Enfoques de la enseñanza de la lectura y escritura

Although interaction appropriateness, relevancy and consistency were previously identified as the key dimensions of interaction quality, these concepts have—thus far—not been defined. Therefore, in an attempt to provide the reader with a more thorough understanding of the factors that influence the overall

quality of customer-provider interactions, a discussion of each of the interaction quality dimensions now follows. When considering each of these dimensions, it is important to keep in mind that any given interaction can focus on the exchange of core benefits (i.e. products and services for money), information exchange, interpersonal exchange, and/or any combination of the three.

1.231 Interaction Appropriateness

Appropriateness refers to the extent to which a customer perceives that a particular exchange episode is structured in a manner that conforms to their interaction needs and preferences (cf. Zablah et al. 2004b). Structural interaction elements refer to things such as the frequency, timing and duration of

interpersonal exchanges, the availability of products when and where a customer needs them, and the communication medium selected for information exchange episodes (e.g. ad in a trade magazine vs. online banner ad). In other words, an interaction is appropriate if, given a customer’s needs and preferences, it occurs under conditions and/or contains elements that facilitate the exchange of values between the dyad.

Numerous articles in the popular press stress the importance of interaction appropriateness to achieving desired outcomes within ongoing exchange

relationships (e.g. Nelson 2003; Paddison 2004). In addition, empirical evidence highlights the impact of interaction appropriateness on customers’ relationship perceptions. For instance, Liu and Leach (2001) found that customers perceive salespeople who know how to appropriately time their interactions with them as having higher levels of expertise and thus being more trustworthy. Furthermore, providers’ use of the “right” mix of communication tools has been linked to higher levels of customer trust in the provider firm (MacDonald and Smith 2004).

Finally, research has found that an envelope’s characteristics (e.g. dimensions, size, etc.) have an impact upon the likelihood that organizational customers will read a commercial mailer (i.e. the envelope’s structural characteristics influence

the likelihood that the exchange of information between the two parties will occur) (De Wulf, Hoekstra, and Commandeur 2000).

1.232 Interaction Relevancy

Relevancy refers to the degree to which a customer perceives that an interaction creates value within the context of the exchange relationship (Zablah et al. 2004b). Value here is defined as customers’ perception of the net,

marginal bundle of economic and psychological benefits gained from engaging in a particular exchange episode (Anderson and Narus 1998; Gronroos 2000b; Park and Kim 2003; Ulaga 2003; Ulaga 2001; Ulaga and Eggert 2003). For example, suppose a provider sends an existing customer a direct mail piece announcing the introduction of a new service. Upon receiving the communication from the provider, the customer takes the time to read it and concludes that the new service could potentially enhance the productivity of their operations. From the customer’s perspective, this interaction is relevant—that is, it creates value because the benefits gained (i.e. knowledge about the new service) exceed the associated costs (i.e. time invested in reading and digesting the direct mail piece).

Relevancy is often cited as a highly desirable and critical interaction attribute (e.g. Abbott, Stone, and Buttle 2001; Ansari and Mela 2003; Fairhurst 2001; Galbreath and Rogers 1999). From an information exchange standpoint, relevancy is highly valued as targeted communications are thought to aid consumers in decision-making and reduce or minimize information overload (Ansari and Mela 2003). In addition, empirical evidence provides credence to the

relevancy dimension of interaction quality. For instance, the successful

resolution of customer initiated complaints (i.e. interactions with a net marginal value greater than zero) was found to have a positive impact on customer share and word-of-mouth behaviors (Bowman and Narayandas 2001). Likewise, purchasing managers express higher levels of interaction satisfaction when they perceive that their counterparts provide them with added value by enabling them to perform their jobs in a more efficient manner (Tellefsen 2002). Finally, in an online environment—where high levels of interactivity are possible—relevancy has also been linked to desirable outcomes. More specifically, the customization of communication messages and the personalization of online content have been empirically linked to favorable consumer attitudes and behaviors (Karuga et al. 2001; Postma and Brokke 2002; Thorbjornsen et al. 2002).

1.233 Interaction Consistency

Consistency refers to the extent to which a customer perceives that an interaction varies from and builds upon the preceding stream of customer-

provider interactions (Zablah et al. 2004b). Thus, an interaction is consistent if it does not vary significantly from preceding interactions in regards to things such as product and service quality, delivery time, methods of communication,

ordering procedures, etc. Moreover, consistent interactions are characterized by a cumulative understanding of the customer-provider relationship, regardless of how (e.g. over the phone or electronically) or with whom (e.g. key contact employee or anonymous service representative) a customer interacts. For instance, consider the case of a customer that reports a service failure

electronically (e.g. e-mail) and then proceeds to call the support desk a few hours later in regards to the same problem. Upon calling the support desk, the service representative has no information regarding the previous interaction, and thus asks the customer to restate the difficulties that he or she has been experiencing. In this scenario, the subsequent interaction (the call to the support desk) is not consistent because it fails to build upon the interaction that immediately preceded it (i.e. the call to the support desk is not consistent with the state of the

relationship).

Numerous articles on CRM, in both the popular press and academic literature, cite interaction consistency as one of the key factors leading to desirable relationship outcomes (e.g. Bradshaw and Brash 2001; Butler 2000; Pan and Lee 2003; Rheault and Sheridan 2002). In addition, consistency has been described as a signal of providers’ commitment to a relationship (Dwyer et al. 1987), and has been thought to enhance the effectiveness of the sales process (Keillor, Parker, and Pettijohn 2000) as well as the impact of

organizational communication efforts (Naik and Raman 2003). Empirically, the inconsistency of promotional mix elements has been found to have a negative effect on consumer brand evaluations (Swait and Erdem 2002).

Before concluding, it is also important to underscore that consistency does not refer to a regulated uniformity or an unwillingness to change (Bradshaw and Brash 2001; Doyle 2001). In her 1985 work, Jackson talks about the challenge of consistency and concludes that customers want their providers to demonstrate a consistent concern for their needs, but also want them to be agile and

responsive to change. That is, it is not about achieving a static consistency, but about being consistent and yet dynamic in response to changing conditions.