مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد چهار مانع فکری و نحوه فرار از آنها – الزویر 2019

This invited commentary on Kleinaltenkamp, Karpen, Plewa, Jaakkola & Conduit (2019, this issue) and Storbacka (2019, this issue) discusses four ‘thought-shackles’ that can constrain our thinking about engagement – particularly in B2B contexts but also in B2C ones. The shackle of the purchase moment – embedded in some definitions of engagement – can blind us to engagement between parties where no exchange is involved. The shackle of rational choice can lead to the erroneous assumption that the emotional dimension of engagement is irrelevant in B2B contexts. The shackle of the individual can obscure the engagement of collective actors such as a set of managers within a firm. The shackle of the dyad can overlook engagement with entities other than a firm, such as an innovation consortium. The concept of the engagement center is proposed. Four lenses for understanding and measuring collective engagement are distinguished: a selection lens, a consolidation lens, a practice lens, and an external lens. A new definition of business relationships is suggested: a mutual engagement over time.

Introduction

In practitioner circles, engagement was prominent as a concept and as a measurement challenge from the early 2000s, as consumer marketers struggled to manage the explosion of opportunities for consumers to interact with brands online. Scholars eventually caught up, and we now have a substantial literature. Work on engagement in B2B contexts has been slower to mature, whether because there is as yet less practitioner demand or simply, perhaps, because B2B research is globally underrepresented relative to its importance in the economy. There has nonetheless now been sufficient work to deserve synthesis and reflection. This special issue does just that. I focus here on two valuable and wide-ranging articles within it. First, Kleinaltenkamp, Karpen, Plewa, Jaakkola, and Conduit (2019) (this issue; hereafter KKPJ&C) introduce the concept of collective engagement, motivated by the challenge of understanding the dispositions and behaviors of a group of buyers or users within a business customer – though their definition equally applies to other groups. They propose that collective engagement, like the engagement of an individual (Brodie, Hollebeek, Jurić, & Tlić, 2011), has cognitive and emotional components and not just behavioral ones. In the second article, Kaj Storbacka (2019) (this issue; hereafter KS) concurs that engagement is a property of collectives as well as individuals. He also argues that ‘actor engagement’ is not limited to buyer-supplier relationships, but equally can occur when no commercial exchange is involved.