Executive Summary

Organizations may emphasize speed and consistency of service in their effort to compete through service. Such firms often rely on scripts to routinize the encounter between front line employees and customers. Routinization may be valuable in such services as quick service restaurants (QSR), where both employees and customers are expected to understand and follow a common script. But, what happens when the script is not followed, when the employee and/or customer deviate from the organization’s preferred dialogue, what we call “script subversion”?

In this study, we consider a specific type of script subversion known as code switching. Code switching occurs when conversational participants change from one language or dialect to another in the course of a single communicative episode. We propose that brand codes can also be part of the dialogue, and that code switching can occur between one organization’s brand terminology and another. Sociolinguists have studied language and dialect code switching in the context of non-commercial interactions and have found that it increases communication richness and efficacy. In contrast, services marketing scholars suggest that script departures in general are detrimental to an efficient encounter. We wanted to know if code switching occurs in scripted service encounters, what its effects are, and if code switching affects different kinds of service retailers in the same way.

In this research, we investigate code switching (language, dialect, and brand) within service encounters in two industries: QSRs and coffee bars. Because we are introducing the concept of brand codes (brand-specific jargon), we chose large global service providers and compared them with local or regional service providers within these industries. It has been suggested that dominant firms may “write the script” for the industry as a whole such that there will be differential impacts of brand code switching.

We analyzed more than 2000 service encounters and find evidence of both language and dialect code switching, as suggested by sociolinguists. Language code switching occurred in ten percent of encounters, and dialect code switching was observed in thirteen percent of encounters. While on-script encounters are preferred, language code switching was found to have few negative consequences and several positive outcomes, such as higher numbers of positive comments and gestures at the conclusion of the encounter. In contrast, when dialect code switching subverted the service script, negative outcomes were observed. These code switching encounters were of longer duration than ideal or language code switching encounters, and had more negative comments and gestures, post-fulfillment inquiries and post-fulfillment returns than on-script encounters. However, more positive comments and gestures were observed following dialect code switching than after on-script encounters. Employees and customers who opt to interact in non-standard English may have an enjoyable interaction, but be distracted from the task at hand, resulting in order confusion and errors.

Brand code switching (e.g., ordering a “Big Mac” at a QSR other than McDonald’s) occurred in only four percent of McDonald’s encounters, but in fully 62 percent of encounters at Checkers, a regional burger chain. Similarly 61 percent of service encounters had brand code switching at the University Coffee Kiosk, compared to eleven percent of Starbucks encounters (excluding size-related brand codes). Negative outcomes resulted from brand code switching, including encounters of longer duration than on-script interactions, more negative comments and gestures, post-fulfillment inquiries and returns. Brand code switching was found to be particularly problematic for small market players who are unable to use trademarked brand codes of market leaders.

Because language code switching results in positive service outcomes at little detriment to smooth running operations, managers should include basic language information targeting the order process and product attributes in employee training. Having photo prompts can also facilitate the ordering process when employee and customer do not share the same language. Dialect code switching, with its negative outcomes, particularly longer encounters, should be studied further. While the employee and customer may enjoy the encounter in their shared dialect, other customers may be adversely impacted.

Brand code switching is problematic for non-market leaders, and they must adapt to the industry script that has been written for them by training employees in the meanings of competitors’ brand codes. These service providers must educate customers to their own brand codes, encourage brand loyalty, and build a sense of community with customers.

While scripting can aid in the efficiency and effectiveness of routine service encounters, managers must be aware of the impact of script subversion. When employees and/or customers fail to buy into the established script, encounters are lengthened and mistakes are made. While customers who experience on-script encounters do not exhibit the positive comments and gestures that other customers do, this may just be what they are looking for in a service designed to be quick and consistent.