شناسایی و اولویت‌بندی مهم‌ترین پیامدهای هم‌تخریبی ارزش برند در تجارت اجتماعی: قبل و بعد از بکارگیری مدیریت تعارض

نوع مقاله : مقاله مستخرج از رساله دکتری

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت بازرگانی، گرایش بازاریابی، دانشکده اقتصاد، مدیریت و علوم اداری، دانشگاه سمنان، سمنان، ایران.

2 استاد دانشکده اقتصاد، مدیریت و علوم اداری، دانشگاه سمنان، سمنان، ایران.

3 استادیار، گروه مدیریت، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد دانشگاه ولی عصر (عج) رفسنجان، کرمان، ایران.

چکیده

با رشد فعالیت شرکت­ها در بستر تجارت اجتماعی، مشارکت مشتریان در طراحی و تولید محصولات و خدمات برندها بسیار افزایش یافته است. اما این امر بدین معنا نیست که مشارکت آنان همواره با نتایج مثبت همراه می­باشد، بلکه در برخی شرایط مشارکت مشتریان باعث تحمیل هزینه­های هنگفت به شرکت، از بین رفتن تعادل منافع و در نتیجه ­هم­تخریبی ارزش می­گردد. بدیهی است که با رخ دادن هم­تخریبی ارزش بدون مدیریت تعارضات، شرکت­ها با پیامدهای منفی بسیاری درگیر می­شوند که شناسایی آن­ها لازمه­ی کنترل شرایط و خارج شدن از وضعیت نامتعادل می­باشد. بنابر اهمیت این موضوع، این مطالعه به شناسایی و اولویت­بندی مهم­ترین پیامدهای هم­تخریبی ارزش برند در تجارت اجتماعی، در زمان قبل و بعد از بکارگیری مدیریت تعارض پرداخته است. این پژوهش از نظر نوع هدف، کاربردی می­باشد و به منظور گردآوری اطلاعات، از روش کیفی نظریه داده بنیاد کلاسیک و روش اولویت­بندی رتبه­ای استفاده نموده است. براساس مصاحبه عمیق صورت گرفته با 23 نفر از خبرگان منتخب، پیامدهای هم­تخریبی ارزش برند در قالب 105 کد باز، 29 مفهوم و 11 مقوله اصلی شناسایی گردیدند. نتایج نشان می­دهد بدون بکارگیری مدیریت تعارض، شرکت­ها با پیامدهای مخربی مانند تخریب رفاه ذهنی ذینفعان از برند، رشد رفتارهای ضد برند در جوامع آنلاین، ایجاد اکوسیستم­ خدماتی ناپایدار و پایان چرخه عمر برند مواجه خواهند شد. اما با بکارگیری مدیریت تعارض در حین تجربه هم­تخریبی ارزش، شرکت­ها از بروز پیامدهای منفی جلوگیری کرده و آن را به نتایج مثبت و سازنده تبدیل می­کنند. تشویق به یادگیری فعال و تعاملی، ترویج راه حل، ایجاد خودرهبری فردی برند به جای رهبری برند انتصابی، رشد بازیابی رفاه، توسعه محصول و خدمات جدید، تفکر یکپارچه نسبت به برند و نوآوری مدل کسب و کار از پیامدهای سازنده تجربه هم­تخریبی ارزش بعد از بکارگیری مدیریت تعارض می­باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Identifying and Prioritizing the Most Important Consequences of Brand Value Co-Destruction in Social Commerce: Before and After Using Conflict Management

نویسندگان [English]

  • ghazale Taheri 1
  • azim zarei 2
  • Davood Feiz 2
  • Mahdi Dehghani Soltani 3
1 Ph.D. Candidate in Business Management, Faculty of Economics, Manage-ment and Administrative Sciences, University of Semnan, Semnan, Iran.
2 Prof. Faculty of Economics, Management, and Administrative Sciences, Uni-versity of Semnan, Semnan, Iran.
3 Assistant Prof. Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, Vali Asr University, Rafsanjan, Kerman.Iran.
چکیده [English]

Aim and introduction: With the growth of companies' activities in the realm of social commerce, there has been a significant increase in customer participation in the design, production, and marketing of brands' products and services. But this does not mean that their participation always yields positive and constructive results. In fact, in certain situations, customer participation can lead to significant costs for the company, wastage of shared resources, and a disruption in the balance of interests. This causes brand owners to refrain from involving customers more in creating value for the company. As a result, conditions are created for the process of co-destruction of brand value. It is evident that if companies continue to overlook the detrimental impact of brand value co-destruction without employing management techniques like conflict management, they will face numerous adverse consequences. Identifying these consequences can serve as crucial factors in controlling the situation and restoring balance. Due to the significance of this issue, this study has identified and prioritized the most crucial consequences of brand value co-destruction in social commerce, both before and after the implementation of conflict management. Methodology: This research is classified as practical and falls under the category of qualitative research in terms of its purpose and type. In this research, the systematic literature review method was used first, followed by the classical grounded theory method, to achieve the research objective. In the next step, the Ordinal Priority Approach (OPA) was employed to weigh and rank the most significant factors identified. The sampling method used in the current research is theoretical or theory-based sampling. The data collection tool is a semi-structured in-depth interview. The sample used in the classical grounded theory approach consists of 23 individuals. Among them, 11 are founders, managers, and experts from various departments of service-oriented digital start-ups operating in the context of social commerce. The remaining 12 individuals are online customers of these companies. Finding: Based on in-depth interviews with selected experts in this research, the consequences of brand value co-destruction were generally identified in the form of 105 open codes, 29 concepts, and 11 main categories. In the first stage, the study identified 57 open codes, 13 concepts, and 4 main categories related to the consequences of brand value co-destruction when conflict management is not established. The results indicate that without utilizing conflict management strategies, companies may experience destructive outcomes. These outcomes, in order of priority, include the deterioration of the mental well-being of brand beneficiaries, the proliferation of anti-brand behaviors in online communities, the disruption of the service ecosystem, and the eventual demise of the brand life cycle. In the second stage, the study identified 48 open codes, 16 concepts, and 7 main categories related to the consequences of co-destruction of brand value and the establishment of conflict management. The findings indicate that companies can prevent negative consequences and transform them into positive and productive outcomes by effectively utilizing conflict management during the co-destruction of brand value. In order of priority, the experience of co-destruction of brand value after applying conflict management leads to several constructive consequences. These include encouraging active and interactive learning, promoting solutions, fostering individual brand self-leadership instead of appointed brand leadership, promoting well-being recovery, developing new products and services, and fostering integrated thinking towards brand and business model innovation. Discussion and coclusion: The obtained results show that when the interests of the customers and the company are jeopardized during cooperation and become unbalanced, they collaborate towards the co-destruction of brand value. Then, as the value co-destruction process evolves within the company, the level of conflict in people's communication increases, resulting in negative consequences for both customers and the company. After conducting an in-depth investigation into the concept of co-destruction of brand value in companies, it has been determined that unless effective management strategies are implemented to reduce interpersonal conflicts among stakeholders and control tension between them, both customers and companies will remain vulnerable to the destructive and negative consequences of brand value co-destruction, ultimately leading to the demise of the brand. However, by implementing conflict management strategies within the company and fostering a spirit of compromise, they are able to leverage the negative experiences resulting from value co-destruction and turn them into opportunities to enhance the brand. Considering that most studies mention value co-destruction as a destructive phenomenon for companies, this research highlights a positive aspect of brand value co-destruction by focusing on conflict management. The findings can serve as a roadmap to help companies avoid making wrong decisions when faced with escalating communication tensions. Therefore, this research can not only contribute theoretically to the evolution of the concept of co-destruction of brand value in the literature, but it can also inform managers about the uneven path of value co-destruction and the consequences of their choices. This information can help them restore the situation to ideal and balanced conditions.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Brand value co-destruction
  • Conflict management
  • Social commerce
  1. Afzalur Rahim, M. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International journal of conflict management, 13(3), 206-235.‏
  2. Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20(1), 1-11.‏
  3. Alipour, S., Colabi, A M., & Khodadad Hosseini, S H. (2021). Corporate Sustainability Model Based on Digital Transformation, Strategic Renewal, and Value Creation. Journal of Business Strategies, 18(17), 24-41. (in persian)
  4. علیپور، سحر.، کلابی، امیر محمد.، خداد حسینی، سید حمید. (1400). مدل پایداری شرکتی مبتنی بر تحول دیجیتال، نوسازی استراتژیک و خلق ارزش، نشریه علمی راهبردهای بازرگانی، 28(17). 24-41.
  5. Ataei, Y., Mahmoudi, A., Feylizadeh, M. R., & Li, D. F. (2020). Ordinal priority approach (OPA) in multiple attribute decision-making. Applied Soft Computing, 86(105893), 1-37.‏
  6. Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, 93(1), 170-185.‏
  7. Chang, W. (2019). The joint effects of customer participation in various new product development stages. European Management Journal, 37(3), 259-268.‏
  8. Chowdhury, I. N., Gruber, T., & Zolkiewski, J. (2016). Every cloud has a silver lining—exploring the dark side of value co-creation in B2B service networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 55(1), 97-109.‏
  9. Corsaro, D. (2020). Value co-destruction and its effects on value appropriation. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(1-2), 100-127.‏
  10. Dolan, R., Seo, Y., & Kemper, J. (2019). Complaining practices on social media in tourism: A value co-creation and co-destruction perspective. Tourism Management, 73(1), 35-45.‏
  11. Echeverri, P., & Skålén, P. (2021). Value co-destruction: Review and conceptualization of interactive value formation. Marketing Theory, 21(2), 227-249.‏
  12. Glaser, B. G. (1978) Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.
  13. Guan, X., Gong, J., Xie, L., & Huan, T. C. (2020). Scale development of value co-destruction behavior in tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 36(100757), 1-32.‏
  14. Hallberg, N. L. (2018). Managing value appropriation in buyer–Supplier relationships: The role of commercial decision resources. European Management Journal, 36(1), 125–134.
  15. Hewett, R., & Shantz, A. (2021). A theory of HR co-creation. Human Resource Management Review, 31(4), 1-17.‏
  16. Hollebeek, L.D. and Chen, T. (2014). Exploring positivelyversus negatively-valenced brand engagement: a conceptual model, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(1), 62-74.
  17. Jamipour, M., & Taheri, G. (2020). Moving toward adoption of social commerce: exploring drivers and barriers using AHP approach. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 23(4), 453-479.‏
  18. Järvi, H., Kähkönen, A. K., & Torvinen, H. (2018). When value co-creation fails: Reasons that lead to value co-destruction. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 34(1), 63-77.‏
  19. Järvi, H., Keränen, J., Ritala, P., & Vilko, J. (2020).Value co-destruction in hotel services: Exploring the misalignment of cognitive scripts among customers and providers. Tourism Management, 77(104030), 1-13.‏
  20. Kim, K., Byon, K. K., & Baek, W. (2020). Customer-to-customer value co-creation and co-destruction in sporting events. The Service Industries Journal, 40 (9-10), 633-655.‏
  21. Laamanen, M., & Skålén, P. (2015). Collective–conflictual value co-creation: A strategic action field approach. Marketing Theory, 15(3), 381–400. 
  22. Laud, G., Bove, L., Ranaweera, C., Leo, W.W.C., Sweeney, J. and Smith, S. (2019). "Value co-destruction: a typology of resource misintegration manifestations", Journal of Services Marketing, 33(7), 866-889.
  23. Lund, N. F., Scarles, C., & Cohen, S. A. (2020). The brand value continuum: Countering co-destruction of destination branding in social media through storytelling. Journal of Travel Research, 59(8), 1506-1521.‏
  24. Makkonen, H., & Olkkonen, R. (2017). Interactive value formation in interorganizational relationships: Dynamic interchange between value co-creation, no-creation and codestruction. Marketing Theory, 17(4), 517–535.
  25. Morgan, T., Anokhin, S., & Wincent, J. (2018). When the fog dissipates: The choice between value creation and value appropriation in a partner as a function of information asymmetry. Journal of Business Research, 88(1), 498–504.
  26. Pathak, B., Ashok, M., & Tan, Y. L. (2020). Value co-destruction: Exploring the role of actors’ opportunism in the B2B context. International Journal of Information Management, 52(102093), 1-13.‏
  27. Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 36(1), 83-96.‏
  28. Plé, L. (2016). ‘Studying Customers’ Resource Integration by Service Employees in Interactional Value Cocreation’, Journal of Services Marketing, 30(2), 152–64.
  29. Plé, L., & Chumpitaz Cáceres, R. (2010). Not always co‐creation: introducing interactional co‐destruction of value in service‐dominant logic. Journal of services marketing, 24(6), 430-437.‏
  30. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value. How to reinvent capitalism—and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard business review, 89(6), 1-20.‏
  31. Prior, D. D., & Marcos-Cuevas, J. (2016). Value co-destruction in interfirm relationships: The impact of actor engagement styles. Marketing Theory, 16(4), 533-552.‏
  32. Quach, S., & Thaichon, P. (2017). From connoisseur luxury to mass luxury: Value co-creation and co-destruction in the online environment. Journal of Business Research, 81(1) 163-172.‏
  33. Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2016). Brand value co-creation in a digitalized world: An integrative framework and research implications. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(1), 93-106.‏
  34. Schulz, T., Zimmermann, S., Böhm, M., Gewald, H., & Krcmar, H. (2021). Value co-creation and co-destruction in service ecosystems: The case of the Reach Now app. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170(120926), 1-23.‏
  35. Sjödin, D., Parida, V., Kohtamäki, M., & Wincent, J. (2020). An agile co-creation process for digital servitization: A micro-service innovation approach. Journal of Business Research, 112(1), 478-491.‏
  36. Smith, A. (2013). The value co-destruction process: A customer resource perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 47(11/12), 1889–1909.
  37. Smyth, H., Lecoeuvre, L., & Vaesken, P. (2018). Co-creation of value and the project context: Towards application on the case of Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station. International journal of project management, 36(1), 170-183.‏
  38. Stahl, G. K., Brewster, C. J., Collings, D. G., & Hajro, A. (2020). Enhancing the role of human resource management in corporate sustainability and social responsibility: A multi-stakeholder, multidimensional approach to HRM. Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100708, 1-14.
  39. Tavakoli, S., Khodadad Hosseini, S H., Sohrabi, SH. (2020). The effect of the characteristics of business intelligence on the competitiveness of companies with the mediating role of entrepreneurship-oriented, market-oriented and innovation in business. Journal of Business Strategies, 17(15), 159-178. (in persian)
  40. توکلی، سیما.، خداداد حسینی، سید حمید.، سهرابی، شهلا. (1399). تأثیر ویژگی­های هوش تجاری بر رقابت­پذیری شرکت­ها با نقش میانجی­گری کارآفرینی محوری، بازار محوری و نوآوری در کسب و کار، نشریه علمی راهبردای بازرگانی، 17(15). 159-178.
  41. Vafeas, M., Hughes, T., & Hilton, T. (2016). Antecedents to value diminution: A dyadic perspective. Marketing Theory, 16(4), 469–491.
  42. Van den Broeke, M., & Paparoidamis, N. (2021). Engaging in or escaping co-creation? An analytical model. International Journal of Production Economics, 231 (107917), 1-9.‏
  43. Van Riel, A. C., Zhang, J. J., McGinnis, L. P., Nejad, M. G., Bujisic, M., & Phillips, P. A. (2019). A framework for sustainable service system configuration: Exploring value paradoxes with examples from the hospitality industry. Journal of Service Management, 30(1), 1-43
  44. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing, 68(1), 1-17.‏
  45. Wang, L., Jin, J. L., Zhou, K. Z., Li, C. B., & Yin, E. (2020). Does customer participation hurt new product development performance? Customer role, product newness, and conflict. Journal of Business Research, 109(1), 246-259.‏
  46. Yu, C. H., Tsai, C. C., Wang, Y., Lai, K. K., & Tajvidi, M. (2020). Towards building a value co-creation circle in social commerce. Computers in Human Behavior, 108(105476), 1-28.
  47. Zarei, A., taheri, G. (2019). Investigating the customer belonging to the brand community, with reflecting on Customer Brand Value Co-Creation precedents in Online Brand Communities. Quarterly Journal of Brand Management, 6(1), 17-65. (in persian)
  48. زارعی، عظیم.، طاهری، غزاله. (1399). بررسی تعلق مشتری به جامعه برند، با تأملی بر پیشایندهای هم­آفرینی ارزش برند مشتری در جوامع برند آنلاین، مجله مدیریت برند، 6(1)، 17-65.
  49. Zarei, A., Taheri, G., & Ghazvini, H. (2022). Conceptualization and validation of brand social capital construct by analyzing the role of social media capital. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, (ahead-of-print).‏
  50. Zhang, T., Lu, C., Torres, E. & Chen, P.J. (2018). Engaging customers in value co-creation or co-destruction online", Journal of Services Marketing, 32(1), 57-69.