Enacting Service Work in a Changing World: Time for a Dialogue

Expanded View of Service Workers

Scholarship related to service workers is rooted in the insight that service organizations are open systems, and boundary spanners such as frontline employees provide services to external customers and, at the same time, relay customers’ service expectations and perceptions to key decision makers within the organization (Schneider, Parkington, and Buxton 1980). While this insight has sparked a robust stream of service worker–related scholarship (Subramony et al. in press), we believe that the changing nature of service work warrants a closer look at extant scholarship. We make three key observations related to this point.

First, services are increasingly being delivered by a wide variety of workers, including those occupying traditional employment roles (i.e., regular employees), contractors working at the focal organization but hired and managed by a staffing or temporary help firm (contingent workers), outsourced service workers (i.e., call center workers), and freelancers directly serving multiple clients or customers (e.g., gig workers). Although all these types of workers are often simply referred to as “employees,” this nomenclature might not accurately capture the marked variability in their experience of service work. Indeed, these different types of workers are likely to enjoy different types of interactions with their supervisors and coworkers (if any at all), be subject to differing performance criteria and incentive structures, and operate in different types of workplaces (physical and virtual). Thus, extant theories of employee-organization relationships might not universally apply to all categories of workers. For instance, contingent workers might exhibit dual commitments to their agency and the client, freelance knowledge workers might experience a stronger loyalty to their occupation as opposed to a focal organization, and gig workers (e.g., Uber and Lyft drivers) might engage in tactics to retain their autonomy when faced with prescriptive algorithms.

Second, organizational boundaries have evolved to include many virtual points of contact between organizations and customers at varying levels of richness of interfaces and complexity of interactions (Singh et al. 2017). These virtual boundaries—especially where actors interact with each other through mediated technology rather than face-to-face—have implications for the social-psychological processes linking workers and customers. These include emotional contagion, social relationships and trust formation, and shared cognition. In addition, the increasing use of technology (e.g., synchronous or asynchronous chat functions, chatbots) has changed our understanding of “moments of truth” characterizing employee-customer touchpoints (Groth et al. 2019). It can even be argued that the “moment of truth” has turned into “perpetual contact” in many service domains. In addition, given the large-scale shift to remote work, a comprehensive understanding of boundaries has challenged workers to negotiate and creatively manage the permeable role boundaries between work and family in an “always-on” environment.

Third, the bulk of service scholarship related to workers has been conducted in traditional commercial settings such as retail, banking, and hospitality, with very limited research in areas that require more complex cognitive, emotional, and relationship-building skills (e.g., professional services, health care) as well as workers in public-service and nonprofit domains (e.g., bus drivers, teachers). Further, service providers are now able to offer services to customers all around the world at the click of a button, notionally transcending time zones and cultural differences with ease. Yet, the nature of worker-customer interactions across cultural, linguistic, and economic divides has received very little scholarly attention.

Our definitions and understanding of service need to evolve to capture these shifts. We urge further theoretical and empirical work in these underemphasized domains in order to make our work more relevant to the larger service sector and to explore the similarities and differences between work performed in these settings.

A Deeper Look at Service Workers’ Experiences

The predominant focus of service research thus far has been on service workers’ service delivery role, that is, how workers’ emotions, attitudes, and behaviors translate into (or deter from) benefits accrued by customers and the organization (Subramony and Douglas Pugh 2015). However, given that a large and increasing proportion of the global labor force is engaged in services, scholarship is also likely to benefit from a better understanding of the service workers’ experience in its own right. We believe that this effort will require scholars to not view service workers simply as conduits of service from organizations to customers. Rather, it would benefit us to examine all aspects of workers’ work-related and nonwork-related experiences. For instance, organizational sociology scholarship can provide our field with much-needed insights on issues such occupational identities of contract workers (Barley and Kunda 2006) and the constraints placed on workers’ autonomy and volition in technology-mediated gig work (Vallas and Shore 2020). Similarly, theories related to humanistic and positive psychology can provide insights into how organizations can foster the expression of eudemonic motives such as optimism, resilience, and relationships, thereby creating higher levels of worker wellness and well-being (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2014). As noted earlier, emerging technologies and an always-on mentality have blurred the lines between work and nonwork activities. Research on work-life conflict has long examined the reciprocal relationship between work and nonwork behaviors and attitudes of workers. Service workers may increasingly work from home or physically remote locations, represent the organization and brand in social media posts during nonwork hours, and even work in short spurts that require context shifting from one employer to the next. In these situations, the division between work and nonwork domains will inevitably become blurry, and the interconnectedness between different roles that service workers play in their own lives will have a greater impact on their work. Thus, our research efforts in understanding service work need to increasingly focus on the experiences that workers bring to their jobs rather than assuming that their service experience only starts at the beginning of a hypothetical work shift.

Relatedly, transformative service research highlights social or transformative value, as opposed to short-term transactional value, thereby legitimizing the study and mitigation of human suffering and the promotion of well-being (Ostrom et al. 2015). A study of service workers, likewise, requires a deeper appreciation of well-being issues in both challenging and so-called normal times. Indeed, as noted earlier, while the COVID-19 pandemic has increased public attention on issues related to the vulnerability and precariousness of service work, frontline service work has been characterized even in the best of times by job insecurity, low pay and benefits, and emotional exhaustion (Voorhees, Fombelle, and Bone 2020). Closer to home, our own academic jobs and institutions are undergoing significant changes with diminished opportunities for tenure and job security, increased cost pressures on colleges and universities, and a reframing of what constitutes education (e.g., competencies supplanting diplomas). We too are service workers, and clearly, our own circumstances are rapidly changing in front of our eyes. This in itself should provide an impetus to turn our scholarship toward this domain.

An Ecosystems Perspective on the Evolving Service Environment

Finally, the changing role of service workers does not occur in a vacuum but rather in a rapidly changing environment that affects how we deliver and consume services. As services evolve due to technological innovations (e.g., artificial intelligence, data analytics), emergence of new service ecosystems, and shifts in consumer wants (e.g., immediacy of service delivery), employee-organization relationships are changing. In the immediate future, much of service work may be delivered by a “just-in-time” workforce of service workers governed by transactional work arrangements or contracts as opposed to employment contracts. Jobs are likely to resemble gigs, and careers are likely to take the shape of project portfolios. Further, long-time employment with the same organization may become the exception rather than the norm. In other words, gone may be the days when service workers built long-term careers and strong bonds with a single organization over a span of years or decades. One consequence of this change is likely to be the emergence of weaker and more transactional relationships between service workers and their managers and coworkers, with a reduced availability of social resources. Also, shorter tenure and short-term relationships are likely to make it more challenging for organizations to effectively incentivize and manage effective team processes that are essential in creative and knowledge-rich environments. As a result of a more fragmented work life, service workers will inevitably be active participants in multiple service ecosystems and moving from one to the other depending upon their possessed and projected capabilities, interests, and expected incentive structures.

What implications will these changes have for service work scholarship? Arguably, many of our current models of service work may need major modifications. If service workers engage in short-term transactions with the firm, their coworkers, and customers, they are less likely to develop a strong organizational or brand identity or firm-specific human capital (i.e., knowledge of policies, practices, routines, and processes idiosyncratic to the organization). Service organizations may, therefore, need to rethink how they hire, motivate, and reward service workers. For instance, rather than hiring for value fit or developmental potential, a stronger focus on immediate skill fit and reliance on performance-based pay may be required. On the other hand, knowledge service workers might weaken their ties with employers and strengthen them with their professional associations. These transitions are likely to fundamentally change our understanding of important organizational constructs such as career management, socialization, organizational identity and commitment, and leadership/supervision. Current models of service performance and customer orientation may also need to be revised, as workers might not have the opportunity or inclination to acquire some of the tacit knowledge essential for developing long-term relationships with customers.

Overall, a transition from an employee-organization relationship perspective to one that emphasizes the relationship between workers and their work ecosystems has the potential to create higher levels of innovation within multiple industries. This is because workers would be able to bring unique experiences, skills, and perspectives from their encounters with multiple firms and clients and apply these to novel situations. Ideas would, thereby, diffuse within and between industries and translate into new products and services. However, mobility is unlikely to be frictionless as the match between workers’ human capital and the needs of clients might not always match. This will lead to periods wherein workers might not find ideal work opportunities. Under these circumstances, there will be a need for a robust well-funded social net that can provide financial support and benefits such as health insurance and training to support workers during times of transition.

Conclusion: Are We Ready to Dialogue?

We wish to issue an unequivocal call for service scholarship to simultaneously deepen and broaden the focus on service workers by attending to their experiences within a dynamic context. We believe that the discipline of service is uniquely positioned to investigate and solve systemic problems related to how humanity lives, learns, and serves. While the service discipline is rooted in the investigation of commercial transactions, our disciplinary tree with proliferating branches is reaching out to explore domains including human-machine interactions, health care delivery, and social movements, with much growth in store for it.

Indeed, conversations about services take place not just in our conferences and journals but in many other disciplines and domains of life. Those outside the immediate research community of service scholars may think about services differently and might not be familiar with our vocabulary. However, their insights and “lived experience” will help provide the flesh and blood to the suggested dialogue on the future of service work scholarship and practice. Thus, we call for applied research based on significant practice concerns, participation in policy design and assessment, and an overall focus on the changing world as experienced by workers. Our work is enriched, not diminished, by practical impact. We will need to accelerate the process of connecting with and guiding policy makers on how to mobilize the service work ecosystem that can help cope with the changes presented to us by large-scale disrupters and promote healthy and sustainable service provision and consumption. It is our hope that, by doing so, research on service work will remain relevant and proactive in developing new theories and insights and help us play a responsible and proactive role in a rapidly changing world.