Archive for year: 2023

An integrative framework of sales ecosystem well-being

Kumar Rakesh Ranjana and Scott B. Friendb

aBusiness School, University of Queensland, 428 Colin Clark, Brisbane, 4067 QLD, Australia; bFarmer School of Business, Miami University, 800 E. High Street, Oxford, 45056 OH, USA

ABSTRACT Emergent perspectives that take on a systems-level view of relational exchanges are critical to an evolving understanding of sales. Referred to as an ecosystems perspective, this adaptive system shapes the nature of academic and practitioner vantage points regarding who is involved in sell- ing, the resources that shape shared exchanges, and the practices requisite for effectiveness. However, what ecosystem outcomes the sales field should work toward and how to achieve such objectives remains unclear. To address this need, the authors advance a conceptual study that arrives at a mid-range theory of sales ecosystem well-being—i.e. blending value co-creation and sales ecosystem elements and practices that serve this emergent outcome. Specifically, the authors offer conceptual linkages between ecosystem actors, resources, institutions, and practices. To accomplish these gains, this study conducts a systematic review of core work on ecosystems and overlays the framework with evidence from sales literature. Thereby, an integrative understanding of the constellation of elements and practices provides insights into managing sales ecosystems. The study concludes with a series of theoretical implications that serve as the foundation for a directed research agenda for the sales field.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 16 June 2020; Accepted 4 September 2020

KEYWORDS Selling and sales force management; value co- creation; ecosystem; well- being; conceptual

Tomorrow’s selling processes are likely to be collaborative endeavors wherein sales personnel are likely to work hand in hand with multiple ecosystem partners to orchestrate complex sales solutions. Further, sales personnel are increasingly likely to orchestrate activities of a set of internal and external players within the institutional settings during the sales processes. In such situations, sales are likely to become a critical central node within the network of internal and external players that constitute the selling ecosystem. (Singh et al. 2019, 12)

As the relationship management perspective has been criticized for being too focused on individual entities (Gr€onroos 2004), two parallel tracks of research are encour- aging business practices to view relational exchanges from a systems perspective (i.e. a configuration of people, technol- ogy, value propositions that connect internal and external service systems and shared information; Spohrer et al. 2008). These two literature streams are present across the value co- creation (VCC) domain and the selling and sales force man- agement (i.e. sales) domain. On one spectrum, a systems orientation provides a foundation for understanding and applying VCC principles in an increasingly interconnected and dynamic environment (Vargo and Lusch 2011). On a separate continuum, recent literature has converged on an institutional perspective recognizing that sales activities are embedded in a broader social system (Hartmann, Wieland, and Vargo 2018). However, as research moves toward this systemic view of actors and exchanges, contextualized efforts to pinpoint how specific actors can participate more

effectively are necessary. Such insights may allow firms to better understand the impact of the entire constellation of stakeholders necessary to manage relationships (see Baron and Harris 2008; Tax, McCutcheon, and Wilkinson 2013; Wilkinson and Young 2002), while a lack of clarity regard- ing such ecosystem complexities may frustrate efforts and weaken outcomes (Henderson and Palmatier 2010).

The sales process can be viewed as an episodic, nonlinear exchange involving myriad stakeholders (see Dixon and Tanner 2012; MacInnis 2011; Moncrief and Marshall 2005). Such stakeholders are internal and external to both the sales (Bolander et al. 2015; Plouffe et al. 2016) and customer organizations (Friend and Malshe 2016), and operate across functions and boundary spanning interfaces (Singh et al. 2019). Scholars draw parallels between sales and value cre- ation that reflect systems’ evolution and involve numerous actors (e.g. Hartmann, Wieland, and Vargo 2018; Macdonald, Kleinaltenkamp, and Wilson 2016). This broad- ening perspective signals a complex system with: (a) a diver- sity of actors, roles, and associated resources; (b) resource integration and value creation processes occurring across matrices of linked actors and institutional processes; and (c) roles and processes that support ecosystem well-being. Our systematic review of sales literature shows a rich scholarship that parallels the above-mentioned attributes. At the same time, this research fails to integrate the ecosystem and selling perspectives or delineate links that explicate the

CONTACT Scott B. Friend friendsb@miamioh.edu � 2020 Pi Sigma Epsilon National Educational Foundation

JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 2020, VOL. 40, NO. 4, 234–250 https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2020.1822176

underpinnings of selling systems and improved states of well-being. We aim to develop a mid-range theory of sales ecosystem well-being by blending VCC and sales ecosystem elements and practices that can be directed toward this emergent ecosystem outcome.

An ecosystem perspective leverages a robust theoretical delineation of an otherwise complex selling system and develops an integrative conceptual framework that can inform ecosystem well-being. Thus, as the field moves toward a view of selling as a process of institutional align- ment, along with the activities it encompasses, our research contributes to extant theoretical models that encompass sales and value creation efforts from an ecosystem perspective (e.g. Hartmann, Wieland, and Vargo 2018). Specifically, our focus on sales ecosystems from the perspective of improved well-being (c.f., Anderson et al. 2013; Skål�en, Aal, and Edvardsson 2015) advances the move from individual-level outcomes in the sales field to more complex and encompass- ing systems-level outcomes. While well-being has been examined in biological ecosystems, it has not been explored within sales and service ecosystems (Frow et al. 2019). Our understanding of sales ecosystem well-being is therefore an important extension to sales theory and practice, as emer- gent complexities and shifts from the individual to the col- lective (i.e. multi-actor, multi-levels, diverse individual practices, diverse system-level practices) pose challenges to conducting sales ecosystem research. Our integrative concep- tual model of attributes contributes important knowledge to systems-facing frontline roles, enabling researchers to con- duct empirical studies in the domain, stakeholders through- out the sales and customer organizations to shift from individualized benefits to collective gains, and the well-being of the sales ecosystem to improve.

Toward these efforts, we focus on the following research questions: What is the nature of ecosystems elements (e.g. actors, resources, institutions) and practices? What are the processual linkages between ecosystem elements, practices, and well-being? Our research begins by identifying a theor- etical foundation as an anchor for our conceptual develop- ment. An extensive search of theoretical perspectives led us to the co-creative ecosystem view (Frow, McColl-Kennedy, and Payne 2016; Hartmann, Wieland, and Vargo 2018; Storbacka et al. 2016) that aligns our study with established holistic approaches to understanding sales (e.g. Bolander et al. 2015; Friend and Malshe 2016; Hughes, Le Bon, and Malshe 2012; Plouffe et al. 2016; Rapp et al. 2017). Accordingly, our manuscript next provides a theoretical foundation based on our systematic review of ecosystem research. Next, we extend the conceptualization of ecosys- tems to a relevant outcome of well-being. We then overlay this framework using evidence from sales research to pro- vide an integrative view of sales ecosystem well-being. Ultimately, we develop a theoretical foundation of the sales ecosystem and use this foundation to: (a) delineate four key elements of the ecosystem—actors, resources, institutions, and practices; (b) highlight a set of eight practices as an interplay and interconnectedness of actors, resources, and institutions that result in co-created value; and then (c)

utilize this understanding to explain selling as an ecosystem and how practices within it co-create value to foster sales ecosystem well-being.

Systematic review

In the last five years, over 50 scholarly articles in leading mar- keting and service journals have used an ecosystem perspective to explain various complex business processes (Breidbach, Antons, and Salge 2016; Spanjol et al. 2015) and multi-level interactions (Beir~ao, Patr�ıcio, and Fisk 2017; Tierney, Karpen, and Westberg 2016). A general theoretical foundation—i.e. mid-range theory—aids comprehension of such processes. While Brodie and Peters (2020) recommend drawing evidence and explanations from literature reviews and associated theo- ries, a good theoretical framework should also integrate mul- tiple adjacent viewpoints (Lindgreen et al. 2020). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of ecosystem research using search terms (and variations) of service ecosystem (e.g. service system) and associated co-creation phrases (e.g. co-creation/ cocreation, co-production/coproduction). Searching both eco- system and VCC terms was necessary because the ecosystem view is often examined together or interchangeably with the co- creation perspective (e.g. Akaka et al. 2014; Fu, Wang, and Zhao 2017; Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015) and/or the ser- vice-dominant logic (e.g. Chandler and Vargo 2011; Laud et al. 2015; Vargo and Lusch 2016). Our literature search included additional screeners (e.g. reading titles and abstracts) to retain work central to understanding ecosystems. In total, we identi- fied 53 core works focused on an ecosystem view.

We read each of the identified papers included in this review and coded content relevant to ecosystem attributes. Our overall repository of review can be divided into two broad categories: descriptive details (e.g. nature of study, study context) and conceptual content (e.g. ecosystem ele- ments, activities, and processes). Subsequently, we analyze the entire conceptual content in a two-step systematic coding process. In the first level of coding, we gleaned three clusters of evidence: ecosystem elements, ecosystem activities (as a source of practices), and ecosystem outcomes (resulting in well-being). In the second level of coding, we reviewed each evidence within a cluster and arrived at a typology of the ele- ments, practices, and outcomes. The typology was arrived at in an open-coding process—i.e. by iteratively typifying each evidence such that a typology was conceptually homogenous within itself and heterogeneous between any two typologies— that exhausted all evidences derived from the literature within each of the three clusters. Thus, we delineate the structure of an ecosystem and identify ecosystem practices that ultimately result in the ecosystem well-being. This theoretical foundation is next contextualized with narratives and evidences from business-to-business (B2B) sales literature, iteratively abduct- ing relationships, insights, and processual linkages to arrive at an integrative conceptual framework of sales ecosystem well- being (c.f., Cornelissen 2017; Jaakkola 2020). The entire out- put of the review process and the coding protocol are sum- marized in Figure 1.

JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 235

Before detailing the conceptual findings, we provide descriptive details of the papers reviewed. Within our sam- ple, 33 studies were theoretical and 20 were empirical. Of the 20 empirical studies, 14 works focused on service (e.g. frontline human-centered roles in healthcare, innovation, consulting) and six works examined other categorical domains (e.g. digital, technology, community practices). Furthermore, our sample includes 31 studies that apply a service ecosystem perspective, 16 that adopt a service system perspective, and the remainder that utilize closely associated terms (e.g. networks, stakeholder groups). All papers were reviewed to delineate a thematic categorization of ecosystem elements, practices, and outcomes.

Scholarship reflecting an ecosystem view provides a frag- mented perspective of its structural elements and processual practices. For example, a complex interplay of elements (e.g. actors, resources, institutions) and co-creative practices exists— i.e. actors communicate, interact, and reconcile perspectives as they exchange, involve, and integrate resources (Akaka et al. 2014; Heinonen and Strandvik 2015; Laud et al. 2015); actors apply resources and coordinate linkages with others (Edvardsson et al. 2014; Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015) under institutional set-ups (Koskela-Huotari and Vargo 2016). Given these complexities, clarity into the ecosystem structure is the foundational step to understanding ecosystem well-being. Next, given that ecosystem practices and norms evolve over time (Frow, McColl-Kennedy, and Payne 2016; Frow et al. 2019), we identify, describe, and explain this theoretical frame- work using evidence from selling and sales management research (see Figure 2).

Ecosystem elements

Ecosystem elements offer an important, yet complex theoret- ical view. These structural elements draw from other allied fields such as the service-dominant logic (e.g. Vargo and

Lusch 2004); service systems (e.g. Makkonen and Olkkonen 2017); and actors, stakeholders, social structures and com- munities (e.g. Line, Runyan, and Gonzalez-Padron 2019). Ecosystem elements capture multi-level complexity, includ- ing the actors that bring together (i.e. combine-recombine) varied resources across varied ecosystem practices to result in co-created value and ecosystem well-being. These ele- ments within the ecosystem are interlinked—e.g. actor con- figuration can act as a resource (for a firm), institutions can influence what is and is not perceived as a resource, and certain actors (government/regulatory policies) can act as institutions. However, a focused application of the ecosystem perspective mandates delineation of its theoretical dimen- sions before it can illuminate sales ecosystems. Table 1 pro- vides an overview of ecosystem elements (i.e. actors, resources, institutions) identified in our literature search.

Actors

The ecosystem perspective emphasizes value created by indi- vidual actors while focusing on practices that indicate a dyadic- or systems-perspective with multiple actors and resource applications within institutional set-ups (Vargo and Lusch 2011). Actors can be people (e.g. consumer, managers, employees; Edvardsson, Tronvoll, and Gruber 2011), organi- zations (e.g. firms, suppliers; Huetten et al. 2019), or both (Beir~ao, Patr�ıcio, and Fisk 2017; Letaifa and Reynoso 2015). Ecosystem research classifies actors as a clustered typology of social and economic stakeholders (R€ondell, S€orhammar, and Gidhagen 2016), with variations existing across the lens in which they are viewed—e.g. micro-level individual actors (e.g. consumer, frontline employee), meso-level intra-organ- izational actors (e.g. service centers), macro-level local and proximal organizations (e.g. competitors), and meta-level regulatory actors (e.g. government entities) (Frow, McColl- Kennedy, and Payne 2016; Frow et al. 2019). Such actors are

Figure 1. Output of the review process and overview of coding process.

236 K. R. RANJAN AND S. B. FRIEND

important within ecosystem research as they operate at the center of understanding linkages and resource applications (Akaka and Chandler 2011; Tierney, Karpen, and Westberg 2016).

Resources Beyond conventional resources, ecosystem practices thrive on assets that can support interaction—e.g. technological abilities (Breidbach and Maglio 2016; Skål�en, Aal, and Edvardsson 2015) and knowledge repositories (King et al. 2019). Actors operate with the goal of increasing their dens- ity of resources—i.e. the degree to which mobilization of resources take place (Normann 2001). Lusch, Vargo, and Tanniru (2010, 23) suggest that resource density is maxi- mized when ‘an actor provides and integrates all the resour- ces necessary to co-create the best possible value in that context’. Resource ownership is important because higher ownership can change the overall desirability of actors (i.e. those who generate greater linkage and higher interaction) and hence, increase resource density. Resources are therefore another critical ecosystem element, as resource integration and application is perceived to be more essential than own- ership, and resource sharing is perceived to be more import- ant than mere exchange (Taillard et al. 2016). Interaction affects resource application and sharing; therefore, inter- action is a critical linkage to ecosystem well-being (Eaton et al. 2015; Laud and Karpen 2017).

Institutions Institutions transcend actors and their practices (Breidbach, Antons, and Salge 2016; Breidbach, Kolb, and Srinivasan 2013; Breidbach and Maglio 2016; Skål�en, Aal, and Edvardsson 2015) and provide overarching norms and expectations. Specifically, institutions include rules and principles (Aal et al. 2016; Åkesson, Edvardsson, and Tronvoll 2014; Breidbach and Brodie 2017; Edvardsson, Tronvoll, and Gruber 2011; Vargo and Lusch 2016) and beliefs and symbols (Akaka et al. 2014; Akaka, Vargo, and

Schau 2015). Institutions can both enable and constrain value creation practices by affecting integration and nor- malization within the ecosystem (Wieland, Koskela-Huotari and Vargo 2016). Relatedly, the service ecosystem perspec- tive suggests that actors are guided by institutional arrange- ments (Siltaloppi, Koskela-Huotari, and Vargo 2016; Vargo and Lusch 2016).

Ecosystem practices

Practices bind together actors and their resources within the institution of the ecosystem and evolve through a range of activities—e.g. communication (Kohtam€aki and Rajala 2016; Pinho et al. 2014), adaptation (Laud et al. 2015; Pl�e 2016), interaction (R€ondell, S€orhammar, and Gidhagen 2016; Storbacka et al. 2016; Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015), and integration (Eaton et al. 2015; Fehrer, Woratschek, and Brodie 2018; Polese et al. 2017; Skål�en, Aal, and Edvardsson 2015). Over time, actors sense (Edvardsson, Tronvoll, and Gruber 2011; Line, Runyan, and Gonzalez-Padron 2019; Quero and Ventura 2019), assess (Kohtam€aki and Rajala 2016; Line, Runyan, and Gonzalez-Padron 2019; Pl�e 2016), and internalize tasks/ knowledge (Frow et al. 2014; Letaifa and Reynoso 2015) to co-create value. However, within an ecosystem, a collection of influences shape practices—e.g. align-realign activities (Carid�a, Edvardsson, and Colurcio 2019; Edvardsson et al. 2014; Frow et al. 2014; Kohtam€aki and Rajala 2016), com- bine-recombine activities (Aal et al. 2016; Åkesson, Edvardsson, and Tronvoll 2014; Fu, Wang, and Zhao 2017), and individual-interpersonal activities (Makkonen and Olkkonen 2017). These forces generate transitions and amplifications that underlie match-linkage within the eco- system (Kohtam€aki and Rajala 2016; Meynhardt, Chandler, and Strathoff 2016). Table 2 provides an overview of activ- ities that ultimately form the basis of the ecosystem practi- ces identified in our review (and defined in Table 3; c.f., Frow, McColl-Kennedy, and Payne 2016).

Figure 2. An integrative framework of sales ecosystem well-being.

JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 237

Table 1. Ecosystem elements coding table.

Citation Ecosystem Elements – 1st Level Code 2nd Level Code

Fu, Wang, and Zhao (2017) Co-creation of value stimulates network effect Actor (Network) Eaton et al. (2015) Interactive configuration of various resources Resource Quero-Gervilla, Ventura-Fern�andez, and

Kelleher (2015) Collaborative and interconnected nature, shared benefits, experience,

and practice Actor (Linkages)

Koskela-Huotari and Vargo (2016) Practices, symbols, and organizing principles (self-contained, self- adjusting system[s])

Practices Institutions

Peters (2016) Self-contained, self-adjusting system[s] of actors; complexity, openness Institution Wieland, Koskela-Huotari, and Vargo (2016) Multiple actors; dynamic and self-adjusting; practices-integrative,

normalizing, and representational Actors Practices Institution

R€ondell, S€orhammar, and Gidhagen (2016) Actors (social-consumers, economic-companies); resource integration Actors Resources

Tierney, Karpen, and Westberg (2016) Actors, roles, resources, and practices Actors Practices Resources

Breidbach and Brodie (2017) Economic actors (tenets), organizational structures (the use of information and communication technology (ICT)-enabled engagement platforms), principles to facilitate the exchange (monetary rewards for the sharing of resources), and resource (e.g. car)

Actors Institution Practices Resources

Laud and Karpen (2017) Arrangement of resources Resource Polese et al. (2017) Different actors, with different goals and shared needs Actors Laud et al. (2019) Actors Actors Edvardsson, Tronvoll, and Gruber (2011) Actors’ positions and roles (configuration of people, technology, other

internal and external service systems, shared information); unobservable rules and social structures

Actors Institutions Practices

Tax, McCutcheon, and Wilkinson (2013) Actors and ties (customer hub or focal node), and the network include set of actors (service providers) as nodes

Actor (Network)

Breidbach, Kolb, and Srinivasan (2013) Human entities; ICT Actors Resources

Skål�en, Aal, and Edvardsson (2015) ICT tools; actors (incumbents, challengers) and resources Actors Resources

Jaakkola and Alexander (2014) Multi-stakeholder service (consumers, communities, businesses, governmental organizations), exchange parties (providers, customers) and their networks

Actor (Network)

Breidbach, Antons, and Salge (2016) Service orchestrators (dedicated actors), customers; structures (health departments)

Actors Institutions

Helkkula, Kowalkowski, and Tronvoll (2018) Actors; institutional arrangements Actors Institutions

Line, Runyan, and Gonzalez-Padron (2019) Stakeholders (of non-market actors) Actors Vargo, Akaka, and Wieland (2020) Adopters; technology; institutional arrangements; structural emergence Actors

Institutions Practices

Åkesson, Edvardsson, and Tronvoll (2014) Fundamental societal norms and rules grounded in values embedded in the surrounding society

Practices Institutions

Edvardsson, Tronvoll, and Gruber (2011) Service system is a configuration of both customer and provider resources that enable, support, and guide VCC

Institutions

Aal et al. (2016) Innovation—i.e. the institutionalized changes in the ecosystem that stem from either a new configuration of resources or a new set of schemas (social norms, rules) and result in new valuable practices for the actors

Practices Actors Institutions

Pop et al. (2018) Institutions (culture, structure, processes, metrics) that exist at the micro- level (e.g. consumer), meso-level (language, practices, intellectual property)� and macro-level (legislation, general beliefs)

Practices Institutions Resources

Buhalis et al. (2019) Firm, customer Actor Akaka, Vargo, and Schau (2015) Symbols and service exchange Practices Huetten et al. (2019) Complex configurations of people, information, organizations and

technologies Actors Resource

Letaifa and Reynoso (2015) Networks or communities (a multi-level, multi-actor perspective on value, value creation, and value capture)

Actor (Network)

King et al. (2019) Visionary, common ground, service experience, understanding, corporate administrators, owners, service providers, and customers (with their collective knowledge)

Actor (Network) Resources

Pinho et al. (2014) Central healthcare system, pharmacists, doctors, nurses Actors Institutions

Beir~ao, Patr�ıcio, and Fisk (2017) Micro-level (individual actors, family), meso-level (public and private hospitals, primary care units, health support organizations), and macro-level (government, Ministry of Health, other organizations)

Actors

Frow, McColl-Kennedy, and Payne (2016) Co-creation activities play central role in influencing resources available, timing of utilization, and context of service

Actor Resources

Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka (2015) Social practices and processes drive value creation/innovation—i.e. combination of new/useful knowledge

Practices

Pl�e (2016) Service employee’s ability to integrate (disintegrate) different forms of customer resources may result in co-creation/co-destruction of value

Actors

(continued)

238 K. R. RANJAN AND S. B. FRIEND

Table 1. Continued.

Citation Ecosystem Elements – 1st Level Code 2nd Level Code

Makkonen and Olkkonen (2017) Interplay between resource integration and multilevel service system Resource Institutions

Edvardsson et al. (2014) Regulate, normative and cognitive institutions and institutional logic; influence of institutional logic on resource integration in service systems

Resources Institutions

Kohtam€aki and Rajala (2016) VCC and VCP research covers myriad viewpoints of economic and social exchange among actors in multi-actor service ecosystems

Actors Institutions

Quero and Ventura (2019) Assist in planning of VCC through value propositions approach with a variety of actors within the service ecosystem; crowdfunding service ecosystem model to strengthen bonds with customer and other stakeholders

Actors Resources Practices

Frow et al. (2014) Value propositions reflect resource offerings between actors within micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of service ecosystems

Resource Actors

Breidbach and Maglio (2016) Actors, resource, and practices underlie technology-enabled VCC in complex B2B service systems

Actors Resources Practices

Akaka et al. (2014) VCC results from integration of resources and interactions among multiple actors; symbols guide actors in co-creation practices

Actors Practices Institutions

Note: � While there is substantial agreement in extant research about the actors that constitute the three levels, at times, the distinctions are relative analytical

levels only and do not exist independent of each other, e.g. in this specific case, intellectual property rights is meso-level, whereas in other study it can be a macro-level factor.

Table 2. Ecosystem activities as basis of practices.

Citation Ecosystem Activities – 1st Level Code 2nd Level Code

Fu, Wang, and Zhao (2017) Resource/process (re)configuration processual rather than an event service/product customization; segmentation/standardization (that helped reach critical mass)

Organize/Reorganize Process

Eaton et al. (2015) Shared institutional logics, standards, and digital technology (Cognitive) Sharing Harris et al. (2010) Value can be co-destroyed through interactions between

different systems Interact

Quero-Gervilla, Ventura-Fern�andez, and Kelleher (2015)

Actors’ identification and the practice of identifying each one; determining what type of underlying VCC was present for each

Knowing (Others and Their Practices)

Koskela-Huotari and Vargo (2016) Resource integration; service-exchange practices (Resource) Integration Exchange Peters (2016) Resource integration (hetero- vs. homo-pathic) (Resource) Integration Wieland, Koskela-Huotari and Vargo (2016) Processes of exchanging and integrating Exchange

Integration R€ondell, S€orhammar, and Gidhagen (2016) Customer engagement activities—moderating, publishing, innovating,

supporting, interacting, absorbing Engagement

Tierney, Karpen, and Westberg (2016) Indirect or direct interactions and exchanges—micro- (direct exchange in dyads), meso- (indirect exchange in triadic groups), and macro- (complex reticular direct and indirect exchanges)�

Exchange

Breidbach and Brodie (2017) Exchange and integration of resources Exchange Integrate

Laud and Karpen (2017) Resource integration—participation behavior (information seeking, information sharing, responsible behavior, personal interaction) and citizenship behavior (feedback, advocacy, helping, tolerance)

Integrate

Polese et al. (2017) Integrating resources; acting with intentionality to obtain value; providing benefits to other parties; belonging to the emergent viable system

Integrate

Edvardsson, Tronvoll, and Gruber (2011) Actors learn and change their roles Learning Role Awareness

Tax, McCutcheon, and Wilkinson (2013) Connected overall service experience; formality of the service provider network; transactional versus relational goals; degree of customer freedom in selecting providers; complexity of the offering

Connected Experience

Breidbach, Kolb, and Srinivasan (2013) Interaction and resource exchange; practices of technology use; relationship management

Interact Exchange

Skål�en, Aal, and Edvardsson (2015) Integrating resources and co-creating value; latent or overt conflict (episodes of contention, transformation); seizing power and position

(Resource) Integration

Jaakkola and Alexander (2014) Customer engagement (customers diverse resource contributions, modify and/or augment the offering, affect other stakeholders perceptions, preferences, expectations or actions toward)

Engagement

Breidbach, Antons, and Salge (2016) Resource integration Integrate Vargo and Lusch (2016) Actor–environmental interaction and energy flow; service exchange Interact

Exchange Helkkula, Kowalkowski, and Tronvoll (2018) Interactions Interact Line, Runyan, and Gonzalez-Padron (2019) Prioritize, generate/share intelligence, sensing, resource integration Sense

Prioritize Integrate Share Interact

Vargo, Akaka, and Wieland (2020) Communication and adoption Adopt/Agree (continued)

JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 239

Table 2. Continued.

Citation Ecosystem Activities – 1st Level Code 2nd Level Code

Storbacka et al. (2016) Micro- (actor engagement), meso- (sets of actors and their resources), and macro- (ecosystem and institutional logic)

Engagement

Fehrer, Woratschek, and Brodie (2018) Sharing and nonhierarchical collaboration; leveraging complementarities through coordinating and collaboration practices

Sharing Collaborate Coordinate

Åkesson, Edvardsson, and Tronvoll (2014) Configurations of resources that enable, direct, and support customers’ value-creating processes

Configure

Edvardsson, Tronvoll, and Gruber (2011) Integration of different operand and operant resources to support the activities and interactions through which VCC occurs

Integrate

Aal et al. (2016) Integration and the innovative recombination of resources within and across service systems

Integrate Recombine

Meynhardt, Chandler, and Strathoff (2016) Systemic principles of VCC (critical distance, stability, amplification, internal determination, nonlinearity and feedback, phase transitions, symmetry-breaking, limited predictability, historical dependence)

Separation Communicate Amplification Transition (Mis)align Dependence

Buhalis et al. (2019) Customers frequent their favorite platforms and bring their preferences and networks into relationships with other service or goods vendors

Integrate Relationship

Akaka, Vargo, and Schau (2015) Multiple levels of interaction and embeddedness of networks and institutions continually co-constructed through the actions and interactions of multiple actors

Interaction

Letaifa and Reynoso (2015) Gather complementary resources; include direct and indirect stakeholders and influencers of the service

Complement

King et al. (2019) Role of the visionary (e.g. Bill Marriott), who is central to the genesis of the service experience, and corporate administrators (e.g. Marriott International), owners (e.g. Host Hotels and Resorts) who provide the financial capital and service providers (e.g. New York Marriott Marquis employees – managers, supervisors, front line employees), deliver the service experience, and are necessary to bring the service strategy to life; each actor (i.e. stakeholder) in the hospitality service experience ecosystem has a shared interest in the service experience, albeit from different perspectives

Interaction Complement

Pinho et al. (2014) Collaboration/communication among all Collaboration Communication

Beir~ao, Patr�ıcio, and Fisk (2017) Micro-level (service-for-service exchange occurs directly and reciprocally between actors in dyads), meso-level (actors connect directly or indirectly to serve one another and co-create value), macro-level (the context is an ecosystem where multiple simultaneous service-for-service exchange)

Exchange Connection/Linkage

Akaka and Vargo (2015) Application of knowledge and skills; relationships as networks of multiple actors; socially constructed value; intersecting and overlapping institutions in value creation and value exchange

Knowledge Sharing Relationship Exchange

Frow, McColl-Kennedy, and Payne (2016) Practices that endow actors with social capital, provide ecosystem with shared language, shape mental models, inspire/shape value propositions, form new relationships/experiential opportunities, imbalance ecosystem

Integrate Activities

Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka (2015) Beneficially applied knowledge/technology; interaction, exchange and application of resources among stakeholders; operational activities and active participation of customers/relevant actors; operand and operant resources; institutional arrangements

Knowledge Sharing Interaction

Pl�e (2016) Identify customer resources; access and adaptability to customer resources; resource integration

Identify Access Adapt Integrate (Resources)

Makkonen and Olkkonen (2017) Actions (resource integration, relationship infrastructure), structure (individuals perceptions, interpersonal actions, individual habitudes)

Integrate Relationship Individual-Interpersonal Actions

Edvardsson et al. (2014) Actors resources (co-operation, coordination, integration, collaboration, experiencing, process); resource alignment (enabling/ support vs. constraining/restrict)

(Resource) Alignment

Laud et al. (2015) Applying, transforming, adopting; accessing, mobilizing, and internalizing; resource integration

Mobilize Access Apply Transform Adopt Internalize Integrate

Kohtam€aki and Rajala (2016) Practices in co-creation (partner match, affinity/visual proximity, knowledge sharing); practices in co-production (openness, diagnosing needs, managing value conflicts, value experience supporting)

Affinity Knowledge Openness Assess Realign/Partner Match

(continued)

240 K. R. RANJAN AND S. B. FRIEND

� Knowing, Knowledge Sharing, Sense ! Sense � Assess, Identify, Evaluation ! Assess � Prioritize, Mobilize, Internalize ! Internalize � Communication, Access, Openness ! Communicate � Adapt, Transform ! Adapt � Engagement, Interact ! Interaction � Integration, Exchange, Sharing, Cooperate, Collaborate, Complement! Integrate � Adopt, Connection/Linkage, Coordinate, Dependence, Relationship, Affinity ! Relationship � Align-Misalign, Configure-Reconfigure, Construct-Reconstruct, Individual-Interpersonal, Organize-Reorganize, Partner Match-Alignment, Combine-Recombine,

Separation, Transition ! Construct-Deconstruct-Reconstruct ! Opposing Forces

Table 2. Continued.

Citation Ecosystem Activities – 1st Level Code 2nd Level Code

Carid�a, Edvardsson, and Colurcio (2019) Matching, resourcing, valuing Align Mobilize

Quero and Ventura (2019) Value proposition (promises, proposal, bridge connections, journey to destination), VCC (co-ideation, co-evaluation of ideas, co-design, co-test, co-launch, co-invest, co-consumption, co-authorship)

Engagement

Heinonen and Strandvik (2015) Business perspective, customer logic, offering Knowledge Sharing Frow et al. (2014) Offer and attract resources; value potential inherent to actors’

resources; composition of networks; new resource integration; balance/align ecosystem

Mobilize Align Integrate

Breidbach and Maglio (2016) Service customer (task allocator, enabler, governor, quality controller); service provider (facilitator, performer, conductor, expert)

Partner Match

Akaka et al. (2014) Coordination of interaction, communication of information, integration of resource, evaluation of value

Interaction Communication Evaluation

Note: �While there is substantial agreement in extant research about the actors that constitute the three levels, at times, the levels are relative analytical levels only and do not exist independent of each other–e.g. in this specific case, single actor (is micro), a small group (is meso), and a community of actors (is macro).

2nd level ! 3rd level activity summary that contribute to ecosystem practices (see Table 3)

Table 3. Overview of ecosystem practices.

Activity Summary (see Table 2) Practices Nature of Practices and Outcomes

Sense, Communicate, Integrate P1: Practices that empower other actors

Different actors have different endowments, which they use for self-gain—i.e. perform their tasks and improve the efficacy and amount of their endowments. However, actors must also understand the heterogeneity that exists in the ecosystem and that they can help improve the state of other actors. Knowledge is fundamental to empowerment and can be shared informally and/or without strict contractual obligations. Actors in the sales ecosystem empower others through sharing of knowledge.

Sense, Assess, Internalize P2: Practices that shape actor’s mental models

Mental models are the dominant thought process that actors operate with, and they determine what activities are executed and how—e.g. selling vs. customer orientation, long-term ethical vs. short-term gray behavior.

Communicate, Interact, Integrate, Relate

P3: Practices that forge new linkages

Linkages are a source of co-created value as they generate new relationships, resource combinations, and new applications. New linkages allow multi-level and networked information flow to generate co-created value and meet opportunities.

Assess, Communicate, Adapt P4: Practices that shape and generate value propositions

The practices that prepare and enable actors to create their own microcosm of value propositions in turn support the focal offering. Possibilities include empowering, which is favorable because empowered actors conserve resources and support other weak actor- linkages within the ecosystem thorough their capabilities.

Interact, Integrate, Relate, Opposing forces

P5: Practices that enhance resource density

Resource density is contingent on the exposure of actors’ resources to extensive sharing and the diversity of application that enhances their use to the maximum. For example, individual knowledge is useful, but it gains more potency through community application, time-varying application, and co-ideation.

Sense, Assess, Integrate, Opposing forces

P6: Practices that impact resource access and combination

While resource ownership is important, its application and recombination is equally important. When individuals and teams work in a manner that make resources easily accessible, it allows their use and superior application levels of value is co-created. For example, ad-hoc teams that come together from diverse geographies and functions for a new product launch might face initial coordination challenges, intense interaction, and higher disagreements. At the same time, this process of combining also implies the rebounding of ideas.

Internalize, Communicate P7: Practices that generate shared norms, language, and symbols

Institutions include norms and rules, and they generate guidance for how activities should be performed within the ecosystem. For example, institutions mandate task repetition in sales, which results in benefits of routinization. Routinization helps other actors unequivocally understand what to expect in a situation, thus resulting in better co- creation. On other occasions, resource constraints, uncertainties, and emergent linkages require actors to deviate from normalcy allowed by institutions and in turn, undergoing changes.

Opposing forces P8: Practices that shape, reshape, and encourage/ constrain the ecosystem’s structure

The organization of actors and usage of resources have bearing on their action and efficacy, and institutions shape such organizations and usage. While institutions allow flexibility in how actors link with other actors—and how differently and uniquely resources can be applied—they also apply constraints so that value is not destroyed. Institutions can also result in new alignment, linkages, and novel resource combinations.

JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 241

Ecosystem outcomes: well-being

Well-being is a complex construct that eludes a singular def- inition in the extant research (Smith et al. 2013). For example, while economists focus on well-being as it pertains to income and wage level (Van Zanden et al. 2014), organ- izational studies focus on employee satisfaction as a measure of well-being (Wright and Huang 2012). In the same vein, psychologists define different types of individual and psy- chological well-being (Brown and Ryan 2003). As such, this concept has acquired different meaning across disciplines and levels of analysis (e.g. individual well-being, system well-being; Frow et al. 2019). Per the emphasis of our study, we focus on the well-being of the ecosystem.

Vargo and Lusch (2016, 10–11) describe a service eco- system as a ‘relatively self-contained, self-adjusting system of resource-integrating actors connected by shared institu- tional arrangements and mutual value creation through service exchange’. Given the complexity of the sales eco- system, none of the above- or below-mentioned conceptu- alizations of well-being comprehensively captures its varied applications. For example, the transformative con- sumer view envisages happiness and prosperity of individ- ual consumers (Mick et al. 2012). Wright and Huang (2012) take an organizational perspective to emphasize salesperson satisfaction and well-being. McGregor (2004) suggests different types of resources as a source of well- being (e.g. manufacturer’s capabilities and endowments), while the ecology perspective offered by Prescott-Allen (2001) highlights system and institutional-level choices, opportunities, and overall ecosystem quality enhancement as contributors to well-being (e.g. channels integration and conflict resolution mechanisms). Thus, consumer well- being can be explained by transformative consumer research, firm-level well-being from an organizational behavior perspective, and ecological well-being from an institutional perspective. However, underlying each per- spective is the common theoretical denominator of value that results in well-being through shared worldview, resource integration, relationship, communication, and alignment (Frow et al. 2019).

An ecosystem has the capability to co-create value (Ramaswamy and Gouillart 2010; Vargo and Lusch 2011), and practices are the basis of ecosystem outcomes. The co- created value within an ecosystem can be classified along the dimensions of value-in-use (ViU) and value co-produc- tion (VCP) (Ranjan and Read 2016). Positive ViU out- comes—e.g. trust enhancements (Hewett and Bearden 2001), commitment (Andaleeb 1996), and long-term rela- tionships (Lusch and Brown 1996)—foster ecosystem well- being. VCP includes actors’ direct and indirect engagement with each other that contributes to the product or service value proposition. The emergence of an ecosystem is rooted in myriad properties (Peters 2016), meanings (Tierney, Karpen, and Westberg 2016), customer satisfac- tion (Breidbach, Antons, and Salge 2016; Tax, McCutcheon, and Wilkinson 2013), profit, and system via- bility (Beir~ao, Patr�ıcio, and Fisk 2017).

An integrative framework of sales ecosystem well-being

Sales ecosystem elements

Sales is a customer-facing profession that involves several actors (e.g. salesperson, sales manager, customer, channel intermediaries, regulators) who impact one another through co-creative practices within an ecosystem (Hartmann, Wieland, and Vargo 2018). Conceptual organization of actors in the selling system covers the spectrum of ecosys- tem levels—e.g. micro-level (e.g. buyer-seller), meso-level (e.g. buying center-selling center), and/or macro-level (e.g. buyer-seller organization). Sales ecosystem resources include technology and knowledge repositories (e.g. CRM platforms with customer portal accessibility), along with configurations within actors (e.g. sales enablement divisions that open the flow of cross-functional knowledge sharing) and between actors (e.g. self-service platforms to empower customers). The roles of institutions are becoming increasingly apparent (Humphreys 2010; Press et al. 2014; Vargo and Lusch 2016), and the process of selling is conceptualized in terms of interactions between ecosystem actors where ‘service can be efficiently exchanged for service—through the ongoing alignment of institutional arrangements and the optimiza- tion of relationships’ (Hartmann, Wieland, and Vargo 2018, 2). While the groundwork for conceptualizing selling as an ecosystem exists in part within extant literature, Singh et al. (2019) push for further development, asserting that the sell- ing ecosystem constitutes a key research priority. Our research answers this call by developing a nuanced frame- work encompassing the elements (i.e. actors, resources, insti- tutions) that determine practices and result in the well-being of the sales ecosystem.

Sales ecosystem practices

A selling ecosystem entails several co-creative practices (Breidbach, Antons, and Salge 2016; Spanjol et al. 2015). Sales ecosystem activities broadly reflect the challenges fac- ing sales organization stakeholders to work internally. Specific practices within the sales ecosystem are based on the activities of sensing (e.g. salesperson sensemaking and legitimization, narrative alignment), assessing (e.g. diversity sensitivity, multi-point probing, ViU auditing), and internal- izing (e.g. trans-memory systems, permaculture principles). These practices primarily concern actors at a micro-level, with customer-facing stakeholders adopting practices that reflect enterprise selling efforts (c.f., Rackham and DeVincentis 1998). Such activities include communication styles (e.g. nonlinear/consensus selling), adaptability (e.g. sales-service ambidexterity, broadening and blurring of func- tions), interactions (e.g. internal and external selling, polit- ical skill), and requisite integrations (e.g. common ground design rules, deep operational integration, orchestration, ser- vice-for-service exchange) (see Bolander et al. 2015; Friend and Malshe 2016; Plouffe et al. 2016; Rapp et al. 2017). At the same time, practices within the sales ecosystem can have both meso-level (e.g. activities directed at managers, firms,

242 K. R. RANJAN AND S. B. FRIEND

suppliers) and macro-level effects (i.e. activities shaping industry processes, competitive regulations). Activities aggre- gate over time and between sales organization actors and customer stakeholders under institutional norms and practi- ces that co-create ecosystem well-being.

While practices capture the essence of sales ecosystem well-being, the structural configuration of ecosystem elements is critical to understanding the practices. Selling practices were based on the theoretical foundation developed through our systematic review, and those practices were modified and contextualized for a sales ecosystem. Relationships captured

through this process offer a cogent conceptual understanding of the emergence of sales ecosystem well-being. Our typology of selling practices serves our theoretical goal (Doty and Glick 1994), as we conceptually extend research and offer rich insights by enjoining ecosystem and selling practices. Table 4 identifies: (a) a typology of co-creation practices as a conceptual aggregate of actor, resource, and institution; (b) corresponding examples from sales; (c) the locus of the effect of the practice within and across ecosystem levels; and (d) the associated valence of the positive or negative value gener- ated and its impact on sales ecosystem outcomes.

Table 4. Sales ecosystem practices.

Practices Illustration from Sales Management VCC or VCD Proxy Measures

P1: Practices that empower other actors

A salesperson sharing inimitable knowledge (a resource) with a customer educates and enables her to champion co-creation of value.

� Customer Education

A frontline employee (FLE) learns of a critical customer need through his daily interactions with customer personnel. Business insights are shared to develop account-based strategies that equip the customer to meet latent/emergent needs.

� Knowledge Dissemination � Needs Identification

P2: Practices that shape actor’s mental models

Salespeople who are customer-centric focus on needs identification practices (deriving beneficial customer outcomes) and shape the customer’s disposition toward the seller (display openness in a collaborative spirit, increased willingness to share information).

� Customer-Orientation

The supplier’s ethical climate shapes the ethical orientation and behavior of customer-facing employees, while also establishing a reputation that favorably influences customer stakeholders’ willingness to trust supplier personnel, share information, and co-create value.

� Ethical Climate � Customer Trust in Seller/Supplier � Information Sharing

P3: Practices that forge new linkages A customer stakeholder who had a negative experience with an FLE informally shares his sentiment with buying center members. First-hand experience endows the user with credibility that creates headwinds across various sales center persuasion attempts.

� Negative Knowledge Store Activation

Sales enablement platforms create a knowledge repository in the sales organization that allows resources to flow toward the sales personnel. Sellers can gain access to diverse knowledge across buyer-supplier functions to extend network relationships and improve outcomes.

� Relationship Strength

P4: Practices that shape and generate value propositions

Self-training programs allow customer users to become subject matter experts (SMEs) and less dependent on sales and service personnel for varied needs. Collections of knowledgeable customer stakeholders therein develop and use resources to drive results across the ecosystem.

� Decreased Customer Requests to Supplier

Consensus-selling techniques encourage salespeople to seek opinions of multiple customer groups to design a solution portfolio. Knowledge sharing between sales and customer stakeholders creates broad buy-in to participate in co-creation given the perceived benefits to all.

� Ecosystem Solutions

P5: Practices that enhance resource density

Co-ideation, brainstorming, and team-based engagements that create opportunities to form new resource application and improve actor’s attractiveness. These results in turn create new connections and linkages.

� New Connections and Linkages

Teaming allows novice salespeople to learn. Incentives for inter-functional linkages and joint performance allow more actors to take up difficult tasks and projects that enhance overall resource density.

� Cross-Functional/Network Benefits

P6: Practices that impact resource access and combination

Hierarchies restrict the flow of knowledge to serve self-interests. Downstream manager and FLE practices fail to share potentially beneficial information with customers, resulting in a suboptimal combination of resources and reduced VCC.

� Resource Optimization Modeling

Social network platforms can connect actors across varied customers, non- customers, suppliers, and competitors. Insights derived from such platforms can accelerate the development of creative solutions that would otherwise get stuck in information silos or bureaucratic red tape.

� New Product Creativity

P7: Practices that generate shared norms, language, and symbols

Experience between the buyer and seller brings separate organizational systems together and forms shared language unique to VCC episodes. Shared mental models insulate the ecosystem from competitors.

� Resistance to Competitive Threats

Institutional norms reflected in frontline activities create/maintain crossing points with exchange partners. ‘Thin’ crossing points reflect alignment on what is being shared, and ‘thick’ crossing points reflect unclear or misaligned norms and representations across actors.

� Thin Crossing Points

P8: Practices that shape, reshape, encourage/constrain the ecosystem’s structure

Customer accessibility to SMEs in the sales organization (a resource) is amplified by norms that view all touch points as customer-facing.

� Institutional Norms

Short-term incentive systems within the sales organization restrict interactions within/between actors, despite evidence that long-term incentives provide greater dividends and mutual gains. Such incentives reduce co-created benefits and increase consequences—e.g. co- destructive practices such as hoarding.

� Incentive Systems (!End User Defection! Rethink Norms)

JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 243

Sales ecosystem outcomes

Practices contribute to several outcomes—e.g. trust, com- mitment, and customer satisfaction. The outcomes can be organized along each dimension of VCP (knowledge shar- ing, equity, interaction) and ViU (experience, personaliza- tion, relationship) (Ranjan and Read 2016). However, unique extensions also exist, such as favorable outcomes reflecting ecosystem stability preservation (Friend and Malshe 2016). Such outcomes can serve as proxies for micro-level outcomes (e.g. sales performance, buyer-seller relationships) as well as meso- and macro-level institu- tional structures (Hartmann, Wieland, and Vargo 2018). Ecosystem actors increasingly improve their ability to exercise judgment, create a sense of shared understanding, and align goals to better mobilize resources within co- creation episodes. However, given the expanse of sales activities, it is not feasible to map all practices and pos- sible outcomes. In Table 5, we utilize eight co-creation practices, along with their detailing, to map the well-being of an ecosystem. These practices contribute to VCC (VCP, ViU) and in turn, constitute improved well-being of the sales ecosystem.

Multi-directional framework

As depicted in our integrative framework of sales ecosystem well-being (see Figure 2), sales ecosystem elements shape sales ecosystem practices, which subsequently affect sales ecosystem outcomes. However, per the tenets of the ecosys- tem view and insights expressed in the related research streams of VCC, systems, and social networks, it is plausible that the reverse may also occur (Brodie et al. 2019; Ramos et al. 2013). That is, the outcomes of the sales ecosystem may influence practices that also impact sales ecosystem ele- ments. An example involves a sales ecosystem in good health (i.e. ecosystem well-being). Such a pervasive state may promote certain sales practices (e.g. ethical sales behav- iors, extra role behaviors, organizational citizenship behav- iors, customer-oriented behaviors) because salespeople perceive greater reputational challenges. Furthermore, sales ecosystem elements (e.g. institutions) shape how stakehold- ers view ecosystem well-being. Therefore, we suggest a multi-directional framework of sales ecosystem elements, practices, and outcomes.

Extant literature supports the conceptual foundations of a multi-directional framework. Specifically, VCC is perceived

Table 5. Co-creative bases of sales ecosystem well-being.

Citations Ecosystem Outcome Practice

(see Table 4) Sales Outcome Citations

Co-Produced Value in Ecosystem and Corresponding Sales Ecosystem Value and Well-Being

Aal et al. (2016); Breidbach, Antons, and Salge (2016); Breidbach and Brodie (2017); Frow, McColl- Kennedy, and Payne (2016); Helkkula, Kowalkowski, and Tronvoll (2018); King et al. (2019); Line, Runyan, and Gonzalez-Padron (2019); Vargo, Akaka, and Wieland (2020); Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka (2015)

Innovation and Design: New service/product creation, archetype generation, improved performance, diffusion

P2 P4 P8

Sales Force Innovation and Solutions: Sales offerings that meet various stakeholder needs, sales force market orientation can result in innovation

Friend and Malshe (2016); Wang and Miao (2015)

Akaka and Vargo (2015); Edvardsson, Tronvoll, and Gruber (2011); Kohtam€aki and Rajala (2016)

Delivery and Exchange: Product/service exchange

P3 P5

Service-for-Service Exchange: Multi-stage customer journey perspective by the salesforce

De Keyser, Schepers, and Konuş (2015); Hartmann, Wieland, and Vargo (2018)

Jaakkola and Alexander (2014); Peters (2016); Pinho et al. (2014)

Product/Service Improvement: Improved working environment, product/service viability, increased service coverage, enriched healthcare delivery, resource savings

P1 P6 P8

Product and Process Improvement: Select B2B customers can help product improvement, better pipeline management

Bonner and Walker (2004); S€ohnchen and Albers (2010)

Use-Value in Ecosystem and Corresponding Sales Ecosystem Value and Well-Being

Heinonen and Strandvik (2015); Huetten et al. (2019); Pop et al. (2018); Spanjol et al. (2015)

Pre-Consumption: Service adherence, customer centricity, customer perception, judgment, value formation

P1 P2 P5 P7

Episodic VCC Receptivity: Empowering customers

Malshe and Friend (2018); Wathieu et al. (2002)

Åkesson, Edvardsson, and Tronvoll (2014); Breidbach and Brodie (2017); Buhalis et al. (2019); Eaton et al. (2015); Edvardsson, Tronvoll, and Gruber (2011); King et al. (2019); Kohtam€aki and Rajala (2016); Laud and Karpen (2017); Laud et al. (2015); Line, Runyan, and Gonzalez- Padron (2019); Storbacka et al. (2016)

Consumption (Use): Use value, value-in-context (brand-, self-, object-oriented value), customization, reputation (commitment/trust), relational and experiential values

P5 P6 P8

Informed Purchase and Use Process: Information use during purchase, providing customized information

Kennedy and Deeter-Schmelz (2001); Lee, Lee, and Schumann (2002)

Akaka, Vargo, and Schau (2015); Edvardsson et al. (2014); Fu, Wang, and Zhao (2017); Jaakkola and Alexander (2014); Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka (2015)

Post-Use ViU: Well-being, viral spread; contextual value experience, recognition, legitimacy, individual/collective learning, (re)evaluation of experience

P1 P3 P5 P6 P7 P8

Re-Engagement: Loyalty program that improves value perception and commitment, reduction in product-return

Friend, Malshe, and Fisher (2020); Pun, Chen, and Li (2020)

244 K. R. RANJAN AND S. B. FRIEND

of as an interactive process (Chen and Watanabe 2007; Randall, Gravier, and Prybutok 2011) that is cyclical and episodic (Payne, Storbacka, and Frow 2008; Powers, Sheng, and Li 2016). Thus, meaningful co-creation requires system- atic customer participation, including use of skills and knowledge that generates unique competitive advantages (Zhang and Chen 2006). In turn, the customer’s experience during a particular VCC episode provides insights about the incumbent supplier that impact the customer’s receptivity toward the next exchange (Friend, Malshe, and Fisher 2020). Research spanning the gap between episodic VCC and sales- customer ecosystems begins to illuminate this reciprocal nature, suggesting that the outcomes of VCC efforts influ- ence the openness to and nature of future episodes. Similarly, ecosystem practices and norms gradually evolve (Frow, McColl-Kennedy, and Payne 2016; Frow et al. 2019), and interactive processes generate a recursive feedback loop that can shape self-adjustments of service ecosystems and VCC (Chandler et al. 2019). Therefore, changes to any one facet can ripple through the network in a variety of direc- tions—i.e. ecosystem outcomes, practices, and elements are in a constant state of flux. We aim to capture this dynamic interdependency by conceptualizing the integrative frame- work of sales ecosystem well-being as multi-directional.

Discussion

A long-standing debate lingers regarding the extent to which salespeople participate in and contribute to value creation (e.g. Jones, Chonko, and Roberts 2004; Schmitz and Ganesan 2014; Sheth and Sharma 2008). On one side of this debate, the role of salespeople and their ability to create cus- tomer value is seen as diminished. On the other side of this debate, sales is seen to play a progressively important and complex role as processes become increasingly nested within overlapping institutional arrangements, are performed among multiple groups of actors and the inherent sources of tension embedded in such networks, and are contingent upon their ability to align the institutional arrangements of actors that facilitate exchange and VCC (Hartmann, Wieland, and Vargo 2018). Similarly, we aim to contribute to the value creation impact of sales; as salespeople’s tasks continue to evolve, the requisite actions for salespeople to engage expand, and the crossing points that need to be aligned to drive long-term ecosystem well-being become more interdependent. Combined with conceptual extensions around VCC and sales ecosystem elements, practices, and outcomes, this study provides insight and a research agenda to guide future scholarly efforts reflecting an ecosystem view of selling.

An ecosystem view of selling

Ecosystems are conceptualized as possessing eight key compo- nents: (a) spontaneous sensing and responding; (b) spatial and temporal structure; (c) loosely coupled; (d) value proposing actors; (e) language, symbols, institutions and technology usage; (f) co-produced service offerings; (g) mutual service provision;

and (h) co-created value (Vargo and Lusch 2011). Ecosystems are thus analogous to the core tasks of selling, as salespeople are not solely responsible for creating value for other actors, but rather co-create solutions that potentially offer value across a system of actors (Friend and Malshe 2016). However, extant literature falls short in drawing such parallels. For example, despite the powerful implications of an ecosystem perspective, the majority of research and practice continues to focus on individual relational entities and largely ignores how they oper- ate within a complex system with aggregate and synergistic effects (Henderson and Palmatier 2010). This is problematic, as such scholarship lacks the critical characteristics of systems— i.e. “each instance of resource integration, service provision, and value creation, changes the nature of the system to some degree and thus the context for the next iteration and deter- mination of value creation” (Vargo and Lusch 2011, 185). Our research integrates the characteristics of a system to better explain the nature of sales. Relatedly, and assuming that this focus on one relational entity at a time persists due to the lack of a comprehensible framework, this study provides a theoret- ical infrastructure for conceptualizing the multi-directional nature of influence between ecosystem elements, practices, and outcomes within a sales context.

Furthermore, the continued research focus on relational entities means that sales research is missing the relevance of domains closely associated with the field—e.g. customer decision making within a connected world, the aggregate influence of varied relational entities, and management of internal and external resources that influence relationships with outside entities (Henderson and Palmatier 2010). As such, advancing sales research forward is necessary. The cur- rent study adopts an ecosystem view of selling and both builds upon and supports research that emphasizes the importance of various intrafirm and external actors relevant to selling (Bolander et al. 2015; Plouffe et al. 2016), the broadening and blurring of sales tasks (Hughes, Le Bon, and Malshe 2012; Rapp et al. 2017), and an institutional perspec- tive that views sales as embedded in a broader social system (Hartmann, Wieland, and Vargo 2018). This perspective is important for sales organizations trying to attract resources of all sorts—i.e. drawing in capital, partners, suppliers, and customers (Moore 1993). Thus, the knowledge developed through our integrative conceptual model of attributes is essential for systems-facing frontline roles, enabling researchers to conduct empirical studies in the domain. We offer a sales ecosystem-focused research agenda via the fol- lowing set of future research priorities.

Sales ecosystem research priorities How does our understanding of specific sales phenomenon (e.g. sales training, pipeline management, content marketing, knowledge brokerage, team selling, sales interfaces, sales process, customer journey, sales enablement) change when the perceptual lens for theory building (or testing empirical models) adopts a holistic ecosystem perspective to capture simultaneous influences? What capabilities (specialized vs. generalized) are required from salespeople to successfully manage the complexities of the sales ecosystem? What

JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 245

capabilities (specialized vs. generalized) are required of non- sales personnel given the broadening set of actors involved in the sales ecosystem? What strategies and tactics exist for managing sources of tension throughout the sales ecosys- tem? What types of structural characteristics do sales organi- zations need to foster effective sales practices throughout the ecosystem? What is the direct impact of sales ecosystem ele- ments (e.g. institutions) on sales ecosystem outcomes (e.g. well-being)? What is the reverse-order impact of sales eco- system outcomes on sales ecosystem practices and/or ele- ments? To what extent are organizations outside the buyer- supplier dyad helpful or harmful to the sales ecosystem?

An integrative framework of VCC and sales ecosystems

Extant research has provided a natural set of parallels between selling and value creation, reflecting of systems that evolve and involve numerous actors (e.g. Hartmann, Wieland, and Vargo 2018; Macdonald, Kleinaltenkamp, and Wilson 2016). Within this expanded research lens, specific attributes that provide overlapping perspectives include: (a) a diversity of actors, roles, and associated resources; (b) occurrence of resource integration and value creation proc- esses across matrices of linked actors and institutional proc- esses; and (c) roles and processes that create evolving logic of practices and should be directed toward ecosystem well- being. Through our systematic review and coding of co-cre- ation/ecosystem literature (see Tables 1 and 2), we illumin- ate conceptual parallels that exist across VCC and sales literatures. Specifically, via an integrative view that brings these perspectives under the ecosystem umbrella, we are able to delineate attributes and interlinkages to explicate the underpinnings of selling systems.

Our integrative framework conceptualizes the sales eco- system as elements, practices, and outcomes. Among the constituent facets of ecosystem elements, our literature review first provides a critical assessment of the dimensions that underlie ecosystem practices: (a) actors (e.g. people, organizations) represent an evolving set of social and eco- nomic stakeholders that provide the groundwork for link- ages and resource applications within the ecosystem; (b) resources (e.g. technological abilities, knowledge reposito- ries) support interaction and sharing; and (c) institutions (e.g. norms, expectations, principles, belief systems) help establish processes that drive efficient interaction and value creation. A sales perspective suggests that actors, resources, and institutions are similarly understood to impact co-cre- ated selling practices within the ecosystem. Our study draws parallels across the VCC and sales domains to delineate points of comparison and bridges the connection between ecosystem elements and ecosystem practices.

Ecosystem practices bind elements and resources together and enable them to mirror evolutions occurring across the ecosystem itself. Specifically, ecosystem elements (e.g. actors) leverage varied practices to manage opposing forces and drive outcomes. Within a sales context, several co-creation practices hold strong similarities to well-entrenched activ- ities/processes that salespeople are responsible for using to

manage both internal and external firm relationships (see Tables 3 and 4). However, while these overlapping domains contain similarities, uncertainties remain, and scant studies have focused on how sales ecosystem elements shape ecosys- tem practices. Our research offers a substantive contribution by theoretically broadening ecosystem elements critical to understanding ecosystem practices as well as explicating a typology of sales ecosystem practices. To further move the field forward, we also offer a research agenda focused on ecosystem elements and practices with a set of future research priorities.

Sales ecosystem elements/practices research priorities What combination of ecosystem elements (i.e. actors, resources, institutions) and practices is most effective? What combination of ecosystem elements and practices has a counter-theoretical impact (i.e. value co-destruction)? How does the most (least) effective combination of ecosystem ele- ments and practices vary as systems evolve? How can amorphous elements and practices be identified? What ele- ments/practices are most effective within the ecosystem from the sales organization (customer organization, both) perspective? What ecosystem elements/practices impact intra-organizational aspects of the ecosystem (e.g. cross- functional, hierarchical) versus inter-organizational aspects of the ecosystem (e.g. dyadic exchanges)? When does each ecosystem element/practice reach the break-even point to its respective cost? What internal and external factors accentu- ate/attenuate the combination of ecosystem elements and resources to cause ecosystem states to transform to an improved state? How do ecosystem elements/practices vary in efficacy across stages of ecosystem development?

Ecosystem well-being

Moving forward, the previously mentioned combination of ecosystem elements and practices form the basis of ecosystem outcomes. Such ecosystem outcomes can be positive (e.g. trust enhancements, commitment, long-term relationships) or negative (e.g. resource misuse, episodic non-receptivity). Our study contributes to sales literature by developing a mid- range theory centered on the desirable ecosystem outcome of well-being. While well-being is an established outcome of relevance in extant literature (e.g. Anderson et al. 2013; Skål�en, Aal, and Edvardsson 2015), we integrate VCC and sales literature to understand the manner in which ecosystem elements and practices can be directed toward an emergent ecosystem outcome. Specifically, our focus on ecosystem well- being as a central outcome variable is novel to sales and ser- vice research (Frow et al. 2019). Sales research conceptually and practically understands the shifting trend toward an enterprise selling orientation (i.e. multi-actor, multi-level, sys- tem-level practices for selling and value creation that unfold over time; Bolander et al. 2015; Dixon and Tanner 2012; Plouffe et al. 2016; Rapp et al. 2017), yet also frequently fails to reflect this orientation in scholarly efforts. Rather, the most common outcome variables still tend to be narrower in scope.

246 K. R. RANJAN AND S. B. FRIEND

Ecosystem well-being emphasizes a shared worldview and represents an ecosystem perspective of sales outcomes that is allied with and contributes to the vantage point that selling is a process of institutional alignment (Hartmann, Wieland, and Vargo 2018).

In service to our focal outcome, we develop a conceptual framework of drivers of ecosystem well-being (see Table 5). These drivers span across various forms—e.g. proximal driv- ers, distal drivers, complementary forces, disruptive forces—to derive improvements in VCP (e.g. innovation and improve- ments of offering, service focused exchange) and ViU (e.g. well-informed purchase and use process, re-engagement, and commitment), ultimately contributing to ecosystem well- being. From a sales perspective, outcomes that connect VCP/ ViU with solution selling indicate that a reciprocal relation- ship may exist between fluid ecosystem outcomes and its evolving precursors (Friend and Malshe 2016). Such multi- directional points of connection reflect the type of research necessary to identifying and developing assessments of pro- spective sales ecosystem outcomes. Furthermore, given that ecosystem elements, practices, and outcomes are in a state of constant change, how does their velocity and amorphous make-up challenge academics to conduct assessment? To advance scholarship on ecosystem outcomes, we offer a research agenda via a set of related future research priorities.

Sales ecosystem outcomes research priorities What is the spectrum of positive and negative sales ecosys- tem outcomes? How does one continually measure and assess sales ecosystem outcomes (well-being) and their mal- leable facets? How do the various sales ecosystem outcomes align with different types of sales roles? What types of capa- bilities do organizations need to support salespeople across a dynamic set of knowledge flows and changing practices? What multi-directional relationships do sales ecosystem out- comes have with precursor elements/resources—e.g. what elements/resources are requisite for sustaining ecosystem well-being and how do they compare with the elements/ resources necessary for initiating ecosystem well-being? What is the multi-directional nature of the element-practice- outcome relationship? What kind of systems, platforms, and engagement practices support multi-directional systems? How can sales systems be managed to maximize benefits/ minimize challenges of recursive systems? How do fluid internal/external factors alter the relative efficacy of varied sales ecosystem outcomes? How can varied sales ecosystem outcomes be applied simultaneously to assess distinct facets of ecosystem objectives? What ecosystem outcomes reflect ecosystem maintenance versus ecosystem growth? What is the financial valuation associated with varied sales ecosystem outcomes? How do sales ecosystem outcomes contribute to the overall sustainability, resiliency, and/or health of the sales ecosystem?

Conclusion

We undertake an ambitious task of blending ecosystem per- spectives from marketing and service literature with

associated viewpoints from sales research. Our study explains the structure, processes, and attributes of sales eco- systems, in turn explicating practices that support sales eco- system well-being. Collectively, this study establishes the groundwork for future sales ecosystem research by drawing from diverse disciplines, tasking peer researchers to initiate empirical inquiries into sales and service management from an ecosystem-practice perspective.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Aal, Kotaiba, Laura Di Pietro, Bo Edvardsson, Maria Francesca Renzi, and Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion. 2016. “Innovation in Service Ecosystems.” Journal of Service Management 27 (4):619–51.

Akaka, Melissa Archpru, and Jennifer D. Chandler. 2011. “Roles as Resources: A Social Roles Perspective of Change in Value Networks.” Marketing Theory 11 (3):243–60.

Akaka, Melissa Archpru, Daniela Corsaro, Carol Kelleher, Paul P. Maglio, Yuri Seo, Robert F. Lusch, and Stephen L. Vargo. 2014. “The Role of Symbols in Value Cocreation.” Marketing Theory 14 (3):311–26.

Akaka, Melissa Archpru, and Stephen L. Vargo. 2015. “Extending the Context of Service: From Encounters to Ecosystems.” Journal of Services Marketing 29 (6/7):453–62.

Akaka, Melissa Archpru, Stephen L. Vargo, and Hope Jensen Schau. 2015. “The Context of Experience.” Journal of Service Management 26 (2):206–23.

Åkesson, Maria, Bo Edvardsson, and Bård Tronvoll. 2014. “Customer Experience from a Self-Service System Perspective.” Journal of Service Management 25 (5):677–98.

Andaleeb, Syed Saad. 1996. “An Experimental Investigation of Satisfaction and Commitment in Marketing Channels: The Role of Trust and Dependence.” Journal of Retailing 72 (1):77–93. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-4359(96)90006-8.

Anderson, Laurel, Amy L. Ostrom, Canan Corus, Raymond P. Fisk, Andrew S. Gallan, Mario Giraldo, Martin Mende, Mark Mulder, Steven W. Rayburn, Mark S. Rosenbaum, et al. 2013. “Transformative Service Research: An Agenda for the Future.” Journal of Business Research 66 (8):1203–10.

Baron, Steve, and Kim Harris. 2008. “Consumers as Resource Integrators.” Journal of Marketing Management 24 (1-2):113–30.

Beir~ao, Gabriela, Lia Patr�ıcio, and Raymond P. Fisk. 2017. “Value Cocreation in Service Ecosystems.” Journal of Service Management 28 (2):227–49.

Bolander, Willy, Cinthia B. Satornino, Douglas E. Hughes, and Gerald R. Ferris. 2015. “Social Networks within Sales Organizations: Their Development and Importance for Salesperson Performance.” Journal of Marketing 79 (6):1–16.

Bonner, Joseph M., and Orville C. Walker. 2004. “Selecting Influential Business-to-Business Customers in New Product Development: Relational Embeddedness and Knowledge Heterogeneity Considerations.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 21 (3): 155–69. doi: 10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00067.x.

Breidbach, Christoph F., David Antons, and Torsten O. Salge. 2016. “Seamless Service? On the Role and Impact of Service Orchestrators in Human-Centered Service Systems.” Journal of Service Research 19 (4):458–76.

Breidbach, Christoph F., and Roderick J. Brodie. 2017. “Engagement Platforms in the Sharing Economy.” Journal of Service Theory and Practice 27 (4):761–77.

Breidbach, Christoph F., Darl G. Kolb, and Ananth Srinivasan. 2013. “Connectivity in Service Systems: Does Technology-Enablement

JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 247

Impact the Ability of a Service System to Co-Create Value?” Journal of Service Research 16 (3):428–41. doi: 10.1177/1094670512470869.

Breidbach, Christoph F., and Paul P. Maglio. 2016. “Technology- Enabled Value Co-Creation: An Empirical Analysis of Actors, Resources, and Practices.” Industrial Marketing Management 56: 73–85.

Brodie, Roderick J., Julia A. Fehrer, Elina Jaakkola, and Jodie Conduit. 2019. “Actor Engagement in Networks: Defining the Conceptual Domain.” Journal of Service Research 22 (2):173–88.

Brodie, Roderick J., and Linda D. Peters. 2020. “New Directions for Service Research: Refreshing the Process of Theorizing to Increase Contribution.” Journal of Services Marketing 34 (3):415–28.

Brown, Kirk Warren, and Richard M. Ryan. 2003. “The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and Its Role in Psychological Well- Being.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (4):822–48. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.

Buhalis, Dimitrios, Tracy Harwood, Vanja Bogicevic, Giampaolo Viglia, Srikanth Beldona, and Charles Hofacker. 2019. “Technological Disruptions in Services: Lessons from Tourism and Hospitality.” Journal of Service Management 30 (4):484–506.

Carid�a, Angela, Bo Edvardsson, and Maria Colurcio. 2019. “Conceptualizing Resource Integration as an Embedded Process: Matching, Resourcing and Valuing.” Marketing Theory 19 (1):65–84.

Chandler, Jennifer D., Ilias Danatzis, Carolin Wernicke, Melissa Archpru Akaka, and David Reynolds. 2019. “How Does Innovation Emerge in a Service Ecosystem?” Journal of Service Research 22 (1):75–89.

Chandler, Jennifer D., and Stephen L. Vargo. 2011. “Contextualization and Value-in-Context: How Context Frames Exchange.” Marketing Theory 11 (1):35–49.

Chen, Chaojung, and Chihiro Watanabe. 2007. “Competitiveness through Co-Evolution between Innovation and Institutional Systems – New Dimensions of Competitiveness in a Service-Oriented Economy.” Journal of Services Research 7 (2):27–55.

Cornelissen, Joep. 2017. “Editor’s Comments: Developing Propositions, a Process Model, or a Typology? Addressing the Challenges of Writing Theory without a Boilerplate.” Academy of Management Review 42 (1):1–9.

De Keyser, Arne, Jeroen Schepers, and Umut Konuş. 2015. “Multichannel Customer Segmentation: Does the After-Sales Channel Matter? A Replication and Extension.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 32 (4):453–6.

Dixon, Andrea L., and John F. Tanner. 2012. “Transforming Selling: Why It Is Time to Think Differently about Sales Research.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 32 (1):9–13.

Doty, D. Harold, and William H. Glick. 1994. “Typologies as a Unique Form of Theory Building: Toward Improved Understanding and Modeling.” Academy of Management Review 19 (2):230–51. doi: 10. 5465/amr.1994.9410210748.

Eaton, Ben, Silvia Elaluf-Calderwood, Carsten Sorensen, and Youngjin Yoo. 2015. “Distributed Tuning of Boundary Resources: The Case of Apple’s iOS Service System.” MIS Quarterly 39 (1):217–43.

Edvardsson, Bo, Michael Kleinaltenkamp, Bård Tronvoll, Patricia McHugh, and Charlotta Windahl. 2014. “Institutional Logics Matter When Coordinating Resource Integration.” Marketing Theory 14 (3): 291–309.

Edvardsson, Bo, Gloria Ng, Choo Zhi Min, Robert Firth, and Ding Yi. “How Is a Service Based on Service-Dominant Design Superior to Goods-Dominant Design?” 2011 International Joint Conference on Service Sciences, IEEE, Teipei, Taiwan.

Edvardsson, Bo, Bård Tronvoll, and Thorsten Gruber. 2011. “Expanding Understanding of Service Exchange and Value Co- Creation: A Social Construction Approach.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39 (2):327–39.

Fehrer, Julia A., Herbert Woratschek, and Roderick J. Brodie. 2018. “A Systemic Logic for Platform Business Models.” Journal of Service Management 29 (4):546–68.

Friend, Scott B., and Avinash Malshe. 2016. “Key Skills for Crafting Customer Solutions within an Ecosystem: A Theories-in-Use Perspective.” Journal of Service Research 19 (2):174–91.

Friend, Scott B., Avinash Malshe, and Gregory J. Fisher. 2020. “What Drives Customer Re-Engagement? The Foundational Role of the Sales-Service Interplay in Episodic Value Co-Creation.” Industrial Marketing Management 84:271–86.

Frow, Pennie, Janet R. McColl-Kennedy, Toni Hilton, Anthony Davidson, Adrian Payne, and Danilo Brozovic. 2014. “Value Propositions: A Service Ecosystems Perspective.” Marketing Theory 14 (3):327–51.

Frow, Pennie, Janet R. McColl-Kennedy, and Adrian Payne. 2016. “Co- Creation Practices: Their Role in Shaping a Health Care Ecosystem.” Industrial Marketing Management 56:24–39.

Frow, Pennie, Janet R. McColl-Kennedy, Adrian Payne, and Rahul Govind. 2019. “Service Ecosystem Well-Being: Conceptualization and Implications for Theory and Practice.” European Journal of Marketing 53 (12):2657–91.

Fu, Wenhui, Qiang Wang, and Xiande Zhao. 2017. “The Influence of Platform Service Innovation on Value Co-Creation Activities and the Network Effect.” Journal of Service Management 28 (2):348–88.

Gr€onroos, Christian. 2004. “The Relationship Marketing Process: Communication, Interaction, Dialogue, Value.” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 19 (2):99–113.

Harris, Lloyd, Rebekah Russell-Bennett, Loïc Pl�e, and Rub�en Chumpitaz C�aceres. 2010. “Not Always Co-Creation: Introducing Interactional Co-Destruction of Value in Service- Dominant Logic.” Journal of Services Marketing 24 (6):430–7.

Hartmann, Nathaniel N., Heiko Wieland, and Stephen L. Vargo. 2018. “Converging on a New Theoretical Foundation for Selling.” Journal of Marketing 82 (2):1–18.

Heinonen, Kristina, and Tore Strandvik. 2015. “Customer-Dominant Logic: Foundations and Implications.” Journal of Services Marketing 29 (6/7):472–84.

Helkkula, Anu, Christian Kowalkowski, and Bård Tronvoll. 2018. “Archetypes of Service Innovation: Implications for Value Cocreation.” Journal of Service Research 21 (3):284–301. doi: 10. 1177/1094670517746776.

Henderson, Conor M., and Robert W. Palmatier. 2010. “Understanding the Relational Ecosystem in a Connected World.” In The Connected Customer: The Changing Nature of Consumer and Business Markets, edited by S. H. K. Wuyts, M. G. Dekimpe, E. Gijsbrechts, and F. G. M. R. Pieters, 37–76. New York: Routledge.

Hewett, Kelly, and William O. Bearden. 2001. “Dependence, Trust, and Relational Behavior on the Part of Foreign Subsidiary Marketing Operations: Implications for Managing Global Marketing Operations.” Journal of Marketing 65 (4):51–66.

Huetten, Antje Sarah Julia, David Antons, Christoph F. Breidbach, Erk P. Piening, and Torsten Oliver Salge. 2019. “The Impact of Occupational Stereotypes in Human-Centered Service Systems.” Journal of Service Management 30 (1):132–55.

Hughes, Douglas E., Jo€el Le Bon, and Avinash Malshe. 2012. “The Marketing–Sales Interface at the Interface: Creating Market-Based Capabilities through Organizational Synergy.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 32 (1):57–72.

Humphreys, Ashlee. 2010. “Megamarketing: The Creation of Markets as a Social Process.” Journal of Marketing 74 (2):1–19.

Jaakkola, Elina. 2020. “Designing Conceptual Articles: Four Approaches.” AMS Review 10 (1-2):18–26. doi: 10.1007/s13162-020- 00161-0.

Jaakkola, Elina, and Matthew Alexander. 2014. “The Role of Customer Engagement Behavior in Value Co-Creation: A Service System Perspective.” Journal of Service Research 17 (3):247–61.

Jones, Eli, Lawrence B. Chonko, and James A. Roberts. 2004. “Sales Force Obsolescence: Perceptions from Sales and Marketing Executives of Individual, Organizational, and Environmental Factors.” Industrial Marketing Management 33 (5):439–56.

Kennedy, Karen Norman, and Dawn R. Deeter-Schmelz. 2001. “Descriptive and Predictive Analyses of Industrial Buyers’ Use of Online Information for Purchasing.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 21 (4):279–90.

King, Ceridwyn, Enrique Murillo, Wei Wei, Juan Madera, Michael J. Tews, Aviad A. Israeli, and Lu Kong. 2019. “Towards a Shared

248 K. R. RANJAN AND S. B. FRIEND

Understanding of the Service Experience–A Hospitality Stakeholder Approach.” Journal of Service Management 30 (3):410–28.

Kohtam€aki, Marko, and Risto Rajala. 2016. “Theory and Practice of Value Co-Creation in B2B Systems.” Industrial Marketing Management 56:4–13.

Koskela-Huotari, Kaisa, and Stephen L. Vargo. 2016. “Institutions as Resource Context.” Journal of Service Theory and Practice 26 (2): 163–78.

Laud, Gaurangi, Liliana Bove, Chatura Ranaweera, Wei Wei Cheryl Leo, Jill Sweeney, and Sandra Smith. 2019. “Value Co-Destruction: A Typology of Resource Misintegration Manifestations.” Journal of Services Marketing 33 (7):866–89.

Laud, Gaurangi, and Ingo O. Karpen. 2017. “Value Co-Creation Behaviour–Role of Embeddedness and Outcome Considerations.” Journal of Service Theory and Practice 27 (4):778–807.

Laud, Gaurangi, Ingo O. Karpen, Rajendra Mulye, and Kaleel Rahman. 2015. “The Role of Embeddedness for Resource Integration: Complementing SD Logic Research through a Social Capital Perspective.” Marketing Theory 15 (4):509–43. doi: 10.1177/ 1470593115572671.

Lee, Eun-Ju, Jinkook Lee, and David W. Schumann. 2002. “The Influence of Communication Source and Mode on Consumer Adoption of Technological Innovations.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 36 (1):1–27.

Letaifa, Soumaya Ben, and Javier Reynoso. 2015. “Toward a Service Ecosystem Perspective at the Base of the Pyramid.” Journal of Service Management 26 (5):684–705.

Lindgreen, Adam, C. Anthony Di Benedetto, Roderick J. Brodie, and Elina Jaakkola. 2020. “How to Develop Great Conceptual Frameworks for Business-to-Business Marketing.” Industrial Marketing Management. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.04.005

Line, Nathaniel D., Rodney C. Runyan, and Tracy Gonzalez-Padron. 2019. “Multiple Stakeholder Market Orientation: A Service- Dominant Logic Perspective of the Market Orientation Paradigm.” AMS Review 9 (1-2):42–60. doi: 10.1007/s13162-018-0125-z.

Lusch, Robert F., and James R. Brown. 1996. “Interdependency, Contracting, and Relational Behavior in Marketing Channels.” Journal of Marketing 60 (4):19–38.

Lusch, Robert F., Stephen L. Vargo, and Mohan Tanniru. 2010. “Service, Value Networks and Learning.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38 (1):19–38.

Macdonald, Emma K., Michael Kleinaltenkamp, and Hugh N. Wilson. 2016. “How Business Customers Judge Solutions: Solution Quality and Value in Use.” Journal of Marketing 80 (3):96–120.

MacInnis, Deborah J. 2011. “A Framework for Conceptual Contributions in Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 75 (4):136–54.

Makkonen, Hannu, and Rami Olkkonen. 2017. “Interactive Value Formation in Interorganizational Relationships: Dynamic Interchange between Value Co-Creation, No-Creation, and Co- Destruction.” Marketing Theory 17 (4):517–35.

Malshe, Avinash, and Scott B. Friend. 2018. “Initiating Value Co- Creation: Dealing with Non-Receptive Customers.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 46 (5):895–920.

McGregor, J. Allister. 2004. “Researching Well-Being: Communicating between the Needs of Policy Makers and the Needs of People.” Global Social Policy: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Policy and Social Development 4 (3):337–58. doi: 10.1177/1468018104047491.

Meynhardt, Timo, Jennifer D. Chandler, and Pepe Strathoff. 2016. “Systemic Principles of Value Co-Creation: Synergetics of Value and Service Ecosystems.” Journal of Business Research 69 (8):2981–9.

Mick, David Glen, Simone Pettigrew, Cornelia Connie Pechmann, and Julie L. Ozanne. 2012. Transformative Consumer Research for Personal and Collective Well-Being. New York: Routledge.

Moncrief, William C., and Greg W. Marshall. 2005. “The Evolution of the Seven Steps of Selling.” Industrial Marketing Management 34 (1):13–22.

Moore, James F. 1993. “Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition.” Harvard Business Review 71 (3):75–83.

Normann, Richard. 2001. “From Value Chain to Value Constellation.” Harvard Business Review, 65–77.

Payne, Adrian F., Kaj Storbacka, and Pennie Frow. 2008. “Managing the Co-Creation of Value.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36 (1):83–96.

Peters, Linda D. 2016. “Heteropathic versus Homopathic Resource Integration and Value Co-Creation in Service Ecosystems.” Journal of Business Research 69 (8):2999–3007.

Pinho, Nelson, Gabriela Beir~ao, Lia Patr�ıcio, and Raymond P. Fisk. 2014. “Understanding Value Co-Creation in Complex Services with Many Actors.” Journal of Service Management 25 (4):470–93.

Pl�e, Loïc. 2016. “Studying Customers’ Resource Integration by Service Employees in Interactional Value Co-Creation.” Journal of Services Marketing 30 (2):152–64.

Plouffe, Christopher R., Willy Bolander, Joseph A. Cote, and Bryan Hochstein. 2016. “Does the Customer Matter Most? Exploring Strategic Frontline Employees’ Influence of Customers, the Internal Business Team, and External Business Partners.” Journal of Marketing 80 (1):106–23.

Polese, Francesco, Jaqueline Pels, Bård Tronvoll, Roberto Bruni, and Luca Carrubbo. 2017. “A4a Relationships.” Journal of Service Theory and Practice 27 (5):1040–56.

Pop, Oana Maria, Sara Leroi-Werelds, Nadine Roijakkers, and Tor W. Andreassen. 2018. “Institutional Types and Institutional Change in Healthcare Ecosystems.” Journal of Service Management 29 (4): 593–614.

Powers, Thomas L., Shibin Sheng, and Julie Juan Li. 2016. “Provider and Relational Determinants of Customer Solution Performance.” Industrial Marketing Management 56:14–23.

Prescott-Allen, Robert. 2001. The Wellbeing of Nations. Washington: Island Press.

Press, Melea, Eric J. Arnould, Jeff B. Murray, and Katherine Strand. 2014. “Ideological Challenges to Changing Strategic Orientation in Commodity Agriculture.” Journal of Marketing 78 (6):103–19.

Pun, Hubert, Jing Chen, and Wei Li. 2020. “Channel Strategy for Manufacturers in the Presence of Service Freeriders.” European Journal of Operational Research 287 (2):460–79.

Quero, Mar�ıa Jos�e, and Rafael Ventura. 2019. “Value Proposition as a Framework for Value Cocreation in Crowdfunding Ecosystems.” Marketing Theory 19 (1):47–63. doi: 10.1177/1470593118772213.

Quero-Gervilla, Mar�ıa Jos�e, Rafael Ventura-Fern�andez, and Carol Kelleher. 2015. “Value Proposition as a Framework for Value Co- Creation in Crowd-Funding Ecosystem.” The 2015 Naples Forum on Service. E. Gummesson, C. Mele and F. Polese.

Rackham, Neil, and John DeVincentis. 1998. Rethinking the Sales Force: Refining Selling to Create and Capture Value. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Ramaswamy, Venkat, and Francis Gouillart. 2010. “Building the Co- Creative Enterprise.” Harvard Business Review 88 (10):100–9.

Ramos, Carla, Catarina Roseira, Carlos Brito, Stephan C. Henneberg, and Peter Naud�e. 2013. “Business Service Networks and Their Process of Emergence: The Case of the Health Cluster Portugal.” Industrial Marketing Management 42 (6):950–68.

Randall, Wesley S., Michael J. Gravier, and Victor R. Prybutok. 2011. “Connection, Trust, and Commitment: Dimensions of Co- Creation?” Journal of Strategic Marketing 19 (1):3–24. doi: 10.1080/ 0965254X.2010.537760.

Ranjan, Kumar Rakesh, and Stuart Read. 2016. “Value Co-Creation: Concept and Measurement.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 44 (3):290–315.

Rapp, Adam A., Daniel G. Bachrach, Karen E. Flaherty, Douglas E. Hughes, Arun Sharma, and Clay M. Voorhees. 2017. “The Role of the Sales-Service Interface and Ambidexterity in the Evolving Organization: A Multilevel Research Agenda.” Journal of Service Research 20 (1):59–75. doi: 10.1177/1094670516679274.

R€ondell, Jimmie G., David S€orhammar, and Mikael Gidhagen. 2016. “Co-Governance in the Consumer Engagement Process: Facilitating Multi-Beneficial Value Creation.” Journal of Strategic Marketing 24 (3-4):327–45.

Schmitz, Christian, and Shankar Ganesan. 2014. “Managing Customer and Organizational Complexity in Sales Organizations.” Journal of Marketing 78 (6):59–77.

JOURNAL OF PERSONAL SELLING & SALES MANAGEMENT 249

Sheth, Jagdish N., and Arun Sharma. 2008. “The Impact of the Product to Service Shift in Industrial Markets and the Evolution of the Sales Organization.” Industrial Marketing Management 37 (3):260–9.

Siltaloppi, Jaakko, Kaisa Koskela-Huotari, and Stephen L. Vargo. 2016. “Institutional Complexity as a Driver for Innovation in Service Ecosystems.” Service Science 8 (3):333–43.

Singh, Jagdip, Karen Flaherty, Ravipreet S. Sohi, Dawn Deeter-Schmelz, Johannes Habel, Kenneth Le Meunier-FitzHugh, Avinash Malshe, Ryan Mullins, and Vincent Onyemah. 2019. “Sales Profession and Professionals in the Age of Digitization and Artificial Intelligence Technologies: Concepts, Priorities, and Questions.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 39 (1):2–22.

Skål�en, Per, Kotaiba A. Aal, and Bo Edvardsson. 2015. “Cocreating the Arab Spring: Understanding Transformation of Service Systems in Contention.” Journal of Service Research 18 (3):250–64.

Smith, Lisa M., Jason L. Case, Heather M. Smith, Linda C. Harwell, and J. K. Summers. 2013. “Relating Ecoystem Services to Domains of Human Well-Being: Foundation for a US Index.” Ecological Indicators 28:79–90.

S€ohnchen, Florian, and S€onke Albers. 2010. “Pipeline Management for the Acquisition of Industrial Projects.” Industrial Marketing Management 39 (8):1356–64.

Spanjol, Jelena, Anna S. Cui, Cheryl Nakata, Lisa K. Sharp, Stephanie Y. Crawford, Yazhen Xiao, and Mary Beth Watson- Manheim. 2015. “Co-Production of Prolonged, Complex, and Negative Services: An Examination of Medication Adherence in Chronically Ill Individuals.” Journal of Service Research 18 (3): 284–302.

Spohrer, Jim, Stephen L. Vargo, Nathan Caswell, and Paul P. Maglio. 2008. “The Service System is the Basic Abstraction of Service Science.” Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008), IEEE, Waikoloa, HI.

Storbacka, Kaj, Roderick J. Brodie, Tilo B€ohmann, Paul P. Maglio, and Suvi Nenonen. 2016. “Actor Engagement as a Microfoundation for Value Co-Creation.” Journal of Business Research 69 (8):3008–17.

Taillard, Marie, Linda D. Peters, Jaqueline Pels, and Cristina Mele. 2016. “The Role of Shared Intentions in the Emergence of Service Ecosystems.” Journal of Business Research 69 (8):2972–80.

Tax, Stephen S., David McCutcheon, and Ian F. Wilkinson. 2013. “The Service Delivery Network (SDN): A Customer-Centric Perspective of the Customer Journey.” Journal of Service Research 16 (4):454–70.

Tierney, Kieran D., Ingo O. Karpen, and Kate Westberg. 2016. “Brand Meaning Cocreation: Toward a Conceptualization and Research Implications.” Journal of Service Theory and Practice 26 (6):911–32.

Van Zanden, Jan Luiten, Joerg Baten, Marco Mira d’Ercole, Auke Rijpma, Conal Smith, and Marcel Timmer. 2014. How Was Life?: Global Well-Being since 1820. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Vargo, Stephen L., Melissa Archpru Akaka, and Heiko Wieland. 2020. “Rethinking the Process of Diffusion in Innovation: A Service- Ecosystems and Institutional Perspective.” Journal of Business Research 116:526–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.038.

Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch. 2004. “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 68 (1):1–17.

Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch. 2011. “It’s All B2B … and Beyond: Toward a Systems Perspective of the Market.” Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2):181–7. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman. 2010.06.026.

Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch. 2016. “Institutions and Axioms: An Extension and Update of Service-Dominant Logic.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 44 (1):5–23. doi: 10. 1007/s11747-015-0456-3.

Vargo, Stephen L., Heiko Wieland, and Melissa Archpru Akaka. 2015. “Innovation through Institutionalization: A Service Ecosystems Perspective.” Industrial Marketing Management 44:63–72.

Wang, Guangping, and C. Fred Miao. 2015. “Effects of Sales Force Market Orientation on Creativity, Innovation Implementation, and Sales Performance.” Journal of Business Research 68 (11):2374–82.

Wathieu, Luc, Lyle Brenner, Ziv Carmon, Amitava Chattopadhyay, Klaus Wertenbroch, Aimee Drolet, John Gourville, A. V. Muthukrishnan, Nathan Novemsky, Rebecca K. Ratner, et al. 2002. “Consumer Control and Empowerment: A Primer.” Marketing Letters 13 (3):297–305.

Wieland, Heiko, Kaisa Koskela-Huotari, and Stephen L. Vargo. 2016. “Extending Actor Participation in Value Creation: An Institutional View.” Journal of Strategic Marketing 24 (3-4):210–26.

Wilkinson, Ian, and Louise Young. 2002. “On Cooperating: Firms, Relations and Networks.” Journal of Business Research 55 (2): 123–32.

Wright, Thomas A., and Ching-Chu Huang. 2012. “The Many Benefits of Employee Well-Being in Organizational Research.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 33 (8):1188–92.

Zhang, Xiang, and Rongqiu Q. Chen. 2006. “Cutomer Participative Chain: Linking Customers and Firm to Co-Create Competitive Advantages.” Management Review 18 (1):51–6.

250 K. R. RANJAN AND S. B. FRIEND

Copyright of Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.