Investigates CRMS usage effects on service performance in bank employees, highlighting leadership's role.
Purpose Drawing on adaptive structuration theory (AST), this study investigates how different customer relationship management system (CRMS) usage behaviors affect frontline employees' service performance, and examines how leader efficacy moderates these relationships, drawing on the notion that technology may substitute for leadership under certain conditions. Design/methodology/approach A matched dyadic survey was conducted with 150 bank branches in China. Data were collected from both frontline employees and their immediate supervisors. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the hypothesized model. Findings Both consensus on appropriation and faithfulness of appropriation positively influence CRMS usage. Explorative usage enhances service performance, while exploitative usage unexpectedly has a negative effect. Leader efficacy directly improves performance and positively moderates the relationship between explorative usage and performance. Research limitations/implications The study's findings are based on data from the banking sector in China, which may limit generalizability to other industries or cultural contexts. The cross-sectional design also restricts causal inference. Practical implications Organizations may promote appropriate CRMS appropriation through training and communication, encourage explorative usage, and adopt situational leadership strategies—empowering employees during routine system use while providing active support during innovative system use. Originality/value This study extends AST to the individual level and offers a nuanced understanding of how technology appropriation and leadership interact to shape service performance. It challenges the universal positive view of IS usage by revealing the potential negative impacts and provides a contingent perspective on leadership in technology-mediated environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Che et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: