Ambidextrous Behavior

PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University
Nijmegen
The following full text is a publisher's version.
For additional information about this publication click this link.

http://hdl.handle.net/2066/111629
Please be advised that this information was generated on 2020-09-13 and may be subject to
change.
Claudia Jasmand, Vera Blazevic, & Ko de Ruyter
Generating Sales While Providing

Service: A Study of Customer
Service Representatives’
Ambidextrous Behavior
Cross- and up-selling in inbound call centers is a growing business practice, with the promise of enhanced rev-
enue generation and customer retention. Yet firms struggle to create conditions that are conducive to customer
service representatives’ (CSRs’) concurrent engagement in service and sales. By developing a framework of the
antecedents and performance consequences of aligned sales and customer service provision, this study advances
understanding of ambidexterity at the employee level. The framework receives strong support from an empirical
study based on CSRs’ survey responses and matched performance data. A CSR’s locomotion orientation facili-
tates ambidextrous behavior and interacts positively with an assessment orientation. However, team identification
and bounded discretion impair this valuable interplay. Ambidextrous behavior also increases customer satisfaction
and sales performance but decreases efficiency. Nevertheless, the overall performance effect is positive.
Keywords: ambidexterity, cross-/up-selling, customer service provision, employee level, regulatory modes
conomic and competitive pressures have sparked of a firm’s total revenues from sales of new products and
E firms’ interest in adding a revenue component to their

costly after-sales support. As a consequence, inbound
call centers have introduced revenue generation as a strate-
services (Eichfeld, Morse, and Scott 2006). Yet recent mar-
ket studies reveal that the actual returns are far below such
optimistic estimates (CSO Insights 2007; International Cus-
gic priority (CSO Insights 2007). Blending sales with ser- tomer Management Institute 2007). Apparently, firms strug-
vice can reap increased revenues and customer retention gle to create conditions that are conducive to a successful
rates. A McKinsey & Co. report points out that inbound alignment between customer service and sales.
call centers have the potential to generate at least 10% Managerial literature is replete with illustrations of the
challenges inbound call centers face (e.g., mycustomer.com,
customerthink.com). Among the most commonly cited is
Claudia Jasmand is a doctoral candidate, Department of Marketing
customer service representatives’ (CSRs’) deeply ingrained
and Supply Chain Management, School of Business and Economics,
view that additional selling is incommensurate with service,
Maastricht University, The Netherlands, and an assistant profes- which creates a high mental barrier to blending the two
sor, Organization and Management Group, Imperial College Busi- tasks. Call centers also observe considerable heterogene-
ness School, Imperial College London (e-mail: c.jasmand@imperial ity in CSRs’ ability to convert service calls into a cross-
.ac.uk). Vera Blazevic is an assistant professor, Institute for Man- or up-sale, which complicates the development of policies
agement Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and guidelines designed to increase average performance
and a visiting professor, Technology and Innovation Management (International Customer Management Institute 2007). Fur-
Group, RWTH Aachen University, Germany (e-mail: blazevic@tim thermore, the newly introduced revenue generation goals
.rwth-aachen.de). Ko de Ruyter is Professor of Marketing, Depart- conflict with the efficiency goals that tend to rule tra-
ment of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, School of Busi- ditional, service-only call centers (Aksin, Armony, and
ness and Economics, Maastricht University, The Netherlands (e-mail: Mehrotra 2007). Firms clearly need an in-depth understand-
[email protected]). The authors thank Richard P. ing of the factors that contribute to CSRs’ ability to align
Bagozzi, Utpal Dholakia, Dhruv Grewal, Amir Grinstein, Venkatesh their service and sales efforts, as well as the subsequent
Shankar, Brian Sternthal, Alex da Mota Pedrosa, Nina Belei, Jan impact on key performance parameters.
Pelser, Uwe Gross, and Philipp Wagner for their helpful comments Extant marketing literature rarely considers the simul-
on previous drafts of this article and Tobias Grossecker for project taneous pursuit of service and sales goals however. Sales
assistance. The authors gratefully acknowledge the constructive literature focuses on the performance effects of sales behav-
guidance of the three anonymous JM reviewers. This article was iors in relationship-oriented contexts (e.g., Plouffe, Hulland,
accepted under Ajay K. Kohli’s editorship. Gary Frazier served as and Wachner 2009), and services literature centers on the
coeditor. service provider’s management of the customer experi-
ence (e.g., Price, Arnould, and Tierney 1995). The few
© 2012, American Marketing Association Journal of Marketing

ISSN: 0022-2429 (print), 1547-7185 (electronic) 20 Vol. 76 (January 2012), 20–37
studies that bridge these literature streams highlight the firm’s ability to pursue the seemingly conflicting goals of
trade-offs involved in service–sales alignment but fail to exploiting existing competencies and exploring new oppor-
explain how to resolve them (e.g., Evans, Arnold, and tunities (Raisch and Birkinshaw 2008). The objective of
Grant 1999). Therefore, we turn to recent research on the exploitation, which includes activities such as refinement,
phenomenon of ambidexterity, which reflects alignment in implementation, and execution, is the creation of efficiency
the pursuit of seemingly conflicting goals. Ambidextrous and reliability. Exploration instead pertains to activities
firms manage the conflicting demands of exploiting exist- such as search, discovery, and risk taking and centers on
ing competencies and exploring new opportunities, and thus flexibility and creating variability (Levinthal and March
they enjoy superior performance (Raisch and Birkinshaw 1993; March 1991).1 Because these two types of tasks
2008). Recent theorizing demonstrates that ambidexterity are separate, nonsubstitutable, and interdependent, firms
ultimately becomes manifest at the employee level (Raisch must find ways to achieve complementarity and carry out
et al. 2009). Ambidextrous employees perform contradic- both (Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004; Levinthal and March
tory activities in their pursuit of multiple goals, such as 1993). Empirical studies provide support for the tenet that
efficiency-oriented routine tasks and variability-increasing ambidexterity enhances a firm’s performance (Raisch and
nonroutine tasks (Mom, Van den Bosch, and Volberda Birkinshaw 2008). Yet the conflicting demands of the two
2009). In a similar vein, CSRs increasingly are expected types of activities (e.g., efficiency vs. flexibility) and their
to fulfill service requests efficiently and reliably while frequent competition for limited resources make it diffi-
also exploring cross-/up-selling opportunities. Despite the cult to be ambidextrous (Gupta, Smith, and Shalley 2006;
importance of the employees’ ability to pursue seemingly March 1991).
conflicting goals, in-depth understanding of their ambidex- Traditionally, firms use structural mechanisms to over-
trous behavior is lacking (Raisch et al. 2009). To address come the tensions in their pursuit of seemingly conflict-
this theoretically and managerially relevant gap, we develop ing goals. They might become ambidextrous by cycling
and empirically validate a framework of the antecedents through periods of these types of activities or develop-
and performance consequences of CSRs’ ambidexterity in ing different subunits that specialize in one or the other
relation to the pursuit of service and sales goals. activity pattern (Gupta, Smith, and Shalley 2006). Recent
This study advances ambidexterity theory in three empirical evidence suggests that contextual mechanisms,
ways. First, we conceptualize CSRs’ ambidextrous behav- such as the creation of appropriate organizational con-
ior to clarify its specific nature and inherently conflict- texts (e.g., concurrent discipline, stretch, support, trust) or
ing demands. Such a clarification is necessary, given the coordination mechanisms (e.g., cross-functional interfaces),
ongoing debate about whether employees can be truly can work as well (Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004; Mom,
ambidextrous (Gupta, Smith, and Shalley 2006; Mom, Van den Bosch, and Volberda 2009). These efforts aim
Van den Bosch, and Volberda 2009) and the need to under- to encourage employees to pursue apparently conflicting
stand CSRs’ ability to complete seemingly contradictory goals and provide them with the behavioral capacities to
tasks. Second, we address the observable heterogeneity think and behave ambidextrously. As Raisch et al. (2009)
in individual CSRs’ ambidextrous behavior by investigat- note, these advances suggest that a firm’s ambidexterity
ing the hitherto unstudied effects of individual motivations is rooted in the employee’s ability to manage disparate
(Raisch et al. 2009). As engaging in ambidextrous behavior task demands and integrate them for cross-fertilization.
poses a self-regulatory and motivational challenge, we draw Accordingly, employees’ ambidextrous behavior shapes
on regulatory mode theory (Kruglanski et al. 2000) and pro- organizational performance; yet a conceptual and empiri-
pose that the joint effect of CSRs’ motivational orientations cally validated understanding of employee-level ambidex-
of locomotion and assessment enhances their ambidextrous terity is lacking (Raisch et al. 2009).
behavior. We also investigate how prevalent structural call The requirements for employees to pursue seemingly
center contingencies, such as team identification (Ashforth conflicting goals simultaneously seems widespread, ranging
and Mael 1989) and bounded discretion (Kelley 1993), may from managers (Mom, Van den Bosch, and Volberda 2009),
influence the valuable interplay of these two motivational to researchers (Markides 2007), to production line workers
orientations. Third, to the best of our knowledge, this study (Adler, Goldoftas, and Levine 1999). Likewise, CSRs are
is the first to assess the performance implications of individ- now asked to provide customer service at constant quality
ual ambidexterity; we conceptualize and empirically test the and low cost and, at the same time, to engage in cross-/up-
validity of the ambidexterity–performance tenet at the per- selling to generate revenues during encounters initiated by
sonal level (Cao, Gedajlovic, and Zhang 2009). We investi- customer service requests. Firms thus shift the responsibil-
gate the specific impact of CSRs’ ambidextrous behavior on ity for managing the dual emphasis on cost reduction and
their performance in terms of customer satisfaction, sales, revenue expansion to CSRs, which complicates the existing
and efficiency, which are of particular interest because of
the commonly observed productivity–quality–revenue trade- 1
“Exploitation” and “exploration” are prevalent umbrella terms
offs in frontline jobs (Marinova, Ye, and Singh 2008). in the organizational literature and refer to various conflicting
demands at different organizational levels (e.g., efficiency and flex-
ibility, search scope and search depth). We thank the anonymous
Theoretical Background reviewer team and the editor for pointing out that these terms have
The notion of ambidexterity has attracted attention from different and inappropriate connotations at the employee level. We
diverse literature, including strategic management, orga- therefore decided to use the terms “customer service provision”
nizational learning and design, and innovation. For this and “cross-/up-selling” for the underlying dimensions of ambidex-
emerging topic, organizational ambidexterity refers to a terity in the context of CSRs’ service–sales alignment.
Generating Sales While Providing Service / 21

productivity–quality trade-off in the front line of the orga- positioning, and closing of a sale largely depend on the
nization (Marinova, Ye, and Singh 2008; Rust, Moorman, nature of service requests and customers and how the con-
and Dickson 2002). versation develops. The uncertainty and variability involved
Customer service provision pertains to CSRs’ activities in cross-/up-selling are detrimental to the reliability and
that aim to help customers fulfill their needs through their efficiency focus of customer service provision; the latter
current product/service consumption portfolios. When pro- may crowd out risk-taking and proactive cross-/up-selling
viding customer service, CSRs respond to incoming cus- efforts. Furthermore, pursuing service and sales goals often
tomer service requests by implementing available, often requires CSRs to trade off the allocation of their time,
prescribed, and standardized problem-solving procedures. effort, and attention to both types of activities (Aksin and
The large call volumes and frequent recurrence of the Harker 1999; Evans, Arnold, and Grant 1999).
same requests enable CSRs to rely on well-practiced pro- Several researchers have questioned the compatibility of
cesses and leverage routinely used knowledge and skills. the constituent dimensions of ambidexterity at the employee
The service conversations are typically structured and partly level (Gupta, Smith, and Shalley 2006; March 1991),
scripted to ensure constant quality and efficiency (Aksin, though others have observed that employees can simultane-
Armony, and Mehrotra 2007; Deery, Iverson, and Walsh ously and sequentially attend to them (Adler, Goldoftas, and
2002). Moreover, assessments of CSRs’ customer service Levine 1999; Mom, Van den Bosch, and Volberda 2009).
provision usually depend on their performance with regard For CSRs, we predict compatibility. Prior literature indi-
to efficiency targets, such as call handling time, and relia- cates that service and sales activities are compatible because
bility and quality targets, measured as customer satisfaction they share common ground. A common set of abilities, such
(Deery, Iverson, and Walsh 2002; Singh 2000). as diagnostic behavior, empathy, and interpersonal adapta-
In contrast, cross-/up-selling refers to CSRs’ activities tion, underlies both of them (e.g., Evans, Arnold, and Grant
that aim to change (i.e., expanding or replacing parts of) 1999; Gwinner et al. 2005; Saxe and Weitz 1982). Previous
customers’ current product/service consumption portfolios, research further suggests that people can simultaneously
in accordance with their needs that cannot be satisfied by perform routine tasks using automatic processes and rely
their current portfolios. Thus, during the service encounters, on controlled processes for their nonroutine tasks (Wegner
CSRs need to search proactively for customer needs and and Bargh 1998). Thus, some customer service activities
ways to satisfy them with a new product or service, dis- might be performed in automatic mode to free up cogni-
cover suitable ways to turn the service into a sales conversa- tive and attentional resources for cross-/up-selling. Conse-
tion, and create and capture sales opportunities (Aksin and quently, we posit that it is possible for CSRs to engage,
Harker 1999; Günes et al. 2010). They also need to lever- simultaneously and/or sequentially, in customer service pro-
age dispersed information to generate knowledge beyond vision and cross-/up-selling during a service encounter.
what the service conversation usually offers and requires, Although service and sales goals are not completely
because effective sales performance depends on an in-depth incompatible in their requirements for underlying abili-
understanding of customer needs (Evans, Arnold, and Grant ties, they seem conflicting in their behavioral demands and
1999; Weitz 1978). Furthermore, the customer’s purchase often compete for CSRs’ resources. As such, engaging in
willingness depends on many factors, such as previous ambidextrous behavior requires CSRs to manage seemingly
satisfaction and financial resources (Günes et al. 2010). conflicting task demands, which poses a substantial self-
This information may not be readily available to CSRs, regulatory and motivational challenge in the process of pur-
which turns cross-/up-selling into a process with uncertain suing multiple goals.
returns and a high risk of failure. Because cross-/up-selling Research into self-regulation has examined how peo-
requires detecting the right product and time to attempt a ple direct attention, resources, and action in goal pursuit
sale (Günes et al. 2010), its success necessitates procedural by dealing with change (i.e., making progress toward the
flexibility. goal) and comparison (i.e., monitoring the progress) (e.g.,
Ambidextrous behavior refers to CSRs’ engagement in Carver and Scheier 2010). In this literature, the two reg-
both customer service provision and cross-/up-selling dur- ulatory mode orientations of locomotion and assessment
ing service encounters. Because customers’ service requests have emerged to reflect the motivational capacity of peo-
initiate the encounters, CSRs must simultaneously per- ple to guide themselves effectively toward important goals
form customer service and cross-/up-sell activities and/or (Higgins, Kruglanski, and Pierro 2003). Regulatory mode
quickly switch between them to display ambidextrous theory views self-regulation as consisting of two inde-
behavior. Such simultaneous pursuit of service and sales pendent dimensions. Locomotion denotes movement away
goals requires CSRs’ to manage fundamentally different, if from a current state, which is independent of the value
not conflicting, behavioral demands. On the one hand, cus- of the current state and its relationship to goals, while
tomer service activities center on explicit service requests, assessment refers to evaluations of current states, goals,
readily available knowledge, and relatively standardized and means and comparisons among them (Kruglanski et al.
processes, emphasizing implementation and execution, akin 2000). Empirical studies show that people reliably differ
to order taking. They involve the repetitious routine and in their preferences for locomotion and assessment, which
structure necessary to achieve the goals of reliability and influences the manner in which they approach tasks, pur-
efficiency. On the other hand, cross-/up-selling activities sue goals, make decisions, evaluate themselves and others,
imply proactive, broad, and nonroutine searches for cus- and deal with challenges (Kruglanski et al. 2010). These
tomer needs, knowledge generation, and creation of oppor- studies also demonstrate that a desire for movement and
tunities, akin to order seeking. They involve risk taking, progress is unrelated to the preference for critical evaluation
flexibility, and uncertain returns because the identification, and comparison, such that a person can be high on both
22 / Journal of Marketing, January 2012

FIGURE 1
Conceptual Framework of Antecedents and Consequences of CSRs’ Ambidextrous Behavior
CSR’s Responses to
CSR’s Motivational CSR’s Performance
Typical Call Center
Orientations Consequences
Characteristics
Customer
(+) satisfaction
Locomotion (+) Ambidextrous (+)

Sales performance
orientation behavior (–)
Team (–) Efficiency

identification
Bounded (–)
discretion
(+)
Assessment
orientation
locomotion and assessment or high or low on one or the Gedajlovic, and Zhang 2009). Complementarity may be
other. Previous research into these motivational orientations reflected differently in various performance parameters (for
indicates that in combination, they lead to superior self- a similar view, see Raisch and Birkinshaw 2008), partic-
regulation in challenging and difficult endeavors, such as ularly given the observed trade-offs among performance
demand for ambidextrous behavior (Kruglanski et al. 2000; outcomes of business units with frontline service jobs
Pierro, Kruglanski, and Higgins 2006). We therefore study (Marinova, Ye, and Singh 2008). Therefore, we consider the
the effects of CSRs’ locomotion and assessment orienta- effects of ambidextrous behavior on the CSR’s performance
tions in regulating their behavior toward seemingly con- in terms of customer satisfaction, sales, and efficiency,
flicting goals. By investigating such individual differences, which are critical performance parameters in inbound call
our study complements existing research that focuses on centers that aim to align service and sales. We provide our
the effects of supporting contextual factors on ambidexter- conceptual framework in Figure 1.
ity (Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004; Mom, Van den Bosch,
and Volberda 2009).
We also consider CSRs’ responses to prevalent struc- Hypotheses Development
tural call center characteristics because self-regulation and Effects of Locomotion and Assessment
motivation in goal pursuit are intertwined with social, sit-
Orientations on Ambidextrous Behavior
uational, and environmental conditions (e.g., Fitzsimons
and Bargh 2004). Inbound call centers typically organize Locomotion orientation. A locomotion orientation consti-
CSRs around team structures to encourage the creation tutes a preference for movement away from a current state
of a collective team identity that motivates performance, (in either an experiential or a psychological sense) when
cooperation, and mutual support (Ashforth, Harrison, and pursuing goals. This preoccupation with moving forward
Corley 2008; Deery, Iverson, and Walsh 2002). Moreover, reflects the desire to choose any activity to work on rather
call center operations focus on standardization, routines, than standing still and waiting to commence the activity
and efficiency. Therefore, work is generally formalized (Higgins, Kruglanski, and Pierro 2003; Kruglanski et al.
with standards and rules that provide guides for work- 2000). Locomotion-oriented people prefer to get started on
flows, tasks, and procedures to encourage CSRs to exercise a task and expend effort to move quickly on to the next
bounded discretion (Aksin, Armony, and Mehrotra 2007; one, and they enjoy being in motion, rather than critically
Kelley 1993). Because team identification and bounded dis- evaluating to determine whether the course of action is in
cretion may create conditions that interfere with the func- the right direction. In other words, their focus is on “get-
tionality of the motivational orientations, we consider these ting on with it” to make things happen (Kruglanski et al.
interactions. 2010). They are intrinsically motivated to engage in activi-
Finally, we investigate the performance implications of ties and tend to perceive such actions as ends in themselves
CSRs’ ambidextrous behavior. To the best of our knowl- rather than means (Higgins, Kruglanski, and Pierro 2003).
edge, this study is the first to assess the validity of the For them, the greater the sense of movement, the more they
ambidexterity–performance tenet at the employee level. feel intrinsically rewarded (Avnet and Higgins 2003). The
The tenet rests on the assumption that customer service popular Nike slogan “Just do it” is an apt reflection of this
provision and cross-/up-selling are complementary (Cao, orientation (Kruglanski et al. 2000).

Ambidextrous behavior is inevitably linked with the Previous research indicates that assessment-oriented peo-
motivation to deal, simultaneously and/or sequentially, with ple have strong self-evaluative concerns; they continuously
disparate task demands in the pursuit of multiple service compare themselves with external standards, such as goals,
and sales goals. High-locomotion-oriented CSRs, with their norms, and other people, and worry about how their perfor-
desire for action and change, may be more motivated to mance will be perceived by others (Higgins, Kruglanski, and
do so. Previous research indicates that high-locomotion- Pierro 2003). An assessment orientation signifies great sen-
oriented people welcome changing conditions and new sitivity to feedback and discrepancies of any kind. Empirical
experiences, react positively to changes in their task envi- studies show that high-assessment-oriented people are bet-
ronment, and prefer a broad variety of tasks, possibly ter at detecting errors and deficiencies, while also coming
because doing different rather than similar things gives up with more alternative means to eliminate such imper-
them a greater sense of progress and movement (Avnet and fections (Kruglanski et al. 2000). Given this enhanced
Higgins 2003; Kruglanski et al. 2007; Pierro, Kruglanski, sensitivity to standards, feedback, and discrepancies, high-
and Higgins 2006). Thus, high-locomotion-oriented CSRs (vs. low-) assessment-oriented CSRs should be more aware
should be more likely to seek switching between (or simul- of their multiple service and sales goals and inclined to
taneously engaging in) fundamentally different activities, assess continuously how their performance measures up
such as closely listening to a customer’s service request and to these standards. With their desire for critical compari-
searching for a sales opportunity, than repeatedly doing the son and evaluation of alternatives, they should be preoccu-
same type of activity. pied with determining the right means, courses of action,
In addition, locomotion-oriented people pay less attention and time needed to achieve each of these goals, because
doing so would reflect positively on them. We expect this
to the potential consequences of their decisions and actions,
enhanced sensitivity to performance gaps in service and
because they prefer to get started quickly on tasks and make
sales goals and concern with ideal choice to purposefully
swift decisions to “make something happen” and keep mov-
guide high-locomotion-oriented CSRs’ resource investments
ing forward (Higgins, Kruglanski, and Pierro 2003; Pierro into customer service and cross-/up-selling activities in
et al. 2008). Thinking less about the implications of activity the direction of the multiple job goals. Such assessment-
engagement should decrease awareness of potentially con- oriented guidance should result in high-locomotion-oriented
flicting outcomes and weaken perceptions of incompatibility CSRs achieving superior levels of ambidextrous behavior.
of activities and goals. Therefore, high-locomotion-oriented We do not expect an assessment orientation to affect
CSRs may be less sensitive and receptive to trade-offs and ambidextrous behavior directly however. Previous stud-
conflicting demands, which is conducive to engaging in ies indicate that high-assessment-oriented people primar-
ambidextrous behavior. Finally, previous research suggests ily form behavioral intentions that lead to successful goal
that people attend more to motivationally salient cues and attainment only if they also have high locomotion concerns
tend to see what they desire to see (Balcetis and Dunning (Higgins, Kruglanski, and Pierro 2003). Research demon-
2006; Lang, Bradley, and Cuthbert 1997). For locomotion- strates that the combined effect of locomotion and assess-
oriented people, every cue that signals an opportunity to do ment orientations results in successful self-regulation in
something is motivationally salient. Because of their urge challenging and difficult endeavors (Kruglanski et al. 2010).
to make use of such opportunities in relative disregard of Effective self-regulation in the pursuit of seemingly con-
personal benefits and costs (Higgins, Kruglanski, and Pierro flicting service and sales goals requires CSRs to be eager
2003), locomotion-oriented CSRs should be more likely to to initiate continuously and keep on performing customer
engage simultaneously and sequentially in customer ser- service and cross-/up-selling activities, while also wisely
vice and cross-/up-sell activities regardless of situational managing their effort and resources.
obstacles, difficulties, or constraints. We thus expect high-
locomotion-oriented CSRs to be more likely to engage in H2 : There is a positive interaction effect of locomotion and
ambidextrous behavior. assessment orientations on ambidextrous behavior, such
that the higher a CSR’s assessment orientation, the
H1 : A CSR’s locomotion orientation is positively related to his stronger is the relationship between a CSR’s locomotion
or her ambidextrous behavior. orientation and ambidextrous behavior.
Assessment orientation. An assessment orientation refers Moderating Effects of CSRs’ Responses to

to a preference for critical comparison of alternative states, Typical Call Center Characteristics
means, and goals to judge their relative worth (Kruglanski Team identification. Team identification refers to a CSR’s
et al. 2000). It reflects a desire for careful analysis to be perception of oneness with or belongingness to the team
accurate and make the ideal choice (Higgins, Kruglanski, (Ashforth and Mael 1989). The CSRs who strongly iden-
and Pierro 2003). In contrast with locomotors, assessment- tify with their team perceive the team’s goals, norms,
oriented people prefer to wait and evaluate all possible and values as their own (Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail
choices thoroughly before deciding how to act. In other 1994; Van Knippenberg 2000). This sense of oneness with
words, they have a tendency to keep thinking without leap- the team guides CSRs to behave in team-typical ways to
ing. In decision making, for example, assessors favor a endorse their team congruent identity (Haslam, Powell, and
strategy that allows them to make as many comparisons as Turner 2000). When the team congruent identity is salient,
possible without reducing the set of alternatives to arrive at CSRs use the team’s goals, norms, and values in regulating
the best decision (Avnet and Higgins 2003). An assessment their behavior, with the aim to conform to a shared team
orientation is reflected in the popular phrase “do the right consensus, enhance well-being, and thereby feel a high
thing” (Kruglanski et al. 2000). belongingness to the team (Ashforth, Harrison, and Corley

2008). Such conformity to consensus reduces the range of H4 : The exercise of bounded discretion weakens the positive
means that can potentially be employed in goal attainment. interaction effect of the locomotion and assessment ori-
The CSRs then engage in team convergent thinking and entations on ambidextrous behavior, such that the positive
reduce active consideration of other possible alternatives in relationship between locomotion orientation and ambidex-
their pursuit of goals. While team identification limits the trous behavior is strongest when a CSR’s assessment ori-
continuous questioning of alternative options, assessment entation is high and exercise of bounded discretion is low.
orientation needs active deliberation and critical reflection
to purposefully guide locomotion behavior, which results Performance Consequences of CSRs’
in greater variability in judgment (Kruglanski et al. 2010). Ambidextrous Behavior
High levels of team identification therefore disrupt the con- For the ambidexterity–performance tenet to hold at the
tinuous, considerate deliberation of alternatives, which is employee level, customer service provision and cross-/up-
central to the assessment orientation. We thus expect that selling should be complementary in their effects on per-
strong team identification reduces the effectiveness of an formance. To provide a first, fine-grained validity test of
assessment orientation in guiding high-locomotion-oriented the ambidexterity–performance tenet for CSRs, we focus
CSRs’ engagement toward ambidextrous behavior. on customer satisfaction, sales performance, and efficiency.
H3 : A CSR’s team identification weakens the positive inter- Customer satisfaction refers to customers’ level of content-
action effect of the locomotion and assessment orienta- ment with the service encounters supplied by the CSR.
tions on ambidextrous behavior, such that the positive Sales performance pertains to the proportion of a CSR’s ser-
relationship between locomotion orientation and ambidex- vice encounters during which the CSR successfully extends
trous behavior is strongest when a CSR’s assessment ori- a customer’s product portfolio in terms of its size and/or
entation is high and team identification is weak. value. Efficiency refers to the average total time a CSR
spends per customer, such that efficiency decreases with
Exercise of bounded discretion. Employees exercising increasing expenditure of time per customer.
bounded discretion perform their job tasks by relying on
(self-)developed routines that are largely based on organiza- Customer satisfaction. We expect cross-/up-selling to
tionally prescribed standards, processes, and rules (Kelley, enhance the effectiveness of customer service provision
Longfellow, and Malehorn 1996). Employees use bounded with regard to customer satisfaction for several reasons.
discretion when they choose a possible action from a pre- First, cross-/up-selling leads to increased knowledge about
scribed list. For example, in call center settings, organi- products and their benefits, which enables CSRs to address
zational trainings, manuals, and other colleagues provide service requests better or faster. Enhanced product knowl-
employees with routine procedures for many tasks. This edge helps CSRs determine when a new product is a
differentiates bounded discretion from stronger types of dis- better solution to the customer’s problem or when it aug-
cretionary behavior, such as creative or deviant discretion, ments solution quality. Knowledge about the product ben-
in which employees develop alternative means that are not efits customers seek can enhance CSRs’ understanding of
formally specified or even engage in counterrole behavior the severity of certain problems for customers, such that
(Kelley 1993). Exercising bounded discretion refers to the they can select more appropriate means to address these
rather strict enactment of routines and implies a structured, problems and better adapt to customers’ emotional states,
well-practiced approach to the work tasks (Kelley 1993). which implies greater service quality and customer sat-
In a self-regulation context, bounded discretion means the isfaction (Brady and Cronin 2001; Hennig-Thurau et al.
deployment of a restricted and predefined number of means 2006). Second, the large call volumes and repetitive nature
in goal pursuit (March and Simon 1958). Because of the of customer service provision may cause CSRs to fall into
limited choice of alternative actions (in contrast with “free an assembly line mode of dealing with customers (Evans,
format” work practice), bounded discretion involves only Arnold, and Grant 1999). Customers perceive lower service
a minimal level of active deliberation (Kelley, Longfellow, quality when treated this way (Brady and Cronin 2001).
and Malehorn 1996). The CSRs exercising high bounded However, cross-/up-selling attempts require CSRs to deal
discretion want to ascertain the flow of activity, while more intensively with customers, listen more closely, and
reducing cognitive effort. This is a common phenomenon acquire a deeper understanding of their needs and experi-
in a highly standardized service environment. Yet, when ence (Evans, Arnold, and Grant 1999). In turn, customers
CSRs strictly follow routines, their assessment orientation might perceive the CSR as more attentive, responsive, and
is disrupted and inhibited. Prior research has shown that authentic, enhancing their quality perceptions and satisfac-
high-assessment-oriented people enjoy a maximum amount tion (Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999). We expect cross-/
of options in goal pursuit and prefer critical comparative up-selling to contribute to the effectiveness of customer ser-
evaluations (Avnet and Higgins 2003). They want their vice provision in shaping customer satisfaction.
task flow to be disrupted by continually considering what
their options are, instead of relying on actions based on H5 : A CSR’s ambidextrous behavior is positively related to
predescribed routines. If these people now strictly follow customer satisfaction.
the routines and, thus, only have a limited set of options,
they are less likely to use their assessment orientation, and Sales performance. Customer service provision should
critical evaluations to find the optimal course of action contribute to the effectiveness of cross-/up-selling with
are inhibited. We thus expect that high levels of bounded regard to sales performance. First, customer service provi-
discretion reduce the effectiveness of the assessment ori- sion involves communication with customers and access to
entation for purposefully guiding high-locomotion-oriented customer information (e.g., database records), which may
CSRs’ engagement in ambidextrous behavior. reveal potentially sales-relevant information and enhance

understanding of the customers’ needs and experience the sales process is not scripted and largely unspecified).
(Evans, Arnold, and Grant 1999). Such insight is impor- As is common in the call center industry, the representa-
tant for effective selling (Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986). tives, who perform their tasks individually, are organized
Customer service provision also could create an elaborate in teams of 8 to 15 CSRs, each led by a team manager.
knowledge structure of customer types and product con- Individual team members and team managers often initi-
sumption portfolios. This knowledge would facilitate the ate team-building activities. Management sets customer sat-
categorization of customers and situations and the iden- isfaction, sales performance, and efficiency goals for the
tification of potential sales opportunities, enhancing sales CSRs and the teams. The set goals result from the call
effectiveness (Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986). Second, the center provider’s negotiations with the different business
adequate handling of service requests may produce favor- lines of the client company, considering industry standards
able customer perceptions of the CSR’s credibility, compe- and benchmarks. Team managers regularly monitor CSR–
tence, and capability to address their needs. Such perceived customer interactions and evaluate the CSRs’ performance
characteristics can serve as bases of influence that under- in one-on-one meetings and team performance in group
lie commonly employed influence tactics in sales situa- meetings. The latter also serve as a platform to share learn-
ing experiences and exchange best practices among team
tions (Weitz 1981). Moreover, proper responses to customer
members.
service requests can induce positive customer reactions
For the survey and performance data collection, we
(Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990), such as reciprocal
obtained approval from the national headquarters and call
behaviors that feature increased sharing of information and center site managers. During this approval process, we
listening to the CSR, creating a fertile ground for sales received helpful suggestions about our questionnaire and
efforts to flourish. We therefore expect customer service data collection. The author team sent e-mail invitations with
provision to contribute to the effectiveness of cross-/up- the link to the online survey in two waves, to which 202
selling efforts. CSRs were randomly assigned. We guaranteed complete
H6 : A CSR’s ambidextrous behavior is positively related to anonymity and confidentiality. Both waves lasted two and
sales performance. a half weeks and took place consecutively. In each wave,
a reminder e-mail followed one and a half weeks later. To
Efficiency. In contrast, we expect efficiency losses to express our gratitude for the CSRs’ participation in the sur-
result from ambidextrous behavior for CSRs, which is detri- vey, we raffled ten individual shopping vouchers and one
mental to inbound call centers’ priority parameters (Aksin, team voucher, which a CSR could win for his or her team,
Armony, and Mehrotra 2007). Prior literature indicates that among the respondents. One month after the survey study,
cross-/up-selling activities, in addition to customer ser- we obtained performance data from the two call center
vice provision, lengthen customer–CSR interactions and sites. The performance data included weekly average call
reduce efficiency at the CSR level (e.g., Aksin and Harker handling time, conversion rate, and customer satisfaction
1999). Moreover, Marinova, Ye, and Singh (2008) find (through customer surveys) for the CSRs who were invited
that employees in service occupations prioritize quality to participate in the study. They covered a period of seven
over efficiency. Accordingly, we expect that ambidextrous weeks, spanning a window of about one week before and
behavior leads to efficiency losses for CSRs. one week after the survey study. We matched the perfor-
mance and survey data using code numbers, which guaran-
H7 : A CSR’s ambidextrous behavior is negatively related to teed anonymity.
efficiency. We obtained answers from 119 CSRs, for a response rate
of 58.9%. The sample consists of 68 female CSRs (57.1%).
The age distribution in the sample (in years) is as follows:
Methodology 18–25 (32.8%), 26–35 (33.6%), 36–45 (19.3%), and >46
Research Setting and Data Collection (14.3%). The CSRs have worked, on average, 2.52 years
(SD = 2053) in the call center industry, .90 years (SD = 1038)
We conducted an empirical study in cooperation with a in the current team, and 1.61 years (SD = 1051) as CSRs
national branch of a global call center provider (i.e., the with cross-/up-selling responsibilities. A comparison of the
company provides call center outsourcing services to client profile of the CSR sample with profiles reported in other
companies). We collected data through an online survey of studies (e.g., Gwinner et al. 2005; Singh 2000) and the
CSRs at two call center sites. These CSRs work for several general CSR population at the call center provider suggests
business lines of a client company that provides telecom- the representativeness of our sample. The respondents are
munication services. As such, there are differences in the almost equally distributed between the two call center sites
product/service portfolios these CSRs represent and the cus- (45.4% and 54.6%) and come from 25 teams. On average,
tomer mix they serve. The CSRs handle typical inbound we had 4.76 respondents per team.
customer service tasks, such as answering incoming ques-
tions and responding to complaints. Technology-supported, Measures
standardized instructions define the process for handling Independent variables. Because measures for customer
most types of customer service requests and problems. As service provision and cross-/up-selling were not available in
part of their daily jobs, these CSRs also should make cross-/ existing literature, we developed new scales in a separate,
up-sale offers to customers. For many calls, they receive extensive, multistage study, following established proce-
product suggestions from the system, but they have latitude dures (Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003). We devel-
in their choice of product and when and how to offer it (i.e., oped initial item pools based on (1) an extensive review of

sales and services literature; (2) interviews with ten CSRs, a product relative to the total number of calls handled by
five team managers, and three customer experience man- the CSR (per week), expressed as a percentage. It does
agers working at one call center site involved in the current not consider value or type of products sold. Call handling
study, as well as in two other sites; and (3) intensive on-site time is the average number of minutes a CSR spent per
fieldwork, including listening in on service and sales calls. customer (call length plus postprocessing time) per week.
The items underwent sorting and judgment tasks, aided For all three data types, we averaged the weekly scores
by six academic experts and two practitioners, to achieve per CSR. To account for variations in performance due to
trimmed and refined item pools. We subjected the remain- call center site and business line characteristics (e.g., nature
ing items to a quantitative study among the CSRs with of products and services, customer mix, and markets), we
cross-/up-selling responsibilities at three call center sites to adjusted these average scores by the goals set for the CSRs,
assess the psychometric properties. The analysis provided as follows: [(achieved score – goal)/goal]. For efficiency,
evidence of convergent and discriminant validity of the two we reversed the sign of this ratio. The final performance
constructs.2 measures represent positively increasing scales for customer
For the other study constructs, we relied on existing satisfaction, sales performance, and efficiency.
scales. The Appendix provides an overview of the items and
corresponding references. To control for possible effects on Checks. To rule out the possibility of systematic effects
our dependent variables, we also measured the CSR’s job on our data and hypothesis testing, we took several mea-
satisfaction (“All in all, I am satisfied with my job”), work sures. We probed for selection and nonresponse bias by
experience as a CSR with cross-/up-selling responsibilities comparing (1) early and late respondents on our key
(e.g., 2.5 years), and general demographics. study variables and respondent profiles, (2) the perfor-
mance levels of respondents and nonrespondents according
Dependent variables. A third-party provider that ran- to the matched performance data, (3) first- and second-wave
domly surveys customers after their interaction with a CSR respondents, and (4) respondents from the two call center
collected the customer satisfaction data. Customers rated sites. None of these comparisons revealed any differences.
their satisfaction with the encounter supplied by the CSR on To minimize common method variance, we followed
a five-point Likert scale ranging from “extremely dissatis- Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff’s (2003) suggestions:
fied” to “extremely satisfied.” We received weekly averages We obtained measures for the dependent variables and
of customer satisfaction per CSR. For sales performance other variables from different sources. We psychologically
and efficiency, we received conversion rate and call han- separated the measures of the independent variables from
dling time data from the call center sites. The conversion those of customer service provision and cross-/up-selling by
rate reflects the number of calls during which the CSR sold placing them into different thematic sections in the ques-
tionnaire, such that they appeared unrelated. Finally, we
protected the CSRs’ anonymity, clarified that the study’s
2
The confirmatory factor analysis with the 12 items for customer purpose was not to evaluate them in any way, and empha-
service provision and cross-/up-selling (see the Appendix) pro- sized our interest in their personal perceptions, opinions,
vided indexes that indicate adequate model fit (Õ2 4535 = 680074, and behavior. Accordingly, we aimed to reduce evaluation
comparative fit index = 0977, Tucker–Lewis index = .972, root apprehension and demands for social desirability.
mean square error of approximation = 0046, and standardized
root mean square residual = 0046). Factor loadings ranged from Measurement Model and Analysis Approach
.663 to .828 and were significant (p < 001). All items loaded on The relatively small sample size (n = 119) and large num-
their designated factor with no significant cross-loadings. Con- ber of items (>40) produced a highly unfavorable item-to-
struct reliabilities for customer service provision (.90) and cross-/ cases ratio. We therefore relied on the partial disaggregation
up-selling (.88) were above the recommended threshold (Bagozzi approach (Bagozzi and Heatherton 1994) to minimize any
and Yi 1988). Average variances extracted (AVE) for customer ser-
loss of information in the latent factors, increase the accu-
vice provision (.61) and cross-/up-selling (.55) were greater than
racy of the parameter estimates (compared with total aggre-
the .50 criterion (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Their square roots
gation), and improve the ratio of sample size to parameter
exceeded the correlation between the two constructs (r = 0058,
estimates (Coffman and MacCallum 2005). An assumption
p > 005) and thus passed Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) test, indi-
cating discriminant validity. We also assessed the extent to which
underlying all methods used to form parcels is unidimen-
the two constructs are distinct from other types of sales and sionality. Our exploratory factor analyses with the original
service behavior: customer-oriented selling (AVE = 061) and sell- number of items for each construct provided evidence that
ing orientation (AVE = 062) (Periatt, LeMay, and Chakrabarty the items loaded on the appropriate factors. We then formed
2004; Saxe and Weitz 1982) and interpersonal adaptive behavior parcels with a random item-to-parcel assignment (Bagozzi
(AVE = 056) and service-offering adaptive behavior (AVE = 055) and Edwards 1998). The Appendix lists the items that form
(Gwinner et al. 2005). The square roots of all AVEs exceeded the respective parcels for each construct. We did not par-
the interconstruct correlations (cross-/up-selling with customer- cel the items for customer service provision and cross-/
oriented selling: r = 0215, p < 005, and with selling orientation: up-selling, which are new scales. To prevent our parceling
r = 0047, p > 005; customer service provision with interpersonal strategy from affecting our model estimations, we repeated
adaptive behavior: r = −0110, p > 005, and with service-offering all the analyses with new item-to-parcel combinations. The
adaptive behavior: r = 0227, p < 005). As expected, these results analyses did not reveal any differences in fit for the mea-
show that customer service provision and cross-/up-selling are surement model or in the pattern of significant structural
empirically distinct from other types of service and sales behavior. parameter estimates.

TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Customer satisfaction 1000
2. Sales performance 004 1000
3. Efficiency −010 −017 1000
4. Customer service provision 044∗∗ 011 −020 1000
5. Cross-/up-selling 010 022∗ −007 −002 1000
6. Ambidextrous behavior 037∗∗ 026∗∗ −018∗ 061∗∗ 078∗∗ 1000
7. Locomotion orientation 006 008 −003 001 035∗∗ 028∗∗ 1000
8. Assessment orientation −006 008 007 −002 006 004 004 1000
9. Team identification 001 005 −017 −001 024∗∗ 018∗ 031∗∗ 008 1000
10. Bounded discretion −003 002 −008 003 −003 000 003 034∗∗ 032∗∗ 1000
11. Age −004 011 −029∗∗ −006 018∗ 010 009 −008 007 004 1000
12. Work experience 021∗ 020∗ 001 004 003 005 −001 −003 −007 −026∗∗ 011 1000
13. Job satisfaction 008 004 −003 003 028∗∗ 023∗∗ 033∗∗ −012 032∗∗ −007 006 −005 1000
M −007 027 001 6029 5068 35070 5072 4018 5055 5049 31098 1060 5037
SD 020 066 020 060 072 5071 065 094 096 086 9099 1050 1036
AVE N.A. N.A. N.A. 061 060 N.A. 074 085 081 069 N.A. N.A. N.A.
Square root of AVE N.A. N.A. N.A. 078 077 N.A. 086 092 090 083 N.A. N.A. N.A.
Composite reliability (CR) N.A. N.A. N.A. 090 090 N.A. 090 095 090 082 N.A. N.A. N.A.
∗
p < 005 (two-tailed).
∗∗
p < 001 (two-tailed).
Notes: For single-item measures, AVE and CR cannot be computed. N.A. = not applicable.
Mardia’s normalized estimate indicates significant multi- Results

variate kurtosis (z = 30799, p < 001); we rely on maximum
We provide an overview of the results in Table 2. Model 1
likelihood robust estimation for our confirmatory factor
includes the effects of the control variables, the first-order
analysis. The indexes suggest adequate fit of the measure-
effects of the variables involved in the two- and three-way
ment model (Õ2 41935 = 2260223, comparative fit index =
interactions, and the effects of ambidextrous behavior on
0979, Tucker–Lewis index = 0975, root mean square error of
the performance outcomes. We add all two-way interactions
approximation = 0038, and standardized root mean square
in Model 2, which results in improved model fit (ãÕ2SB 455 =
residual = 0053). All factor loadings are substantive (>.717) 110152, p < 005). In Model 3, we insert the three-way inter-
and significant (p < 001). There are no cross-loadings, and actions. Adding these interaction terms improves model fit
construct reliabilities range between .82 and .95, above the significantly (ãÕ2SB 425 = 190314, p < 001).
recommended threshold (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Average In support of H1 , the effect of the locomotion orien-
variances extracted (AVE) are greater than .50, and their tation on ambidextrous behavior is significant and pos-
square roots exceed the correlations of all construct pairs. itive (b = 20353, p < 005). In H2 , we predicted that this
Together, these findings indicate the convergent and dis- positive effect would strengthen with increasing levels of
criminant validity of our constructs (Fornell and Larcker assessment orientation. Consistent with our prediction, the
1981). Consistent with our conceptualization and previous locomotion × assessment orientation interaction is signifi-
studies on ambidexterity (e.g., Cao, Gedajlovic, and Zhang cant and positive (b = 20826, p < 005). Furthermore, Model 3
2009; Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004), we multiplied the cus- reveals a significant, negative three-way interaction with
tomer service provision and cross-/up-selling measures to team identification (b = −20136, p < 005), in support of H3 .
construct a measure for ambidextrous behavior that reflects With Figure 2, we probe further into this three-way inter-
the nonsubstitutability and interdependence of its elements. action. When CSRs’ team identification is weak (Panel A),
Table 1 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics, there is a positive interaction between locomotion and
correlations, AVEs and their square roots, and construct assessment orientations. This positive interaction disappears
reliabilities of the constructs. when CSRs strongly identify with their team (Panel B).
We used Mplus 6.0 to test our hypotheses. This software A comparison of both panels shows that CSRs’ locomotion
estimates models involving latent variable interactions with orientation has the most positive impact on ambidextrous
maximum likelihood robust estimation and a version of the behavior when assessment orientation is high and team
latent moderated structural equations method that explic- identification is weak (Panel A).
itly considers the type of nonnormality implied by latent In support of H4 , we find a significant, negative three-
variable interactions and provides standard errors robust way interaction of bounded discretion, locomotion orien-
to nonnormality (Klein and Moosbrugger 2000; Muthén tation, and assessment orientation (b = −50066, p < 001).
and Muthén 2009). To test our hypotheses, we used a In Figure 3, we depict the positive interaction effect of
nested model approach. We compared the models with the two motivational orientations on ambidextrous behav-
the Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square difference test, based ior when the exercise of bounded discretion is low
on the log-likelihood values of the models (Satorra and (Panel A). Yet this interaction weakens when the exercise
Bentler 2001). of bounded discretion is high (Panel B). Consistent with

TABLE 2
Estimated Path Coefficients for Antecedents and Performance Consequences of CSRs’ Ambidextrous Behavior
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Dependent Ambidextrous Customer Sales Ambidextrous Customer Sales Ambidextrous Customer Sales
Variables Behavior Satisfaction Performance Efficiency Behavior Satisfaction Performance Efficiency Behavior Satisfaction Performance Efficiency
Control Variables
Gender 20068 4100145∗ 0013 400365 −0051 401355 −0005 400435 20115 409875∗ 0013 400365 −0051 401355 −0005 400435 20169 409795∗ 0013 400365 −0051 401355 −0005 400435
Work experience 0176 403305 0027 400115∗ 0079 400375∗ 0006 400125 −0111 403415 0027 400115∗ 0079 400375∗ 0006 400125 −0078 403045 0027 400115∗ 0079 400375∗ 0006 400125
Age 0008 400525 −0002 400025 0005 400075 −0005 400025∗ −0009 400485 −0002 400025 0005 400075 −0005 400025∗ 0016 400495 −0002 400025 0005 400075 −0005 400025∗
Job satisfaction 0578 404335 0002 400115 −0004 400515 0004 400105 0388 404355 0002 400115 −0004 400515 0004 400105 0080 403435 0002 400115 −0004 400515 0004 400105
First-Order Effects
Locomotion
orientation (LO) 20353 4101865∗ 20471 4102435∗ 30157 4101965∗∗
Assessment
orientation (AO) 0576 405425 0754 406265 10215 406255
Team identification (TI) 0131 408805 0296 407665 0640 406685
Bounded discretion (BD) −0189 4100265 −10093 4101415 −0569 409585
Two-Way Interactions
LO × AO 20826 4102265∗ 30093 4101935∗∗
TI × LO −0327 4107405 −0196 4101305
TI × AO −10295 409335 −10706 407955∗
BD × LO 20662 4105365 10207 4103585
BD × AO 0207 408885 10788 409345
Three-Way Interactions
LO × AO × TI −20136 4101765∗
LO × AO × BD −50066 4109095∗∗
Ambidextrous behavior 0013 400035∗∗ 0029 400115∗∗ −0006 400035∗ 0013 400035∗∗ 0029 400115∗∗ −0006 400035∗ 0013 400035∗∗ 0029 400115∗∗ −0006 400035∗
Log-likelihood −1,556.822 −1,551.112 −1,543.961
AIC 3,253.645 3,252.224 3,241.922
Adjusted BIC 3,226.886 3,223.554 3,212.487
∗
p < 005.
∗∗
p < 001.
Notes: Table reports unstandardized coefficients, with standard errors in parentheses. Significant coefficients based on one-tailed tests are in bold. AIC = Akaike information criterion, and
BIC = Bayesian information criterion.
FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3
The Moderating Effect of Team Identification The Moderating Effect of CSRs’ Exercise of
Bounded Discretion
A: When CSRs’ Team Identification Is Weak
A: When CSRs’ Exercise of Bounded Discretion Is Low
45
35 45
25 35
15 25
Low assessment orientation
High assessment orientation
5 15
Low assessment orientation
Low Locomotion High Locomotion High assessment orientation
Orientation Orientation 5
Low Locomotion High Locomotion
Orientation Orientation
B: When CSRs’ Team Identification Is Strong
B: When CSRs’ Exercise of Bounded Discretion is High
45
45
35
35
25
25
15 Low assessment orientation
High assessment orientation 15 Low assessment orientation
5 High assessment orientation
Low Locomotion High Locomotion 5
Orientation Orientation Low Locomotion High Locomotion
Orientation Orientation
Notes: Figure shows the simple slopes of locomotion orientation
at 1.5 standard deviations above and below the means of Notes: Figure shows the simple slopes of locomotion orientation
assessment orientation and team identification. The inter- at 1.5 standard deviations above and below the means of
cepts of the simple slopes represent male CSRs and would assessment orientation and bounded discretion. The inter-
shift by 2.169 for female CSRs. cepts of the simple slopes represent male CSRs and would
shift by 2.169 for female CSRs.
our expectation, CSRs’ locomotion orientation has the most

and efficiency (b = −0121, p < 005), providing strong support
positive effect on ambidextrous behavior when their assess-
for H5 , H6 , and H7 .
ment orientation is high and exercise of bounded discretion
With Figure 4, we probe further into these interaction
is low (Panel A).
effects on customer satisfaction and sales performance to
In support of H5 , H6 , and H7 , we find significant, positive depict the nature of complementarity between customer ser-
effects of ambidextrous behavior on customer satisfaction vice provision and cross-/up-selling. Panel A illustrates that
(b = 0013, p < 001) and sales performance (b = 0029, p < 001) high levels of cross-/up-selling augment the effect of cus-
and a significant negative effect on efficiency (b = −0006, tomer service provision on customer satisfaction. Similarly,
p < 005). Because the effects of our multiplicative ambidex- Panel B shows that cross-/up-selling has a strong positive
terity measure as an exogenous variable are potentially effect on sales performance when customer service provi-
biased (Edwards 1994), we explicitly estimated the inter- sion is high. Yet, at low customer service provision levels,
action effects of customer service provision and cross-/ cross-/up-selling tends to harm sales performance. Together,
up-selling on the performance outcomes while control- the results in Table 3 and Figure 4 support our expecta-
ling for their main effects. Table 3 shows the results. We tion that customer service provision and cross-/up-selling
find that adding the two-way interaction of customer ser- enhance each other in terms of effectiveness for customer
vice provision and cross-/up-selling significantly improves satisfaction and sales performance.
model fit (ãÕ2SB 435 = 170788, p < 001). The results also Given the relatively small sample size for the estima-
reveal significant interaction effects of customer service tion of latent variable interactions, we conducted hierar-
provision and cross-/up-selling on customer satisfaction chical ordinary least squares regression analyses to verify
(b = 0174, p < 001), sales performance (b = 0548, p < 005), the robustness of our findings. We find that the pattern and

TABLE 3
Interaction Effects of Customer Service Provision and Cross-/Up-Selling on Customer Satisfaction,
Sales Performance, and Efficiency
Dependent Customer Sales Customer Sales
Variables Satisfaction Performance Efficiency Satisfaction Performance Efficiency
Control Variables
Gender 0024 (.035) −0061 (.136) −0011 (.042) 0036 (.035) −0018 (.129) −0020 (.042)
Work experience 0026 (.010)∗ 0079 (.037)∗ 0007 (.012) 0027 (.010)∗∗ 0082 (.036)∗ 0006 (.012)
Age −0001 (.002) 0005 (.007) −0006 (.002)∗∗ −0001 (.002) 0006 (.006) −0006 (.002)∗∗
Job satisfaction 0008 (.011) −0008 (.051) 0001 (.011) 0010 (.011) −0002 (.050) −0001 (.010)
First-Order Effects
Customer service 0173 (.026)∗∗ 0149 (.109) −0085 (.034)∗ 0137 (.029)∗∗ 0022 (.132) −0058 (.036)
provision (CSP)
Cross-/up-selling 0030 (.031) 0261 (.109)∗ −0006 (.026) 0029 (.030) 0254 (.112)∗ −0006 (.028)
(CUS)
Two-Way Interaction
CSP × CUS 0174 (.053)∗∗ 0548 (.307)∗ −0121 (.067)∗
Log-likelihood −1,352.789 −1,345.899
AIC 2,833.579 2,825.799
Adjusted BIC 2,809.114 2,800.187
∗
p < 005.
∗∗
p < 001.
Notes: Table reports unstandardized coefficients, with standard errors in parentheses. Significant coefficients based on one-tailed tests are in
bold. AIC = Akaike information criterion, and BIC = Bayesian information criterion.
direction of significant coefficients are nearly identical, in levels, our study advances the understanding of employee-
support of our hypotheses.3 level ambidexterity. Theoretical work on ambidexterity
regards its constituent dimensions as mutually exclusive
at the individual level (Gupta, Smith, and Shalley 2006;
Discussion and Implications March 1991); our review of the literature suggests that
Considering the challenges that managers face in their effort they are not completely incompatible in the context of
to create conditions conducive to CSRs’ successful service– CSRs’ service–sales alignment. In support of our propo-
sales alignment, as well as the prevalence of employee sition, Table 1 shows that customer service provision and
requirements for ambidextrous behavior, it is surprising cross-/up-selling are essentially uncorrelated. Employees
that individual-level ambidexterity has not been investi- can engage in nonnegligible levels of ambidextrous behav-
gated more systematically (Raisch et al. 2009). Our study ior; 10% of our sample scored in the upper 15% on the mea-
sure of ambidextrous behavior. Recent empirical research
addresses this theoretically and managerially relevant gap
also has indicated that managers can engage in ambidex-
by investigating antecedents and performance consequences
trous behavior by addressing disparate task demands dur-
of CSRs’ ambidextrous behavior in relation to the pursuit ing a one-year period (Mom, Van den Bosch, and Vol-
of service and sales goals. berda 2009), and our study further highlights a context in
Theoretical Discussion which employees simultaneously engage in seemingly con-
flicting tasks and/or switch between them at “minute inter-
Employee-level ambidextrous behavior. Whereas prior vals” to become ambidextrous. The prevalence and diversity
research has focused on ambidexterity at organizational of contexts in which people are required to act ambidex-
trously leaves much to be clarified regarding how ambidex-
terity becomes manifest at the employee level (e.g., cycling,
3
simultaneity, or both), and why and when it does so.
We conducted four hierarchical ordinary least squares regres-
sion analyses. We regressed ambidextrous behavior on the Facilitators of ambidextrous behavior. Previous research
antecedents and control variables and then entered higher-order has focused on organizational and contextual factors that
terms in separate steps: locomotion orientation (Â = 0217, p < 005), may enable and support employees to become ambidextrous
locomotion × assessment orientation (Â = 0199, p < 005), three-way (e.g., Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004; Mom, Van den Bosch,
interactions with team identification (Â = −0172, p < .05), and and Volberda 2009). Yet, eventually, employees need to
bounded discretion (Â = −0268, p < 005) (R2 = 0285). In the other tackle the self-regulatory and motivational challenge posed
regression analyses, we regressed each performance measure on by the pursuit of seemingly conflicting goals on their own.
the control variables, customer service provision, and cross-/up- Our study underscores the indispensable role of motiva-
selling in the first step and ambidextrous behavior in the second tional orientations with regard to how to pursue goals as
step: the effects of ambidextrous behavior on customer satisfac- an explanation of ambidextrous behavior. In particular, our
tion: Â = 0256, p < 001 (R2 = 0299), sales performance: Â = 0183, results show a positive effect of the locomotion orienta-
p < 005 (R2 = 0132), and efficiency: Â = −0158, p < 010 (R2 = 0152). tion on CSRs’ ambidextrous behavior. This effect becomes

FIGURE 4 analyses reveal that female CSRs engage more in ambidex-
Interaction Effects of Customer Service Provision trous behavior (t41175 = −20546, p < 005) and cross-/
and Cross-/Up-Selling on Customer Satisfaction up-selling (t41175 = −30132, p < 001). Our study of
and Sales Performance antecedents of individual-level ambidextrous behavior
invites further extension studies.
A: Customer Satisfaction
Structural contingencies as moderators. Our study
reveals that CSRs’ responses to typical structural call center
.8 Low cross-/up-selling controls in terms of team identification and bounded dis-
Customer Satisfaction
High cross-/up-selling cretion create motivational conditions that impair the func-
tionality of the motivational orientations for ambidextrous
.4 behavior. These findings underscore the importance of con-
sidering the impact of contextually relevant factors on the
motivational capacity to self-regulate toward ambidextrous
0 behavior at the personal level.
First, whereas extant literature largely highlights the pos-
itive implications of organizational and work group identifi-
–.4
cation for firms (see Ashforth, Harrison, and Corley 2008),
Low Customer High Customer our study reveals that strong team identification impairs the
Service Provision Service Provision
effective interplay of CSRs’ locomotion and assessment ori-
entations, making ambidextrous behavior less likely. When
B: Sales Performance team identification is weak (Figure 2, Panel A), the loco-
motion orientation positively affects ambidextrous behavior
Low customer service for high-assessment-oriented CSRs. Yet, when team iden-
provision tification is strong, convergent thinking and conformity to
.8
High customer service shared consensus reduce active deliberation and critical
questioning. Accordingly, the assessment orientation loses
Sales Performance
provision
its virtue, and the positive impact of the locomotion ori-
.4
entation declines, if not disappears (Figure 2, Panel B).
Although these findings highlight a detrimental effect of
0
team identification, we also note that strong team iden-
tification seems to neutralize the negative effect of the
locomotion orientation for low-assessment-oriented CSRs.
–.4
The psychological attachment to the team and the resulting
desire to enhance the team’s well-being make task engage-
Low Cross-/Up- High Cross-/Up- ment purposeful but fail to guide a locomotion orientation
Selling Selling
toward ambidextrous behavior. However, in the case team
members identify specifically with the team as an ambidex-
Notes: Figure shows the simple slopes of customer service provi- trous unit, with the consensus being that every member
sion (Panel A) and cross-/up-selling (Panel B) at 1.5 standard
should be engaged, the results could be quite opposite,
deviations above and below the means of cross-/up-selling
(Panel A) and customer service provision (Panel B).
which additional research would need to explore.
Second, we find an impairing effect of high bounded
discretion, as the reduced cognitive effort involved in
the routinized flow of activity inhibits the functionality
considerably enhanced when CSRs are also highly assess- of an assessment orientation. Only when the exercise of
ment oriented. Thus, the joint presence of these motivations bounded discretion is low (Figure 3, Panel A) does the
to experience movement and “do the right thing” is con- assessment orientation purposefully guide high-locomotion-
ducive to CSRs’ ambidextrous behavior. Conceptual work oriented CSRs’ task engagement in the direction of their
cites the importance of the motivation to pursue conflicting service and sales goals, leading to ambidextrous behav-
activities and goals (Mom, Van den Bosch, and Volberda ior. When CSRs exercise high levels of bounded dis-
2009). Our study highlights that the locomotion and assess- cretion (Figure 3, Panel B), the assessment orientation
ment orientations jointly embody such motivational capac- becomes ineffective, and the ambidexterity-enhancing effect
ity for CSRs’ pursuit of service and sales goals. In addition, of the locomotion orientation disappears. However, a high
previous empirical research by Kruglanski and colleagues level of bounded discretion also seems to buffer against
(2000, 2007) highlights the relevance of these motivational a negative impact of the locomotion orientation when
orientations for employees who need to master challeng- assessment orientation is low. Routinized compliance with
ing, increasingly complex, and changing job demands. We organizational prescriptions and routines seems to channel
therefore expect the valuable interaction of these orienta- high-locomotion-oriented CSRs’ task engagement, but in a
tions, with their joint emphasis on “just do the right thing,” way seemingly unrelated to ambidextrous behavior. Thus,
to generalize to other contexts in which people must act locomotion and assessment orientations operate at full force
ambidextrously. Other factors might facilitate ambidextrous only at low levels of bounded discretion.
behavior. For example, our control variables suggest that Accordingly, our study highlights the intricacy involved
gender has a significant impact (see Table 2). Post hoc in shaping ambidextrous behavior at the employee level,

as well as the importance of considering how employees’ our sample profile with those in other studies and indus-
motivational orientations interact with their responses to try norms suggests the representativeness of our sample.
proximal work environment characteristics. We focus on Although small samples tend to reduce statistical power
team identification and the exercise of bounded discretion and inflate Type II errors, we still find strong support for
as CSRs’ responses to prevalent call center characteristics; all our theory-grounded hypotheses. Furthermore, we con-
therefore, our study invites further research to study the ducted our empirical study in a single company setting
role of other environmental aspects. An important exten- and therefore ruled out any effects based on company dif-
sion of our study would be to examine factors that might ferences, but this study should be replicated to generalize
compensate for low levels of the assessment or locomotion our findings. Our effort to collect data in two call center
orientation and foster individual ambidextrous behavior. For sites and develop the measurement scales with a separate
example, when explicit reward and compensation plans are study should alleviate some concerns about single-domain
in place and structured in the right way, a locomotion orien- effects. Another avenue for research is the study of CSRs’
tation in the absence of assessment concerns might become ambidextrous behavior in different after-sales support set-
functional to promote goal attainment and ambidexterity. tings. We focused on one-time customer–CSR interactions;
studying ambidextrous behavior in service relationships in
Performance consequences of ambidextrous behavior. To which customers repeatedly interact with the same CSR
the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to investigate would be worthwhile. Further research might also explore
the validity of the ambidexterity–performance tenet at the the nature of the service–sales alignment in industries that
employee level. Our findings reveal the importance of con- market highly complex products, such as turbines, in which
sidering various performance parameters for studying the the complexity of service and selling might be increased to
effects of employees’ ambidextrous behavior. We find that such an extent that it shifts the organizational level at which
CSRs’ ambidextrous behavior leads to superior customer ambidexterity can be pursued. Another promising extension
satisfaction and sales performance, highlighting the comple- of our study could explore how customer- or relationship-
mentary effects of customer service provision and cross-/ related factors, such as reciprocity and trust, interact with
up-selling. However, ambidextrous behavior also results in the variables in our model.
efficiency losses for CSRs, reflecting the apparent tensions
among revenue expansion, quality, and efficiency that pre- Managerial Implications
vious studies have highlighted for macro-organizational lev- For managers who want to tap the full potential of a
els (Marinova, Ye, and Singh 2008; Rust, Moorman, and service–sales alignment in customer service channels, our
Dickson 2002). Does this finding provide counterevidence study offers useful insights and several recommendations.
for the validity of the tenet that ambidexterity leads to The commonly cited observation that CSRs view customer
superior performance? We think not. First, a post hoc anal- service provision as incommensurate with selling seems
ysis with standardized coefficients reveals that ambidex- to reflect their struggle with conflicting task demands. An
trous behavior increases customer satisfaction (B = 0361, awareness of the conflicting demands that CSRs face should
p < 001) and sales performance (B = 0249, p < 001) more encourage service–sales alignment. Our study of moti-
than it decreases efficiency (B = −0163, p < 005). Thus, vational orientations explains some of the heterogeneity
the overall performance effect is positive, which confirms observed in CSRs’ ability to convert service calls to cross-/
the validity of the ambidexterity–performance tenet at the up-selling. During personnel selection, call centers may find
employee level. Second, the gains in customer satisfac- it valuable to assess the motivational orientations of their
tion and sales performance potentially outweigh the effi- job candidates. Because CSRs who are locomotion and
ciency losses at the firm level because customer satisfaction assessment oriented engage in more ambidextrous behav-
and cross-/up-selling result in positive long-term benefits, ior, they seem the best-suited candidates for a service–sales
such as enhanced customer–firm relationships (e.g., Bolton job. Such a person–job fit has additional positive outcomes,
1998). Third, a successful service–sales alignment could such as job satisfaction (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and
lead to efficiency gains at the firm level, greater than the sum Johnson 2005), which can increase customer satisfaction
of the CSRs’ efficiency losses, because it allows for reduced (Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes 2002). In designing CSR train-
investments in traditional cross-/up-selling channels (e.g., ing modules, it seems advisable to stimulate self-regulation
outbound call centers), as well as capitalization on customer- skills. In training sessions, CSRs should be given the oppor-
initiated touch points. Overall, our discussion suggests that tunity to elaborate on their personal motivations and to
individual ambidextrous behavior can have positive perfor- reflect on and discuss how they invest effort and attempt to
mance implications for various organizational levels. Further meet performance standards in the context of service–sales
research should study the levels and conditions at which the alignment. Furthermore, assessing the motivational orien-
performance-enhancing effects of employee-level ambidex- tations of already-employed CSRs would provide valuable
terity unfold. information for intelligent routing. Customers with higher
cross-buying probability could be routed to CSRs with high
Limitations locomotion and assessment orientations; those with low
We recognize that our study is not without limitations, some cross-buying potential should talk with CSRs who are less
of which highlight avenues for further research in addi- successful at aligning their service and sales. Such routing
tion to those already outlined. Our empirical study is based might mitigate efficiency losses for call centers.
on a relatively small sample of CSRs, which may limit Our study also reveals that CSRs’ responses to typical
the generalizability of our findings. Yet a comparison of call center characteristics impair the valuable interplay of

locomotion and assessment orientations, which complicates •Having identified the customers’ exact problem with their
the creation of conditions conducive to successful align- products, I solve it in a reliable way.
ment. Regarding the negative effect of team identification, •I usually listen attentively to customers in order to take appro-
we consider the idea of abolishing team structures or reduc- priate action to handle their concerns regarding their products.
ing team-building efforts in call centers premature. Teams •I usually pay attention to the customers’ questions about their
have administrative advantages and offer social and task products to answer them correctly.
support to team members. Interventions to prevent overiden- •Making sure that I fully understand the reason why the cus-
tomers contact me allows me to better help them with their
tification may be valuable however. When observing strong questions and concerns regarding their products.
team consensus and conformity, team managers may want to
spur critical reflection, divergent thinking, and questioning
among team members during regular team meetings or ad Cross-/Up-Selling (New scale)
hoc individual “stop-and-think” sessions. Managers could During conversation with customers1 0 0 0
stimulate teams to develop a team norm that highly values •I usually explore potential matches between the customers’
active deliberation of alternatives. The exercise of bounded needs and the features of a product which they do not currently
discretion also has a negative effect. In service-only call cen- own.
ters, a certain degree of bounded discretion seems appropri- •I usually gather as much customer information as possible to
ate for the relatively standardized nature of service offerings offer a suitable product to customers.
(Kelley 1993). However, service–sales alignment requires •I usually try to identify good ways of familiarizing customers
greater latitude and more customized service encounters, so with another product that can satisfy their needs.
encouraging more appropriate forms of discretion among •I usually ask questions to assess whether the customers would
CSRs, which also allow for critical thinking and compara- be willing to buy an additional product.
tive evaluations, is worthwhile. •I hardly neglect a good opportunity to advise customers of a
Finally, our study provides some encouraging findings product which they could benefit from.
regarding the performance implications of service–sales •I usually offer an additional product which meets the cus-
tomers’ needs best.
alignment. When CSRs focus on both customer service pro-
vision and cross-/up-selling, they produce increased cus-
tomer satisfaction and revenues. The satisfaction-enhancing Locomotion Orientation (Kruglanski et al. 2000)
effect of aligned sales and customer service provision is Parcel 1
noteworthy and helps prove that the fear that sales efforts •I feel excited just before I am about to reach a goal.
may put customers off is unfounded (CSO Insights 2007; •By the time I accomplish a task, I already have the next one
Eichfeld, Morse, and Scott 2006). However, the result- in mind.
ing efficiency losses imply the need for higher staff lev- •I am a “workaholic.”
els, which lead to more costs for inbound call centers.
Multiskill call centers, which combine inbound and tradi- Parcel 2
tional outbound cross-/up-selling, might offset such costs •When I decide to do something, I can’t wait to get started.
by revising their staffing levels for outbound activities. Nev- •Most of the time my thoughts are occupied with the task I
ertheless, the traditional focus on efficiency as the key wish to accomplish.
performance parameter in inbound call centers is an antithe- •I enjoy actively doing things, more than just watching and
sis to the goals firms try to achieve with service–sales observing.
alignment. Firms should reconsider a strong focus on effi-
ciency because increased customer satisfaction and success- Parcel 3
ful cross-/up-selling may lead to long-term benefits, such as •I am a “doer.”
enhanced customer retention and loyalty. When assessing •When I get started on something, I usually persevere until I
the profitability of a service–sales alignment, firms should finish it.
consider long-term implications in addition to immediately •I don’t mind doing things even if they involve extra effort.
visible efficiency losses.
Assessment Orientation (Kruglanski et al. 2000)
Appendix Parcel 1
Overview of Measures •I like evaluating other people’s plans.
•I am a critical person.
All items were measured with seven-point Likert scales •I often critique work done by myself or others.
ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
Parcel 2
Customer Service Provision (New scale)
•I often feel that I am being evaluated by others.
During conversation with customers1 0 0 0
•When I meet a new person I usually evaluate how well he or
•I usually try to calm complaining customers, so that we can she is doing on various dimensions (e.g., looks, achievements,
jointly handle their complaints about their products. social status, clothes).
•I usually provide solutions to customers’ concerns related to •I spend a great deal of time taking inventory of my positive
the products they currently own. and negative characteristics.

Parcel 3 •When someone criticizes my team, it feels like a personal
•I am very self-critical and self-conscious about what I am insult.
saying.
•I often think that other people’s choices and decisions are Bounded Discretion (Kelley, Longfellow, and
wrong. Malehorn 1996)
•I often compare myself with other people. Parcel 1
•I use routine procedures to complete my job tasks when
Team Identification (Adapted from Mael and
possible.
Ashforth 1992)
•I consult my colleagues for ways to complete my job tasks
Parcel 1 when necessary.
•My team’s success is my success. •I consult organizational manuals for the right way to complete
•When I talk about my team, I usually say “we” rather than my job tasks when necessary.
“they.”
Parcel 2
•When someone praises my team, it feels like a personal
compliment. •I try to develop a routine for each of the typical duties involved
in my job.
Parcel 2 •I decide how to perform my job duties based on training I have
•I am very interested in what others think about my team. received.
REFERENCES
Adler, Paul S., Barbara Goldoftas, and David I. Levine (1999), Bolton, Ruth N. (1998), “A Dynamic Model of the Duration of the
“Flexibility versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Customer’s Relationship with a Continuous Service Provider:
Changeovers in the Toyota Production System,” Organization The Role of Satisfaction,” Marketing Science, 17 (1), 45–65.
Science, 10 (1), 43–68. Brady, Michael K. and Joseph Cronin Jr. (2001), “Some New
Aksin, O. Zeynep, Mor Armony, and Vijay Mehrotra (2007), Thoughts on Conceptualizing Perceived Service Quality: A
“The Modern Call Center: A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Hierarchical Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (July),
Operations Management Research,” Production and Operations 34–49.
Management, 16 (6), 665–88. Cao, Qing, Eric Gedajlovic, and Hongping Zhang (2009),
and Patrick T. Harker (1999), “To Sell or Not to Sell: “Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Con-
Determining the Trade-Offs Between Service and Sales in tingencies, and Synergistic Effects,” Organization Science,
Retail Banking Phone Centers,” Journal of Service Research, 2 20 (4), 781–96.
(1), 19–33. Carver, Charles S. and Michael F. Scheier (2010), “Self-
Ashforth, Blake E., Spencer H. Harrison, and Kevin G. Corley Regulation of Action and Affect,” in Handbook of Self-Regu-
(2008), “Identification in Organizations: An Examination of lation: Research, Theory, and Applications, 2d ed., K.D. Vohs
Four Fundamental Questions,” Journal of Management, 34 (3), and R.F. Baumeister, eds. New York: The Guilford Press, 3–21.
325–74. Coffman, Donna L. and Robert C. MacCallum (2005), “Using
and Fred Mael (1989), “Social Identity Theory and the Parcels to Convert Path Analysis Models Into Latent Variable
Organization,” Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 20–39. Models,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40 (2), 235–59.
Avnet, Tamar and E. Tory Higgins (2003), “Locomotion, Assess- CSO Insights (2007), Sales Performance Report 2007: Call Center
ment, and Regulatory Fit: Value Transfer from ‘How’ to Marketing & Sales Optimization Study, Jim Dicky and Berry
‘What,’ ” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39 (5), Trailer, eds. Boulder: CSO Insights.
525–30. Deery, Stephen, Roderick Iverson, and Janet Walsh (2002), “Work
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Jeffrey R. Edwards (1998), “A Gen- Relationships in Telephone Call Centres: Understanding Emo-
eral Approach for Representing Constructs in Organization tional Exhaustion and Employee Withdrawal,” Journal of Man-
Research,” Organizational Research Methods, 1 (1), 45–87. agement Studies, 39 (4), 471–96.
and Todd F. Heatherton (1994), “A General Approach Dutton, Jane E., Janet M. Dukerich, and Celia V. Harquail (1994),
to Representing Multifaceted Personality Constructs: Applica- “Organizational Images and Member Identification,” Adminis-
tion to State Self-Esteem,” Structural Equation Modeling, 1 (1), trative Science Quarterly, 39 (2), 239–63.
35–67. Edwards, Jeffrey R. (1994), “The Study of Congruence in Orga-
and Youjae Yi (1988), “On the Evaluation of Structural nizational Behavior Research: Critique and a Proposed Alterna-
Equation Models,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci- tive,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
ence, 16 (1), 74–97. 58 (1), 51–100.
Balcetis, Emily and David Dunning (2006), “See What You Want Eichfeld, Andy, Timothy D. Morse, and Katherine W. Scott
to See: Motivational Influences on Visual Perception,” Journal (2006), “Using Call Centers to Boost Revenue,” The McKinsey
of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (4), 612–25. Quarterly, (May), 1–7.
Bitner, Mary Jo, Bernard H. Booms, and Mary Stanfield Tetreault Evans, Kenneth R., Todd J. Arnold, and John A. Grant (1999),
(1990), “The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and “Combining Service and Sales at the Point of Customer Con-
Unfavorable Incidents,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), tact: A Retail Banking Example,” Journal of Service Research,
71–84. 2 (1), 34–49.

Fitzsimons, Gráinne M. and John A. Bargh (2004), “Automatic , Antonio Pierro, Tory E. Higgins, and Dora Capozza
Self-Regulation,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, (2007), “ ‘On the Move’ or ‘Staying Put’: Locomotion, Need
Theory, and Applications, R.F. Baumeister and K.D. Vohs, eds. for Closure, and Reactions to Organizational Change,” Journal
New York: The Guilford Press, 151–70. of Applied Social Psychology, 37 (6), 1305–1340.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Struc- , Erik P. Thompson, Tory E. Higgins, M. Nadir Atash,
tural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Mea- Antonio Pierro, James Y. Shah, and Scott Spiegel (2000), “To
surement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), ‘Do the Right Thing’ or to ‘Just Do It’: Locomotion and Assess-
39–50. ment as Distinct Self-Regulatory Imperatives,” Journal of Per-
Gibson, Christina and Julian Birkinshaw (2004), “The sonality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 793–815.
Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organi- Lang, Peter J., Margaret M. Bradley, and Bruce N. Cuthbert
zational Ambidexterity,” Academy of Management Journal, (1997), “Motivated Attention: Affect, Activation, and Action,”
47 (April), 209–226. in Attention and Orienting, P.J. Lang, R.F. Simons, and M.T.
Günes, Evrim D., O. Zeynep Aksin, E. Lerzan Örmeci, and Balaban, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
S. Hazal Özden (2010), “Modeling Customer Reactions to 95–135.
Levinthal, D.A. and James G. March (1993), “The Myopia of
Sales Attempts: If Cross-Selling Backfires,” Journal of Service
Learning,” Strategic Management Journal, 14 (Winter), 95–112.
Research, 13 (2), 168–83.
Mael, Fred and Blake E. Ashforth (1992), “Alumni and Their
Gupta, Anil K., Ken G. Smith, and Christina E. Shalley
Alma Mater: A Partial Test of the Reformulated Model of Orga-
(2006), “The Interplay Between Exploration and Exploitation,”
nizational Identification,” Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4), 693–706.
13 (2), 103–123.
Gwinner, Kevin P., Mary Jo Bitner, Stephen W. Brown, and Ajith March, James G. (1991), “Exploration and Exploitation in Orga-
Kumar (2005), “Service Customization Through Employee nizational Learning,” Organization Science, 2 (1), 71–87.
Adaptiveness,” Journal of Service Research, 8 (2), 131–48. and Herbert A. Simon (1958), Organizations. New York:
Harter, James K., Frank L. Schmidt, and Theodore L. Hayes John Wiley & Sons.
(2002), “Business-Unit-Level Relationship Between Employee Marinova, Detelina, Jun Ye, and Jagdip Singh (2008), “Do Front-
Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A line Mechanisms Matter? Impact of Quality and Productivity
Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (2), 268–79. Orientations on Unit Revenue, Efficiency, and Customer Satis-
Haslam, Alexander S., Clair Powell, and John C. Turner (2000), faction,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (March), 28–45.
“Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and Work Motivation: Markides, Costas (2007), “In Search of Ambidextrous Professors,”
Rethinking the Contribution of the Group to Positive and Sus- Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4), 762–68.
tainable Organizational Outcomes,” Applied Psychology: An Mom, Tom J.M., Frans A.J. van den Bosch, and Henk W. Volberda
International Review, 49 (3), 319–39. (2009), “Understanding Variation in Managers’ Ambidexterity:
Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Markus Groth, Michael Paul, and Investigating Direct and Interaction Effects of Formal Structural
Dwayne D. Gremler (2006), “Are All Smiles Created Equal? and Personal Coordination Mechanisms,” Organization Science,
How Emotional Contagion and Emotional Labor Affect Service 20 (4), 812–28.
Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (July), 58–73. Muthén, Linda K. and Bengt O. Muthén (2009), Mplus User’s
Higgins, E. Tory, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Antonio Pierro (2003), Guide, 5th ed. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
“Regulatory Mode: Locomotion and Assessment as Distinct Netemeyer, Richard G., William O. Bearden, and Subhash Sharma
Orientations,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (2003), Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Thousand
M.P. Zanna, ed. New York: Academic Press, 293–344. Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
International Customer Management Institute (2007), “Call Center Periatt, Jeffrey A., Stephen A. LeMay, and Subhra Chakrabarty
Management Review: 2007 Call Center Cross-Selling Survey (2004), “The Selling Orientation–Customer Orientation
Report,” International Customer Management Institute, CMP (SOCO) Scale: Cross-Validation of the Revised Version,”
Media. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 24 (1),
Kelley, Scott (1993), “Discretion and the Service Employee,” 49–54.
Pierro, Antonio, Arie W. Kruglanski, and E. Tory Higgins (2006),
Journal of Retailing, 69 (1), 104–126.
“Regulatory Mode and the Joys of Doing: Effects of ‘Loco-
, Timothy Longfellow, and Jack Malehorn (1996), “Orga-
motion’ and ‘Assessment’ on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Task-
nizational Determinants of Service Employees’ Exercise of
Motivation,” European Journal of Personality, 20 (5), 355–75.
Routine, Creative, and Deviant Discretion,” Journal of Retail-
, Susanne Leder, Lucia Mannetti, Tory E. Higgins, Arie
ing, 72 (2), 135–57. W. Kruglanski, and Antonio Aiello (2008), “Regulatory Mode
Klein, Andreas and Helfried Moosbrugger (2000), “Maximum Effects on Counterfactual Thinking and Regret,” Journal of
Likelihood Estimation of Latent Interaction Effects with the Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (2), 321–29.
LMS Method,” Psychometrika, 65 (4), 457–74. Plouffe, Christopher R., John Hulland, and Trent Wachner
Kristof-Brown, Amy L., Ryan D. Zimmerman, and Erin C. John- (2009), “Customer-Directed Selling Behaviors and Perfor-
son (2005), “Consequences of Individuals’ Fit at Work: A Meta- mance: A Comparison of Existing Perspectives,” Journal of the
Analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization, Person-Group, Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (4), 422–39.
and Person-Supervisor Fit,” Personnel Psychology, 58 (2), Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, and Nathan
281–342. P. Podsakoff (2003), “Common Method Biases in Behavioral
Kruglanski, Arie W., Edward Orehek, Tory E. Higgins, Anto- Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recom-
nio Pierro, and Idit Shalev (2010), “Modes of Self-Regulation: mended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5),
Assessment and Locomotion as Independent Determinants in 879–903.
Goal Pursuit,” in Handbook of Personality and Self-Regulation, Price, Linda L., Eric J. Arnould, and Patrick Tierney (1995),
R.H. Hoyle, ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell-Wiley, 375–402. “Going to Extremes: Managing Service Encounters and

Assessing Provider Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 59 Smith, Amy K., Ruth N. Bolton, and Janet Wagner (1999),
(April), 83–97. “A Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service Encoun-
Raisch, Sebastian and Julian Birkinshaw (2008), “Organizational ters Involving Failure and Recovery,” Journal of Marketing
Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators,” Jour- Research, 36 (August), 356–72.
nal of Management, 34 (3), 375–409. Van Knippenberg, Daan (2000), “Work Motivation and Perfor-
, , Gilbert Probst, and Michael L. Tushman (2009), mance: A Social Identity Perspective,” Applied Psychology: An
“Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and International Review, 49 (3), 357–71.
Exploration for Sustained Performance,” Organization Science, Wegner, Daniel M. and John A. Bargh (1998), “Control and Auto-
20 (4), 685–95. maticity in Social Life,” in The Handbook of Social Psychol-
Rust, Roland T., Christine Moorman, and Peter R. Dickson (2002), ogy, D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, and L. Gardner, eds. New York:
“Getting Return on Quality: Revenue Expansion, Cost Reduc- McGraw-Hill, 446–96.
tion, or Both?” Journal of Marketing, 66 (October), 7–24. Weitz, Barton A. (1978), “The Relationship Between Salesper-
Satorra, Albert and Peter M. Bentler (2001), “A Scaled Differ- son Performance and Understanding of Customer Decision
ence Chi-Square Test Statistic for Moment Structure Analysis,” Making,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (November),
Psychometrika, 66 (4), 507–514. 501–516.
Saxe, Robert and Barton A. Weitz (1982), “The SOCO Scale: A (1981), “Effectiveness in Sales Interactions: A Contin-
Measure of the Customer Orientation of Salespeople,” Journal gency Framework,” Journal of Marketing, 45 (Winter), 85–103.
of Marketing Research, 19 (August), 343–51. , Harish Sujan, and Mita Sujan (1986), “Knowledge, Moti-
Singh, Jagdip (2000), “Performance Productivity and Quality of vation, and Adaptive Behavior: A Framework for Improving
Frontline Employees in Service Organizations,” Journal of Mar- Selling Effectiveness,” Journal of Marketing, 50 (October),
keting, 64 (April), 15–34. 85–103.

Ambidextrous Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ambidextrous Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ambidextrous Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University

The following full text is a publisher's version.

For additional information about this publication click this link.

Generating Sales While Providing

E firms’ interest in adding a revenue component to their

© 2012, American Marketing Association Journal of Marketing

Generating Sales While Providing Service / 21

22 / Journal of Marketing, January 2012

Locomotion (+) Ambidextrous (+)

Team (–) Efficiency

Generating Sales While Providing Service / 23

Assessment orientation. An assessment orientation refers Moderating Effects of CSRs’ Responses to

24 / Journal of Marketing, January 2012

Generating Sales While Providing Service / 25

26 / Journal of Marketing, January 2012

Generating Sales While Providing Service / 27

Mardia’s normalized estimate indicates significant multi- Results

28 / Journal of Marketing, January 2012

B: When CSRs’ Exercise of Bounded Discretion is High

our expectation, CSRs’ locomotion orientation has the most

30 / Journal of Marketing, January 2012

Generating Sales While Providing Service / 31

32 / Journal of Marketing, January 2012

Generating Sales While Providing Service / 33

34 / Journal of Marketing, January 2012

Generating Sales While Providing Service / 35

36 / Journal of Marketing, January 2012

Generating Sales While Providing Service / 37

You might also like