CONTENTS
JSMAM VOLUME 7, FALL 2007
7
From the Editor
by Dan C. Weilbaker, Ph.D.
ACADEMIC ARTICLES
8
How Do I Trust Thee? Let Me Control the Way: The Role of Sales
Control in the Development of Sales Manager Trust
By Michael L. Mallin, Edward O’Donnell, and Michael Y. Hu
What is Successful Sales Behavior? Exploratory Research in
Business-to-Business Markets in the UK
28
By Peter Brent and Beth Rogers
The Impact of Stigma: Negative Stereotypes of Salespeople
38
By Vinita Sangtani and John Andy Wood
APPLICATION ARTICLES
The Certified Sales Professional: Has the Time Finally Arrived?
53
By Neil Rackham
Improving Sales Performance Through Situational Management in
Sales Organizations
58
By Karl Pinczolits
Mission Statement
The main objective of the journal is to provide a focus for collaboration between
practitioners and academics for the advancement of application, education, and
research in the areas of selling and major account management. Our audience is
comprised of both practitioners in industry and academics researching in sales.
©2007 By Northern Illinois University. All Rights Reserved. ISSN: 1463-1431
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Strategic Partner
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
INDIANA UNIVERSITY
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON
ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
Northern Illinois University
UNIVERSITY OF AKRON
OHIO UNIVERSITY
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Subscription Form
Name
Company
Title
Address
City
State
Zip
Country
E-Mail
Phone
Fax
Subscription Type
‰ Domestic Individual— $50
‰ Domestic Corporate— $60
‰ Foreign Individual – $70
‰ Foreign Corporate— $80
Payment Method
‰ Check Enclosed
‰ Please Bill Me
Card Type: ‰ Visa ‰ Mastercard
‰ Credit Card
‰ Discover
‰ American Express
Name as it appears on card
Card Number
Exp. Date
Signature
Mail This Form to:
Dr. Dan C. Weilbaker
JSMAM
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115
Or Fax this Form to:
JSMAM
Attn: Dr. Dan C. Weilbaker
(815) 753-6014
We appreciate your help!
If you know of colleagues who might benefit and would be interested in
subscribing to The Journal of Selling & Major Account Management,
please forward one of the subscription forms.
Thank-you,
Dan C. Weilbaker, Editor
Place
Stamp
Here
Dr. Dan C. Weilbaker
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Department of Marketing
128 Barsema Hall
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115
FOLD HERE
Fall 2007
Manuscripts
1. Articles for consideration should be sent to Editor: Dan C. Weilbaker, Department of Marketing Northern Illinois University,
DeKalb, IL 60115 USA or by fax: 001 815-753-6014 or by email to dweilbak@niu.edu
2. Articles in excess of 6000 words will not normally be accepted. The Editor welcomes shorter articles, case studies and
reviews. Contributors should specify the length of their articles.
3. A manuscript copy of the contribution along with four (4) copies should be submitted if possible with a copy on 3.5"
diskette in Microsoft Word format, author's name(s)) and short title of the article. Alternatively, the contribution may be emailed
to the above address as a Microsoft Word document; however contributors are advised to check by telephone that submissions
have been received. Neither the Editor nor Northern Illinois University, Department of Marketing accepts any responsibility for
loss or damage of any contributions submitted for publication in the Journal.
Biographical note - supply a short biographical note giving the author(s) full name, appointment, institutions or
organization / company and recent professional attainments.
Synopsis - an abstract not exceeding 100 words should be included.
Diagrams / text boxes / tables - should be submitted without shading although a copy of how the authors wishes the
diagram to appear shaded may be submitted by way of illustrative example. These should be numbered consecutively and
typed on separate pages at the end of the article with an indication in the text where it should appear.
References - should be cited using the Harvard method. No footnotes should be used for references or literature citations.
Wherever possible, full bibliographic details (e.g., volume number issue number or date, page numbers publisher year of
publication) should be included.
Footnotes - for clarification or elaboration should be used very sparingly - they may be indicated in the text and at the
beginning of the footnote by the use of asterisks and / or daggers.
4. Any article or other contribution submitted must be the original unpublished work of the author(s) not submitted for
publication elsewhere.
5. Manuscripts should be typewritten using one side of 8 1/2” X 11” or A4 paper with all margins of 1" and double-spaced.
Font style should be Times New Roman in 12 pitch. Footnotes should be typed at the bottom of the page and numbered
consecutively throughout the text.
6. Cross references should not be to page numbers but to the text accompanying a particular footnote.
7 An address for correspondence (including email address) should be supplied as well as a telephone and fax number at which
the author(s) may be contacted. .
8. Authors undertake to check proofs and to return them within the specified date. They should be free from grammatical,
syntax or spelling errors. Failure to return proofs will result in the publication of the article at the editor’s discretion in which
event the editor does not accept liability for any changes made to grammar syntax, spelling or other changes deemed necessary.
The Editor reserves the right not to accept any alterations or corrections made.
PERMISSIONS
The copyright owner’s consent does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for
resale. Specific written permission must be obtained from the publisher for such copying.
Subscriptions
To subscribe to Journal of Selling & Major Account Management, please go to www.cob.niu.edu/jsmam/subscription.asp or mail
the subscription form to The Journal of Selling & Major Account Management,. 128 Barsema Hall, Northern Illinois University,
DeKalb, IL 60115. Subscription prices are: U.S. Individual-$50; U.S. Corporation-$60; Foreign Individual-$70; Foreign
Corporation-$80.
EDITORIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
EDITOR—Dan C. Weilbaker, Ph.D.
McKesson Pharmaceutical Group
Professor of Sales
Department of Marketing
Northern Illinois University
dweilbak@niu.edu
EUROPEAN EDITOR—Kevin Wilson
Sales Research Trust
Peyrenegre
47350 Labretonie
France
Kevin@sales-research-trust.org
ASSISTANT—Candace Gardner
Administrative Assistant
Professional Sales Program
Department of Marketing
Northern Illinois University
ccgardner@niu.edu
Vol. 7, No. 4
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
EDITORIAL BOARD
Rolph E. Anderson
Drexel University
Ramon A. Avila
Ball State University
Terri Barr
Miami University—Ohio
Jim W. Blythe
University of Glamorgan
Pascal Brassier
ESC Clermont - Graduate School of Management
Richard E. Buehrer
University of Toledo
Steven Castleberry
University of Minnesota—Duluth
William L. Cron
Texas Christian University
Laura Cuddihy
Dublin Institute of Technology
René Y. Darmon
ESSEC Business School
Dawn R. Deeter-Schmelz
Ohio University
Bill Donaldson
Aberdeen Business School
Sean Dwyer
Louisiana Tech University
Paolo Guenzi
SDA Bocconi
John Hansen
Northern Illinois University
Jon M. Hawes
University of Akron
Earl D. Honeycutt
Elon University
Thomas N. Ingram
Colorado State University
Mark C. Johlke
Bradley University
Northern Illinois University
Buddy LaForge
University of Louisville
Terry W. Loe
Kennesaw State University
Daniel H. McQuiston
Butler University
Pete Naude
Manchester Business School
Stephen Newell
Western Michigan University
Nikolaos Panagopoulos, Ph.D.
Athens University of Economics & Business
Nigel F. Piercy
University of Warwick
Richard E. Plank
University of South Florida, Lakeland
Chris R. Plouffe, PhD
Washington State University
Ellen Bolman Pullins, PhD
University of Toledo
David Reid
William Patterson University
Gregory A. Rich
Bowling Green State University
Rick Ridnour
Northern Illinois University
Elizabeth Rogers
Portsmouth Business School
Jeffrey K. Sager
University of North Texas
Charles Schwepker, Jr.
Central Missouri State University
C. David Shepherd
Kennesaw State University
William A. Weeks
Baylor University
Michael R. Williams
Illinois State University
Fall 2007
From the Editor
This is the fourth issue of our second year of publishing the Journal of Selling
& Major Account Management. There are several interesting topics for our
subscribers to learn from and use. If you are an academic and have an article
with significant managerial implications we encourage you to submit the article
for review. If you are a practitioner or consultant and would like to share
something of interest that can be applied, we also welcome your contribution.
In this fourth issue we provide three academic articles and two practitioner
articles.
The first academic article “How Do I Trust Thee? Let Me Control the Way: The Role of Sales
Control in the Development of Sales Manager Trust” looks at the link between sales control
and managerial trust. Data was analyzed to develop three models depicting managerial trust.
The authors discuss implications as to how sales managers can build trusting relationships with
their salespeople.
The second article “What is Successful Sales Behavior? Exploratory Research in Business-toBusiness Markets in the UK” uses in-depth interviews to discover how sales professionals and
sales managers and customers express their requirements and expectations. Results indicate
there is confusion among respondents from both the supplier and customer organizations
about how good behavior from sales people is judged and how good behaviors can be linked to
measurable success.
Article three “The Impact of Stigma: Negative Stereotypes of Salespeople” investigates the
managerial implications of customers’ negative stereotyping (stigmatization) of the sales
position. The study looks at data collected from 190 automobile salespeople. The authors
conclude that managers need to be aware of stigmatization and its implications concerning
salesperson effort and performance.
The first application article, by Neil Rackham, makes a compelling case for revisiting
qualifications and standards leading to sales professionalism. He discusses three significant
business trends that are changing the world of selling. The final application article reports the
findings, based on ten years of research, in analyzing the productivity of sales organizations.
The author concludes his article by discussing four strategic outcomes for improving sales force
productivity.
We are grateful to the University Sales Center Alliance for their continued financial support,
which helps us produce and distribute the journal while we continue to build our subscriber
base to become self-supporting. Our thanks also go to the dedicated members of the Editorial
Review Board, our ad hoc reviewers, our authors and finally our subscribers.
Dan C. Weilbaker, Ph.D.
Editor, The Journal of Selling & Major Account Management,
McKesson Pharmaceutical Group Professor of Sales,
Northern Illinois University
Vol. 7, No. 4
8
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
How Do I Trust Thee? Let Me Control the Way:
The Role of Sales Control in the Development
of Sales Manager Trust
By Michael L. Mallin, Edward O’Donnell, and Michael Y. Hu
The authors propose and test a theoretical link between sales control and managerial trust. The relationship between a manager and salesperson is examined over time to show that at various stages of their
relationship, managerial trust in a salesperson is dependent upon the type of sales control strategy that is
used, the firm specific expertise of the salesperson, and congruent goals between the manager and salesperson. Data from 100 industrial sales managers was analyzed to develop three models depicting managerial trust at the “beginning stage”, “developing stage”, and “advanced stage” of the manager – salesperson relationship. The results from this study offer managerial implications as to how sales managers
can build trusting relationships with their salespeople.
INTRODUCTION
How can a manager utilize sales control to
develop trust in h/her salesforce? This is an
important question because managerial trust
has been shown to have an impact on
subordinate job satisfaction (Brashear,
Manolis, and Brooks 2003, Dirks and Ferrin
2002), commitment to the relationship
(Morgan and Hunt 1994), cooperative
behavior (Jones and George 1998), positive
attitudes (Dirks and Ferrin 2002), reluctance
to quit (Dirks and Ferrin 2002) and most
important, bottom line performance
(Atuahene-Gima and Li 2002; Brashear,
Manolis, and Brooks 2003, Dirks and Ferrin
2002). Because trust produces such benefits,
managers need to implement strategies to
build trusting relationships with their
subordinates in order to maximize
organizational effectiveness. But despite the
benefits of trust, managers still need to utilize
sales control to ensure the attainment of
organizational objectives (Challagalla and
Shervani 1996). In fact, in their call for more
Northern Illinois University
research to adapt sales control to the new
selling environment, Brown et al. (2005)
suggest that managers utilize appropriate
forms of control to set sales goals and reward
sales performance in order to build trustbased relationships with subordinates. This
implies that both trust and control need to
co-exist in a well-managed salesforce.
Unfortunately, the extant research provides
little in the way of describing how managers
can concurrently utilize trust and control to
effectively manage their salespeople.
The fundamental goal of sales management is
to direct the activities of the salesforce to
ensure the attainment of performance goals
and objectives (Ingram, et al. 2006). The
salesforce management literature has
historically focused on the use of sales control
to accomplish this objective (Anderson and
Oliver 1987; Challagalla and Shervani 1996;
Cravens et al. 1993; Krafft 1999; Oliver and
Anderson 1994, 1995). Much of this research
has emphasized identifying the antecedents
and outcomes of sales control (Cravens et al.
Academic Article
1993, Krafft 1999, Oliver and Anderson 1994,
1995). However, despite the considerable
strides made through this research, few
insights have been provided to identify how
managers can utilize sales control strategies to
build trusting relationships with salespeople.
This is an important issue for continued study
since as Dirks and Ferrin (2002) suggest, trust
building is a more important aspect of sales
management than currently proposed in the
literature.
We address this topic by proposing and
testing a theoretical link between sales control
and managerial trust. We propose as the
relationship between a manager and
salesperson develops over time, specific forms
of governance serve to create
interdependencies between the manager and
salesperson so that both parties may gain from
an increase in knowledge, skill development,
goal alignment, and communication
(Rindfleisch and Heide 1997). The subsequent
impact of this is to allow managers the
flexibility to adjust their sales control strategy
while increasing trust in their salespeople. To
study sales control’s effect on trust, we
examine managers’ use of sales control showing how its use leads to the development
of salesperson expertise and goal orientation,
ultimately resulting in increased managerial
trust. To date, little research has been done to
study these effects. Furthermore, most of the
extant salesforce literature examines trust as
perceived by the salesperson. This study fills
an apparent void by studying trust from the
sales manager’s perspective. We test our
proposed sales control – trust relationship
using a sample of sales managers to
demonstrate the impact that sales control has
Fall 2007
9
in the development of managerial trust in the
salesperson.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Our study centers on the formation of
managerial trust along progressive stages of
manager – salesperson relationship
development. To establish the basis for our
theoretical arguments, we begin by reviewing
the relevant literature on managerial trust and
salesforce governance. We then develop the
linkage between sales control and trust by
describing how the two change over the life of
the manager – salesperson relationship. Based
on the insights from this review, we develop
testable hypotheses for the relationships
between various salesforce governance
mechanisms and trust.
Managerial Trust & Salesforce Governance
Trust is a psychological construct that has
been widely applied in psychology, sociology,
economics, management, and sales research.
From the psychology literature, trust is an
expectancy (Rotter 1967, 1971, 1980) held by
one individual and based on prior experiences
(Deutsch 1968) that another individual can be
relied upon. In the sales literature, trust has
been most commonly defined as the belief of
the trusting person that another will fulfill
h/her obligations. For example, in the sales
literature, Swan, Trawick, and Silva (1985)
define trust as the situation where one party
(e.g., a manager, buyer, etc.) who is dependent
on the salesperson’s honesty and reliability,
believes that the salesperson can be relied
upon to perform h/her duties or do what
s/he commits to do. Swan, et al. (1988)
suggested that being dependable/reliable,
Vol. 7, No. 4
10
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
honest/candid, competent, customer-oriented,
and likable/friendly were all likely to lead to a
sales manager’s trust in the salesperson.
Zaheer, McEvily, and Perrone (1998, page
125) summarize trust as “…the interpersonal
reliance one boundary spanning agent has in
his/her organizational counterpart…” Specific
to our research, this definition of trust seems
most appropriate because in the salesforce
context, both sales manager and salesperson
can be considered as “boundary-spanners” in
that both are accountable to multiple
constituents (e.g., managers, peers, customers,
etc.). Here, we are primarily interested in the
sales manager’s trust in h/her salesperson and
how that trust is related to the specific sales
governance strategies used by the manager.
Although a great deal of research has
examined the impact that various forms of
salesforce governance have on salesperson
opportunism (Krafft 1999, Oliver and
Anderson 1994), little empirical research has
been done to study the effects of salesforce
governance on a sales manager’s trust toward
a salesperson.
In contrast to governance mechanisms which
are designed to limit salesperson opportunism
(Williamson 1985; 1996), interpersonal trust is
an expectancy (Rotter 1967, 1971, 1980) based
on prior experiences (Deutsch 1968; Driscoll
1978; McAllister 1995; Jones and George
1998) in the reliability (Swan, Trawick, and
Silva 1985) of another that s/he will fulfill h/
her obligations (e.g., a salesperson will spend
their day making sales calls as opposed to
playing golf). Thus, trust is different from
opportunism prevention in that it is “more
delimited and behavioral in nature” (Jap and
Anderson 2003). This suggests that the
Northern Illinois University
primary role of trust is not to prevent
opportunism (per se) but instead to establish a
more productive relationship by creating
interdependencies between the organization
and the salesperson (Morgan and Hunt 1994).
Such interdependencies indirectly reduce the
desire for salespeople to act opportunistically
(Rindfleisch and Heide 1997). Thus, the study
of trust development is an important
contribution to sales research and more work
is needed to understand how managerial trust
develops. To better address this issue, we
need to describe the relationship between
sales control (as a mechanism for salesforce
governance) and managerial trust at various
stages of the manager – salesperson
relationship.
Sales Control and Trust
Sales control has been conceptualized as a
means for managers to enhance the
attainment of desired organizational goals and
objectives (Challagalla and Shervani 1996)
while reducing the transaction costs associated
with managing the salesforce (Anderson and
Oliver 1987; Krafft 1999; Oliver and
Anderson 1994, Baldauf, Craven, and Piercy
2005). Early on, Anderson and Oliver (1987)
used transaction cost analysis (TCA) to
conceptualize and later empirically test (Oliver
and Anderson 1994) outcomes from
manager’s use of sales control. Krafft (1999)
later investigated the antecedents of sales
control using two TCA dimensions
(transaction specific assets and uncertainty).
The traditional view (Anderson and Oliver
1987) depicts sales control as behavior-based,
outcome-based, or some variation of the two
(Oliver and Anderson 1995). Because of sales
Academic Article
control’s reliance on close managerial
monitoring, evaluation, and supervision of
subordinate performance, the relationship
between sales control and trust has been
posited to be a negative one (Williamson
1985). The implication here is that as the
tenure of the relationship between a manager
and salesperson develops over time, the sales
manager will know how a salesperson is likely
to act and will rely less on formal control to
manage the salesperson. Over time, as control
over the salesperson is diminished, managerial
trust in the salesperson should increase.
One particular view of sales control suggests
that because of the wide range of subjective
activities and behaviors that salespeople
perform leading up to a sale, behavior-based
sales control can be further divided into two
components: activities control and capabilities
control (Challagalla and Shervani 1996). The
activity control component addresses the
monitoring and supervision of activities in
pursuit of the sale (e.g., making sales calls,
delivering proposals, presentations, and
customer demonstrations, etc.) whereas the
capabilities control component emphasizes
the development of salesperson skills (through
coaching and mentoring) and abilities
designed to improve performance. In essence,
the focus here is on developing firm specific
knowledge and abilities to make the
salesperson a more valuable asset to the sales
organization. Prior research (Challagalla and
Shervani 1996; Rindfleisch and Heide 1997)
suggests that this strategy tends to discourage
salesperson opportunism; however, not much
is known about its impact on managerial trust.
To examine this, we draw from the empirical
sales control literature to show at various
Fall 2007
11
stages in the manager – salesperson
relationship and based on the selling situation
(Flaherty, Arnold, and Hunt 2007), behaviorbased sales control may serve to increase
salesperson expertise, skill, and capabilities
(Challagalla and Shervani 1996). Thus, in
addition to preventing salesperson
opportunism – such use of sales control can
have an impact on managerial trust. The
following discussion develops this logic and
provides the basis for testable hypotheses.
Beginning Stage of the Manager – Salesperson
Relationship. In the early stage of their
relationship, the manager’s knowledge of the
salesperson will be limited due to few
interactions and prior transactions between
the two. For this reason, the risk of
salesperson opportunism is high. This is due
to the salesperson’s limited knowledge of
company products, services, applications, and
means to provide value to customers.
Moreover, because a newly hired salesperson
has had fewer opportunities to participate in
training, communicate with h/her manager,
and assimilate the sales organization culture,
s/he may experience feelings of role
ambiguity, lack of clarity, and isolation (Weitz,
Castleberry, and Tanner 2004). Such feelings
may result in the pursuit of activities that are
non-productive and/or incongruent with
organizational goals and objectives (i.e.,
opportunistic behavior). To reduce this
uncertainty and to prevent salesperson
opportunism, a sales manager utilizes a
governance strategy that is primarily behaviorbased (Krafft 1999). Using this form of sales
control, the manager may set specific activity
goals for the salesperson (e.g., sales calls per
day, prospecting leads, customer research,
Vol. 7, No. 4
12
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
etc.). Being new, the salesperson will likely be
eager to comply with these activity goals
established by the manager. The manager will
also actively work with the salesperson to
develop skills and capabilities necessary to
ensure that organizational objectives are met.
This is done through closer managerial
supervision, coaching and mentoring. At this
stage of the relationship, we would expect that
the development of managerial trust be
primarily due to h/her confidence that the
salesperson will utilize newly developed skills
to reach performance objectives set by the
manager. Therefore, we expect the following
relationship between sales control and trust:
H1: At the beginning stage of the sales manager –
salesperson relationship, a positive relationship exists
between a sales manager’s use of behavior-based sales
control and the level of trust the manager assigns to
that salesperson.
Developing Stage of the Manager – Salesperson
Relationship. The behavior-based sales control
used by the manager up to this point plays a
dual role in the trust building process. More
specifically, in addition to closely supervising
the activities of the salesperson, the
investment made in salesperson capabilities
development leads to the development of firm
specific skill sets. If these skills have limited
transferability to other sales organizations, it
represents firm specific expertise. The firm
specific expertise developed by the
salesperson and the investments made by the
sales manager to develop those skills represent
credible commitments on the part of both
individuals. According to Rindfleisch and
Heide (1997), such investments tend to reduce
opportunism; however, from a trust formation
Northern Illinois University
perspective, credible mutual investments cause
a fundamental change to occur in the manager
– salesperson relationship by shifting the
focus of the relationship from protecting
oneself to protecting the investments made by
both individuals as well as the expected
returns from those investments. This
encourages the development of a closer, more
trusting relationship between the sales
manager and the salesperson. From the sales
manager’s perspective, since the salesperson’s
success is directly linked with that of the firm,
the salesperson’s actions will likely be in the
best interest of the firm’s. For this reason, the
salesperson’s response to the sales manager’s
investments in their professional development
should increase h/her desire to share
information and work in tandem with the
manager to achieve sales objectives (Wathne
and Heide 2000). This results in higher levels
of managerial trust because, as long as the
goals of the two are aligned, the manager can
more confidently predict how the salesperson
is likely to act. Our second hypothesis
summarizes this argument:
H2a: At the developing stage of the sales manager –
salesperson relationship, a positive relationship exists
between a sales manager’s perception of salesperson
firm specific expertise and the level of trust the manager
assigns to that salesperson.
Because of the sales manager’s professional
development investments up to this point, the
salesperson will have the skills needed to be
counted on to consistently meet required sales
quotas and goals (e.g., revenue, unit sales, and
profits). As a result, the manager may then
change h/her sales control strategy from
behavior-based to outcome-based as the focus
Academic Article
shifts from management of sales activities and
capability development to sales production.
This shift in control strategy better aligns the
goals of the manager and the salesperson since
both are now able to accrue (financial and
results) benefits from output based
performance goals (e.g., production of
revenue, units, profit margin, etc.). Relative to
managerial trust, we expect the following
relationship:
H2b: At the developing stage of the sales manager –
salesperson relationship, a positive relationship exists
between a sales manager’s use of outcome-based sales
control and the level of trust the manager assigns to
that salesperson.
Advanced Stage of the Manager – Salesperson
Relationship. As the manager – salesperson
relationship enters an advanced stage, the
impact of sales control on managerial trust
should diminish and give way to other
governance factors. At this stage, the manager
and salesperson know each other well having
had ample opportunities to interact over an
extended period of time. At this point, both
are motivated to work together to maximize
returns. This leads to increasing levels of
transparency between the two individuals
which enhance the potential for continued
positive customer outcomes (e.g., information
is shared between the sales person - the
primary customer interface, and the sales
manager - the holder of firm resources,
thereby allowing the two to identify and more
quickly respond to customer needs). As
positive outcomes are realized from their joint
efforts to meet customer needs and as those
outcomes are equitably split (Buvik and John
2000), higher levels of goal congruence are
Fall 2007
13
expected to develop between the sales manager
and the salesperson which facilitates increased
cooperation, information exchange, and
relational unity (Telser 1980). Managerial trust is
increased because it is in the salesperson’s best
interest to pursue goals that are consistent with
that of the sales manager and the firm (i.e., a
win/win condition is reinforced). In other
words, the sales manager can trust that the
salesperson will work in the best interest of the
firm because when the firm wins so does the
salesperson. At this stage, salesperson firm
specific expertise is at its highest levels (due to
experience and capability development) and as a
result, managers are expected to allow the
salesperson more freedom to accomplish sales
goals with less monitoring and supervision (i.e.,
more outcome-based sales control). Our third
set of hypotheses convey these relationships:
H3a: At the advanced stage of the sales manager –
salesperson relationship, a positive relationship exists
between a sales manager’s perceived goal congruence
with the salesperson and the level of trust the manager
assigns to that salesperson.
H3b: At the advanced stage of the sales manager –
salesperson relationship, a positive relationship exists
between a sales manager’s perception of salesperson
firm specific expertise and the level of trust the manager
assigns to that salesperson. This positive effect will be
stronger than in any previous stages of the sales
manager – salesperson relationship.
H3c: At the advanced stage of the sales manager –
salesperson relationship, a positive relationship exists
between a sales manager’s use of outcome-based sales
control and the level of trust the manager assigns to
that salesperson. This positive effect will be stronger
than in any previous stages of the sales manager –
salesperson relationship.
Vol. 7, No. 4
14
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Figure 1: Hypothesized Relationships
Sales Control *
H1 +
H2b H3c -
Salesperson
Expertise
H2a +
H3b +
Managerial
Trust
H3a +
Goal
Congruence
Beginning
Stage of
Relationship
Developing
Stage of
Relationship
Advanced
Stage of
Relationship
* Sales Control: pos. relationship = behavior based; neg.relationship = outcome based
Figure 1 is provided to summarize each of the
hypothesized relationships of this section.
METHOD
Sample
A questionnaire was provided to sales
managers across different firms and industries.
Prior to administering the questionnaire, a
sample of 10 sales managers was selected to
pre-test the survey. Managers were asked to
complete the survey and provide comments
on length of time to complete, instruction and
question clarity, and overall survey flow.
Based on their feedback, changes were made
to clarify instructions and reduce the time
needed to complete the survey. Upon revising
the questionnaire, we contacted sales
managers from a local chapter of Sales and
Marketing Executives (SME) located in
Northeast Ohio. Those managers who agreed
to participate in the survey were either
provided with a paper version (85 of which 53
were returned – response rate of 62%) or a
web link to an online version of the survey
Northern Illinois University
(109 of which 47 were returned – response
rate of 43%). The combined overall response
rate was 52%. Based on membership
information obtained from the director of the
local SME chapter, the demographic profile of
our sample closely parallels that of the SME
membership.
Consistent with Levin and Cross’s (2004)
sampling methodology (4 subordinates to 1
manager in their case), sales managers were
asked questions pertaining to any three individual
(manager-identified) salespeople within their
salesforce. To ensure that the manager was
providing information on three different
salespeople (versus the same one), we asked for
a ranking of each salesperson (1 = highest to 3 =
lowest) relative to h/her sales performance. This
allowed us to gather information for a broader
cross-section of salespeople relative to their level
of performance.
Table 1 shows the demographic breakdown of the
respondents. We tested and found no significant
differences resulting from multiple data collection
Academic Article
Fall 2007
15
Table 1
Demographics of Sample
Mean
Percent of Total
Gender of Sales Manager:
Male
65
Female
12
Not Specified
23
Avg. # of SP reporting to Sales Manager
10.9
Avg. Yrs Salesperson reporting to SM
3.3
Primary Customers are:
Businesses
74
Resellers
24
Consumers
2
Primary Industry is:
Telecommunications
26
Publishing/Printing
18
Financial Services
15
Business Services
13
Transportation Services
10
Real Estate Services
6
HealthCare
5
Other (Advertising, Promotion, Manufacturing)
7
methods (paper versus online). We used the t-test for
metric scales and non-parametric Chi squared test of
equal proportions for non-metric scales. The
procedure outlined by Armstrong and Overton
(1977) was used to verify that there were no
significant differences between early and late
responders for each of the variables used in the study.
Measures
Measurement items were drawn from existing
scales and are included in the paper’s
appendix. The dependent variable, managerial
trust was measured for each salesperson by
averaging four items. We chose this four-item
measure of trust (based on the trust scale used
by Zaheer, McEvily, and Perrone 1998)
because it captured the predictive nature of
trust (Deutsch 1968; Rotter 1980) as well as
provided for a direct assessment. A factor
analysis of two items directly measuring trust
with two items measuring the manager’s
Vol. 7, No. 4
16
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
ability to confidently predict future behavior
based on past experiences predicted 71% of
the total variance and loaded on a single
factor. This, coupled with the high reliability
estimate for the scale (Cronbach’s alpha =
0.87), determined that our measure was a valid
representation of interpersonal trust.
Sales control was measured using the control
index methodology developed by Krafft
(1999). This method, adapted from Cravens et
al. (1993), produces an index that reflects the
predominant sales control approach (more
outcome-based or more behavior-based) that
the manager uses to govern h/her salesforce.
The decision to utilize this method was due to
the transaction cost argument that a control
strategy be chosen based on the ability to
monitor sales output and activities (e.g.,
reporting), the reward system in place (e.g.,
salary versus commission), and the ability to
supervise salespeople (i.e., span of control) in
order to prevent opportunistic behavior.
Three components were used to compute this
index: 1) the information and measures that
managers use to evaluate their salespeople, 2)
the percentage of salesperson compensation
that comes from salary, and 3) the number of
salespeople reporting to the manager (i.e.,
span of control). Upon converting these
measures to z-scores, they were averaged to
compute the overall sales control index for the
sales manager sample. This scale depicted
more outcome-based control by negative
values and more behavior-based control by
positive values. For a more detailed
description of this sales control index
computation, see Krafft (1999).
Northern Illinois University
Salesperson firm specific expertise was measured
using an adaptation of one set of scales
developed by Behrman and Perreault (1982) in
their study of salesperson performance. Each
sales manager was asked questions pertaining
to his perception of each salesperson’s
proficiency in areas relative to their
understanding company products,
applications, and technologies, and the ability
to function as a subject matter expert. The
overall level of salesperson firm specific
expertise was computed as the average of the
individual items.
The goal congruence scale was adapted from Jap’s
(1999) study. Managers were asked to identify
their level of disagreement/agreement with three
statements pertaining to the degree to which the
sales manager and salesperson’s goals and
objectives are aligned. Goal congruence for each
salesperson was computed by averaging the
scores of the individual items. A high score
indicated that the sales manager perceived that
s/he and the salesperson had congruent goals.
The Cronbach’s alphas for all measures
exceeded 0.70 (see Table 2) thereby
demonstrating acceptable levels of internal
consistency (Nunnally 1978).
Validation of Measures
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and
reliability measures for the variables in this
study are identified in Table 2. Convergent
validity of the independent variable measures
was confirmed by computing the average
variance extracted (AVE). All AVE values
exceeded the 0.50 limit recommended by
Fornell and Larker (1981) and had significant
loadings on their corresponding constructs.
We also tested for discriminant validity by
Academic Article
Fall 2007
confirming that no single item loaded more
highly on another construct than it did on the
construct it was intended to measure (Fornell
and Larker 1981). Fit statistics from a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) established
an acceptable fitting measurement model.
17
Finally, all variables in the model were tested
for excessive skewness and kurtosis by
comparing the z-score equivalent of each
variable to ± 2.58 for a 0.01 level test
(Avlonitis and (Panagopoulos 2006).
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics, Correlations Among Variables, and Reliability Estimates
Construct
1
2
3
4
1 Managerial Trust
(.87)
2 Sales Control Index (z-score)
0.04
3 Salesperson Firm Specific Expertise
0.40**
-0.02
(.84)
4 Goal Congruence
0.59**
0.03
0.45**
(.77)
Mean
5.80
0.00
5.43
5.35
Standard Deviation
1.14
0.60
1.15
1.33
.57
.59
1
Avg. Variance Extracted (AVE)
Mean (std. dev.) at various stages of SP-SM relationship tenure
Mean (std dev.) - “beginning stage”
5.46
-0.01
5.29
5.32
(0 – 1.79 years)
(1.32)
(0.67)
(1.26)
(1.30)
Mean (std dev) – “developing stage”
5.82
-0.05
5.34
5.34
(1.80- 3.57 years)
(0.95)
(0.41)
(1.11)
(1.32)
Mean (std dev) - “advanced stage”
6.08
-0.10
5.71
5.32
(3.58 years +)
(1.11)
(0.68)
(1.08)
(1.31)
N = 296 salespeople reported by 100 sales manager respondents.
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores are reported in parentheses along the diagonal
Vol. 7, No. 4
18
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Analysis
RESULTS
Prior to our analysis, all variables were meancentered. No unreasonably large correlations
were observed between any of the independent
variables in our model and the largest variance
inflation factor (VIF) was 1.99 (for the goal
congruence variable), therefore multicollinearity did
not appear to be a problem (Neter et al. 1996).
Table 2 illustrates descriptive statistics,
correlations among the variables, and reliability
measures. The mean and standard deviation of
each variable for each of the three stages of the
manager – salesperson relationship is also
displayed. These results show that managerial trust
increases as the relationship between manager
and salesperson matures (mean = 5.46, 5.82,
6.08) as does salesperson firm specific expertise
(mean = 5.29, 5.34, 5.71). The mean value of goal
congruence over time is relatively constant (mean =
5.32, 5.34, 5.32) while sales control becomes
progressively more outcome-based (mean
=-0.01, -0.05, -0.10). Thus, the progression of
the means for managerial trust, salesperson
expertise, and managerial use of outcome-based
control support our hypotheses. Unexpectedly,
the means for goal congruence remained
relatively constant over the three relationship
developmental stages. We suspect that this may
be due to the nature of the actual goals (e.g.,
activity goals versus output goals) that are set by
the manager for the salesperson during each
relationship stage.
Three separate OLS regression models were run
and illustrated in Table 3. In each model, a subsample was used by splitting the entire sample
(100 managers reporting on 296 salespeople¹)
into three equal portions based on an N-tile
ranking of the tenure of the relationship between
manager and salesperson. Based on this sample
split, Model 1 (relationship tenure < 1.80 years;
n=34 managers, reporting on 99 salespeople)
tests the hypothesized relationship between sales
control and trust (H1) as expected in the
“beginning stage of manager – salesperson
relationship”. Model 2 (relationship tenure ≥
1.80 and < 3.58 years; n=33 managers reporting
on 98 salespeople) investigates the relationships
of trust to salesperson firm specific expertise (H2a)
and sales control (H2b) in the “developing stage
of the manager – salesperson relationship”.
Model 3 (relationship tenure ≥ 3.58; n=33
managers reporting on 98 salespeople) tests
the relationships between trust and goal
congruence (H3a), firm specific expertise (H3b), and
sales control (H3c) during the “advanced stage of
the manager – salesperson relationship”. Since
each hypothesis is directional, a single-tailed
test of significance is used. To illustrate the
total variance (of managerial trust) explained,
each model reports R-squared values and beta
coefficients for all three independent
variables.
The results of the regression models used to
test the impact of our variables of interest on
managerial trust are shown in Table 3. Model
1 (“beginning stage of the manager –
salesperson relationship”) explained 32
percent (R-squared = 0.32; adjusted R-squared
= 0.30) of the total variance in managerial
trust and reveals a significant and positive
relationship between sales control and managerial
trust (b = 0.21, p < 0.05). Since sales control is
an index with positive (negative) values being
indicative of behavior-based (outcome-based)
¹Four salespeople were removed from the sample due to missing data values
Northern Illinois University
Academic Article
Fall 2007
sales control (Krafft 1999) these results show
support for H1. Model 2 (“developing stage
of the manager – salesperson relationship”)
explained 47 percent (R-squared = 0.47;
adjusted R-squared = 0.45) of the total
variance in managerial trust and reveals, in
support of H2a, that salesperson firm specific
expertise has a positive and significant
19
relationship to trust (b = 0.16, p < 0.05).
Preliminary evidence supporting H2b was
found.
The impact of sales control on
managerial trust was directionally correct
(negative indicative of outcome-based sales
control) and marginally significant (b = -0.11,
p < 0.10). Model 3 (“advanced stage of
manager – salesperson relationship”) explains
Table 3
Regression Models of Managerial Trust in the Salesforce
Trust
(During 3-stages of the manager-salesperson relationship)
Variables
Model 1 (H1)
“beginning stage”
Model 2 (H2a, H2b)
Model 3 (H3a, H3b, H3c)
“developing stage”
“advanced stage”
Intercept
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sales Control
0.21**
-0.11*
-0.02
(2.57)
(-1.33)
(-0.31)
SP Firm Specific Expertise
0.07
0.16**
0.33***
(0.75)
(1.72)
(3.05)
0.48***
0.58***
0.45***
(5.26)
(6.40)
(4.10)
F-value for Model
13.35***
24.11***
29.08***
R-square
0.32
0.47
0.52
Adjusted R-square
0.30
0.45
0.50
Goal Congruence btw SM and SP
*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < .01 (single tailed significance test)
Model 1: N = 34 managers reporting on 100 salespeople
Model 2: N = 33 managers reporting on 98 salespeople
Model 3: N = 33 managers reporting on 98 salespeople
For each variable, the reported values are standardized betas with corresponding t-values in parenthesis.
Vol. 7, No. 4
20
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
52 percent of the variance of managerial trust.
Consistent with our previous models, goal
congruence has a positive and significant impact
on managerial trust (b = 0.45, p < 0.01) which
supports H3a. Additionally, salesperson firm
specific expertise is significant and has a
stronger impact than in the previous
relationship stages (b = 0.33, p < 0.01) and is
supportive of H3b. Testing the relationship of
sales control and trust at this stage of the
relationship revealed that although sales
control was increasingly outcome-based
(b = -0.02, p = 0.21), its effect on trust was
not significant. Thus, H3c was not supported.
One possible explanation for this is that in
order for managerial trust to exist at this stage
of the relationship, some behavior-based sales
controls are required so that managers can be
fully assured that customer needs are being
met (i.e., salespeople are not just focused on
making the sale without appropriate levels of
post-sale customer support).
Overall, the empirical findings from our
three-stage model provide support for five of
our six hypothesized relationships. In summary,
our results suggest that managerial trust can
develop by using behavior-based sales control to
govern salespeople (H1). Salesperson firm specific
expertise developed through the capability
component of behavior-based sales control has
the effect of increasing managerial trust (H2a) at
which point sales control becomes more
outcome-based (H2b). Furthermore, trust may be
enhanced as the manager and salesperson
develop goal congruence by working more closely
together and by sharing information about sales
opportunities (H3a) while the salesperson
continues to develop h/her firm specific expertise
(H3b).
Northern Illinois University
DISCUSSION &
IMPLICATIONS
MANAGERIAL
In this study, we proposed and tested a
theoretical link between sales control and
managerial trust in a salesforce setting. Our
findings suggest that sales managers’ use of
behavior-based sales control (via its capability
control component) provides a foundation for
salesperson firm specific expertise and congruent
goals to develop. The resulting fundamental
change that takes place between the manager
and the salesperson (from prevention of
opportunism to working together to accomplish
joint goals) continually enhances managerial trust
as the relationship between the two matures. As
the relationship between manager and
salesperson matures managerial confidence in
the salesperson’s reliability increases. This
resulting trust seems to stem in part from the
increase in the salesperson’s firm specific expertise
over time. As the relationship develops, sales
control becomes progressively more outcomebased which is indicative of the manager’s
willingness to ease up on the close supervision
and monitoring that is deemed necessary when
the relationship is new.
Unexpectedly, the mean value of goal congruence
over time remains relatively constant. This
suggests that it may not be the level of goal
congruence that is important in the
development of managerial trust rather the
type of goals that are in alignment (e.g., sales
activity versus sales output goals). For
example, at early stages of the relationship, a
manager may require a salesperson to make a
specified number of sales calls (regardless of
the outcome). The primary purpose of this is
to establish the behavioral practice and skill
Academic Article
development in customer rapport building and
needs identification. In later stages of the
relationship, the goals set by the manager are
geared more toward the production of sales
output (e.g., making sales) because at this
point, the salesperson has the skills necessary
to close business.
Our results suggest to a manager that in the
“beginning stage” of their relationship with a
salesperson trust is low and using sales control
that is behavior-based can prevent
opportunism. This allows the manager the
opportunity to engage the salesperson in
activities designed to develop h/her skills and
capabilities. As the manager – salesperson
relationship continues to develop a
reorientation in the sales manager-salesperson
relationship occurs as the salesperson
becomes less reliant on the sales manager for
direction and begins to make h/her own
decisions. Both parties recognize that the
investment made to develop the salesperson’s
skill and expertise will begin to have a direct
impact on bottom line sales results and the
sales manager can utilize outcome-based
controls to increase h/her own efficiencies
(i.e., less direct supervision and monitoring is
required). When this occurs, managerial trust
in the salesperson increases because of the
existing confidence that the salesperson will
use their expertise to make sales that are
congruent with organizational goals and
objectives.
Similar to Model 1, goal congruence was
significant to managerial trust. However, since
the mean of goal congruence at this
“developing” relationship stage (mean = 5.34)
is not significantly different from the mean in
Fall 2007
21
the previous “beginning” stage (mean = 5.32),
it is possible that congruent goals in
developing sales manager–salesperson
relationships are based on the production of
sales output rather than goals based on sales
activities/behaviors. Now that the salesperson
has developed skills and capabilities, the focus
(for both salesperson and manager) has
shifted to production of sales revenue, units,
and profit margin – all which serve to fulfill
the financial goals of the manager and the
quota goals (resulting in higher financial
rewards) of the salesperson. This results in a
“win-win” situation to be established so that
when these goals are met, both the
salesperson and the manager benefit.
In the “advanced stage”, more information
about customer needs and available firm
resources will be shared between the manager
and salesperson (e.g., improving their ability to
find successful ways to use firm resources to
meet customer needs). As a result, the goals
of the manager and the salesperson become
more congruent providing the basis for
increased cooperation, information exchange,
and unity (Telser 1980). Similar to goal
congruence, due to the additional experience
and incremental skills acquired by the
salesperson, the level of firm specific expertise
should continue to grow in this stage of the
relationship. Increased level of expertise
contributes to an increase in managerial trust
as the salesperson becomes more confident in
the salesperson’s ability to present the right
product solution and service to the customer.
Although sales control at this “advanced”
relationship stage was (as predicted) more
outcome-based than in previous stages its
Vol. 7, No. 4
22
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
impact on managerial trust was not significant
as predicted in H3c. One possible explanation
for this is that managers may need some
assurance that customers’ needs are being met
after the sale is made regardless of the
salesperson’s experience and skills. The
tendency for a highly expert salesperson
focused on sales outcomes may be to neglect
the customer’s need for post-sale support.
This may cause the manager some concern
(e.g., for repeat business and customer
relationship building) and as a result, s/he may
choose to use a more balanced mix of
behavior-based and outcome-based sales
control. Thus, the effect of sales control on
managerial trust at this relationship stage is
not as clear as in previous stages (see Models 1
and 2). Overall, our three models do a
reasonably good job of explaining managerial
trust as we show support for the majority of
our hypotheses.
Our study provides a relatively new
contribution to salesforce management
literature by presenting a theoretical argument
linking salesforce governance to the
development of managerial trust. This is
important since we show that a manager’s
willingness to trust a salesperson stems, in
part, from h/her choice(s) of sales
governance, some that are more productive in
engendering trust than others. In addition, in
contrast to much of the existing sales literature
which focuses on the salesperson’s trust in the
sales manager (see Atuahene-Gima and Li
2002; Brashear, Boles, and Brooks 2003;
Brashear, Manolis, and Brooks 2003; Choi,
Dixon, and Jung 2005), our study examines
trust from the sales manager’s perspective. For
sales managers, we answer the question,
Northern Illinois University
“…how can a manager utilize sales control to
develop trust in h/her salesforce?” Our results
suggest that one of the ways is by adjusting
the sales control strategy based on the stage of
the manager’s relationship with a salesperson.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to propose and
test a theoretical link between sales control
and the development of managerial trust in
salespeople. To do this, we suggested that
specific forms of governance may serve to
create interdependencies between manager
and salesperson so that a win/win condition is
established between them. We found that at
various stages of the manager – salesperson
relationship, managerial trust is dependent
upon the type of sales control strategy that
was used. Furthermore, sales control played a
role in the development of trust building
factors (such as salesperson firm specific
expertise and goal congruence) that managers
used to assign higher levels of trust to
salespeople. We hope that this study acts as a
stepping-stone for future managerial research
in the sales area. Managers are continually
seeking strategies that will result in higher firm
performance and one way is through the
effective use of sales control balanced with
appropriate levels of trust in the salesperson.
There are, however, several limitations in our
study.
A key limitation stems from our use of a
single control index to measure sales control.
While we used a well-established measurement
for sales control based on its application to
the theoretical framework of transaction cost
analysis (Krafft 1999), other additional
measures could be used in future research (see
Academic Article
Brashear, Manolis, and Brooks 2005) to
provide a clearer interpretation of when the
sales manager is using sales control that is
behavior-based, outcome-based, or a mix of
both. Furthermore, by using Jap’s (1999)
measure of goal congruence, we were
restricted to looking at the construct from a
general perspective. In future studies, goal
congruence could be more specifically
identified as to whether the goals being
measured are sales behaviors (e.g., sales inputs
such as making sales calls, making sales
presentations, etc.) or sales outcomes (e.g.,
sales output such as production of revenue,
profits, etc.). This would allow researchers to
better identify the specific types of goals that
are important at each of the three stages of
relationship development. Another limitation
of this study involves its cross-sectional
nature; future studies may employ a
longitudinal study in order to better evaluate
the development of managerial trust over
time. Finally, though our model explains up to
52 percent of the total variance in managerial
trust, we recognize that other factors may also
play an important role in trust development
and should be considered in future studies.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Erin and Richard L. Oliver. 1987.
Perspectives on behavior-based versus
outcome-based salesforce control systems.
Journal of Marketing 51 (4): 76-88.
Armstrong, J. Scott and Terry S. Overton. 1977.
Estimating non-response bias in
mail surveys. Journal of Marketing
Research, 14 (3): 396-402.
Fall 2007
23
Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku and Haiyang Li. 2002.
When does trust matter? Antecedents
and contingent effects of supervisee
trust on performance in selling new
products in China and the United
States. Journal of Marketing 66 (3): 61-81.
Avlonitis, George J. and Nikolaos G.
Panagopoulos. 2006. Role stress,
attitudes, and job outcomes in
business-to-business selling: does the
type of selling situation matter? Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management.
26 (1): 67-77.
Baldauf, A., David W. Cravens, and Nigel F.
Piercy. 2005. Sales management control
research – synthesis and an agenda for
future research. Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management 25(1):8-26.
Behrman, Douglas N. and William D. Perrault, Jr.
1982. Measuring the performance of
industrial salespersons. Journal of Business
Research 10 (3): 355-370.
Brashear, Thomas G., James S. Boles, and Charles
M. Brooks. 2003. An empirical test of
trust-building processes and outcomes
in sales manager – salesperson
relationships. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science. 31 (2): 189-200.
-----, Chris Manolis, and Charles M. Brooks.
2003. The effects of control, trust, and
justice on salesperson turnover. Journal of
Business Research 58 (3): 241-249.
Brown, Steven P., Kenneth R. Evans, Murali K.
Mantrala, and Goutam Challagalla
(2005), “Adapting Motivation, Control,
and Compensation Research to a New
Environment,” Journal of Personal Selling
& Sales Management, 25 (2), pp. 155-167.
Vol. 7, No. 4
24
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Buvik, A. and John, G. 2000. When does vertical
coordination improve industrial
purchasing relationships? Journal of
Marketing 64 (4): 52-64.
Challagalla, Goutam N. and Tasadduq A.
Shervani. 1996. Dimensions and types
of supervisory control: effects on
salesperso n perfo rmance a nd
satisfaction. Journal of Marketing 60 (1):
89-105.
Choi, Nak Hwan, Andrea Dixon, and Jae Min
Jung. 2005. Dysfunctional behavior
among sales representatives: the effect
of supervisory trust, participation, and
information controls: Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management 24 (3): 181-198.
Cravens, David W., Thomas N. Ingram,
Raymond W. LaForge, and Clifford E.
Young.1993.Behavior-based and
outcome-based salesforce control
systems. Journal of Marketing 57 (4): 47-9.
Deutsch, Morton. 1968. Trust and suspicion.
Conflict Resolution 2 (4): 265-79.
Dirks, Kurt T. and Donald L. Ferrin. 2002.
Trust in leadership: meta-analytic
findings and implications for research
and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology
87 (4): 611-628.
Driscoll, J. W. 1978. Trust and participation in
organizational decision making as
predictors of satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal 21: 44-56.
Flaherty, Karen E., Todd J. Arnold, and C.
Shane Hunt (2007), “The Influence of
the Selling Situation on the
Effectiveness of Control: Toward a
Holistic Perspective,” Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 27 (3), pp.
221-233.
Northern Illinois University
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larker. 1981.
Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing
Research 18 (February): 39-50.
Hair, Joseph F. Jr., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald
L. Tatham, and William C. Black. 1998.
Multivariate data analysis, 5th edition.
Prentice hall, Upper Saddle River NJ.
Ingram, Thomas N., Raymond W. LaForge,
Ramon A. Avila, Charles H. Schwepker
Jr., and Michael R. Williams. 2006. Sales
management analysis and decision
making. Thomson Southwestern,
Mason, Ohio.
Jap, Sandy D. 1999. Pie-expanding efforts:
collaboration processes in buyer-seller
relationships. Journal of Marketing Research
36 (4): 461-476.
------ and Erin Anderson. 2003. Safeguarding
inter-organizational performance and
continuity under ex post opportunism.
Management Science 49 (12): 684-701.
Jones, Gareth R. and Jennifer M. George. 1998.
The experience and evolution of trust:
implications for cooperation and
teamwork. Academy of Management Review
23 (3): 531-546.
Krafft,
Manfred. 1999. An empirical
investigation of the antecedents of sales
force control systems. Journal of
Marketing 63 (3): 120-134.
Levin, Daniel Z. and Rob Cross. 2004. The
strength of weak ties you can trust: the
mediating role of trust in effective
knowledge transfer. Management Science
50 (11): 1477-1490.
Academic Article
McAllister, Daniel J. 1995. Affect- and
cognition-based trust as foundations for
interpersonal cooperation in
organizations. Academy of Management
Journal 38 (1): 24-59.
Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby Hunt. 1994. The
Commitment-trust theory of
relationship Marketing. Journal of
Marketing 58 (3): 20-38.
Neter, John, Michael H. Kutner, Christopher J.
Nachtsheim and William Wasserman.
1996. Applied linear statistical models,
4th edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Fall 2007
25
Swan, John E., Fredrick I. Trawick, and David
W. Silva. 1985. How industrial salespeople
gain customer trust. Industrial Marketing
Management 14 (3): 201-211.
------, ------, David R. Rink, and Jenny J. Roberts.
1988. Measuring dimensions of
purchaser trust of industrial salespeople.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management 8 (1): 1-9.
Telser, L. G. 1980. A theory of self-enforcing
agreements. Journal of Business 53 (1): 27-44.
Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric theory,
2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Wathne, Kenneth H. and Jan B. Heide. 2000.
Opportunism in interfirm relationships:
forms, outcomes, and solutions. Journal
of Marketing 64 (4): 36-51.
Oliver, Richard L. and Erin Anderson. 1994. An
empirical test of the consequences of
behavior and outcome-based sales control
systems. Journal of Marketing 58 (4): 53-67.
Weitz, Barton A., Stephen B. Castleberry, and
John F. Tanner Jr. 2004. Selling:
building Partnerships. McGraw Irwin,
Boston, MA.
------ and ------ . 1995. Behavior- and outcomebased sales control systems: evidence
and consequences of pure-form and
hybrid governance. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management 15 (4): 1-15.
Williamson, Oliver E. 1985. Calculativeness,
trust, and economic organization. Journal
of Law and Economics 36 (2): 453-486.
Rindfleisch, Aric and Jan B. Heide. 1997.
Transaction cost analysis: past, present,
and future Applications. Journal of
Marketing 61 (4): 30-54.
Zaheer, Akbar, Bill McEvily, and Vincenzo Perrone.
1998. Does trust matter? Exploring the
effects of interorganizational and
interpersonal trust on performance.
Organizational Science 9 (2): 141-159.
Rotter, Julian B. 1967. A new scale for the
measurement of interpersonal trust.
Journal of Personality 15 (1): 651-665.
------.
------. 1996. The mechanisms of governance.
New York, Oxford University Press.
1971. Generalized expectancies for
interpersonal trust. American Psychologist
26 (1): 443-452.
------. 1980. Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness,
and gullibility. American Psychologist 35
(1): 1-7.
Vol. 7, No. 4
26
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Michael L. Mallin (Ph.D., Kent State
University), Assistant Professor of Marketing,
The Edward H Schmidt School for
Professional Sales, Department of Marketing
and International Business, College of
Business Administration, University of
Toledo, Michael.Mallin@Utoledo.edu
Edward A. O’Donnell (Ph.D., Kent State
University), Assistant Professor of Marketing ,
D. Abbott Turner College of Business,
Department of Marketing, Columbus State
University, Edward_Odonnell@colstate.edu
Michael Y. Hu (Ph.D., University of
Minnesota), Bridgestone Professor in
International Business; Professor of
Marketing, Department of Marketing, College
of Business Administration, Kent State
University, mhu@kent.edu
Northern Illinois University
Academic Article
Fall 2007
27
APPENDIX
Sales Control Index – component 1 (Source: Adapted from Krafft 1999) (Check all the boxes that apply)
What are the measures that you use to evaluate your salespeople?
What kind of information do you receive from your salespeople?
□ Number of sales calls b
□ Number of sales calls b
□ Qualitative/skill based aspects of selling (e.g., product
□ Sales in units and volume a
knowledge, presentation skills, etc..) b
□ Sales promotion skills b
□ Servicing of customers (e.g., customer satisfaction) b
□ Knowledge/activities of competitors b
□ Performance (sales units & volume) a
a item indicative of outcome-based sales control
b item indicative of behavior-based sales control
Sales Control Index – component 2 (Source: Krafft 1999)
Approximately what percentage of your salespeople’s cash compensation comes from fixed salary? ______ %
Sales Control Index – component 3 (Source: Krafft 1999)
How many salespeople report directly to you? ____
Managerial Trust Items: (Source: Adapted from Zaheer, McEvily, and Perrone 1998; Cronbach’s alpha = .87)
(7-point Likert scale anchored by 1=”strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”).
Each item asked relative to three manager identified salespeople.
1. I trust this salesperson
2. This salesperson is trustworthy
3. I know how this salesperson is going to act
4. This salesperson can always be counted on to act as I expect
Firm Specific Expertise Items: (Source:Adapted from Behrman and Perreault 1982; Cronbach’s alpha = .84)
(7-point Likert scale anchored by 1=”strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”)
Each item asked relative to three manager identified salespeople.
1. This salesperson knows the applications and functions of company products and services
2. This salesperson acts as a special resource to other departments that need assistance
3. This salesperson keeps abreast of company product, service, and technological developments
4. This salesperson when possible, troubleshoots problems and takes action to correct or prevent product/service misapplications and/or
failures
Goal Congruence Items: (Source: Adapted from Jap1999; Cronbach’s alpha = .77)
(7-point Likert scale anchored by 1=”strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”)
Each item asked relative to three manager identified salespeople.
1. This salesperson and I have different goals (reversed)
2. This salesperson and I have compatible goals
3. This salesperson and I support each other’s objectives
Vol. 7, No. 4
28
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
What is Successful Sales Behavior?
Exploratory Research in Business-to-Business Markets in the UK
By Peter Brent and Beth Rogers
The role of the field salesperson, in the Business-to-Business sector has evolved over the years. Much of
the research about direct professional salespeople has been in the areas of performance and control.
Some research has been undertaken on behavioral expectations from purchasing managers, but this has
been limited to aspects such as ethics and the effect of the supplier’s market orientation. The purpose of
this study was to explore which behavioral traits of direct professional salespeople are most required and
appreciated by purchasing managers , and also to understand the expectations about their behavior from
their sales manager’s point of view.
Introduction
In an article in 2001, Betsy Cummings asks
“Do Customers Hate Salespeople?” On the
basis of interesting anecdotes, she identified
six deadly sins of selling:
1.failure to do “homework”
2. being too pushy
3. pulling rank on buyers
4. not following up
5. being rude
6. being deliberately misleading
This is a populist view from the trade press.
Cummings does admit that most salespeople are
knowledgeable and trustworthy, but
unfortunately the negative stereotypes are all too
familiar. Obviously any salesperson behavior
can fail to meet customer expectations and lose
business, but sales managers have to do more
than help salespeople avoid these bad behaviors.
They need to pinpoint the behaviors which
generate positive sales performance in order to
coach and develop their team for success.
Northern Illinois University
Early in 2002 some ad hoc research was
conducted at a large international process
manufacturing firm under the broad heading
of ‘what buyers want from salespeople’. A
senior group purchasing coordinator agreed to
involve his colleagues in purchasing around
the world, and asked them for their opinion as
to what constituted a good salesperson. The
top five results (in order) were:
1. honesty
2. product awareness
3. empathy
4. effective communication
5. customer advocacy
As a footnote, an important point which
emerged from later conversation was ‘we will
judge salespeople by what they do, as much as
by what they are selling.’
This research was an attempt to explain why
some sales people were more successful than
others. This success seemed to be somewhat
independent of sales training, experience and,
in some cases, previous sales ability.
Academic Article
Previously, the author had examined the use
of incentives and other reward systems, but
these did not of themselves answer the
question. Good sales results were not
consistently driven by rewards in the B2B
domain. A review of academic papers on the
performance of sales people did not provide
complete clarity either. Discussions with
colleagues, senior staff, customers and others
suggested that there might be particular
‘behaviors’ which were likely to lead to
consistent success.
The authors considered that dyadic
exploratory research on both the supplier and
customer side of the sales process would be
the best way to move forward. In order to
understand perceptions, it seemed prudent to
take a broad approach to uncover issues or
problems before a quantitative program of
study could be undertaken. It was necessary,
due to the goodwill required to access
companies for in-depth interviews, to examine
only two industry sectors (manufacturing and
information technology) where the authors
had contacts.
In addition to asking a number of open-ended
questions about the nature of success
associated with the skills, attributes, qualities
and behaviors of the salesperson, a number of
questions were asked about the culture, size
and performance of the respondent firms, to
see if these were likely variables for success.
A study like this for the UK is timely. A recent
international survey of 2,705 corporate buyers
found that the sales profession in the UK had
the lowest overall rating – 53% of 419 UK
buyers rated the sales profession in the UK as
“poor” or “fair” (Thomas et al, 2007).
Fall 2007
29
Historical Research
Walker Churchill and Ford (1977)
proposed that the sales performance of an
individual salesperson depended on
motivation, aptitude and role perceptions.
Salespeople need to be able to estimate
how much time to spend on which tasks in
order to achieve performance and reward.
Thus, success seems to depend on
self-esteem, their perceptions of capability,
understanding of the business
environment, task-specific aptitude and
accurate role perception (knowing what is
required from the job).
In 1985, together with Hartley (Churchill,
Ford, Hartley and Walker, 1985), they
tested their model by performing a
meta-analysis of 116 studies of salesperson
p e r f o r ma n c e , i n cor p o r a t i n g 1 , 6 5 3
observations, going back to 1918. They
concluded that these studies struggled to
find any strong predictor of performance.
Although none of the variables accounted
for much variation they did find that
accurate role perceptions topped the
ranking, followed by selling skill and
motivation. Aptitude and product type had
some relevance in Business-to-Business
selling. They concluded that there were
multiple determinants of performance. The
strongest indication was that a salesperson
needs significant experience, knowledge
and awareness in order to be motivated to
achieve superior performance. The authors
expected some of these factors to still be
relevant, but that superior performance
might be better explained by something
defined by customers.
Vol. 7, No. 4
30
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
The Adaptive Selling Behavior model (Weitz,
Sujan and Sujan, 1986) might also be relevant
to this study. Weitz et al (1986) argued that if
salespeople are able to gather information to
develop tailored propositions to customers,
and adapt that proposition in the light of
customer feedback, they are more likely to
succeed. Many studies since have reinforced
this finding, (e.g. Park and Holloway 2003,
who found that Adaptive Selling Behavior had
a significant positive influence on customer
retention, opportunity conversion, sales
volume, market share and profitability). They
found that learning orientation was also linked
to better performance.
Additionally, Reid et al (1997) conducted an
extensive survey study of industrial buyers’
assessment of sales behaviors, involving 568
members of the National Association of
Purchasing Management in the USA. They
found that salespeople needed to improve
their understanding of customer needs and
ability to create value by applying their
products/services to the customers operations
and processes. They concluded that the
effective use of information to adapt the
offering to provide the best solution for the
buyer was “the bottom line”.
Finally, other studies have had a more specific
focus. For example, Trawick et al (1991)
describe buyers’ aversion to buying from
unethical salespeople and Roman and Ruiz
(2005) found that perceptions of ethical sales
behavior improved customer satisfaction and
commitment to the salesperson and their firm.
In a separate study, Roman et al (2005) found
that poor listening skills negatively affect
salesperson performance, and that
Northern Illinois University
commission based on sales volume negatively
influences salespeople’s listening behavior.
The market orientation of the firm positively
influences salespeople’s customer orientation,
which improves customer satisfaction and
trust. This satisfaction improves the
manufacturer’s financial performance
(Langarak, 2001). However, Guenzi et al
(2007) examined the relationship between
selling strategy and key account management
behaviors and found discrepancies between
desired behaviors and actual behaviors. While
account managers were able to adopt more
customer-oriented selling, teamwork within
their own organization was lacking.
In summary, the existing research would
suggest that the authors should expect to
collect comments about the application of
experience and knowledge, being able to adapt
offerings to customer needs and ethical
behavior. The relationship between the
salesperson’s behavior and their company’s
“customer orientation” might also be a topic
for concern.
The reason for extensive
discussion in this research was to identify
other areas of interest and possible
connections made by either sales managers or
customer decision-makers.
Methodology
Even though the authors expected to find
some sales managers and sales professionals
with a comprehensive understanding of more
successful sales behaviors such as adaptation
to customer needs, with reinforcement from
customer comment, it was decided to take an
open question approach to allow respondents
to explore their perceptions.
Academic Article
Fall 2007
31
Due to the goodwill required to access
companies for in-depth interviews, it was
necessary to examine only two industry
sectors (manufacturing and information
technology) where the authors had contacts,
Eighteen separate interviews were conducted
with four suppliers: sixteen face-to-face and
two by telephone. A further eleven face-toface interviews were conducted with
customers of these four suppliers.
Key words were extracted from the transcripts
and they were collated into six different
themes. We have used the terms below to
group the responses and then provide scoring
of the frequency of use of these words or
terms.
Semi-structured interviews with open-ended
questions were considered appropriate to
ensure that in this early stage of investigation,
the broad nature of the study and any unseen
issues or problems could be uncovered. Thus
allowing points which may have been missed
to be exposed before any quantitative
program is undertaken.
Polite, approachable, friendly, professional,
helpful, appropriately dressed
This exercise provided evidence of both the
advantages and disadvantages of qualitative
research. While providing depth through
extensive responses, it was also clear that
terminology around the topic of sales
behavior is loosely used. This was good
preparation for the quantitative follow-up
study, where definitions will be provided.
Personal Attributes (P)
Communication skills, relationship-builder,
problem-solver, team worker.
Developing a scoring system and grouping the results
Application Ability ( A)
It was decided that the best way to capture
the successful behaviors was to classify and
count the number of times specific
behaviors were mentioned. During the
analysis of the interviews the researchers
noticed that many different words were
used or expressed for essentially the same
behavior. In addition, some terms like
‘professional’ were used as a “catch-all” for
a variety of behaviors.
(Ability to apply knowledge and skills to the
customer’s situation)
Immediate Behaviors (I)
(behaviors noticeable within a few minutes of meeting
someone)
Knowledge Possession (K)
Product knowledge, knowledge of the market
and industry, knowledge of own firms’ capabilities and services, knowledge of customer’s
business.
Honesty/integrity, drive, proactive, interested,
curious, dependable, enthusiasm, energetic,
flexible, motivated, moral, ethical, transparent.
Personal Skills( S)
Entrepreneurial, able to understand and
interpret customer needs, constructs creative
solutions.
Competencies and Capabilities of the Firm( C)
Product and service expertise, technical
support, customer service support, good
logistics, timely and accurate responses.
Vol. 7, No. 4
32
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
The final grouping, ‘Competence and
Capabilities of the Firm’, was at first
eliminated because it did not emerge as a
distinct area in interviews with supplier
personnel. However, the responses from
customers did refer to the competencies of
the firm being instrumental in their
impressions of salespeople, so it has been
given a place in the analysis. It may be that the
supplier respondents regard their company’s
capabilities as an implicit underpinning in any
discussion of the behaviors and attributes of
the sales people.
Finally, to allow a direct comparison of the
scores for both the supplier and customer
groups, percentages of keywords have been
used.
Research Findings -- Supplier Responses
The first behavior focused question posed to
the sales managers and sales professionals had
them describe the behaviors they expected of
their current sales team. Their answers
indicated that encompassed immediate
behaviors, knowledge, personal attributes,
skills and application ability with a focus on
personal attributes (29% of mentions)
followed by application ability (23%). There
was minimal mention of immediate behaviors
(8%).
When asked how they would define a successful salesperson, there was even more focus on
personal attributes (39% of mentions). This
was also evident when sales managers and
sales professionals were asked to describe
their most successful salespeople/colleagues
(31% of mentions classified as personal
attributes). Knowledge and their ability to
Northern Illinois University
apply knowledge and skills were scored
relatively low (17% and 9% respectively).
Another follow-up question about what less
effective salespeople lack also showed a focus
on personal attributes (42%). When asked
about salespeople who had left the company
due to lack of success, the highest proportion
of descriptors were personal attributes. So,
sales managers were consistent across five
different questions in correlating personal
attributes with sales success.
When asked what they felt the customer
expected of salespeople, descriptors focused
on Applications Ability (24% of mentions)
and Competencies and Capabilities of the
Firm (27% of mentions). In response to a
question about what expectations customers
have of employees other than salespeople, the
highest proportion of comments (nearly two
thirds) was about immediate behaviors.
Respondents were asked whether the
motivational package for salespeople included
anything that was related to behaviors. They
all commented that behaviors were discussed
in appraisals, but there were no direct rewards
tied to behaviors. Of course, “behaviors” are
difficult to define, so measurement would also
be difficult.
In summary, sales managers and sales
professionals appear to consistently focus on
personal attributes as the main behavior that
relates to sales success. Even though this is a
limited qualitative study, the tendency for all
supplier respondents to rate successful sales
people with a high mention of attributes of a
personal nature such as honesty, integrity etc.
provides face validity to the results.
Academic Article
In addition, when asked to assume the
customer’s point of view, sales managers and
salespeople provided different keywords more
often. This shift was from personal attributes
to company competencies and the
salesperson’s application ability. The literature
to date suggests that application ability (A)
should be correlated with better performance,
although the role of personal attributes (P) is
also important.
Research Findings - Customer Responses
The customer decision-makers meet a
variety of salespeople on a regular basis.
They typically used more keywords than
sales managers and sales professionals in
d es cr i b i n g t h e i r e x p e c t a t i on s of
salespeople. In response to a general
opening question about their expectations
of salespeople, the responses were spread
across a variety of categories, with
Knowledge and Personal Attributes
attracting 22% of mentions each. When
responding to the questions that focused
on behaviors, the customers initially
focused on Personal Attributes (34% of
mentions). The next questions asked about
“best” behaviors from salespeople. This
resulted in relatively few descriptors,
however Application Ability emerged as
the prominent behavior (29% of mentions).
The customers appreciated the
salesperson’s abilities to apply their
knowledge and provide benefits that meet
their requirements. A follow-up question
about the status of the suppliers whose
salespeople demonstrated “best” behaviors
indicated that they were usually “preferred”
suppliers with long-standing relationships.
Fall 2007
33
Customers were then asked for actual
examples of “best” behaviors. Almost
exclusively, they recalled good experiences of
a personal nature. The supplier’s sales person
had ‘gone the extra mile’ or delivered
something to the customers which stood out.
For example, a senior IT buyer recalled how a
particular salesperson was interested in his
personal welfare following a round of
cutbacks and redundancies. His humanity was
a factor that the buyer remembered.
Despite some fond thoughts of salespeople,
when describing other supplier personnel,
customers commented that they were ‘more
professional’ than the sales people and that
their advice was likely to be more factual than
that from other salespeople. Two respondents
quoted that they found it difficult to believe
that a sales person on a bonus or commission
could give honest and objective advice.
When comparing supplier and customer
responses, it is interesting that when the
customers were asked about best behaviors in
general, their interest in application ability was
in line with sales managers’ interpretation of
their views, but when asked for examples of
best behavior, they focused on demonstration
of personal attributes. Overall, customers
seemed to have a broad range of expectations
of salespeople. Given the literature to date,
the focus on application ability was consistent
with what we know to date about sales
behaviors associated with better sales
performance. However, the “in extremis”
need for personal commitment from the
salesperson was an interesting and
thought-provoking angle in the responses.
Vol. 7, No. 4
34
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Discussion
It was immediately apparent, both on listening
to the recordings and reading the transcripts
that there is much confusion in both the
supplier and customer groups of
understanding and usage of the words
behaviors, qualities, attributes, knowledge and
skills. Questions about “behavior” solicited
responses including references to factual
knowledge and communication skills.
Dictionary definitions of “behavior” suggest it
is the manner in which people control
themselves, the way in which they respond to
stimuli. Customers commented that the initial
appearance and manner of the first or early
meetings with the sales person is important
(what the authors classified as ‘immediate’
behaviors). Poor “immediate behaviors” on
first meeting would make it difficult for a sales
person to begin a successful call or
relationship. In the perception of respondents,
“behavior” also encompasses the way that,
over time, a salesperson demonstrated their
knowledge, skills and qualities, and how they
apply them.
In order to capture all the themes emerging
from these discussions, the following diagram
is provided to help illustrate the breadth of
“sales behavior”. It appears that the
acceptance by the customer of good
“immediate behavior” at an initial meeting
allows the sales person to successfully pass
onto the next stage. From the responses, it is
clear that customers think that the knowledge,
skills and personal attributes of the
salesperson are important, and that they
would expect demonstration of these
attributes within a fairly short period of time.
There seems to be a message from customer
responses that “best” sales behavior involves
Proposed Model
Time
Seconds/minutes
Minutes/hours/days
Hours/days/months
Immediate behaviors
Skills
Skills
Application of
Knowledge
Knowledge
Knowledge,
ApplicationSkills
of
andSkills and
Knowledge,
PA to Customer
Needs
Personal
Attributes
to Customer Needs
Personal
Attributes
Personal Attributes
Competences & Capabilities
Northern Illinois University
Academic Article
the sales person demonstrating their ability to
apply knowledge, skills, and personal
attributes, to solve the customer’s problem.
This, arguably, is underpinned by the core
capabilities and competencies of the firm
which customers expect to follow through
from the salesperson’s activity.
There seems to be a degree of co-dependency
between these six factors of success. Thus
there might be a comprehensive approach to
training or coaching successful sales
behaviors.
Recommendations and Further Research
This exploratory research has identified that
there is confusion among respondents from
both supplier and customer organizations
about what a behavior is, how good behavior
from sales people is judged and how good
behaviors can be linked to measurable success.
This study has used in-depth interviews to
discover how sales professionals and sales
managers and customers express their
requirements and expectations, it has given us
some pointers and food for thought, but the
subject needs to be tested in a larger, closely
defined quantitative study. The authors are
approaching professional institutes representing
salespeople as well as purchasing
decision-makers in the UK to achieve this end.
References
Churchill Jr., A., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W.
and Walker Jr., O. C. (1985) “The
Determinants of Salesperson
Performance: A Meta-Analysis”,
Journal of Marketing Research, May
1985, Vol. 22, Issue 2, pp. 103-118.
Fall 2007
35
Cummings, B. (2001), “Do Customers Hate
Salespeople?”,
Sales and Marketing
Management, June 2001, Vol. 153,
Issue 6, pp. 44-51.
Guenzi, P., Pardo, C. and Georges L. (2007),
“Relational selling strategy and key
account managers’ relationship
behaviors: An exploratory study”,
Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 36, pp. 121-133.
Langerak, F. (2001), “Effects of marketing
orientation on the behaviors of
salesperson and purchasers, channel
relationships, and performance of
manufacturers”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 18, pp. 221-234.
Park, J-E. and Holloway, B. (2003), “Adaptive
selling behavior revisited: an empirical
examination of learning orientation,
sales performance and job
satisfaction”, Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 239-251.
Reid, D. A., Plank, R. E. and Minton, A. P.
(1997), “Industrial buyers’ assessment
of sales behaviors”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 7, Issue 1, pp. 1-13.
Roman, S., Ruiz, S. and Munuera, J. L. (2005),
“The influence of the compensation
system and personal variables on a
salesperson’s effective listening
behavior”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 25, pp. 205-230.
Roman, S, and Ruiz, S, (2005), “Relationship
outcomes of perceived ethical sales
behavior: the customer’s perspective”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 439-445.
Vol. 7, No. 4
36
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Thomas B, Mitchell S and Del Rossa J (2007),
“Sales: strategic partnership or
necessary evil? 2007-2008 Global sales
perceptions report”, Development
Dimensions International, Pittsburgh
Trawick, I. F., Swan, J. E., McGee, G. W. and
Rink, D. R. (1991), “Influence of
buyer ethics and salesperson behavior
on intention to choose a supplier”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Winter 1991, Vol. 19, Issue 1, pp. 17-24.
Walker Jr., O. C., Churchill Jr., G. A. and
Ford, N. M. (1977), “Motivation and
Performance in Industrial Selling:
Present Knowledge and Needed
Research”, Journal of Marketing Research,
May 1977, Vol. 14, Issue 2, pp. 156-168.
Weitz, B. A., Sujan,H. and Sujan, M. (1986)
“Knowledge, Motivation, and
Adaptive Behavior: A Framework for
Improving Selling Effectiveness”,
Journal of Marketing, October 1986,
Vol. 50, Issue 4, pp. 174-191.
Peter Brent is a partner of Mathieson Brent,
which offers integrated sales and marketing
consultancy to B2B companies in a variety of
sectors. He has over 30 years marketing and
sales experience in substantial companies such
as Kodak, Letraset, W R Grace and, most
recently, as Sales Director of a division of
National Starch & Chemical.
Beth Rogers runs the MA Sales Management
at Portsmouth Business School. She also
chairs the UK National Sales Board. She has
a sales and marketing background in the IT
industry.
Her book “Rethinking sales
Northern Illinois University
management” reached the amazon.com top
ten “hot new releases” in its category in
September 2007.
Academic Article
Fall 2007
37
Table 1. Summary of supplier outlook
Immediate
Knowledge
behaviors
Personal
Attributes
Personal
skills
Application
skills
Companywide
capabilities
General
expectations
8%
20%
29%
20%
23%
Successful
salesperson
2%
9%
39%
28%
22%
Most
successful
14%
17%
31%
29%
9%
What less
effective
lack
8%
17%
42%
29%
4%
What
customers
expect
5%
17%
22%
5%
24%
27%
Personal
Attributes
Personal
Application
skills
Companywide
Table 2. Summary of customer outlook
Immediate
Knowledge
behaviors
skills
capabilities
General
expectations
9%
22%
22%
18%
16%
13%
Expected
behaviors
19%
15%
34%
13%
17%
2%
12%
21%
25%
29%
13%
Best
behaviors
Vol. 7, No. 4
38
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
The Impact of Stigma: Negative Stereotypes of Salespeople
By Vinita Sangtani and John Andy Wood
This study investigates the managerial implications of customers’ negative stereotyping (stigmatization)
of the sales position. The importance of this research develops out of findings that an individual’s
awareness (stigma-consciousness) of the negative views of salient reference groups can have deleterious
consequences. Evidence from this field study of 190 automobile salespeople indicates they are aware of
being stigmatized and that this awareness decreases their effort and performance. Managerially, the study
finds that individualized managerial support can mitigate the negative impact of stigmatization of the
sales role.
Recent polls suggest that the public continues
to hold a dim view of the sales profession and
to rate commissioned salespeople as dishonest
and unethical (Gallup 2006). The public views
these commissioned salespeople as
fast-talking, pushy, and insincere (Butler
1996). The occupation of automobile sales, in
particular, has the dubious distinction of being
rated as the least honest, ethical, or
trustworthy (Jones et al. 1996). It is likely that
the negative societal view of the sales role has
reached levels at which one could construe a
stigma being attached to it.
A stigma is “an association with a particular
attribute that identifies it as different and
deviant, flawed or undesirable” (Kasperson et
al. 2001). For salespeople, it is not the product
or service being sold but the sales role that is
stigmatized. In addition, evidence indicates
that automobile salespeople are aware of their
profession being the target of stigmatization,
i.e., labeling and stereotyping, along with the
associated loss of status (Link and Phelan
2001). This low evaluation of the sales role
presents an interesting dilemma for
salespeople according to differential
association theory (Leonard et al. 1999) and
classic sales motivation theory (Walker et al.
Northern Illinois University
1977). This dilemma occurs because in
commission-based sales positions extrinsic
motivation through compensation is
inextricably linked to interaction with the
customer holding the negative view about the
sales role.
Using data from commission-compensated
salespeople from the highly stigmatized
automobile sales profession, this study
empirically examines the impact of
salespersons’ awareness of the stigma
associated with their work roles on effort and
performance. We propose that this impact is
particularly evident in jobs where the firm’s
compensation plan for salespeople is based
solely on commissions. While a company’s
compensation plan is a key determinant of a
salesperson’s effort (Brown et al. 2005), a
commission-based plan exacerbates an already
low opinion that customers have of
salespeople. Sales managers, who choose not
to change the compensation plan, need
guidance on whether good management can
mitigate this negative influence. Accordingly,
this study concludes by examining the
mediating
effects
of
individualized
management support on the effects of stigma
awareness upon sales effort.
Academic Article
BACKGROUND
Based upon expectancy theory which
underlies
the
Churchill/Ford/Walker
framework (Johnston and Marshall 2003), a
firm’s compensation structure, regardless of
type, influences,
through instrumentality
(a probability estimate made by the
salesperson that performance leads to reward)
of the salesperson, the motivation to expend
effort. These estimates will have higher
probabilities
when
“salespeople
are
compensated
solely
or
partly
by
commissions” (Walker et al. 1977 p. 165).
Beyond an unspecific group of personal or
organizational variables, the other direct
antecedent of instrumentality is a salesperson’s
role perception. More specifically, these role
perceptions are seen as the accuracy with
which the salesperson understands the
linkages between performance and rewards,
such as, understanding that compensation is
directly tied to transactions. Role accuracy
also influences expectancies (probability
estimates about effort leading to performance)
such as, courteous behavior increases the
chances of a successful sale.
Many perceptions of salespeople about their
sales role come from ‘role partners’ (Johnston
and Marshall 2003).
These partners
communicate their expectations about the
sales role. Evidence indicates one such role
partner is the sales manager who can have a
positive mediating influence between a
salesperson's effort and performance (Boles et
al. 1997; Brashear et al. 2003) through
managing role expectations. However, these
findings about managerial support are limited
by a paucity of investigations into the
Fall 2007
39
influence of sales management on effort and
performance
in
commission-based
compensation systems.
This limitation is likely a development of the
stream of research based upon the Anderson
and Oliver (1987) framework. The AO
framework provides several alternative
theories to explain salary or behavior-based
compensation systems as more motivating of
salespeople. Some support has been found to
indicate that salary-based compensation
coupled with behavior-based control leads to
increases in sales effort and ultimately the
performance of salespeople (Cravens et al.
1993; Oliver and Anderson 1994).
Subsequently, most recent sales research
focuses on behavior-based control systems
(Baldauf et al. 2005). Little additional research
seemed necessary as salespeople fully
compensated by commission are conceptually,
agents, and under agency theory, are
extrinsically motivated by monetary reward
(Ghosh and John 2000).
We suggest, as do Cravens et al. (1993), that
the outcomes of the choice of compensation
structure are more complex, especially when
considered along with role perceptions of
salespeople. This being said, after choosing
commission-based compensation along with
its specific structure, sales management’s
options to motivate are seemingly limited.
This is because, even though Oliver and
Anderson (1994) explicitly viewed
compensation directly tied to sales or profits
as only a part of an outcome-based control
system, they note the importance of
commissions in practice: “under such a
system, the invisible hand of the marketplace
Vol. 7, No. 4
40
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
pressures salespeople to perform and guides
their actions” (Anderson and Oliver 1987
p. 76). Thus in the AO framework,
salespeople primarily compensated by
commissions are, at a conceptual level,
controlled by the marketplace and not by their
managers.
However, we suggest, even though the choice
of commission-based compensation guides
salespersons to exert effort at tasks they view
as necessary to achieve the sale, the role of
management is not eliminated. Under the
C h u r c h i l l / F o r d / W al k e r f r am e w o r k ,
management can indirectly influence
motivation by influencing role accuracy
perceptions. Managers, as role partners, can
and do influence instrumentality and
expectancy estimates that lead to effort to
achieve the monetary reward. However,
before establishing the influence of managers,
it is important to first establish that
salespeople do perceive that their efforts will
directly lead to increased performance. We
test this in the first hypothesis.
H1:
A salesperson’s perceived effort is
positively related to the salesperson’s
self-reported performance.
Stigma and Effort
One management challenge that develops
under outcome-based compensation systems
is to maintain sale’s focus on completing the
transaction while keeping a customer
orientation. The literature has seen extensive
examination of the effect of salesperson
orientation on completing the sales task
(Periatt et al. 2004). In the expectancy
framework, salespersons will expend effort on
Northern Illinois University
those tasks that they believe increase the
probability of a successful sales transaction.
Customer-oriented salespeople see that their
efforts in taking care of the customer will lead
to completion of the transaction (Saxe and
Weitz 1982). Other salespeople may favor
expending effort on other actions, such as
deception, that they believe will enhance the
probability of a successful transaction and
thus earn their commission. These latter
salespeople engage in behaviors that
accomplish the goal regardless of customer
interests.
It is likely that part of the stigma associated
with commission-based salespeople stems
from the actions of a group that
unscrupulously engages in any behavior that
completes the transaction. However, under
certain conditions, even salespersons with
an initial customer focus may find that the
commission-based compensation system
negatively influences their effort and
performance. This can occur because, as
noted in differential association theory, the
customer becomes a member of a critical
reference group or a role partner (Leonard
et al. 1999). The customer’s opinions and
words will influence the salesperson's social
identity, role perceptions, and motivation.
Evidence suggests that when a salient
reference group, such as the customer to the
salesperson, holds significant negative views
of the salesperson, this condition will
negatively influence the salesperson’s work
motivation and effort (Leonard et al. 1999)
This occurs when salespeople perceive their
interactions with customers to be affected
by the stereotyping (Pinel 2004).
Academic Article
Many commission-compensated salespeople
may feel they are left with only two choices.
They may perceive that they are stigmatized
and discount the likelihood of a successful sale
outcome as a consequence of the stigma
associated with their sales position. This
choice leads to lower effort. The second
choice is to discount or ignore the opinions of
the customer and focus on completing the
transaction.
This strategy may lead to
increases in negative opinions as customers
perceive the salesperson is unconcerned with
their needs. As we suggest next, eventually
this leads to negative stereotyping of this
category of salespeople or the stigmatization
of commission-based sales.
Our understanding of stigmas, as a condition
that influences interpersonal interactions,
comes from the social sciences in general and
marketing in particular (Adkins and Ozanne
2005; Link and Phelan 2001). While a
consensus definition of stigmatization is
elusive, we propose that stigmatization is the
categorization of the sales role into a
stereotyped group and refers to patterns of
social rejection. Most stigma frameworks
(Adkins and Ozanne 2005; Link and Phelan
2001) embrace a social explanation for
rejection. Signs of stigmatization include
existence of an outward indicator of class,
negative connotations attached to the
stereotyped category, and wide dissemination
of the stigma through popular media.
An additional component of stigmatization is
that the target of this stereotyping must be
aware of the negative categorization for it to
have an impact on self-image (Oyserman and
Swim 2001). It is likely that automobile
Fall 2007
41
salespeople are aware of the negative societal
connotations associated with their profession.
Some evidence of this awareness is provided
by salespeople’s widespread use of
euphemisms for their profession such as
‘account manager’ or ‘problem solver’ in order
to cast the profession in a more positive light
(Blitzer 1994).
A salesperson may or may not react to the
stigma depending upon their choices outlined
above. They may ignore customers and their
opinions, in which case the stigmatization
does not matter.
Alternatively, the
salesperson may maintain a customer
orientation.
Then, the salesperson’s
perception of stigmatization is likely to be a
significant influence on the effort expended
since the negative categorization comes from
the role referent customer.
Stigma
consciousness theories suggest that awareness
of stigmatization prevents the target of the
stigma from “push(ing) themselves to excel in
that domain” (Pinel et al. 2005 p. 486). In a
similar vein, Bussey and Bandura (1999)
maintain that targets of the stigma may lower
their effort. This effect leads to our second
hypothesis:
H2: A salesperson’s stigma-consciousness is
inversely related to the salesperson’s
self-reported effort.
Manager Support
As boundary spanners, salespeople must try to
satisfy both, customers and the company,
which can cause role conflict for the
salesperson (Bagozzi 1980; Johlke and Duhan
2001; Singh 1993). In addition, having to face
constant rejection in selling, salespeople have
Vol. 7, No. 4
42
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Figure 1: Mediating Role of Effort and Manager Support
H2: negative
Stigma-consciousness
H1: positive
Effort
Performance
Managers Support
to be self-motivated in order to be successful
(Rich 1999). Self-guidance is particularly
important for commission-compensated
salespeople. Under outcome-based
compensation control and according to the
agency theory perspective, this internal
assurance is not likely to be bolstered by the
sales manager.
However, the sales manager plays a critical
role in the salesperson’s performance in
building skills through coaching and training.
In this role the sales manager is another
critical referent source that influences the
salesperson’s perceptions about work
(Leonard et al. 1999). Managers can also
exert influence by providing individualized
support by way of personalized attention and
by being empathetic to the feelings of the
salesperson. Personal support by managers,
according to Dubinsky (1999), refers to
personal attention given to salespersons in
individual interactions and showing concern
for their well-being as well as their
professional development. This support
provided by the sales manager can contribute
Northern Illinois University
to the salesperson’s successful performance of
the expected work roles (Johlke and Duhan
2001).
In this model, because of the inclusion of
stigma, we suggest that managerial support
indirectly influences the salesperson’s
perceptions of performance and more directly
influences the perceived effort exerted by the
salesperson. As our discussion in the previous
two hypotheses indicates, research shows that
the relationship between managerial support
and effort is reciprocal, i.e., managerial
support can increase effort and vice versa
(c.f. Luk and Shaffer 2005; Johlke and Duhan 2001). Thus, we expect managerial
support to mediate the internal assessment
processes of the salesperson. Managerial
support, even in an outcome-based control
system, can mediate and decrease the
influence of stigmatization on effort.
Accordingly, we hypothesize:
H3: Sales manager support will mediate the
negative influence of stigma-consciousness on
self-reported effort.
Academic Article
METHODOLOGY
Sample and Survey Procedures
We began the data collection by identifying an
industry with a highly stigmatized sales role.
Evidence
suggests
that
commissioncompensated sales people, such as automobile
salespeople, are stigmatized as having low
integrity or morals and being untrustworthy
(Bernstein 2003). Other researchers note that
automobile salespeople are generally held in
contempt (Felcher 1995). A Gallup poll even
reported that car sales were perceived as the
least ethical profession (Butler 1996) to the
extent that “they only fare better than
murderers” (Joetan and Kleiner 2004 p. 49).
The automotive sales industry provides a good
context in which to test our hypotheses.
The sample was drawn from twenty-seven
different dealerships located in the southern
United States. As part of the research project,
students of a marketing research class at a
regional university handed out questionnaires
to salespersons in different automobile
dealerships in four cities/towns within 100
miles of each other. Prior permission and
support came from general managers of the
dealerships. The questionnaires were dropped
off and then picked up over a period of 10
working days. Of the three hundred
questionnaires handed out, 193 were returned
of which 190 were completed, yielding a
response rate of 63%. Instructors followed up
with sales managers to verify student data
collection methods.
Ninety-one percent of the sample was
comprised by males and 9% by females. This
distribution is not surprising as the incidence
of women in automobile sales is very low
Fall 2007
43
nationwide. The male respondents had been
automobile salespeople for an average of 8.1
years while the females’ tenure averaged 8.5
years with an overall median of six years. The
salespeople had been with their current
dealership an average of 5.25 years with a
median of three years and overall sales
experience of 11.5 years with a median of
eight years. Other demographic distributions
of the sample are in table 1.
Measurement
The measurement instrument used scales that
have been validated in the marketing
literature. The exception is the stigma scale,
which, to the best of our knowledge, is new to
the sales literature (Pinel et al. 2005).
Consequently, we drew on the social
psychology literature for this scale (Pinel
2005). All final scales had multiple items and
summated scores were created for the final
analysis. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
indicated the scales had acceptable
psychometric properties. The final measures
are listed in appendix 1, and the operational
definitions used to measure the constructs are
detailed in the following with reliabilities
reflected by Cronbach alpha in parentheses.
Stigma (0.75): This construct is measured by
Pinel’s (1999) consciousness scale as modified
by Wildermuth (2004). This scale measures
awareness of a stigma. In this study’s context,
the extent to which respondents perceive
themselves as stereotyped as typical
automobile salespeople by customers as well
as the extent to which they perceive that the
stereotyping affected their interactions with
others in their nonprofessional life. According
to Pinel et al. (2005), high stigma
Vol. 7, No. 4
44
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Table 1
Distribution of Sample Demographics
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1
2
3
Categories
4
Age
Income
Years in Sales
Years in Auto Sales
5
Years in Auto Sales with this Dealer
Category Range
Age
25 years and
under
26 -35
36 - 45
46 - 55
56 years and
greater
Income
$20,000 and
under
1 year and under
1 year and under
1 year and under
$20,001$40,000
Greater than 1
to 5 years
Greater than 1
to 5 years
Greater than 1
to 5 years
$40,001$60,000
Greater than 5
to10 years
Greater than 5
to10 years
Greater than 5
to10 years
$60,000$80,000
Greater than
10 to15 yrs.
Greater than
10 to15 yrs.
Greater than
10 to15 yrs.
$80,001 and
greater
Greater than
15 years
Greater than
15 years
Greater than
15 years
Years in Sales
Years in Auto
Sales
Years in Auto
Sales with this
Dealer
consciousness affects interactions of target
group members, in this case automobile
salespersons, with those not belonging to the
target group. The five items in Appendix 1
were used for the analysis.
Manager Support (0.92): Individualized
manager support reflected the sales manager’s
respect and “concern about their (the
Northern Illinois University
salespersons’) personal feelings and
needs,” (Rich 1999 p.55). This direct support
for the individual is measured by five items.
Effort (0.87): Measures of the salesperson’s
effort can incorporate self-evaluation or
external supervisory indicators. As stigma is
likely to affect self-reported effort or
performance, those types of indicators are
used. The five items used by Dixon et al.
Academic Article
Fall 2007
(2001) to measure salespeople’s effort
attribution measured the effort of salespeople
in this study.
Performance (0.93): Sujan et al’s (1994)
seven item performance scale reflects
salespeople’s evaluation of their attainment of
company objectives. It captures subjective
comparisons of their performance with
that of colleagues’. Adaptations were made
to capture the automobile sales context
with the final scale having the eight items
listed in appendix 1.
RESULTS
As anticipated, salespersons’ perceptions of
their effort are positively related to their
self-reported performance.
Regressing
performance on effort indicates support
for hypothesis one as the beta coefficient
of .178 is statistically significant at p<.05
(see Table 2). So these salespeople do
seem to understand the positive linkage
45
between their effort and their performance.
Also
as
anticipated,
salespeople’s
perceptions of a stigma do significantly
and negatively influence perceptions of
effort. As indicated in Table 2, there is
support for hypothesis two as the beta
coefficient is -.26. The t-value of the test
of statistical significance is 3.696 with p
< .05.
Given the support for the first two
hypotheses, this analysis next examines
hypothesis three, which proposes that
perceptions of managerial support mediate
the effect of stigmatization on effort.
Following the heuristic of Baron and
Kenny (1986),
evidence that managerial
support mediates the effect of stigmaconsciousness on effort is provided by
including both stigma-consciousness and
managerial support as antecedents in a
model that predicts effort. If the strength
of the relationship of stigma-consciousness
Table 2: Outcomes of the Series of Linear Regressions
Hypo
thesis
Relationship
Stand
. Beta
tvalue*
.178
2.485
6.173
.027
-.260
3.696
13.659
.063
.183
2.552
6.513
.028
-.255
3.610
13.026
.060
-.178
-8.435
7.171
.072
.094
4.455
at the
.05 level
H1
Effort
Performance
H2
Stigma
Effort
H3
Preconditions for test of mediation
Manager Support
Effort
H3
Stigma
Stigma
Stigma
Manager Support
Manager Support
Effort
Manager Support
F-statistic
for the
model
Adjusted
R Square
Effort
Effort
* t greater than or equal to 2 is significant
Vol. 7, No. 4
46
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
on effort is less in this new model than in
the model with only stigma-consciousness
as a predictor of effort, mediation is
indicated. This heuristic assumes three
preconditions (as described next) are met.
Testing for the mediating effect of
management support, begins by establishing
that manager support is a significant predictor
of effort with a positive relationship. Support
is found for this as the beta coefficient of .138
for the regression of effort on manager
support is significantly different from zero
with a t-value of 2.552 and p < .05. It was
also found that stigma-consciousness
negatively
influences
perceptions
of
managerial support with the beta significant at
-.265. The third regression for the test of
mediation, effort regressed on stigma, is
covered in hypothesis two (b = -.260; t = 3.7).
All assumptions of the tests of mediation are
met.
Next, the examination of the mediating effect
of managerial support on stigma’s influence
on effort begins with a model including both
antecedent variables. The stigma – effort
relationship remains statistically significant in
this model with the beta decreasing to -.178
(using Sobel's formula; t = – 8.44, p < .05).
The manager support – effort relationship
also remains statistically significant with a beta
of .094. The t-value for this test of the
departure from zero is significant at 4.46 and
p < .05. These results provide support for
hypothesis three that managerial support
mediates and decreases the negative effect of
perceptions of stigma on salesperson’s
self-reported effort.
Northern Illinois University
DISCUSSION AND MANAGERIAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
Stigmatization or perceived stereotyping of
groups has been extensively studied in the
social sciences literature. That a stigma exists
about the sales profession is supported by the
popular press articles and polls previously
cited, which indicate that the sales profession
and automobile sales in particular, are held in
low regard. Our empirical results indicate
salespeople are aware of the societal
stigmatization of the automobile sales
profession. Managers need to be aware of this
stigmatization and its implications that the
awareness of this stigma negatively influences
a salesperson’s self-reported effort and
performance.
As found in previous research (Pinel et al.
2005), it is likely the societal view of
salespeople is skewed and more negative than
is warranted. As is the case with many
stereotyping classification systems, the
caricature of Willy Loman as a typical
salesperson (Butler 1996) may be inaccurate
and unfair, but is also prevalent.
The
contribution of this paper is neither to justify
nor to debunk the stigmatization of
salespeople. Rather, consistent with other
social science research, this study provides
evidence of a strong correlation between
elevated levels of stigma consciousness and
inferior levels of performance (Pinel et al.
2005).
While it is possible that society’s negative view
of salespeople is exaggerated, it is also possible
that some ‘sales oriented’ salespeople are
responsible for these views. It is likely that
unethical salespeople are present in any
Academic Article
compensation system. However, given the
outcome-based versus process-based control
system, it is likely that unscrupulous
individuals looking for low control may self
select the commission-based compensation
system. This self selection leads to a higher
proportion of ‘sales oriented’ and/or
opportunistic individuals in outcome-based
compensation systems.
Management is faced with the dilemma of
avoiding outcome-based compensation or
accepting the possibility that customers will
have some negative views about the sales role.
This study suggests other options to
management for avoiding unethical behaviors
and resultant stigmatization beyond using
outcome-based compensation. As we outline
next, an integrated series of sales management
practices could alleviate some of the more
deleterious consequences of stigmatization of
the sales profession.
Our first recommendation is that managers
should not ignore or discount the possibility
that a stigma is associated with their firm’s sales
positions. When using commission-based sales
compensation, it is important to determine if
your sales people feel customers hold negative
views about the sales position. Care should be
taken to ensure that the salespeople are
expressing their opinion about the position and
not customer opinions about them as
individuals. It is quite possible that the
salesperson could reason that the customer
doesn’t hold a positive opinion of the sales role
but thinks quite highly of them. The questions
included in the stigma scale, in the appendix to
this paper, are a good guide to the questions a
manager should ask of sales people.
Fall 2007
47
Sales managers can confirm the influence of
stigma consciousness by querying their
salespeople about the sales process. Managers
should seek to identify any role inaccuracies
that may be the result of stigmatization.
Managers should look for inaccurate estimates
of the amount and types of effort necessary to
achieve a successful transaction. Managers
should also look for inaccuracies in estimates
of the reward achieved for a successful sale. A
salesperson that overestimates the effort
required to complete a sale or incorrectly
estimated the reward earned by a sale that has
also expressed stigma-consciousness indicates
a problem.
The second step for the manager is to
determine if, in the aggregate, there are
enough salespeople aware of customer
stigmatization. Managers are cautioned to
remember that not all salespeople will express
awareness of the stigma even if it exists.
Salespeople have coping mechanisms to deal
with the stigma and thus may not exhibit a
consciousness of the stigma. A cautionary
note about one coping mechanism is in order.
A focused qualitative study found that some
automobile salespeople cope by reversing the
roles and stigmatizing the customers as the
inferior group with negative characteristics
(Felcher 1995).
This particular coping
mechanism may require extensive retraining to
avoid it devolving into deceitful and
opportunistic behaviors.
For the sales manager, the most important
group is the salespeople that express an
awareness of the stigma. The results of this
study indicate that managers can mediate the
effects of stigmatization on effort. The key is
Vol. 7, No. 4
48
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
in recognizing that stigma applies to the sales
role and not the individual. Again looking at
the appendix at the end of the paper (see the
items measuring manager support), one sees
the emphasis is upon supporting the
individual and not the sales task. Managers
need to acknowledge the stigma but point out
that it is not personally directed. Management
does not need to expend efforts on building
up the sales role. Rather, managers should
focus on the individual. Management effort
to spend time with each salesperson
individually (the management literature often
cites three times a week) as opposed to time
spent in group meetings will have benefits.
Coupling this management time with
individualized training in coping techniques
will lead to extensive improvements in effort.
Measuring the success of management
support is also relatively simple. The effect of
management intervention should become
evident through more accurate role
perceptions. Salespeople’s estimates of the
probability of success based on effort should
become more closely aligned with the firm’s
experience.
Similarly, accuracy in role
perceptions will be indicated by how close the
salesperson’s estimate of the specific reward
from a successful sale is to the company’s
actual calculation of compensation. Thus,
managers can query the salespeople both
before about their role accuracy as a
diagnostic of potential problems and after
some
management
intervention
for
indications of successful mediation.
Another possible implication of stigmatization
is its consequence on effort. Low motivation
to exert sales effort will have a negative impact
Northern Illinois University
on performance. Pinel et al (2005) suggest
that the decrease in effort by highly
stigma-conscious people might occur due to
“psychological disengagement,” a process of
distancing the self from the domain in which
the stigmatization is experienced. This
disengagement may be a partial explanation
for the high voluntary turnover of automobile
salespeople. A cycle of low estimates about
obtaining the commission followed by low
success rates creates the self-fulfilling
expectancy leading ultimately to low income.
Management engagement might break this
cycle and decrease turnover.
As a final recommendation, management can
help salespeople disconfirm the customer’s
expected stereotype. First impressions can
confirm or disconfirm expectations and these
begin with the introduction of the customer
and salesperson (Wood 2006). Educating
salespeople on the appropriate display of
initial nonverbal signals can have a huge
impact on the balance of the customer/
salesperson interaction.
Handshakes, eye
contact, and genuine smiles begin the
relationship on a positive note and are more
than a formality. Managers should be aware of
the impact of these displays and role play with
their salespeople to practice non-verbals. This
training is an example of the individualized
attention mentioned above.
LIM IT AT ION S
RESEARCH
AND
F U T UR E
This research just scratches the surface of a
neglected area in the sales literature, namely
the effect of society's negative stereotyping of
the sales profession. Because this research
uses automobile salespeople in a deliberate
Academic Article
attempt to maximize stigmatization and to
maintain a commission-based compensation
context, caution should prevail when drawing
any broad conclusions.
However, this
research is an extension of an established
framework of motivated salespeople
expending more effort which leads to
increases in performance.
The paper
contributes to our understanding of
motivation by finding stigmatization impedes
this effort. Of course, other factors such as
salespeople’s personal characteristics,
experience with selling, and/or the type of
selling situation also influence the
motivation-effort-performance model and the
deliberate exclusion of positive influences is a
limitation of this study. This limitation could
be alleviated by additional research. In
addition, while it appears likely that regardless
of compensation structure the presence of
stigma may negatively influence sales effort
and performance, investigation of this
conclusion needs to continue. Extensions of
this line of research are imperative, as it is not
likely that the negative opinions of salespeople
will disappear any time soon.
Another fruitful line of investigation would be
to see if salespeople were conscious of the
stigma prior to starting the job. Future
longitudinal studies would investigate if the
levels of stigma consciousness had changed
since starting employment. Research might
reveal additional factors that mediate the
influence of the stigmatization. However,
since the salespeople in our sample had been
at their current dealership for an average of
over five years, their tenure would likely have
Fall 2007
49
biased their previous recollections of stigma;
consequently, we did not measure their stigma
consciousness prior to entering the
profession.
Despite these various shortcomings it is clear
that managers can mediate the effect of
stigma. This managerial influence upon fully
commissioned salespeople is another under
explored area in the literature.
The
implication that sales positions that primarily
rely upon monetary rewards for motivation
can also motivate sales effort by 'soft' factors
suggest a hybrid system of control where the
influences of monetary rewards are monitored
by managers. Research into such hybrid
systems is likely to be fruitful. Finally, this
research needs to extend into different
contexts, such as, services or business to
business sales.
REFRENCES
Adkins, Natalie Ross and Julie L. Ozanne
(2005), "The Low Literate Consumer,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2), 93-105.
Anderson, Erin and Richard L. Oliver (1987),
"Perspectives on Behavior-Based
Versus Outcome-Based Salesforce
Control Systems," Journal of
Marketing, 51 (October), 76-88.
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1980), "Salespeople and
Their Managers: An Exploratory Study
of Some Similarities and Differences,"
Sloan Management Review, 21 (2), 15-26.
Baldauf, Artur, David W. Cravens, and
Nigel F.Piercy(2005),"Sales Management
Control Research-Synthesis and an
Agenda for Future Research," Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25
(1), 7-26.
Vol. 7, No. 4
50
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986),
"The Moderator-Mediator Variable
Distinction in Social Psychological
Research: Conceptual, Strategic and
Statistical Considerations," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6),
1173-82.
Bernstein, Marty (2003), "Car Salespeople, Ad
Execs Rank Low in Poll,” Automotive
News, 77 (6039), 3M.
Blitzer, Roy J. (1994), "From Trainer to
Salesperson," Training & Development, 48
(7), 58-59.
Boles, James S., Mark W. Johnston, and Jr Joe F.
Hair (1997), "Role stress, Work-Family
Conflict and Emotional Exhaustion,"
The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 17 (1), 17.
Brashear, Thomas G., James S. Boles, Danny N.
Bellenger, and Charles M. Brooks (2003),
"An Empirical Test of Trust-Building
Processes and Outcomes in Sales
Manager-Salesperson Relationships,"
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 31
(2), 189-201.
Brown, Steven P., Kenneth R. Evans, Murali K.
Mantrala, and Goutam Challagalla
(2005), "Adapting Motivation, Control,
and Compensation Research to a New
Environment," Journal of Personal Selling
& Sales Management, 25 (2), 155-67.
Bussey, Kay and Albert Bandura (1999), "Social
Cognitive Theory of Gender
Development and Differentiation,"
Psychological Review, 106 (4), 676-713.
Butler, Charles (1996), "Why the Bad Rap?," Sales and
Marketing Management, 158 ( 6), 58-67.
Cravens, David W., Ingram Thomas N.,
Raymond W. LaForge, and Clifford E.
Young (1993), "Behavior-Based and
Outcome-Based Salesforce Control
Systems," Journal of Marketing, 57 (4), 47-59.
Dixon, Andrea L., Roseann L. Spiro, and Maqbul
Jamil (2001), "Successful and
Unsuccessful Sales Calls: Measuring
Salesperson Attributions and Behavioral
Intentions," Journal of Marketing, 65 (3), 64-78.
Northern Illinois University
Dubinsky, Alan (1999), "Sales Person Failure:
Sales Management is the Key," Industrial
Marketing Management, 28 (1), 7-17.
Felcher, Marla (1995), ""Professors", "Get Me
Dones", and "Moochers": How Car
S a le s p e o p le E x p e r ie n c e T h eir
Customers," Advances in Consumer
Research, 22, 611-16.
Gallup, Organization (2006), "Honesty / Ethics
in Professions," Vol. 2007.
Ghosh, Mrinal and George John (2000),
"Experimental Evidence on Agency
Models of Salesforce Compensation,"
Marketing Science, 19 (4), 348-65.
Joetan, Edwin and Brian H. Kleiner (2004),
"Incentive Practices in the US
Automobile Industry," Management
Research News, 27 (7), 49-56.
Johlke, Mark C. and Dale F. Duhan (2001),
"Supervisor Communication Practices
and Boundary Spanner Role Ambiguity,"
Journal of Managerial Issues, 13 (1), 87-101.
Johnston, Mark W. and Greg W. Marshall
(2003), Churchill/Ford/Walker's
Salesforce Management (Seventh ed.).
Boston: McGraw Hill.
Jones, Eli, Donna Massey Kantak, Charles M.
Futrell, and Mark W. Johnston (1996),
"Leader behavior, work-attitudes, and
turnover of salespeople: An Integrative
Study," The Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 16 (2), 13.
Kasperson, Roger. E., Natalie Jhaveri, and
Jeanne X. Kaperson (2001), "Stigma,
Places, and Social Amplification of Risk:
Toward a Framework of Analysis," in
Risk, Media, and Stigma: Understanding
Public Challenges to Modern Science
and Technology, J. Flynn and P. Slovic
and H. Kunreuther, Eds. London:
Earthscan.
Academic Article
Leonard, Nancy H., Laura L. Beauvais, and
Richard Scholl (1999), "Work
Motivation: The Incorporation of
Self-Concept-Based Processes," Human
Relations, 52 (8), 969-98.
Link, Bruce G. and Jo C. Phelan (2001),
"Conceptualizing Stigma," American
Sociological Review, 27, 363-85.
Luk, Dora M. and Margaret A. Shaffer (2005),
"Work and Family Domain Stressors
and Support: Within and Cross-Domain
Influences on Work-Family Conflict,"
Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 78 (4), 489-508.
Oliver, Richard L. and Erin Anderson (1994),
"An Empirical Test of the Consequences
of Behavior and Outcome Based Sales
Control Systems," Journal of Marketing, 58
(4), 53-67.
Oyserman, Daphna and Janet K. Swim (2001),
"Stigma: An Insider's View," Journal of
Social Issues, 57 (1), 1-14.
Periatt, Jeffery A., Stephen A. LeMay, and Subra
Chakrabarty (2004), "The Selling
Orientation-Customer Orientation
(SOCO) Scale: Cross Validation of the
Revised Version," Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 24 (1), 49-54.
Pinel,
Elizabeth C. (1999), "Stigma
Consciousness: The Psychological
Legacy of Social Stereotypes," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (1), 114-28.
Pinel, Elizabeth C., Leah R. Warner, and
Poh-Pheng Chua (2005), "Getting There
is Only Half the Battle: Stigma
Consciousness and Maintaining
Diversity in Higher Education," Journal of
Social Issues, 61 (3), 481-506.
Pinel, Elizabeth C. (2004), "You're Just Saying
That Because I'm a Woman: Stigma
Consciousness and Attributions to
Discrimination," Self and Identity, 3 (1), 39-51.
Fall 2007
Rich,
51
Gregory A. (1999), "Salesperson
Optimism: Can Sales Managers Enhance
It and So What if They Do?," Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice (Winter), 53-63.
Saxe, Robert and Barton A. Weitz (1982), "The
SOCO Scale: A Measure of Customer
Orientation of Salespeople," Journal of
Marketing Research, 19 (August), 343-51.
Singh, Jagdip (1993), "Boundary Role Ambiguity:
Facts, Determinants, and Impacts,"
Journal of Marketing, 57 (2), 11-31.
Sujan, Harish, Barton A. Weitz, and Nirmalya
Kumar (1994), "Learning Orientation,
Working Smart, and Effective Selling,"
Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 39-52.
Walker, Orville C., Jr., Gilbert A. Churchill Jr.,
and Neil M. Ford (1977), "Motivation
and Performance in Industrial Selling:
Present Knowledge and Needed
Research," Journal of Marketing Research,
14 (May), 156-68.
Wildermuth, Susan M. (2004), "The Effects of
Stigmatizing Discourse on the Quality of
On-Line Relationships," CyberPsychology
& Behavior, 7 (1), 73-84.
Wood, John Andy (2006), "NLP Revisited:
Nonverbal Communications and Signals
of Trustworthiness," Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 26 (2), 197-204.
Vinita Sangtani
(Ph.D. Georgia State University)
Assistant Professor of Marketing
Department of Management & Marketing
Nicholls State University
Vinita.Sangtani@nicholls.edu
John Andy Wood
(Ph.D. Georgia State University)
Assistant Professor of Marketing
College of Business and Economic
West Virginia University
jawood@mail.wvu.edu
Vol. 7, No. 4
52
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
APPENDIX 1
Measures
Performance (Sujan, Weitz and Kumar 1994):
1. At contributing to my dealerships acquisition of market share
2. At selling high profit margin products
3. At generating a high volume of sales dollars
4. At quickly generating sales of new additions to my dealerships inventory
5. At correctly identifying prospects
6. At converting prospects to customers
7. At exceeding sales targets
8. At assisting the sales manager at achieving his or her goals
Manager Support (Rich 1999):
1. Demonstrates he/she genuinely cares about me
2. Shows respect for my individual needs
3. Shows respect for my individual feelings
4. Usually trusts me to do the right thing
5. Treats me like a real person, not a subordinate
Stigma Pinel (1999), Wildermuth (2004), Pinel (2004), and Pinel et al. (2005):
1. Stereotypes about automobile salespersons have not affected me personally
2. I never worry that my behaviors will be viewed as stereotypically that of an automobile salesperson
3. Most of my friends do not judge me on the basis of being an automobile salesperson
4. It never crossed my mind that my profession is any less than other professions
5. When others speak disapprovingly of automobile salespersons, I criticize myself about being one.
Effort (Dixon, Spiro, Jamil 2001):
1. I worked hard and it paid off
2. I tried very hard to make this sale
3. I put in a lot of effort in this sale
4. I put in the time needed to make the sale
5. I gave the effort needed to make the sale
Northern Illinois University
Application Article
Fall 2007
53
The Certified Sales Professional:
Has the Time Finally Arrived?
By Neil Rackham
It’s not a new idea. For more than a century
there have been voices crying in the
wilderness saying that the time has finally
come for sales to be a profession; time for
salespeople to have recognized standards and
qualifications like lawyers, accountants and
other professionals. I’m a professor, so
forgive me a brief history lesson here. The
earliest reference I know to professional
selling comes from the Society of Commercial
Travelers in the mid 1880s:
“If we do not strive for the
professional respect accorded to other
occupations of substance and worth,
then the world shall judge us no
better than peddlers and rogues”.¹
In keeping with its time, the concern here was
more about character than competence. Many
societies and associations were established in
the last quarter of the 19th century to promote
the sales profession, both in the United States
and Europe. Most of these, such as the Order
of United Commercial Travelers, stressed
moral character and temperance in keeping
with the values of the Victorian era. (Their
initials, U.C.T., doubled on their Order badges
and buttons for Unity, Charity and
Temperance). The only one of these societies
to have escaped oblivion is the Gideon's, of
hotel bible fame. I was fascinated to find that
it was originally founded to “eliminate
drinking, gambling, dirty jokes, Sunday trading
and other ‘forms of temptation peculiar to
traveling [sales]men’”.² I bet that’s one piece
of sales history you didn’t know. But a
profession is more than upright morals and
temperance.
In the age of Enron, we
understand all too well that while competence
can be measured, certified, tested and assured,
certification of integrity is another matter
entirely. As a result, these early attempts did
little to genuinely advance the standing of
professional selling.
The First Sales Certifications
A new approach to professionalism based on
demonstrated competence was introduced in
1893 by John Patterson, founder of National
Cash Register. He certified his growing sales
force based on their knowledge and
application of The NCR Primer and its
companion volume, The Book of Arguments.
These remarkable sales manuals included
every tiny detail of the sales process, down to
the smallest gesture of a finger. Patterson
held certification camps where his salespeople
had to demonstrate their mastery of every
item. Those that failed to meet his exacting
standards, however good their sales figures,
found themselves looking for work elsewhere.
Despite the efforts of Patterson and others
like him, the idea of professional selling in the
early part of the twentieth century was little
more than hope and good intentions. The
problem was that certification was based on
¹Commercial Travelers’ Magazine, Autumn 1884
²Spears, 100 Years on the Road: The Traveling Salesman in American Culture, Yale University Press, 1995
Vol. 7, No. 4
54
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
rigid scripts and prescriptions. There was no
evidence that a certified salesperson was more
effective as a result of the effort. Indeed,
Patterson fired high performers who didn’t
conform to his theories.
Slow Progress
But, with each passing year, the field of sales
was making some progress. In 1932 Russell
and Beach³ wrote:
Even though salesmanship may not
have attained the status of an exact
science, it is steadily approaching the
idea of a profession. . . . Some
enthusiastic proponents claim that it
is the greatest profession of them all,
on the grounds that it requires the
real salesman to be as carefully and
broadly trained as any who claim
professional status.
This is
doubtless an exaggeration as yet.
Many progressive employers and
trainers of salesmen are working
towards the goal of establishing a
definite course of study which, when
completed satisfactorily, will place
the graduate on the same plane as
the holder of a Certified Public
Accountant’s certificate.”
A Recurring Theme
It’s now 75 years since these words were
written. I’m horrified to confess that for half
of that time I’ve been studying sales for a
living.
During my career, the idea of
professional certification for salespeople has
come up over and over again with predictable
regularity. Approximately every five years it
erupts like the Old Faithful geyser in
Yellowstone Park. There’s a gush of interest,
a lot of noise and steam and then everything
goes dormant until the next eruption. By my
calculation, the next plume of quinquennial
enthusiasm is due very soon. Will it be
different this time? Is the certified sales
professional an idea whose time has finally
come? I think so, and here’s why.
A Perfect Storm
Selling has become significantly more
sophisticated during the last ten years. It
wasn’t so long ago that I would fall down
laughing when people talked of “sales
strategy”, knowing that what they really meant
was simple tactics ruthlessly executed. That’s
not the case today. The wrong sales strategy –
or a lack of strategy – can lose an account or
even sink a business. It’s a pity that we still
use the word “selling” to describe what it
takes to manage today’s relationships with key
customers. Key account selling has become a
complex and demanding professional process.
But it’s not just the natural evolution of highend selling that makes me believe that we need
to take a fresh look at the idea of certified
sales professionals. We’re caught in a perfect
storm – at the intersection of three significant
business trends that are changing the world of
selling.
The Focus on Organic Growth
The first of these trends is the new top
management attention to sales growth. Ten
years ago it was still possible to succeed as a
CEO through cost-cutting and improving
efficiency. You could install new systems,
³Russell and Beach, Textbook of Salesmanship Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1932
Northern Illinois University
Application Article
introduce better processes or outsource
non-core areas of your business. All these
things would improve the bottom line and
please your shareholders.
But, in most
companies today, these efficiencies have
already been achieved. So where does the
CEO look for profit growth? Acquisitions
perhaps? Many of today’s most successful
business leaders grew their companies by
mergers and
acquisitions. The problem
they face now, after the flurry of mergers in
the last decade, is that most of the attractive
targets have already been taken. Those that
remain are generally less attractive or
overpriced. So what’s a poor CEO to do,
now that the two traditional
avenues for
profit improvement and growth are drying up?
The answer is to grow the revenue – to focus
on the top line.
With this in mind, CEO’s across the world are
taking a new interest in organic growth. They
are looking closely at their sales forces and
asking some tough questions about whether
or not they have the level of professionalism
and competence needed to sustain ambitious
growth plans. They are coming to realize that
a good sales force is just as important a
sustainable competitive advantage as a good
product stream. And, with that realization,
comes nagging quality assurance questions
about the level and caliber of their
salespeople.
The Internet
The second component of the perfect storm is
the internet. It has swept away millions of
sales jobs around the world. Before the
internet, if you wanted to know about a
product or service, your best option was to
Fall 2007
55
meet with a salesperson. An important part of
the sales job was to communicate to
customers the details of the seller’s mousetrap
and what made it superior. Put less kindly,
many salespeople were nothing more than
expensive talking brochures. With the easy
access to information provided by increasingly
user-friendly web sites, the need for this type
of product based selling has dwindled and all
but disappeared. Buyers don’t want these
talking brochures and companies can’t afford
them. As a result, there are fewer sales jobs
but the ones that remain are higher level,
more demanding and – incidentally -- much
better paid. Ten years ago, it was hard to take
professional selling seriously when anyone off
the street, with a minimum of product
training, could be a successful talking
brochure. Today such people are failing in
droves. The bar has been raised. The demand
from employers and customers is for
salespeople whose expertise, competence and
problem solving ability creates value. In other
words, the market now wants professional
salespeople.
The Professionalization of Purchasing
The final trend is the professionalization of
purchasing. A mere ten years ago, you could
find people in the purchasing function whose
chief qualification was that they were honest
company citizens. While doing research into
purchasing decision making in 1989, I recall
being told by the Chief Operating Officer of a
public company in the United States that his
purchasing people were loyal but didn’t have
the talent to be successful in line functions.
“We don’t pay them much,” he told me, “but
we let vendors take them out to lunch from
time to time as a reward.”
Vol. 7, No. 4
56
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Those days have gone forever. Purchasing,
together with its rapidly growing offspring
Supply Chain Management, has become one
of the most important and strategic functions
in the company. Armed with tools like
Vendor Segmentation Strategies, or Lifetime
Value Analysis, the new breed of purchaser is
professional, competent and – yes –
professionally certified. The new purchasing
function expects much more from
salespeople. They want business acumen and
they want expertise. In short, they expect a
new and exacting professional level of
competence from those who hope to do
business with them.
The professionalization of purchasing has
been enormously helped by the clarity of the
purchasing task. In any organization, you can
define the fundamental role of purchasing as
the acquisition of the right products and
services on the optimum terms. Try coming
up with a similarly clear and simple definition
for sales and you run into the immediate
difficulty that selling roles are more
fragmented.
The label “sales” includes
everything from the simple retail transaction
to the strategic global account. It’s hard to set
professional standards when there isn’t a clean
definition of the role.
Nevertheless,
purchasing professionals have seen how their
own roles have been transformed by a
disciplined professional approach and they
rightly expect the same from sales.
So What Happens Next?
Unlike the earlier attempts to create a sales
profession, the business drivers needed for
change are now in place. Many of the
instruments of success are in place too and
Northern Illinois University
there are roadmaps to follow – albeit that
many of them are from outside the United
States. The UK, for example, has extensively
researched and internationally benchmarked
National Occupational Standards for Sales
(www.msssb.org), which are proving very
useful beyond its borders. These standards
define the purpose of sales as “to create,
build and sustain mutually beneficial and
profitable relationships through personal
and organizational contact.”
This
definition is broad enough to encompass most
B2B sales. Within this framework are detailed
competencies required by the professional
salesperson. In addition to the usual suspects,
such as selling skills, time management and
presentation skills, these standards cover
wider competencies such as finance,
forecasting, working with other functions,
marketing, leadership and ethics. A number
of global companies in Europe, including
Xerox, are structuring their internal training
and development using these national
standards frameworks.
There are also professional institutes for sales,
such as the Strategic Account Management
Association, the United Professional Sales
Association, and the Institute for Sales and
Marketing Management. The latter has a UK
government-accredited qualifications
framework. In the United States there are
eleven business schools (all members of the
University Sales Center Alliance) as well as a
number of schools in Europe with excellent
academic sales programs that turn out highly
employable graduates. The University Sales
Education Foundation is dedicated to
increasing sales professionalism. These are
encouraging developments. So what’s still
missing?
Application Article
There are advocates and evangelists for
sales professionalism, but the sparks have
yet to set fire to salespeople. The jury is
still out on whether they want to see
themselves as sales professionals who
deserve the same investment in skills as
accountants, lawyers and engineers. Are
they reluctant to take that step because of a
macho culture in selling that the School of
Hard Knocks is all you need to succeed?
Fall 2007
57
Neil Rackham is the founder and CEO of
Huthwaite, Inc., a leading sales consulting,
training, and research firm, and author of several
best-selling books, including SPIN Selling,
The SPIN Selling Fieldbook, Major Account Sales
Strategy, and Getting Partnering Right. Recognized
as a pioneer in sales force effectiveness,
Mr. Rackham is widely credited with bringing
research and analytical methods to the field of
sales force management.
There’s a delicious word for what’s now
needed, and that word is entelechy. The
Oxford English Dictionary defines
entelechy as “the condition in which a
potentiality becomes an actuality.” I’ve also
seen it defined as “turning the potential into
the actual”. That’s what we need here –
some entelechy. There are advocates and
evangelists for sales professionalism who
are ready and able to take the potential of
selling standards and turn them into the
practice of a true profession. But, set
against them, there’s the inertia of millions
of salespeople who have yet to see
But
themselves as sales professionals.
here’s a comforting thought: the previous
waves of enthusiasm for sales qualification
and standards – enthusiasms that fizzled out
– were initiated by experienced salespeople
who complained that new entrants needed
to be more professional. Today I hear the
opposite. It’s the young, successful entrants
who are asking why there aren’t
qualifications. They are the ones who want
to see selling become a recognized
profession. They deserve our help and
support.
Vol. 7, No. 4
58
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Improving Sales Performance through
Situational Management in sales organizations
By Karl Pinczolits
An increasing number of companies are introducing performance measurement systems into their sales
force organizations. It has become essential to understand the impact of productivity in the sales
process. A performance management concept is described in this article, which explains the nature and
effects of the number of operations and their quality in sales organizations. In a first step, we look at
the concepts companies are using to improve productivity. Secondly, we examine the logic and the
metrics behind the concepts, which are applied in practice to increase productivity. Thirdly, we define
general statements about activity levels, performance gaps and sales culture. The findings suggest that
there are various strategies to enhance productivity which lead to a performance based culture in sales
organizations. Based on general implications of the findings several recommendations are formulated to
improve sales force performance. The results describe fundamentals of essential metrics in sales
organization. These metrics answer basic sales questions, such as the impact of operations on the
results of a sales organization. This article provides guidelines for measuring and handling the
implications of stimulating and penetrating markets.
Introduction
This article is based on ten years of
research in analyzing the productivity of
sales organizations, primarily in two ways.
First, the findings are based on empirical
statistical analysis from a sales manager
panel and secondly, on specific
performance measurements of sales
organizations. Basically, performance
management logic and those metrics we
use to measure the effectiveness of the
sales organization are generally
misunderstood, and therefore underused
management tools in sales organizations.
In the last ten years, among the members
of the sales panel of the organizations,
who use performance management,
productivity rose from 48 percent to
55 percent. There are a lot of impact
factors in measuring the productivity of
sales force organizations. The line of
business and the various sales channels
are the highest ranked. When we take into
account all the different meanings, there
Northern Illinois University
are at least some hundred possibilities to
understand and
measure performance.
The findings in this article are normally
applicable for the classical sales force
organization: in direct business-tobusiness, direct business-to-consumer and
indirect sales organizations. The findings
are only partly applicable for key account
management, project sales, and in
organizations with deep, long, and
sustained sales processes.
Data comes mainly from a panel of sales
managers. This panel has been in
existence since 1998, and the members of
the panel come mainly from Austria,
Switzerland, and Germany. There are
approximately 150 panel members in the
sales manager panel, and in about 40
companies, performance measurements
have been tried and tested. Research
started in 1998, and the last applied
research was in spring 2007. The results
have been published as studies of the
Institute for Market Communication and
Application Article
Sales of the University of Applied
Sciences Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
The sales person is the most important
resource in sales. A sales person refers to
anyone who generates revenue from their
customer base. In a small or medium sized
enterprise, this could be the owner or a
manager. On the other hand, large enterprises
typically have an institutional sales department
with sales representatives, sales managers and
top management executives in sales. If we
asked where an increase in sales productivity
could be easily achieved, the entrepreneur,
executive, and sales manager would mention
sales people first. In particular, time
management, number of operations at the
customers, and optimal customer support are
topics brought up in this regard. As a general
rule, the output of a sales representative
differs significantly from his sales quality. The
range of performance between good and bad
sales people can vary greatly. A double or
triple sales increase is not unusual between the
best and the weakest sales persons. For
example, a sales representative achieves triple
the annual sales of his colleagues. A business
consultant sells forty man-days compared to a
colleague who sells 150 man-days. One bank
clerk services 200 clients while another clerk
attends to 600 clients in the same period of
time. A car salesman sells one car per week in
comparison to his colleague with one car per
day. These sales representatives perform under
the same conditions, with the same product, in
the same sales area, and sometimes in the same
company. Sales contact frequency optimization,
customer base optimization, and quality optimization are the central key factors in performance
management in most sales organizations.
Fall 2007
59
Some Concepts to Improve Productivity
When comparing different productivity
enhancement programs in companies, more
than 70 percent of all companies primarily
improve their productivity by increasing pace
rate or frequency of contact. One quarter of
the examined companies increases its
productivity by means of quality as measured
by hit rates or productivity of operation. Only
5 percent of companies boost sales on the
basis of quality or product. Companies who
improve productivity usually introduce,
enhance, and modify products frequently. In
the long run, measurements to improve the
quality are increasingly deployed to raise
productivity. The following working concepts
are used by sales managers in sales
organizations to improve the performance of
their sales force.
How to Stimulate Sales Performance
What matters most? – Activity, or hit rate and
productivity? When a company wishes to
reach a certain goal, it generally has a set of
options on getting there. First of all it can
increase the activity level and secondly
improve quality. The third option represents
a combination of increased activity and
increased quality. Activity refers to increasing
the number of operations, such as visiting
customers more often or spending more time
with the customer. Quality refers to
productivity improvement. For example, by
launching new products in order to achieve
higher prices or to increase the value of
contracts. A better trained sales force and an
optimization of processes are also implied.
Every result is a combination of quality and
activity. Therefore it is possible to describe
Vol. 7, No. 4
60
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
every planned goal as a combination of the
two dimensions, activity and quality as shown
in Fig. 1 below.
Figure 1: The relationship between activity and quality
Choosing the best of these options depends
on the current position of the company in the
market. Nevertheless, the management of the
main operations in the sales process or the key
performance indicators of the sales process.
One of the consolidated findings is that the
level cannot be sustained without effort.
Planning and steering of the activity level is
one of the main practices in managing a sales
force.
Activity
(e.g. number of
operations,
acts, frequency
target result
actual result
Quality (e.g. hit rate, productivity of operations)
number of operations, the pace rate, diligence,
and quality of the sales representatives are
central influencing factors on productivity in
sales. In principle, every increase in
performance can be a result of better quality,
higher quantity or a combination of both
these factors. In practice, the last option,
namely a combination of quality and quantity,
will be chosen in the majority of cases. The
optimal strategy can be derived from statistical
key figures. The degree of operations at the
customers is basically measured by the
activity, or the time spent to win new
customers and in satisfying the existing ones.
But not every operation is measurable; in
most cases sales managers measure only the
Northern Illinois University
Outcome: Companies in the same markets
and under the same circumstances could out
perform the average company in this field to
an amount of up to 35 percent compared with
the average. This figure is relevant to at least
70 percent of the sales organizations within
the sales panel. Seven percent of the sales
force is not the driving force of the business
model.
Improving the Sales Force Operations
Level
The level of operations is one of the most important factors in sales organizations. The
German term or phrase “Schlagzahl erhöhen”
is a term which originated in sports (rowing
Application Article
frequency) and can be translated as:
frequency, increase stroke count, increase the
number of operations, or to pick up the pace.
In general, it means to increase the operations
level of the sales organization. The
“Schlagzahl Portfolio” (shown in Fig. 2)
visualizes the sales performance of sales
representatives. Each sales representative is
positioned within the four quadrant portfolio,
based on the employee’s quality and activity.
Figure 2: Schlagzahl portfolio
Sales
Representative
Average number of
activities, average
productivity of activities
What is productivity? By dividing the output
“how much the customer pays” by the input
“the number of activities involving the
customer” you receive productivity of
operations as a result. Companies measure this
productivity in many different ways. Possible
outputs could be sales figures, gross profits or
units sold. Inputs include the number of
activities with the customer, time spent with
the customer, the number of proposals or
appointments with the customer. In each case,
the basic principle of outputs over inputs
applies, regardless of what you are measuring,
Fall 2007
61
be it in an international project sales
organization, a bank clerk or a dealer
organization. By applying the basic portfolio
concept, you can plot the activity and the
quality graph. After positioning sales
representative performance, you can visualize
enhancement areas for each sales
representative based on the combined
positions of all sales people.
Each sales person’s performance is a
combination of the number of activities and
qualities (the hit and productivity). The best
Number of sales
representative
operations
Productivity of
operations
IOS graph curve=line
of same results
way is to use different methods to define the
center point. For activities it is useful to use the
mode for the number of activities, and for
productivity it is useful to use the median. The
reason is the different pattern of data you
handle. Derived from measurements in the sales
panel we were able to see two outputs:
Sales output 1: There is no existing industry standard for the number of activities but studies have
shown that in almost every line of business, the
best sales representatives work on average twice
as much as the average sales representatives.
Vol. 7, No. 4
62
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Sales output 2: Weak sales representatives,
on average, have one sixth of the activity of
the best sales representatives. This level of
activity varies by a factor of one to six. In
general, the wider the gap between the highest
and lowest activity, the greater is the activity
area of a company.
performance indicators are total sales
negotiations of a financial institution, or the
number of test drives at a car dealership. To
achieve a methodically accurate key
performance indicator, a correlation analysis
between the input of sales process
(operations) and the output (sales revenue,
units, gross profits etc.) has to be performed.
Two advantages of the KPI are that they are
easy to use in sales controlling processes and
easy to understand force.
Concentration on Key Performance Indicators (KPI)
In practical terms it is sometimes difficult to
measure all types of sales force activities. The
reason could be a very short selling cycle or a
complex long lasting sales process. That is
why sales managers define certain key
performance indicators (KPI) to measure the
sales force performance in an adequate way.
These key operations reduce the complexity of
the sales process and lead the sales force to
perform the tasks correctly. Examples of key
Improving the Quality of Activities
Every activity has its result and this can be
positive or negative. There are several
methods in use to increase the outcome of
each operation in sales. The first is
concentrated on productivity of the sales force
and the second is concentrated on quality.
Productivity is measured by power of
Figure 3:Four type of leadership strategies in a “Schlagzahl Portfolio”
The degree of operations fits, only productivity at the
customers’ should be improved:
Coaching of the sales representative; the target group
“new employees" has to be trained – within the
training content should be; the classical content, such
as new acquisition, the presentation of an offer or the
final negotiations; additionally it is the duty of the
sales manager to introduce the new employee to the
customer
2. Train
The employee works hard and activities yield sufficient
results.
Number of
operations
Release the sales representatives from leadership; the
staff members are on the right path, their operations
achieve appropriate results; new employees who are on
this path have the chance to reach the position of a top
sales representative in a short-time
4. Best
The ambitious
The good
Strategies of leading
The undecided
3. Select
This is the critical group amongst sales
representatives.
Sales representative coaching; If the sales
representatives cannot cope with getting out of this
area of work, they will either leave the company due
to low salary, or they will be discharged due to low
cost-effectiveness
Northern Illinois University
The clever- “the cherrypicker”
Productivity of
operation
1. Push
The employee has learned to achieve good results with
little activity.
Being positively supportive of the sales representatives; the
market-pressure executed by the employee is
marginal – the quality of his activities is good, but the
number of activities should be higher; the sales manager
has to claim a concrete number of hits.
Application Article
operations and is the division of output by
input. The second method is the
measurement of hit rates in the sales
process. The methods range from
behavioral methods to methods identifying
the right customer, to the use of
opportunity management in customer
relationship tools.
Leadership Strategies and Performance
Coaching
When you build your performance
management environment on the basis of
the individual sales person, you begin to see
their specific performance patterns. If you
rank the sales representatives on the
number of operations (acts, frequency, and
so on), and on the other hand, on
productivity of the
operations (output
divided by input), you will see a specific
pattern. The main goal for sales managers is
to coach their staff in a manner appropriate
to the situation. Sales representatives have
different patterns, and to accept these
patterns and lead them to a common
objective, is one of the issues of
performance management. Generally, we
can distinguish four different leadership
strategies – which are shown in Fig.3.
1: PUSH: People in this area know how to
get results with a minimum of operations.
The sales manager has to push these people
– the customer operations level or market
level is too low. The sales manager should
demand an increase of the pace rate.
2: TRAIN: Sales representatives are busy in
the market, but they do not get the right
Fall 2007
63
results. The strategy in this area is to coach
and train the sales representatives. The sales
manager should work with quality
measurements (e.g. hit rates) in this area.
3: SELECT: This is the critical area among
sales representatives – the strategy is to
move away fast from here. The sales
manager strategy is to focus on the number
of operations of the sales representative by
performance coaching.
4: THE BEST: People are working hard and
get good results – the standard strategy is to
release the sales representative from leading.
Since people know how to get the right
results, they know the market and are very
active, it is best to leave them to work on
their own.
In large sales force organizations it is useful
to make a large number of clusters which
you can treat independently. The clustering
of sales representatives makes the coaching
process easier.
Performance coaching is a special form of
coaching used to increase the performance
of sales representatives. The sales manager,
together with the sales representative,
develops a metric which illustrates the
quality and the quantity of the average and
the best sales representative. The main tool
of performance coaching is the
development of a coaching path for the
sales representative. The coaching path
supports the sales representative in reaching
their goals. By treating your sales
representatives individually you avoid
annoying and losing customers as well as
sales representative burn-out.
Vol. 7, No. 4
64
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Improving Sales Organization Performance
It is not possible to increase the productivity
of every sales representative in sales
organizations. The important question is how
great is the performance gap that a sales
manager can close. In order to handle a
performance gap, you need to increase the
performance of all sales representatives that
are below the average ISO graph curve (figure
1). This means that the improvement of sales
productivity has implications for the total
productivity of the company. The greater the
productivity area, the greater is the potential
for the use of performance management. In
will be able to work out an optimal strategy to
close this performance gap.
The field of performance is characterized by
the area between the weakest and the best
sales representative in the dimensions of
productivity and number of activities in a sales
organization. The greater the area, the lower
the average productivity of a sales force.
When comparing different sales organizations
over a period of several years, average
productivity in companies with larger areas is
lower than in smaller areas. As a sales
organization focuses more on productivity, its
fields of performance decrease.
The
Figure 4: Performance gap
Number of operations
factor 4
factor 16
factor 60
factor 170
Productivity of operations
studies we found that sales force performance
gaps range from a factor of four to a factor of
170. A factor represents the difference
between the best and the weakest
performance in terms of quantity and activity.
If a sales manager is aware of this factor, he
Northern Illinois University
difference between good and bad sales
representatives will become smaller without an
alteration of good sales representative
performance. Some company examples have
shown that very effective companies have a
productivity field factor of four. These
Application Article
companies have neither a high sales oriented
culture, nor productivity potential.
On the other hand, there are companies with a
very wide field of productivity. In these
companies there could be a productivity field
of up to factor 170. These companies display
an enormous level of productivity potential.
The factor sixteen to forty refers to a
moderate level of potential, while a factor of
sixty points to a high level of productivity
potential. One of the most used tools is to
bri ng the u nderperf or mi ng sal es
representatives to the average ISO graph
curve. This will increase the company average.
One of the most commonly used tools in
performance management is the use of
rankings.
Visualization of Goals
There are several tools in performance
measurement to visualize goals for sales
representatives. The use of analysis translated
into a visual form is a common tool used, to
help calculate the number of activities needed
to meet further performance objectives. The
reporting needs for general management, for
sales managers and for sales representatives
vary significantly. In this case, the
distinguishing feature is the inclusion of
information to close the performance gap. A
top manager only needs to see the sales figures
to know what is unsatisfactory. A sales
representative needs more detailed
information, specifically a quality benchmark
such as number of operations, hit rates,
productivity benchmarks, as well as the
productivity in different product lines and
services. A good report should serve top
management and sales representatives equally.
Fall 2007
65
Conclusion
To summarize, there are four strategic
outcomes for improving sales force
productivity:
1) Sales organization performance as well as
sales representative performance is
measurable, controllable, and can be
increased.
2) More operations lead to more sales.
Activity is the basic element in the sales
management process for sales managers. More
contacts generate more contracts. Activities
follow certain metrics – they are neither
storable nor retrievable. The management of
activities is one of the central elements in
enhancing productivity.
3) The quality of sales activities is the basic
element in the sales management process for
sales people. Each sales representative is
responsible for the quality of their activities.
Therefore it is essential to know the key hit
rates of their business.
4) By implementing a planning method that
explains to each sales representative which
activities lead to success, it is possible to reach
goals with less effort on the part of the sales
representative and with less pressure exerted
by the manager. The implementation of a
productivity optimization program leads to
higher company market pressure. The
implications of heightened market pressure
become visible in a higher number of
customers and increased cross- and add-on
sales. Furthermore, sales representatives have
more time for their customers and the sales
process quality improves overall. Sales
representatives and sales benefit more from
Vol. 7, No. 4
66
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
the implementation of different concepts. The
program is easy to understand and implement,
and illustrates the performance culture. The
performance culture characterizes a company
that always focuses on the number of
operations. Knowing which level of activity is
feasible leads to transparency and warrants
that everyone in the sales organization is
focused on the same performance criteria.
REFERENCES
Pinczolits, K.(1998).Der Schlagzahlenmanager.
Arbeitsleistungen im Vertrieb messen
und steigern. Frankfurt/New York,
Campus Publisher.
Pinczolits, K. (2000). Produktivität im Vertrieb.
Eisenstadt, MCD-Institute.
Pinczolits, K. (2003). Best Sales Performance.
Eisenstadt, MCD-Institute.
Pinczolits, K. (2006). Produktivität von
Verkäufer/innen und Verkaufsleiter/
innen 2006. Wiener Neustadt,
University of Applied Sciences.
Pinczolits, K. (2008). Schlagzahlmanagement.
Die Aktivitäten von heute sind der
Umsatz von morgen. Vienna,
facultas.wuv.
Pinczolits, K. and Vevera, D. (2005). Sales
Radar. Die aktuellen Themen im
Vertrieb 2005/2006 und ihre
Relevanz. Wiener Neustadt, University
of Applied Sciences.
Pinczolits, K. and Vevera, D. (2006). Sales
Radar. Die aktuellen Themen im
Vertrieb 2006/2007 und ihre Relevanz.
Wiener Neustadt, University of Applied
Sciences.
Northern Illinois University