To read this content please select one of the options below:

The transformative service paradox: the dilemma of wellbeing trade-offs

Rebekah Russell–Bennett (Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society and Technology (BEST), School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia)
Rory Mulcahy (School of Business, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sunshine Coast, Australia)
Kate Letheren (Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society and Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia)
Ryan McAndrew (School of AMPR, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia)
Uwe Dulleck (Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society and Technology (BEST), School of Economics and Finance, QUT Business School, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, CESifo, Munich, Germany)

Journal of Service Management

ISSN: 1757-5818

Article publication date: 29 June 2020

1620

Abstract

Purpose

A transformative service aims to improve wellbeing; however, current approaches have an implicit assumption that all wellbeing dimensions are equal and more dimensions led to higher wellbeing. The purpose of this paper is to present evidence for a new framework that identifies the paradox of competing wellbeing dimensions for both the individual and others in society – the transformative service paradox (TSP).

Design/methodology/approach

Data is drawn from a mixed-method approach using qualitative (interviews) and quantitative data (lab experiment) in an electricity service context. The first study involves 45 household interviews (n = 118) and deals with the nature of trade-offs at the individual level to establish the concept of the TSP. The second study uses a behavioral economics laboratory experiment (n = 110) to test the self vs. other nature of the trade-off in day-to-day use of electricity.

Findings

The interviews and experiment identified that temporal (now vs. future) and beneficiary-level factors explain why individuals make wellbeing trade-offs for the transformative service of electricity. The laboratory experiment showed that when the future implication of the trade-off is made salient, consumers are more willing to forego physical wellbeing for environmental wellbeing, whereas when the “now” implication is more salient consumers forego financial wellbeing for physical wellbeing.

Originality/value

This research introduces the term “Transformative Service Paradox” and identifies two factors that explain why consumers make wellbeing trade-offs at the individual level and at the societal level; temporal (now vs. future) and wellbeing beneficiary.

Keywords

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge CitySmart as our project partner for Study 1, as well as the study 1 funding provided by Energex Limited, TasNetworks, Ausgrid, Western Power, Ergon Energy, Essential Energy and Endeavour Energy. Both study 1 and study 2 received funding from Energy Consumers Australia Limited (www.energyconsumersaustralia.com.au) as part of its grants process for consumer advocacy projects and research projects for the benefit of consumers of electricity and natural gas. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of Energy Consumers Australia. Finally, the authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Ms Lucy Orr to the study 2 data collection.

Citation

Russell–Bennett, R., Mulcahy, R., Letheren, K., McAndrew, R. and Dulleck, U. (2020), "The transformative service paradox: the dilemma of wellbeing trade-offs", Journal of Service Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 637-663. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2019-0324

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles