Customer engagement with service providers: an empirical investigation of customer engagement dispositions

Abstract

Purpose While businesses seek to engage customers, their efforts are often met with varied results, as some customers are more predisposed to engage than others. Understanding customers’ dispositions to engage is central to understanding customer engagement, yet research examining customer engagement dispositions remains sparse and predominantly focused on personality traits. This paper aims to consider the general nature of a disposition and draws on qualitative findings to depict a framework for customer engagement dispositions. Design/methodology/approach To investigate customer engagement dispositions comprehensively and in-depth, an exploratory qualitative approach was adopted. In total, 20 semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with customers in ongoing relationships with financial planners residing in Australia. Findings Nine attributes reflecting customer engagement dispositions emerge from the data. These include the customer’s internal tendency to engage (confidence, desire for control, extroversion and enthusiasm); a tendency to engage determined in the interaction with the service provider (sense of similarity, sense of social connection and trust in the service provider); and the capacity to engage (expertise and knowledge and time availability). Research limitations/implications This study provides a conceptual foundation for future empirical measurement of customer engagement dispositions and their nomological network. Practical implications This study establishes a foundation for managers to build distinct engagement disposition profiles and segments and target initiatives to maximize engagement activity. Originality/value This research challenges the view of customer engagement dispositions as largely personality factors, or exclusively cognitive and emotional dimensions of engagement, and offers a comprehensive framework reflecting a customer’s disposition to engage with a service provider.

What factors determine brand communication? A hybrid brand communication model from utilitarian and hedonic perspectives

“…According to prior related studies, customer psychological contract and customer engagement have lied at the center of the research into customer–brand relationships (Gillani et al, 2021 ; Lin et al, 2021 ; Asante et al, 2022 ; Sim et al, 2022 ). When it comes to customer psychological contract, existing research has proposed that the psychological contract was first proposed in the studies of organizational behavior and then defined in a relatively straightforward manner, stressing individual and organizational perceptions of obligations while also highlighting the stability of their connection (Robinson et al, 1994 ; Coyle-Shapiro et al, 2019 ).…”

Sport sponsorship as a booster for customer engagement: the role of activation, authenticity and attitude

“…In this study, customer engagement is divided in the disposition to engage (Fehrer et al, 2018) and the actual engagement behavior (van Doorn et al, 2010). Especially, the disposition to engage is empirically underdeveloped (Sim et al, 2022). Customer engagement disposition (CED) "describes a state of readiness or tendency to act and hence links implicitly to the activity of engaging" (Fehrer et al, 2018, p. 446).…”

“…Customer engagement disposition (CED) "describes a state of readiness or tendency to act and hence links implicitly to the activity of engaging" (Fehrer et al, 2018, p. 446). Accordingly, CED is relatively consistent and encompasses customers' inclinations to engage with a firm both once and on a regular basis (Sim et al, 2022). Customer engagement behavior (CEB) "go[es] beyond transactions, and may be specifically defined as a customer's behavioral manifestations that have a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drivers" (van Doorn et al, 2010, p. 254).…”

“…(MSI, 2020). Customer engagement can be expressed as customers' disposition or intention to engage (Fehrer et al, 2018;Sim et al, 2022) and manifest itself in actual nontransactional behavior (van Doorn et al, 2010), such as co-developing products, writing reviews or giving recommendations (Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014).…”

Understanding how satisfactory service relationships can be mutually beneficial in the higher education context

“…For instance, it may be interesting to study how passion, intimacy and commitment may influence CEBs in other contexts such as legal, health care or professional hair salon contexts (also see Yim et al , 2008). In this respect, the moderating influence of customer engagement dispositions (Sim et al , 2022) could also be explored as customer’s predisposition to engage in behaviors that benefit service firms may regulate how customer affection translates into CEBs.…”