Home » Archives for 07/27/08

Minggu, 27 Juli 2008

Flex time for outside activities can help business

Posted by yuspi irawan at 04.40

By JOYCE M. ROSENBERG AP Business Writer | Jul 9, 2008 | 693 words | article link expires Jul 9, 2011

At his own firm, "it doesn't matter to me when or where the work gets done, as long as it gets done," Oakes said.

Moreover, Oakes is well aware that staffers often sacrifice their personal time when the job demands it, working late into the night or on weekends. "I don't think you have license to expect flexibility from your employees unless you're willing to give it," he said.

Some owners are concerned that helping staffers continue their education will only lead to the employees' quitting to take other jobs once their schooling is done. Oakes is willing to take the chance on his most valued workers.

"Is it somebody that you think is going to stay with you for a long time? I'd bend over backwards," he said.

Many company owners have a harder time with an employee who wants flex time to do other work — although in the current economy, it wouldn't be surprising for more workers to try to get second jobs because of strained household budgets. But many owners believe flex time will in the end only strengthen a company.

Rabinowitz, co-owner of Rabinowitz-Dorf, a Washington D.C.-based PR firm, and his partner Matt Dorf routinely give staffers time not only to pursue their education but to do outside pro bono work. Rabinowitz, who is himself a part-time instructor at Johns Hopkins University, believes that giving employees time for other activities creates a better work atmosphere.

"A good workplace environment begets good work," he said, and explained further that the company's policy "makes us very attractive to prospective employees."

Rabinowitz said staffers' tenures with his firm tend to be very short because of the nature of the PR business in the nation's capital. And the experience they gather in their pro bono work can also lead them to other positions. But, rather than try to stop them, he encourages them, knowing they will remain part of his network and that he'll get business opportunities from them in the future.

So, he says of being flexible, "it's also smart business practice, because you get back what you give."

http://www.mywire.com/pubs/AP/2008/07/09/6892685?page=2

All Business Article

Posted by yuspi irawan at 04.36

EFFECTS OF FAILURE RECOVERY STRATEGIES ON CUSTOMER BEHAVIOURS VIA COMPLAINANTS' PERCEPTIONS OF JUSTICE DIMENSIONS IN BANKS, THE

Posted by yuspi irawan at 04.29

Abstract

The primary objective of this study is to investigate the effects of service recovery strategies on customer satisfaction. Specifically, it examines the perception of justice in service recovery and how it affects the level of satisfaction and behavioral outcomes. A total of 408 customers chosen with random sampling method, from four major Turkish banks were surveyed, and structural equations models were used to verify the reliability and validity of the scale of perceived value. Our results indicate that service failure recovery strategies in banks affect justice perceptions directly. On the other hand, perceptions of justice influence satisfaction with recovery, overall firm satisfaction, loyalty to the employee, loyalty to the organization.

1.Introduction

Todays, customer complaints in service sectors are rising sharply. While firms can't annihilate complaints, they can learn to respond to them in effective way. This response named service recovery, is defined as the process by which the firm attempts to correct a service related to failure (Kelley & Davis, 1994). Some investigators suppose that a firms' reaction to failures can either fortify customer relationships (Smith, Bolton & Wagner, 1999) or exacerbate the negative effects of the failure (Kelley, Hoffman & Davis, 1993). Really, some researchers purpose that it is frequently a retailer's response to a failure, rather than the failure itself, that triggers discontent (Hoffman et al., 1995). Recoveries are important because customers perceiving poor recovery endeavors may dissolve the buyer seller relationship and buy elsewhere (Schneider & Bowen, 1999). Such customer turnover can be costly, in particular given that it costs more to win new customers than it does to hold up current ones (Schneider, White & Paul, 1998). One valid strategy for retaining customers comprises recovering fairly from failures.

Customer satisfaction is supreme to the survival of all business. However, service failures are often inevitable because of human and non-human errors. Such failures to fulfill a service unavoidably lead to customer dissatisfaction. The consequences can be terrifying to a service provider. The breakdown in relationship can contribute to a rise in customer complaints, bad word of mouth communications and defections. It has been found that a dissatisfied customer may relate his or her bad experience with the service provider to 10 to 20 other people (Zemke, 1999), thus eroding potential patronage of the service provider. It has therefore been recognized that once a service failure occurs, it becomes crucial that service recovery, defined as the action taken by the service provider to seek out dissatisfaction (Johnston, 1995) and as a response to poor service quality (Gronnroos, 1988), be effectively carried out to reduce the damage in relationship and to pacify the dissatisfied customer. It has also been suggested that effective service recovery had led to higher satisfaction compared to service that had been correctly performed on the first time (McCollough and Bharadwaj, 1992). This phenomenon of service recovery paradox has also been discussed more recently by McCollough et al. (2000), Smith and Bolton (1998) and Tax et al. (1998).

Three issues are notable. First, though some research has examined the effects of perceived justice in service recovery (Blodgett, Granbois & Walters, 1993), the relative effects of the dimensions of justice on two important and distinct aspects of satisfaction have not been addressed. Given the importance of relationship marketing in ongoing service industries, such analyses are needed to determine if satisfaction gains realized by offering justice in service recovery affect overall firm satisfaction as well. Second, research is needed that examines the mediating effects of satisfaction with recovery and overall firm satisfaction on the relationships between perceived justice and different types of customer intent (loyalty). Given the distinction between purchase intent research is also needed that examines the relative effects of the satisfaction constructs on these intent constructs. Third, service recovery assumes that both a failure and a recovery effort have occurred. Ideally, then, researchers need to gauge customer perceptions when the failure and recovery are most salient in their memories. The existing literature is mostly comprised of laboratory (Goodwin & Ross, 1992) or field experiments (Smith et al., 1999) based on hypothetical scenarios. Other studies report cross sectional studies in which respondents were asked to "think back" to some past failure (Tax et al., 1998). Though these studies have contributed to our understanding of service recovery, it seems evident that field studies are needed that capture customer perceptions as they form over time.

The primary objective of this study is to determine the effects of organizational recovery strategy on customer loyalty via complainants' perception of justice dimension within a structural model in the bank service sector in Turkey. Specifically, firstly the study would examine the organizational recovery strategy (compensation, apology, promptness, empathy, effort, facilitation, reparation) effect on perception of justice (distributive justice, interactional justice, procedural justice) and how it affects the level of satisfaction (satisfaction with recovery and overall firm satisfaction). Second, it aims to determine the impact of satisfaction on behavioral outcomes (loyalty to employee and loyalty to firm) of the affected consumers.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5415/is_200707/ai_n21296394?tag=content;col1

CONCENTRATION, COMPETITION, EFFICIENCY AND PROFITABILITY OF THE TURKISH BANKING SECTOR IN THE POST-CRISES PERIOD

Posted by yuspi irawan at 04.26

Abstract

After 2001 crisis, the macroeconomic environment led to important changes in Turkish banking sector which has experienced a process of concentration by involving in merger and acquisition activities and liquidation of some insolvent banks. Using the data from the detailed balance sheets of the banks that operated in the years from 2001 to 2005, we examine the degree of concentration and degree of competition in the market by applying Panzar and Rosse's approach. We also explore the existence of relationship between efficiency and profitability of the banks taking into account the internationalization of banking. Our results do not suggest the existence of relationship between concentration and competition. There is also no robust relationship between efficiency and profitability.

1. Introduction

Banks play a substantial role in capital accumulation, firms' growth and economic prosperity. Hence, research on concentration, competition, efficiency and profitability of the banking sector has important policy implications. In investigating the relationship between the concentration and competition in banking sector there are two competing approaches: the Structure-Conduct-Performance (SCP) hypothesis and the Efficient-Structure hypothesis. The former states that the higher the concentration in a market is, the lower is the competition and the higher profits that the firms receive. The latter takes the efficiency factor into account and states that the firms with superior efficiency improve their market shares and become more profitable.

Berger and Hannan (1989) found consistent empirical results with the implications of SCP hypothesis. While Bikker and Groeneveld (2000) conclude that the increase in the degree of concentration in the European banking sector is negatively related to competition, Jansen and Haan (2003) found no evidence that concentration indicators are linked to profitability, and added that concentration and competition are not related. Smirlock (1985) also states that there is no discernable positive relationship between concentration and profitability. Yeyati and Micco (2007) further suggest that it is not at all clear whether competition and concentration should go in opposite directions. For the Turkey's banking sector, dominance, disparity and dynamic indexes are employed in addition to static measures in order to analyze market structure more comprehensively. According to the findings of this study, concentration showed an increasing tendency in 20002005. However, net interest margins which can be seen as the relevant prices in the sector (as an indicator for the measure of competition) declined.

While the literature generally focuses on scale and scope economies, more recent literature has attempted to evaluate X-efficiencies1 in various European banking markets (Altunbas, 2001; Berg, 1993). Berger and Humphrey (1994) state that X-efficiency is more important than scale and scope economies taking into account the managerial ability to control costs. Isik and Hassan (2002) employ Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to investigate efficiency in the Turkish Banking sector and found out that foreign banks operating in Turkey seem to be significantly more efficient than their domestic peers.

Beside Berger (1995), in exploring the relationship between profitability and efficiency, Turati (2003) does not employ a proper regression analysis. He computes simple correlation coefficients between efficiency scores and different measures of bank profitability. According to this study, correlation coefficients between ROE and efficiency scores, and between ROA and efficiency scores are substantially close to zero for all the three models. These findings suggest that there is no linear relationship between profitability and efficiency. Turati (2003) also observed that for some European countries there is a negative correlation between efficiency and profitability. He interpreted this as a surprising result since the more inefficient banks were also the more profitable ones. Berger and Hannan (1998) stated that monopolists earned higher profits and given the absence of competitive pressures, were also characterized by a higher level of inefficiency.

After the November 2000 and February 2001 crises in Turkey, the new macroeconomic environment led to important changes in the banking sector1. The rise in the interest rates, depreciation of the Turkish Lira and the contraction of economic activities adversely affected the profitability of the banks. With regard to financial and operational resurrection attempts in the scope of the Banking Sector Reconstruction Program, the number of banks, branches, and employees were reduced. The equity structures of the private banks were strengthened and merger and acquisition activities were promoted with tax incentives. In 2001, eight banks2 were acquired by Saving Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF), seven banks3 were merged, and the licenses of three banks4 were revoked. In the private sector, several banks5 engaged in mergers and acquisitions activities. After these mergers and acquisitions, concentration increased in the banking sector. In 2002, Pamukbank was acquired by TMSF. In 2003, Imar Bankasi entered into the liquidation process upon revocation of its license to perform banking activities and accept deposits. Fiba Bank was transferred to Finans Bank, ING Bank and Credit Suisse ceased their activities in the Turkish Banking sector. In 2004, Pamukbank was merged with Turkiye HaIk Bankasi. In 2005, the tendency for merger and acquisition activities kept reducing the number of banks in the sector and increasing the concentration. Fortis Bank acquired Turkiye Dis Ticaret Bankasi6.