Content uploaded by Patrick Meyer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patrick Meyer on Feb 13, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Patrick Meyer is a Research Asso-
ciate at the Chair of Information
Systems – Innovation and Value
Creation at Friedrich-Alexander-
Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg,
Lange Gasse 20, 90403 Nürnberg,
Germany, E-Mail: pat.meyer@
fau.de
* Corresponding Author.
Julia M. Jonas is a Senior Research
Fellow at the Chair of Information
Systems – Innovation and Value
Creation at Friedrich-Alexander-
Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg,
Lange Gasse 20, 90403 Nürnberg,
Germany, E-Mail: julia.jonas@
fau.de
Angela Roth is a Professor at the
Chair of Information Systems –
Innovation and Value Creation at
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität
Erlangen-Nürnberg, Lange Gasse 20,
90403 Nürnberg, Germany,
E-Mail: angela.roth@fau.de
Frontline Employees’ Acceptance of and Resistance to Service
Robots in Stationary Retail – An Exploratory Interview Study
By Patrick Meyer*, Julia M. Jonas, and Angela Roth
Due to rising online competition, increasing cost
pressure and cross-channel customer journeys, sta-
tionary retail has tried to develop innovative value
propositions and co-create value with customers
through new technologies, which are expected to
profoundly change the stationary retail’s service
systems. Among other technologies, service robots
are said to have the potential to revitalise interac-
tive value creation in stationary retail. However, the
integration of such technologies poses new chal-
lenges. Prior research has looked at customers’ ac-
ceptance of service robots in stationary retail set-
tings, but few studies have explored their counter-
parts – the frontline employees’ (FLEs) perspective.
Yet, FLEs’ acceptance of service robots is crucial to
implement service robots for retail innovation. To
explore FLEs’ acceptance of and resistance to ser-
vice robots, a qualitative exploratory interview
study is conducted. It identifies decisive aspects,
amongstotherslossofstatusorroleincongruency.
The findings extend prior studies on technology ac-
ceptance and resistance and reveal i.a. that FLEs
perceive service robots as both a threat and poten-
tial support. Moreover, they feel hardly involved in
the co-creation of use cases for a service robot, al-
though they are willing to contribute.
1. Introduction
Emergingtechnologies foster the transformation ofbusi-
ness models and enable innovation across all sectors. One
promisingtechnology is robotics,which,alongside other
technological advances such as bigdata,cloud computing
and artificial intelligence,is expected toresultin various
profound innovations in service environments(Ivanov
and Webster 2019; Matzner etal. 2018; Wirtz etal. 2018).In
particular,physical service robotsdeveloped for interac-
tion withhumansaresaidtohavegreatpotential for inno-
vationinstationaryretail (Doeringetal. 2015; Grewal et
al. 2017; Iwamura etal. 2011).Stationaryretail has to inno-
vateinterms ofvalue propositions due torisingonline
competition,increasingcostpressure and cross-channel
customer journeys. Todoso,retailers trytoco-createval-
ue withcustomers throughtechnology, such as service ro-
bots. Thus,agrowingnumber ofretailers (e.g.,Nestl´e,
Lowe’s and Marriott) havepiloted service robotsattheir
stores todetermine how customers reacttothem.
Inservice research,the use ofservice robots has been con-
troversiallydiscussed. Service literature is growingin
studies linkingservice robotstoservice environments:Al-
mosttwo decades ago,Schraft and Schmierer (2000) em-
phasised thatservice robotscancreatenewfields ofappli-
cation toaddvalue toservice industries. Afew years later,
Severinson-Eklundh etal. (2003) argued that‘addressing
onlythe primaryuser in service roboticsisunsatisfactory,
and thatthe focus should beonthe setting, activities and
SMR · Journal of Service Management Research · Volume 4 · 1/2020 · p. 21– 34 21
https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-21
Generiert durch IP '188.192.241.220', am 13.02.2020, 09:57:10.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
social interactions ofthe groupofpeople where the robot
is tobeused’(ibid,p.223).This conclusion gained impor-
tance,withvan Doorn etal. (2017) predictingthat‘future
technology infusion [...]enables true relationshipsbe-
tween service robots and humans’(ibid,p.52). Conse-
quently, Wirtz etal. (2018) pointoutspecific research op-
portunities regardingservice robotsandemployee inter-
action,as little attention has been paid tousers’responses
todate.
Sofar service literature discusses waysto incorporateser-
vice robotsintoservice environmentstofoster customer
acceptance. These applications rangefrom functional use
cases,such as navigation (Kanda etal. 2010), carryingof
shoppingbags(Iwamura etal. 2011) or distribution offly-
ers (Shi etal. 2018), to hedonistic use cases,such as enter-
tainmentofcustomers (Aaltonen etal. 2017; Meyer etal.
2018).
Previous studies haveestablished thatservice robotsen-
hance the shoppingexperience and shoppingactivities
(Doeringetal. 2015; Iwamura etal. 2011).However,ahigh
degree ofuser acceptance is required for service robotsto
haveapositiveeffecton their implementation (ˇ
Cai´
cetal.
2018; Kirby etal. 2010) since the interaction partners of
service robotsareconstantlychangingand cannotbe
trained (Goodrich and Schultz 2007).To achieve accep-
tance,human-robotinteractions mustbeuser-friendly
and needs-oriented (Kirby etal. 2010), takingbothdia-
logue (Iwamura etal. 2011) and non-verbal communica-
tion (Doeringetal. 2015) into account.
Emotional and psychological aspectsalsoplaya crucial
role in the acceptance and implementation ofservice ro-
bots(Stockand Merkle 2017; Wirtz etal. 2018).The role
profile ofservice robotsoften shiftsduetochanges in us-
ers’expectations and the technical possibilities ofboth
hardware and software,such as processingofspeech sig-
nals and emotions (Gollnhofer and Schüller 2018).Instead
ofsimplyreceivingcommands,service robotscanbecome
accepted interlocutors,which expand their potential field
ofapplications (Kirchner and Alempijevic 2012).
Yet, scholarlyresearch tends toconfine customers tothe
crucial user group(e.g.Iwamura etal. 2011; Kanda etal.
2010), upon which prior studies haveprimarilyfocused
(Subramonyetal. 2017).There are two opportunities for
research tocontributetothe service field’sknowledge:(1)
First, Subramonyetal. (2017) assume thatthe underex-
ploited potential ofresearch on employees resultsfrom a
lackofawareness thatemployees are keyfor recognising
and resolvingpredominantservice-related issues. It
seems especiallyfruitful toexplore the FLEs’perspective,
as this stakeholder grouphas frequentand directcontact
withcustomers (Jonas etal. 2016) and is responsible for
executingservices and implementingnew processes (Cad-
wallader etal. 2010).Arich understandingofFLEs’accep-
tance ofand resistance toservice robotshasthe potential
toextend the service fields’knowledgeby another per-
spective(Wirtz etal. 2018).
(2) Second,scholarlyresearch can benefitfrom a service
systems perspectiveonthe FLEs’acceptance ofand resis-
tance toservice robots. Amongother technologies,service
robotsrapidlychangethe frontline oforganisations,yet
we lackinsightintohowthese technologies are imple-
mented in service systems (DeKeyser etal. 2019).Asitis
acknowledged thatservice robotshavethe potential to
transform the nature ofservice environments,including
stationaryretail (van Doorn etal. 2017), itseems fruitful to
understand how FLEs perceiveservice robotswithin their
workingenvironment(Kaartemo and Helkkula 2018; Sub-
ramonyetal. 2018).Accordingly, Wirtz etal. (2018) and
DeKeyser etal. (2019) call for research exploringnotonly
customers’butalso FLEs’acceptance ofsuch service sys-
tems.
Based on the above,we aim toexplore FLEs’perceptions
ofservice robotsinservice systems,atopic thatis interest-
ingboththeoreticallyand managerially(Kaartemo and
Helkkula 2018; DeKeyser etal. 2019; Wirtz etal. 2018).
Specifically, we aim toanswerthe followingresearch
question:
From a service systems perspective, what are aspects of FLEs’
acceptance of and resistance to service robots in stationary
retail?
Toanswerthis question,we review relevantliterature and
presentour qualitativeinterview study.Then,we discuss
how the findingsshedlighton FLEs’perceptions ofser-
vice robotsinservice systems.
2. Review of Relevant Literature: Service Robots
in Service Interactions
Interactivevalue creation occurs when a companyand its
customers interact(Reichwald and Piller 2009).Notonly
extrinsic benefits,such as monetaryrewards,butalso in-
trinsic benefits,such as the actual experience ofamean-
ingful interaction,are crucial for interactivevalue creation
to occur (Reichwald and Piller 2009).Inother words,the
experience ofameaningful interaction is necessaryfor
companies toenable their customers totakeupthe com-
pany’svalue proposition and makeitvaluable.
2.1. Value co-creation through service interactions
Consequently, throughdigital innovations and implemen-
tation ofnew technologies,companies,especiallythose in
the retail sector,haveexplored new types ofservice inter-
actions withcustomers toco-createvalue (Grewal etal.
2017).AccordingtoLyons and Tracy (2013), ‘[v]alue is re-
Meyer/Jonas/Roth, Frontline Employees’ Acceptance of and Resistance to Service Robots in Stationary Retail
22 SMR · Journal of Service Management Research · Volume 4 · 1/2020 · p. 21– 34
https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-21
Generiert durch IP '188.192.241.220', am 13.02.2020, 09:57:10.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
alized throughinteractions and co-creation amongservice
systems’(ibid,p.1).Service interactions are also valuable
for customers when theyoccur in the situation ofcustom-
ers’needs since theythen promise appropriatebenefitsfor
customers,as beneficiaries. Aservice interactionassuchis
perceived as positiveandbeneficial when itconveysthe
feelingoffun,competence,exploration and creativity (De-
ci etal. 1999).Inservice systems,service interactions en-
tail a setofformal and informal processes thatdefine the
nature ofthe exchangeandenable value co-creation
(Sandströmetal. 2008).
Companies and their customers co-createvalue within
service systems as their roles are indistinct(Vargo and
Lusch 2017; Var goetal. 2008).Service systems are config-
urations ofinteractingresources,includingpeople and
technologies,thatenable value co-creation duringthe ser-
vice encounter (Larivi`ere etal. 2017), which Solomon etal.
(1985) define as ‘the dyadic interaction between a custom-
er and a service provider’(ibid,p.99) and Larivi`ere etal.
(2017) define as ‘anycustomer-companyinteraction that
resultsfrom a service system thatis comprised ofinterre-
lated technologies (either company-orcustomer-owned),
human actors likeemployees and customers,physical/
digital environments and company/customer processes’
(ibid,p.2).The service encounter has evolved tobecome
dominated by technology (e.g.,mobile sales assistants,
computer terminals,AI-based service agents;Genenniget
al. 2018; Larivi`ere etal. 2017; Wünderlich and Paluch
2017).Thus,itis no longer understood as a strictlyhu-
man-dominated phenomenon in which FLEs serveasthe
face ofthe companytocustomers and specific learned be-
haviours appropriatefor the situation are performed,but
as a balanced composition involvingthe ‘interdependent
roles oftechnology, employees,and customers’(Larivi`ere
etal. 2017, p.1) enabled by aservice system.
2.2. The interplay between technology and FLEs in
service systems
Withreference tothe aforementioned balanced composi-
tion between human and machine actors,the primaryhu-
man actors atthe interface ofservice interactions are cus-
tomers and FLEs. FLEs bringcompetence,knowledgeand
experience tothese interactions,enablingthem toade-
quatelyservecustomers’needs and co-createvalue with
customers. However,the incorporation ofinteractiveser-
vice technologies intoservice systems has influenced in-
teractivevalue creation (Larivi`ere etal. 2017).Interactive
service technologies in a retailer’sservice system have
been classified intovarious schemes (Ahearne and Rapp
2010).Interactiveservice technologies servedistinctivero-
les in the service encounter –(1) augmentation,(2) substitu-
tion and (3) network facilitation –which havedifferentcon-
sequences on the interaction between FLEs and customers
(Larivi`ere etal. 2017).(1) FLEs are augmented by technolo-
gies that‘assistand complement’ them (Larivi`ere etal.
2017, p.3).For example,service robotsmaycollaborate
with human medical staff in the field ofelderlycare (van
Doorn etal. 2017).Also,FLE-centric technologies,such as
mobile computers thatcan takeinventoryofshelves,aug-
ment as theyspeed upthe transactions handled by FLEs,
leavingmore time for them to care for customers. (2) Inter-
activeservice technologies serveasasubstitute for interac-
tions withhumanFLEs (Larivi`ere etal. 2017).For in-
stance,customers mayuse self-checkoutsatretail stores,
reducingthe need for FLEs (Ahearne and Rapp 2010).(3)
FLEs can networkmore comfortablyusinginteractiveser-
vice technologies thatfacilitate networking.These interac-
tiveservice technologies actas ‘an enabler ofconnections
and relationships[...]rather than focusingon replacing
human employees’(Larivi`ere etal. 2017, p.4).
Inconsequence,the growingdependencyon technology
in service encounters has alreadyaltered FLEs’role in the
service system. Yet, as noted by Böhmann etal. (2018),
‘[e]mphatic interaction,creativesolutions,and authentic
experiences all remain mostlythe domain ofhuman actors
in service systems’(ibid,p.1).Nevertheless,itis expected
thatnew technologies will bedeveloped that‘defy limita-
tions toenable organization-customer interactions ofever-
increasingdiversity and consistencyacross multiple
pointsofcustomer contact’ (Singhetal. 2017, p.1).Such
technologies will notonlydigitalise existingservices but
also offer new types ofservice interactions (Grewal etal.
2017).
2.3. The impact of service robots on service
interactions
New types ofservice interactions are onlysome ofthe
manychanges produced by service robots;as Parasura-
man and Colby (2015) note,‘[r]obotswillopen a revolu-
tionaryfrontier thatcould upsettraditional customer-em-
ployee relationships’(ibid,pp.59–60).Inparticular,ser-
vice robotsareexpected toalter FLEs’role in the service
system (Wirtz etal. 2018).
Because these robots can read,understand and respond to
people’semotions withempathetic intelligence (in addi-
tion tointuitive,analytical and mechanical intelligence;
see Huangand Rust 2018), they‘become increasinglyim-
portantduringservice encounters’(Stockand Merkle
2018, p.1056).Theylargelyoperateautonomouslyand in-
teractwithbothFLEs and customers. AccordingtoAhear-
ne and Rapp (2010), the latter characteristic ofthese tech-
nologies offers a wide spectrum ofpossibilities for re-
search on service robotics in retail (e.g.,Goodrich and
Schultz 2007; Schraft and Schmierer 2000; Stockand Merk-
le 2017; van Doorn etal. 2017; Wirtz etal. 2018).
Tosummariseprior literature,service robots are machines
withthe capability tomakeautonomous decisions and
Meyer/Jonas/Roth, Frontline Employees’ Acceptance of and Resistance to Service Robots in Stationary Retail
SMR · Journal of Service Management Research · Volume 4 · 1/2020 · p. 21– 34 23
https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-21
Generiert durch IP '188.192.241.220', am 13.02.2020, 09:57:10.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
sensitivelyadapt tothe given context (Kirchner and
Alempijevic 2012).Inordertodoso,service robotsreceive
datafrom a variety oflocal inputchannels (e.g.,sensors or
cameras)and process these datatoexecuteanintricateset
ofactions (Singer 2009).Westress that, in addition tocus-
tomers,FLEs are a relevantgroupofusers.
Inordertointeractand communicateonanemotional-so-
cial level or todeliver services to human counterparts,ser-
vice robotsrequire a certain degree ofsocial presence (van
Doorn etal. 2017).Wirtz etal. (2018) argue thatthree de-
signattributes are relevantin a service context: (1) pres-
ence,(2) anthropomorphism and (3) task orientation.(1) A ro-
botwithaphysical presence,such as the semi-humanoid ro-
botPepper,makes users feel as thoughtheyare communi-
catingwith another social entity (Jones 2017).Virtual arti-
ficial intelligence (AI) software can bealsocategorised as
aservice robot(Wirtz etal. 2018), butin this article,we fo-
cus on physicallyrepresented and mobile service robots
(Schraft and Schmierer 2000).(2) Service robotsmaybean-
thropomorphic (e.g.,Sophia,a social humanoid robot) or
non-anthropomorphic (e.g.,Walmart’sshelf-scanningrobot)
(Kirby etal. 2010).(3) Service robots can bedesigned for
cognitive-analytical tasks,such as imageanalysis,or emo-
tional-social tasks,such as reception ofcustomers (Wirtz et
al. 2018).The latter tasksaremostrelevanttointeraction
and communication with users in service system environ-
ments.
Based on the previouslymentioned characteristics and ca-
pabilities ofservice robots,we utilise the followingoper-
atingdefinition ofaservice robotin this article:
Service robots are mobile, system-based, autonomous, adapt-
able, physically represented machines that provide service to
an organisation’s customers and FLEs by interacting and
communicating at an emotional-social level.
AsFLEs mayperceiveaservice robot’srolewithin service
interactions differentlythan the organisation adoptingit;
the technological innovation mayfail (Pantano etal. 2018).
Technology adoption depends on organisations’capabili-
ties to accuratelyrespond toFLEs’needs (Lewis and Lo-
ker 2014); makingitcrucial tounderstand their acceptance
ofand resistance tothe distincttechnology, such as service
robots,beforehand.
2.4. Acceptance of and resistance to service robots
Acceptance ofand resistance tonewtechnologies have
been discussed in service literature since the 1970s. The
mostfrequentlyused model tointerpretacceptance of
technologies is Davis’ (1989) technology acceptance model
(TAM), which is based on the theoryofreasoned action
(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) and social cognitivetheory
(Bandura 1986).Yet, itlackscircumstantial aspectstoclari-
fy how technology is adopted and used (Benbasatand
Barki2007), drawingcriticism.
Technology acceptance theories focus on social and tech-
nological aspectssuchassocialinfluences. Toincorporate
specific influences intothe TAM,two variations (TAM2
and TAM3), were developed from differentperspectives,
such as marketingand sales (e.g.,Lewis and Loker 2014).
Amore integrated model is the unified theoryofaccep-
tance and use oftechnology model (UTAUT), which was
developed by Venkatesh etal. (2003).The UTAUT consid-
ers social influences,such as normativebeliefsaboutpeers
and supervisors,and facilitatingconditions,such as orga-
nisational and technical support, tobesignificantcriteria
affectingthe use ofasystem.
Studies havealsoexamined technology acceptance in the
context ofsales interactions (Ahearne and Rapp 2010).
FLE-specific aspectsareofparticular interestin this re-
gard as FLEs facilitateinteraction between an organisation
and itscustomers,spanningboundaries (Ahearne and
Rapp 2010).Customers appreciatepleasantrelationships
withFLEs who createsocialandemotional value during
service encounters,which is sometimes described as rap-
port, engagementor trust(Wirtz etal. 2018).
Acceptance models havebegun tofocus on service robots
as theyare piloted in an increasingnumber oforganisati-
ons. Based on Solomon etal.’s(1985) role theoryand Da-
vis’ (1989) TAM,Stockand Merkle (2017) developed a the-
oretical social frontline robotacceptance model (SFRAM)
toexamine customers’expectations for an interaction with
afrontline social robotduringaservice encounter. Also,
Wirtz etal. (2018) developed the service robotacceptance
model (sRAM), which builds upon the TAM(Davis 1989).
Theyinclude customers’social-emotional needs,per-
ceived humanness,perceived social interactivity and per-
ceived social presence,relational needs,trustand rapport.
However,bothSFRAM and sRAMfocus onlyon custom-
ers,althoughFLEs’acceptance mustalso beevaluated in
order to orchestratethe use ofservice robotsinaservice
system:‘Addressingonlythe primaryuser in service ro-
boticsisunsatisfactory[...]the focus should beonthe set-
ting, activities and social interactions ofthe groupofpeo-
ple where the robotis tobeused’(Severinson-Eklundh et
al. 2003, p.223).
Adifferentstream ofresearch focuses on resistance to
technologies (Lapointe and Rivard 2005).The sudden in-
fusion ofservice robotsinservice environmentstriggers
various emotional states,from happiness toanxiety; not
all FLEs wanttobeconfronted withnewtechnologies
(Harris and Ogbonna 2002).The uncertainty associated
withbeingreplaced by technology maybe alarming, re-
sultingin fear and resistance (Shah etal. 2017).While
technology acceptance theories tend to assume thatusers
havethe freedom tochoose,technology resistance theo-
ries tend to assume thatusers,includingFLEs,are fre-
quentlyrequired toadapt toanewtechnology the compa-
Meyer/Jonas/Roth, Frontline Employees’ Acceptance of and Resistance to Service Robots in Stationary Retail
24 SMR · Journal of Service Management Research · Volume 4 · 1/2020 · p. 21– 34
https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-21
Generiert durch IP '188.192.241.220', am 13.02.2020, 09:57:10.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
Tab. 1: Qualitative sample description
nyprovides them with(SagaandZmud 1993).Inlinewith
Sheth(1981), we expectthat, due tothe perceived lackof
usefulness ofnew technology, the majority ofindividuals,
includingFLEs,will prefer toavoid change,and a minori-
ty will beinterested in adapting.Toshedlighton this,the
currentstudyexplores aspectsofFLEs’acceptance ofand
resistance toservice robotsinastationaryretail context
from a service systems’perspective.
3. Research Method
Aqualitativeexplorativeapproach was chosen toexamine
aspectsofFLEs’acceptance ofand resistance toservice ro-
botsinaretailer ’sservice system. Aqualitativeapproach
is suitable for obtainingimplicitknowledgeofFLEs (John-
son 2015), and an explorativeapproach ‘can beparticular-
lyuseful in exploringphenomena where little under-
standingexists’(Johnson 2015, p.262).
Aninterview studywas chosen so thatFLEs could share
rich descriptions ofthe meaningascribed toservice robots
while leavingthe datauptothe investigator ’sinterpreta-
tion (Tewksbury 2009).Morespecifically, individual in-
depthinterviews were chosen togain a thorough under-
standingofhow FLEs perceiveandexperience service ro-
botsinaretail workingenvironment, allowingthem ‘to
delvedeeplyinto social and personal matters’(DiCicco-
Bloom and Crabtree 2006, p.315).Overall,the studyaims to
achieveprofound insights and a more complete under-
standingofFLEs’acceptance ofand resistance toservice ro-
botsfrom a retail service system perspective(Johnson 2015).
3.1. Data collection
FLEs were included in the studyiftheymettwo criteria:
(1) the respondent’semployer has tested or implemented
service robotsand(2) the interviewee has had experience
withaservice robotin a retail service system. Bycombin-
ingthe insightsderived from the interviewees withheter-
ogenous service robotexperiences,the reality ofthe retail
context can beappropriatelyrepresented. FLEs are the
mostrelevantsource ofinformation for this studyas they
havepersonal experiences,assessmentsandemotions re-
gardingservice robotsintheir workingenvironment
(Johnson 2015).
The selected interviewees are FLEs ofsixretailers in the
grocery, shoppingcentre,sportinggoods,electronics and
fashion sectors ofthe sales marketsofGermanyand Aus-
tria. At these retailers,service robotsperform service tasks
such as provision ofinformation,entertainmentand navi-
gation.
Between earlyA
ugust 2018 and mid-October 2018, 24 in-
terviews were conducted,recorded and transcribed verba-
tim (Tab . 1 ).For privacyreasons,interviewees’names
Meyer/Jonas/Roth, Frontline Employees’ Acceptance of and Resistance to Service Robots in Stationary Retail
SMR · Journal of Service Management Research · Volume 4 · 1/2020 · p. 21– 34 25
https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-21
Generiert durch IP '188.192.241.220', am 13.02.2020, 09:57:10.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
were anonymised. Since this studyaims tobuild,nottest,
theoretical knowledge,the sample sizeislargelysufficient
(Creswell and Poth2012; Marshall etal. 2013).Datacollec-
tion ceased when theoretical saturation was reached
(Guestetal. 2006).
FollowingYeo etal. (2013), the studyis comprised oftwo
parts. First, abasis for a broad,mature understandingof
potential drivers and barriers toadoption ofservice ro-
botsiscreated by conductingunstructured,open-ended
interviews withsixFLEs from a groceryretailer. Second,
the information gathered in the firstpartis used as a
gatewaytoadditional exploration through semi-struc-
tured interviews (Yeo etal. 2013).Wedeveloped an inter-
view guideline thataligned withextantliterature toen-
sure thatrelevantaspectsofprior technology acceptance
and resistance research and a service system perspective
were considered in the interviews (Maxwell 2008).Three
iterations ofthe guideline were pre-tested withanoppor-
tunity sample (Saunders etal. 2009).These pre-testscon-
firmed thatthe structure ofthe interview guideline was
appropriate.
3.2. Data analysis
FollowingMiles etal. (2014), interpretativedataanalysis
was performed toreducethe complexity ofthe interview
transcriptsandtransform the dataintoalucid,workable
setofconnections. Specifically, f ollowingSalda ˜na (2009), a
transparent, open two-cycle codingprocess was applied
to‘breakupand segmentthe dataintosimpler,general
categories and [...]toexpand and tease outthe data,in or-
der toformulatenewquestions and levels ofinterpreta-
tion’(Coffeyand Atkinson 1996, p.30).
First, descriptivecodingwas performed tocreateanin-
ventoryoftopics to summarise segmentsofdata(Wolcott
1994).Thisisanappropriateapproach for studies witha
wide variety ofdata(Miles etal. 2014; Salda˜na 2009).Sec-
ond,pattern codingwas performed togroupthose sum-
maries intoasmallernumber ofaspects(Miles and Hu-
berman 1994).The codingprocess was conducted using
the software MAXQDA 2018.
Weimplemented several measures toensurethatthe data
analysis was rigorous and trustworthy.First, toensurein-
tersubjectivetraceability, atransparent, open two-cycle
codingprocess was applied. Second,we tested and veri-
fied the resultsby analysingthe datasetfor contradictory
eventsandmodified the findingsover various iterations
ofanalysis and discussion. Third,the objectivity ofthe
analysis was evaluated in terms ofintercoder reliability
(Campbell etal. 2013).Arandomlyselected reliability
sample,representing11.3%ofthe total sample,was cod-
ed by two independentresearchers who reached a broad
consensus on the definition and completeness ofthe cate-
gorisation (Cohen 1960).Particularly, the coefficientkappa
values for each categorywere abovethe 0.61 threshold,
representingsubstantial consensus (Landis and Koch
1977).The overall intercoder reliability was 0.85, indicat-
ingalmostperfectobjectivity in the categorisation (Landis
and Koch 1977).
4. Findings
The interview analysis uncovered 20 aspectsofFLEs’ac-
ceptance ofand resistance toservice robotsfrom a service
system perspective. We assigned these aspectstofive
higher-order categories:(1)loss ofstatus, (2) tension,(3)
required commitment, (4) role incongruencyand (5) advo-
cation (Fig. 1,p.27).Keyquotations were used to describe
the findings(see Tab. 2,p.28) as theyadd transparency
and deepen our understanding(Patton 2007).
Asproposed by Erlingsson and Brysiewicz (2017), the 20
identified aspectsweregrouped intohigher-order catego-
ries accordingtotheir contextual proximity and constitu-
entproperties. Intotal,fivehigher-order categories
emerged. These higher-order categories aim tophrase the
underlyingmeaning, i.e.,latentcontent, found in a group
ofaspects. Moreover,theyaim to communicatethe identi-
fied aspectstothe reader on bothanintellectual and inter-
pretativelevel.
Inparticular, (1) four aspectswereclustered around the
firstnotion of‘loss ofstatus’, relatingtoFLEs’concerns
aboutlosingtheir standingthroughthe use ofservice ro-
bots(Gaudiello etal. 2016; Pellegrini and Scandura 2008).
(2) Fiveaspects were assigned tothe second notion of‘ten-
sion’, related toFLEs’concerns aboutinconvenient
changes in the workingenvironmentwhich are perceived
as unpleasantbyFLEs (Karr-WisniewskiandLu2010;
Spreer and Rauschnabel 2016).(3) Three aspectswereas-
signed tothe third notion of‘required commitment’, relat-
ingtoanincreaseinresponsibilities and psychological
burdens (Boxall and Macky 2014; Lee etal. 2016).(4) Five
aspectswereclustered around the notion of‘role incon-
gruency’, relatingtoFLEs’perception ofservice robotsas
athreatto social relationshipsandanunpleasantinterac-
tion partner (Kamide etal. 2014; Okazakietal. 2010).(5)
The remainder were assigned tothe notion of‘advoca-
tion’, relatingtoFLEs’desire tobesufficientlytrained in
the use ofservice robotstobeable toactivelycontributeto
the organisational changes due tothe use ofservice robots
(Dongetal. 2008; Hanaysha 2016).
(1) Loss of Status.The fear oflosingone’sjobis a major bar-
rier to acceptance ofservice robots. AlthoughFLEs refer to
the operational imperfections ofservice robots and con-
clude thattheir own manpower cannotbereplaced yet,
theystill express several fears. (a)FLEs fear thattheywill
besubstituted withaservice robotand ‘would havetofind
another job’ (see Ta b . 2 ,p.28, John,26years old).FLEs do
Meyer/Jonas/Roth, Frontline Employees’ Acceptance of and Resistance to Service Robots in Stationary Retail
26 SMR · Journal of Service Management Research · Volume 4 · 1/2020 · p. 21– 34
https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-21
Generiert durch IP '188.192.241.220', am 13.02.2020, 09:57:10.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
Fig. 1: Aspects of acceptance of
and resistance to service robots
by frontline employees
notresistchangeper se,butmayresistalossofpay, loss of
comfort, and especiallyalossofstatus (Dentand Gold-
berg 1999).(b) A majority ofFLEs is uncertain about
whether theywill beable tocontinue to workor whether
theywill bedispensable due toservice robots’capabilities.
This situation is differentfrom the certainty ofbeingmade
redundant.Due tothe uncertainty aboutaservice robot’s
future capabilities,FLEs cannotstartpreparingfor redun-
dancyand future (un)employment(Ali etal. 2016) since
theysimply‘don’t know how far itcan gowithtechnolo-
gy’ (Karen, 31).(c)FLEs fear beingdegraded and ‘alittle
less respected’(Nancy, 28) by customers or service robots.
FLEs desire a workingenvironmentin which theyfeel
valued by managementand customers;theydo notwant
tobeperceived as less essential due tothe existence ofser-
vice robots. Fear ofthis typeofdisempowermentcan un-
dermine the perceived raison d’ˆetre ofFLEs. (d)FLEs do
notaccept paternalistic behaviour by aservice robot; they
wanttohavethe final say.Theymayaccept service robots,
as longas the service robotsdonottell them whattodo.
Thus,FLEs would prefer todelegatetaskstoaservice ro-
bot(Patricia, 60).
(2) Tension.The introduction ofservice robots causes FLEs
toface novel challenges within their dailyworkingenvi-
ronmentas theyare unknown actors in the service system.
FLEs are placed in a stress field ofheterogeneous de-
mands by the customer,organisation,t
echnological de-
vices and service robots. (a)This leads todisruption of rou-
tines as FLEs are confronted with new challenges regard-
ingservice robotsasstated,‘no employee expectsarobot
tosuddenlystand behind him’(Barbara, 21).(b) Unpre-
pared,fastincorporation ofservice robotsintoafamiliar
workingenvironmentresultsintechnostress amongama-
jority ofFLEs as ‘itputsyou under additional stress’
(Nancy, 28).(c)Fear of public failure while usingaservice
robotarises simultaneouslytotechnostress. FLEs fear un-
intended malfunctions while interactingwithaservice ro-
botand beingincapable ofprovidinginformation abouta
service robottocustomers. Asstated,FLEs ‘feel a bithu-
miliated’(Sarah, 29) when realisingthattheyare notas
well informed aboutthe service robotas theywish tobe.
(d)Some FLEs cannotcomprehend the retailer’s decision
topilotor implementaservice robot.The perceived lack of
plausibility ofthe decision maylead tointerpersonal hur-
dles. For example,one participantexplained:‘Emotional-
lyIhonestlymustsaythatthere is a certain hatred’(Willi-
am, 26).(e)FLEs noteoperational imperfections in the ser-
vice robots,includingtechnological issues (e.g.,shortbat-
terylife,poor acoustics,slow motor skills or frequent
breakdown)and difficulties related to dailyuse (e.g.,the
service robotsblockpathways or cannotbeswitched off).
Afew FLEs are patientwithservice robots,as theyunder-
stand thatmore innovativetechnologies are more likelyto
bebuggy or tobreakdown (Thomas, 27).However,the
majority ofFLEs are frustrated and annoyed by operation-
al imperfections. For example:‘Inthe course ofthe after-
noon he justwentreallylimpand then shutdown,which
was a bitofapity, because people were there and asked
where Pepper is’(Jessica, 27).
Meyer/Jonas/Roth, Frontline Employees’ Acceptance of and Resistance to Service Robots in Stationary Retail
SMR · Journal of Service Management Research · Volume 4 · 1/2020 · p. 21– 34 27
https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-21
Generiert durch IP '188.192.241.220', am 13.02.2020, 09:57:10.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
Tab. 2: Exemplary key quotations of identified aspects of acceptance of and resistance to service robots by FLEs
(3) Required Commitment.The participantsmentioned
three types ofeffort-related barriers toadoption. (a)FLEs
feel an increase in responsibilities;in addition totheir daily
workload,theymustkeepan eyeonthe service robot.As
stated,theyperceiveto‘bear the responsibility for it’ (Bar-
bara, 21).This requires adjustmentofFLEs’duties in order
toavoid overload and the perception thatservice robots
do notsupportFLEs’work.(b) FLEs experience mental
strains related to learninghow to command and interact
withaservice robot.Doingso is seen as necessarybecause
FLEs believeitis their duty to answer customers’ques-
tions,includingthose aboutservice robots(Jessica, 27).(c)
The time efforts required tobecome familiar withaservice
robotmaybeabarrier toadoption. Aptly, one participant
explained that‘you couldn’t stand in frontofthe robotfor
halfan hour and deal withit’ (Jessica,27).
(4) Role Incongruency. Role incongruencyoccurs when an
actor’sperception ofanother actor’sroledoesnotmatch
the latter’sactual behaviour. FLEs mentioned fivepoten-
tial barriers toadoption associated withroleincongruen-
cy.(a)FLEs criticise the social-emotional callousness ofinter-
actions withaservice robot, which is feltbybothFLEs
and customers. ‘This personal,valuable contact, the smile,
the warmth,that’snotwhatarobotcan do’(Patricia, 60).
(b) FLEs tend toanthropomorphise a service robot’sphysi-
cal appearance.Inother words,theyimbue a nonhuman
service robotwithhumanlike characteristics,motivations,
intentions or emotions based on itsrealorimagined be-
haviour,which influences how theyinteractwithit.For
example,one participantexplained:‘You can identify alit-
tle better withsomethingthatlooksmorelikeahuman
than [...]amovingplastic part’ (Nancy, 28).(c)FLEs fear
relational deterioration of interaction within the service sys-
tem caused by service robots. Inother words,theybelieve
thatservice robotsdisturbthe interpersonal relationships
between FLEs and customers,thus diminishingthe quali-
ty ofinteractions for customers and leadingtoalienation
ofbothcustomers and FLEs. Aptly, one participantstated
that‘in the pastyou wenttoashopt
ogossip, totalk, to
getrid ofworries [...].Withcomputers likethat, it’sjust
sad’(Linda, 48).(d)FLEs express mistrust towards service
robotsastheydo notfeel secure and psychologicallycom-
fortable when one is present(Jessica,27).(e)FLEs cite
functional incapabilities as a potential barrier toado
ption.
Inother words,theyreportthatservice robotsdonotde-
liver the expected functionality: ‘communication [...]is
clearlyaproblem here’(William, 26).The more useful the
service robot, the more likelyitis tobeadopted (see Sche-
pers and Wetzels, 2007).
(5) Advocation.Studies show thatageneral practice ofem-
ployee advocation and participation can be associated
withhigher levels oforganisational commitmentand job
satisfaction (Speier and Venkatesh 2002).(a)FLEs liketo
feel included in the creation process for service robots’use
cases,althoughinmostcases theyare not(Karen, 31).
Some FLEs are willingtonotonlylearn aboutservice ro-
Meyer/Jonas/Roth, Frontline Employees’ Acceptance of and Resistance to Service Robots in Stationary Retail
28 SMR · Journal of Service Management Research · Volume 4 · 1/2020 · p. 21– 34
https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-21
Generiert durch IP '188.192.241.220', am 13.02.2020, 09:57:10.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
botsbutalso contributetothe developmentofvaluable
use cases withtheir personal experience and intrinsic
knowledgeasstated,‘the perceived added value ofthe
service robotincreases considerablyifFLEs can actively
contributetothe developmentofthe use case,because
their experiences count, their ideas are listened toand
then perhapsareimplemented.’(Mary, 25).(b) Proper
training maynotonlysupportFLEs’acceptance ofservice
robotsbutalso enable them tobetter engagewithcustom-
ers regardingthe service robot.The service robotwas
barelyintroduced or explained tothe FLEs. While a few
feltcomfortable withnointroduction or a shortexplana-
tion,the majority would haveliked tobegiven more in-
formation:‘you could do a little trainingand explain what
kind ofdevice itis’(Sarah, 29).(c)FLEs havenotyetmas-
tered the handlingofaservice robot.FLEs perceivethem-
selves as incompetentwithregard tothe service robotand
fear beingjudged by customers. Aptly, one participantex-
plained thatcolleagues ‘are simplyoverwhelmed because
theydon’t know whattodo’(Nancy, 28); thus,desire tobe
able tomaster service robotsproperly.
5. Discussion and Implications
Implementation ofservice robotsintoastationaryretail-
er’sservice system is a promisingapproach tofoster retail
innovation (Grewal etal. 2017). However,FLEs mayreject
service robotswhentheyenter an otherwise consistenten-
vironment.Asdiscussedabove,extantt
echnology accep-
tance and resistance theories are notable tosatisfactorily
and validlyexplain this phenomenon from a FLEs’per-
spective. Thus,we adopted a qualitativeexplorativeap-
proach tobuild (rather than test) theoretical knowledge.
The findingsareboththeoreticallyand manageriallyrele-
vant.
5.1. Theoretical implications
The findingsreveal aspectsthatcan belinked tocon-
structsfrom established technology acceptance and resis-
tance theories and aspectsthatare notcovered or are only
slightlycovered in existingtheories.
(1) Loss of Status. Research has alreadydiscussed the rela-
tion between FLEs’resistance totechnology and per-
ceived loss ofstatus (Joshi 1991; LapointeandRivard
2005).FLEs do notresistchangeper se,buttheymayresist
loss ofpay, loss ofcomfortand,in particular,loss ofstatus
(Dentand Goldberg 1999).Our resultssupportthis. How-
ever,in contrasttoprior studies adoptinga unidimension-
al definition,we find thatthe loss ofstatus is related to
four concerns:substitution risk (the perceived riskthat
FLEs will bereplaced by service robots,based on Roskies
etal. 1988), uncertainty about the future (the degree ofun-
certainty FLEs feel regardingwhether theywill beable to
continue to workdue tothe introduction ofaservice ro-
bot, based on DeWitte1999), degradation (the degree to
which FLEs perceivetheir own roles tobe reduced,based
on Wagner etal. 2009) and paternalism (the degree to
which FLEs perceivetheir autonomytobelimited by a
service robot; Jörlingetal. 2019).Wepresentasophisticat-
ed description ofthese aspects,thus contributingtoextant
literature and improvingthe understandingofthe aspects
in contextsother than those involvingservice robots.
(2) Tension. Prior studies haveexamined aspects similar to
disruption of routines and technostress (DeWitte1999; Oreg
2003).FLEs feel pressured by changes within their work-
ingenvironmentand feel alienated from taskssuchascus-
tomer interaction due tothe presence ofservice robots
(see Marakas and Hornik 1996).Therefore,theymayreject
service robots,regardless oftheir capabilities (DeWitte
1999).Technostress can trigger physical and mental health
complaints,and negativelyimpactFLEs’workperfor-
mance (Tarafdar etal. 2014). However,prior studies have
notconsidered aspectsregardingfear of public failure (the
degree towhichFLEs fear an unintended malfunction ofa
service robotwithin a collaborativesituation,based on
Oyedele and Simpson 2007), lack of plausibility (the degree
to which FLEs do notunderstand the management’sdeci-
sion topilotor implementaservice robot, based on Char-
les etal. 1991) and operational imperfection (the extentof
technological issues and difficulties thatpreventproper
use ofaservice robot).
(3) Required Commitment. Kim and Kankanhalli (2009) ex-
amined aspectsrelated to an increase in economic inputs
and switchingcosts(ibid,p.571).Inaddition,our findings
reveal aspects related torequired commitmentataper-
sonal level. FLEs believethatan increase in responsibilities,
mental strains,and additional time efforts are needed to
properlydeal withservice robots and customer require-
ments(i.e. teachingcustomers how tointeractwiththe
service robot).
(4) Role Incongruency. Arole involves social-emotional,re-
lational and functional norms thatstipulatehowthe in-
volved actors,such as FLEs,service robotsandcustomers,
should interacttoattain role congruency(Giebelhausen et
al. 2014; Solomon etal. 1985).Incontrast, role incongruency
occurs when an actor’sperception ofanother actor ’srole
does notmatch his or her actual behaviour. FLEs perceive
aservice robotas unsatisfyingin terms ofsocial-emotional
needs (social-emotional callousness)and as incapable ofap-
propriatelyenteringsocial spaces (i.e. displayingactions
and emotions;deterioration of interaction;Jones 2017).The
tendencytoimbue a nonhuman service robotwithhu-
manlikenonverbal behaviour supportsfindingsby Ros-
enthal-von der Pütten etal. (2018).Moreover,while hu-
manizingservice robots’physical appearance mayhelpto
compensatethe lackofarealhuman(Gelbrich etal. 2017),
Meyer/Jonas/Roth, Frontline Employees’ Acceptance of and Resistance to Service Robots in Stationary Retail
SMR · Journal of Service Management Research · Volume 4 · 1/2020 · p. 21– 34 29
https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-21
Generiert durch IP '188.192.241.220', am 13.02.2020, 09:57:10.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
Fig. 2: The three Es for promot-
ing acceptance of and reducing
resistance to service robots
authentic behaviour on other levels ofinteraction become
all the more crucial (Wünderlich and Paluch 2017); FLEs
expectservice robotstostimulate curiosity or createvalue
by meetingservice needs.
(5) Advocation. Since service robotsareexpected tonoton-
lyautonomouslyperform supportivefunctions butalso
workside-by-side withFLEs (see Wirtz etal. 2018), in-
volvingFLEs in all phases ofthe implementation ofser-
vice robotshastremendous potential for retailers. Inaddi-
tion to(current) operational imperfections,innovations
mayfail due toaninadequateapproach toimplementa-
tion (Klein and Knight 2005).Prior research has notexam-
ined this factor,and traditional technology and resistance
models do notfullyrespond toFLEs’expectation that
theywill contributetothe developmentofnew technolo-
gies.
5.2. Managerial implications
The findingsofthis studyindicate concreteapproaches
for retailers. Weadapted the behavioural conditions pro-
posed by von Rosenstiel etal. (2005) and the frameworkof
sustainable employee excellence proposed by Permana et
al. (2015) to illustratethree approaches retailers mayfol-
low tobothfoster FLEs’acceptance ofand reduce FLEs’
resistance toservice robots. The fivehigher-order catego-
ries call for enablement,engagement and/or empowerment of
FLEs (Fig. 2).Retailers need toenable,i.e. provide FLEs
withwhattheyneed toperform their jobs and an environ-
mentin which theyfeel valued. Retailers need toengage
their FLEs,i.e. intensify FLEs’emotional attachmentfor
the organisation since itpositivelyinfluences the degree
ofextra effortcommitted. Retailers need toempower their
FLEs,i.e. givethem ‘problem-solvingand decision-mak-
ingauthority totakeresponsibility for usingthe organisa-
tion’s resources to achieveresults’(Permana etal. 2015,
p.581).Subsequently, we brieflydescribethe concrete
approaches.
(1) Loss of Status calls for engagement.Retailers mayre-
spond toperceived loss ofstatus by explainingthatser-
vice robotswillalter,butnoteliminate,the role ofFLEs in
service systems. Currently, service robotsarelimited in ca-
pability, butin the future,theymayworkside-by-side
withFLEs (Wirtz etal. 2018).AsFLEs are willingto dele-
gatetaskstoservice robots,retailers mayexplain thatser-
vice robotsshouldcomplementFLEs’workand create
new types ofinteraction withcustomers.
(2) Tension calls for engagementand enablement.Tore-
duce tension,retailers should plausiblyexplain their moti-
vation for pilotingor implementingservice robots.
Through clear communication,retailers can presentser-
vice robotsasasupportiverather than disruptivetechnol-
ogy.Toovercome the perceived disruption of routines,re-
tailers mayfirstfocus on positivelyinclined FLEs. After
theyare enabled,these FLEs can motivateandhelpother
co-workers better adapt toservice robots.
(3) Required commitment calls for enablement.Our findings
indicatethatFLEs are willingto learn aboutservice robots
butlacktime and retailers’support.Thus,retailers could
offer time for FLEs toexperience service robots. Depend-
ingon the FLEs’familiarity withservice robots,the time
required will vary.This typeofmeasure maycommuni-
catetoFLEs thatthe initial phase offamiliarisation with
service robotsisnotonlyapersonal commitment.More-
Meyer/Jonas/Roth, Frontline Employees’ Acceptance of and Resistance to Service Robots in Stationary Retail
30 SMR · Journal of Service Management Research · Volume 4 · 1/2020 · p. 21– 34
https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-21
Generiert durch IP '188.192.241.220', am 13.02.2020, 09:57:10.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
over,retailers mayexplain thatthe perceived increase in re-
sponsibility is particularlyevidentin the initial phase of
implementation and will be reduced over time;the more
familiar customers are withservice robots,the less guid-
ance theywill need from FLEs.
(4) Role Incongruency calls for empowerment.Due toser-
vice robots’manifold functional incapabilities,retailers
should refrain from large-scale implementation until the
technology improves. Also,FLEs mistrust service robots
and feel uncomfortable when itis necessarytodepend on
them (Komiakand Benbasat 2006).Toreducemistrust and
avoid unclear roles and responsibilities,retailers should
focus on developingsmall,well-demarcated,subordinate
use cases (Huangand Rust 2018).Retailers mayneed to
clearlyestablish role models for their FLEs as well as ser-
vice robots. Adefined setoftasksmustbegiven toevery
role model in order tocreaterolecongruency(i.e. define
the extenttowhichFLEs are allowed todelegatesubordi-
natetaskstoaservice robot).
(5) Advocation calls for empowermentand enablement.
Retailers can empower their FLEs by activelyinvolving
them,and the personal experience ofFLEs can produce
more valuable use cases for service robots. Specifically,
theycan bestassess the activities from which customers
benefitand the activities in which human expertise is in-
dispensable. Retailers mayenable FLEs todosoby help-
ingthem developnew skill setstobetter copewiththeir
new role and tobetter contributetothe designofuse
cases.
6. Conclusion, Limitations and Further Research
Researchonservice robotshasprimarilyconcentrated on
programmingissues,such as emotion recognition or be-
haviour patterns,or on customer’sexpectations for ser-
vice robots(see Stockand Merkle 2017).Tothe bestofour
knowledge,service robotic research hardlyfocused on
FLEs’expectations for service robotswithin a service envi-
ronment, althoughthe increasingpresence ofservice ro-
botsinservice systems requires deeper research (Wirtz et
al. 2018).Our studyis amongthe firsttoperform an in-
depthexploration ofaspectsrelated toFLEs’acceptance of
and resistance toservice robotsfrom a service system per-
spective. The studythus enhances the extantbodyof
knowledgeontechnology adoption in retail.
The service robotis a promising, commonlydiscussed
technology thatis abouttoenter organisations’service
systems. Unlikeother retail technologies,service robots
largelyoperateautonomouslywhen interactingwithboth
customers and FLEs. This opens upthe traditional dyadic
interaction between the service provider and customer
(Larivi`ere etal. 2017; Solomon etal. 1985; Teixera etal.
2017).Asaconsequence,FLEs’decision to accept or reject
aservice robotin a jointservice system is influenced by
aspectsthatgobeyond the findingsoftraditional technol-
ogy acceptance and resistance research. This qualitative
exploratorystudyprovides fivehigher-order categories of
aspectsrelated toFLEs’acceptance ofand resistance to
service robots. These categories can supportand refine
traditional acceptance and resistance models or lead tothe
developmentofnew,more unified models.
Onthe managerial side,this studyprovides a comprehen-
siveview ofFLEs’perceptions ofservice robots,which
stationaryretailers mustunderstand. Asthere is a linkb
e-
tween technology adoption and jobsatisfaction (Speier
and Venkatesh 2002) and sales performance (Jelineketal.
2006), retailers can utilise the resultsofthis studytodevel-
opsuitable strategies for reducingand eliminatingthe
identified challenges.
Althoughwewereveryconscientious in our development
oft
he study, itis notfree oflimitations. First, we devel-
oped a listofaspectsthatare based on a sufficientlylarge
sample of24individual in-depthinterviews. While these
aspectsdeepen the conceptual knowledgeaboutservice
robotsinservice systems,we do notoffer waysfor practi-
tioners and academics tomeasurethem. Also,we havenot
yetempiricallyvalidated the aspects. Therefore,we rec-
ommend thatasubsequentquantitativestudybeper-
formed tovalidatetheir psychometric nature and further
assess the underlyingstructure. Furthermore,self-re-
ported dataisacommonlimitation ofstudies adopting
qualitativeapproaches,and the datacollection was limit-
ed toFLEs workingin Germanyand Austria. It is recom-
mended thatfuture studies collectdatafrom other re-
gions.
The field ofservice robotics is rapidlyevolving, butitis
still nascent, offeringmanifold opportunities for future re-
search. Wehave justscratched the surface regardingthe
interplaybetween service robotsandFLEs. Scholarlyre-
searchers should consider extendingacceptance questions
toallstakeholders in the service system,as itis expected
that‘highemotional and cognitiveservice taskswillbe
delivered by service employee-robotteams’(Wirtz etal.
2018, p.36).
References
Aaltonen,I.,Arvola,A.,Heikkilä, P.,&Lammi,H. (2017).Hel-
lo Pepper,mayItickle you?Children’sandadults’re-
sponses toanentertainmentrobotatashoppingmall,HRI
’17 Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE Inter-
national Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 53–54.
Ahearne,M. &Rapp, A.(2010).The Role ofTechnology atthe
Interface Between Salespeople and Consumers,Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, 30 (2), 109–118.
Ali,M.,Zhou,L.,Miller,L.,&Ieromonachou,P.(2016).User
resistance in IT: A literature review,International Journal of
Information Management, 36 (1), 35–43.
Meyer/Jonas/Roth, Frontline Employees’ Acceptance of and Resistance to Service Robots in Stationary Retail
SMR · Journal of Service Management Research · Volume 4 · 1/2020 · p. 21– 34 31
https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-21
Generiert durch IP '188.192.241.220', am 13.02.2020, 09:57:10.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
Bandura,A.(1986).Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A
Social Cognitive Theory,Englewood Cliffs,Prentice-Hall,Inc.
Benbasat, I.&Barki,H. (2007).Quo vadis,TAM?, Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 8 (4), 211–218.
Böhmann,T.,Leimeister,M.J.,&Möslein,K.M. (2018).The
New Frontiers ofService Systems EngineeringAutomation,
Interaction,Openness and Learning, Business and Informa-
tion Systems Engineering, 60 (5), 1–3.
Boxall,P.&Macky, K. (2014).High-involvementworkpro-
cesses,workintensification and employee well-being, Work,
Employment and Society, 28 (6), 963–984.
ˇ
Cai´c,M.,Odekerken-Schröder,G.,&Mahr,D.(2018), Service
robots:value co-creation and co-destructioninelderlycare
networks,Journal of Service Management, 29 (2), 178–205.
Campbell,J
.L.,Quincy, C.,Osserman,J.,&Pedersen,O.K.
(2013).CodingIn-DepthSemistructured Interviews:Prob-
lems ofUnitization and Intercoder Reliability and Agree-
ment, Sociological Methods and Research, 42 (3), 294–320.
Charles,O.I.A.,Chatman,J.,&Caldwell,D.F.(1991).People
and Organizational Culture:AProfile Comparison Ap-
proach toAssessingPerson-Organization Fit, The Academy
of Management Journal, 34 (3), 487–516.
Coffey, A .&Atkinson,P.(1996).Making Sense of Qualitative
Data,Thousand Oaks,London,New Delhi,SAGEPublica-
tions.
Creswell,J.W.&Poth,C.N.(2012).Qualitative Inquiry and Re-
search Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches,Thousand
Oaks,London,New Delhi, SAGEPublications.
Davis,F.D.(1989).Perceived Usefulness,Perceived Ease of
Use,and User Acceptance,MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319–340.
DeWitte,H. (1999).JobInsecurity and Psychological Well-Be-
ing: Review ofthe Literature and Exploration ofSome Un-
resolved Issues,European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 8 (2), 155–177.
Deci,E.L.,Koestner,R.,&Ryan,R.M. (1999).AMeta-Analytic
Review ofExperimentsExaminingthe EffectsofExtrinsic
Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation,Psychological Bulletin, 125
(6), 627–668.
Dent, E.B. &Goldberg, S.G.(1999).ChallengingResistance to
Change,The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35 (1), 25–
41.
DiCicco-Bloom,B. &Crabtree,B.F.(2006).The QualitativeRe-
search Interview,Medical Education, 40 (4), 314–321.
Doering, N.,Poeschl,S.,Gross,H.-M.,Bley, A .,Martin,C.,&
Boehme,H.-J.(2015).User-Centered DesignandEvaluation
ofaMobile ShoppingRobot, International Journal of Social
Robotics, 7, 203–255.
Dong, B.,Evans,K.R.,&Zou,S.(2008).The effectsofcustomer
participation in co-created service recovery, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 123–137.
Erlingsson,C. &Brysiewicz, P.(2017).African Journal of
EmergencyMedicine COMMENTARY A hands-on guide to
doingcontentanalysis,African Journal of Emergency Medi-
cine, 7 (3), 93–99.
Fishbein,M. &Ajzen,I.(1975).Belief, Attitude, Intention and Be-
havior: An Introduction to Theory and Research,Reading, Ad-
dison-Wesley.
Gaudiello,I
.,Zibetti,E.,Lefort, S.,Chetouani,M.,&Ivaldi,S.
(2016).Trustas indicator ofrobotfunctional and social ac-
ceptance:Anexperimental studyon user conformation to
iCubanswers,Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 633–655.
Gelbrich,K.,Hagel,J.,&Orsingher,C. (2017).HowAnthropo-
morphized Helpers Increase Customers Outcomes in Smart
Service Usage. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Frontiers in
Service Conference,New York.
Genennig, S.M.,Roth,A.,Jonas,J.M.,&Möslein,K.M. (2018).
Valu e Propositions in Service Systems Enabled by Digital
Technology: A Field Based DesignScience Approach. Jour-
nal of Service Management Research, 2 (4), 6–21.
Giebelhausen,M.D.,Robinson,S.G.,Sirianni,N.J.,&Brady,
M.K. (2014).Touch Versus Tech:When Technology Func-
tions as a Barrier or a BenefittoService Encounters,Journal
of Marketing, 78 (4), 113–124.
Gollnhofer,J.F.&Schüller,S.(2018).Sensingthe Vocal Age:
ManagingVoice TouchpointsonAlexa,Marketing Review St.
Gallen, 35 (4), 22–29.
Goodrich,M.A.&Schultz, A.C. (2007). Human-RobotI
nterac-
tion:ASurvey, Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer
Interaction, 1 (3), 203–275.
Grewal,D.,Roggeveen,A.L.,&Nordfält, J.(2017).The Future
ofRetailing, Journal of Retailing, 93 (1), 1–6.
Guest, G.,Bunce,A.,&Johnson,L.(2006). How ManyInter-
views Are Enough?AnExperimentwithDataSaturation
and Variability, Field Methods, 18 (1), 59–82.
Hanaysha,J.(2016).Examiningthe EffectsofEmployee Em-
powerment, Teamwork, and Employee Trainingon Organi-
zational Commitment, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sci-
ences, 229, 298–306.
Harris,L.C. &Ogbonna,E. (2002).ExploringService Sabo-
tage:The Antecedents,Types and Consequences ofFront-
line,Deviant, Antiservice Behaviors,Journal of Service Re-
search, 4 (3), 163–183.
Huang, M.-H. &Rust, R.T.(2018).Artificial Intelligence in Ser-
vice,Journal of Service Research, 21 (2), 155–172.
Ivanov, S.H.&Webster,C. (2019).Whatshould robotsdo?A
comparativeanalysis ofindustryprofessionals,educators
and tourists,in Pesonen,J.&Neidhardt, J.(Eds.).Informa-
tion and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2019,Pro-
ceedingsofthe International Conference in Nicosia,Cy-
prus, 249–262.
Iwamura,Y.,Shiomi,M.,Kanda,T.,Ishiguro,H.,&Hagita,N.
(2011).Doelderlypeople prefer a conversational humanoid
as a shoppingassistantpartner in supermarkets?, 6th ACM/
IEEE International Conference of Human-Robot-Interaction,
449–457.
Jelinek, R.,Ahearne,M.,Mathieu,J.,&Schillewaert, N.(2006).
ALongitudinal Examination ofIndividual,Organizational,
and Contextual Factors on Sales Technology Adoption and
JobPerformance,Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,14
(1), 7–23.
Jörling, M.,Böhm,R.,&Paluch,S.(2019): Service Robots.
Drivers ofPerceived Responsibility for Service Outcomes,
Journal of Service Research (forthcomingVol 22, Issue 4).
Johnson,J.S.(2015).QualitativeSales Research:AnExposition
ofGrounded Theory, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 35 (3), 262–273.
Jonas,J.M.,Roth,A.,&Möslein,K.M. (2016).Stakeholder Inte-
gration for Service Innovation in German Medium-Sized
Enterprises,Service Science, 8 (3), 320–332.
Jones,R.A.(2017).WhatMakes a Robot‘Social’?, Social Studies
of Science, 47 (4), 556–579.
Joshi,K. (1991).AModel ofUsers’PerspectiveonChange:
Meyer/Jonas/Roth, Frontline Employees’ Acceptance of and Resistance to Service Robots in Stationary Retail
32 SMR · Journal of Service Management Research · Volume 4 · 1/2020 · p. 21– 34
https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-21
Generiert durch IP '188.192.241.220', am 13.02.2020, 09:57:10.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
The Case ofInformation Systems Technology Implementa-
tion,MIS Quarterly, 15 (2), 229–242.
Kaartemo,V. &Helkkula,A.(2018).ASystematic Review of
Artificial Intelligence and Robots in Value Co-Creation:
CurrentStatus and Future Research Avenues,Journal of Cre-
ating Value, 4 (2), 211–228.
Kamide,H.,Takubo,T.,O
hara,K.,Mae,Y.,&Arai,T.(2014).
Impressions ofHumanoids:The Developmentofa Measure
for Evaluatinga Humanoid,International Journal of Social
Robotics, 6 (1), 33–44.
Kanda,T.,Shiomi,M.,Miyashita,Z.,Ishiguro,H.,&Hagita,
N.(2010).ACommunication Robotin a ShoppingMall,
IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 26 (5), 897–913.
Karr-Wisniewski,P.&Lu,Y.(2010).When more is too much:
Operationalizingtechnology overload and exploringitsim-
pacton knowledgeworker productivity, Computers in Hu-
man Behavior, 26 (5), 1061–1072.
Kim,H.-W.&Kankanhalli,A.(2009).InvestigatingUser Re-
sistance toInformation Systems Implementation:AStatus
Quo Bias Perspective,MIS Quarterly, 33 (3), 567–582.
Kirby, R.,Forlizzi,J.,&Simmons,R.(2010).AffectiveSocial
Robots,Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 58 (3), 322–332.
Kirchner,N.&Alempijevic,A.(2012).ARobot-Centric Per-
spectiveonthe HRI Paradigm,Journal of Human-Robot Inter-
action, 1 (2), 135–157.
Klein,K.J.&Knight, A.P.(2005).Innovation Implementation
Overcomingthe Challenge,Current Directions in Psychologi-
cal Science, 14 (5), 243–246.
Komiak, S.Y.X.&Benbasat, I.(2006).The EffectsofPersonali-
zation and Familiarity on Trustand Adoption ofRecom-
mendation,MIS Quarterly, 30 (4), 941–960.
Landis,J.R.&Koch,G.G.(1977).The MeasurementofOb-
server Agreementfor Categorical Data,Biometrics, 33 (1),
159–174.
Lapointe,L.&Rivard,S.(2005).AMultilevel Model ofResis-
tance toInformation Technology Implementation,MIS
Quarterly, 29 (3), 461–491.
Larivi`ere,B.,Bowen,D.,Andreassen,T.W.,Kunz, W.,Sirianni,
N.J.,Voss,C.,&DeKeyser,A.(2017).Service Encounter 2.0:
AnInvestigation intothe Roles ofTechnology, Employees
and Customers,Journal of Business Research, 79, 238–246.
Lee,A.R.,Son,S.M.,&Kim,K. K. (2016).Information and
communication technology overload and social networking
service fatigue:Astress perspective,Computers in Human
Behavior, 55, 51–61.
Lewis,T.L.&Loker,S.(2014).Technology UsageIntent
AmongApparel Retail Employees,International Journal of
Retail and Distribution Management, 42 (5), 422–440.
Lyons,K. &Tracy, S .(2013).CharacterizingOrganizations as
Service Systems,Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufac-
turing and Service Industries, 23(1), 19–27.
Marakas,G.M. &Hornik, S.(1996).PassiveResistance Misuse:
OvertSupportand CovertRecalcitrance in IS Implementa-
tion,European Journal of Information Systems, 5 (3), 208–219.
Marshall,B.,Cardon,P.,Poddar,A.,&Fontenot, R.(2013).
Does Sample SizeMatter in QualitativeResearch?: A Re-
view ofQualitativeInterviews in IS Research,Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 54 (1), 11–22.
Matzner,M.,Büttgen,M.,Demirkan,H.,Spohrer,J.,Alter,S.,
Fritzsche,A.,Ng,I.,Jonas,J.M.,Martinez, V. Möslein,K.
M.,&Neely, A.(2018).Digital Transformation in Service
Management, Journal of Service Management Research, 2 (2),
2–21.
Maxwell,J.A.(2008).“Designingaqualitativestudy,” in Bick-
man,L.&Rog, D.J.(Eds.).Handbook of Applied Social Re-
search Methods,Los Angeles,London,New Delhi,Singapo-
re, SAGEPublications, 214–253.
Meyer,P.,Spreer,P.,&Gutknecht, K. (2018).HumanoideSer-
viceroboter am PoS: Eine akzeptanzanalytische Untersu-
chungneuer Formen der Kundeninteraktion,Marketing Re-
view St. Gallen, 35 (6), 18–25.
Miles,M. &Huberman,M., (1994).Qualitative Data Analysis:
An expanded source book,Thousand Oaks,Sagepublications.
Miles,M.B.,Huberman,A.M.,&Salda ˜na,J.(2014).Qualitative
Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook,Thousand Oaks,Sage
Publications.
Okazaki,S.,Li,H.,&Hirose,M. (2009).Consumerprivacy
concerns and preference for degree ofregulatorycontrol:A
studyofmobile advertisingin Japan,Journal of Advertising,
38 (4), 63–77.
Oreg, S.(2003).Resistance toChange:Developingan Individ-
ual Differences Measure,Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (4),
680–693.
Oyedele,A.&Simpson,P.M. (2007).AnEmpirical Investiga-
tion ofConsumer Control Factors on Intention toUse Se-
lected Self-Service Technologies,International Journal of Ser-
vice Industry Management, 18 (3), 287–306.
Pantano,E.,Priporas,C. V.,&Dennis,C. (2018).Anew ap-
proach toretailingfor successful competition in the new
smartscenario,International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 46 (3), 264–282.
Parasuraman,A.&Colby, C.L.(2015).AnUpdated and
Streamlined Technology Readiness Index: TRI 2.0, Journal of
Service Research, 18 (1), 59–74.
Pellegrini,E. K. &Scandura,T.A.(2008).Paternalistic leader-
ship: A review and agenda for future research,Journal of
Management, 34 (3), 566–593.
Permana,I.,Tjakraatmadja,J.H.,Larso,D.,&Wicaksono,A.
(2015).Exploringpotential drivers ofemployee engage-
ment, enablement, and empowerment: A questtoward
developingaframeworkfor buildingsustainable employ-
ee excellence for manufacturingenvironmentin Indone-
sia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6 (2S1), 577–
587.
Reichwald,R.&Piller,F.(2009).Interaktive Wertschöpfung:
Open Innovation, Individualisierung und neue Formen der Ar-
beitsteilung,Wiesbaden,Gabler Verlag.
Rosenthal-von der Pütten,A.M.,Krämer,N.C. &Herrmann,J.
(2018).The effectsofhumanlikeandrobot-specific affective
nonverbal behavior on perception,emotion,and behavior,
International Journal of Social Robotics,published online first.
Roskies,E.,Liker,J.K.,&Roitman,D.B. (1988).Winners and
Losers:Employee Perceptions ofTheir Company’sTechno-
logical Transformation,Journal of Organizational Behavior,9
(2), 123–137.
Saga,V. L.&Zmud,R.W.(1993).The nature and determinants
ofITacceptance,routinization,and infusion. Paper presented
at IFIP TC8 Working Conference on Diffusion, Transfer and Im-
plementation of Information Technology, 67–86.
Sandström,S.,Edvardsson,B.,Kristensson,P.,&Magnusson,
P.(2008).ValueinUse ThroughService Experience,Manag-
ing Service Quality, 18 (2), 112–126.
Meyer/Jonas/Roth, Frontline Employees’ Acceptance of and Resistance to Service Robots in Stationary Retail
SMR · Journal of Service Management Research · Volume 4 · 1/2020 · p. 21– 34 33
https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-21
Generiert durch IP '188.192.241.220', am 13.02.2020, 09:57:10.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
Salda ˜na,J.(2009).The CodingManual for QualitativeRe-
searchers (1sted.).Thousand Oaks,London,New Delhi:
SagePublications.
Saunders,M.,Lewis,P.,&Thornhill,A.(2009).Research Meth-
ods for Business Students,Essex, Pearson Education Ltd.
Schepers,J.&Wetzels,M. (2007).AMeta-analysis ofthe Tech-
nology Acceptance Model:InvestigatingSubjectiveNorm
and Moderation Effects,Information and Management, 44 (1),
90–103.
Schraft, R.D.&Schmierer,G.(2000).Service Robots: Product,
Scenarios, Visions,Boca Raton,CRCPress.
Severinson-Eklundh,K.,Green,A.,&Hüttenrauch,H. (2003).
Social and CollaborativeAspectsofInteraction withaSer-
vice Robot, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42 (4), 223–
234.
Shah,N.,Irani,Z.,&Sharif, A.M. (2017).BigDatainanHR
Context: ExploringOrganizational ChangeReadiness,Em-
ployee Attitudes and Behaviors,Journal of Business Research,
70, 366–378.
Sheth,J.N.(1981).Psychology ofInnovation Resistance:The
Less Developed Concept in Diffusion Research,Research in
Marketing, 4 (3), 273–283.
Shi,C.,Satake,S.,Kanda,T.,&Ishiguro,H. (2018).ARobot
thatDistributes Flyers toPedestrians in a ShoppingMall,
International Journal of Social Robotics, 10 (4), 421–437.
Singer,P.W.(2009).Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and
Conflict in the 21st Century,London:Penguin.
Singh,J.,Brady, M.,Arnold,T.,&Brown,T.(2017).The Emer-
gentField ofOrganizational Frontlines,Journal of Service Re-
search, 20 (1), 1–9.
Solomon,M.R.,Surprenant, C.,Czepiel,J.A.,&Gutman,
E.G.(1985).ARole TheoryPerspectiveonDyadic Interac-
tions:The Service Encounter,Journal of Marketing,49(1),
99–111.
Speier,C. &Ven katesh,V. (2002).The Hidden Minefields in
the Adoption ofSales Force Automation Technologies,Jour-
nal of Marketing, 66 (3), 98–111.
Spreer,P.&Rauschnabel,P.A.(2016).Sellingwithtechnology:
understandingthe resistance tomobile sales assistantuse in
retailing, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,36
(3), 240–263.
Stock, R.M. &Merkle,M. (2017).AService RobotAcceptance
Model:User Acceptance ofHumanoid RobotsDuringSer-
vice Encounters. Paper presented at IEEE International Confer-
ence on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PERCOM).
Stock, R.M. &Merkle,M. (2018). Can humanoid service robots
perform better than service employees?Acomparison ofin-
novativebehavior cues,Paper presented at 51st Hawaii Inter-
national Conference on System Sciences, 1056–1065.
Subramony, M.,Ehrhart, K.,Groth,M.,Holtom,B.C.,van
Jaarsveld,D.D.,Yagil,D.,&Wirtz, J.(2017).Accelerating
Employee-related Scholarshipin Service Management, Jour-
nal of Service Management, 28 (5), 837–865.
Subramony, M.,Solnet, D.,Groth,M.,Yagil,D.,Hartley, N .,
Kim,P.B.,&Golubovskaya,M. (2018).Service Workin 2050:
Toward a WorkEcosystems Perspective,Journal of Service
Management,29(5),forthcoming.
Tarafdar,M.,Bolman Pullins,E.,&Ragu-Nathan,T.S.(2014).
ExaminingImpactsofTechnostress on the Professional
Salesperson’sBehavioural Performance,Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, 34 (1), 51–69.
Tewksbury, R.(2009).Qualitativevs. Quantitave,Journal of
Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 1 (1), 38–58.
van Doorn,J.,Mende,M.,Nobble,S.M.,Hulland,J.,Ostrom,
A.L.,Grewal,D.,&Petersen,J.A.(2017).Domo ArigatoMr.
Roboto:Emergence ofautomated social presence in organi-
zational frontlines and customers’service experiences,Jour-
nal of Service Research, 20 (1), 43–58.
Vargo,S.L.&Lusch,R.F.(2017).Service-DominantLogic 2025,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34 (1), 46–67.
Vargo,S.L.,Maglio,P.P.,&Akaka,M.A.(2008).On Value and
Value Co-Creation:AService Systems and Service Logic
Perspective,European Management Journal, 26 (3), 145–152.
Venkatesh,V. ,Morris,M.G.,Davis,G.B.,Davis,F.D.,Smith,
R.H.,&Walton,S.M. (2003).User Acceptance ofInforma-
tion Technology: Toward a Unified View,MIS Quarterly,27
(3), 425–478.
von Rosenstiel,L.,Molt, W.,&Rüttinger,B. (2005).Organisati-
onspsychologie,9thed.,Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag.
Wagner,T.,Hennig-Thurau,T.,Rudolph,T.,Groth,M.,Ho-
well,R.D.,Paul,M.,&Wangenheim,F.V. (2009).Does Cus-
tomer Demotion JeopardizeLoyalty?, Journal of Marketing,
73, 69–85.
Wolcott, H. F.(1994).TransformingQualitativeData:Descrip-
tion,Analysis,Interpretation. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage
Publications.
Wirtz, J.,Patterson,P.,Kunz, W.,Gruber,T.,Lu,V. N.,Paluch,S.,
&Martins,A.(2018).BraveNew World:Service Robotsinthe
Frontline,Journal of Service Management, 29 (5), 907–931.
Wünderlich,N.V.&Paluch,S.(2017).ANice and Friendly
ChatwithaBot: User Perceptions ofAI-Based Service
Agents,Paper presented atthe 38.International Conference
on Information Systems.
Yeo,A.,Legard,R.,Keegan,J.,Ward,K.,McNaughton Ni-
cholls,C.,&L
ewis,J.(2013).“In-depthinterviews,” in Rit-
chie,J.,Lewis,J.,McNaughton,C.N.,&Ormston,R.(Eds.).
Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Stu-
dents and Researchers,Los Angeles,London,New Delhi,Sin-
gapore,SAGEPublications, 179–210.
Keywords
Service Robots, Frontline Employees, Service Sys-
tems, Technology Acceptance and Resistance, Retail
Innovation
Meyer/Jonas/Roth, Frontline Employees’ Acceptance of and Resistance to Service Robots in Stationary Retail
34 SMR · Journal of Service Management Research · Volume 4 · 1/2020 · p. 21– 34
https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-21
Generiert durch IP '188.192.241.220', am 13.02.2020, 09:57:10.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
