| Course | MGT 215 Customer Relationship Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Service recovery paper |
| Length | About 1,028 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGT 215 Module 6
When the Technician Does Not Come: Complaint Handling and Service Recovery at a Home Appliance Repair Company
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
MGT 215: Customer Relationship Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
When the Technician Does Not Come: Complaint Handling and Service Recovery at a Home Appliance Repair Company
Heartland Appliance Repair, a composite company based in Omaha, Nebraska, employs 34 technicians who repair washers, dryers, refrigerators and ovens in customers' homes. It completes about 38,000 jobs a year and receives about 2,100 complaints by phone, email and online reviews. A recent analysis found something troubling: customers who complained were less likely to call Heartland again than customers who never had a problem, even though the company usually gave complainers a discount. This paper examines why recovery is not working and proposes a better process.
What the Complaints Show
A review of a year's complaints sorted them into five types. Missed or late arrival windows made up 41%. Second visits because the technician lacked a part made up 24%. Billing disputes, often about diagnostic fees, made up 15%. Repairs that failed within 30 days made up 12%. Complaints about a technician's manner or cleanliness made up 8%. Responses varied by who answered: some customers received a 10% discount, some an apology, and some waited days for a reply.
What Customers Expect
Tax et al. (1998) studied customers' accounts of complaint experiences and found that satisfaction with complaint handling depended on three forms of justice. Distributive justice concerns the outcome, such as a refund or repair. Procedural justice concerns the process, such as how quickly and easily the complaint was resolved. Interactional justice concerns treatment, such as honesty, politeness and effort. All three affected satisfaction with the handling, which in turn affected trust and commitment. Heartland's inconsistent responses fail on procedure, because customers wait, and often on treatment, because a discount arrives without an explanation.
Matching the Response to the Failure
Smith et al. (1999) found that customers weigh recovery against what they lost. When the failure was an outcome failure, such as not receiving the service, compensation did the most to restore satisfaction. When it was a process failure, such as rude or slow treatment, an apology and explanation mattered more. The response should fit the loss.
| Failure | Type | Matching response |
|---|---|---|
| Missed or late arrival window | Process, with lost time | Call before the window ends, apologize, offer next-available slot and waive the trip fee |
| Second visit for a missing part | Outcome delay | Waive second trip charge; give a firm date and text updates |
| Billing dispute over diagnostic fee | Outcome | Explain the charge; supervisor may reduce or apply it to the repair |
| Repair fails within 30 days | Outcome | Return within 48 hours at no charge for labor |
| Technician manner or cleanliness | Process | Personal apology from the service manager; coaching for the technician |
Questioning the Recovery Paradox
Some managers believe a well-handled complaint creates a more loyal customer than one who never had a problem. A meta-analysis of published studies tested this recovery paradox (de Matos et al., 2007). The authors found support for it in satisfaction, but not in repurchase intention, word of mouth or corporate image. Heartland should not plan on failures building loyalty; recovery limits damage, and prevention is better.
A New Recovery Process
Every complaint will be logged within an hour and assigned to one person who owns it until closed. Customers will receive a call within two hours during business hours. Dispatchers and technicians will have authority to waive trip or diagnostic fees up to $75 without approval, so customers do not wait for a manager. Each response will explain what happened, using the matching responses in the table. A follow-up call one week after resolution will ask whether the customer is satisfied.
Training and Scripts
A process works only if the people answering complaints know it. Every dispatcher, office employee and technician will complete a half-day session on the new approach, using real complaints from the past year as practice cases. Short scripts will help with the first minute of each call, covering an acknowledgment of the problem, an apology that names what went wrong and a statement of what will happen next, but staff will be encouraged to speak naturally after that. Tax and colleagues' findings on interactional justice suggest that effort and honesty matter as much as the remedy, so staff will be coached to explain causes plainly rather than defend the company.
Handling Online Reviews
About a fifth of complaints arrive as public reviews, where other potential customers read both the complaint and the reply. The service manager will respond to every negative review within one business day, acknowledging the problem, avoiding argument and inviting the customer to call a named person. Details of the resolution will be handled privately. Where a review identifies a real failure, the reply will say what Heartland changed, which shows readers that complaints lead somewhere.
What the Process Will Cost
Fee waivers under the new authority are expected to total about $60,000 a year, compared with roughly $48,000 now spent on inconsistent discounts. Follow-up calls will require about half of one office position. Together the added expense comes to about $35,000 a year. Against it, keeping about 250 more customers a year who would otherwise leave, each worth roughly $560 in repair work over the following four years, would bring in about $140,000 of future revenue before counting referrals from customers who tell neighbors their problem was fixed fairly.
Fixing Causes
Recovery data will feed prevention. Missed windows will be reduced by narrowing appointment windows only where travel times are predictable and by texting customers when technicians leave the prior job. Second visits will be reduced by asking customers for model numbers when booking, so technicians bring likely parts.
Measuring Results
Heartland will track time to first response, the share of complaints resolved within 48 hours, satisfaction scores from the follow-up call, the rate at which complaining customers book again within two years and complaints per 1,000 jobs by type.
Conclusion
Heartland's complaint handling failed because responses were slow, inconsistent and mismatched to what customers lost. Research on justice, on matching recovery to failure and on the limits of the recovery paradox points to a faster, consistent process with frontline authority, combined with steady work on causes, as the way to keep customers whose service went wrong.
References
de Matos, C. A., Henrique, J. L., & Rossi, C. A. V. (2007). Service recovery paradox: A meta-analysis. Journal of Service Research, 10(1), 60-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670507303012
Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 356-372. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379903600305
Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200205
Reading the MGT 215 Module 6 assignment instructions
Complaints and service recovery appear in Aspen's MGT 215 as part of maintaining relationships, and a paper on this subject usually asks how a company should respond when service fails. Use the Module 6 prompt in your classroom for exact requirements; one service business is examined here. Describe the company's common failures and what complaint data show. Explain what customers expect when they complain, using research on fairness. Match recovery responses to different types of failure. Evaluate whether good recovery can leave customers more loyal than before. Propose a process, including who can act and how quickly. Set measures for both recovery and prevention, since fixing causes matters as much as handling complaints.
How this MGT 215 Module 6 example is built
The paper opens with Heartland Appliance Repair, which completes about 38,000 jobs a year and receives about 2,100 complaints, most about missed arrival windows and second visits for parts. Tax, Brown and Chandrashekaran's Journal of Marketing article found that distributive, procedural and interactional justice shaped satisfaction with complaint handling, trust and commitment. Smith, Bolton and Wagner's Journal of Marketing Research study showed that compensation helps most after outcome failures and apology after process failures. The meta-analysis by de Matos, Henrique and Rossi in the Journal of Service Research found that the recovery paradox appears in satisfaction but not in repurchase intention. A table matches five failures to responses. The process gives technicians and dispatchers authority to waive fees up to $75 and requires a call within two hours.
MGT 215 Module 6 rubric: what earns full marks
Service recovery papers are judged on how well they diagnose failures, apply research on what customers expect and design a process that staff can follow. This example begins with complaint data, so the recovery plan addresses real problems. Tax, Brown and Chandrashekaran's three forms of justice organize what a good response includes. Smith, Bolton and Wagner's matching principle explains why one standard apology or discount will not suit every failure. Using de Matos and colleagues' meta-analysis to question the recovery paradox shows critical reading. The table makes responses concrete, and measures cover prevention as well as recovery.
MGT 215 Module 6 help from the desk
Many service recovery papers recommend apologizing and offering a discount for every problem. Research shows customers judge recovery on outcomes, procedures and treatment, and the right response depends on what went wrong. Analyze complaint data before designing responses. Give frontline staff clear authority, since delays make recovery harder. Be careful with the claim that a well-handled complaint creates a more loyal customer; evidence for that is mixed. Address causes as well as responses, because preventing repeat failures is cheaper than recovering from them. Finally, set measures for speed, customer satisfaction after recovery and whether complaining customers return. Estimate the process's cost as well.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More MGT 215 and Business Administration sample papers
- MGT 215 Module 1: CRM as a Business Strategy
- MGT 215 Module 2: Customer Lifetime Value
- MGT 215 Module 3: Customer Data and Analytics
- MGT 215 Module 4: Social Media and Online Communities
- MGT 215 Module 5: Loyalty Programs and Retention
- MGT 215 Module 7: Selecting and Implementing a CRM System
- MGT 215 Module 8: Customer Experience Plan
- BUS 454 Module 5: Corporate Social Responsibility
- MGT 240 Module 5: Demand Forecasting
- MGT 414 Module 5: Organizing and Organizational Structure
- MGT 424 Module 8: Personal Leadership Development Plan
MGT 215 Module 6 questions, answered
What does MGT 215 Module 6 usually ask for?
Aspen's MGT 215 addresses complaints and service recovery in this module, so a paper on how a company should respond when service fails is typical. Read your classroom prompt.
What is service recovery?
The actions a company takes to respond to a service failure and restore the customer's satisfaction and relationship.
What do customers expect when they complain?
Tax, Brown and Chandrashekaran found customers judge fair outcomes, fair procedures such as speed and fair interpersonal treatment.
Where can I find a free MGT 215 Module 6 sample paper?
The complete paper above redesigns complaint handling at an appliance repair company, matching recovery responses to failure types using research.
Is the service recovery paradox real?
De Matos, Henrique and Rossi's meta-analysis found good recovery can raise satisfaction above pre-failure levels but did not find the same effect on repurchase intention.