Corporate‐customer satisfaction in the banking industry of Singapore

Abstract

Extends the current understanding of customer satisfaction at the business‐to‐business level in the Asian banking industry. The main thrust of the paper is an attempt to conceptualise a comprehensive model of satisfaction at the business‐to‐business level incorporating guanxi (Chinese business relationships), relationship marketing and the disconfirmation paradigm. The essence of the research highlighted the importance of relational constructs, in addition to the disconfirmation paradigm, in impacting customer satisfaction at the business‐to‐business level in the Singapore banking industry. At the business‐to‐business level in the Asian context, the disconfirmation paradigm is still the predominant paradigm influencing the customer satisfaction process. Relationship marketing and guanxi are significant in our comprehensive model of corporate‐customer satisfaction. Relationship marketing was found to have both a direct and an indirect impact (through disconfirmation) on corporate‐customer satisfaction. Guanxi was found to exert an indirect impact on satisfaction as opposed to the initial hypothesised direct impact on satisfaction.

The impact of corporate fairness on the bank‐SME relationship

“…Based on SMEs answers to the questions concerning whether their banks are good in solving their financial problems under reasonable conditions, the respondents' perception of whether or not their banks offer fair deals can be discerned (Armstrong and Boon Seng, 2000). The key statistical values in the table show good convergent validity of the construct.…”

The Role of Long-Term Orientation and Service Recovery on the Relationships between Trust, Bonding, Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty: The Case of Nigerian Retail Banks

“…On the basis of the above literature review and discussions, this paper arrives at the research framework depicted on figure 1.0 below, demonstrating that relational dynamics of trust and bonding lead directly to customer loyalty in retail banks (Berry & Parasuraman, 1996;Gummeson & Gronroos, 2012;Morgan & Hunt, 1994) as well as indirectly via customer satisfaction (Armstrong & Seng, 2000;Coelho & Henseler, 2012;Kantsperger & Kunz, 2010). However, it is also documented that relational dynamics like trust and bonding are incapable of producing the desired customer satisfaction (Hau & Ngo, 2012;Molina et al, 2007) and customer loyalty (Liverin & Liljander, 2006;Oliver, 1997).…”

“…-Thiele, 2004;Binninger, 2008;Bowen & Chen, 2000;Ehigie, 2006;Fornell et al, 1996;Johnson, Gustafsson, Anderassen, Lervic, & Cha, 2001;Riel, Liljander, Semeija, & Polsa, 2011). For example, Hallowell (1996 discovered that customer satisfaction accounts for 37 percent of the variation in customer loyalty in the US, while in Singapore, customer satisfaction explains 74 percent of customer repurchase intention (Armstrong & Seng, 2000). Similarly, in Belgium, Netherlands and Finland, a study has revealed that car dealership loyalty to main supplier is a function of satisfaction and trust (Riel et al, 2011).…”

“…10, No. 2;2014 In spite of the ample empirical evidence of the role of satisfaction in predicting customer loyalty (e.g., Armstrong & Seng, 2000;Bowen & Chen, 2000;Ehigie, 2006;Kantsperger & Kunz, 2010), there are equally literature evidence showing otherwise (Gurbuz, 2008). Many bank customers, for instance, who are satisfied, are not loyal at the same time (Ehigie, 2006;Leverin & Liljander, 2006).…”

“…Several studies have reported significant relationship between RM dynamics of trust (e.g., Armstrong & Seng, 2000;Caceres & Paparoidamis, 2007;Kantsperger & Kunz, 2010;Morgan & Hunt, 1994), bonding (e.g., Geddie, Defranco, & Geddie, 2005Hau & Ngo, 2012;Narteh, Agbemabiese, Kodua, & Braimah, 2013) and customer satisfaction and loyalty. However, the findings of these studies are mixed and thus, inconclusive.…”