4. What immediate measures can be derived from the study?
7.2 Research process
7.3.3 Deviation of the two cohorts
After the general testing of the quadrants, the data was screened for further statistical deviations on item-level.
Table 4. details the topics incorporated into the questionnaire and shows the respective median value per cohort. The median comparison shows no major differences, with slightly more positive responses from customers.
Table 4. Management vs. customer median.
Source: Own table.
The answer options in the questionnaire are: applies completely, partially applies, neutral, does rather not apply, does not apply at all, and I can not judge. This answer design creates the possibility for participants to answer in a postitive, negative and neutral way. In the first
comparison, the response behaviour was carried out separately according to positive, negative and neutral impact. Within these groups, the rankings of the two cohorts are then compared on item level. Figure 24, 25 and 26 show the percentage share of the respective groups.
In the first group, the level of agreement is collected from both cohorts. This was done in relation to the positive responses to survey questions. A comparable trend can be seen in the approval ratings, although the values differ for some individual questions.
Figure 24. The comparison of positive responses.
Source: Own figure
In Table 5. the deviation was sorted in descending order and shows what percentage of management voted positively. At the end of the list are the topics where positive ratings were recorded from a higher percentage of customers.
0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0 120,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Answer selcection: "applies completly" or "partially applies"
(in percent)
Management Customer
Table 5. Deviations between positive customer and management perspectives.
Source: Own table.
In terms of the negative reactions to questions, the perspectives of customers and management align more closely, as seen in Figure 25.
Figure 25. The comparison of negative responses.
Source: Own figure.
0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Answer selection: "does rather not apply" or "does not apply at all"
(in percent)
Management Customer
Table 6. illustrates the difference between the two cohorts in descending order. The topics where management is dominant are listed first, and at the end of the list are the topics where customers are more proportionately represented.
Table 6. Deviations between negative customer and management perspectives.
Source: Own table.
Finally, the neutral voters of the two cohorts will be compared to show on which issues groups do not want to take a clear position.
Figure 26. The comparison of neutral responses.
Source: Own figure.
The deviations are very small in the neutral position. Table 7. Shows that management positioned itself more often in an undifferentiated way on two questions. These two questions are concerned with the equal treatment of customers and the departmental or silo thinking that management must tackle.
Table 7. Deviations between neutral customer and management perspectives.
Source: Own table.
0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Answer selcection: "neutral"
(in percent)
Management Customer
Based on the deviations identified in the descriptive analysis, management and customer comparisons have been carried out at item level. The approach has been to first analyse the positions with the largest deviations and then gradually approach the others.
After the general testing of the quadrants, the data was screened for further statistical deviations on item-level. Due to the fact that the group of managers is exclusive and rather small, the differences were initially sorted by size of the median deviations and consequently statistically tested. The median values are displayed in Figure 27. On the left-hand side are the strongest distinctions, with customers showing slightly higher levels of approval. On the right-hand side of the figure a similar difference is identifiable, though it is management that have higher levels of approval in this case.
Figure 27. The comparison of all responses.
Source: Own figure.
Differences are detected with the median to the same extent in six topics. The questions within which the perceptions consistently deviate are as follows:
1: Are quality differences perceived within the company (silo-thinking)?
7: Are compaints handled correctly and quickly in the company?
0
17: Processing via several communication channels is possible.
19: Customers check online information but prefer direct support for the completion of a purchase.
20: Customer requirements are fulfilled in a quick and unbureaucratic manner.
21: A centrail point of contact is available in the company.
While management tends to answer with rather agree, customers rate these topics very positively with strongly agree.
The interpretation of question 1 shows that significance is p = 0.108 and which is larger than 0.05, indicating that no systematic difference exists.
It should be noted that questions 7 and 20 have similar content to check plausibility and both scored the same at the median level.
A smaller deviation can be observed in the following questions, 12 and 16.
12. The quality of the customer service provided is satisfactory.
16. Data collection (CRM software) is possible without having to interrupt the customer conversation.
Management again gave these questions a more pessimistic answer than customers.
Considering questions 14 and 18, Figure 27. illustrates the reversal of positive ratings in regards to the toics of active customer consultations and online services. These questions are rated worse by the customer compared to the management.
Question 14 examines whether employees actively inquire about their customers' wishes and needs. The analysis here proves that it is almost significant (p = 0.059 > 0.05) – there is a statistically significant trend (p<0.10). Based on the exclusive sample size of 18 participants from management positions, this indicates that under the assumption that the size of the difference remains the same, a bigger sample would clearly yield a significant finding.
Kotler et al. (2017) recognise the opportunity to integrate customers into business processes and foster a collaboration with customers, especially in the networked world. In this context,
question 18 aims to determine whether customers appreciate this possibility of cooperation and desire more self-service options. Surprisingly, the results show that this is not a priority among survey participants. Customers agree less than management.
Even though there is a descriptive deviation recognisable, there is no statistical significance given on the subject of cooperation between customers and the company via self services (p=0.147).
As already announced in the research process section, the nominally scaled variables will be analysed by means of crosstabulations, grouped bar charts and radar charts.
Marketing propagates the much-quoted premise that the customer is king. Such an approach is not necessarily a prerequisite for a successful customer relationship, as it can also lead to submission to the customer (Chang, Praveen, 2016, p. 198)
In the survey, this topic was considered from both the customer and management side.
Figure 28. Customer treatment.
Source: Own figure.
Figure 28 shows that management consider the customer to be the partner at eye level.
Obviously the customer perception differs, it is broader and other dimensions also matter.
The significant result (p=0.023) indicates that this deviation is of systematic meaning. The sole focus on partner at eye level is responsible for the effect which is depicted in the crosstabulation in Table 8.
0 1020 3040 50 6070 8090
like a king
like a partner at eye level
factually correct like a supplicant
without appreciation
Question 2: How is the customer treated?
Management Customer
Table 8. Customer treatment.
Source: Own table.
There is a significant relationship between the client and management related to the dependent variable: how the client is treated ( c² (3) = 9,54; p < 0.023).
When interpreting the question (Figure 29) about the loyalty of customers, it can be seen that customers are reluctant to change providers. This finding can be seen as an opportunity for companies to retain customers in the long term through appropriate customer service and CRM. Companies also recognise the loyalty of customers, although it is apparent that companies tend to be sceptical and believe that it is more likely that customers are reluctant to switch.
Figure 29. Customer loyalty.
Source: Own figure.
Customer loyalty is supported by customer satisfaction. Therefore, the perception of this issue is also evaluated in Figure 30.
Figure 30. Customer satisfaction.
Source: Own figure.
The question specifically addresses whether concerns, wishes and needs of customers are actively collected. The assumption is that customer satisfaction can be achieved if the needs are known.The evaluation of the ratings of the two cohorts show a similar picture, although customers do not assess the situation quite as positively as management do.
Actively investigating customer needs can help companies channel resources into the right tasks. For example, there seems to be diverging views on self-service offerings, as Figure 31. clarifies.
Figure 31. Customer self-service.
Source: Own figure.
While management sees potential in offering self-service to customers, customer responses indicate that this type of service is not in-demand. This particular finding suggests that communication with clients should be used intensively to develop strategies based on evidence.