Original Research

Can service firms overdo service recovery? An assessment of non-linearity in service recovery satisfaction

C. Boshoff
South African Journal of Business Management | Vol 43, No 3 | a470 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v43i3.470 | © 2018 C. Boshoff | This work is licensed under CC Attribution 4.0
Submitted: 09 October 2018 | Published: 30 September 2012

About the author(s)

C. Boshoff, Department of Business Management, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa

Full Text:

PDF (480KB)

Abstract

Owing to the human nature of service delivery service failures occasionally occur. Persistently poor service delivery will, however, have a harmful impact on the survival and growth prospects of service firms. Service failure thus calls for remedial action, better known as service recovery. A variety of remedies have been proposed over the years. These remedies or tactics include fixing the problem, apologising, compensation (financial compensation or other forms of redress), a timely response and offering an explanation. A general theme in the service recovery literature is that ‘more is better’. The validity of this contention has, however, not been adequately considered. In other words, in a service recovery context, is more always better? Can service recovery be over-done (known as ‘over-benefitting’)? If so, what are the consequences? Based on the results of two field-type experimental studies involving a sample of 12 800 respondents the conclusion is that over-benefitting can be counter-productive. Over-benefitting consistently produced satisfaction scores lower than service recovery that was more moderate in nature.

Keywords

No related keywords in the metadata.

Metrics

Total abstract views: 1814
Total article views: 667

 

Crossref Citations

1. Is guarantee compensation enough? The important role of fix and employee effort in restoring justice
Lisa McQuilken, Heath McDonald, Andrea Vocino
International Journal of Hospitality Management  vol: 33  first page: 41  year: 2013  
doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.01.005