The service recovery paradox: true but overrated?

Stefan Michel · Matthew L. Meuter

146 citations0/0 files storedInternational Journal of Service Industry Management

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Customer Service Quality and Loyalty Service and Product Innovation AI in Service Interactions

Abstract

Purpose The paper's aim is to test the existence of the service recovery paradox. Design/methodology/approach To date, much of the literature exploring the service recovery paradox has generated mixed results. The paper argues that a service recovery paradox is a rare event, which makes its measurement difficult, since the “treatment group” sample size is usually too small to produce significant results. For that reason, the existence of the service recovery paradox in a banking context with more than 11,000 customer interviews based on actual customer encounters is tested. Findings Overall, the survey findings support the argument that a service recovery paradox is a rare event, and the hypothesized mean differences are, albeit significant, not very large, which diminishes their managerial relevance to some degree. Research limitations/implications Because of the required extremely large sample size, no multi‐item measures were collected. Furthermore, privacy concerns restricted us from a longitudinal study and from linking the survey results to behavioural data. Both limitations are inherent in the chosen setting. Practical implications While a service failure offers an opportunity to create an excellent recovery, the likelihood of a service paradox is very low. The implications of verifying a service recovery paradox do not suggest that ineffective service followed by an outstanding service recovery is a viable strategy. Originality/value To the authors' knowledge, this is the first empirical study testing not only the existence of the service recovery paradox, but also exploring its magnitude and frequency. This is crucial because the paradox is a very rare event, which, in turn, limits its managerial relevance.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 146 citations exist upstream.

References

1980A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions 1996The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality 2010Satisfaction: a behavioral perspective on the consumer 1990The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents 1998Customer Evaluations of Service Complaint Experiences: Implications for Relationship Marketing 2002The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing 2003Return on Marketing: Using Customer Equity to Focus Marketing Strategy 1999A Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service Encounters Involving Failure and Recovery

Cited by

2009The effects of service failures and recovery on customer loyalty in e‐services 2021A Two‐Wave Cross‐Lagged Study on AI Service Quality: The Moderating Effects of the Job Level and Job Role 2020Turning Complaining Customers into Loyal Customers: Moderators of the Complaint Handling–Customer Loyalty Relationship 2010Customer complaints in restaurants: Do they differ by service stages and loyalty levels?2014Others service experiences: emotions, perceived justice, and behavior

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.