Assessing the Effect of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction -A Study of ZSIC Life Limited

Assessing the Effect of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction -A Study of ZSIC Life Limited

Grace Lwabaluse Mukuka, Dr. Martin Chasha

Graduate School of Business: University of Zambia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000135

Received: 23 August 2025; Accepted: 28 August 2025; Published: 01 October 2025

ABSTRACT

The key to surviving in a global market for every organization is to focus on the quality of service to customers and life insurance companies are not an exception. ZSIC Life limited has implemented several service features and systems such as changing the interior design of the institution, consistently delivering on promised services, promptly responding to customer needs and investing in technologies. Therefore, the study assessed the effect of service quality on customer satisfaction using ZSIC Life limited as an example. A study of 100 customers who had at least one life insurance policy with ZSIC life was conducted at the main branch in Lusaka. The study used a descriptive and experimental research design. The study analyzed the data by determining frequencies, percentages and means and also used correlation and regression analysis to determine the effect. The study found that service quality significantly impacts customer satisfaction. Specifically, tangibility i.e., physical appearance of office spaces was found to greatly influence customer satisfaction levels; Reliability which refers to consistency in service quality; Responsiveness, which involves timely and effective communication were crucial factors in enhancing customer satisfaction. The study revealed that the company’s’ responsiveness and tangibility have a significant impact on customer satisfaction while reliability had a lesser effect on customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction had a linear dependence on tangibility, reliability and responsiveness with a correlation value of 0.964. The unstandardized coefficient for tangibility was 0.512. The t-value was 2.821, and the p-value was 0.0043, indicating a statistically significant relationship. This suggested that for every one-unit increase in tangibility, customer satisfaction increased by 0.512 units, holding all other variables constant. The significant p-value indicates that tangibility is an important factor in determining customer satisfaction at ZISC life insurance. The unstandardized coefficient for reliability was 0.842, with a standard error of 0.046. The t-value was 3.273, and the p-value was 0.0021, indicating a statistically significant relationship. This implied that for every one-unit increase in reliability, customer satisfaction increased by 0.842 units, holding all other variables constant. The significant p-value highlighted the crucial role of reliability in influencing customer satisfaction. An analysis of the impact of responsiveness on customer satisfaction revealed that a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.748, signified a strong positive correlation. This meant that as responsiveness increases, so does customer satisfaction. The substantial correlation coefficient highlighted the importance of responsiveness in shaping customer satisfaction. Based on this significant correlation, it was concluded that responsiveness significantly impacts customer satisfaction. This depicted a very good linear dependence between the customer satisfaction and the three predictor variables. The study therefore recommended that insurance companies should improve physical environment, leverage technology to improve efficiency of services offered, provide consistent services, train employees, conduct regular customer surveys, monitor and evaluate service quality. This research would not only contribute to academic knowledge but also provide valuable insights for practitioners aiming to optimize service quality in the evolving insurance landscape.

Keywords: Insurance, tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, customer satisfaction

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

In today’s modern, competitive, and globalized business world, the key point to sustain a competitive advantage lies in the quality of service that companies could provide, which in turn will result in effective customer retention (Shemwell et al., 2018). What is more, a winning strategy entails the necessity to build positive relationships with target customers and delivering superior value over competitors (Kotler, 2019). Customer satisfaction has become a cornerstone for competitiveness within the global insurance industry, driven by rapid technological advancement and evolving customer expectations. Globally, studies highlight those insurers must focus on improving service quality dimensions to enhance customer retention and brand loyalty (Brown & Wilson, 2022). According to Deloitte (2021), insurers in developed markets have embraced digital solutions to improve service delivery and customer satisfaction, making processes like claims management more efficient and transparent. Furthermore, research shows that companies investing in service quality are more likely to achieve sustained growth, as satisfied customers are likely to remain loyal and recommend the company to others (Smith & Taylor, 2020). Zambian Life Insurance firms have vast experience in long term insurance. They pride themselves among the leading insurance, assurance and wealth management business in their chosen markets. Although they pride themselves, they have not yet achieved most of their expectations.

Privatization of the insurance sector in Zambia during the past few decades have resulted in higher customer expectations. Customers now demand better quality services from financial institutions. The demand has boosted the competition among various insurance providers particularly those in the private sector. This motivates them to deliver premium quality services to their customers in order to gain competitive advantage i.e. more satisfied customers (Wisniewski, 2001; and Graack, 1996). Service quality’s contemporary conceptualization has its origins in the perceived expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm. The definition is a multidimensional concept, different scholars interpret and evaluate the term differently (Ismail, 2019). Notable scholars such as Juwaheer and Parasuraman highlight that assurance, tangibility, empathy, reliability, and responsiveness were among the paramount features (Johnson, 2016). An organization with high levels of service quality will exceed customer expectations, yet remain to increase long term economic competitiveness and profitability.

The investigation into the “Effect of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction” is rooted in the fundamental recognition of service quality as a critical determinant in shaping customer perceptions and experiences. However, organizations strive to meet or exceed customer expectations to gain a competitive edge. The concept of service quality, as initially conceptualized by Parasuraman et al. (2015), defines it as the delivery of excellent or superior service relative to customer expectations. Service quality is inherently multidimensional, and this study particularly centers on three key dimensions: tangibility, reliability, and responsiveness. Tangibility refers to the physical aspects of service delivery, such as facilities, communication materials, and technology. The appearance of these tangibles provides customers with cues about the quality of services and contributes significantly to the overall image of the company. Reliability, on the other hand, is the organization’s ability to provide promised services accurately and dependably. It involves keeping customers informed, addressing complaints, and maintaining consistency in service delivery. Responsiveness, the third dimension, revolves around the willingness to assist customers and provide prompt service. This includes the attitude and promptness in dealing with customer requests, questions, and complaints (Valary, 2017).

Customer satisfaction, as a key outcome of service quality, is defined as the resulting sense of fulfillment experienced by customers when an organization’s performance meets or exceeds their expectations (Angelova & Zekiri, 2011). The study recognizes that customer satisfaction is a highly subjective and personal assessment, greatly influenced by customer expectations and their interactions with the organization. The intricate relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction is explored, acknowledging that extensive research has been conducted on these two interconnected concepts. The study aligns with the understanding that customer satisfaction is not only influenced by the quality of services but also plays a crucial role in shaping perceptions of service quality. This reciprocal relationship emphasizes the dynamic nature of customer experiences and their impact on overall satisfaction (Zenk, 2019). To enhance customer satisfaction, life insurance providers ideally should measure and improve the approaches to delivery of service. In addition, it is mandatory that they commence a search for the important quality dimensions in the life insurance sector. Service quality could be a basis for differentiation for the players, which could be developed into a sustainable competitive advantage in the long run. These non-price instruments are usually ascribed more potency than price changes, because they are hard to match. Any reaction from the competitors to match any of these may require a change in the entire service strategy (Siddiqui and Sharma, 2010).

1.1. Problem Statement

The Insurance Association of Zambia (IAZ) identifies several challenges that contribute to customer dissatisfaction and poor service delivery within the country’s insurance sector. One of the critical issues is the persistently low insurance penetration rate, which remains below 5% among adults, indicating a limited adoption of insurance products (IAZ, 2024). A key factor driving this trend is the widespread lack of awareness regarding the benefits of insurance coverage. According to Banda (2024), a significant proportion of Zambians, particularly those engaged in informal employment, have limited understanding of insurance as a financial risk management tool. This knowledge deficit not only discourages uptake but also leads to unrealistic customer expectations and service misinterpretations. Consequently, policyholders may feel misled or underserved when claims processes or policy terms do not align with their expectations, thereby fostering dissatisfaction. Additionally, poor service delivery arises as insurers struggle to bridge this knowledge gap, often failing to provide adequate education, transparent communication, and accessible customer support, further eroding trust in the industry (IAZ, 2024). The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) annual report further highlights a pervasive issue of customer dissatisfaction particularly evident in the increasing number of complaints from 15% in 2020 to 28% in 2024. This trend underscores the need for further investigation into the underlying factors contributing to this dissatisfaction. Life Insurance firms emerge as some of the companies significantly impacted by customer discontent, with numerous charges of unpaid claims, unsolicited deductions, and cancelled policies leading to a collapse in customer service. Addressing these issues is essential for improving customer experience and satisfaction in the Zambian insurance industry (CCPC annual report, 2020-2024). The underlying problem lies in the inability of life insurance companies to consistently deliver reliable, transparent, and customer-oriented services, particularly regarding claims and policy management. This persistent issue erodes customer confidence, reduces retention, and creates operational inefficiencies. If left unchecked, these challenges can lead to a major crisis for life insurance firms, threatening not only customer trust but also the financial sustainability of the companies involved. Ultimately, this could result in reputational damage, regulatory scrutiny, and significant financial losses for life insurance providers (Researcher, 2024).

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Previous Studies

Existing literature reveals a wide variation of the definitions of customer satisfaction. A lack of a general agreement on the definition narrows the contribution of research on customer satisfaction. As a result, it is difficult for researchers to make comparisons, interpret empirical findings and make valid measures of customer satisfaction. Researchers of customer satisfaction claim that this puzzle is inescapable and vital (Gardial, Clemons, Woodruff, Schumann, and Burns 1994; Peterson and Wilson 1992; Yi 1990).

In spite of the comprehensive research ever since Cardozo’s (1965) outstanding article, researchers are yet to devise a common definition of customer satisfaction. Oliver (1997) gives attention to this sentimental literature by noting that “we all understand what customer satisfaction is until asked to define it. Then we seem not to know”. There are enough conceptual and operational definitions of customer satisfaction. According to Peterson and Wilson (1992), these definitions are best expressed by their lack of rational and scholarly standardization.

Different definitions support the impression that customer satisfaction is a response to an evaluation process. Customer satisfaction is especially known as a summary concept (i.e., a response to pleasure (Oliver 1997); a response influenced by feelings, mood and emotions (Halstead, Hartman, and Schmidt 1994); overall assessment (Fornell 1992); emotional response; universal evaluative judgment (Westbrook 1987) or evaluative response (Day 1984)). However, there is still much controversy concerning the definition of customer satisfaction.

Cadotte et al. (1987), Halstead et al. (1994) and Westbrook (1983) view customer satisfaction as an effective response or a cognitive response. Unlike the conceptual definition, operational definitions encompass a behavioral dimension of satisfaction. According to Boshoff and Gray (2004), customer satisfaction is not a characteristic attribute of a service but rather consists of different parts of the service and customers’ perception of features related to a service. Thus, it is essential that service providers realize that customers are likely to reveal different levels of customer satisfaction depending on their susceptibility and perceptions of the service (Ueltschy et al., 2007).

Defining customer satisfaction and customer dissatisfaction using the same framework does not iron out the issue of dimensionality. Consumer literature emphasizes this point: about half of respondents from a personal interview survey show that dissatisfaction and satisfaction vary by tiny differences that they do not seem to differ from each other, however the other half of respondents reveal that dissatisfaction portrays itself in a different way than satisfaction. This tiny difference may best be understood by considering the prime focus of satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Giese et.al, 2002).

Consumers would be satisfied with one encounter of the choice/consumption experience and will be dissatisfied with the other. In such a case, both satisfaction and dissatisfaction can be looked at as different dimensions. A customer may be satisfied with the performance of a product but dissatisfied with the process of buying. In such a case dissatisfaction and satisfaction may be viewed as though they were different dimensions. On the other hand, satisfied and dissatisfied would be viewed as bipolar opposites if the reaction of the consumer is constant through-out the consumer experience. Evidence from literature cannot empirically solve the dimensionality argument. That is why further research is necessary to verify the dimensionality of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. However, it should be noted that satisfaction and dissatisfaction constitute the same basic components (Yi, 1990).

Firms must therefore revise the basic components of dissatisfaction and satisfaction in order to establish a statement which will regulate the evaluation of satisfaction. This whole process of measure is important in order to drive closer to fully understanding customers and hence to make more excellent organizational decisions. Otherwise, interpreting what customers mean when they mark on a Likert scale is virtually impractical (Oliver 1997). Even though scholars reveal some significant differences in the definitions of customer satisfaction, the definitions share certain common components. When studied fully, three general elements emerge; customer satisfaction is an emotional or cognitive response; the response relates to a specific focus (customer expectations, commodity, consumption experience etc. lastly, the response takes place at a specific time (i.e. after consumption, after product selection, based on customer experience during the service process). Responses from customers reflect a general pattern consistent with literature. Customer satisfaction constitutes three basic elements: a response that stems from a specific focus that occurs at a particular time (Woodruf et. al, 1996).

Customer literature conceptualizes satisfaction as either a cognitive or emotion response. More recent customer satisfaction literature suggests an emotional response. Responses stem from customers’ feelings. Customers and literature both agree that this cognitive response varies in type and intensity depending on the circumstances at play. Response intensity relates to the magnitude of the customers’ response ranging from weak to strong. Words such as indifferent, insensitive, like, excited, love, relieved, cheated, frustrated, exhilaration, defenseless, thrilled, dissatisfied, unhappy, surprised, swindled and very satisfied all show the range of intensity. In-short, consumer satisfaction literature all views satisfaction as a summary affective response with a varying intensity (Szymanski, 2001). The focus of the customers’ response refers to the object of the customers’ satisfaction and usually means making a comparison between performance and some standard. This may vary from a specific standard to a more general one. There are usually many foci to which these different standards are related for example: commodities, expenditure, buying decisions, sales personnel and acquisition. Coming up with a convenient focus for satisfaction differs from one context to another. Thus, definition of customer satisfaction would differ from one person to another because there is no clear focus; interpretation would be difficult (chameleon effects) (Folkes et al (1998).

While customer satisfaction is broadly accepted as a post-purchase phenomenon, there are a number of differences that exist in this perspective. The buying decision may be assessed after choice but before buying the product. Consumer satisfaction may occur before choice and before a purchase is made for example dissatisfied with supermarkets in the suburbs which were never frequented. It has even been observed that the aforementioned times frames are inappropriate because satisfaction changes from time to time and can only be determined at the time an evaluation takes place. Consumer responses re-emphasized this varied timing aspect of customer satisfaction. Consumers refer to the duration of satisfaction as how long a satisfaction response lasts (Reichheld, 2003). Literature has taken two approaches in conceptualizing and operationalizing the dissatisfaction construct. Customer dissatisfaction is viewed as the direct opposite of satisfaction. Consumer research that deals with dissatisfaction suggests that the term precedes to improving behavior such as negative communication by word of mouth and complaining Folkes et al (1998). However, there is not a clear and concise definition of customer dissatisfaction. Since extant research does not provide a clear conceptualization of dissatisfaction, consumer perceptions were considered. The personal interviews reveal that dissatisfaction is comprised of three constructs; focus, timing and affective response. This means that scholars can apply the same definitional framework for dissatisfaction as they do with satisfaction. For example, in one circumstance, consumer satisfaction may be a satisfied/dissatisfied affective response to the consumption experience determined during consumption but in a different circumstance consumer satisfaction may be a dissatisfied/not dissatisfied affective response to specific product attributes determined after purchase Folkes et al (1987) and Chandrashekaran (1998).

Generally, dissatisfaction responses are more severe than satisfaction; for example, terms such as furious, outraged, proved, disappointed and upset. Responses that focus on the service provider and marketer communication include; felt conned, unsympathetic, swindled. Responses of dissatisfaction that focus on the basic product attributes include; doesn’t smell good, doesn’t work, doesn’t operate well, is not user friendly. Dissatisfaction terms may arise earlier and last longer than satisfaction terms because of the special importance given to negative responses (Oliver 1997). The impact of service quality on customer satisfaction in life insurance firms has been widely researched. Although other researchers use a six-dimensional service quality instrument consisting of assurance, personalized financial planning, competence, corporate image, tangibility and technology in life insurance (Siddiqui & Sharma, 2010), this study focuses on a three-dimensional instrument of service quality.

In the insurance industry, service quality is one of the most paramount facets of the premium customer experience. Firms mostly keep a continuous record of their services to make sure of the greatest amount of customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is mostly achieved by correctly meeting consumer expectations and demands making available appropriate services according to market requirements (Gitomer, 1998). Organizations must ensure that they enforce a positive customer experience which helps to make customers feel good about the products and services. However, there is no guarantee of repurchase even if the customer is satisfied. Many scholars agree that service quality is a key factor and an antecedent of customer satisfaction (Cronin et al., 2000). Tangibility and customer satisfaction. Lau et al (2013) states that tangibility has a beneficial effect on customer satisfaction. The results of the study are in line with research from Tamwatin et al (2015) and Iskandar et al (2015) which states that there is an influence between tangibility and customer satisfaction. Thus, the more customer experience tangibility provided by company organizations the better customer satisfaction will be. Based on these assumptions the hypothesis proposed is that; there is a positive direct effect of tangibles on customer satisfaction. Melia (2016) agreed that tangibles are an attraction for physical facilities, equipment and communication facilities equipment as well as appearance of employees in the service process having a positive influence on customer satisfaction.

Tibebe (2018) conducted research on the impact of service quality on customer satisfaction at the public owned national alcohol and liquor factory. The study applied quantitative methodology and a self-completion questionnaire with closed questions. A sample of 300 was taken from 4200 customers in Addis Ababa. The study found that service quality dimensions had a positive relation with customer satisfaction and especially tangibility. Suleiman (2019) conducted research on the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction and revealed mixed results. Suleiman, (2013) assessment of the statistical examination disclosed that tangible interpreted 47.8%, which is clearly below average. Saghier et al., (2013) concluded that customer satisfaction is significantly influenced by Responsiveness and Reliability while the effect of the Tangible dimension does not have any notable footprint on customer satisfaction. Yarhands et al., (2016) findings indicated that all three dimensions performed poorly. Service quality in conclusively had a negative impact on customer satisfaction and concludes that the service quality deserves improvement. Tibeke, (2019) study found that service quality dimensions had a positive relation with customer satisfaction and especially tangibility.

Muhamud, A. (2017) examined the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction. The findings showed that reliability and responsiveness had significant impact on the customer satisfaction. The study concluded a positive relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction; the correlation between reliability and customer satisfaction was low positive significant correlation (r=0.145, p0.05). Tangibility was at -0.8. Service quality conclusively had a negative impact on customer satisfaction and concludes that the service quality deserves improvement. Yarhands et al., (2016) conducted studies on the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction and revealed both positive and negative results. The studies established that not all the three service quality dimensions (Tangibility, Reliability and Responsiveness) contribute to customer satisfaction. Naik et al., (2019) findings concluded that customers have highest expectation on the promptness of service, accuracy of transactions, security issues and concerns. Kuo et al., (2009) concluded that service quality positively affects both perceived value and customer satisfaction. Yarhands et al., (2016) indicated that all five dimensions performed poorly P >0.05. The analysis revealed that there is a significant positive correlation between service quality and customer satisfaction.

Ananth et al., (2018); examined the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction and revealed inconclusive results. Ananth et al., (2019) findings also show that reliability positively affect service quality. Suharto, (2015) results suggest that three service quality dimensions (tangible, responsibility and reliability) are antecedents of consumer satisfaction in this industry. This revealed that Servqual was a good model to measure bank service quality delivery in Tanzania context. The gap analysis carried out found pervasive evidence of negative disconfirmation. The study also confirmed linkages between service quality and customer satisfaction. Tangibility has been observed as a key influencer to creating a satisfied customer base. Independent variables such as tangibility have a greater significance as compared to other variables. Panda (2014) conducted research on the role of tangibility in service quality and its impact on customer satisfaction and stated that tangibility is an evident factor in influencing customer satisfaction and plays a key role in customer decision making. Panda further asserts that tangibility is easier than reliability to adhere to in the service design process as it is attainable through the physical environment, machinery, human resources and communication facilities. To describe it more clearly, tangibility is about creating the utmost impression. Every organization wishes to create a strong impression and this helps to gain maximum benefits.

According to Jabnoun and Al-Tamimi (2018), organizations with better aspects of tangibility such as ambience increase customer satisfaction. Other than that, Zineldin (2017) stated that the combination of tangible and intangible premium services builds a strong and long-term relationship with clients. The general environment and culture in various geographical regions act as a guide for firms on how to accustom their strategies on a universal basis. They need to ensure the changes are made in their different branches. For example, the banking sector mostly sets up identical office equipment and ambience to maintain a particular standard of appearance. But adjusting a setup to suit the cultural setting will make customers feel more comfortable (Ganguli & Roy, 2019). Robert and Wowor (2020) emphasize that there is a direct positive effect between reliability and customer satisfaction. They meant that providing the promised service quickly, precisely and efficiently influences customer satisfaction. Yousug (2017) agrees by stating that reliability affects customer satisfaction. Famiyeh et al. (2018) further admits that reliability and customer satisfaction are directly proportional; meaning that the more customers feel the firm is reliable, the more the customers are satisfied. Jun et al 2004 stated that employees’ positive attitude could create positive customer satisfaction. This entails that the reliability that employees possess is one of the main factors to be looked at in order to obtain customer satisfaction.

Martini et al. (2018) states that reliability has a positive effect on customer satisfaction. Being reliable means being trustworthy and this adds great value to an organization. When a firm is trustworthy, it influences customers psychologically to give a positive appreciation of the company. The association between reliability and customer satisfaction was investigated by Ibáñez et al. (2016). They found a significant relationship between reliability of services on the satisfaction level of customers. The literature reveals an increased degree of positive relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction. Technology expansion has had a great impact on the choice of service delivery standard and services marketing strategies. This has yielded many prospective competitive advantages including augmenting of productivity and enhanced revenue creation from new services (Muyeed, 2018)

Munusamy et al. (2020) states that responsiveness is directly proportional to customer satisfaction. This entails that the more employees are motivated to solve client related queries, the more clients get satisfied. Saad Andaleeb & Conway (2016) agrees with this notion and go on to state that responsiveness affects customer satisfaction positively. It means that customer satisfaction will increase when employees are more willing to attend to customers in a timely fashion. Customer satisfaction will also be higher when their perceptions about employees’ responsiveness is good. Siddiqi (2019) also emphasizes that responsiveness influences customer satisfaction. According to Bebko and Garg (1995), for employees to be able to provide fast and accurate appropriate services to consumers they should be able to convey clear information. Great responsiveness can create customer satisfaction though services offered by the organization.

Responsiveness had a direct positive effect on customer satisfaction. This can be seen from the results of research conducted by Kashkoli et al. (2017) on the three indicators. Fast service which has the greatest value compared to the other two indicators, namely assistance provided by employees and clarity of information provided by company employees, which explains that fast service is the indicator that most influences customer satisfaction. The negative path coefficient in the study indicates that if the willingness to help consumers, provide fast and appropriate services, and deliver clear information, then consumers have not given a positive response to the services provided by the company. Consumers will look for other factors that can provide satisfaction after consuming services sold by the company. This finding is in accordance with the results of a study conducted by Ahmadi Kashkoli et al. (2017); Uyoga (2018), who said that responsiveness has an effect on consumer satisfaction. Organizational practices adopted often time will have impact on the customer satisfaction such as in the area of customer responsiveness, measured by KPIs such as lead time and total response time etc.

2.3. Conceptual Framework

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

In conducting this research on the effect of service quality on customer satisfaction within life insurance companies in Lusaka, Zambia, a descriptive and experimental research design was adopted. According to Creswell (2014), the mixed-methods approach allowed for the integration of both qualitative and quantitative data to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research problem. This study design is suitable because it facilitates the collection of diverse data types to thoroughly address the research objectives.

Mixed-methods research enables the researcher to gain insights into both measurable service quality dimensions (e.g., customer satisfaction scores) and deeper, contextual customer experiences. Creswell (2014) explains that the use of both qualitative and quantitative data helps to corroborate findings and allows for a richer analysis. By combining numerical data with narrative data, the study can triangulate the results, thereby increasing the reliability and validity of the research findings.

The quantitative aspect involved a survey questionnaire distributed to a sample of 95 customers who had engaged with ZSIC Life Limited. The survey used a structured questionnaire to gather data on customer perceptions of service quality and satisfaction levels. This approach allowed for statistical analysis, which was crucial in determining the relationships between variables such as tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, and customer satisfaction. Key tools such as descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and regression analysis was employed to test the hypotheses. The research population consisted of participants who purchased at least one insurance product (life insurance policy, annuity policy and/or unit linked policy) between January 2019 and December 2021. The study was conducted along Cairo Road in Lusaka. Combining both the quantitative sample size and qualitative sample size gave a total of 100 participants for the study.

For the quantitative survey, the simple random sampling technique was employed. For the qualitative interviews, a purposive sampling method was used to select 5 participants who had in-depth experiences and could provide rich information on the service quality provided. Simple random sampling is the kind of sampling technique in which each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. The researcher randomly picks a subset of respondents from a population. The study analyzed the data by determining frequencies, percentages and means and also used correlation and regression analysis to determine the effect of service quality on customer satisfaction.

FINDINGS

4.1 The aspects of tangibility that influence customer satisfaction at ZISC life insurance

The study revealed that 87 percent of the respondents indicated that the physical appearance of the office significantly impacts customer satisfaction. A well-maintained and aesthetically pleasing office space enhances the perception of professionalism. Cleanliness, organized workspaces, and a professional ambiance convey competence and attention to detail, which positively influence customers’ trust and confidence in the business. This aligns with Jabnoun and Al-Tamimi (2018), who found that a better physical environment increases customer satisfaction.

Additionally, the study found that a clean, secure, and well-maintained office environment contributes to trust and credibility. Customers are more likely to have confidence in a business that takes care of its physical surroundings, fostering satisfaction and positive relationships. This was evident in the strong agreement among respondents that courtesy, and efficiency of staff, as well as a well-designed office space, enhance trust and satisfaction.

Tangibility extends to the physical accessibility of ZSIC Life Insurance offices. Conveniently located branches, ample parking, and accessible facilities contribute to customer satisfaction by making it easier for customers to engage with the company. Tangible elements like brochures, policy documents, and marketing materials play a crucial role in conveying professionalism and reliability, as supported by a mean score of 4.97, 4.89, 4.88, 4.74, and 4.72, respectively.

Furthermore, respondents agreed that technological aspects, such as user-friendly kiosks, mobile apps, and online portals, impact satisfaction. These tools should be intuitive, reliable, and well-designed to enhance the customer experience, with a mean score of 4.15. Overall, the study found that tangibility significantly impacts customer satisfaction in the context of ZSIC Life Insurance, consistent with Zineldin (2017), who stated that a combination of tangible and intangible services builds strong, long-term client relationships.

4.2 The effect of reliability on customer satisfaction 

The study found that 78 percent of the respondents agreed that effective provision of services influences customer satisfaction. This finding underscores the importance of businesses accurately identifying and understanding customer needs, allowing them to tailor services to meet or exceed expectations. Effective service provision involves aligning services with what customer’s value, creating a positive experience. When expectations are met or surpassed, customers are more likely to be satisfied and view the business positively. Reliability in this context means consistently delivering on promises and providing high-quality services, which builds trust—a crucial component of customer satisfaction. Customers who trust a business to consistently meet their needs are more likely to feel satisfied and develop long-term relationships with the brand.

Additionally, the study highlighted the impact of positive perceptions and word-of-mouth influence. Satisfied customers are more likely to become brand advocates, sharing their positive experiences with friends, family, or online communities, thereby influencing others’ perceptions of the business. Positive word-of-mouth can attract new customers and enhance the overall image of the brand. For instance, respondent R96 noted that consistent and satisfactory service provision fosters brand loyalty. Loyal customers not only continue to choose the brand but may also be more forgiving of occasional service issues due to their generally positive experiences.

The study also quantified the extent to which effective service provision affects customer satisfaction: 43 respondents indicated that it affects customer satisfaction to a very great extent, while 37 respondents indicated it affects satisfaction to a great extent. Furthermore, respondents strongly agreed that ZSIC Life Insurance’s financial stability and ability to meet its financial obligations to policyholders are key factors. Customers need assurance that the company will fulfill claims and provide coverage when required. Reliability in providing accurate and timely information about policy updates, changes, and renewal notices contributes to a positive customer experience. Customers should feel confident that they can reach out for help or information when needed, and their issues will be addressed promptly and accurately.

The reliability of ZSIC Life Insurance in delivering the agreed-upon coverage and benefits without unexpected changes or exclusions is crucial for meeting customer expectations and ensuring satisfaction. This reliability in processing claims accurately and efficiently also contributes significantly to customer satisfaction, as evidenced by mean scores of 4.98, 4.92, 4.87, 4.86, and 4.67 on various reliability aspects. Additionally, respondents agreed that consistent premium rates and transparent communication about premium changes are essential for maintaining trust, with a mean score of 4.09.

Overall, the study underscores that effective service provision significantly affects customer satisfaction and highlights a strong positive correlation between reliability and customer satisfaction. These findings are consistent with the results of previous studies. For instance, Robert and Wowor (2020) emphasize the direct positive effect of reliability on customer satisfaction, noting that providing promised services quickly, precisely, and efficiently enhances satisfaction. Similarly, Yousug (2017) agrees that reliability affects customer satisfaction, and Famiyeh et al. (2018) state that reliability and customer satisfaction are directly proportional. Jun et al. (2004) add that employees’ positive attitudes contribute to customer satisfaction, indicating that reliability among employees is crucial. Martini et al. (2018) also affirm that reliability positively affects customer satisfaction, as being trustworthy adds significant value to an organization. Lastly, Ibáñez et al. (2016) found a significant positive relationship between the reliability of services and customer satisfaction levels.

These consistent results across various studies highlight the critical role of reliability in enhancing customer satisfaction and building long-term customer relationships.

4.3 The relationship between responsiveness and customer satisfaction

The study revealed that 90 percent of the respondents agreed that there is a significant relationship between responsiveness and customer satisfaction. It was found that employees’ attitudes play a crucial role in influencing customer satisfaction. Positive interactions with employees, who engage with customers in a friendly, helpful, and empathetic manner, contribute to a welcoming atmosphere, making customers feel valued and appreciated. Customers who experience positive interactions with employees are more likely to be satisfied with their overall experience.

Furthermore, the study highlighted the importance of effective communication skills among employees. Employees with positive attitudes often possess the ability to communicate clearly, respectfully, and attentively. This enhances the customer experience, as customers who feel understood and receive helpful information report higher satisfaction with the service or product.

A substantial finding of the study was that employees’ attitudes greatly influence customer satisfaction. Specifically, 35 respondents indicated that employees’ attitudes have a significant impact on satisfaction levels. The respondents strongly agreed that a responsive approach to customer communication ensures that policyholders can reach out and receive assistance when needed, leading to higher satisfaction levels. A responsive claims processing system that handles claims promptly reduces stress and frustration for policyholders, significantly enhancing customer satisfaction.

Additionally, responsive customer service teams at ZISC Life Insurance provide quick and accurate responses to customer queries, concerns, and requests. Timely resolution of issues and inquiries is crucial for overall customer satisfaction. Acknowledging feedback promptly and taking action to address issues or improve services demonstrates to customers that their opinions matter, leading to increased satisfaction. Keeping policyholders informed and engaged helps them feel valued and cared for by ZISC Life Insurance, with mean scores of 4.98, 4.91, 4.88, 4.77, and 4.67 respectively.

The study further indicated that responsiveness extends to providing personalized recommendations and solutions to customers. Understanding and addressing individual needs and preferences demonstrate a commitment to customer satisfaction and loyalty, reflected by a mean score of 4.23. Overall, the study underscores a positive relationship between responsiveness and customer satisfaction, finding a strong positive correlation between the two.

These findings align with the results of Munusamy et al. (2020), who stated that responsiveness is directly proportional to customer satisfaction. The more employees are motivated to resolve client-related queries, the more satisfied the clients become. Similarly, Saad Andaleeb and Conway (2016) agree that responsiveness positively affects customer satisfaction, indicating that timely attention to customers’ needs enhances satisfaction. Kashkoli et al. (2017) also found that responsiveness has a direct positive effect on customer satisfaction. Their research highlighted that fast service, assistance provided by employees, and clarity of information are key indicators influencing customer satisfaction. The negative path coefficient in their study suggests that if these aspects are not adequately addressed, customers may seek satisfaction from other sources.

In conclusion, the study emphasizes the critical role of responsiveness in achieving high levels of customer satisfaction. By ensuring timely, clear, and empathetic interactions, and by addressing individual needs, ZISC Life Insurance can significantly enhance its customer satisfaction and loyalty.

4.4 Discussion of Results on the effect of Overall Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction

The findings of this study provide valuable insights into customer perceptions of service quality at ZSIC Life Limited. The study sought to understand how respondents rated the overall quality of services they received and the specific aspects they consider important in evaluating service quality.

4.5 Rating of Overall Service Quality

The analysis revealed a varied distribution in respondents’ ratings of the overall quality of services provided

by ZSIC Life Limited (Figure 4.9). Among the participants:

1. 38 respondents rated the services as “below average.”
2. 25 respondents rated the services as “good.”
3. 23 respondents rated the services as “excellent.”
4. 11 respondents rated the services as “average.”
5. 3 respondents rated the services as “poor.”

These results suggest that while some respondents were satisfied, a significant proportion expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of services offered.

Key Aspects of Service Quality

When asked about the factors they consider when evaluating service quality, respondents identified various dimensions:

1. Tangibility and reliability were highlighted by Respondent 2, 5, 11, 12 and 17.
2. Responsiveness was emphasized by Respondent 3, 13 and 22
3. Assurance, problem-solving, and helpfulness were noted by Respondent 21, 60 and 73.

These dimensions align with the SERVQUAL model, underscoring the importance of tangible evidence, reliability and responsiveness in shaping customer perceptions of service quality.

Causes of Dissatisfaction

Several respondents identified specific factors contributing to their dissatisfaction with ZSIC Life Limited’s services:

1. Respondent 7 mentioned poor accessibility and slow response times.
2. Respondent 22 pointed out deficiencies in personalization, convenience, value, simplicity, and service quality.
3. Respondent 5 cited delays in payments and inconvenient service locations.
4. Respondent 18 expressed frustration with unreliability and prolonged response times.

The prevalence of these concerns highlights systemic issues in service delivery that need urgent attention.

4.6 Recommendations from Respondents

Respondents also provided actionable suggestions to enhance the quality of services and increase customer satisfaction:

1. Respondent 29 proposed using customer complaints as opportunities for improvement, emphasizing a more customer-centric approach and overall enhancement of the customer experience.
2. Respondent 47 recommended simplifying policies, increasing transparency, and streamlining claims processes.
3. Respondent 65 stressed the importance of collecting feedback to identify and address gaps in service delivery.

These suggestions point to the need for ZSIC Life Limited to adopt a proactive approach in addressing customer concerns, focusing on operational efficiency, transparency, and responsiveness to build trust and loyalty.

CONCLUSION 

The findings of this study emphasize the pivotal role of service quality in determining customer satisfaction, specifically highlighting the impact of tangibility, reliability, and responsiveness. These dimensions are essential in creating positive customer experiences and fostering loyalty. For instance, tangible aspects, such as well-maintained facilities and easily accessible services, play a significant role in building trust and satisfaction (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1988). Consistent service delivery, or reliability, reassures customers that life insurance providers can uphold their commitments, thereby reinforcing confidence and satisfaction (Creswell, 2009). Responsiveness, reflected in the prompt handling of inquiries and complaints, is another crucial factor that encourages customer loyalty and fosters satisfaction (Grönroos, 1984).

This research underscores the necessity for life insurance companies to pursue continuous improvements in their service offerings, as customer expectations are constantly evolving. Regular enhancements in service quality can address existing challenges within the industry and help maintain a competitive edge (Kotler & Keller, 2016). The study also recommends that organizations implement targeted strategies aimed at bolstering the tangible, reliable, and responsive aspects of service delivery to better align with customer needs and enhance overall satisfaction (Creswell, 2009).

The study concluded that service quality significantly impacts customer satisfaction. Specifically, tangibility, which includes aspects such as the physical appearance of office spaces, professionalism, and the quality of tangible materials like brochures and policy documents, was found to greatly influence customer perceptions and satisfaction levels. Reliability, encompassing the accurate processing of claims, timely information dissemination, and consistency in service delivery, also showed a strong positive correlation with customer satisfaction. Responsiveness, which involves timely and effective communication, quick resolution of issues, and personalized customer service, was another crucial factor in enhancing customer satisfaction.

REFERENCE

1. Akter, S. et al., (2010). Service Quality of Health Platforms: Development and Validation of a Hierarchical Model Using PLS. Electron Markets, 20(3), 209-227. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-010-0043-x
2. Al-Azzam, A. (2015). The Impact of Service Quality Dimensions on Customer Satisfaction: A Field Study of Arab Bank in Irbid City, Jordan. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(15).
3. Almeqdadi, F. (2018). The Effects of Using an Interactive Software (GSP) on UAE Students’ Attitudes Towards Geometry. American Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(1), 22-28.
4. Alonso, B. et al., (2018). Modelling User Perception of Taxi Service Quality. Transport Policy, 63, 157-164. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.12.011
5. Azungah, T. (2018). Qualitative Research: Deductive and Inductive Approaches to Data Analysis. Qualitative Research Journal, 18(4), 383-400. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-18-00035
6. Berkley, B. & Gupta, A. (1994). Improving Service Quality With Information Technology. International Journal of Information Management, 14(2), 109-121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0268-4012(94)90030-245
7. Black, G. et al., (2014). Service Characteristics’ Impact on Key Service Quality Relationships: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(4), 276-291. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-12-2012-0261
8. Bienstock, C. et al., (1997). Measuring Physical Distribution Service Quality. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(1), 31-44.
9. Brady, K. & Cronin, J. (2001). Some New Thoughts on Conceptualizing Perceived Service Quality: A Hierachical Approach. Journal of Marketing, 65, 34-39.
10. Carr, L. (1994). The Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative and Qualitative Research: What Method for Nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20(4), 716-721.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
12. Chambers, S. (2020), ‘The Importance of Cusotmer Loyalty’, NiceReply [Online]. Available at: <https://www.nicereply.com/blog/the-importance-of-customer-loyalty/> (Accessed on 15th March)
13. Collier, J. & Bienstock, C. (2014). A Conceptual Framework for Measuring E-Service Quality. Creating and Delivering Value in Marketing, 158-162. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11848-2_52
14. Dabholkar, P. et al., (2000). A Comprehensive Framework for Service Quality: An Investigation of Critical Conceptual and Measurement Issues Through a Longitudinal Study. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 139-173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00029-4
15. Datta, K. & Vardhan, J. (2017). A SERVQUAL-Based Framework for Assessing Quality of International
16. Dotchin, J. & Oakland, J. (1994). Total Quality Management in Services: Part 3: Distinguishing Perceptions of Service Quality. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 11(4), 6-28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/02656719410057926
17. Elliott, C. (2018), ‘These Companies Have The Best Customer Service’, Forbes [Online]. Available at: <https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherelliott/2018/07/11/these-companies-have-the-best-customer-serviceheres-why/?sh=2fb582eab80a> (Accessed on 18th March)
18. Farnsworth, B. (2019), ‘Qualitative vs Quantitative Research – What Is the Difference?’, IMotions [Online]. Available at: <https://imotions.com/blog/qualitative-vs-quantitative-research/> (Accessed on 18th March)
19. Fen, Y. & Lian, K. (2005). Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction: Antecedents of Customers’ Repatronage Intentions. Sunway Academic Journal, 4, 60-73.
20. Fida, B. et al., (2020). Impact of Service Quality on Customer Loyalty and Customer Satisfaction in Islamic Banks in the Sultanate of Oman. SAGE Jounals. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020919517
21. Giese, Joan & Cote, Joseph. (2000). Defining Consumer Satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science Review. 4. 1-24.
22. Grönroos, C. (1984). A Service Quality Model and Its Marketing Implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18, 36-44.
23. Hawker, K. (2019), ‘Keller’s Brand Equity Model – What It Is & How to Use It’, Medium [Online]. Available at: <https://medium.com/@keatonhawker/kellers-brand-equity-model-what-it-is-how-to-use-it-84e42d562299> (Accessed 18th March)
24. Hayes, A. (2021), ‘Brand Equity’ Investopedia [Online]. Available at: <https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brandequity.asp#:~:text=Brand%20equity%20refers%20to%20a,superi or%20in%20quality%20and%20reliability> (Accessed on 16th March)
25. Johnson, R. et al., (1995). Measuring Service Quality: A Systems Approach. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(5), 6-19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/08876049510100272
26. Kaynama, S. (2000). A Proposal to Assess the Service Quality of Online Travel Agencies: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21, 63-88.
27. Lin, A. (2005). Bridging Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches to Qualitative Methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 162-180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01931.x
28. Lister, M. (2019), ‘5 Ways to Earn & Build Customer Loyalty’, WordStream [Online]. Available at: <https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2016/11/10/customer-loyalty> (Accessed on 11th March)
29. Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045-1053.
30. Pascal (2016), ‘9 Practical Methods for Measuring Service Quality’, Userlike [Online]. Available at: <https://www.userlike.com/en/blog/measuring-service-quality> (Accessed on 3rd March)
31. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), pp.12-40.
32. Rasli, A. et al., (2012). Perception of Service Quality in Higher Education: Perspective of Iranian Students of Malaysian Universities. International Journal of Economics and Management, 6 201-220.
33. Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, 81(December), 46-54.
34. Rita, P. et al., (2019). The Impact of E-Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction on Customer Behavior
35. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students (8th ed.). Pearson.
36. Shahid, M. et al., (2018). Impact of Self-Service Technology (SST) Service Quality on Customer Loyalty and Behaviorl Intention: The Mediating Role of Customer Satisfaction. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1-23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1423770
37. Siah, J. et al., (2018). Service Quality of Self-Checkout Technology in Malaysian Hypermarket: A Case Study in Johor. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering, 10(2), 8-11.
38. Singh, S. (2018), ‘Sampling Techniques’, Towards Data Science [Online]. Available at: <https://towardsdatascience.com/sampling-techniques-a4e34111d808> (Accessed on 19th March)
39. Soleymani, S. (2017), ‘Positivism vs. Interpretivism In Research’, Medium [Online]. Available at: <https://saber.medium.com/positivism-vs-interpretivism-in-research-1299e4a6877a> (Accessed on 15th March)
40. Stejerean, C. (2016), ‘Measuring and Improving Service Quality’, Medium [Online]. Available at: <https://medium.com/@offbytwo/measuring-and-improving-service-quality-a1dfc1c72efe> (Accessed on 3rd March)
41. Svensson, G. (2006), ‘The Interactive Interface of Service Quality: A Conceptual Framework’, European Business Review, 18(3), 243-257. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340610663755
42. Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(Winter), 16-35.
43. Tim (2018), ’19 Great Customer Service Tips To Improve Your Customer Satisfaction’, Retently [Online]. Available at: <https://www.retently.com/blog/customer-service-tips/> (Accessed on 2nd March)
44. Toor, M. (2020), ‘7 Proven Ways to Measure Brand Equity’, XMBlog [Online]. Available at: <https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/brand-equity-measure/> (Accessed on 6th March)
45. Veyrat, P. (2016), ‘How to Improve Service Quality Management Through Processes’, Heflo [Online]. Available at: <https://www.heflo.com/blog/quality-improvement/service-quality-management/> (Accessed on 5th March)
46. Wellington, E. (N.D.) ‘8 Companies with Exceptional Customer Service + Helpful Tips’, Help Scout [Online]. Available at: <https://www.helpscout.com/helpu/exceptional-customer-service-companies/> (Accessed on 14th March)
47. Woodruff, R. B., & Gardial, S. F. (1996), Know your customer: New approaches to understanding customer value and satisfaction. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
48. Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In Valarie A. Zeithaml (Ed.), Review of marketing 1990 (pp. 68-123). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
49. Zach (2019), ‘What Is Customer Perception’, Discuss.io [Online]. Available at: <https://www.discuss.io/what-iscustomer-perception/> (Accessed on 12th March).