Shaping service ecosystems: exploring the dark side of agency

Abstract

Purpose The extant service ecosystem literature rarely addresses the dark side of actors’ agency, which hinders further development of the service-dominant (S-D) logic, particularly with regard to understanding service ecosystem dynamics. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to delineate the dark-side facets of actors’ agency that adversely affect actor-to-actor relationships and resource integration, in the context of shaping service ecosystems. Design/methodology/approach With abductive reasoning, this study seeks to reorient results from prior literature in accordance with empirical findings. The empirical data pertain to 21 firms in Finland, New Zealand, Singapore and Sweden, representing various industries, sizes, international reach, technologies, ownership forms and histories. Findings The dark side of agency emerges as an actor’s deliberate attempts to influence a service ecosystem to achieve self-interested benefits, despite understanding that these actions inhibit other actors from providing service and can be detrimental to other actors and the ecosystem. The findings also reveal three facets of the dark side: conflict, ambiguity and opportunism. The process of shaping service ecosystems is prone to systematic conflict, ambiguous and opportunistic behaviours occurring between the focal actors’ ecosystem and other ecosystems vying for the same set of resources. Research limitations/implications This study advances the S-D logic by addressing the crucial role of agency in a dialectical relationship with institutions and structures. Service-for-service exchanges can take place in asymmetric, ambiguous, opportunistic situations driven by self-interested motives. Practical implications Processes aimed at shaping service ecosystems can demonstrate the dark sides of actors’ agency, related to conflict, ambiguity or opportunism. Managers interested in shaping strategies should be prepared for this outcome. Social implications A service ecosystem perspective requires policy makers and regulators to reconsider their role in shaping processes. No “invisible hand” guides markets to equilibrium, so they should be more proactive in shaping ecosystems, rather than merely fixing market failures. Originality/value This research offers the first S-D logic-based investigation into the dark side of actors’ agency in shaping service ecosystems.

Institutional change and routine dynamics in service ecosystems

“…Drawing on institutional theory, many SDL studies associate innovation and change in service ecosystems with processes of institutional change, in which taken-for-granted rules are altered and resources and practices are recombined to develop novel solutions to new or existing problems (Vargo et al, 2015;Koskela-Huotari et al, 2016). These studies confirm that change processes of this kind involve various actors and activities and evolve in unforeseen ways (Meynhardt et al, 2016;Mele et al, 2018;Banoun et al, 2016). However, they do not explain in detail how value co-creation practices in service ecosystems concurrently change without creating adverse effects or disintegrating during multiple and sometimes contradictory change initiatives (Banoun et al, 2016;Lusch and Nambisan, 2015).…”

Addressing Tensions and Paradoxes in Sustainable Wine Industry: The Case of the Association “Le Donne Del Vino”

“…The emergence of the service ecosystem, like a natural ecosystem, is beyond the full control of any individual actor [25]. Its evolution may be influenced, at least partially, by actors' intended activities and practices [26,27]. Thus, a service ecosystem should adapt over time to changes in resource integration, shared worldviews and desired outcomes [28,29].…”

Rethinking marketing: back to purpose

“…Service ecosystems exhibit qualities of emergence and are therefore beyond the control of any individual actor (Chandler et al 2019 ). Nevertheless, actors are able to intentionally influence (i.e., design), at least partially (e.g., through reconfiguring institutional arrangements; Koskela-Huotari et al 2016 ; Vargo et al 2015 ) how ecosystems evolve (Mele et al 2018 ). Service ecosystem thinking thus offers great potential to address some of the ‘wicked problems’ posed by digital disruption, ecological and social sustainability challenges.…”