Why Service Recovery Fails? Examining the Roles of Restaurant Type and Failure Severity in Double Deviation With Justice Theory

Abstract

Due to the increasingly competitive nature of the industry, the prevalence of service failure in restaurants has made a satisfactory service recovery critical for retaining customers. However, the success rate of service recovery is far from satisfactory. Informed by Rawls’s justice theory, this study explored service recovery failures (double service failure) in a restaurant setting. Results from our experiment indicate that the effects of different types of service recovery failure on postrecovery evaluations vary across two situational factors: restaurant type and failure severity. Specifically, procedural injustice (low-resolution speed) was found to exert more influence on word-of-mouth intentions in a quick-service restaurant than a full-service restaurant. For failures of high severity (vs. low severity), distributive injustice (no compensation offered) is found to be more impactful. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

The Burden of Double Deviation in Services: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda

“…Although the definition of double deviation is simple enough, what causes double deviation is a subject of deliberation. Scholars have broadly cited the following as causes of double deviation: Service provider's ineffective remedies (e.g., failure to acknowledge, apologize, and compensate the customer; Bitner et al, 1990) Customer's perceptual and appraisal criteria (e.g., justice evaluations; Ok et al, 2007; Zou & Migacz, 2020) Customer's emotions (e.g., anger; Surachartkumtonkun et al, 2015) …”

“…Loo et al's (2013) customer profiling based on the type of complaint also underlined service providers' operational and interactional failures resulting in double deviation. However, the majority of studies focused on customer perceptions and appraisals (e.g., justice perceptions) impacting customer dissatisfaction and resultant behaviour (Chan & Ngai, 2010; Grégoire et al, 2010; Jeon & Kim, 2016; Michel et al, 2009; Zou & Migacz, 2020). Distributive, procedural and interactional (in)justice perceptions were found to lead to double deviation (del Río‐Lanza et al, 2009; Zou & Migacz, 2020).…”

“…However, the majority of studies focused on customer perceptions and appraisals (e.g., justice perceptions) impacting customer dissatisfaction and resultant behaviour (Chan & Ngai, 2010; Grégoire et al, 2010; Jeon & Kim, 2016; Michel et al, 2009; Zou & Migacz, 2020). Distributive, procedural and interactional (in)justice perceptions were found to lead to double deviation (del Río‐Lanza et al, 2009; Zou & Migacz, 2020). When customers perceive the recovery to be unjust, dissatisfaction ensues.…”

“…A point of disagreement is whether first or multiple recovery failures can be defined as double deviation. Some researchers have embraced the former (Kau & Wan‐Yiun Loh, 2006; Zou & Migacz, 2020) and others the latter (Maxham & Netemeyer, 2002).…”

“…Zou and Migacz (2020) analysed the impact of (1) restaurant type, an industry‐specific variable – quick service or full service – on the relationship between justice perceptions and positive word of mouth and (2) severity of failure, on the relationship between justice perceptions and satisfaction. They underlined the context‐specific nature of service recovery and stated that failure severity moderates only the relationship between distributive (in)justice and (dis)satisfaction.…”