Search results

Customer complaints and service recovery via virtual customer service channels (VCSCs) present unique recovery situations unlike those commonly found in traditional complaint handling channels. Some of these distinct challenges include the presence of multiple customers during a recovery, which creates the possibility for uncivil customer-to-customer (C2C) exchanges to harm a complainant’s experience. To this end, this paper aims to explore customer- and firm-level aspects as they relate to social media complaint handling. A customer-level moderator (attitude toward complaining) and a firm-level moderator (relative promptness of the response) are examined.

Data from three studies use partial least squares structural equation modeling to analyze hypothetical failure and complaining scenarios on VCSCs. Study 1A (a firm’s social media channel) and Study 1B (a firm’s online support community) investigate how a complainant’s predisposition toward complaining ultimately influences their experiential value (hedonic, pragmatic and sociability) during a virtual service recovery that includes uncivil communication from another customer. Study 2 further examines how the relative promptness of a service provider’s response either before or after uncivil C2C interactions hinders a complainant’s experiential value during the service recovery encounter.

The results show support for the influence of attitude toward complaining and the relative promptness of response as impactful to a complainant’s hedonic, pragmatic and social experience in virtual service encounters that involve one customer rudely interjecting into a complainant’s online service recovery encounter.

This research is one of the first to apply both customer- and firm-level moderating aspects associated with virtual service recovery encounters. The studies quantitatively assess the moderators’ influence on online dysfunctional behavior’s relationship with C2C fairness perceptions, and the subsequent experiential value a complainant receives on VCSCs. In particular, the investigation of relative promptness of a service provider’s response is a unique conceptualization that expands prior recovery studies’ focus on promptness or quickness of a recovery. The authors put forth a more prompt response that benefits the firm by purposively and symbolically closing out the encounter on VCSC, which somewhat reduces the negative effects of rude follow-up comments. This study is also novel because of the experiential focus on C2C interactions during recovery, rather than focusing on how a firm resolves a failure. In addition, this is the first service recovery study to assess multiple types of online customer service channels. Implications are put forth for service recovery theory and managers who attend to customer complaints on virtual channels.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a perspective on peer work and insights from Flourish Australia’s journey in growing a thriving peer workforce. Flourish Australia is a large not-for-profit organisation that has been supporting people with their recovery journeys for over 60 years. The organisation provides, predominantly, non-clinical community-based support to enable people who live with a mental health issue and/or psychosocial disabilities to lead contributing lives in their community.

Flourish Australia developed and implemented a number of strategic directives in order to support the growth of a peer workforce. Central to these directives were policy positions that encouraged a shared understanding of the value and contribution that people with a lived experience of a mental health issue add to an organisation. From this policy foundation, the Why Not a Peer Worker? strategy and Transformation Peer Worker strategy were implemented and embraced by hiring managers across the organisation.

The “Why Not a Peer Worker?” campaign, coupled with the Transformation Peer Worker strategy, resulted in an increase in Flourish Australia’s peer workforce of almost 600 per cent over an 18-month period to now number 145 positions.

This paper provides organisations who are seeking to develop or grow their peer workforce with practical ideas that have been successfully implemented by Flourish Australia that can be discussed and debated when developing a peer workforce.

This paper provides unique insights into Flourish Australia’s peer workforce journey.

Rates of mental ill-health among postgraduate research students (PGRs) are alarmingly high. PGRs face unique challenges and stigma around accessing support. The purpose of this paper is to introduce The Researcher Toolkit: a novel, open-source, preventative approach to PGR mental health. The Toolkit empowers PGRs and promotes positive research culture. This paper describes and evaluates the Toolkit to encourage adoption across the sector.

Four workshops were designed by integrating researcher development, critical pedagogy and psychological knowledge of well-being. A diverse group of PGRs co-designed workshops and delivered them to their peers. Workshops engaged 26% of the PGR population (total 116 attendees). PGR Workshop Leaders and attendees submitted anonymous, online feedback after workshops (74 total responses). A mixed-method approach combined quantitative analysis of ratings and qualitative analysis of open-ended comments.

Feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Workshops were universally appealing, enjoyable and beneficial and the peer-support approach was highly valued, strongly supporting adoption of the programme in other universities. Findings are discussed alongside wider systemic factors and recommendations for policy.

The Toolkit translates readily to other UK institutions and can be adapted for use elsewhere. Recommendations for practice are provided.

The Researcher Toolkit is a novel PGR well-being initiative. Its originality is threefold: its approach is prevention rather than intervention; its content is new and bespoke, created through interdisciplinary collaboration between psychologists, researcher development professionals and PGR stakeholders; and support is peer-led and decentralised from student support services. Its evaluation adds to the limited literature on PGR well-being and peer-support.

The purpose of this paper is to extend thinking on service recovery processes and satisfaction with service recovery, using multi‐dimensional consumer outcomes. The objective of the work was to propose that satisfaction with service recovery should be based on customers' expectations of the recovery encounter, which would be shaped by their expectations of “non‐failed” encounters.

The paper adopts a theoretical approach. Using the existing service recovery literature as well as the traditional services literature, the conceptual framework and associated research propositions are developed.

The proposed framework suggests that service recovery is a service encounter it its own right. The effectiveness of recovery encounters will be based on how encounters operate relative to customer expectations and experiences with regard to the recovery activity.

The research propositions and proposed framework need further empirical investigation.

The proposed framework suggests that managing service recovery should be undertaken in a similar fashion to managing any service, and thus managers need to understand customers' recovery expectations. Organisations also need to consider how a recovery action impacts on a range of customer outcomes, as focusing on one aspect will not capture consumers' full set of behaviours.

The proposed model identifies that service recovery should be evaluated with regard to consumers' recovery expectations and satisfaction is not based on expectations with regard to non‐failed encounters.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the contingencies and characteristics of service recovery system (SRS) design.

Informed by extensive case study data from two large Italian retail banks, the theory-building study builds on the seven design characteristics proposed by Smith et al. (2009). In all, 19 sub-dimensions are identified that provide a finer-grain view of the SRS at the operational level. The design characteristics and the corresponding sub-dimensions comprise the SRS design framework. These sub-dimensions are then analysed across the two cases. Specific attention is given to sub-dimensions that are contingent upon service recovery strategy.

The findings suggest that the extended set of SRS sub-dimensions (providing greater specificity) contributes to identifying commonality and difference between SRS configurations. This specificity facilitates the identification of two sets of SRS design characteristics (S-type and C-type) that correspond with the SR strategy. Two propositions have been formulated with respect to this SR strategy – SRS contingency. An additional set of sub-dimensions, common to both cases, is explained by conformance to regulatory control.

The paper provides novel theoretical insights into SRS design. The increased specificity of the SRS framework and the sets of sub-dimensions contingent on SR strategy extend the current theory. This provides opportunities for both practising managers and for future theoretical development.

Previous academic literature indicates that the case of the banking crises recovery, in view of implemented regulations and policies, differs across times and countries. This is explained by varied institutional environments in which banking sectors operate, and in which financial crises persist. Therefore, the aim of this study is to prioritize investigation of the regulatory framework in the crisis‐response policies across European countries affected by the current financial turmoil. In order to elicit most accurate results and fill in the gap in existing literature on banking crises, the paper aims to focus on both qualitative and quantitative methodological frameworks in order to ensure that the concerns raised by practitioners are addressed and implications for the regulatory processes instrumented.

The emphasis of the current study has been laid to flag the region‐ and country‐specific vulnerabilities in regulatory framework employed for banking crisis recovery. Additional focus has been put on groups of systemic risk which evolved from the current financial crisis and ways these risks can be ameliorated. Furthermore, the current paper strives to explore the ideas of ways to ameliorate negative outcomes of the global crisis and mitigate common risks with reference to the flawed regulations. Especially, important issues have been raised by the interviewed experts who put forward their opinions on the ways of lifting the regulatory shortcomings and costs of remedies identified in the study and who provided solutions to ensuring the financial stability of European capital markets.

The study highlighted areas of regulations that require immediate attention and which failed to prevent financial markets from the current banking crisis. These findings are then summarized with constructive proposals on how to amend banking sector and financial regulations. The study also provides a cross‐European comparison of the financial crisis‐recovery policies, evaluating solutions adopted in various selected European countries. Henceforth, the empirical model tested the possibility of a tradeoff existing between remedies which involve substantial public funds and exert burden on both fiscal balances and taxpayers, and the speed and effectiveness of the recovery processes. To this point, no tradeoff has been found. Moreover, contrasting the current banking crisis to the past financial market disturbances, highlighted the magnitude of the nascent economic downturn prevailing in Europe.

Since the existing body of literature abounds in studies devoted to investigations of the causes for the current banking crisis, the research focus of this paper has been shifted away from the factors and flawed regulations that trigger banking crises. To this point, the paper has traits of pioneering work.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an account of Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust Mental Health Rehabilitation Services’ experience of utilising Team Recovery Implementation Plan (TRIP) as a framework to embed recovery-focused practice. The paper explores the challenges to creating recovery-focused services in inpatient settings and sets out how using TRIP has enabled frontline staff to work in partnership with people who use services and coproduce changes in practice and service development.

The paper draws on the process of utilising TRIP as a methodology to embed recovery-focused practice.

The account finds that using TRIP as a framework to embed recovery-focused practice supports frontline staff to work in partnership with people who use services and share responsibility for delivering recovery-oriented services, measure progress and drive change.

The paper provides an informative account of implementing TRIP as a framework to embed recovery-focused practice in mental health rehabilitation services. It explores the challenges faced by services in creating recovery-focused services and sets out how the TRIP has been used by teams as a methodology for coproducing, co-delivering and co-reviewing action plans. The paper gives practical examples of keeping the TRIP process alive and identifies several changes to practice and service developments achieved since TRIP’s implementation.

This chapter introduces Building Back Better Libraries (BBBL) as a critical concept for improved library planning both prior to and following a disaster or other emergency. Building Back Better, an idea widely discussed in the disaster recovery literature, seeks to use the difficulty of a disaster as an opportunity to go beyond the status quo and to promote changes that result in stronger, more resilient communities. The authors will define BBB elements and frameworks, building upon those to create a model for library disaster planning and recovery, and applying it to cases involving space and facilities, collections, services, and people.

Literature on the Building Back Better concept and frameworks, as well as library emergency response, was reviewed. This source material was used to develop a modified framework for improved library disaster planning and recovery. The Building Back Better Libraries framework is discussed and applied to cases involving library facilities and spaces, collections, and services, and its implementation through a disaster planning team is reviewed.

Though all libraries hope to avoid disaster, few succeed. One survey found that as many as 75% of academic library respondents had experienced a disaster or emergency. Evidence also suggests that few libraries are prepared, with as many as 66–80% of libraries reporting that they have no emergency plan with staff trained to carry it out. Even when plans are in place, the rush to respond to immediate needs following a disaster can overwhelm the ability to pursue effective long-term planning. Building Back Better, when framed for libraries, provides a planning tool to balance short-term response with long-term recovery and resilience. The Building Back Better Libraries framework focuses on the areas of risk assessment for library collections and spaces; recovery and rejuvenation for facilities, collections, and services; and implementation and monitoring, with particular discussion of the human element and the role of a library disaster planning team.

The proposed framework, Building Back Better Libraries (BBBL), can be used to strengthen disaster planning in a manner that balances meeting immediate needs with implementing longer term plans to create stronger and more resilient libraries.

Although aspects of BBB ideas are present in existing library literature, the concept is not formally defined for the library context.

This paper aims to understand the recovery process after the 2018 floods in Kerala, India, and it determines whether the recovery efforts were aligned with Build Back Better (BBB) concepts.

A qualitative approach was adopted to collect the data from the officials of Government and NGOs involved in Kerala recovery. The participants were interviewed on the challenges faced during the recovery process and the actions taken by them to overcome it.

The study identified that the Kerala Government was proactive at making the community resilient from future disasters by – encouraging owner-driven reconstruction among flood-affected households; supporting locals to rejuvenate their business; and by creating a local-level recovery authority. Further, this paper identifies the areas that Kerala was lacking in terms of BBB and where resilience-based plans and actions are needed for the future.

The participants were employees of Government and NGOs at a state level as they were the primary decision-makers to implement any recovery actions. Researchers believe that the authorities at district and village level could have had a different perspective towards implementing the recovery actions.

The best practices presented in this paper for effective BBB will assist the government to build/improve resilience in the community.

The implementation of BBB concepts in the areas of disaster risk reduction, community recovery and effective implementation was never studied extensively. The research provides valuable information on what extent Kerala’s post-disaster recovery and reconstruction activities were in-line with BBB practices.