European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.3, 2014
71
Service Delivery, Customer Satisfaction and Customer Delight in
the Real Estate Business. Evidence from Elite Kingdom
Investment and Consulting Company Ghana
Alexander Preko, Samuel Kwami Agbanu, & Mawuli Feglo
Department of Marketing, University of Professional Studies, Accra, Ghana
Abstract
Businesses now focus more on how to create customers, retain and maintain customers through quality service
delivery, customer satisfaction and customer delight. The purpose of the study was to identify whether customer
delight and customer satisfaction depend on service provided by an organization. The research formulated
hypothesis based on the three variables mentioned earlier.
A simple random sampling was used to sample 248 customers of Elite Kingdom Investment and Consulting
Company. Questionnaires were administered to the respondents to collect primary data. A reliability analysis
was run to ascertain the inconsistency of the instruments used in the questionnaire. The statistical package used
was SPSS version 20 to run the reliability analysis, test of normality, multivariate and univariate analyses, and
Microsoft Excel was also used to generate pie and graph on personal data of respondents.
The study revealed that service delivery is significant to customer satisfaction customer delight. Further findings
in the study also revealed that there is a positive correlation between service delivery and satisfaction, and
satisfaction and customer delight. It is therefore recommended that, the Elite Kingdom should move away from
the basic understanding of customer satisfaction to delighting customers which might pave the way for repeat
purchase among customers of the organization.
Keywords: Service delivery, satisfaction, delight, repeat purchase, loyalty and profitability
1.
Introduction
The positive relationship between quality service and customer satisfaction is longstanding (Kotler & Armstrong,
2010; Lee, 2013), and evidence of the collective influence of quality service and customer satisfaction factors on
customer loyalty, organizational competitiveness and optimum performance is widely acknowledged in the
marketing literature (Lee, 2013; Reichheld & Sasser, 2000; Disney, 1999; Heskett, Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1997 ).
Consistently, numerous studies have shown quality service delivery and customer satisfaction to be associated
with loyal customers, repeat purchase, and the organization’s propensity to retain its customers over longer period
of time (Lee, 2013; Anderson, Fornell, & Lehman, 1994; Berry, et. al, 1983). Notions of positive relationship
between quality service, customer satisfaction, loyalty and hence organizational performance are therefore
widespread and long held among researchers and marketing practitioners. Driving the academic and industry
interests in such linkages and relationships are three perceptions. The first belief is that quality products and
associated services designed specifically to meet customer needs would lead to high customer satisfaction.
Second it is deeply held that when customers are satisfied, they become loyal to the organization and also engage
in customer loyal behavior outcomes including repeat purchase, good word of mouth propaganda for the
organization, and third, that when such positive behavior outcomes results in increased financial, organizational
performance and competitiveness (Naumann, Williams & Khan, 2009; Jones & Sasser, 1995). However, though
this relationship between quality service, customer satisfaction, and loyalty appears known among marketing and
management scholars for a long time, what is new and emerging is what level of service quality and customer
satisfaction leads to or is necessary for loyalty and retention of customers. Gale (1997) underscored this new
thinking by indicating that ‘satisfaction is not enough to keep customers loyal, with other scholars arguing that
such controversy should be expected because the environments within which organizations compete change
often and customers themselves cannot be predicted for a long time. What constitutes a satisfactory service today
might not be so the next few years. Disney (1999) claims that customer expectations change significantly and
forces of competition, technology, and demographic factors contribute heavily to this frequent customer changes.
According to Alexander (2010), increasingly, business organizations are facing stark realities that satisfying
customers at an ordinary or basic level would be inadequate to insure customer loyalty. Findings in a study by
Jones and Sasser (1995) have undermined the long held view that satisfied customers would be loyal. Their
study of Xerox showed that merely satisfied customers were six times more likely to switch or defect. Moreover,
countless of studies (Chandrashekharan et al., 2007; Szymanski & Henard, 2001; McEwen & Fleming, 2003;
Reichheld &Teal, 1996) suggest customer satisfaction is not an adequate and satisfactory measure of future
customer behaviors with findings by Reichheld and Teal (1996) showing that almost 65%-85% of a firm’s
customers actually switched, though they had indicated either receiving satisfactory or very satisfied service.
brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk
provided by International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE): E-Journals
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.3, 2014
72
As cracks emerge in those long held views coupled with growing difficulty of retaining previously loyal
customers, the rising trend in industry and among researchers is to go far beyond the mere satisfaction of
customers through product quality and other related offerings to satisfying them fully and completely (Schneider
& Bowen, 1999; Jones & Sasser, 1995). Indeed, Jones and Sasser have asserted, “the gulf between satisfied
customers and completely satisfied customers can swallow a business” (p.2) underscoring an urgent need for a
paradigm shift in marketing, customer, and even marketing research orientations. In response, higher,
extraordinary, optimum or complete customer satisfaction leading to customer delight has taken center-stage in
recent times (Blackwell, Miniard, & Engel, 2006; Alexander, 2010). Customer delight, a relatively unknown
concept until recently, focuses on positive emotions of high receptibility to an organization’s service. A service
experience that is enhanced, unexpected, and touching on customer positive emotions (Schneider& Bowen,
1999) that elicits customer behaviors such as “choosing to purchase exclusively from one business and offering
word-of mouth support or unsolicited advocacy of a service business”(p.36). According to Oliver, Rust, and
Varki (1997) customer delight is “a combination of high pleasure (joy, elation) and high activation . . . or
surprise” (p. 317) suggesting much like Schneider and Bowen stated a high degree of emotional involvement in
delight experience. Schneider and Bowen argue that the emotional component of delight differentiates it from
satisfaction or even high satisfaction. Moreover, it is the positive emotionality involved in the delight experience
that leads to future customer behavioral outcomes including word-of-mouth advocacy for the company, repeat
purchase, and undoubtedly, true loyalty. These behavioral outcomes have important implications for
organization’s profitability because defections would minimize or eliminated. Indeed, as customers would not be
motivated to switch providers as it would not be profitable to do so. Some studies have suggested that switching
costs are one major determinant in customer decision to stay with or leave a provider (Lee, 2013) and therefore if
switching costs become a deterrent as a consequence of delight, then organizations may be assured of longer-
term relationship with customers. Moreover, Reichheld and Sasser (1990) have found in a study that when
organizations overcome customer defections by just 5% their profitability can be boosted by 100%. We
acknowledge ongoing discussions among scholars and practitioners to classify customer satisfaction and delight
on a continuum, and thereby position delights’ extreme opposite, outrage or disgust. Though this classification is
yet to receive extant discussion in the marketing literature we follow the examples of some previous studies
(Alexander, 2010), by focusing on delight and its opposite, disgust or outrage as separate constructs.
Various studies, in service or goods sectors, have addressed subsets and permutations of relationships between
quality product, customer service, satisfaction, value, loyalty, retention, and profitability (Lee, 2013; Reichheld
& Sasser, 2000; Disney, 1999; Heskett, Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1997 ). With customer delight now gradually
emerging as a concept with some promise for customer loyalty, retention, and profitability, it requires heavy
practitioner and research interest and attention to unravel both the perceived promise and challenges associated
with it, particularly when paired with some of those variables. This is not to suggest that studies are completely
absent on the subject; rather available research on it appear somewhat limited calling for an invigorated and
urgent interest in the concept contextualized in variety of sectors and economies to extend knowledge and
explain how customer delight holds promise for customer loyalty, repeat purchase, and long-term profitability.
This study attempts to examine the relationship among service delivery, customer satisfaction, and customer
delight in an Estate Management firm in a developing country context. The firm, Elite Kingdom Investment and
Consulting Company is an Estate business in Ghana concentrating on both estate management and land sales.
Our primary objective is to ascertain the nature and strength of relationship between service delivery, customer
satisfaction, and customer delight towards the achievement of long term customer retention, repeat purchase, and
loyalty and hence profitability. Inclusion of customer delight is essential, as Oliver, Rust, and Varki (1997) have
asserted that little research work has been done on this construct. Outcomes of this study would extend
knowledge of the relationship, and provide knowledge of this relationship in an Estate Management business
environment to complement previous studies in retail (Disney, 1999), banking, and B2B environments
(Naumann, Williams & Khan, 2009; Oliver, Rust, & Varki, 1997), health (Lei & Jolibert, 2012) among others.
This paper is organized into five sections. Section one comprised of the introduction of the study. The section
dealt with the literature review on the existing literature pertaining to the topic. The section three covered the
methodology employed in this study; section four was the data analysis and discussions of results. The last
section was on the conclusion and recommendations
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.3, 2014
73
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Service Delivery, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Delight
For decades and for a variety of reasons, customer satisfaction has received immense interest from academics
and practitioners alike. Underlining this interest is a large body of literature that suggests a direct relationship
between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (Naumann, Williams & Khan, 2009), which equally lends
credence to the decades of preoccupation of most business organizations with key customer satisfaction
activities.
Arguably, the high research and practitioner interests in customer satisfaction is influenced by the perceived
relationship between the satisfaction of customers and organizational profitability (Anderson, Fornell &
Lehmann 1994; Homburg, Koschate & Hoyer 2006; Rust, Moorman &Dickson 2002) and also one the most well
understood statistic measures of assessing the relationship between quality products (services), loyalty and
organizational performance (Naumann, Williams, & Khan, 2009). Whiles some of these perceptions about
customer satisfaction appear to have empirical support, emerging evidence from some studies suggest otherwise.
Indeed, the increasing interest in customer delight has given a new dimension to what constitutes customer
satisfaction and at what level or height it would be considered a motivator for customer loyalty, subsequent
customer behavior intentions and outcomes such as repeat purchase and defections. We review related literature
on these relationships as important contexts for our study.
2.2 Service Delivery, Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty
Research abounds on both theoretical and conceptual bases of customer satisfaction (Kotler & Armstrong, 2010;
Disney, 1999) and empirical studies addressing possible antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction
(Reichheld & Sasser, 2000; Heskett, Sasser & Schlesinger, 1997; Disney, 1999) both linked to the understanding
that satisfied customers’ leads to loyal customers and loyal customers also leads to organizational profitability.
We examine service quality and satisfaction as explored in the literature. According to “Parasuraman et al
(1988), service quality is a global judgment, or attitude, relating to the superiority of the service”. Indeed,
Zeithaml (1988) also defined service quality as “customer’s judgment about a product’s overall excellence or
superiority” (p.3) which is consistent with Parasuraman et al.’s definition. Expand these definitions to cover
other conceptualizations in marketing and economics, and operations management. Customer satisfaction is seen
as transaction-specific experience and cumulative experience (Boulding et al, 1993). Transaction specific
satisfaction focuses on a customer assessment of service or good experience after usage (Hunt, 1977; Oliver,
1977, 1980, 1993) and this type of satisfaction is oriented to specific post-purchase perception and may have
short term marketing value. Cumulative satisfaction is total assessment of a purchase of a good or service over
time (Fornell, 1992; Johnson & Fornell, 1991), thus holding promise for assessing the long-term loyalty and
future customer behavior intentions.
Evidence from past studies provide some evidence that when customers are loyal the organization gains from
increased revenues and consequently profitability (Anderson, Fornell and Lehmann 1994; Homburg, Koschate
and Hoyer 2006; Rust, Moorman and Dickson 2002). Moreover, using customer satisfaction as a perceptual
metric (Gupta & Zeithaml 2006) has become attractive to researchers occupied with measuring organizational
performance whiles practitioners regard it as an appropriate and reliable measure of their business success and
performance. As a result, various customer-related outcomes linked to customer satisfaction has occupied
researchers including the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty, behavioral intentions of
customers, the impact of word of mouth, customer defection, customer’s share –of –wallet. Overwhelmingly, a
common finding of most studies in the area is that there is a strong and positive relationship between customer
satisfaction and loyalty (Bolton 1998; Chandrashekaran, Rotte, Tax & Grewal 2007; Cooil, Keiningham, Aksoy
& Hsu 2007; Fornell 1992; Jones & Sasser 1995; Keiningham, Perkins-Munn, Aksoy & Estrin 2005; Mittal and
Kamakura 2001; Rust and Zahorik 1993). Some studies have also suggested that increases in the satisfaction
levels of customers in turn also leads to higher customer loyalty to the organization and has direct relation to
repurchase and other positive customer behavior patterns (O’Brien and Jones 1995; Reichheld and Teal 1996;
Anderson, Fornell and Lehmann 1994). Heskett, Sasser and Schlesinger (1997) in one study found that when
customer satisfaction ratings go beyond a specified threshold, loyalty also increases which they attributed to
customer delight. Therefore, they concluded that an organization would experience high loyalty when customers
experience delight. Aside, several investigators have also examined the impact of customer satisfaction on
organizational profitability and performance (Anderson, Fornell & Lehmann, 1994; Anderson & Mittal 2000;
Bernhardt, Donthu & Kennett, 2000; Gruca & Rego, 2005; Morgan & Rego, 2006; Rust, Moorman & Dickson,
2002).
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.3, 2014
74
Whiles handful of studies have questioned the findings that suggest relationship between loyalty and profitability
on account of bases for measuring what constitutes loyalty(Coyles &Gokey, 2002; Reinartz & Kumar, 2002) etc,
most of these research have shown that loyalty affects an organization’s bottom line. Reichheld and Sasser
(1990) argued that keeping customers loyal to business organizations because they found in their research that
“companies can boost profits by 100% by retaining just 5% more of their customers” (p.2). Perceptions of these
linkages between service quality, satisfaction, loyalty, and performance have been long and entrenched in the
literature.
Despite the longstanding support and evidence of positive linkage between customer satisfaction and loyalty and
loyalty and performance, contrary evidence is beginning to emerge. The research focus on customer satisfaction
is valuable as it points to useful variable organizations can depend on to measure their success and
competitiveness, yet research findings are questioning customer satisfaction as a good and stable predictor of
future customer behavior (Chandrashekharan et al. (2007; McEwen &Fleming, 2003; Szymanski & Henard,
2001; Reichheld& Teal, 1996; Jones & Sasser, 1995). Findings from various studies have shown customers who
rated service experience as satisfactory or very satisfactory, yet defected. For example, a study by Reichheld and
Teal (1996) revealed that almost 65-85% of customers who had switched from a previous provider did so at the
time they had indicated that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with service they were enjoying. In
addition, Naumann, Haverila, Khan and Williams also found in another study that 78% of customers still
defected, despite having indicated in survey that they were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” whiles about 83% of
those customers who defected had also said they “definitely would” or “would,” recommend their supplier to
others. Indeed, the researchers found out 87% of the firm’s customers who had defected had rated as “excellent”
“very good,” or “good” yet ended up switching. Another finding in that research was 60% of the firm’s
respondents who indicated that they “definitely would” or “probably would” renew their contract with the
provider but surprisingly did not. Additional evidence available (Chandrashekharan et al., 2007; Jones & Sasser,
1995; Mittal, Lassar, 1998) further suggests that customers switch to other firms or have the predisposition to
switch despite receiving satisfactory or very satisfactory service from their current providers. Indeed, findings
from some additional empirical studies (Anderson and Sullivan 1993; Bolton and Drew 1991; Lam, Shankar,
Erramilli & Murthy 2004; Mittal and Kamakura 2001) have also undermined the perceived strong link between
customer satisfaction and loyalty and further widened the inconsistency in research findings. Thus, whiles most
previous studies seem to find strong relationship between customer satisfactions, emerging evidence from some
studies suggest that relationship may be not watertight.
Consequently, using satisfaction to measure customer long-term behaviors and intentions is beginning to call for
more re-examination and investigation as satisfied or very satisfied customers would switch. In the wake of
recent and emerging evidence, the concern for researchers and practitioners alike is to examine what caused
previously satisfied or supposedly satisfied and loyal customers to defect.
2.3 Customer
Delight and Customer Loyalty
Customer delight is an emerging concept in marketing and academic and practitioner interest in it is beginning
to expand. Limited or no consensus is therefore available a m o n g s c h o l a r s a n d r e s e a r c h e r s a s t o its
exact definition. However, emerging consensus is that customer delight is a customer’s positive emotional
response to an ‘unexpected’ service experience (Schneider &Bowen, 1999). Delight is sometimes perceived as a
pleasantly surprised experience of a service or an extreme expression of the positive effect of surprisingly good
performance (Schneider & Bowen; Oliver, Rust, & Varki, 1997). Chandler (1989) argues that delight should be
seen differently from satisfaction because whereas satisfaction suggests an expected service level delight is often
not expected by the customer. Providing delight requires going beyond ordinary or normal satisfaction to
exceeding customer expectations or giving the customer an experience that is unexpected or unknown. A
common theme in the literature is customer delight evokes an emotionally affective (Schneider & Bowen, 1999;
Swan & Trawick, 1999) satisfaction that may be positive or negative.
Delight is the positive emotional appreciation and excitement of the service and disgust, outrage is the negative
form of it. However, such emotional affect may be visible in a customer’s rational evaluation and
appreciation of an extraordinary service and therefore would manifest in a customers’ praise for the firm’s
effort to achieve high performance. In such circumstance, customers may express their satisfaction in terms such
as great and wonderful to demonstrate delight. In addition, research findings also indicate delight as the highest
level of satisfaction that leads to customer intention to repurchase in the future (Jones & Sasser 1995). Whitaker
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.3, 2014
75
(1991) argues that customer delight is key to future stability in customer loyalty and therefore would be directly
linked to high performance (Kwong & Yau, 2002; Mattila & Enz, 2002; Rust & Oliver, 2000), suggesting that
absence of delight would undermine it. Presumably, the perceived high performance experienced by the
customer is a rational assessment of the additional value and benefits they enjoyed, leading to an excitement
about the transaction. According Jones and Sasser (1995) attaining customer delight requires firms to be
proactive and make a larger effort to improve performance. Such an effort is likely to be recognized and
appreciated by customers. Yet, the limited findings on delight and its relationship to loyalty and other future
customer behavior outcomes demands exploring antecedents to such experiences. (Arnold & Reynolds, 2005).
2.4 Kano et al., Customer Satisfaction Model
Kano et al. (1984; Kano 1995) proposed customer satisfaction model that classifies and examines the perceived
impact of different product or service attributes on customer satisfaction, based on how well each component
meets customer needs. This model is based on three qualities of a product, which are represented in the diagram
2.1. It is proposed that a specific level of customer satisfaction is achieved based on the fulfillment of each
product quality, with highest level achieved resulting in customer delight.
In the diagram, the lower curve of the model reflects those basic features that customers normally expect from a
product or service. These features are considered as ‘must haves’, and the absence of which will lead to
dissatisfaction and ultimately loss of business. Providing these features, however, will not delight customers but
will only achieve a normal, basic or ordinary state of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. For instance, a land acquired
or bought from Elite Kingdom Investment and Consulting Company should have the necessary documents that
are referred to, as ‘must haves’. In the middle of the model is a straight line that represents features with linear
qualities or the one-dimensional requirement. These are features usually explicitly demanded by the customer.
In general, the better these attributes perform, the greater the level of customer satisfaction, and vice versa.
Hence, the exceptional performance or combinations of these elements will lead to customer satisfaction. (For
instance, customers of Elite Kingdom Investment and Consulting Company want to select a plot closer to the
main road or build house plan of his/her choice). The upper curve of the model contains attractive features
(requirements), not expressly demanded by the customer, or features that customers are even unaware of
(therefore customer is not even consciously aware that he or she wants them or would want them). Not providing
these features, as part of the overall service or product contract therefore will not, upset the customer. However,
adding them to overall service or product offer will lead to a more than proportional change in satisfaction
and create delight. These delighter features are necessarily exciting and unexpected in nature. Based on Kano et
al.’s model, we propose that offering ‘must have’ and one-dimensional requirement is not enough to differentiate
between competitors and therefore may not result in competitive advantage for the firm. To achieve competitive
advantage, providers must continuously search for and provide the delighter features that can motivate
optimum customer satisfaction and stable and long term loyalty, leading to competitiveness (Burns and
Evans 2001; Matzler, Kurt, Hans H. Hinterhuber, Franz Bailom, and Elmar Sauerwein (1996). This
underlyi ng assump tion in this model is the theoretical foundation for pursuing customer delight as a
business goal. Some practitioners regard these delighter features as the outer
level of a system of concentric
rings collectively known as enhanced
services.(In this case customers of Elite Kingdom might be delighted
with free registration of land title documents, indentures (debentures) and site plans after paying for the land).
Clemmer (1990) argues that often times some of “these delighter features are a series of tiny gestures and
insignificant signals that make dealing with an organization a rare delight” (1990, p.14). Instructively, the basic
and linear qualities on the model are equivalent to the core product and supporting services. Even though
an exceptionally good performance of supporting services (one-dimensional) can potentially create customer
delight, nonetheless the attractive qualities that are the main drivers of customer delight (Kano et al. 1984).
In summary, features with the capacity to delight are those that are generally unexpected and surprisingly
pleasant, or add value to an otherwise expected product or service offering that is beyond what is ordinarily
expected by the customer (Rust and Oliver 2000).
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.3, 2014
76
Figure 2.1 Kano’s model of customer
satisfaction
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Approach and Sampling methods
This study was cross sectional research conducted in Accra between April to July, 2013. The research also used
descriptive design to describe the service delivery level to customers. Descriptive design describes events and
also defines characteristics of the respondents (Saunders 2003). The target population was customers who have
bought land or estate from the company within Accra. Sample sizes of 248 respondents were selected using a
simple random method at the Osu and East Legon Offices.
3.2 Data Collection Methods
A questionnaire was used to collect primary data. It is worth mentioning that research assistants were employed
to administer questionnaires to the customers at the premises of the Elite Kingdom Investment and Consulting
Company. The questions were basically simple questions that did not take much of the respondent’s time. The
Likert scale was used for majority of the questions. Section B exhibited different attribute such as very poor,
poor, good and very good to assess the services provided by the organization. (The) Section C of the
questionnaire also demonstrated attributes like: much worse expected same as expected, better and much better
expected to describe customers’ satisfaction they received. In section D, respondents were provided with
common adjectives to use in describing their consumption emotion (customer delight) of the services of Elite
Kingdom.
3.3 Reliability Analysis
Sample questionnaires of 50 were distributed earlier to conduct a preliminary test on the questions posed to the
respondents. The reliability analysis indicated a Cronbach alpha of 0.70 on service delivery,
0.62 on customer
satisfaction and customer
delight recorded 0.74. According to George and Malleery (2006) the closer the alpha is
to 1.00, the greater the internal consistency of the
items being measured
. The statistical package used was SPSS
version 20 to run the reliability analysis, multivariate and univariate analyses, test of normality and Microsoft
Excel was also used to generate pie and graph on personal data of respondents.
4.0 Data Analysis
4.1 Personal data on the respondents
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.3, 2014
77
Figure 1: Gender of Respondents
Computed Data, July 2013
Gender classifications of respondents indicate 40% were female and 60% male. In this study therefore, more
males had answered questionnaire than females.
Figure 2: Ages Distribution of Respondents
Computed Data, July 2013
With regard to age distribution, the highest age range was 35-49 representing 44%, followed by 26-34
representing 28%, 27% representing 50-65 age range and 2% representing 18-25 age range. (The researchers
concluded those respondents between the age barracks of 26-50 years are gainfully employed and have the
means to acquire for development).
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.3, 2014
78
4.2 Findings on Correlations
Figure 3: Correlation between Satisfaction and Service delivery
Computed Data, July 2013
Researchers calaculated a Pearson correlation coefficient to examine the relationship beteween service delivery
and customer satifaction. A 0.75 revealed a strong positive relationship between service delivery and customer
satisfaction. The correlation equation y=0.5593x+9.8439 indicated that at any time there is a unit increase in
service delivery of the company, satisfaction level of customers also increases per unit. The R-square values
56% showed the correlation model is of a good fit is used to predict the level of satisfaction among customers
based on service delivered by Elite Kingdom Investment and Consulting Company.
Figure 4: Correlation between satisfaction and delight
Computed Data, July 2013
Moreover, researchers also calcualted a Pearson correlation coefficient to find out the relationship beteween
satifaction and customer delight. A 0.52 indicated a strong correlation between customer satisfaction and
customer delight. The correlation equation of y=0.141x+9.0665 indicated that at any time there is a unit increase
in service delivery of the company, satisfaction level of customers also increases per unit. The R-square values
27% showed that customer loyalty is explained by linear relationship between satisfaction and service deliver.
4.3 Test of Normality
Table 1: Test of Normality
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
a
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic
Df
Sig.
Statistic
Df
Sig.
SD
.136
248
.000
.944
248
.000
CS
.290
248
.000
.889
248
.000
CD
.163
248
.000
.881
248
.000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.3, 2014
79
Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was tested to determine whether the studied variables (SD=service delivery,
CS=customer satisfaction and CD=customer delight) were statistically distributed. The Shapiro-Wilk test
revealed (S-W test= 0.944, 0.889, 0.881; df=248, p<0.05), skewness (-0.752, -0.854, -1.155) and Kurtosis
(0.223, 1.408, 1.027) hence the null hypothesis is rejected. It is concluded that the three studied variables were
not normally distributed.
4.4 Multivariate Analysis (MANOVA)
In order to conduct a multivariate analysis using two dependant variables (customer satisfaction and customer
delight) and one independent variable (service delivery), researchers combined the three hypotheses into one.
Ho: Customer satisfaction and customer delight do not depend on the service delivery
HA: Customer satisfaction and customer delight depend on the service delivery
Table 2: Multivariate Analysis
Multivariate Tests
a
Effect
Value
F
Hypothesis df
Error df
Sig.
Intercept
Pillai's Trace
.936
667.677
b
2.000
92.000
.000
Wilks' Lambda
.064
667.677
b
2.000
92.000
.000
Hotelling's Trace
14.515
667.677
b
2.000
92.000
.000
Roy's Largest Root
14.515
667.677
b
2.000
92.000
.000
Service delivery
Pillai's Trace
.304
2.782
12.000
186.000
.002
Wilks' Lambda
.712
2.844
b
12.000
184.000
.001
Hotelling's Trace
.383
2.905
12.000
182.000
.001
Roy's Largest Root
.311
4.823
c
6.000
93.000
.000
a. Design: Intercept + Service delivery
b. Exact statistic
c. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.
A one way MANOVA was calculated examining the effect of service delivery on customer satisfaction and
customer delight. A significant effect (positive) was found 0.712, p=0.001. The p-value 0.001 is significant at
α=0.05. Since the p=0.001< α=0.05, we reject the null hypothesis in favour of the alternation hypothesis.
Table 3: Univariate Analysis
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Source
Dependent Variable
Type III Sum of
Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Corrected Model
Customer satisfaction
68.501
a
6
11.417
3.629
.003
Customer delight
60.469
b
6
10.078
3.929
.002
Intercept
Customer satisfaction
3710.534
1
3710.534
1179.601
.000
Customer delight
1842.164
1
1842.164
718.264
.000
Service delivery
Customer satisfaction
68.501
6
11.417
3.629
.003
Customer delight
60.469
6
10.078
3.929
.002
Error
Customer satisfaction
292.539
198
3.146
Customer delight
238.521
198
2.565
Total
Customer satisfaction
24822.000
248
Customer delight
13501.000
248
Corrected Total
Customer satisfaction
361.040
240
Customer delight
298.990
240
a. R Squared = .190 (Adjusted R Squared = .137)
b. R Squared = .202 (Adjusted R Squared = .151)
A follow-up univariate ANOVA indicated that customer satisfaction is significant p=0.003 to service delivery.
Customer delight is also significant p=0.002 to service delivery. The p values obtained on both dependent
variables were (p-value) < α=0.05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected in favour of alternative hypothesis,
indicating that service delivery, customer satisfaction are all significant to customer delight.
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.3, 2014
80
Table 4: Multiple Linear Regression Analysis on Service Delivery
Coefficients
a
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t
Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B
Std. Error
Beta
Tolerance
VIF
(Constant)
21.542
2.589
8.320
.000
X1
-1.359
.435
-.116
-3.122
.002
.546
1.831
X2
-.365
.271
-.045
-1.346
.180
.669
1.495
X3
1.157
.326
.133
3.547
.000
.533
1.877
X4
-.037
.218
-.005
-.171
.865
.796
1.256
X5
.998
.275
.125
3.631
.000
.640
1.564
X6
1.227
.276
.152
4.450
.000
.644
1.552
X7
-.758
.467
-.060
-1.625
.106
.549
1.821
X8
1.871
.239
.271
7.823
.000
.625
1.599
X9
-.645
.294
-.077
-2.193
.029
.609
1.641
X10
.081
.340
.008
.239
.811
.636
1.572
X11
.287
.335
.032
.856
.393
.541
1.850
X12
.470
.441
.053
1.065
.288
.299
3.348
X13
.725
.298
.102
2.434
.016
.432
2.316
X14
2.750
.467
.208
5.891
.000
.601
1.664
X15
1.181
.498
.088
2.369
.019
.545
1.836
X16
1.982
.485
.163
4.083
.000
.471
2.121
X17
3.025
.434
.324
6.979
.000
.349
2.862
a. Dependent Variable: Service Delivery
A multiple linear regression was calculated predicting the service delivered to respondents. The regression
results revealed that (x
2
, x
4
, x
7
, x
10
, x
11
, x
12
) were not significant p>0.05 to the overall service delivered to the
respondents. This equation is used to predict service delivery.
A multicollinearity was tested to identify if the independent variables were highly correlated to the overall
service delivery. The result of multicollinearity indicated that variance inflation factor (VIF) values were less
than 10 and the tolerance values were also less than 1 meaning that the independent variables were not highly
correlated. According to Klein (1962) if VIF is greater than 1/(1-r
2
) or the tolerance value is less than (1-r
2
),
multicollinearity can be considered statistically significant. Furthermore, as a rule of thumb, if any of the VIF
values is greater than 10 then there is a multicollinearity problem.
4.4 Discussion of Results
Organizations worldwide continue to seek effective means of achieving superior competitiveness and higher
profitability, with most of them seeking to understand the relationship between customer satisfaction and service
delivery. This knowledge of customers and service delivery has assumed prominence in research literature as
well, with most studies arguing that basic and ordinary satisfaction would be inadequate to secure customer
loyalty, retention, and consequently long term customer relation. This new evidence therefore led to new studies
in customer delight as a better concept in securing customer loyalty and perceived future behavior intentions of
customers. This study sought to extend knowledge of these variables by examining the perceived linkage
between service delivery, customer satisfaction, and delight in an Estate business setting in Ghana.
The study used an Estate management business as focus and empirical data was collected specifically from Elite
Kingdom Estate. Results of the statistical analysis revealed that there is a strong linkage between customer
satisfaction, customer delight and service delivery. Specifically the study found that customer satisfaction and
customer delight strongly depend on the quality of service delivery. Our findings show that quality of service is
antecedent to customer satisfaction and customer delight. That is, when customers perceive that they are
receiving quality service, they are more likely to stay loyal to their existing provider and may also use various
means available to recommend services of the provider to other potential customers. Moreover, customer delight
is directly related to service delivery and therefore when customers enjoy quality service they may be influenced
to stay loyal as well. Both satisfaction and delight are important for long-term success and profitability. These
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.3, 2014
81
findings are consistent with previous studies on relationship between customer satisfaction, service delivery and
customer delight and service delivery variables (Lee, 2013; Lee & Hwan, 2005; Anderson, Fornell, & Lehman,
1994; Oliver, Rust, & Varki, 1997; Schneider & Bowen, 1999). These outcomes therefore strengthened the need
for continued organizational focus on service delivery as an antecedent to both customer satisfaction and delight
and consequently achievement of long-term profitability. The study further supported the Kano’s model of
customer satisfaction which commented on the three quality of a product the attractive quality, one-dimensional
quality and the “must have” qualities.
5 Conclusion
It is hereby concluded that the research has answered the question whether customer delight and satisfaction
depend on service delivery. It is appropriate to mention that customers sampled for the study receive quality
services and are satisfied. These satisfied customers are likely become the ambassadors of the Elite Kingdom
who would evangelize the good works of the company. The researchers once again concluded that Elite
Kingdom Investment and Consulting Company employees basically understood what service delivery is and how
to satisfy their customers. A company that satisfies it customers continue to experience high level of
profitability. In addition to this, employees of the real estate comprehend the needs of their customers and
demonstrate passion when delivering services.
6. Recommendations
It is recommended that management of Elite Kingdom Investment and Consulting Company should embark on
continuous quality service delivery to in order to retain their customers for life. A company can retain their
customers for life if they are providing what they promise their customers. Continuous market researches should
be included in the company’s policies. The market research permits the company to identify the needs of the
customers and also to design strategies to remain in the real estate business as this market has become a very
lucrative business in the country today.
It is also vital to mention that the company should adopt various ways of delighting their customers. The word
delight is an emotion value which would be expressed in different ways, so customers should be studied in order
to customize the delight programs of the company.
7. Area for Future Research and Limitations
The study focused only service delivery, satisfaction and customer delight. However, there are other factors such
as customer experience, customer expectations, value proposition and pricing could also contribute to the
understanding of service delivery, satisfaction and delighting of customers. In addition, future research should
concentrate on service delivery and repeat purchase, customer loyalty and retention in Elite Kingdom Investment
and Consulting Ghana.
One of the limitations encountered was on the administering of questionnaires to respondents; some were
reluctant to answer the questions. The researchers could not afford research grants to facilitate the smooth
conducting of the research.
8. References
Anderson, E.W; Fornell, C. & Lehman, D.R. (1994). Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability:
Findings of Sweden. Journal of Marketing, vol.58, 53-66
Anderson, Eugene W. and Mittal, Vikas (2000), “Strengthening the Satisfaction-Profit Chain”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 107-120.
Anderson, Eugene W. and Sullivan, Mary W. (1993), “The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer
Satisfaction for Firms”, Marketing Science, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 125-143.
Banwari Mittal, Walfried M. Lassar, (1998) "Why do customers switch? The dynamics of satisfaction versus
loyalty", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 Iss: 3, pp.177 – 194.
Bernhardt, Kenneth, Donthu, Naveen and Kennett, Pamela A. (2000), “A longitudinal analysis of satisfaction
and profitability”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 161-171.
Berry, Leonard L. (1995). On Great Services. New York: The Free Press.
Bettencourt, Lance and Kevin Gwinner (1996), “Customization of the Service Experience: The Role of the
Frontline Employee,” International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management 7 (2), 3-20.
Blackwell, Roger D, Paul W Miniard, and James F Engel. "Consumer behavior, 10." Aufl., Mason (2006).
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.3, 2014
82
Bolton, Ruth N. (1998), “A Dynamic Model of the Duration of the Customer’s Relationship with a Continuous
Service Provider: The Role of Satisfaction, Marketing Science”, Vol. 17, Winter, pp. 45-65.
Bolton, Ruth N. and Drew, James H. (1991), “A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Service Changes on”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Chandler, Michael J, and Christopher Lalonde. "Cultural continuity as a hedge against suicide in Canada's First
Nations." Transcultural Psychiatry 35.2 (1998): 191-219.
Chandrashekaran, Murali, Rotte, Kristin, Tax, Stephen S. and Grewal, Rajdeep (2007), “Satisfaction Strength
and Customer Loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44, February, pp. 153-163.
Cooil, Bruce, Keiningham, Timothy L., Aksoy, Lerzan and Hsu, Michael (2007), “A Longitudinal Analysis of
Customer Satisfaction and Share of Wallet: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71, January, pp. 67-83.
Coyles, Stephanie and Gokey, Timothy (2002), “Customer retention is not enough”, The McKinsey Quarterly,
Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 81-89.
Disney, Richard. Notional accounts as a pension reform strategy: An evaluation. Social Protection, World Bank,
1999.
Fornell, Claes (1992), “A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56, January, pp. 6-21.
Gruca, Thomas and Rego, Lopo L. (2005), “Customer Satisfaction, Cash Flow, and Shareholder Value”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 115-130.
Gupta, Sunil and Zeithaml, Valarie (2006), “Customer Metrics and Their Impact on Financial Performance”,
Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 718-739.
Heskett, James L., Sasser, W. Earl and Schlesinger, Leonard A. (1997), The Service Profit Chain, New York:
Free Press.
Homburg, Christian, Nicole Koschate, and Wayne D Hoyer. "The role of cognition and affect in the formation of
customer satisfaction: a dynamic perspective." Journal of Marketing (2006): 21-31.
Hunt, H.K. (1977). “CS/D-Overview and Future Research Directions” in Conceptualization and Measurement of
Customer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction. Ed. Cambridge M.A.
Johnson, Michael D, and Claes Fornell. "A framework for comparing customer satisfaction across individuals
and product categories." Journal of Economic Psychology 12.2 (1991): 267-286.
Jones, Thomas O. and Sasser, W. Earl (1995), “Why satisfied customers defect?” Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 73, Nov-Dec, pp. 88-91.
Kano, Masanobu et al. "Persistent Multiple Climbing Fiber Innervationof Cerebellar Purkinje Cellsin Mice
Lacking mGluR1." Neuron 18.1 (1997): 71-79.
Keiningham, Timothy, Perkins-Munn, Tiffany, Aksoy, Lerzan and Estrin, Demitry (2005), “Does customer
satisfaction lead to profitability? The mediating role of share-of-wallet”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15, No.
2, pp. 172-181
Kim, MiRan, Christine A Vogt, and Bonnie J Knutson. "Relationships Among Customer Satisfaction, Delight,
and Loyalty in the Hospitality Industry." Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research (2013).
Kotler, Philip J, and Gary M Armstrong. Principles of marketing. Pearson Education, 2010.
Kwong, Kenneth K et al. "The effects of attitudinal and demographic factors on intention to buy pirated CDs:
The case of Chinese consumers." Journal of Business Ethics 47.3 (2003): 223-235.
Lam, Shun Yin, and Venkatesh Shankar. "M. Krishna Erramilli Bvsan Murthy (2004),“Customer Value,
Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Switching Costs: An Illustration From a Business-to-Business Service Context,”."
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32.3: 293-311.
Lee, Junsoo, and Mark C Strazicich. "Minimum Lagrange multiplier unit root test with two structural breaks."
Review of Economics and Statistics 85.4 (2003): 1082-1089.
Lei, P & Jolibert, A. (2012). A three-model comparison of the relationship between quality, satisfaction and
loyalty: an empirical study of the Chinese healthcare system. BMC Health Services Research, 12:436
Mattila, Anna S, and Cathy A Enz. "The role of emotions in service encounters." Journal of Service Research
4.4 (2002): 268-277.
Matzler, Kurt et al. "How to delight your customers." Journal of Product & Brand Management 5.2 (1996): 6-
18.
McEwen, William J, and John H Fleming. "Customer satisfaction doesn’t count." Gallup Management Journal
3.13 (2003): 03.
McEwen, William J. and Fleming, John H. (2003), “Customer Satisfaction Doesn’t Count: If you don’t make an
emotional connection with customers, then satisfaction is worthless”, The Gallup
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.3, 2014
83
organization.Availableat:www.adobe.com/engagement/pdfs/gmj_customer_satisfaction.pdf. [Accessed 26
November 2013].
Mittal, Vikas and Kamakura, Wagner A. (2001), “Satisfaction, repurchase intent and repurchase behaviour:
Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38,
February, pp. 131-142.
Morgan, Neil A, and Lopo Leotte Rego. "The value of different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics in
predicting business performance." Marketing Science 25.5 (2006): 426-439.
Naumann, E.; Williams, P.; & Khan, S.M. (2009). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in B2B services: directions
for future research. The Marketing Review, 2009, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 319-333.
O’Brien, Louise and Jones, Charles (1995), “Do rewards really create loyalty?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.
73, (May/June), pp. 75-82.
Oliver, R. L. (1980), A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions.
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XVII, November, pp. 460-469.
Oliver, Richard L., Rust, Roland T. and Varki, Sanjeev (1997), “Customer Delight: Foundations, Findings and
Managerial Insight”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73, Fall, pp. 311-336.
Parasuraman, Arun, Leonard L Berry, and Valarie A Zeithaml. "More on improving service quality
measurement." Journal of Retailing 69.1 (1993): 140-147.
Reichheld, F.F. & Sasser, W.E. (2000). Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Services. Harvard Business Review,
September-October
Reichheld, Frederick F. and Teal, Thomas (1996). The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force Behind Growth,
Profits, and Lasting Value, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Reinartz, Werner and Kumar, V. (2003), “The Impact of Customer Relationship Characteristics on Profitable
Lifetime Duration”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 77-99.
Rust, Roland T, and Anthony J Zahorik. "Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share." Journal
of retailing 69.2 (1993): 193-215.
Rust, Roland, T., Moorman, Christine and Dickson, Peter R. (2002), “Getting return on quality: Revenue
expansion, cost reduction, or both?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 7-24.
Saunders, SM et al. "Protocol for the development of the Master Chemical Mechanism, MCM v3 (Part A):
tropospheric degradation of non-aromatic volatile organic compounds." Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 3.1
(2003): 161-180.
Schneider, Benjamin, and David E Bowen. "Understanding customer delight and outrage." Sloan Management
Review 41.1 (1999): 35-45.
Swan, John E, Michael R Bowers, and Lynne D Richardson. "Customer trust in the salesperson: an integrative
review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature." Journal of Business Research 44.2 (1999): 93-107.
Szymanski, David M. and Henard, David H. (2001), “Customer satisfaction: A meta -analysis of the empirical
evidence,” Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29, Winter, pp. 16-35.
