Citation
(2014), "Executive summary of “Explanation information and source in service recovery initiatives”", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-06-2014-0200
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Executive summary of “Explanation information and source in service recovery initiatives”
Article Type: Executive summary and implications for managers and executives From: Journal of Services Marketing, Volume 28, Issue 4
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the material present.
We all know how frustrating and annoying it is when something that’s is supposed to happen doesn’t and you are not given a proper reason why. Telling customers what they need to know about service breakdowns is something some service organizations are good at and some aren’t. How many times do you hear disgruntled passengers who are stuck in an airport lounge because their plane has been delayed or canceled complain, not so much about the inconvenience itself but more about the lack of information being given to them?
Having a delay in getting your meal in a restaurant might not be as traumatic as having travel plans disrupted, but some of the same requirements apply. Customers want to know what’s gone wrong and what’s being done about it. In the restaurant, the “what’s being done about it?” might involve a free meal. In some other service breakdowns, it might involve compensation – an oft-used recovery strategy that has proved to be effective in improving customers’ perceptions of the firm. However, quickly turning to compensation might not be in the firm’s best interests for a variety of reasons.
For example, providing compensation directly reduces firm’s profitability, and while any reduction in profits due to compensation might be offset by future purchases, to date, no study has provided support that this is in fact the case. Second, consumers may become conditioned to expect compensation which could lead to higher levels of compensation being needed to achieve the same level of recovery or the same compensation being expected for lesser failures.
In “Explanation information and source in service recovery initiatives”, Dr Thomas L. Baker and Associate Professor Tracy Meyer support the view that it would be in the best interest of service providers to better understand non-compensatory service recovery methods – and one way to do this could be the provision of a greater degree of information to the consumer concerning the cause of the failure, in the form of an explanation.
It might seem to be stating the obvious that an apology and an explanation are basic requirements to smooth customers’ ruffled feathers when things go wrong but, as with many aspects of serving the public, what seems obvious might not be as simple as it first seems. For example, that explanation: Should it be brief or quite detailed? And who should be doing the explaining? The frontline service employee – i.e. the waiter or waitress in a restaurant? Or would it be better coming from someone more senior? The manager maybe? Previous research has noted that consumers are appreciative when credible employees are attentive to the situation.
Apparently, it might not be beneficial for a frontline employee to give anything more than a concise explanation about a service failure. If greater amounts of information are given, they may be seen as excuses – i.e. explanations admitting the outcome was unfavorable but coupled with a denial of full responsibility by citing some external cause of mitigating circumstances.
The present study considers 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. The study’s initial results were somewhat perplexing in that it seemed that neither the person who provided the information about the failure to the customer nor the amount of information mattered directly.
However, what was interesting was that for all three outcome variables studied (satisfaction, repatronage, reduction of negativity associated with the failure), there was a significant interaction effect. Specifically, higher outcomes were consistently achieved when the frontline employee provided low information or the manager provided high levels of information. Due to this unexpected finding, a second study was conducted to help provide an explanation. It was found, as expected, that two aspects of source credibility (trustworthiness and expertise) fully mediated the relationship between who provided the information and the outcome variables.
This seems to indicate that the firm would be best served by getting the manager to address the situation directly with the customer and providing a full account of what went wrong. Managers have higher credibility in service failure scenarios. Consumers are more likely to believe what they offer as an explanation, particularly when the information provided is deemed a complete account.
However, in cases where the manager is not available or making him or her available is simply not practical, the results suggest that the frontline employee should be trained to provide a very short and concise description of the cause of the failure. Training should specifically include information relative to how to be concise in describing a reason for service failure. If explanations prove unsatisfactory, however, that old standby “compensation” might need to be brought into play after all if the firm is to more fully recover.
To read the full article enter 10.1108/JSM-09-2012-0166 into your search engine.
(A précis of the article “Explanation information and source in service recovery initiatives”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)