“Dealing with complaints from an international clients base - the
perception of justice in shaping customer’s satisfaction with
complaint-handling process in the banking sector”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Student name: Rodrigo V. Vareschi Student number: 11088885
Due date: 24/06/2016
Qualification: MSc. in Business Administration - Marketing Track Institution: University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Dr. Adriana Krawzcyk
Statement of originality
This document is written by student Rodrigo Vinicius Vareschi, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
In a globalized business environment such as financial services, where competition is wide spread and no company is immune to service delivery problems, handling customer’s complaints correctly and assertively might guarantee customer loyalty and maintenance of market share. In this reason, marketing scholars and practitioners demonstrate high interest in learning more about the antecedents of satisfaction with complaint handling as a way of creating better strategies to deal with service failure.
In this research, justice theory is used to determine which factors contribute to higher levels of satisfaction with complaint handling and what traces of cultural background might influence customer’s perception of fairness in regards to how the complaint has been handled. Using online questionnaire to gather empirical data, this study was able to collect 141 surveys completed by bank costumers who have experienced problems in service delivery from 19 different nationalities.
Results from this statistical analysis indicate that satisfaction with complaint handling is mostly affected by procedural justice followed by interactional, informational and distributive justice. However, contrary to international business theories, cultural orientation does not moderate customer’s evaluation of justice.
Key words: customer satisfaction, justice theory, service failure, complaint handling, service
Table of contents
1. Introduction ... 6
2. Literature review ... 10
2.1. Service Failure and Recovery Cycle Overview ... 10
2.2. Customer Complaint Behavior ... 11
2.3. Service Recovery Strategies ... 14
2.4. Customer Justice Evaluations ... 16
2.5. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses ... 17
2.6. Cultural Orientation Influence ... 21
3. Methodology ... 24
3.1. Research Design ... 24
3.2. Data Collection and Sample ... 25
3.3. Measurement of variables ... 26
3.4. Data processing and Statistical Procedures ... 29
4. Results ... 32
4.1. Descriptive Results ... 32
4.2. Correlation Matrix ... 33
4.3. Results Related to Main Effects - Antecedents of SATCOM ... 34
4.4. Results Related to Moderating Effects - Cultural Orientation ... 36
5. Discussion ... 39
5.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications ... 42
5.2. Limitations and Future Research ... 43
6. Conclusion ... 45
Appendix
Appendix A. Anonymity and confidentiality terms ... 47
Appendix B. Service failure in the banking sector occurrence ... 48
List of Figures and Tables Figures Figure 1. Service Failure and Recovery Cycle Relationships Overview ... 11
Figure 2. National Culture Orientation - Country Comparison ... 13
Figure 3. Theoretical Framework ... 18
Figure 4. Respondent’s Nationality ... 33
Tables Table 1 - Measurement items and sources ... 28
Table 2 - Reliability Statistics ... 30
Table 3 - Demographics ... 32
Table 4 - Mean, Standard deviation and Correlations of Study Variables ... 34
Table 5 - Simple Regression of SATCOM antecedents ... 35
Table 6 - Collectivism moderation effect ... 37
1. Introduction
The strategic relevance of services marketing industry is acclaimed in the literature as it contributes with more than 70 percent of employment in private and public spheres. From the entire service provider industry, banking is one of the most important business sectors as it serves as a motor for economic growth and development by mobilizing and assisting on the process of financial resources allocation (Abubakar et al., 2013).
Banking business is facing a number of new challenges globally due to the development of breakthrough technologies, contemporary competition, non-financial start-ups providing transaction and credit solutions, lack of sufficient data, changes in the financial regulatory framework and poor marketing. Meanwhile, the whole finance industry is still struggling to prove its trustworthiness since 2008’s subprime crises (Mersch, 2015).
As it happens among companies from the services sector, the banking industry must nurture customer satisfaction by providing high quality services, as loyalty is seen as a key factor to their survival on a globalized and competitive world. (Yavas et al., 1997).
Satisfied customers increase revenues, reduce costs and support the increase in market share. Not surprisingly, services marketing research have demonstrated great interest in customer’s satisfaction and complaint handling strategies as a key process to manage customer relationships in services business (Varela-Neira et al., 2010; Matos and Leis, 2013).
In reason of business complexity and inherit characteristics of the banking sector, being one of the most globalized industry, in which the production process, service delivery and consumption happens at the same time, it is almost impossible to deliver error-free services at all times. Therefore, from a services marketing perspective, it is crucial to handle complaints in the best possible way (Varela-Neira et al., 2010).
Outstanding complaint handling procedure might pay off by regain customer trust, buffer customer loyalty, raise repurchase intention, increase customer-bank relationship and leverage customer satisfaction. Simultaneously, successful service recovery is also responsible for avoiding undesirable outcomes such as negative word-of-mouth (WOM), discontinuity in business relationship, loose of market share and decrease in profit (Abubakar et al., 2013; Varela-Neira et al., 2010).
Customer’s satisfaction and responses after an episode of service delivery failure are related to the manner that the complaint has been handled, which is also influenced by the perception of justice in the recovery process (Matos and Leis 2013). In other words, the strategy used by front-office personnel and relationship managers in the effort of resuming customer’s satisfaction is directly related to the perceived fairness of the whole complaint handling practice.
Services marketing literature is rich in studying the sense of fairness and justice, which is based on a tri-dimensional concept, borrowed from social psychology studies, including procedural, interactional and distributive justice (Orsingher et al., 2010). Another dimension named “informational justice”, presented and discussed in Varela-Neira et al. (2010), can also influence on customer’s satisfaction with complaint handling (SATCOM). Even though studies have been done in the area of complaint handling strategies, perception of fairness and how it impacts in SATCOM level, there is still room for discussion as findings are contradictories in some works in the sense of point out which justice dimensions have more influence in customer satisfaction with the complaint handling process (Orsingher et al., 2010).
In addition, it can be expected that client’s reactions to service failure and service recovery might be influenced by the individual’s cultural background, especially because the contracts between customers and banks are based on social exchanges and relationships. Even
though, there is little research in what are the possible cultural moderators that may influence SATCOM (Matos and Leis, 2013).
Customer’s cultural orientation may influence the perceived justice and fairness on service recovery; therefore it might be useful, on a managerial perspective, that bank personnel act differently depending on the customer nationality, trying to fit their services and their approach in accordance to what is known as standard, acceptable and more sensitive for a particular culture (Abubakar et al., 2013; Matos et al., 2011).
Customer complaint behavior (CCB) literature has demonstrated that voicing a complaint directly to the service provider might be a challenge depending on cultural factors. In this way, companies must be aware of cultural differences to properly train their personnel, stressing the importance of providing an accessible and trustful line of communication, where clients feel open to express their dissatisfactions (Samaha et al., 2014).
By that, clients will feel more connected to the company and will be more inclined to voice a complaint, when necessary, providing all necessary information regarding the issue, developing a better relationship with the company and showing their perception of justice and fairness, directly influencing SATCOM (Tax et al., 1998; Orsingher et al., 2010).
Although researches have explored the tri-dimensional concept of justice, only a few studies have included informational justice in their proposed framework as antecedent to SATCOM (Varela-Neira et al., 2010). Therefore, more research is needed to evaluate if cultural orientation would have any influence in the relationship between perceived justice and satisfaction with service recovery.
As a result, the objective of this study is to (I) investigate, by using justice theory, which of the antecedents of SATCOM, namely procedural, interactional, informational and distributive justice, will have more affect in client’s satisfaction with service recovery; and (II) how individual’s cultural orientation influence the perceptiveness of justice.
The aforesaid objective has a directly relationship with the affirmation “studies widely disagree as to which justice dimension is most important antecedent of SATCOM” (Orsingher
et al., 2010 p.169), proposing a valid gap in the marketing literature and is in the center of this
study research question.
RQ: Which perceived justice dimensions predict higher levels of satisfaction with complaint-handling processes in the banking industry and is there any influence of customer’s cultural orientation in the strength of this relationship?
In order to collect data for this research and being able to tap into cross-cultural differences, online surveys were distributed through social media and sent by email as a way to contact respondents from different countries. By this method, it was possible to examine how cultural values (collectivism and long-term orientation) can influence customer’s response to service recovery process in the banking industry.
This study gathered empirical evidence that was used to aggregate knowledge in the services marketing theories, customer satisfaction and complaint behavior literature, in an effort to shed light on how important cultural orientation and individual values are on perceived justice and fairness with service recovery process.
From a practical point of view, it is highly relevant to investigate if service recovery processes used in the banking industry are perceived as fair by clients and which justice dimensions have bigger impact on the satisfaction level with complaint handling. Using these findings, marketers will be able to tailor specific strategies to leverage client’s satisfaction in combination with sense of fairness and cultural preferences.
This study is organized as follows: the next session provides a literature review and develops a theoretical framework and proposes some hypotheses to be tested. Subsequently, the methodology steps used, statistical data analysis and presentation of main findings. Lastly, a discussion based on the results will be provided in addition to study limitations and research opportunities.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Service Failure and Recovery Cycle Overview
In order to begin with the theoretical background discussion and development of the proposed hypothesis, it is necessary to provide an overview of the main situations and episodes that are will impact satisfaction with service delivery.
Delivering quality products and services to clients is fundamental to business success and survival. However, in the service provider industry, it is even more important in reason of the intangible essence of the exchange: money for knowledge and services.
High standard service delivery has a positive influence in improving financial results, profitability and increase in market share by helping in the attraction of new customers through advertising campaigns, positive WOM spread in social circles, social media, among other mediums, (Ang and Buttle, 2012).
Unfortunately, problems are common in the banking industry and financial services. These service failures will impact the service delivery quality, and therefore will be the first episode to be acknowledged in figure 1.
2.2. Customer Complaint Behavior
In the specific case of the banking industry, service failures are frequent, mainly in reason of technology, operational and relationship problems, causing distress to clients, decreasing customer satisfaction and eventually leading to complaints, “although banks try to provide error-free services, the service delivery process is complicated by simultaneous production and consumption” (Varela-Neira et al., 2010, p.88).
Even though, eliminate service failure is near to impossible, service providers and other industries give to their clients the opportunity to complain. A successful service recovery process should be able to repair the problem and, consequently, return costumers to the previous levels of satisfaction, improving customer relationships and increasing quality of services level (Orsingher et al., 2010).
Once service delivery has presented problem, customers may react to this situation in different manners: voicing a complaint directly to the company, filing a complaint with consumer protection agencies, spread within its social circle the problem and disappoint (WOM), stop the relationship with the company or just ignore the issue (Chapa et al., 2014). Voicing a complaint directly to the service provider should be encouraged, as this action will give the opportunity to the firm to acknowledge problems and failures in service delivery. Learning about customer negative experiences and services’ weaknesses may lead to improvement in services quality, strengthen client-firm relationship, and mostly, provide an opening to start service recovery strategies (Filip, 2013).
Complaining with third parties (customer protection agency) will only be used as last resource, as a way to the client express dissatisfaction regarding a service provider breach on contractual agreement. This kind of CCB can deeply harm the relationship between company and customer and takes place in higher legal and institutional levels (Chapa et al., 2014).
Lastly, there are customers that prefer to avoid direct conflict and will choose to not voice dissatisfaction outside their social circle. Negative WOM is spread without the knowledge of the service provider, harming firm’s reputation and not providing a chance for service recovery (Ang and Buttle 2012; Chapa et al., 2014).
Studies from international business field and international relationship marketing agree that client’s cultural orientation is a determinant factor in CCB, influencing in how the customer will deal with the service failure episode and his/her reaction to the complaint handling process (De Mooij and Hofstede, 2011; Samaha, et al., 2014).
Most of the literature that addresses to cultural orientation and diversity are based in Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory. His worldwide survey of IBM employee values from the 70’s provided deeply insights on cross-cultural communication, international business strategies and context, highlighting the importance of the society’s cultural orientation and values (Hofstede, 1994; De Mooij and Hofstede, 2011).
In accordance to Hofstede’s matrix (1994), countries can be ranked using cultural values such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, indulgence-restrain, long-term orientation and individualist-collectivist society; the latter is commonly used in CCB to distinguish the likelihood of a consumer to voice complaint to service provider, to third parties or to complain privately inside their social circle (Chapa et al., 2014). In individualist oriented culture, mostly found in North America and Western Europe, such as The USA and The Netherlands with scores 91 and 80 respectably (figure 2), are made of individuals self-centered, tending to see other people as potential resource, ties are loose, tasks and duties as more important than relationships, consequently giving high importance to individual matters (Hofstede, 1994).
North Americans, for instance, are more likely to voice complaints seeking redress. In their point of view, voicing dissatisfaction direct to the company will help on service quality
enhancements. Once feedback is received from the company with detailed explanations and the causes that generate the problem, the bond between customer-company can be enhanced, boosting satisfaction and trust (De Mooij and Hofstede, 2011; Chapa et al., 2014).
Countries with collectivist culture are more common in Latin America and Asia; for example, Brazil and China score respectively 38 and 20. In Collectivist societies people are part of “in groups”, where relationship prevails over tasks, harmony, respect and family are valuable concepts, prefer to avoid any kind of conflict and take care of group members in exchange of trust and loyalty. (Hofstede, 1994).
Consequently, consumers from collectivists’ societies are more likely to participate in negative WOM within their own social circle, not complaining to the company to avoid distress. In this scenario, client will not inform the company about the problems; therefore the company will not be able to initiate service-recovery strategies to regain client’s satisfaction. Ultimately, they may avoid the company, ceasing the relationship (Chapa et al., 2014).
Thenceforward, it is essential for banks, services providers, sellers and companies in general to understand the cultural factors that may influence the propensity of directly voicing complaint, rather than diffuse dissatisfaction within their group. Front-office employees should focus their efforts on obtaining constantly feedback from collectivists’ countries in
order to investigate if something caused distress between the company and the client, as it is unlikely that they will take the first step.
The manner that companies react and respond to complaints is imperative for customer retention, satisfaction and loyalty (Yavas et al., 1997). Consequently, it is important that clients contact companies to inform about flaws in their services delivery, so the company can work on the issues raised, resuming client expectations and avoiding negative WOM to be spread (Ang and Buttle, 2012).
2.3. Service Recovery Strategies
As stated before, customer’s nationality may influence their behavior concerning voicing or not a complaint directly to the company that is failing in providing the services agreed. Nevertheless, providers must incite costumers to be truth about issues and problems as both sides of the relationship may be beneficiated by successful complaint management. Organizations’ service recovery strategies can be divided in two basic approaches in accordance to the “behavioral theory of the firm”: the mechanistic approach, which draws guidelines to be followed by internal personnel regarding the actual process of complaint handling, and the organic approach, focused on the favorable internal environment, which can be perceived by the customer (Homburg and Fürst, 2005).
Internal guidelines quality will play an important part on how the employees will handle complaint, changing the perception of the client and helping on the service-recovery. This ground rules will support personnel attitudes and actions towards the best practices to handle a failure in services delivery (Tax and Brown, 1998).
In accordance to the mechanist approach (Homburg and Fürst, 2005), internal norms and standards are beneficial to organizations, as they will create a more reliable internal
environment to deal with challenges and issues by homogenizing procedures. There are three types of guidelines that should be in place in companies and their quality will determine the success in the service-recovery process:
- Process guidelines are designed to support the contact-employee on complaint registration and procedures to internally address the problem in the most assertive way; - Behavioral guidelines should instruct employees to be empathic to customers, polite and provide feedback regularly on the internal processes while the issue is being handled; - Outcome guidelines, sets the norms to provide compensations to customers, this redress can be in the form of discounts, refunds, corrections, replacements or formal apologies (Homburg and Fürst, 2005).
On the other hand, the organic approach states that to handle complaint it is imperative that companies have rooted in their organizational culture a positive attitude toward service recovery and a focus on customer orientation, in addition to posses well-funded norms, regulations and procedures. This favorable environment should impact on better satisfaction with complaint handling levels (Homburg and Fürst, 2005).
Once the company has handled the complaint, the customer will evaluate the whole service recovery process and how it was conducted internally. Depending on the perception of justice and fairness regarding the complete course of the service recovery process, the client will access his/her satisfaction level (SATCOM), what may influence in repurchase intentions, loyalty towards the company and other important aspects on the relationship with the service provider (Tax et al., 1998).
2.4. Customer Justice Evaluations
As seen during this study, complaint-handling process can be seen as a chain of episodes in which a procedure, starting with communicating the service failure to the provider, triggers a process of interaction leading to an outcome. Moreover, “each part of this process is subjected to fairness considerations and that each aspect of a complaint resolution creates a justice episode” (Tax et al., 1998, p.61).
Justice theory is usually used in marketing literature to explain people reactions while facing conflict situations (Homburg and Fürst, 2005). Filing a complaint with a service provider can be seen as a conflict situation, where customers will need to contact a company and inform about a problem in the service delivery, looking for release distress level, demand fixing the problem and asking for redress.
A successful service recovery process should be able to repair the dissatisfaction caused by a service failure; consequently, disappointed and frustrated clients may turn into satisfied ones, improving relationship and guaranteeing that the client does not cancel the services agreement contract or close an account (Orsingher et al., 2010).
Consequently, the role of satisfaction with complaint handling process can influence customers’ attitudes toward the service provider, and the perception of justice in the service recovery is understood as a valid predictor of SATCOM (Matos and Leis, 2013).
The concept of perceived justice can be understood as the degree to which clients feel that they have been treated in a fair during the process of service recovery. Customers who have complained to services providers and present a favorable evaluation of the dimensions of justice tend to be more pleased with the complaint settlement (Matos et al., 2011).
In services marketing literature and justice theory, the sense of fairness and justice is established on a triple-dimension concept including procedural, interactional and distributive
justice. These dimensions are assessed and evaluated by the customer once service-recovery is in process (Matos and Leis, 2013; Filip, 2013; Orsingher et al., 2010).
Literature has linked concepts from mechanistic and organic approach, regarding company’s internal guidelines and employee behavior, to a single dimension of justice and eventually, influencing customer’s overall satisfaction. For example, the quality of outcome guidelines will influence customer evaluation on the distributive justice dimension (Homburg and Fürst, 2005).
It is important that concepts such as justice dimensions and perceived fairness are assimilated by client-contact personnel in services industry, as they are responsible for developing and strengthening bonds with clients. The success of service recovery will depend on the internal of complaint handling procedures and how customers will feel about this experience; therefore banks need to enhance employee’s commitment to their jobs, customers and the company itself (Yavas et al., 1997).
2.5. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
As previously mentioned, this study aim to evaluate which justice dimensions have a better impact on client’s satisfaction with complaint handling and investigate if cultural orientation influences the preference for a particular dimension. Therefore, customer’s evaluations of fairness (proxy for justice dimensions) provide a useful framework to study the antecedents of SATCOM. “Figure 3” displays the theoretical framework with relationships and moderator role that is analyzed throughout this research.
Once the problem has been remediated by the service provider, customer’s satisfaction level will be influenced by perceptions about how it was the treatment received by the company’s personnel, if the response was received in an acceptable time frame, if the outcome was fair, if there was a monetary compensation or a formal apology (Matos et al,. 2011). Each of the above situations is part of the whole perceived justice construct that can be segregated in four distinct dimensions of justice: procedural, interactional, informational and distributive (Varela-Neira et al., 2010). Customer’s response to these dimensions can determine his/her satisfaction with the complaint resolution process.
Procedural justice, the first of the justice dimensions, refers to client’s perception of the equity of the procedures and policies that are in place in the company as a set of norms to support employees during the service recovery process. This dimension is linked to the perceived fairness of the means, manners and routes that will lead to the end of the recovery process (Varela-Neira et al., 2010).
When companies have a fair complaint handling procedure, that is easy to be followed by the costumer and provides a minimum control over the future arrangement and some flexibility to the parts, as well as, concluded in an acceptable timeframe, customer’s SATCOM will be positively influenced (Homburg and Fürst, 2005).
Therefore, customers might respond better to complaint handling efforts if service provider has clear processes and rules, conveniently guiding service recovery; i.e. easy ways to complain and contact the company, small amount of paperwork to be handled and adaptability of the process in accordance to client’s need (Tax et al., 1998). This line of thinking leads to the first hypothesis:
H1 - Procedural justice is positively related to customer satisfaction after service recovery. Interactional justice concerns the customer’s evaluation regarding to the behavior of
those employees who are dealing with the complaint. Therefore, this dimension is related to the fairness of the interpersonal treatment that the complainant is receiving during the service recovery process (Filip, 2013).
Literature has provided support that the manner in which costumer and company interact with each other, avoiding conflict, treating each other in a courteous and polite way, putting effort in resolving a problem, giving individual attention and actively listening the complainant, will affect client’s perception of fairness in the complaint handling process (Tax
et al., 1998).
Once the client-contact employees have shown empathy, courtesy, honesty and ethic behavior during service recovery with dissatisfied costumers, company is focusing in regaining credibility and avoiding future image damage. Consequently, the interaction between client-company is key to increase satisfaction with complaint handling (Filip 2013). In reason of the above, the second hypothesis is:
H2 - Interactional justice is positively related to customer satisfaction after service recovery.
Informational justice is related to the communication speed, quality in articulation and
that caused distress. This justice dimension is based on the equity of the explanations and justifications (Varela-Neira et al., 2010).
It is of massive importance that client’s feel that all information in regards to the delivery failure is being provided and nothing has been covered or sugarcoated. The sense of fairness from this dimension is based on the premises that information flow brings clarity and honesty to the communication. Therefore, the client can feel secure to resume the relationship with the service provider (Varela-Neira et al., 2010).
Consequently, perceptions regarding the way the company keeps the complainant informed, tailor to client’s specific needs the communication regarding the complaint process, provides explanations behind the causes of the service failure and offers action plans to avoid re-occurrence of the problem, should have great influence on how the customer will evaluate the service recovery process. Based on this logic, it is expected that:
H3 - Informational justice is positively related to customer satisfaction after service recovery.
Distributive justice portrays the fairness of the complaint outcome, as the customer
perceives it. This dimension refers to client’s evaluation of the equity of the resources allocation, reparation received and outcomes offered by the company once the complaint handling process has come to an end (Varela-Neira et al., 2010).
The compensation received as a resolution of a complaint handling process can take a number of forms depending on how severe the service delivery failure affected the client. For example, correction of charges, discounts in monthly fees, free services, refunds, upgrades, or simply a sincere apology (Filip, 2013).
While considering what has been lost, what inconveniences caused and how badly they were affected by the service failure, complainants will evaluate how fair they were compensated. In this way, the affected client evaluates what the service provider is willing to
commit in order to outweigh the perceived negative experience (Tax, et al., 1998). This leads to the last direct effect hypothesis:
H4 - Distributive justice is positively related to customer satisfaction after service recovery.
The importance of studying the antecedents of satisfaction with complaint handling in services is major, as the way clients feel with the whole process of service recovery will help to shape their attitude, affection, cognition and behavior toward the company (Orsingher et al., 2010). For his reason, a framework that incorporates direct effects in SATCOM, such as dimensions of justice, and indirect affects, is valuable.
2.6. Cultural Orientation Influence
Literature has proposed that cultural orientation could influence the strength of relationships between satisfaction with complaint handling and its antecedents. Among these researches, Hofstede’s dimensions of culture are well known and frequently used in cross-cultural analyses: collectivism/individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, femininity/masculinity and long-term/short-term orientation (Schoefer, 2010).
As already stated, the cultural dimension of collectivism-individualism is commonly used in CCB as it supports describing patterns of relationships between individuals and groups, and how people are integrated to each other. In individualistic societies, where personal gains and achievement is more important than group welfare, it is expected that distributive justice is a better predictor of SATCOM (Orsingher et al., 2010).
On the other hand, individuals from collectivist societies are not trying to achieve egoistic goals or looking for individual gain, nether are engaging in relationships because of self-serving reasons. Instead, in collectivist cultures, prefer nurture relationships based on mutual respect, interdependence and reciprocity of norms (Samaha et al., 2014).
Consequently, collectivists’ societies assign higher importance on the interactional dimension of justice, making efforts in guaranteeing that the relationship between client-company will not be ruined in reason of the service failure and complaint handling process (Matos et al., 2011). This influence is stated below in the hypothesis H5a.
Not so commonly used in CCB and complaint handling literature, long-term/short-term orientation may also affect the relationship between perceived justice, in the eyes of the consumer, and SATCOM.
Short-term oriented cultures are more pragmatic, flexible, have a focus on the present, believe that truth depends on the currently situation and context. They also show ability to easily adapt traditions to new conditions, and prefer focusing on timely transactions as opposed to enduring relationships (De Mooij and Hofstede, 2011).
Nonetheless, long-term oriented societies focus on long-lasting relationships, based on traditionally values, norms, rules and regulations; in the banking business, it is expected that clients from this background have a tendency to save and invest their money for future needs. Furthermore, it can be foreseen that procedural justice, as antecedent of SATCOM, has the biggest influence for customers with this mindset (Abubakar et al., 2013).
As the effects of the four justice dimension constructs do not stand equally across different cultures, predictions were formulated on how two of the above cultural dimensions - collectivism/individualism and long-term/short-term orientation - may have a moderating effect (Schoefer, 2010; Abubakar et al., 2013; Matos and Leis, 2013), influencing the relationship strength between perceived justice and SATCOM:
H5- Cultural orientation moderates the relationship between perceived justice and satisfaction with complaint handling process, such as:
a: The higher a costumer’s collectivist orientation, the stronger the relationship between interactional justice and SATCOM in the banking sector.
b: The higher a costumer’s long-term orientation, the stronger the relationship between procedural justice and SATCOM in the banking sector.
The following section will present the research design and methodology used for data collection, the constructs measures and statistical procedures that were implied to test the presented hypotheses and the direct and indirect relationships between perceived justice and satisfaction with complaint handling and service recovery, as previous presented in the theoretical framework (Figure 3).
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Design
A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among the population of interest - banking customers who had experienced a service delivery failure and a service recovery within the last 12 months, in order to assess respondents evaluations of perceived justice with complaint handling.
Data was collected using Qualtrics Survey Software, as this online survey website provides a smart tool for setting-up online questionnaires and has the possibility to export the gathered data in the format that is full compatible with the software that was used in the statistical analyses of this research.
Web based surveys have a number of advantages in comparison to traditional methods of gathering data such as mail, telephone and mail. Online questionnaires are less costly, shorter transmitting time, need less time during coding process and data entry, have more design options, and are easier to reach respondents from different nationalities and backgrounds (Weimiao and Zheng 2010).
Non-probability self-selection and snowball sampling techniques were employed for data collection from banking customers to be measured and analyzed using quantitative methodology with the objective to provide findings with higher validity and reliability in reason of the amount of data gathered from a representative sample size, diminishing bias from respondents (Saunders and Lewis 2012).
The questionnaire was designed with three major sections: introduction and selection of correct population, measurement of variables and demographics.
The initial section of the survey was a brief explanation of the study objectives, its sections and a disclaimer assuring anonymity and confidentiality upon completing the questionnaire. The full message can be found in the appendix section under “Appendix A”. Following, respondents were inquired about the occurrence, or not, of failure in the services provided by their bank of relationship and they were requested to answer the subsequent questions based on that particular event (Appendix B). In the case of answering “no” to this question a “thank you” message was displayed and the survey was finalized. After the above two introductory questions, perceived justice dimensions (independent variables), satisfaction with complaint handling (dependent variable) and cultural orientation (collectivism/individualism and long-term/short-term orientation) were all measured using 7-point Likert scale, with the anchors “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree”. Using this measurement scale to evaluate constructs is commonly used in business literature (i.e. Neira, Casielles and Iglesias 2010; Schoefer 2010; Matos et al. 2011).
On the third, and last, segment of the questionnaire design, demographic questions were asked regarding respondent’s gender, age range and nationality. Similar approach can be seen in the works of Chapa et al. (2014) and Matos et al. (2011).
3.2. Data Collection and Sample
The online questionnaire was posted on social media and sent via email between May 9th and June 10th, ensuring the assortment of a representative sample size of 260 surveys were filled in, and in which 54% of respondents (N=141) answered that they had faced problems with their relationship bank and opened a complaint with client’s representative within the last 12 months. The remaining 46% of respondents had not complained in the stated timeframe and therefore they were not included in the population of interest.
This retrospective design, where respondents are asked to remember of a recent experience with a service provider and how they felt about the way service recovery process has been handled, in order to base their answers, is commonly used in service research literature and investigations (Matos and Leis 2013; Schoefer 2010).
3.3. Measurement of variables
For measuring the constructs and variables of this thesis research - justice dimensions, satisfaction with complaint handling and cultural orientation - 41 items were adapted from previous studies (see table 1) and measured using seven-point Likert scale anchored as 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”. No reverse coding was necessary.
- Procedural justice: this construct objective is to measure client’s perception of the importance of procedures in place, as the more structured are these practices, smoother the service recovery will be (Homburg and Fürst, 2005). The measure consists of 6 items such as: “I believe the Bank has fair policies and practices to handle problems”, and “I believe the Bank's complaint handling procedure was adequate”.
- Interactional Justice: concerns the customer’s evaluation regarding to the behavior of those employees responsible for dealing with the complaint (Filip, 2013). The measure consists of 5 items, for example: “the Bank employees treated me in a courteous and kind manner”, and “the Bank employees did all they could to solve my problem”.
- Informational Justice: measure client’s perception of the quality of the information provided by the company (Varela-Neira et al., 2010). This construct is measured by 5 items such as: “I believe the Bank's explanations regarding the causes behind the problem were reasonable” and “I believe the Bank's explanations regarding the causes behind the problem were reasonable”.
- Distributive Justice: this variable measures client’s perception of fairness regarding the outcomes provided by the provider at the end of the service recovery process (Tax et al., 1998). 5 items measure this construct, for example: “although the event caused me problems, the effort to fix it resulted in a positive outcome for me” and “I received an adequate compensation from the bank”.
- Satisfaction with complaint handling: this construct measures customer’s satisfaction with the services provided by the bank and the process of handling service failures. Outstanding complaint handling processes should provide full service recovery, regain customer trust, loyalty and repurchase intentions (Orsingher et al., 2010). This measure consists of 9 items such as: “I am satisfied with the services I receive from my bank” and “I had a positive experience when complaining to my Bank”.
Cultural Orientation - the moderating role section of this research measured cultural
values using two dimensions with a total of 11 items. Instead of using respondents’ nationality to categorize them as collectivist or long-term oriented, participants were classified based on their answers in the terms of these constructs (Matos et al., 2011).
- Collectivism/individualism: to measure respondent’s collectivism degree, 6 items were used such as: “individuals should stick with the group even in difficulty” and “Group success is more important then individual success” (Schoefer, 2010).
- Long-term/short-term orientation: to measure this construct, 5 items were used and were adapted from Abubakar et al. (2013). A couple of examples are: “I cherish long-term planning” and “I remain resolute on my plan in spite of challenges”.
Table 1 - Measurement items and sources
Construct Item CA / Mean SD Source
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement α = 0.919
The Bank gave me the opportunity to explain my point of view of the problem. 5.04 1.559 I feel the Bank responded in a timely fashion to my problem. 4.44 1.693 I believe the Bank has fair policies and practices to handle problems. 4.58 1.592 I believe the Bank's complaint handling procedure was adequate. 4.51 1.651 The Bank personnel showed enough authority and skill to solve the problem. 4.39 1.673 Procedural
Justice
Overall, the company's complaint handling procedure was fair. 4.79 1.581
Items adapted from Homburg and Fürst (2005); Varela-Neira et al.
(2010).
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement α = 0.891
The Bank employees seem to be very interested in my problem. 4.24 1.536
The Bank employees understood exactly my problem. 4.93 1.474
The Bank employees treated me in a courteous and kind manner. 5.1 1.338 The Bank employees did all they could to solve my problem. 4.32 1.579 Interactional
Justice
Overall, the employees' behavior during service recovery was adequate. 4.79 1.532
Items adapted from Varela-Neira
et al.(2010).
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement α = 0.944
I believe the Bank's explanations regarding the causes behind the problem were reasonable. 4.21 1.651 The Bank communicated the details of service recovery thoroughly and in a timely manner. 4.14 1.712 The Bank tailored to my specific needs its communication regarding the service recovery. 4.03 1.69 The Bank was candid in its communication of the information offered to justify and solve my issue. 4.33 1.643 Informational
Justice
Overall, the information flow with the bank was clear and assertive. 4.43 1.621
Items adapted from Varela-Neira
et al. (2010).
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement α = 0.935
Although the event caused me problems, the effort to fix it resulted in a positive outcome for me. 4.54 1.642 Given the inconvenience caused by the problem, the compensation I received was adequate. 3.86 1.789 In solving my problems, the Bank gave me exactly what I needed. 4.36 1.773
I received an adequate compensation from the bank. 3.8 1.811
Distributive Justice
Overall, the compensation received from the bank was fair. 3.96 1.727
Items adapted from Homburg and Fürst (2005); Varela-Neira et al.
(2010).
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement α = 0.969
I am satisfied with the services I receive from my bank. 4.52 1.708
I believe my bank treats me fairly. 4.56 1.579
My bank services meet my expectations. 4.44 1.693
I am proud of my relationship with my bank. 3.98 1.703
My experiences with my bank have always been good. 4.14 1.841
I am completely happy with my bank. 4.04 1.181
I am satisfied with the way the Bank handled my complaining. 4.28 1.818 I had a positive experience when complaining to my Bank. 4.19 1.845 Customer
Satisfaction
The Bank has provided me with a satisfactory answer to the problem in this specific occasion. 4.4 1.848
Items adapted from Abubakar et
al. (2013);
Varela-Neira et al. (2010).
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement α = 0.874
Individuals should sacrifice self-interest for the group. 4.48 1.409 Individuals should stick with the group even in difficulty. 4.98 1.326 Group welfare is more important then individual reward. 4.53 1.555 Group success is more important then individual success. 4.65 1.569 Individuals should only pursue their personal goals after considering group goals. 3.95 1.617 Collectivism/
Individualism
Group loyalty should be encouraged even if individual's goals suffer. 4.4 1.595
Items adapted from Matos and
Leis (2013); Schoefer (2010).
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement α = 0.769
I cherish long-term planning. 5.24 1.186
I believe in personal steadiness and stability. 5.56 1.029
I value working hard for success in future. 5.89 1.024
I value careful management of money. 5.72 1.144
Long-term/ Short-term orientation
I remain resolute on my plan in spite of challenges. 5.21 1.258
Items adapted from Abubakar et
3.4. Data processing and Statistical Procedures
After data collection, data was analyzed by the software “Statistical Package for Social Sciences” (SPSS Statistics 23, IBM). The following analyses and data processing were performed in this order: (1) initial check for missing data, recoding and outliers; (2) descriptive statistics of the scales and demographics; (3) frequency and normality tests: skewness and kurtosis; (4) constructs’ reliability test (Cronbach’s alpha); (5) scale means compute and (6) correlation analyses.
From the variables under investigation and demographic questions the amount of missing items was <10% for all constructs together, therefore a replace with mean imputation was processed in order to solve the issue in most of cases. The amounts of missing data from demographic questions were between 17% (age and gender) and 20% (nationality), probably because these were the last 3 questions from questionnaire and respondents drop it after answering all the constructs questions.
Recoding values for nationality was necessary in less than 5% (i.e. Brazil changed to Brazilian; China changed to Chinese) and there were 6 cases of outliners, so their responses were excluded during the cleaning process. These respondents marked all answers as 1 “strongly disagree” or 7 “strongly agree” impacting in normal distribution scores.
All constructs have been tested for frequency and normal distribution (skewness and kurtosis) and no major abnormalities were found once outliners have been processed. In accordance to Field (2009), in a normal distribution values of skewness and kurtosis should be 0. From 41 items, only 3 presented negatively skewed distribution (PROCJQ1 -1.032; LONGTQ2 -1.214; LONGTQ4 -1.114), these negative values show a build-up of high scores at the higher end of the scale.
A total of 8 items presented small kurtosis tendency. A platykurtic distribution, where answers are concentrated in the middle section and displaying light tails (Field, 2009), was observed in INTERACJQ4 1.008; DISTRJQ2 1.077; SATCOMQ5 1.146; SATCOMQ6 -1.109; SATCOMQ8 -1.126 and COLLECTQ5 -1.117. Positive kurtosis, or leptokurtic distribution, was noticed in LONGTQ2 1.109 and LONGTQ4 1.218.
Even though the distribution may be flatter than what is expected for a perfect normal distribution, the values are not statistically significant: Lower Boundary CI = Statistic – (1.96* Std. Error) and Upper Boundary CI = Statistic + (1.96* Std. Error), in accordance to Field (2009). Therefore, constructs’ values found through the online questionnaire are appropriate to run further statistical analyses.
Reliability analysis was run to assess the consistency of measures and items for all the variables and constructs from the questionnaire (table 2). Justice dimensions, satisfaction with complaint handling and cultural orientation scales have high reliability scores; the smaller Cronbach’s Alpha (α) = 0.769, was observed for long-term/short-term orientation.
The corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (all above 0.30). It is dully noted that all constructs have good reliability values, higher than 0.7, and deleting any of the items, from any particular variable, would not increase reliability scores significantly.
Table 2 - Reliability Statistics
Constructs Cronbach's Alpha Number of items
Procedural Justice 0.92* 6 Interactional Justice 0.89* 5 Informational Justice 0.94* 5 Distributive Justice 0.93* 5 SATCOM 0.97* 9 Collectivism 0.87* 6 Long-term orientation 0.77* 5 Note. *Cronbach’s α > 0.70
At the end of preliminary steps and data processing, new variables were created to compute the mean of all items used in each construct (i.e. Procedural Justice = ProcJustTOT). Mean and standard deviation for the new “TOT” variables can be found in the correlation matrix (see table 4) presented in the following section.
With the objective to determine which justice dimensions predicts higher degrees of satisfaction with complaint handling, linear regression analyses were conducted for four independent variables (1) procedural justice, (2) interactional justice, (3) informational justice and (4) distributive justice. Once all relationships have been accounted individually, it will be possible to compare results and reveal the importance of each SATCOM antecedent.
Lastly, to test the moderating role of cultural orientation (collectivism/individualism and long-term/short-term orientation) on the relationship between two justice dimensions and SATCOM, was used the tool “PROCESS”, designed by Haeys (2013). By running this macro it is possible to verify if customer’s cultural orientation has any impact in his/her evaluation of fairness, and thus, influencing the level of satisfaction with complaint handling.
4. Results
During this session, the results gathered from statistical analyses will be presented. First, descriptive information from respondents is disclosure, followed by a correlation matrix to check if variables are positive correlated. Latterly, the results from testing the six hypotheses developed during sessions 2.5 and 2.6 will be showcased.
4.1. Descriptive Results
Assessing descriptive data gathered, it is important to highlight once more the sample size representativeness of this study with n = 141 valid responses. In accordance to Sue and Ritter (2007), the number of respondents to provide reliability to the findings should be a factor of 10 times more than the number of variables in the theoretical framework, or at least 100 respondents as an adequate number.
The online survey was available during 4 weeks to collect data. From obtained samples, 57% of valid respondents were female and 43% male. The majority of 35% were in the range of 25 and 34 years old. Hence, it can be expected that most of the population that had some kind of service delivery problem with their relationship bank are adults that may have some years of experience dealing with financial service providers.
Table 3 - Demographics
Age Percent Valid Percent Gender Percent Valid Percent
18-24 21 25 Male 35 43 25-34 35 43 Female 46 57 35-44 22 27 Missing 19 45-54 3 3 Total 100 100 55-64 2 2 Missing 17 Total 100 100
In reason of the sampling strategy used, it was possible to gather data from 19 different nationalities (figure 4), giving the bases for testing hypothesis H5 and check if there is a pattern from a preferred justice dimension depending on customer’s cultural orientation. Most of respondents were from Brazil (n=47), followed by The Netherlands (n=20), Germany (n=6) and The USA (n=6); there was 19% of missing data from this question represented in the first bar as per the below chart.
4.2. Correlation Matrix
As showed in “table 4”, all constructs are positively correlated with variations in the strength of this relationship. The strongest correlation found is between Procedural Justice Dimension and SATCOM (r = 0.855, p < 0.01).
Satisfaction with complaint handling process correlates positively with all justice dimensions with scores: Interactional Justice and SATCOM r = 0.820, p < 0.01; Informational
Justice and SATCOM r = 0.813, p < 0.01; and Distributive Justice and SATCOM r = 0.782, p < 0.05. Therefore it is possible to affirm that there is a positive correlation between the variables, meaning that when client’s perception of fairness rise, also does satisfaction.
The smallest correlation found in this study is between Informational Justice and Long-term orientation (r = 0.101), but even this relationship has a positive correlation.
Table 4 - Mean, Standard deviation and Correlations of Study Variables
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Procedural J. 4.622 1.371 1 2. Interactional J. 4.673 1.280 0.806** 1 3. Informational J. 4.229 1.502 0.791** 0.781** 1 4. Distributive J. 4.111 1.560 0.718** 0.661** 0.779** 1 5. SATCOM 4.281 1.577 0.855** 0.820** 0.813** 0.782* 1 6. Collectivism 4.495 1.186 0.239** 0.219* 0.225* 0.214* 0.270* 1 7. Long-term 5.524 0.816 0.178 0.171 0.101 0.178 0.126 0.184* 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
4.3. Results Related to Main Effects - Antecedents of SATCOM
In order to compare what is the best predictor of SATCOM and draw a rank to stipulate the order of which justice dimensions should be leveraged for a successful service recovery, four simple regression analyses were run, as the main focus is to individually check client’s perception regarding each of the variables. Results are displayed in “table 5”.
The first liner regression run aims to analyze how procedural justice influences SATCOM. The result from Model 1: r = 0.855, R2 = 0.73 (coefficient of determination), B =
0.98, β = 0.85, p < 0.001; procedural justice evaluation counts for 73% of SATCOM variation level, suggesting that the first justice dimension is a good predictor of satisfaction levels. Therefore Hypothesis 1 is confirmed.
Table 5 - Simple Regression of SATCOM antecedents
R R2 B Std. Error β t Sig.
Model 1 0.855 0.731
Procedural Justice 0.949 0.052 0.855 18.131 0.000*
Predictor: Perception of Procedural Justice ! Dependent Variable: SATCOM
R R2 B Std. Error β t Sig.
Model 2 0.820 0.672
Interactional Justice 0.982 0.062 0.820 15.804 0.000*
Predictor: Perception of Interactional Justice ! Dependent Variable: SATCOM
R R2 B Std. Error β t Sig.
Model 3 0.813 0.661
Informational Justice 0.847 0.055 0.813 15.289 0.000*
Predictor: Perception of Informational Justice ! Dependent Variable: SATCOM
R R2 B Std. Error β t Sig.
Model 4 0.782 0.611
Distributive Justice 0.786 0.057 0.782 13.849 0.000*
Predictor: Perception of Distributive Justice ! Dependent Variable: SATCOM
Note. Statistical significance *p < 0.001.
The second justice dimension tested, as antecedent of SATCOM was interactional justice. Model 2 presented: r = 0.82, R2 = 0.67, β = 0.82, p < 0.001. Customer’s evaluation of
this dimension counts for 67% of SATCOM variation level. In this manner, Hypothesis 2 is confirmed. Nevertheless, interactional justice presents 6% less impact on satisfaction levels, going against what is expected by justice theory literature, which states that the aforesaid justice dimension, together with distributive justice, are perceived as more important for client’s satisfaction with complaint handling, than procedural justice (Matos and Leis, 2013).
In model 3, it was tested the SATCOM antecedent: informational justice. Results showed r = 0.813, R2 = 0.66, β = 0.81, p < 0.001, consequently, the coefficient of
determination, which counts how much variance is explained by this predictor counts for 66%. Hypothesis 3 is confirmed.
Lastly, a regression analysis was run to assess the scores of distributional justice and SATCOM. This dimension counts with the smaller impact on customer’s satisfaction with
complaint handling with a slope of B = 0.78, r = 0.78, R2 = 0.61, β = 0.78, p < 0.001.
Accordingly, this justice dimension also has a relatively weight in customer perception of justice confirming Hypothesis 4. Distributional justice explained 61% of variance in customer’s satisfaction with complaint handling, a difference of 12% in comparison with the highest score accounted for procedural justice.
The results of the four linear regression analyses demonstrated that all justice dimensions studied are positively related to customer satisfaction after service recovery, confirming the first four formulated hypotheses. From an ordinal order, it is possible to affirm that the justice dimension that provides better satisfaction with complaint level is procedural justice (R2 = 0.73, β = 0.85), followed by interactional (R2 = 0.67, β = 0.82), informational
(R2 = 0.66, β = 0.81) and distributive justice (R2 = 0.61, β = 0.78).
4.4. Results Related to Moderating Effects - Cultural Orientation
With the objective to test if cultural orientation is a factor that influences individual’s perception of justice and their response towards satisfaction with complaint handling, moderation analysis were performed using the “PROCESS” tool (Hayes, 2013).
The first moderating analysis processed investigates hypotheses 5a, which states that consumers from a collectivist background are more influenced by interactional justice than individualistic ones.
As presented in the model summary (table 6) the interaction between cultural orientation, interactional justice and SATCOM is significant F (3,117) = 85.57, p < 0.001. The regression coefficient for XM is b3 = -0.02 and statistically different from zero, t = -0.43.
Table 6 - Collectivism moderation effect Model Summary R = 0.828 R2 = 0.686 F(3,117) = 85.571 p<0.001* Coefficient SE t p Intercept i1 -1.245 1.284 -0.970 0.334 Interactional Just. (X) b1 1.065 0.256 4.150 0.001* Collectivism (M) b2 0.243 0.275 0.879 0.381
Interactional Just. X Collectivism (XM) b3 -0.023 0.533 -0.438 0.661 Conditional effect at levels of Collectivism
Boot Effects Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Individualism 0.988 0.096 0.798 1.179
Collectivism 0.933 0.083 0.768 1.097
Note. Statistical significance *p < 0.001
Nevertheless, in order to evaluate significance in the moderating effect of collectivism the output from the interaction XM should be at least < 0.5 to support any level of influence. As observed the p value for interactional justice X collectivism (p = 0.66) is much higher than < 0.5, therefore interaction effect is not significant and it is possible to conclude that there is no evidence of moderation in this model, in this way, hypothesis 5a can be rejected.
Table 7 - Long-term oriented moderation effect
Model Summary R = 0.847 R2 = 0.718 F(3,112) = 95.278 p<0.001*
Coefficient SE t p
Intercept i1 2.379 1.907 1.2478 0.248
Procedural Just. (X) b1 0.475 0.401 1.183 0.239
Long-term orien. (M) b2 -0.426 0.339 -1.258 0.211
Procedural Just. X Long-term orient. (XM) b3 0.816 0.703 1.161 0.248 Conditional effect at levels of Long-term orientation
Boot Effects Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Short-term oriented 0.859 0.087 0.687 1.031
Long-term oriented 0.993 0.074 0.845 1.140
The second hypothesis taking cultural orientation as a moderator (H5b) states that individuals with long-term orientation mindset are more influenced by procedural justice than short-term oriented ones.
In accordance to the results exposed in table 7, the model is statistically significant F (3,112) = 95.278, p < 0.001 and regression coefficient from the interaction XM b3 = 0.81. However, taking into consideration the p value for interaction procedural justice X long-term orientation (p = 0.24), it is possible to conclude that significance of interaction effect is higher than p < 0.05, consequently there is no evidence of cultural orientation moderation in the relationship between procedural justice and satisfaction with complaint handling.
In the light of the results from the regression analyses, it is possible to explain higher levels of SATCOM with higher perceptions in justice dimensions, yet moderation effect from cultural orientation is not statistically relevant from collectivism X interactional justice, nor long-term oriented X procedural justice, as predictors of higher SATCOM levels.
5. Discussion
In a globalized environment with new competitors arriving on a daily bases in the market of financial services provider, satisfying costumers is a key factor to maintain and expand market share. Therefore, it is crucial that firms learn how to handle complaints caused by services interruptions and where the efforts must be focused while dealing with the issue in a manner of guaranteeing positive outcomes from a stressful event.
With the objective to learn more about costumers’ reactions to service delivery fail and recovery in the baking sector, this research used justice theory to assess client’s perception of fairness and how this concept impacts satisfaction with complaint handling. By analyzing the relationship between customer’s perceptions of justice and how satisfied he/she was with the complaint handling process, it would be possible to rank which justice dimensions impact in the most client’s satisfaction with the service recovery.
With this population in mind: customers from banks, who have had problems with service delivery, complained and received some sort of service recovery, data was collected using via Qualtrics, as this online survey website provides a smart tool for setting-up online questionnaires and has the possibility to export the gathered data in the format that is compatible with the software used in the statistical analyses of this research (SPSS).
From the results obtained using linear regression analyses, it is possible to confirm that satisfaction with complaint-handling process is influenced by the perception of fairness in the service recovery process. Therefore, this research numbers support the theory that justice concepts explain satisfaction with complaint episodes.
The main effects observed by applying the proposed theoretical framework showed significant influence of the procedural justice (R2 = 0.73) on recovery satisfaction, which is in
distributive justice (R2 = 0.61), proposing that the outcomes received, as compensation for the
service failure episode, are less important to customers than structured policies to be followed by staff and handle the complaint in the most assertive fashion.
This result may be explained by the fact that consumers respond better to service failures when companies reassure their compromise in fixing the problem in a definitive and proper way with a defined timeframe for the issue resolution. The only manner that a company can meet all the above expectations is by having clear policies to deal with complaints, avoiding unnecessary time loss in discussing internally how to tackle the situation and showing professionalism in implementing solutions.
Scores from interactional and informational justice observed in this study were close to each other presenting R2 = 0.67 and R2 = 0.66 respectively. In the light of this find, it is
important to remember that, theoretically, these two justice dimensions are intertwined and usually only interactional dimension is measured. Nevertheless, it is possible to segregate and measure both dimensions providing a more insightful framework (Varela-Neira et al., 2010). Presenting almost matching numbers, interactional and informational dimensions, are more relevant to customer’s satisfaction than distributive justice. In this way, clients perceive the manner that they have been treated by the bank employees, their empathy, politeness, quality of information and reasonable explanations about the reasons behind the service failure episode, as a really important part of the service recovery process.
The results above stated are aligned with relationship marketing literature, which gives a tremendous importance to the way companies relate and interact with costumers. The relationship manager and client services analyst roles are fundamental to guide the client through the whole service recovery process, communicating in an assertive manner and reassuring that all the efforts are focused on resolving the issue in a timely manner (Duffy et
