The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0265-2323.htm
IJBM
40,4
842
Received 6 October 2021
Revised 24 January 2022
15 March 2022
Accepted 15 March 2022
International Journal of Bank
Marketing
Vol. 40 No. 4, 2022
pp. 842-864
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-2323
DOI 10.1108/IJBM-10-2021-0459
Value co-creation or value co-
destruction: co-production and its
double-sided effect
Li-Wei Wu and Ellen Rouyer
Department of International Business, College of Management, Tunghai University,
Taichung, Taiwan, and
Chung-Yu Wang
Department of Business Administration,
National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Abstract
Purpose – Co-production is an important process that alters value creation and improves the relationships
between service providers and their customers. Such practice allows customers and service employees to
access and leverage resources residing in their relationships. Clearly, the marketing-related literature focuses
on the bright side of co-production. Nevertheless, the costs and potential negative consequences associated
with its dark side must be further investigated. Therefore, this study aims to present a conceptual framework
that explores the relationships among co-production, co-production enjoyment, co-production intensity, service
effort, and job stress, and their effects on value co-creation, value co-destruction and customer satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – This study was conducted on the basis of dyadic data; the process
incorporates both the customer and the corresponding service employee into a single unit of analysis. The
proposed model was tested by using a structural equation model that involves LISREL analyses.
Findings – The results of this study indicate that co-production influences co-production enjoyment, co-
production intensity, service effort, and job stress. Co-production enjoyment and service effort increase value
co-creation, whereas co-production intensity and job stress increase value co-destruction. Value co-creation and
value co-destruction have different effects on customer satisfaction.
Originality/value – This study addresses the gap in the extant research and contributes to a better
understanding of the double-sided effects of co-production by integrating employees and customers into a
single dyadic and comprehensive model.
Keywords Co-production, Co-production enjoyment, Co-production intensity, Service effort, Job stress, Value
co-creation, Value co-destruction, Customer satisfaction
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The emergence of service-dominant (S-D) logic provides a new perspective that is rapidly
gaining a respectable position in the marketing literature (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). As such,
this study examines the S-D logic of viewing customers as proactive co-creators of value
during service processes. Co-production represents a central construct in S-D logic such that
the customer plays an active role in the service process (Lusch et al., 2007). Particularly, co-
production reveals the potential of customers to strengthen customer relationships (Chan
et al., 2010; Witell et al., 2011). Traditionally, most literature on S-D logic has consistently
promoted the bright side of co-production. Research on the dark side of co-production is
lacking. Value formation is actually a complex process, and the final consequences may be
value co-creation or value co-destruction (Echeverri and Sk
alen, 2011; Ple, 2017). In particular,
value co-destruction has been recognized conceptually in previous literature (Ple and
Chumpitaz Caceres, 2010; Smith, 2013), but empirical evidence has remained relatively scarce.
Co-production increases the complexity of the service and, thus, ultimately increases the
probability of service failures (J€arvi et al., 2018). In this regard, this study extends the previous
research to provide new insights into the double-sided effects of co-production.
 For customers, co-production enables the exchange of feedback between customers and Co-production
service employees through active information sharing, which can facilitate enjoyment and and its double-
fun (Chen and Wang, 2016; Yim et al., 2012). By contrast, co-production might result in
negative outcomes to customers because their participation might increase perceived
sided effects
workloads. Hobfoll’s (2002) conservation of resources (COR) theory describes how
individuals experience and respond to loss of well-being due to stress and resource loss.
Therefore, COR theory provides an insight into the value co-destruction process experienced
by customers and service employees. In other words, a highly perceived co-production 843
intensity may negatively affect the customers’ evaluations because effort and time limit the
achievement of services (Haumann et al., 2015). Thus, this study aims to go beyond the bright
side of co-production by considering the bright and dark sides for customers together.
Heskett et al. (1994) propose a theoretical model, including the service-profit chain, which has
established a causal order in the links between employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction
and firm performance. This may be particularly the case in the banking service context,
where employees have direct and close interactions with their customers in the process of co-
production services. These service employees are willing to make discretionary efforts to
contribute and are eager to take extra care of their customers. These actions can enhance
perception of the value of the services as well as the satisfaction felt by customers. Thus, we
use dyadic data incorporating the customer and employee model into a comprehensive model.
For service employees, co-production can increase the technical quality of their offered
services. Service employees can customize their offers to achieve superior customer value
(Wu et al., 2020). On this bright-side effect, co-production at a dyadic interaction encounter is
an important platform that could influence the service efforts of employees (Yoon et al., 2004).
In other words, co-production establishes the mechanisms that encourage contact with
service employees to foster service efforts. In contrast, the dark side effect is job stress
resulting from a combination of demanding jobs and low control (Singh, 1998). Service
employees who face incompatible expectations and demands from co-production increase
their time and effort to satisfy customers, and thus, also increase their job stress (Hsieh et al.,
2004). In addition, a shift of power to customers through co-production implies the loss of
power and control by service employees, requiring adaptability and responsiveness to cope
with uncertainty and emotional strains (Mustak et al., 2013) that results in a higher level of job
stress (Hsieh and Yen, 2005). According to the COR theory, when perceived by job stress,
service employees usually dedicate more of their time, energy and attention to preserving
their overall resource position (Hobfoll, 2002). Loss cycles may then develop, involving
additional losses of resources. The loss of the system’s well-being continues as both parties
fail to meet demands. Such manifest conditions are directly related to value co-destruction
(Smith, 2013). This study also aims to reconcile these views by arguing that co-production
produces both the bright and dark side effects for service employees.
The ways co-production triggers consequential consequences, which then affect value co-
creation, and value co-destruction, are investigated herein as well. Value is co-created,
resulting in an improvement in system well-being (Smith, 2013). However, Echeverri and
Sk
alen (2011) argue that value can also be collaboratively co-destroyed during the interaction
process. If co-production increases the level of co-production enjoyment and service effort,
value co-creation will then be enhanced. On the other hand, if co-production causes a higher
level of co-production intensity and job stress, the impact will extend to value co-destruction.
This study goes beyond existing co-production research by simultaneously incorporating the
positive and negative consequences of co-production. According to S-D logic, the customer is
always a co-creator of value, which is postulated as being intrinsically interactional (Vargo
and Lusch, 2008). However, there is evidence that customers often experience negative
service encounters, thus suggesting a process of value co-destruction. Stokburger-Sauer et al.
(2016) indicate that higher levels of customers’ participation might lead to higher customer
IJBM value, up to a certain maximum. Beyond this maximum, contributing to the co-production
40,4 process is not seen as a pleasurable experience anymore. Thus, it is imperative to understand
how value might be co-destroyed in order to recognize, investigate and possibly resolve the
associated consequences (Ple and Chumpitaz Caceres, 2010). This study explores how co-
production between the customer and the service employee leads to value co-creation and
value co-destruction using dyadic insights from both the customer-oriented and employee-
centric perspectives. Among these, the customer factors include co-production enjoyment
844 and co-production intensity, and the service employee factors include service effort and job
stress. Consequently, this perspective offers an alternative lens to elaborate on existing value
models and complements the literature on S-D logic and the COR theory by demonstrating
that the uses and misuses of resources and process matches and mismatches during co-
production of service systems can be the sources of both co-creating and co-destroying value.
From a management viewpoint, this study is significant because it provides practical insights
into the co-productive relationship between customers and service employees, and especially
into the application of co-production initiatives. Understanding the influences that result in
value co-creation or value co-destruction will provide important insights for managers to
manage satisfaction along with their customers in the most valuable way.

2. Literature review
2.1 Conceptual framework
In general, the literature anticipates the direct, linear and positive effect of co-production on
customer satisfaction. Yet empirical studies often indicate that the relationship is complex.
Explanations for such discrepancies vary. Thus, the direct relationship does not always
capture the complexities of the co-production and customer satisfaction relationship (Wang
et al., 2021). The direct relationship between co-production and customer satisfaction may be
mediated by other constructs. In other words, these potential mediating variables must link
co-production to customer satisfaction. Thus, we have developed and tested a model for the
complex mechanisms of customer satisfaction that simultaneously examines the effects of
multiple determinants. First of all, co-production could provide psychological benefits and
incur costs to customers and service employees and the consequential outcomes of this
service process (Chan et al., 2010). Besides, value is a source for increasing customer
satisfaction in long-term relationships. That is, co-production drives value co-creation and
value co-destruction of customers through co-production enjoyment, service effort, co-
production intensity and job stress. To date, few studies have examined these multiple
positive and negative predictors within a single and simultaneous model. In addition, the
theoretical base of this framework is the S-D logic and the COR theory. S-D logic, which
emphasizes a further interactive nature of service (Vargo and Lusch, 2008) than goods-
dominant logic (G-D logic), has been discussed. While G-D logic considers services as an
output, S-D logic sees services as a progression of value co-creation; the former emphasizes
value exchange, whereas the latter relies on value-in-use (Gr€onroos and Voima, 2013). Value is
designed into goods and services in G-D logic but is always co-created in S-D logic. G-D logic
views the customer as the recipient of goods and value as determined by the producer (Vargo
and Lusch, 2004). S-D logic involves a profound and close co-production with customers such
that collaboration becomes resources that promote resource integration (Edvardsson et al.,
2011). S-D logic describes how customers are value co-creators and posits that their skills, as
well as norms and rules in the system, facilitate knowledge integration (Vargo and Lusch,
2004, 2008). S-D logic aims to co-create value through resource integration, providing
opportunities for the creation of new resources, thus improving system well-being. The COR
theory posits resource depletion and loss of well-being. Specifically, failure to meet
expectations will create discrepancies during the co-production process. The consequent
uncertainty is likely to cause stress and negatively impact system well-being (Moschis, 2007). Co-production
Based on insights from S-D logic and COR theory, this study develops a framework that has and its double-
four main features (see Figure 1). First, it examines the direct effects of co-production on co-
production intensity, co-production enjoyment, service effort and job stress (see H1, H2, H3
sided effects
and H4). Second, it investigates the direct effects of co-production enjoyment and service
effort on value co-creation (see H5 and H6). Third, it examines the direct effects of co-
production intensity and job stress on value co-destruction (see H7 and H8). Finally, it
investigates the direct effects of value co-creation and value co-destruction on customer 845
satisfaction (see H9 and H10).

2.2 Co-production
Co-production refers to the constructive participation in the creation and delivery process of
products and services and clarifies that it requires meaningful, cooperative contributions to
the process (Auh et al., 2007). Bendapudi and Leone (2003) consider co-production as joint
production, where customers and service employees interact and participate in the
production. Co-production expands the traditional roles that are played by customers in
their dyadic interactions with service providers by including them in the value-adding
process, which helps service providers increase their understanding of customers’ demands
(Wu et al., 2015). Given that financial services place greater emphasis on experience and
credence attributes, their customers are mostly interested in the processes rather than the
outcome (Karantinou and Hogg, 2009). Therefore, customers and service employees
collaborate to produce such outcomes and learn from each other (Jung and Yoo, 2019).
Customers serve as partial employees and invest a considerable amount of time and effort
into co-production; they also form higher expectations of service outcomes. In turn,
customers’ evaluation of the service outcomes depends significantly on their level of co-
production and, to a certain extent, on whether they perceive an equal distribution of
resources (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2016). Co-production can both require effort and be
enjoyable at the same time.

2.3 Co-production enjoyment

Co-production enjoyment refers to a customer’s level of positive affective experience as a
result of participating in service processes; it reflects generalized feelings of pleasure,

Co-production
Enjoyment H5
H1

Value H9
Co-production
Co-creation
Co-production Intensity
H2 H6
Customer
Satisfaction
Service
H3 Effort H7

Value
Co-destruction H10
H4 Job Stress
Figure 1.
H8 Conceptual framework
IJBM enjoyment and fun (Babin et al., 1994). Co-production enjoyment plays an important role in
40,4 flow development, which is crucial to customer experience (Franke et al., 2010). In addition, co-
production enjoyment represents intrinsic motivation, whereby customers engage in co-
production which is enjoyable or personally meaningful to them (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Such
intrinsic motivation leads to customers’ increased persistence and interest in the service
encounters (F€uller et al., 2012). If the co-production experience is enjoyable, customers should
seek to maintain their relationship with the service providers.
846 Rodie and Kleine (2000) suggest that customers’ participation in co-production results in
psychological benefits, such as enjoyment. Customers value the enjoyment of contributing to
the co-production process (Verleye, 2015). The rationale is that as the customers co-produce
more, they become more familiar with service offerings and gain a better understanding of
how co-production works, thus leading to more favorable affective reactions to the process
(Yim et al., 2012). In addition, co-production refers to engaging customers as active
participants in their tasks. Customers enjoy increased perceived control over the process of
service delivery (Cheung and To, 2011). Having control of service increases the pleasantness
and enjoyment of the service experience; as a result, fun and enjoyment can be derived from
customers’ participation in co-production (Chen and Wang, 2016). Thus, it is
hypothesized that:
H1. Co-production will have a positive effect on co-production enjoyment.

2.4 Co-production intensity

Haumann et al. (2015) define co-production intensity as the subjective perception of customers
on the extent of effort and time invested within a specific process of co-producing a product or
service. Nordin and Kowalkowski (2010) argue that co-production is a particularly complex
and demanding endeavor that poses challenges for both customers and service employees.
Customers prepare for and execute their co-production at different time points: before, during
and after the interaction (Gr€onroos and Voima, 2013). Therefore, effort and time play a part in
the emergence of co-production. Co-production intensity may negatively affect customers’
evaluation of a co-production because customers generally consider effort and time as cost
factors (Etgar, 2008). Customers advance to the position of unpaid substitutes, which raises
the issue of customer exploitation (Rieder and Voß, 2010). When customers do not have
sufficient time to fully adapt to new tasks, the pressure on customers to make decisions
increases (Frow et al., 2011).
Customers’ participation in co-production results in more contact points between
customers and service employees, thereby increasing service complexity and the
psychological workload (Haumann et al., 2015). Co-production involves customers in a
service process, which is too complex for them to understand (Kashif and Zarkada, 2015).
Customers may struggle to meet the demand for complex offerings with an emphasis on co-
production; accordingly, co-production can create its own risks, which reflect the
vulnerabilities of customers in failing to perform relevant tasks because they lack the
required skills (Etgar, 2008). In such cases, customers need more time and effort to adapt their
behavior to deal with the uncertainty associated with co-production intensity (Jiang et al.,
2019). Meanwhile, customers’ total inputs during the co-production process are much higher
due to the additional costs, such as information sharing and extra effort and knowledge
provision (Haumann et al., 2015), which further causes co-production intensity. Thus, it is
hypothesized that:
H2. Co-production will have a positive effect on co-production intensity.
2.5 Service effort Co-production
Service effort is the amount of energy that service employees invest in service behavior (Mohr and its double-
and Bitner, 1995). Service effort is also viewed as influencing service outcomes (McQuilken,
2010). Given that many services are produced and consumed during each service encounter,
sided effects
service employees have the opportunity to make efforts to satisfy customers’ demands at the
point of purchase. Generally, service employees are inclined to engage in customer-satisfying
behaviors because of their propensity for being cooperative in their dealings with customers
(Wu et al., 2020). Service employees with high levels of service effort exert more effort and 847
persistence to overcome task obstacles, which helps them achieve enhanced results and
further strengthen their service performance.
Mohr and Bitner (1995) find that customers’ participation in co-production is one of the
factors in determining service employees’ effort level. Within the context of co-production,
service employees can learn effective tactics with respect to how customers contribute
resources to the service creation process (Yi et al., 2011). If service employees perceive
friendliness, respect, courtesy and clear and attentive communication resulting from
customers’ participation, service employees’ efforts will be stimulated based on reciprocity
(Yoon et al., 2004). Active customer involvement in co-production can help service employees
understand customers’ preferences about the service script and offer customized services to
their customers (Chan et al., 2010). In other words, co-production leads to better employee
performance to meet customers’ demands. Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H3. Co-production will have a positive effect on service effort.
2.6 Job stress
Job stress refers to the situation in which a service employee’s characteristics interact with job
factors, thereby changing his or her psychological or physiological state that negatively
affects functioning (Beehr and Newman, 1978). Job stress emerges when service employees
feel they cannot properly understand and fulfill the task-related role expectations (Kim et al.,
2017). Job stress is generally comprised of three critical job stressors: role ambiguity, role
conflict and work overload (Firth et al., 2004). Role ambiguity refers to employees’ perceived
lack of information and uncertainty about how to effectively perform their roles. Role conflict
results from incompatibility regarding the requirements of their role, and work overload
occurs when cumulative role demands exceed an employee’s abilities and motivation to
perform tasks (Firth et al., 2004; Singh, 1998). As a result, service employees may fail to match
customers’ understanding and expectations in specific interactions (Ma et al., 2017).
The influences of co-production on employees’ responses can differ because they possess
different kinds of psychological mechanisms. In other words, co-production should not
necessarily lead to a more positive assessment of service employees; rather, co-production
could create employee job stress in three ways: loss of power and control, increased input
uncertainty and incompatible role expectations and demands (Chan et al., 2010). For example,
co-production might also diminish service employees’ control over customers’ ideas, in turn
increasing their need to invest various resources to coordinate with customers during the co-
production process, resulting in the generation of overabundant and complex information
that causes job stress (Wang et al., 2017). In addition, co-production can be a major source of
uncertainty for service employees acting as boundary spanners. Such uncertainty, which
includes diversity of demand, challenges service employees’ knowledge in performing tasks,
further raising task difficulty (Ma et al., 2017). Service employees attribute time and skill
inefficiency during service encounters directly to customers’ participation. In this situation,
service employees will experience substantial task variability and be forced to perform
additional tasks, thereby causing job stress (Hsieh et al., 2004). In addition, as a consequence
of co-production with customers, incompatibility of expectations often emerges, increasing
employees’ job stress (Coelho et al., 2011). Thus, it is hypothesized that:
IJBM H4. Co-production will have a positive effect on job stress.
40,4
2.7 Value co-creation
Value co-creation is considered a mode for increasing value for both customers and service
firms (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Service is a result of joint value creation between service firms
and customers, and value is determined by co-creation (Edvardsson et al., 2005). According to
848 S-D logic, service systems include firms, customers, service employees and all other parties in
a firm’s network (Lusch and Vargo, 2006). Each of these service systems contributes to the
creation of value for itself and others (Vargo and Lusch, 2008); thus, value co-creation leads to
the development of a system’s well-being.
The value co-creation literature has long argued that value does not reside in the object of
service itself but in the personalized experience (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Enjoyment is
positively and significantly related to customers’ attitudes and intentions because enjoyment
is an intrinsic motivation that may affect customers’ behavior (Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001).
That is, co-production enjoyment serves as a unique motivational source for customers that is
intrinsically rewarding while enhancing value co-creation. Enjoyment from developing
relationships through co-production is a source of value for customers (Flores and Vasquez-
Parraga, 2015). Co-production enjoyment seemingly creates an interest among customers in
co-creating values. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H5. Co-production enjoyment will have a positive effect on value co-creation.
Brown and Peterson (1994) argue that effort tends to increase people’s evaluation of objects,
outcomes and feelings they experience by means of their exertions. The perceived service
effort dedicated to the job enables service employees to fulfill intrinsic needs to be competent,
effective and self-determining, thereby contributing to their satisfaction (Wu et al., 2020).
High service effort employees understand that superior service is expected, desired and
rewarded; therefore, they tend to provide good service. As a result, employees perceive a
valuable contribution (He et al., 2011). Value co-creation may occur through the interactional
performative process between customers and service employees, which leads to an
improvement in customers’ well-being (Finsterwalder and Kuppelwieser, 2020). Service
effort practice from service employees shows the pursuit of immediate communication and
resolution. Customers highly value employees who make serious efforts to capture their
participation, and this effort is fundamental to enhancing value co-creation. Thus, it is
hypothesized that:
H6. Service effort will have a positive effect on value co-creation.

2.8 Value co-destruction

Ple and Chumpitaz Caceres (2010) define value co-destruction as an interactive process
between service systems that lower at least one of the systems’ well-being. Echeverri and
Sk
alen (2011) focus on the face-to-face relationships between service providers and
customers, arguing that value co-destruction is the collaborative destruction or reduction
in value caused by service providers and customers during the interaction process. The
service system provides the script to integrate the various operant and operand resources.
When these resources are misused by any one party, i.e. when either customers or service
employees do not play their role, the service interaction leads to value co-destruction, and one
or both parties eventually suffer because of the resulting imbalance between a firm’s value
and that of its customers (Ple and Chumpitaz Caceres, 2010); this process is very common
during service encounters in high contact services (Kashif and Zarkada, 2015). Luo et al.
(2019) find that positive interactions among customers help co-create value for service
quality, while negative interactions can reduce customers’ perception of service quality and Co-production
cause value co-destruction (Hollebeek and Chen, 2014). and its double-
In the co-production process, customers invest significant effort and take over activities
that are otherwise performed by service employees; increasing co-production intensity adds
sided effects
to the total input of customers into the co-production process; such increasing effort and time
investments impair the favorability of their output/input ratio (Haumann et al., 2015). Ple and
Chumpitaz Caceres (2010) suggest that inequity can occur between service employees and
customers. Generally, the high customer inputs in terms of co-production should be matched 849
by superior service outputs (Heidenreich et al., 2015). However, if customers’ high inputs are
only met with poor service outputs, value co-destruction may increase; thus, high levels of co-
production intensity diminish the perceived equity of customers concerning the exchange
and generate negative outcomes (Haumann et al., 2015), i.e. due to inappropriate or
unexpected behavior, resources are intentionally misused, which leads to discrepancies
between the desired and actual situations, and eventually, to value co-destruction (Ple and
Chumpitaz Caceres, 2010). Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H7. Co-production intensity will have a negative effect on value co-destruction.
Various studies have been conducted on job stress resulting in subsequent outcomes,
especially in terms of its dysfunctional aspects (Hui et al., 2004). Job stress causes burnout and
hampers job performance (Rupp et al., 2008). In general, employees’ ability to properly control
and manage their physiological and psychological stress in job performance may lead to
higher employee performance (Stacciarini and Troccoli, 2004). However, if employees cannot
control job stress, their job attitudes and behavior in the workplace may be negatively
affected (Seaward, 2005). The resulting conditions can lead to unease and nervousness as well
as job stress which negatively affect well-being (Moschis et al., 2011). Value co-destruction is a
consequence of customers and service employees drawing on incongruent elements of
practices and behaviors (Laud et al., 2019). If job stress results in unsuitable or incongruent
responses from service employees, value is co-destroyed as the service employees fail to
provide or enhance the desired outcome through the interaction provided (Ple, 2016). Thus, it
is hypothesized that:
H8. Job stress will have a positive effect on value co-destruction.

2.9 Customer satisfaction

Customer satisfaction refers to an emotional state resulting from the customer’s interactions
with a service provider (Crosby et al., 1990). Oliver (1980) defines satisfaction as a function of
the cognitive comparison of expectations prior to the actual consumption experience, often
referred to as the disconfirmation paradigm, whereby customers make a post-purchase
comparison between pre-purchase expectations and actual performance received (Oliver,
1980). Positive disconfirmation results in satisfaction, whereas negative disconfirmation
results in dissatisfaction.
Prebensen and Xie (2017) identify the importance of co-creation as a crucial variable that
influences customer satisfaction. As the level of value co-creation increases, customers
become more satisfied with the outcomes (Chen and Wang, 2016; Vega-Vazquez et al., 2013;
Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer, 2012). For example, each interaction between service
employees and customers represents an opportunity to co-create relational values for both
parties (Fleming et al., 2005). Such interpersonal relationships add value to and enhance
customer satisfaction (Chan et al., 2010; Payne et al., 2008; Revilla-Camacho et al., 2015). In
addition, customers have the opportunity to experience high levels of control and
customization; this enhanced feeling of self-fulfillment by value co-creation increases
IJBM customer satisfaction (Bendapudi and Leone, 2003; Flores and Vasquez–Parraga, 2015;
40,4 Roggeveen et al., 2012). Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H9. Value co-creation will have a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
Due to the failure of the interaction process, value co-destruction leads to a decline in well-
being, which results in frustration or lost resources, such as intangible or tangible losses
(Mele, 2011; Prior and Marcos-Cuevas, 2016; Smith, 2013). Meanwhile, value co-destruction is
850 in line with service performance that falls below a customer’s expectations (Hess et al., 2007).
Thus, value co-destruction has been described as a service failure (J€arvi et al., 2018), which can
increase customer dissatisfaction (Cheung and To, 2011; Tsiros and Mittal, 2000). Thus, value
co-destruction negativity can occur, resulting in customers’ loss of a satisfying relationship
with a service provider due to negative thoughts, feelings and attitudes (Park et al., 2013).
Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H10. Value co-destruction will have a negative effect on customer satisfaction.

3. Methodology
3.1 Data collection and sampling
The proposed model is deemed appropriate in the context of banking services, where
customers and financial advisors frequently interact with each other, and customers are
willing to engage in co-production. Indeed, banking services are highly complex and
intangible. Customers frequently lack the technical knowledge and experience to evaluate
financial performance confidently. As such, the context of banking services draws customers
closer to co-production with financial advisors (Eisingerich and Bell, 2006).
To test these hypotheses, dyadic data incorporating both service employees and their
corresponding customers was developed. A dyadic data set consisting of the paired
employee–customer response was used to examine the proposed relationships. Data
collection was conducted via two surveys that were designed to match particular customers
with particular service employees. The final sample only included responses that could be
matched into relationships, and each relationship dyad included one customer and one
employee. In this study, 600 self-reported surveys were distributed to customers and financial
consultants working in wealth and investment management in the three largest cities in
Taiwan. All surveys were collected within three months in the summer of 2021. A total of 324
questionnaires of pairs were returned to the author, of which 12 were discarded because of
incomplete responses. Therefore, 312 questionnaires of pairs were analyzed in this study.
The respondents’ demographic characteristics are as follows: gender (male, 52%; female,
48%), age (less than or equal to 30 years of age, 18%; 31–40 years of age, 39%; 41–50 years of
age, 31%; more than or equal to 51 years of age, 12%), annual income (less than or equal to
USD20,000, 6%; USD20,001–USD40,000, 36%; USD40,001–USD60,000, 38%; more than or
equal to USD60,001, 20%) and relationship length (1–5 years, 23%; 6–10 years, 39%; more
than or equal to 11 years, 38%).

3.2 Measure development

All the measures used in this study were adapted from existing scales. Co-production, co-
production enjoyment, co-production intensity, service effort, job stress, value co-creation,
value co-destruction and customer satisfaction used a five-point Likert-type scale, with the
descriptive equivalents ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The measure
of co-production included four items taken from Auh et al. (2007) and Chan et al. (2010).
The measure of co-production enjoyment included four items taken from Yim et al. (2012). The
measure of co-production intensity included four items adopted from Haumann et al. (2015). Co-production
The five items used to measure service effort were adjusted from Yoon et al. (2004). The and its double-
measures of job stress included three items taken from Yim et al. (2012). The four items used
to measure value co-creation were adopted from Walter et al. (2001). The five items used to
sided effects
measure value co-destruction were adjusted from Guan et al. (2020). The measure of customer
satisfaction included five items taken from Verhoef et al. (2001).
851
3.3 Validation of measures
Consistent with the two-step approach advocated by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), this
study first developed the measurement model by conducting confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). The structural equation modeling (SEM) was then estimated for hypotheses testing.
The fit of the CFA model was acceptable (chi-square (467) 5 1115.95, p 5 0.00; GFI 5 0.86;
CFI 5 0.97; PNFI 5 0.88; NNFI 5 0.97; RMSEA 5 0.07; RMR 5 0.07). The Cronbach’s alphas
of all constructs were all greater than 0.85, supporting the reliability of the measurement. In
addition, all composite reliabilities were greater than 0.80, and all average variance extracted
(AVE) estimates were greater than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As evidence of
convergent validity, all of the items had significant loadings on their respective constructs
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Discriminant validity was tested between all constructs
according to Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) recommendations and confirmed for all pairs of
constructs. Specifically, the AVE estimate for each construct was greater than the squared
correlation of all construct pairs.
Due to the self-reported nature of the data, there was a potential for common method
variance, so the Harman one-factor test was conducted to determine the extent of this. The
unrotated factor analysis showed that the first factor accounted for only 25.9% of the
variance, and thus the common method bias was not a serious threat in the study (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and correlations matrix for the constructs.
Table A1 provides an overview of the item descriptions, factor loadings, AVE and
reliability tests.

4. Results
4.1 Structural equation modeling
The hypothesized relationships in the model were tested simultaneously through SEM. The
standardized path coefficients of the structural model as estimated by LISREL 8.52 are given
in Table 1. The fit of the model was acceptable (chi-square (485) 5 1327.58, p 5 0.00;

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Co-production 3.03 0.86 1

2. Co-production 3.10 0.95 0.35* 1
enjoyment
3. Co-production 2.95 0.82 0.14*
0.08 1
intensity
4. Service effort 3.06 0.96 0.18* 0.34*
0.12* 1
5. Job stress 3.01 0.83 0.35* 0.20*
0.02
0.04 1
6. Value co-creation 3.02 0.92 0.10 0.38*
0.16* 0.38*
0.21* 1
7. Value 3.00 0.76 0.07
0.10 0.34*
0.15* 0.39*
0.11 1
co-destruction
8. Customer 3.07 0.86 0.23* 0.35*
0.25* 0.35*
0.06 0.49*
0.14* 1 Table 1.
satisfaction Descriptive statistics
Note(s): *p < 0.05 and correlations
IJBM GFI 5 0.84; CFI 5 0.95; PNFI 5 0.86; NNFI 5 0.96; RMSEA 5 0.07; RMR 5 0.07). The
40,4 squared multiple correlations (SMCs) for endogenous variables reveal the following: co-
production enjoyment 5 0.230; co-production intensity 5 0.130; service effort 5 0.140; job
stress 5 0.239; value co-creation 5 0.268; value co-destruction 5 0.292; customer
satisfaction 5 0.389.

852 4.2 Hypotheses testing

As can be seen in Table 2, all 10 hypotheses are supported. Firstly, the effect of co-production
on co-production enjoyment is found to be significantly positive (γ 5 0.487, p < 0.05), so
hypothesis 1 (co-production will have a positive effect on co-production enjoyment) is
supported. Secondly, the impact of co-production on co-production intensity is also
significantly positive (γ 5 0.196, p < 0.05), therefore hypothesis 2 (co-production will have a
positive effect on co-production intensity) is similarly supported. Thirdly, co-production is
found to have a significantly positive effect on service effort (γ 5 0.215, p < 0.05), thus
reinforcing hypothesis 3 (co-production will have a positive effect on service effort).
Hypothesis 4 (co-production will have a positive effect on job stress) is further supported as
results show that co-production has a significantly positive impact (γ 5 0.384, p < 0.05) on job
stress.
In addition, hypothesis 5 (co-production enjoyment will have a positive effect on value co-
creation) holds up as the effect of co-production enjoyment on value co-creation is
significantly positive (β 5 0.322, p < 0.05). Furthermore, service effort has a significantly
positive impact (β 5 0.248, p < 0.05) on value co-creation, therefore lending support to
hypothesis 6 (service effort will have a positive effect on value co-creation). Hypothesis 7 (co-
production intensity will have a positive effect on value co-destruction) is supported as well since
the effect of co-production intensity on value co-destruction is significantly positive
(β 5 0.178, p < 0.05). Additionally, job stress significantly and positively (β 5 0.261, p < 0.05)
impacts value co-destruction, confirming the validity of hypothesis 8 (job stress will have a
positive effect on value co-destruction).
What’s more, value co-creation is found to have a significantly positive influence
(β 5 0.456, p < 0.05) on customer satisfaction, thus giving credence to hypothesis 9 (value co-
creation will have a positive effect on customer satisfaction). Finally, the effect of value co-
destruction on customer satisfaction is significantly negative (β 5
0.344, p < 0.05), thereby
confirming the validity of hypothesis 10 (value co-destruction will have a negative effect on
customer satisfaction).

Proposed path H Coefficient t value

Co-production → Co-production enjoyment H1 0.487* 6.018

Co-production → Co-production intensity H2 0.196* 2.814
Co-production → Service effort H3 0.215* 3.085
Co-production → Job stress H4 0.384* 6.002
Co-production enjoyment → Value co-creation H5 0.322* 5.916
Service effort → Value co-creation H6 0.248* 4.012
Co-production intensity → Value co-destruction H7 0.178* 5.466
Job stress → Value co-destruction H8 0.261* 6.694
Value co-creation → Customer satisfaction H9 0.456* 9.414
Table 2. Value co-destruction → Customer satisfaction H10
0.344*
3.408
LISREL results Note(s): *p < 0.05
4.3 Supplementary analysis Co-production
As suggested by Morgan and Hunt (1994), when using the structural equation method, it is and its double-
common practice to make comparisons between the hypothesized model and rival models to
clearly determine which model best fits the data. In order to test for mediation, we tested a
sided effects
rival model to our hypothesized model. Given the mediating roles of co-production enjoyment,
co-production intensity, service effort, job stress, value co-creation and value co-destruction
in our hypothesized model, we decided to choose a non-mediated model as the conceptual
alternative (see Table 3). In this model, co-production, co-production enjoyment, co- 853
production intensity, service effort, job stress, value co-creation and value co-destruction
were all positioned as exogenous variables, assumed to have direct impacts on the customer
satisfaction of endogenous variables. The models were compared in terms of CFI, percentage
of the models’ hypothesized parameters that are statistically significant, amount of variance
explained by the outcome variables and parsimony normed fit index (PNFI) (Morgan and
Hunt, 1994).
Firstly, the CFI of the rival model (0.94) was lower than that of the hypothesized model
(0.95). The results show that all the proposed paths were significant in the hypothesized
model (100%), whereas only the four of the paths in the rival model were significant (57%).
Furthermore, the ability of the models to explain variance in the outcomes was measured by
SMC. In this study, the SMCs of customer satisfaction were explained in both the
hypothesized model (0.389) and in the rival model (0.376). The SMC of customer satisfaction in
the rival model was lower than that of the hypothesized model. Finally, the PNFI of the rival
model (0.81) was lower than that of the hypothesized model (0.86). The comparisons of the
hypothesized model with a rival one may serve to strengthen the support we found for the
meaningfulness and robustness of our hypothesized model. In addition, the results support
our claim that mediating effects of co-production enjoyment, co-production intensity, service
effort, job stress, value co-creation and value co-destruction between co-production and
customer satisfaction exist.
Taken collectively, this model reveals that co-production would have indirect
effects on customer satisfaction through two mediating variables. For example, the
indirect effect is from co-production to co-production enjoyment, co-production
enjoyment to value co-creation and value co-creation to customer satisfaction. By
analogy, the indirect effect of co-production on customer satisfaction can be calculated
as 0.487 3 0.322 3 0.456 5 0.07. Meanwhile, the indirect effect of co-production
through co-production intensity and value co-destruction on customer satisfaction can
also be calculated as 0.196 3 0.178 3
0.344 5
0.01. The indirect effect of
co-production through service effort and value co-creation on customer satisfaction
can be calculated as 0.215 3 0.248 3 0.456 5 0.02. The indirect effect of co-production
through job stress and value co-destruction on customer satisfaction can also be
calculated as 0.384 3 0.261 3
0.344 5
0.03. The total indirect effects of the effect

Proposed path Coefficient t value

Co-production → Customer satisfaction 0.278* 3.788

Co-production enjoyment → Customer satisfaction 0.127* 2.400
Service effort → Customer satisfaction 0.078 1.425
Co-production intensity → Customer satisfaction
0.209*
3.491
Job stress → Customer satisfaction
0.161
1.942
Value co-creation → Customer satisfaction 0.331* 6.569
Value co-destruction → Customer satisfaction
0.118
0.942 Table 3.
Note(s): *p < 0.05 Rival model
IJBM of co-production via value co-creation on customer satisfaction can consequently be
40,4 determined as 0.07 þ 0.02 5 0.09. The total indirect effects of the effect of
co-production via value co-destruction on customer satisfaction can consequently be
determined as
0.01 þ
0.03 5
0.04.

5. Discussion
854 5.1 Conclusions
Much service research has emphasized the importance of service employees as boundary
spanners who interact with customers through service encounters. By far, the current
literature lacks a comprehensive satisfactory underlying theory and research that elucidate
how customers and service employees gain benefits on the one hand and pay the costs for
adopting the co-production approach on the other hand. Cova et al. (2011) suggest that the
value formation process that happens between the firm and consumers can also be
destructive, which means that value is both co-created and co-destroyed in service
interactions. Dyadic data are appropriate for the investigation of co-production because the
dyadic approach emphasizes the importance of the relationship between customers and
service employees. This study seeks to derive new insights into the double-sided effects of co-
production. Furthermore, this study simultaneously highlights and examines three
arguments: (1) Customer satisfaction is enhanced through value co-creation and is reduced
through value co-destruction. (2) Value co-creation is enhanced through co-production
enjoyment and service effort, while value co-destruction is enhanced through co-production
intensity and job stress. (3) Co-production enjoyment, co-production intensity, service effort
and job stress are promoted via co-production. All 10 hypotheses relating to these constructs
are significant and go in the hypothesized direction.
For customers, it is logical for co-production to be both enjoyable and effortful. Actually, it all
depends on how a consumer perceives the co-production experience under a specific service
context (Wang et al., 2019); some may see co-production as enjoyable, whereas others may view it
as meaningless and effortful. In line with Yim et al. (2012), co-production by both customers and
service employees in service delivery results in co-production enjoyment. In such conditions,
customers perceive co-production as necessary, important and reasonable for achieving a
desired value outcome; customers will also perceive their roles in co-production with a greater
sense of enjoyment. However, when customers co-produce with service employees, customers
will experience substantial task variability and be forced to perform additional tasks, which
increase their level of co-production intensity (Haumann et al., 2015). For service employees,
consistent with Hsieh et al. (2004), service employees may exert considerable effort on the core
service tasks as they tend to recognize their responsibility to serve in customers’ participation
and involvement in the co-production. However, co-production requires employees to handle
challenging cognitive and physical responsibilities (Shani et al., 2014), causing them such stress
that not only their job performance, but also their health are badly affected (Harris and Daunt,
2013). The findings support our previous literature that service employees attempt to fulfill
customers’ participation, which raises their level of job stress (Chan et al., 2010; Coelho et al., 2011).
In line with Flores and Vasquez-Parraga (2015), the above findings support the positive
effect of co-production enjoyment on customer value co-creation. The practice of co-
production is associated with the achievement of enjoyment, developed through successful
service interactions, which result in desired values for customers (Smith and Colgate, 2007).
However, when customers are frequent participants who offer knowledge in the service-
creation process, a high amount of work can be shifted to customers. Once co-production
intensity occurs, high workload customers do not successfully and adequately achieve the
goal of co-production. As such, co-production intensity leads to value co-destruction. This
study also finds that service employees with high service effort have a direct positive effect on
value co-creation, which is consistent with He et al. (2011) that demonstrate that service effort Co-production
greatly influences value co-creation. When service effort is perceived, customers continue to and its double-
have positive feelings. Such positive feelings have a beneficial impact on well-being, resulting
in value co-creation. In contrast, customers sometimes take advantage of co-production by
sided effects
making unreasonable demands during their participation, ultimately leading to a loss of
resources since the poor customer service of employees with high job stress is the main factor
of value co-destruction (Sthapit and Jimenez Barreto, 2019). In other words, job stress is
associated with value co-destruction because it causes burnout that will elicit negative 855
responses in service employees (Rupp et al., 2008).
In summary, co-production, on the one hand, offers a number of great benefits to
customers and service employees, but, on the other hand, requires customers and service
employees to invest a considerable amount of effort and time with an inherently huge
frustration potential. To address this co-production paradox of benefits and costs, the aim of
this study is to analyze the mediating mechanisms between co-production and customer
satisfaction. Co-production by both customers and service employees in service delivery via
co-production enjoyment and service effort result in value co-creation. In such conditions,
customers perceive co-production as necessary, important and reasonable for achieving a
desired value outcome; customers will also perceive their roles in co-production with a greater
sense of value co-creation (Finsterwalder and Kuppelwieser, 2020). Total inputs of customer
and service employees are much higher due to the additional costs incurred during the co-
production process, which further impairs the favorability of their outcome/input ratio.
Therefore, when services on value co-destruction have happened, it reflects on customers’ co-
production intensity and service employees’ job stress. Value co-destruction can be exhibited
through unfavorable thoughts, feelings and behaviors toward the service firms during co-
production (Hollebeek and Chen, 2014).
In line with Prebensen and Xie (2017) and Cheung and To (2011), customer satisfaction is
regarded as value co-creation, while dissatisfaction belongs to value co-destruction. That is,
if the value evolves and turns out to be creative, therefore confirming expectations, value
co-creation is a source of increasing customer satisfaction in long-term relationships;
customers interact with service employees and participate in value co-creation to increase
customer satisfaction (Gr€onroos and Ravald, 2011; Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Value
co-creation enables the discovery of benefits to co-production that contributes to
encouraging customer satisfaction (Revilla-Camacho et al., 2015). However, value
co-destruction wastes resources that might have been employed for more activities, in
turn, provoking frustration and eventually having an adverse effect on customer
satisfaction, i.e. value co-destruction is a core reason for customers’ dissatisfaction.
Value co-destruction will influence the consumers’ service experience. As a result,
customers experiencing value co-destruction are less likely to be satisfied with their
decisions (Tsiros and Mittal, 2000). In sum, customers benefit from the value co-creation
activity, thus willingly acknowledging their co-production roles as contributors to
customer satisfaction (Payne et al., 2008). On the contrary, in the value co-destructed
activity, customers feel very dissatisfied because their expectations of co-production are
inflated (Heidenreich et al., 2015).

5.2 Theoretical implications

S-D logic defines value in terms of an improvement in system well-being. The COR theory
specifically addresses the impact of resource loss on the system’s well-being. Actually, value
is the result of a trade-off between benefits and costs, and value can be positive or negative
(Ple, 2017). Daunt and Harris (2017) argue that co-destructive and co-creative behaviors may
occur simultaneously, concurrently or iteratively. In other words, value co-creation and
IJBM co-destruction can exist at the same time, and customers can experience satisfaction or
40,4 dissatisfaction. As such, it is necessary to derive a more holistic understanding of the
simultaneous effects of value co-creation and value co-destruction, which enhance and
decrease customer satisfaction. This study breaks new ground on S-D logic by focusing on
the bright and dark sides of co-production critical to customer satisfaction. Similar to
understanding how services harness the benefits and prevent the drawbacks of co-
production is of great importance, this study offers new insights into how managers can
856 strengthen the positive effects of co-production and mitigate its negative ones. This study
suggests that customers and service employees not only can foster value co-creation but also
can serve as catalysts for value co-destruction. Understanding both is important because it
enables firms to identify and make predictions about the two alternatives and potentially
remedy those unexpected outcomes. Specifically, if customers consider co-production a
valuable experience, their positive feelings during co-production should overwhelm the
negative effects of co-production. When value co-destruction emerges, it leads to a decrease in
customer satisfaction; however, some of co-production’s indirect effects, such as value co-
creation, can mitigate this negative impact. Indeed, co-production enjoyment and service
effort can promote value co-creation as well as directly overcome co-production intensity and
job stress. Thus, while value co-destruction has a negative impact on customer satisfaction, it
is insufficient in the face of value co-creation’s indirect effects thereon. Generally, as discussed
above, engaging customers must be carefully crafted in such a way as to maximize creative
values and minimize destructive ones. At a theoretical level, most studies on co-production
focus mainly on the customer perspective rather than that of the employee (Grace and Lo
Iacono, 2015; Ple, 2016). This study aims to explore the outcomes of co-production for
customers and service employees. Thus, this study aims to accurately examine the interactive
nature of co-production using dyadic data in a single research design derived from customers
and service employees. The results of this study can improve our understanding of these
relationships and facilitate co-production to maximize customer satisfaction.

6. Managerial implications
From a managerial perspective, the participation of customers in co-production is essential
because they contribute essential knowledge and skills upon which the realization of
customer satisfaction depends. In this case, managers should also view customers as partial
employees and recognize the importance of co-production when services are actually
participative. In such cases, customers and service employees become effective and
efficient resource integrators of value co-creation (Mustak et al., 2013). Although co-
production can lead to several positive outcomes for customers and service employees,
value co-destruction can occur through the interactions between customers and service
employees.
To maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of co-production, managers should adopt
co-production enjoyment and service effort as marketing goals in order to increase value co-
creation. Managers have the chance to involve their customers in the value co-creation
process through pleasure experiences based on the flow of knowledge and skills, which bring
about co-production enjoyment for customers (Tynan et al., 2010; Cambra-Fierro et al., 2018).
In addition, when customers perceive that service employees are willing to make an effort to
help them, thus providing excellent services to customers, this increases value co-creation (Xu
et al., 2018); this situation is the bright side of co-production. Therefore, managers should
reinforce the positive effects of co-production enjoyment and service effort on value co-
creation during customers’ participation in co-production.
When co-production is motivated to enhance co-production enjoyment and service effort in
contributing to value co-creation, in some cases, it is difficult to ascertain if the contributions are
too costly, which may lead to a feeling of exploitation (Rieder and Voß, 2010). The specific Co-production
manifestation is value co-destruction by customers and service employees in the interaction and its double-
process and the behaviors that cause value reduction or elimination. Customers’ destructive
factors include co-production intensity and employees’ destructive factors contain job stress.
sided effects
Increase in the perceived co-production intensity and job stress could enhance value co-
destruction; this situation is the dark side of co-production. Thus, managers must monitor the
relationships between their customers and service employees to determine whether any signs
of co-production intensity or job stress are present. By understanding the factors that lead to 857
value co-creation or value co-destruction, managers can pay attention to monitoring these
factors to ensure they possess appropriate strategies to maintain value co-creation and
minimize value co-destruction. Most importantly, the findings herein can help managers
develop appropriate customer education programs and service employee training programs to
identify value co-creation or value co-destruction carried out by customers and service
employees in order to increase satisfaction and avoid dissatisfaction.

7. Limitations and suggestions for future research

Several limitations of this study are acknowledged, which may stimulate further research. A
major limitation of the study is the cross-sectional data, making it hard to make strong
inferences about cause and effect. The adoption of a time-series approach and testing value
co-creation and value co-destruction within a longitudinal framework would also provide
more insights into potential causation. Secondly, the results were based on a single country
and industry. For the purpose of cross-validation, exploration of the relationships needs to be
extended beyond the sample reported here. Future research also needs to be conducted
regarding other service contexts so that they can implement a co-production strategy by
increasing customer satisfaction; this would enhance the generalizability of the proposed
relationships. Thirdly, the model of this study did not include all the possible consequences of
co-production, such as emotional and economic values (Chan et al., 2010). These other
variables may help to further explain the key relationships between co-production and
customer satisfaction. Finally, this study did not encompass the overall view of double-sided
effects of co-production. Co-production enjoyment, co-production intensity, value co-creation
and value co-destruction derived here were from the customers’ perspective, while job stress
and service effort were from service employees’ perspectives. There is a need for a more
dyadic approach to understand co-production enjoyment, co-production intensity, job stress,
value co-creation, service effort, value co-creation and value co-destruction simultaneously
from both the customers’ and service employees’ perspectives. For example, co-production
creates relational bonds formed between customers and employees, which can cause
enjoyment and is therefore intrinsically motivating (Chan et al., 2010). As a result, high levels
of enjoyment of service employees will lead to sociable and benevolent acts and, therefore,
help explain adaptive employee behavior in service situations where they find their job itself
intrinsically interesting or pleasurable (Leischnig and Kasper-Brauer, 2015). On the other
hand, as co-producers, customers act as partial employees and invest a considerable amount
of time and effort into the co-production process, thus often taking on tasks that were
previously fulfilled by employees. Such customers may face co-production stress such as role
overload and role ambiguity (Blut et al., 2020). Role overload occurs when co-production
demands exceed obtainable resources in the service process such that customers cannot
complete their tasks. Role ambiguity emerges when customers are not clear about the
influence of their partial employee behaviors (Blut et al., 2020). Future studies can focus on the
perspective of both employees and customers to achieve more comprehensive and systematic
empirical research.
IJBM References
40,4 Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Auh, S., Bell, S.J., McLeod, C.S. and Shih, E. (2007), “Co-production and customer loyalty in financial
services”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 359-370.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian
858 shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656.
Beehr, T.A. and Newman, J.E. (1978), “Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: a
facet analysis, model, and literature review”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 665-699.
Bendapudi, N. and Leone, R.P. (2003), “Psychological implications of customer participation in co-
production”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 14-28.
Blut, M., Heirati, N. and Schoefer, K. (2020), “The dark side of customer participation: when customer
participation in service co-development leads to role stress”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 156-173.
Brown, S.P. and Peterson, R.A. (1994), “The effect of effort on sales performance and job satisfaction”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 70-80.
Cambra-Fierro, J., Melero-Polo, I. and Sese, F.J. (2018), “Customer value co-creation over the
relationship life cycle”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 336-355.
Chan, K.W., Yim, C.K. and Lam, S.S. (2010), “Is customer participation in value creation a double-
edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 48-64.
Chen, C.F. and Wang, J.P. (2016), “Customer participation, value co-creation and customer loyalty–A
case of airline online check-in system”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 62, pp. 346-352.
Cheung, M.F. and To, W.M. (2011), “Customer involvement and perceptions: the moderating role of
customer co-production”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 271-277.
Coelho, F., Augusto, M. and Lages, L.F. (2011), “Contextual factors and the creativity of frontline
employees: the mediating effects of role stress and intrinsic motivation”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 31-45.
Cova, B., Dalli, D. and Zwick, D. (2011), “Critical perspectives on consumers’ role as ‘producers’:
broadening the debate on value co-creation in marketing processes”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 231-241.
Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990), “Relationship quality in services selling: an
interpersonal influence perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 68-81.
Daunt, K.L. and Harris, L.C. (2017), “Consumer showrooming: value co-destruction”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 38, pp. 166-176.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000), “The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-
determination of behavior”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 227-268.
alen, P. (2011), “Co-creation and co-destruction: a practice-theory based study of
Echeverri, P. and Sk

interactive value formation”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 351-373.
Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A. and Roos, I. (2005), “Service portraits in service research: a critical
review”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 107-121.
Edvardsson, B., Ng, G., Min, C.Z., Firth, R. and Yi, D. (2011), “Does service-dominant design result in a
better service system?”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 540-556.
Eisingerich, A.B. and Bell, S.J. (2006), “Relationship marketing in the financial services industry: the
importance of customer education, participation and problem management for customer
loyalty”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 86-97.
Etgar, M. (2008), “A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 97-108.
Finsterwalder, J. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2020), “Intentionality and transformative services: Co-production
wellbeing co-creation and spill-over effects”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 52, 101922. and its double-
Firth, L., Mellor, D.J., Moore, K.A. and Loquet, C. (2004), “How can managers reduce employee
sided effects
intention to quit?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 170-187.
Fleming, J.H., Coffman, C. and Harter, J.K. (2005), “Manage your human sigma”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 83 No. 7, pp. 106-114.
859
Flores, J. and Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z. (2015), “The impact of choice on co-produced customer value
creation and satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 15-25.
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.
Franke, N., Schreier, M. and Kaiser, U. (2010), “The ‘I designed it myself’ effect in mass customization”,
Management Science, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 125-140.
Frow, P., Payne, A., Wilkinson, I.F. and Young, L. (2011), “Customer management and CRM:
addressing the dark side”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 79-89.
uller, J., Matzler, K., Hutter, K. and Hautz, J. (2012), “Consumers’ creative talent: which characteristics
F€
qualify consumers for open innovation projects? An exploration of asymmetrical effects”,
Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 247-262.
Grace, D. and Lo Iacono, J. (2015), “Value creation: an internal customers’ perspective”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 29 Nos 6/7, pp. 560-570.
Grissemann, U.S. and Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. (2012), “Customer co-creation of travel services: the role
of company support and customer satisfaction with the co-creation performance”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1483-1492.
Gr€onroos, C. and Ravald, A. (2011), “Service as business logic: implications for value creation and
marketing”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Gr€onroos, C. and Voima, P. (2013), “Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-
creation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 133-150.
Guan, X., Gong, J., Xie, L. and Huan, T.C. (2020), “Scale development of value co-destruction behavior
in tourism”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 36, 100757.
Harris, L.C. and Daunt, K. (2013), “Managing customer misbehavior: challenges and strategies”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 281-293.
Haumann, T., G€unt€ un, P., Schons, L.M. and Wieseke, J. (2015), “Engaging customers in
urk€
coproduction processes: how value-enhancing and intensity-reducing communication strategies
mitigate the negative effects of coproduction intensity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 79 No. 6,
pp. 17-33.
He, Y., Li, W. and Lai, K.K. (2011), “Service climate, employee commitment and customer satisfaction:
evidence from the hospitality industry in China”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 592-607.
Heidenreich, S., Wittkowski, K., Handrich, M. and Falk, T. (2015), “The dark side of customer co-
creation: exploring the consequences of failed co-created services”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 279-296.
Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1994), “Putting the
service-profit chain to work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 164-174.
Hess, R.L. Jr, Ganesan, S. and Klein, N.M. (2007), “Interactional service failures in a pseudorelationship:
the role of organizational attributions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 79-95.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2002), “Social and psychological resources and adaptation”, Review of General
Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 307-324.
IJBM Hollebeek, L.D. and Chen, T. (2014), “Exploring positively-versus negatively-valenced brand
engagement: a conceptual model”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 1,
40,4 pp. 62-74.
Hsieh, A.T. and Yen, C.H. (2005), “The effect of customer participation on service providers’ job
stress”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 891-905.
Hsieh, A.T., Yen, C.H. and Chin, K.C. (2004), “Participative customers as partial employees and service
provider workload”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 15 No. 2,
860 pp. 187-199.
Hui, M.K., Au, K. and Fock, H. (2004), “Reactions of service employees to organization–customer
conflict: a cross-cultural comparison”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 107-121.
J€arvi, H., K€ahk€onen, A.K. and Torvinen, H. (2018), “When value co-creation fails: reasons that lead to
value co-destruction”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 63-77.
Jiang, Y., Xu, L., Cui, N., Zhang, H. and Yang, Z. (2019), “How does customer participation in service
influence customer satisfaction? The mediating effects of role stressors”, International Journal
of Bank Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 691-710.
Jung, J.H. and Yoo, J. (2019), “The effects of deviant customer-oriented behaviors on service friendship:
the moderating role of co-production”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 48,
pp. 60-69.
Karantinou, K.M. and Hogg, M.K. (2009), “An empirical investigation of relationship development in
professional business services”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 249-260.
Kashif, M. and Zarkada, A. (2015), “Value co-destruction between customers and frontline employees”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 672-691.
Kim, S., Choi, S. and Verma, R. (2017), “Providing feedback to service customers: the effect of the
presentation order and repetition of feedback types”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 389-416.
Laud, G., Bove, L., Ranaweera, C., Leo, W.W.C., Sweeney, J. and Smith, S. (2019), “Value co-destruction:
a typology of resource misintegration manifestations”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31
No. 7, pp. 866-889.
Leischnig, A. and Kasper-Brauer, K. (2015), “Employee adaptive behavior in service enactments”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 273-280.
Luo, J.G., Wong, I.K.A., King, B., Liu, M.T. and Huang, G.Q. (2019), “Co-creation and co-destruction of
service quality through customer-to-customer interactions: why prior experience matters”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1309-1329.
Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2006), “Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements”,
Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 281-288.
Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L. and O’Brien, M. (2007), “Competing through service: insights from service-
dominant logic”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Ma, S., Gu, H., Wang, Y. and Hampson, D. (2017), “Opportunities and challenges of value co-creation:
the role of customer involvement in hotel service development”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 3023-3043.
McQuilken, L. (2010), “The influence of failure severity and employee effort on service recovery in a
service guarantee context”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 214-221.
Mele, C. (2011), “Conflicts and value co-creation in project networks”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1377-1385.
Mohr, L.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1995), “The role of employee effort in satisfaction with service
transactions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 239-252.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Moschis, G.P. (2007), “Stress and consumer behavior”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Co-production
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 430-444.
and its double-
Moschis, G.P., Ferguson, J.L. and Zhu, M. (2011), “Mature consumers’ selection of apparel and
footwear brands and department stores”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
sided effects
Management, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 785-801.
Mustak, M., Jaakkola, E. and Halinen, A. (2013), “Customer participation and value creation: a
systematic review and research implications”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 341-359. 861
Nordin, F. and Kowalkowski, C. (2010), “Solutions offerings: a critical review and reconceptualization”,
Journal of Service Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 441-459.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-469.
Park, C.W., Eisingerich, A.B. and Park, J.W. (2013), “Attachment–aversion (AA) model of customer–
brand relationships”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 229-248.
Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K. and Frow, P. (2008), “Managing the co-creation of value”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 83-96.
Ple, L. (2016), “Studying customers’ resource integration by service employees in interactional value
co-creation”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 152-164.
Ple, L. (2017), “Why do we need research on value co-destruction?”, Journal of Creating Value, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 162-169.
Ple, L. and Chumpitaz Caceres, R. (2010), “Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-
destruction of value in service-dominant logic”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 6,
pp. 430-437.
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, pp. 879-903.
Prebensen, N.K. and Xie, J. (2017), “Efficacy of co-creation and mastering on perceived value and
satisfaction in tourists’ consumption”, Tourism Management, Vol. 60, pp. 166-176.
Prior, D.D. and Marcos-Cuevas, J. (2016), “Value co-destruction in interfirm relationships: the impact of
actor engagement styles”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 533-552.
Revilla-Camacho, M.A., Vega-Vazquez, M. and Cossıo-Silva, F.J. (2015), “Customer participation and
citizenship behavior effects on turnover intention”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 7,
pp. 1607-1611.
Rieder, K. and Voß, G.G. (2010), “The working customer–an emerging new type of consumer”,
Psychology of Everyday Activity, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 2-10.
Rodie, A.R. and Kleine, S.S. (2000), “Customer participation in services production and delivery”,
Handbook of Services Marketing and Management, pp. 111-125.
Roggeveen, A.L., Tsiros, M. and Grewal, D. (2012), “Understanding the co-creation effect: when does
collaborating with customers provide a lift to service recovery?”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 771-790.
Rupp, D.E., McCance, A.S., Spencer, S. and Sonntag, K. (2008), “Customer (in)justice and emotional
labor: the role of perspective taking, anger, and emotional regulation”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 903-924.
Seaward, B.L. (2005), Managing Stress: Principles and Strategies for Health and Well-Being, Jones &
Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA.
Shani, A., Uriely, N., Reichel, A. and Ginsburg, L. (2014), “Emotional labor in the hospitality industry:
the influence of contextual factors”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 37,
pp. 150-158.
IJBM Singh, J. (1998), “Striking a balance in boundary-spanning positions: an investigation of some
unconventional influences of role stressors and job characteristics on job outcomes of
40,4 salespeople”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 69-86.
Smith, A.M. (2013), “The value co-destruction process: a customer resource perspective”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 11, pp. 1889-1909.
Smith, J.B. and Colgate, M. (2007), “Customer value creation: a practical framework”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
862
Stacciarini, J.M.R. and Troccoli, B.T. (2004), “Occupational stress and constructive thinking: health
and job satisfaction”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 480-487.
Sthapit, E. and Jimenez-Barreto, J. (2019), “You never know what you will get in an Airbnb: poor
communication destroys value for guests”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 22 No. 19,
pp. 2315-2318.
Stokburger-Sauer, N.E., Scholl-Grissemann, U., Teichmann, K. and Wetzels, M. (2016), “Value
cocreation at its peak: the asymmetric relationship between coproduction and loyalty”, Journal
of Service Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 563-590.
Tsiros, M. and Mittal, V. (2000), “Regret: a model of its antecedents and consequences in consumer
decision making”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 401-417.
Tynan, C., McKechnie, S. and Chhuon, C. (2010), “Co-creating value for luxury brands”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 11, pp. 1156-1163.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “The four service marketing myths: remnants of a goods-based,
manufacturing model”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 324-335.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Vega-Vazquez, M., Revilla-Camacho, M.A.  and Cossıo-Silva, F.J. (2013), “The value co-creation process
as a determinant of customer satisfaction”, Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 10, pp. 1945-1953.
Verhoef, P.C., Franses, P.H. and Hoekstra, J.C. (2001), “The impact of satisfaction and payment equity
on cross-buying: a dynamic model for a multi-service provider”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77
No. 3, pp. 359-378.
Verleye, K. (2015), “The co-creation experience from the customer perspective: its measurement and
determinants”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 321-342.
Walter, A., Ritter, T. and Gem€ unden, H.G. (2001), “Value creation in buyer–seller relationships:
theoretical considerations and empirical results from a supplier’s perspective”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 365-377.
Wang, Y., Lee, J., Fang, E. and Ma, S. (2017), “Project customization and the supplier revenue–cost
dilemmas: the critical roles of supplier–customer coordination”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 81
No. 1, pp. 136-154.
Wang, X., Wong, Y.D., Teo, C.C. and Yuen, K.F. (2019), “A critical review on value co-creation: towards
a contingency framework and research agenda”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 165-188.
Wang, C.-Y., Wu, L.-W. and Wei, C.-L. (2021), “Optimal customer participation and the role of
relationship length”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 871-885.
Witell, L., Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A. and L€ofgren, M. (2011), “Idea generation: customer co-
creation versus traditional market research techniques”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 140-159.
Wolfinbarger, M. and Gilly, M.C. (2001), “Shopping online for freedom, control, and fun”, California
Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 34-55.
Wu, L.W., Lii, Y.S. and Wang, C.Y. (2015), “Managing innovation through co-production in interfirm
partnering”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 11, pp. 2248-2253.
Wu, L.W., Wang, C.Y. and Rouyer, E. (2020), “The opportunity and challenge of trust and decision- Co-production
making uncertainty: managing co-production in value co-creation”, International Journal of
Bank Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 199-218. and its double-
Xu, H., Liu, Y. and Lyu, X. (2018), “Customer value co-creation and new service evaluation: the
sided effects
moderating role of outcome quality”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 2020-2036.
Yi, Y., Nataraajan, R. and Gong, T. (2011), “Customer participation and citizenship behavioral
influences on employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intention”, Journal 863
of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 87-95.
Yim, C.K., Chan, K.W. and Lam, S.S. (2012), “Do customers and employees enjoy service participation?
Synergistic effects of self-and other-efficacy”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 121-140.
Yoon, M.H., Seo, H.J. and Yoon, S.T. (2004), “Effects of contact employee supports on critical employee
responses and customer service evaluation”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 395-412.

Corresponding author
Li-Wei Wu can be contacted at: lwwu@thu.edu.tw
IJBM Appendix
40,4
Factor Cronbach’s
Constructs loading alpha CR AVE

Co-production (Customer) 0.92 0.92 0.73

864 1. I try to work cooperatively with my financial advisor 0.81
2. I do things to make my financial advisor’s job easier 0.88
3. I prepare our questions before going to an appointment with 0.90
my financial advisor
4. I openly discuss our needs with my financial advisor to help 0.83
him (her) deliver the best possible resolution
Co-production enjoyment (Customer) 0.92 0.92 0.75
1. I enjoy the co-production very much 0.90
2. The co-production is very enjoyable 0.94
3. The co-production can be described as fun 0.82
4. I take great pleasure in the co-production 0.80
Co-production intensity (Customer) 0.89 0.91 0.73
1. Co-production is effortful 0.93
2. Co-production is demanding 0.94
3. Co-production is time-consuming 0.78
4. Co-production is costly 0.76
Service effort (employee)
1. I try to solve my customer’s problem until it is resolved 0.82 0.94 0.94 0.76
2. I try to respond to my customer as pleasantly as possible 0.77
3. I try to provide as much new information as possible 0.79
4. I try to answer my customer’s questions as attentively as 0.92
possible
5. I try to do whatever to help my customer 0.90
Job stress (employee) 0.88 0.88 0.72
1. My customer’s co-production makes me nervous 0.85
2. My customer’s co-production creates more problems for me 0.85
3. My customer’s co-production makes me work under 0.84
conflicting directives
Value co-creation (Customer) 0.94 0.94 0.81
1. I and my financial advisor create substantial value 0.94
2. I and my financial advisor make a positive contribution to 0.94
the achievement of my financial goal
3. This bank is very beneficial for me 0.93
4. Overall, the value of this bank to me is high 0.80
Value co-destruction (Customer) 0.85 0.85 0.58
1. I and my financial advisor do not act to address problems 0.76
2. I and my financial advisor make false evaluations of 0.76
products or services
3. I and my financial advisor shift responsibility for problems 0.78
to each other
4. I and my financial advisor do not comply with time 0.74
commitments
5. This bank is not thoughtful
Customer satisfaction (Customer) 0.94 0.94 0.75
1. This bank is a good firm to do business with 0.89
2. I am satisfied with the competence of this bank 0.87
3. I am satisfied with the service quality of this bank 0.89
4. I am satisfied with the relationship with this bank 0.87
Table A1. 5. In general, I am satisfied with the services offered by this 0.82
Scale items bank