Advertisement

It’s the Strength of the Ties: How Multiplex Social Networks Among Frontline Employees Drive Service Performance

  • Miriam Guenther
  • Peter Guenther
  • Simon J. Bell
  • Garry L. Robins
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science book series (DMSPAMS)

Abstract

The service marketing literature has focused its efforts on individual influencing factors and dyadic relationships to explain frontline employees’ customer service behaviour and performance. This paper argues and demonstrates that this scope is too limited, as service employee behaviour and performance is not independent from the broader set of relationships surrounding them. We introduce a social network perspective to the analysis of service performance and distinguish between weaker simple ties and stronger multiplex ties consisting of advice and friendship relations in the studied branch networks of a major Australian bank. We find that it is the density of multiplex ties that predicts the performance-relevant value of social networks in a service setting. This effect is moderated by branch network size so that for larger branches the existence of dense multiplex ties increases performance more strongly than for smaller branches.

Keywords

Social Network Analysis Service Employee Friendship Network Large Branch Bank Branch 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory: Cambridge, Mass. : Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchmson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organisational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Granovetter, M. (1983). The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory, 201-233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: the importance of philos in organizations, The strength of strong ties: the importance of philos in organizations B2 - The strength of strong ties: the importance ofphilos in organizations (pp. 216-239). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  9. Lechner, C., Frankenberger, K., & Floyd, S. W. (2010). Task contingencies in the curvilinear relationships between intergroup networks and initiative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 865-889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lin, N., & Ensel, W. M. (1989). Life stress and health: Stressors and Resources. American Sociological Review, 54(3), 382-399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lincoln, J. R., & Miller, J. (1979). Work and Friendship Ties in Organizations: A Comparative Analysis of Relational Networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 181-199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure: New York : Free Press, c1968. enl. ed.Google Scholar
  13. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240-267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B. (2004). How to Make the Team: Social Networks vs. Demography as Criteria for Designing Effective Teams. [Article]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 101-133.Google Scholar
  15. Robins, G., & Pattison, P. (2006). Multiple networks in organisations: Department of Psychology, The University of Melbourne, Working paper.Google Scholar
  16. Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating Effects of Initial Leader-Member Exchange Status on the Effects of a Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428-436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: a handbook. 2nd ed., London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  18. Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316-325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wellman, B. (1992). Which types of ties and networks provide what kinds of social support?, Advances in group processes (pp. 207-235). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miriam Guenther
    • 1
  • Peter Guenther
    • 1
  • Simon J. Bell
    • 1
  • Garry L. Robins
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of MelbourneKentUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options