Rebekah Russell–Bennett, Rory Mulcahy, Kate Letheren, Ryan McAndrew and Uwe Dulleck
A transformative service aims to improve wellbeing; however, current approaches have an implicit assumption that all wellbeing dimensions are equal and more dimensions led to…
Abstract
Purpose
A transformative service aims to improve wellbeing; however, current approaches have an implicit assumption that all wellbeing dimensions are equal and more dimensions led to higher wellbeing. The purpose of this paper is to present evidence for a new framework that identifies the paradox of competing wellbeing dimensions for both the individual and others in society – the transformative service paradox (TSP).
Design/methodology/approach
Data is drawn from a mixed-method approach using qualitative (interviews) and quantitative data (lab experiment) in an electricity service context. The first study involves 45 household interviews (n = 118) and deals with the nature of trade-offs at the individual level to establish the concept of the TSP. The second study uses a behavioral economics laboratory experiment (n = 110) to test the self vs. other nature of the trade-off in day-to-day use of electricity.
Findings
The interviews and experiment identified that temporal (now vs. future) and beneficiary-level factors explain why individuals make wellbeing trade-offs for the transformative service of electricity. The laboratory experiment showed that when the future implication of the trade-off is made salient, consumers are more willing to forego physical wellbeing for environmental wellbeing, whereas when the “now” implication is more salient consumers forego financial wellbeing for physical wellbeing.
Originality/value
This research introduces the term “Transformative Service Paradox” and identifies two factors that explain why consumers make wellbeing trade-offs at the individual level and at the societal level; temporal (now vs. future) and wellbeing beneficiary.
Details
Keywords
Kate Letheren, Rebekah Russell-Bennett, Lucas Whittaker, Stephen Whyte and Uwe Dulleck
Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to conduct a critical literature review that examines the origins and development of research on service robots in organizations, as well…
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to conduct a critical literature review that examines the origins and development of research on service robots in organizations, as well as the key emotional and cognitive issues between service employees, customers, and robots. This review provides a foundation for future research that leverages the emotional connection between service robots and humans.
Design/Methodology/Approach – A critical literature review that examines robotics, artificial intelligence, emotions, approach/avoid behavior, and cognitive biases is conducted.
Findings – This research provides six key themes that emerge from the current state of research in the field of service robotics with 14 accompanying research questions forming the basis of a research agenda. The themes presented are as follows: Theme 1: Employees have a forgotten “dual role”; Theme 2: The influence of groups is neglected; Theme 3: Opposing emotions lead to uncertain outcomes; Theme 4: We know how robots influence engagement, but not experience; Theme 5: Trust is necessary but poorly understood; and Theme 6: Bias is contagious: if the human mind is irrational…so too are robot minds.
Practical Implications – Practically, this research provides guidance for researchers and practitioners alike regarding the current state of research, gaps, and future directions. Importantly for practitioners, it sheds light on themes in the use of AI and robotics in services, highlighting opportunities to consider the dual role of the employee, examines how incorporating a service robot influences all levels of the organization, addresses motivational conflicts for employees and customers, explores how service robots influence the whole customer experience and how trust is formed, and how we are (often inadvertently) creating biased robots.
Details
Keywords
Charmine E. J. Härtel, Neal M. Ashkanasy and Wilfred J. Zerbe