One of the main findings of the research is that service errors and service compensations do not differ according to restaurant type. However, research findings show that restaurant businesses..
The Relationship between Service Errors, Service Compensation Strategies and Customer Satisfaction in Restaurant Businesses...
Instructor See. Dr. Osman CALISKAN
Summary
In the study, it is aimed to determine the service errors and service compensation strategies that occur in traditional and fast service restaurants and to determine which service errors are met with which compensations. In addition, it is also aimed to determine whether there is a difference in the response of the restaurant according to the restaurant type (traditional or fast service) and whether there is a relationship between service compensation and customer satisfaction. The research was carried out with the data collected by questionnaire technique from 283 people who experienced service errors in a traditional restaurant and a fast service restaurant.
One of the main findings of the research is that service errors and service compensations do not differ according to restaurant type (traditional or fast service). However, research findings show that restaurant businesses often respond to certain service errors with certain compensation strategies. It has been determined that there is a difference in the response given to the service errors in the restaurant according to the restaurant type. It has also been determined that the restaurant's response to service failure with an appropriate compensation strategy has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
1. Introduction
The main question of many studies on consumer behavior in restaurants is why consumers go to restaurants instead of eating at home (Auty, 1992; Kivela, 1997; Clark & Wood, 1998; Özdemir, 2010). Today, it is seen that researchers mostly answer this question as “consumers go to restaurants to have a satisfying dining experience” (Johns & Kivela, 2001; Hansen et al., 2005; Gustafsson et al., 2006). In this case, it can be said that success in restaurant businesses can be measured by how satisfied customers are with their dining experience.
Finding solutions to service errors in the restaurant with appropriate service compensation strategies plays an important role in the success of restaurant management. The findings of the researches carried out in the field of restaurant management show that the customer satisfaction of responding to service errors with appropriate service compensations by the
restaurant management (Suskind, 2010; Suskind and Viccari, 2011), the return of the customer to the restaurant (Leong and Kim, 2002; Silber et al., 2009; Chua et al., 2010) and it is one of the important factors that enable the customer to say positive thoughts about the restaurant (Ok et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2010). Moreover, service errors can be a critical factor in customers' comparison of the restaurant with other restaurants (Leong and Kim, 2002).
Successful restaurants are businesses that can respond to service errors with the most appropriate compensation strategy on the one hand, and try to prevent or minimize the occurrence of errors, on the other hand, by taking precautionary measures. As it is frequently emphasized in the related literature, it is normal for some service errors to occur due to the nature of the service while providing service to the customer in the restaurant (Gursoy et al., 2003).
The fact that service errors and compensation are closely related to customer satisfaction and loyalty has increased the interest not only in practice but also in academic circles about service errors and compensation in restaurants. In this context, what are the service errors that are frequently experienced in restaurants and the classification of errors (Hoffman et al., 1995; Nguyen and McColl-Kenedy, 2003; Yang,2005; Ok et al., 2006; Silber et al., 2009; Tsai and Su. , 2009; Chua et al., 2010; Namkung and Jang, 2010) is one of the main topics that attract the attention of many researchers.
Similarly, a group of researchers (Kelly et al., 1993; Hoffman et al., 1995) investigated the definition of the concept of service compensation and the frequently used service compensation strategies in restaurant businesses. In addition, researchers such as Ok et al., (2006) and Kim et al., (2010) examined the relationship between service compensation and customer satisfaction and loyalty. In addition to these, the literature on customer complaints management in restaurants (Gursoy et al., 2003; Cheng and Lam, 2008; Tianshu et al., 2009; Namkung et al., 2011) has been researched on customer complaint behaviors that may occur due to service errors. presents findings that contribute to explaining the relationships between compensation and satisfaction.
In addition, research on service error and compensation in the context of restaurant management mostly focuses on the factors that consumers consider when choosing a restaurant (Ariker, 2012) and the reasons for choosing fast service restaurants (Korkmaz, 2005; Tayfun and Kara, 2007; Tayfun and Tokmak, 2007). It is observed that he focuses on issues such as the perception of service quality and its effect on customer loyalty (Hacıefendioğlu & Koç, 2009) in restaurants that offer fast service. Kitapçı (2008), on the other hand, focused directly on customer complaint behavior in restaurants and determined that the most common complaint behavior was to tell family members and friends about negative experiences, in a study conducted in Sivas.
In this context, in this study; (1) Do service errors and compensation differ according to the type of restaurant? (2) Which service compensation strategies are frequently preferred in which service failures? (3) Is there a difference in restaurant response by restaurant type? (4) Is there a relationship between the response of restaurant businesses to service failure and customer satisfaction? seeking answers to questions. In terms of scope, the literature on traditional restaurant, fast service restaurant, service errors in the restaurant, service compensation in the restaurant and customer satisfaction in the restaurants were examined. Then, the analysis and findings of the research conducted on consumers who have experienced service errors in traditional restaurants or restaurants offering quick service are included.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Traditional Restaurant and Fast Service Restaurant as Concept
Traditional restaurants are mainly for commercial purposes, which stand out with their features such as different service methods based on table service, rich and varied menus, the opportunity to freshly prepare the dishes on the menu and offer their customers the opportunity to choose, generally located in large hotels or in certain attractive places in cities, and employing qualified service personnel. are restaurants. Traditional restaurants differ from other restaurants in terms of price, atmosphere, menu and service methods and are generally operated by independent operators or partnerships (Güler, 2003).
Quick service restaurants are generally commercial-purpose restaurants that operate in the form of self-service, service is fast, service personnel are only interested in collecting empty spaces and cleaning the table, customer turnover rate is high, and generally operating under chain businesses. The target audience of the fast service restaurant is mostly working families and office workers with limited time for lunch. In such restaurants, the speed of service, food quality and price are the factors that affect customer satisfaction (Pettijohn et al., 1997).
Researches on the differences between traditional restaurants and fast service restaurants show that traditional restaurants are preferred because they offer more fresh, high quality and healthy food compared to fast service restaurants, especially in terms of customer preferences (Perlik, 2003). Again, when evaluated in terms of customer preferences, it is seen that researchers have determined that fast service restaurants have started to develop new and healthier menus as a result of the increasing interest in healthy nutrition and the increasing rate of obesity in the society (Berta, 2004).
Accordingly, fast service restaurants develop strategies such as offering low-calorie foods, providing their consumers with information about the nutritional value of the dishes on the menu, and adding fresh and rich salad varieties to their menus. In addition, according to Speiser (2002), the traditional restaurant's distinctive features such as a wider product range, appetizing presentations and an atmosphere suitable for socializing are the sides where it is superior to a fast service restaurant. According to Clow et al. (1996), the most important feature that the fast service restaurant is superior to the traditional restaurant is standardization in service production and presentation.
2.2. Service Failures and Service Compensation Strategies in the Restaurant
The most important reason why customers are affected by service errors in the food and beverage industry is that service production and consumption occur at the same time and the consumer is involved in this process.
Mueller et al. (2003: 399) define service error as “the situation where the service or product does not meet customer expectations due to an error in any link in the service chain”. Service failure can occur in any part of the service phase and can lead to failure in both meeting customer expectations and meeting customer needs (Bitner et al., 1990).
Looking at the relevant literature, it is seen that service errors are generally investigated based on the classifications made by Bitner et al., (1990) and Hoffman et al., (1995) (Yang, 2005; Ok et al., 2006; Tsai and Su, 2009; Chua et al. However, Nguyen and McColl-Kenedy (2003) and Silber et al. (2009) contributed to the literature by identifying the details of service errors, and Namkung and Jang (2010) classifying service errors according to service stages.
Hoffman et al. (1995) explain service errors in the restaurant industry based on 373 critical events and divide eleven service errors into three categories. Accordingly, service errors; Errors in service delivery from a customer perspective (product defect, slow or inappropriate service, facility problems, unclear policy, out-of-stock food), errors in meeting customer demands (uncooked food, seating problem), and errors resulting from unexpected and undesirable employee behavior (inappropriate employee behavior, wrong order, lost order and calculation error). Tsai and Water (2009)
Hoffman et al. (1995) add “problematic customer behaviors” to their classification in their study of service errors and compensation strategies in chain restaurant businesses in Taiwan. Problematic customer behavior is described as drunkenness, verbal or physical harassment, and violating business policies and rules. Nguyen and McColl-Kenedy (2003) classify service failure in the traditional restaurant as process and outcome errors, and core and non-essential errors.
Error during service delivery; The error that occurs at the end of the service delivery is defined as the result error. According to the size of the error, a distinction emerges as self or non-essential error, which can change depending on the perception of the customer. Self-error is a greater error than that of the customer; Non-essential error is expressed as a smaller error than the customer.
In the study of Namkung and Jang (2010), in which service errors in a traditional restaurant were determined according to the service stages, the service stages; welcome and placing at the table, order taking and service, consumption and payment, and exit. During the welcoming and placing to the table, mistakes occur, not being greeted and waiting for a long time for the table. Error at the stage of order taking and service is stated as not providing information about long waiting and delays for taking the order and serving food and beverage.
Errors in the consumption phase are not being asked if there is another request after the order is served, the food is not as requested, and the waiter does not check the table. Errors in the payment and exit phase are the delay of the account, not being asked if there is another request after the account payment, and an error in the account. According to Silber et al. (2009), possible service errors in a traditional restaurant and the details of these errors are as follows. Service errors; lack of food, slow service, exhausted food, wrong degree of cooking, inappropriate employee behavior, wrong order, miscalculation, and spillage of food and drink. As it can be understood from the relevant literature, many different types of errors can occur in the production and presentation of services in restaurants.
According to Miller et al. (2000: 390), service compensation is defined as “actions that include efforts to correct service errors and turn the negative attitude of the dissatisfied customer into a positive one”. In this respect, service compensation includes the responses of restaurant businesses in response to service errors. In the literature, it is seen that in the studies on service compensation strategies in restaurant businesses, especially the responses of restaurant businesses to service errors are classified. For example, Kelly et al. (1993) twelve as account reduction, correction, management intervention or employee resolution, correction and compensation, change of meal, apology, refund, customer's suggestion, hospitality, correction of dissatisfaction, wrong answer, and worst of all, doing nothing. mentions a separate restaurant response.
In the classification of Hoffman et al. (1995), the restaurant's response is stated under eight headings as free food and drink, discounts, meal coupons, management intervention, changing the meal, correcting, apologizing, and doing nothing. Based on these classifications, it can be said that the responses of restaurant businesses to service errors can be examined in three main groups as service compensation strategies, wrong answer or doing nothing. Accordingly, restaurant businesses that want to compensate for a service error can apply one of the service compensation strategies (such as apologizing, refund or discount in the account, giving a meal coupon, changing the meal) appropriate to the type of error in a way that will satisfy their customers who experience the error. Although the restaurant business wants to compensate for the service error, it may respond incorrectly by applying a compensation strategy that is not suitable for the error and will not satisfy the customer. The restaurant may choose to do nothing by remaining inactive in the face of error.
2.3. The Relationship Between Service Compensation and Customer Satisfaction in the Restaurant
Service compensation can positively or negatively affect the customer's perception of service improvement after a service failure. Kim et al. (2010) positive outcomes of service compensation; expressed as the customer's intention to repurchase, giving positive recommendations to the surrounding, and coming back to the restaurant. Negative outcomes are customer dissatisfaction, giving negative information about the restaurant due to the repetition of the mistake, applying to third parties, complaining, not giving any reaction, and not coming to the restaurant again.
As mentioned earlier, when there is a service failure in the restaurant, the restaurant management may respond to the customer with one or more service compensation strategies or not at all. Also, the restaurant management's response may be wrong. Responding incorrectly to service errors or doing nothing by the restaurant management is a situation that increases customer dissatisfaction. This situation is described as double deviation in the literature. A double deviance is a negative evaluation of the service as a result of receiving inappropriate responses or no response from the customer (Bitner et al., 1990; Hart et al., 1990).
Customers evaluate the service compensation offered to them by the restaurant after a service error and review their perceptions about the restaurant according to this evaluation. Moreover, a customer who experiences the service compensation offered by the restaurant and perceives it positively can be more satisfied than a customer who does not experience the service compensation and can make positive statements about the restaurant to his/her surroundings. In fact, the tendency of the customer to remain loyal to the business and to buy again from the business may increase. This situation is expressed as the service compensation paradox in the literature (Mattila, 1999; Maxham and Netemayer, 2002; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2003; Ok et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2010; Fierro et al., 2013).
3. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses
Figure 1 shows the relationship between service failure, service compensation and customer satisfaction, which is stated in the relevant literature. The model shown in the figure also constitutes the conceptual framework of the research carried out within the scope of this study. Due to the nature of restaurant management, service errors are almost inevitable and different errors may occur according to the stages of the service process. However, when a service error occurs in a restaurant business, it is expected that the restaurant business will respond to this error.
This response can be in the form of compensation for the error, or it can be an incorrect response as a result of applying an inadequate compensation strategy that does not match the customer's expectation. Apart from these, the restaurant business may respond to the error by doing nothing despite being aware of the service error. Service compensation, both in terms of service errors and responses to these errors, may differ depending on the type of restaurant (traditional or express service). Similarly, the type of restaurant response (compensation for service, wrong answer, or do nothing) may differ depending on the restaurant type. On the other hand, there may be a relationship between service error and service compensation in restaurant businesses because certain service compensation strategies are often used in response to certain errors.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
The use of a service recovery strategy in line with customer expectations in the face of error can lead to customer satisfaction. In the light of these explanations, the hypotheses of this research were determined as follows.
H1: The type of service error differs depending on the type of restaurant (traditional or quick service).
H2: Service compensation strategy differs according to restaurant type (traditional or express service).
H3: The service recovery strategy differs according to the type of service failure.
H4: The restaurant's response (compensation for service, wrong answer or doing nothing) differs depending on the type of restaurant (traditional or quick service).
H5: Customer satisfaction varies according to the type of response given by the restaurant in response to service error.
4. Method of Research
The population of the research consists of customers who live in Turkey and have had a dining experience in a traditional or fast service restaurant. However, a sampling frame was defined due to the time and cost difficulties of reaching all the units in the universe. Accordingly, the individuals to be included in the sample were determined as individuals who lived in Antalya, had the habit of eating and drinking out, had a dining experience in a traditional and fast service restaurant before, encountered any service error during this experience and could explain it by remembering.
In empirical studies, it is recommended to prefer the random sampling method especially in terms of the generalizability of the findings obtained, and a list of all the units that make up the universe should be available in order to take a sample (Orhunbilge, 2000). In cases where it is not possible to create such a list of the units in the universe, non-random sampling methods can be used (Kurtulus, 2006). Snowball sampling, which is one of the non-random sampling methods, was used in this study, considering that it is not possible to create a complete list of the individuals that make up the universe due to time and cost factors.
For this purpose, first of all, twenty individuals who were found to be suitable for the specified sampling frame were invited to participate in the study. Upon the recommendation of these first twenty participants, another group of individuals who fit the sampling frame were reached and they were invited to participate in the study. Taking into account their advice, new individuals were reached to invite them to participate in the research. Thus, a total of 300 individuals were reached and usable data were obtained from 283 individuals.
Questionnaire technique was used for data collection in the research. The survey of the research consists of the introduction section explaining the purpose of the research, the section on demographic questions, the section on service errors and service compensation questions, and the section on customer satisfaction scale.
In the classification of service errors, there are 7 service errors: faulty product, slow service, consumed food, wrong temperature, inappropriate employee behavior, wrong order and calculation error. Service errors are compiled from the literature by Hoffman et al. (1995) and Silber et al. (2009).
Respondents were asked what the restaurant management did to solve the problem to determine the restaurant's response to service failure. In response to this question, the participants were asked to choose one of the options such as discount on the account, meal coupon, explanation by the management, changing the meal and apologizing. In addition, the participants were asked to indicate whether the restaurant where they experienced the service error was a traditional or fast service restaurant. In order to make it easier for them to answer this question, the definitions of traditional and fast service restaurants were also included in the questionnaire.
The scale for determining customer satisfaction is the three-item scale used in Oliver and Swan's (1989) study. Participants were asked to answer the items in the customer satisfaction scale according to a 5-point Likert-type rating. As a result of the factor analysis performed to show the construct validity of the scale, a single factor with an eigenvalue of 2.645 and a variance explanation ratio of 0.88 was determined.
The results of KMO (1275,157) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (0.790) also indicate that the data of this study are suitable for factor analysis. In order to determine the reliability of the scale, the Cronbach Alpha coefficients were calculated and the reliability coefficient was determined as 0.89. The obtained value indicates an acceptable level of reliability.
Before applying the questionnaire on the sample, a pilot study was conducted with 70 people who had experience of dining in a traditional and fast-food restaurant. In the pilot application, the hygiene problem was also stated as a service error by the respondents. The hygiene issue was added to the service errors section and a total of eight service errors were included in the final version of the questionnaire.
5. Findings
In the analyzes related to the research, first of all, the demographic characteristics of the participants were determined as percentages and frequency distributions. The most common service errors in restaurants and service compensations to prevent these errors were determined with descriptive statistics. With the Chi-Square test, it was tried to determine whether there is a difference in service errors, service compensation strategies and restaurant response according to restaurant type, whether there is a difference in restaurant response according to restaurant type, and the relationship between service error in the restaurant and service compensation strategy. Finally, variance analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between the restaurant's response and customer satisfaction.
5.1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants
As seen in Table 1, approximately 56.5% of the participants are male, 60.1% are single and 76.7% are under 35 years old. 46% of the participants are high school graduates, 48% are university graduates and 5% are primary school graduates. 54% of the participants have a monthly income of less than 1500 TL and 46% of them have a monthly income of more than 1500 TL.
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Participants
|
Demographic Variables
|
Category
|
n
|
%
|
|
Gender
|
Male
Woman
|
161
122
|
56.5
42.8
|
|
marital status
|
single
married
|
170
113
|
60.1
39.9
|
|
Age
|
17-25
26-34
35-44
45+
|
136
81
49
17
|
48.1
28.6
17.3
6.0
|
|
Education
|
Elementary High School Associate Degree Undergraduate
graduate
|
15
130
48
58
32
|
5.3
45.9 17
20.5
11.3
|
|
Average monthly income
|
0-999
1000-1499
1500-1999
2000+
|
78
74
69
61
|
27.6
26.1
24.4
21.6
|
Table 2 shows service errors and service compensations in traditional restaurants and fast service restaurants. Chi-square test was conducted to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference in terms of service error and compensation according to restaurant type. According to the results in Table 2, the first four service errors that occur most frequently in terms of customers in a traditional restaurant are 26.5%, slow service 15.9%, wrong temperature 14.6%, and inappropriate employee behavior 13.2%. Similarly, the most frequently occurring service errors in a fast service restaurant are 22.7%, slow service 15.9%, wrong temperature 16.7%, and inappropriate employee behavior 12.1%.
Accordingly, the order of the most frequently occurring service errors in both restaurant types is similar. Chi-square test results (1.689, p = 0.975) also show that there is no statistically significant difference between the two restaurant types in terms of service errors. Accordingly, the first hypothesis of the study was not supported by the findings.
While the service compensations aimed at improving service errors in traditional restaurants are apologizing 16.6%, changing 13.1% and making an explanation 10.2%, service compensations in fast-service restaurants are similarly listed as apologizing 12.4%, changing 11% and apologizing 12.4%. making a statement was determined as 9.6%. Looking at the data in Table 2, it is understood that restaurant businesses do not often prefer compensation strategies such as discount (5.7%) and meal coupons (1.4%). Apart from these, it is seen that the answers of doing nothing (11.3%) or suggesting wrong solutions (8.8%) are also given in restaurants, albeit at relatively low rates.
Table 2. Service Failures and Service Compensation Strategies by Restaurant Type
|
|
Traditional
|
Fast service
|
Total
|
|
Service Error
|
n
|
%
|
n
|
%
|
n
|
%
|
|
Faulty product
|
40
|
26.5
|
30
|
22.7
|
70
|
24.7
|
|
slow service
|
24
|
15.9
|
21
|
15.9
|
45
|
15.9
|
|
wrong temperature
|
22
|
14.6
|
22
|
16.7
|
44
|
15.5
|
|
Inappropriate employee behavior
|
20
|
13.2
|
16
|
12.1
|
36
|
12.7
|
|
hygiene
|
15
|
9.9
|
14
|
10.6
|
29
|
10.2
|
|
Wrong order
|
14
|
9.3
|
14
|
10.6
|
28
|
9.9
|
|
account error
|
7
|
4.6
|
9
|
6.8
|
16
|
5.7
|
|
sold out food
|
9
|
6.0
|
6
|
4.5
|
15
|
5.3
|
|
Service Compensation
|
|
|
|
|
don't apologize
|
47
|
16.6
|
35
|
12.4
|
82
|
29
|
|
Changing
|
37
|
13.1
|
31
|
11th
|
68
|
24
|
|
Explanation
|
29
|
10.2
|
27
|
9.6
|
56
|
19.8
|
|
do nothing
|
18
|
6.4
|
14
|
4.9
|
32
|
11.3
|
|
Discount on account
|
12
|
4.2
|
4
|
1.4
|
16
|
5.7
|
|
wrong answer
|
6
|
2.1
|
19
|
6.7
|
25
|
8.8
|
|
Food voucher
|
2
|
0.7
|
2
|
0.7
|
4
|
1.4
|
|
Total
|
151
|
one hundred
|
132
|
one hundred
|
283
|
one hundred
|
In this case, it can be said that the order of service compensation strategies in traditional and fast service restaurants is similar with the customer perspective. According to the Chi-Square test results (12,397, p = 0.054), there is no statistically significant difference between restaurant types in terms of service compensation strategies. The second hypothesis of the study is also not supported. In the light of the findings, it is understood that the type of restaurant does not cause a difference in the type of service errors and service compensation strategies.
Since it is understood that there is no difference between service errors and compensations in terms of restaurant type, Table 3 shows the service compensations adopted by the restaurant management against service errors, regardless of restaurant type. Taking into account the data in Table 2, new groupings regarding service errors and compensation strategies were made in order to create Table 3. As stated by Güngör and Bulut (2008), for the Chi-Square test to be used, the expected value should not be less than 5 in more than 20% of the cells and no less than 1 in any cell.
If this assumption cannot be fulfilled, the researcher should provide the said assumption by combining some of the rows or columns in the table. Accordingly, the first four most important faults (faulty product, slow service, incorrect temperature and inappropriate employee behavior) were determined as a separate group; hygiene, exhausted food, wrong order and calculation error are grouped under the other heading. Thus, five groups of service errors were formed. For the service compensation strategies, apology, change and explanation as the most frequently observed compensation strategies are included in the table as a separate group; Since discount and meal coupons are strategies that occur relatively less frequently, they are combined and placed in the table as a single group.
Looking at Table 3, the most common service compensation efforts of the management for the faulty product service error that occurred in the restaurant are changing (49.1%), apologizing (29.1%) and making an explanation (12.7%). On the other hand, restaurants respond to the slow service error by apologizing with 42.4%, by explaining with 30.3% and by changing it with 12.1%. When we look at the percentage values, the most frequent response is to replace (48.6%) incorrect heat service error, followed by apology (29.7%) and making an explanation (13.5). Inappropriate employee behavior errors are often answered by making a statement (51.5%) and apologizing (42.4%). Apologizing (39.7%), changing (26.5%) and making an explanation (25%) for hygiene, exhausted food, calculation error and wrong order service errors grouped under the other heading.
Table 3. Service Compensation Strategies Used for Service Failures
|
|
|
Service Compensation Strategies %
|
|
Service Errors
|
Changing
|
don't apologize
|
Explanation
|
Discount and meal coupon
|
|
Faulty product
|
49.1
|
29.1
|
12.7
|
9.1
|
|
slow service
|
12.1
|
42,4
|
30.3
|
15.2
|
|
wrong temperature
|
48.6
|
29.7
|
13.5
|
8.1
|
|
Inappropriate employee behavior
|
3.0
|
42,4
|
51.5
|
3.0
|
|
Other
|
26.5
|
39.7
|
25.5
|
8.8
|
According to the findings, it can be said that some service compensation strategies are more preferred according to the type of service failure. For example, replacement for faulty product and incorrect temperature; Apologizing for slow service and explaining inappropriate employee behavior are the most common service compensation strategies. On the other hand, the findings in Table 3 also indicate that instead of responding to service errors of restaurant businesses with a single service compensation, it is mostly a type of compensation strategy (replacement, discount, meal coupon) that includes making an apology and explanation and adding another compensation strategy (replacement, discount, meal coupon). shows that it responds with a combination of compensatory strategy.
The findings presented in Table 3 regarding that restaurants adopt different service compensation strategies according to service error are also statistically significant (Chi-Square value 42,648, p<0.005). Accordingly, the third hypothesis, which predicts that the service recovery strategy differs according to the type of service failure, is supported.
Table 4 shows the distribution of restaurant businesses' responses to service errors by restaurant type (traditional, express service). Accordingly, while the service compensation strategy suitable for the type of error can be applied at a rate of 84.1% in traditional restaurants, it is applied at a rate of 75% in restaurants offering fast service. While traditional restaurants give 4% wrong answers to service errors, it is seen that the rate of wrong answers in restaurants offering quick service is relatively high and reaches 14.4%.
The response in the form of doing nothing in response to service errors occurs at similar rates in traditional (11.9%) and fast service (10.6) restaurants. In this case, it is understood that there is a difference between traditional and fast service restaurants in terms of service compensation strategy and wrong response, which are two of the three types of restaurant response. Chi-square test results (9,496 p < 0.005) also show that this difference is significant. In this case, the fourth hypothesis of the research is supported by the research findings.
Table 4. Response of Restaurant by Restaurant Type
|
Restaurant Type
|
Restaurant Response (%)
|
|
|
do nothing
|
wrong answer
|
Service compensation strategy
|
|
Traditional
|
11.9
|
4.0
|
84.1
|
|
Offering fast service
|
10.6
|
14.4
|
75.0
|
In the research, analysis of variance (One-WayAnova) was used to determine the relationship between the restaurant's response and customer satisfaction. Responses of restaurant management to service errors are divided into three groups in accordance with the relevant literature. These are do nothing, wrong answer, and service compensation strategies. Service compensations include replacement, apology, management explanation, discount on account, and meal coupon options. After analysis of variance, Scheffe test was used to determine which group caused the difference between groups. Levene Test was used to measure the homogeneity of the variances of the groups. According to Levene test statistics (2.456, p<0.05), it was determined that it was appropriate to perform Anova analysis on the research data.
Table 5. The Effect of Restaurant's Response on Customer Satisfaction
|
The dependent variable
|
Independent variable
|
|
Average
|
F Value
|
Significance Value
|
|
Customer happiness
|
No
wrong solution
Service compensation
|
thing
|
2.34
2.38
2.96
|
5,427
|
,005
|
According to the ANOVA analysis results presented in Table 5, it is understood that the restaurant's response to a service error affects customer satisfaction. While the average satisfaction level was 2.34 in the customer group, for whom nothing was done by the restaurant in response to the service error they experienced, it was 2.38 in the customer group where the wrong solution was offered, and 2.96 in the group where appropriate service compensation was offered. When evaluated together with the Scheffe test results, it is determined that the satisfaction levels of the customer group, who received an appropriate service compensation response in return for service error, are statistically significantly different than the customer group who did nothing for a solution. In this case, customers who receive an appropriate service compensation response, it can be said that they are more satisfied than customers who have not done anything in return for service failure. Accordingly, the type of the restaurant's response to the customer is an effective factor on customer satisfaction. Thus, the fifth hypothesis of the research is supported by the research findings.
6. Discussion
One of the important findings of this study is that the service errors that occur frequently in traditional and fast service restaurants and the service compensation strategies given in response to these errors have been determined. Accordingly, within the scope of this study, the most common service errors in restaurants are listed as faulty product, slow service, wrong temperature and inappropriate employee behavior. Apologizing, changing and explaining the management were the most frequently used service compensation strategies in both the traditional restaurant and the fast service restaurant.
Discount and meal coupons are among the service compensation strategies that are used less frequently than others. Apart from these, restaurant businesses can also give wrong answers or do nothing. In fact, as the relevant literature (Kelly et al., 1993; Hoffman et al., 1995) shows and the findings of this research, it is understood that restaurant businesses can respond to service errors in three types as wrong response, service compensation strategies and doing nothing. .
Although it has been stated in the relevant literature that there are differences between traditional restaurants and restaurants offering fast service in terms of restaurant qualities (Clow et al., 1996; Speiser, 2002) and customer preferences (Perlik, 2003; Berta, 2004), in this study, service errors and It was determined that there was no difference in terms of service compensation strategies used, on the contrary, service errors and service compensation strategies were observed in similar frequency and order for both restaurant types.
Although there is no direct comparison in the literature, there are research findings suggesting that there may be similar errors in both types of restaurants in separate studies in fast-service restaurants and traditional restaurants. For example, Tsai and Su (2009) list service errors in chain restaurants as faulty product, slow service, wrong temperature and inappropriate employee behavior. In the study of Silber et al. (2009) in traditional restaurants, service errors were stated as faulty product, slow service, inappropriate employee behavior, wrong temperature, wrong order and wrong calculation.
In this study, a measurement of service errors and compensations was made based on customer perceptions, and the participants were asked to indicate the service errors that they considered important within the context of a negative dining experience they had before, and what the restaurant's response was. When the research findings are interpreted within this framework, it can be thought that in both traditional and fast service restaurants, the participants reported service errors and compensations, which they attach similar importance, and therefore there is no difference in terms of both restaurant types. As explained by Nguyen and McColl-Kenedy (2003), participants in the study reported self-errors as perceived errors.
In fact, consumers' dining out experiences are influenced by both restaurant preferences (Lewis, 1981; Auty, 1992; Kivela, 1997; Clark and Wood, 1998) and food preferences (O'Mahony and Hall, 2007; Myung et al., 2008). It has been determined by the findings of previous studies that they put the factors they take into consideration in order of importance (Özdemir, 2010). There are also findings that the order of importance of consumers, especially in restaurant preference, may differ according to the type of restaurant. Accordingly, when a general ranking is made, the first five factors are food quality, food variety, price, atmosphere and location, while this ranking may change when the type of restaurant is taken into account, or new factors (such as cleanliness, value, speed of service) may be included in the ranking (Lewis, 1981; Auty, 1992).
For example, in restaurants that offer fast service, quality, cleanliness and value may be the top three factors (Pettijohn et al., 1997). While the type of restaurant is effective in restaurant preferences, the importance attributed to service failure and compensation strategies is not affected by the type of restaurant, as the findings of this research indicate. To put it more clearly, service errors that can be described as essential for restaurant customers and the service compensations they care about in terms of the response to them do not differ according to the restaurant type.
In this study, it has also been determined that restaurant businesses prefer certain service compensation strategies more frequently against certain service errors. For example, within the scope of the research, it was understood that faulty products and incorrect temperature service errors in restaurants were frequently responded with replacement and apology compensation strategies. While apologies and explanations are often given for slow service and inappropriate employee behavior error, wrong order service error is responded with a replacement compensation strategy as well as an apology.
In this case, it can be argued that there is a perception in restaurant business managers that certain strategies are more appropriate for certain service errors. Namely, restaurant managers develop a perception of which compensation strategy or strategies are most appropriate for which service error in line with both their experience and business policies. In this framework, the customer is absolutely apologized for the service error, explanations are made according to the error type, and one of the compensation strategies such as replacement, discount or meal coupon can be used according to the error type. In short, managers respond with a combination of some type of compensation strategy rather than a single compensation strategy.
As the research findings indicate, it is understood that the restaurant response to service errors may differ according to the type of restaurant. Namely, traditional restaurants can offer appropriate service compensation strategies in response to service errors at a higher rate than fast service restaurants, and thus, the false response rate is lower in traditional restaurants. This difference may be due to the differences between traditional and fast service restaurants, especially in terms of the level of interaction between the service worker and the customer.
As it is known, the level of service employee-customer interaction is lower in fast-service restaurants, where standardization and self-service understanding are heavily adopted for fast service provision, compared to traditional restaurants. As researchers who examine the components of the dining experience in restaurants (Gustafsson, 2004; Gustafsson et al., 2006; Edwards and Gustafsson, 2008) have shown, the interaction between restaurant employees and customers is not only an important component of the dining experience, but also an important factor affecting satisfaction with restaurant services. is happening.
Accordingly, in traditional restaurants where this interaction is higher, it is expected that the service personnel will deal closely with customer complaints and suggest a fast and appropriate compensation strategy (Hansen et al., 2005), and it is possible for the customer to perceive the compensation strategy positively by meeting this expectation. In line with these explanations, it is more likely that customers in traditional restaurants, where employee-customer interaction is more intense compared to restaurants that offer quick service, will positively perceive the response given as a compensation strategy in return for a mistake.
In the research, a significant relationship was found between the restaurant's response and customer satisfaction. In the related literature, Suskind and Viccari (2011) and Durvasula et al. (2006) also contain findings showing that responding to service errors with appropriate compensation strategies positively affects customer satisfaction. In this case, it can be said briefly that the customer who experiences service compensation is more satisfied than the customer who does not experience it. In other words, there is a service compensation paradox.
7. Conclusion
This study aimed to determine the service errors and service compensations according to the restaurant type, to determine which service errors were responded to with which compensations, and to determine whether there is a relationship between the restaurant's response and customer satisfaction. While the first two of the five hypotheses developed for this purpose (the type of restaurant causing differences in service errors and compensation strategies) were not supported by the research findings; The last three hypotheses (type of service error causes difference in service compensation strategies, type of restaurant causes difference in restaurant response, and type of restaurant response causes difference in customer satisfaction) were supported.
As this research shows, service failures that can occur even in every successfully managed restaurant can be answered with an appropriate service compensation strategy and customer satisfaction can be achieved in this way. Therefore, restaurant businesses can provide training to their employees to compensate for service errors that occur in the restaurant. In the trainings given to the employees, issues such as determining the most appropriate compensation strategy for service failure, communication skills, customer relations management and customer satisfaction can be discussed.
Restaurant management can encourage customers to complain so they can compensate for service errors. Service failure is a major source of potential customer complaints. By using survey forms, complaint forms, and communication tools in social media effectively, service errors can be detected and effective solutions can be found for service errors.
One of the most important goals of restaurant management is to provide the customer with a satisfying dining experience. Because the service offered includes psychological, sociological and economic dimensions beyond meeting the most basic physiological needs of the customer. The customer's bad food experience in the restaurant not only causes the restaurant to lose its customers, but also causes the customer to say negative things about the restaurant to his surroundings. This may cause the restaurant to lose potential customers. Because the customer tends to tell more people around the bad food experience than the good food experience. If the restaurant management adopts the appropriate service compensation strategy to achieve positive impact, customer dissatisfaction can be reduced and the customer can be brought back to the restaurant.
It should be noted that as in many studies, there are certain limitations that may affect the results of this study. The use of snowball sampling method, which is one of the non-random sampling methods in the research, makes it impossible to generalize the research findings due to the lack of a complete list of the population, time and cost factors. On the other hand, service errors and compensations in the restaurant were measured from the customer's point of view. Different findings can be reached in a measurement to be made from the perspective of restaurant managers. In the study, two types of restaurants were taken into account as traditional and fast service restaurants. In addition to these restaurants, it may be possible to obtain different findings if other types listed in the literature are taken into account.
The limitations of the study also open the door to the development of some suggestions for future research. For example, in the future, researchers may conduct studies not only in traditional and fast service restaurants, but also in other types of restaurants such as cafeterias, independents, chains, or in hotel establishments to determine customer reactions to service errors and service compensations. In addition, it can be examined whether the reactions of customers to mistakes and compensation show a difference in terms of their socio-demographic characteristics.
In this study, the issue of service error and compensation, which is considered only from the perspective of the customer, can also be examined from the perspective of restaurant managers. In this context, the methods that restaurant managers frequently use to prevent mistakes and the most frequently preferred compensation strategies in response to mistakes can be investigated. However, the service compensation paradox, double deviation, and the magnitude of service error can also be measured. In this framework, based on the customer's perspective, the perceptions of the respondents about the magnitude of the service error they experience can be measured and these perceptions can be associated with the service recovery paradox or double deviation variables.
8. Bibliography
Ariker, C. (2012), 'Analysis of the Content and Presentation of Restaurant Web Sites: The Case of Istanbul'Eskişehir Osmangazi University Journal of FEAS, 7(2), pp. 145-172.
Auty, S. (1992), 'Consumer Choice and Segmentation in the Restaurant Industry' Service Industries Journal, 12(3), 324–339.
Berta, D. (2004), 'Franchisees, Leadership Groups Assit in McD's “Salad” Days' Nation's Restaurant News, 38(38), pp. 30.
Bitner, M., Booms, B. and Tetreault, MS(1990), 'The Service Encounter: Diagnosis Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents' Journal of Marketing, 1(54), pp. 71-84.
Cheng, S. and Lam, T. (2008), 'The Role of the Customer-seller Relationship in the Intention of the Customer to complain: A Study of Chinese Restaurateurs' International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, pp. 552-562.
Chua, LB, Othman, M. and Abkarim, MS (2010), 'Servicescape Failure and RecoveryStrategy in the Food Service Industry: The Effect on Customer Repatronization' Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 11, pp. 179-198.
Clark, M. and Wood, RC (1998), 'Consumer Loyalty in the Restaurant Industry: A Preliminary Exploration of the Issues' International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(4), pp. 139–144.
Clow, KE, Kurtz, DL and Ozment, J. (1996), 'Managing Customer Expectations of Restaurant: An Emprical Study' Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing, 1(3/4), pp. 135-159.
Durvasula, S., Lobo, AC, Lysonski, S., and Mehta, SC (2006), 'Finding the Two Sweet Spot: A Two Industry Study Using the Zone of Tolerance to Identify Determinant Service Quality Attributes' Journal of Financial Service Marketing, 10(3), p. 244-259.
Edwards, SA and Gustafsson, I. (2008), 'The Five Aspects Meal Model' Journal of Foodservice, 19, pp. 4-12.
Fierro, JC, Pineda, JMB, Benitez RR, and Carroso, RV (2013). 'Analysis of the Moderating Role of the Gender Variable in Service Recovery Processes' Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(3), ss. 408-418.
Gursoy, D., McCleary, KW, and Lepsito, LR (2003), 'Segmenting Dissatisfied Restaurant Customers Based on Their Complaining Response
Styles'Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 6(1), pp.25-43. Gustafsson, I. (2004), 'Culinary Arts and Meal Science – A New Scientific
Research Discipline' Food Service Technology, 4(1), p. 9-20.
Gustafsson, I., Öström, A. Johansson J. and Mossberg, L. (2006), 'The Five Aspects Meal Model: A Tool for Developing Meal Services in Restaurants' Journal of Foodservice, 17, pp. 84-93.
Güler, S. (2003), An Application for Determining the Competitive Strategies of 5-Star Hotel Restaurants in Istanbul, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Anadolu University Institute of Social Sciences, Eskişehir.
Hansen, KV, Jensen, Q., and Gustafsson I. (2005), 'The Meal Experience of A La Carte Restaurant Customers' Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(2), pp. 135-151.
Güngör, M. and Bulut, Y. (2008), 'On the Chi-Square Test' Eastern Anatolia Region Studies, p. 84-89.
Haciefendioglu, S. and Koç, Ü. (2009), 'The Effect of Service Quality Perceptions on Customer Loyalty and a Research in the Fast-Food Sector' Kocaeli University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 18(2), pp. 146 – 167.
Hansen, KV, Jensen, Q. and Gustafsson I. (2005), 'The Meal Experience of A La Carte Restaurant Customers' Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(2), pp. 135-151.
Hart, CWL, Heskett, JL, and Sasser, WE Jr. (1990), 'TheProfitable Art of Service Recovery' Harvard Business Review, 4(68), pp. 148-156.
Hoffman, KD, Kelly, SW and Rotalsky, HM (1995), 'Tracking Service Failures and Employee Recovery Efforts' Journal of Services Marketing, 2(9), pp.49-61.
Johns, N. and Kivela J. (2001), 'Perceptions of the First Time Restaurant Customer' Food Service Technology, 1, pp. 5-11.
Kelly, SW, Hoffman, KD and Davis, MA (1993), 'A Typology of Retail Failures and Recoveries' Journal of Retailing, 69(4), pp. 429–452.
Kim, GK, Wang, C. and Mattila, AS (2010),'The Relationship between Consumer Complaining Behavior and Service Recovery: An Integrative Review' International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,7(22),
ss. 975-991.
Kitapçı, O. (2008), 'Customer Complaint Behaviors in Restaurant Services: An Application in Sivas Province' Erciyes University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 31, pp. 111-120.
Kivela, J. (1997), 'Restaurant Marketing: Selection and Segmentationin Hong Kong' International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9(3), p. 116-123.
Korkmaz, S. (2005), 'The Efficiency of Competitive Strategies in the Fast Food Market: Analysis of the Preferences of University Youth and Analysis of the Preferences of University Youth' Journal of the Faculty of Commerce and Tourism, 2, pp. 22-39.
Liberation, K. (2006), Marketing Research. 8th Edition, Istanbul: Literatur Publishing.
Leong, KL and Kim, WG (2002), 'Service Recovery Efforts in Fast Food Restaurants to Enhance Repeat Patronage' Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2/3(12) pp. 65-93.
Lewis, R. (1981), 'Restaurant Advertising: Appeals and Consumers' Intentions' Journal of Advertising Research, 21(5), p. 69-74.
Mattila, AS (1999), 'An Examination of Factors Affecting Service Recovery in a Restaurant Setting' Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 23(3), p. 284-298.
Maxham, JG and Netemeyer, RG (2002), 'A Longitudinal Study of Complaining Customers' Evaluations of Multiple Service Failures and Recovery Efforts' Journal of Marketing, 66(4), pp.57-71.
Miller, JL Craighead, CW and Karwan, KR (2000), 'Service Recovery: A Framework and Empirical Investigation' Journal of Operaiton Management, 4(18), pp. 387-400.
Mueller, RD, Palmer, A., Mack, R. and McMullan, R. (2003), 'Service in the Restaurant Industry: An American and Irish Comparison of Sevice Failures and Recovery Strategies' International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 22, p. 395–418.
Myung, E., McColl, AC, and Feinstein, AH (2008), 'Understanding Attributes Affecting Meal Choice Decisions in A Bundling Context' International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, pp. 119-125.
Namkung, Y.ve Jang S. (2010), 'Service Failure in Restaurants: Which Stage of Service Failure Is the Most Critical?' Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 3(51), pp.323-343.
Namkung, Y, Jang, SCS, and Choi, SK (2011). 'Customer Complaints in Restaurants: Do They Differ by Service Stages and Loyalty?' International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), p. 495-502.
Nguyen, DT and McColl-Kenedy, JR (2003), 'Diffusing Customer Anger in Service Recovery: A Conceptual Framework' Australian Marketing Journal, 2(11), pp.46-55.
Ok, C., Back, KJ, and Shanklin, CW (2006), 'Service Recovery Paradox: Implications from an Experimental Study in a Restaurant Setting' Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 3(14), pp. 17-31.
Oliver, RL and Swan, JE (1989), 'Consumer Perception of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach' Journal of Marketing, 53(2), pp. 21-35.
O'Mahony, B., and Hall, J. (2007), 'An Exploratory Analysis of the Factors that Influence Food Choice among Young Women' International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 8(2), pp. 51-72.
Orhunbilge, N. (2000), Descriptive Statistics and Probability Distributions. Istanbul: Istanbul University Faculty of Business Administration, Publication No: 279.
Özdemir, B. (2010), 'The Phenomenon of Eating Out: A Theoretical Model Suggestion'
Anatolia: Journal of Tourism Studies, 21(2), pp. 218-232.
Pettijohn, LS, Pettijohn, CE, Luke, and RH (1997), 'An Evaluation of Fast Food Restaurant Satisfaction: Determinants, Competitive Comparisons and Impact on Future Patronage' Journal of Restaurant and Foodservice
Marketing, 2(3), pp.3–20.
Perlik, A. (2003), 'A Class by Itself' Restaurants and Institutions,113(3), pp.28-34. Silber, I. Israeli, A., Bustin, A. and Zvi, OB (2009), 'Recovery Strategies for Service
Failures: The Case of Restaurants' Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management,18, p. 730-740.
Speiser, MJ (2002), Restaurants: Ya Gotta Eat Out! Review & Outlook. New York: Lehman Brothers.
Suskind, AM (2010), 'Guest Service Management and Processes in Restaurant: What We Have Learned in Fifty Years' Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51(4), pp.479-482.
Suskind, AM and Viccari, A. (2011), 'A Look at the Relationship between Service Failure, Guest Satisfaction, and Repeat-Patronage Intention of Casual Dining Guests'Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 4(52), pp. 438-444.
Tayfun, A. and Kara, D. (2007), 'An Empirical Research on the Satisfaction Levels of Customers Serving from Restaurants with Tourism Operation License'
Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 21, pp.273-292.
Tayfun, A. and Tokmak, C. (2007), A Study on Consumers' Reasons for Preferring Turkish Fast Food Businesses [electronic version]. Journal of Social Sciences, 22, 169-183.
Tianshu, Z., Hyewon, Y. Ve Kincaid, CS (2009), 'An Analysis of Customers' E- Complaints for Luxury Resort Properties' Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 18(7), p. 718-729.
Tsai, CT and Su, CS (2009), 'Service Failure and Recovery Strategies of Chain Restaurant in Taiwan' The Service Industries Journal, 2(29), pp. 1779-1796.
Yang, TC (2005),'The Development of An Effective Recovery Program after Service Failures: A Case Study of Restaurants in Glasgow' Tourism and Hospitality Planning &Development,2(1), ss. 39–54. Zeithaml, VA and Bitner, MJ (2003), Services Marketing, McGraw-Hill.
As the head chef Ahmet ÖZDEMİR, I see the source:
Mr. Instructor See. Dr. I sincerely thank Osman CALISKAN for his academic studies titled " Service Errors in Restaurant Businesses, Service Compensation Strategies and Customer Satisfaction Relationship " and wish them success in their professional life. It will definitely be considered as an example by those who need it in the professional gastronomy sector and the culinary community.