CONTENTS
JSMAM VOLUME 7, SPRING 2007
7
From the Editor
by Dan C. Weilbaker, Ph.D.
ACADEMIC ARTICLES
8
Antecedents and Outcomes of Salesperson Perceptions of Organization
Support
by Mark C. Jolke
Technology Empowerment as a Determinant of Salesforce Technology
Usage
20
by Amy Chou, Ellen Bolman Pullins and Sylvain Senecal
APPLICATION ARTICLES
To PowerPoint or not to PowerPoint: That is the Question!
30
by John C. Gill, UPS
Making ‘Cold Calling’ Easy (ier), Building Powerful Scripts and
Handling the Five Categories of ‘No’
34
by Barry D. Caponi, Caponi Performance Group
Are Your Negotiation Techniques Sabotaging Your Business
Relationships? A Case Study
41
by Brian Dietmeyer, Think! Inc
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
Spring 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 Miller
Administrative Assistant
Professional Sales Program
Department of Marketing
Northern Illinois University
Vol. 7, No. 2
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
EDITORIAL BOARD
Rolph E. Anderson
Drexel University
Mark C. Johlke
Bradley University
Ramon A. Avila
Ball State University
Eli Jones
University of Houston
Terri Barr
Miami University—Ohio
Buddy LaForge
University of Louisville
Jim W. Blythe
University of Glamorgan
Terry W. Loe
Kennesaw State University
Richard E. Buehrer
University of Toledo
Daniel H. McQuiston
Butler University
Steven Castleberry
University of Minnesota—Duluth
Pete Naude
Manchester Business School
William L. Cron
Texas Christian University
Stephen Newell
Western Michigan University
Laura Cuddihy
Dublin Institute of Technology
Nigel F. Piercy
University of Warwick
René Y. Darmon
ESSEC Business School
Richard E. Plank
William Paterson University
Dawn R. Deeter-Schmelz
Ohio University
Gregory A. Rich
Bowling Green State University
Bill Donaldson
Aberdeen Business School
Rick Ridnour
Northern Illinois University
Sean Dwyer
Louisiana Tech University
Elizabeth Rogers
Portsmouth Business School
Paolo Guenzi
SDA Bocconi
Jeffrey K. Sager
University of North Texas
John Hansen
Northern Illinois University
Jon M. Hawes
University of Akron
Charles Schwepker, Jr.
Central Missouri State University
C. David Shepherd
Kennesaw State University
Earl D. Honeycutt
Elon University
William A. Weeks
Baylor University
Thomas N. Ingram
Colorado State University
Michael R. Williams
Illinois State University
Northern Illinois University
Spring 2007
From the Editor
The second issue of our second year of publishing the Journal of Selling & Major
Account Management offers several interesting topics for our subscribers to learn
from and to 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 the second issue of Volume 7, we present two academic articles and three
practitioner articles.
The first academic article “Antecedents and Outcomes of Salespeople Perception of Organizational Support” provides some interesting issues that sales managers can use to reduce the stress
that salespeople may feel in their jobs. The article found that providing training to salespeople
has a significant impact on a salesperson’s perception of organizational support. Thus, continuing to provide meaningful training to the sales force can have benefits beyond improving the
competence of the salespeople.
The second article “Technology Empowerment as a Determinant of Salesforce Technology Usage”, tackles a continuing problem in today’s sales forces. What can be done to improve the use
of technology? This study examines the four components of empowerment (competence, autonomy, motivation and impact) and what sales managers can do to impact empowerment. Training
again is one possible answer that managers can do to improve salesperson performance through
greater usage of technology.
The three application articles provide new insight into issues that have a great impact on the selling process. The first article deals with the use or over use of PowerPoint in the selling process
and offers an alternative that provides benefits in the early stages of the selling process. The second article provides tips and suggestions on how to make “cold calling” less painful. As we all
know this is something that we all need to do better. The third article is an expansion on an earlier article (Volume 6 Number 4) regarding negotiations. The current article not only provides
tips and processes it also includes a case study to assist in understanding the content of the article.
We continue to pursue additional subscriptions so that we can become self sufficient and not rely
on money from other sources to continue to publish the journal. If you know of others that may
benefit from subscribing, please let us know and we will contact them so that they may obtain a
subscription or you can simply pass on the subscription form included in the journal.
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. 2
8
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Antecedents and Outcomes of Salesperson
Perceptions of Organization Support
By Mark Jolke
An extensive body of research suggests that employee perceptions of organizational support (POS) are not only
strongly related to desirable job outcomes but are also amenable to managerial actions. However, little of this research
has studied POS within the unique sales force environment, so the antecedents and outcomes of this potentially
important form of salesperson support remains unclear. Results from testing the hypothesized Sales Force POS model
indicate that, like other types of employees, salespeople respond positively to organizational support but, unlike others,
they prefer adequate training to formal recognition in developing their individual perceptions of support.
Salespeople and other boundary-spanning
employees often rely on external support
mechanisms to help them cope with the high
levels of role stress (i.e., ambiguity and conflict)
that they experience as part of their job.
Fortunately, there are numerous sources of
workplace support for employees, including
social networks and the organization itself (e.g.,
Fisher 1985; Kaufman and Beehr 1986), as well
as coworkers and supervisors (e.g., Babin and
Boles 1996; Ganster et al. 1986). Regardless of
its source, workplace support benefits the
employee, and therefore the organization also,
by alleviating undesirable job outcomes such as
susceptibility to chronic disease and other
health complications and by facilitating
desirable outcomes including job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and performance.
Accordingly, researchers continue to study the
role of workplace support in improving
employee job conditions.
lack not only an appreciation of the
importance of workplace support to their
salespeople but also a set of useful guidelines
to assist them in providing salespeople with
the appropriate types and levels of support.
While it would be easy to assume that
salespeople respond to workplace support the
same as other types of employees, because the
salesperson’s job is qualitatively different than
that of many others (e.g., they work outside
the firm, their central task is to interact with
and influence customers while at the same
time to represent the customer back to the
firm, their compensation is based upon
performance, etc., etc.) this assumption may
not be appropriate. The goal of this research
is to extend our current understanding and
appreciation of the role of one of the most
widely recognized forms of workplace
support, perceived organizational support
(POS), to salespeople.
Unfortunately, comparatively little of this
research has considered the role of workplace
support within the sales force, so our
understanding of its potentially distinctive
antecedents and outcomes is far less
developed. As a result, sales managers may
More specifically, this research will: (1) review
and summarize the research findings on
employee POS, (2) identify and apply
additional findings from the sales literature to
develop a model appropriate for testing POS
within the unique sales force environment,
Northern Illinois University
Academic Article
(3) detail the sample and methodology used to
test the model, and (4) conclude by discussing
the results of the analysis and their
implications for managerial decision making.
As a result, researchers and sales managers will
be provided with a thorough description of
the role of sales force POS and with a set of
guidelines for building a more supportive sales
force environment.
Perceived Organizational Support
Over the past 20 years, POS has been one of
the most widely researched and established
forms of workplace support. Defined as the
employee’s “global beliefs concerning the
extent to which the organization values their
contributions and cares about their wellbeing” (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 501), POS
represents the employee’s perceptions of the
organization’s commitment to him or her.
While researchers have investigated a wide
variety of potential outcomes from employee
POS, Rhoades and Eisenberger's (2002) metaanalysis of the POS literature concludes that
"POS had strong relationships…with affective
commitment, job satisfaction, positive mood
at work, desire to remain with the
organization, and turnover intentions. POS
had medium relationships with job
involvement, strains, withdrawal behaviors
short of turnover (e.g., absenteeism and
tardiness), and extrarole behavior directed
towards the organization. POS had small but
statistically reliable relationships with other
kinds of performance, continuance
commitment, and turnover.” In addition,
Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) identified
three major categories of POS predictors:
organizational rewards and job conditions
Spring 2007
9
procedural justice within the organization, and
supervisor support.
One of the most important observations to be
drawn from reviewing the body of POS
research is that while the role of POS for nonboundary spanning employees has been
extensively studied, its predictors and
outcomes within the distinct sales force
environment have been only lightly
considered. This situation is illustrated by
noting that Rhoades and Eisenberger’s metaanalysis (2002) examined 73 POS studies
involving 23,557 subjects, while a separate
review conducted for this research identified
only seven studies that examined POS among
any type of boundary spanning employees,
including salespeople. Due to the unique
nature of selling tasks, the salesperson's jobrelated experiences are often quite different
than those of internally situated employees
and so too may be his/her perceptions of
organizational support and the factors that
influence it. Given the widespread acceptance
of POS as an important component of an
effective workplace environment, and that it
appears to be associated with many desirable
job outcomes, specific research upon the
antecedents and outcomes of salesperson POS
is clearly warranted.
The Sales Force POS Model
More specifically, what’s needed is a specific
model of the predictors and outcomes of
salesperson POS that takes into account both
our general conception of employee POS as
well as our specific understanding of
salesperson job conditions. Figure 1 presents
just such a model. In this model, two
important organizational rewards/job
Vol. 7, No. 2
10
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
The Sales Force POS Model
Training
Job
H3 (-)
Adequacy
H1 (+)
POS
Satisfaction
H7 (-)
H2 (-)
H8 (-)
Role
H5 (-)
Perform.
Ambiguity
H4 (+)
Job
H9 (-)
H6 (-)
Role
Formal
Conflict
Recognition
H10 (-)
Org.
Commit.
Path shown in dotted line was found to be non-significant
conditions that are highly relevant to
salespeople (i.e., the adequacy of sales-related
training and the amount of formal recognition
the firm provides to the salesperson) are
hypothesized to be positively associated with
salesperson POS. In turn, salesperson POS is
hypothesized to be antecedent to and
negatively related with both forms of role
stress. The proposed model also describes the
relations between each form of role stress and
three important salesperson job outcomes:
satisfaction, performance, and commitment.
Predictors of Salesperson POS
Training Adequacy—Training adequacy refers to
the appropriate amount and type of training
provided by the firm and may be one of the
most powerful organizational/job influences
upon salesperson POS. Salespeople are often
Northern Illinois University
some of the most highly trained members of
an organization and many firms are
increasingly using intangible investments in
people, such as training, as discretionary
developmental experiences to influence
employee job outcomes (Shore and Shore
1995). Employees who are highly valued are
likely to receive greater amounts of
appropriate training while those who are not
so highly valued are less likely to receive these
expensive and time-consuming developmental
activities. Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997)
found a positive association between training
and other firm-provided discretionary
experiences and employee POS, while
Babakus et al. (1996) report that salesperson
perceptions of the firm’s support for training
are associated with POS.
Likewise,
salespeople who receive adequate sales-related
Academic Article
training should be more likely to perceive that
the firm values and supports them.
Accordingly, the following hypothesis will be
tested:
H1:
Training adequacy is positively related
to POS.
Training adequacy may also be associated with
two other components of the hypothesized
model. The first component, role ambiguity,
refers to a lack of clarity regarding role
expectations (Rizzo, House, and Lirtzmann,
1970). As role ambiguity entails a lack of
understanding or knowledge regarding how
salespeople should conduct themselves or
accomplish their tasks, it is reasonable to
expect that training adequacy is negatively
associated with salesperson role ambiguity.
Barksdale et al. (2003) found a positive
relationship between the salesperson’s positive
perceptions of training and role clarity, while
Henderson (1992) reports a negative
relationship between the amount of training
physicians receive and their level of role
ambiguity. Russ et al. (1998) found the same
association in a sample of professional
salespeople.
The third outcome that may be associated
with salesperson training adequacy is job
satisfaction, or "the salesperson's affective
feelings or attitudes towards his job, his
organization,
and
his
work
environment" (Churchill et al., 1976, p. 327).
While receiving adequate training may
primarily influence the salesperson's
perceptions of organizational support,
receiving the appropriate amount and type of
training could also directly impact the
salesperson's affective reactions and attitudes,
Spring 2007
11
such as satisfaction. After conducting a metaanalysis of the relations between various
organizational development (OD) methods
and employee attitudes, Neuman, Edwards,
and Raju (1989) conclude that training is the
most effective of all OD methods in
improving employee job satisfaction. Also,
Russ et al. (1998) and Babakus et al. (1996)
found that training is associated with
salesperson job satisfaction, while Dobbins et
al. (1990) report that employees who receive
greater amounts of high quality training are
more satisfied in their jobs, especially when
they also experience high levels of role
conflict (which, of course, many salespeople
do). Barksdale et al. (2003) also found a
positive relationship between the salesperson’s
positive perceptions of training and
satisfaction.
Accordingly, the following
hypotheses will be tested:
H2:
Training adequacy is
associated with role ambiguity.
negatively
H3:
Training adequacy is
associated with job satisfaction.
positively
Formal Recognition—Another particularly
important type of organizational reward/job
condition is the amount of formal recognition
granted to an employee.
Formal
organizational recognition is one way for the
company to send a message to an employee
about how the firm perceives and values that
employee's contributions and actions (Shore
and Shore 1995). Wayne, Shore, and Liden
(1997) found a positive relationship between
the number of promotions received and
employee POS. Miceli and Mulvey (2000)
report that employee satisfaction with pay is
positively associated with POS, while Babakus
Vol. 7, No. 2
12
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
et al. (1996) conclude that salesperson
perceptions of compensation fairness are
positively associated with POS. Rhoades and
Eisenberger (2002) report that a broad
measure of organizational rewards as well as
individual measures of pay and promotions
are all positively related to employee POS.
These findings lead to the fourth hypothesis:
salesperson POS is hypothesized to be
negatively associated with both forms of
salesperson role stress:
H4:
The amount of formal organizational
recognition a salesperson has received is
positively associated with POS.
Job Satisfaction—One of the most relevant, and
therefore widely examined, employee job
outcomes is his or her level of satisfaction.
While studies of non-sales personnel
commonly assume a direct positive
relationship between employee POS and
satisfaction, these studies failed to consider
the corresponding impact of role stress. Sales
research has consistently shown that role
ambiguity is a particularly important negative
antecedent to the salesperson's level of job
satisfaction (e.g., Brown and Peterson, 1993;
Babakus et al., 1996; MacKenzie, Podsakoff,
and Ahearne, 1998), so the proposed Sales
Force POS model includes this important
relationship:
Outcomes of Salesperson POS
Role Stress—Jones, Flynn and Kelloway (1995)
and Hutchison (1997) conclude that employee
role stress is antecedent to diminished POS.
On the other hand, Babakus et al. (1996)
found evidence that salesperson POS is
antecedent to decreased role conflict.
Likewise, the majority of research on
salesperson role stress utilizes this "support Þ
role stress Þ job outcomes" ordering among
these types of variables (e.g., Kohli & Jaworski
1994; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Rich 2001).
Organizations that value and support their
salespeople are more likely to expend the time
and effort necessary to provide them with
explicit work expectations and instructions,
and doing so is likely to decrease the amount
of conflict and ambiguity that salespeople
experience. Therefore, it is reasonable to
expect that salespeople who perceive that their
employing firm is committed to them and
cares about their well-being (i.e., those who
develop enhanced perceptions of
organizational support) are also likely to
experience lower levels of ambiguity and
conflict. Accordingly, in the proposed model
Northern Illinois University
H5:
Salesperson POS is
associated with role ambiguity.
negatively
H6:
Salesperson POS
associated with role conflict.
negatively
is
H7:
Salesperson role ambiguity
negatively associated with job satisfaction.
is
Job Performance—Like all managers, sales
managers are highly concerned with their
salespeople's performance in completing their
assigned tasks. Rhoades and Eisenberger
(2002) observe that POS has only a "small"
relationship with employee job performance,
while research studying both sales (e.g., Brown
and Peterson 1993; Babakus et al. 1996; Singh
1998; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Ahearne
1998) and non-sales (e.g., Tubre and Collins
2000) employees strongly indicates that role
stressors are significantly and negatively
Academic Article
related to job performance. Therefore, the
hypothesized model includes the following
relationships:
H8:
Salesperson role ambiguity is
negatively associated with job performance.
H9:
Salesperson role conflict is negatively
associated with job performance.
Organizational Commitment—Sales managers are
also highly concerned about their employee's
level of commitment to, and identification
with, the employing firm. Mowday, Steers,
and Porter (1979) note that this type of
attachment involves employee loyalty,
involvement, and propensity to stay. Because
salespeople who experience greater levels of
organizational commitment are less likely to
voluntarily leave, organizational commitment
can also decrease the costs and disruptions
associated with salesperson turnover. Brown
and Peterson (1993), Singh (1998), and
MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Ahearne (1998)
report that role conflict is a significant
predictor of salesperson organizational
commitment, so the final hypothesis
comprising the proposed Sales Force POS
model is as follows:
H10: Salesperson role conflict is negatively
associated with organizational commitment.
Research Method and Results
Measures—All constructs used in this study
were measured using established and widely
accepted scales.
Reflecting how it is
commonly operationalized in POS research,
formal organizational recognition was
measured by adding together the number of
promotions and pay raises the salesperson has
Spring 2007
13
received from his/her current employer. Sales
performance was measured using six items
adapted from Behrman and Perreault (1982).
All other variables were measured using
multiple item scales utilizing 7-point Likert
items ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree).
Training adequacy was
measured with three items adapted from
Roberts, Lapidus, and Chonko (1994); POS
was measured using five items adapted from
Eisenberger et al. (1986); items adapted from
Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) were used
to measure role ambiguity (three items) and
role conflict (four items); salesperson job
satisfaction was measured by adapting four
items from Churchill, Ford, and Walker
(1974); and organizational commitment was
measured using three items adapted from
Hunt, Chonko, and Wood (1985).
Sample—Data used to test the model were
collected from a sample of professional
salespeople from five different national firms
(four business-to-business service firms and
an insurance firm primarily selling to
businesses).
Of the 400 questionnaires
distributed, 236 were returned, representing a
59% response rate. Before pooling and
analyzing the data, means tests were used to
determine that there were no significant
differences between salespeople employed by
the five firms in terms of age, years of selling
experience, years with their current employer,
gender, type of pay plan, or educational level.
Results—After all questionnaire forms were
received, the measurement model was
analyzed using the covariance matrix
generated by PRELIS 2.52 as input to
LISREL 8.54.
Each of the completely
Vol. 7, No. 2
14
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
standardized path loadings relating an item to
its assigned construct is significant (t-value >
2.0) and exceeds 0.58, thereby indicating
acceptable convergent validity. Next, chisquare tests for discriminant validity between
all constructs were conducted, and sufficient
discrimination between all possible pairs of
constructs was found. The full measurement
model fits the data well (e.g., CFI = 0.98,
NNFI (TLI) = 0.98, standardized RMR =
0.047, RMSEA = 0.036, p-value for test of
close fit (RMSEA < 0.05) = 1.00) and none of
the items exhibited excessive cross loadings
(as indicated by their associated modification
indices [MI] and standardized expected
parameter change [SEPC] estimates).
Therefore, the entire set of items was used to
analyze the model.
The hypothesized model was also tested using
LISREL 8.54 and was found to fit the data
extremely well (e.g., CFI = 0.98, NNFI (TLI)
= 0.98, standardized RMR = 0.058, RMSEA
= 0.037, p-value for test of close fit (RMSEA
< 0.05) = 1.00) and 9 of the 10 relationships
are supported (90%).
Accordingly, the
hypothesized model appears to offer an
appropriate description of the relations among
salesperson POS, role stress, and job
outcomes.
As hypothesized, salesperson
perceptions of organizational support are
negatively associated with both forms of
salesperson role stress, both of which are
negatively associated with desirable
salesperson job outcomes.
In addition,
providing adequate amounts of appropriate
sales-related training is positively associated
with salesperson perceptions of organizational
support and job satisfaction and is negatively
related to salesperson role ambiguity.
Northern Illinois University
However, formal organizational recognition in
the form of promotions and pay raises, while
likely to be valued by the salesperson, is not
related to his or her perceptions of
organizational support.
Discussion
The Sales Force POS model proposed that
adequate sales-related training and greater
amounts of formal organizational recognition
are positively related to salesperson POS. Of
these two organizational/job antecedents,
only the salesperson's perceptions of training
adequacy were associated with POS
(Hypothesis 1; reject Hypothesis 4).
Salespeople are often some of the most highly
trained members of an organization and likely
depend upon the training they receive to
improve their skills, deepen their knowledge,
and stay abreast of important marketplace
developments. This result indicates that
salespeople strongly perceive that their
employers value and support them when that
employer provides greater amounts of high
quality training that contributes to the
salesperson's career development and success.
Hypothesis 4 projected that the amount of
formal recognition salespeople receive is
positively related to POS. Unlike earlier
studies of internally-situated employees,
salespeople were found to clearly prefer
adequate training to formal recognition in
developing their individual perceptions of
support.
Because salespeople did not
associate greater amounts of formal
recognition with the firm valuing and
supporting them, the hypothesis is rejected.
This situation may arise due to the unique
nature of the salesperson's work environment
Academic Article
in that the structure of their often
commission-based pay plans is rarely adjusted
(e.g., it is fairly uncommon for the
commission rate or base to be changed).
Additionally, salespeople may not feel that a
promotion from one sales level to another
(e.g., from "Sales Representative" to "Senior
Sales Representative") is necessarily a positive
development, perhaps because the
accompanying increase in responsibilities may
not be accompanied by an attendant increase
in rewards or because the opportunity to fill a
different position may arise from
uncontrollable factors (e.g., that the firm
simply needs someone to fill a new territory or
to serve as the sales manager; Rhoades and
Eisenberger, 2002). Therefore, it appears that
sales managers will need to search for other
organizational rewards and conditions to
stimulate salesperson perceptions that the firm
supports and values them.
Training adequacy is also associated with
decreased levels of role ambiguity (Hypothesis
2) and increased levels of job satisfaction
(Hypothesis 3). Therefore, sales managers
should concern themselves with providing
adequate sales-related training to not only
signal to salespeople that the firm values them,
but also as a means to decrease salesperson
uncertainty and boost satisfaction. Adequate
sales-related training can assist salespeople in
developing a repertoire of appropriate
behaviors and activity schemas that serve to
decrease the salesperson's uncertainty in
handling their assigned activities, which is
itself related to decreased satisfaction and
performance (Hypotheses 7 and 8,
respectively). Adequate sales training is also
directly associated with salesperson job
Spring 2007
15
satisfaction (Hypothesis 3), thereby further
illustrating the importance of providing
salespeople with adequate amounts of high
quality sales-related training. This finding
mirrors those reported by Rhoads and
Eisenberger (2002) and, combined with the
overall results from this study, supports the
basic notion that POS is an important
component of an effective sales force
environment.
Salesperson POS is negatively related to both
role ambiguity and role conflict, thus
supporting Hypotheses 5 and 6, respectively.
POS appears to be a powerful and
controllable means to influence salesperson
role stress and sales managers are advised to
search for appropriate ways to both support
and value their salespeople as well as effective
means to ensure that salespeople perceive and
understand the organization's support. While
the significant contribution of this research is
primarily found in its description and testing
of the direct antecedents and outcomes of
salesperson POS, in order to reflect and be
grounded in the body of sales research the
Sales Force POS model necessarily includes
paths between role conflict and both
performance and organizational commitment
(Hypotheses 9 and 10, respectively).
As
expected, both paths are significant, thus
mirroring the results widely reported by other
sales researchers while also offering additional
evidence for the positive role of POS within
the sales force.
Guidelines for Developing a Supportive
Sales Force Environment
Based upon these findings, the following
conclusions can be made: (1) salesperson POS
Vol. 7, No. 2
16
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
is indirectly related to certain desirable job
outcomes via its negative association with role
stressors, (2) salespeople perceive that formal
organizational investments in their
development and success, in the form of
adequate sales training, are a strong signal that
the firm values and supports them, and (3)
POS appears to be highly relevant and
important to salespeople and amenable to
managerial and organizational actions.
Accordingly, researchers now have a better
understanding of the relations among POS,
role stressors, and important job outcomes
within the sales force, and managers have
additional insights regarding the importance of
training and POS to their salespeople.
Regarding the importance of training, sales
managers are advised to (1) offer newly hired
salespeople an immediate round of highquality sales-related training in order to quickly
begin building salesperson POS, (2) provide
both new and current salespeople extensive
opportunities for on-going training, (3)
actively monitor salesperson reactions to the
training they receive and to quickly change
training materials, methods, etc., that are
poorly received, (4) consistently evaluate
whether or not salespeople are using and
benefiting from the training they are getting,
and (5) provide numerous opportunities for all
salespeople to choose the type of training they
need as well as the methods used to provide
training (e.g., class room, OTJ, via the
internet, etc.).
Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) report that
employee perceptions of workplace fairness
(e.g., procedural justice) and supervisor
support are also strongly associated with
Northern Illinois University
improved POS.
While these groups of
antecedents to POS were not directly
examined in the current study, in order to
maximize the benefits of improved
salesperson POS sales managers may also wish
to (1) ensure that salespeople know that their
manager and organization recognize that role
ambiguity and conflict are an inherent part of
their jobs, (2) ensure that salespeople know
that their manager and organization supports
them in accomplishing their tasks, (3) actively
look for opportunities to responsibly “go to
bat” for their salespeople when disagreements
with customers and others within the
organization arise, (4) review their policies and
managerial practices to ensure that all
salespeople are being treated equitably, (5)
provide salespeople with adequate opportunity
to have their “say” on important issues as well
as adequate notice before decisions are
implemented, and (6) ensure that performance
reviews and other formal evaluation processes
are implemented fairly and reflect the
salesperson’s actual performance.
These
actions, and others like them, will certainly
help salespeople understand and appreciate
the level to which their employer supports
them, and, ultimately, for both the salesperson
and the organization to reap the benefits of
improved salesperson POS.
Limitations and Future Research
While the Sales Force POS model is found to
offer a clearly superior description of the role
and importance of salesperson POS, the
limitations of this study must be kept in mind
when considering these results. First, as
neither a longitudinal nor a truly experimental
design was used, these results do not allow
Academic Article
making any strictly causal claims. Therefore,
future researchers are encouraged to use
alternative methodologies that allow testing
for causal relations between these important
characteristics of the sales force environment.
Secondly, while the results support the notion
that POS is antecedent to salesperson role
stress, as the data is cross-sectional in nature
additional research is needed to more
rigorously examine this important question.
Third, only one category of antecedents was
used in this study and it is entirely possible
that other antecedents (e.g., fairness,
organizational politics, supervisor support,
etc.) may also impact salesperson perceptions
of support. As POS appears to be strongly
related to a variety of desirable salesperson job
outcomes, further research to identify a broad
range of its antecedents would be welcome.
Lastly, the generalizability of these results may
be somewhat narrow, as the sample primarily
consisted of experienced male salespeople
representing only five different firms. It may
be that research using less experienced
salespeople, those employed in different sales
environments, or which utilizes a greater mix
of gender and cultural backgrounds would
provide significantly different results.
Accordingly, future researchers may wish to
use more diverse samples to better explore the
role of POS in affecting salesperson job
outcomes.
Spring 2007
17
References
Babakus, Emin, David W. Cravens, Mark
Johnston, and William C. Moncrief (1996).
Examining the Role of Organizational
Variables in the Salesperson Job Satisfaction
Model. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 16 (Summer), 33-46.
Babin, Barry J. and James S. Boles (1996),.
The Effects of Perceived Co-Worker
Involvement and Supervisor Support on
Service Provider Role Stress, Performance
and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72
(1), 57-75.
Barksdale, Hiram C. Jr., Danny N. Bellenger,
James S. Boles, and Thomas G. Brashear
(2003). The Impact of Realistic Job
Previews and Perceptions of Training on
Sales Force Performance and Continuance
Commitment: A Longitudinal Test. Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23
(2), 125-138.
Behrman, Douglas N. and William D.
Perreault (1982). Measuring the
Performance of Industrial Salespeople.
Journal of Business Research, 10, 355-370.
Brown, Steven P. and Robert A. Peterson
(1993). Antecedents and Consequences of
Salesperson Job Satisfaction: MetaAnalysis and Assessment of Causal
Effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30
(February), 63-77.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Neil M. Ford, and
Orville C. Walker (1974). Measuring the
Job Satisfaction of Industrial Salespeople.
Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (August),
254-260.
Vol. 7, No. 2
18
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
------, Neil M. Ford, and Orville C. Walker
(1976). Organizational Climate and Job
Satisfaction in the Salesforce. Journal of
Marketing Research, 13, 323-332.
Dobbins, Gregory H., Robert L. Cardy, and
Stephanie J. Platz-Vieno (1990). A
Contingency Approach to Appraisal
Satisfaction: An Initial Investigation of the
Joint Effects of Organizational Variables
and Appraisal Characteristics. Journal of
Management, 16 (3), 619-633.
Eisenberger, Robert, Robin Huntington,
Steven Hutchison, and Debora Sowa
(1986). Perceived Organizational Support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507.
Fisher, Cynthia D. (1985). Social support and
adjustment to work: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Management, 11 (3), 39-53.
Ganster, Daniel C., Marcelline Fusilier, and
Bronston T. Mayes (1986). Role of Social
Support in the Experience of Stress at Work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 102-110.
Henderson, Zorika P. (1992). Physicians Can
Be Trained to Deal With Ambiguity.
Human Ecology, 20 (Spring), 31-34.
Hunt, Shelby D., Lawrence B. Chonko, and
Van R. Wood (1985). Organizational
Commitment and Marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 49 (Winter), 112-126.
Hutchison, Steven (1997). A Path Model of
Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 12 (1), 159-174.
Northern Illinois University
Jones, Bill, Deborah M. Flynn, and E. Kevin
Kelloway (1995). “Perceptions of Support
from the Organization in Relation to
Work Stress, Satisfaction, and
Commitment," in Organizational Risk
Factors for Job Stress, S.L. Sauter and L.R.
Murphy, eds., Washington D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
Kaufman, Gary N., and Terry A. Beehr
(1986). Interactions Between Job Stressors
and Social Support: Some Counterintuitive
Results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
522-526.
Kohli, Ajay K. and Bernard J. Jaworski (1994).
The Influence of Coworker Feedback on
Salespeople. Journal of Marketing, 58 (4), 8294.
MacKenzie, Scott B., Philip M. Podsakoff, and
Michael Ahearne (1998). Some Possible
Antecedents and Consequences of In-Role
and Extra-Role Salesperson Performance.
Journal of Marketing, 62 (July), 87-98.
------, ------, and Gregory A. Rich (2001).
Transformational and Transactional
Leadership and Salesperson Performance.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29
(2), 115-134.
Miceli, Marcia P. and Paul W. Mulvey (2000).
Consequences of Satisfaction with Pay
Systems: Two Field Studies. Industrial
Relations, 39 (1), 62-87.
Mowday, Richard T., Richard M. Steers, and
Lyman W. Porter (1979). The
Measurement of Organizational
Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
14 (April), 224-247.
Academic Article
Neuman, George A., Jack E. Edwards, and
Nambury S. Raju (1989). Organizational
Development Interventions: A MetaAnalysis of Their Effects On Satisfaction
and Other Attitudes. Personnel Psychology,
42, 461-489.
Spring 2007
19
Influences of Role Stressors and Job
Characteristics on Job Outcomes of
Salespeople. Journal of Marketing, 62 (July),
69-86.
Rhoades, Linda, and Robert Eisenberger
(2002). Perceived Organizational Support:
A Review of the Literature. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87 (4), 698-714.
Tubre, Travis C. and Judith M. Collins (2000).
Jackson and Shuler (1985) Revisited: A
Meta-Analysis of the Relationships
Between Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict,
and Job Performance. Journal of
Management, 26 (1), 155-169.
Rizzo, John R., Robert J. House, and Sidney I.
Lirtzman (1970). Role Conflict and
Ambiguity in Complex Organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, (June), 150163.
Wayne, Sandy J., Lynn M. Shore, and Robert
C. Liden (1997). Perceived Organizational
Support and Leader-Member Exchange: A
Social Exchange Perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 40 (1), 82-111.
Roberts, James A., Richard S. Lapidus, and
Lawrence B. Chonko (1994). An
Exploratory Examination of Situational
Variables, Effort, and Salesperson
Performance. Journal of Marketing Theory &
Practice, 2 (Summer), 70-93.
Russ, Frederick A., Kevin M. McNeilly, James
M. Comer, and Theodore B. Light (1998).
Exploring the Impact of Critical Sales
Events. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 18 (Spring), 19-34.
Shore, Lynn M. and S.M. Shore (1995).
Perceived Organizational Support and
Organizational Justice in Organizational
Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing Social
Climate at Work, R. Cropanzano and K.M.
Kacmar, eds., Westport, CT: Quorum
Press.
Mark C. Johlke (Ph.D., Texas Tech University)
is an Associate Professor of Marketing and Director
of the Professional Sales Program at Bradley University where he has been awarded the Innovation in
Teaching Award. His research on sales managersalesperson communication, salesperson selling skills,
and organizational and sales force culture and environment has been published in journals such as Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Journal
of Management, Journal of Managerial Issues, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, Journal of Service
Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, and the Journal of Business Ethics.
Singh, Jadgip, (1998). Striking a Balance in
Boundary-Spanning Positions: An
Investigation of Some Unconventional
Vol. 7, No. 2
20
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Technology Empowerment as a Determinant of
Salesforce Technology Usage
By Amy Chou, Ellen Bolman Pullins and Sylvain Senecal
The purpose of this research was to investigate how salespeople technology empowerment impacts their usage of
technology. Although empowerment has been investigated in the area of sales, no research has yet investigated
technology empowerment and its impact on salespeople technology usage. The relationship between technology
empowerment, a multidimensional construct composed of four underlying dimensions (competence, autonomy,
motivation, and impact) and technology usage was tested using a sample of 130 salespeople. Results suggest that
the more salespeople feel empowered by technology, the more they use it. The major contribution of this research is to empirically show that salespeople technology empowerment is an important determinant of their
technology usage. Thus, sales managers need to consider and potentially improve their salespeople’s empowerment perception in order for them to use technology to a greater extent.
Introduction
Salesforce technology usage has been extensively investigated in recent years (Buttle, Ang,
and Iriana 2006). Many important determinants of technology usage by salespeople have
been proposed. Determinants related to the
technology itself (e.g., ease-of-use), to the
salesperson (e.g., innovativeness), and to his
or her environment (e.g., training) are been
highlighted in the literature. Since a better understanding of these determinants should help
sales managers understand and potentially increase their salesforce technology usage (and
ultimately their performance), identifying elements that make salespeople use technology
has important managerial implications. This
research contributes to this stream of research
by proposing and empirically testing an additional and potentially important determinant
of technology usage of salespeople. It investigates how salespeople technology empowerment affects their technology usage.
Empowerment has been suggested to be an
Northern Illinois University
important variable in understanding salespeople behaviors (Anderson and Huang 2006).
For instance, empowerment has been shown
to lead to smarter selling behaviors and
greater job satisfaction. To our knowledge, no
study has yet investigated the relationship between technology empowerment and technology usage by salespeople. Thus, in this research we introduce a new construct called
technology empowerment and empirically
show that it is a determinant of salespeople
technology usage.
Literature Review and Hypotheses
Determinants of Technology Usage
Investigating the determinants of salesforce
technology usage is important for two main
reasons: 1) Many reports show that the implementation of a technology does not necessarily mean that the salesforce will use it (e.g.,
Honeycutt 2004); 2) Several research findings
suggest that technology usage by salespeople
is positively related to sales performance
(Jelinek et al. 2006, Johnson and Bhradwaj
Academic Article
2005; Robinson, Marshall, and Stamps 2005;
Ahearne and Schillewaert 2001). Thus, a better
understanding of the determinants of salesforce technology usage would help managers
increase their salesforce technology usage and
in turn, it should increase their sales performance.
The relationship between salesforce technology usage and performance has been extensively investigated in recent years. Although
several studies show positive direct or indirect
(i.e., mediated) relationship between salespeople technology usage and performance (Jelinek
et al. 2006, Johnson and Bhradwaj 2005; Robinson, Marshall, and Stamps 2005; Ahearne
and Schillewaert 2001), some studies also
show no significant relationship between the
salesforce technology usage and their performance (Engle and Barnes 2000; Gohmann
et al. 2005; Avontlis and Panagopoulos; 2005).
These divergent results could be explained by
the following elements. First, Hunter and Perreault (2007) suggest that we need to better
define salesforce performance when investigating the technology usage – salesforce performance relationship. For instance, they
show that technology usage has a positive impact on relationship building performance, but
a negative impact on administrative performance (Hunter and Perrreault 2007). Second, a
study by Ahearne, Jelinek, and Rapp (2004)
suggests that the technology usage – salesforce
performance is moderated by training and
support. Finally, a study performed by
Ahearne, Srivivasan, and Weinstein (2004)
suggests that this relationship is not linear, but
curvilinear (inverted-U shape). Hence, although several studies found a positive relationship between salesforce technology usage
Spring 2007
21
and their performance, care must be taken in
terms of construct definitions and their operationalization when investigating this relationship. Since there is some evidence that technology usage influences performance, it becomes quite important for managers to understand what the determinants of their salesforce technology usage are.
In their review of SFA research, Buttle, Ang,
and Iriana (2006) mention that so far research
suggests that the determinants of salespeople’s
intention to use technology or technology usage are: technology ease-of-use, technology
usefulness, accurate expectations about the
technology, involvement in the implementation, training and technical support availability, innovativeness, and attitude toward technology. For instance, one study suggested that
salespeople would increase their technology
usage if greater support in terms of technical
support and on-demand training were provided by their employer (Buehrer, Senecal, and
Pullins 2005).
Although many important determinants of
salespeople technology usage have been identified so far, to our knowledge, no study has
yet investigated technology empowerment as a
potential determinant of salespeople technology usage. Empowerment has emerged as a
significant factor in impacting a variety of
work behaviors and motivation. Since our
concern is increasing the use of technology, a
behavior that must be motivated, we believe
empowerment might be an important potential determinant to examine.
Vol. 7, No. 2
22
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Empowerment
Empowerment has been a main interest for
many management researchers and practitioners for several decades. However, researchers
have different views of empowerment. Empowerment is viewed as a means of delegating
decision to the lower level of hierarchy
(Malone, 1997), a process of enhancing selfefficacy (Conger & Kanungo 1988), and an
increased task motivation (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990).
The delegation view of empowerment suggests
that empowerment is a management practice
that delegates the decision making to the lower
level of organizational hierarchy (Malone,
1997). The rationale for empowering the employees is that making decisions closer to the
point at which they are actually carried out has
advantages and provides economic motivations
for decentralizing decision making.
The process view of empowerment suggests
that empowerment is a process of enhancing
feelings of self-efficacy among organizational
members through identification of conditions
that foster powerlessness (Conger and
Kanungo, 1988). These conditions can be
removed by both formal organizational practices and informal techniques that provide efficiency information. In this definition, individuals feel empowered when their selfefficacy is enhanced.
One important characteristic of effective
salespersons is a sense of self-efficacy
(Krishnan, Netemeyer, & Boles, 2002). Bandura (1977) identified four sources of efficacy
information: performance accomplishments,
vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and
Northern Illinois University
emotional arousal. In the organization setting,
individuals build their self-efficacy through
their job experiences. The successful job experiences make one feel more capable and
therefore empowered. The individuals’ empowered feeling can also come from the vicarious experiences by observing co-workers
successfully perform similar jobs. Words of
encouragement, verbal feedback, and other
forms of social persuasion from one’s supervisor and co-workers will reduce self-doubts
and therefore enhance one’s self-efficacy. An
individual’s self-efficacy is also affected by
their emotional arousal states that result from
stress, fear, anxiety, and depression. Formal or
informal support systems will assist the empowering process by reducing the negative
effects of the adverse arousal state and enhance the belief of self-efficacy.
The researchers with the motivation view of
empowerment see the empowerment as increased intrinsic task motivation (Thomas and
Velthouse, 1990). Intrinsic task motivation
involves positively valued experiences that
individuals derive directly from a task. In the
cognitive model of empowerment proposed
by Thomas and Velthouse (1990), task assessments consist of four cognitive components:
impact, competence, meaningfulness, and
choices. Competence refers to the degree to
which a person believes he or she can perform
task activities skillfully when he or she tries.
Impact refers to the degree to which a task or
behavior is seen as “making a difference” in
term of accomplishing the purpose. Choice involves causal responsibilities for a person’s
actions. Meaningfulness concerns the value of
the task goal or purpose, judged in relation to
the individual’s own ideals or standards.
Academic Article
Spring 2007
Recently, empowerment has become apparent in salesforce literature. In their review,
Anderson and Huang (2006) suggest that
salespeople empowerment should lead to increased job satisfaction, which in turn should
lead to customer satisfaction and loyalty,
which in turn should lead to organizational
growth and profit. Others suggest that salespeople empowerment is positively related to
adaptive-selling and customer-oriented selling
behaviors (Ahearne, Mathieu, and Rapp 2005;
Martin and Bush 2006; Rapp et al. 2006). Although empowerment has been suggested as
an important variable in understanding salespeople behaviors, no study has yet investigated the relationship between empowerment
and technology usage by salespeople.
Similarly to the empowerment model proposed by Thomas and Velthouse (1990), we
propose that salespeople’s technology empowerment encompasses four task assessments:
Impact, Competence, Autonomy, and Motivation. In sales, impact is clearly the salesper-
23
son’s belief that technology is beneficial for
his/her work. Competence is a general selfconfidence in one’s own ability to use technology. Autonomy is the extent to which salespeople feel more freedom and control due to
technology. When salespeople feel that technology enables them to have more autonomy,
they feel they are empowered to make better
decisions for their work. We believe that when
a salesperson is willing to learn new technology and adapt the new applications, he/she is
also more motivated to use technology to improve the efficiency of their work. Thus motivation is also one dimension of technology
empowerment.
We suggest that all four dimensions of the
technology empowerment (impact, competence, autonomy, and motivation) are related
to technology usage. A research model is displayed to depict four dimensions of technology empowerment and technology usage
(Figure1). Based on our research model, we
proposed the following hypothesis:
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
Impact
Competence
Technology
Empowerment
Technology
Usage
Motivation
Autonomy
Vol. 7, No. 2
24
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
H1: Salespeople’s technology empowerment is
positively related to their technology usage.
Furthermore, as suggested by Thomas and
Velthouse (1990) we conceptualize empowerment as a second-order construct composed
of four underlying first-order constructs: impact, competence, motivation, and autonomy.
Therefore, we propose four additional hypotheses to formally test if the four proposed
first-order constructs are underlying dimensions of technology empowerment.
H2: Salespersons who feel empowered by
technology will believe that technology has a
high degree of impact on their work.
H3: Salespersons who feel empowered by
technology will believe that they are competent regarding technology in their work.
H4: Salespersons who feel empowered by
technology will be highly motivated to learn
how to use technology.
H5: Salespersons who feel empowered by
technology will believe that technology provides high degree of autonomy for their work.
Research Method
Sample
Two companies agreed to ask their salespeople to complete a web-based survey. The survey was sent to 53 steel and 165 industrial
equipment salespeople. One hundred and
thirty participants completed the survey, 35
from the steel company and 95 from the industrial equipment company. A 59.6% response rate was achieved. The subjects were
95% male, with about two-thirds of them
ranging in age from 31-50. Ninety-six percent
had at least some college education, with 72%
Northern Illinois University
having college degrees. Fifty percent reported
that they were receiving compensation based
on a straight salary, 37% received straight
commission, with the remaining 13% received
a combination of straight salary and commission. Subjects were also asked to report the
percentage of their business with small, medium and large customers. Average percentages were approximately equal across the three
categories. On average, participants had been
working for their current employer for 9 years
and had been in sales for 13 years. According
to the managers of the companies involved,
these demographics were similar to their sales
forces.
Method
This study used an online questionnaire as the
data collection instrument. The survey with an
embedded hyperlink was emailed to each of
the salespeople in the sample. The managers
of both companies regularly employ email to
communicate with their salespeople. The industrial equipment subjects were sent an email
from the Director of Branch Sales in their organization requesting they access the website
and complete the survey. The steel industry
subjects received an email from one of the
researchers, indicating management support
and requesting that they access the website
and complete the survey. One follow up
email (via the same sources) was sent to both
sales forces. Once the email survey was completed by the salesperson his/her response
was sent directly to the researcher to maintain
confidentiality. Emails clearly stated that the
survey was being conducted by university researchers and that results would only be shared
with their management in summary format.
Academic Article
Measurement Scales
The four underlying dimensions of empowerment are impact, competence, motivation, and
autonomy. The scale of impact is adapted
from the study of Batra and Ahtola (1990).
This four-item semantic differential scale was
reliable with a Cronbach alpha of 0.851. The
scale of autonomy is adapted from the technology readiness index developed by Parasuraman (2000). The three-item Likert-type scale
had a satisfactory reliability (Cronbach Alpha
= 0.764). The scales of competence and motivation were developed based on the results of
on-site interviews of salespeople at three different firms. The four-item semantic differential competence scale and the four-item
Likert-type motivation scale were reliable
(Cronbach alpha = 0.908 and 0.859, respectively). The empowerment measurement scale
is exhibited in the Appendix. Finally, to measure technology usage, salespeople were asked
to report their usage on a five point Likerttype scale ranging from no usage to heavy usage of twelve technologies (cell phone, fax,
desktop pc, laptop pc, PDA, word processing,
Spring 2007
25
email, spreadsheet, presentation software,
intranet, customer relationship management
software, and Internet). A Technology Usage
Index was computed by averaging each salesperson answer for the twelve technologies.
Results
In order to test the posited hypotheses, structural equation modeling was used. Multiple
indices were used to test the model goodnessof-fit. The chi-square statistic indicated that
there were no significant differences between
the actual and predicted matrices (X2(4) =
6.253, p = 0.181). As suggested, additional
goodness-of-fit measures were used to assess
the overall fit of the model (Hair et al. 1998).
All additional absolute fit measures and incremental fit measures used were above the 0.90
threshold and thus, indicated a satisfactory fit
of the models. The goodness-of-fit index
(GFI=0.981), the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI=0.930), the normed fit index
(NFI=0.946), and the comparative fit index
(CFI=0.979) were above the threshold. Finally, a parsimonious fit measure was computed. As suggested by Hair et al. (1998), the
Table 1
Paths
Standardized Estimates
Measurement Model
Technology Empowerment → Motivation
0.756
Technology Empowerment → Autonomy
0.531
Technology Empowerment → Competence
0.737
Technology Empowerment → Impact
0.399
Structural Model
Technology Empowerment → Technology Usage
0.401
Vol. 7, No. 2
26
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
normed chi-squares also indicated good model
fit with a value between above one and below
two (c2/df = 1.56). Overall, the various goodness-of-fit measures indicated good model fit.
Measurement and structural models are presented in Table 1. All path coefficients from
these models were significant (p < 0.05). Finally, the amount of technology usage variance explained by salespersons’ technology
empowerment was 16.1%.
As suggested by our hypotheses, the path coefficients presented in Table 1 showed that
there is a positive relationship between technology empowerment and technology usage
(H1). Furthermore, in support of H2-H5, Table 1 also shows positive path coefficients between technology impact (H2), competence
(H3), motivation (H4), autonomy (H5), and
technology empowerment. Thus, results suggest that empowerment is a multi-dimensional
construct composed of four dimensions
(Impact, Autonomy, Competence, and Motivation) and those salespeople who feel empowered show a higher extent of technology
usage.
Discussion
Summary and Limitations
This study introduced a new construct called
technology empowerment and tested its influence on salespeople technology usage. Results
showed that 16.1% of the salespeople technology usage variance was explained by their
technology empowerment. Thus, based on
these results it seems that technology empowerment is an important determinant of salespeople technology usage. Furthermore, results
suggested that technology empowerment is a
Northern Illinois University
multidimensional construct composed of four
underlying dimensions (competence, motivation, autonomy, and impact).
This study is exploratory in nature. Our research establishes that technology empowerment and technology usage are positively related. However, since our sample size is limited, one should be cautious about the generalization of the findings. In the future, a follow up research with large sample can be conducted to validate the findings. In addition,
the research model can be expanded by adding more factors that may affect the technology empowerment. For example management
support could be a plausible factor that affects
technology empowerment. The endorsement
of management for using SFA technology may
empower salespersons to use technology for
their work, since the management support
provides the legitimacy for the SFA technology use. Technology empowerment may also
have effect on the communication and coordination between the salespersons and their supervisors. Future research can enhance the
measurement of technology empowerment
and add additional factors to improve the current research model.
Managerial Implications
If technology usage is a concern for a sales
manager, they should first investigate the perception of their salesforce regarding the various determinants of technology usage related
to the salespeople (e.g., innovativeness, empowerment), the technology (e.g., usefulness),
and the firm (e.g., support, training) to identify
the problematic elements. If technology empowerment is part of the weak elements, further investigation should be performed to pin-
Academic Article
point which dimensions are problematic.
Once identified, certain solutions can be envisioned.
Although sales managers cannot directly influence all four dimensions of technology empowerment through their actions, they definitely can put in place formal training programs and promote less formal training programs to increase salespeople technology
competence perception. For instance, they can
support their salesforce by helping salespeople
build a community of practices so that salespeople can support each other and exchange
success stories of technology use. Both management support and peer support can increase the competence of the salespeople.
Through peer support, sales persons can also
learn the different ways of using technology to
perform their tasks, thus they feel that they
have more control or choice.
Although formal and informal training may
affect the others dimensions of empowerment, it is much more challenging for sales
managers to directly impact these other dimensions (i.e., motivation, autonomy, and impact). However, by stressing the usefulness of
technology in general or the usefulness of a
specific technology (e.g., Intranet) for a specific task (e.g., updated sales figures), they may
change the way their salesforce feels about the
value of technology (impact), how it can provide them more autonomy and this may influence their motivation toward technology.
These are elements that are best addressed
within the context and attitudes of the sales
organization.
In addition to problem diagnosis, these factors
may also be useful to the practicing manager
Spring 2007
27
trying to develop a positive situation in which
to implement a new technology.
Appendix: Empowerment Measurement
Scale
Competence (α = 0.908)
I feel ______________ with new technology
(5 point semantic differential from Uncomfortable/Conformable)
I do ____________ new technology (5 point
semantic differential from Not understand /
Understand)
I am ____________ in using new technology
(5 point semantic differential from Not confident/ Confident)
Motivation (α = 0.859)
I like to learn about new things.
I am willing to make changes in how I do
things at work.
I am motivated to learn about new technologies.
I am comfortable with new technologies.
Autonomy (α = 0.764)
Technology gives you more freedom of mobility.
Technology gives me independence from relying on others for information.
Technology gives me additional control over
the job I do.
Impact (α = 0.851)
How would you rate the overall value of technology? (5 point semantic differential from)
Useless/Useful
Not beneficial/Beneficial
Low quality/High quality
Worthless/Valuable
Vol. 7, No. 2
28
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
References
Ahearne, M., Jelinek R. & Rapp, A. (2004), “Moving Beyond the Direct Effect of SFA Adoption on Salesperson Performance: Training and Support as Key Moderating Factors,” Industrial Marketing Management, 34 (4),
379-388.
Buehrer, R.E., Senecal, S., & Pullins, E.B.
(2005), “Sales Force Technology Usage –
Reasons, Barriers, and Support: An
Exploratory Investigation” Industrial
Marketing Management, 34, 389-398.
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. & Rapp, A. (2005), “To Empower or Not to Empower Your Sales Force? An
Empirical Examination of the Influence of Leadership Empowerment Behavior on Customer Satisfaction and Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 90
(5), 945-955.
Buttle, F., Ang, L. & Iriana, R. (2006), Sales
Force Automation: Review, Critique, and
Research Agenda,” International Journal of
Management Reviews, 8 (4), 213-231.
Ahearne, M. & Schillewaert, N. (2001), “The Acceptance
of Information Technology in the Sales Force,” eBusiness Research Center, Working Paper 10-2000, Penn State
University.
Ahearne, M., Srinivasan, N. & Weinstein, L. (2004),
“Effect of Technology on Sales Performance: Progressing from technology Acceptance to Technology
Usage and Consequence,” Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 24 (4), 297-310.
Anderson, R.E. & Huang, W. (2006), “Empowering
Salespeople: Personal, managerial, and Organizational
Perspectives,” Psychology & Marketing, 23 (2), 139-159.
Avontlis, G.J. and Panagopoulos, N.G. (2005),
“Antecedents and Consequences of CRM Technology Acceptance in The Sales Force,” Industrial Marketing Management, 34 (4), p. 355-368.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying
Theory of Behavior Change” Psychological Review, 84(2),
191-125.
Batra, R. & Ahtola A.T. (1990), “Measuring
the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of
Consumer Attitudes” Marketing Letters, 2
(2), 159-70.
Northern Illinois University
Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The
Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice” Academy of Management
Review, 13(3), 471-482.
Engle, R.L. and Barnes, M.L. (2000), “Sales
Force Automation Usage, Effectiveness,
and Cost-benefit in Germany, England,
and the United States,” Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, 15 (4), p. 216-242.
Gohmann, S.F., Guan, J., Barker, R.M., and
Faulds, D.J. (2005), “Perception of Sales
Force Automation: Differences Between
Sales Force and Management,” Industrial
Marketing Management, 34 (4), p. 337-343.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. &
Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Honeycutt, E.D. (2004), “Technology Improves Sales performance – Doesn’t it? An
Introduction to The Special Issues on Selling and Sales Technology,” Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 301-304.
Hunter, G.K. & Perreault W.D. (2006),
“Making Sales Technology Effective,”
Journal of Marketing, 71 (1), 16-34.
Academic Article
Jelinek, R., Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. & Schillewaert, N. (2006), “A Longitudinal Examination of Individual, Organizational, and
Contextual Factors on Sales technology
Adoption and Job Performance,” Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 14 (1), 7-23.
Johnson D.S. & Bhradwaj, S. (2005),
“Digitization of Selling Activity and Sales
Performance: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 33 (1), 3-18.
Krishnan, B.C., Netemeyer, R.G., & Boles, J.S.
(2002), “Self-efficacy, Competitiveness,
and Efforts as Antecedents of Salesperson
Performance” Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, 22, 285–295.
Spring 2007
29
Robinson, L., Marshall, G.W. & Stamps, M.B.
(2005), “An Empirical Investigation of
Technology Acceptance in a Field Sales
Force Setting,” Industrial Marketing Management, 34 (4), 407-415.
Thomas, K.W. & Velthouse, B.A. (1990),
“Cognitive Elements of Empowerment:
An Interpretive Model of Intrinsic Task
Motivation” Academy of Management Review,
14(4), 666-681.
Amy Y. Chou is an Assistant Professor in the
School of Information Technology at Illinois State
University. aychou@ilstu.edu
Ellen Bolman Pullins is an Associate Professor
Malone, T.W. (1997), “Is Empowerment Just
a Fad? Control, Decision Making, and IT”
Sloan Management Review, 38(2), 23-35.
of Marketing and the Schmidt Research Professor of
Sales & Sales Management at the University of
Toledo. Ellen.pullins@utoledo.edu
Martin, C.A. & Bush A.J. (2006),
“Psychological Climate, Empowerment,
Leadership Style, and Customer-Oriented
Selling: An Analysis of the Sales ManagerSalesperson Dyad,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34 (3), 419-438.
Sylvain Senecal is an Associate Professor of
Marketing and the Chairholder of the RBC Financial
Group Chair of Electronic Commerce at HEC
Montreal. senecal.sylvain@gmail.com
Parasuraman, A. (2000), Technology Readiness Index (TRI): A Multiple-Item Scale to
Measure Readiness to Embrace New
Technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2
(4), 307-320.
Rapp, A., Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. & Schillewaert, N.
(2006), The Impact of Knowledge and Empowerment on Working Smart and Working Hard: The
Moderating Role of Experience,” International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 23 (3), 279-293.
Vol. 7, No. 2
30
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
To PowerPoint or not to powerpoint:
That is the question!
By John C. Gill, UPS
In the beginning, the salesperson did not use
visual aids when they presented products or
services to their potential customers. Time
marches on and then there were flip charts followed by overhead projectors. Now there is
PowerPoint. As sometimes happens with a
new seemingly effective tool, people tend to
overuse it (without regard for moderation or
purpose). In this case, many have suffered.
Some have paid the ultimate price: Death, by
PowerPoint. Experts in an attempt to solve or
reduce the problems rushed to the rescue and
offered ways to avoid or reduce these harmful
effects. Mathew Christian of Marshall University (an engaging presenter) penned one such
attempt and called it a 12 Step program to
“overcome the affliction.” (I particularly like
Step 6: Fonts are like donuts, you really
shouldn’t have more than 3 at a time).
After years of abuse, on April 17th of this year,
Google, an innovator in many areas, announced
the pending release of its entry into the presentation market. Google said, in part, “It just made
sense to add presentations to the mix; after all,
when you create slides, you're almost always going to share them.” Create slides? I guess every
epidemic needs an efficient carrier. Salespeople
beware: we are not immune to the infectious sue
of slide presentations.
In fairness, Microsoft engineers developed
PowerPoint to help create more effective and
efficient communication. In the final stages of
Northern Illinois University
the sales process, the kind of one-way communication that PowerPoint tends to enhance may
be appropriate. However, earlier in the sales
process, I prefer more interactive approaches
to sales presentations (such as white boards for
process mapping) for 3 basic reasons:
1. Good sales presentations facilitate learning
(for the seller and the buyer).
2. You never know when a customer will
want to advance the sale (be ready).
3. Sometimes the decision maker is late to the
party.
The following discussion examines in detail each
of the three reasons for more interactive communication in the early stages of the selling process.
Good sales presentations facilitate learning (for the seller and the buyer)
At its core, an effective sales presentation facilitates learning. The salesperson learns about the
customer’s business and specific issues while
probing for ways to help solve the problems uncovered along the way. In turn, the buyer learns
about new products, services or processes which
can be applied to their issues while weighing the
cost and benefits of a change.
Malcolm Knowles, a pioneer of adult learning,
introduced four key principles of adult learning in his book The Modern Practice of Adult
Education. They are:
Application Article
1. Adults need to be involved in the planning
and evaluation of their instruction.
Spring 2007
31
3. Adults are most interested in learning
about subjects that have immediate relevance to their job or personal life.
in the PowerPoint presentation, but the interaction covered those issues or points important to the buyer (which may not have been
anticipated and available on a developed
PowerPoint presentation). Even customers
that seemed uninterested can surprise you
with ideas once they engage in the learning
process and the creative juices start to flow.
4. Adult learning is problem-centered rather
than content-oriented.
You never know when the customer will
want to advance the sale (so, be ready)
Interactive sales presentations versus one way
presentations are generally more effective because they are more aligned with the four
principles of adult learning (above). For example, a seller may use a whiteboard to outline
what the seller knows about the buyer’s business model and recommend an interactive approach for filling in any gaps uncovered. During the interchange of thoughts and ideas, the
seller can plan to explore possible pinch
points or solutions that the seller can provide.
It is also possible that the buyer may recommend that the seller focus on specific areas of
the business model where they (personally)
have problems or influence. This will allow
the seller to broaden the conversation to meet
the buyer’s wishes (even if it was not planned
in advance). Thus, the whiteboard approach
allows the seller to be flexible and accommodate the buyer’s preferences. In addition, the
buyer was involved in the planning process
and is better positioned and motivated to be
engaged in the learning process. The ensuing
interaction/presentation will likely include the
remaining components of adult learning. The
seller can more easily make it active, relevant,
and problem centered. The salesperson may
not end up covering all the points contained
Most salespeople agree on the importance of
uncovering or developing customer dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction is a necessary for change.
Most salespeople are familiar with the concept
of offering product/service solutions that relieve buyer dissatisfaction. Solutions create the
compelling reasons to change. Salespeople can
struggle, however, to navigate a path between
buyer dissatisfaction with the current situation
and a compelling reason to change. PowerPoint can further limit the salesperson’s ability
to navigate this path.
2. Experience provides the basis for learning
activities.
Neil Rackham, author of Major Account Sales
Strategy, studied the behaviors and results of
10,000 salespeople on 35,000 sales calls. Based
on his research, he created a circular model for
the buyer decision process. The buyer:
1. Changes over time
2. Recognizes needs
3. Evaluates options
4. Resolves concerns
5. Makes a decision
6. Implements the decision
7.
Repeats the process
Vol. 7, No. 2
32
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Salespeople typically get called into the process when a customer begins to recognize a
need for change (stage 2). Rackam said about
his research, “Our first finding was simple but
crucial. Successful people ask a lot more
questions during sales calls (as a means to developing dissatisfaction) than do their less successful colleagues. We found that these less
successful people tend to do most of the talking. They become involved in product discussion very early in the sale. Frequently, they
give presentations as a means of generating
customer interest.“ You can imagine how a
successful salesperson, interested in asking
more questions, could leverage a white board
as support media during an interactive sales
presentation. Equally, you can imagine a less
successful salesperson using PowerPoint to
“generate customer interest.”
One of the most critical points in the decision
(sales) process is when the buyer recognizes
the need to change and shifts to evaluating
options. A good salesperson is right there in
the conversation ready to influence the buyer’s
decision criteria. Ready to influence the way
the buyer views his products or services relative to the need at hand. In that moment, it is
better to circle the areas of dissatisfaction on
the white board with a big red pen and shift
the conversation accordingly than it is to finish the deck.
Sometimes the decision maker is late to
the party
I don’t have empirical evidence to help prove
this hypothesis. However, in 20 years of sales
and facilitation, I have given or witnessed hundreds of mostly one-way presentations (as
PowerPoint tends to be mostly one-way) outNorthern Illinois University
lining buyer options. These presentations are
typically tailored to the not-so-engaged decision
maker. Often, influential colleagues of the decision maker request these presentations in
hopes of compelling the decision maker to
change. Often, the strategy fails.
Although late in the sales process, these presentations were missed learning opportunities.
Additionally, I can’t remember a time a decision maker called to recommend a solution
that wasn’t outlined in the one-way presentation. Alternatively, as mentioned, in a learning environment, the decision maker has an
opportunity to discover his own, likely broader,
needs. Equally powerful, the decision maker
gets the opportunity to share in the development and choice of options. Successfully layering the learning process later in the sales cycle
can result in the decision maker:
1. Opening up to other benefits of the product
or service.
2. Engaging other departments in the sales
process.
3. Agreeing to a road map for competing the
sales cycle.
4. Becoming less sensitive to price.
5. Thinking of the seller as a business partner.
By the way, at this point the seller is no longer
just communicating the company’s message;
the salesperson is now a part of the company’s
competitive advantage.
Conclusion
The engineers at Microsoft designed PowerPoint to help people communicate more effectively and efficiently. Although effective
Application Article
Spring 2007
33
and efficient communication is an important
part of a good sales presentation, sales presentations often require more. Sales presentations require learning and presentation media
flexible enough to facilitate it. Through learning and discovery, a buyer and seller give
themselves the best chance to identify problems and solutions that create compelling reasons for change. The seller is responsible for
creating a learning environment and should
start with an more interactive media. So the
choice is yours: PowerPoint or not to PowerPoint. It may depend on the stage of the selling process and your specific goals.
John C. Gill is the UPS Sales Training Manager
for the North Central Region. He has 20 years in
Sales with UPS including direct sales, sales management and sales training.
Vol. 7, No. 2
34
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Making ‘cold calling’ easy (ier)
building powerful scripts and handling
the five categories of ‘no’
By Barry D. Caponi, Caponi Performance Group
If you’re looking to increase your sales, there
are two reasons to look at the appointment
setting process. First, there is no better way
to proactively control your own destiny
than to make more effective appointment
making calls. There is a direct correlation
between the number of dials made and the
size of one’s commission check. Second,
it is the one stage of the buying process that
can act as a fulcrum and dramatically impact
the final results of the process. In other
words, an increase in the number of Initial
Meetings provides a larger foundation for
more sales, even if you are no more effective
in the subsequent stages of the buying/selling
process. Some of this advantage is pure math,
but some also impact your business in subtle,
yet substantial ways. For instance, how would
your margins increase if you were in a stronger
negotiating position because you had a full
pipeline when trying to close deals? How
would the atmosphere around your office improve if the discussions changed to those of
how to better qualify the many more prospects you have, creating better proposals and
closing deals instead of the negative vibes that
accompany the ‘we need more activity’ and
‘we can’t afford to lose this deal’ type discussions you’re probably having now? And while
I can’t say this necessary task is painless, I believe this process makes it more effective, easier and less painful to perform.
Northern Illinois University
This article examines how to effectively set
appointments once you’ve got your suspect on
the phone. There’s a lot more to this process
such as how to handle gatekeepers and how to
use voicemail and email, but these are the basics of the actual call. If you’d like to read
about the whole challenge of setting appointments, what are the alternatives, what kind of
tools exists to make it easier, etc., There is a
website (put link) or way to request a white
paper that addresses those topics.
The Concepts behind Appointment Setting Calls
Before beginning any discussion of how to be
more successful setting appointments, one
must understand the ground rules by which
the people you’re calling play. It is important
to understand these concepts because they are
the underpinnings of how we approach the
challenge of setting appointments.
When a suspect receives an appointment setting call,
any of four operative laws can come into play:
1. The law of ‘FEW Suspects in the Market’ – on average less than five percent of
suspects in any given universe are currently in the market when you call;
2. The law of ‘Get ‘em off the phone at
any cost’ - your suspect will do anything
(including lie) to get you off the phone;
Application Article
3.
The law of ‘Workus Interruptus” –
no matter when you call, you are practicing interruptive marketing;
4.
The law of the ‘Reciprocal Response’ is invoked – your suspect will
generally respond in the same manner
you approach them;
What a salesperson can do to increase the likelihood of
keeping any of the laws from stopping the appointment
call. It does make a difference what you say and how
you say it - so:
1. You must be respectful of their time, so
keep it short and to the point;
2. The purpose of an appointment making
call should be to set an appointment and
additionally build enough value to make
them look forward to the Initial Meeting NOT TO SELL;
3. Be professional, yet upbeat and enthusiastic (you do believe in what you’re selling,
don’t you?);
4. You must offer something of value to
them by offering to share some specific
benefit oriented information about how
you’ve helped others in their position (not,
how you can help them – a subtle, but important difference). Offering to tell them
about your new widgets does not cut it.
The fact that your new widgets just increased their competitor’s market share by
10%...does;
5. Control the flow of the conversation by
knowing what you’re going to say – but
internalize your script to make it sound
conversational and consistent so that;
Spring 2007
35
a. You can predict the Conditioned Responses you’ll hear – they’ll be very
consistent if you deliver the same message every time, and if you can predict
those responses you can be prepared
to counter them effectively and automatically;
b. Believe the first Conditioned Response is not true – and use the
Counters and ‘Bridge’ questions to
refocus the direction of the conversation so you can;
c. Ask for the appointment again without
hesitation – leave dead air and they’ll
throw up another flavor of Conditioned Response or question for you
to handle.
The Process and Elements of an Appointment Setting Call
There are three stages of an appointment
making call.
1. Approach
2. Suspect’s favorite Conditioned Response
3. Countering their Conditioned Response
and asking for the Appointment again
The Approach contains the following three
elements plus an optional fourth:
1. Greeting and Introduction
a. The Greeting is pretty simple. All you
want to say is hello and state their name to
make sure you’ve got their attention. An
example would be, “Good morning, Bob”
or “Good morning Mr. Abacrombie”.
Vol. 7, No. 2
36
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
b. The Introduction is how you introduce yourself and what I like to call an
eleven second commercial. Mine is,
“My name is Barry Caponi and I’m the
president of the Caponi Performance
Group. We’re a sales training firm
based in Dallas.”
I’ve told them my name, the company I represent, and what we do. As the meat of the call
will come in the ‘Purpose’, that’s all I need.
However, if I want to add a little ‘credibility’
statement, I could add, “…and we’re one of
the leading experts in the country on the appointment setting step of the sales process.” I
have done it both ways and can measure no
perceptible difference in effectiveness. I believe in keeping it short and the purpose for
the call is much more important, so I generally
leave it off.
2. Purpose for the call
Here is the meat of your call. Start with the
transition statement, “The reason I’m specifically calling you today is…” Using this statement lets them know you’re getting right to
the point and may head off a dreaded Conditioned Response before you get a chance to
tell them the reason you called!
The purpose for the call should include:
1. What you’ve done for others (not what
you can do for them);
2. A request for a face-to-face meeting (or
WebEx, or phone appointment)
3. An offer to share how you’ve done that
for others (success story)
Northern Illinois University
4. Optionally, an offer to share how others
in their position feel about the value it
brought to their organization (testimonial)
Mine is, “The reason I’m specifically calling
you today is that we’ve had outstanding results
from a new program enabling our client’s sales
teams to double or better the number of first
appointments they were setting. I’d like to
stop by your office and share with you how
we were able to do that and what our client’s
are telling us about the increase in sales that
resulted.”
3.
The first request for the appointment
a. Would you be available Tuesday afternoon at 2:00?” Remember, you’re trying to keep it as short as possible, so
ask for a specific day and time. Although I don’t have a major problem
with, “Is Tuesday or Thursday better
for you?” you sound more professional and in control of your own calendar by asking for a specific time and
day. You’re also getting right to the
point and they won’t feel ‘trapped’. If
they say Tuesday at 2:00 won’t work,
trust me, you can work something else
out.
4. Optional qualifying question if required
a. If you must qualify, do so after you’ve
gained the appointment. Here’s an
example of how to transition into the
questions:
b. “In order to help me be better prepared for our meeting, do you mind if
I ask you a couple of questions?” (Keep it as short as you can.
Application Article
Remember you told them the reason
for the call was to set an appointment,
not collect information.)
Suspect’s favorite Conditioned Response
It is here that the suspect first gets to play.
On the surface, it may seem like they don’t
play very fair. But in reality, they do. If you
are delivering the same message each time, the
responses will fall into predictable patterns.
(It’s one of the reasons why scripts are so useful.) Up to this point they are thinking of
nothing but how to get you off the phone because they don’t think they need what you’re
selling, so they will fall back on their favorite
Conditioned Response designed to get rid of
you. You must buy into the fact that this first
one has very little to do with reality.
The good news is that the responses are very
predictable and there are only five major categories of them to prepare to handle. They are:
1. They’ll make a direct statement or ask you
a question
2. Already have one - either they do it internally or they are happy with their current
vendor
3. Don’t need one – this one comes in the
most flavors, no budget, don’t use them,
etc.
4. Can’t talk right now - which can mean either right that minute or that they are busy
for a period of time (tax accountant in the
spring)
5. Send me information - “What’s your website address?”, is the new version of this
Spring 2007
37
Countering Their Conditioned Responses
This is where you earn your money. The
process so far has been leading up to this
point where you ply your skills and ‘Counter’
their knee jerk Conditioned Response(s).
Let me make an important observation here
before we begin. None of these techniques
work all of the time. Once I get through to
the person I want to talk with, I am only successful fifty percent of the time (and I am very
good at this). But if a .300 hitter in baseball
can make hundreds of thousands of dollars a
year, why not you!
The key element of this approach is called
‘Bridging’. How this concept is used is what
differentiates it from any other appointment
setting process I’ve seen. It is designed to do
two things:
1. ‘Bridge’ you back into control of the conversation after the suspect asks you a
question;
2. Provides you the ability to ‘Bridge’ from
the suspects’ knee jerk reaction into a
short conversation providing you a platform to expand on your value proposition
before you ask for the appointment again.
It will reduce no shows and cancellations
and is the most powerful piece of this
process;
Rules for ‘Bridge’ questions – each question should:
o Get you an answer that helps qualify and
gets you into a short conversation to
build the value for the Initial Meeting;
Vol. 7, No. 2
38
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
o Call for a relatively short answer using an
open ended question;
o Return a predictable answer you can control with, “…that’s exactly why we need to
get together. How is Tuesday at 2:00?”
1. Countering the Direct Question or Statement
a. You must answer the question or statement before doing anything else or
you will have no credibility;
b. You have also just lost control of the
flow, so ask a ‘Bridge’ question to regain control immediately after answering their question;
c. After they answer yours, you must ask for
the appointment again – no dead air.
2. Countering “Already have one”
a. Don’t fight it. Instead use the old ‘Feel,
felt, found’ (indirect denial) approach
using the approach of enhancing or
leveraging what they’ve already done.
For example, my answer to the existence of an internal training program
is, “Some of my best clients told me
exactly the same thing until they heard
how we had helped others actually leverage the investment they had made in
their internal training program.”
b. Then I ask a ‘Bridge’ question such as,
“I’m just curious, what kind of internal training are you currently doing?”
After they answer, I’ll say, “That’s exactly why we need to get together, because…!” and ask for the appointment
again.
3. Countering “Don’t need one”
Northern Illinois University
a. Use the same transition to begin your
response, but instead of leveraging you
must have a benefit statement to use
that applies to the flavor of the response. For instance, “Sales are down
so we don’t have any budget”, can be
answered with, “Some of my best clients…until they heard how we were
not only able to remedy their revenue
challenge, but also how flexible we
were in arranging payment.”
b. Then I ask a ‘Bridge’ question and ask
for the appointment again.
4. Countering “Can’t talk right now”
a. Don’t succumb to the temptation to ask
when would be a good time to talk.
Instead, try, “I totally understand. As
a matter of fact, the only reason I
called was to set an appointment.
How is Tuesday at 2:00?”
b. There are some other variations on this
one that are beyond the scope of this
article.
5. Countering “Send me some information”
a. Many sales reps think they’ve got a ‘hot
one’ when this occurs. Don’t fall into
that trap – they have no intention of
reading what you send;
b. Either – “I’d really rather just get together. How is Tuesday…”, or;
c. “I’d love to, but to make sure I send
you pertinent information, do you
mind if I ask you a couple of questions?” (They can’t really say no to
this!) Ask a ‘Bridge’ question.
Application Article
Summary and Next Steps
For those visual learners and as a summary of
the above description, a diagram of the
appointment making process is provided on
page 40.
Companies that implement this methodology
along with some automation (recommended)
will generally see a doubling or better in appointments set. But the key to making this, or
any other appointment making process work,
is putting in the effort to do the upfront
‘homework’. That includes a script that is
compelling and gets predictable responses,
preparing to Counter those Conditioned Responses you’ll get, writing a couple of really
good ‘Bridge’ questions and then practicing
again and again until it is second nature!
Spring 2007
39
Barry Caponi is a graduate of Northern Illinois
University, class of 1972. He is also the president of
the Caponi Performance Group, a sales training and
consulting company located in Dallas, Texas. Mr
Caponi can be contacted via email at bcaponi@caponipg.com. The Caponi Performance Group
can be reached at (817) 224-9900, the website address
is www.caponipg.com.
There is an old adage that says if you don’t act
on an idea within forty-eight hours, you never
will. So if you’d like some help increasing
your commissions, give us a call or send us an
email right now. We love helping people
make money!
Vol. 7, No. 2
40
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Northern Illinois University
Application Article
Spring 2007
41
Are your negotiation techniques sabotaging your
business relationships?
a case study
By Brian Dietmeyer, President and CEO Think! Inc.
When a negotiation ends, a positive, lasting
relationship with the customer should begin.
However, negotiation that demands zero-sum
concessions usually results in one side gaining
only at the expense of the other, which means
someone will walk away feeling defeated. This
kind of adversarial energy won’t create the
momentum necessary to get a great relationship rolling.
But it doesn’t have to be this way.
You can make negotiation significantly more
collaborative by moving everyone involved to
the same side of the table using a concept
called Multiple Equal Offers (MEOs).
In essence, MEOs gives prospects three
choices to close the deal instead of just the
customary one. On the surface, this is counter
intuitive. Traditional negotiation advice discourages such behavior for fear of muddying
waters (or confusing the customer). I agree.
MEOs won’t work if you show up with three
offers that are pre-packaged gift baskets bundled with stuff that is useless to everyone except your chief financial officer.
Therefore, to execute MEOs properly, you
must do your homework. Carefully analyze
what makes you the preferred choice, what
your customer will do without you, and how
they intend to pay for your solution. Rank
what your customer values most about what
you have to offer, determine what that’s worth
to them and bundle your offerings into three
packages: a stripped-down lowest-tier option
that offers only the most basic solution, a
mid-tier and a high-tier offering, each providing an increasing level of value to the customer. The more they trade, the more they get.
As you begin to construct the MEOs, do this
only after you have done your research and
met with the customer and always look at
them from the customer’s point of view. You
need to structure and title them in a way that
is meaningful to them and not just you, emphasizing the gap between what you offer and
their alternative. Then present each title of the
MEO in a way that will resonate; don’t dive
immediately into the details and terms of each
offer. Instead, tell a story- here is a most basic
example:
“Ms. Bargainharder, I’m prepared, based on
my research of your needs and my needs, to
offer three different business relationships.
Let’s review each of them and how they could
impact your success.
“When we first explored this opportunity you said,
that because of your recent merger, you needed a
company to transport households across the continental United States. My first offer, the Basic 48
Option, addresses that need — transporting the
households of 50 employees to your new division.
Vol. 7, No. 2
42
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
“However, in our discussions you confessed
that this project is far more complex than
merely transportation. You explained that
your company has never addressed the financial considerations of such an impressive endeavor and as you know; our organization is
expert in determining reimbursement and relocation costs. This Wise Investment Alternative would include a financial audit of risks
and opportunities; it will provide you with the
most intelligent figures for relocation allowances and reimbursement, and could ultimately save your organization tens of thousands of dollars. Best of all, we will provide all
of the services available in the Basic 48.”
“The third offer I’m going to present is the
Smart Move. You mentioned that you ultimately will be transferring a division to
Europe. As you know, we are expert in the
complexities of international relocation. We
can help you set the groundwork for a very
successful initiative by assisting your human
resources department in choosing the best
candidates, as well as provide both cultural
and language training. I realize you think this
may be far into the future, but you must set
the groundwork now for a successful initiative. Choose this, and you will also receive
everything offered in the Basic48 option and
the Wise Investment Alternative.”
More often than not, the customer will decide
for themselves that they don’t want the lowest-tier offering when they see what else they
could have. Executed correctly, MEOs should
offer both sides something much better than
the basic zero-sum, all-or-nothing, concession.
Be prepared for customers to demand the
highest-tier offering at the lowest-tier price
Northern Illinois University
and badger you to provide prices for each
item in each tier. Don’t ever do it. I don’t and
I’ve never lost a deal because of it. Instead, if
they view one item of higher value and it isn’t
included in a particular MEO, often to trade it
out for aspects of the MEO that are of less
importance.
The power of MEOs to create strong relationships and revenues will astound you. Consider
the case of Tod Walton, Western Region Director of Business Development for
Livingston International, Canada’s top custom
broker and trade-related services provider.
“Using MEOs enabled us to increase our
close rates from 40 percent to well over 60
percent,” he explains. “In fact, we recently
closed a very large deal in our world. They
were a current client on one side of our business, but the business we closed was ten times
that size, all because we used MEOs.”
When this customer sent Livingston a standard RFP, Walton submitted three solutions at
three price points instead of one. The customer wanted Walton to explain the offers, so
they asked for a meeting. (No competitors
ever got a meeting.) During that two-hour discussion, they finalized the proposal and two weeks
later, Livingston officially won the business.
“When you give customers options, you move
to the same side of the negotiation table —
they stop viewing you as an adversary and see
you as a partner,” notes Walton.
In essence, MEOs ensure that when everyone
leaves the negotiation table, they’re happier
than when they arrived. I can’t think of a better send off to a long and prosperous business
relationship.
Application Article
Livingston Case Study—How to use Smart
Negotiation to Transform Your Marketplace
As Canada’s top customs broker and traderelated services provider, Livingston International is the value leader in an industry that
continuously combats commoditization. The
struggle was especially heated about a decade
ago. Margins were eroding as rapidly as costs
were escalating, and in the fight to keep customers, competitors were recklessly slashing
prices.
Livingston took the offensive: they increased
prices and consequently, turned the tide. Not
only did they keep customers, they gained new
ones. This all happened because they implemented a sales process. Eventually, their competitors followed suit and commoditization
was quelled for the time being.
Unfortunately, the marketplace never stands
still. Commoditization once again began
creeping to the forefront. Buyers were becoming increasingly sophisticated. More and more
often, when the time came to close the deal,
Livingston’s sales professionals were face-toface with these masters of negotiation, not the
friendly contacts they cultivated during their
sales process. Even the most seasoned sales
pros were not equipped with the knowledge
or support to powerfully stand up against
highly trained professional buyers and ultimately, ended up giving too much away.
Closing deals was becoming too costly and
Livingston realized they were once again being
overcome with commoditization. But they
needed new ammunition. That is where
Think! Inc., a global negotiation consultancy,
provided that new ammunition.
Spring 2007
43
Over the next few months, all of the departments that touched sales worked together to
create a consensus on negotiation strategy and
determine what a successful deal would look
like. They implemented training methodologies that were eagerly embraced because of the
involvement of the company leadership and it
was even integrated into compensation. The
organization, most importantly, transformed
its perspective from a last-minute convoluted,
complex tips and tactics process to an elegantly simple strategy executed throughout the
sales process. This strategy is based on two
elements:
1. Consequences of No Agreement (CNA): the
outcome if an impasse is reached. What
will the client do? Have they accurately
analyzed their alternatives? Are they comparing apples to apples or apples to
orangutans?
2. Trades: how will the client pay for the solution; the total terms of the deal.
Livingston painstakingly integrated the sales
and negotiation process so sales professionals
could rapidly determine what the prospect
values (their CNA) and if that encompassed
Livingston’s solution. If it didn’t, they learned
not to pursue the opportunity. If it did, they
learned how to attain the information to find out
specifically what the prospect values most about the
solution and ways to trade for that solution. Most
important, they learned how to accomplish this well
before arriving at the negotiation table.
“Populating the elements of CNA’S and Trades
helped us determine who has the power in the negotiation. If we don’t have the power, we know
we’re not ready to close the deal,” notes Walton.
Vol. 7, No. 2
44
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Sales professionals were taught how to integrate CNAs and Trades into Multiple Equal
Offers (MEOs), which gave clients three options from which to choose instead of just
one. “Using MEOs has enabled us to increase
our close rates from 40 percent to well over
60 percent” says Mr. Walton
“When you give customers options related to
their interests, you move to the same side of
the negotiation table. They stop viewing you
as an adversary and see you as a partner,”
notes Walton. “In fact, our approach to negotiation is all about relationships and learning as
much as you can about what the customer
needs. This allows us to present the solution
in a way that will make it rewarding for everyone to close the deal.
We now look at our solutions in a new light
and it allows us to be creative with how we
present our value. This helped us realize precisely how much our customers value us.”
Livingston now has the power to once again
lead the charge against commoditization; they
are light years ahead of most business-tobusiness organizations, considering only five
percent have implemented a negotiation strategy.2 The results of Livingston’s thought leadership is reflected in their bottom line.
Livingston achieved a 243 percent ROI within
two years.
Think! and the Strategic Account Management
Association surveyed 361 global sales leaders,
most in organizations with revenues of a billion dollars or more, and only five percent said
they have a corporate-wide strategic negotiation process.
Northern Illinois University
Brian Dietmeyer is President and CEO of
Think! Inc., a global strategic negotiation consultancy.
Mr Dietmeyer has nearly 25 years of leadership
experience in sales, marketing and strategic planning.
He is also a sought-after speaker and columnist, author of the book Strategic Negotiation and founder of Think! Inc. with Dr. Max Bazerman, Vice
Chair of the Harvard Project on Negotiation.
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Subscription Form
Name
Company
Title
Address
City
State
Country
Zip
3
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