Antecedents and outcomes of service recovery performance in a public health‐care environment

Abstract

PurposeThis paper proposes investigating a model of service recovery performance in a public health‐care setting.Design/methodology/approachFrontline hospital staff (administrative and nursing staff) representing a range of out‐patient departments/clinics in a New Zealand inner‐city public hospital completed a self‐administered questionnaire on organizational variables affecting their service recovery efforts, job satisfaction and intention to resign. Data obtained from the hospital were analyzed using the SEM‐based partial least squares (PLS) methodology.FindingsThe results show significant relationships between perceived managerial attitudes, work environment perceptions, service recovery performance and outcomes variables.Research limitations/implicationsLimitations of the study are noted including the generalizability of the findings within a public health‐care environment. Suggestions for future research include an examination of other variables potentially important in service recovery efforts. A patient perspective would also be valuable.Practical implicationsThe research advances understanding of frontline service recovery performance in a health‐care setting and the findings indicate that health‐care managers can take actions on a number of fronts to assist progress toward the achievement of frontline service recovery excellence.Originality/valueVery little attention has been given to understanding the antecedents and outcomes of service recovery performance in the health‐care literature. By expanding earlier research in private sector industries, the study investigates a model of service recovery performance in a public health‐care setting.

The Effect of Management Commitment to Service Quality on Job Embeddedness and Performance Outcomes

“…Empowered employees would be able to provide quick, appropriate, and equitable responses to complainants (Boshoff, Allen 2000;Yavas et al 2003). The presence of appropriate reward policies in the workplace encourages trained and empowered employees to provide service excellence and resolve customers' complaints effectively (Ashill et al 2005;Yavas et al 2003). This is in parallel with the AMO framework (Boxall, Macky 2009).…”

“…The availability of proper levels of pay and other types of rewards for exemplary service efforts in the organization demonstrates top management's commitment to service quality (Ashill et al 2005). As a result, employees would be embedded in their job when they are rewarded for their efforts.…”

“…In addition, training, empowerment, and rewards have been reported or discussed to increase organizational development, attract qualified individuals, and enhance employee work outcomes (e.g. organizational commitment, job performance, and job satisfaction) (Ashill et al 2005;Marković 2008;Rees, Althakhri 2008;Singh 2007;Yavas et al 2010). …”

Mediating Service Recovery Satisfaction in the Relationship between Internet Service Recovery and Customer Loyalty

“…Zemke and Bell (1990) pointed that the actual test of service firm's commitment toward service quality can be found in its response to the service failure. So that, service recovery has considered a strategic element for service firms in the competitive marketplace (Yaya, Marimon, & Casadesus, 2013), and it has been identified as a key issue in the literature of both service marketing and service quality (Ashill, Carruthers, & Krisjanous, 2005;Michel, Bowen, and Johnston, 2009;Cheung & To, 2016), especially that the service failure is not completely avoidable due to the intangible nature of service (Jung & Seock, 2017). In addition to this, it represents a key tool to companies wanting to maintain satisfied and loyal customers (Sousa & Voss, 2009).…”

The relationship between job demand stressors, service recovery performance and job outcomes in a state-owned enterprise

“…Job stressors make considerable demands on the abilities or resources of employees (Abramis, 1994) and typically involve a lack of predictability, control and understandability of environmental conditions (Cohen, 1980). To date, studies of service recovery performance and job demand stressors have exclusively focused on services such as banking, hospitality and health (Boshoff and Allen, 2000;Yavas et al, 2003;Matilla and Patterson, 2004;Ashill et al, 2005). Although there has been some attention paid to service quality/ service enhancement in the public sector (Lagrosen and Lagrosen, 2003;Chen et al, 2004;Ancarani, 2005), we suggest that it is timely to consider the applicability of service recovery models to settings in which former public sector departments have decentralised into state-owned enterprises, i.e., where former public sector government departments have undergone corporatisation followed by partial deregulation and, by virtue of the range of services on offer, can no longer rely on their former natural or statutory monopoly position.…”