Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
(La & Kandampully, 2004). Santos-Vijande et al.
(2013) proposed external oriented response into
three factors called rapid response, fair outcome
and employee support while internal orientation
refers to learning innovation. Rapid response is
similar to Procedural Justice in Perceived Justice
Theory. Customers' value speedy recovery rates
response time as crucial is service recovery (del Río-
Lanza, Vázquez-Casielles & Díaz-Martín, 2009;
La & Kandampully, 2004). Fair Outcome is similar
to Distributive Justice and La and Kandampully
(2004) propose that compensation is the second
crucial recovery action. Although speedy recov-
ery is important, customers expect compensation
for the damages. Subsequently, employee support
is comparable to Interactive Justice and DeWitt
and Brady (2003) mentioned that it is important
to empower employees to prevent failures and to
fix them rapidly if they re-occur. Nevertheless,
responsibility or empowerment has to be backed
up by training; to encourage them (employees) in
their work and gives them confidence to use the
discretion they have received. Santos-Vijande et
al. (2013) also added that employees need to have
minimum level of authority to detect, resolve
any quality-related problem especially front-line
employees. This dimension should contribute to
employees' satisfaction after the failure since it is
the employee who can make decisions to rectify the
process and compensate client immediately (San-
tos-Vijande et al., 2013). Learning and Innovation
is the external orientation of response rate in ISRS
which refers to using the failure and recovery as an
opportunity to constantly innovate service delivery
system to a higher standard. While correcting the
mistake, providing the compensation and empow-
ering the employees are all important, a firm
should not neglect the importance of change in
organization to prevent future failures, to minimize
the risk of problems and reduce cost of any lack
of quality (Santos-Vijande et al., 2013). Further-
more, Nonaka (1991) affirms that successful firms
are those that consistently create new knowledge,
disseminate it throughout the organization and
embody it rapidly in new technologies and prod-
uct while Nevis, DiBella, and Gould (1995) stresses
that service failure should be seen as opportuni-
ties for learning. When a firm is able to learn from
mistakes and offer improved or new service, it can
have long-term results (La & Kandampully, 2004;
Slater, 2008; Vos, Huitema & Lange-Ros, 2008).
Service firms need to keep up with ever chang-
ing trends to sustain the business and this dimen-
sion distinguishes the integrated recovery system
introduced by Smith et al. (2009) which is more
internally focused but does not explicitly take into
account the learning innovation arising from the
management of failures. To reiterate, the concept
of integrated service recovery strategies is viable
for businesses to create a proactive and efficient
service recovery management especially in the serv-
ice business where failure occurs on a daily basis.
2.4
Self-efficacy
The concept of self-efficacy evolves from Albert
Bandura's social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1977). Self-efficacy is a theory based on the strong
beliefs that psychological procedures serve as
means of creating and strengthening expectations
of personal efficacy (Bandura, 1977). According
to (Bandura, 1977) a person's abilities, attitudes
and cognitive skills comprise of what is known
as 'self-system'. The system decides how we per-
ceive, behave and response in given situations and
self-efficacy is an essence of this self-system. An
efficacy belief influences peoples thinking, feeling,
motivation and act (Bandura, 1995, p.2). Devel-
oping self-efficacy requires the combination of
cognitive and physical effort over a period of time.
Realistic and achievable goals must be established
for one to be fully efficacious. Perceived self-effi-
cacy refers to beliefs in one's capabilities to organ-
ize and execute the courses of action required to
produce given attainments (Bandura, 1995, p.3).
The strength of people's conviction in their own
effectiveness is likely to affect their willingness to
even try to cope with given situations (Bandura,
1977). If one perceives that they can achieve or
succeed in an activity, then the action will lead
towards achieving it. Perceived self-efficacy serves
as directive influence on choice of activities and
settings as well as affect coping efforts, through
expectations of success once the choice is initi-
ated (Bandura, 1977). This is followed by efficacy
expectation. Efficacy expectation is defined as the
conviction that one can successfully execute the
behaviour required produce the outcome (Ban-
dura, 1977) while outcome expectancy is defined
as a person's estimate that a given behaviour will
lead to certain outcomes. Efficacy expectation is a
major factor of people's choice of activities, how
much effort they will expend and how long they
will sustain effort in dealing with stressful situa-
tion (Bandura, 1977); the expectations vary on
several dimensions that have important perform-
ance implications such as magnitude, generality
and strength. Therefore, it is clear that self-effi-
cacy explains how motivation comes about as well
as the entire process of action and performance in
a rather systematic manner.
2.5
Self-efficacy and ISRS
Since the self-efficacy theory was introduced, it has
received a lot of attention from scholars and the
Search WWH ::
Custom Search