Some agents are more similar than others: customer orientation of frontline robots and employees

IF 7.8 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Service Management Pub Date : 2023-06-26 DOI:10.1108/josm-06-2022-0192
David Leiño Calleja, J. Schepers, E. Nijssen
{"title":"Some agents are more similar than others: customer orientation of frontline robots and employees","authors":"David Leiño Calleja, J. Schepers, E. Nijssen","doi":"10.1108/josm-06-2022-0192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe impact of frontline robots (FLRs) on customer orientation perceptions remains unclear. This is remarkable because customers may associate FLRs with standardization and cost-cutting, such that they may not fit firms that aim to be customer oriented.Design/methodology/approachIn four experiments, data are collected from customers interacting with frontline employees (FLEs) and FLRs in different settings.FindingsFLEs are perceived as more customer-oriented than FLRs due to higher competence and warmth evaluations. A relational interaction style attenuates the difference in perceived competence between FLRs and FLEs. These agents are also perceived as more similar in competence and warmth when FLRs participate in the customer journey's information and negotiation stages. Switching from FLE to FLR in the journey harms FLR evaluations.Practical implicationsThe authors recommend firms to place FLRs only in the negotiation stage or in both the information and negotiation stages of the customer journey. Still then customers should not transition from employees to robots (vice versa does no harm). Firms should ensure that FLRs utilize a relational style when interacting with customers for optimal effects.Originality/valueThe authors bridge the FLR and sales/marketing literature by drawing on social cognition theory. The authors also identify the product categories for which customers are willing to negotiate with an FLR. Broadly speaking, this study’s findings underline that customers perceive robots as having agency (i.e. the mental capacity for acting with intentionality) and, just as humans, can be customer-oriented.","PeriodicalId":48089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Service Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Service Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-06-2022-0192","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: 1

Abstract

PurposeThe impact of frontline robots (FLRs) on customer orientation perceptions remains unclear. This is remarkable because customers may associate FLRs with standardization and cost-cutting, such that they may not fit firms that aim to be customer oriented.Design/methodology/approachIn four experiments, data are collected from customers interacting with frontline employees (FLEs) and FLRs in different settings.FindingsFLEs are perceived as more customer-oriented than FLRs due to higher competence and warmth evaluations. A relational interaction style attenuates the difference in perceived competence between FLRs and FLEs. These agents are also perceived as more similar in competence and warmth when FLRs participate in the customer journey's information and negotiation stages. Switching from FLE to FLR in the journey harms FLR evaluations.Practical implicationsThe authors recommend firms to place FLRs only in the negotiation stage or in both the information and negotiation stages of the customer journey. Still then customers should not transition from employees to robots (vice versa does no harm). Firms should ensure that FLRs utilize a relational style when interacting with customers for optimal effects.Originality/valueThe authors bridge the FLR and sales/marketing literature by drawing on social cognition theory. The authors also identify the product categories for which customers are willing to negotiate with an FLR. Broadly speaking, this study’s findings underline that customers perceive robots as having agency (i.e. the mental capacity for acting with intentionality) and, just as humans, can be customer-oriented.
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
一些代理比其他代理更相似:一线机器人和员工的客户导向
目的:一线机器人(flr)对客户导向感知的影响尚不清楚。这是值得注意的,因为客户可能将flr与标准化和成本削减联系在一起,因此它们可能不适合以客户为导向的公司。设计/方法/方法在四个实验中,收集了客户在不同环境下与一线员工(fle)和一线员工(flr)互动的数据。研究发现,由于更高的能力和热情评价,员工被认为比flr更以客户为导向。关系互动方式减弱了外劳与外劳之间的感知能力差异。当flr参与客户旅程的信息和谈判阶段时,这些座席在能力和热情方面也更加相似。在旅程中从FLE切换到FLR会损害FLR评估。实际意义作者建议公司只在谈判阶段或在客户旅程的信息和谈判阶段放置flr。然而,客户不应该从员工转向机器人(反之亦然)。公司应确保flr在与客户互动时利用关系风格以获得最佳效果。原创性/价值作者通过借鉴社会认知理论,将FLR和销售/营销文献联系起来。作者还确定了客户愿意与FLR谈判的产品类别。从广义上讲,这项研究的发现强调了客户认为机器人具有能动性(即具有意向性行动的心智能力),并且和人类一样,可以以客户为导向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Service virtuousness: implementing the very best of human qualities in service delivery Frontline employee work engagement and customer service evaluations: a conceptual replication Reuse of service concept elements for modular service design Organizational resiliency through practice innovation: forced brand evolution in a prolonged exogenous service ecosystem disruption Howdy, Robo-Partner: exploring artificial companionship and its stress-alleviating potential for service employees
×
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