Examining the Drivers and Performance Implications of Boundary Spanner Creativity

Abstract

For organizations implementing a value-added model, creative boundary spanners can improve service behaviors and overall performance. Advancing Amabile’s componential framework, which underscores the importance of contextual factors and their interaction with individual factors in generating creative responses in a service environment, we develop a model of boundary spanners’ creativity. Outlining how boundary spanner skills and abilities influence performance and service outcomes via creativity, we paint a more complete picture of the creativity process and offer meaningful contributions to service research and practice. Testing the model using employee and manager data matched with archival performance metrics, we find that knowledge, emotional intelligence (EI), and managerial feedback predict boundary spanner creativity. We also uncover a significant interaction between knowledge and EI, and evidence that creativity significantly impacts performance and customer problem solving, a key component of overall service quality. Finally, we underscore the importance of managerial feedback in strengthening the link between creativity and performance.

Keywords

boundary spanner creativity frontline employees customer problem solving emotional intelligence manager feedback service interactions

Within the last decade, service has taken a more dominant role in nearly all business transactions (Vargo and Lusch 2004). Given the increasing importance of service, firms are beginning to hire and train boundary-spanning employees who have responsibilities to both internal (e.g., managers) and external (e.g., customers) stakeholders. Indeed, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008) reports that boundary-spanning employees are among the largest segments of the workforce, and one that is expected to grow 18.7% by 2018.

The growth of the service industry has stimulated intense competition. In response, boundary spanners must seek innovative ways to develop relationships, create value, and maintain high customer service levels (Arndt, Karande, and Landry 2011). Research suggests that boundary spanners create value when they uncover customer needs, offer pragmatic solutions, and help customers achieve goals (e.g., Franke and Park 2006). For example, boundary-spanning employees who adapt to the relationship-oriented business environment can act as consultants and leverage their expertise to offer customized solutions. Such solution-centric or consultative approaches require that boundary spanners become problem solvers.

Boundary spanner creativity is central to securing customer satisfaction and gaining a competitive advantage (e.g., Strutton, Pentina, and Pullins 2009). Research indicates that developing customized solutions to customer problems requires creative thinking (Wang and Netemeyer 2004) and that creative employees more readily identify customers’ needs (Coelho, Augusto, and Lages 2011). Clearly, boundary spanners can leverage creativity to nurture and stimulate customer relationships. However, to fully understand the scope of employee creativity, scholars must: (1) determine the personal/situational factors that influence individual creativity (e.g., Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham 2004; Zhou and George 2001), and (2) identify and examine the consequences of employee creativity (e.g., Wang and Netemeyer 2004). The purpose of this study, therefore, is to investigate the factors that influence boundary spanner creativity and how creative behaviors influence performance and service outcomes.

Our research extends previous work in several ways. First, we develop a service-specific, solution-centric model of creativity and include a broader range of antecedents, as suggested by Amabile (1982, 1983). In doing so, we respond to the suggestion that “researching the drivers of creativity in service settings seems to be of the utmost importance” (Coelho and Augusto 2010, p. 427). Second, we align our framework with Amabile’s interaction perspective and follow recommendations that research investigate the joint effects of personality and situational characteristics on creativity (e.g., Coelho and Augusto 2010). We study the direct and interactive effects of knowledge, emotional intelligence (EI), and managerial feedback on creativity.

Third, we examine the causal chain of creativity as both an exogenous construct and an endogenous construct. As Table 1 depicts, most boundary spanner research positions creativity as the outcome of organizational or interpersonal variables. This perspective paints an incomplete picture, especially given the relationship between creativity and performance (Wang and Netemeyer 2004). We feature creativity as the lynchpin of our conceptual framework, which depicts how personal and situational variables influence performance outcomes via creativity.

Table 1.

Literature Review With Boundary Spanner Creativity as Focal Construct.

Study	Sample	Creativity Treatment	Antecedents (A)/Outcomes (O)	Findings
Ganesan and Weitz (1996)	Managers in retail buying organizations	Endogenous variable	A = Affective commitment; intrinsic motivation (direct and indirect)	Affective commitment and intrinsic motivation directly influences retail buyers’ creative behaviors; intrinsic motivation indirectly impacts creative behaviors through affective commitment.
Van Dyne, Jehn, and Cummings (2002)	Personal service providers	Endogenous variable	A = Work stress; family stress	Family stress impedes employee creativity as perceived by their supervisors; LMX reduces the impact of family and work stress on employee creativity.
Wang and Netemeyer (2004)	Real estate agents; Ad salespeople	Scale development	NA	Nomological validation of salesperson creativity construct through presenting its correlations with adaptability, service performance, learning, self-efficacy, competitiveness, job satisfaction, autonomy, and performance.
Madjar and Ortiz-Walters (2008)	Personal service providers	Endogenous variable	A = Customer feedback; customer affective-based trust	Customer feedback and trust positively influence employee creativity as perceived by customers.
Coelho and Augusto (2010)	Hospital frontline employees	Endogenous variable	A = Task autonomy (direct and interactive); task: variety, identity, feedback, significance (direct and interactive)	Task autonomy has a positive influence on creativity; task variety, identity, and feedback each moderate the relationship between task autonomy and creativity.
Gong et al. (2012)	Retail store employees	Endogenous variable	A = Proactive personality (indirect); information exchange with supervisor, trust relationship with customers (direct)	Employees with a proactive personality are more likely to exchange information with customers and gain their trust; relationships high on trust lead to increased employee creativity.
Slåtten and Mehmetoglu (2011)	Hotel frontline employees	Endogenous and exogenous variable	A = Empowerment; familiarity with company vision; commitment; O = innovative behaviors	Empowerment, familiarity with the company vision, and commitment significantly increase employee creativity; employee creativity leads to the demonstration of innovative behaviors.
Sousa and Coelho (2011)	Retail banking frontline employees	Endogenous variable	A = Personal values; organizational commitment; customer orientation	Personal values, organizational commitment, and customer orientation drive employee creativity; self enhancement, and conservation moderates the relationship between organizational commitment and creativity.
Coelho, Augusto, and Lages (2011)	Hospital frontline employees	Endogenous variable	A = Job complexity, relationship at work (direct and indirect); role stress, intrinsic motivation (direct)	Intrinsic motivation, role conflict, job complexity, and customer relationships positively influence creativity; role ambiguity and work relationships impede creativity; role stress; and intrinsic motivation partially mediate the effects of job complexity and work relationships on creativity.

Note. LMX = leader-member exchange.

Our approach parallels the service-dominant (S-D) logic (Vargo and Lusch 2004), which suggests that boundary spanners should provide customers with services and resources that contribute to their learning and produce value. Through service, “additional opportunities become available for the supplier to further improve the design of the relationship experience and enhance co-creation with customers” (Payne, Storbacka, and Frow 2008, p. 86). Thus, we propose that creative boundary spanners will be better suited to identify customer needs and solve customer problems.

Fourth, we examine the moderating role that managerial feedback, a key source of employee motivation that influences creativity both directly and interactively (Coelho and Augusto 2010), plays in the relationship between creativity and performance outcomes. We posit that managers can leverage creativity to enhance performance by providing explicit feedback to employees.

Finally, a key contribution stems from our sample and empirics. Although creativity research has suffered from common method concerns and self-report measures, our research contains multiple data sources. Using responses from managers and employees, as well as objective performance data, we employ a partial least squares (PLS) methodology to test direct and interactive effects of the drivers of the creativity-performance relationship in an empirically and conceptually rich framework. This dyadic data and analytical approach allows us to interpret the results with greater confidence, thus providing practical and actionable applications for managers.

Theoretical Background and Model Development

Presenting a comprehensive view of creativity, Amabile (1983, p. 360) posited, “a product or response will be judged creative to the extent that (a) it is both a novel and appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable response to the task at hand and (b) the task is heuristic rather than algorithmic.” A novel idea is either entirely new or combines existing ideas in a new way (Oldham and Cummings 1996). This view expanded the conceptualization of creativity by: (1) depicting the construct as a dynamic process rather than a static attribute; and (2) emphasizing that contextual factors can interact with individual characteristics to influence creativity (Amabile 1988, 1996).

Because creativity is not a dichotomous trait (i.e., an employee either possess it or does not possess it), the componential framework (Figure 1) is well suited to the organizational context. Specifically, it identifies three major contributors to individual creativity: (1) domain-relevant skills and abilities, which comprise one’s knowledge and expertise that positively influence individual and organizational resources (Amabile 1996); (2) creativity-relevant skills and abilities, which involve “a cognitive style characterized by a facility in understanding complexities and an ability to break set during problem solving” (Amabile 1983, p. 364); and (3) task motivation, which determines how an individual approaches an assignment (Amabile 1983).

Figure 1.

Theoretical basis: Adapted from Componential Conceptualization of Creativity by Amabile (1982).

Notably, the componential framework recognizes the complexity of operationalizing the creativity construct and suggests that researchers use a different definition when studying product creativity versus response creativity (Amabile 1996). Although it can be difficult to identify product creativity based on its attributes, individuals can typically identify and agree upon a creative response to a problem (Amabile 1983).

The componential framework is specifically well suited to boundary spanners because their roles are, by nature, customer need–driven and specific. When interacting with customers, boundary spanners typically begin by identifying a problem and then recall and reactivate stored information relevant to that problem. They then simultaneously search their internal memory and external surroundings to generate responses, weigh the possible responses against factual knowledge, and produce a final offering that is fresh and innovative.

Boundary spanners’ jobs are largely unstructured and often self-governed, especially with regard to client interaction. While this job profile presents challenges, it also affords opportunities to delight customers in unconventional ways. Clichés like “go above-and-beyond” and “think outside-of-the-box” understate what is a truly unique process. Because there is no one-size-fits-all template for boundary spanners, how frequently they take creative paths or produce creative products is often considered more important than the process itself (Wang and Netemeyer 2004). Further, given their decision-making latitude and self-regulation, boundary spanners are often appropriate judges of their own creativity. Accordingly, we adopt Wang and Netemeyer’s (2004, p. 806) operationalization of boundary spanner creativity as “the amount of new ideas generated and novel behaviors exhibited” while performing specific job activities.

Based on the literature, we introduce three antecedents to boundary spanner creativity: knowledge, EI, and managerial feedback. We include knowledge because employee creativity is dependent upon job-specific knowledge (Eder and Sawyer 2007), a domain-relevant skill within creativity’s componential framework (Amabile 1983). We include EI because of calls to study employee creativity in relation to affect (e.g., Amabile et al. 2005; Zhou and George 2003) and positive emotions (Mayer, Roberts, and Barsad 2008), and because EI is pivotal in customer interactions (e.g., Kidwell et al. 2011), especially when creative solutions are expected (e.g., Lassk and Shepherd 2013). Finally, boundary spanners rely on performance feedback to gain understanding about their jobs (Coelho and Augusto 2010). Their task motivation depends upon understanding both the reasons for performing the task and the factors affecting the performance of that task (Amabile 1983). Thus, managerial feedback is important to this framework.

Our contextual and personal variables align broadly with service research, and specifically with service climate research. Service climate, which includes work facilitation and intra-organizational service quality (Schneider, White, and Paul 1998), influences service employees’ behavioral responses (Liao and Chuang 2004), which, in turn, enhance job performance (Schneider, Macey, and Young 2006). Salanova, Agut, and Peiro (2005) suggest including organizational (e.g., managerial practices, performance feedback) as well as personal and psychological factors (e.g., work engagement, affective responses) when studying service climate. Our interactive examination of contextual and personal predictors fulfills this research call. We offer that boundary spanners can possess the requisite knowledge and EI, but lack the necessary support (e.g., managerial feedback) required to perform adequately and creatively.¹

Building on Figure 1, we examine these creativity antecedents and offer a more complete and fully integrated conceptual model (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Hypothesized model with results.

Domain-Relevant Skills: Knowledge and Creativity

For boundary spanners, domain-relevant skills include technical knowledge and service skills. We operationalize knowledge as boundary spanners’ technical (product and applications) and market knowledge (customer preferences and competitors’ actions) (Agnihotri, Rapp, and Trainor 2009). Our approach parallels Mumford, Whetzel, and Reiter-Palmon (1997), who argue employee creativity should be explored in relation to the specific job environment.

Verbeke, Dietz, and Verwaal (2011) found that a boundary spanner’s ability to act as a “knowledge-broker” was the dominant factor for determining success. Further, the service literature suggests that boundary spanner knowledge is among the attributes most responsible for improved service behaviors (Darian, Wiman, and Tucci 2005). Similarly, Stock and Hoyer (2005) argued that boundary spanner knowledge is essential for transforming customer-oriented attitudes and adaptive approach into actual behaviors. Rapp et al. (2006) found that boundary spanner knowledge supports working-smart behaviors. Considering that knowledgeable employees feel confident to practice customer-oriented behaviors (Baldauf and Cravens 2002), they should be motivated to perform creative behaviors. Moreover, knowledge should enhance the capability to be creative during customer interactions. Because an innovative idea is a package of existing ideas compiled and combined in an original way, greater knowledge provides boundary spanners with a greater ability to develop such original combinations.

Hypothesis 1: Boundary spanners’ knowledge will positively influence their creativity.

Creativity-Relevant Skills: EI and Creativity

Although initial creativity work focused on the cognitive path, Zhou and George (2003) extended the framework by positing that emotional experiences influence the creative process. We propose that positive and negative emotions can spark the creative process merely by increasing the scope of the cognitive material from which employees can draw.

EI refers generally to “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Salovey and Mayer 1990, p. 189). In a marketing-specific conceptualization, Kidwell and colleagues (2011, p. 78) offer that “emotional intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge from one’s emotions and those of others to produce beneficial outcomes.” This viewpoint involves the “recognition and use of one’s own and others’ emotional states to solve problems and regulate behaviors” (Salovey and Mayer 1990, p. 189). Researchers postulate that basic psychological processes (e.g., perceiving emotions) provide the foundation for more advanced processes (e.g., utilizing that emotion; Mayer and Salovey 1997). This, in turn, directly influences individual creativity and adaptability (Zhou and George 2003).

Given the complex nature of their job, high pressure situations, and customer service interactions, handling emotions is particularly relevant for boundary spanners. EI allows boundary spanners to effectively perform customer-oriented tasks (e.g., Rozell, Pettijohn, and Parker 2006), which influences both performance and customer relationships (Kidwell et al. 2011). Moreover, in organizational contexts, EI underlies an employee’s ability to creatively solve problems. For example, Bardzil and Slaski (2003) suggest that by enhancing their interpersonal competencies, service employee EI positively influences the overall organizational service climate. Given that service climate involves the facilitation of work and intra-organizational service quality (Schneider, White, and Paul 1998), it is important to consider the role of EI in a service context. Creativity allows boundary spanners to implement unique solutions to complex customer situations, and EI helps them to understand and channel customer emotions toward problem recognition and creative idea generation.

Hypothesis 2: Boundary spanners’ EI will positively influence their creativity.

Task Motivation: Managerial Feedback and Creativity

Employee task motivation largely depends upon understanding the reasons for performing the task and those factors that may affect its performance (Amabile 1983). In this research, task motivation is represented by managerial feedback or communication from a superior to a subordinate regarding the quality of that subordinate’s job performance (Boshoff and Mels 1995).

Manager behaviors and leadership styles are organizational factors that can stimulate or subdue employee creativity (Oldham and Cummings 1996). De Stobbeleir, Ashford, and Buyen (2011) argue that employees’ feedback-seeking behaviors influence creativity, while Zhang and Bartol (2010) find that leaders’ encouragement of creativity moderates the relationship between empowerment and creative process engagement. The underlying logic is that manager behaviors interact with personal and contextual variables to influence employee creativity (George and Zhou 2007).

Employees tend to internalize, recalibrate, and act upon managerial feedback. Notably, it is the feedback itself rather than the nature of the feedback (positive or negative) that increases motivation (Coelho and Augusto 2010). When boundary spanners feel empowered, in control of their jobs, and in-tune with the organization, they become a unique source of ideas (Bowen and Lawler 1992). Moreover, managerial feedback provides a foundation for a service climate wherein employees perceive service quality as a key objective (Schneider, White, and Paul 1998). Thus, with managerial feedback, boundary spanners become internally motivated toward successful task completion, and therefore, should perform creatively during customer exchanges.

Hypothesis 3: Managerial feedback will positively influence boundary spanners’ creativity.

Interaction Perspective

According to Amabile’s (1983, p. 358) framework, creativity should be studied “not as a personality trait or a general ability but as behaviors resulting from particular constellations of personal characteristics, cognitive abilities, and social environments.” Therefore, the componential model of creativity focuses on the interaction of situational variables with individual cognitive abilities and personality characteristics. Service research has adopted this model (e.g., Coelho and Augusto 2010) to predict boundary spanners’ creativity.

At the individual level, creativity depends on inherent cognitive abilities and perceptual skills. Domain-relevant skills depend upon organizational training (Pettijohn, Pettijohn, and Taylor 2002) and the organizational environment, such as a climate where customer problem solving is expected and appreciated (Liao and Chuang 2004). Task motivation factors are key differentiators between what an individual can and will do. We propose that what employees are able to do in terms of creativity is largely determined by their domain-relevant (i.e., knowledge) and creativity-relevant skills (i.e., EI). But, what employees will do in terms of creativity is determined by their knowledge and EI in conjunction with factors that facilitate an intrinsically motivated state. Therefore, we explore the interactive effects of personal and situational factors on creativity.

Feedback and EI

Creativity-relevant skills and abilities are amenable to external variables such as behavioral training, exposure to situations, and idea generation (Amabile 1983). Researchers highlight the importance of management support, suggesting it has complimentary effects on employee creativity (e.g., Zhou and George 2003). In contexts where emotional personal interactions are common, organizational and managerial support is important for motivating employees to generate creative ideas (Lages and Piercy 2012). Additionally, social psychology research underscores the importance of self-monitoring as a catalyst for EI, positing that individuals use “available feedback to monitor and gauge reactions to their behaviors” (Prati et al. 2003, p. 24). In our context, manager feedback should help boundary spanners better understand the work environment and develop a sense of which aspects of their personal interactions are effective and which require improvement. Thus, boundary spanners who act on EI should benefit from the availability of managerial feedback.

Hypothesis 4a: The relationship between EI and creativity will be stronger for boundary spanners who receive greater manager feedback.

Feedback and Knowledge

Domain-relevant skills, such as technical knowledge, are affected by various organizational systems (Pettijohn, Pettijohn, and Taylor 2002). For example, when boundary spanners receive performance feedback, “they learn and obtain a better understanding of their jobs, and this fosters their domain-relevant skills” (Coelho and Augusto 2010, p. 429). In the context of prepurchase and postpurchase service interactions where an employee has constant pressure to perform and serve customers, manager feedback can play a substantive role in the relationship between knowledge and creativity. When receiving managerial feedback, boundary spanners can better utilize their cognitive and perceptual skills to build creative customer solutions.

Hypothesis 4b: The relationship between knowledge and creativity will be stronger for boundary spanners who receive greater manager feedback.

Knowledge and EI

The optimal utilization of knowledge requires boundary spanners to envision customer encounters, categorize potential clients, and determine suitable strategies to deal with specific clients (Leong, Bush, and John 1989). Boundary spanners can supplement their knowledge by assessing changes in customers’ emotions and regulating their own emotions and behaviors. Zhou and George (2003) found that high EI individuals are more capable of facilitating the cognitive processes at the root of problem and opportunity identification, and boundary spanners possessing more knowledge have better developed cognitive skills (Jones, Chonko, and Roberts 2003). Therefore, we posit that EI will help boundary spanners utilize their knowledge to develop creative solutions:

Hypothesis 4c: The relationship between knowledge and creativity will be stronger for boundary spanners with greater EI.

Knowledge, EI, and Feedback

Building from the logic underlying the componential creativity framework which suggests that the level of creativity varies “as a function of the levels of each of the three components” (Amabile 1983, p. 367), we also predict a three-way interaction between the antecedents. Specifically, we offer that knowledge, EI, and manager feedback should have a multiplicative influence on boundary spanner creativity.

Hypothesis 4d: The relationship between knowledge and creativity will be stronger for boundary spanners with greater EI, and who receive greater manager feedback.

Outcomes of Creativity: Influence on Boundary Spanner Customer Problem Solving

Service quality is a broad construct with several underlying dimensions (Parasuraman, 1994; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988). Notably, at a retail organization level, problem solving is considered as a key dimension (Dabholkar, Thorpe, and Rentz 1996) and an important determinant of overall service quality (Bettencourt and Brown 2003). Although organizational service climate might dictate dimensions such as policy and physical aspects, customer problem solving is specific to the individual (i.e., boundary spanner) rather than the organization.

Customer problem solving refers to the behavioral process by which boundary spanners recognize and respond to customer issues (Basadur, Graen, and Green 1982). Inherent in this definition is the implementation of the solution, meaning a customer problem is not “solved” until a tangible action occurs. Problems manifest themselves to service employees in myriad ways, but how they respond to the problem often determines service encounter success. For instance, if improperly managed, complaints can not only damage the customer-employee relationship but can negatively impact the employee’s personal commitment to future service (Bell and Luddington 2006). However, while problems may lower service quality and even cause a service failure, they also provide opportunities for service recovery, which may not only salvage a service encounter but strengthen the relationship (Hart, Heskett, and Sasser 1990).

Literature affirms that successful service encounters depend on the ability and willingness of employees to solve customers’ problems (Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990). For example, Mehta, Lalwani, and Han (2000) found that the ability to manage customer complaints and handle exchanges/returns was critical to overall customer service. Bettencourt, Gwinner, and Meuter (2001, p. 31) contend that employees who utilize diverse strategies in service situations are better equipped with “constructive insights into service problems and oppor-tunities.”

Basadur, Graen, and Green (1982) outline three creative problem-solving stages: finding the problem, solving the problem, and implementing the solution. Problem solving is a part of the creativity process and should allow boundary spanners to engage in higher levels of service (Wang and Netemeyer 2004). Thus, we posit that overall service ratings will improve because creative boundary spanners are better suited to solve customer problems.

A second link between creativity and problem solving is the fact that customer-centric frontline employees are more likely to feel intrinsic pleasure in serving customers than their non-customer-centric counterparts (Franke and Park 2006). If creative boundary spanners are more knowledgeable and have higher EI, they will be more customer-oriented (Baldauf and Cravens 2002). Consequently, their service encounters will stimulate them intellectually and increase the joy they experience when performing their jobs. Boundary spanners who consistently develop innovative ideas should be more invested in, and consequently more committed to, seeing these solutions through to completion. Therefore, we posit a two-part mechanism underlying the relationship. First, creative boundary spanners are better equipped with the intellectual tools to solve customer problems. Second, creative boundary spanners should be more driven to realize the result of their creative solution.

Hypothesis 5: Boundary spanners’ creativity will positively influence their customer problem solving.

Outcomes of Creativity: Influence on Boundary Spanner Performance

Boundary spanners constantly face complex situations and problems that require creativity (Sousa and Coelho 2011). Creativity enables boundary spanners to unravel customers’ problems and satisfy their special needs. This, in turn, enhances customers’ perceptions of the service encounter (Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990). Wang and Netemeyer (2004) suggest that the ability to utilize different and unique perspectives can be instrumental in achieving job objectives. Further, satisfaction and customer delight may result when the problem is solved using more creative methods.

Therefore, boundary spanner creativity should positively impact job performance. Job performance refers to how well boundary spanners meet their individual goals (i.e., percentage of quota) established by the organization. Creative employees will attempt to look at the situation from a fresh perspective and explore innovative ways to configure solutions. Further, the dynamic and unstructured nature of prepurchase service provides boundary spanners with more flexibility to pursue creative routes. Therefore, highly creative individuals should be better suited to initiate and facilitate relationships and thus achieve high levels of performance.

Hypothesis 6: Boundary spanners’ creativity will positively influence their performance.

Outcomes of Creativity: Moderating Role of Manager Feedback

Boundary spanners operate in an environment which requires they meet both objective performance outcomes and customer expectations. Managerial input is an important indicator of their goal achievement (Jaworski and Kohli 1991). While we predict that manager feedback will directly influence creativity, we also posit that feedback will influence the relationships between creativity and customer problem solving, and between creativity and objective performance.

This logic is based on two premises. First, manager feedback acts as a motivator (Coelho and Augusto 2010). Proper feedback, like empowerment, inspires confidence, which not only motivates employees to be more creative but to utilize their creativity toward solving customer problems (Kelly, Longfellow, and Malehorn 1996). Confident employees with consistent feedback are likely to be more flexible, as customer needs change over time (Scott and Bruce 1994). Creative boundary spanners with confidence from manager feedback are able to respond more quickly to customer concerns, have more meaningful customer interactions, and most importantly, offer more innovative solutions (Bowen and Lawler 1992). These, in turn, should positively influence boundary spanners’ overall performance.

Second, feedback can positively impact how boundary spanners fulfill their organizational roles (Jaworski and Kohli 1991), which is important because of the multifaceted nature of the job. Boundary spanners engage in a balancing act, constantly juggling different and often unrelated activities. We predict that manager feedback will help them maintain consistency and perspective in terms of role requirements.

Feedback regarding productivity, performance, or other important assessment criteria should enable boundary spanners to channel their creative endeavors in the right direction—customer needs and performance. Therefore, we predict an interaction such that a creative boundary spanner with consistent feedback from management will be better suited to solve and respond to customer needs than that same creative employee who does not benefit from manager feedback. Similarly, managerial feedback will help boundary spanners realize opportunities and enhance their capabilities, thus strengthening the positive relationship between creativity and performance. Formally stated,

Hypothesis 7a: The relationship between creativity and customer problem solving will be stronger for boundary spanners who receive greater manager feedback.

Hypothesis 7b: The relationship between creativity and performance will be stronger for boundary spanners who receive greater manager feedback.

Influence of Customer Problem Solving on Performance

Relationship marketing and S-D logic both point to the importance of customer service and service quality. We further the S-D perspective by highlighting the prominence of customer service behaviors in the creation of value, and extend relationship marketing by examining both buyer and seller perceptions of that value. The value creation process involves a “sustained joint effort” among both parties (Möller and Törrönen 2003, p. 110). Customers perceive value through “service- and relationship-related benefits;” alternatively, boundary spanners gain value through enhancing performance (Agnihotri et al. 2012, p. 336).

Quality service impacts customers’ perceptions toward the company as well as their intention to continue the relationship (Weitz and Bradford 1999). However, the relationship between customer service and performance requires closer investigation. Organizational service quality is closely linked to financial profits (e.g., Liao and Chuang 2004). This research examines the role of boundary spanners in the service encounter by measuring their ability to solve problems and the associated effects on their performance.

Hunter and Perreault (2007) highlight subjective assessments (e.g., relationship quality, customer satisfaction, and trust) as having a great impact on objective performance. Research shows that competitive service behaviors are necessary to create value for both organizations and customers (Ahearne, Jelinek, and Jones 2007). Boundary spanners who are able to quickly and effectively solve customer problems provide quality service. Quality service is instrumental in creating a positive customer-employee relationship and garnering “share of customer” (Ahearne, Jelinek, and Jones 2007). Continually developing and sustaining such relationships through high levels of service and creative problem solving should not only increase share of customer, but ultimately result in higher performance. Conversely, profits can quickly deteriorate when customers defect due to unsolved problems (Reichheld 1996). Therefore, it follows that boundary spanners’ ability to solve problems will support their effective performance.

Hypothesis 8: Boundary spanners’ customer problem-solving behaviors will positively influence their performance.

Methodology and Results

Sample

To test the hypothesized relationships, we collected data from a business-to-business telecommunications organization. Employees’ main responsibilities include prepurchase service interactions and postpurchase service interactions. These boundary spanners are responsible for developing and maintaining long-term customer relationships that sustain the revenue stream. Key responsibilities include acquiring new clients, retaining/renewing current customer contracts, and servicing existing clients. They secure prospects by analyzing potential customer needs and presenting service solutions they can offer. Collecting data from one firm allowed us to control against extenuating variables (e.g., control systems and reward mechanisms), the evaluation criteria of manifold performance measures, and boundary spanners’ use of technology (Podsakoff et al. 2000).

Respondents were contacted through an online survey. A survey pretest was performed with managers (outside of the business unit studied) to assess the appropriateness of questions and wording. Minor changes were made to ensure that questions were phrased appropriately for the telecommunications industry.

Data were collected in two phases. In Phase I, we distributed the survey instrument to all boundary spanners in the unit. To garner a higher response, managers encouraged their employees to participate. One hundred fifty-eight employees received the survey and 107 returned completed forms (78%). In Phase II, a questionnaire was distributed among employees’ direct managers. Managers were asked to indicate the level of knowledge and ability to solve customer problems for each of their direct subordinates. In the past, service researchers have utilized managers’ evaluation of employees’ service behaviors to avoid common method bias (e.g., Bettencourt and Brown 1997), and this has been found to be an accurate assessment of knowledge, skills, and abilities. Overall, the dyadic data consist of 107 boundary spanners and 19 managers. There was no middle layer of control between boundary spanners and managers in the organization. Because boundary spanners report directly to their assigned managers, we believe the manager’s assessment of them helps prevent response bias and provides us with a second source of data, as well as richer results.

After data were appropriately coded, we collected an objective performance measure from company records, which was matched with each boundary-spanning employee. By incorporating three data sources, we hope to avoid concerns of same source bias and parameter inflation within our estimation.

Measures

All multi-item scales used in this research were adopted from existing research. Table 2 contains all items, their loadings, and construct reliabilities. Table 3 contains all latent construct correlations.

Table 2.

Construct Items, Loadings, and Reliability Statistics.

Item and Construct Information for First-Order Appraisal of Emotion self	Loading	α	CR	AVE
I like to share my emotions as I experience them	0.936	.81	0.89	0.72
I am aware of my emotions as I experience them	0.663
I believe that emotions make life worth living	0.926
Item and construct information for first-order appraisal of emotion other
I am aware of the nonverbal messages other people send	0.802	.80	0.88	0.71
Looking at their facial expressions, I recognize the emotions people are experiencing	0.849
I know what other people are feeling just by looking at them	0.876
Item and construct information for first-order regulation of emotion
I have control over my emotions	0.831	.76	0.86	0.67
I present myself in a way that makes a good impression on others	0.726
When I experience a positive emotion, I know how to make it last	0.898
Item and construct information for first-order utilization of emotion
When I am in a positive mood, solving problems is easy	0.862	.78	0.87	0.69
When I am in a positive mood, I am able to come up with new ideas	0.852
I compliment others when they have done something well	0.779
Item and construct information for second-order emotional intelligence
Appraisal of emotion-self	0.945	.92	0.93	0.54
Appraisal of emotion-other	0.689
Regulation of emotion	0.951
Utilization of emotion	0.935
Item and construct information for creativity
I make sales presentations in innovative ways	0.762	.85	0.88	0.53
I carry out sales tasks in ways that are resourceful	0.812
I come up with new ideas for satisfying customer needs	0.642
I generate and evaluate multiple alternatives for novel customer problems	0.681
I have fresh perspectives on old problems	0.785
I improve methods for solving a problem when an answer is not apparent	0.695
I generate creative selling ideas	0.682
Item and construct information for customer problem solving
When a customer has a problem, this SR shows a sincere interest in solving it	0.937	.85	0.90	0.77
This SR willingly handles customer concerns and challenges	0.900
This SR handles customer complaints directly and immediately	0.773
Item and construct information for manager feedback
My supervisor always gives me a positive feedback when I perform well	0.861	.87	0.92	0.80
My supervisor lets me know about it when I perform poorly	0.845
My supervisor points it out to me when my productivity is not up to par	0.973
Item and construct information for knowledge
This SR is knowledgeable about our company and its products	0.836	.90	0.93	0.72
This SR is knowledgeable about market (customers’ preferences, competitors’ actions)	0.728
This SR keeps abreast of the marketing strategies of our competitors	0.863
This SR knows all the specifications and applications of our products	0.896
This SR has a lot of information on industry trends	0.893

Note. CR = construct reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; SR = sales representative.

Table 3.

Latent Construct Correlations.

		M	(A)	(B)	(C)	(D)	(E)	(F)	(G)	(H)	(I)	(J)
(A)	Creativity	5.78	1
(B)	Emotional intelligence	5.95	.541	1
(C)	Knowledge	5.56	.444	.536	1
(D)	Performance (% of quota)	60.01	.254	.121	.254	1
(E)	Problem solving	4.97	.286	.241	.528	.344	1
(F)	Utilize emotion	6.13	.493	.935	.522	.037	.144	1
(G)	Feedback	5.92	.460	.486	.398	.197	−.008	.490	1
(H)	Other appraisal	5.28	.292	.689	.405	.185	.446	.480	.164	1
(I)	Regulate emotion	5.69	.502	.951	.488	.130	.199	.877	.508	.581	1
(J)	Self appraisal	6.09	.583	.945	.484	.104	.146	.886	.500	.522	.872	1

The focal construct, creativity, was treated as a reflective measure with 7 items adopted from Wang and Netemeyer’s (2004) scale. This scale assesses the amount and frequency with which boundary spanners provide creative solutions and engage in imaginative behaviors. We measured boundary spanners’ perception of their own creativity, which aligns with previous research (e.g., Ganesan and Weitz 1996) including studies of frontline employee creativity (e.g., Coelho, Augusto, and Lages 2011).

The multidimensional construct, EI, was measured using a shortened version of Schutte et al.’s (1998) scale, which has been implemented in the frontline employee context (Rozell, Pettijohn, and Parker 2006). Conceptually, all four dimensions are necessary to capture the nature of the EI construct. Accordingly, we treated EI as a second-order reflective construct with the four dimensions serving as first-order formative constructs (e.g., Barchard and Christensen 2007). This approach is appropriate when “the intercorrelations among first-order factors form a system of interdependence (or covariation) that is itself important in measuring the construct” (Stewart and Segars 2002, p. 39).

Manager feedback was captured using three reflective items adopted from the Jaworski and Kohli (1991) scale, and refers to assessments from the boundary spanner’s immediate manager. Scale items were anchored at 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Some research argues that manager feedback assessed at the individual level should be aggregated to the manager level. Accordingly, our assessment at the individual level attempts to capture the dyadic nature in which managers interact with boundary spanners.

In application to a service context, the boundary spanner’s job includes handling complaints and concerns. Considering the contractual trade between the firm and customers in the surveyed organization, it is important for managers to track employees’ service behaviors. Keeping this in mind, managers were asked to evaluate boundary spanners’ problem solving. Our measurement approach corresponds to the relationship marketing literature that emphasizes manager-reported evaluation of frontline employees’ subjective performance (Hunter and Perreault 2007). Also, it has been argued that supervisors who are in “direct and continuous interaction” with boundary spanners should be better able to evaluate such role-prescribed behaviors (Bettencourt and Brown 1997, p. 45). Customer problem solving was measured using a 3-item scale adapted from Dabholkar, Thorpe, and Rentz (1996), which captures employees’ problem solving within a retail environment. We modified the items to align with the employees’ ability to solve customers’ problems in a business-to-business environment. We asked supervisors to assess each boundary spanner relative to her or his peers. Knowledge was also reported by managers. It was measured using 5-items from Behrman and Perreault’s (1982) scale. These Likert-type scale items were anchored at 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

The outcome, individual performance, was assessed as percentage of quota, which refers to the total sales brought to a close by an individual relative to the organization’s target for that individual. Percentage of quota is a strong measure of individual performance because it captures measureable task performance output and accounts for environmental factors (Churchill, Ford, and Walker 1990).

Analytical Strategy

To take advantage of the benefits of structural equation modeling and to model both formative and reflective constructs, we adopted a PLS approach (Hulland 1999). We first fit a linear effects model that amounts to the hypothesized model depicted in Figure 2, minus the interactions. This model was fit in order to examine the measurement properties and test linear relationships. Next, to test interactive effects, we followed a two-step score construction procedure by calculating and including the multiplicative terms in a second model. To test the significance of our findings, we conducted a bootstrapping procedure (200 runs) that estimates the sampling distribution of a statistic by using the resampling method.

To assess whether managers systematically report employees as higher/lower on the knowledge and problem-solving measures, it is necessary to test whether significant differences exist across managers. To do this, we conducted an analysis of variance test using the managers as the factor levels and problem solving and knowledge as the dependent measures. Our analyses yielded insignificant results for both problem solving (F = .848; p < .640) and knowledge (F = 1.017; p < .450). These analyses indicate that managers do not have differing degrees of severity or leniency of their ratings and that our analysis is not subject to errors stemming from non-independence of errors. It is possible that extraneous factors other than manager biases could have impacted these scores (e.g., more difficult customer base across individuals); however, we would not expect these differences to be systemic in nature or to confound this measurement approach.

Evaluation of Structural Model and Testing of Hypotheses

To begin our structural equation analysis, we first examined the model’s linear effects and uncovered that knowledge (H₁: γ = .173; p < .05), EI (H₂: γ = .331; p < .05), and manager feedback (H₃: γ = .246; p < .05) significantly influenced creativity. In addition to supporting the associated hypotheses, these results provide evidence that our operationalization of Amabile’s (1982) framework is sound.

As outlined above and suggested by Amabile (1982), it is important to adopt an interactionist perspective regarding the three proposed antecedents. We found that although manager feedback had a direct effect on creativity, it did not moderate the influence of EI (H_4a: β = −.160; p = ns) or knowledge (H_4b: β = −.110; p = ns) on creativity. Interestingly, we did uncover an interactive relationship between EI and knowledge (H_4c: β = .285; p < .01). This relationship suggests that a greater level of creativity is achieved when both domain-relevant and creativity-relevant skills and abilities are in place. However, we did not find a significant three-way interaction between these antecedents, lending no support for H_4d (β = −.020; p = ns).

Our final set of results examines the related outcomes of creativity and potential interactive effects. We found that creativity significantly influenced both customer problem solving (H₅: β = .287; p < .01) and performance (H₆: β = .166; p < .01). The direct effect of customer problem solving on performance was also significant (H₈: β = .291; p < .01), confirming our three linear relationships. Although not hypothesized, it was necessary to examine the linear effect of manager feedback on both customer problem solving and performance prior to testing the interactive effects. Manager feedback did significantly influence performance (β = .156; p < .05) but not customer problem solving.

Finally, we examined the interactive effects of manager feedback and creativity on customer problem solving and performance. We found that manager feedback exerted a significant influence on the relationship between creativity and performance (H_7b: β = .290; p < .05) but not on customer problem solving. To interpret the nature of the interactions, we plotted the relationships using the information from the hypothesized model analyses. We plotted the relationship between predictor and the dependent variable that corresponded to the average, low (one SD below the mean) and high (one SD above the mean) values of the moderator (see Figure 3, Panels A and B). Examining creativity as an outcome, we witness a positive interaction between EI and knowledge, which suggests that when individuals possess both types of skills, they are able to achieve the highest creativity. When predicting performance, the value of managerial feedback is readily apparent. Even under situations of moderate to average feedback, creativity positively influences performance. However, under situations of high managerial feedback, we witness the steepest positive slope and greatest influence on performance.

Figure 3.

Interaction graphs.

Discussion

Creativity has garnered recent attention (e.g., Coelho, Augusto, and Lages 2011; Sousa and Coelho 2011) largely because it helps boundary spanners recognize the latent needs of customers, approach problems in innovative ways, and propose a “unique service pack” (Sousa and Coelho 2011) of solutions. Our findings suggest that creative boundary spanners do indeed exhibit higher levels of problem-solving behaviors and performance.

Our results support the S-D logic, which suggests that suppliers need to offer context-specific services that contribute to customer learning and increase value in use (Vargo and Lusch 2004). We postulate that creative employees are better able to identify the real needs of customers and solve their specific problems (Wang and Netemeyer 2004). Solving customer problems (better than competitors) inherently leads to increased performance (Eliashberg, Lilien, and Kim 1995). We utilized objective performance data to empirically test this relationship and fill an existing gap in the literature.

Our finding that knowledge significantly influences creativity differs from previous creativity research. For example, Tierney and Farmer (2002) did not find a relationship between the knowledge (tenure and experience) and creative self-efficacy of operation employees in a high-tech firm. Utilizing a specific scale of boundary spanner knowledge (manager-reported), our results confirm a positive relationship between knowledge and employee-perceived creativity.

Another antecedent, EI, was also significantly correlated with creativity. Although the management literature offers some empirical evidence related to EI (e.g., Amabile et al. 2005), to our knowledge, the construct has not been explored by service researchers within the creativity framework. Our study extends this research by testing the relationship between EI and creativity in a service context. Also, we highlight that apart from manager’s EI (as suggested by Zhou and George 2003), boundary spanners’ EI also impacts their creative endeavors. This finding demonstrates that domain-relevant and creativity-relevant skills have important ramifications in matching boundary spanners to their roles.

In regard to managerial feedback, we failed to uncover a moderating effect on either of the aforementioned relationships with creativity. These findings suggest, alternatively, that knowledge and EI will help boundary spanners be more creative in handling customer problems, but these variables are not dependent on the level of managerial feedback. This was surprising, given the relationship between managerial feedback and motivation (Coelho and Augusto 2010) and creative engagement (Zhang and Bartol 2010). George and Zhou (2007) posit that feedback interacts with contextual variables or personality traits to influence creativity; however, our results suggest that while managerial feedback may create an environment that fosters creativity among employees, it does not alter the relationship between either knowledge or EI and creativity. Notably, the direct relationship between manager feedback and boundary spanner creativity was significant. This finding underscores that manager communication creates an environment which appreciates and rewards such behavior. We posit that regular manager feedback is the mechanism by which employees continually recalibrate their understanding of their organizational roles.

As expected, we find that knowledge and EI have multiplicative effects on creativity. This suggests that boundary spanners optimize their creative abilities when they possess both skill sets. Knowing every detail of every firm product or service offering is of marginal benefit to employees who lack the ability to sense and understand customer needs. Similarly, boundary spanners who excel at identifying customer problems or uncovering their product and service needs, but know little about the firm’s products or services, will fail in their ability to generate creative customer solutions. Figure 3, Panel A, shows the marked increase in creativity that corresponds to high boundary spanner knowledge and high EI. Interestingly, even in the case of low knowledge, creativity still increases through the interaction with boundary spanner EI. Thus, when boundary spanners are knowledgeable and capable of identifying and appropriately responding to a customer’s latent needs, we find that they will see enhanced levels of creativity, which positions them for success.

Our results show that creativity impacts performance both directly, moderated by manager feedback, and indirectly, mediated by customer problem solving. Figure 3, Panel B, shows that in the case of high or even average manager feedback, performance rises substantially with increased creativity. It is only in the case of low manager feedback that creativity fails to increase performance, and our work suggests that it actually diminishes it. This again confirms our supposition that manager feedback is a key element of the boundary spanner creativity framework. This is important because in all cases of moderate managerial feedback or higher, creativity offered a distinct advantage in boosting performance. As such, firms can expect managers who actively engage and communicate with employees will see enhanced performance, which benefits both the individual and the firm. As customers increasingly demand unique and specialized solutions to their problems, boundary spanners use creativity to supply them. To the extent that they succeed, performance increases as customers purchase additional goods and services. This study has broad implications for academics and practitioners looking to better understand the boundary spanner–customer relationship and its potential for gaining a competitive advantage.

Theoretical Implications

Our focus on boundary spanner creativity is a fundamental step toward expanding the domain of the customer-centric approach that includes adaptive behaviors, customer orientation, and so on. Adaptability generally assumes that employees depend on the “scripts stored in their memory” to handle customer interactions, but as customer demands evolve in an increasingly dynamic marketplace, creativity will be needed as “existing scripts may become inadequate” (Wang and Netemeyer 2004, p. 808). In other words, as customer solutions move away from the commodity or “one-size-fits-all” end of the spectrum, boundary spanners will require flexibility to tailor and customize their approaches to customer demands.

Our consideration of the manager feedback construct adds a new dimension to both creativity and service research. In the management literature, most studies have examined how manager feedback influences employee creativity. However, considering the dynamic and complex job environments in which boundary spanners operate, we examined the moderating influence of manager feedback in the creativity-performance relationship and found that the relationship does not weaken but actually changes direction when manager feedback is low. Theoretically, this indicates that the simultaneous utilization of multiple operant resources increases the net effect of each resource individually and both resources collectively (Madhavaram and Hunt 2008).

Second, managers are largely responsible for an organization’s culture because their leadership sets the tone for that organization (Huffman and Hegarty 1993). Our findings suggest that an organizational culture that emphasizes manager communication with boundary spanners in regard to creativity will translate to increased performance. Further, this study provides a new prism from which to view and subsequently build performance frameworks, recognizing the important role that new idea generation can play in satisfying customers. We establish that multiple antecedents, independently and interactively, influence boundary spanner creativity. Finally, boundary-spanning jobs often include complexities that can inject frustration into an employee’s thought process. Such employees may experience emotional fluctuations and mood swings in an environment where creative idea generation is vital for performing the job (Zhou and George 2003). We contribute to this stream by demonstrating that EI positively influences creativity.

Managerial Implications

Creative boundary spanners are most effective when they receive manager feedback because feedback can positively reinforce the notion that they are free to meet customer needs. This presents an opportunity for managers to leverage their influence as organizational leaders by creating the productive and interactive environment most conducive to boundary spanner success. Note that communication is not synonymous with positive reinforcement. Managerial feedback is more than back-slapping and congratulating; it also includes constructive criticism, advice, suggestions, and general assessments. Managers who observe their employees and provide regular evaluations empower them to not only be more creative but to use that creativity in more beneficial ways for the individual and the organization. Our results suggest that the more feedback boundary spanners receive—be it positive or negative—the more likely their creativity will lead to increased performance. Further, managers working with nontraditional employees should ensure they receive the support necessary to maximize their potential for creative problem solving. Managers may need to tailor approaches for long-term or permanent employees, temporary employees, and those rotating into the work unit. To the extent that they can establish the same level of feedback, both encouragement and criticism, with such employees, we would anticipate enhanced problem solving in customer interactions. Similarly, special needs employees and those with limited customer contact should also receive situationally appropriate customized feedback with the goal of maximizing performance.

Our research also confirms the importance of hiring boundary spanners with requisite skills, abilities, and knowledge to address customer needs and solve customer problems. Such employees will leverage their knowledge toward creative solutions valued by customers. Lages and Piercy (2012, p. 225) suggest that “special care should be put into selecting and recruiting employees who have the ability to read customer needs.” To the extent that boundary spanners can identify and provide consistent and creative solutions to customer needs, we show that performance will increase. Thus, knowledge, which impacts creativity, has an indirect impact on both behavioral performance (creative problem solving) and objective performance (percentage of quota) suggesting that knowledgeable employees are essential to continued firm success. As such, managers should continually evaluate boundary spanner training needs to increase their domain-relevant skills and abilities or what we characterize as knowledge. Also, given the importance of knowledge, supervisors need to make routine—often difficult—decisions regarding terminating or retaining boundary spanners tasked with creating innovative customer solutions. Because of the strong knowledge-creativity link, little latitude exists in retaining boundary spanners lacking requisite skill sets. Thus, knowledge should be weighted appropriately in employee hiring and retention decisions. Importantly, we make no suggestion that hiring or retention decisions are isolated to traditional employees; similar care should be given to decisions related to student, temporary, and disabled employees, and even those simply rotating into the work group from other parts of the organization. The key is to ensure they have the requisite skill set and knowledge to maximize customer problem solving.

EI is another important antecedent to creativity. Managers should work with human resources to ensure that new employees are qualified to perform the creative aspects necessitated by the boundary spanner role. Various EI measures have been developed and may be appropriate to utilize during recruitment. Based on recent research suggesting that EI is ability-based and can be learned (Kidwell et al. 2011), training may also improve current employees’ EI. For existing boundary spanners, managers should be careful to evaluate their performance against not only colleagues but industry standards and benchmarks for “ideal” employees. If boundary spanners fail to meet performance expectations, supervisors may do well to evaluate not only domain-relevant skills and abilities (e.g., knowledge) but also creativity-relevant skills and abilities (e.g., EI).

Finally, our study reinforces the important link between customer problem solving and performance. Though customer problem solving mediates the creativity-performance relationship, boundary spanners cannot simply possess the requisite knowledge and emotional skill sets and expect to be expert problem solvers. Managers should explore the factors which best inspire boundary spanners to solve problems, including formal classroom/seminar training, informal managerial exercises, case studies, or personal success stories. Employees with similar skill sets are still unique individuals requiring different strategies to optimize their customer problem-solving potential and performance.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations that, while increasing control and minimizing extenuating variables, reduce generalizability. First and related to the cross-sectional nature of our study, collecting three data sources helped to attenuate same source biases and parameter inflation, but a longitudinal study may reinforce, extend, or potentially challenge our findings. Second, to control self-report bias, we collected managers’ evaluations of employees and archival performance data. Similarly, although measuring boundary spanners’ perceptions of their own creativity aligns with the literature (Coelho, Augusto, and Lages 2011; Ganesan and Weitz 1996), Amabile (1983) encourages using experts to evaluate employees’ creative outcomes. Third, although each of our variables contains at least 3 items, a number sufficient to create a scaled construct (Franke, Rapp, and Andzulis 2013; Nunnally 1978), broader constructs would be useful. We also encourage scholars to incorporate expert performance evaluations and external measures of the actual service provided (e.g., perceived service quality, customer satisfaction, etc.) when studying employee creativity. Fourth, generalizability is a concern because data were collected from one division of one company. Replication in other industries, perhaps where boundary spanners play an even greater role, would be valuable.

Finally, the importance of creativity to the boundary spanner functions of the telecommunications industry was not explored relative to other important components of that industry, nor to any others. Similarly, no effort was made to bifurcate new or initial performance results from those of repeat customers to determine if creativity is potentially more important in one type of customer service encounter versus another.

Future Research

This study delineates a correlation between creativity and performance and lays out paths to examine antecedents to creativity in different contexts and industries. It would be interesting for researchers to validate our results in various environments. Although service is the outcome in any organization, service delivery, the relative importance of the elements of service quality, and the role of creativity vary across settings and would be worthy of future investigation.² Focusing on the diversity of boundary spanner services would be especially relevant, as the service industry embraces subjective performance measures (e.g., customer relationship performance). It would be informative to examine the relationship between creativity and customer satisfaction, or between creativity and other relationship-oriented variables.

Our model examines the relationship between boundary spanners’ EI and creativity, but the role of managers’ EI could also prove interesting. Earlier research examined the link between managers’ EI and employee creativity (e.g., Zhou and George 2003), but explorations within the boundary spanner context would be valuable. This is especially true, given the moderating role of manager feedback on the creativity-performance relationship. Scholars should test the moderating effect of manager feedback on the relationship between creativity and other outcomes (e.g., job and customer satisfaction), and how it impacts the relationship between other employee constructs and the same performance outcome. For instance, if the positive influence of manager feedback on the relationship between other employee-level constructs is homogeneous, managers could offer consistent feedback across employee needs and skills. If the relationship gains or loses strength, it offers managers a guide to better allocate their time and energy to achieve maximum payoffs.

Finally, additional research examining creativity and service behaviors promise meaningful managerial implications. Facilitating a creativity-enabling environment should not only enhance boundary spanner performance but also fuel competitiveness vis-à-vis service behaviors and relationship building. This is important for organizations that emphasize problem solving. For example, it would be interesting to examine the longitudinal effect of creativity. Similarly, extending our framework to differential boundary spanner-customer relationship tenures and/or strengths may offer insights into the importance of creativity and problem solving as transaction histories grow between firms.

In summary, the role of boundary spanners has evolved from constraint to creativity. Instead of being limited to a firm’s existing products and services, boundary spanners now have the opportunity, and are even encouraged, to tailor products/services to solve customer problems and meet customer needs. Thus, they are limited only by their own creativity. Our work suggests that boundary spanner creativity and customer problem solving are essential elements of performance.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Agnihotri

Raj

Kothandaraman

Prabakar

Kashyap

Rajiv

Singh

Ramendra

(2012), “Bringing “Social” into Sales: The Impact of Salespeople’s Social Media Use on Service Behaviors and Value Creation,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32 (3), 333–348.

Agnihotri

Raj

Rapp

Adam

Trainor

Kevin

(2009), “Understanding the Role of Information Communication in the Buyer-Seller Exchange Process: Antecedents and Outcomes,” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 24 (7/8), 474–486.

Ahearne

Michael

Jelinek

Ronald

Jones

Eli

(2007), “Examining the Effect of Salesperson Service Behavior in a Competitive Context,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (4), 603–616.

Amabile

Teresa M.

Barsade

Sigal. G.

Mueller

Jennifer S.

Staw

Barry M.

(2005), “Affect and Creativity at Work,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (3), 367–403.

Amabile

Teresa M.

(1996), Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: West View Press.

Amabile

Teresa M.

(1988), “A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations,” in Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, Barry

M. Staw

Cummings

L. L.

, eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 123–167.

Amabile

Teresa M.

(1983), “The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (2), 357–376.

Amabile

Teresa M.

(1982), “Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (5), 997–1013.

Arndt

Aaron D.

Karande

Kiran

Landry

Timothy D.

(2011), “An Examination of Frontline Cross-Functional Integration during Retail Transactions,” Journal of Retailing, 87 (2), 225–241.

10.

Baldauf

Artur

Cravens

David W.

(2002), “The Effect of Moderators on the Salesperson Behavior Performance and Salesperson Outcome Performance and Sales Organization Effectiveness Relationships,” European Journal of Marketing, 36 (11/12), 1367–1388.

11.

Barchard

Kimberly A.

Christensen

Michelle M.

(2007), “Dimensionality and Higher-Order Factor Structure of Self-Reported Emotional Intelligence,” Personality and Individual Differences, 42 (6), 971–985.

12.

Bardzil

Philip

Slaski

Mark

(2003), “Emotional Intelligence: Fundamental Competencies for Enhanced Service Provision,” Managing Service Quality, 13 (2), 97–105.

13.

Basadur

Min S.

Graen

George B.

Green

Stephen G.

(1982), “Training in Creative Problem Solving: Effects on Ideation and Problem Finding in an Industrial Research Organization,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30 (1), 41–70.

14.

Bell

Simon J.

Luddington

James A.

(2006), “Coping with Customer Complaints,” Journal of Service Research, 8 (3), 221–233.

15.

Behrman

Douglass N.

Perreault

William D.

Jr . (1982), “Measuring the Performance of Industrial Salespersons,” Journal of Business Research, 10 (3), 355–370.

16.

Bettencourt

Lance A.

Brown

Stephen W.

(2003), “Role Stressors and Customer-Oriented Boundary-spanning Behaviors in Service Organizations,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (4), 394–408.

17.

Bettencourt

Lance A.

Gwinner

Kevin P.

Meuter

Matthew L.

(2001), “A Comparison of Attitude, Personality, and Knowledge Predictors of Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behaviors,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 29–41.

18.

Bettencourt

Lance A.

Brown

Stephen W.

(1997), “Contact Employees: Relationships among Workplace Fairness, Job Satisfaction and Prosocial Service Behaviors,” Journal or Retailing, 73 (1), 39–61.

19.

Bitner

Mary Jo

Booms

Bernard H.

Tetreault

Mary Stanfield

(1990), “The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), 71–84.

20.

Boshoff

Christo

Mels

Gerhard

(1995), “A Causal Model to Evaluate the Relationships Among Supervision, Role Stress, Organizational Commitment and Internal Service Quality,” European Journal of Marketing, 29 (2), 23–42.

21.

Bowen

David E.

Lawler

Edward E.

(1992), “The Empowerment of Service Workers: What, Why, How, and When?” Sloan Management Review, 33 (3), 31–39.

22.

Churchill

Gilbert A.

Jr Ford

Neil M.

Walker

Orville C.

Jr . (1990), Sales Force Management. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

23.

Coelho

Filipe

Augusto

Mário

Lages

Luis Filipe

(2011), “Contextual Factors and the Creativity of Frontline Employees: The Mediating Effects of Role Stress and Intrinsic Motivation,” Journal of Retailing, 87 (1), 31–45.

24.

Coelho

Filipe

Augusto

Mário

(2010), “Job Characteristics and the Creativity of Frontline Service Employees,” Journal of Service Research, 13 (4), 426–438.

25.

Dabholkar

Pratibha A.

Thorpe

Dayle I.

Rentz

Joseph O.

(1996), “A Measure of Service Quality for Retail Stores: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24 (1), 3–16.

26.

Darian

Jean C.

Wiman

Alan R.

Tucci

Louis A.

(2005), “Retail Patronage Intentions: The Relative Importance of Perceived Prices and Salesperson Service Attributes,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12 (1), 15–23.

27.

Stobbeleir

Katleen

E. M.

Ashford

Susan J.

Buyen

Dirk

(2011), “Self-Regulation of Creativity at Work: The Role of Feedback-Seeking Behavior in Creative Performance,” The Academy of Management Journal, 54 (4), 811–831.

28.

Eder

Paul

Sawyer

John E.

, (2007), “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Employee Creativity,” Presented at Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, New York, NY.

29.

Eliashberg

Jehoshua

Lilien

Gary

Kim

Nam

(1995), “Searching for Generalizations in Business Marketing Negotiations,” Marketing Science, 14 (3), 647–660.

30.

Franke

George R.

Rapp

Adam

Andzulis

James “Mick”

(2013), “Using Shortened Scales in Sales Research: Risks, Benefits, and Strategies,” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 33 (3), 319–328.

31.

Franke

George R.

Park

Jeong-Eun

(2006), “Salesperson Adaptive Selling Behavior and Customer Orientation: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (4), 693–702.

32.

Ganesan

Shankar

Weitz

Barton A.

(1996), “The Impact of Staffing Policies on Retail Buyer Job Attitudes and Behaviors,” Journal of Retailing, 72 (1), 31–56.

33.

George

Jennifer M.

Zhou

Jing

(2007), “Dual Tuning in a Supportive Context: Joint Contributions of Positive Mood, Negative Mood, and Supervisory Behaviors to Employee Creativity,” Academy of Management Journal, 50 (3), 605–622.

34.

Gong

Yaping

Cheung

Siu-Yin

Wang

Huang

Jia-Chi

(2012), “Unfolding the Proactive Process for Creativity Integration of the Employee Proactivity, Information Exchange, and Psychological Safety Perspectives,” Journal of Management, 38 (5), 1611–1633.

35.

Hart

Christopher W. L.

Heskett

James L.

Earl Sasser

Jr . (1990), “The Profitable Art of Service Recovery,” Harvard Business Review, 68 (4), 148–156.

36.

Huffman

Richard

Harvey Hegarty

(1993), “Top Management Influence on Innovation: Effects of Executive Characteristics and Social Culture,” Journal of Management, 19 (3), 549–575.

37.

Hulland

John

(1999), “Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic Management Research: A Review of Four Recent Studies,” Strategic Management Journal, 20 (2), 195–204.

38.

Hunter

Gary K.

Perreault

William D.

Jr . (2007), “Making Sales Technology Effective,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (1), 16–34.

39.

Jaworski

Bernard J.

Kohli

Ajay K.

(1991), “Supervisory Feedback: Alternative Types and Their Impact on Salespeople’s Performance and Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (2), 190–201.

40.

Jones

Eli

Chonko

Lawrence B.

Roberts

J. A.

(2003), “Creating A Partnership-Oriented Knowledge and Creation Culture in Strategic Sales Alliances: A Conceptual Framework,” Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 18 (4/5), 336–353.

41.

Kelly

Scott W.

Longfellow

Timothy

Malehorn

Jack

(1996), “Organizational Determinants of Service Employees’ Exercise of Routine, Creative, and Deviant Discretion,” Journal of Retailing, 72 (2), 135–157.

42.

Kidwell

Blair

Hardesty

David

Murtha

Brian

Sheng

Shibin

(2011), “Emotional Intelligence in Marketing Exchanges,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (1), 78–95.

43.

Lages

Cristiana R.

Piercy

Nigel F.

(2012), “Key Drivers of Frontline Employee Generation of Ideas for Customer Service Improvement,” Journal of Service Research, 15 (2), 215–230.

44.

Lassk

Felicia G.

David Shepherd

(2013), “Exploring the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Salesperson Creativity,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 33 (1), 25–37.

45.

Leong

Siew M.

Bush

Paul S.

John

Deborah Roedder

(1989), “Knowledge Bases & Salesperson Effectiveness: A Script-Theoretical Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (2), 164–178.

46.

Liao

Hui

Chuang

Aichia

(2004), “A Multilevel Investigation of Factors Influencing Employee Service Performance and Customer Outcomes,” Academy of Management Journal, 47 (1), 41–58.

47.

Madhavaram

Sreedhar

Hunt

Shelby D.

(2008), “The Service-Dominant Logic and a Hierarchy of Operant Resources: Developing Masterful Operant Resources and Implications for Marketing Strategy,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 67–82.

48.

Madjar

Nora

Rowena

Ortiz–Walters

(2008), “Customers as Contributors and Reliable Evaluators of Creativity in the Service Industry,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29 (7), 949–966.

49.

Mayer

John D.

Roberts

Richard D.

Barsad

Sigal G.

(2008), “Human Abilities: Emotional Intelligence,” Annual Review of Psychology, 59 (2008), 507–536.

50.

Mayer

John D.

Salovey

Peter

(1997), “What is Emotional Intelligence?” in Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications, Peter

Salovey

David

J. Sluyter

, eds. New York: Basic Books, 3–31.

51.

Mehta

Subhash C.

Lalwani

Ashok K.

Han

Soon Li

(2000), “Service Quality in Retailing: Relative Efficiency of Alternative Measurement Scales for Different Product-Service Environments,” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 28 (2), 62–72.

52.

Möller

K. E. Kristian

Törrönen

Pekka

(2003), “Business Suppliers’ Value Creation Potential: A Capability-Based Analysis,” Industrial Marketing Management, 32 (2), 109–118.

53.

Mumford

Michael D.

Whetzel

Deborah

Reiter-Palmon

Roni

(1997), “Thinking Creatively at Work: Organization Influences on Creative Problem Solving,” Journal of Creative Behavior, 31 (1), 7–17.

54.

Nunnally

Jum C.

(1978), Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

55.

Oldham

Greg R.

Cummings

Anne

(1996), “Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual Factors at Work,” Academy of Management Journal, 39 (3), 607–634.

56.

Parasuraman

(1994), “Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison standard for Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Future Research,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (1), 111–124.

57.

Parasuraman

Zeithaml

Valarie A.

Berry

Leonard L.

(1988), “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality,” Journal of Retailing, 64 (Spring), 12–40.

58.

Payne

Adrian F.

Storbacka

Kaj

Frow

Pennie

(2008), “Managing the Co-Creation of Value,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 83–96.

59.

Pettijohn

Charles E.

Pettijohn

Linda S.

Taylor

A. J.

(2002), “The Influence of Salesperson Skill, Motivation and Training on the Practice of Customer-Oriented Selling,” Psychology & Marketing, 19 (9), 743–757.

60.

Podsakoff

Philip M.

MacKenzie

Scott B.

Paine

Julie Beth

Bachrach

Daniel G.

(2000), “Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research,” Journal of Management, 26 (3), 516–563.

61.

Prati

L. Melita

Douglas

Ceasar

Ferris

Gerald R.

Ammeter

Anthony P.

Ronald Buckley

(2003), “Emotional Intelligence, Leadership Effectiveness, and Team Outcomes,” International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11 (1), 21–40.

62.

Rapp

Adam

Ahearne

Michael

Mathieu

Schillewaert

(2006), “The Impact of Knowledge and Empowerment on Working Smart and Working Hard: The Moderating Role of Experience,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23 (3), 279–293.

63.

Reichheld

Frederick F.

(1996), “Learning from Customer Defections,” Harvard Business Review, 74 (2), 56–69.

64.

Rozell

Elizabeth J.

Pettijohn

Charles E.

Stephen Parker

(2006), “Emotional Intelligence and Dispositional Affectivity as Predictors of Performance in Salespeople,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14 (2), 113–124.

65.

Salanova

Marisa

Agut

Sonia

María Peiro

José

(2005), “Linking Organizational Resources and Work Engagement to Employee Performance and Customer Loyalty: The Mediation of Service Climate,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (6), 1217–1227.

66.

Salovey

Peter

Mayer

John D.

(1990), “Emotional Intelligence,” Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9 (3), 185–211.

67.

Schneider

Benjamin

Macey

William H.

Young

Scott A.

(2006), “The Climate for Service: A Review of the Construct with Implications for Achieving CLV Goals,” Journal of Relationship Marketing, 5 (2-3), 111–132.

68.

Schneider

Benjamin

White

Susan S.

Paul

Michelle C.

(1998), “Linking Service Climate and Customer Perceptions of Service Quality: Test of a Causal Model,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (2), 150–163.

69.

Schutte

Nicola S.

Malouff

John M.

Hall

Lena E.

Haggerty

Donald J.

Cooper

Joan T.

Golden

Charles J.

Dornheim

Liane

(1998), “Development and Validation of a Measure of Emotional Intelligence,” Personality and Individual Differences 25 (2), 167–177.

70.

Scott

Susanne G.

Bruce

Reginald A.

(1994), “Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace,” Academy of Management Journal, 37 (3), 580–607.

71.

Shalley

Christina E.

Zhou

Jing

Oldham

Greg R.

(2004), “The Effects of Personal and Contextual Characteristics on Creativity: Where Should We Go from Here?” Journal of Management, 30 (6), 933–958.

72.

Slåtten

Terje

Mehmetoglu

Mehmet

(2011), “Antecedents and Effects of Engaged Frontline Employees: A Study from the Hospitality Industry,” Managing Service Quality, 21 (1), 88–107.

73.

Sousa

Carlos M. P.

Coelho

Filipe

(2011), “From Personal Values to Creativity: Evidence from Frontline Service Employees,” European Journal of Marketing, 45 (7/8), 1029–1050.

74.

Stewart

Kathy A.

Segars

Albert H.

(2002), “An Empirical Examination of the Concern for Information Privacy Instrument,” Information Systems Research, 12 (1), 36–49.

75.

Stock

Ruth Maria

Hoyer

Wayne D.

(2005), “An Attitude-Behavior Model of Salespeople’s Customer Orientation,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (4), 536–552.

76.

Strutton

David

Pentina

Iryna

Pullins

Ellen Bolman

(2009), “Necessity is the Mother of Invention: Why Salesperson Creativity Is More Important Now than Ever and What We Can Do to Encourage it,” Journal of Selling & Major Account Management, 9 (3), 20–35.

77.

Tierney

Pamela

Farmer

Steven M.

(2002), “Creative Self-Efficacy: Its Potential Antecedents and Relationship to Creative Performance,” Academy of Management Journal, 45 (6), 1137–1148.

78.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008), “ Employment and Wages from Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey,” (accessed October 24, 2011), [available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/data.htm].

79.

Van

Dyne

Jehn

Linn Karen A.

Cummings

Anne

(2002), “Differential Effects of Strain on Two Forms of Work Performance: Individual Employee Sales and Creativity,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 (1), 57–74.

80.

Vargo

Stephen L.

Lusch

Robert F.

(2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 1–17.

81.

Verbeke

Willem

Dietz

Bart

Verwaal

Ernst

(2011), “Drivers of Sales Performance: A Contemporary Meta-Analysis. Have Salespeople Become Knowledge Brokers?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (3), 407–428.

82.

Wang

Guanping

Netemeyer

Richard G.

(2004), “Salesperson Creative Performance: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Nomological Validity,” Journal of Business Research, 57 (8), 805–812.

83.

Weitz

Barton A.

Bradford

Kevin D.

(1999), “Personal Selling and Sales Management: A Relationship Marketing Perspective,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 241–254.

84.

Zhang

Xiaomeng

Bartol

Kathryn M.

(2010), “Linking Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Influence of Psychological Empowerment, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process Engagement,” Academy of Management Journal, 53 (1), 107–128.

85.

Zhou

Jing

George

Jennifer M.

(2003), “Awakening Employee Creativity: The Role of Leader Emotional Intelligence,” The Leadership Quarterly, 14 (4-5), 545–568.

86.

Zhou

Jing

George

Jennifer M.

(2001), “When Job Dissatisfaction Leads to Creativity: Encouraging the Expression of Voice,” Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4), 682–696.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB