Manvs MachinePowellNobleNobleHanEJM2018

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/322902641
Man vs machine: Relational and performance outcomes of technology

utilization in small business CRM support capabilities
Article in European Journal of Marketing · February 2018

DOI: 10.1108/EJM-10-2015-0750
CITATIONS READS
3 614
4 authors, including:
Stephanie M. Noble
University of Tennessee
52 PUBLICATIONS 3,699 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The Sales Impact of Using Handheld Scanners: Evidence from the Field View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Stephanie M. Noble on 28 February 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

European Journal of Marketing
Man vs machine: Relational and performance outcomes of technology utilization
in small business CRM support capabilities
Adam Powell, Charles H. Noble, Stephanie M. Noble, Sumin Han,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Adam Powell, Charles H. Noble, Stephanie M. Noble, Sumin Han, (2018) "Man vs machine:
Relational and performance outcomes of technology utilization in small business CRM support
Downloaded by University of Tennessee at Knoxville At 15:44 25 April 2018 (PT)
capabilities", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 Issue: 3/4, pp.725-757, https://doi.org/10.1108/

EJM-10-2015-0750
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2015-0750
Downloaded on: 25 April 2018, At: 15:44 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 98 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 135 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2018),"Challenging the planned behavior approach in social marketing: emotion and experience
matter", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 Iss 3/4 pp. 837-865 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
EJM-05-2016-0309">https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-05-2016-0309</a>
(2018),"Antecedents and outcomes of brand love: utilitarian and symbolic brand qualities",
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 Iss 3/4 pp. 656-682 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
EJM-02-2016-0081">https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2016-0081</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:184293 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
Man vs
Man vs machine machine
Relational and performance outcomes
of technology utilization in small business
CRM support capabilities 725
Adam Powell
John L. Grove College of Business, Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, Received 26 October 2015
Revised 15 June 2016
Pennsylvania, USA 15 February 2017
13 October 2017
Charles H. Noble and Stephanie M. Noble
Accepted 9 November 2017

Haslam College of Business, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA, and
Sumin Han
Raymond J. Harbert College of Business, Auburn University,
Auburn, Alabama, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the use of technology in customer relationship management
(CRM) support capabilities by using an environmental contingency perspective. By examining the moderating
effects of micro- and macro-environmental characteristics in which CRM support capabilities are used, the
authors seek to extend the literature on CRM technology effectiveness in both customer commitment and overall
firm performance. The authors also seek to advance managerial knowledge about CRM support capability
technology utilization strategies in various market offering and dynamic market settings.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors utilized a questionnaire to collect data from a sample of
276 small business CRM managers across a wide range of industries. Measures were adapted from the
existing literature, and these were largely multiple-item measures of latent variables. The hypotheses were
tested using a combination of Ridge regression and a bootstrapping test of mediation. In addition, residual
centering was used to reduce multi-collinearity in the interaction analysis.
Findings – The contingency/fit analysis performed in this research highlights the complex nature of the use
of technology in CRM support capabilities. The benefits of a man vs a machine CRM support capability
depend on the support function (whether marketing, sales, service, data access or data analysis), as well as
upon the characteristics of the operating environment. Machine-based marketing support is positively related
with customer commitment in turbulent markets, and machine-based service support is preferred in
technologically turbulent markets. Sales support, on the other hand, is positively related to customer
commitment in technologically turbulent markets when performed by man rather than machine.
Practical implications – CRM support capabilities differ across firms and markets, thus a “one size fits
all” approach is not appropriate. This research shows under what conditions a machine-based approach to
CRM can be effective for small businesses.
Originality/value – This research is the first to consider market offering and turbulence variables as
moderators of the relationship between technology use in CRM support capabilities and customer
commitment. Taking this contingency approach, the authors find that resource-based competitive advantage
is obtainable based on the fit of the resources (e.g. CRM capabilities) to the environmental characteristics of
the firm. Through this perspective that is unique to CRM research, the authors are able to provide both
general and specific recommendations to managers and researchers.
European Journal of Marketing
Keywords Marketing strategy, Relationship marketing, Small firms, Vol. 52 No. 3/4, 2018
pp. 725-757
Customer relationship management, Market turbulence © Emerald Publishing Limited
0309-0566
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/EJM-10-2015-0750
EJM “One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one
extraordinary man.” – Elbert Hubbard, Author and Publisher
52,3/4
1. Introduction
Customer relationship management (CRM) is a “strategic approach that is concerned with
creating improved shareholder value through the development of appropriate relationships
726 with key customers and customer segments” (Payne and Frow, 2005, p. 168). While specific
practices of CRM may take different forms, a technology-based approach is common
(Avlonitis and Panagopoulos, 2005; Keramati et al., 2010), and the selling of CRM technology
is big business. Revenue from CRM software sales rose from $20.4bn in 2013 to $23.2bn in
2014, a 13.3 per cent increase (Gartner, 2015). Adoption rates among organizations are also
on the rise, with over 51 per cent of sampled organizations utilizing such technologies in
2011 (Economics, 2012). These substantial investments are made in the hopes of achieving
many benefits, including more precise customer profitability assessment, centralized
customer knowledge storage and access and increased customer satisfaction and retention.
Despite widespread organizational investments in CRM technologies, the success of CRM
programs is elusive (Lindgreen et al., 2006), with some questioning the customer and
organizational benefits of CRM technology when compared with human approaches to
relationship building (Schelmetic, 2006). In terms of the adoption of CRM systems, one study
showed less than 40 per cent of 1,275 participating companies experienced employee
adoption rates above 90 per cent (Dickie, 2006). In a 2007 UK survey, 80 per cent of senior
executives reported that their biggest challenge is getting their staff to use the systems they
had installed. A total of 43 per cent of respondents said they use less than half the
functionality of their existing system (Sims, 2007). The high stakes and generally
disappointing results associated with CRM systems (Kendrick, 2014) show the need for
further research in this domain.
This research contributes to the literature in three ways. First, we extend the CRM
literature through a contingency theory assessment of CRM technology strategies. A major
challenge with CRM research is the diverse and divergent definitions, scopes, functional
areas and academic fields involved in its study (Zablah et al., 2004). For this reason, we
approach CRM using a contingency framework, which is appropriate when studying the fit
of company strategies among diverse environmental characteristics (Van de Ven and
Drazin, 1984). Second, this research extends the literature on CRM capabilities. Past research
on CRM capabilities has advanced understanding of relational (Tzempelikos and Gounaris,
2015), social (Trainor et al., 2014), customer-focused marketing (Vorhies et al., 2011) and
tactical CRM capabilities (Wang and Feng, 2012), as well as their influence on relationship
and financial performance. We contribute to this literature through an examination of the
level of technology in CRM capabilities within a contingency framework. Third, this study
contributes to the literature on small business management, an organization type that
should be particularly sensitive to these CRM investment decisions. While a large, global
company is almost forced to invest heavily in CRM technology to organize and stay
competitive, smaller companies may have a harder time justifying the cost or they may just
feel they can provide superior service with a more personal touch.
2. A contingency approach to level of technology in CRM capabilities

In this paper, we use a contingency theory perspective to investigate the influence that the
extent of technology utilization in CRM support capabilities has on customer relationship
and firm performance. A contingency perspective suggests “that there is no singular
structure or strategy that is best for all organizations” (Ahearne et al., 2012, p. 122) and that Man vs
examining different business strategies in relation to the environmental variables to which machine
they are contingent can provide “richer characterizations” of the complex phenomena
(Zeithaml et al., 1988, p. 44). A contingency approach has been used in CRM research both
conceptually (Ahearne et al., 2012) and empirically (Daniela, 2015; Wang and Feng, 2012);
however, no studies have examined the relationship between the levels of technology in
CRM support capabilities and performance using a contingency theory or strategic fit
perspective. We assert that there is likely no “one CRM strategy fits all” model and that 727
utilizing a contingency approach to study modern-day CRM can provide needed clarity and
valuable insight to the literature.
Day (1994, p. 38) describes capabilities as “complex bundles of skills and accumulated
knowledge, exercised through organizational processes, that enable firms to coordinate
activities and make use of their assets”. Beyond considering company assets in the resource-
based view of the firm, capabilities are also a potential source of competitive advantage
(Hooley et al., 1999). Therefore, marketing capabilities research has been founded on the
theory that “organizations that stress the development of key capabilities are better able to
achieve and maintain a position of advantage despite turbulent environmental impacts on
the business” (Vorhies, 1998, p. 3; Achrol, 1991). Key marketing capabilities have been
categorized in terms of inside-out, outside-in and spanning processes (Day, 1994), the
importance of activities associated with the marketing mix (Vorhies, 1998), specialized and
architectural marketing capabilities (Vorhies and Morgan, 2003), retailers’ market
responsiveness (Adjei et al., 2009; Griffith et al., 2006) and relationship infrastructure,
learning and behavioral capabilities (Jarratt, 2004), to name a few.
Despite the widespread adoption of a capabilities approach to strategy research in
marketing, very little research in CRM has taken this perspective. In one example, CRM
capabilities are defined as company investments, “in developing and acquiring a mix of
resources that enables them to modify their behavior towards individual customers or
groups of customers on a continual basis” (Zablah et al., 2004, p. 478). Examples include
capabilities surrounding service support (solutions and delivery), analysis support
(customer forecasts and lifetime value analysis) and data integration and data gathering
methods (Jayachandran et al., 2005). This is consistent with recent research on the
antecedents and consequences of CRM capabilities, in which CRM capabilities are described
as being:
Reflected in major CRM activities, such as customer interaction management (e.g., customer
identification, customer acquisition and customer retention), customer relationship upgrading
(e.g., cross-selling and up-selling), and customer relationship win-back (re-establishing
relationships with lost but profitable customers) (Wang and Feng, 2012, p. 117; Parvatiyar and
Sheth, 2001; Reinartz et al., 2004).
CRM support capabilities are specified in this research as the skills present in the
organization that are necessary to or supportive of the essential functions of the corporate
CRM processes. Jayachandran et al. (2005) specified five support functions that a CRM
system should be capable of doing. These include front-office functions, including sales,
marketing and service support, as well as back-office functions, including data integration
and access (hereafter “data”) and analysis support (Greenberg, 2004). Companies that
accomplish these CRM support capabilities through primarily machine-based means are
presumed to be more efficient and effective at fostering customer commitment.
CRM Support Capability: Marketing Support – Marketing support refers to the capacity
to provide support for marketing planning and budgeting, assessing marketing campaign
response, providing promotional literature, executing promotions, customizing offers to
EJM customers and managing customer communications (Jayachandran et al., 2005). These
52,3/4 efforts can also include loyalty programs and direct promotional efforts (Greenberg, 2004).
CRM Support Capability: Service Support – Service support provides the resources
needed for service delivery scheduling and tracking, access to customer interaction data,
providing solutions to service customers and service customization (Meuter et al., 2000). In
some cases, service support “helps customers serve themselves by providing ready access to
728 a knowledge base of solution” (Jayachandran et al., 2005, p. 181). More than the other CRM
support capabilities, service support is about the direct assistance of customers during their
receipt of the market offerings of the company.
CRM Support Capability: Analysis Support – Analysis support is also a back-office
function and is the capacity of the firm’s CRM program to examine and utilize the CRM data
that have been collected and integrated. CRM data may be used to “understand customer
preferences and estimate customer lifetime value, retention, and loyalty” (Jayachandran
et al., 2005, p. 181). Channel performance, product profitability and forecasting are also
potentially supported through the analysis function of CRM (Greenberg, 2004).
CRM Support Capability: Data Support – While sales, marketing and service support
functions are front-office functions, this and the following CRM support capability are back-
office functions. Jayachandran et al. (2005, p. 181) suggest that “creating a database that is
guided by market intelligence is a critical component of a firm’s attempts to create customer
assets through long-term relationships”. This CRM support capability is motivated by the
need to have CRM-generated information appropriately integrated with other relevant data
and have data accessible to salespeople and other front-line employees. This includes
combining transaction data with customer profile data and integrating customer data from
multiple contact points (Jayachandran et al., 2005).
CRM Support Capability: Sales Support – Sales support is a CRM capability focused on
providing the salesforce with customer information, competitor information and
information about customized offers, prospect leads and leads for cross-sell/up-sell
opportunities. In addition to supporting salespeople in new business generation, sales
support also functions to assist with existing customer maintenance through providing
information on product availability and inventory status. In sum, “sales support is designed
to help the sales force acquire and retain customers, reduce administrative time, and enable
the efficient management of accounts” (Jayachandran et al., 2005, p. 181; Speier and
Venkatesh, 2002).
3. Extent of technology utilization in the CRM capabilities of small businesses

The term CRM is often used synonymously with the technology behind the practice of CRM
and studies of CRM often incorporate technology as an important aspect of CRM research
(Zablah et al., 2004). We incorporate technology in this research by examining the degree to
which a firm attempts to achieve CRM support capabilities along a continuum of technology
utilization (i.e. the extent of technology used), framed as “man” vs “machine”. At any stage
of the CRM process, computers or other electronic devices may be used to leverage firms’
CRM initiatives. We refer to this combination of hardware and software as “CRM
technology”, which is the basis of a machine-based approach to CRM. An example of a
primarily technology-based CRM strategy is a sophisticated intranet-based service through
which business customers can build customized orders directly through the firm’s CRM
technology interface without any human interaction. On the other hand, CRM can be
primarily human-based. In primarily human-based CRM strategies, frontline employees and
service support personnel engage the customer and manage the relationship with little or no
aid from CRM technologies. Although we refer to this juxtaposition as “man vs machine” in
reality the range of CRM strategies that are used in small businesses today likely form a Man vs
continuum, with firms using both human and machine-based resources to varying degrees machine
in their CRM practices (Ahearne and Rapp, 2010).
We examine the outcomes of the extent of CRM technology utilization (i.e. this man vs
machine continuum) in the small business context for several reasons. First, according to the
US Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy, 99.7 per cent of all US firms are
small businesses[1], with similar numbers reported across Europe, such that small
businesses are considered the backbone of the European economy[2]. Thus, their size and 729
economic power across the globe warrants investigation. We adopt the US Small Business
Administration classification of small businesses as being those with 500 employees or
fewer[3]. These types of businesses are competing against corporate giants such as Nestle,
Siemens, Unilever and Tesco, just to name a few. Second, the stakes of CRM system
investment are especially high for small businesses for whom IT investment is often
substantial (García Pérez de Lema and Duréndez, 2007; Shin, 2006), and the payoff of such
investments is unclear (Nguyen et al., 2015). Small businesses are inherently late adopters of
technology due to fewer resources (Shin, 2006) and fewer in-house technological expertise
(Fuller, 1996), although many have been able to use CRM technologies designed for small
businesses. Third, the lack of an IT department in small businesses means that management
shoulders the responsibility of CRM systems, often without the necessary expertise to do so
(Fuller, 1996). A sophisticated machine-based system for CRM support capabilities might be
the norm in larger corporations, but the smaller number of employees and often smaller
number of customers in small businesses makes more human-based approaches to CRM a
realistic option. In light of these issues, understanding the benefits from a man vs machine
approach to CRM capabilities in small businesses can be critical for organizational success.
4. Outcomes of the extent of technology utilization in CRM support capabilities

With few exceptions (Palmatier et al., 2006b; Reinartz et al., 2004), CRM “technology is
widely seen as an enabler of an effective CRM system” (Ernst et al., 2011, p. 292; Payne and
Frow, 2005). It has also been suggested that “CRM technology plays a critical role in the
context of leveraging CRM-related activities and thus contributes to improved
organizational performance in the market” (Reinartz et al., 2004, p. 296). Accordingly, we
anticipate a positive direct relationship between CRM support capability technology
utilization and company performance.
Several empirical studies provide support for this relationship. Rapp et al. (2010) found
evidence that a firm’s CRM technical capability is positively related to customer relationship
performance. In another study, Saini et al. (2010) examined the influence that the utilization
of CRM technology has on CRM performance, including customer retention. They found
that CRM technology utilization has a positive direct relationship with CRM performance.
Accordingly, we adopt the position that “ceteris paribus, CRM technology functions as a
facilitator of CRM activities and contribute[s] to better performance in the market” (Reinartz
et al., 2004, p. 296). Specifically, the use of technology in firms’ CRM support capabilities is
hypothesized to positively relate with their relational performance. In this study, we utilize
an accepted indicator of relational performance: customer commitment. Customer
commitment is defined as “an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship” with the
company (Moorman et al., 1992, p. 316), and it has been advanced as a “more suitable
concept to capture the intention to continue a business relationship” (Ritter and Andersen,
2014, p. 1007). Customer commitment has been shown to relate positively with word-of-
mouth activity and praise (Harrison-Walker, 2001), relationship value creation (Ryssel et al.,
2004) and behavioral intentions to invest in and maintain the relationship (Gounaris, 2005).
EJM Customer commitment will be used in this study as a marker of the future intentions of the
52,3/4 customer to maintain a relationship with the company. Thus, we hypothesize that the extent
of technology utilization (i.e. the man vs machine continuum) in CRM support capabilities is
positively related with customer commitment:
H1. The extent of technology utilization in CRM support capabilities (1a: marketing
support (MS); 1b: services support (ES); 1c: analysis support (AS); 1d: data support
730 (DS); 1e: sales support (SS)) is positively related with customer commitment.
Figure 1 depicts all of the relationships hypothesized in this research. Next, we consider that
relationship outcomes should not be goals unto themselves, as they should result in financial
benefits for the company to be truly worthwhile. Consistent with this, customer commitment
has been studied as a mediator of loyalty (Dagger et al., 2011) and increased purchase
intentions (Lacey, 2007). In this study, we frame commitment as an exogenous variable

which is positively related with performance outcomes (e.g. market share, profitability and
return on investment). Rapp et al. (2010) found that customer relationship performance is
positively related with organizational performance. Taylor et al. (2008) likewise examined
the relationship between relationship commitment and business performance and confirmed
finding a positive relationship between them. Following this stream of literature, we
hypothesize that relational performance (e.g. customer commitment) positively influences
firm performance.
H2. Customer commitment is positively related to firm performance (2a: market share;
2b: profitability; 2c: sales).
Figure 1 also depicts customer commitment as a mediating variable between the extent of
technology utilization in CRM support capabilities and firm performance. Palmatier et al.
Figure 1.
Extent of technology
use in CRM support
capabilities
contingency model
(2006a) performed a meta-analysis of customer-focused relational mediators and found that Man vs
customer commitment mediated the relationship between organizational characteristics (e.g. machine
relationship investment and seller expertise) and objective performance of the seller.
Customer commitment has also been shown to mediate the relationship between trust and
switching intentions (Bansal et al., 2004), customer-oriented service employees and customer
retention (Hennig-Thurau, 2004) and numerous other antecedents and purchase intentions

or loyalty (Cater
and Cater, 2010; Lacey, 2007). This literature confirms the assertion that
commitment is a key mediating variable that is “critical to the study and management of 731
relationship marketing” (Morgan and Hunt, 1994, p. 31). In addition, according to Zhao et al.
(2010), a direct effect does not need to exist to determine mediation. The only requirement for
mediation is the presence of an indirect effect. As such, we expect commitment to act as a
mediator here, rather than to see direct effects between CRM technology use and firm
performance. Therefore, in our model, we anticipate that customer commitment mediates

the relationship between the extent of technology utilization and firm performance.
H3a. Customer commitment mediates the relationship between the extent of technology
utilization in CRM support capabilities [3a.MS: marketing support (MS); 3a.ES:
services support (ES); 3a.AS: analysis support (AS); 3a.DS: data support (DS); 3a.SS:
sales support (SS)] and market share.
H3b. Customer commitment mediates the relationship between the extent of technology
utilization in CRM support capabilities [3b.MS: marketing support (MS); 3b.ES:
services support (ES); 3b.AS: analysis support (AS); 3b.DS: data support (DS); 3b.SS:
sales support (SS)] and profitability.
H3c. Customer commitment mediates the relationship between the extent of technology
utilization in CRM support capabilities [3c.MS: marketing support (MS); 3c.ES:
services support (ES); 3c.AS: analysis support (AS); 3c.DS: data support (DS); 3c.SS:
sales support (SS)] and return on investment.
5. A contingency model of CRM support capabilities

Figure 1 depicts our use of a contingency theory perspective to investigate the influence that
the extent of technology utilization in CRM support capabilities has on customer
relationships and firm performance. The extant literature in marketing supports a
contingency approach to research when studying “alternative strategies under various
environmental characteristics” (Zeithaml et al., 1988, p 44). This approach is featured
prominently in the sales literature when studying salesperson effectiveness (Weitz, 1981)
and CRM implementation in business-to-business (B2B) markets (Ahearne et al., 2012). In
both of these examples, the authors sought further understanding of the field through the
study of salespeople and CRM implementation across differing contexts. Accordingly, our
proposed model approaches environmental contingencies of the organization through an
interaction approach to fit (Van de Ven and Drazin, 1984), by presenting the extent of
technology use in CRM support capabilities as organizational characteristics and customer
commitment as the performance outcome that is contingent on micro- and macro-
environmental forces.
5.1 Micro-environmental characteristics

The standardized vs customized nature of the market offering of the organization is one
micro-environmental characteristic that deserves examination, due to the potential for
customer relationship enhancement through customization, made possible through CRM
EJM (Stefanou et al., 2003). If a company’s market offering is not customizable it means that they
52,3/4 sell goods or services that are standardized (Syam and Kumar, 2006). A standardized
offering requires less customer coordination, cooperation and insights prior to the exchange
(Gilmore and Pine, 1997). In addition, standardized offerings are less dynamic in nature,
enabling the use of a more machine-based approach to succeed, whereas more customizable
offerings might require the free thinking of human-based CRM support to drive customer
732 commitment (Hong-kit Yim et al., 2004). In small businesses, the fewer the number of
employees, less is the rigidity in structure (i.e. flatter organizations) (Spelman, 2016) and
more is the innovativeness in one’s job (Hogg, 2011). Thus, this type of free thinking should
be prevalent in smaller businesses over larger organizations. Accordingly, we hypothesize
that more customizable offerings will negatively moderate the positive relationship between
technology in CRM support capabilities and customer commitment, given the rigidity of
technology in its capacity to manage the complexities of customer needs when offerings are
customizable. Therefore, we expect:
H4. The positive relationship between the extent of technology utilization in CRM support
capabilities (4a: MS; 4b: ES; 4c: AS; 4d: DS; 4e: SS) and customer commitment is
negatively moderated by the customizability of the market offering, such that the more
customizable the offering, the weaker the relationship between the extent of
technology utilization in CRM support capabilities and customer commitment.
The nature of the type of customer is also important to include as an environmental
characteristic in this study (Palmatier et al., 2006a). B2B customers tend to be worth more as
customers and often receive the attention of a salesperson who is their interface to the rest of
the company. The salesperson, or in some cases, sales team, performs the initial sale and
maintains the ongoing relationship (Moon and Armstrong, 1994). Although salespeople often
have the support of machine-based CRM support capabilities, the importance of the human-
based CRM support capabilities cannot be understated and has become an expectation to
some degree with B2B customers. On the other hand, customers in a business to consumer
(B2C) relational exchange tend to not have a single point of contact with the company. This is
due both to their low relative value to the company, their expectations for service and the
large number of customers that B2C firms engage with. Therefore, when a company puts
forth the extra effort with a human-based approach to CRM support services customers are
likely to take notice. Due to their size and number of customers, larger corporations often
cannot put this human touch element into supporting their B2C customers, however, small
corporations can garner loyalty from meaningful interpersonal interaction with B2C
customers (Noble et al., 2006). As such, for B2C consumers, a more human-based approach (i.
e. less technology utilization) to CRM support should be related to commitment more than a
machine based approach due to exceeding customer expectations. Thus:
H5. The positive relationship between the extent of technology utilization in CRM
support capabilities (5a: MS; 5b: ES; 5c: AS; 5d: DS; 5e: SS) and customer
commitment is negatively moderated by the company’s customers, such that when
the company’s customers are individual consumers (rather than business
customers), the weaker the relationship between the extent of technology utilization
in CRM support capabilities and customer commitment.
5.2 Macro-environmental characteristics

Market turbulence (MT) refers to “the rate of change in the composition of customers and
their preferences” (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993, p. 57). In other words, MT is concerned with the
stability of customers for companies within a given market. Studies that examine MT often Man vs
focus on the potential moderating effect of this environmental variable. For example, MT machine
was found to improve the relationship between market orientation and marketing
communication capability (Murray et al., 2011), firm innovativeness and business
performance (Tsai and Yang, 2013) and information capability and external collaboration
effectiveness (Wang et al., 2015).
CRM is inherently influenced by MT due to its focus on consumers and customers. The
dynamism of these stakeholders in turbulent markets is therefore hypothesized to influence 733
the relationship between CRM support capabilities and customer commitment. Again, at the
core of this hypothesis is the more rigid nature of machine-based CRM systems. IT systems
are less adaptable than are humans, who can adjust to the market without reprogramming
or scaling disruptions; whereas information transfer on a human level has fluidity and
allows for agility (Camison and Villar-Lopez, 2011). In smaller businesses with a smaller
number of employees and flatter organizational structures (Spelman, 2016), this fluidity and
agility of information can be advantageous. As such, in more turbulent markets human-
based CRM support capabilities are anticipated to relate to higher customer commitment
than machine-based processes and capabilities:
commitment is negatively moderated by market turbulence, such that the more
turbulent the market, the weaker the relationship between the extent of technology
utilization in CRM support capabilities and customer commitment.
Technological turbulence refers to the uncertainty in the specific industry of the company
that is due to changing technology, rather than the dynamism of customers, as in a turbulent
market (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). Technological turbulence suggests that products in the
industry are unstable, given a rapid progression of technology. As the machine-based CRM
support capabilities of the firm are outpaced by the rate of technological innovations and
new product development, a more human-based approach to CRM support capabilities are
anticipated to relate positively with customer commitment, again due to the fluidity and
agility of information transfer likely capable in small businesses because of their structures
(Spelman, 2016). This suggests:
commitment is negatively moderated by technological turbulence, such that the
more turbulent the technology, the weaker the relationship between the extent of
technology utilization in CRM support capabilities and customer commitment.
6. Method
6.1 Data collection procedure
To test the hypothesized relationships, we collected data through a targeted, on-line survey
of CRM managers. We obtained a sample of respondents who had “CRM Manager” (or
“Customer Relationship Management”) in their job title from a commercial list provider.
This job title specification was necessary to ensure the respondent would have an adequate
knowledge level of the company’s CRM practices. The commercial list broker contacted
respondents to inform them about the survey. Only respondents who indicated that their
company’s customer relationship strategy has generally stayed the same for the past two
years were eligible for the survey. This was to ensure that reported profitability measures
EJM reflected the company’s current CRM practices. Owing to the proprietary nature of their
52,3/4 respondent sourcing, the commercial list broker could not share further information
regarding the sample, including country of origin or specific industry information.
Respondents were paid $40 for their participation.
A total of 1,586 CRM managers from the subject panel were eligible for the survey. After
the removal of surveys due to missing data issues, a total of 350 managers completed the
734 survey, for a 22.1 per cent response rate. To better understand the small firms’ CRM
practices for the current study’s purposes, each respondent was screened on whether the
firm size is small. In this study, a small business is defined as a firm with fewer than 500
employees, so respondents were excluded from the sample if the number of employees is
greater than 500. After detecting outliers, the final sample size was 276 responses from CRM
managers for an effective response rate of 17.6 per cent. Some variables included missing
values and those values were replaced by the expectation maximization (EM) approach
adopted by Little and Rubin (2014).
Non-response is always a concern in survey research; however, this response rate is
comparable to past research (Homburg et al., 2008; Olson et al., 2005). Nevertheless, to test
for non-response bias we used the procedures put forth by Armstrong and Overton (1977).
No differences existed between early and late respondents on customer commitment, CRM
support capabilities or environmental variables, indicating systematic non-response issues
are likely not a concern in the present study.
6.2 Measures
Scales for the present study were adapted and modified from items and scales that were
used in previous studies. The respective items of the main constructs, reliability measures
and their original source are shown in Appendix 2.
6.2.1 Dependent variable. The firm’s market share, return on investment and
profitability were chosen as the firm performance (dependent) variables. Participants rated
these company metrics relative to their competitors. They were captured using seven-point
scales ranging from “much worse than competitors” to “much better than competitors”
(Homburg et al., 2008; Homburg and Pflesser, 2000). Although self-reported data are not
ideal for measures of firm performance, the literature suggests that they are a good proxy
and highly correlated with objective measures (Dess and Robinson, 1984; Venkatraman and
Ramanujam, 1986).
6.2.2 Independent variables. CRM support capabilities (CP) were measured using five
constructs – data analysis support (AS), service support (ES), marketing support (MS), data
integration and access (DS) and sales support (SS). This approach was intended to identify
strategies which differed in their human vs machine approach across these important
factors. The measures were adapted from Jayachandran et al. (2005). A part of this
adaptation was to change these measures from a Likert scale to one which measured a
semantic differential between human-based and machine-based CRM processes and CRM
capabilities. This was done on a seven-point scale, with higher numbers reflecting more
machine-based CRM and lower numbers reflecting more human-based CRM; an even mix of
human- and machine-based CRM marks the center of the scale. Scales for each dimension of
CRM capabilities ranged from three to six items.
6.2.3 Mediating and moderating variables. Customer commitment was adapted from
previous work (Lohtia et al., 2005; Morgan and Hunt, 1994) and measured managers’
perceptions of their customers’ commitment to the firm. Participants rated commitment
using seven-point scales ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The micro-
environmental contingencies consisted of the firm’s standardized vs customized offering
and customer type. The customized or standardized nature of the firm’s offering was Man vs
measured on a continuum from completely standardized to completely customized. The machine
firm’s customer type was also measured on a continuum from primarily business to
primarily individual customers (Palmatier et al., 2006a).
In addition, organizational culture and institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983;
Sethi and Iqbal, 2008) suggest that two environmental variables, market turbulence (MT)
and technology turbulence (TT) will impact CRM support capabilities. For both macro-
environmental contingencies we utilized four-item scales based on Sethi and Iqbal (2008) 735
and they were measured using a seven-point Likert scale for each item anchored by 1
(strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree).
6.3 Psychometric evaluations

Using Amos 19, composite reliability, coefficient alpha and the discriminant validity of
variables were evaluated. Discriminant validity was assessed through the variance
extracted test (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In this test, the variance extracted estimates for
the two constructs of interest are compared to the square of the correlation between the two
constructs. Discriminant validity is demonstrated for two constructs if their average
variance extracted (AVE) estimates are greater than their squared correlations. All variable
combinations demonstrated discriminant validity. The correlations between the constructs
as well as simple descriptive statistics (mean, SD) are shown in Table I.
In this study, we applied two methods to check for common method bias issues including,
Harman’s single factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Podsakoff et al., 2012) and a partial
correlation test (Lindell and Whitney, 2001). Using Harman’s single factor test, the first
factor in the exploratory factor analysis accounted for 32.7 per cent of the variance. This was
well below the typical 50 per cent recommended cutoff point. In Lindell and Whitney’s (2001)
partial correlation procedure our measures were correlated with a measure unrelated to the
topic of study (a three-item measure assessing liking for Apple products) and overlapping
variance between the marker and the predictor variables is partialled out. If common
method bias is not a problem, we would expect very low partial correlations. As shown in
Table I, our correlations ranged from 0.0004 to 0.003, illustrating that common method bias
does not appear to be a problem in our data.
6.4 Testing approach

To test the hypothesized relationships among the firms’ CRM support capabilities and
customer commitment, a Ridge regression was applied. As collinearity tends to inflate the
variances of the estimated regression coefficient, the least-squares solution of a traditional
multiple regression may produce unstable and biased estimates (Mason and Perreault,
1991). Ridge regression is widely used to relax the multi-collinearity assumptions of a
multiple regression by eliminating the correlation effects among independent variables
(Lembregts and Pandelaere, 2013). Using STATA 11.2, the hypothesized main effects,
mediating effects and moderating effects were tested. We undertake mediation tests by
running two regression equations. We implement the bootstrapping procedure
recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2004, 2008) with SAS 9.3 and STATA 12 to assess
the indirect effect estimates, and then draw on Zhao et al. (2010) to classify the type of
mediation. The marketing literature accepts that the bootstrapping method is a superior
alternative to estimating indirect effects through the repeated resampling schema (Homburg
et al., 2009) and the classification scheme of mediation in Zhao et al. (2010) is now widely
embraced. To understand the mediating role of customer commitment, we employ the
bootstrapped indirect effect test (5,000 draws) proposed by Zhao et al. (2010).
EJM
736
52,3/4
Table I.
constructs
deviation, and
Mean, standard
correlation between
Partial
Mean SD correlation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. MS 4.55 2.71 0.001 NA

2. PROF 4.56 1.30 0.0004 0.574*** NA
3. ROI 4.63 1.24 0.0003 0.592*** 0.830*** NA
4. COM 4.65 1.35 0.004 0.261*** 0.241*** 0.254*** 0.72
5. AS 4.47 6.03 0.001 0.101 0.147** 0.123** 0.012 0.68
6. ES 3.51 2.31 0.0001 0.093 0.103 0.099 0.012 0.643*** 0.62
7. MS 3.93 2.29 0.0001 0.033 0.058 0.036 0.022 0.612*** 0.655*** 0.60
8. DS 4.19 2.35 0.0002 0.085 0.139** 0.157*** 0.078 0.661*** 0.494*** 0.612*** 0.57
9. SS 4.38 1.17 0.0001 0.118 0.275*** 0.138** 0.044 0.583*** 0.494*** 0.559*** 0.605*** 0.64
10. OC 3.99 2.67 0.0001 0.075 0.065 0.016 0.047 0.013 0.027 0.004 0.004 0.038 NA
11. CT 4.59 1.87 0.0003 0.027 0.003 0.022 0.050 0.028 0.043 0.065 0.051 0.061 0.022 NA
12. MT 4.23 2.83 0.0000 0.071 0.058 0.083 0.113 0.013 0.026 0.055 0.030 0.051 0.030 0.048 0.63
13. TT 4.84 2.37 0.0001 0.045 0.073 0.027 0.102 0.109 0.140** 0.105 0.068 0.020 0.096 0.147** 0.005 0.65
Notes: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.05 (two-tailed); The numbers on the diagonal are the average variance extracted by each construct; 1 = market share, 2 =
profitability, 3 = ROI, 4 = commitment, 5 = analysis support, 6 = service support, 7 = marketing support, 8 = data support, 9 = sales support, 10 = offering
customization, 11 = customer types, 12 = market turbulence, 13 = technology turbulence, NA = AVEs are not applicable for single item measures
For estimating main effects and moderating effects including mediation, two separate Man vs
two-stage Ridge regression models are specified. These models test for main effects of the machine
relationship between CRM support capabilities and customer commitment and moderated
effects of micro- and macro-environmental contingencies. We checked normality, linearity
and homoscedasticity assumptions for regression analysis using scatterplot and diagnostic
tests, and all regression assumptions were satisfied. As well, a residual centering
transformation was used to calculate the interaction terms, which resulted in acceptable
variance inflation factors (VIF < 3.71; Mean VIF = 2.42). 737
7. Results
7.1 Main effects and mediating effects modeling
We used Ridge regression to examine the main effects of the extent of technology use in
CRM support capabilities on customer commitment (DV1). These results are provided in
Table II. H1 states that the extent of technology use in CRM support capabilities will be
positively associated with customer commitment. This direct relationship was observed for
three of the five support capabilities. The positive sign of marketing support indicates that a
more machine-based approach or a greater extent of technology use with this CRM
capability is positively associated with customer commitment ( b = 0.696, p < 0.001). In
contrast, the negative signs for service and analysis support indicate a lesser extent of
technology in these CRM capabilities has a greater influence on customer commitment ( b =
0.387, p < 0.001; b = 0.286, p < 0.001, respectively). Thus, H1 shows mixed results.
The direct relationship between customer commitment and firm performance comprised
H2. As seen in Table III, customer commitment is positively related with market share ( b =
0.331, p < 0.001), profitability ( b = 0.310, p < 0.001) and sales ( b = 0.396, p < 0.001).
Therefore, H2 is fully supported.
Turning to the mediating effect of customer commitment hypothesized in H3, Table IV
shows the analyses of the indirect effects. First, it should be noted that the direct relationship
from CRM support capabilities to the three firm performance measures do not show
significant results (see direct path coefficient column results in Table IV). Instead, our
results show that the influence of CRM support capabilities to firm capabilities is felt
through customer commitment in the majority of cases, as the confidence interval of the
indirect effect did not include zero, indicating indirect-only mediation (Zhao et al., 2010).
Thus, H3b is supported and H3a and H3c are partially supported. The results of the test of
H3a indicate that the relationship between the extent of technology use in CRM support
capabilities and market share is indirectly mediated by customer commitment for service
support [ b = 0.125, CI = (0.001, 0.250)], data analysis support [ b = 0.129, CI = (0.004, 0.257)]
and sales support [ b = 0.140, CI = (0.274, 0.006)].
The test of H3b, which places profitability as the dependent variable, also provided
support for the indirect mediating influence of customer commitment. This was true for all
of the support capabilities (MS: [ b = 0.187, CI = (0.338, 0.039)]; ES: [ b = 0.138, CI =
(0.009, 0.267)]; AS: [ b = 0.038, CI = (0.001, 0.076)]; DS: [ b = 0.156, CI = (0.307, 0.008)];
SS: [ b = 0.214, CI = (0.062, 0.367)]). The test of H3c likewise provided support for the
mediating effect of customer commitment, but with the return on investment performance
outcome variable. The lone exception among the CRM support capabilities in this analysis is
marketing support. The extent of technology use in service, data analysis, data integration
and access and sales support capabilities was indirectly mediated by customer commitment
in each of their relationships with return on investment (ES: [ b = 0.128, CI = (0.006, 0.249)];
AS: [ b = 0.038, CI = (0.009, 0.084)]; DS: [ b = 0.173, CI = (0.028, 0.318)]; SS: [ b = 0.159, CI =
(0.307, 0.010)]).
EJM Model 1 Model 2
52,3/4 Main effects Moderating effects
IVs – H1
Marketing support (MS) 0.696 (0.207)*** 0.208 (0.136)
Service support (ES) 0.387 (0.123)*** 0.098 (0.113)
Analysis support (AS) 0.286 (0.142)** 0.019 (119)
738 Data Integration and Access
Support (DS) 0.293 (0.263) 0.010 (128)
Sales Support (SS) 083 (0.055) 0.151 (0.111)
Moderators
Offering Customization (OC) 0.036 (0.043)
Customer Types (CT) 0.041 (0.028)
Market Turbulence (MT) –0.045 (1.03)

Technology Turbulence (TT) 0.028 (0.077)
Interactions
H4: MS OC 0.136 (0.082)*
H4: ES OC 0.126 (0.068)**
H4: AS OC 0.019 (0.070)
H4: DS OC 0.030 (0.059)
H4: SS OC 0.077 (0.063)
H5: MS CT 0.015 (0.061)
H5: ES CT 0.021 (0.050)
H5: AS CT 0.017 (0.051)
H5: DS CT 0.090 (0.052)*
H5: SS CT 0.112 (0.052)**
H6: MS MT 0.347 (0.167)**
H6: ES MT 0.064 (0.134)
H6: AS MT 0.189 (0.146)*
H6: DS MT 0.071 (0.132)
H6: SS MT 0.104 (0.077)
H7: MS TT 0.055 (0.171)
H7: ES TT 0.302 (0.171)*
H7: AS TT 0.150 (0.155)
Table II. H7: DS TT 0.241 (0.118)**
Estimated direct and H7: SS TT 0.397 (0.218)**
moderated Adjusted R2 0.216 0.295
relationships with Log-likelihood 441.838 399.994
customer Notes: Standardized estimates, standard errors in parentheses ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.05 (two-tailed); *p <
commitment 0.1
Market share Profitability Sales

Table III.
Customer commitment 0.331 (0.078)*** 0.310 (0.078)*** 0.396 (0.106)***
Estimated effects of Adjusted R2 0.064 0.057 0.085
customer Log-likelihood 440.404 440.662 445.820
commitment on
performance Notes: Estimates, standard errors in parentheses; ***p < 0.001
Confidence interval of
Direct path Indirect path indirect effects
Hypothesized indirect effects coefficient coefficient Lower CI Upper CI Type of mediation
H3a MS ! customer commitment ! market share 0.009 0.051 0.111 0.210 No mediation
H3a ES ! customer commitment ! market share 0.003 0.125* 0.001 0.250 Indirect-only mediation
H3a AS ! customer commitment ! market share 0.005 0.129* 0.004 0.257 Indirect-only mediation
H3a DS ! customer commitment ! market share 0.026 0.086 0.065 0.239 No mediation
H3a SS ! customer commitment ! market share 0.015 0.140* 0.274 0.006 Indirect-only mediation
H3b MS ! customer commitment ! profitability 0.004 0.187** 0.338 0.039 Indirect-only mediation
H3b ES ! customer commitment ! profitability 0.003 0.138* 0.009 0.267 Indirect-only mediation
H3b AS ! customer commitment ! profitability 0.072 0.038* 0.001 0.076 Indirect-only mediation
H3b DS ! customer commitment ! profitability 0.024 0.156** 0.307 0.008 Indirect-only mediation
H3b SS ! customer commitment ! profitability 0.013 0.214** 0.062 0.367 Indirect-only mediation
H3c MS ! customer commitment ! ROI 0.063 0.009 0.031 0.049 No mediation
H3c ES ! customer commitment ! ROI 0.050 0.128* 0.006 0.249 Indirect-only mediation
H3c AS ! customer commitment ! ROI 0.034 0.038* 0.009 0.084 Indirect-only mediation
H3c DS ! customer commitment ! ROI 0.024 0.173** 0.028 0.318 Indirect-only mediation
H3c SS ! customer commitment ! ROI 0.014 0.159** 0.307 0.010 Indirect-only mediation
Notes: CRM support types include marketing (MS); service (ES); data analysis (AS); data integration and access (DS); sales (SS); all path coefficients are reported
in standardized form; *p < 0.1; **p < 0.01; results are based on two-tailed t-tests; level for the confidence intervals are chosen by the significance level of the
indirect path coefficient
Table IV.
indirect effect
Bootstrapped
739
machine
Man vs
performance
estimates on firm
EJM 7.2 Moderating effects modeling
52,3/4 The hypothesized contingency model frames two micro-environmental variables and two
macro-environmental variables as moderators of the influence that technology use in CRM
support capabilities has on customer commitment. H4 examined one of these environmental
factors, specifically, a micro level contingency of the firm’s standardized vs customized
offerings. H4 tested whether a lower level of technology use in CRM support capabilities
740 offered a positive benefit to customer commitment over more technology use when a
company’s offerings are customizable. The influence of two CRM support capabilities on
customer commitment levels varied as a function of the customizability of the company’s
offerings; these significant effects are graphed in Figure 2 and appear in Table II.
As shown in Figure 2, there is marginal support for the theorizations put forth in H4 for
the CRM capability of marketing support (left graph), in that a human-based approach led to
higher levels of customer commitment than a greater extent of technology use when dealing
with high customization offerings ( b = 0.136, p < 0.10). Interestingly, a slightly different
pattern, yet significant interaction emerged between the capability of CRM service support
and customization on customer commitment ( b = 0.126, p < 0.05). As shown in Figure 2
(right graph), either a machine-based or a human-based approach to service support had an
equal impact on customer commitment when the offer was customized, however, when the
offer was standardized, commitment was enhanced through a higher level of technology use.
H5 related to the types of customers (business vs consumer) of the company. When a
company’s customers are individual consumers we expect lower levels of technology use in
CRM support capabilities to be more positively related with customer commitment than
higher levels of technology use. As shown in Table II, support for this hypothesis is found
for two of the extent of technology use in CRM support capabilities variables. An inspection
of graphs in Figure 3 (from left to right) shows support for the theorizations put forth in H5,
in that, a more human-based approach to data integration and access ( b = 0.090, p < 0.10)
and sales support ( b = 0.112, p < 0.05) led to higher levels of customer commitment than
did a greater extent of technology use, when the company’s customers were individual
consumers.
H6 and H7 outlined the moderating effects of macro-environmental factors. H6 noted
that when in a turbulent market, efficiencies of machine-based CRM support capabilities will
likely erode customer commitment in comparison to human-based CRM support capabilities
that are more fluid and agile. The results for the significant interactions are mixed as can be
seen Table II and in Figure 4. When it comes to the CRM capability of marketing support
(left graph), a greater extent of technology use yields higher levels of customer commitment
than a human-based approach which was not consistent with our theorization ( b = 0.347,
p < 0.05). The opposite was found for data analysis support. Consistent with the idea that in
turbulent markets a human-based CRM approach would lead to more customer
commitment, we found for data analysis support (right graph), a human-based approach in a
highly turbulent environment yielded marginally higher levels of customer commitment
than did a greater level of technology use ( b = 0.189, p < 0.10).
In H7 we hypothesized that in technologically turbulent environments, the relationship
between the extent of technology use in CRM support capabilities and customer
commitment would be negatively moderated, again due to machine inflexibility and lack of
agility. As shown in Figure 5 (top graphs, from left to right), we found support for this
theorization with the CRM capabilities of data integration and access ( b = 0.241, p < 0.05)
and sales support ( b = 0.397, p < 0.05). However, a greater extent of technology adoption
in CRM service support led to marginally more customer commitment in technologically
turbulent environments ( b = 0.302, p < 0.10).
Man vs
machine
741
Figure 2.
Moderating effects of
offering
customization on
customer
commitment
EJM
742
52,3/4
customer
Figure 3.
commitment
customer type on
Man vs
machine
743
Figure 4.
market turbulence on
customer
commitment
EJM
52,3/4
744
Figure 5.
technology
turbulence on
customer
commitment
8. Limitations, discussion and managerial implications Man vs
Before discussing our findings and managerial implications, a discussion of the limitations machine
seems warranted. First, approximately 60 per cent of the sample firms had less than 10
employees (Appendix 1); thus, our results are geared toward truly small businesses, aligning
with the positioning of this work. Second, our data set was derived from only a single
respondent per firm and objective performance data could not be obtained, thus raising
potential concerns over common method bias. However, several pre-planned steps were
taken to address this concern including the use of a marker variable which was unrelated to 745
our variables of interest. The low correlations of this marker variable to the planned data set
increased confidence that common method variance was not a major concern. We also
included attention filters within the instrument to ensure that respondents were actively
processing the questions – those failing these filters were removed from the data set. Despite
these limitations, our results provide insights into different approaches to using the five
CRM support capabilities we identified for small businesses, enriching our theoretical and
managerial knowledge in this area.
A summary of the findings is shown in Table V. This snapshot also provides an at-a-
glance view of the managerial implications of this research. For each CRM support
capability, there are circumstances under which customer commitment is not related with
utilizing technology. For example, data support and sales support capabilities are performed
effectively with or without CRM technology use, except when customers are B2C, or when
there is technological turbulence in the market. When either of these contingencies are
present, technology utilization should be avoided, as suggested by the minus signs in the
data support and sales support rows of Table V. On the other hand, using technology in
marketing support, service support and analysis support is either positively related with
customer commitment (marketing support) or is negatively related (service support and
analysis support). Each of these direct relationships is also moderated by the difference
contingency variables, in different ways (see also the figures referenced in each column). As
seen in the marketing support row of Table V, having customized offerings calls for less
technology utilization, whereas more MT can be best handled with more technology
utilization. The negative relationship between technology utilization in service support and
customer commitment does not hold constant in the presence of TT, with more technology
use needed, once again. Finally, the negative relationship between technology use in
Micro-environmental Macro-environmental
contingencies contingencies
Customized Market Technology
When not offering B2C customers turbulence turbulence
contingent (Figure 2) (Figure 3) (Figure 4) (Figure 5)
Marketing support (MS) †† – ††

Service support (ES) –– * ††
Analysis support (AS) –– –
Data support (DS) – ––
Sales support (SS) – –– Table V.
Notes: †† Technology utilization positively related with customer commitment (r > 0.20); – technology Managerial
utilization negatively related with customer commitment (r < 0.20); – – (r > 0.20); * although this was a implications of CRM
moderated relationship, there is no reasonable implication to be derived from the results (Figure 2) technology use
EJM analysis support and customer commitment is exacerbated in turbulent markets, calling for
52,3/4 less technology in this case.
8.1 CRM technology utilization in marketing support

The marketing support capability entails, among other things, market planning and
budgeting, assessing marketing campaign response, executing promotions and managing
746 customer communications (Jayachandran et al., 2005). As hypothesized, small businesses
that use technology to carry out these CRM activities also tend to foster more customer
commitment and resulting profit. One exception uncovered in the study is when the market
offering of the company is customized, more human touch is preferred. Another exception is
when MT is low, a balanced approach to CRM technology use might be preferred.
Otherwise, this research suggests that small business managers consider utilizing CRM
technologies that assist in planning, budgeting and managing customer communications.

This is especially true in markets where customer composition and preferences are dynamic.
These managerial implications are consistent with past findings on the virtues of automated
CRM (Reinartz et al., 2004), generally backed by the idea that profitable efficiencies can be
realized as repetitive marketing tasks are performed by machine rather than man-power
(Riggins, 2017).
8.2 CRM technology utilization in service support

The service support CRM capability includes service delivery scheduling and tracking,
providing solutions to service customers and service customization. Contrary to the
hypothesized relationship, technology utilization is not a boon to fostering customer
commitment for activities involving services support. Quite the opposite, the more service
support is achieved through human-based means, the more customer commitment is likely.
This finding is consistent with observations about service delivery made in practice.
Specifically, Fremery (2016, p. 1) noted that:
Anytime customers engage with a company, they’re hoping to have a genuine, personalized
experience that doesn’t feel “one size fits all” or worse, tone deaf to their specific interests and
preferences.
Having a primarily human-based approach to service CRM support capabilities fills this
customer need, and it relates positively with customer commitment as a result. In addition to
this explanation, we also consider the fluidity and agility of information transfer between
customers and employees (Camison and Villar-Lopez, 2011), which a programed, formulaic
information technology system would be hard-pressed to replicate. Managers should
carefully consider the purpose of their CRM technologies, and they should avoid technology
investments into areas involving services support.
The sole, but substantial exception to this is the relationship between using technology
less in CRM services support and customer commitment is when the small business is in a
technologically turbulent market. In such a market, the rapid rate of technological
advancement is likely a challenge to many small businesses. It appears that when trying to
keep with technology in the marketplace, for services specifically, a machine-based
approach to CRM is preferred. One possible alternative explanation for this finding is that
small businesses that have invested in and utilize CRM technologies in service support are
also those that are likely to succeed in a technologically turbulent environment, though this
does not hold true for the other CRM capabilities. So, the implication for managers who are
considering CRM technology investments in services support tools is they should proceed
with caution. Unless their company operates in a technologically turbulent market,
maintaining human-based CRM services support capabilities should be better for fostering Man vs
customer commitment, and related market share, profitability and return on investment. machine
8.3 CRM technology utilization in analysis support
Analysis support capabilities entail the assessment of channel performance, customer
lifetime value, customer retention rates and product profitability. Examining the direct
effect of CRM technology utilization in analysis support on customer commitment reveals
that investments in technology should not be the emphasis for this capability. However, the
747
volume and complexity of data in small businesses is dwarfed by the data collected in large
corporations. Given this understanding, we suspect that in large firms CRM technology
utilization in analysis support is positively related with customer commitment. We see in
this finding why assuming that CRM technology will solve all problems is a pitfall in CRM
(Rigby et al., 2002), specifically in small businesses. Simply, there are CRM support
capabilities that produce better outcomes when performed by employees rather than relying
heavily on information technology.
This direct effect on customer commitment is moderated by MT, suggesting that this
man-based emphasis on analysis support is only effective in turbulent markets, but that
companies in stable markets experience no rise in customer commitment from either more
man or machine-based analysis support. It is noteworthy that this interaction is moderately
significant and that analysis support does not interact with any of the other micro- or macro-
environmental characteristics. As with all of the non-findings in the contingency analysis, an
absent interaction suggests that managers should not emphasize man or machine, depending
on the environmental characteristic, but strike a careful balance between them (Chen and
Popovich, 2003). Although this article and analysis and discussion focuses on statistically
significant findings, the importance of the non-findings should not be overlooked.
8.4 CRM technology utilization in data support

Of all the CRM support capability constructs, data support places the most emphasis on
customer data. It refers to the means by which customer data is gathered, integrated and
accessed. For companies large enough to support complex information technology systems,
the expectation is that customer data could be gathered and integrated digitally. However,
for small businesses, data gathering and entry are often the responsibility of front-office
personnel. Despite this, a more balanced human-/machine-based approach to CRM
technology utilization in this CRM capability is more beneficial in our sample than either a
“high-touch” or “highly automated” approach with these CRM support capabilities.
This recommended balanced approach to CRM technology use in data capabilities
should be adjusted for the customer type and TT contingencies. When small businesses are
engaged in data support activities for B2C rather than B2B customers, surprisingly, a more
human-based approach is results in higher commitment. For large corporations B2C
customers are generally too numerous and not profitable enough to provide them with
human-based attention. However, for small businesses, it appears that a hands-on
experience may be expected by their individual customers, this being one of the benefits of
patronizing a smaller company. For small business managers, it appears that a careful
balance between having enough hands-on experience for customers and maintaining profit
margins should be sought.
The extent of CRM technology utilization in the data support capability is also
moderated by technological turbulence in its relationship with customer commitment. As
hypothesized, in technologically turbulent industries, human-based data access and
integration is positively related with customer commitment. Similar to the discussion above,
EJM customers expect a certain hands-on experience with small businesses. However, it may be
52,3/4 challenging for small businesses in turbulent markets to remain profitable while
maintaining human support. In highly technical industries, especially, companies tend to
look to automation to reduce costs. This research suggests that taking this too far in
customer data gathering, integration and access may be detrimental to the company.
748 8.5 CRM technology utilization in sales support

The level of customer commitment for small businesses is likewise not dependent on the
extent of CRM technology utilization in sales support capabilities. This capability involves
the provision of customer information to the sales force, including lead assignment, based on
the needs of the customers and fit to the salesperson. Sales force automation is a burgeoning
industry, with salesforce.com the market leader, followed by SAP, Oracle and others. This
market has expanded to $26.3B in 2015 (Columbus, 2016), suggesting that most modern
sales forces have information technology assistance at their fingertips. It follows, then, that
B2B customer commitment is maintained by both man and machine-based CRM sales
support. On the other hand, customer commitment for B2C customers who interface with
salespeople are better served with a more human-based approach to CRM. Again, this may
stem from consumers’ desire for personalized experience with the company (Fremery, 2016).
Technological turbulence likewise plays a role in man vs machine CRM sales support’s
relationship with customer commitment. As hypothesized, it seems that the rigidity of
information technology, or the fluidity of the human touch, lends human-based CRM sales
support to be positively related with customer commitment in technologically turbulent
markets. As with data support, small business managers are advised to not overlook the
importance of their employees in CRM in technologically turbulent markets.
8.6 Discussion overview

Taken together, the results of the main effects in this study illustrate that small businesses
need to assess each CRM support capability individually to determine the level of CRM
technology needed. These support capabilities are leveraged differently in machine and
human-based approaches, and thus, the potential competitive advantage of each CRM
support capability needs to be assessed via this man vs machine CRM continuum to
determine how each can best be leveraged. These results support a capabilities framework
(Day, 1994; Hooley et al., 1999; Vorhies and Morgan, 2003) by showing firms can leverage a
resource (i.e. particular CRM support capability) via either a man or machine approach to
CRM (or a balanced approach) to achieve competitive advantage (i.e. customer commitment).
Our results further show that no universal CRM strategy should be seen as the epitome
of what all small businesses should strive for. Instead, the use of CRM technology appears to
be context specific when trying to realize performance outcomes. Small businesses that have
primarily B2C customers and customized offerings obtain benefits in some areas from a
human-based approach, but not in all areas. In turbulent environments (market or
technological), both a machine and human-based approach could help, but again, it depends
on the CRM support capability in question. A key message for managers is that a human-
based approach can leverage CRM capabilities just as a machine-based approach can, but
that the environment might be a deciding factor about whether a man vs machine-based
approach is best for their company.
8.7 Theoretical implications

Our study makes several theoretical contributions. First, our results show that a
contingency approach to the examination of CRM technology utilization in support
capabilities is warranted as there is “no singular structure or strategy that is best for all Man vs
organizations” (Ahearne et al., 2012, p 122). Examining the interaction of both the CRM machine
support capability (e.g. service support, analysis support, data integration and access, etc.)
and the environmental contingency factor yields a better indication of whether a man vs
machine approach leads to better outcomes than one element in isolation.
Second, our results show that CRM support capabilities are not constructs that necessarily
move in the same direction when in the same environment. In other words, the CRM support 749
capabilities of marketing, service, sales, data integration and access and data analysis are not,
together, reflective of a single CRM support capabilities construct and should not be treated as
such when studying the effectiveness, outcomes or approaches of each.
Third, the extent of technology use in CRM support capabilities does not have a
direct influence on firm outcomes, but rather is mediated through customer
commitment. Thus, understanding the impact that CRM support capability technology
has on the customer is critical to understanding how it will impact firm performance
measures.
Fourth, our boundary conditions also add to our theoretical knowledge. We examined
both micro and macro environmental factors and found moderating effects for each across
different CRM support capabilities. Therefore, our results show that firm level factors such
as the standardization vs customization of the offering and the types of customers of the
firm (B2B vs B2C), as well as more macro level factors such as the degree of turbulence in
the environment (both market and technology) are important to consider when
understanding relational and performance outcomes of human vs machine approaches to
CRM capabilities.
Finally, our results extend our knowledge about the extent of technology use in CRM
support capabilities. Jayachandran et al. (2005) illustrated the antecedents and outcomes of
CRM capabilities, but did not study the human vs machine elements of these CRM strategies
(nor has this been examined in the CRM literature). Thus, our findings provide novel
insights into ways to implement CRM technology strategies within small businesses.
9. Conclusion
The goals of this research were to examine how different approaches to technology use
in CRM support capabilities influences commitment and firm performance for small
businesses. Using data from CRM managers across a range of industries, we identified
situations when man vs machine approaches yielded differential outcomes under micro
and macro environmental conditions and offered theoretical and managerial insights
from these findings. This study represents the first to identify human vs machine-based
approaches to CRM support capabilities and to link those to performance outcomes,
while also suggesting the value of focused future research and thinking in this
important area.
Notes
1. http://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/
2. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/structural-business-statistics/structural-business-statistics/sme?
p_p_id=NavTreeportletprod_WAR_NavTreeportletprod_INSTANCE_vxlB58HY09rg&p_p_lifecycle=
0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-2&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=4
3. www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf
EJM References
52,3/4 Achrol, R.S. (1991), “Evolution of the marketing organization: new forms for turbulent environments”,
The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 77-93.
Adjei, M.T., Griffith, D.A. and Noble, S.M. (2009), “When do relationships pay off for small retailers?
Exploring targets and contexts to understand the value of relationship marketing”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 493-501.
750 Ahearne, M. and Rapp, A. (2010), “The role of technology at the interface between salespeople and
consumers”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 111-120.
Ahearne, M., Rapp, A., Mariadoss, B.J. and Ganesan, S. (2012), “Challenges of CRM implementation in
business-to-business markets: a contingency perspective”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 117-130.
Armstrong, J. and Overton, T. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.

Avlonitis, G.J. and Panagopoulos, N.G. (2005), “Antecedents and consequences of CRM technology
acceptance in the sales force”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 355-368.
Bansal, H.S., Irving, P.G. and Taylor, S.F. (2004), “A three-component model of customer to service
providers”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 234-250.
Camison, C. and Villar-Lopez, A. (2011), “Non-technical innovation: organizational memory and
learning capabilities as antecedent factors with effects on sustained competitive advantage”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1294-1304.

Cater,
T. and Cater, B. (2010), “Product and relationship quality influence on customer commitment and loyalty
in B2B manufacturing relationships”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 1321-1333.
Chen, I.J. and Popovich, K. (2003), “Understanding customer relationship management (CRM)”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 672-688.
Columbus, L. (2016), “2015 Gartner CRM market share analysis shoes Salesforce in the lead, growing
faster than market”, available at: www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2016/05/28/2015-gartner-
crm-market-share-analysis-shows-salesforce-in-the-lead-growing-faster-than-market/#35d7787025ae
(accessed February 10, 2017).
Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990), “Relationship quality in services selling: an
interpersonal influence perspective”, The Journal of Marketing, pp. 68-81.
Dagger, T.S., David, M.E. and Ng, S. (2011), “Do relationship benefits and maintenance drive
commitment and loyalty?”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 273-281.
Daniela, T. (2015), “Antecedents of customer relationship management capabilities”, Annals of Faculty
of Economics, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1285-1294.
Day, G.S. (1994), “The capabilities of market-driven organizations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4,
pp. 37-52.
Dess, G.G. and Robinson, R.B. (1984), “Measuring organizational performance in the absence of
objective measures: the case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 265-273.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Iacobucci, D. (2001), “Investments in consumer
relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65,
pp. 33-50.
Dickie, J. (2006), “CSO insights’ sales performance optimization ‘06: Four essential facts about end-user
performance and buy-in”, CRM: Information Today Incorporated, Washington, DC.
Dimaggio, P. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: collective rationality and institutional
isomorphism in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 147-160.
Economics, C. (2012), “CRM adoption rate jumps”, available at: www.computereconomics.com/article.
cfm?id=1739 (accessed March 13, 2014).
Ernst, H., Hoyer, W.D., Krafft, M. and Krieger, K. (2011), “Customer relationship management and Man vs
company performance–the mediating role of new product performance”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 290-306.
machine
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 382-388.
Fremery, R. (2016), “Four ways businesses can improve customer engagement with a smart CRM
strategy”, available at: http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/insidecrm/4-ways-businesses-can-improve-
customer-engagement-with-a-smart-crm-strategy-71705 (accessed February 6, 2017). 751
Fuller, T. (1996), “Fulfilling IT needs in small businesses; a recursive learning model”, International
Small Business Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 25-44.
García Pérez De Lema, D. and Duréndez, A. (2007), “Managerial behaviour of small and medium-sized
family businesses: an empirical study”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 151-172.

Gartner (2015), “Gartner says worldwide customer relationship management software market grew
13.3 per cent”, available at: www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3056118 (accessed May 19, 2015).
Gilmore, J.H. and Pine, B.J. (1997), “The four faces of mass customization”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 75, pp. 91-101.
Gounaris, S.P. (2005), “Trust and commitment influences on customer retention: insights from business-
to-business services”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 126-140.
Greenberg, P. (2004), CRM at the Speed of Light: Essential Customer Strategies for the 21st Century,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Griffith, D.A., Noble, S.M. and Chen, Q. (2006), “The performance implications of
entrepreneurial proclivity: a dynamic capabilities approach”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 82
No. 1, pp. 51-62.
Harrison-Walker, L.J. (2001), “The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation
of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents”, Journal of Service
Hennig-Thurau, T. (2004), “Customer orientation of service employees: its impact on customer
satisfaction, commitment, and retention”, International Journal of Service Industry Management,
Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 460-478.
Hogg, S. (2011), “Why small companies have the innovation advantage”, available at: www.
entrepreneur.com/article/220558 (accessed November 5, 2017).
Homburg, C. and Pflesser, C. (2000), “A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organizational culture:
measurement issues and performance outcomes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 449-462.
Homburg, C., Jensen, O. and Krohmer, H. (2008), “Configurations of marketing and sales: a taxonomy”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 133-154.
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J. and Bornemann, T. (2009), “Implementing the marketing concept at the
employee-customer interface: the role of customer need knowledge”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 64-81.
Hong-Kit Yim, F., Anderson, R.E. and Swaminathan, S. (2004), “Customer relationship management: its
dimensions and effect on customer outcomes”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 263-278.
Hooley, G., Fahy, J., Cox, T., Beracs, J., Fonfara, K. and Snoj, B. (1999), “Marketing capabilities and firm
performance: a hierarchical model”, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 259-278.
Jarratt, D. (2004), “Conceptualizing a relationship management capability”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 4
No. 4, pp. 287-309.
EJM Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”, The Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 53-70.
52,3/4
Jayachandran, S., Sharma, S., Kaufman, P. and Raman, P. (2005), “The role of relational information
processes and technology use in customer relationship management”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 177-192.
Johnson, J.L., Sohi, R.S. and Grewal, R. (2004), “The role of relational knowledge stores in interfirm
752 partnering”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 21-36.
Kendrick, A. (2014), “C5 Insight reveals new study, reports top factors in CRM failure”, available at:
www.c5insight.com/Company/Newsroom/Detail/ArticleId/141/C5-Insight-Reveals-New-Study,-Reports-
Top-Factors-in-CRM-Failure (accessed November 18, 2014).
Keramati, A., Mehrabi, H. and Mojir, N. (2010), “A process-oriented perspective on customer
relationship management and organizational performance: an empirical investigation”,

Lacey, R. (2007), “Relationship drivers of customer commitment”, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 315-333.
Lembregts, C. and Pandelaere, M. (2013), “Are all units created equal? The effect of default units on
product evaluations”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1275-1289.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, p. 114.
Lindgreen, A., Palmer, R., Vanhamme, J. and Wouters, J. (2006), “A relationship-management
assessment tool: questioning, identifying, and prioritizing critical aspects of customer
relationships”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 57-71.
Little, R.J. and Rubin, D.B. (2014), Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY.
Lohtia, R., Bello, D.C., Yamada, T. and Gilliland, D.I. (2005), “The role of commitment in foreign–
Japanese relationships: mediating performance for foreign sellers in Japan”, Journal of Business
Mason, C.H. and Perreault, W.D. (1991), “Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression
analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 268-280.
Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.I. and Bitner, M.J. (2000), “Self-service technologies:
understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 50-64.
Moon, M.A. and Armstrong, G.M. (1994), “Selling teams: a conceptual framework and research
agenda”, The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 17-30.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande, R. (1992), “Relationships between providers and users of
market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, p. 314.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal
Murray, J.Y., Gao, G.Y. and Kotabe, M. (2011), “Market orientation and performance of export ventures:
the process through marketing capabilities and competitive advantages”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 252-269.
Nguyen, T.H., Newby, M. and Macaulay, M.J. (2015), “Information technology adoption in small
business: confirmation of a proposed framework”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 207-227.
Noble, S.M., Griffith, D.A. and Adjei, M.T. (2006), “Drivers of local merchant loyalty:
understanding the influence of gender and shopping motives”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 82
No. 3, pp. 177-188.
Olson, E.M., Slater, S.F. and Hult, G.T.M. (2005), “The performance implications of fit among business Man vs
strategy, marketing organization structure, and strategic behavior”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 49-65.
machine
Palmatier, R.W., Gopalakrishna, S. and Houston, M.B. (2006b), “Returns on business-to-business
relationship marketing investments: strategies for leveraging profits”, Marketing Science,
Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 477-493.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D. and Evans, K.R. (2006a), “Factors influencing the
effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, 753
pp. 136-153.
Parvatiyar, A. and Sheth, J.N. (2001), “Customer relationship management: emerging practice, process,
and discipline”, Journal of Economic and Social Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-34.
Payne, A. and Frow, P. (2005), “A strategic framework for customer relationship management”, Journal

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-569.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, p. 879.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 717-731.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Rapp, A., Trainor, K.J. and Agnihotri, R. (2010), “Performance implications of customer-linking
capabilities: examining the complementary role of customer orientation and CRM technology”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 11, pp. 1229-1236.
Reinartz, W., Krafft, M. and Hoyer, W.D. (2004), “The customer relationship management process: its
measurement and impact on performance”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 293-305.
Rigby, D.K., Reichheld, F.F. and Schefter, P. (2002), “Avoid the four perils of CRM”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 101-109.
Riggins, N. (2017), “What is CRM software and how can it help my business?”, available at: https://
smallbiztrends.com/2017/01/what-is-crm-software.html (accessed February 6, 2017).
Ritter, T. and Andersen, H. (2014), “A relationship strategy perspective on relationship portfolios:
linking customer profitability, commitment, and growth potential to relationship strategy”,
Ryssel, R., Ritter, T. and Georg Gemünden, H. (2004), “The impact of information technology
deployment on trust, commitment and value creation in business relationships”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 197-207.
Saini, A., Grewal, R. and Johnson, J.L. (2010), “Putting market-facing technology to work: organizational
drivers of CRM performance”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 365-383.
Schelmetic, T. (2006), “Building your customer relationships with good agents”, Customer Interaction
Solutions, Vol. 24 No. 8, p. 36.
Sethi, R. and Iqbal, Z. (2008), “Stage-gate controls, learning failure, and adverse effect on novel new
products”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 118-134.
Shin, I. (2006), “Adoption of enterprise application software and firm performance”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 241-256.
EJM Sims, D. (2007), “CRM adoption ‘biggest problem’ in 83 per cent of cases”, available at: http://blog.
tmcnet.com/telecom-crm/2007/11/30/crm-adoption-biggest-problem-in-83-percent-of-cases-wigan-
52,3/4 gets-crm-tre.asp (accessed September 9, 2013).
Speier, C. and Venkatesh, V. (2002), “The hidden minefields in the adoption of sales force automation
technologies”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 98-111.
Spelman, M. (2016), “Small business: How less is more”, available at: www.business2community.com/
small-business/small-business-less-01535944#uRYVeOPYxr5d26le.97 (accessed February 5,
754 2017).
Stefanou, C.J., Sarmaniotis, C. and Stafyla, A. (2003), “CRM and customer-centric knowledge
management: an empirical research”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5,
pp. 617-634.
Syam, N.B. and Kumar, N. (2006), “On customized goods, standard goods, and competition”, Marketing
Science, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 525-537.

Taylor, C.R., Kim, K.H., Ko, E., Park, M.H., Kim, D.R. and Moon, H.I. (2008), “Does having a market
orientation lead to higher levels of relationship commitment and business performance?
Evidence from the Korean robotics industry”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 37 No. 7,
pp. 825-832.
Trainor, K.J., Andzulis, J., Rapp, A. and Agnihotri, R. (2014), “Social media technology usage and
customer relationship performance: a capabilities-based examination of social CRM”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1201-1208.
Tsai, K.H. and Yang, S.Y. (2013), “Firm innovativeness and business performance: the joint moderating
effects of market turbulence and competition”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 8,
pp. 1279-1294.
Tzempelikos, N. and Gounaris, S. (2015), “Linking key account management practices to performance
outcomes”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 45, pp. 22-34.
Van De Ven, A.H. and Drazin, R. (1984), “The concept of fit in contingency theory”, discussion paper
#19. Strategic Management Research Center, University of Minnesota.
Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujam, V. (1986), “Measurement of business performance in strategy research:
a comparison of approaches”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 801-814.
Vorhies, D.W. (1998), “An investigation of the factors leading to the development of marketing capabilities
and organizational effectiveness”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 3-23.
Vorhies, D.W. and Morgan, N.A. (2003), “A configuration theory assessment of marketing organization
fit with business strategy and its relationship with marketing performance”, Journal of
Vorhies, D.W., Orr, L.M. and Bush, V.D. (2011), “Improving customer-focused marketing capabilities
and firm financial performance via marketing exploration and exploitation”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 736-756.
Waller, M.A., Dabholkar, P.A. and Gentry, J.J. (2000), “Postponement, product customization, and
market-oriented supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 2, p. 133.
Wang, G., Dou, W., Zhu, W. and Zhou, N. (2015), “The effects of firm capabilities on external
collaboration and performance: the moderating role of market turbulence”, Journal of Business
Wang, Y. and Feng, H. (2012), “Customer relationship management capabilities: measurement,
antecedents and consequences”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 115-129.
Weitz, B.A. (1981), “Effectiveness in sales interactions: a contingency framework”, Journal of
Zablah, A.R., Bellenger, D.N. and Johnston, W.J. (2004), “An evaluation of divergent perspectives on
customer relationship management: towards a common understanding of an emerging
phenomenon”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 475-489.
Zeithaml, V.A., Rajan Varadarajan, P. and Zeithaml, C.P. (1988), “The contingency approach: its Man vs
foundations and relevance to theory building and research in marketing”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 37-64. machine
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G. and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about
mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 197-206.
Corresponding author
Adam Powell can be contacted at: wapowell@ship.edu 755
Appendix 1. Sample composition

Variable Category Frequency (%) Mean Median
Gender Male 152 55.1

Female 124 44.9
Industry Service 100 36.2
Manufacturing/logistics 28 10.2
Marketing/sales 24 8.7
Media/entertainment 15 5.4
Real Estate/construction 28 10.2
Retail/wholesale 24 8.7
Social service 26 9.4
Technology 21 7.6
Others 10 3.6
Number of employees <5 130 47.4 40.53 5.00
5-9 46 16.7
10-49 57 20.2
50-100 18 6.5
101-500 25 9.2
Work experience with current company <5 years 62 22.5 13.26 12.00
5-10 years 71 25.7
11-20 years 85 30.8
>20 years 58 21.0
Work experience in position <5 years 63 22.8 11.82 10.00
5-10 years 65 23.5
11-20 years 85 30.9 Table A1.
>20 years 63 22.8 Composition of the
Total 276 100.0 sample
EJM Appendix 2. Scale items for construct measures
52,3/4
Construct Items (coefficient alpha/composite reliability)
CRM support capabilities Marketing support (0.910/0.895)

Reflective measure based on Jayachandran Marketing planning and budgeting is supported
756 et al. (2005) through. . ..
Seven-point differential Responses to marketing campaigns are assessed
(anchors: 1= “Primarily technology based through. . ..
means”. 2 = “Primarily technology based Routine activities such as providing promotional
means with limited human support”, 3 = literature are performed through. . ..
“Technology based means with human Marketing promotions are enabled through. . ..
support”, 4 = “An even balanced of human Customized offers are created through. . ..
and technology based means”, 5 = “Human Communications with customers are customized
based means with technology support”, 6 = through. . ..
“Primarily human based means with Service support (0.856/0.892)
limited technology support”, 7 = “Primarily Customer interactions with all functional areas of the
human based means” firm, customer support relies on. . ..
Solutions to commonly occurring problems are provided
to customers through. . ..
Service delivery tracking is primarily handled
through. . ..
Service delivery scheduling is primarily handled
through. . ..
Service scripts are customized to particular customer
needs through. . .
Analysis support (0.908/0.900)
Channel performance is assessed through. . ..
Customer preferences are forecasted through. . ..
Customer loyalty is measured through. . ..
Customer life time value is assessed through. . ..
Customer retention rates are assessed through. . ..
Product profitability is primarily assessed through. . .
Data integration and access support (0.863/0.853)
Customer transaction data are combined with externally
sourced data through. . ..
'Customer information from different contact points (e.g.
mail, telephone and Web) is integrated through. . ..
Relevant employees have access to unified customer data
through. . .
Sales support (0.928/0.911)
. . .. provide(s) sales force in the field with customer
information
. . .. provide(s) sales force in the field with competitor
information
. . .. assign(s) leads and prospects to appropriate sales
personal
. . .. provide(s) customized offers to sales people in the field
Table A2. . . .. provide(s) the sales force with leads for cross-sell/up-sell
opportunities
Scale item sources
and statistics (continued)
Man vs
Construct Items (coefficient alpha/composite reliability) machine
Customer commitment Customer commitment (0.854/0.874)
Reflective measure based on Crosby et al. Our customers would say that the relationship they have
(1990), De Wulf et al. (2001), Johnson et al. with our firm:
(2004), Moorman et al. (1992), Morgan and . . .. is something they are very committed to
Hunt (1994) . . .. is very important to them 757
Seven-point scale . . .. is of very little significance to them
(anchors: 1= “Strongly disagree” and 7 = . . .. is something they intent to maintain indefinitely
“Strongly agree” . . .. is very much like being family
. . .. is something they really care about
. . .. deserves their maximum effort to maintain
Relative outcomes Market share, profitability, return on investment

Measure adapted from Homburg et al. Relative to competing firms in your industry, how has
(2008b) and Homburg and Pflesser (2000) your firm performed in the past 12 months, in the
Seven-point scale following areas:
(anchors: 1= “Much worse than Market share
competitors”, 4= “about the same as Profitability
competitors”, and 7= “much better than Return on investments
competitors”
Offering customization Which of the following best describes your firm’s types
Seven-point scale of offering(s)?
(anchors: 1= “Primarily product offering”
and 7= “Primarily product offering”
Customer types Which of the following best describes the type of
Seven-point scale customer your firm serves?
(anchors: 1= “Primarily business customers
(B2B)” and 7= “Primarily consumers (B2C)”
Market turbulence Market turbulence (0.862/0.876)
Measure adapted from Sethi and Iqbal Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the
(2008) following statements:
Five-point scale (anchors: 1= “Strongly It is difficult to predict how customers’ needs and
disagree” and 7= “Strongly agree”) requirements will evolve in our markets
It is difficult to forecast competitive actions
Generally, it is difficult to understand how the market
will change
There is a great deal of uncertainty in our markets
Technology turbulence Technology turbulence (0.872/0.881)
Measure adapted from Sethi and Iqbal Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the
(2008) following statements:
Five-point scale (anchors: 1= “Strongly The technology in our industry is changing rapidly
disagree” and 7= “Strongly agree”) Technological changes provide big opportunities in our
industry
A large number of new product or service ideas have
been made possible through technological breakthroughs
in our industry
Technological developments in our industry are rather Table A2.
minor
View publication stats

Manvs MachinePowellNobleNobleHanEJM2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manvs MachinePowellNobleNobleHanEJM2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Man vs machine: Relational and performance outcomes of technology

Article in European Journal of Marketing · February 2018

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

capabilities", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 Issue: 3/4, pp.725-757, https://doi.org/10.1108/

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Accepted 9 November 2017

2. A contingency approach to level of technology in CRM capabilities

3. Extent of technology utilization in the CRM capabilities of small businesses

4. Outcomes of the extent of technology utilization in CRM support capabilities

intentions (Lacey, 2007). In this study, we frame commitment as an exogenous variable

performance. Therefore, in our model, we anticipate that customer commitment mediates

5. A contingency model of CRM support capabilities

5.1 Micro-environmental characteristics

5.2 Macro-environmental characteristics

6.3 Psychometric evaluations

6.4 Testing approach

1. MS 4.55 2.71 0.001 NA

Market Turbulence (MT) –0.045 (1.03)

Market share Profitability Sales

Marketing support (MS) †† – ††

8.1 CRM technology utilization in marketing support

technologies that assist in planning, budgeting and managing customer communications.

8.2 CRM technology utilization in service support

8.4 CRM technology utilization in data support

748 8.5 CRM technology utilization in sales support

8.6 Discussion overview

8.7 Theoretical implications

Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.

Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 151-172.

Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 1170-1185.

of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 167-176.

Science, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 525-537.

Appendix 1. Sample composition

Variable Category Frequency (%) Mean Median

Gender Male 152 55.1

CRM support capabilities Marketing support (0.910/0.895)

Relative outcomes Market share, proﬁtability, return on investment

View publication stats

You might also like