Hybrid human–robot teams in the frontline: automated social presence and the role of corrective interrogation

IF 7.8 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Service Management Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1108/josm-11-2023-0470
David Leiño Calleja, Jeroen Schepers, Edwin J. Nijssen
{"title":"Hybrid human–robot teams in the frontline: automated social presence and the role of corrective interrogation","authors":"David Leiño Calleja, Jeroen Schepers, Edwin J. Nijssen","doi":"10.1108/josm-11-2023-0470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Customer perceptions toward hybrid human–robot teams remain largely unexplored. We focus on the impact of frontline robots’ (FLRs) automated social presence (ASP) on customers’ perceived teamwork quality, and ultimately frontline employees’ (FLEs) competence and warmth. We explore the role of interrogation as a relevant contingency. We complement the customer view with insights into the FLEs’ viewpoint.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>We manipulate FLR’s ASP cues (speech and identity) in a hybrid team in four business-to-consumer (B2C) video-based experiments and collect data from online participants. We combine these with one business-to-business (B2B) field survey which collected data from FLEs working in hybrid teams.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>When FLR’s ASP increases, customers more positively evaluate teamwork quality, ultimately affecting FLEs’ competence and warmth. FLEs who correct (interrogate) robotic mistakes strengthen the positive effect of FLRs’ ASP on teamwork quality. When FLRs correct FLEs, ASP’s effect on teamwork quality is also strengthened, while FLEs are not “punished” for erring. In contrast, FLEs themselves do perceive corrections as detrimental to teamwork quality. We term this the hybrid team evaluation paradox.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p>We recommend that firms deploy hybrid teams equipped with high-ASP FLRs (name and speech suffice). FLEs should be trained, and FLRs programmed, to appropriately use interrogation. Managers should pay attention to the paradox, given the conflicting perceptions toward interrogative behaviors.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>We advance the hybrid teams literature by drawing on ASP, social cognition and collective mindfulness theories and behaviors that ameliorate customer perceptions. Our results support using FLRs to enhance FLEs’ capabilities.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":48089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Service Management","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Service Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-11-2023-0470","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Customer perceptions toward hybrid human–robot teams remain largely unexplored. We focus on the impact of frontline robots’ (FLRs) automated social presence (ASP) on customers’ perceived teamwork quality, and ultimately frontline employees’ (FLEs) competence and warmth. We explore the role of interrogation as a relevant contingency. We complement the customer view with insights into the FLEs’ viewpoint.

Design/methodology/approach

We manipulate FLR’s ASP cues (speech and identity) in a hybrid team in four business-to-consumer (B2C) video-based experiments and collect data from online participants. We combine these with one business-to-business (B2B) field survey which collected data from FLEs working in hybrid teams.

Findings

When FLR’s ASP increases, customers more positively evaluate teamwork quality, ultimately affecting FLEs’ competence and warmth. FLEs who correct (interrogate) robotic mistakes strengthen the positive effect of FLRs’ ASP on teamwork quality. When FLRs correct FLEs, ASP’s effect on teamwork quality is also strengthened, while FLEs are not “punished” for erring. In contrast, FLEs themselves do perceive corrections as detrimental to teamwork quality. We term this the hybrid team evaluation paradox.

Practical implications

We recommend that firms deploy hybrid teams equipped with high-ASP FLRs (name and speech suffice). FLEs should be trained, and FLRs programmed, to appropriately use interrogation. Managers should pay attention to the paradox, given the conflicting perceptions toward interrogative behaviors.

Originality/value

We advance the hybrid teams literature by drawing on ASP, social cognition and collective mindfulness theories and behaviors that ameliorate customer perceptions. Our results support using FLRs to enhance FLEs’ capabilities.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Service Management (JOSM) centers its scope on research in service management. It disseminates papers showcasing distinctive and noteworthy contributions to service literature, serving as a communication platform for individuals in the service management field, transcending disciplines, functional areas, sectors, and nationalities. The journal publishes double-blind reviewed papers emphasizing service literature/theory and its practical applications.
期刊最新文献
Frontline employee competencies for technologically complex service environments: a conceptual model of mindfulness orientation Hybrid human–robot teams in the frontline: automated social presence and the role of corrective interrogation Boundary-breaking opportunities in service failure and recovery Service robot–employee task allocation strategies: well-being within the intrusion challenge The effect of language style in online reviews on consumers’ word-of-mouth recommendations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1