No abstract

Transformative changes in the societal and service context call out for the service discipline to develop a coherent set of priorities for research and practice. To this end, we utilized multiple data sources: surveys of service scholars and practitioners, web scraping of online documents, a review of published service scholarship, and roundtable discussions conducted at the world’s foremost service research centers. We incorporated innovative methodologies, including machine learning, natural language processing, and qualitative analyses, to identify key service research priorities that are critical to address during these turbulent times. The first two priorities— technology and the changing nature of work and technology and the customer experience—focus on leveraging technology for service provision and consumption. The next two priorities— resource and capability constraints and customer proactivity for well-being—focus on responding to the changing needs of multiple stakeholders. Further, we identified a set of stakeholder-wants from the literature and include research questions that tie key stakeholder-wants to each of the four priorities. We believe the set of research priorities in the present article offer actionable ideas for service research directions in this challenging environment.

This article utilizes input from service scholars, practitioners, reviews of published literature, and influential policy documents to identify service research priorities that push the boundaries of extant research. In a companion piece, we focused on four service research priorities related to managing and delivering service in turbulent times. Further, we identified a set of stakeholder-wants from the literature and included research questions that tie key stakeholder-wants to each of the three priorities in this article and the four priorities in the companion article. Here, we highlight the critical importance of scholarship and practice related to the design of sustainable service ecosystems and discuss three key service research priorities: large-scale and complex service ecosystems for transformative impact (SRP5), platform ecosystems and marketplaces (SRP6), and services for disadvantaged consumers and communities (SRP7). We call for an engaged service scholarship that considers the interrelationships among consumers, organizations, employees, platforms, and societal institutions and pursues transformative goals.

No abstract

This study examines the joint effects of diversity composition (as manifested in faultline strength) and diversity management (as manifested in diversity climate) on loyal behavior. Using data gathered from a sample of 1,652 managerial employees in 76 work units, we assessed the crosslevel effects of unit-level relationship-and task-related faultline strength and diversity climate on individual-level loyal behavior of managerial employees. We found a negative relationship between gender faultline strength and loyal behavior, and a positive relationship between diversity climate and loyal behavior. In addition, we found that work unit diversity climate moderated the relationships between the strength of gender and function faultlines and loyal behavior; specifically, a supportive diversity climate reduced the negative consequences associated with relationshiprelated faultlines and increased the positive consequences associated with task-related faultlines. The results highlight the value of simultaneously considering faultlines and diversity climate in understanding and managing workforce diversity. ABSTRACTThis study examines the joint effects of diversity composition (as manifested in faultline strength) and diversity management (as manifested in diversity climate) on loyal behavior. Using data gathered from a sample of 1,652 managerial employees in 76 work units, we assessed the crosslevel effects of unit-level relationship-and task-related faultline strength and diversity climate on individual-level loyal behavior of managerial employees. We found a negative relationship between gender faultline strength and loyal behavior, and a positive relationship between diversity climate and loyal behavior. In addition, we found that work unit diversity climate moderated the relationships between the strength of gender and function faultlines and loyal behavior; specifically, a supportive diversity climate reduced the negative consequences associated with relationship-related faultlines and increased the positive consequences associated with task-related faultlines. The results highlight the value of simultaneously considering faultlines and diversity climate in understanding and managing workforce diversity.