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)