Hybrid human–robot teams in the frontline: automated social presence and the role of corrective interrogation

IF 7.8 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
David Leiño Calleja, Jeroen Schepers, Edwin J. Nijssen
{"title":"Hybrid human–robot teams in the frontline: automated social presence and the role of corrective interrogation","authors":"David Leiño Calleja, Jeroen Schepers, Edwin J. Nijssen","doi":"10.1108/josm-11-2023-0470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Customer perceptions toward hybrid human–robot teams remain largely unexplored. We focus on the impact of frontline robots’ (FLRs) automated social presence (ASP) on customers’ perceived teamwork quality, and ultimately frontline employees’ (FLEs) competence and warmth. We explore the role of interrogation as a relevant contingency. We complement the customer view with insights into the FLEs’ viewpoint.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>We manipulate FLR’s ASP cues (speech and identity) in a hybrid team in four business-to-consumer (B2C) video-based experiments and collect data from online participants. We combine these with one business-to-business (B2B) field survey which collected data from FLEs working in hybrid teams.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>When FLR’s ASP increases, customers more positively evaluate teamwork quality, ultimately affecting FLEs’ competence and warmth. FLEs who correct (interrogate) robotic mistakes strengthen the positive effect of FLRs’ ASP on teamwork quality. When FLRs correct FLEs, ASP’s effect on teamwork quality is also strengthened, while FLEs are not “punished” for erring. In contrast, FLEs themselves do perceive corrections as detrimental to teamwork quality. We term this the hybrid team evaluation paradox.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p>We recommend that firms deploy hybrid teams equipped with high-ASP FLRs (name and speech suffice). FLEs should be trained, and FLRs programmed, to appropriately use interrogation. Managers should pay attention to the paradox, given the conflicting perceptions toward interrogative behaviors.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>We advance the hybrid teams literature by drawing on ASP, social cognition and collective mindfulness theories and behaviors that ameliorate customer perceptions. Our results support using FLRs to enhance FLEs’ capabilities.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":48089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Service Management","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Service Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-11-2023-0470","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Customer perceptions toward hybrid human–robot teams remain largely unexplored. We focus on the impact of frontline robots’ (FLRs) automated social presence (ASP) on customers’ perceived teamwork quality, and ultimately frontline employees’ (FLEs) competence and warmth. We explore the role of interrogation as a relevant contingency. We complement the customer view with insights into the FLEs’ viewpoint.

Design/methodology/approach

We manipulate FLR’s ASP cues (speech and identity) in a hybrid team in four business-to-consumer (B2C) video-based experiments and collect data from online participants. We combine these with one business-to-business (B2B) field survey which collected data from FLEs working in hybrid teams.

Findings

When FLR’s ASP increases, customers more positively evaluate teamwork quality, ultimately affecting FLEs’ competence and warmth. FLEs who correct (interrogate) robotic mistakes strengthen the positive effect of FLRs’ ASP on teamwork quality. When FLRs correct FLEs, ASP’s effect on teamwork quality is also strengthened, while FLEs are not “punished” for erring. In contrast, FLEs themselves do perceive corrections as detrimental to teamwork quality. We term this the hybrid team evaluation paradox.

Practical implications

We recommend that firms deploy hybrid teams equipped with high-ASP FLRs (name and speech suffice). FLEs should be trained, and FLRs programmed, to appropriately use interrogation. Managers should pay attention to the paradox, given the conflicting perceptions toward interrogative behaviors.

Originality/value

We advance the hybrid teams literature by drawing on ASP, social cognition and collective mindfulness theories and behaviors that ameliorate customer perceptions. Our results support using FLRs to enhance FLEs’ capabilities.

前线的混合人-机器人团队:自动化的社会存在和纠正性审讯的作用
客户对人机混合团队的看法在很大程度上仍未被探索。我们关注一线机器人(flr)的自动社交存在(ASP)对客户感知团队合作质量的影响,并最终影响一线员工(fle)的能力和温暖。我们将探讨审讯作为一种相关偶然性的作用。我们通过洞察企业的观点来补充客户的观点。设计/方法/方法我们在一个混合团队中操纵FLR的ASP线索(语音和身份),进行了四个基于B2C视频的实验,并从在线参与者那里收集数据。我们将这些与企业对企业(B2B)实地调查结合起来,该调查收集了在混合团队中工作的员工的数据。发现当员工满意度的ASP增加时,客户对团队合作质量的评价更加积极,最终影响员工的能力和热情。纠正(询问)机器人错误的员工强化了员工的ASP对团队质量的积极影响。当flr纠正员工时,ASP对团队质量的影响也会增强,而员工不会因为犯错而受到“惩罚”。相反,员工自己确实认为纠正对团队质量有害。我们称之为混合团队评估悖论。我们建议公司部署混合团队,配备高asp flr(名字和语言就足够了)。应对囚犯进行培训,并对囚犯进行编程,以适当地使用审讯。鉴于对疑问行为的相互矛盾的看法,管理者应该注意这种悖论。原创性/价值我们通过借鉴ASP、社会认知和集体正念理论和改善客户感知的行为来推进混合团队文献。我们的结果支持使用flr来增强le的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Service Management (JOSM) centers its scope on research in service management. It disseminates papers showcasing distinctive and noteworthy contributions to service literature, serving as a communication platform for individuals in the service management field, transcending disciplines, functional areas, sectors, and nationalities. The journal publishes double-blind reviewed papers emphasizing service literature/theory and its practical applications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信