A Public Organization Provided a Poor Service: Is There Anything They Can Do to Make It Right with the Citizen?

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2023-09-14 DOI:10.1080/15309576.2023.2257681
James Gerard Caillier
{"title":"A Public Organization Provided a Poor Service: Is There Anything They Can Do to Make It Right with the Citizen?","authors":"James Gerard Caillier","doi":"10.1080/15309576.2023.2257681","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThis article aimed to investigate the effectiveness of service recovery strategies in a public organization. Justice theory and cognitive appraisal theory were used to develop hypotheses that predicted the impact of recovery strategies (i.e., the quality of the reperformed service, empathetic apology, and the combined effects of empathetic apology and quality of the reperformed service) on justice perceptions and emotional responses. The notion is that these recovery strategies will compensate citizens for the loss incurred during the service failure, thus increasing their perceptions of justice and emotional responses. No article was found to examine the combined effects of empathetic apology and both high and low reperformance on justice and emotional perceptions. To conduct the study, an online survey experiment consisting of 6 vignettes was administered to 1,000 individuals who were recruited by Qualtrics. Furthermore, the organization in the vignettes where the service failure and recovery occurred was the Department of Motor Vehicles. The results from the analyses supported most of the hypotheses. Reperformed service was generally most beneficial when it was done at a high level. Next, combining empathetic apology and high reperformed service recovery was largely found to be more effective than just employing one service recovery strategy or combining empathetic apology and low reperformance. Finally, performing an empathetic apology and a low reperformance is generally not more effective than employing only one strategy. The implication of these results is thoroughly discussed in the article.Keywords: Service FailureService RecoveryJustice PerceptionsPositive Word-Of-MouthRecovery SatisfactionPublic Organizationsreperformanceempathetic apology Data availability statementThe data for the manuscript is available at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/H1FFHZ.Notes1 This point was proposed by an anonymous reviewer.2 Qualtrics recruits individuals from many sources. Consequently, the nominal incentives participants receive vary. For instance, some individuals are airline customers who join to receive SkyMiles, some are retail customers who receive points at their chosen retail outlet, and others are general consumers who receive cash, gift cards, and so forth.Additional informationNotes on contributorsJames Gerard CaillierJames Gerard Caillier is a professor in the Master of Public Administration program at the University of Alabama. His research interests concern organizational behavior, human resources, and citizen attitudes towards agency leaders. His book entitled Abusive Supervision in Government was published in Lexington Books, 2021.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2023.2257681","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

AbstractThis article aimed to investigate the effectiveness of service recovery strategies in a public organization. Justice theory and cognitive appraisal theory were used to develop hypotheses that predicted the impact of recovery strategies (i.e., the quality of the reperformed service, empathetic apology, and the combined effects of empathetic apology and quality of the reperformed service) on justice perceptions and emotional responses. The notion is that these recovery strategies will compensate citizens for the loss incurred during the service failure, thus increasing their perceptions of justice and emotional responses. No article was found to examine the combined effects of empathetic apology and both high and low reperformance on justice and emotional perceptions. To conduct the study, an online survey experiment consisting of 6 vignettes was administered to 1,000 individuals who were recruited by Qualtrics. Furthermore, the organization in the vignettes where the service failure and recovery occurred was the Department of Motor Vehicles. The results from the analyses supported most of the hypotheses. Reperformed service was generally most beneficial when it was done at a high level. Next, combining empathetic apology and high reperformed service recovery was largely found to be more effective than just employing one service recovery strategy or combining empathetic apology and low reperformance. Finally, performing an empathetic apology and a low reperformance is generally not more effective than employing only one strategy. The implication of these results is thoroughly discussed in the article.Keywords: Service FailureService RecoveryJustice PerceptionsPositive Word-Of-MouthRecovery SatisfactionPublic Organizationsreperformanceempathetic apology Data availability statementThe data for the manuscript is available at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/H1FFHZ.Notes1 This point was proposed by an anonymous reviewer.2 Qualtrics recruits individuals from many sources. Consequently, the nominal incentives participants receive vary. For instance, some individuals are airline customers who join to receive SkyMiles, some are retail customers who receive points at their chosen retail outlet, and others are general consumers who receive cash, gift cards, and so forth.Additional informationNotes on contributorsJames Gerard CaillierJames Gerard Caillier is a professor in the Master of Public Administration program at the University of Alabama. His research interests concern organizational behavior, human resources, and citizen attitudes towards agency leaders. His book entitled Abusive Supervision in Government was published in Lexington Books, 2021.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一个公共机构提供了糟糕的服务:他们能做些什么来纠正公民吗?
摘要本文旨在探讨公共机构服务恢复策略的有效性。运用公正理论和认知评价理论,对康复策略(即重做服务质量、共情道歉以及共情道歉和重做服务质量的联合效应)对公平感和情绪反应的影响进行假设预测。这个概念是,这些恢复策略将补偿公民在服务故障期间遭受的损失,从而增加他们对正义的感知和情感反应。没有研究发现共情道歉和高、低重演对公正和情感感知的综合影响。为了进行这项研究,我们对Qualtrics招募的1000人进行了一项由6个小插曲组成的在线调查实验。此外,在小插曲中,服务失败和恢复发生的组织是机动车辆部。分析的结果支持了大多数假设。重执行的服务通常在高级别完成时最有益。其次,共情道歉与高重效服务修复相结合,比单一服务修复策略或共情道歉与低重效服务修复相结合更有效。最后,进行同理心的道歉和低水平的重复通常并不比只采用一种策略更有效。本文对这些结果的含义进行了深入的讨论。关键词:服务失败服务恢复公正感知正面口碑恢复满意度公共组织绩效共情道歉数据可用性声明稿件数据可在https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/H1FFHZ.Notes1上找到这一点是由一位匿名审稿人提出的Qualtrics从许多渠道招募人员。因此,参与者得到的名义激励各不相同。例如,有些人是加入SkyMiles的航空公司客户,有些人是在自己选择的零售店获得积分的零售客户,还有一些人是获得现金、礼品卡等的普通消费者。本文作者james Gerard Caillier是阿拉巴马大学公共管理硕士课程的教授。他的研究兴趣包括组织行为、人力资源和公民对机构领导人的态度。他的著作《政府中的滥用监督》于2021年在列克星敦出版社出版。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1