Multiple-choice item: Customer support competency—conflict resolution
Stem:
A customer initiates a live chat visibly upset: “My order arrived late and ruined my presentation. I want a full refund now, even though your site says refunds are not allowed after 30 days. This is unacceptable.” Which agent response best exemplifies effective conflict resolution that maximizes de-escalation and a fair service recovery?
Options:
A. “Our policy clearly states no refunds after 30 days. There is nothing I can do.”
B. “Calm down first. If you keep shouting, I will end this chat.”
C. “I’m sorry this caused such a disruption to your presentation. I’m checking your order details now. While the 30-day refund window has passed, I can offer options to make this right—such as a no-cost expedited replacement or a refund of the shipping fee plus a goodwill credit. I will explain each option and next steps so you can choose what works best. Does that sound acceptable?”
D. “This is entirely the carrier’s fault. I’ll give you a full refund right now and complain to the shipper.”
E. “I’ll escalate to my manager immediately without reviewing your order.”
Correct answer:
C
Rationale:
Option C operationalizes evidence-based conflict resolution principles for service recovery. First, it demonstrates interactional justice through acknowledgment and apology, which enhance perceived fairness and reduce negative affect (Colquitt, 2001; Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaran, 1998). Second, it provides a transparent process—checking details and explaining options—supporting procedural justice, a key predictor of recovery satisfaction and trust (Tax et al., 1998). Third, it offers proportionate remedies (e.g., expedited replacement, partial monetary consideration), aligning distributive justice with realistic constraints, which improves post-failure satisfaction and relationship continuity (Smith, Bolton, & Wagner, 1999; Orsingher, Valentini, & de Angelis, 2010). Finally, the collaborative, solution-focused stance reflects an integrative conflict mode that is associated with superior outcomes compared to rigid refusal, premature escalation, or adversarial positioning (Thomas & Kilmann, 2008).
By contrast, A relies on a competitive/defensive stance and denies agency, increasing perceived unfairness and escalation risk. B is face-threatening and likely to intensify conflict by violating interactional justice norms. D overpromises and externalizes blame; while it may placate short-term, it creates policy inconsistency and potential moral hazard. E abdicates ownership prematurely, which can undermine procedural justice and delay resolution, especially when frontline remedies are available.
Scoring:
- Single best answer; 1 point for C; 0 for others.
- Cognitive level: Application (scenario-based judgment).
- Targeted competency elements: De-escalation (acknowledgment, apology), collaborative problem solving, justice-informed service recovery, policy-consistent flexibility.
References (APA 7th):
- Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(3), 386–400.
- Orsingher, C., Valentini, S., & de Angelis, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of satisfaction with complaint handling in services. Journal of Service Research, 13(2), 175–186.
- Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 356–372.
- Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60–76.
- Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (2008). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. CPP.
