–organization relationship norms (communal versus exchange) in connection with the service recovery process. Design/methodology/approach Based on a thorough review of the previous literature, the model was developed. Using a scenario-based survey method, a total of 204 usable responses were obtained via self-administered questionnaires in the USA. Anderson and Gerbing’s two-step approach was used to assess the measurement and structural models. Findings The findings indicate that consumers’ recovery processes are influenced by relationship norms. For consumers in the communal relationship, perceived social recovery had a greater influence on satisfaction with the service recovery. Consumers in the exchange relationship reacted more sensitively to perceived economic recovery in terms of satisfaction with the service recovery. Research limitations/implications The focus of this study is restaurant consumers’ responses to service recovery in the context of an established relationship. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable for other consumers and segments. Practical implications The findings have important implications for increasing the understanding of consumer behavior in established relationships and suggesting effective recovery strategies. Originality/value This study investigates the effect of different relationship norms that could explain varying consumer responses to service recovery within a high-quality relationship. It also provides directions for improving consumers’ satisfaction with service recovery. This differs from previous studies that mainly focused on relationship quality.

The Impact of Service Failure Controllability and Relationship Strength on Post-Complaint Consumer Behavior - An Empirical Analysis

“…Hess, Ganesan, and Klein [37] find that after a service failure customers with a strong relationship are more likely to believe in relationship continuity, have lower recovery expectations, and are more satisfied. Hur and Jang [41] confirm as well that customer relationships are associated with recovery satisfaction. Furthermore, results of two experiments conducted by Mattila [49] suggest that a close customer relationship mitigates the negative effects of poor service recovery on loyalty, implying that customers with a strong relationship are more willing to forgive the service provider.…”

Perceived TMT transformational leadership and a service recovery culture: the moderating role of gender diversity

“…In the case of this study, one stream recognizes that not all service encounters meet expectations and can, in fact, fail. Service failures occur when customer perceptions of service expectations and quality are not met (Hocutt et al, 2006;Hur et al, 2016;Tang et al, 2018). The service recovery literature explores specifically how firms do or do not respond to service failures across various points of failure (Hoffman et al, 2016;Hocutt et al, 2006;Hur and Jang, 2016;Tang et al, 2018).…”

“…However, despite best efforts, firms can and do fail to meet expectations for quality customer service. Such instances are referred to as "service failures" (Hocutt et al, 2006;Hoffman et al, 2016;Hur and Jang, 2016;Tang et al, 2018). Hence, when customer service efforts fail, a service recovery culture can be a critical driver to help firms ultimately revise customer attitudes, resulting in continued patronage, retention and loyalty-even beyond the degree before the failure (De Matos et al, 2007;Gonzalez et al, 2010Gonzalez et al, , 2014McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003).…”

Is service fairness influencing customers’ satisfaction and intention to pay insurance premium? A case in BPJS Kesehatan Indonesia

“…Employees are willing to help others (give extra miles) if employees perceived fair reward relocation (Chan & Lai, 2017). In the emotionally exhausted working environment, perceived fairness in reward relocation strongly influences employee loyalty (J. C. Hur & Jang, 2016). When customers feel the 'loss' (service is not as good as they expected), tangible compensation (DF) is important for post-complaint satisfaction (Hui & Au, 2001;Noone, 2012;Sparks & Mccoll-kennedy, 2001b;Yilmaz et al, 2016c).…”