Employees View Point - Reference No. 47A

8/6/2019 Employees View Point - Reference No. 47A

1/13

Critical Service Encounters: The Employee's ViewpointAuthor(s): Mary Jo Bitner, Bernard H. Booms, Lois A. MohrSource: The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Oct., 1994), pp. 95-106Published by: American Marketing AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251919Accessed: 23/10/2008 02:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Journal of Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251919?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1251919?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/13

MaryJo Bitner,BernardH.Booms,&LoisA.Mohr

Critical Service Encounters:T h e Employee'siewpoint

Inservice settings, customersatisfaction s often influencedbythe qualityof the interpersonalnteractionbetweenthe customer and the contactemployee. Previous research has identified he sources of satisfactionand dissatis-factionin service encounters fromthe customer'spointof view;this study explores these sources in service en-counters from the contactemployee's pointof view.Drawingon insightsfromrole,script,and attributionheories,774 critical ervice encounters reportedby employees of the hotel, restaurant,and airline ndustriesare analyzedandcomparedwithpreviousresearch.Resultsgenerallysupport he theoreticalpredictionsandalso identifyan ad-ditionalsource of customer dissatisfaction-the customer'sown misbehavior.The findingshave implications orbusiness practice in managing service encounters, employee empowerment and training, and managingcustomers.

he worldwidequalitymovementthathas swepttheman-ufacturingsector over the last decade is beginning totake shapein the service sector(BusinessWeek1991; Cros-by 1991). Accordingto some, the shift to a qualityfocus isessential to the competitive survival of service businesses,just as it has become essential in manufacturingHeskettetal. 1994; SchlesingerandHeskett 1991).Service quality researchershave suggested that "theproof of service [quality] is in its flawless performance"(BerryandParasuraman 991, p. 15), a concept akinto thenotion of "zero defects" in manufacturing.Others havenotedthat"breakthrough"ervicemanagerspursuethe goalof 100% defect-free service (Heskett, Sasser, and Hart1990). Fromthecustomer'spointof view, the most immedi-ateevidenceof serviceoccurs in theserviceencounteror the"moment of truth"when the customer interactswith thefirm.Thus, one centralgoal in the pursuitof "zerodefects"in service is to worktoward100%flawless performancenserviceencounters.Here,flawless performances not meantto imply rigid standardization,but rather100% satisfyingperformance romthe customer'spoint of view. The cost ofnot achievingflawless performance s the "cost of quality,"which includes the costs associatedwith redoingthe serviceor compensatingfor poor service, lost customers,negativeword of mouth,anddecreasedemployee morale.Althoughmorefirms arerealizingtheimportanceof ser-vice qualityandcustomersatisfaction, t is not alwaysclearhow to achieve these goals. Situationsarise in which quali-ty is low and the problemis recognized by both the firm

MaryoBitnersanAssociate rofessorfMarketing,rizonatateUni-versity.ernard .Boomss a Professor,usiness rogram,niversityfWashington-Tacoma.oisA.MohrsanAssistantrofessorfMarketing,GeorgiatateUniversity.heauthorsratefullycknowledgehe upportoftheFirstnterstateenterorServicesMarketingnd heCollege fBusiness, rizonatateUniversity,nconductinghis esearch.hehelp-ful ommentsfthree nonymousM eviewersrealsoappreciated.Journal of MarketingVol.58 (October 1994), 95-106

(i.e., employees) and the customer,but there may be dis-agreementon the causes of the problemandthe appropriatesolutions.In serviceencounterssuch disagreements, ure todiminish customersatisfaction,underscorethe importanceof understanding he types of events and behaviors thatcause customers to be satisfiedor dissatisfied.Because theservice encounter nvolves at least two people, it is impor-tant to understand heencounter rommultipleperspectives.Armed with suchunderstanding,irms arebetterable to de-sign processes and educateboth employees and customersto achievequalityin serviceencounters.Previousresearch n the contextof the restaurant, otel,andairlineindustries dentifiedcategoriesof events and be-haviors that underlie critical service encountersfrom thecustomer's point of view (Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault1990;hereafterBBT). The primarypurposeof this studyisto examine the contact employee's perspectiveof criticalservice encountersand to understand, n the context of thesamethree ndustries, he kindsof events andbehaviorsthatemployees believe underliecustomersatisfaction.The em-ployee perspectiveis then comparedwith BBT to gain in-sight into any disparities n perspectives.A second purposeof the studyis to evaluate heusefulnessof theclassificationschemedevelopedby BBT (1990). If the schemeis concep-tuallyrobust, t should hold fordifferentrespondentgroups.The research s guidedby the following questions:

*Fromhecontact mployee's ointof view,whatkindsofevents eadto satisfying erviceencountersorthecus-tomer?Whatcauses heseevents o be remembereda-vorably?*From he contactemployee'spointof view, whatkindsofeventsleadto dissatisfyingserviceencounters orthecus-tomer?Whatcauses these events to be rememberedwithdistaste?*Do customers and employees reportthe same kinds ofevents and behaviors eading to satisfactionand dissatis-faction in service encounters?

Critical erviceEncounters 95


3/13

Before presentingthe empiricalstudy,we discuss rele-vant researchandtheory.Customer and ContactEmployeeViewpointsFrontline personnel are a critical source of informationabout customers.There are two basic ways that customerknowledge obtained by contact employees is used to im-

prove service: (1) Such knowledge is used by the contactemployees themselves to facilitate their interactionswithcustomersand (2) It is used by the firm for making deci-sions. First, employees often modify their behavior frommoment to moment on the basis of feedback they receivewhile servingcustomers. Schneider(1980) arguesthatpeo-ple who choose to work in service occupations generallyhave a strongdesire to give good service. To the extent thatthis is true,contactpersonnelcan be expected to look fre-quentlyfor cues that tell them how their service is receivedby customers. The more accuratetheirperceptionsare, themorelikely theirbehavioraladjustmentsare to improvecus-tomersatisfaction.Second,because contactpersonnelhavefrequentcontactwith customers,they serve a boundary-spanningole in thefirm. As a result, they often have better understandingofcustomer needs and problemsthan others in the firm. Re-searchershave theorizedand foundsome evidence thatopencommunication between frontlinepersonneland managersis importantfor achieving service quality (Parasuraman,Berry,and Zeithaml 1990; Zeithaml, Berry,and Parasura-man 1988). Schneiderand Bowen (1984) argue that firmsshould use informationgatheredfrom contactpersonnelinmaking strategicdecisions, especially decisions regardingnew service developmentand servicemodifications.It seems reasonable o conclude that accurateemployee

understanding f customersenablesboth the employee andthe firm to adjustappropriatelyo customerneeds. Howev-er, previous research correlatingcustomer and employeeviews of service is sparse and offers mixed conclusions.Schneider and Bowen (1985) and Schneider,Parkington,and Buxton (1980) found high correlations r = .63 and r =.67, respectively)between employee andcustomerattitudesaboutoverallservice qualityin a banksetting.Theirresultsarecontradicted,however,in a studyby Brown and Swartz(1989). These researchersgathereddata on patientexperi-ences with their physicians and comparedthem with thephysicians' perceptionsof their patients'experiences.Thedifferencesthey found were rather argeandinverselyrelat-ed to overallpatientsatisfaction.Anotherstudyof 1300 customersand900 customerser-vice professionalsconductedby DevelopmentDimensionsInternational ound differences in perceptionsbetween thetwo groups (Services Marketing Newsletter 1989). Cus-tomer service professionalsin that study consistentlyratedthe importanceof particular ervice skills andcompetenciesand theiractualperformancehigherthancustomersrated hesame skills andcompetencies.Similarly,Langeardandcol-leagues (1981) foundthatfield managersat two bankstend-ed to overestimate(comparedwithcustomerratings) he im-portanceof six broad service delivery dimensions. Other

studies have found differences when comparingcustomerand employee evaluationsof business situationsusing sce-nariosand role playing in productfailure contexts (Folkesand Kotsos 1986), a complaintcontext(ResnikandHarmon1983), and the context of retailerresponses to customerproblems(Domoff andDwyer 1981).Wewould thereforeexpect,on thebasis of these studies,to find similarities n employee and customer views of theservice encounter,but we would expect significant differ-ences as well. Role, script,and attributionheoriesprovideconceptualbases for these expectations.TheoreticalExplanations

Role and Script TheoriesSimilarities n how customersand employees view serviceencountersare most likely when the two partiessharecom-mon role expectationsand the service scriptis well defined(MohrandBitner 1991; Solomon et al. 1985).A role is thebehavior associated with a socially defined position(Solomon et al. 1985), and role expectationsare the stan-dardsfor role behavior(Biddle 1986). In manyroutine ser-vice encounters,particularlyorexperiencedemployeesandcustomers,the roles are well definedand boththe customerandemployeeknow whatto expect fromeach other.In addition,many types of service encounters,such asseating customers in a restaurant,are repeatedfrequentlythroughouta person'slife, resulting n strong,standardized,and well-rehearsedscripts(i.e., structures hatdescribeap-propriate equencesof rolebehaviors) SchankandAbelson1977).Whenserviceencountershavestrongscripts,the em-ployee and customerare likely to shareexpectationsaboutthe events thatwill occur andthe orderof occurrence.Theyareless likely to share deasaboutsubscripts,whicharepre-scriptionsfor handlingwhat Schank andAbelson describeas "obstacles and errors," wo types of interferences thatmay occur in otherwisepredictable cripts.Role andscripttheory,combined with the routinenatureof many service encounters, suggests that customers andemployees arelikely to sharea commonperspectiveon ser-vice experiences.It is also clearthatdifferences n perspec-tive may arise when roles are less defined, a participantsunfamiliarwith expectedbehaviors,or interferences equirethe enactmentof complex or less routinesubscripts.Attribution TheoryDissimilarities in viewpoint may arise when service en-counterpartnershave conflicting views of the underlyingcauses behindthe events,that s, whentheirattributions if-fer. Researchshows thatthereare manybiases in the attri-butionprocess (Fiske and Taylor 1984). Most clearly rele-vantfor the perceptionsof serviceprovidersandcustomersis the self-serving attributionbias. This is the tendencyforpeople to take creditfor success (i.e., to give internalattri-butionsfor theirsuccesses, a self-enhancingbias) anddenyresponsibilityfor failure (i.e., to blame failure on externalcauses, a self-protectingbias). Giventhese biases we wouldexpect employees to blame the system or the customerforservicefailures,whereasthe customerwould be morelikely

96 / Journalof Marketing,October1994


4/13

to blame the system or the employee. The resultwould bedifferentviews of the causes of service dissatisfaction.It isless clearthat thisbias would operate n the case of a serviceencounter success. Although the desire for self-enhance-ment might lead both the employee and customer to givethemselvescredit for the success, the fact that the customeris payingthe firm for a service wouldprobablyprecludethebias on the customer's side. Overall, then, the self-servingattribution ias leads to the expectation hat theperspectivesof the employee and customer will differ more in servicefailure thanin service success situations.Both empiricalresearchandtheorysuggest thatsimilar-ities as well as differences in perspectivearelikely to occurbetween service encounterparticipants.Role andscriptthe-ories suggest thatin relativelyroutinesituationssuch as theones studied,there will be strongsimilarities n perspective.However,attributionbiases suggest that there will also besignificantdifferences in viewpoint.We exploreto whatex-tent the perspectivesof contactpersonneland those of cus-tomersaredifferent.And, to the degreethatthey arediffer-ent, the data provide insight into the nature of thesedisparities.

Method and AnalysisData CollectionData were collected using the critical incident technique(CIT), a systematicprocedure or recordingevents and be-haviors that are observed to lead to success or failureon aspecific task (Ronanand Latham1974), in this case, satis-fying the customer.(For more detailed discussions of themethod, see BBT; Flanagan 1954; Wilson-Pessano 1988).Using the CIT,dataarecollected throughstructured, pen-ended questions, and the results are content analyzed. Re-spondentsareaskedto reportspecific eventsfrom therecentpast (within 6 to 12 months).These accountsproviderichdetails of firsthandexperiences in which customers havebeen satisfied ordissatisfied.Becauserespondentsareaskedaboutspecific eventsrather hangeneralities, nterpretation,or conclusions, this proceduremeets criteriaestablishedbyEricssonand Simon (1980) for providingvaluable,reliableinformation about cognitive processes. Researchershaveconcluded that when used appropriately Flanagan 1954;Wilson-Pessano 1988), the critical incident methodis reli-able in terms of stabilityof the categoriesidentifiedacrossjudges, valid with respectto the contentidentified,andrele-vantin thatthe behaviors lluminatedhave provento be im-portant to the success or failure of the task in question(RonanandLatham1974;White andLocke 1981).Hotel, restaurant,and airline employees were inter-viewed and asked to recall critical service encountersthatcaused satisfactionor dissatisfactionfor customers of theirfirms. Thirty-seven trained student interviewerscollectedthe data-781 total incidents. Each one recruiteda mini-mum of ten employees from among the same threeindus-tries studiedin BBT, askingeach employee to describeoneincidentthatwas satisfactoryandone thatwas dissatisfacto-ry fromthe customer'spoint of view.

Because all the interviewerswere employed in the hos-pitalitysector,they recruited ellow employees andemploy-ees of establishmentswith which they were familiar.Theywereinstructednot to interviewfellow students.The refusalratewas negligible.The incidentsamplerepresented58 ho-tels, 152 restaurants,and 4 airlines. On average, the em-ployees providing he incidentshad5.5 yearsof workingex-perience in their respective industries. The employeesrangedin age from 16 to 65 (mean age 27) and were 55%female and 45% male. The instructionsto the employeesbeing interviewedwere as follows:Putyourself n the shoes of customers f yourfirm.Inotherwords,ry o seeyour irm hrough ourcustomers'eyes.Thinkof a recent imewhena customerf your irmhada particularlyatisfying dissatisfying)nteractionwithyourself r a fellowemployee.Describe hesituation ndexactlywhathappened.They were thenaskedthe following questions:1.Whendidthe ncident appen?2.What pecific ircumstanceseduptothissituation?3. Exactlywhatdidyouor your ellowemployee ayordo?4. Whatresultedhatmadeyou feel the interaction assatisfyingdissatisfying)romthecustomer's ointofview?5.What hould ouoryour ellowemployee avesaidordone? fordissatisfyingncident nly)To be used in the analysis, an incidentwas required o(1) involve employee-customer nteraction, 2) be very sat-isfying or dissatisfyingfrom the customer'spoint of view,(3) be a discreteepisode, and(4) have sufficientdetailto bevisualizedby the interviewer.Seven incidentsfailed to meet

these criteria,leaving 774 incidents (397 satisfactoryand377 dissatisfactory).Classification of IncidentsThe incident classification system developed by BBT wasused as a startingpoint for sorting the data with the as-sumptionthat, to the degree thatcustomersand employeesremember satisfying and dissatisfying encounters in thesame way, the same classificationsystem shouldbe appro-priate.Incidents hatcould not be classified withinthe orig-inal scheme would thenprovideevidence for differencesinperspective.One researcher trained in the classification schemecoded the incidents.Any that did not fit into the schemewereputaside.Thisresearcher nd a secondthenworked o-getheron categorizing hisgroupof 86 incidents(11%of thetotal).These incidentswere readand sorted,combined,andresorteduntil a consistent coding scheme was developedthat combined similar incidents into distinct, meaningfulcategories.When the new categorieswere labeled and thetwo researchers chievedconsensuson assignmentof the in-cidents, the new categories(one majorgroupwith foursub-categories)were addedto the originalclassificationsystem.A set of complete coding instructionswas then written(see Appendix A). They included general instructions for



5/13

coders, operationaldefinitions of each category,and deci-sion rules for assigning incidents to categories.These areproceduresrecommendedby PerreaultandLeigh (1989) forimprovingthe reliabilityof judgment-baseddata. The cod-ing instructions were used to train a thirdresearcherwhohadnot participatedn the categorizationdecisions. This re-searcherthen coded the 774 employee incidents,providingan interjudgereliabilitycheck on the classificationsystem.Discrepanciesbetween the first and third researchers'as-signmentswere resolvedby the second researcher.The interjudgeagreementbetweenthe first and thirdre-searcherswas 84% for the satisfyingincidentsand 85%forthe dissatisfying incidents. These figures are respectablyhigh, especially consideringthat the classificationsysteminthis studycontains 16 categories.The percentageagreementstatistic probably underestimatesinterjudge reliability inthis case because this statistic s influencedby the numberofcoding categories (i.e., the more categories, the lower thepercentageagreementis likely to be) (Perreaultand Leigh1989). Forthis reason,two othermeasuresof interjudgere-liability were calculated.Cohen's K,which corrects for thelikelihood of chance agreementbetweenjudges, was foundto be .816 for the satisfyingand.823 for thedissatisfying n-cidents.PerreaultandLeigh (1989) argue,however, hatK isan overly conservativemeasure of reliabilitybecause it as-sumes an a prioriknowledgeof the likely distribution f re-sponses acrosscategories.To correctfor this they designedan alternative ndex of reliability,Ir,appropriateor market-ing data. Rather hancontrasting nterjudgeagreementwithan estimate of chance agreement,Iris based on a model ofthe level of agreementthat might be expected given a true(population) evel of reliability.Furthermore,he index fo-cuses on the reliabilityof the whole coding process,notjuston the agreementbetweenjudges. Ir was found to be .911and .914 for the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents,respectively.

Results and DiscussionThe categoriesof events and behaviors thatemployees be-lieve underlie their customers'satisfactionand dissatisfac-tion in service encountersare identified anddiscussedfirst.Then the results are comparedwith customer perceptionsusing the BBT data.Classification of Employee-Reported IncidentsThe critical ncidentclassificationsystembased on incidentsgathered from customers (BBT) consists of three majorgroupsof employee behaviorsthataccountfor all satisfac-toryanddissatisfactory ncidents:(1) employee responsetoservice delivery system failures, (2) employee response tocustomerneeds andrequests,and(3) unprompted ndunso-licited employee actions. Of the 774 employee incidents,668 wereclassifiedinto one of thesethreegroupsandthe 12categorieswithin them. The incidentswere very similar indetail to thoseprovidedby customers. See BBT fordetaileddescriptions of the groups and categories and sampleincidents.)Eighty-six encounters(11% of the total) did not fit anyof the predeterminedgroups.These incidentswere catego-

rized into one majorgrouplabeled "problemcustomerbe-havior," ndtheywere added o thecategorization chemeas"Group4."In these cases, the coders could not attribute hesatisfactionanddissatisfaction o an action or attitudeof theemployee-instead, the root cause was the customer.Suchcustomerswerebasically uncooperative, hat s, unwillingtocooperatewith the serviceprovider,othercustomers, ndus-try regulations,and/or laws. These situationscreatedprob-lems for the employees, and rarelywere they able to dealwith them in such a way as to bring aboutcustomersatis-faction;only 3 of these incidentswere satisfactory.Within the problemcustomerbehaviorgroup,fourcate-gories emerged (Table 1 provides examples of incidentsfrom the fournew categories):

1.Drunkenness-Themployee erceiveshecustomerobeclearlyntoxicatedndcreating roblemsuchas ha-rassing ther ustomers earby, iving heemployeehard time, or disruptingthe atmosphereof theestablishment;2. Verbaland physicalabuse-The customerverballyand/orphysically buseseither heemployeeor othercustomers;3.Breakingompany oliciesor laws-The customere-fuses tocomplywithpoliciesorlaws,and heemploy-ee attemptsoenforce ompliance;nd4. Uncooperativecustomers-The customer is generallyrude and uncooperativer unreasonablyemanding.From heemployee'sperspective,hecustomers un-willing o besatisfied, o matterwhat s done orhimorher.The Employee's View of Satisfactory VersusDissatisfactory EncountersHere we examine the frequencies and proportionsof em-ployee accounts in the four groups and 16 categories asshown in Table2. It should be noted thatthefrequenciesandproportions hown in the table reflect numbersof reportedevents. The actual frequencyof occurrence of the type ofevent representedby a particulargroupor categorycannotbe inferred romthe data.Nor can greater mportancebe in-ferredby greaterfrequenciesin a particular ategory(Wil-son-Pessano 1988). The data are shown in full in Table2;however,our discussion focuses on the four majorgroups.Tofacilitateunderstanding,he employee-reportedncidentsare summarizedand rankedaccordingto the percentageofincidents in the fourmajor ncidentgroups:

Distributionof DissatisfactoryIncidentsRankOrder1

234

RankOrder1234

Group# PercentageGroup1-Response to failures 51.7Group4-Problem customers 22.0Group2-Response to requests 16.4Group3-Unprompted action 9.8

Distributionof Satisfactory ncidentsGroup#Group2-Response to requestsGroup1-Response to failuresGroup3-Unprompted actionGroup4-Problem customers

Percentage49.427.522.4

.8

98 / Journalof Marketing, ctober1994


6/13

TABLE 1Group Four Sample Incidents: Problem Customers

IncidentDissatisfactory Satisfactory

A. DrunkennessAn intoxicatedman began pinching he female flightatten- A personwho became intoxicatedon a flightstartedspeak-dants. One attendant old himto stop, buthe continuedand ing loudly,annoyingthe other passengers. The flightatten-then hit another passenger. The copilot was called and dant asked the passenger if he would be drivingwhen theasked the man to sit down and leave the others alone, but planelandedand offeredhimcoffee. He accepted the coffeethe passenger refused.The copilotthen "decked"he man, and became quieterand friendlier.knockinghiminto his seat.

B. Verbaland Physical AbuseWhilea familyof three was waiting o orderdinner, he father Nonebegan hittinghis child. Anothercustomercomplainedaboutthis to the managerwho then, in a friendlyand sympathicway, asked the familyto leave. The fatherknocked all theplates and glasses off the table before leaving.

C. Breaking Company Policies or LawsFive guests were in a hotel room two hours past checkout Nonetime. Because they would not answer the phone calls or letthe staff into the room, hotel securitystaff finallybroke in.Theyfound the guests using drugsand calledthe police.

D. Uncooperative CustomerWhen a man was shown to his table in the nonviewdining Nonearea of the restaurant,he became extremelyangryand de-manded a window able. The restaurantwas very busy, butthe hostess told him he could get a windowseat in a halfhour. He refused to wait and took his previouslyreservedtable, but he complainedall the way through he dinnerandleftwithout ipping.

When employees were asked to report ncidentsresult-ing in customer dissatisfaction, they tended to describeproblemswithexternalcausessuch as thedelivery systemorinappropriateustomerbehaviors.By farthelargestnumberof dissatisfactoryncidentswerecategorized n Group1 (re-sponse to delivery system failures), with the next largestproportion alling into Group4 (problemcustomers).Theseresultsarenotunexpectedgiven whatattributionheorysug-gests. When things go wrong, people are more likely toblame external,situationalfactors thanto attribute he fail-ure to their own shortcomings.A modest numberof dissat-isfactoryincidents were found in Group2. In manyof thesecases, the employees impliedthatthey were unable to satis-fy customerneedsdue to constraintsplacedon themby lawsor theirown organization's ulesandprocedures,againplac-ing the blame on an externalsource.The smallestpercent-age of dissatisfactory ncidentswere classified in Group3,which reflects spontaneous negative employee behaviors(e.g., rudeness, lack of attention).Again, this is consistentwith the bias towardnot blamingoneself for failures.The largestproportionof satisfactory ncidents,fromtheemployee's point of view, occurred n responseto customerneeds and requests (Group2). Almost half of particularlysatisfying customer encountersreportedby employees re-sulted from theirability to adjustthe system to accommo-date customer needs and requests.Success is attributed n

these cases to the employee'sown abilityandwillingnesstoadjust.The next largestproportionof satisfactory ncidentswerecategorized n Group1.This is an interesting et of in-cidents,because each one beganas a failure butended as asuccess because of the ability of the employee to recover.Employeesclearlyremember heirability to recover n fail-ure situations as a significantcause for ultimatecustomersatisfaction.A relativelymodest (when comparedwith thecustomerview) numberof satisfactory ncidentswere cate-gorized as unpromptedand unsolicited employee actions(Group3). Perhapsemployeesdo not view theirown behav-iors as "spontaneous," ut they instead rememberthem inassociationwith a specific externalcause (e.g., a customerneed, a service failure).Finally,therewere virtuallyno sat-isfactory incidents categorized in the problem customergroup(Group4). This makessense, becauseit is difficulttoimaginea very problematiccustomerleaving the encounterfeeling satisfiedexceptunderhighly unusualcircumstances.Comparing Customer and Employee ViewsTable 3 combinesdatafromthe current tudywith the orig-inal BBT data for purposesof comparison.Becausethe em-ployees andcustomers n thesetwo studiesall describeddif-ferent ncidents,conclusionsfromemployee-customer om-parisonsareexploratory, ndtheexplanationsaresomewhatspeculative.Althoughwe rely on role and attribution heo-



7/13

TABLE 2Groupand Category Classification byType of Incident Outcome(Employees Only)

Type of Incident OutcomeSatisfactory Dissasatisfactory Row Total

Groupand Category No. % No. % No. %Group 1. Employee Response to Service Delivery System FailuresA. Tounavailable ervice 31 7.8 37 9.8 68 8.8B. Tounreasonably low service 23 6.0 48 12.7 71 9.2C.To other core service failures 55 13.9 110 29.2 165 21.3Subtotal,Group1 109 27.5 195 51.7 304 39.3Group2. Employee Response to Customer Needs and RequestsA. To"specialneeds" customers 80 20.2 14 3.7 94 12.1B. To customerpreferences 99 24.9 43 11.4 142 18.3C.To admittedcustomer error 11 2.8 0 0.0 11 1.4D.Topotentiallydisruptive thers 6 1.5 5 1.3 11 1.4Subtotal,Group2 196 49.4 62 16.4 258 33.3Group3. Unpromptedand Unsolicited Employee ActionsA. Attentionpaidto customer 43 10.8 6 1.6 49 6.3B.Truly ut-of-theordinary mployeebehavior 25 6.3 28 7.4 53 6.8C. Employeebehaviors n the context of culturalnorms 7 1.8 3 .8 10 1.3D.Gestaltevaluation 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0E. Performanceunderadverse circumstances 14 3.5 0 0.0 14 1.8Subtotal,Group3 89 22.4 37 9.8 126 16.3Group4. Problematic Customer BehaviorA. Drunkenness 3 .8 16 4.2 19 2.5B.Verbaland PhysicalAbuse 0 0.0 9 2.4 9 1.2C. Breaking ompany policiesor laws 0 0.0 16 4.2 16 2.1D.Uncooperative ustomer 0 0.0 42 11.1 42 5.4Subtotal,Group4 3 .8 83 22.0 86 11.1ColumnTotal 397 51.3 377 48.7 774 100%riesto explainthedifferenceswe observed, t is possiblethatthese differences could be due to samplingvariationsor dif-ferences in the incident pool from which the two groupsdrew.However,giventhe caretaken n collectingthe datatoavoidsystematicbiases, that bothstudieswereconducted nthe samecity using the same three ndustries,andthatmanyof the same firmswere the source of incidents n both stud-ies, we have confidence in our theoreticalexplanationsofthe results.

A large majorityof theemployee incidentsfromthe cur-rentstudycould be categorized n the originalthreegroupsand 12 categories, suggesting strongsimilarities n the wayemployees and customersreportthe sources of satisfactionand dissatisfaction n service encounters. Recall that thesearerelativelyroutine service encountersand in both studiesthe respondentswereexperiencedserviceparticipants.Evenso, the additionof a fourthgroupandthe significantdiffer-ences in frequenciesand proportionsof incidents found inthe groups suggest thattherearedissimilarities n whattheyreportas well. Hierarchical og-linear analysis of Table 3shows a significantthree-way nteractionbetweengroup(1,2, 3, or 4), type of outcome (satisfactoryor dissatisfactory),andincident source(employeeorcustomer) L.R.X2change= 8.17;p = .04). There is also a significant wo-wayinterac-tion between groupand incidentsource (L.R. X2change =263.31;p < .0001). Because of the significant three-way n-

teraction, he results are discussed separately or satisfacto-ry anddissatisfactoryncidents.

Within the dissatisfactory ncident classifications, cus-tomers andemployeeshaverelativelysimilarproportionsnGroups 1 and 2. The significant interaction is caused byGroup 3, which is dominatedby customer incidents, andGroup4, which contains incidents reportedby employeesonly. These results are very consistent with expectationsbased on attributionbiases. Employees are highly unlikelyto describe customerdissatisfactionas being causedby theirown predispositions,attitudes, or spontaneous behaviors.Customers,on the other hand, will be likely to blame theemployee rather hananything they themselves might havecontributed.This is clearlyreflected in the observation hatcustomersreportno dissatisfactoryncidentscausedby theirown problembehaviors(Group4).The differences in how customersandemployees reportsatisfactoryencounters are provocativeas well, albeit lessextreme. Again, this is consistent with attribution heory,which predicts largerdifferences in perceptionsin failurethan in success situations.Withinthe satisfactory ncidents,Groups1 and4 areequally represented or both customersand employees. The significant interaction s the result ofGroup2 being dominatedby employee incidents andGroup3 being dominatedby customer ncidents.



8/13

TABLE 3Comparison of Employee and Customer Responses:Incident Classification by Type of Incident Outcomea

Type of Incident OutcomeSatisfactory Disasatisfactory RowTotal

Groups No. % No. % No. %Group 1. Employee Response to Service DeliverySystem FailuresEmployeeData 109 27.5 195 51.7 304 39.3CustomerData 81 23.3 151 42.9 232 33.2Group2. Employee Response to Customer Needs and RequestsEmployeeData 196 49.4 62 16.4 258 33.3CustomerData 114 32.9 55 15.6 169 24.2Group3. Unpromptedand Unsolicited Employee ActionsEmployeeData 89 22.4 37 9.8 126 16.3CustomerData 152 43.8 146 41.5 298 42.6Group4. Problematic Customer BehaviorEmployeeData 3 .8 83 22.0 86 11.1CustomerData 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Column TotalEmployeeData 397 51.3 377 48.7 774 100%CustomerData 347 49.6 352 50.4 699 100%aCustomer esponse data fromBitner,Booms,andTetreault1990)

ImplicationsorResearchersGeneralizabilityof the Service EncounterClassification SchemeThe importance and usefulness of robust classificationschemes for theory developmentand practicalapplicationhave been discussed by social scientists (e.g., McKelvey1982) and marketingscholars (e.g., Hunt 1991; Lovelock1983).Yet we have few such frameworks n marketing,pri-marily because the classification schemes that have beenproposedhave rarelybeen subjectedto empiricalvalidationacrosstimes andcontexts.This study representsone contribution n a programofresearchdesignedto test the validity andgeneralizabilityofa scheme for categorizingsourcesof service encountersat-isfaction and dissatisfaction(BBT). If the scheme holds indifferentsettings (e.g., differentindustrycontexts, or in in-ternalas well as externalencounters)andacrossdifferentre-spondents (e.g., customers versus providers,customers indifferentcultures),then the scheme can be viewed as morerobust and of greatertheoretical as well as practicalvalue.Otherstudies have reportedthat the three majorgroupsofbehaviors dentifiedby BBT are also found in a retailcon-text (Kelley, Hoffman,and Davis 1993) and a study of 16consumer services (Gremler and Bitner 1992). Throughreplication,the frameworkbecomes more valuable in iden-tifying generalizable"servicebehaviors."Theresultsof ourresearch ndicatethatall thecategoriesfound in the originalcustomer-perspective tudy were alsofound when employees were asked to reportexcept "prob-lem customers."The additionof this new groupprovidesamore completeclassificationsystem thatcan be furtherex-amined in othercontexts.

Problem CustomersA primarycontributionof this researcheffort is the empiri-cally based finding that unsatisfactoryservice encountersmay be due to inappropriate ustomerbehaviors-the no-tion thatsometimescustomersarewrong. Othershave sug-gested the existence of problemcustomers(e.g., Lovelock1994;Schrage1992;ZemkeandAnderson1990). Lovelock,for example,suggests the term"jaycustomers"o label cus-tomerswho "misconsume" n a mannersimilar to jaywalk-ers who cross streets in unauthorizedplaces. Our researchprovides empirical evidence that these difficult customertypesdo exist and in factcan be the source of theirown dis-satisfaction.

Although no one really believes customersare alwaysright, firms have policies that pretendthis is so, and man-agers urge and demand that customer contact employeestreatcustomersas if they arealways right.Needless to say,such avoidance leads to stresses and strains for managersand frontlinepersonnel alike and potentially bigger prob-lems for firms. (See Hochschild 1983 for a discussion ofpersonaland organizational mpacts of nonauthenticwaysof dealing with customers.)With a betterunderstanding fproblemcustomerscancome bettermethods for eliminatingor dealingwith the underlyingcauses of the problems.This area s ripewith important esearchquestions,suchas the following: What types of problems do customerscause?Whatarethe most frequentproblems?Whattypes ofcustomers tend to be problemcustomers?Under what cir-cumstancesdo customerscreateeithermore or fewer prob-lems? And, from a managementviewpoint, what can bedone to identify problem customers, and how can andshouldemployees deal with them?Thisinitialresearchrepresentsa startataddressing omeof thesequestionsandthe beginningsof a typology of prob-

CriticalServiceEncounters 101


9/13

lem customer behaviors.The categories of behaviors dis-covered are not surprisinggiven the natureof the industriesstudied.Each service involves the possible serving of foodand drink-including alcoholic beverages.In each servicethe customers are in close physical proximityfor extendedperiodsof time. Restaurant, irline,andhotel customersaremany times in tight public spaces that put them cheek tojowl with othercustomers. Personalsocial interactionsarecarried out in front of other customerswho are most oftenstrangers.And, as mentioned previously, the types of en-countersstudied here are all relativelyroutineandcommon-ly experienced.Finally, customersfrequentlyhave transac-tion-basedencounterswith the servicepersonnelrather hanlong-termrelationship-based ncounters.It is assumedthatthese circumstancesinfluenced the nature of the subcate-gories of problems dentified n Group4. Thus,althoughwebelieve that the majorproblemcustomergroupwill surfacewheneveremployees areaskedto relate instances of dissat-isfactoryencounters,furtherresearch is needed to identifyother subcategorieswithin the group and relate problemtypes to service industryconditions,circumstances,andcus-tomersegments.

Althoughwe have identifiedproblemcustomersby ex-ploringthe sources of customerdissatisfaction, heremaybeothertypes of "wrongcustomers."Forexample,even whencustomers do not misbehave, they may not be good rela-tionshipcustomersfor the organizationbecausethey do notmeet the targetmarketprofile, they are not profitable n thelong term,or in some cases they maynotbe compatiblewiththe service providerin terms of personalityor work style(Lovelock 1994;ZeithamlandBitner1995). It is beyondthescope of this articleto discuss the full conceptualizationofwrongcustomers,but t maybe fruitful or researchers n thefuture to incorporatethe misbehavingcustomers we haveidentifiedinto this moreextensiveconceptualscheme.Theory ImplicationsRole andscripttheoriessuggestthatcustomersandemploy-ees in routine, well-understood service transactions willshareparallelviews of theirroles and theexpectedsequenceof events and behaviors. The types of service encountersstudiedhere and in the originalstudydo represent requent-ly encounteredandroutineservices.Sharedviews of theen-countershould result in common notions of the sources ofcustomersatisfactionanddissatisfaction.The fact that89%of the employee incidentscould be classified in the originalclassification scheme suggests thatcustomersand employ-ees do indeedreport ncidents withmost of thesamesourcesof satisfactionanddissatisfaction.An interesting ssue for furtherresearch s whethertheoverall strong similarity of views between customers andemployees would result if the industriesstudied were onesin which the scriptswere less routineandwell practiced.Resultsof the studyindicatethatthoughemployees andcustomers do reportmany of the same sourcesof customersatisfactionanddissatisfaction, here arealso significantdif-ferences.These disparitiesshow up in the distribution f in-cidents across the majorgroups, and the differences weremost dramatic for the dissatisfactoryservice encounters.

The self-serving attributionbias suggests explanationsforwhy some of these differenceswere observed.

ManagerialmplicationsUsing the Classification SchemeOne purposeof this studywas to evaluate the soundness ofthe classificationschemedeveloped by BBT in a distinctivecontext. Through the addition of the problem customergrouping, the framework s now more complete, and thescheme itself can providea startingpoint for a companyorindustryto begin identifying with greater specificity theevents andbehaviorspeculiarto its own setting.Forexam-ple, the framework asbeenused forproprietary urposes nmedical and travelagent contexts. In these cases, the com-panies began with the existing groups in the classificationscheme andfleshed out the categorieswith useful specificsthat could be employed in service trainingor service re-design.The Customer Is Not Always RightIn the industriesstudiedhere, problemcustomerswere thesource of 22% of the dissatisfactory ncidents.This groupmay be even larger n industries n which the customerhasgreater nput into the service deliveryprocess (e.g., healthcare,education, egal services).Severalimplicationsare suggestedby the problemcus-tomer group. First, managersmust acknowledge that thecustomer is not always right,nor will he or she always be-havein acceptableways. Contactemployeeswho havebeenon thejob anyperiodof timeknow this, butfrequently heyarebeing told thatthe "customer s king"andarenot giventhe appropriaterainingandtools to deal with problemcus-tomers.Employees need appropriate oping and problem-solving skills to handlecustomersas well as their own per-sonal feelings in these situations.Employees can also betaughtto recognizecharacteristics f situations(e.g., unex-pected peaks in demand, inordinatedelays) and anticipatethemoodsof theircustomersso thatsomepotentialproblemsituationscan be avoided completely or alleviated beforethey accelerate.To provideemployees with the appropriaterainingandskills for workingwith problemcustomers, he organizationmust clarify its positionregardingsuch customers.A basicproblemcustomerstrategymightbe conceptualizedas rang-ing along a continuum rom "refuse o serve them"to "sat-isfy themat all costs."Forexample,some carrentalcompa-nies have attemptedto refuse customerswith bad drivinghistoriesby checkingrecords n advance andrejectingbad-riskdrivers Dahl 1992). In a differentcontext,some Madi-son Avenuead agencies say that"someaccountsareso dif-ficult to work with that they simply cannot-or will not-servicethem"(Bird 1993).Althoughorganizationshave in-tuitivelyrecognizedthat not all customersegmentsarerightforthe firm andthateach individualcustomer s notrightallthe time, some are beginning to acknowledge these factsmoreexplicitlyandareattempting o quantifythe impactofproblemor "wrong"customers on profitabilityand organi-zationalstress.

102/ Journalof Marketing, ctober1994


10/13

Beyond the need to developemployee skills, there s theneed for "training" ustomersso thattheywill know whattoexpect andappropriate ehaviors n given situations.Forex-ample, some upscale resorts that offer highly discountedratesin nonpeakseasons find thattheir discountcustomers,who may not be accustomedto the "rulesof behavior,"ap-preciate nformationon what to wearand otherexpectedbe-haviors while at the resort. In other morecomplex andlessfamiliar service situations(e.g., professionalservices), cus-tomersmay truly appreciateknowing more abouttheirrolein theserviceprocessand thebehaviorsandinformation hatare needed from them to make the service succeed (Bloom1984). It has been suggested that by treatingcustomersas"partialemployees"they can learnto contribute o the ser-vice in ways thatwill enhancetheir own satisfaction Bowen1986).Employees as Sources of Customer DataPreviousresearchhas suggestedthatcontactemployees aregood sources of informationon customerattitudes Schnei-der and Bowen 1985; Schneider, Parkingtonand Buxton1980). Ourstudyconfirms these findingsinsofaras employ-ees of hotels, restaurants,and airlines reportall the samecategories of customer satisfaction and dissatisfactionre-ported by customers in the same industries.However,wewould cautionagainstrelyingtoo much on contactemploy-ee interpretations f customersatisfactionfor two reasons.First, although they report the same basic categories, theproportionsof incidentsfound in the categoriesare signifi-cantly differentfrom those reportedby customers.Second,in some industries n which serviceencountersareless rou-tine, contactemployees may not be as accurate n their as-sessment of customer expectations and satisfaction (seeBrownand Swartz1989).Employee Desire for Knowledge and ControlIt is apparentn reading he incidentsthatcontactemployeeswant to provide good service and are very proud of theirabilities to do so. This pridecomes through n the largeper-centageof satisfactory ncidentsfound in Group2, in whichemployees' own skills, abilities, and willingness to accom-modatecustomerneeds were the sources of customersatis-faction.Balancingout this sense of prideare a largenumberof frustrating ncidents in which employees believe theycannot for some reasonrecover froma servicefailure or ad-just the systemto accommodatea customerneed.These rea-sons usually stem from lack of basic knowledgeof the sys-tem and its constraints, nabilityto providea logical expla-nation to the customer, cumbersome bureaucraticproce-dures,poorlydesignedsystemsor procedures,or the lack ofauthority o do anything.Reliability Is CriticalThedatashowthat a majorityof thedissatisfactoryncidentsreportedby employees resultedfrom inadequateresponsesto servicedelivery systemfailures.Thisresult,togetherwithotherresearchreporting ervicereliabilityas the single mostimportantdimension used by consumers to judge servicequality(Parasuraman, eithaml,andBerry1988, 1990), im-

plies a need for service process and system analysis to de-termine the root causes of system failures (Kingman-Brundage1989; Shostack1984, 1987). Systemscan thenberedesignedandprocesses implemented o ensurehigherre-liability from the customer'spoint of view. The best way toensure satisfaction,however,is not to have a failure in thefirstplace.Conclusion

The researchsuggests that many frontline employees dohave a true customerorientationand do identify with andunderstand ustomerneeds in service encountersituations.They have respectfor customersand a desireto deliver ex-cellent service.Oftentimes he inabilityto do so is governedby inadequateorpoorlydesignedsystems,pooror nonexis-tent recovery strategies,or lack of knowledge. When em-ployees havethe skills and tools to deliverhigh-qualityser-vice, they areproudof theirabilityto do so.We also learnedfrom employees thatcustomerscan bethe source of their own dissatisfaction hrough nappropriatebehaviororbeingunreasonablydemanding.We suspectthatthis new groupof dissatisfactory ncidentscaused by prob-lem customers would surface in any service industryandthat its existencerepresentsa strategicchallenge for the or-ganizationas well as an operational, eal-timechallengeforserviceemployees.In a time when "customer s king"is thestated philosophy of most forward-thinking rganizations,acknowledgment hatwrong customersexist, coupled withcreativethinkingaboutcustomerroles and managementofcustomer expectations, may considerably deepen under-standingof andabilityto cultivatecustomerrelationships.

AppendixAInstructionsfor CodersOverview

1.Youwillbe providedwith a set of written ritical er-vice encounterevents. Each "story"or "event" srecordedn a standardizeduestionnaire.wo ypesofquestionnairesereused,one forsatisfyingnteractionsandonefordissatisfyingnteractions.2. Each ervice ncounteruestionnaireeflects heeventsandbehaviorsssociated ithanencounterhatsmem-orablebecause t is eitherparticularlyatisfying rpar-ticularly issatisfying.herespondentsereemployeesof restaurants,irlines ndhotels.However,heywereaskedo take hecustomer'sointof view nrespondingto thequestions.Thus, hedatareflectemployees' e-membrancesof times when customershad particularlydis/satisfyingencounterswith theirfirms.3. You will be askedto categorizeeach incident ntoone of16 categories,basedon the key factor thattriggered hedis/satisfactoryncident.Sortingrulesanddefinitionsofcategoriesaredetailedbelow.4. It is suggestedthatyou readthrougheach entireserviceencounterbeforeyou attempt o categorize t. If an inci-dent does not appearto fit within any of the 16 cate-gories, put it aside. In addition,do not attempt o cate-gorize incidentsthatdo not meet the basic criteria.Anincidentmust: (A) include employee-customer nterac-

Critical erviceEncounters103


11/13

tion, (B) be very satisfying or dissatisfying from thecustomer'spointof view, (C) be a discreteepisode, and(D) have sufficient detail to be visualized by theinterviewer.Coding rulesEach incident should be categorized within one categoryonly. Once you have read the incident, you should beginaskingthe following questionsin orderto determine he ap-propriate category. Definitions of the categories areattached.

1. Is there a service delivery system failure? That is, isthere an initial failureof the core service thatcauses theemployee to respond n some way? Is it the employee'sresponse that causes the event to be rememberedashighly satisfactoryor dissatisfactory?

If the answer is yes, place the incident in Group 1. Thenask, whattype of failure?(A) unavailable ervice; (B) un-reasonablyslow service; (C) other core service failures.If the answeris no, go on to question2.2. Is there an explicit or implicit requestor need for ac-commodationor extra services(s)? That is, is the cus-

tomer asking (either explicitly or implicitly) that thesystembe somehow adjusted o accommodatehim/her?Is it the employee's responsethatcauses the eventto berememberedas highly satisfactoryor dissatisfactory?If the answer is yes, place the incident in Group2. Thenask what type of need/request s triggeringthe incident:(A) 'special needs' customer;(B) customer preferences;(C) admitted customer error; (D) potentially disruptiveothercustomers.If the answer is no, go on to question3.3. Is there an unpromptedand unsolicited action on thepart of the employee that causes the dis/satisfaction?Thatis, does a spontaneousaction or attitudeof the em-

ployee cause the dis/satisfaction?(Since this followsrules 1 and 2, it obviously implies thatthereis no ser-vice failureandno explicit/implicitrequest.)If the answeris yes, place the incident in Group3. Then,ask what type of unpromptedand unsolicited action tookplace: (A) attentionpaidto customer; B) trulyout-of-the-ordinaryaction;(C) employee behaviors n the context ofculturalnorms;(D) gestalt evaluation; E) exemplaryper-formanceunderadversecircumstances.If the answer s no, go to question4.4. Does the dis/satisfaction stem from the actions/atti-tudes/behaviors of a "problem customer"? That is,ratherthan the dis/satisfactionbeing attributableo anactionor attitudeof the employee, is the rootcause ac-

tually the customer?If the answeris yes, place the incidentin Group4. Then,ask what type of behavior is causing the problem: (A)drunkenness; B) verbal/physicalabuse; (C) breaking/re-sisting company policies or laws; (D) uncooperativecustomer.If the answeris no, put the incidentaside.

CIT Classification System-DefinitionsGroup 1. Employee response to service delivery systemfailure (failure in the core service, e.g., the hotel room, therestaurant meal service, the flight, system failures).

A. Response to unavailableservice (services that shouldbe availablearelackingor absent,e.g., lost hotel roomreservation,overbookedairplane,unavailablereservedwindow table).B. Responseto unreasonably low service (servicesor em-ployee performances are perceived as inordinatelyslow). (Note: When service is both slow and unavail-able, use the triggeringevent.)C. Responseto othercore servicefailures(e.g., hotelroomnot clean, restaurantmeal cold or improperlycooked,damagedbaggage).Group 2. Employee response to customer needs and re-

quests (when the customer requires the employee to adaptthe service delivery system to suit his/her unique needs; con-tains either an explicit or inferred request for customized[from the customer's point of view] service).A. Responseto "specialneeds"customers customerswithmedical, dietary,psychological, language,or sociolog-ical difficulties;children;elderlycustomers).B. Response to customerpreferences(when the customermakes "special"requestsdue to personalpreferences;

this includes times when the customerrequestsa levelof servicecustomizationclearlybeyondthe scope of orin violationof policies or norms).C. Responseto admittedcustomererror Triggeringeventis a customererrorthat strainsthe service encounter,e.g., lost tickets,incorrectorder,missedreservations.).D. Response to potentiallydisruptiveothers (when othercustomersexhibit behaviorsthatpotentiallystraintheencounter,e.g., intoxication,rudeness,deviance).Group 3. Unprompted and unsolicited employee actions(events and behaviors that are truly unexpected from thecustomer's point of view, not triggered by a service failure,

and show no evidence of the customer having a special needor making a special request).A. Attentionpaid to customer(e.g., makingthe customerfeel special or pampered, gnoring or being impatientwith the customer).B. Trulyout-of-the-ordinary mployee behavior(particu-larly extraordinary ctions or expressionsof courtesy,or profanity,nappropriateouching,violations of basicetiquette,rudeness).C. Employee behaviors in the context of culturalnorms(normssuch as equality,honesty,fairness,discrimina-tion, theft, lying, or refrainingfrom the above whensuch behaviorwas expected).D. Gestaltevaluation no single featurestandsout, instead"everythingwent right"or "everythingwent wrong").E. Exemplaryperformanceunder adverse circumstances(when the customer is particularly mpressed or dis-pleased with the way an employee handles a stressfulsituation).Group 4. Problematic customer behavior (customer is

unwilling to cooperate with laws, regulations, or the serviceprovider; this includes rudeness, abusiveness, or a generalunwillingness to indicate satisfaction with the service re-gardless of the employees' efforts).

1041Journalof Marketing, ctober1994


12/13

A. Drunkenness(in the employee's perception, the cus-tomeris clearly intoxicatedandcreatingproblems,andthe employee has to handlethe situation).B.Verbal and physical abuse (the customer verballyand/orphysically abuses either the employee or othercustomers, and the employee has to handle thesituation).C. Breaking/resistingcompany policies or laws (the cus-tomer refuses to comply with policies [e.g., showing

airplaneticket to the flight attendantbefore boarding]or laws [e.g., use of illegal drugs n thehotelroom],andthe employee has to enforcecompliance).

D. Uncooperative customer (customer is generally rudeanduncooperativeor extremely demanding;anyeffortsto compensate or a perceivedservice failure arereject-ed; customermay appearunwillingto be satisfied;andthe employee has to handle the situation).

REFERENCESBerry,LeonardL. andA. Parasuraman1991), MarketingServices.New York:The Free Press.Biddle, B.J. (1986), "RecentDevelopmentsin Role Theory,"An-nual Reviewof Sociology, 12, 67-92.Bird, Laura (1993), "The Clients That ExasperateMadison Av-enue,"WallStreetJournal (November2), B1.Bitner,MaryJo, BernardH. Booms, andMaryStanfieldTetreault(1990), "The Service Encounter:Diagnosing Favorable andUnfavorable Incidents,"Journal of Marketing,54 (January),71-84.Bloom, Paul N. (1984), "EffectiveMarketing or ProfessionalSer-vices," Harvard Business Review (September/October),

102-10.Bowen, David E. (1986), "ManagingCustomersas Human Re-sources in Service Organizations,"HumanResourceManage-ment,25 (3), 371-83.Brown,StephenW. andTeresaA. Swartz,(1989) "AGap Analysisof Professional Service Quality,"Journal of Marketing, 53(April),92-98.Business Week 1991), Special Issue on Quality.Crosby,LawrenceA. (1991), "ExpandingheRole of CSM in TotalQuality,"InternationalJournal of Service IndustryManage-ment,2 (2), 5-19.Dahl, Jonathan 1992), "RentalCountersReject DriversWithoutGood Records,"WallStreetJournal(October23), B1.Doroff, Ronald J. and F. RobertDwyer, (1981) "PerceptualDif-ferences in MarketTransactionsRevisited:A WaningSource ofConsumerFrustration,"The Journal of ConsumerAffairs, 15(Summer),146-57.Ericsson,K.AndersandHerbertA. Simon (1980), "VerbalReportsas Data,"Psychological Review,87 (May), 215-50.Fiske, Susan T. and Shelley E. Taylor (1984), Social Cognition.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.Flanagan,JohnC. (1954), "TheCriticalIncidentTechnique,"Psy-chological Bulletin,51 (July),327-58.Folkes, Valerie S. and BarbaraKotsos (1986), "Buyers'and Sell-ers' Explanations or ProductFailure:Who Done It?"Journalof Marketing,50 (April),74-80.Gremler,Dwayne andMaryJo Bitner(1992), "ClassifyingServiceEncounterSatisfactionAcross Industries,"n MarketingTheoryandApplications,Chris T.Allen et al., eds. Chicago:AmericanMarketingAssociation, 111-18.Heskett,James L., Thomas O. Jones, GaryW. Loveman,W. EarlSasser, Jr., and LeonardA. Schlesinger (1994), "PuttingtheService-Profit Chain to Work," Harvard Business Review(March/April),164-72., W. Earl Sasser, Jr.,and ChristopherW.L. Hart(1990),Service Breakthroughs.New York:The FreePress.Hochschild,Arlie Russell (1983), TheManagedHeart. Berkeley,CA: Universityof CaliforniaPress.Hunt,Shelby (1991), Moder MarketingTheory,Cincinnati,OH:South-WesternPublishingCompany.Kelley, ScottW., K. Douglas Hoffman,andMarkA. Davis (1993),"ATypologyof RetailFailuresandRecoveries,"Journalof Re-tailing, 69 (4), 429-52.

Kingman-Brundage, ane (1989), "TheABC's of Service SystemBlueprinting,"n Designing a WinningService Strategy,MaryJo Bitner and LawrenceA. Crosby, eds. Chicago: AmericanMarketingAssociation,30-33.Langeard,Eric,JohnE.G. Bateson,ChristopherH. Lovelock, andPierreEiglier (1981), Services Marketing:New Insights fromConsumersand Managers. Cambridge,MA: MarketingSci-ence Institute.Lovelock, Christopher (1983), "Classifying Services to GainStrategicMarketing nsights,"Journalof Marketing,47 (Sum-mer),9-20.

(1994), ProductPlus. New York:McGraw-Hill,forth-coming.McKelvey, Bill (1982), OrganizationalSystematics: Taxonomy,Evolution,Classification.Berkeley,CA: Universityof Califor-nia Press.

Mohr,Lois A. andMaryJo Bitner(1991), "MutualUnderstandingBetween CustomersandEmployeesin Service Encounters," nAdvances in ConsumerResearch,Vol. 18, Rebecca H. HolmanandMichaelR. Solomon,eds. Provo,UT:Association for Con-sumerResearch,611-17.Parasuraman,A., Leonard L. Berry, and Valarie A. Zeithaml(1991), "Refinementand Reassessment of the SERVQUALScale,"Journalof Retailing,67 (4), 420-50., Valarie Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry (1988),"SERVQUAL:A Multiple-ItemScale forMeasuringConsumerPerceptions of Service Quality," Journal of Retailing, 64(Spring),12-40. , and (1990), "AnEmpiricalExam-ination of Relationships in an Extended Service QualityModel,"ReportNo. 90-122. Cambridge,MA: MarketingSci-ence Institute.

Perreault,WilliamD., Jr.andLaurenceE. Leigh (1989), "Reliabil-ity of NominalData Based on QualitativeJudgments," ournalof MarketingResearch,26 (May), 135-48.Resnik,Alan J. and RobertR. Harmon(1983), "ConsumerCom-plaintsandManagerialResponse:A HolisticApproach," our-nal of Marketing,47 (Winter),86-97.Ronan,William W. and Gary P. Latham(1974), "TheReliabilityandValidityof theCriticalIncidentTechnique:A CloserLook,"Studiesin PersonnelPsychology,6 (Spring),53-64.Schank, Roger C. and RobertP. Abelson (1977), Scripts, Plans,Goals and Understanding.New York:John Wiley and Sons,Inc.Schlesinger,LeonardA. and James L. Heskett (1991), "TheSer-vice-Driven Service Company,"Harvard Business Review(September/October), 1-81.Schneider,Benjamin(1980), "TheService Organization:ClimateIs Crucial,"OrganizationalDynamics(Autumn),52-65.andDavidE. Bowen (1984), "NewServicesDesign, De-velopment and Implementationand the Employee," n Devel-oping New Services,WilliamR. GeorgeandClaudiaMarshall,eds. Chicago:AmericanMarketingAssociation,82-101.and (1985), "Employeeand CustomerPer-ceptionsof Servicein Banks:ReplicationandExtension," our-

Critical erviceEncounters105


13/13

nal of AppliedPsychology,70 (3), 423-33., John J. Parkington,and Virginia M. Buxton (1980),"Employee and Customer Perceptionsof Service in Banks,"AdministrativeScience Quarterly,25 (June),252-67.Schrage,Michael(1992), "FireYourCustomers,"WallStreetJour-nal (March16), A8.Services MarketingNewsletter(1989), "RecentStudy Shows GapBetween Customersand Service Employeeson CustomerSer-vice Perceptions," (Summer),1.Shostack, G. Lynn (1984), "Designing Services That Deliver,"HarvardBusinessReview(January/February),33-39.(1987), "Service Positioning Through StructuralChange,"Journalof Marketing,51 (January),34-43.Solomon,MichaelR., CarolSurprenant, ohnA. Czepiel, andEve-lyn G. Gutman(1985), "ARole TheoryPerspectiveon DyadicInteractions:The Service Encounter," ournalof Marketing,49(Winter),99-111.

White,FrankM. and Edwin A. Locke (1981), "PerceivedDetermi-nants of High and Low Productivityin Three OccupationalGroups:A Critical Incident Study,"Journal of ManagementStudies, 18 (4), 375-87.Wilson-Pessano,Sandra R. (1988), "DefiningProfessionalCom-petence: The Critical Incident Technique 40 Years Later,"AmericanInstitutes or Research, nvited address o the AnnualMeeting of the American Educational Research Association,New Orleans.

Zeithaml, Valarie A., Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman(1988), "Communication ndControlProcessesin the Deliveryof Service Quality," ournalof Marketing,52 (April),35-48.and Mary Jo Bitner (1995), Services Marketing.NewYork:McGraw-Hill, orthcoming.Zemke,Ron and KristinAnderson 1990), "CustomersFromHell,"Training February),25-33.


Employees View Point - Reference No. 47A

Documents

Transcript of Employees View Point - Reference No. 47A