Explanation information and source in service recovery initiatives

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to specifically consider two interactional aspects that are likely to contribute to the success of an explanation of why a service failed: the adequacy of information provided and role of the person providing the information. Design/methodology/approach - Two empirical studies were conducted using a between-subjects 2 (information: low vs high) x 2 (employee: frontline vs manager) experimental design. The first study was designed to better understand when the information provided might have a more positive impact on the customer. The second study was conducted to understand why the effects exist. Findings - In Study 1, an interaction effect was seen that suggests that the most positive outcome is when the manager (vs the frontline employee) provides a full explanation (vs limited explanation) of the mishap. Results from Study 2 indicate that source credibility is in play. Research limitations/implications - Participants were asked to respond to service failure and recovery scenarios using the same service context. The means of the outcome variables suggest that the recovery effort could be improved upon with other methods. Practical implications - Contrary to suggestions that frontline employees be responsible to resolve service failures, our studies reveal that service recovery initiatives involving an explanation only are best received when the manager provides the customer a full account of what went wrong. Originality/value - This research provides empirical evidence of when and why more information regarding the cause of a service failure is most positively received by the customer.