Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bottom-up learning in marketing frontlines: conceptualization, processes, and consequences

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study proposes a frontline learning process by which organizations capture new knowledge generated by frontline employees in addressing productivity-quality tradeoffs during customer interactions and transform it into updated knowledge for frontline use. Updated knowledge, in turn, is posited to influence customer satisfaction and financial outcomes (i.e., revenue, efficiency). Empirical testing with multi-source data reveals that: (1) knowledge articulation mediates the transformation of knowledge generated in the frontlines into updated knowledge, (2) updated frontline knowledge positively impacts customer and financial outcomes, and (3) frontline employee workload inhibits the transformational process unless it is at an intermediate level (inverted U-effect), while employee goal convergence bolsters it linearly.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Bottom-up learning is often distinguished from top-down learning by considering the processes that link explicit (codified/structured) knowledge and implicit (tacit/unstructured) knowledge (Nonaka 1994). Bottom-up learning generally involves processes that go from implicit to explicit knowledge, while top-down learning is associated with processes that go from explicit to implicit knowledge. Both processes are critical in market-oriented organizations (Day 1994). In this study, we focus on bottom-up learning processes.

  2. To keep the review focused, we included articles that: (1) used keywords of “organizational + learning” or “knowledge + management,” (2) were published between 1990 and 2010, and (3) appeared in five marketing journals including Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Marketing Science, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and Journal of Retailing. The articles are listed in chronological order.

  3. This measure is widely used in the health care industry for measuring patients’ overall satisfaction and computing patient satisfaction scores. To be consistent with industry practice, we labeled this measure as customer satisfaction. An alternative label of “service quality” is reasonable given the academic literature.

References

  • Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Rust, R. T. (1997). Customer satisfaction, productivity, and profitability: differences between goods and services. Marketing Science, 16(2), 129–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 411–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, J. E. (1985). Perceived control and the service encounter. MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayus, B., Erickson, G., & Jacobson, R. (2003). The financial rewards of new product introductions in the personal computer industry. Management Science, 49(February), 197–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T., & Taber, T. D. (1976). Relationship of stress to individually and organizationally valued states-higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 41–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. J., Whitwell, G. J., & Lukas, B. A. (2002). Schools of thought in organizational learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 70–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumentritt, R., & Hardie, N. (2000). The role of middle management in the knowledge-focused service organization. Journal of Business Strategies, 17, 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohmer, R. M. J. (2009). Designing care. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohmer, R. M. J. (2010). Fixing health care on the front lines. Harvard Business Review, 88(4), 62–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, R. N. (1998). A dynamic model of the duration of the customer’s relationship with a continuous service provider: the role of satisfaction. Marketing Science, 17(1), 45–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, W., & Staelin, R. (1995). Identifying generalizable effects of strategic actions on firm performance: the case of demand-side returns to R&D spending. Marketing Science, 14(2), G222–G236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockman, B. B., & Morgan, R. M. (2006). The moderating effect of organizational cohesiveness in knowledge use and new product development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 295–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practices: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–850.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliff: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 37–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Luca, L. M., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2007). Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: examining the different routes to product innovation performance. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 95–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, P. R. (1992). Toward a general theory of competitive rationality. Journal of Marketing, 56(1), 69–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: implications for mental and physical health. Psychological Review, 96(January), 84–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, D. T., Brown, T., & Mowen, J. (2004). Internal benefits of service worker customer orientation: job satisfaction, commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 128–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Learning from errors in health care: frequent opportunities, pervasive barriers. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 13, 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstein, E. M., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2006). Action-based learning: goals and attention in the acquisition of market knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 244–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faraj, S., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Coordination in fast-response organizations. Management Science, 52(8), 1155–1169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frei, F. X. (2006). Breaking the trade-off between efficiency and service. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 92–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadiesh, O., & Gilbert, J. L. (2001). Transforming corner-office strategy into frontline action. Harvard Business Review, 79(5), 72–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B. (2001). From knowledge accumulation to accommodation: cycles of collective cognition in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 121–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 499–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, R. (1991). Marketing in an information-intensive environment: strategic implications of knowledge as an asset. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Organizational change that produces results: the linkage approach. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Special issue), 109–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. (2008). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönroos, C., & Ojasalo, K. (2004). Service productivity: towards a conceptualization of the transformation of inputs into economic results in services. Journal of Business Research, 57(4), 414–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation to sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanvanich, S., Sivakumar, K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2006). The relationship of learning and memory with organizational performance: the moderating role of turbulence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 600–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haunschild, P. R., & Sullivan, B. N. (2002). Learning from complexity: effects of airline’s heterogeneity of experience on learning from accidents and incidents. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 609–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11(3), 325–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Bornemann, T. (2009). Implementing the marketing concept at the employee–customer interface: the role of customer need knowledge. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 64–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, R. (1990). Unobservable effects and business performance. Marketing Science, 9(Winter), 74–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1963). Pragmatism and other essays. New York: Washington Square Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, J. (2007). Dell learns to listen. BusinessWeek, 4056, 118–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, J. (2008). The buzz from Starbucks customers. BusinessWeek, 4081, 104–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayachandran, S., Hewett, K., & Kaufman, P. (2004). Customer response capability in a sense-and-respond era: the role of customer knowledge process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 219–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. K. (2005). How Best Buy’s executives learn from the front lines. Harvard Management Update, 10(10), 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. L., Sohi, R. S., & Grewal, R. (2004). The role of relational knowledge stores in interfirm partnering. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 21–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. G. (2000). Latent variable scores and their uses. unpublished paper, available online at http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/lvscores.pdf.

  • Joshi, A. W., & Sharma, S. (2004). Customer knowledge development: antecedents and impact on new product performance. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 47–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, S. K., Kraus, F., & Ahearne, M. (2010). The diffusion of market orientation throughout the organization: a social learning theory perspective. JournalofMarketing, 74(5), 61–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, E. J. (1989). Minding matters: the consequences of mindlessness-mindfulness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 137–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17(4), 502–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage: conceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 13–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madhavan, R., & Grover, R. (1998). From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: new product development as knowledge management. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. K. (1996). Market intelligence dissemination across functional boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marinova, D. (2004). Actualizing innovation effort: the impact of market knowledge diffusion in a dynamic system of competition. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marinova, D., Ye, J., & Singh, J. (2008). Do frontline mechanisms matter? Impact of quality and productivity orientations on unit revenue, efficiency, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 28–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in Organizational Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1031–1056.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, A., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1992). A model of marketing knowledge use within firms. Journal of Marketing, 56(4), 53–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittal, V., Anderson, E. W., Sayrak, A., & Tadikamalla, P. (2005). Dual emphasis and the long-term financial impact of customer satisfaction. Marketing Science, 24(4), 544–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2006). The value of different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics in predicting business performance. Marketing Science, 25(5), 426–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nag, R., Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2007). The intersection of organizational identity, knowledge, and practice: attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 821–847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliva, R., & Sterman, J. D. (2001). Cutting corners and working overtime: quality erosion in the service industry. Management Science, 47(7), 894–914.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. E., Kirchner, J. E., Bonner, L. M., Fickel, J. J., Ritchie, M. J., Simons, C. E., et al. (2009). Creating a quality-improvement dialogue: utilizing knowledge from frontline staff, managers, and experts to foster health care quality improvement. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 229–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter, J. P., Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Brown, T. J. (1993). Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(March), 655–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayport, J. F., & Jaworski, B. J. (2004). Best face forward. Harvard Business Review, 82(12), 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riege, A., & Zulpo, M. (2007). Knowledge transfer process cycle: between factory floor and middle management. Australian Journal of Management, 32(2), 293–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A. V., & Jackson, W. E. (1995). Strategic determinants of service quality and performance: evidence from the banking industry. Management Science, 41(11), 1720–1733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust, R. T., Zahorik, A. J., & Keiningham, T. L. (1995). Return on quality (ROQ): making service quality financially accountable. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 58–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust, R. T., Moorman, C., & Dickson, P. R. (2002). Getting return on quality: revenue expansion, cost reduction, or both? Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaubroeck, J., & Ganster, D. (1993). Chronic demands and responsivity to challenge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. (1984). New service design, development, and implementation. In C. Marshall & W. George (Eds.), Developing new services (pp. 82–102). Chicago: American Marketing Association, Proceedings Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. E. (1966). Activation theory and task design. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1(September), 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selnes, F., & Sallis, J. (2003). Promoting relationship learning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 80–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, A., Levy, M., & Kumar, A. (2000). Knowledge structures and retail sales performance: an empirical examination. Journal of Retailing, 76(1), 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 125–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. (2000). Performance productivity and quality of frontline employees in service organization. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 15–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market information processing and organizational learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for market-based organizational learning: linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin, S. B., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Schroeder, R. G. (1994). Distinguishing control from learning in total quality management: a contingency perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 537–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets and shareholder value: a framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 2–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A. L. (1959). Bureaucratic and craft administration of production: a comparative study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 168–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. P., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). The effects of job autonomy, customer demandingness, and trait competitiveness on salesperson learning, self-efficacy, and performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 217–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (1999). Organizing for high reliability: process of collective mindfulness. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 81–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, D. B. (2003). Code green: Money-driven hospitals and the dismantling of nursing. Ithaca: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wennberg, J., & Gittelsohn, A. (1973). Small area variations in health care delivery: a population-based health information system can guide planning and regulatory decision-making. Science, 182(4117), 1102–1108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicker, A. W., & August, R. A. (1995). How far should we generalize? The case of a workload model. Psychological Science, 6, 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress: can job scope be too much? Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1288–1309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Charles H. Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403-1208, USA

    Jun Ye

  2. Robert J. Trulaske, Sr. College of Business, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Detelina Marinova

  3. Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Jagdip Singh

Authors
  1. Jun Ye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Detelina Marinova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jagdip Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Ye.

Additional information

This paper is based on data collected as part of NSF grant #SES-0080567 awarded to Professors Jagdip Singh and Gil Preuss, with Sister Nancy Linenkugel. The authors express their appreciation to the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Table 6 Measures and operationalization of studied constructs
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ye, J., Marinova, D. & Singh, J. Bottom-up learning in marketing frontlines: conceptualization, processes, and consequences. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 40, 821–844 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0289-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0289-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation