Executive summary of “Service characteristics’ impact on key service quality relationships: a meta-analysis”

Citation

(2014), "Executive summary of “Service characteristics’ impact on key service quality relationships: a meta-analysis”", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-06-2014-0197

Executive summary of “Service characteristics’ impact on key service quality relationships: a meta-analysis”

Article Type: Executive summary and implications for managers and executives From: Journal of Services Marketing, Volume 28, Issue 4

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the material present.

The past 30 years or so has witnessed enormous amounts of study and debate on the subject of service quality (SQ), yet its importance – how it impacts loyalty, satisfaction, purchase intentions, firm profitability, etc. – ensures the debate will go on. The study of such outcomes is important, as is the consideration of its drivers – such as employee expertise, firm orientation and physical environment. Given the widespread use of SQ in the marketing literature, it is important to understand how these various factors impact the relationships between SQ and its correlates.

In “Service characteristics’ impact on key service quality relationships: a meta-analysis” Dr Hulda G. Black et al. provide a comprehensive examination of the nuances of SQ relationships. They identify three antecedents (customer orientation, expertise, perceived landscape) and nine outcomes (intention to switch, loyalty/word-of-mouth (WOM), price insensitivity, patronage intentions, behavioral intentions, financial performance, customer satisfaction, trust, value). Their conclusion is that the relationships between SQ and its correlates are in fact contingent upon a variety of factors that managers should take into consideration when trying to achieve positive SQ perceptions.

Results indicated that employee expertise has the smallest significant effect size compared to the other antecedents examined. However, further exploration found that expertise does matter a great deal in service situations characterized as customized, technically complex, more separable and transactional. While it makes sense that services requiring more employee skill and higher levels of interaction with customers are more likely to benefit from employee expertise, it might have also been assumed that relational exchanges would be a strong moderator.

Perhaps transactional services involve some customer reliance on employees, whereas expertise remains an important factor given the short-term nature of the exchange. Likewise, relational transactions can rely more on co-production which results in a degree of shared expertise between the employee and the customer.

Managers of firms that offer transactional services should not discount the importance of employee expertise. A good example would be Starbucks’ utilization of expert baristas for the transactional exchange of coffee. Interestingly, the effects of all antecedents on SQ are stronger when the service is transactional versus relational. This provides further evidence that transactional exchange necessitates more managerial focus on the service environment and on developing customer-centered service processes that allow for low levels of overall customer engagement while still making positive SQ impressions.

SQ relationships also differ across service contexts with respect to outcomes. For example, SQ has a stronger relationship with customer outcomes when services are inseparable or relational. As customers become more devoted to organizations through their involvement in the service process or through long-term relationships, SQ investments pay greater dividends compared with separable or transactional exchanges.

For example, health clubs that host programs to connect customers to the firm and other customers (i.e. inseparable and relational) benefit from positive behavioral intentions and the ability to charge more. The research suggests that SQ perceptions would have a stronger impact in these types of firms. Furthermore, the relationship between SQ and satisfaction is stronger for standardized services and for those that are less technically complex. Considering the similar disconfirmation paradigm that underlies these two concepts, it may be that expectations are more easily attained for these two types of services. Therefore, meeting or exceeding customer expectations is even more important for managers of these services, as customers are better equipped to determine expectations.

However, the opposite holds for the relationships between SQ and both trust and value. SQ has higher payoffs with respect to customer perceptions of trust and value when services are customized or require more complexity in terms of service delivery. Considering the technical involvement and high level of credence that may be associated with these types of services, perhaps superior SQ acts as an aid to minimize perceived risk and uncertainty for customers, resulting in higher trust and value perceptions. For example, in professional services (e.g. medical, financial planning and legal services) where the service delivery focuses on complex or even sensitive issues, customers’ amplified reliance on the service provider to provide a high level of SQ will likely impact the extent of their trust and perceived value.

The current study also examined research design moderators. One particularly interesting finding came from comparing service-only firms to firms that had both service and manufacturing operations. The impact of SQ on price insensitivity, behavioral intentions, loyalty/WOM, patronage intentions, satisfaction and value was significantly lower in service-only firms. It may be that customers of these firms have higher normative expectations of SQ, as service is the actual core of these firms, and therefore, the connection between SQ and service outcomes is simply not as pronounced for these firms. Managers of service-only firms must therefore focus on factors that will distinguish their SQ efforts if they desire to reap the benefits of positive SQ outcomes.

To read the full article enter 10.1108/JSM-12-2012-0261 into your search engine.

(A précis of the article “Service characteristics’ impact on key service quality relationships: a meta-analysis”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)