When and Why a Squeakier Wheel Gets More Grease: The Influence of Cultural Values and Anger Intensity on Customer Compensation

Abstract

When customers express anger, do they gain greater returns, as suggested by the proverb “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”? If so, does the intensity of the squeak matter? In four studies, we explore employee compensation responses to customers who express relatively high- versus low-intensity anger in service-failure settings. The studies demonstrate that the cultural value of power distance (PD) moderates the relationship between emotional intensity and customer compensation: High-PD service employees offer less compensation to customers expressing higher intensity anger, and low-PD service employees offer more to customers expressing higher intensity anger. For high-PD service employees, this relationship between emotional intensity and compensation is mediated by the perceived appropriateness of the anger expression; for low-PD employees, it is mediated by perceived threat. However, when perceptions of threat are mitigated, low-PD service employees offer higher compensation to lower intensity anger, and this effect is mediated by perceptions of appropriateness. This research is the first to examine the effect of anger intensity in service-failure settings. For managers, the findings illuminate the importance of adopting a cultural lens when designing emotion management training programs and when setting practices for compensating angry customers.

The Impact of Non-normative Displays of Emotion in the Workplace: How Inappropriateness Shapes the Interpersonal Outcomes of Emotional Displays

“…Another cultural value found to affect assessments of inappropriateness is power distance-i.e., one's acceptance for power inequalities and social hierarchies (Hofstede, 2001). Glikson et al (2019) mentioned above, found that displays of high-intensity anger by customers were perceived as less appropriate by service providers (the target of the anger) who scored low (vs. high) in power distance. This led to lower amounts of compensation for the angry customer.…”

“…Adam and Brett (2018) found a curvilinear relationship between anger intensity and negotiation outcomes, where concessions from the opposing side rose when moderate anger was expressed, but then fell again when the anger grew in intensity (and was in consequence perceived as less appropriate). Glikson et al (2019) found that customers' angry complaints yielded different results based on the intensity with which the anger was displayed. High-intensity anger was seen as both less appropriate and as more threatening than anger of lower intensity.…”

“…Overall, it is clear that intensity is a key variable in determining the inappropriateness of an emotional display. However, as noted by Barasch et al (2016); Adam and Brett (2018), and Glikson et al (2019), more work is needed on the interpersonal effects of emotion intensity (perhaps with the exception of anger). In particular, most work to date deals with cases where high-intensity displays are inappropriate and lead to negative outcomes, leaving open the question of whether and when highintensity emotional displays are deemed appropriate and are beneficial.…”

“…Apologies for corporate wrongdoing were assessed as less sincere when accompanied by displays of inappropriate emotions, such as happiness, and yielded worse outcomes in terms of investor confidence and stock market returns (ten Brinke and Adams, 2015) Culture High-intensity anger displays by customers were perceived as less appropriate by service providers based on cultural values (high power distance), leading to lower compensation following complaints (Glikson et al, 2019) Anger expressions in collectivist cultures are assessed as inappropriate and pose a threat to group harmony compared to anger expressions in individualistic cultures (Kitayama et al, 2006) rules. However, in all these cases, the effectiveness of a supportive response may depend on another dimension that I have not yet discussed: whether the inappropriate display crosses the bounds of civility.…”

“…More precisely, the present theoretical article is prompted partly by burgeoning interest in how anger displays can have contradictory outcomes based on whether or not they are perceived as appropriate (e.g., Geddes and Callister, 2007;van Kleef and Côté, 2007;Adam et al, 2010;Lindebaum et al, 2016;Stickney and Geddes, 2016;Callister et al, 2017;Glikson et al, 2019). This review also builds on an established body of work showing that happiness is seen as the only emotion appropriate for display by service providers (e.g., Hochschild, 1983;Rafaeli and Sutton, 1987;Sayre et al, 2019).…”