Does the Co‐Creation of Service Recovery Create Value for Customers? The Underlying Mechanism of Motivation and the Role of Operant Resources

• Author: Elif Karaosmanoglu,Ioannis Assiouras,George Skourtis,Jean‐Marc Décaudin
• Date: 01 December 2019
• Published date: 01 December 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12301

Does the Co-Creation of Service Recovery

Create Value for Customers? The Underlying

Mechanism of Motivation and the Role of

Operant Resources

GEORGE SKOURTIS,

1

JEAN-MARC DÉCAUDIN,

1,2

IOANNIS ASSIOURAS

3

and ELIF KARAOSMANOGLU

4

1

Toulouse School of Management, Toulouse, France

2

Toulouse Business School, Toulouse, France

3

Coventry University, Coventry, UK

4

Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul,Turkey

This study focuses on the underlying mechanism that leads to co-recovery behaviour and favourable co-created

value as response to a service failure. It argues that consumers’ability to integrate their operant resources (e.g.,

knowledge and skills) to co-recover from a service failure motivates them to express higher value co-recovery in-

role behaviour and hence enjoy higher hedonic and utilitarian values. To test this claim, our study investigates the

impact of consumers’ability to co-recover on value co-recovery in-role behaviour by taking into account extrinsic

and intrinsic motivation as mediators. The results reveal that extrinsic motivation only partially mediates the

relationship between ability to co-recover and value co-recovery in-role behaviour. Furthermore, the outcomes

demonstrate that value co-recovery in-role behaviour increases utilitarian value but decreases hedonic value.

Keywords: co-creation; service recovery; motivation; operant resources; consumers

Introduction

The services marketing literature (e.g.,Parasuraman et al.,

1985; Smith et al., 1999; Maxham and Netemeyer, 2002;

Harris et al., 2006; Donget al ., 2016; Park and Ha, 2016;

Balaji et al., 2018)has demonstrated that service delivery,

failure, and recovery determine service patronage and

profitability. The nature of services (e.g., dependence on

customercooperation) and the interactivenature of service

encounters occasionally may lead to failures and

situations demanding recovery (Sparks, 2001). Despite

the importance of service failures and service recovery,

to date little research has focused on the service recovery

context from the perspective of value co-creation (see

Dong et al., 2008; Roggeveen et al., 2012; Xu et al.,

2014a, 2014b; Heidenreich et al., 2015; Guo et al.,

2016), which in the service failure-recoverycontext could

be referred to as value co-recovery. Customers’

participation in service recovery has been found to

influence satisfaction with the service recovery process,

perceived valueof future co-creation, intentionsregarding

future participation (Dong et al., 2008), perceived justice

(Xu et al., 2014b) and relationship-based self-esteem

(Guo et al., 2016). However, the positive influence of

customer participation exists only when customer did

not cause or was a part of the failure (Roggeveen et al.,

2012; Heidenreich et al., 2015).

As the studies above illustrate, theexisting research has

mostly focused on the consequences of co-creation in

service recovery and has paid almost no attention to the

antecedentsof co-recovery behaviour.For that reason, this

research aims to understand the underlying processes that

lead to co-recoverybehaviour and thus to co-createdvalue

(both hedonic and utilitarian).

In practicalterms, consumers engage inthe co-recovery

process with the serviceprovider by explaining what they

want from the service provider in the case of a service

failure recovery and interact with employees by giving

appropriate information and answers to employees’

service-related questions and act courteously with

Correspondence: George Skourtis, Marketing, Toulouse School of

Management, 2 rue du Doyen Gabriel Marty, Toulouse 31042, France,

Tel: +306974303453. E-mail gioskourtis@hotmail.com

DOI: 10.1111/emre.12301

©2018 European Academy of Management

European Management Review, Vol. 16, 997–, ( 2019)

1013

employees asa means of establishing a strongrapport. For

example, supposethat a consumer buys a computerfrom a

local store without having the software for Windows

installed. Later, he/she goes home and tries to install

Windows on the device but fails repeatedly. In order to

solve his/her problem, the customer mayturn to the firm’s

webpage on Google on his/her smartphone to obtain

information about how to resolve the problem. At the

same time, during the resolution of the problem he/she

may call the shop where he/she bought the device and

get in touch with a technician to fix the problem. While

speaking with the technician, the customer may explain

all the stepshe/she went through. Moreover,the consumer

may opt to be friendly,kind, polite, and courteous in order

to co-create a solution with the employees. While they are

having a conversationover the phone, the customershould

at least be able to use the same technical jargon as the

service providers’technician and respond correctly to the

instructions given by the technical support team while

performing certain reinstallation tasks (such as finding a

switch or plugging in a cable). As can be seen from the

example above, a consumer may display different forms

of behaviour during recovery; therefore, understanding

the motives for engagement in co-creation in-role

behaviour is an important issue if we want to enhance

customers’motivation (Bolton and Saxena-Iyer, 2009).

As the example abovesuggests, customers need to have

a certain level of ability to integrate their knowledge and

skills into the recovery process in order to able to get the

most value out of both party’s efforts for recovery. This

emphasis is also presentin the notion of service-dominant

logic (S-D logic) that claims that the utilization of

skills and knowledge (i.e., operant resources) are the

foundations upon which value is co-created (Lusch and

Vargo, 2014; Vargo and Lusch, 2017). Vargo and Lusch

(2004, 2008) argue that in order to prosper, companies

should adopt an S-D logic which will lead them to shift

from a firm-centric view towards a customer-centric view

in the delivery of service(s) since such an orientation will

prompt firms to acknowledge the fact that customers are

influential in value creation in multiple ways. According

to S-D logic, firmsand customers co-create value together

through the collaborative use of resources (Vargo and

Lusch, 2004, 2008, 2017). In that line of thinking, the

customer is no longer a passive recipient but a co-creator

of value (Vargoand Lusch, 2008) who is actively engaged

in resource integration activities. These two premises of

S-D logic highlightthe importance of concurrent resource

allocation (i.e., knowledge and skills) and customer

engagement, which are crucial for a successful service

encounter that engenders value co-creation for the

customer and the firm.

The example above also brings out that consumers

should be activated to engage in co-recovery behaviour.

Cognitive evaluation theory (CET) (Deci and Ryan,

1985) posits that if tasks to be doneare attractive enough,

individuals are motivated to perform various behaviours.

Similarly, expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964; Oliver,

1974) suggests that people are motivated if they expect

to perform well in order to get the rewards that are

valuable for them. In other words, the attractiveness of

tasks is assessed on the basis whether they are likely to

satisfy the need for personal development via feeling of

achievement or mere joy (intrinsic reward) (Meuter

et al., 2005; Le Bon and Merunka, 2006), as well as via

having access to more resources that would support self-

interests in life (extrinsic reward) (Dabholkar, 1996).

Accordingly, in the context of service recovery, it is

argued that when a customer feels that he/she is able to

align his/her knowledge and skills with the service

providers’duringthe recovery, he/she will be intrinsically

and extrinsically motivated to acttogether with the service

provider (co-recovery in-role behaviour) as to benefit

from the co-createdvalue (hedonic and utilitarian).

Overall, this study extends the expectancy theory

(Vroom, 1964; Oliver, 1974) into the service recovery

contextand claims that motivationalmechanisms underpin

the engagement in co-recovery in-role behaviour. This

study adds to the services literature by developing a dual

process model that posits customers’extrinsic and

intrinsic motivation as the two psychological mediators

of the relationship between the ability to co-recover

and consumer value co-recovery in-role behaviour.

Furthermore, it asserts that the consumers’ability to co-

recover(operant resources) is oneof the antecedents of this

motivational process. By this assertion, it aims to

demonstrate the applicability of S-D logic view into the

service recovery contexts. It builds its claim on the

premises that individuals are active participants of service

recovery and valuecreation (Vargo and Lusch, 2008).

Conceptual framework

In S-D logic, valueis a central conceptand it is always co-

created with customers (Vargo and Lusch, 2016, 2017).

For that reason, it is seen as being the outcome of use,

consumption, or experience, that is, the outcome of an

evaluative judgment (Hilton et al., 2012).S-D logic posits

that value is not delivered or created solely by firms

(Vargo and Akaka, 2009) but rather is always co-created

jointly and reciprocally by all of the actors involved in

resource-integration processes (Vargo et al., 2008). This

view is translated into service recovery that firms cannot

create or deliver the higher possible value then they just

focused on the output through recovery strategies after

a service failure; rather, higher value is co-created when

both firms and customers participate as resource

integrators. In other words, according to this view service

recovery value co-creation (value co-recovery) is

G. Skourtis et al.

©2018 European Academy of Management

998