소비자가 지각한 서비스 종업원의 진정성과 조작의도가 고객가치와 고객만족에 미치는 영향 - 관계가치와 경제가치를 중심으로

It is well recognized that the interaction between service employees and customers is an essential part of customers’ assessments of service quality and a service provider (Hennig- Thurau et al., 2006). Hence, many service organizations emphasize the importance of personal interaction, and it has almost become a general norm to have friendly employees with smiles. Nevertheless, customers’ perceptions of employees are likely to affect their assessment of service encounters. First of all, employees’ authenticity can affect customer satisfaction especially in service encounters that require emotional labor (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006). Authenticity encapsulates what is genuine, real, and/or true (Beverland and Farrelly, 2010). Studies suggest that customers are more willing to build a positive relationship when service providers deliver authenticity in the service encounter. Service interaction should deliver value to customers, and customers who perceive value from service encounters tend to be satisfied. Prior research on interactions between employees and customers suggests two types of values: economic and relational values. Economic value refers to the benefit and cost outcomes of the core service such as customized service and better quality, whereas relative value entails the value derived from emotional or relational bonds between customers and service employees (Chan, Yim, and Lam, 2010). The cocreation of value implies that exchange is relational (Vargo and Lusch, 2004), and relational value can serve as a powerful exit barrier. Creation of relational values not only enhances the benefits of interactions but also produces a competitive advantage for a firm (Gwinner, Gremler, and Bitner, 1998). The present study addresses several research questions that are outlined below. Q1: Do employees’ authenticity and manipulative intent influence customer satisfaction? Q2: How do employee authenticity and manipulative intent influence customer perceived value? Q3: What are the roles of economic and relational values in the effects of employee authenticity and manipulative intent on customer satisfaction? Q4: What are the relative contributions of economic and relational values to customer satisfaction? We propose a conceptual model positing that authenticity has a positive effect on economic value, whereas manipulative intent has a negative effect on relational value. The model also posits that economic and relational values have positive effects on customer satisfaction. That is, economic and relational values are expected to mediate the effects of authenticity and manipulative intent on customer satisfaction. We performed a scenario-based quasi-experiment. Scripts described service encounters where a customer was buying a suit at a department store. Care was taken in designing the scenarios that induce variations in employees’ authenticity and manipulative intent but are identical in other aspects. One hundred and three undergraduate and graduate students from a large university participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to one of the conditions. Respondents rated the service employee in terms of authenticity and manipulative intent. They also reported their satisfaction after evaluating economic and relational values of the service encounter. All the items used to measure the constructs were adapted from the existing literature. We used AMOS 16 with maximum likelihood estimation to examine the relationships among the key constructs. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the measurement model was satisfactory: reliability and validity of all constructs were adequate. Results also show that authenticity and manipulative intent are distinct constructs. Thus, using structural equation modeling, the hypothesized relationships among key constructs were analyzed. Overall, the data indicated a good fit for the hypothesized model. Authenticity had a positive effect on economic value (β = .53, p < .01), whereas manipulative intent had a negative effect on relational value (β = -.57, p < .01). Furthermore, manipulative intent had a significant effect on economic value as well (β = -.27, p < .05). According to the  difference test, manipulative intent had a stronger impact on relational value than on economic value ((1) = 4.12, p < .05). Economic and relational values in turn had positive and significant effects on customer satisfaction (β = .38, p < .01; β = .62, p < .01). There was no significant difference between the effects of economic and relational values on customer satisfaction ((1) = 1.94, p > .05). Major findings of our study are as follows. First, authenticity and manipulative intent are two distinct constructs. Second, authenticity and manipulative intent affect customer satisfaction by influencing the perceived value of a service encounter. Employees’ interaction with customers may not be sufficient by itself. It is the quality of interaction, rather than the quantity, that matters to customers. Third, authenticity positively affects economic value, whereas manipulative intent negatively affects relational value as well as economic value. Fourth, authenticity has an effect primarily on economic value, whereas manipulative intent has an effect primarily on relational value. The negative impact of manipulative intent on relational value is greater than that on economic value. Finally, relational value affects customer satisfaction as much as economic value does. Relational value from emotional bonds seems as important as economic value from the core service. Indeed, relationship does matter in customers’ assessment of service encounters. Furthermore, employees’ fake smile can hurt customers’ heart!