초록 close

기업은 제품/서비스의 실패 발생시 불만족한 고객이 기업 외부보다는 내부로 불평행동을 할 수 있도록 유도하고 만족스러운 리커버리를 수행해야 한다. 리커버리마저 불만족스럽다면 기업은 매우 심각한 부정적 결과를 맞을 수 있다. 리커버리 전략의 목표는 리커버리만족을 높여 재구매의도를 긍정적으로 전환하는 데 있으므로 리커버리만족모형에 대한 포괄적인 이해를 바탕으로 효과적인 관리방안을 마련해야 한다. 그런데 대부분의 기존연구는 고객의 희생인 투입과 산출로서의 보상을 비교하는 공정성이론에 의존하여 수행되어온 한계가 있어, 본 연구는 불평고객이 리커버리에 대한 일정수준 이상의 기대를 형성해야만 비로소 불평행동에 착수하는 현상에 착안, 기대-불일치 패러다임을 적용하여 리커버리의 특수성을 반영한 리커버리불일치 개념으로 리커버리만족모형을 분석하였다. 먼저, 리커버리불일치 개념을 지각된 공정성의 하위차원을 근거로 관리적 시사점을 도출할 수 있는 다차원적 구성개념으로 모형화하는 것이 불일치개념처럼 단일차원으로 모형화하는 견해보다 우월한지를 분석했다. 다음으로, 리커버리불일치의 하위차원들이 지각된 공정성의 하위차원들과 개념적으로 상호배타적인 독립성을 갖는지를 분석했다. 마지막으로, 실패의 심각성 수준에 따라 리커버리불일치의 하위차원간 리커버리만족에의 영향력에 상대적 차이가 존재하는지를 분석했다. 분석결과를 바탕으로 다음의 결론을 얻었다. 첫째, 리커버리에 대한 고객의 평가는 지각된 공정성 수준에서만 파악할 것이 아니라 리커버리에 대한 고객의 사전적 기대와 리커버리 성과를 비교하는 리커버리불일치로써도 파악해야 한다. 이때 고객은 분배적 리커버리불일치와 상호작용적 리커버리불일치를 별도의 차원으로 인지하므로 다차원적 리커버리불일치 모형이 단일차원모형보다 우수하다는 것을 확인할 수 있다. 둘째, 불평고객은 리커버리를 평가함에 있어 지각된 공정성과 리커버리불일치를 별개로 지각하므로 리커버리불일치와 지각된 공정성은 상호독립적인 개념으로 보아야 한다. 셋째, 실패의 심각성이 높은 경우 분배적 리커버리불일치와 상호작용적 리커버리불일치가 리커버리만족에 모두 같은 정도로 유의한 영향을 미친다. 넷째, 실패의 심각성이 낮은 경우는 분배적 리커버리불일치가 상호작용적 리커버리불일치보다 리커버리만족에 미치는 영향이 더 크다. 따라서, 특정조건에 따라 리커버리불일치의 하위차원 중 리커버리만족에 더 큰 영향을 미치는 차원이 존재할 수 있으므로 자원의 효율적 배분을 통한 리커버리 효과증대를 꾀할 수 있다. 본 연구는 이러한 실증결과를 바탕으로 리커버리만족모형의 이론적 심화와 확대를 꾀했을 뿐 아니라, 다면적이고 자원효율적인 성공적 리커버리전략 수립을 위한 관리적 시사점을 도출하는데 기여하였다.


Companies should minimize product/service failures, however, if any occurs, customers need to be encouraged to complain inside the companies and then receive satisfactory recoveries. Unsatisfactory recoveries may result in double deviation effect. Thus, companies should be equipped with a comprehensive managerial framework or a tool to build and implement effective recovery strategies. In general, customers decide to commence complaining behaviors only when they have positive expectations of the recovery, however, there had been little research adopting expectancy- disconfirmation paradigm in recovery satisfaction. The majority of the previous research on this issue has been focused on justice theory. It is because justice theory deals with conflict resolutions in the perspective of social exchange theory. Customers’ complaining, firms’ recoveries, and complainants’ satisfaction with recovery have been viewed on the perspective of conflicts between the customers and the firms. Therefore, most of recovery satisfaction studies have been focused on the issues such as equity, equality, and justice. Since, as mentioned earlier, the commencement of complaining behavior itself is strongly dependent on the predictive expectation of the firm’s recovery performance, we need to look into the construct of recovery satisfaction not only on the basis of input-output comparison but also on the basis of expectancy-performance comparison. Furthermore, we need to comprehend that the concept of recovery disconfirmation is quite different from the general disconfirmation concept. In this context, the goal of the current study is to focus on developing and investigating the model of “recovery disconfirmation-recovery satisfaction” by employing the expectancy- disconfirmation paradigm. This study proposes a multidimensional construct of recovery satisfaction enlightened by the idea of Fisk and Young(1985) that studied the concept of disconfirmation of equity expectation in their CS research. Thus, recovery satisfaction concept in the current study roots in the premise that complainants have predictive expectations with regard to distributive, interactional and/or procedural aspects of firm’s recovery performance, which are the discrete dimensions of perceived justice. Four hypotheses were established and empirically tested. First, recovery disconfirmation could be a multidimensional construct categorized on the basis of dimensions of perceived justice. Second, the subdimensions of recovery disconfirmation must be mutually exclusive constructs from the corresponding subdimensions of perceived justice. In certain conditions, a specific dimension of multidimensional recovery disconfirmation could be expected to have a relatively stronger influence on recovery satisfaction. Therefore, the relative impact of the dimensions were analyzed and compared by adopting failure severity as a moderator. The research hypotheses are as follows: Hypothesis 1: The multidimensional conceptualization of recovery disconfirmation viewed on the ground of dimensions of perceived justice will be superior to the unidimensional conceptualization of recovery disconfirmation. Hypothesis 2: The proposed dimensions of recovery disconfirmation will be mutually exclusive from those of perceived justice. Hypothesis 3: When failure severity is high, both distributive recovery disconfirmation and interactional recovery disconfirmation will have similar amount of impact on recovery satisfaction. Hypothesis 4: When failure severity is low, distributive recovery disconfirmation will have more impact on recovery satisfaction than interactional recovery disconfirmation. Two dimensions of distributive and interactional recovery disconfirmations were developed and the statistical validation of the hypotheses was conducted with survey data of 212 respondents in the form of structural equation modeling that has the path structure of recovery disconfirmation → recovery satisfaction → RPI. The empirical test proved that proposed four hypotheses were all supported. Results indicate that first, the proposed model of recovery disconfirmation with two dimensions of distributive and interactional recovery disconfirmation is superior to unidimensional disconfirmation model. Second, distributive and interactional recovery disconfirmations are mutually exclusive constructs from distributive and interactional justice. Third, when failure severity is high, both subdimensions of recovery disconfirmation have significant impacts on recovery satisfaction and the relative influence between the two dimensions has no significant difference but when failure severity is low, only distributive disconfirmation has a significant influence on recovery satisfaction. This study offers several academic contributions. The most important theoretical contribution is that this study extends the scope of the existing understandings in recovery satisfaction by adopting multidimensional concept of recovery disconfirmation which is genuinely different from the concept of ordinary disconfirmation concept of CS in post-purchase situation that is regardless of failure, complaining and recovery. Another academic contribution is that this study validates the evaluation mechanism underlying recovery satisfaction formation process of the complainants who use two separate criteria not only their input or sacrifice but also their prior expectations of the firm’s recovery that is supposed to be delivered to them. Furthermore, complainants have multidimensional expectation-disconfirmation standards that are related with distributive and interactional aspects of the recovery performance. Finally, multidimentional concept of recovery disconfirmation may allow in-depth investigations on the moderating effect of various factors from situation to situation such as failure severity. Managerial implications are as follows: First, when firms handle customers’ complaints they should consider the customers’ prior expectations of recovery as well as customers’ inputs or sacrifices. Second, as customers judge recovery performance in the comparison with recovery expectations of both distributive and interactional aspects, so firms should understand what and how much customers expect in both aspects of recovery. Furthermore, firms should set the width and depth of the recovery expectations for the potential complainants via varied marketing communications. Third, a certain subdimension of recovery disconfirmation has stronger impact on the recovery effectiveness than the other in some conditions like a failure severity. With this knowledge managers allocate recovery resources in a more efficient way so that they can enhance the recovery’s effectiveness.