Alexander, Matthew

Rihova, Ivana

Name not available

Resource asymmetry in service encounters : coping strategies and outcomes for front-line employees

University of Strathclyde Institutional Repository

Strathprints Institutional RepositoryRihova, Ivana and Alexander, Matthew (2016) Resource asymmetry in service encounters : coping strategies and outcomes for front-line employees. In: AMA Servsig 2016, 2016-06-17 - 2016-06-19, Maastricht University. , This version is available at http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/56262/Strathprints is  designed  to  allow  users  to  access  the  research  output  of  the  University  of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may  not  engage  in  further  distribution  of  the  material  for  any  profitmaking  activities  or  any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Any  correspondence  concerning  this  service  should  be  sent  to  Strathprints  administrator: strathprints@strath.ac.uk1  Resource asymmetry in service encounters: coping strategies and outcomes for front-line employees 1. Introduction Front-line employees (FEs) within service settings have attracted academic attention since the late 1970s. Indeed, Ostrom et al. (2015) reveal that academics rate their NQRZOHGJHRQ µJHQHUDWLQJHPSOR\HHHQJDJHPHQW WR LPSURYHVHUYLFHRXWFRPHV¶DVhighest amongst all other current issues in service research. Despite growing interest in dehumanized, technology-led services (Rust & Huang, 2014) and new service perspectives which centre on proactive, engaged and collaborative customers in value-generating actor networks (Lusch & Vargo, 2014), it is unlikely that FEs will be redundant for a few decades yet.  What is more, human interactions in contemporary service encounters create scenarios where positive outcomes from co-created encounters may be challenging. Ostrom et al. (2015, p. 134) UHFRJQLVHWKLVE\FDOOLQJIRUUHVHDUFKRQWKH³FRRUGLQDWLRQmechanisms (e.g., structures, scripts, and shared norms) appropriate for managing GLIIHUHQWIRUPVRILQWHUGHSHQGHQFLHVDPRQJHPSOR\HHVDQGFXVWRPHUVLQFRFUHDWLRQ´ and consideration of outcomes for employees. Our study explores these interdependencies in settings where resource asymmetry may lead to role conflict for FEs.  2. Theoretical Background Service research acknowledges the interdependent roles of the firm and its customers and the centrality of operant resources in value creation processes (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). For FEs the evolution of the service encounter results in reconfigured roles and 2  new co-creative processes (Bowen, n.d.). These roles see FEs as: innovators (a source of creativity); differentiators, (through authentic delivery); enablers (facilitating and integrating customer processes and resources); and, co-ordinators, (interdependent role with understanding of specific forms of resource integration processes and practices) (Bowen, n.d.). Our research explores the coordination role of FEs, by focussing on situations where interdependency in service exchanges with customers creates challenges for FEs.  In organisational theory the presence of conflicting information or instruction can contribute to role conflict and ambiguity (see Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970) and negative role outcomes (Shamir, 1980). The growth in collaborative encounters may present new forms of role conflict for service employees, particularly where specific customer demands (e.g. DGHVLUHIRUVSHFLILFFXVWRPL]DWLRQFRQWUDGLFWWKHFRPSDQ\¶Vrules and regulations (Edvardsson, Tronvoll, & Gruber, 2011). Alternatively, specific configurations of cXVWRPHUV¶ operant resources may lead to asymmetrical encounters where the extent of a customer¶s cultural resources, defined as specialised knowledge/skills and imagination by Arnould et al. (2006), are either superior or inferior to those of the FE. These asymmetrical resources may then cause conflict for employees with negatively valenced outcomes, such as emotional burnout or job dissatisfaction (Bettencourt & Gwinner, 1996). 3. Methods  A pilot study collected data from six tourism FEs (contexts included visitor attraction, tourist science centre, heritage centre, coach tours) using the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) (Gremler, 2004). A total of 25 incidents were collected.  3  As per Grove and Fisk¶V (1997) procedure, FEs were first asked to describe the purpose of the encounter between them and tourists and then to recall situations when a tourist a) knew more about [the service or its information content] than the interviewee; and b) where they thought they knew more than the interviewee (but did not). Prompting questions elicited details about situations and their outcomes. Content analysis was then used (Gremler, 2004). 4.  Findings  Analysis of incidents revealed that in some encounters there was resource asymmetry between FEs and customers regarding the level of knowledge relating to the encounter. These incident categories were categorised as 1) customer resource superiority and 2) customer resource inferiority. Each type of asymmetry precipitated identifiable coping strategies, which are summarised below. Representative quotes are included in Table 1.  Customer resource superiority 6RPHVLWXDWLRQVVDZFXVWRPHUV¶cultural operant resources superior to those of the FEs&XVWRPHU¶VSHUVRQDOKLVWRULHVPHPRULHVSUHYLRXVH[SHULHQFHVDQGDOVROHYHORIexpHUWLVH HQWKXVLDVP DQG LQWHUHVW ZRXOG RIWHQ UHQGHU WKHP PRUH µNQRZOHGJHDEOH¶about the object of service. In such situations two different types of coping strategies were identifiable: a) co-delivery and b) adaptation. Co-delivery strategies are evident LQVFHQDULRVZKHUHFXVWRPHUV¶cultural resources are shared with the FE who uses these to personalise the service encounter and to make it more meaningful for other customers. Tour guides used this strategy in targeting customers with a kind of specialism or personal knowledge of a destination 4  and asked to share these resources with other tourists. This helped to personalise the experience and charged it with emotional value.  Adaptation strategies (integration/ incorporation?) emerged in scenarios where the FE DFWLYHO\LQWHJUDWHGFXVWRPHUV¶VSHFLDOLVWNQRZOHGJHDVRSHUDQWUHVRXUFHLQWRWKHLURZQresource set and adapted future service scripts and customer encounters accordingly. For example, visitor assistants at tourist attractions engaged in in-depth conversations with tourists with expert knowledge or interest in the context. Information gathered in such encounters was then used in future encounters.   Outcomes of customer resource superiority saw WRXULVW¶VUHVRXUFHVHLWKHULQFRUSRUDWHGinto the FE¶s narrative or in some cases, the customer was invited to deliver part of or all of the encounter.  Customer resource inferiority Our participants also identified incidents where FXVWRPHUV¶ operant resources were perceived as inferior to those of the FE. In these situations two different types of coping strategies were used by FEs: a) correcting and b) bypassing. Correcting strategies are used when customers presented incorrect information to the FE. In our context this took the form of historical inaccuracy or factually incorrect information. Invariably the FE felt responsible for ensuring that the customer leaves the encounter with more accurate information and would employ correcting strategies to UHFWLI\FXVWRPHUV¶HUURU Bypassing strategies are used when customers were more dogmatic regarding their resource sets, while FEs are aware that such information is incorrect or that the phenomena is subjective and customers simply hold different opinions. Here the FE has to tread a fine line between retaining integrity whilst ensuring a satisfactory 5  encounter. Bypassing was more common in encounters where specialist knowledge was involved. Table 1 - Coping strategies in asymmetric resource integration Types of coping strategies Illustrative incident examples Customer resource superiority Co-delivery  ³,ZRXOGVD\WRWKHSHUVRQDZD\IURPWKHJURXSµORRN\RX¶UHIURPWKLVDUHDyou know more than PHWKDW¶VDIDFW'R\RXZDQWWRKHOSPHRXW"¶$QGWKH\would almost always [...] 7KH\IHHONLQGRIDOPRVWLQFKDUJHWKH\¶UHSDVVLQJtheir experiences on [...] And I would always, -µ7KLVLVWRXU-JXLGHQXPEHUWZR¶\RXNQRZJLYHWKHPDWLWOH´3 Adaptation ³We used to have WWF representatives visit and talk to us about their conservationist message which we could then take forward into our presentations. So it would work both ways as much as we could FRPPXQLFDWHZLWKWKHPZHFRXOGFHUWDLQO\DEVRUELWDVZHOO´ (P3) Customer resource inferiority Correcting ³$IWHUJRLQJWKURXJKWKH6FRWWLVKKLVWRU\DQGKRZWKH-DPHV¶VIROORZDQGWKH0DU\¶V IROORZDQG WKHQRQFHDJXHVWVDLG -µRKDQG WKDWZRXOGEH%ORRG\0DU\WKHQ"¶>ODXJKV@±µ(KQR¶-µ,WKRXJKWVKHILWWHGLQWKHUHDVZHOO"¶±µ:HOOshe fits in but not WKHUH¶ >«@ 6R , ZRXOG MXVW H[SODLQ -µZHOO QR , FDQunderstand where the mi[XSFRPHVIURPEXWWKDW¶VQRW«¶6R\RXMXVWFRUUHFWWKHP´32) 6  By-passing ³<HV HYHU\ERG\KDV WKHLU RZQRSLQLRQ SDODWH WKHLU RZQPHPRULHVDERXWDURPDV>«@6R,KDYHJRWWR EHPLQGIXORIWKDW,FDQ¶WOHWVRPHRQHKLMDFNWKHtour. So I might say, -µ,DFFHSWZKDW\RXVD\EXWSOHDVHDSSUHFLDWHWKDWWKHUHDUHSHRSOHKHUHWKDWPD\QRWVKDUH\RXURSLQLRQ6R,¶PZLOOLQJWRGLVFXVVLWbut can we just put it aside at the moment and we can have a chat when ZH¶UHILQLVKHG´3  These strategies had the potential to cause conflict for FEs, as despite a desire to ensure the integrity of the encounter, FEs were aware of upsetting or reproving customers. Correcting strategies therefore appeared associated with more passive customers, while bypassing was employed when encountering particular types of µNQRZLWDOO¶FXVWRPHUV  5. Conclusion The role of FE is influenced by the rise of proactive customers and technology but remains relevant in many service settings. Our exploratory research contributes to understanding some of the strategies used by FEs when managing different forms of interdependencies with customers in service encounters (Ostrom et al., 2015). The ubiquity and accessibility of information on an unlimited range of subjects that customers are exposed to means that FEs increasingly face customers who possess specific configurations of cultural operant resources (Arnould et al., 2006). Our research shows that the relative inferiority or superiority of these configurations results in resource asymmetry between the customer and the FE, which may lead to resource conflict (Edvardsson et al., 2011) and so requires specific coping strategies by FEs. Additionally we contribute to recent work by Bowen (n.d.) by operationalising the coordinator role adopted by employees in contemporary encounters. 7  Our work is at an early stage and future research in this area will take cognisance of additional factors which may affect encounter interdependencies, including the level RI)(¶V experience and the social context of the encounter (Edvardsson et al., 2011). Consideration of specific outcomes from asymmetrical encounters for FE is also needed 2XU GDWD KLQWV DW QHZ IRUPV RI µUHVRXUFH FRQIOLFW¶ EXW WKHVH QHHG IXUWKHUexploration with a larger data set and a wider range of service settings.  References Arnould, E. J., Price, L. L., & Malshe, A. (2006). Toward a cultural resource-based theory of the customer. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate and directions (pp. 320±333). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe. Bettencourt, L. A., & Gwinner, K. (1996). Customization of the service experience: the role of the frontline employee. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7(2), 3±20. Bowen, D. E. (n.d.). The changing role of employees in service theory and practice: An interdisciplinary view. Human Resource Management Review. Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327±339. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0200-y 8  Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 65. Grove, S. J., & Fisk, R. P. (1997). The impact of other customers on service H[SHULHQFHVDFULWLFDOLQFLGHQWH[DPLQDWLRQRI³JHWWLQJDORQJ´Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 63±85. Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-Dominant Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, A. L., Parasuraman, A., Bowen, D. E., Patricio, L., & Voss, C. A. (2015). Service Research Priorities in a Rapidly Changing Context. Journal of Service Research, 18(2), 127±159. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150±163. Rust, R. T., & Huang, M.-H. (2014). The service revolution and the transformation of marketing science. Marketing Science, 33(2), 206±221. Shamir, B. (1980). Between service and servility: Role conflict in subordinate service roles. Human Relations, 33(10), 741±756.   

http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/56262/1/Rihova_Alexander_AMA2016_resource_asymmetry_service_encounters_coping_strategies.pdf

Resource asymmetry in service encounters : coping strategies and outcomes for front-line employees

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

University of Strathclyde Institutional Repository