Service failure and recovery strategies in the Balkans: an exploratory study

Abstract

Purpose Despite scholarly effort to understand customers’ recovery evaluation, little progress is evident in deciphering how customers develop online failure/recovery perception. This paper aims to address this issue. Design/methodology/approach Social constructivism was the epistemic choice for this study. This approach is holistic and offers a comprehensive understanding of each side of the phenomena. This provided social scientific descriptions of people and their cultural bases and built on, and articulated what was implicit in interpretations of their views. Findings Online banking customer groups were identified as: exigent customers, solutionist customers and impulsive customers. Customers’ position in each group determined failure perception, recovery expectation and evaluation, and post-recovery behaviour. Comparisons were observed and discussed in relation to Albania and Kosovo. It was suggested that banks should expand their presence in social media platforms and offer a means to manage online customer communication and spread of online WOM. Research limitations/implications For exigent customers, the failure/recovery responsibility is embedded within the provider. This explains their high sensitivity and criteria to define a failure. Practical implications Online banking customers’ request of a satisfactory recovery experience included: customer notifications, customer behaviour, customer determination, and the mediator of request. 10;Providers should examine customer failure/recovery experiences in cooperation with other banks which should lead to a higher order understanding of customer withdrawal and disengagement activities. Social implications Post-recovery behaviour is linked to the decline of online banking usage, switching to new providers, and the spread of negative online and off-line word-of-mouth. Originality/value This is the first empirical study on online service failure and recovery strategy to provide information on customers’ unique preferences and expectations in the recovery process. Online customers are organised into a threefold customer typology, and explanation for the providers’ role in the online customer failure-recovery perception construct is presented.

Dynamics of user-generated content and service failure recovery: evidence from millennials

“…Service failure occurs when customers' expectations are not met, whereas recovery strategies are actions that providers deliver to overcome the event (Azemi et al, 2019). Extant literature identifies two key characteristics of SFR strategies:…”

“…(2) the most minor failures can have the highest severity if not resolved appropriately (Azemi et al, 2019;Barwise and Meehan, 2010).…”

“…Service failure severity refers to the perceived negative impact of service failure; customers' online response refers to the action customers take that may reflect their attitude towards the failure, including reporting the failure directly to the provider or through social media, which can potentially negatively affect the provider (Fan and Niu, 2016;Vermeer et al, 2019;Wirtz and Mattila, 2004). Customers who encounter service failure will judge the severity of the failure to be low or high, at varying levels, and their response to the service failure online depends on the diverse characteristics that impact their perception of the service failure (Azemi et al, 2019;Mattila and Patterson, 2004;Sugathan et al, 2017). When service failure is perceived as low, it is possible that customers will not respond negatively in comparison to their response to a failure considered to be very severe.…”

“…Service failure occurs when customers’ expectations are not met, whereas recovery strategies are actions that providers deliver to overcome the event (Azemi et al , 2019). Extant literature identifies two key characteristics of SFR strategies: service failures are always expected to occur (Wang et al , 2011); and the most minor failures can have the highest severity if not resolved appropriately (Azemi et al , 2019; Barwise and Meehan, 2010). …”

Does green self-identity influence the revisit intention of dissatisfied customers in green restaurants?

“…Similarly, Hess et al (2003) explained the internal locus of attribution in-service failure, as customers blame themselves for service failure occurrence. Internal locus of attribution is quite untouched in preceding studies, as most of the earlier studies have correlated the causes of failure with the service-providing organizations or other external factors (Hoffman et al, 2016;Azemi et al, 2019). Although it was revealed that the nature of service failure plays a vital role in deciding whether the cause of failure is internal or external (Harris et al, 2006), only a few studies have portrayed the internal locus of attribution as a service failure factor, which lies inside the person (Heider, 1958;Vakeel et al, 2018).…”