Download - QMU Publications Repository

Article length: 9,435
Article title: Ethical fairness in financial services complaint handling.
Abstract:
Purpose:
This paper proposes a conceptual model for ethical and fair complaint handling.
This provides a basis for research and the development of financial institution
complaint handling approaches and practices.
Design/methodology/approach:
Ethical issues posed by the application of fairness theory to complaint handling
are explored. The ethical soundness of organizational justice theory is critiqued.
Multi-disciplinary literature is drawn on to develop a conceptual model for ethical
fairness in complaint handling.
Findings:
Issues relevant to an ethical approach to complaint handling, and which are
underdeveloped in current organizational and perceived justice frameworks, are
identified. These include issues of autonomy, context, reflexivity, moral value,
stakeholder voice, power and moral accountability. A conceptual model for
ethical fairness in complaint handling is proposed.
Research limitations/implications:
This paper establishes a research agenda. Further development is required.
Practical implications:
The proposed model contributes to the development of complaint handling
practices and competency frameworks.
Originality/value:
Justice theories have been proposed as theoretical frameworks for service
recovery procedures, however, moral and critical questions have been neglected.
The model proposed challenges financial institutions to move away from
traditional normative perspectives, which seek to solve problems through
managerial interventions, and adopt a perspective which is interpretivistic and
reflexive. The model recognizes ethical issues and seeks to minimize inherent
power positions, identify accountability and question moral values. Through
envisioning complaint handlers as boundary spanners, new light is shed on their
relational and communicative roles.
Keywords:
Fairness, justice, ethics, complaint handling, boundary spanner, reflexivity.
Article classification:
Conceptual paper
Introduction
Responding to the continued attempts to recover from the 2008 financial crisis and to reestablish trust in the financial sector, leaders of the UK financial services industry have called on
financial institutions to adopt new approaches to their practice which are based on fairness and
ethics (Carney, 2014. Wheatley, 2013).
Fairness outcomes have been identified as building trust in financial markets (Worthington and
Devlin, 2013) but ethical issues posed by the application of fairness theory in organizations
need further exploration (Fortin and Fellenz, 2008). This paper focusses on complaint handling
as a financial institution approach which is required to be fair and ethical. It argues for and
develops a conceptual model for ethical fairness in complaint handling. The model seeks to
provide a basis for research and for the development of complaint handling approaches and
practices in financial institutions.
Fairness is important for service industries such as banks, as the intangibility of products in this
sector heightens consumer sensitivity to the issue (Zhu and Chen, 2012) but a challenge for the
industry is how to be fair. What does fairness consist of? How can a fair outcome be arrived at
in an ethical way? What are the factors which underpin ethical approaches? How do financial
institution complaint handlers know whether they are acting ethically? How do they judge
whether they are being fair? What do financial institutions themselves need to put in place to
allow their complaint handling processes to be ethical as well as fair? This article seeks to
propose answers to these questions
The International Journal of Bank Marketing has paid increasing attention to such topics as
fairness, justice and ethics over the last decade but no articles considering how complaint
handlers can act fairly and ethically were found. This paper seeks to provide a basis for
research and the development of knowledge and practice in this area.
Work previously done on the topic of justice in organizations has been criticized for coming from
a managerialist perspective, adopting normative frameworks and failing to provide an ethical
base (Fortin and Fellenz, 2008). Ethics do not offer a simple checklist of how to behave and
ethical behaviour does not come from following a prescribed set of norms.
It needs to start,
instead, from the attitude and disposition of the people involved. The challenge in seeking to
adopt an ethical approach is one of understanding (Garcia de Alba, 2010). An ethical approach
is one based on an interpretivistic and reflexive standpoint, rather than a normative one.
Moral and critical questions, which enable us to understand the issues which are important to
people, have been neglected in work on organizational justice (Fortin and Fellenz, 2008). As a
consequence existing frameworks, while providing a theoretical basis for complaint handling,
focus on supporting the organization (Fortin and Fellenz, 2008) and, in using them, complaint
handlers lose sight of the impact of their practices (Fortin and Fellenz, 2008).
The conceptual model which is the proposed outcome of this paper seeks to reorientate thinking
in this area. It uses justice theory as its starting point, but departs from the normative and
managerialist perspective and, instead, seeks to ensure that ethical questions are brought to the
fore. In striving to develop a conceptual model which provides an ethical and fair approach to
complaint handling, this article draws on multi-disciplinary literature - including that on ethics,
organizational studies, communications and public relations – to bring together insights in order
to develop an integrated framework. Furthermore the role of the financial services complaint
handler is envisioned as a boundary spanner and, in this way, new light is shed on the relational
and communicative roles of those in these positions.
This paper and its model therefore challenges financial institutions to move away from
traditional normative perspectives, which seek to solve problems through managerial
interventions including process development and practice guidelines, and adopt a perspective
which is interpretivistic and reflexive, in the sense of focusing on meaning and responding and
changing in the moment. In particular, in addressing key ethical issues the model will recognize
and seek to minimize inherent power positions, identify accountabilities and question moral
values.
At the outset, definitions of justice and fairness in organizations are reviewed to draw out key
themes. The underpinnings of an ethical approach to fairness and justice are then explored to
support a critique of perceived and organizational justice as ethical frameworks for complaint
handling in financial service organizations. The role of the boundary spanner is then introduced
and defined in an attempt to identify both the fit with the complaint handling role and justify the
use of literature on ethics relevant to boundary spanning to inform the development and
articulation of a conceptual model for ethical fairness in complaint handling (Fig. 2).
What is fairness and justice in organizations?
Justice or fairness has been studied throughout the ages (Colquitt et al, 2001). Much attention
in the academic literature has been paid to fairness in an organizational setting (Byrne and
Miller, 2009. Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001. Colquitt et al., 2001. Fortin and Fellenz, 2008.
Colquitt et al, 2005).
Fairness is associated with justice (Zhu and Chen, 2012. Fortin and Fellenz, 2008) and fairness
theory has provided an integrated framework for justice research (McColl-Kennedy and Sparks,
2003). Organizational justice, which focusses on justice in the workplace, has already been
widely researched (Fortin and Fellenz, 2008) and justice theories are referred to in much of the
research into complaint handling and organizational contexts (Varela-Neira et al, 2010. Fortin
and Fellenz, 2008. Colquitt et al., 2001. Colquitt, 2001. McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003).
Justice theories have been proposed as a theoretical framework for service recovery
procedures (Cristiane Pizzutti and Basso, 2012. McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003. CasadoDíaz et al., 2007) and within a bank setting (Varela-Neira et al., 2010). In addition to impacting
on customer satisfaction (Zhu and Chen, 2012. Gelbrich and Rosck, 2011. Szymanski and
Henar, 2001. Varela-Neira et al., 2010), the provision of justice is also viewed as effecting a
range of important outcomes for service providers including trust (McColl-Kennedy and Sparks,
2003) and consumer evaluations of organizational responses to service failures (Varela-Neira et
al., 2010).
Two theoretical approaches to understanding this area are apparent. These are, traditional
approaches which focus on what normatively constitutes fairness and, more recently, social
science conceptualizations which focus on understanding justice not through an analysis of its
components or the reality of them, but through the perceptions of the individuals involved
(Colquitt et al, 2005. Maxham III and Netemeyer, 2002). Perceived justice, has, in particular,
gained prominence in research into customer satisfaction with service recovery (Varela-Neira et
al., 2010). Perceptions of justice are commonly referred to as being composed of a range of
dimensions including distributive, procedural, interactional (McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003.
Byrne and Miller, 2009. Colquitt et al, 2005. Nowakowski and Conlon, 2005), informational
(Fortin and Fellenz, 2008. Simmons and Walsh, 2012. Colquitt, 2001. Varela-Neira et al.,
2010. Mattila and Cranage, 2005) as well overall systemic fairness (Zhu and Chen, 2012).
These dimensions have also been identified in analysis of fairness judgments in other contexts
including community perceptions of ecological risk (Syme et al., 2006) and criminal proceedings
(Walgrave, 2013). Service recovery research also proposes distributive, procedural,
interpersonal and informational justice as providing a theoretical basis (McColl-Kennedy and
Sparks, 2003) including within the banking sector (Varela-Neira et al., 2010).
The first four dimensions (procedural, distributive, interactional and informational) are distinct
and independent from each other, each delivering different effects (Colquitt, 2001). There is
disagreement in literature over which dimension is dominant. Worthington and Devlin (2013)
identify distributive justice, which can be interpreted in the case of financial services complaint
handling as the amount of compensation offered, as having the greatest impact on customer
fairness perceptions. Other research, however, demonstrates the more significant role of the
non-distributive dimensions of perceived justice in consumer evaluations of service recovery
(McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003. Varela-Neira et al., 2010). In particular, it is not simply
what is received but how it is received which is pre-eminent according to McColl-Kennedy and
Sparks:
“Being treated fairly goes further than simply receiving a fair outcome. It is often how (in
terms of process and interpersonal style) the outcome is received rather than what is
received that seems to matter” (McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003, pp. 253).
Consumers may be frustrated in forming judgments of distributive fairness through an inability to
know what others receive in the way of compensation and this may lead them to rely more on
the procedural and interactional dimensions in evaluating fairness in service recovery (McCollKennedy and Sparks, 2003).
Customer attention to the fairness of procedures and information in forming satisfaction
evaluations in the banking sector is highlighted by Varela-Neira et al. (2010):
“customers form judgments about the degree to which the different aspects of the
recovery process – the outcome, the treatment received and the procedures and the
information offered – were fair and these judgments have a positive impact on their
satisfaction. Considering all justice dimensions together, the procedural and
informational justice combination is the most important or the one with the greatest direct
effect on customer satisfaction with complaint handling” (Varela-Neira et al., 2010. pp.
103)
The procedural dimension of justice was found to have a negligible effect on post-complaint
satisfaction in research by Gelbrich and Roschk (2011), a finding which they argued stemmed
from the inability of the complainant to infer the fairness of procedures as
“most companies will not offer the consumer a deep insight into how complaints are
handled internally” (Gelbrich and Roschk, 2011, pp. 36).
Gelbrich and Roschk’s work has suggested that interactional justice has a greater impact than
distributive justice in terms of cumulative organizational satisfaction (2011).
In conclusion, it is apparent that decisions about the extent to which justice has been done rely
on a range of factors. These are analysed below. As a first step the main dimensions identified
above are considered in greater detail, then factors which underpin individuals’ judgments of
whether they have been treated fairly or received justice, which have been identified in the
current body of knowledge, are brought together. An approach to dealing with these factors
which support ethical practice, called moments of reflexivity, is subsequently outlined (see Fig.
1).
Distributive justice
Distributive justice refers to the perception of the tangible outcome and the equity of the share
(Varela-Neira et al., 2010). In determining whether they have received distributive justice,
consumers focus on resources (Homburgh and Furst, 2005), outcomes and equity theory. The
compensation outcome is the most powerful determinant of distributive justice (Gelbrich and
Roschk, 2011).
From an ethical perspective it is noteworthy that in determining fairness, consumers focus on
the subjective (Byrne and Miller, 2009) and look for balance between the outputs-to-inputs ratios
of both parties involved in a negotiation (Byrne and Miller, 2009) and between themselves and
others (McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003). Their equity judgments allow for needs differences
to be taken into account (Deutsch, 1975).
Interactional justice
Interactional justice relies on the degree to which complainants view their personal treatment by
those handling their complaint as fair (Maxham III and Netemeyer, 2002; Smith et al., 1999).
Favourable behaviour has been identified as the most powerful determinant of interactional
justice (Gelbrich and Roschk, 2011). In particular, people refer to sensitivity, treating people
with dignity and respect, courtesy, honesty, effort, interest in fairness and explanation provision
(McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003; Maxham III and Netemeyer, 2002) in determining
interactional justice.
Procedural justice
Individuals consider the system when forming a view on fairness (Zhu and Chen, 2012).
Factors considered include formal policies, structural considerations (McColl-Kennedy and
Sparks, 2003) and the treatment delivered to the complainant as a result of the procedure
(Varela-Neira et al., 2010). The opportunity for complainants to make their views known and
have a bi-lateral voice (McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003; Duffy et al., 2003) is also
considered, and complainants look for consistency of treatment through the established norms
of the complaint system (Colquitt, 2001).
Informational justice
Equity at the informational level is important to consumers (Varela-Neira et al., 2010).
In determining informational justice two aspects need to be considered: the material object of
information, including its content, form, access to it and how it is distributed, and the knowledge
that it contains (van den Hoven and Rooksby, 2008).
Ethical issues posed by these aspects include, in terms of the information object, balancing
transparency and the protection of privacy (van den Hoven and Rooksby, 2008; Nagenborg,
2009) and being respectful and considerate of customers and their situations (Bokan and Daly,
2009).
Complainant difficulties and situations should be acknowledged (Bolkan and Daly, 2009).
Informational justice tolerates differentiation, including tailored approaches to meet the specific
needs of individuals (Colquitt, 2001). The financial, technological, education and lexical
challenges of fair information provision need to be considered along with issues of gender,
ethnicity and disparity in cognitive power (van den Hoven and Rooksby, 2008). Informational
justice is provided through tone, timeliness (Nowakowski and Conlon, 2005; Colquitt, 2001) and
responsiveness (Bolkan and Daly, 2009).
Consumers have expectations not only that organizations will communicate with them in the
event of a failure but that their preference, in terms of the type of communication, will be met
(Bolkan and Daly, 2009). Contextual norms including the way that information is distributed and
flows are relevant to decisions about informational justice (Nagenborg, 2009). Information
should be distributed in a way which is appropriate for its type and each form of distribution is
equally valid (Nagenborg, 2009).
In respect of the knowledge contained in the information object, decisions about justice will
relate to the extent to which it provides all the information relevant to making the decision
confronting the recipient, provides alternatives, reduces preferences and supports co-ordination
of actions (van den Hoven and Rooksby, 2008). Choice, compensation and apology influence
perceptions of informational fairness (Mattila and Cranage, 2005). Those providing information
should also be mindful of reducing the positional value of information ensuring that when
information is of value it is available to all (van den Hoven and Rooksby, 2008).
Explanations should be adequate and reasonable (Nowakowski and Conlon, 2005; Colquitt,
2001), seek to expose the background, context and reasons, cover why procedures were used
in the way they were and include a rationale for the distribution of outcomes (Colquitt, 2001;
Ambrose et al., 2007; Varela-Neira et al., 2010; Nowakowski and Conlon, 2005). Justifications
and apologies, but not excuses, should be offered (Bolkan and Daly, 2009).
This review of definitions of justice and fairness in organizations has identified a number of key
determinants. These include, in relation to distributive justice, compensation outcome, equity,
comparison and context. Determinants for interactional justice include sensitivity, dignity,
respect and explanation. Those for procedural justice consist of formal policies, processes and
structures, complainant voice and consistency of treatment and outcome. Informational justice
determinants which have been identified include, the information form and object, context,
differentiation, transparency and support. These determinants will inform the development of a
conceptual model for ethical fairness in financial services complaint handling.
The underpinnings of an ethical approach to fairness and justice?
The underpinnings of an ethical approach to fairness and justice are now explored to support a
critique of perceived and organizational justice as an ethical framework for complaint handling.
To act ethically is a choice. It is the role of ethics to support people in making a judgment
between differing possibilities (Garcia de Alba, 2010). Ethics provide a way of bringing values
together (Garcia de Alba, 2010).
There are a number of ethical justifications for action ranging from the consequentialism
argument - which views right behaviour as that which bring about the best outcomes - through
the deontological argument - which focuses on duty disregarding the outcomes - to the virtue
argument, which gives primacy to ethical behaviour as being that which is virtuous.
For the complaint handler ethical defenses therefore could rely on following a route which
delivers the greatest good in terms of the outcome, whether that greatest good be viewed in
terms of the individual complainant, the good of the organization or the good of society as a
whole. Ethical principles demand that attention is paid to the common as well as the individual
good (Garcia de Alba, 2010).
Alternatively, approaches to complaint handling could be defended in terms of ethics on the
basis of the thoroughness and consistent and dutiful application of the procedures followed in
reaching a resolution, equity of treatment for all complainants or the adherence to standards.
The latter may concern a range of issues including timescales and levels of information
provision for example.
Defenses relying on virtue ethics on the other hand rely on a range of claims (Cocking and
Oakley, 2001) including the centrality of the agent and their character in determining the ethical
soundness of an action. For the complaint handler a virtue ethics approach has implications in
terms of their freedom to act virtuously in complaint resolution and to be free from the
constraints of organizational policy, process and power. Ethical principles include that people
should be able to act as fully human (Garcia de Alba, 2010).
Common interpretations of any of these defenses have resulted in normative managerial
practices (Fortin and Fellenz, 2008. Fawkes, 2012). The organization for example, may provide
guidelines for complaint handlers on how to provide fair outcomes, provide structured pathways
for complaint handlers to follow, or offer job training. The Financial Services Authority’s Treating
Customer Fairly initiative, for example, relied on the identification of key outcomes and the
requirements for financial institutions to measure their compliance with these (Financial
Services Authority, 2007). Ethics, however, do not offer a simple checklist of how to behave
and ethical behaviour does not come from following a prescribed set of norms.
It needs to
start, instead, from the attitude and disposition of the people involved and to seek
understanding.
“The main function of ethics does not focus on specific actions; it has a more basic
objective: to offer steady guidance, to find the road that leads to a goal, to create a style
and a way of life that is consistent with a project. The ethical dimension encompasses
people’s disposition toward life, their character and their way of acting. The ethical life is
an organized whole, and its starting-point and center is the human person” (Garcia de
Alba, 2010, pp.23.)
An ethical approach is, therefore, one based on an interpretivistic and reflexive standpoint,
rather than a normative one. Interpretivism and reflexivity encourages focus not only on
complainant perspectives and understanding, but also gives primacy to the rights of
complainants to exercise autonomy, hold different views, understand ideas in different ways and
use context and reference to their own circumstances to come to perspectives which may differ
from those of someone else. Increasing reflexivity reverses the way in which problems are
perceived, problematizes the organization, rather than the public, and forces organizations to
look for ethical rather than normative solutions (Fawkes, 2012). Instead of complaint handlers
focusing on how they can change what they are doing to more effectively demonstrate the
fairness of their decisions and procedures, reflexivity demands that they, and the organizations
they represent, change to meet complainant and wider stakeholder needs for fairness and
justice.
Theory suggests that customers make moral judgments, based on comparisons made with a
number of reference points and across time, and these, it has been identified, drive customer
evaluations of the degree to which distributive, procedural, interactional and informational justice
has been delivered. Customers ask themselves what is right and who is deserving (Szymandki
and Henar, 2001). They undertake comparisons, which may be focused on their own
experience, comparing their own inputs to outputs ratio, or may be comparisons with other
individuals or groups or with established norms (Zhu and Chen, 2012). Comparisons may take
contemporary experiences as their point of reference or be based on experiences which have
taken place in the past (Zhu and Chen, 2012).
In conclusion, the key underpinnings of ethical complaint handling include the capacity of the
complaint handler to abandon normative solutions, respond to ethical challenges considering
likely comparisons, adopt an interpretivistic and reflexive stance, and to act ethically, free from
the constraints of organizational policy, process and power.
This paper will now go on to consider theoretical frameworks of perceived and organizational
justice as models for delivering ethical complaint handling.
Does perceived and organizational justice provide a framework for ethical complaint
handling?
As previously stated, justice theories have been identified as providing a framework for recovery
procedures in service companies (McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003). Perceived justice has,
in particular, been identified as a theory for studying customer satisfaction with complaint
handling in a bank setting (Varela-Neira et al., 2010). In asking the question, however, whether
these theories provide a framework for ethical complaint handling, some important issues
become apparent.
On the one hand, it is argued, that organizational justice provides an ethical approach. The
focus of organizational justice on what people perceive to be fair (Fortin and Fellenz, 2008;
Simmons and Walsh, 2012) is generally seen to provide a defense against normative solutions
as it tolerates and allows for differing outcomes in situations where a decision or allocation is
seen to be fair by some but not by others (Simmons and Walsh, 2012). Those who focus on
understanding justice through the perceptions of individuals (Colquitt et al., 2001; Colquitt et al,
2005.; Fortin and Fellenz, 2008; Simmons and Walsh, 2012) do highlight some ethical issues
including justice’s tolerance of unequal distribution (Simmons and Walsh, 2012), its socially
constructed nature and its subjectivity.
On the other hand, some shortcomings of organizational justice as providing an ethical route are
identified in literature. Firstly, arguments are made that, although current presentations of
theory encourage an interpretivistic stance, the frameworks presented in literature and the
dimensions of distributive, procedural and interactional justice are normative rules (Rupp et al,
2014; Fortin and Fellenz, 2008) and are therefore inadequate on their own for ensuring morally
sound practice. In addition, research attention has focused on the organization making the
decisions rather than on the stakeholders affected by the decision (Simmons and Walsh, 2012)
and literature on perceived justice has focused on understanding how consumers’ perceptions
of the fairness of outcome distributions can be affected and how fair procedures can be
developed to deliver these (Colquitt et al., 2001). These factors result in essentially normative
solutions which take a managerialist perspective, providing checklists of actions which
perpetuate practices rather than supporting engagement with moral values or the impact of
practices (Fortin and Fellenz, 2008).
Secondly, perceived and organizational justice frameworks fail to include environmental or
contextual issues which may impact upon the ethical judgment or decision-making. Central to
ethical thinking is the determination that people should be able to live a full and self-determined
life, equal with others but with the right to be different, for those differences to be respected and
to be treated differently (Garcia de Alba, 2010). Ethical approaches demand multiple
stakeholders' interests to be taken into account (Fortin and Fellenz, 2008). Ethical action must
recognize the complexity of people’s lives and perceptions and this provides a way of focusing
on the key issues (Garcia de Alba, 2010). Normative approaches mitigate against consideration
of the whole individual.
Thirdly, there is a lack of reflexivity in justice research (Fortin and Fellenz, 2008). While
organizations see external issues such as the level of public understanding, knowledge and
awareness as the problem, they will seek to find an answer in the development of normative
rules and procedures (Fawkes, 2012). Consequently, it is the organization itself which
determines what is ethical and what is not. In and of itself, this approach is ethically unsound.
Fourthly, frameworks do not engage with questions of moral value. When assessing a situation
of service recovery a customer not only considers what else the provider could have done but
also what they should have done (McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003). This “should” decision
implies the operationalization of some set of values.
Fifthly, while organizational justice provides “ample evidence and powerful reminders of the
importance of enabling all stakeholders a voice” (Simmons and Walsh, 2012 pp. 153),
consideration of power dynamics is absent (Fortin and Fellenz, 2008) and more engagement is
needed (Fawkes, 2012). The exercise of power is a key facet organizational life.
Organizational justice is able to entrench the interests of those with power (Simmons and
Walsh, 2012). Key questions are: who is in a position to determine the ethical action? Should
what is right be determined by the complaint handler, their organization or the complainant or
wider society? If the latter, who is seen as representing society and what is the legitimacy of
their position to fulfil this role? The obstacle caused by power to the establishment of ethical
communication, an important aspect of the complaint handler’s role, is recognized.
“Many of the most important communication issues facing this century, from global
warming to religious fundamentalism, raise questions concerning the relative power of
those seeking to establish dialogue.” (Fawkes, 2007, pp. 322).
Finally, in order to engage with ethical considerations, frameworks for fairness provision should
recognise that justice perceptions involve holding a party accountable for violating justice rules
(Rupp et al., 2014). They therefore need to include a focus on moral accountability. Moral
accountability is a bridge between issues of justice and issues of ethics and focusing on
accountability issues provides a way of integrating justice and ethics in practice (Rupp et al,
2014).
This review has identified a range of issues relevant to establishing an ethical approach to
complaint handling which are undeveloped in current organizational and perceived justice
frameworks. Key amongst these are the need to address issues of autonomy, context,
interpretivism, reflexivity, moral values, stakeholder voice, power and moral accountability.
Complaint handlers as boundary spanners
In order to focus ideas about ethical fairness more directly onto the complaint handling role, the
concept of the boundary spanner is now introduced and explored. It is then presented as
relevant to the role of complaint handlers which then creates the argument for ethical theory in
relation to boundary spanning roles to be regarded as an appropriate input to the development
of a framework for ethical complaint handling policy and practice.
Boundary spanners work in collaboration, co-ordination and integration roles (Williams, 2011).
They “manage the interface between organizations and their environments” (Williams, 2013, pp.
19). These may be intra-organizational boundaries – between different organizational functions
or departments - or at touchpoints where organizations come into contact with external
environments – including customer service and contact departments (Williams, 2011; Johlke
and Duhan, 2001).
In literature the term boundary spanner has been applied to a range of organizational roles and
sectors including public relations practitioners (Grunig and Hunt, 1984; White and Dozier,
1992), individuals in health and social care settings (Williams, 2011), salesteams (Johlke and
Duhan, 2001), business banking account managers (Ferguson et al, 2005). buyer-supplier roles
(Fugate et al, 2012), and professional services client facing roles (Vafeas, 2011)
The issues boundary spanners deal with are complex and highly interdependent, requiring the
employment of networking, entrepreneurial, interpretation and organizational skills (Williams,
2011). Boundary spanners use mediation to bring about mutually acceptable outcomes. In
discussing public relations practitioners as boundary spanners, Grunig and Hunt (1984)
highlight the outcome of mediation as the building of mutual understanding. The communication
roles of a public relations boundary spanner include gathering, interpreting, relaying and
managing (White and Dozier, 1992).
Boundary spanners have to deal with a range of challenges including: balancing self-interest
and collaboration, working with different management styles, managing without power,
managing in relationships which may stray between the personal and professional spheres,
balancing multiple accountabilities and dealing with complexity (Williams, 2011). Boundary
spanners can only act ethically if they practise symmetrically, acting as mediators with the aim
of securing positive outcomes for both parties (Fawkes, 2007; Grunig and Hunt, 1984).
The above definitions of the boundary spanner demonstrate the applicability of this definition to
the role of the complaint handler. Individuals in complaint handling roles work in these
boundary spanning arenas, collaborating with others internally and externally to seek mutually
acceptable outcomes. They mediate between complainants and the organization, they
negotiate acceptable outcomes and resolve conflict, they frame issues to persuade internally
and externally and they co-ordinate investigations and the involvement of all relevant parties. In
respect of complaints relating to financial services, the complaint handler role balances
management of expectations and complaint investigations to the extent that these are seen as
being equally central (Gilad, 2008). These complaint handlers interpret issues to support the
development of organizational learning, intervening and providing general guidance and
recommendations to service providers (Gilad, 2008). The insight offered by the boundary
spanning metaphor reshapes our understanding of the complaint handler’s role particularly
within the financial sector.
This aim of the paper is to propose a conceptual model for ethical and fair financial service
complaint handling. In doing this it has considered justice and fairness concepts relevant to
organizations, analysed the suitability of these theories as providing ethical approaches and
explored the role of the complaint handler, using the concept of the boundary spanner to identify
roles fulfilled and challenges faced by those who work in this area. This work will now inform
the construction of a model for ethical fairness in complaint handling.
Finding a framework for the conceptual model for ethical complaint handling
A conceptual model for ethical fairness needs to reflect environmental and contextual issues
and the centrality of communication to the dispute resolution process (Gilad, 2008).
“whilst actors manufacture outcomes, the parameters within which they operate – the
constraints and opportunities – are set essentially by their structured context” (Williams,
2011, pp. 26).
A person’s conclusions are influenced by a range of factors operating at a number of levels,
from individual, through the group to societal. Social sciences research suggests that in
identifying determinants for a range of outcomes, structural and agency factors should also be
considered (Williams, 2011).
The Maletzke model of mass media communications (McQuail and Windahl, 1993) provides an
insight. Although this model may not immediately appear to have direct relevance it is argued
that its inclusion here is legitimate. Firstly, it provides an insight into the complexity of a
communication process, recognizing the influences emanating from a range of sources and the
impact of a number of contextual factors. Furthermore, it is built on social and communicative
psychology theory and is therefore relevant to those taking an interpretivistic standpoint.
Thirdly, it has already been used as the basis for exposing ethical issues relevant to the conduct
of a boundary spanning role, specifically in developing an ethical framework for persuasive
communications within another boundary spanning role, that of public relations (Fawkes, 2007).
It has also previously been developed to identify power dynamics (Fawkes, 2007). It is
therefore asserted that the use of the Maletzke model as the basis for providing a background
framework for a conceptual model for ethical fairness in complaint handling is legitimate. In the
conceptual model offered at the conclusion of the paper (Fig. 2) the Maletzke model and
Fawkes’ (21007) development of this to include ethical and power dynamics, overlay the
dimensions of perceived justice.
Explanation of the proposed framework
As stated at the beginning of this paper the purpose of the model proposed here is to challenge
financial institutions to move away from traditional normative perspectives which seek to solve
problems through managerial interventions such as processes, checklists and guidelines, and
instead to embrace a perspective to complaint handling which is both interpretivistic and
reflexive and which seeks to minimize inherent power positions, identifies accountabilities and
questions moral values.
This model seeks to support them in moving to this new perspective through the identification
and highlighting of a range of players, factors and dynamics. The model is not however a
normative checklist itself. It focusses rather on supporting interpretivsim and reflexivity.
By way of explanation, it can been seen that, although the model takes perceived and
organizational justice as its starting point and positions these at its centre, it addresses the
ethical shortcoming of these theories by presenting underpinning moments of reflexivity rather
than a checklist of factors to be considered. The concept of moments has been identified as a
route to promoting an interpretivistic and reflexive approach. It is informed by Curtin and
Gaither’s Circuit of Culture (2007) which identified moments in a process with no beginning or
end “in which meaning is created, shaped, modified and recreated” and where “moments work
synergistically to create meaning …… each moment (contributing) a particular piece to the
whole” (Curtin and Gaither, 2007, pp. 38). The focus on meaning promotes interpretivism,
whilst the positioning of moments in an unending process which constantly impact upon
meaning supports reflexivity.
The table at Fig. 1, therefore, does not form a normative checklist of factors, rather it serves to
elucidate and enhance the conceptual model for ethical fairness in complaint handling which will
be proposed at the end of this paper, by identifying potential moments of reflexivity relating to
justice provision, where one is engaged in a constant and in-the-moment process of adjustment
and readjustment responding to what is happening at any time. This reflexivity which underpins
this approach supports an ethical approach.
Fig. 1 : Justice dimension moments of reflexivity
Justice dimension
Distributive justice
Interactional justice
Procedural justice
Informational justice
Moments of reflexivity
Compensation outcome
Equity
Comparison
Context
Sensitivity
Dignity
Respect
Explanation
Formal policies, processes and structures
Complainant voice
Consistency of treatment
Treatment outcome
The information form
The information object
Context
Differentiation
Transparency
Support
Moving beyond the moments of reflexivity other elements of the proposed conceptual model
also support ethical fairness in complaint handling.
Fig. 2 : A conceptual model of ethical fairness in complaint handling
= Power and influence dynamics
Clarity over moral
accountability
Organizational context
Moral values
Individual complaint
handler ethics
Team ethics
Organizational ethics
Boundary spanning
complaint handler
Moments of reflexivity
Distributive justice
Procedural justice
Interactional justice
Informational justice
Overall systematic fairness
Clarity over moral
accountability
Complainant context
Moral values
Socially accepted ethics
Complainant’s personal ethics
Complainant group’s ethics
Professional ethics
Industry ethics
Socially acceptable ethics
Wider
influencer
context
Influencer ethics
Ethical issues and dilemmas
Reflexivity
Voice
In particular, this model gives emphasis to moral values. It also highlights that each player has a
set of moral values which may not be in concert, as well as the web of ethical frameworks that
inform each player’s moral values. Seeking to understand both the moral values and the
complex web of ethical perspectives that inform these will support the building of an
interpretivistic standpoint which supports ethical practice.
In addition, the proposed framework recognizes the relevance of and struggle between both
structural and agency factors operating at a range of levels from individual to societal. For
example, the power that organizations have over the choices that complaint handlers, who they
employ, make, is identified, as is the power that wider influencers, such as the media,
campaigning groups, ombudsmen and regulatory authorities, have over organizational decisionmaking and influence over complainant perceptions. It proposes in order to limit power the
establishment of clarity over moral accountability. What freedom of decision making should
complaint handlers have? Identifying the need for that clarity between complaint handler and
complainant creates transparency.
The model also identifies stakeholder voice as a component of ethical and fair complaint
handling and a mitigator of organizational power in complaint handling situations.
The power dynamics raised in this model ask questions about the extent, limitations and nature
of the power of:

financial services organizations over complaint handling teams

the complaint handler and the financial services organizations they represent over
publics and those who influence them

the complaint handler within their own organization,

contextual influencers over the financial services organization and in shaping the views
of consumers and complainants

the complainant’s own context in shaping perceptions and setting expectations.
The model challenges financial services organizations to put measures in place where the
power dynamics frustrate the delivery of ethical fairness in complaint handling.
Within the financial services complaint handling situation, the framework identifies ethical
dilemmas posed by the differing moral values of organizational, influencer and stakeholder
contexts providing a reminder to complaint handlers and organizations that their role in acting
fairly and ethically is to bring moral values together and justify an approach whether that be to
provide an outcome which produces the greatest good in terms of outcome, provide fairness
through the consistent application of a procedure or through acting, and enabling complaint
handlers to act, virtuously. It further recognizes the role of moral accountability to allow those
making ethical decisions the authority and freedom to do so.
The model highlights reflexivity as a route to ethically sound practice as it supports the building
of understanding and deters from a purely normative, checklist approach to ethical practice.
Recommendations
The aim of this paper was to develop an integrated model which would provide a basis for
research and knowledge building as well as to contribute to the development complaint handling
practices which are based on ethical fairness. To arrive at the model, theories of fairness and
justice in relation to organizations have been reviewed and evaluated in terms of their capacity
to support ethical practice and the complaint handler has been conceptualized as a boundary
spanner.
To realize the potential of this model in a bank setting more work needs to be done. At a
theoretical level further work is needed to develop the conceptualization of complaint handlers
as boundary spanners, investigate the moments of reflexivity framework and further
understanding of the exercise of power and its impact on ethical practice.
Research in a financial services organization is also needed to understand the model in a
practical setting and develop approaches to reflexivity in the workplace. Offering examples of
this here would suggest normative solutions which is not in line with the argument presented in
this article. The author proposes however, that in particular, analysis of the boundary spanning
complaint handler skill and knowledge set required to deliver ethical fairness is needed. The
implications of this in terms of complaint handler training and development requires scoping.
Both the content of training and approaches to provision require consideration and testing. How
can training avoid, for example, falling into the normative trap? The author proposes that the
adoption of interpretivistic approaches to skills development, supported by collaborative
working, involving representatives of all groups involved in complaint handling situations, to
critique complaint handling approaches as well as the use of reflexivity as a training strategy is
appropriate. Barriers to adoption of the model in a complaint handling context need identification
and solutions developed and tested.
The outcomes of such efforts need evaluation from the individual, organizational, complainant
and societal perspective.
References
Ambrose, M., Hess, R. L. and Ganesan, S., (2007), “The relationship between justice and
attitudes: an examination of justice effects on event and system-related attitudes”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 21-36.
Bolkan, S. and Daly, J. A., (2009), “Organizational responses to consumer complaints: an
examination of effective remediation tactics”, Journal of Applied Communication Research, vol.
37, no. 1, pp. 21-39.
Byrne, Z.S. and Miller, B.K., (2009), “Is Justice the Same for Everyone? Examining Fairness
Items Using Multiple-group Analysis”, Journal of Business and Psychology, vol. 24, no. 1, pp.
51-64.
Carney, M. (2014). “Inclusive capitalism: creating a sense of the systemic”, paper presented at
the Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, 27 May, London, UK, available at
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk//publications/Pages/speeches/2014/731.aspx (accessed 12
September 2014).
Casado-Díaz, A.,B., Más-Ruiz, F.J. and Kasper, H., (2007), “Explaining satisfaction in double
deviation scenarios: the effects of anger and distributive justice”, The International Journal of
Bank Marketing, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 292-314.
Cocking, D. and Oakley, J., (2001), Virtue ethics and professional roles, Cambridge University
Press. Port Chester, NY, USA.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P. E., (2001), “The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol.86, no. 2, pp. 278–321.
Colquitt, J. A., (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a
measure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., and Ng, K. Y., (2001), “Justice
at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”, The
Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 424–445.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J. and Zapata-Phelan, C. P., (2005). “What is organizational justice?
A historical overview”, in Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational
Justice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, NY, pp. 3-57.
Cristiane Pizzutti, D. S. and Basso, K., (2012), “Do ongoing relationships buffer the effects of
service recovery on customers’ trust and loyalty?”, The International Journal of Bank Marketing,
vol. 30, no. 3. Pp. 168-192.
Curtin, P. and Gaither, T., (2007), International Public Relations: negotiating culture, identity and
power, Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, California .
Deutsch, M., (1975), “Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as
the basis for distributive justice?”, The Journal of Social Issues, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 137–149.
Duffy, R., Fearne, A. and Hornibrook, S., (2003), “Measuring distributive and procedural justice:
An exploratory investigation of the fairness of retailer-supplier relationships in the UK food
industry”, British Food Journal, vol, 105. no. 10, pp. 682-694.
Fawkes, J., (2007), “Public relations models and persuasion ethics: a new approach”, Journal of
Communication Management, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 313-331.
Fawkes, J., (2012), “Interpreting ethics: public relations and strong hermeneutics”, Public
Relations Inquiry, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 117-140.
Ferguson, R.J., Paulin, M. and Bergeron, J., (2005), “Contractual Governance, Relational
Governance, and the Performance of Interfirm Service Exchanges: The Influence of BoundarySpanner Closeness”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 217-234.
Financial Services Authority, (2007), “Treating Customers Fairly: Measuring Outcomes”,
available at http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/tcf_outcomes.pdf (accessed 12 September 2014).
Fortin, M. and Fellenz, M.R., (2008), “Hypocrisies of fairness: towards a more reflexive ethical
base in organizational justice research and practice”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 78, no. 3,
pp. 415-433.
Fugate, B.S., Thomas, R.W. and Golicic, S.L., (2012), “The impact of coping with time pressure
on boundary spanner collaborative behaviors”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 697-715.
Garcia De Alba, J. M., (2010), Professional ethics: fundamental part, translated from the
Spanish by William Quinn, Instituto Tecnologicó y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente,
Guadalajara, Jaliso.
Gelbrich, K. and Roschk, H., (2011), “A meta-analysis of organizational complaint handling and
customer responses” Journal of Service Research. , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 24-43.
Gilad, S., (2008), “Accountability or expectations management? the role of the ombudsman in
financial regulation”, Law and Policy, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 227-253.
Grunig, J.E. and Hunt, T., (1984), Managing Public Relations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York, NY.
Homburgh, C. and Fürst, A., (2005), “How organizational complaint handling drives customer
loyalty: an analysis of the mechanistic and organic approach”, Journal of Marketing, vol. 69, no.
3, pp. 95-114.
Johlke, M.C. and Duhan, D.F., (2001), “Supervisor communication practices and boundary
spanner role ambiguity”, Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 87-101.
Mattila, A. S. and Cranage, D., (2005), “The impact of choice on fairness in the context of
service recovery”, Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 19, no. 5. pp. 271-279.
Maxham III, J. G. and Netemeyer, R. G., (2002), “Modelling customer perception of complaint
handling over time: the effects of perceived justice on satisfaction and intent”, Journal of
Retailing, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 239-252.
McColl-Kennedy, J. and Sparks, B.A., (2003), “Application of Fairness Theory to Service
Failures and Service Recovery”, Journal of Service Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 251-266.
McQuail, D. and Windahl, S., (1993). Communication models for the study of mass
communication. Longman, London, UK.
Nagenborg, B., (2009), “Designing spheres of informational justice”, Ethics and Information
Technology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 175-179.
Nowakowski, J. M. and Conlon, D.E., (2005), “Organizational justice: looking back, looking
forward”, International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 4-29.
Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Jones, K. S. and Liao, H., (2014), “The utility of a multifoci approach to
the study of organizational justice: a meta-analytic investigation into the consideration of
normative rules, moral accountability, bandwidth-fidelity, and social exchange”, Organizational
behavior and human decision processes, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 159-185.
Simmons, P. and Walsh, B., (2012), “Public relations and organizational justice: More fairness
or just more cooperation?”, Public Relations Inquiry. vol. 1, no. 2, pp.141-157
Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N. and Wagner, J. (1999), "A model of customer satisfaction with
service encounters involving failure and recovery", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No.
3, pp. 356-73.
Syme, G.J., Kals, E., Nancarrow, B.E. and Montada, L., (2006), “Ecological Risks and
Community Perceptions of Fairness and Justice: A Cross-Cultural Model”, Human and
Ecological Risk Assessment, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 102-119.
Szymanski, D. and Henar, D., (2001), “Customer Satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empirical
evidence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 16-35.
Vafeas, M.G., (2011), “Reinventing the Role of the Professional Services Boundary Spanner: An
Exploratory Study”, Services Marketing Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 265-281.
Van den Hoven, J. and Rooksby, E., (2008), “Distributive justice and the value of information: a
(broadly) Rawlsian approach”, in Van den Hoven, J. and Weckert, J. (Eds). Information
Technology and Moral Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 376-396.
Varela‐Neira, C., Vázquez‐Casielles, R. and Iglesias, V., (2010) "Explaining customer
satisfaction with complaint handling", International Journal of Bank Marketing, vol. 28, no. 2,
pp.88 – 112.
Walgrave, L., (2013), “Perceptions of justice and fairness in criminal proceedings and
restorative encounters: extending theories of procedural justice”, Tijdschrift voor Criminologie,
vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 229-233.
Wheatley, M., (2013), “The Fairness Challenge”, available at http://www.fca.org.uk/news/thefairness-challenge (accessed 12 September 2014).
White, J. and Dozier, D., (1992), “Public relations and management decision making”, in Grunig,
J.E., Dozier, D.M., Ehling, W.P., Grunig, L.A., Repper, F.C. and White, J. (Eds), Excellence in
Public Relations and Communication Management, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 91108
Williams, P., (2011), “The life and times of the boundary spanner”, Journal of Integrated Care,
vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 26-33.
Williams, P., (2013), “We are all boundary spanners now?” The International Journal of Public
Sector Management, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 17-32.
Worthington, S. and Devlin, J., (2013), “Fairness and financial services in Australia and the
United Kingdom”, The International Journal of Bank Marketing, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 289-304.
Zhu, Y. and Chen, H., (2012), “Service fairness and customer satisfaction in internet banking”,
Internet Research, vol. 22,no. 4, pp. 482-498.