Post on 05-Dec-2014
description
SERVICE PROVIDER BEHAVIOR
AND THE WORD OF MOUTH
THAT FOLLOWS
ERIK DITTMANN
SENIOR CAPSTONEFALL 2010
OUR PROCESS
Think about how your study has progressed What was the original concept? How did it change? Does the final product at all resemble your
initial idea?
INSPIRATION
Entrepreneurial mindset Hotel Rogers
Customer Service/Business How can I use communication theory to
improve it?
The Initial Ah-Ha! New York Times article
“100 Things Staff Should Never Do” by Bruce Buschel
LITERATURE REVIEW
Studies of Customer – Service Provider interaction Variety of Approaches and Contexts
Loyalty – Satisfaction – Word of Mouth Professional and Non-Professional Service Providers
Sociality – Chas D. Koermer
Performance that encourages cooperative social smoothness
4 Dimensions
1. Courtesies – polite greetings and friendly displays
2. Pleasantries – small talk about weather, news, or politics
3. Sociabilities – common disclosures: gossip and joking
4. Privacies – intimate revelations about oneself
Service Provider Sociality Scale (SPSS)
LITERATURE REVIEW
Main Application: Professional Service Provider Unfortunate as most interactions are non-
professional Store clerk, bank teller, barista
Findings Courtesies are a stronger predictor for customer
satisfaction Koermer notes a paradigmatic shift where...
Personal Connection with a sole service provider
are being replaced with...
Quick Courtesies from multiple service persons.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Word of Mouth (WOM) – Hong and Yang
“Word of Mouth has more influence than any other communication”
Studied positive WOM intentions of consumers Did not study negative WOM
Suggested Research Studying Negative WOM and Positive WOM in conjunction
to see differences Accompany WOM with another variable besides
satisfaction
DEVELOPMENT
Studies of Customer – Service Provider interaction Variety of Approaches and Contexts
Loyalty – Satisfaction – Word of Mouth Professional and Non-Professional Service Providers
Realization = Previous Studies are too complicated Broad – Far Reaching – Lacked Focus
Not focusing on customer and their expectations
“You have to give the people what they want”
THE STUDY
Research Gap Considerable amount is known about how
customer’s expectations of service provider behavior influence Word of Mouth communication
Purpose Illuminate how service provider behavior
expectations influence Negative WOM when violated and Positive WOM when fulfilled
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Expectancy Violation Theory
1. Customers will react to behavior based on their expectations
2. Expectations will affect their WOM participation
3. Expectation violations will have a more distinct reaction
Attribution Theory
People make sense of an unusual event by assessing 3 factors:
1. Distinct – Is this behavior characteristically unique or different?
2. Consistent – Does this behavior happen on a regular basis?
3. Consensus – does the behavior “go along” with other behavior
HYPOTHESES
H1 When an Expected behavior is not performed by a Service Provider the customer will be most likely to participate in Negative Word of Mouth
H2 When an Unexpected behavior is performed by a service provider and “liked” by the customer, the customer will be most likely to participate in Positive Word of Mouth
METHOD
Participants – N = 107
Sex: Male: 28 Female: 78
Age: 18-27: 88 28-37: 6 38-47: 2 48-59: 9 70+: 2
Procedure completed questionnaires on a voluntary basis
during classes, social gatherings or at work during break.
Participants were informed that purpose of the study
MEASURE~ MCSE-WOMR ~
Adapted from Service Provider Sociality Scale (SPSS) Developed by Koermer et al. (2000)
SPSS had 21 items 9 additional items were added.
developed from focus groups discussing positive and negative customer service interactions.
MEASURE ~ MCSE-WOMR ~
Measure of Customer Service Expectations and Word of Mouth Relationship (MCSE-WOMR)
3-part survey – 90 items total
Part I consists of 30 behaviors designed to determine which behaviors are expected
Part II uses negative hypothetical situational statements carried out by their service provider based on the 30 behaviors in Part I and gauged the likelihood of negative WOM communication
Part III uses positive hypothetical situational statements carried out by their service provider based on the 30 behaviors in Part I and gauged the likelihood of positive WOM communication
CODING
Part 1 (Expectations) YES was coded as (1) NO was a (-1).
Part II and III
Original data was entered using the 1 – 5 Likert Scale
Those values were re-coded for easy interpretation. As seen below:
Highly Likely: (2)
Likely: (1)
Neutral: (0)
Unlikely: (-1)
Highly Unlikely: (-2)
ANALYSIS
The items in Part I (expectations) were divided into four categories (levels) of expectation.
Groups were created to categorize the level of expectation the specific service behavior carried.
Categorization determined by the individual behaviors composite mean.
Level of Expectation Categories
Category Range of Mean
High Expectation
(.80 – 1.00)
Moderate Expectation
(.30 - .79)
Neutral Expectation
(-.29 - .29)
Not Expected (-.30 - -1.00)
Step 1:
ANALYSIS
Series of Paired T-Tests of: Category Levels of NWOM and PWOM
Step 2:
Step 3:Independent Sample T-Test of:
Sex differences in likelihood of NWOM and PWOM
Step 4:
Independent Sample T-Test of: Customer Service Experience in likelihood of
NWOM and PWOM
RESULTS: HIGHLY EXPECTED
BEHAVIORSExpectation Mean SD
Use of Good Manners 1.0 .00
Speak Clearly With Friendly Tone of Voice .98 .19
Listen Carefully to What Customer Has to Say .96 .27
Directly Answer Questions .96 .27
Courteous Handling of Complaint .93 .38
Greeting Upon Arrival .93 .38
Apology If Request Cannot Be Fulfilled .91 .42
Make Direct Eye Contact .89 .46
Attempt to Accommodate Special Requests .83 .56
Notification of Policy Change .81 .59
RESULTS: H1
H1 When an Expected behavior is not performed by a Service Provider the customer will be most likely to participate in Negative Word of Mouth
The Paired T-Test confirmed this Hypothesis:
t (106) = 11.85, p ≤ .01
The composite means demonstrated a statistical significance in all pairs with a clear separation between each expectation level.
RESULTS: H2
H2 When an Unexpected behavior is performed by a service provider and “liked” by the customer, the customer will be most likely to participate in Positive Word of Mouth
The Paired T-Test did not support this Hypothesis:
There was a statistically significant result that unexpected and “liked” behaviors will result in positive word of mouth.
However, expected behaviors that are fulfilled yielded the greatest likelihood of positive word of mouth.
t (106) = 3.68, p ≤ .01
RESULTS: H2
Counter to prediction no difference or statistical significance found between Moderate and Neutral Expectations.
Mean for MEPWOM – Mean for NEUPWOM
t (106) = -.146, p ≥ .05
There was a difference between High Expectation and Neutral Expectation Behavior however it failed to reach statistical significance.
Mean for HEPWOM – Mean for NEUPWOM
t (106) = 1.02, p ≥ .05
RESULTS: SEX DIFFERENCES
Males and females show differences but not statistically significant.
The circumstances with an apparent Mean Difference were as follows:
Females > Male in Negative Word of Mouth for High Expectations.
NWOM High Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .286
Females >Male in Positive Word of Mouth under all Expectations
PWOM High Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .207
PWOM Moderate Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .221
PWOM Neutral Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .181
PWOM No Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .137
RESULTS: CUSTOMER SERVICE
EXPERIENCECSE > No CSE under all except Non-Expected Behaviors
Greatest difference was present for Neutral Behavior Expectations
NWOM High Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .114
NWOM Moderate Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .205
NWOM Neutral Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .275
PWOM High Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .120
PWOM Moderate Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .120
PWOM Neutral Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .400
DISCUSSION
GOAL ACHIEVED!
Identified an applicable set of communication behaviors that prompt positive and negative word of mouth.
The results aim to benefit small business owners that wish to improve their customer service.
Not all findings were statistically significant, the differences are apparent and worthy of discussion.
DISCUSSION: H1
Hypothesis 1 Confirmed!
When an Expected behavior is not performed by a Service Provider the customer will be most likely to participate in Negative Word of Mouth
Implication
It is clear that business owners should examine these service provider behaviors to ensure their employees are not violating these expectations.
DISCUSSION: H2
Hypothesis 2 Opposite!
When an Unexpected behavior is performed by a service provider and “liked” by the customer, the customer will be most likely to participate in Positive Word of Mouth
Instead...
When an Expected behavior is fulfilled by a Service Provider the customer will be most likely to participate in Positive Word of Mouth
Implication Fulfilling Expectations is the best way to get PWOM. However; going above and beyond will still result with a
fairly high likelihood of PWOM
DISCUSSION
Sex Differences
Reason for Women’s greater WOM?
More open to friends
More sensitive to communication
Customer Service Experience
Overall Greater WOM More apt to speak Positively because they understand the
difficulty of the job More apt to speak Negatively because they believe they
would handle themselves as the service provider differently
Neutral Expectations greater WOM? Customer Service Experience develops a more keen eye for
smaller details with in a service interaction
LIMITATIONS
Limitations
Sample Size Did not allow for statistical significance in
every case
Age Representation 82% were 18-27, 5.6% were 28- 37, 12.1%
were over 38
STRENGTHS
Strengths
Focused Context Short Term, Non-Professional Service Interactions
Several Variables to Analyze and Compare Positive and Negative WOM Demographics
Identified Several Avenues for Further Research Professional Service Provider – Same Model Customer Service Experience As Focus Age as a Focus (Even Representation)