Abstract
Although marketers believe that encounters with service employees are a major determinant of customers' perceived service quality and value, there is little empirical evidence that quantifies this relationship. This paper considers the role of employee service encounters, such as repair visits and sales calls, within a comprehensive model of customers' assessments of service quality and value. It is estimated with survey data that describe small business customers' ratings of a local telephone company. In contrast with marketing folklore, most employee service encounters do not affect perceived service quality, but they have a strong effect on perceived service value. By quantifying the effect of sales calls, repair visits, billing contacts and so forth, we find that service encounters frequently do not compensate for service failures and disruptions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albrecht, Karl, and Laurence J. Bradford. (1990).The Service Advantage. Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Bitner, Mary Jo. (1990). “Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surrounding and Employee Responses,”Journal of Marketing 54(2), 69–82.
Bitner, Mary Jo, Bernard M. Booms, and Mary Stanfield Tetreault. (1990). “The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents,”Journal of Marketing 54 (1), 71–84.
Bolton, Ruth N., and James H. Drew. (1991a). “A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Service Changes on Customer Attitudes,”Journal of Marketing 55(1), 1–9.
Bolton, Ruth N., and James H. Drew. (1991b). “A Multi-Stage Model of Customers' Assessments of Service Quality and Value,”Journal of Consumer Research 17 (4) 375–84.
Booms, Bernard H., and Mary Jo Bitner. (1981). “Marketing Strategies and Organization Structures for Service Firms.” InMarketing of Services, James H. Donnelly and William R. George (eds.), Chicago: American Marketing Association, 47–52.
Crosby, Laurence A., and Nancy J. Stephens. (1987). “Effects of Relationship Marketing on Satisfaction, Retention and Prices in the Life Insurance Industry,”Journal of Marketing Research 24 (4), 404–411.
Czepiel, John A. (1990). “Service Encounters and Service Relationships: Implications for Research,”Journal of Business Research 13, 20 (1), 13–22.
Czepiel, John A., Michael R. Solomon, Carol F. Surprenant, and Evelyn G. Gutman. (1985). “Service Encounters: An Overview.” InThe Service Encounter: Managing Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Businesses, John A. Czepiel, Michael R. Solomon and Carol F. Surprenant (eds.), Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 3–16.
Johnston, J. (1972).Econometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
LaBarbera, Priscilla A., and David Mazursky. (1983). “A Longitudinal Assessment of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction: The Dynamic Aspect of the Cognitive Process,”Journal of Marketing Research 20 (4), 393–404.
Liswood, Laura. (1989). “A New System for Rating Service Quality,”Journal of Business Strategy (July/August), 42–45.
Lovelock, Christopher H. (1983). “Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Marketing Insights,”Journal of Marketing 47 (Summer), 9–20.
Oliver, Richard L. (1981). “Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in Retail Settings,”Journal of Retailing 57 (Fall), 25–48.
Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry. (1988). “SERVQUAL: A Multiple Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality,”Journal of Retailing 64 (1), 12–37.
Sellers, Patricia. (1990). “What Customers Really Want,”Fortune (June 4), 58–68
Solomon, Michael R., Carol Surprenant, John A. Czepiel, and Evelyn G. Gutman. (1985). “A Role Theory Perspective on Dyadic Interactions: The Service Encounter,”Journal of Marketing 49 (1), 99–111.
Surprenant, Carol F., and Michael R. Solomon. (1987). “Predictability and Personalization in the Service Encounter,”Journal of Marketing 51 (2), 86–96.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bolton, R.N., Drew, J.H. Mitigating the effect of service encounters. Marketing Letters 3, 57–70 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994081
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994081