Dynamic Model

In present theorizing, there are four balanced states (see Figure 5) and four states are imbalanced (see Figure 6). According to balance theory, imbalanced states are fraught with tensions that made them unstable, particularly if the relationships are strong. Therefore, in service encounter context, if a customer or a contact employee feels himself/herself out of balance (in one of the imbalanced state), then he/she is more motivated to restore a position of balance (in one of the balanced state). That is, each imbalanced state could turn out to be one of balanced states (see Figure 8, 9, 10,11).

Furthermore, there are three possible ways of changing imbalanced state into balanced state: changing (1) the customer’s attitude toward the transaction type (C-T bond), (2) the contact employee’s attitude toward the transaction type (E-T bond), or (3) the interpersonal liking in customer-contact employee relationship (C-E bond). In order to more clearly and deeply discuss how a imbalanced state shift to a balanced, current research assumes there is one of three possible ways of changing imbalanced state into balanced state at a time. Furthermore, the purpose of study 2 is to investigate customer’s choice of possible ways of changing unbalanced state into balanced state, so contact employee’s conditions are given. In other words, for the customer, there are two possible ways to go: (1) changing his/her own attitude toward the transaction type (C-T bond) or (2) changing the level of personal liking that the customer has for the contact employee (C-E bond).

25

Figure 8 Shift of The Imbalanced State 1 to a Balanced State

T

Figure 9 Shift of The Imbalanced State 2 to a Balanced State

T

Figure 10 Shift of The Imbalanced State 3 to a Balanced State



T

Figure 11 Shift of The Imbalanced State 4 to a Balanced State

Furthermore, in order to further investigate how interactions between change in service encounters, current research proposes a customer-contact employee interaction matrix which contains four quadrants based on mis/match of the transaction type desired (vertical axle) and balance/imbalance condition (horizontal axle) (see Figure 12).

In the first quadrant, there is a match of transaction type that the customer and the contact employee desire, and service encounter triad is balanced because of interpersonal liking exists initially in their relationship. In this case, both the customer and the contact employee like each other initially, they hold the same attitudes about the transaction type desired and are willing to make motivational efforts to conduct those appropriate activities to facilitate the service delivery in service encounters. Ims and Jakobsen (2006) suggest that values and goals are more alike, more collaboration is possible, and greater harmony and partnership exist at some level, leading to a win-win situation. Hence, the customer and the contact employee may make greatest motivational efforts to conduct those appropriate activities with right motivational direction to facilitate the service delivery in service encounters (Kelley’s 1990). Therefore, we specify that, in this case, the customer and the contact employee are

27

more likely to adopt ―Collaboration,‖ which refers to a relatively stable interaction condition.

In the second quadrant, there is also a match of transaction type desired, but service encounter triad is imbalanced because of interpersonal disliking exists initially in their relationship. In this case, even though the customer and the contact employee do not have personal likings for each other initially, they still hold the same attitude about the transaction type desired and are willing to make motivational efforts to conduct those appropriate activities to facilitate the service delivery in service encounters. O’Donnell et al. (1993) suggest that when both parties hold similar beliefs and attitudes, more cooperation is possible though they do not like each other. Schmitt (1984) also suggest that cooperation typically leads to better performance. Therefore, present research specifies that, in this case, the customer and the contact employee are more likely to adopt ―Cooperation‖, which refers to a relatively unstable, positive interface, where both parties have the intention to smooth the interaction, but initial relationship between them is somewhat negative initially.

In the third quadrant, there is a mismatch of transaction type desired, and service encounter triad is imbalanced because interpersonal liking exists in customer-contact employee relationship. In this case, even though the customer and the contact employee have personal likings for each other initially, they still hold the different attitudes and expectation toward the transaction type desired. Ims and Jakobsen (2006) suggest that competition is based on the idea of conflicting interests or desires between the actors. When cooperation is replaced by competition as the main principle for interaction in the service encounter, both the customer and the contact employee make efforts to achieve his/her own goal and try to persuade others.

Therefore, current research defines that, in this case, the customers and the contact employee are more likely to be in ―Competition‖, which regarding a relatively unstable, negative interface, where customers disagree with the contact employee on transaction type and have more intention to hinder the service delivering.

In the fourth quadrant, there is a mismatch of transaction type desired, and service encounter triad is balanced because interpersonal disliking exists in customer-contact employee relationship. In this case, the customer does not agree with the contact employee on desired transaction type, and vice versa, and the initial relationship between them is also negative. Schmitt (1984) suggests that the more dissimilar ends and means exist, the more confrontation occurs, especially when both parties do not like each other. When competition is replaced by confrontation as the main principle for interaction in the service encounter, both the customer and the contact employee make efforts to achieve his/her own goal and try to dominate others.

Therefore, they are under ―Confrontation‖, which represents a relatively stable, worst condition where customers are more likely to confront with the contact employee and hinder the accomplishment of the service.

This matrix illustrates the dynamic changes of interaction forms. According to balance theory, imbalanced patterns are fraught with tensions that made them unstable.

If a customer/contact employee, who is in ―Cooperation‖ or ―Competition‖ condition, feels his/herself is out of balance, then he/she is motivated to restore a position of balance condition such as ―Collaboration‖ or ―Confrontation‖. By investigating possible ways of changing imbalanced state into balanced state, current research would provide richer insight into how match/mismatch and interpersonal liking could significantly influence interaction dynamics in service encounters.

29

Figure 12 Interaction Dynamics Matrix

3.2.2 Hypotheses

Shift from the Customer’s Point of View

In this section, we discuss how the customer who is in the imbalanced state will shift when the condition of the contact employee is given. More specifically, for the customer, there are two possible ways to go: (1) changing his/her own attitude toward the transaction type (C-T bond) or (2) changing the interactive relationship with the contact employee (C-E bond).

Previous research suggests that the consumer satisfaction originated from

―Expectation-Disconfirmation theory‖ referred to the discrepancy between consumers’ initial expectation and post-performance of a product/service (Oliver 1977) and one of the service quality gaps is the difference between consumer expectations and perceptions (Parasuraman et al. 1988). Furthermore, researcher characterizes customer expectation of the service as what customers think should happen in service encounters. These should expectation are often combined both customer wants and customer beliefs about what the contact employee is capable of providing (Coye 2004). Hence, customers of services have expectations about what they want and what they will receive from the service delivery process and often have needs and requests that require contact employee to fulfill them. Furthermore, nowadays common beliefs

―the customer is always right‖ and ―customer is the king‖ have been deeply rooted in customers’ mind. These beliefs make more customers take it for granted that ―paying the cost to be the boss.‖ So, customers rarely compromise themselves with contact employees on the service they expect.

31

Therefore, current research hypothesizes that customers are more likely to insist on their initial attitudes toward what they want such as desired transaction type, rather than to compromise with what they do not expect and want, even though such persistence would deteriorate the relationship between the customer and the contact employee. To sum up, form customer’s perspective, we hypothesize that, as shown in Figure 8, the imbalanced state will shift to the pattern Ⅲ; as shown in Fiure 9, the imbalanced state will shift to the pattern Ⅲ; as shown in Fiure 10, the imbalanced state will shift to the pattern Ⅰ; as shown in Fiure 11, the imbalanced state will shift to the pattern Ⅰ.

H3: In order to restore to the position of a balanced state, a customer is more

willing to change the relationship between the customer and the contact employee than to change his/her attitude toward the transaction type desired.

Interaction Dynamics in Service Encounters

According to our interaction dynamics matrix model (4 C’s: collaboration, cooperation, competition, and confrontation). We present a congruency matrix representing four service interaction dynamics: (1) ―Collaboration‖ in which both parties anticipate same types of transactions (e.g., communal-communal and exchange-exchange), and actively put in efforts as partners to accomplish the service goal; (2) ―Cooperation‖ in which two parties have the same expectations initially (e.g., server communal-customer exchange, or server exchange-customer communal), yet the relationship between them is not that good. Nevertheless, in this case one party is still willing to passively follow along and interact accordingly to achieve satisfactory

results; (3) ―Competition‖ in which two parties have different expectations initially, tension interferes with service delivery, and the two parties actively compete to gain control over the other; and (4) ―Confrontation‖ in which two parties have different expectations initially, disagreement surfaces, and the interaction becomes heated and disrupts service—a worst-case scenario. The interaction dynamic can move from one to the other depending on the actions and behaviors of the parties involved.

In addition, we adapt Heider’s (1958) balance theory to explain the various levels of service interaction equilibriums and illustrate the importance of balanced service encounters in customer satisfaction. The triad is anchored by the participating parties: (1) customer, (2) contact employee, and (3) the transaction type that actually occurs—either aligned with or opposite of one or both parties’ desired service interactions. Balance theory helps providing critical explanations in our study why customer/employee seeks congruence, either by modifying one’s own behavior to side with another or by persuading others to change. For example, imbalanced patterns are fraught with tensions that made them unstable. If a customer/contact employee, who is in ―Cooperation‖ or ―Competition‖ condition, feels his/herself is out of balance, then s/he is motivated to restore a position of balance condition such as

―Collaboration‖ or ―Confrontation‖.

Furthermore, because a customer is more willing to change the relationship between the customer and the contact employee than to change his attitude toward the desired transaction type, when in cooperation condition, a customer is more likely to choose to collaborate with the contact employee. Likewise, when a customer is being in the competition condition, a customer is more likely to choose to confront with the contact employee. (see Figure 13).

33

Figure 13 Interaction Dynamics Matrix and Hypotheses