Responsibility and Well-Being: Resource Integration under Responsibilization in Expert Services

Abstract

Responsibilization, or the shift of functions and risks from providers and producers to consumers, has become an increasingly common policy in service systems and marketplaces (e.g., financial, health, governmental). Because responsibilization is often considered synonymous with consumer agency and well-being, the authors take a transformative service research perspective and draw on resource integration literature to investigate whether responsibilization is truly associated with well-being. The authors focus on expert services, for which responsibilization concerns are particularly salient, and question whether this expanding policy is in the public interest. In the process, they develop a conceptualization of resource integration under responsibilization that includes three levels of actors (consumer, provider, and service system), the identification of structural tensions to resource integration, and three categories of resource-integration practices (access, appropriation, and management) necessary to negotiate responsibilization. The findings have important implications for health care providers, public and institutional policy makers, and other service systems, all of which must pay more active attention to the challenges consumers face in negotiating responsibilization and the resulting well-being outcomes.

The dark side of the sharing economy: Balancing value co‐creation and value co‐destruction

“…The city council also encourages residents who feel inconvenienced by sharing economy activities to submit their complaints and combat nuisances. The complaints identified in tourist homes include noise, lack of security, antisocial behavior, dirt, incivility and are an example of the “responsibilization” concept to educate stakeholders (Anderson & Ostrom, 2015; Anderson et al, 2016; Vargo & Lusch, 2008, 2011; Yngfalk & Yngfalk, 2015).…”

“…Local authorities can address the needs of visitors as well as individual providers and local communities. Proactive “responsibilization” of visitors and locals should be facilitated by elaborating and exploring the needs and requirements of all stakeholders (Anderson et al, 2016). Visitors should also be educated about the consequences of their actions and choices and be engaged as part of the solution.…”

Leveraging the Existing US Healthcare Structure for Consumer Financial Well‐Being: Barriers, Opportunities, and a Framework toward Future Research

“…Given that healthcare primarily manifests in service‐based deliveries, we incorporate a TSR perspective, which lies at the intersection of services marketing and transformative consumer research (Anderson et al ; Mick ) and highlights healthcare and financial considerations—two important areas for TSR investigation (Anderson et al ; Anderson, Nasr, and Rayburn ). Service providers (i.e., healthcare professionals), consumers (i.e., patients), and other stakeholders work in concert toward the co‐creation (Black and Gallan ; Vargo and Lusch ) of well‐being outcomes that weave service‐based challenges with healthcare's nuances (Anderson and Ostrom ).…”

“…Service providers (i.e., healthcare professionals), consumers (i.e., patients), and other stakeholders work in concert toward the co‐creation (Black and Gallan ; Vargo and Lusch ) of well‐being outcomes that weave service‐based challenges with healthcare's nuances (Anderson and Ostrom ). Given their training and expertise, service providers typically have the power to either give patients specific directives, which must be followed in a paternalistic manner (Légaré et al ), or to place a greater onus on patients to take an active role in their own health outcomes, via assigning responsibility (Anderson et al ). Many types of power (i.e., legitimate, reward, expert, referent, coercive, informational; French and Raven ; Raven ) are not favorable for the healthcare consumer during service exchange, since providers' credentials inherently legitimize their commands, reinforce their expertise, offer them a place of respect in society, and allocate inequitable knowledge to them.…”

“…Moreover, while service providers have increased access to pricing data (Beck ), doctors fail to have financial dialogues with patients, often maintaining a paternalistic approach to care (Légaré et al ). However, advocates for patient‐centered care have investigated the promise of shared decision‐making (Anderson et al ; Hibbard and Greene ; Shafir and Rosenthal ), which may be more effective at integrating financial considerations into healthcare delivery (Bieber et al ). Shared decision‐making transforms the patient–physician encounter, through mutual information sharing, and incorporates consumers' preferences, values and goals with evidence‐based medicine to consider the potential benefits and harms of care options (Charles, Gafni, and Whelan ).…”