A Look at the Relationship between Service Failures, Guest Satisfaction, and Repeat-Patronage Intentions of Casual Dining Guests

Abstract

Service recovery is essential to maintaining guest satisfaction in the event of a service failure. However, restaurateurs must approach service recovery in the appropriate context, because guests give differential consideration to different types of problems. Without doubt, a restaurant’s failure to serve food correctly is viewed as the most serious type of failure, and a food problem coupled with a servicet failure makes matters even worse. However, service failures by themselves are soon forgiven if the recovery is properly handled. Oddly, the least important type of failure, that of atmosphere (e.g., design, noise level), is most likely to cause a guest never to return, even if the restaurant makes a proper recovery. This study of more than eight hundred restaurant patrons found a positive and significant association between guests’ reported satisfaction with the outcome of their complaint and their repeat patronage intentions. The study’s findings highlight the importance of adequately resolving guests’ complaints with the goal of increasing the possibility that the guest will return to a restaurant after a service (or food) failure.

Customer Dissatisfaction Responses to Restaurant Service Failures: Insights Into Noncomplainers From a Relational Perspective

“…Once a customer complains directly to the service provider, the process and outcome of the service recovery influences postcomplaint behaviors, such as return intentions and word-of-mouth behaviors (Bolkan, Goodboy, & Bachman, 2012;Karatepe, 2006;M. G. Kim, Wang, & Mattila, 2010;Susskind & Viccari, 2011;Swanson & Hsu, 2011). However, dissatisfied customers who do not complain to a service provider often remain unknown to hospitality firms.…”

“…The criticality of the service failure was controlled, based on prior research (McQuilken & Robertson, 2011;Susskind & Viccari, 2011). All respondents were asked to rate the service problem that they had encountered at the restaurant via two Likert type items on a 7-point scale (1 = mild to 7 = severe; 1 = not important to 7 = very important) adopted from Hess, Ganesan, and Klein (2003;α = .868).…”

A bibliometric investigation of service failure literature and a research agenda

“…It is crucial to note that all service failures are not equivalent to each other and can vary depending on customer observations . For example, in the restaurant context, uncooked food (food-related failure) is measured as the most serious kind of failure, followed by service-related failure (e.g., noise, slow service) as less serious service failure (Cho et al, 2017;Susskind & Viccari, 2015). For example, consumers in 'fine dining' restaurants have higher expectations than those in other kinds of the restaurant (such as informal dining restaurants).…”

Bireysel ve Davranışsal Faktörlerin Restoran Müşterilerinin Şikâyet Etme Niyetlerine Etkisi

“…2000;Antun vd. 2010) gibi yaşanacak olumsuzluklara bağlı olarak memnuniyetsizliğe yol açabilecek birer hata kaynağı da (Susskind ve Viccari 2011) olabilmektedir. Aslında tüketicile-rin hizmet sunumunun bir parçası olduğu ve hata yapılma olasılığının da yüksek olduğu ağırlama hizmetlerinde, hataların ve bu hataların yol aça-bileceği müşteri şikâyetlerinin bütünüyle ortadan kaldırılması olanaksız görünmektedir (Ekiz 2009).…”

“…Bir örnek ile açıklamak gerekirse McQuilken ve Robertson (2011) tarafından da tespit edildiği gibi hatanın şiddeti, şikâyet etme niyetini etkileyebilecek durumsal bir faktördür. Bir başka anlatımla müşterinin bir restoranda şikâyet etme davranışı, maruz kaldığı hatanın şiddetine ilişkin algılamasına göre farklılık gösterebilmekte-dir (Susskind ve Viccari 2011). Restoranlarda hizmet hatalarını inceleyen araştırmaların bulguları dikkate alındığında yavaş servis, tükenmiş yemek, yanlış pişirme derecesi, uygun olmayan çalışan davranışı, yanlış sipariş, hesap hatası ve yiyecek ve içeceğin dökülmesi (Silber vd.…”