Enacting Service Work in a Changing World: Time for a Dialogue

Abstract

Service work is rapidly evolving as a result of technological innovations, changing employment norms, and a variety of environmental challenges. Yet, the scope of service work scholarship appears to be restricted to traditional frontline employees occupying boundary-spanning positions in formal private-sector service organizations. Given the “perfect storm” of multiple disruptions, we believe that the time is ripe for service scholars to reexamine how service work is being (and will be) enacted in a changing world. In this editorial, we propose an expansion of the “service worker” construct, recommend a deeper exploration of the experiences of service workers, and call to situate these experiences within an evolving service work ecosystem. Our aim is to spark interdisciplinary dialogue related to service work in order to foster service scholarship and practice that are responsive to the changing world.

The influence of pandemic-related workplace safety practices on frontline service employee wellbeing outcomes

“…In particular, we extend the literature related to FLE wellbeing ( Subramony, Groth, Hu, & Wu, 2021 ) by examining how an FLE’s experience—shaped by the safety practices implemented in the workplace—impacts perceptions of wellbeing. Previous research related to workplace safety has typically focused on individual and organizational outcomes related to employee adherence to safety policies ( Subramony & Groth, 2021 ) or the consequences of a lack of safety such as accidents ( Hofmann et al, 2017 ). The present study extends this literature by showing that the consequences of unsafe work environments can extend to employees’ physical and psychological wellbeing and influence perceptions of workplace psychosocial climate.…”

“…While FLE wellbeing is often viewed as a predictor of safety-related work outcomes in the above research stream, our focus is on the workplace safety determinants of FLE exhaustion and engagement. In this respect we respond to recent calls to focus on the experience of FLEs in order to “benefit from a better understanding of the service workers’ experience in its own right” ( Subramony & Groth, 2021, p. 227 ).…”

An examination of frontline employee–customer incidental similarities in service failure and recovery contexts

“…Further, although the experimental design we adopted allows us to develop causal inferences regarding how incidental similarities can facilitate the development of pseudorelationships, it does not allow us to address potential changes in the consequences of incidental similarities over time and within better‐developed relationships (e.g., initial visit with hair stylist vs. after multiple visits). Given it is possible for FLEs and customers to have multiple interactions and contact points (Subramony & Groth, 2021), future research can identify the role incidental similarities play across multiple interactions. Thus, future research leveraging longitudinal designs to explore these temporal effects will help to shed light on the ways in which these relationships develop and are maintained over time.…”

“…Given it is possible for FLEs and customers to have multiple interactions and contact points (Subramony & Groth, 2021), future research can identify the role incidental similarities play across multiple interactions. Thus, future research leveraging longitudinal designs to explore these temporal effects will help to shed light on the ways in which these relationships develop and are maintained over time.…”

The Service-Profit Chain: Reflections, Revisions, and Reimaginations

“…First, considering well-being and traditional employee satisfaction measures will allow researchers to test which of these variables better predicts employee productivity, employee loyalty, and finally firm performance. This approach will deepen the scholarly understanding of service work and service employees' experiences (Subramony and Groth 2021). Second, the literature's focus on well-being tends to adopt a long-term perspective, whereas focuses on satisfaction address immediate responses or evaluations.…”