Next Article in Journal
Creating Tourism Destinations of Underground Built Heritage—The Cases of Salt Mines in Poland, Portugal, and Romania
Previous Article in Journal
Reengineered Governance Process for Assessing Core Public Infrastructure Projects
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 17
10.3390/su13179675
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Understanding the Antecedents and Consequences of Service-Sales Ambidexterity: A Motivation-Opportunity-Ability (MOA) Framework

by
Bilal Ahmad
1,
Liu Da
1,
Mirza Huzaifa Asif
1,
Muhammad Irfan
2,3,*,
Shahid Ali
1,* and
Muhammad Imad Ud Din Akbar
4
1
School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China
2
School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
3
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
4
Department of Management Sciences, National University of Modern Languages, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(17), 9675; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179675
Submission received: 26 July 2021 / Revised: 17 August 2021 / Accepted: 24 August 2021 / Published: 28 August 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Drawing on the motivation, opportunity and ability (MOA) framework, we investigate the influence of charismatic leadership on salespeople’s service and sales activities—termed service-sales ambidextrous (SSA) behavior, which subsequently turn into service recovery performance outcomes. The primary aim of this research is to strengthen salespeople’s service quality in parallel to their selling activities while recovering a service failure. We validate the model using a sample of 344 business-to-business salespeople using partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique. Study results show that charismatic leadership is positively and significantly related to service-sales ambidexterity. Likewise, service-sales ambidexterity has a positive and significant relationship with service recovery performance and adaptive selling behavior. Moreover, we found a significant relationship between adaptive selling behavior and service recovery performance. The results further specify that salesperson motivation, opportunity and ability to engage in SSA significantly moderate the relationship between charismatic leadership and service-sales ambidexterity. The results suggest the need for training programs that provide the salesperson with opportunities to understand the simultaneous implementation of selling strategies while also providing customer services.

1. Introduction

In business-to-business (B2B) marketing literature, salesforce performance has been a significant research subject due to the prominence of direct selling in B2B marketing [1]. Effective salespeople contribute significantly to a company’s development and long-term sustainability by enhancing sales growth and establishing deep customer relationships [2]. Recently, service–sales ambidexterity has been presented as a novel sort of ambidexterity capable of explaining and forecasting salesperson performance. This line of research divides the activities of salespeople into service and sales activities. Service activities refer to the actions that a salesperson engages in to increase consumer’ satisfaction, i.e., listening to their comments and resolving complaints. On the other hand, sales activities refer to a salesperson’s behaviors to push items and services to a client, such as contacting consumers to initiate new transactions or renew current ones. The research on service–sales ambidexterity builds on the contextual ambidexterity literature to propose that salespeople may discover interactions between sales and service activities, optimize the effect of both concurrently and improve long-term sales success.
According to a meta-analysis on ambidexterity [3], contextual factors significantly influence both positive and negative employees’ ambidexterity. Charismatic leadership is one of these contextual factors [4,5]. In contrast to prior research on service-sales ambidexterity that has focused on management control systems as its antecedents [6], we prefer charismatic leadership as a managerial antecedent that motivates salespeople with a sustainable vision and motivates them to engage in service-sales ambidextrous behavior. More importantly, the present marketing literature has consistently overlooked the parallel examination of ambidextrous components such as customer service requirements and cross/up-selling activities in the context of leadership styles. Therefore, we test and develop a framework in response to [7]’s call to examine the influence of charismatic leadership style on ambidextrous behavior.
As an essential relationship between a service organization and its business-to-business (B2B) customers, the catalytic role of salesforce extends beyond marketing to effectively address B2B customers’ complaints to recover service failures [8,9]. The success of service recovery is determined by salespeople’s attempts to rebuild customers’ trust by resolving a loss in a service interaction [10,11]. Previous investigations suggest that service-sales ambidexterity is one of the mechanisms shaping salespeople’s service-related outcomes [7,12]. However, in comparison with organizational ambidexterity [13,14], the role of service-sales ambidexterity in shaping salespersons’ service behaviors, particularly service recovery, remains unexplored. Furthermore, we advocate that adaptive salespeople should contribute to excellent customer service by supporting qualified recovery from service failure. Indeed, an adaptive selling strategy is an essential tool in the recovery of services [15]. Adaptive salespeople who follow new ideas and actively involved in service user reviews and feedback [16,17], are well motivated to deal with customer queries and improve their quality of services.
In this study, we draw upon the motivation, opportunity and ability (MOA) framework to argue that achieving and maintaining service-sales ambidexterity over long periods is highly reliant on salespeople’s motivation, opportunity and ability to engage in SSA, which influence the service and sales activities. Many organizations have frequently failed to produce employees’ sustainable performance due to a lack of employee abilities, motivation and opportunity to deal with difficult environmental situations [18]. Ref. [19] suggest that charismatic leadership influences employee motivation by providing individual attention and inspirational communication, as well as opportunities that allow individuals to utilize their professional expertise to engage in specific behaviors. Therefore, we have applied the MOA framework as a theoretical foundation and determined its interaction effect on salespersons’ ambidextrous behavior through charismatic leadership.
Recognizing the existence of a leader-follower relationship within a sales organization, the purpose of this research is to validate a research model aiming to enhance understanding of charismatic leaders’ behavior toward the salespeople’s service and sales activities simultaneously, referred to as service-sales ambidextrous (SSA) behavior. In doing so, this study makes three major contributions to the existing pool of knowledge. First, we contribute to previous research on the antecedents of service–sales ambidexterity by giving insight into its organizational drivers. Our research model represents the nuances of service-sales ambidexterity by incorporating the charismatic leadership style that encourages salespeople to engage in service provision and simultaneously crosses/up-selling opportunities. Second, despite the enormous ambidextrous studies in service marketing literature, prior scholars have overlooked the influence of service–sales ambidexterity in the service recovery context. Hence, in response to the recent calls of [20,21], we developed a framework based on service-sales ambidexterity that is associated with service recovery performance in the B2B sales context. Third, we contribute to the MOA theory by investigating the interaction effect of salespersons’ motivation, opportunity and ability to engage in SSA behavior, which is considered a vital resource for salespeople in the effective implementation of service provision and cross/up-selling opportunities simultaneously.
The remainder of the study is organized as follows: Section 2 provides theoretical background and hypotheses development. Section 3 deliberates the research design. Section 4 describes data analysis and results. Section 5 discusses study results. Section 6 concludes the study and finally, Section 7 summarizes research limitations and future research directions.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

2.1. The Motivation, Opportunity and Ability Framework

As a theoretical underpinning, the present research employed the MOA framework proposed by [22], which claims that MOA determines individuals’ desire to involve in certain behavior. According to the work performance literature, MOA plays a supportive role in shaping behaviors [23]. In particular, motivation contributes to performance behavior in the absence of ability or opportunity [24]. The MOA framework has its foundation in the theoretical discussions among behavioral scientists, who considered performance as a result of orientation and evaluation that strengthens employees’ ability to perform [24]. Scholars have emphasized the role of motivation in performance outcomes [25]. Later, opportunity was introduced to this formulation to incorporate all of the situational aspects that prevent employees from doing successfully [26]. The framework is based on the notion that organizations should encourage individuals who can acquire the necessary knowledge (ability), are eager to perform productively (motivation) and fulfill their duties and work roles in well-planned manners (opportunity to deliver).
In behavioral science studies, motivation is generally known as an energy that drives individuals to achieve their objectives and engage in behavioral activities. Motivation is a crucial topic in sales research and has often been applied to investigate its effect on salesforce job expectations, efforts, adaptive selling behavior and many other salespersons’ behaviors. The opportunity factor relates to the environmental mechanism that contributes to achieving desired goals or the frequency at which individuals have the opportunity to indulge in certain behaviors [27]. Ability indicates the availability of resources such as skills, knowledge and expertise that individuals need to accomplish any objective [24,27]. Additionally, MOA has been proven to be a consistent and rigorous theory explaining variations in employees’ behavior, activity and performance regarding sales management [28].

2.2. Charismatic Leadership and Service-Sales Ambidexterity

Charisma, which means “gift” in Greek, is defined as the ability to produce miracles or anticipate the future [29]. A renowned sociologist [30] defined charisma as a quality that differs one individual from the rest, a trait that ordinary people could not achieve. Charismatic leadership represents the extent of a leader’s impact on their subordinates and the nature of leader-follower interaction based on the leader’s behavior toward their subordinates [4,31]. The integral behaviors incorporate high-performance standards, the foundation of a compelling vision and purpose statements, showing commitment, developing faith, conveying confidence and displaying exceptional behaviors [4,29]. Practicing effective leadership, such as offering feedback, encouraging and engaging others in decision-making, should potentially affect salesforce ambidexterity [32].
The concept of ambidexterity has been essential to the emerging theories on service-sales strategies over the last decade. It describes the ability to execute conflicting tasks or obtain completely different strategies simultaneously [32]. In previous literature, [33] contend that the behavior of a charismatic leader influences the workplace environment. Leaders can encourage followers to practice similar approaches by constantly showing how a service failure could be handled by offering an up-sell and discussing important factors necessary to identify the situation. According to [34], supportive and versatile managers are essential for ambidexterity. Salespeople who feel supported by genuine leaders could use their professional judgments to indulge in both service provision and cross-selling or up-selling activities [6], resulting in behavioral ambidexterity [32]. Furthermore, according to the motivational theory of charismatic leadership, leaders’ exceptional behaviors influence followers’ emotions and judgments [35] and the study finding emphasizes the significance of frontline managers in creating a favorable environment for service-sales ambidextrous behavior [20]. Therefore, in light of the aforementioned arguments, we formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Charismatic leadership will have a positive influence on service-sales ambidexterity.

2.3. Service-Sales Ambidexterity and Service Recovery Performance

As an integral relationship between a service organization and its business customers, the catalytic role of salesforce is not just confined to marketing but also extends to meeting B2B customers’ queries for recovering service failures [9]. Service recovery performance aims to recover a customer’s satisfaction by restoring service failures [36]. From a transactional perspective, continuing B2B customers after failures may result in higher revenues because business customers make larger purchases in volume than consumer purchases [11].
In recent years, service–sales ambidexterity has been introduced as a new form of ambidexterity that may focus on understanding salespeople’s performance outcomes [7,37]. This field of research separates salespeople’s activities into two different categories: services and sales. Service activities are operations performed by a salesperson to enhance consumer satisfaction and meet their requirements, such as responding to customers’ complaints and dealing with service failures. Meanwhile, situations occur when customers are more satisfied in the post-failure situation than in the pre-failure situation. If interpreted correctly, this means that opportunities arise when customers complain about the company’s service failure. The solutions to these failures generate customer satisfaction and, finally, purchase intention [38]. During the service recovery process, salespeople have the opportunity to reinforce customers for making a purchase of the new product by cross/up-selling skills that maximize the company’s overall revenue [39]. According to ambidextrous literature, a salesperson’s simultaneous implementation of customer service requirements and cross/up-selling strategy is strongly related to customer engagement, which leads to successful service performance [7]. As a result of the above rationale, we conclude that the more salespeople demonstrate their service-sales ambidexterity, the better their service recovery performance will be. Thus, suggesting the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Service-sales ambidexterity will have a positive influence on service recovery performance.

2.4. Service-Sales Ambidexterity and Adaptive Selling Behavior

Adaptive selling behavior is the adjustment of salesperson behavior during a service encounter in response to perceived facts regarding the situation’s complexity [40]. Usually, sales representatives that actively participate in adaptive selling are less likely to employ a fixed number of selling approaches. They believe that different customers have different requirements, pushing them to modify and personalize their selling techniques to meet those requirements [41]. Meanwhile, sales representatives are also under pressure to deliver consistent quality and sustainable customer services while also participating in cross/up-selling to make a profit [42].
Salespeople have provided a unique environment for exploring ambidexterity at the individual level. They simultaneously handle service requirements effectively and consistently while seeking cross-selling or up-selling opportunities; in other words, to be service–sales ambidextrous. We anticipate that the diversity of behavior will influence adaptability. The sales representative who can effectively switch between service and sales behavior will have excessive information, skills and abilities that might allow the salesperson to modify or customize the solution [43]. One objective of this study is to empirically investigate the argument stated by [44] that “ambidexterity enhances adaptability and, more frequently, practical intelligence” (128). We assume this relationship based on [14]’s argument that ambidextrous salespeople are more capable of authorizing activities such as “adapting to new possibilities” as part of an overall business strategy. Therefore, we infer from the above arguments that ambidexterity might result in more adaptive selling behavior among salespeople to accomplish the related sales-service objectives and suggest the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Service-sales ambidexterity will have a positive influence on adaptive selling behavior.

2.5. Adaptive Selling Behavior and Service Recovery Performance

Service recovery refers to organizational efforts to restore customer trust after a service failure [8]. Similarly, it may be defined as a service provider’s response and strategy for resolving issues to convert dissatisfied customers into satisfied and loyal customers following a service failure [10]. Service recovery is not just an individual matter, but it also plays an essential role in recovering the satisfaction of customers [45]. Scientific literature shows that adaptive selling improves individual salespersons’ ability to successfully serve customers while generating their perception of happiness [46]. Customers comprehend adaptive sellers who listen to their complaints and provide innovative solutions to their problems.
When salespeople utilize different sales presentations during sales service interactions, they display a wide range of adaptive behavior. They make adjustments based on justification regarding the complexity of sales situations [17]. Several findings indicate that adaptive selling allows sales employees to support customers at their best and establish their perceptions of self-actualization and achievement [46,47]. As a result, versatile salespeople may contribute to the appropriate customer services by facilitating a qualified recovery from service failure. Those adaptive salespeople who follow new ideas and are actively involved in service user reviews and feedback [16,17] are well motivated to deal with customer queries and improve their quality of services. Moreover, the relational encounter among salespersons and customers is a key feature of service recovery [48], and therefore behavioral adaptability of the salesperson is of great significance. In this vein, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Adaptive selling strategy will have a positive influence on service recovery performance.

2.6. The Moderating Role of Salesperson’ Motivation, Opportunity and Ability

In sales literature, the MOA framework has often been used to examine salespeople behavior, such as the implementation of sales leads [49] and salesperson cross/up-selling behaviors [27]. This framework has been used to investigate individual ambidexterity [50], and the empirical evidence suggests that individuals need to be strongly motivated to succeed before involving in service-sales ambidexterity. The comparable point is that employees participate in complicated and challenging behaviors not only because they think they can but rather because they have developed strong motivations that influence their actions [51]. According to social exchange theory, when charismatic leaders motivate and give importance to each employee individually, it inspires the individuals to better understand their potential and worth in engaging in ambidextrous behavior. In line with [19], charismatic leaders affect employee motivation (M) through special appreciation and motivational conversation as well as psychologically encouraging them by providing exposure to skill development programs and other opportunities (O) for the progress of both innovation and transferrable knowledge. Moreover, charismatic leaders affect individuals’ abilities (A) by expressing a precise vision and resolving skills deficiencies in the course of attaining that vision, which ultimately stimulates their behaviors to indulge in service-sales ambidexterity.
In addition, opportunity shows the extent to which a situation hinders [24] or facilitates achieving desired outcomes. Individual salespeople have an exciting platform for exploring ambidexterity. They are continuously required to fulfill service requirements effectively and accurately while investigating cross/up-selling opportunities; in other words, to perform service–sales ambidexterity. Due to the proclaimed advantages of cross/up-selling to the organization, companies use various ways to facilitate the opportunity for their salespeople to cross/up-sell different products [27]. The simultaneous implementation of customer service provision and cross/up-selling are popular tactics for enterprises who perceive that combining activities would improve overall performance by exploring prospects with potential customers [6]. Instead of exercising authority, [32] suggest that effective leadership, such as providing opportunities and supporting others in the decision-making process, could greatly influence a salesperson’s ambidexterity. Ref. [29] also suggest that charismatic leaders serve as a supporter, in that they offer opportunities to employees across the business units as they follow various objectives.
Ability is the third major component of the MOA framework, which is defined as the skills, abilities, involvement and knowledge needed to acquire new information [24,52]. As a first step in providing quality customer service, successful leaders have encouraged their followers to develop strong service standards throughout service delivery. Previous research indicates that charismatic leaders inspire their subordinates by developing confidence in their ability to simultaneously implement customer service provision and sales operations [5,53]. They also encourage salespeople’s desire to learn, thereby enhancing their ability to explore service-sales ambidexterity [34]. In this research, we followed the suggestion of [7], who emphasized the need to examine the moderating effect of MOA between the linkage of charismatic leadership and service-sales ambidexterity. Therefore, based on the above-mentioned arguments, we established the MOA framework (see Figure 1) and assume that individual motivation, the opportunity to involve in the desired behavior, and the ability to accomplish specific tasks influence salespeople’s behavioral outcomes and thus formulate the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Salesperson’s motivation to engage in SSA behavior positively moderates the influence of charismatic leadership on service-sales ambidexterity when it is high (vs. low).
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Salesperson’s opportunity to engage in SSA behavior positively moderates the influence of charismatic leadership on service-sales ambidexterity when it is high (vs. low).
Hypothesis 7 (H7).
Salesperson’s ability to engage in SSA behavior positively moderates the influence of charismatic leadership on service-sales ambidexterity when it is high (vs. low).

3. Research Design

3.1. Selection of Respondents and Sample Size

We used survey data to test our proposed research model (consisting of sales employees working in Pakistan’s B2B sales organizations). The B2B organizations were selected as a part of our research on salespeople’s service and selling behaviors. The following criteria were considered while conducting the questionnaire survey to make our sample presentative of all organizations doing business in Pakistan. (i) To include organizations that have been in business for several years and are from different industries, including pharmaceutical, banking, telecommunication and technology. A hierarchy existed in the selected organizations in which several sales employees operated under their managers’ leadership. (ii) Organizations must have a salesforce committed to visiting, responding, advising and selling products or services to potential and existing customers. To fulfill this purpose, we conducted the survey from September to December (2020), when the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was at its peak in Pakistan, and it was very difficult to approach so many respondents. Anyhow, we managed to contact 106 organizations, of which 72 decided to participate in the survey. After the consent of the sales organization, we provided an online survey link to each organization’s sales manager and requested to forward the online link to their frontline salespeople (i.e., via Linkedin, Facebook and Whatsapp). The data was collected during their monthly/weekly sales meetings. In sum, we provided survey questionnaires to 472 frontline salespeople through their immediate managers. As a result of questionnaire survey, the total sample size resulted in 365 filled questionnaires. However, we discarded 21 questionnaires due to inadequate and unmatched responses. The final sample resulted in 344 valid responses from frontline salespeople. Respondents’ demographic features (gender, education, age and experience) also show that the questionnaires were conducted from the respondents belonging to heterogeneous backgrounds (see Table 1). Along these lines, the findings generated based on such a sample provide a fair representation of the sample with heterogeneous backgrounds in terms of demographic features and representative industries. Moreover, the questionnaire survey was conducted all over Pakistan, involving respondents from a population with diverse cultures and behaviors. In this context, the generated sample is rich enough to draw a satisfactory representation with heterogeneous features. (iii) We followed the Comrey and Lee’s scale to determine the adequacy of sample size. For instance, Comrey and Lee [54] recommended the following scale, (very poor—50), (poor—100), (fair—300), (very good—500), (excellent—1000 or more). According to this scale, our study sample size (344 respondents) falls under the “very good” category, ensuring that the sample size is representative and supports the current study’s findings [55].

3.2. Instrument and Variables

All items in the questionnaire were evaluated using a well-established 7-point Likert scale, with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. To capture charismatic leadership, a frequently used scale was adopted from [56]. The responses were assessed on 10 items scale. A sample item is “My supervisor permanently creates new ideas to make our unit ready for the future”. Service-sales ambidexterity was adopted from the previous literature of [39], and it consists of 12 items scale. A sample item is “I usually provide solutions to customers’ concerns related to the products they currently own”. Motivation, opportunity and ability (MOA) are three separate constructs and adopted from the study of [52].
Motivation consists of 7 items. A sample item is “I get very involved in service and sales activities and work extra hours if necessary”. Similarly, opportunity was measured on 5 items scale, and the sample item is “The amount of work related to service and sales activities is fair”. Likewise, the construct ability consists of 4 items scale, and a sample item is “I am unconfident that I can always successfully perform service and sales activities in my job. Adaptive selling behavior contains 5 items and was designed by [17]. A sample item is “I like to experiment with different sales approaches”. In last, service recovery performance is an outcome variable in the study and taken from the study of [36], containing 5 items scale. A sample item is “Considering all the things I do, I handle dissatisfied customers quite well”.

3.3. Data Analysis

We employed the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach for data analysis purposes [57,58,59]. It is a component-focused method adopted to analyze the relational dimensions in the study [60,61,62,63]. PLS-SEM was chosen over all other covariance-based approaches because it enables researchers to analyze both calculations and factor structures. The growing use of PLS-SEM has demonstrated its robustness and applicability in the area that is being studied. The authors adopted PLS-SEM due to its frequent usage and appropriateness, as evidenced by the following studies [64,65,66]. Moreover, in comparison to covariance-based structural equation modeling, partial least square path modeling has a higher statistical power. This indicates that PLS-SEM is more beneficial to intercept relationships among the studied variables.

4. Data analysis and Results

4.1. Assessment of Measurement Model

We performed a number of preliminary analyses, including normality, one-dimensionality and outliers. We then analyzed the measurement model to confirm the reliability and validity of the constructs. Next, the factor loadings of all items were confirmed. Ref. [64] suggested that the loadings of items should be <0.50. Our analysis demonstrated that all of the averaged factor loadings were greater than 0.50 [67], indicating that each observation contributed to the constructed variable. We also confirm the reliability of all variables, as the Cronbach’s alpha (α) value was above than 0.70 threshold level ranging from 0.805–0.906 [68]. Furthermore, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE) values demonstrated reliability and convergent validity [69]. These results proved the discriminant validity by the assumption that the AVE of each variable must surpass the squared correlation within each group of variables [70] (see Table 2). It is evident that the CR value of all constructs was within the range of 0.865 to 0.922, while the AVE of all variables is beyond the threshold value of 0.5 as well, ranging from 0.521 to 0.746 [68,70].

4.2. Common Method Variance

As this research used a cross-sectional survey, common method variance (CMV) may be a concern in influencing the study findings. Therefore, we employed Harman’s single-factor test [71] to look for CMV. Harman’s single factor results show that CMV affects outcomes if a single factor surpasses 50% of the aggregate variance. Our research findings suggest that the highest single factor contributed was 39.97%, suggesting that CMV does not exist in the data.
As a step further, we tested the CMV using a more robust unmeasured latent method construct (ULMC) approach by [72]. For applying this technique in PLS, all manifest variables (items) in the model were converted into latent variables, and the latent variables were converted into second-order variables. To ensure the identification of these second-order variables in PLS, the repeated indicator method was employed [73]. All prior manifested variables were designed to load on their construct of interest (the second-order variables) as well as a latent variable, reflecting the common method. Table 3 indicates that the majority of method factor loadings are not statistically significant (see R2 values), although the substantive variances of the indicators are much greater than their method variances (i.e., R12 > R22). The average variance due to substantive construct is 0.642 (64.2%) versus 0.046 (4.6%) for the method construct (see Table 3). It means the effect of the method construct is much lesser than the effect of the substantial construct; thus, common method bias is not an issue in this research.

4.3. The Goodness of Fit (GoF)

First, using the two-stage approach of [74], the value of “Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual” (SRMR) should be smaller than 0.08 [75]. The SRMR value in this study is 0.067, meeting the recommended criterion [75]. Second, the “Normed-Fit Index” (NFI) should be between 0 and 1 [76]. The NFI value in this study is 0.411, which is in-between the threshold values. In addition, “Root mean squared residual covariance matrix (RMS_theta) identifies the extent whereby the residuals of the outer model correlate [77]. RMS_theta values below 0.12 specify a good model fit; meanwhile, values greater than the threshold value demonstrate that a model is weak [78]. The RMS_theta value in the present study is 0.08, which is less than the recommended threshold value of 0.12, indicating good model fitness.

4.4. Results of Proposed Hypotheses

Using the criteria provided in the PLS-SEM literature, we evaluate hypotheses and estimate the significance of path coefficients [79,80]. The bootstrapping procedure was employed with 5000 sub-samples [81]. Table 4 summarizes the study’s empirical findings. The results of the analysis using PLS reveal that charismatic leadership had a significant positive influence (H1–βCL→SSA = 0.183, t = 2.399, p < 0.001) on service-sales ambidexterity. Thus, it supports the first hypothesis. Further, the direct influence of the second hypothesis exhibited that service-sale ambidexterity was significantly and positively linked (H2–βSSA→SRP = 0.543, t = 5.907, p < 0.001) with service recovery performance; thus, we accepted the second hypothesis. Similarly, results indicated the positive and significant relationship between service-sales ambidexterity and adaptive selling behavior (H3–βSSA→ASB = 0.712, t = 7.911, p < 0.001), allowing us to accept hypothesis 3. Finally, the results indicate that adaptive selling behavior is positively and significantly related (H4–βASB→SRP = 0.335, t = 3.298, p < 0.001) to service recovery performance, supporting the fourth hypothesis as well.
Figure 2 illustrates the predictive power (R2) of latent independent variables towards dependent variables. The R2 value indicates that 65.1% of the variance is accounted for charismatic leadership in service-sales ambidexterity. In addition, service-sales ambidexterity explains 66.7% of adaptive selling behavior. According to the study’s findings, our predictive constructs explain 70.4% (R2 = 0.704) of service recovery performance variance. This variance represented by all independent variables was greater than 60% [81]. Furthermore, we followed the suggestion of [82] to evaluate f2 values (effect size: large = 0.35, medium = 0.15 and small = 0.02). Our results specified that all the latent dependent variables have large effect sizes with ƒ2 SSA = 0.441, ƒ2 ASB = 0.308 and ƒ2 SRP = 0.546, respectively.

4.5. Moderating Effects

To test the moderating role of MOA between the relationship of charismatic leadership and service-sales ambidexterity, we used the product indicator approach using PLS-SEM [83,84]. Table 5 exhibits the results of moderating effects. More specifically, salesperson’s motivation to engage in SSA, significantly and positively moderate the influence of charismatic leadership on service-sales ambidexterity (H5–βMTV×CL→SSA = 0.275, t = 1.911, [IC: 0.105, 0.522], p < 0.001). Therefore, we accepted Hypothesis 5. The results further revealed that salespersons’ opportunity to engage in SSA behavior has a significant and positive moderating effect on the nexus between charismatic leadership and service-sales ambidexterity (H6–βOPR×CL→SSA = 0.088, t = 1.304, [IC: 0.093, 0.171], p < 0.01). This finding supported hypothesis 6. Similarly, hypothesis 7 was also accepted, as the empirical results specify that salespersons’ ability to engage in SSA behavior had a positive influence on service-sales ambidexterity (H7–βABL×CL→SSA = 0.169, t = 1.402, [IC: 0.105, 0.522], p < 0.001) through charismatic leadership.
In addition, we followed the guidance of [85] in splitting the data of MOA into high and low groups using a central mean. We thereby evaluated the low and high levels of the moderating effect on service-sales ambidexterity with charismatic leadership. Firstly, we suggest that charismatic leadership had a significant and positive influence on service-sales ambidexterity when salespersons’ motivation to engage in SSA behavior is at a high level (H5a(H)–β = 0.322, t = 4.953, [IC: 0.216, 0.388], p < 0.001). In contrast, charismatic leadership revealed an insignificant effect on service-sales ambidexterity when salesperson’s motivation to engage in SSA behavior is at a low level (H5b(L)–β = −0.059, t = −0.539, [IC: −0.275, 0.157], p > 0.001). Furthermore, charismatic leadership had a positive impact on service-sales ambidexterity when salesperson’s opportunity to engage in SSA behavior is at a high level (H6a(H)–β = 0.279, t = 5.365, [IC: 0.177, 0.381], p < 0.001), whereas charismatic leadership showed a negative relationship with service-sales ambidexterity when salesperson’s opportunity to engage in SSA behavior is at a low level (H6b(L)–β = 0.133, t = 0.891, [IC: −0.161, 0.428], p > 0.001). Finally, our results exhibit the significant impact of salesperson’s ability to engage in SSA behavior at high level on the relationship between charismatic leadership and service-sales ambidexterity (H7a(H)–β = 0.377, t = 7.392, [IC: 0.262, 0.469], p < 0.001) in contrast to its insignificant impact at low level (H7b(L)–β = 0.150, t = 1.773, [IC: −0.017, 0.318], p > 0.001).
In summary, the study results show that a high level of salespersons’ motivation, opportunity and ability significantly influences the nexus between charismatic leadership and SSA behavior compared to a low level. At a higher level of salespersons’ motivation, opportunity and ability, high charismatic leadership is related to more SSA behavior. Thus, salespersons’ motivation, opportunity and ability reinforce the positive relationship between charismatic leadership and SSA behavior. On the other hand, high charismatic leadership is related to low SSA behavior at a low level of salespersons’ motivation, opportunity and ability.

5. Discussion

5.1. Major Findings

The present research draws upon the MOA framework that may serve as a theoretical foundation and assist in explaining the strategic drivers and outcomes of service–sales ambidexterity. Yet, evidence from practice and academics [12] suggests that this technique is challenging for sales representatives to implement and produces plenty of benefits compared to a separate sales and service function model. Along these lines, this study focuses on maximizing the growing trend of integrating services within selling orientations.
We begin by providing insight into the components that influence salespeople’s adoption of service-sales ambidextrous behaviors. The authors suggest that charismatic leadership is a significant motivator of service-sales ambidexterity when switching between several activities simultaneously. Our results comply with the findings of [6], as they observed that leaders might inspire followers to adopt similar approaches by actively indicating how a service difficulty could be resolved through a cross-selling or up-selling strategy and then explaining key aspects in identifying the problem. The findings further revealed that service-sales ambidexterity is positively linked with service recovery performance. For instance, when salespeople are consistently encouraged to integrate both sales generation and customer service requirements, they may achieve a higher level of service recovery performance by restoring service failures. These findings are in line with the study of [6]. The authors investigated how the simultaneous implementation of service provision and selling orientation relates to specific performance outcomes. The findings are also consistent with the foundation of MOA theory [22], which posits that salespeople should be motivated and capable of achieving ambidexterity. They should be facilitated with opportunities provided by organizations [86], resulting in positive salespeople outcomes. Interestingly, service failure recovery is the most imperative corporate strategy in sales organizations, and it is entrenched in service expectations.
More precisely, we discovered that frontline salespeople’s level of service-sales ambidexterity plays a crucial role in assessing adaptive selling behaviors. The findings indicate that salespeople may become more adaptable to the situation as the demand for service-sales ambidexterity increases. Similarly, [14] claimed that ambidextrous salespeople are more likely to take measures that include “adaptation of new opportunities” of an overall business strategy. According to [39], ambidexterity also demands salespeople to simultaneously perform customer service and cross/up-selling activities. This combination of behavior is guaranteed to influence adaptability. Thus, consistent with prior research in the B2B service setting, our findings indicated that ambidexterity should be encouraged to strengthen salespeople’s adaptive selling behaviors to accomplish the related sales-service goals. Our findings also demonstrate that adaptive selling behavior is essential in attaining a higher level of service recovery performance. These findings are aligned with the research of [15]. It also coincides with [87] in a way that adaptive selling skills are fundamental skills in successful service recovery.
Perhaps one of the most noteworthy findings of this research is the moderating role of salespersons’ MOA in engaging in service-sales ambidexterity. Previous research has underscored the need to investigate the mechanism through which MOA affects the relationship between leadership style and service-sales ambidexterity [7]. As a result, our findings exhibit that when charismatic leaders encourage and pay attention to each individual personally, it motivates and improves the employee’s ability to achieve their objectives in service and selling-oriented tasks. Furthermore, salespeople may utilize sustainable development to accomplish service-sales ambidexterity if the environment’s difficulties can be turned into opportunities.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

Our findings contribute to a wide range of key literature streams, including sales leadership, psychology and service management. First, we respond and move forward on the call of [7], who emphasized the importance to “investigate whether the leadership style (charismatic leadership) of sales managers drive salespersons’ engagement in service-sales ambidexterity” (p. 153). Therefore, the primary objective of this research is to fill a significant gap in the literature on service-sales ambidexterity, which we investigated using sales managers’ charismatic leadership behavior. Since ambidextrous literature has investigated different supervision styles [88], the current study is the first attempt to better understand the role of managers’ leadership style as a supervisory approach concerning service-sales ambidexterity. As more organizations impose dual expectations, salespeople are frequently confronted with insufficient resources to fulfill both. Therefore, we applied the MOA framework and propose that leaders inspire followers to utilize similar techniques by actively demonstrating how a service problem can be addressed using alternative selling approaches.
Second, the study investigates service recovery performance in the B2B context and adds to service management literature. We followed [20]’s research call, which confirmed that new service-related performance measures are required in light of salesperson ambidexterity. Since salesperson ambidexterity has been investigated for many service-related outcomes [89,90], research has consistently overlooked the conception of salesperson ambidextrous behavior in service recovery literature. Therefore, we developed a framework based on service-sales ambidexterity associated with service recovery performance in B2B sales context. This concept is endorsed by [7], who suggest that salespersons’ simultaneous implementation of service and sales-driven activities are considerably associated with customer engagement, which leads to sustainable service performance.
Third, we add to the sales management literature by examining adaptive selling behavior in the context of ambidexterity. Our research shows that salespeople may become more adaptable to the situation when the need for sales-service ambidexterity grows. At the same time, when salespeople become more responsible for adapting their selling behaviors, they may experience a superior level of customer service recovery. Despite significant research in this area, only a few studies have utilized salespersons’ adaptive selling, alongside ambidexterity and service recovery in B2B contexts. Therefore, we provide a more comprehensive framework and respond to [91] call to investigate different selling approaches (e.g., adaptive selling) in the context of ambidexterity, which necessitates the simultaneous implementation of sales generation and service provision.
Fourth, limited studies have been conducted to investigate the direct or indirect influence of employees’ motivation, opportunity and ability (MOA) in the context of ambidexterity [28,91,92]. The present study is built on the MOA framework and takes the unique initiative of examining the moderating effect of motivation, opportunity and ability on service-sales ambidexterity in the presence of charismatic leadership. Recent research indicates that charismatic leaders motivate their subordinates by building confidence in their ability to simultaneously integrate customer service and sales operations [5,92]. In particular, engaging in the behavior is a key requirement for engaging in service-sales ambidexterity (i.e., ability-related factors play a moderating role between antecedents). In compliance with these prior investigations, our findings indicate that individual motivation, the opportunity to participate in the desired function and the ability to achieve specific tasks all influence salespeople’s behavioral outcomes.

5.3. Managerial Implications

The research findings offer valuable insights to both managers and academics. Our findings suggest that charismatic leadership has a positive influence on service-sales ambidexterity. To promote the simultaneous implementation of service provisions along with selling orientation, organizations should begin individual and group discussions on the motivational influence of leadership to encourage this combination. The results also suggested that when salespeople in sales organizations can attain a certain goal, they are required to provide excellent customer services while simultaneously participating in cross-selling or up-selling opportunities to maximize sustainable profit. Firms that expect their salesforce to perform in both sales and service may experience several positive and/or astonishing outcomes.
Moreover, our findings further demonstrate that sales employees should be able to focus on their service-sales ambidexterity as a source of sustainable service recovery performance that goes above and beyond the basic requirements. We also suggest that frontline salespeople’s behavior, such as handling customer complaints quickly, enthusiastically problem solving, admitting responsibility and being humble, significantly influences customers’ perceptions of fairness. Therefore, managers make ensure that salespeople display these specific behaviors when dealing with customer complaints. In addition, leaders might assist their salespeople in analyzing the complexities of adaptive selling and addressing how certain customers can be approached more efficiently by salespeople. They could review their selling strategies to customers on a routine basis to improve and develop them collectively.

6. Conclusions

The study examined the antecedents and consequences of service-sales ambidexterity by using motivation, opportunity and ability to engage in service-sales ambidexterity as moderating variables. According to the study’s empirical findings, there is a significant moderating impact of motivation, opportunity and ability between the relationship of charismatic leadership and service-sales ambidexterity. The findings suggest that charismatic leadership is a key driver of service-sales ambidexterity whenever shifting between several activities simultaneously. Our findings are consistent with the research of [6], who discovered that leaders might encourage followers to take similar strategies when interacting with difficult customers. Similarly, the results further indicate that salespeople become more adaptable to changing environments as the need for service-sales ambidexterity rises. As a result, when salespeople are continuously motivated to integrate both sales generation and service requirements, they become more adaptable to market changes, resulting in higher levels of service recovery performance. Finally, we have substantially contributed to the MOA framework by examining the moderating role of motivation, opportunity and ability between the relationship of charismatic leadership and service-sales ambidexterity.

7. Limitations and Future Research

Even though the current study has numerous theoretical and practical implications, it also identifies certain limitations that allow for future research. First, as the present research focuses on service industries, generalizing the study’s findings to other industries is challenging. Therefore, future research should look at the disparities among the B2B and B2C sectors to provide specific insights into each sector or strengthen the external validity of the findings. In addition, we conducted this study using a survey method during a particular time period. Consequently, it would be interesting to collect longitudinal data that would allow researchers to analyze changes over time. We investigated the simultaneous influence of service provision and sales generation on service recovery performance. However, future scholars may look at both dimensions as exogenous constructs (i.e., service provision and cross/up-selling opportunities) to investigate how they individually affect salespeople’s outcomes in B2B services. Our analytical framework may be expanded with various procedures beyond the service recovery performance as well as alternative recovery outcomes. Future research must discover other service-related outcomes among salespeople, such as service innovation capability and customer towards citizenship behavior under the mechanism of ambidexterity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.A.; data curation, M.H.A., S.A. and M.I.; formal analysis, B.A.; funding acquisition, L.D. and M.I.U.D.A.; supervision, M.I. and L.D.; validation, M.I.; software, M.I.; visualization, B.A. and M.H.A.; writing—original draft, B.A.; writing—review and editing, M.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be made available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Yi, H.-T.; Cha, Y.-B.; Amenuvor, F.E. Effects of Sales-Related Capabilities of Personal Selling Organizations on Individual Sales Capability, Sales Behaviors and Sales Performance in Cosmetics Personal Selling Channels. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yeo, C.; Hur, C.; Ji, S. The customer orientation of salesperson for performance in Korean Market Case: A relationship between customer orientation and adaptive selling. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Junni, P.; Sarala, R.M.; Taras, V.; Tarba, S.Y. Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2013, 27, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shamir, B.; House, R.J.; Arthur, M.B. The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory. Organ. Sci. 1993, 4, 577–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tuan, L.T.; Thao, V.T. Charismatic leadership and public service recovery performance. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2017, 36, 108–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Faia, V.d.S.; Vieira, V.A. Generating sales while providing service: The moderating effect of the control system on ambidextrous behavior. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2017, 35, 447–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sok, K.M.; Sok, P.; De Luca, L.M. The effect of “can do” and “reason to” motivations on service-sales ambidexterity. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016, 55, 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sommovigo, V.; Setti, I.; Argentero, P. The role of service providers’ resilience in buffering the negative impact of customer incivility on service recovery performance. Sustainability 2019, 11, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Luu, T.T. Linking authentic leadership to salespeople’s service performance: The roles of job crafting and human resource flexibility. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020, 84, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lin, W.-B. Relevant factors that affect service recovery performance. Serv. Ind. J. 2010, 30, 891–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Oflac, B.; Sullivan, U.Y.; Kaya Aslan, Z. Examining the impact of locus and justice perception on B2B service recovery. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Agnihotri, R.; Gabler, C.B.; Itani, O.S.; Jaramillo, F.; Krush, M.T. Salesperson ambidexterity and customer satisfaction: Examining the role of customer demandingness, adaptive selling, and role conflict. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 2017, 37, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chang, Y.C.; Yang, P.Y.; Chen, M.H. The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 936–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Birkinshaw, J.; Gibson, C. Building Ambidexterity into an Organization. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2004, 45, 47–55. [Google Scholar]
  15. Wong, A.; Liu, Y.; Tjosvold, D. Service leadership for adaptive selling and effective customer service teams. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015, 46, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Franke, G.R.; Park, J.E. Salesperson adaptive selling behavior and customer orientation: A meta-analysis. J. Mark. Res. 2006, 43, 693–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Spiro, R.L.; Weitz, B.A. Adaptive Selling: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Nomological Validity. J. Mark. Res. 1990, 27, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Boiral, O.; Baron, C.; Gunnlaugson, O. Environmental Leadership and Consciousness Development: A Case Study among Canadian SMEs. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 123, 363–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. McClean, E.; Collins, C.J. Expanding the concept of fit in strategic human resource management: An examination of the relationship between human resource practices and charismatic leadership on organizational outcomes. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 58, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mullins, R.; Agnihotri, R.; Hall, Z. The Ambidextrous Sales Force: Aligning Salesperson Polychronicity and Selling Contexts for Sales-Service Behaviors and Customer Value. J. Serv. Res. 2020, 23, 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gabler, C.B.; Ogilvie, J.L.; Rapp, A.; Bachrach, D.G. Is There a Dark Side of Ambidexterity? Implications of Dueling Sales and Service Orientations. J. Serv. Res. 2017, 20, 379–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Maclnnis, D.J.; Moorman, C.; Jaworski, B.J. Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads. J. Mark. 1991, 55, 32–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Cummings, L.L.; Schwab, D.P. Performance in Organizations: Determinants and Appraisal; Management applications series; Glenview, Ill. [u.a.]: Scott, Foresman and Co.: Brookfield, IL, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  24. Siemsen, E.; Roth, A.V.; Balasubramanian, S. How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining-factor model. J. Oper. Manag. 2008, 26, 426–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Leung, X.Y.; Bai, B. How Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability Impact Travelers’ Social Media Involvement and Revisit Intention. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2013, 30, 58–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Blumberg, M.; Pringle, C.D. The Missing Opportunity in Organizational Research: Some Implications for a Theory of Work Performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1982, 7, 560–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Johnson, J.S.; Friend, S.B. Contingent cross-selling and up-selling relationships with performance and job satisfaction: An MOA-theoretic examination. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 2015, 35, 51–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yildiz, H.E.; Murtic, A.; Zander, U.; Richtnér, A. What Fosters Individual-Level Absorptive Capacity in MNCs? An Extended Motivation–Ability–Opportunity Framework. Manag. Int. Rev. 2019, 59, 93–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ekmekcioglu, E.B.; Aydintan, B.; Celebi, M. The effect of charismatic leadership on coordinated teamwork: A study in Turkey. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2018, 39, 1051–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Weber, M.; Henderson, A.M.; Parsons, T. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1947. [Google Scholar]
  31. Den Hartog, D.N.; Koopman, P.L.; Van Muijen, J.J. Charismatic Leadership; A State of the Art. J. Leadersh. Stud. 1995, 2, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gibson, C.B.; Birkinshaw, J. The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Acad. Manag. J. 2004, 47, 209–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Brown, M.E.; Trevino, L.K. Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in work groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 954–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yu, T.; Patterson, P.G.; de Ruyter, K. Achieving Service-Sales Ambidexterity. J. Serv. Res. 2013, 16, 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Erez, A.; Misangyi, V.F.; Johnson, D.E.; LePine, M.A.; Halverson, K.C. Stirring the Hearts of Followers: Charismatic Leadership as the Transferal of Affect. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 602–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Ashill, N.J.; Rod, M.; Carruthers, J. The effect of management commitment to service quality on frontline employees’ job attitudes, turnover intentions and service recovery performance in a new public management context. J. Strateg. Mark. 2008, 16, 437–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ruyter, K.; Keeling, D.I.; Yu, T. Service-Sales Ambidexterity: Evidence, Practice, and Opportunities for Future Research. J. Serv. Res. 2020, 23, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mattila, A.S. The impact of service failures on customer loyalty: The moderating role of affective commitment. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 2004, 15, 134–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jasmand, C.; Blazevic, V.; de Ruyter, K. Generating Sales While Providing Service: A Study of Customer Service Representatives’ Ambidextrous Behavior. J. Mark. 2012, 76, 20–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Weitz, B.A.; Sujan, H.; Sujan, M. Knowledge, Motivation, and Adaptive Behavior: A Framework for Improving Selling Effectiveness. J. Mark. 1986, 50, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Singh, R.; Das, G. The impact of job satisfaction, adaptive selling behaviors and customer orientation on salesperson’s performance: Exploring the moderating role of selling experience. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2013, 28, 554–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jasmand, C.; Blazevic, V.; Ruyter, K. de Cross-selling in service recovery encounters—Staying under the customer’s radar to avoid salesperson stereotype activation. In Proceedings of the AMA Winter Conference Proceedings, St. Petersburg, FL, USA, 17–19 February 2012; pp. 276–277. [Google Scholar]
  43. Sujan, H.; Weitz, B.A.; Kumar, N. Learning Orientation, Working Smart, and Effective Selling. J. Mark. 2018, 58, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cron, W.L.; Marshall, G.W.; Singh, J.; Spiro, R.L.; Sujan, H. Salesperson selection, training, and development: Trends, implications, and research opportunities? J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 2005, 25, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lu, T.-E.; Lee, Y.-H.; Hsu, J.-W. Does Service Recovery Really Work? The Multilevel Effects of Online Service Recovery Based on Brand Perception. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jaramillo, F.; Locander, W.B.; Spector, P.E.; Harris, E.G. Getting the job done: The moderating role of initiative on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and adaptive selling. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 2007, 27, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Román, S.; Iacobucci, D. Antecedents and consequences of adaptive selling confidence and behavior: A dyadic analysis of salespeople and their customers. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2010, 38, 363–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bitner, M.J. Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses. J. Mark. 1990, 54, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sabnis, G.; Chatterjee, S.C.; Grewal, R.; Lilien, G.L. The Sales Lead Black Hole: On Sales Reps’ Follow-Up of Marketing Leads. J. Mark. 2013, 77, 52–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Mom, T.J.M.; Chang, Y.-Y.; Cholakova, M.; Jansen, J.J.P. A Multilevel Integrated Framework of Firm HR Practices, Individual Ambidexterity, and Organizational Ambidexterity. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 3009–3034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Lorincová, S.; Štarchoň, P.; Weberová, D.; Hitka, M.; Lipoldová, M. Employee Motivation as a Tool to Achieve Sustainability of Business Processes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Edgar, F.; Blaker, N.M.; Everett, A.M. Gender and job performance: Linking the high performance work system with the ability–motivation–opportunity framework. Pers. Rev. 2021, 50, 47–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shiue, W.; Tuncdogan, A.; Wang, F.; Bredican, J. Strategic enablers of service-sales ambidexterity: A preliminary framework and research agenda. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 92, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Comrey, A.L.; Lee, H.B. A First Course in Factor Analysis, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers: Hlilsdale, NJ, USA, 1992; ISBN 0805810625. [Google Scholar]
  55. Irfan, M.; Akhtar, N.; Ahmad, M.; Shahzad, F.; Elavarasan, R.M.; Wu, H.; Yang, C. Assessing public willingness to wear face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic: Fresh insights from the theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vlachos, P.A.; Panagopoulos, N.G.; Rapp, A.A. Feeling Good by Doing Good: Employee CSR-Induced Attributions, Job Satisfaction, and the Role of Charismatic Leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 577–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Irfan, M.; Elavarasan, R.M.; Hao, Y.; Feng, M.; Sailan, D. An assessment of consumers’ willingness to utilize solar energy in china: End-users’ perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 126008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Irfan, M.; Hao, Y.; Ikram, M.; Wu, H.; Akram, R.; Rauf, A. Assessment of the public acceptance and utilization of renewable energy in Pakistan. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 27, 312–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Irfan, M.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Li, H.; Rehman, A. The influence of consumers’ intention factors on willingness to pay for renewable energy: A structural equation modeling approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 21747–21761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Urbach, N.; Ahlemann, F. Structural Equation Modeling in Information Systems Research Using Partial Least Squares. J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl. 2010, 11, 5–40. [Google Scholar]
  61. Irfan, M.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Rehman, A.; Ozturk, I.; Li, H. Consumers’ intention-based influence factors of renewable energy adoption in Pakistan: A structural equation modeling approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 28, 432–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tanveer, A.; Zeng, S.; Irfan, M. Do Perceived Risk, Perception of Self-Efficacy, and Openness to Technology Matter for Solar PV Adoption? An Application of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. Energies 2021, 14, 5008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Irfan, M.; Shahid, A.L.; Ahmad, M.; Iqbal, W.; Elavarasan, R.M.; Ren, S.; Hussain, A. Assessment of public intention to get vaccination against COVID-19: Evidence from a developing country. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. Rethinking some of the rethinking of partial least squares. Eur. J. Mark. 2019, 53, 566–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Raza, A.; Rather, R.A.; Iqbal, M.K.; Bhutta, U.S. An assessment of corporate social responsibility on customer company identification and loyalty in banking industry: A PLS-SEM analysis. Manag. Res. Rev. 2020, 43, 1337–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ying, M.; Faraz, N.A.; Ahmed, F.; Raza, A. How does servant leadership foster employees’ voluntary green behavior? A sequential mediation model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Arbuckle, J.L. IBM SPSS Amos 21: User’s Guide. Available online: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/pdfs/Amos_20_User_Guide.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2021).
  68. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  69. Ahmad, M.; Akhtar, N.; Jabeen, G.; Irfan, M.; Anser, M.K.; Wu, H.; Isek, C. Intention-based critical factors affecting willingness to adopt Novel Coronavirus prevention in Pakistan: Implications for future pandemics. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Liang, H.; Saraf, N.; Hu, Q.; Xue, Y. Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2007, 31, 59–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wetzels, M.; Odekerken-Schröder, G.; Van Oppen, C. Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2009, 33, 177–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Becker, J.M.; Klein, K.; Wetzels, M. Hierarchical Latent Variable Models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for Using Reflective-Formative Type Models. Long Range Plan. 2012, 45, 359–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Underparameterized Model Misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bentler, P.M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 107, 238–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lohmöller, J.-B. Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares; Physica-Verlag HD: Heidelberg, Germany, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  78. Henseler, J.; Dijkstra, T.K.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Diamantopoulos, A.; Straub, D.W.; Ketchen, D.J.; Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Calantone, R.J. Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS. Organ. Res. Methods 2014, 17, 182–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv. Int. Mark. 2009, 20, 277–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; L. Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988; ISBN 9780805802832. [Google Scholar]
  83. Chin, W.W.; Marcelin, B.L.; Newsted, P.R. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf. Syst. Res. 2003, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Henseler, J.; Chin, W.W. A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Struct. Equ. Model. 2010, 17, 82–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  86. Nijssen, E.J.; Guenzi, P.; van der Borgh, M. Beyond the retention—acquisition trade-off: Capabilities of ambidextrous sales organizations. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2017, 64, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. De Jong, A.; De Ruyter, K. Adaptive versus proactive behavior in service recovery: The role of self-managing teams. Decis. Sci. 2004, 35, 457–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Chang, Y.Y.; Chang, C.Y.; Chen, C.W.; Chen, Y.C.K.; Chang, S.Y. Firm-level participative leadership and individual-level employee ambidexterity: A multilevel moderated mediation analysis. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2019, 40, 561–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Alghamdi, F. Ambidextrous leadership, ambidextrous employee, and the interaction between ambidextrous leadership and employee innovative performance. J. Innov. Entrep. 2018, 7, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Qammar, R.; Abidin, R.Z.U. Mediating and Moderating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity and Innovative Climate among Leadership Styles and Employee Performance. J. Manag. Info. 2020, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Giovannetti, M.; Cardinali, S.; Sharma, P. Sales technology and salespeople’s ambidexterity: An ecosystem approach. J. Bus. & Ind. Mark. 2020, 36, 615–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rapp, A.A.; Bachrach, D.G.; Flaherty, K.E.; Hughes, D.E.; Sharma, A.; Voorhees, C.M. The Role of the Sales-Service Interface and Ambidexterity in the Evolving Organization. J. Serv. Res. 2017, 20, 59–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 09675 g001 550
Figure 1. Proposed research model.
Figure 1. Proposed research model.
Sustainability 13 09675 g001
Sustainability 13 09675 g002 550
Figure 2. Results of hypotheses. Note: *** p ≤ 0.001, ** p ≤ 0.01.
Figure 2. Results of hypotheses. Note: *** p ≤ 0.001, ** p ≤ 0.01.
Sustainability 13 09675 g002
Table
Table 1. Sample’s characteristics.
Table 1. Sample’s characteristics.
RangeFeaturesFrequencyPercentage
GenderMale28683
Female5817
EducationBachelor18453.4
Master5215.1
MS/M.Phil.4212.2
Others6619.1
Age20–258324.1
26–3010530.5
31–356318.2
36–405716.5
41–45216.2
More than 45 years154.5
Representative industryPharmaceuticals11132.2
Banking7722.5
Telecommunication9226.7
Information technology6418.6
Sales experienceLess than 1 year144.2
1–5 years13338.5
6–10 years15545.1
11–15 years308.8
More than 15 years123.5
Table
Table 2. Discriminant validity.
Table 2. Discriminant validity.
ConstructsCLMTVOPRABLSSAASBSRP
CL0.738
MTV0.6060.778
OPR0.5510.5640.801
ABL0.4280.6110.3550.864
SSA0.6880.5190.6640.6760.783
ASB0.6700.7150.7130.4720.6130.769
SRP0.6770.6560.6660.5550.5220.6520.750
Notes: N = 344; CL = Charismatic leadership; MTV = Motivation; OPR = Opportunity; ABL = Ability; SSA = Service-sales ambidexterity; ASB = Adaptive selling behavior; SRP = Service recovery performance.
Table
Table 3. Unmeasured latent method constructs (ULMC) results.
Table 3. Unmeasured latent method constructs (ULMC) results.
ConstructsIndicatorsSubstantive Factor Loading (R1)R12Method Factor Loading (R2)R22
Charismatic leadershipCL10.7680.5900.0010.000
CL20.9760.953−0.1550.024
CL30.9140.835−0.1900.036
CL40.5320.2830.2250.051
CL50.9130.834−0.1630.027
CL60.8800.774−0.0980.010
CL70.8580.736−0.2170.047
CL80.8940.799−0.0980.010
CL90.8120.6590.4630.214
CL100.6810.4640.3810.145
Service-sales ambidexteritySSA10.7030.4940.0050.000
SSA20.6850.4690.0610.004
SSA30.9560.914−0.3200.102
SSA40.7600.578−0.1130.013
SSA50.9670.935−0.2680.072
SSA60.9210.848−0.1670.028
SSA70.5640.3180.2440.060
SSA80.6000.3600.0990.010
SSA90.8010.642−0.2070.043
SSA100.6580.4330.3110.097
SSA110.5550.3080.4530.205
MotivationMTV10.6530.426−0.4340.188
MTV20.5660.320−0.4950.245
MTV30.9760.9530.1920.037
MTV40.9110.8300.2130.045
MTV50.9460.8950.1510.023
MTV60.8150.6640.2390.057
OpportunityOPR10.7960.6340.0190.000
OPR20.9300.865−0.0820.007
OPR30.9170.841−0.1550.024
OPR40.6230.3880.2130.045
OPR50.7400.5480.0050.000
AbilityABL10.8650.748−0.0030.000
ABL20.9130.834−0.0090.000
ABL30.8160.6660.0310.001
ABL40.8580.736−0.0170.000
Adaptive selling behaviorASB10.7760.602−0.0700.005
ASB20.9750.951−0.1520.023
ASB30.7990.6380.0290.001
ASB40.6720.4520.1930.037
ASB50.6140.377−0.0220.000
Service recovery performanceSRP10.6330.4010.2540.065
SRP20.7170.514−0.0510.003
SRP30.6710.4500.1360.018
SRP40.9440.891−0.2640.070
SRP50.8390.704−0.0770.006
Average 0.7910.6420.0010.046
Table
Table 4. Results of hypotheses.
Table 4. Results of hypotheses.
Hypothetical Pathsβ EstimatesS.Et-ValueCI. 95%Results
H1CL→SSA0.183 ***0.0762.399[0.055, 0.355]Supported
H2SSA→SRP0.543 ***0.0925.907[0.387, 0.621]Supported
H3SSA→ASB0.712 ***0.0907.911[0.654, 0.871]Supported
H4ASB→SRP0.335 ***0.1023.298[0.120, 0.514]Supported
Notes: N = 344; Level of significance *** p < 0.001; CI = confidence interval; S.E = standard error; CL = charismatic leadership; SSA = service-sales ambidexterity; ASB = adaptive selling behavior; SRP = service recovery performance.
Table
Table 5. Results of moderation effects.
Table 5. Results of moderation effects.
Moderation Pathsβ CoefficientSEt-ValueCI 95%Results
H5MTV × CL → SSA0.275 ***0.1441.911[0.105, 0.522]Supported
H6OPR × CL → SSA0.088 **0.0671.304[0.093, 0.171]Supported
H7ABL × CL → SSA0.169 ***0.1211.402[0.105, 0.522]Supported
H5aMTV(High) × CL → SSA0.322 ***0.0654.953[0.216, 0.388]Supported
H5bMTV(Low) × CL → SSA−0.0590.109−0.539[−0.275, 0.157]Not Supported
H6aOPR(High) × CL → SSA0.279 ***0.0525.365[0.177, 0.381]Supported
H6bOPR(Low) × CL → SSA0.1330.1490.891[−0.161, 0.428]Not Supported
H7aABL(High) × CL → SSA0.377 ***0.0517.392[0.262, 0.469]Supported
H7bABL(Low) × CL → SSA0.1500.0841.773[−0.017, 0.318]Not Supported
Note: N = 344; Level of significance *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01; CI = confidence interval; S.E = standard error; MTV = motivation; OPR = opportunity; ABL = ability; CL = charismatic leadership; SSA = service-sales ambidexterity; ASB = adaptive selling behavior; SRP = service recovery performance.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ahmad, B.; Da, L.; Asif, M.H.; Irfan, M.; Ali, S.; Akbar, M.I.U.D. Understanding the Antecedents and Consequences of Service-Sales Ambidexterity: A Motivation-Opportunity-Ability (MOA) Framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9675. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179675

AMA Style

Ahmad B, Da L, Asif MH, Irfan M, Ali S, Akbar MIUD. Understanding the Antecedents and Consequences of Service-Sales Ambidexterity: A Motivation-Opportunity-Ability (MOA) Framework. Sustainability. 2021; 13(17):9675. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179675

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ahmad, Bilal, Liu Da, Mirza Huzaifa Asif, Muhammad Irfan, Shahid Ali, and Muhammad Imad Ud Din Akbar. 2021. "Understanding the Antecedents and Consequences of Service-Sales Ambidexterity: A Motivation-Opportunity-Ability (MOA) Framework" Sustainability 13, no. 17: 9675. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179675

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop