ServiceFriday: Time is Money – When Service Firms Should Employ Trust Recovery Tactics
According to the 2017 US National Customer Rage Survey, conducted in partnership with the Center for Services Leadership and Customer Care Measurement and Consulting, only 21% of complainants were completely satisfied with how their complaints were handled. 51% felt they recieved nothing at all in response to their complaint. This begs the question, how can service firms regain customer trust after a service failure and the mishandling of customer complaints? Prior research identifies two ways in which service firms can recover customer trust after a service failure: An apology and a promise. But when should firms employ these trust recovery tactics?
Two studies, recently published in the Journal of Service Management, tested the effect of timing on these trust recovery tactics. In both studies, participants read a scenario, identified the trust recovery tactic used, and then graded the employed trust recovery tactic based on the timing and realism of the scenario.
In Study 1, participants read a scenario featuring a situation where a customer arrived to a hotel and learned his/her reserved room was not ready. The customer complained to the desk clerk, but the clerk informed the customer nothing could be done. Participants then read one of three trust recovery tactics: the apology condition where the hotel apologized in 2 or 30 days, the promise condition where the hotel made a promise in 2 or 30 days, and the control condition where no trust recovery tactic was employed.
Participants in the no trust recovery tactic condition indicated lower levels of trust in the hotel than participants in the apology and control conditions. When the customer received the apology after a shorter time, participants also displayed higher levels of trust. When the customer received the promise after a longer time, participants displayed higher levels of trust. “The findings reveal that the effect of recovery tactics according to timing is mediated by customers’ attribution of competence to the company for promises and by customers’ attribution of integrity for apologies.”
In Study 2, participants read a scenario where a customer and friends arrived at a restaurant but their reserved table was occupied and were told the wait was an hour. The customer complained, and in an effort to recover, the host offered them a table outside. The customer refused and they departed for another restaurant. “The idea here was to present a complaint handling situation, in which the company offered an alternative. However, this solution was considered unsatisfactory by the customer, thus configuring a double deviation situation.” Participants then read one of four trust recovery tactics: no trust recovery, apology only, promise only, and apology and promise. These came as an immediate measure (the customer was contacted by the manager before leaving the restaurant), and via email after 2 or 15 days.
The results showed that promises made after 15 days had more potential to recover trust than promises made immediately or after 2 days. Conversely, apologies made immediately or after 2 days had more potential to recover trust than apologies made after 15 days. Lastly, apologies and promises made after 15 days had more potential to recover trust than when they were made immediately or after 2 days.
Managerial implications
“The main implication is that service organizations need to apologize first and make promises later to recover customer trust.” The exception to this is when an apology and promise are issued simultaneously. Waiting longer for this ensures a better chance at recovering trust.
Managers should train frontline employees (FLE) to be empathetic and apologize as soon as possible. They suggest frequently checking for service failures and also how they were handled. “It is recommended that managers carefully monitor social media to identify double deviations. Research shows that customers vent their dissatisfaction online when their complaints have not been addressed appropriately.”
Managers and FLE should be trained to investigate the causes of service failures so they fix them before making a promise. “Managers should resist the temptation of making a quick (and probably empty) promise just because they think that this is what customers want to hear. Complaining customers want to be treated in an authentic and competent manner.”
To read the full article, go to the Journal of Service Management. (A fee may apply.)