Empathy, defined as “the reactions of one individual to the observed experiences of another” (Davis, 1983, p. 113) is perceived as an important concept for the success of businesses by practitioners and scholars alike. For example, a study by Businessolver (2020) finds, that 82% of CEOs agree that empathy and company’s financial performance is intertwined. Also in academic literature, empathy has been discussed for example as a main personal characteristic of salespeople (Lamont & Lundstrom, 1977), as crucial aspect to foster donation behavior (Verhaert & Van den Poel, 2011), as key characteristic of leaders (Kellett et al., 2002) and as a success factor in advertising (Escalas & Stern, 2003).
The concept of empathy is used by scholars across the business field (e.g. subfields like leadership or service). Hence it is not surprising that empathy has been defined and conceptualized diversely, for example, as a trait or a skill or as uni- versus multidimensional construct. Despite the common agreement that empathy is an important business driver, the lacking conceptual clarity of empathy may hinder the building of an inclusive and shared body of knowledge.
Therefore, we aim to provide an overview over the body of research on the concept of empathy using two bibliometric techniques. Utilizing bibliographic coupling, we provide a map on how the literature on empathy is interconnected and show the predominant clusters on which research on empathy is build on. Further, we use co-word analysis to evaluate each of the identified clusters providing additional insights on the content (e.g. how empathy has been conceptualized or defined) of the research belonging to each literature cluster.
Our findings show that research on empathy can be structured into five clusters, two conceptual clusters, namely, perspective taking and emotional contagion and three contextual clusters, namely, ethics, sales and leadership. The two conceptual clusters are both based on an interdisciplinary body of research, including service, psychology or organizational behavior. The three contextual clusters, have in common that they are based on the same research context but regard different dimensions of empathy. We further provide detailed evaluation of the identified clusters, their similarities and differences and identify research gaps which we translate into possible future research directions.
By mapping the current research on empathy in the business field, we provide evidence that individual scientific clusters on research on empathy exist and that they are distinguishable based on common markers. Further, by reviewing the content of the articles belonging to the identified distinguishable clusters, we highlight the commonalities within the identified clusters and review the similarities and differences across clusters. Further, this overview may help managers in identifying the academic literature most suitable for their company’s goal (e.g. if the sales of key account managers of a pharma company should be improved by the use of empathy, literature belonging to the first sub-field of the yellow sales cluster, the industrial sales sub-section is of increased importance).

References upon request.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on the travel and tourism industry, dramatically reducing the sector’s share of global GDP from 10.4% in 2019 to 5.5% in 2020 (World Travel & Tourism Council, 2021). Airlines play a vital role in the tourism sector, and the ongoing restriction to flights continues to reduce global GDP growth (Dube et al., 2021), with some airlines ultimately ceasing to trade, such as UK firm FlyBe and Chile’s LATAM (Bloom, 2020). To survive these difficult conditions, airlines are focusing on retaining loyal customers (Chanpariyavatevong et al., 2021), usually by leveraging their loyalty programs (LPs).

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, airlines frequently incorporated lock-in tactics into their LPs, such as providing vouchers for rebooking with the same airline rather than a monetary refund. However, consumers have become increasingly hostile to this tactic during COVID-19 (Peachey and Park, 2020). One possible explanation for this negative sentiment is that the lack of a refund choice results in consumers feeling locked-in (Harrison et al., 2012). To date, research has not explored this, and perhaps relatedly, there is no validated scale to measure locked-in feelings (Fliess and Volkers, 2019). Therefore, this research aims to answer the following research questions: (1) how can locked-in feelings towards LPs be effectively measured? (2) how do locked-in feelings influence LPs’ effectiveness (i.e., program loyalty and brand loyalty)?

Drawing on psychological reactance theory (PRT) (Brehm, 1966), which can explain individuals’ negative reactions when their behavioural freedoms are threatened or eliminated, we address the above two research questions. We conducted two empirical studies. In the first study, we developed and validated a unidimensional locked-in feelings scale using data collected online in China (N= 506) that consists of four self-reported items. In the second study, using data from China collected online (N = 502), we examined the impact of locked-in feelings on program loyalty and brand loyalty. Our results showed that consumer trait reactance and perceived freedom threat strengthened locked-in feelings, which subsequently decreased program loyalty and brand loyalty.

Our paper has two focal research contributions. First, we introduced our newly developed scale of locked-in feelings to capture consumers’ feelings when their behavioural freedoms are threatened or eliminated. We are the first to conceptualize and operationalize locked-in feelings, which can be regarded as a methodological contribution to PRT literature. Second, we revealed that consumer trait reactance and perceived freedom threat could increase locked-in feelings, which subsequently influences program and brand loyalty in the context of LPs that use the lock-in tactics. These findings enrich the literature on LPs by introducing PRT to explain the role of locked-in feelings in affecting how consumers evaluate LPs.

Customer Success Management (CSM) as a service strategy (SS) is described by Hochstein (2020) as proactive (versus reactive) relational engagement of customers. CSM ensures that customers realize the value potential of product offerings. Moreover, CSM is a practice responding to the current fast-paced technological evolution and the dominance of cloud and subscription-based business models: Software as a Service (SaaS). Conclusively, the inherent proactive nature of CSM is driven by SaaS practitioners. They proactively shape CSM practices. Those practices realize the strategic outcomes of SaaS business models: customer retention, cross and upselling, and product innovation. Thus, those strategic outcomes contribute to a competitive advantage — a requirement CSM should be benchmarked against. Additionally, it supports the Strategy as Practice (SAP) direction in literature, demanding that theoretical competitive advantages stem from practices.

However, current literature approaches the characterization of CSM differently: Ulaga et al. (2020) compare CSM to customer experience (CX) management and key account management using job profile descriptions. Hilton et al. (2020) describe the evolution in customer management from customer relationship management (CRM), CX, customer engagement to CSM. Yet, those scholars do not address similarities and differences. Likewise, Hochstein et al. (2021) restrict their analyses to CRM and the practitioner level. In contrast to the other scholars, they embed CSM’s origin in relationship marketing.
In conclusion, there is no uniform and comprehensive CSM description, including antecedents, practices, practitioners, and strategic outcomes. Thus, the following research question arises:

How is customer success management constructed proactively from practices by practitioners?

We develop a theoretical and empirical framework combining theoretical and practical perspectives. Within the frameworks, we analyze SSs that we systematically deduce from descendants of relationship marketing. We apply both frameworks as follows:
First, we analyze the antecedents of SSs practices and practitioners within the frameworks. Due to CSM’s origin from cloud-based subscription business models, technology will be a focal antecedent. Second, we construct, with the framework, the SSs from practices and practitioners. Third, we directly link the practices and practitioners to the strategic outcomes. Fourth, we compare and discuss the findings to describe CSM and SSs through practices.
We approach the theoretical framework through an integrative literature review by Dwertmann & Knippenberg (2021). In contrast, we base the empirical framework on an SAP research design. We derive the antecedents, practices, and outcomes from semi-structured interviews with SS practitioners.
Finally, we discuss similarities and differences of the theoretical and empirical findings to construct CSM from the practices.

As a result, we enrich CSM theory with a uniform and comprehensive understanding of CSM and its contribution to a competitive advantage in the SaaS context. Additionally, we create a common basis for future research. Managers benefit from a set of practices to proactively shape future CSM methods, roles, and organizations. Thus, it increases CSM employees’ potential to participate in service strategizing. Concerning the methods applied, the present study can be considered the first to combine these theoretical and empirical approaches, ensuring deep theoretical foundations. Concurrently, the combination considers CSM originating in practice.