Premium
Task‐Relationship‐Self: A Framework for Understanding Service Encounter Behaviors
Author(s) -
Bradley Graham L.,
Sparks Beverley A.,
Zapf Dieter,
McCollKennedy Janet R.,
Jimmieson Nerina L.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
psychology and marketing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.035
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1520-6793
pISSN - 0742-6046
DOI - 10.1002/mar.20624
Subject(s) - clarity , service (business) , perspective (graphical) , conceptual framework , set (abstract data type) , task (project management) , knowledge management , process (computing) , computer science , field (mathematics) , psychology , marketing , sociology , artificial intelligence , business , management , social science , biochemistry , chemistry , mathematics , economics , pure mathematics , programming language , operating system
Research conducted over past decades has investigated selected service encounter behaviors from either a customer or service provider perspective. However, a comprehensive, dual‐perspective framework is lacking. Such a framework is needed to organize knowledge of these behaviors, and thereby provide structure, clarity, and parsimony to the field. This paper describes a three‐tier framework of service encounter behavior that was developed by applying grounded theory principles to interviews with customers, service employees, and other stakeholders. These informants described many ways in which they behave when executing service exchanges, dealing with service difficulties, and managing themselves in the process. Using an iterative inductive approach, a conceptual framework was developed in which specific (Tier 1) behaviors were placed within broader (Tier 2) categories, and these lower classification levels were, in turn, interpreted within a conceptual space defined by the (Tier 3) dimensions of task, relationship, and self. This framework was then elaborated and refined by reference to the psychology and marketing literature, a set of 157 audio‐recorded service interactions, and an expert panel study. The paper includes comparisons between the framework and those previously proposed, propositions regarding service encounter processes and outcomes, and implications for future research and practice.