An Empirical Examination of the Structural Dimensions of the Service Recovery System*

Abstract

This study identifies the structural dimensions that constitute a service recovery system. We employ a structured scale development process to introduce, define, and operationalize seven distinct first-order constructs (i.e., structural dimensions) of service recovery. Potential constructs and their items are identified from the literature, experts and practitioners are employed to refine scales, and psychometric properties are tested using data from a sample of 158 service providers. Constructs such as those developed here should prove to be useful as researchers strive to incorporate operational notions into service recovery studies and to move toward systematic recovery prescriptions for service providers. Accordingly, the results presented herein can provide a springboard for future research on service recovery while also providing practicing managers with a diagnostic tool against which to benchmark existing recovery systems.

Empirical Profiles of Service Recovery Systems: The Maturity Perspective

“…These include accessibility, human intensity, system intensity, decentralization, formalization, comprehensiveness, and influence (Smith, Karwan, and Markland 2009). The seven are briefly described in the paragraphs that follow.…”

“…Duffy (2000) has even offered that having standardized recovery polices provides guidance so that employees do not compensate complainants beyond reason. From a systems perspective, Smith, Karwan, and Markland (2009) validate the common establishment of policies and procedures to govern recovery.…”

“…This dimension, described by Smith, Karwan, and Markland (2009) as comprehensiveness, encompasses the extent to which an organization attempts to be exhaustive in the consideration of all potential recovery activities. The need to be comprehensive can be viewed as a structural dimension since it addresses the capability of the system to accommodate a relatively complex investigation and assessment required across varied failure situations.…”

Social sustainability in the supply chain: Construct development and measurement validation

“…The T coefficient value close to 1.0 implies that our second order construct perfectly explained the first order construct model. Hence, both the models explain parsimonious representation of the relationship among them (March, 1987;Smith et al, 2009). This result also indicates that both the models are equivalent and the second order construct perfectly represents the first order construct.…”

Three dimensions of service recovery: examining relationship and impact

“…stress) associated with complaint handling uneasy/irritated customers. Effective employee recovery can also boost their confidence at work (Bowen and Johnston, 1999), particularly empowerment is one of the key factors that can affect employees' emotion (Bowen and Lawler, 1995;La and Kandampully, 2004;Smith et al, 2009). Empowerment of employees has a positive impact on employees' feelings of low perceived control and helplessness (Bowen and Johnston, 1999).…”