Boundary spanning and customer service styles in business solutions implementation

IMM-07265; No of Pages 10 Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Boundary spanning and customer service styles in business solutions implementation Daniel D. Prior School of Business, UNSW Canberra, University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 23 January 2015 Received in revised form 4 November 2015 Accepted 5 November 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Mental model Buyer–supplier relationship Frontline employee Service worker Customer perceived value Emotion concept Problem concept

a b s t r a c t An onus rests with members of supplier firms to successfully navigate inter-firm boundaries so as to achieve customer outcomes while also satisfying supervisor requirements. This need is particularly acute during the often lengthy, complex and intense processes that characterize business solutions implementation. Currently, limited research exists as to how boundary spanners reconcile between these tensions to achieve customer outcomes. It is, therefore, the focus of the present study. Drawing on interviews with 45 respondents, the study finds that boundary spanners adopt ‘customer service styles’ — Consistent behaviors to address customer requirements while reconciling between multiple tensions. These styles are labeled ‘dynamic engagement’, ‘dynamic avoidance’, ‘anticipatory engagement’ and ‘anticipatory avoidance’. The study also explores the nature of the underlying mental models that boundary spanners use. The study also considers the effects of these customer service styles on customer-perceived value, with not all customer service styles having equal effects. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Boundary spanners are crucial for successful buyer–supplier exchange in business markets. With a focus on supplier firm members, existing studies suggest that boundary spanning encourages political support and facilitates access to network resources (Brion, Chauvet, Chollet, and Mothe, 2012; Zhang, Viswanathan, and Henke, 2011). Boundary spanners also have important roles in understanding customer requirements, when dealing with customer problems and when managing implementation processes (Jong, Ruyter, and Lemmink, 2004; Piercy, 2009; Singh, Goolsby, and Rhoads, 1994). Boundary spanners are particularly relevant in business solutions environments. Business solutions involve the implementation of a complex suite of products and services that address a customer firm's specific requirements (Nordin and Kowalkowski, 2010; Tuli, Kohli, and Bharadwaj, 2007). Successful business solution implementations involve multiple intense relationships between supplier representatives and customer representatives (Prior, 2013; Tuli et al., 2007; Windahl and Lakemond, 2006). While boundary spanners from supplier firms are essential to successful buyer–supplier relationships, a number of constraints shape their activities. Studies in business-to-consumer contexts suggest these relate to limitations in time, resources and information access (Singh, 1993, 2000). Managing these constraints often involves a trade-off between addressing customer needs and addressing supervisor needs (Zablah, Franke, Brown & Bartholomew, 2012). While

E-mail address: [email protected].

previous studies of sales and frontline personnel recognize a need for trade-offs in boundary spanning activities in business-to-business settings (Singh, 1998), what is less clear are how these contribute to boundary spanner behaviors, their determinants, and the effects of these behaviors on customer perceptions. This is particularly relevant to business solutions due to the high intensity of implementation relationships and the potential for burnout that often accompanies poor boundary-spanner behavioral approaches (Zablah, Chonko, Bettencourt, Allen & Haas, 2012; Zablah, Franke, et al., 2012). One way in which boundary spanners can address these tensions is by adopting stylistic service behaviors (DiMascio, 2010). This lowers boundary spanner stress by reducing the time and effort necessary to understand information as well as in adopting appropriate behavior. Underpinning this process are boundary spanner mental models, which comprise a set of decision-making heuristics that activate across similar situations (Day and Nedungadi, 1994; Gary and Wood, 2011). Mental models help define boundary spanner situational interpretations. They also help boundary spanners select appropriate situational behaviors with minimal effort by automatically excluding inappropriate options. Due to their selective nature, ensuring complementarity between supplier and customer representatives' mental models increases the likelihood of relationship success (De Chernatony, Daniels, and Johnson, 1994; Strandvik, Holmlund, and Edvardsson, 2012). As such, mental models are an important underpinning of boundary spanner behaviors. Previous research into boundaryspanner customer-facing behaviors tends to focus on adaptation, creativity or customer orientation (Agnihotri, Rapp, Andzulis, and Gabler, 2013; Gwinner, Bitner, Brown, and Kumar, 2005; Zablah, Franke, et al., 2012). Overall, these studies consider only a single type of customer-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.001 0019-8501/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Prior, D.D., Boundary spanning and customer service styles in business solutions implementation, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.001

2

D.D. Prior / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

facing behavior at a time. Moreover, they generally do not consider or the nature of the mental model that underpins the behavior or the associated variations in customer outcomes. Therefore, the goals of this study are to first establish the nature of ‘customer service styles’ – i.e. typical boundary spanner behaviors that focus on addressing customer requirements while dealing with contextual constraints – during business solution implementations. The study suggests four major types of customer service style are relevant – dynamic engagement, dynamic avoidance, anticipatory engagement and anticipatory avoidance. The study describes the essential characteristics of these customer service styles in behavioral terms. Second, the study draws on coping theory (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) to unpack the nature of the underpinning mental models that influence the selection of specific behaviors. This provides an alternative to the traditional focus on goal-oriented boundary spanner motivations (Gwinner et al., 2005; Keaveney and Nelson, 1993). Third, the study describes the resulting customer value perceptions as these relate to each customer service style. The findings rely on depth interviews with 45 respondents active in business solutions contexts. For managers, this study serves as a basis for decisions regarding the composition of the supplier implementation team. There is scope to design team membership around customer service styles given a particular set of supplier goals, contextual constraints and customer requirements. While the study does not suggest an ‘ideal’ team, it does describe the likely customer perceptions from each style. This could help when deciding on how to approach a given customer engagement. Moreover, the customer service styles reflect different levels of experience and different dispositions of key boundary spanners. This could help when designing training and professional development courses while also aiding in selection and recruitment.

2. Literature review 2.1. Boundary spanner customer service behaviors This study focuses on how boundary-spanners address customer requirements while coping with multiple tensions. Two main types of boundary spanner receive most attention in existing research. Sales personnel focus on how to address customer requirements through products and services. Sales personnel are more likely to experience an intense set of customer interactions in the lead up to securing the sale. As such, adapting an existing suite of products and services to customer requirements becomes an essential element of securing a purchase order (Chakrabarty, Brown, and Widing, 2013; Franke and Park, 2006; Spiro and Weitz, 1990). Frontline personnel, in contrast, focus on fulfilling customer orders. Their customer service activities include arranging for delivery, installation and addressing problems (Dagger, Danaher, Sweeney, and Mccoll-kennedy, 2013; Gwinner et al., 2005; Prior, 2015). In both cases, boundary spanners benefit from understanding the nature of supervisor and customer requirements as well as relevant contextual constraints since this allows them to navigate in such a way that they minimize the negative effects of burnout (Singh et al., 1994; Singh, 1993). Boundary spanners can adopt one of many alternative behaviors for any given customer service situation. However, the time and effort necessary to consider these and to then adopt an appropriate behavior, given existing constraints, can be stifling. Therefore, the repeated use of similar behaviors for similar situations is attractive. Indeed, customer service styles are important in business market contexts. Blocker, Flint, Myers, & Slater (2010) show that customer service styles can be ‘proactive’ or ‘reactive’ during implementation. Lewis, Welsh, Dehler, & Green (2002) show that project managers tend to adopt ‘emergent’ or ‘planned’ styles to project implementation. This involves different approaches to achieving project outcomes as well as managing multiple customer interactions. Similarly, Reid, Pullins, & Plank (2002) suggest

that sales personnel moderate their customer communication style depending on circumstances. While existing research in this area is informative, it currently tends to focus on a single type of customer-facing behavior at a time. These generally relate to adaptive, creative or customer-oriented behaviors (Agnihotri et al., 2013; Gwinner et al., 2005; Zablah, Franke, et al., 2012). While Singh (2000) suggests at least two gradations of behavior type – those that focus on quality (i.e. high time and effort for comprehensive outcomes) and those that focus on productivity (i.e. targeted time and effort for specific outcomes) – few studies consider the role of productivity behaviors fully. This is a concern since this type of behavior has been linked to higher profitability for the supplier firm (Ye, Marinova, and Singh, 2011). Moreover, no current studies offer comparisons between customer service styles, thus limiting the ability for managers to select between possible alternatives. 2.2. Selecting customer service styles: the role of mental models The mental models of boundary spanners are likely to influence their choice of customer service style. Mental models emerge from previous experience and amount to a simplification of knowledge structures as these apply to a given situation (Hodgkinson and Johnson, 1994; Hodgkinson, 2002). Through experience, boundary spanners are likely to refine their understanding. This process then leads to a simplification of the decision-making process across similar situations and, ultimately, a consistent pattern of behavior results. The use of mental models is particularly relevant in complex situations – where there is considerable ambiguity and uncertainty (Porac, Thomas, and Baden-Fuller, 2011; Rosa, Porac, Runser-Spanjol, and Saxon, 1999). Many boundary-spanners interpret their roles as stressful. Indeed, boundary-spanner research suggests that burnout and job stress are likely outcomes from customer service situations (Ashill, Rod, Thirkell, and Carruthers, 2009; Sand and Miyazaki, 2000; Singh et al., 1994). This interpretation is likely to inform the development of their mental models. The repeated instances of similar circumstances over time are likely to support the gradual simplification of such situations into a suite of decision-making heuristics. The interpretation of stressful situations tends to have either a problem focus or an emotion focus (Folkman and Lazarus, 1986; Folkman, 1992; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Problem focused approaches involve trying to mitigate the source of stress. For example, Nonis, Sager, & Kumar (1996) show that sales personnel can mitigate stress by influencing senior management views. Emotion-focused approaches involve dealing with the emotional outcomes of stress. In some cases, this involves separating from the employer (Lewin and Sager, 2010; Wang, 2009). There appears to be a relationship between the boundary spanner's interpretation of the situation (emotion concept and problem concept) and their mental model. This in turn influences the manifestation of their customer service style (see Fig. 1). In taking this approach, the present study offers a way to understand how boundary spanners select customer service styles. This approach reflects earlier boundary spanner research that shows a direct link between intrinsic motivators and behavior (Keaveney and Nelson, 1993; Porter, Claycomb, and Kraft, 2008). However, the approach in this study takes additional steps by suggesting different mental model characteristics, resultant customer service styles and customer perceived value. 2.3. Boundary spanners and customer perceived value Customer perceived value is an important goal for boundaryspanners in business market contexts (Hult, 2011; Jong et al., 2004). This involves providing an excess of benefits when compared to costs and/or helping customers to achieve their purchase goals (Lemke, Clark, and Wilson, 2011; Prior, 2013). Business solutions implementation is a context where this is of central importance due to the high emphasis on customer centricity (Frankenberger, Weiblen, and Gassmann,

Please cite this article as: Prior, D.D., Boundary spanning and customer service styles in business solutions implementation, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.001

D.D. Prior / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

3

Fig. 1. The Relationship between Mental Models and Customer Service Style.

2013; Jacob, Kleipaß, and Pohl, 2014; Tuli et al., 2007). The ways in which boundary spanners behave tends to have both direct and indirect effects on customer perceptions (Prior, 2013). Therefore, boundary spanner customer service styles are likely to generate customer perceptions (including positive, negative and neutral perceptions). While previous studies tend to focus on positive customer outcomes in general terms, few studies consider gradations in customer perceptions. Based on the observations above, this study has three main goals: 1. To identify and describe boundary spanner customer service styles as these apply to business solutions implementation; 2. To identify and describe the essential characteristics of boundary spanner mental models in relation to customer service styles; and 3. To identify and describe the customer perceptions in relation to each customer service style. 3. Methodology 3.1. Sample This study uses a qualitative, inductive process to address the research questions due its focus on theory development and articulation (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Patton, 2002). The study involves semistructured interviews with 45 respondents (see Table 1 for respondent profiles). Three primary criteria were used to screen for appropriate respondents. Business solutions are most common in industries that involve complex, technical products and services such as IT, Defense, Government, Mining, Management Consulting and Construction (Biggemann, Kowalkowski, Maley, and Brege, 2013; Töllner, Blut, and Holzmüller, 2011; Yigitbasioglu, 2010). Therefore, respondents in this study have a minimum of five years' experience in at least one of these industries. Given the nature of the study, it is important for respondents to have exposure to boundary spanning. Therefore, the sample includes respondents with supplier (n = 17), buyer (n = 16) and, combined (buyer and supplier) experience (n = 12), as either boundary spanners themselves or as working with other boundary spanners during business solutions implementation. Pseudonyms are used throughout the findings to identify respondents and individuals they mention in their quotations. Since the focus of the study is also on business solutions implementation, the final screening criterion requires that respondents have exposure to boundary spanners through implementation rather than on sales functions only, which has been a focus of other boundary spanner research in business markets (e.g. De Ruyter, de Jong, and de Wetzels, 2009; Rigopoulou, Theodosiou, Katsikea, and Perdikis, 2012). 3.2. Data gathering and interview approach Recruitment of respondents began with initial introductions through professional networking events and through colleagues of the author. All interviews were based in Australia, with respondents located across four major capital cities (Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne and

Brisbane). From here, a snowballing approach was used based on respondent introductions (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Data gathering occurred between February 2011 and April 2013. Two main waves of data gathering took place. The first wave focused on developing initial constructs and insights about possible inter-construct relationships. The second wave involved clarifying the nature of these constructs and gaining further certainty about the nature of the inter-construct relationships. Where necessary, respondents were contacted for further clarifications. Prior to commencement, respondents were informed of the purpose of the interview. Interviews were split into two perspectives according to the respondent's experience. For the supplier-centric interviews, questioning focused on the presence and relevance of tensions between customer and supervisor demands and how this affects boundaryspanning behavior during business solutions implementation. For the customer-centric interviews, questions focused on how representatives of supplier firms achieved outcomes during business solutions implementation and their perceptions of performance. For the respondents with combined (buyer and supplier) experience, they were asked both sets of questions (adapted to their specific backgrounds) so as to offer a basis for triangulation and to highlight important linkages between supplier and buyer perspectives. The questions asked during these semi-structured interviews appear in the Appendix A. 3.3. Data analysis On average, each interview lasted about 90 min, with the shortest interview lasting about 35 min and the longest lasting almost three hours. A total of 1253 pages of written notes (including transcripts from more than 135 h of audio recordings) were collated and input into NVivo version eight for analysis. Each separate interview produced about 14 pages worth of notes and transcripts on average, with a minimum of five pages and a maximum of 32 pages. Given the considerable volume of written materials, the transcription process involved producing as close to verbatim versions of comments as possible (Atkinson and Hammersley, 1995; Fetterman, 2010). This was not possible for all audio recordings, so clarifications were sought with respondents where a need arose. This affected a very small proportion of the transcripts (b5%). From there, an initial data inspection was undertaken to ensure clarity and accuracy, as well as to gain initial insights about interview content. The initial focus for the data analysis was to understand the nature of the customer service styles. Before embarking on this, evidence was sought for the presence of stylized customer service behaviors. A considerable body of quotations indicated this. At least 32 vignettes emerged through a content analysis (Atkinson and Hammersley, 1995; Fetterman, 2010) involving searches for prominent terms in the literature (see Section 2 above) such as ‘style’, ‘consistent’, ‘reliable’ and ‘approach’ in conjunction with ‘service’, ‘customer’, and ‘problemsolving’. As one respondent put it, “I adopt a consistent approach when dealing with customers…” Another respondent indicated “The best supply teams I have worked with have a high degree of

Please cite this article as: Prior, D.D., Boundary spanning and customer service styles in business solutions implementation, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.001

4

D.D. Prior / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 1 Respondent profiles. Informant (Pseudonyms) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. B S C

SophiaS WarrenC JavierC MichaelB ElijahB LucasB LoganB JaydenC OliviaC ZoeB MadisonB BenjaminB LukeS AshleyS KayleeC AlexanderS RileyS EmmaS JohnC JackC MarkB CraigB DavidC BillB AronS LisaB GwenC CarlyS WillS BobS AshtonS HelenC KevinS TaniaS AudreyS CalebC ConnorC CarterB OwenS NicholasB WyattB JoshuaS ClaireB VictoriaB LucyS

Personal characteristics Consultant, Management Consulting Firm 1, male, age 45, 7 years in current role, 20 years industry experience Managing Director, Management Consulting Firm 1, male, age 53, 13 years in current position, 22 years industry experience CEO, Mining Company 1, male, age 48, 12 months in current position, 20 years industry experience Program Manager, Mining Company 1, male, age 49, 5 years in current position, 20 years industry experience Operations Manager, Mining Company 2, male, age 32, 2 years in current position, 8 years industry experience Business Manager, Mining Company 2, male, age 62, 2 years in current position, 27 years industry experience IT Project Manager, Government Department 1, male, age 50, 2 years in current position, 22 years industry experience Project Director, Government Department 1, male, age 38, 3 years in current position, 16 years industry experience Project Manager, Government Department 1, female, age 33, 3 years in current position, 11 years industry experience Infrastructure Manager, Government Department 2, female, age 41, 2 years in current position, 12 years industry experience Implementation Manager, Government Department 2, female, age 27, 3 years in current position, 7 years industry experience Procurement Manager, Government Department 2, male, age 34, 7 years in current position, 12 years industry experience Branch Manager, Construction Firm 1, male, age 44, 4 years in current position, 19 years industry experience General Manager, Construction Firm 2, male, age 30, 3 years in current position, 11 years industry experience Managing Director, Construction Firm 2, female, age 48, 3 years in current position, 12 years industry experience Program Manager, Construction Firm 2, Male, Age 45, 6 Years In Current Position, 20 Years Industry Experience Project Manager, Construction Firm 3, Female, Age 28, 2 Years In Current Position, 9 Years Industry Experience Technical Manager, Construction Firm 3, Female, Age 64, 15 Years In Current Role, 40 Years Industry Experience Managing Director, IT Project Management Firm 1, male, age 53, 12 years in current position, 25 years industry experience CEO, IT Project Management Firm 1, male, age 47, 18 months in current position, 18 years industry experience Program Manager, IT Project Management Firm 1, male, age 51, 5 years in current position, 22 years industry experience Business Manager, IT Project Management Firm 1, male, age 34, 18 months in current position, 11 years industry experience Operations Manager, IT Project Management Firm 2, male, age 58, 2 years in current position, 27 years industry experience IT Project Manager, IT Project Management Firm 2, male, age 55, 4 years in current position, 29 years industry experience Infrastructure Project Director, Engineering Firm 1, male, age 37, 2 years in current position, 17 years industry experience Building Project Manager, Female, Engineering Firm 1 age 32, 8 years in current position, 13 years industry experience Operations Manager, Engineering Firm 2, female, age 61, 8 years in current position, 34 years industry experience Delivery Manager, Engineering Firm 2, female, age 28, 3 years in current position, 8 years industry experience Infrastructure Manager, Engineering Firm 2, male, age 36, 4 years in current position, 11 years industry experience Branch Manager, Engineering Firm 3, male, age 42, 3 years in current position, 23 years industry experience General Manager, Engineering Firm 3, male, age 37, 3 years in current position, 17 years industry experience Managing Director, Professional Services Firm 1, Female, age 48, 3 years in current position, 23 years industry experience Program Manager, Professional Services Firm 1, male, age 47, 3 years in current position, 18 years industry experience Project Manager, Professional Services Firm 2, female, age 29, 2 years in current position, 5 years industry experience Consultant, Female, Professional Services Firm 2, Age 62, 12 Years In Current Role, 42 Years Industry Experience Managing Director, Infrastructure Firm 1, male, age 53, 14 years in current position, 25 years industry experience CEO, Infrastructure Firm 1, male, age 44, 4 months in current position, 20 years industry experience Program Manager, Infrastructure Firm 2, male, age 53, 4 years in current position, 24 years industry experience Implementation Manager, Infrastructure Firm 2, male, age 37, 17 months in current position, 17 years industry experience Procurement Manager, Infrastructure Firm 2, male, age 57, 8 years in current position, 29 years industry experience IT Project Manager, Defense Firm 1, Male, age 58, 9 years in current position, 27 years industry experience Infrastructure Project Director, Defense Firm 1, male, age 38, 4 years in current position, 18 years industry experience Building Project Manager, Defense Firm 2 female, age 32, 2 years in current position, 12 years industry experience Operations Manager, Defense Firm 2, female, age 62, 2 years in current position, 35 years industry experience Delivery Manager, Defense Firm 2, female, age 22, 2 years in current position, 8 years industry experience

Respondent adopted the buyer perspective for interviews. Respondent adopted the buyer perspective for interviews. Respondent adopted combined perspective for interviews.

reliability…” This suggested the presence of customer service styles, allowing the next stage of analysis to begin. To identify the customer service styles, a thematic analysis of the data was undertaken. This first involved an initial inspection of data to identify the likely nature of major themes. From there, content analyses were undertaken using a series of key terms and synonyms of these terms. These terms emerged by investigating the academic literature in this area and by identifying the incidence of specific key terms. The findings sections highlight these terms and the meanings of relevant constructs. The data appeared to support four major themes that relate to customer service styles. The ‘dynamic’ label denotes an approach to customer service that is adaptable, flexible and reactive. A number of studies acknowledge these as positive customer service qualities since this is a key way to achieve customization (Blocker et al., 2010; Gwinner et al., 2005; Lewis et al., 2002). The ‘anticipatory’ label indicates a customer service approach based more on planning and foresight so as to pre-empt likely problems or issues. Several studies indicate this planned approach is also a positive way to achieve customer service outcomes since it helps to improve efficiency while also lowering supplier costs (Blocker et al., 2010; Lewis et al., 2002). ‘Engagement’ indicates a relatively high frequency of customer contacts

during implementation. ‘Avoidance’, on the other hand, suggests relatively few customer contacts. Engagement and avoidance are also evident in previous studies of customer service (Homburg, Müller, and Klarmann, 2011). Further analyses showed that these labels intersect. The outcome of this analysis was four customer service styles, which were labeled dynamic engagement, dynamic avoidance, anticipatory engagement and anticipatory avoidance. Each style has two primary dimensions. To understand the nature of mental models that underpin the expression of each customer service style as behavior, the suppliercentric data were subjected to a selective coding process (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). This involved an examination of dimensions within each customer service style (see Section 4.1). Drawing on coping theory relevant to boundary spanning (Folkman and Lazarus, 1986; Lazarus, 1968; Strutton and Lumpkin, 1992), the mental models pertinent to each customer service style were analyzed in terms of the ‘emotion concept’, and the ‘problem concept’. The emotion concept involves the basic assumptions that boundary spanners make about the feelings that will emerge through customer engagement. The problem concept relates to the root causes of customer problems and the logical structure of customer requirements. An additional dimension was ‘behavior’. This

Please cite this article as: Prior, D.D., Boundary spanning and customer service styles in business solutions implementation, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.001

D.D. Prior / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

denotes the typical customer service behavior that emerges when a boundary spanner adopts a customer service style (see Section 4.2). To determine the effects of customer service styles on customer perceived value, an additional round of selective coding analysis was used (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Of particular interest were comments that indicated linkages between customer service style attributes and customer perceived value indicators, which mostly emerged from respondents with combined (customer and supplier) and customer only experience. Upon further reflection, it appeared that the degree of task responsibility has a moderating role on customer perceptions of value. Therefore, the comments were categorized in terms customer attitudes towards this, under three major dimensions: onus on supplier, joint responsibility and onus on customer. From there, the specific coding focused on attributing customer perceived value outcomes according to customer service style in terms of customer acceptance of value delivery responsibility (see Section 4.3). To ensure the trustworthiness of the findings, the data analysis process was subject to several measures. These include provisions for credibility, dependability, confirmability and integrity (Hirschman, 1986; Lincoln and Guba, 1985). First, respondent screening processes ensured that they have suitable experience of business solutions implementation. Second, the dependability of data was established through checks for consistency within their interview transcripts and by comparing the notes against transcripts. The confirmability of the data involves establishing the extent of researcher bias present in the interpretation. The primary way in which this was identified was through an independent co-analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Two research assistants and the author undertook separate analyses of the data. This involved establishing agreement over the main themes in the data in an initial phase, with the selective codes the subjects of agreement in a second phase. When comparing all three coding files, inter-rater reliability was high. An average agreement of 89% was evident between the three researchers (i.e. a mean score of all three agreement scores when comparing each individual score with each other individual's score) and the average Cohen's Kappa score was 0.91 (i.e. a mean score of all three Cohen's Kappa scores when comparing each individual score with each other individual's score) (James, Demaree, and Wolf, 1984; Tinsley and Weiss, 1975). This suggests confirmability of the data is relatively high and has low bias associated with data interpretation. Lastly, the data suggests high integrity. Inspections for evidence of

misrepresentations or inaccuracies in respondent transcripts did not reveal any intentions to deceive by respondents. 4. Findings 4.1. Customer service styles The first goal of this study is to identify and describe customer service styles of boundary spanners from supplier firms relevant to business solutions implementation. As discussed in the previous section, this began with the identification and description of the main themes that underpin the customer service styles: dynamic, anticipatory, engagement and avoidance. Table 2 provides descriptions of each of these themes. After the subsequent analyses, the customer service styles were then articulated. Table 3 contains descriptions of each customer service style. Table 3 categorizes customer service styles along two continua. High engagement suggests a relatively frequent set of customer interactions whereas low engagement suggests these are less frequent. High dynamism suggests high relatively high incidence of flexibility and/or adaptability to customer requirements, where low dynamism suggests a relatively low incidence of this. The data also contained evidence of other customer service approaches. For example, problem-solving featured prominently in some respondents primarily with technically oriented responsibilities. As one respondent put it “I had a [technical problem]… Hunter is never stressed by anything.” In these situations, analytical decisions were taken to integrate similar themes where possible. However, it is possible that the customer service styles identified in the analysis are not definitive. The four customer service styles appear to account for about 80% of relevant respondent comments. There was insufficient evidence to support additional customer service styles. The additional data content suggests that some elements of customer service relate more to specific idiosyncrasies associated with the implementation environment or the inter-personal dynamics between boundary spanners and specific individuals. 4.2. Customer service style selection and mental models The second goal of the study is to uncover the underlying mental models that influence customer service style selection. Further selective

Table 2 Coding definitions for customer service style dimensions. Label

Synonymsa

Description

#b Indicative quotes

Dynamic

• Adaptive • Creative • Proactive

• A customer service behavior that is adaptable, flexible and reactive.

23 • “Peter is a dynamo. He always has new ideas and is super enthusiastic.” Tania, Project Manager. • “We were in a real pickle. Tyler came in that weekend and made sure we were ready to go by Monday morning.” Nicholas, Procurement Manager. • “The [issue] was very complicated… Sandy had to take a very long detour that none of us had expected.” Claire, Building Project Manager. 13 • “We invited Stuart along because he is usually very insightful.” Kevin, Program Manager. • “Sven understands this completely. He is a freak!” Caleb, Managing Director. • “These projects are often painful if we don't plan them out well. We're lucky that we have people that are well suited to that.” Bob, Branch Manager. 18 • “We work best when open lines of communication exist. I have to say that Kelly is particularly good at this.” Victoria, Operations Manager. • “I try to work closely with the client. It's not uncommon for us to be exchanging emails or phone calls at one o'clock in the morning.” Audrey, Consultant. • “The best consultants have a way of staying energetic and positive when dealing with clients.” Helen, Managing Director. 21 • “John, I think is quite shy. He tends to keep to himself.” David, Operations Manager. • “I know a lot of work goes on off-site. Sometimes this makes it difficult to touch base…” Mark, Program Manager. • “James seems to ignore us half the time. He sits there and stares at his screen. He's very good on the technical side though.” Emma, Technical Manager.

Anticipatory • Planning • Insightful • Clear direction

• A customer service behavior that focuses on planning and foresight so as to pre-empt likely problems or issues

Engagement • Communicative • A customer service behavior that involves a relatively high frequency of customer • Energetic contacts during implementation. • Outgoing

Avoidance

a b

• Ignore • Shy • Reluctant

• A customer service behavior that involves a relatively low frequency of customer contacts during implementation.

5

Additional key terms used in content analysis. Number of instances this code appears in the data.

Please cite this article as: Prior, D.D., Boundary spanning and customer service styles in business solutions implementation, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.001

6

D.D. Prior / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 3 Customer service style definitions. High engagement

Low engagement

Dynamic engagement A customer service style involving relatively high adaptability, high flexibility and high levels of customer engagement. • “I do what the customer wants… Our roles are mutually entwined. Our success depends on each other… I know I'm doing a good job when I receive good customer feedback”, Riley, Project Manager Dynamic Avoidance A customer service style involving relatively high adaptability, high flexibility and a relatively independent work approach. • “I know I need to work with the customer closely. This is what we're paid for… I generally meet with [Jim] twice a week and we cover all the major details. Then, I go away and do what I need to do”, Sophia, Consultant. High dynamism

coding allowed a description of the mental model elements to emerge. The analysis focuses on the emotion concept and the problem concept of the boundary spanner following the logic described in Section 2.2 above. Interestingly, each customer service style appears to reflect differences in the heuristics used by boundary spanners to determine customer service behaviors. Table 4 unpacks the different elements of each customer service style. Inspections of the data also suggest customer service styles have close relationships with characteristics specific to individual boundary spanners. Chief among these were experience and personality. Experience seems to breed confidence. This allows more experienced boundary spanners to use anticipatory customer service styles more frequently. One respondent observed that “Jack has a lot of experience in this industry… he is worth his weight in gold.” Personality seemed to have an important influence on the customer engagement approach, with more extraverted boundary spanners being more likely to engage with customers regularly, and more introverted ones likely to avoid engagements. As one respondent puts it “Rick was always there… he loves

Anticipatory engagement A customer service style that involves extensive planning, a reliance on foresight and extensive customer engagement. • “I've worked in this industry (professional services) for more than 20 years. I know that making a buck depends more on whether you can deliver superior value to a customer, and most of this depends on how well you know them”, Luke, Branch Manager. Anticipatory Avoidance A customer service style that involves extensive planning, a reliance on foresight and a relatively independent work approach. • “I know what I'm doing. I don't find customer input to be all that it's cracked up to be. They usually don't understand the systems I deal with every day”, Audrey, Consultant. High anticipation

being part of the action”. And another, “Tim can be very shy… he prefers to work by himself.” 4.3. Customer service styles and customer perceived value The third goal of this study is to identify the impacts of customer service styles on customer perceptions of value. Business market customers have traditionally been thought of as heterogeneous groups (Dawes, Lee, and Dowling, 1998; Johnston and Bonoma, 1981). Differences between members of buyer firms include role designation and relative influence over purchase situations (Lau, Goh, and Phua, 1999; Moon and Tikoo, 2002). This is also the case in business solutions implementation, which represents multiple vested interests (Tuli et al., 2007). However, the need for a single supplier proposition has led to efforts to build consensus by sales personnel in particular (de Ruyter et al., 2009; Lau et al., 1999). Indeed, customer firms, when considered as cohesive groups of individuals, hold a series of beliefs and attitudes in common (Blois, 2003; Vargo, 2011).

Table 4 Customer service style attributes. Customer service styles

Customer service style dimensions Emotion concept

Dynamic Customers are sources of positive emotional engagement affirmation and as true partners. • “The customer is the king. I come to work so that I can truly help them solve problems. We work on a collaborative basis, but when I see my work making a positive impact, this makes me happy.” Elijah, Operations Manager. Dynamic Customers are gatekeepers and antagonists that avoidance must also be involved in implementation. • “I find that customers can be very difficult to work with sometimes. While they hire [our team] to help them, they end up becoming the necessary evils for project implementation.” Ashton, General Manager. Anticipatory Customers need help in making sophisticated engagement technical decisions and implementing complex products. • “We know we're the best at what we do. That's why customers come to us. We are in the enviable position of having nearly a 100% success rate with on-time delivery.” Connor, CEO. Anticipatory Customers need help with help in making avoidance sophisticated technical decisions and implementing complex products, but they are their own worst enemies, so should be involved sparingly where possible. • “Customers need our help. This generally means they have to get over themselves before anything serious can begin.” Will, Infrastructure Manager.

Problem concept

Behavior

Problems shift over time, but are imminently solvable. The customer understands the situation. • “I know that problems will always come up… once you accept that this is the case, you can then start doing something about it.” Olivia, Project Manager.

Very active engagement across multiple levels and with multiple members of the customer firm. Actively hunting for problems to solve. • “I try to work closely with the client. It's not uncommon for us to be exchanging emails or phone calls at one o'clock in the morning.” Audrey, Consultant. Few customer encounters during implementation, with most confined to meetings with key stakeholders. An independent work approach. • “I make sure I am there for the most important meetings. This means I maintain good contact with senior managers. This means we can get straight to the big problems.” Caleb, Managing Director. Extensive planning prior to engagement. Relying on previous experience and expertise. Dominating customers due to their expertise. • “It's up to me to lead the customer through the process… I ensure I have done my homework before beginning anything though…” Audrey, Consultant. Confines customer engagement activities to specific tasks and responsibilities that align with job scope and their skills and responsibilities. • “I try and make sure we stay within scope. I am the first to caution against scope creep on most occasions.” Will, Infrastructure Manager.

Problems are dynamic and difficult to control. Customers rarely have a full understanding of the situation. • “We adapt our delivery approach to accommodate the project. Our goal is to ensure it gets delivered, but we cannot control for everything.” Joshua, Infrastructure Project Director. Most problems have similar elements over time. This allows them to be anticipated and dealt with pre-emptively. • “When you have worked in this area for more than 20 years, like I have, it all becomes the same. You can plan for that…” Helen, Managing Director. Problems will always happen. I should prepare for these likely negative circumstances accordingly. • “I generally adopt a low profile until it is obvious I need to step in. I find I can get a lot done that way.” Will, Infrastructure Manager.

Please cite this article as: Prior, D.D., Boundary spanning and customer service styles in business solutions implementation, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.001

D.D. Prior / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

7

Table 5 Customer common beliefs about task responsibility construct definitions. Dimension

Definition

Quotations

Onus on supplier

The supplier has the primary responsibility for value creation; the customer has little to no responsibility

Joint responsibility

Both supplier and customer have responsibilities for some tasks; they must work together to achieve the customer's goals

Onus on customer

The customer has the primary responsibility for value creation; the supplier is there to help realize the customer's goals

• “The whole responsibility for implementation rests with the supplier. This why they were hired.” Zoe, Infrastructure Manager. • “What frustrates me is when the supplier can't do the job. They get paid to make sure the project is finished on time.” Madison, Implementation Manager. • “I work on the basis that the supplier brings more to the table than we do. If this is not the case, there is no reason to work with them.” Logan, IT Project Director. • “We assume joint responsibility for getting projects complete… we have built up a relationship based on mutual respect.” Emma, Technical Manager. • “There are simply some things we can't do. That's why we work very closely and collaboratively with our suppliers… we both bring something to the table.” Mark, Program Manager. • “Collaboration is the key. If we both have complementary goals and the skills where we can both achieve positive outcomes, we both end up in a better place.” Craig, Business Manager. • “I can't let anybody else have control over my projects. At best, a supplier can help me achieve what I'm trying to achieve, but the buck stops with me.” Lisa, Building Project Manager. • “The supplier is not the one who has to face my boss. It is up to me to ensure the success of the project.” Carter, Program Manager. • “I can see how suppliers would be useful, but it takes a lot of time and effort to get them up to scratch. I'm better off doing it myself.” Nicholas, Procurement Manager.

5. Discussion

research by suggesting that a variety of customer service styles are possible. This has several implications. First, it acknowledges boundaryspanner heterogeneity. While previous research acknowledges boundary spanner differences, few studies articulate the nature of these differences in behavioral terms. Second, there is scope to design or select boundary spanners on the basis of their likely customer service style, rather than simply advocating a single type of approach such as in previous research (Agnihotri et al., 2013; Blocker et al., 2010; Gwinner et al., 2005; Spiro and Weitz, 1990). Third, this study is among the few to consider complex service delivery processes. This is a partial explanation as to why boundary spanner customer service style heterogeneity has emerged in the findings of this study. The present study also suggests that customer service styles represent different mental models. While previous studies suggest boundary spanners tend to focus on customer service outcomes through consistent service behaviors (Blocker et al., 2010; DiMascio, 2010), they pay less attention to the underlying motivation for these behaviors. Of those studies to consider the nature of intrinsic motivation, the focus is primarily on goal seeking behavior (Gwinner et al., 2005; Keaveney and Nelson, 1993; Rigopoulou et al., 2012). By drawing on coping theory, the present study offers an alternative way to understand boundary spanner decisions to adopt a customer service style. This is important due to existing recognition that boundary spanners face stressful decisions when reconciling between the multiple tensions that exist in customer service contexts (Ashill et al., 2009; Lewin and Sager, 2008; Singh et al., 1994). The study shows how customer service styles influence customer perceptions of value. While previous studies highlight the link between boundary spanner activities and customer perceptions (Prior, 2013), less is known about the effects of contextual factors. The current study highlights a series of possible outcomes in terms of customer service style. It also further develops a core element of customer expectations: locus of control (Bűttgen et al., 2012). By investigating the moderating effects of customer attitudes regarding value creation responsibility, the current study shows how perceptions of control can influence customer expectations in business solutions settings.

5.1. Theoretical implications

5.2. Managerial implications

The study suggests that boundary spanners adopt one of four main customer service styles during business solutions implementation – dynamic engagement, dynamic avoidance, anticipatory engagement and anticipatory avoidance. These styles represent reasonably distinct ways in which boundary spanners manage situational constraints to achieve customer outcomes. These findings complement earlier

The findings of this study are of particular relevance for managers that engage in business solutions implementation. The findings suggest it is possible and, indeed, pragmatic to allocate boundary spanners according to customer service style. On the one hand, boundary spanners that have more engaging customer service styles are likely to create positive rapport with customers. However, they are likely to also

With these observations in mind, this study focuses on the common beliefs that members of buyer firms hold regarding supplier boundary spanner performance. The data suggests that there are similar views regarding task responsibility during business solution implementation. A key debate in service logic relates the nature of task responsibility in terms of whether the supplier, the customer, or whether joint responsibility exists for fulfilling the customer's value requirements. Traditionally, marketing studies have assumed that suppliers have the primary role for fulfilling customer demands. More recently, the value co-creation concept holds that value creation is a collaborative process (Payne, Storbacka, and Frow, 2008) whereas service and service-dominant logic research holds that suppliers can only provide resources and that the customer adopts responsibility for value creation (Grönroos and Voima, 2013; Grönroos, 2008; Lusch and Vargo, 2014). The notion of service locus of control relates to the beliefs held by customers as to who assumes the responsibility for value creation (Bűttgen, Schumann, and Ates, 2012). Therefore, the analyses of customer perceived value included an assessment of customer beliefs regarding task responsibility. Three main categories were evident: onus on the supplier, onus on the customer and joint responsibility. Table 5 contains definitions of each dimension. These attitudes appear to have a moderating effect on customerperceived value from each of the customer service styles. Therefore, the findings are arranged according to customer expectations about task responsibility. Overall, the appropriateness of the customer service style appears to depend on the degree of task responsibility that customers accept. Across all categories, it appears customers are most comfortable if they feel that the boundary-spanner from the supplier firm has suitable skills and knowledge as well as a customer service style that complements their own approach. This is consistent with previous research that illustrates the importance of buyer–supplier alignment and complementarity (Blatt, 2009; De Chernatony et al., 1994; Doney and Cannon, 1997). Table 6 describes the effects of customer service styles on customer perceived value.

Please cite this article as: Prior, D.D., Boundary spanning and customer service styles in business solutions implementation, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.001

8

D.D. Prior / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 6 Customer service style impacts on customer perceived value. Customer beliefs about service delivery responsibility Label

Onus on supplier

Dynamic Positive — Customer feels involved and confident in engagement supplier. • “John is always good to work with. He brings us along the way and is very good at what he does.” Claire, Building Project Manager. Dynamic Positive — If confident in supplier. avoidance • “I like being able to set Wendy a task and know she will do a good job. I don't care where she works; in the home or in the office.” Emma, Technical Manager. Negative — If not confident in supplier. • “Clare spends enormous amounts of time off-site. I don't think she is as effective as she could be due to this.” Zoe, Infrastructure Manager. Anticipatory Positive — If confident in supplier expertise. engagement • “Jason is very insightful. I can't say for sure, but he has saved our skins at least half a dozen times during this project.” Emma, Technical Manager.

Anticipatory avoidance

Joint

Onus on customer

Positive — Customer feels like a trusted partner. • “I like working with Sean. He's a good team player.” Victoria, Operations Manager.

Ambivalent — Customer engages with supplier when necessary. • “Yes, I know Jeremiah is there, but I can only use him sparingly. I have a lot on my plate.” Nicholas, Procurement Manager. Ambivalent — Customer uses supplier if a specific need arises. • “I don't really see Colin that often. I'm not too concerned; I tend to find it easier to lead the process without him. That is unless I have a specific problem that I know he can help with.” Carter, Program Manager.

Negative — Customer feels abandoned. • “… I had hoped to work on this issue in a very collaborative way; my understanding only takes me so far.” Craig, Business Manager.

Positive — If supplier helps to avoid problems. • “Working with Carson is great. I make sure we catch up regularly. He really has a good understanding of IT projects.” Emma, Technical Manager. Negative — If supplier does not engage in a joint delivery approach. • “I know that Miles is useful when forward-planning. He tends to have very strong views about things. I think a more consultative approach would help win hearts and minds.” Mark, Program Manager. Negative — Since supplier does not engage in a joint Negative — Generally the customer finds this hard delivery approach. to deal with. • “They have this guy, Hudson, dealing with the • “Declan sends us these technical documents. On technical side of things. I never see him even the whole, they're pretty good, but we would like though we're meant to be working on this project him to explain his ideas a little better. We need to together.” Mark, Program Manager. talk more.” Zoe, Infrastructure Manager.

require considerable time and resources to achieve these outcomes. On the other hand, boundary spanners with less engaging customer service styles are less likely to spend time with customers, which may create less positive customer outcomes, but may create greater efficiencies. Realizing that it is possible to use these assessments should help when making decisions regarding implementation team composition. One finding from the study is that the degree of control a customer wants over the implementation process has an important influence on their perceptions of value delivered by boundary spanners. An important consideration for managers is that it is important to understand this as early as possible. While there is scope for expectations to vary between individuals, the ways in which members of customer firms form their views tends to coalesce through repeat interactions with other members of the customer firm. This suggests that the locus of responsibility is likely to be a key determinant of customer value perceptions. This has important managerial implications. For customers that are unwilling to assist in the delivery process, this has the potential to increase delivery costs through scope creep and dissatisfaction with any boundary spanner efforts. For customers that adopt most of the responsibility for delivery, they may begin to question the value of the supplier. As such, managers in supplier firms must ultimately pursue an equitable form of working relationship so as to maximize the perceived value they can deliver while also not being perceived as a hindrance or as incompetent by customers. 6. Conclusion, limitations and future research This study investigates the nature of customer service styles and their effects on customer perceived value in business solutions implementation. Drawing on 45 semi-structured interviews, the findings suggest that boundary spanners from supplier firms use one of four main

Positive — If supplier helps to avoid problems. • “I meet with Tristan from time to time. He is really good at steering me in the right direction, but I know this is my project.” Lisa, Building Project Manager.

Ambivalent — Customer uses supplier if a specific need arises. • “Ian is very useful for his technical expertise. However, I have a team of ten people that I can also tap into if need be for this kind of thing.” Lisa, Building Project Manager.

types of customer service style (labeled as dynamic engagement, dynamic avoidance, anticipatory engagement and anticipatory avoidance). Each customer service style reflects a different boundary spanner mental model. Each customer service style has different impacts on customer perceptions of value. These perceptions are moderated by their perceived control over the delivery process. While the study offers some interesting insights regarding the nature and effects of boundary spanner customer service styles on customer perceived value, it also suffers from limitations. The findings of the study rely on an inductive analysis of 45 interviews. While steps have been taken to ensure this process is robust, it is difficult to generalize the findings beyond this group. To address this issue, future studies may which to adopt a broad-based quantitative approach, possibly involving a survey of business solutions boundary spanners or customers to establish the applicability of findings across contexts. The study also concentrates on business solutions implementation contexts rather than buyer–supplier contexts more broadly. Future research could explore the findings of this study in other buyer–supplier settings and/or concentrate on specific categories of boundary spanners such as sales personnel. Appendix A. Interview guide A.1. Background (asked of all respondents) • Can I ask you about…? [Respondents were asked for their age and other demographic details]. • Could you describe your professional background please? [Respondents were probed for evidence of their experience with business solutions implementation processes, including follow-up questions asking about their occupation, their current role, industry experience, and past five years working experience].

Please cite this article as: Prior, D.D., Boundary spanning and customer service styles in business solutions implementation, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.001

D.D. Prior / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

A.2. Supplier-centric questions (asked of supplier-centric respondents) • Could you describe what sorts of responsibilities are involved in your current role? [Respondents were probed for evidence that they are part of business solutions implementation processes]. • Do you have any contact with clients in your current role? Please explain how you interact with customers. [Respondents were probed for how their role relates to implementation tasks]. • Do you find that you have to juggle between the demands of clients and of your supervisors? [Respondents were probed for evidence that they face tensions]. • Can you describe what approaches or techniques you use to deal with these tensions? [Respondents were also probed for underpinning attitudes, beliefs and behaviors]. • Do you think other people use these sorts of approach during a delivery process? [Respondents were probed for their recognition of similar approaches and techniques, so as to provide a basis of comparison]. • How do you think customers react to these approaches? What works best? What doesn't work very well? [Respondents were probed for how they see customer reactions].

A.3. Customer-centric questions (asked of customer-centric respondents) • Could you describe what sorts of responsibilities are involved in your current role? [Respondents were probed for evidence that they are part of business solutions implementation processes]. • Do you have any contact with suppliers or their representatives in your current role? Please explain how you interact with suppliers. [Respondents were probed for how their role relates to implementation tasks]. • For supplier representatives, how do you work with them best? [Respondents were asked to identify favorable working arrangements and approaches]. • Please think about a successful project with a supplier firm. Can you describe what things led to its success? [Respondents were probed for working arrangements that they saw as most successful for project implementation]. • What things do you do to ensure project success? [Respondents were asked about what sorts of responsibility they feel they hold]. • What do you see as the most valuable contributions that suppliers can make during implementation?

References Agnihotri, R., Rapp, A.A., Andzulis, J.M., & Gabler, C.G.B. (2013). Examining the drivers and performance implications of boundary spanner creativity. Journal of Service Research, 17(2), 164–181. Ashill, N.J., Rod, M., Thirkell, P., & Carruthers, J. (2009). Job resourcefuless, job burnout and service recovery performance: An examination of call centre frontline employees. Journal of Services Marketing, 23(5), 338–350. Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1995). Ethnography (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Biggemann, S., Kowalkowski, C., Maley, J., & Brege, S. (2013). Development and implementation of customer solutions: A study of process dynamics and market shaping. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(7), 1083–1092. Blatt, R. (2009). Tough love: How communal schemas and contracting practices build relational capital in entrepreneurial teams. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 533–551. Blocker, C.P., Flint, D.J., Myers, M.B., & Slater, S.F. (2010). Proactive customer orientation and its role for creating customer value in global markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 216–233. Blois, K. (2003). B2B “relationships” — A social construction of reality? Marketing Theory, 3(1), 79–95. Brion, S., Chauvet, V., Chollet, B., & Mothe, C. (2012). Project leaders as boundary spanners: Relational antecedents and performance outcomes. International Journal of Project Management, 30(6), 708–722. Bűttgen, M., Schumann, J.H., & Ates, Z. (2012). Service locus of control and customer coproduction: The role of prior service experience and organizational socialization. Journal of Service Research, 15(2), 166–181.

9

Chakrabarty, S., Brown, G., & Widing, R.E. (2013). Distinguishing between the roles of customer-oriented selling and adaptive selling in managing dysfunctional conflict in buyer–seller relationships. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 33(3), 245–260. Dagger, T.S., Danaher, P.J., Sweeney, J.C., & Mccoll-kennedy, J.R. (2013). Selective halo effects arising from improving the interpersonal skills of frontline employees. Journal of Service Research, 16(4), 488–502. Dawes, P.L., Lee, D.Y., & Dowling, G.R. (1998). Information control and influence in emergent buying centers. Journal of Marketing, 62(July), 55–68. Day, G.S., & Nedungadi, P. (1994). Managerial representations of competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 31. De Chernatony, L., Daniels, K., & Johnson, G. (1994). Competitive positioning strategies mirroring sellers' and buyers' perceptions? Journal of Strategic Marketing, 2(3), 229–248. De Ruyter, K., de Jong, A., & de Wetzels, M. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of environmental stewardship in boundary-spanning B2B teams. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(4), 470–487. DiMascio, R. (2010). The service models of frontline employees. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 63–80. Doney, P.M., & Cannon, J.P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35. Fetterman, D.M. (2010). Ethnography: Step-by-step. Applied social research methods series (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Folkman, S. (1992). Making the case for coping. In B.N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research, and application (pp. 31–46). Westport, CT, US: Praeger Publishers/ Greenwood Publishing Group. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992–1003. Franke, G.R., & Park, J. (2006). Salesperson adaptive selling behavior and customer orientation: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 693–702. Frankenberger, K., Weiblen, T., & Gassmann, O. (2013). Network configuration, customer centricity, and performance of open business models: A solution provider perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5), 671–682. Gary, M.S., & Wood, R.E. (2011). Mental models, decision rules, and performance heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 32(6), 569–594. Grönroos, C. (2008). Service logic revisited: Who creates value? And who co-creates? European Business Review, 20(4), 298–314. Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133–150. Gwinner, K.P., Bitner, M.J., Brown, S.W., & Kumar, A. (2005). Service customization through employee adaptiveness. Journal of Service Research, 8(2), 131–148. Hirschman, E.C. (1986). Humanistic Inquiry in marketing research: Philosophy, method, and criteria. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(3), 237–249. Hodgkinson, G.P. (2002). Comparing managers' mental models of competition: Why selfreport measures of belief similarity won't do. Organization Studies, 23(1), 63–72. Hodgkinson, G.P., & Johnson, G. (1994). Exploring the mental models of competitive strategists: the case for a processual approach. Journal of Management Studies, 31(4), 525–551. Homburg, C., Müller, M., & Klarmann, M. (2011). When should the customer really be king? On the optimum level of salesperson customer orientation in sales encounters. Journal of Marketing, 75(2), 55–74. Hult, G.T. (2011). Toward a theory of the boundary-spanning marketing organization and insights from 31 organization theories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(4), 509–536 (d). Jacob, F., Kleipaß, U., & Pohl, A. (2014). Nature and role of customer satisfaction in the solution business. European Management Journal, 32(3), 487–498. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98. Johnston, W.J., & Bonoma, T.V. (1981). The buying center: Structure and interaction patterns. Journal of Marketing, 45(3), 143–156. Jong, A.D., Ruyter, K.D., & Lemmink, J. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of the service climate in boundary-spanning self-managing service teams. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 18–35. Keaveney, S.M., & Nelson, J.E. (1993). Coping with organizational role stress: Intrinsic motivational orientation, perceived role benefits, and psychological withdrawal. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(2), 113–124. Lau, G. -T., Goh, M., & Phua, S.L. (1999). Purchase-related factors and buying center structure. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(6), 573–587. Lazarus, R.S. (1968). Emotions and adaptation: Conceptual and empirical relations. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Cambridge Univ Press. New York, USA: Springer. Lemke, F., Clark, M., & Wilson, H. (2011). Customer experience quality: An exploration in business and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 846–869. Lewin, J.E., & Sager, J.K. (2008). Salesperson burnout: A test of the coping-mediational model of social support. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28(3), 233–246. Lewin, J.E., & Sager, J.K. (2010). The influence of personal characteristics and coping strategies on salespersons' turnover intentions. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 30(4), 355–370. Lewis, M.W., Welsh, M.A., Dehler, G.E., & Green, S.G. (2002). Product development tensions: Exploring contrasting styles of project management. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 546–564. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Please cite this article as: Prior, D.D., Boundary spanning and customer service styles in business solutions implementation, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.001

10

D.D. Prior / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Lusch, R.F., & Vargo, S.L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises,perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualtiative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Moon, J., & Tikoo, S. (2002). Buying decision approaches of organizational buyers and users. Journal of Business Research, 55(4), 293–299. Nonis, S.A., Sager, J.K., & Kumar, K. (1996). Salespeople's use of upward influence tactics (UITs) in coping with role stress. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(1), 44–56. Nordin, F., & Kowalkowski, C. (2010). Solutions offerings: A critical review and reconceptualisation. Journal of Service Management, 21(4), 441–459. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Inc. Payne, A., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96. Piercy, N.F. (2009). Strategic relationships between boundary-spanning functions: Aligning customer relationship management with supplier relationship management. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(8), 857–864. Porac, J.F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2011). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers revisited. Journal of Management Studies, 48(3), 646–664. Porter, S.S., Claycomb, C., & Kraft, F.B. (2008). Salesperson wellness lifestyle: A measurement perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28(1), 53–66. Prior, D.D. (2013). Supplier representative activities and customer perceived value in complex industrial solutions. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(8), 1192–1201. Prior, D.D. (2015). The impact of service worker personal resources on relationship quality in business solutions. Industrial Marketing Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.indmarman.2015.06.003. Reid, D.A., Pullins, E.B., & Plank, R.E. (2002). The impact of purchase situation on salesperson communication behaviors in business markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(3), 205–213. Rigopoulou, I., Theodosiou, M., Katsikea, E., & Perdikis, N. (2012). Information control, role perceptions, and work outcomes of boundary-spanning frontline managers. Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 626–633. Rosa, J.A., Porac, J.F., Runser-Spanjol, J., & Saxon, M.S. (1999). Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 64–77. Sand, G., & Miyazaki, A.D. (2000). The impact of social support on salesperson burnout and burnout components. Psychology and Marketing, 17(1), 13–26. Singh, J. (1993). Boundary role ambiguity: facts, determinants, and impacts. Journal of Marketing, 57(2), 11–31. Singh, J. (1998). Striking a balance in boundary-spanning positions: an investigation of some unconventional influences of role stressors and job characteristics on job outcomes of salespeople. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 69–86.

Singh, J. (2000). Performance productivity and quality of frontline employees in service organizations. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 15–34. Singh, J., Goolsby, J.R., & Rhoads, G.K. (1994). Behavioral and psychological consequences of boundary spanning burnout for customer service representatives. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4), 558–569. Spiro, R., & Weitz, B.A. (1990). Adaptive selling: conceptualization measurement and nomological validity. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(1), 61–69. Strandvik, T., Holmlund, M., & Edvardsson, B. (2012). Customer needing: a challenge for the seller offering. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 27(2), 132–141. Strutton, D., & Lumpkin, J.R. (1992). Problem- and emotion-focused coping dimensions and sales presentation effectiveness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(1), 28–37. Tinsley, H.E., & Weiss, D.J. (1975). Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgments. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Töllner, A., Blut, M., & Holzmüller, H.H. (2011). Customer solutions in the capital goods industry: Examining the impact of the buying center. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(5), 712–722. Tuli, K.R., Kohli, A.K., & Bharadwaj, S.G. (2007). Rethinking customer solutions: From product bundles to relational processes. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 1–17. Vargo, S.L. (2011). On marketing theory and service-dominant logic: Connecting some dots. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 3–8. Wang, E.S. (2009). The effects of relationship bonds on emotional exhaustion and turnover intentions in frontline employees. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(4), 319–330. Windahl, C., & Lakemond, N. (2006). Developing integrated solutions: The importance of relationships within the network. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(7), 806–818. Ye, J., Marinova, D., & Singh, J. (2011). Bottom-up learning in marketing frontlines: conceptualization, processes, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(6), 821–844. Yigitbasioglu, O.M. (2010). Information sharing with key suppliers: A transaction cost theory perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 40(7), 550–578. Zablah, A.R., Chonko, L.B., Bettencourt, L.A., Allen, G., & Haas, A. (2012a). A job demandsresources (JD-R) perspective on new product selling: A framework for future research. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(1), 73–88. http://dx.doi. org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134320107. Zablah, A.R., Franke, G.R., Brown, T.J., & Bartholomew, D.E. (2012b). How and when does customer orientation influence frontline employee job outcomes? A meta-analytic evaluation. Journal of Marketing, 76(3), 21–40. Zhang, C., Viswanathan, S., & Henke, J.W. (2011). The boundary spanning capabilities of purchasing agents in buyer–supplier trust development. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4), 318–328.

Please cite this article as: Prior, D.D., Boundary spanning and customer service styles in business solutions implementation, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.001