Subscription form
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
NAME
BUSINESS/SCHOOL
ADDRESS
ZIP & STATE
TITLE
CITY
COUNTRY
Domestic Individual $50
Foreign Individual $70
Check enclosed
Domestic Corporate $60
Foreign Corporate $80
Bill me later
Mail this form to: Dan C. Weilbaker, JSMAM
128 Barsema Hall
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115
Or fax it to 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
Dan C. Weilbaker
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Department of Marketing
128 Barsema Hall
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115
FOLD HERE
Fall 2006
CONTENTS
JSMAM VOLUME 6, FALL 2006
5
From the Editor
By Dan C. Weilbaker, Ph.D.
ACADEMIC ARTICLES
6
Field Sales People and Wireless Computing Technology: Testing
Innovation-Diffusion Theory
By Susan DelVecchio, S. Scott Nadler, and James Zemanek
Authenticity in the Personal Selling Context
17
By Allen D. Schaefer and Charles E. Pettijohn
A New Look at Industrial Sales and Its Requisite Competencies
27
By Clifford S. Barber and Brian C. Tietje
APPLICATION ARTICLES
Rethink Those Tips and Tactics: Powerful Negotiation Is Simple
43
By Brian Dietmeyer
How Can an Invisible Salesperson Become Visible Again
46
By Joe Heller
What Does It Take to Become a Great Salesperson
49
By John Costigan
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.
©2006 By Northern Illinois University. All Rights Reserved. ISSN: 1463-1431
Vol. 6, No. 4
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Strategic partners and sponsors
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
Fall 2006
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 welcome 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 81/2” 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 reserve 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—Ieva Engel
Professional Sales Program Secretary
Department of Marketing
Northern Illinois University
iengel@niu.edu
Vol. 6, No. 4
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
Sonke Albers
Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel
Buddy LaForge
University of Louisville
Terri Barr
Miami University—Ohio
Terry W. Loe
Kennesaw State University
Jim W. Blythe
University of Glamorgan
Daniel H. McQuiston
Butler University
Richard E. Buehrer
University of Toledo
Pete Naude
Manchester Business School
Steven Castleberry
University of Minnesota—Duluth
Stephen Newell
Western Michigan University
William L. Cron
Texas Christian University
Nigel F. Piercy
University of Warwick
Laura Cuddihy
Dublin Institute of Technology
Richard E. Plank
William Paterson University
René Y. Darmon
ESSEC Business School
Gregory A. Rich
Bowling Green State University
Dawn R. Deeter-Schmelz
Ohio University
Rick Ridnour
Northern Illinois University
Bill Donaldson
Aberdeen Business School
Elizabeth Rogers
Portsmouth Business School
Sean Dwyer
Louisiana Tech University
Jeffrey K. Sager
University of North Texas
Paolo Guenzi
SDA Bocconi
Charles Schwepker, Jr.
Central Missouri State University
Jon M. Hawes
University of Akron
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
Fall 2006
From the Editor
This issue completes our first year of publishing the Journal of Selling & Major
Account Management. We have made great strides in advancing the mission of
the journal. Specifically, we have published nine academic articles that provide
new insights into sales and major account management for practitioners while
at the same time providing a quality outlet for those sales academics who are
pushing the envelope of our knowledge in business-to-business sales. We have
also published twelve application articles written by topic experts in a variety
of areas related to selling and major account management. These articles are
positioned so that salespeople and sales managers are able to gain specific
knowledge about a topic and then put it into action immediately. The ultimate
goal is to help salespeople and sales managers improve their performance.
It continues to be my belief that The Journal of Selling & Major Account Management will be the premier place where salespeople, sales managers, and sales academics can go to identify new trends as
well as improve performance through the identification and use of knowledge.
In this fourth issue we provide three academic articles and three practitioner articles.
The first academic article deals with something close to hearts of salespeople, and it deals with
wireless technology. The second article deals with an attribute (Authenticity) which may have a
large impact on selling performance. The final academic article re-examines the industrial salesperson and the qualities and competencies needed for success.
The three application articles cover a wide range of topics even though they all related to improved
sales performance. The first article positions negotiations differently in that it is not loaded with
dozens of steps or techniques. It simply focuses on two questions. The second article focuses on
how a salesperson can become a valued person to a customer. The third takes a look at one quality in a salesperson that can make the difference between average and great.
It is our hope that every reader can find at least one important idea or application that can help
them improve their performance in their quest to become an outstanding sales professional.
We are grateful to the MBA Program at Northern Illinois University and the University Sales Center Alliance for their financial support, which helped 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, and finally our subscribers.
Dan C. Weilbaker, Ph.D.
Editor and
McKesson Pharmaceutical Group
Professor of Sales
Northern Illinois University
Vol. 6, No. 4
6
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Field Sales People and Wireless Computing
technology:
Testing Innovation-Diffusion Theory
By Susan DelVecchio, S. Scott Nadler, and James Zemanek
This study of industrial sales people examined wireless computing technologies from the adoption-diffusion theory
perspective. A comparison of adopters and non-adopters found two variables (i.e. age and education) are significantly
different. As hypothesized, younger salespeople and salespeople with more formal education tend to be adopters.
This may suggest a successful pattern of adoption and diffusion of these technologies may flow from the younger to
older salespeople –and from those with more academic credentials to those with less. Thus sales teams or workshops
that increase the interaction between senior salespeople and those with recent college level computer exposure may
speed the adoption-diffusion process.
Introduction
Wireless technology and mobile computing offer
the field salesperson obvious advantages. A
geographically dispersed sales force can gain
faster and easier access to data. Field salespeople
can perform more tasks (such as generating
quotes, getting product specifications and
entering orders) in a buyer’s office –and in a
much shorter period of time. Benefits like these
are compelling and support the notions
proposed by theorists. The characteristics of
wireless innovations are especially well suited to
the needs of this specific adopter, the field
salesperson (Edwards 2006; Gilbert 2004;
Horowitz 2005; Thompson 2006; McWilliams
2004). Given these capabilities and the resultant
benefits, it is surprising to find the majority of
salespeople have been slow to adopt the more
mobile forms.
While salespeople have
embraced sales force automation, they tend to
do so in more conventional wired and officebound forms (Widmier, Jackson, and McCabe,
2002).
If this technology offers benefits to all field sales
organizations, why are some adopting and others
are not? Using the conceptual framework
offered by innovation diffusion theory, this
study compares field salespeople who have
adopted wireless forms of computer technology
to those who have not. Innovation diffusion
Northern Illinois University
theory suggests both individual adopter
characteristics as well as contextual
characteristics may explain the adoption rate of
new technologies (Rogers, 1995).
The
subsequent sections describe the relevant
individual salesperson and contextual
characteristics that differentiate field salespeople
who adopt and do not adopt this form of
information technology.
Differences in
Characteristics
Salesperson
Individual
Since the field salesperson does not have the
benefit of frequent face-to-face interaction with
co-workers, one could argue the characteristics
of this individual adopter are especially
important. Innovators are more likely to be
highly involved, to engage in cognitively more
complex problems and to be less risk adverse
(Rogers, 1995).
Innovators within the
information technology area tend to portray
these three qualities in both attitudinal and
demographic indicators. Specifically, computer
technology innovators or early adopters tend to
set themselves apart in terms of their motivation,
education and age.
More risk taking and faster adoption tend to
occur when the adopter is highly independent,
confident and possesses psychological strength
(Wejnert, 2002). Part of this strength and
independence in the field salesperson takes the
Fall 2006
form of intrinsic motivation.
Intrinsic
motivation of the industrial salesperson is tied to
their feelings of autonomy and self-efficacy
(Ingram, Lee, and Skinner, 1989; Tyagi, 1985).
Mobile computing allows the salesperson to
operate independently, facilitates access to
numerous sources of information – and as a
result enhances the buyers’ opinion of the
salesperson (MacDonald and Smith, 2004;
Vanstone and Yates-Mercer, 2002). Cognitive
evaluation theory suggests that the drivers of
intrinsic motivation include the level of
autonomy, control and self-efficacy (Deci,
Connell, and Ryan, 1989).
The relationship
between intrinsic motivation and computer use
bears out these expectations. IT researchers
have repeatedly found associations between
intrinsic motivation and user’s perceptions of
computer ease of use (Davis and Wiedenbeck,
2001; Venkatesh, 1999). Since these perceptions
are precursors to actual use, one might expect
intrinsic motivation will be higher for mobile
users than nonusers.
Thus the following
hypothesis is suggested:
H1: Adopters of wireless technology will be
more intrinsically motivated than non-adopters
of mobile technology.
Familiarity with the innovation speeds its
adoption (Rogers, 1995). Because younger
salespeople have had more exposure to
computers (in both educational and
entertainment venues), studies frequently find
significant differences in the age of workers who
adopt a technology and those who do not.
These differences seem to affect work-related
behaviors such as performance on computerbased tasks (Czaja and Sharit, 1998; Czaja et al.,
2001) and computer skill acquisition and
retention (Gattiker 1992). These results in the
non-sales setting parallel those found in various
sales settings. These settings include agricultural
products industry (Harris and Pike, 1996), real
estate and telecommunication sales (Speier and
Venkatesh, 2002). If age is an indicator of
wireless or mobile computing familiarity and if
7
these three sales settings are widely applicable,
then one might expect an inverse relationship
between ages of industrial salesperson adoption
of wireless technology. Therefore the following
hypothesis is suggested:
H2: Adopters of wireless technology will be
younger than non-adopters of mobile
technology.
Innovation diffusion theory claims tolerance for
risk is higher when the adopter employs more
complex cognitive processes and uses a wider
array of sources of information. To the degree
that formal education encourages these cognitive
processes or increases these information sources,
then one might expect adopters will have more
formal education. Education was certainly an
important factor for consumer’s adoption of
PC’s in their homes (Schwartz, 1988). Home use
of personal computers may not, however, be
seen as threatening or intimidating as workrelated use of personal computers (Keillor,
Bashaw, and Pettijohn, 1997). In fact, a study
comparing PDA use in both an education and
work-related context ran counter to what one
might expect.
Jones, Johnson and Bentley
(2004) did not find a positive association
between education and PDA use. Thus, the
relationship between education and adoption is
not a foregone conclusion – and worthy of
further study. Consistent with the expectations
of innovation diffusion theory, this study will
test the expectation that adopters will possess
more formal education. These findings lead to
the following hypothesis:
H3:
Adopters of wireless technology will
have higher levels of education than nonadopters of mobile technology.
Differences in Selling Context
Adopter’s willingness and ability to adopt new
technology is constrained or facilitated by the
environmental context. These contextual (or
external) issues have a permissive effect and the
presence or absence of these externalities largely
Vol. 6, No. 4
8
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
determines the decision to adopt (James, 1993).
Since the salesperson operates at the boundaries
of the organization, these externalities can have a
dramatic affect on his or her work environment.
Certainly the degree of competition the
salesperson faces everyday may make the sales
task either predictable or turbulent. Industry
turbulence influences the degree to which
organizations adopt new technologies – and
could affect the individual salesperson as well
(Galskiewicz and Burt, 1991; Mizruchi, 1993).
Innovation diffusion studies are a little less clear
on just what effect a turbulent industry would
have. When the industry is highly changeable,
turbulent and competitive, this may lead to faster
rates of initial adoption – but to slower rates of
subsequent diffusion (Wejnert, 2002). In their
qualitative study of 19 firms’ use of e-commerce,
Kettinger and Hackbarth (2004) found their
reasons for adoption were less a result of
externally imposed industry pressures. Not all
studies agree. In their empirical analysis of over
160 survey responses, Schillewaert et al. (2000)
found sales managers’ acceptance of information
technology is likely to be in response to industry
pressures. If the nature of the selling context is
highly changeable- and if a salesperson’s
competition is responding to the fast pace of
change with innovative use of IT, then one
might expect industry turbulence will encourage
risk taking and subsequent adoption. Therefore
the following hypothesis is presented:
H4: The adoption of wireless technology by
sales people would be greater in industries that
are characterized by higher levels of turbulence.
Adoption behavior cannot occur if the resources
are not available to the salesperson. In their
comparison of various technology acceptance
models, Taylor and Todd (1995) found resources
to be an over-riding factor. Given larger firms
tend to have more resources (e.g. expertise,
support, and finances) the size of the firm may
affect salesperson adoption of more innovative
forms of technology such as wireless technology.
Meta-analyses do tend to support innovation
Northern Illinois University
diffusion theory proposals on resources – and
found size was an important factor in
manufacturing firms (Damanpour, 1992).
Unfortunately the meta-analyses were less
conclusive on the degree to which the size of the
firm affects initial adoption.
A review of IT and sales literature is similarly
less conclusive. Smaller firms are more
homogeneous, have less bureaucratic ways of
making adoption decisions—can move faster to
adopt. Smaller firms feel they have had more
productivity improvements as a result of
investments in sales force automation (Keillor,
Bashaw, and Pettijohn, 1997). While smaller
firms feel they stand to gain they do not take
actions based on these feelings. In their survey
of manufacturers, Rivers and Dart (1999) found
smaller firms are somewhat less likely to invest
in sales force automation.
On the other hand, larger firms have more
resources, are able to absorb risk, tend to have
specialized IT support staff that assist users.
Anecdotal evidence implies larger firms tend to
make more use of innovative forms of sales
force automation. The most widely publicized
examples of wireless technology tend to describe
deployments made by large firms such as Pfizer
and United Pipe and Supply (Gilbert, 2004;
Shim, 2004). This form of wireless technology is
innovative and some would argue still
developing (Chan et al., 2002). Given this stage
of product development, wireless use is more
complex than other forms of IT (that is it may
require more technical/service support). This
type of support and ability to address the
complexities may be more closely associated
with larger firms (Bajwa and Lewis, 2003). This
research led to the generation of the following
hypothesis:
H5: Sales people employed by firms with larger
annual revenues would be more likely to adopt
wireless technology than those in smaller firms.
9
Fall 2006
METHOD
Subjects and design
Surveys were sent to firms engaged in
manufacturing (NAICS codes 31, 32 and 33)
located in the southeastern part of the United
States. Each of the participating firms employed
its own sales force. Because mobility and
wireless technology was the focus of this study,
the sample included only geographically
dispersed sales people (i.e. field salespeople, not
centrally located). Responses were returned in
self-addressed stamped envelopes directly to
university researchers to assure confidentiality.
Surveys were delivered to 1141 salespeople and
usable responses for this study were received
from 267 industrial salespeople
(267/1141=23.4%). These salespeople were
engaged in the sale of a wide array of products:
from consumer durables to industrial equipment
and supplies (See Table #1 for Distribution of
Manufacturing Firms).
The questionnaire was designed to measure first
user status, then attitudinal items, and ended
with a request for demographic information.
The two mobile devices used to distinguish
adopter from nonadopter were selected to reflect
the more innovative salesperson (Gizon, 2002;
Tynan, 2004).
Adopters were defined as
salespeople who indicated the length of use for
either Palmtop devices or wireless access for
their personal computers. The user status item
was framed to ask respondents to estimate how
long they used a specific form of hardware in
their current sales position. Response categories
included “never” and those selecting this
category for both wireless devices were
categorized as non-adopters. This sample was
comprised of approximately 65% nonadopters
(nnon=174) and 35% adopters (nadopt=93).
Intrinsic motivation was measured using the sixitem scale from Oliver and Anderson (1994) and
the coefficient alpha was .74 for this sample
(Average 29.39 and standard deviation 6.07).
To gauge the degree of turbulence in each of the
industries represented in this sample, researchers
used outside evaluators.
Evaluators with
experience in more than one industry can make
informed comparisons. Beyond this obvious
logic, studies imply industry insiders may be far
too immersed in the current industry events to
provide sufficiently reliable and valid measures
Table 1: Distribution of Manufacturers
Total
Proportion
Manufacture Consumer Non-Durable Products and
components
43
16%
Manufacture Consumer Durable Products and
components
48
18%
78
29%
98
37%
Manufacture Industrial machinery or equipment
Manufacture Industrial supplies or components
Vol. 6, No. 4
10 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
(Buchko 1994). Snyder and Glueck (1982)
compared industry insiders to outside experts
and found more accurate estimates were
generated by the outside experts. Certainly the
selection of experts could inject yet another bias
and the design employed here sought to
diminish this possibility. A pool of MBA
students were screened for level of and type of
industry experience. Using the same criterion
for selecting experts as that developed by
Johnson, Sohi, and Grewel (2004) each industry
(in this case type of manufacturer) was assigned
one of six different values. Each industry expert
evaluated the degree of turbulence using
previously developed scales (Johnson, Sohi and
Grewel 2004). Low numerical values described
low levels of turbulence (stable, moderate
changes) and higher numerical values described
industries characterized by intense competition,
radical change and dynamic markets. The
industries in this sample represent a crosssection of turbulence levels since these values
spanned the range of 1 to 6.
The number of the industries falling into one of
these six levels was not disproportionately high
in any one of the six levels. More specifically the
proportions of ratings from low to high were
25%, 25%, 12%, 9%, 14% and 15%. This
distribution seems to be comparatively
heterogeneous and represents a cross-section of
stable to turbulent industries [i.e. (Johnson, Sohi
and Grewel’s 2004 study resulted in a
distribution of 4%, 24%, 15%, 13%, 15%,
29%).]
Results
MANOVA was used to analyze the data in order
provide for stricter analysis and to avoid
potential errors caused by comparing five sets of
averages. This provided a stringent comparison
of adopters to nonadopters on all five
hypotheses simultaneously. Overall, MANOVA
results (significant) supports the notion adopters
Table 2 : Results of Overall MANOVA
F Value 3.00 (.0121)
Wilks Lambda .9395
Roy’s Greatest Root .0644
Variable
Univariate F
(prob)
User
Nonuser
n=93
n=174
Intrinsic Motivation
Age
29.14
3.28
29.06
3.62
.00
8.10
(.9617)
(.0048)
Education
2.74
2.42
4.32
(.0387)
3.12
3.47
3.01
3.42
.35
.64
INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES
ORGANIZATIONAL
ATTRIBUTES
Industry Turbulence
Firm Annual Revenues
(.5560)
(.4241)
Bold and Underlined means are significantly different at a probability value of .05 or less
(Scheffe pairwise comparison).
Northern Illinois University
Fall 2006
differ from non-adopters (See Table #2).
Because some of our data was categorical we
supplemented the overall MANOVA test of
average differences with a Chi-square test for
11
differences in proportions (See Table #3).
Results from both tests converge and reflect the
same pattern. Generally the direction of all of
the averages was as hypothesized, with two of
Table 3: Proportion of Users and Nonusers: Age, Education and Size of Firm
Proportion of User
Proportion of Non Users
(n=93)
(n=174)
Age
Under 25
3.23%
2.30%
25 to 34
21.51%
13.22%
35 to 44
31.18%
31.03%
45 to 54
31.18%
28.74%
55 to 64
10.75%
22.99%
2.15%
1.72%
65 or more
Proportion of User
Proportion of Non Users
(n=93)
(n=174)
Education
High School
6.45%
21.84%
Some College
31.18%
30.46%
College Degree
48.39%
37.93%
Some Graduate School
9.68%
3.45%
Graduate Degree
4.30%
6.32%
Revenue
Proportion of User
Proportion of Non Users
(n=93)
(n=174)
$2.5 to 5 million
11%
13%
$5 to 10 million
6%
11%
$10 to 20 million
27%
26%
$20 to 50 million
44%
28%
$50 to 100 million
6%
14%
$100 to 500 million
5%
7%
Vol. 6, No. 4
12 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
the five hypotheses being statistically significant.
Individual means were compared using both
univariate F’s as well as Scheffe pairwise
comparisons (both test statistics evaluated at .05
probability level or less).
The two significant differences were both
attributes of individual salespeople. Adopters
tend to be younger than non-adopters. Among
the users of mobile computing devices,
approximately 56% of the salespeople were
younger than 45 and approximately 53% of the
non-adopters were 45 or older (See Table 3). H2
hypothesized that adopters would be younger
than non-adopters.
This hypothesis was
supported and significant at the .05 level. H3
hypothesized that adopters would have higher
levels of education than non-adopters. This
hypothesis was supported and significant at
the .05 level.
Among the non-adopters of
mobile computing devices, approximately 52%
of the salespeople achieved a formal level of
education at less than a complete four year
college degree (i.e. the highest level of education
completed was some part of college or high
school) while 62% of users had completed
undergraduate college degree or higher.
None of the hypotheses regarding the
organizational attributes were supported. H4
hypothesized that the adoption of technology by
sales people would be greater in industries that
are characterized by higher levels of turbulence.
H5 hypothesized that sales people employed by
firms with larger annual revenues would be more
likely to adopt technology than those in smaller
firms. While the pattern of the differences in the
fourth and fifth hypothesized comparisons were
in the direction expected they were not
significantly so. Thus, these two hypotheses
were not supported.
Conclusions
Two comparisons of adopters and non-adopters
were substantial –and both of these differences
existed at the individual salesperson level. This
pattern is consistent with analyses of
Northern Illinois University
comprehensive models which conclude
individual differences explain over half of the
variation in perceived usefulness of a new form
of information technology (Agarwal and Prasad,
1999). In this sample of industrial salespeople,
the two significant individual level variables were
age and education. The degree of difference in
just these two individual level variables carried
sufficient significance to drive fairly stringent
overall statistics (testing all, not just two
comparisons). While age and education differed,
no differences in the salesperson’s motivation
level, the size neither of firm nor in the
turbulence of the industry were uncovered.
Younger salespeople in this sample tended to be
adopters.
Salespeople with more formal
education also tended to be adopters of mobile
computing technology. While these findings are
consistent with adoption-diffusion stream of
research, this finding bears additional attention.
Age does apparently identify those salespeople
who are going to be more receptive, but we still
do not know yet precisely why. As with any
fruitful research effort, this study suggests a focal
point for yet more attention. What are the
cognitive, affective – or even experiential
mechanisms by which younger salespeople are
faster to adopt?
Studies which compare
attitudinal as well as demographic characteristics
(more specifically the combination of age and
computer-related venue use) may explain why
younger salespeople are faster to embrace this
form of technology. If more formal levels of
education foster more complex cognitions and a
wider array of source of information (as some
research suggests), additional efforts examining
types of complexity or sources relevant to IT
technology could be fruitful. This type of
information may help managers convert the
more recalcitrant and resistant salespeople.
Contrary to expectations, intrinsic motivation
levels did not indicate any significantly higher
level for wireless users than non-users. This may
be in part attributable to the type of
compensation or control system. An intrinsically
Fall 2006
motivated salesperson (who is commissionbased and part of an outcome-based control
system) may be less receptive to investing the
time in learning how to use a new form of
computing technology. This salesperson may be
focused on making as many sales calls as
possible since their compensation based on
generating revenue. They may see new wireless
forms of hardware as an attempt by the home
office to hand off administrative chores.
Alternatively this lack of significant differences
may have more to do with the software than the
hardware. In a study of PDA use by salespeople
Shim (2004) found satisfaction levels were not
significant for hardware- but did find differences
in terms of software features. While this sample
provided insights to a cross section of users and
technology, more research could focus on a
narrow range of mobile computing software
applications.
The selling contexts (i.e., size of firm and
turbulence of industry) were not substantially
different for salespeople using wireless
compared to salespeople who are not. If
wireless is still at the infancy stages of
technological development, then these findings
may not be surprising. The selling contextual
factors may play more of a part during the
diffusion stage than in the initial adoption stage
of mobile computing technology. At this point
in the adoption of wireless computing capability
this may imply that organizations or general
industry issues are not as immediate or
influential as expected. Wireless is touted as the
next great wave of computing. The profile of
non-adopters in this sample may suggest this
wave has substantial distance to cover before it
crests.
Managerial Implications
Like any good theory, however, innovationdiffusion lends itself to practical solutions.
Theoretically adoption is facilitated when the
new technology can be observed first hand.
Tests of this theory show the single most
influential source of observation is co-workers
13
(Brancheau and Wetherbe, 1990). Given the
age and education differences, sales managers
may consider matching younger with older sales
representatives on various team projects or in
training exercises. In these assignments the
younger or more formally educated salespeople
can demonstrate the wireless computing
capabilities to non-adopters.
A standard
recommendation to any IT initiative is to
support it with thorough training. Findings of
our study suggest this may be especially
important for older or less educated members of
the field sales force. If these groups of
salespeople are resisting adoption because of
lack of familiarity, then additional training,
encouragement and technical support are crucial.
Because wireless computing represents a
substantial investment (in support services,
effort as well as finances) sales managers
concerned with getting immediate use should
first target the more receptive salespeople.
Results of this study indicate those salespeople
will be the younger members or those with
higher levels of formal education. These two
identifiers are clear, unambiguous and unlike
attitudinal precursors, are easy to use. Like most
easy options, however, using age or education to
allocate resources to employees may raise
concerns about fairness or equity. From a
managerial viewpoint, however, these concerns
would represent preferable problems. In effect
the salesperson who feels they have not been
equitably allocated wireless mobile technology is
making a form of commitment to use it. In light
of the findings here this may mean that the older
or less formally educated salesperson (who
perceives inequitable allocation) who does
complain will then feel more compelled to be an
adopter.
Efforts aimed at identifying early adopters and
increasing diffusion of wireless technology use
throughout the sales force are aimed at
improving performance. While success stories
abound in the popular press, empirical studies
show the relationship between IT technology use
Vol. 6, No. 4
14 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
and sales performance may not be purely linear
(Ahearne, Narasimhan and Weinstein 2004). If
a curvilinear relationship exists, then sales
managers may be wise to monitor and track
productivity indicators over time. Results of this
study imply the pattern of productivity may
differ based on the age and education of the
salesperson. Expecting this type of pattern may
help sales managers make meaningful
comparisons between younger and older sales
representatives’ use of wireless technology.
REFERENCES
Agarwal, Ritu and Jayesh Prasad (1999), “Are
Individual Differences Germane to the
Acceptance of New Information
Technologies?” Decision Sciences 30 (#2),
361-390.
Ahearne, Michael J., Narasimhan Srivinivasan and
Luke Weinstein (2004), “Effect of
Technology on Sales Performance:
progressing from Technology to
Technology Usage and Consequences,”
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 24 (Fall 4), 297-310.
Bajwa, Deepinder S. and L. Floyd Lewis (2003),
“Does Size Matter? An Investigation of
Collaborative Information Technology
Adoption by U.S. Firms” Journal of
Information Technology, 5, (1), 29-46.
Brancheau, James C. and James C. Wetherbe
(1990), “The Adoption of Spreadsheet
Software: Testing Innovation Diffusion
Theory In the Context of End-User
Computing,” Information Systems Research,
1, (April 2), 115-143.
Buchko, Aaron A. (1994), “conceptualization and
measurement of environmental
uncertainty: An Assessment of the Miles
and Snow Perceived Environmental
Uncertainty Scale,” Academy of Management
Journal, 37 (2), 410-36.
Chan, Susy S., Xiaowen Fang, Jack Brzezinski,
Yanzan Zhou, Shuang Xu and Jean Lam
(2002), “Usability for Mobile Commerce
Across Multiple Form Factors,” Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research, 3, (3), 187-199.
Northern Illinois University
Czaja, S.J. and J. Sharit (1998) “Age Differences in
Attitudes Towards Computers,” Journal of
Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and
Social Sciences, 53 (5) 329-41.
Czaja, S.J., R. Ownby, D.L. Roth and S. Nair
(2001) “Examining Age Differences in
Performance of A Complex Information
Search and Retrieval Task,” Psychology and
Aging, 16 (4), 564-80.
Damanpour, F. (1992) “Organizational Size and
Innovation,” Organization Studies 13 (3),
374-382.
Davis, Sid and Susan Wiedenbeck (2001), “The
Mediating Effects of Intrinsic Motivation,
Ease of Use and Usefulness Perceptions
of Performance in First-Time and
Subsequent Computer Users,” Interacting
with Computers, 13, 549-580.
Deci, Edward, James P. Connell, and Richard M.
Ryan (1989), “Self-Determination in a
Work Organization,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, (4), 580-590.
Edwards, Cliff (2005) “Wherever You Go, You’re
On The Job,” Business Week, June 20
(Issue 3938) 87-90.
Galaskiewicz, J. and R.S. Burt (1991),
“Interorganization Contagion and
Corporate Philanthropy,” Administrative
Science Quarterly, 36 (1), 88-105.
Gattiker, U. (1992), “Computer Skills Acquisition:
A Review and Future Directions for
Research,” Journal of Management, 18 (3),
547-574.
Gilbert, Jennifer (2004) “No Strings Attached,”
Sales and Marketing Management 156 (July
7), 22-27.
Gizon, Katia (2002), “Mobile Computing Trends,”
Agency Sales, 32, (12), 23-25.
Harris, Kim and John Pike (1996), “Issues
Concerning Adoption and Use of Sales
Force Automation in the Agricultural
Input Supply Sector,” Agribusiness, 12, (4),
317-326.
Horowitz, Alan S. (2005), “Sales In Motion”, Sales
and Marketing Management, 157 (March 3)
30-37.
Ingram, Thomas N., K.S.Lee and Steven J.Skinner
(1989) “An Empirical Assessment of
Salesperson Motivation, Commitment and
Job Outcomes,” Journal of Personal Selling
Fall 2006
and Sales Management, 9, 25-33.
J. (1993), “New Technologies,
Employment and Labor Markets in
Developing Countries,” Developmental
Change, 24 (6), 405-37.
Johnson, Jean L., Ravipreet S. Sohi and Rajdeep
Grewel (2004), “The Role of Relational
Knowledge Stores in Interfirm
Partnering,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (July),
21-36.
Jones, Christopher G., David W. Johnson and Jan
Bentley (2004), “Role Preference: Are
Handheld Computers an Educational or
Personal Technology?” Journal of
Information Systems Education, 15, (1), 41-53.
Keillor, Bruce D., R. Edward Bashaw and Charles
E. Pettijohn (1997), “Salesforce
Automation Issues Prior to
Implementation: The Relationship
between Attitudes toward Technology,
Experience, and Productivity,” Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, 12, (3/4),
209-219.
Kettinger, William J. and Gary Hackbarth (2004),
“Integration of Electronic Commerce
Networks into the Sales Process of Small
Firms,” Journal of Electronic Commerce
Research, 5, (3), 153-171.
MacDonald, Jason B. and Kirk Smith (2004), “The
Effects of Technology-Mediated
Communication on Industrial Buyer
Behavior,” Industrial Marketing Management,
33, 107-116.
McWilliams, Gary (2004), “Technology (A Special
Report): On the Road Again” Wall Street
Journal Eastern Edition, July 26, R1.
Mizruchi, M.S. (1993), “Cohesion, Equivalence
and Similarity of Behavior: A Theoretical
and Empirical Assessment,” Sociological
Networks, 15 (3), 275-307.
Oliver, Richard L. and Erin Anderson (1994), “An
Empirical Test of the Consequences of
Behavior-and Outcome-Based Sales
Control Systems,” Journal of Marketing, 58,
(4), 53-67.
Rivers, L. Mark and Jack Dart (1999), “The
Acquisition and Use of Sales Force
Automation by Mid-Sized
Manufacturers,” Journal of Personal Selling
and Sales Management, XIX, (2), 59-73.
James,
15
Rogers, E. M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations.
4th Edition, New York: Free Press
Schillewaert, Niels, Michael Ahearne, Ruud
Frambach, Rudy K. Moenaert (2000),
“The Acceptance of Information
Technology in the Sales Force,” ISBM
Report 15-2000, Institute for the Study of
Business Markets, The Pennsylvania State
University.
Schwartz, Joe (1988), “The Computer Market,”
American Demographics, 10, (9), 38-41.
Shim, Sung J. (2004), “Use of Personal Digital
Assistants in Pharmaceutical Detailing:
Perceptions of Sales Representatives,”
International Journal of Medical Marketing, 4,
(1), 47-53.
Snyder, Neil H. and William F. Glueck (1982),
“Can Environmental Volatility Be
Measured Objectively?” Academy of
Management Journal, 25 (1), 185-192.
Speier, Cheri and Viswanath Venkatesh (2002),
“The Hidden Minefields in the Adoption
of Sales Force Automation
Technologies,” Journal of Marketing, 66,
(July), 98-111.
Taylor, Shirley and Peter A. Todd (1995),
“Understanding Information Technology
Usage: A Test of Competing Models,”
Information Systems Research, 6 (June), 144176.
Testing Innovation Diffusion Theory in the
Context of End-User Computing,”
Information Systems Research, 12, (2), 115144.
Thompson, Peter (2006), “The Wonders of
Wireless,” Pharmaceutical Executive, 26
(January 1), 90, 92.
Tyagi, Pradeep K. (1985), “Relative Importance of
Key Job Dimensions and Leadership
Behaviors in Motivating Salesperson
Work Performance,” Journal of Marketing,
49, (Summer), 76-86.
Tynan, Daniel (2004), “3 Technologies to Watch”,
Sales and Marketing Management, April,
(156), 4.
Vanstone, Mark and Penelope Yates-Mercer
(2002), “Getting to the Point: Technology
that Sells,” Information Management, July, 812, 32-33.
Venkatesh, Viswanath (1999), “Determinants of
Vol. 6, No. 4
16 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating
Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and
Emotion into the Technology Acceptance
Model,” Information Systems Research, 11, (4),
342-365.
Venkatesh, Viswanath (2000), “Creation of
Favorable User Perceptions: Exploring
the Role of Intrinsic Motivation,” MIS
Quarterly, 23, (2), 239-259.
Wejnert, Barbara (2002), “Integrating Models of
Diffusion of Innovations: A Conceptual
Framework,” Annual Review of Sociology, 28,
297-327.
Widmier, Scott M., Donald W. Jackson and
Deborah Brown McCabe (2002),
“Infusing Technology into Personal
Selling,” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 3, (Summer), 189-198.
Susan DelVecchio is an Associate Professor of
Marketing and Supply Chain Management and College
of Business Research Fellow at East Carolina
University. Prior to academe, she held positions in
corporate sales and marketing management. She received
her doctorate from Virginia Tech in 1992 and her
publications have appeared in Industrial Marketing
Management, Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, Journal of Internet Commerce, Journal of
Small Business Strategy and others.
E-mail: delvecchios@ecu.edu
S. Scott Nadler is an Assistant Professor of
Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Department
of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, at East
Carolina University. He received his BA in Agriculture
Business in 1983 and his MBA in 1991. He received
his Ph.D. in Business Administration and Marketing
from The University of Alabama in 2002. His work is
in the area of sales, international supply chain
management and cross cultural marketing.
E-mail: nadlers@ecu.edu
James Zemanek is a Professor of Marketing and
Supply Chain Management, Department of Marketing
Northern Illinois University
and Supply Chain Management, at East Carolina
University. He received his MBA and Ph.D. from
Texas A&M University. His work is in the area of ecommerce and supply chain management has been
published in outlets such as the Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality and Industrial Marketing Management.
E-mail: zemanekj@ecu.edu
17
Fall 2006
Authenticity in the Personal Selling Context
By Allen D. Schaefer and Charles E. Pettijohn
Salesperson authenticity (e.g., genuineness) has been generally overlooked by researchers as a potentially relevant
personal selling variable. Research in humanistic psychology suggests that authenticity may be highly significant to
salesperson performance. This research develops testable propositions designed to evaluate salesperson authenticity
and its relationship to personal selling-relevant variables, including: satisfaction, customer-orientation, sellingorientation, job autonomy, role ambiguity, role identity, self-esteem, rejection-sensitivity, and self-efficacy. In the
concluding section, the authors discuss the managerial implications of salesperson authenticity and offer suggestions
for future research.
INTRODUCTION
According to Buss (1991), human beings have
evolved psychological mechanisms that are
sensitive to individual differences.
These
mechanisms are designed to facilitate the
answering of key life questions such as, “Can I
trust this person?” “Will this person betray my
trust?” Such questions are clearly relevant in
potentially risky buyer-seller relationships, where
buyers are faced with the need to assess
salesperson trustworthiness.
Indeed,
trustworthiness is ranked by organizational
buyers as one of the most important
characteristics a salesperson can possess (Hayes
and Hartley 1989).
The importance of buyer trust suggests that
salespeople should behave in a manner that
facilitates the development of trusting buyerseller relationships. Intuitively, we would expect
the authenticity (i.e., genuineness) of a
salesperson’s behavior in the buyer’s presence to
impact his/her perceived trustworthiness, as such
inauthentic behavior would likely give the
impression the salesperson has something to
hide. Despite this, salespersons sometimes
behave in ways that are less than authentic. For
example, they sometimes pretend to agree with
customers simply to please them (Saxe and Weitz
1982), laugh on cue at customers’ bad jokes in
order to facilitate the flow of sales calls (Gross
and Stone 1964), or falsely display friendliness
and concern in order to close deals (Nerdinger
2001).
While authenticity appears to play a key role in
establishing buyer-seller trust and rapport, the
topic has received only scant attention from
personal selling researchers. In contrast, research
in existential-humanistic psychology has reported
findings relevant to the construct of
psychological authenticity as it occurs among
individuals in a broader context. These studies
have found authenticity to be positively related to
satisfaction, psychological well-being and
psychological adjustment (Sheldon et al. 1997), as
well as self-esteem (Goldman and Kernis 2002).
Moreover, research in industrial psychology
involving customer contact workers has shown a
substantial negative correlation between
authenticity and emotional exhaustion
(Brotheridge and Lee 2002).
The present study addresses the nature of the
relationship between authenticity and other
germane personal selling constructs.
The
purpose of this paper is to develop testable
propositions linking authenticity to several
relevant personal selling variables.
These
variables include: role ambiguity, role identity,
job autonomy, customer-orientation, sellingorientation, self-efficacy, rejection sensitivity, and
job satisfaction.
Vol. 6, No. 4
18 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
LITERATURE REVIEW
Authenticity
Trait theorists in the field of psychology
characterize individuals as sets of personality
traits which are highly stable across situations,
time, and social roles (e.g. McRae and Costa
1984). This perspective implies that authentic
behavior involves acting in congruence with
one’s own latent traits. This self view is
problematic in that it overlooks individual
differences in personality stability as well as the
manner in which minor environmental changes
may contribute to significant personality shifts
(Funder and Colvin 1991).
In contrast to trait theorists, existentialhumanistic psychology researchers conceptualize
authenticity as an autonomous behavioral
construct. According to Sheldon et al. (1997),
authenticity refers to behavior that is subjectively
experienced by the individual as being selfauthored, internally caused, and self-determined.
According to this perspective, individuals feel
most authentic when they act with a sense of
choice and full self-expression. This implies that
authentic behavior: (1) is congruent with the
individual’s internal experience (e.g., values,
attitudes, needs, preferences); (2) occurs without
pretense, front or façade (Kahn 1992); and (3) is
not engaged in merely to please others or to
attain rewards or avoid punishments (Kernis
2003).
Individuals are more likely to behave
authentically when they are unconstrained by a
given role or situation (Sheldon et al. 1997). For
example, an individual may behave in a selfexpressed manner in the extraverted salesperson
role, while being constrained and introverted in
the church member role, primarily because the
individual feels more authentic in the salesperson
role.
Sheldon et al. (1997) measured
respondents’ (undergraduate psychology
students) felt authenticity levels across five life
roles (e.g., student, employee, romantic partner,
son/daughter, and friend). The authenticity
construct was measured using the following
items: “I experience this aspect of myself as an
authentic part of who I am,” “This aspect of
myself is meaningful and valuable to me,” “I
have freely chosen this way of being,” “I am only
Figure 1: Model of Proposed Relationships
Job
Autonomy
Job Satisfaction
Role Identity
+
+
+
Customer
Orientation
+
Rejection
Sensitivity
Authenticity
+
-
Selling
Orientation
Role
Ambiguity
Northern Illinois University
SelfEsteem
-
+
SelfEfficacy
Fall 2006
this way because I have to be (R),” “I feel tense
and pressured in this part of my life (R).” In all
five roles, authenticity was shown to be a
significant predictor of satisfaction and selfesteem, and respondents that felt more authentic
across the five roles also experienced less anxiety,
less depression, less stress and less strain.
Considering the apparent relevance of these
variables in personal selling, authenticity is
potentially a key variable to personal selling.
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSITIONS
To facilitate empirical assessments of the
relationships which might exist between a sales
representative’s level of authenticity and relevant
variables, nine propositions were developed. The
proposed relationship between authenticity and
the nine variables is shown in Figure 1. Each of
these propositions can then be further developed
into testable research hypotheses, which may then
be examined empirically.
Role ambiguity
Behrman and Perreault (1984) defined role
ambiguity as “the degree to which a salesperson is
uncertain about expectations with respect to his/
her job, the best way to fulfill known
expectations, and the consequences of different
role aspect performances.” Role ambiguity may
be especially problematic for salespersons due to
the boundary spanning nature of their positions,
as salespeople are often physically separated from
managers, lessening managerial feedback and
fostering role ambiguity (Behrman and Perrault
1984). Ambiguity has been positively related to
job tension because lack of salient information
about role performance apparently results in
anxiety and frustration, which in turn leads to job
tension (Singh 1993).
As noted above, Sheldon et al. (1997) found
authenticity to be negatively correlated with
stress, strain and anxiety across five roles. This
suggests that when people feel constrained and
controlled by a given situation, they likely behave
differently (i.e., less authentically and selfexpressed) than in situations in which they feel
comfortable and genuine. Since role ambiguity
likely fosters a controlled and constraining
situation:
19
P1: Role ambiguity negatively influences
authenticity.
Role Identity
Identity theorists conceptualize the self as
consisting of a collection of identities, each of
which is based on occupying a particular role
(Stryker and Burke 2000). Identities refer to one's
answers to the question 'Who am I?" (Stryker
and Serpe 1982). Role identities refer to these
answers that are linked to the roles one occupies,
such as occupation (e.g., salesperson). In turn,
these role identities influence behavior as each
role has an associated set of meanings and
expectations for the self (Burke & Reitzes, 1981).
Workers experiencing high levels of role identity
are more likely to feel authentic when they are
conforming to those role expectations. Ashforth
and Tomiuk (2000) conducted interviews with
service agents, who reported that their
professional task behavior was generally
reflective of their true selves. Ironically, these
same individuals also generally reported that their
jobs required effective acting (e.g., faking
emotions) when dealing with customers.
Consequently, emotions required for effective
job performance were internalized and displayed
as a reflection of self. Ashforth and Tomiuk
(2000) referred to this phenomenon as deep
authenticity.
Consistent with Sheldon et al.’s (1997) finding
that individuals’ felt authenticity levels vary
according to role, self-identity theorists (e.g.,
Ashforth and Humphrey 1993) have argued that
persons experience their highest authenticity
levels when conforming to role expectations
emanating from their strongly-identified-with
roles (e.g., occupations). This argument is based
on the premise that individuals whose
occupational roles are strongly internalized will
feel most authentic. In a selling context, the sales
representative who internalizes his/her job role
and consequently “becomes the role,” will
experience greater levels of authenticity than will
sales representatives who have not internalized
their roles to a similar degree. This leads to
proposition two.
Vol. 6, No. 4
20 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
P2: Role identity will positively influence
authenticity.
Job Autonomy
Job autonomy refers to the salesperson’s felt
ability to determine the nature of a sales task or
problem and to arrive at a self-determined course
of action (Wang and Netemeyer 2002). Job
autonomy should directly affect authenticity.
Sales positions associated with low levels of job
autonomy would likely result in constrained
situations where salespersons perceive little
control and choice (Wang and Netemeyer 2002).
In situations in which a salesperson’s behavioral
choices are constrained or controlled, one might
anticipate that the level of salesperson’s
authenticity would be negatively impacted. Thus,
because situations that allow little behavioral
control or choice tend to inhibit behavior that is
felt to be self-expressive and authentic (Sheldon
et al. 1997), the following is proposed:
P3: Job autonomy will positively influence
authenticity.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction has been defined as the
salesperson’s overall affective feeling toward the
job (Babakus et al. 1996). According to the
social-contextual assumption of Deci and Ryan
(1985), some roles afford individuals more
autonomous self-expression, and thus more
satisfaction than others.
As noted above,
Sheldon et al. (1997) found that authenticity was
substantially correlated with both well-being and
satisfaction across a variety of non-selling roles.
According to Sheldon et al. (1997), this finding is
consistent with Rogers (1963), who associated
authenticity with being a fully functioning
person. Full functionality involves an openness
to experience (as opposed to defensiveness), an
acceptance of reality (including one’s feelings),
and a willingness to live in the here and now.
A fully functioning salesperson would therefore
accept full responsibility for his/her efforts and
appreciate the experiences that result from those
efforts. Further, the fully functioning sales
representative would also be accepting of feelings
Northern Illinois University
generated through his/her job activities and
accept results “as they are.” Such behaviors
would probably facilitate the degree to which the
salesperson feels content in the sales role.
Therefore, the degree to which one can be “fully
functioning” in his her/her sales job would seem
to lead to greater levels of job satisfaction. This
perception leads to the development of the
fourth proposition. Thus,
P4: Authenticity will positively influence job
satisfaction.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to the level of confidence an
individual has in his or her ability to perform well
in a specific task domain (Bandura 1997). In a
selling context, self-efficacy involves a
comprehensive summary or judgment of one's
perceived capability of performing specific selling
tasks. Self-efficacy has been associated with
work-related performance (Stajkovic and Luthans
1998).
Self-efficacy has also been related to self-esteem.
Self-esteem refers to how an individual
characteristically feels about himself/herself
(Brown, Dutton and Cook 2001). This
conceptualization refers to self-esteem as feelings
regarding one’s self as a whole, rather than to
evaluations of one’s characteristics or specific
qualities (Kernis 2005). In contrast, self-efficacy
refers to a person’s self-assessment of abilities
(e.g., selling) and other attributes.
These
assessments do not necessarily impact selfesteem. However, if a person possesses high
self-efficacy levels on occupation and identityrelevant tasks, a positive correlation between selfesteem and self-efficacy is likely (Bandura 1997).
Research conducted in non-selling contexts
suggests that authenticity is positively related to
self-esteem (e.g., Herrman, Kernis and Goldman
2004, Goldman and Kernis 2002). Moreover,
recent non-selling research by Brown, Dutton
and Cook (2001) supports the perspective that
self-esteem influences self-evaluations (i.e., selfefficacy). As Brown, Dutton and Cook (2001)
note: “People who are fond of themselves in a
Fall 2006
general way (i.e., those with high self-esteem),
view themselves as having many positive
qualities. They like the way they look; they enjoy
their sense of humor; they appreciate their
talents. The causal process is a top down one,
from global feelings of affection to beliefs that
one possesses many socially valued attributes.”
In a sales context, self-efficacy occurs when a
salesperson feels confident and competent in the
selling role. Since authenticity has been shown to
be positively related to self-esteem, and selfesteem leads to enhanced self-evaluations (e.g.,
self efficacy), it logically follows that authenticity
would relate indirectly to self-efficacy. In other
words, a salesperson that feels authentic
performing his/her job will likely feel better
about himself/herself in general, and as a result,
will tend to view themselves as performing more
favorably in the selling role. Hence, proposition
five holds:
P5: Self-esteem will positively influence selfefficacy.
Rejection sensitivity
As mentioned above, researchers have shown a
positive relationship between authenticity and
global self-esteem. Global self-esteem levels
have also been shown to correlate negatively with
rejection sensitivity (Downey et al. 1998).
Rejection sensitivity is essentially an antonym for
“resilience.” According to Ingram et al. (2004),
resilience is a key salesperson customer service
dimension. They define it as the “ability of a
salesperson to get knocked down several times a
day by a customer’s verbal assault (i.e.,
complaint) and get right back up with a smile and
ask for more.” It seems individuals in sales
positions are more likely than those in other
occupations to encounter multiple rejections and
failures on a daily basis, as well as the
accompanying potentially negative feelings and
thoughts directed at the self (Verbeke and
Bagozzi 2000). Since the fear of rejection is
perhaps the most significant reason salespeople
avoid prospecting (Ingram et al. 2004), resilience
would seem to be desirable as a salesperson
quality.
21
Concerning high self esteem and the ability to
tolerate rejection, Kernis (2005) wrote: “If one is
truly happy with oneself, being outperformed by
others, receiving an unflattering evaluation, or
performing poorly should not require excessive
self-protection; instead, high self-esteem
individuals should roll with the punches so that
potentially threatening events would not ‘stick,’
but, instead, roll off like ‘water off a duck’s
back.’”
Researchers in psychology have demonstrated
that self-esteem is more stable for some people
than for others (see Kernis and Waschull 1995,
for a review). According to Kernis (2005), selfesteem stability refers to the “magnitude of
short-term fluctuations that people experience in
their contextually based, immediate feelings of
self-worth.” Self-esteem instability has been
operationalized as the within-person standard
deviation of self-esteem over time (Crocker and
Wolfe 2001). While authentic individuals have
been shown to have higher levels of self-esteem,
they have also been shown to have more stable
levels of self-esteem (Herrmann, Kernis and
Goldman 2004). People with unstable levels of
self-esteem lack a well-anchored self-esteem, and
may be especially prone to interpreting everyday
events (e.g., salesperson’s closing efforts rejected)
as being relevant to their own self-esteem (Kernis
2005). Moreover, people with unstable selfesteem characteristically react very strongly to
events perceived as self-esteem relevant (Kernis
2005).
Since authenticity has been shown to positively
influence both (global) self-esteem and selfesteem stability, and global self-esteem and selfesteem stability has been shown to negatively
influence rejection sensitivity, we would logically
expect authenticity to indirectly and negatively
influence rejection sensitivity.
Thus, a
salesperson who feels inauthentic in the sales role
should likely be more sensitive when confronting
rejection. The authentic salesperson, however,
might perceive rejection less personally, as his/
her self-esteem is much less contingent upon
desired outcomes.
Consequently, the sixth
proposition holds that:
Vol. 6, No. 4
22 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
P6: Authenticity will positively influence self
esteem.
P7: Self esteem will negatively influence
rejection sensitivity.
Customer-Orientation
According to Brown et al. (2002), customerorientation refers to an employee’s tendency or
predisposition to meet customers’ long term
needs in an on-the-job context. Thus, customeroriented salespersons keep their customers’ best
interests in mind.
In contrast, a sellingorientation involves practicing the more shortterm and company-needs focused sellingconcept, which may involve the use of more
manipulative tactics and behaviors to close sales
(Saxe and Weitz 1982). It would seem that the
use of deceptive and manipulative tactics would
be examples of inauthentic behaviors.
Saxe and Weitz (1982) suggest that customerorientation is positively related to concern for
others. However, as Ingram et al. (2004) argue,
most salespersons lack the commitment and
skills necessary to support their clients’ interests,
and therefore tend to be more “talk the talk”
than “walk the walk” when it comes to customeroriented selling. MacKay (1988) argues that the
most effective salespeople are genuinely
interested in their customers. Ashforth and
Humphrey (1993) argue customers’ perceptions
of good service hinge on the degree to which
service agents convey a sense of genuine
interpersonal sensitivity and concern.
Given that customers respond favorably to a
genuine customer-orientation (Dunlap et al.
1988), it is likely that salespersons purposefully
attempt to give that impression to their buyers.
We would expect customer-oriented salespeople
to experience themselves as more authentic
because it is not necessary for them to pretend to
have their customer’s best interests in mind,
because they authentically do have them in mind.
In contrast, selling-oriented selling can, at best,
only involve a pretense of being customer-needs
focused, because in actuality the needs of the
salesperson and his/her company are given
highest priority. Since authenticity involves a
Northern Illinois University
lack of pretense, salespersons with a sellingorientation would likely experience themselves as
less authentic. Thus,
P8:
Customer-orientation will positively
influence authenticity
P9:
Selling-orientation
influence authenticity
will
negatively
CONCLUSIONS
The concepts presented in this study may
provide sales managers with insight into the
relevance of authenticity to personal selling. This
should assist sales managers in the design of
authenticity-enhancing sales positions, as well as
the hiring of authentic individuals. The testable
propositions suggested in this article offer a
potential methodology which could be used to
evaluate the degree to which a salesperson’s level
of authenticity might relate to salesperson
characteristics. As suggested in Figure 1, role
identity; job autonomy; and customer-orientation
positively influence authenticity.
Sellingorientation and role ambiguity are proposed to
negatively influence authenticity. Authenticity, in
turn, is proposed to positively influence job
satisfaction and self-esteem. Finally, self-esteem
is proposed to negatively influence rejection
sensitivity and positively influence self-efficacy.
These variable are relevant in that some represent
desirable salesperson traits (amenable to
identification); skills (amenable to development);
or desirable sales outcomes.
Managerial Implications
If the propositions established in this research
hold true, numerous managerial implications may
follow. Perhaps the most obvious implications
may involve the impact of the salesperson’s
authenticity on the selection, retention, and
training aspects of sales management. For
example, many individuals cling to the belief that
they are not well-suited for sales, as they perceive
themselves as not being sufficiently extroverted,
disingenuous and manipulative to be successful
in the selling profession. While most sales
managers likely view these perceptions as
inconsistent with reality, such perceptions are
Fall 2006
nonetheless very real to many prospective
salespersons. Consequently, if research supports
the notion that authenticity is a desirable trait, the
dissemination of such knowledge should facilitate
the recruitment of quality individuals into the
selling profession, as such individuals will likely
be more attracted to a profession they perceive as
allowing ample freedom for self-expression.
Thus, the availability of a more qualified pool of
applicants should result in superior selection
decisions reflected in both salesforce
performance and career longevity.
Firms might also consider increasing the
relevance of authenticity as a salesforce hiring
criteria and training hiring managers by assessing
the authenticity of sales position applicants in
interview settings. Selection methods such as
unstructured interviewing, role playing, testing,
and reference checking could enhance the
likelihood of selecting individuals that are
genuinely passionate about and committed to the
possibility of entering the selling profession.
Such individuals would likely be more authentic
in acting out their salesperson roles. Thus, hiring
criteria might be modified to focus more on the
sales applicant’s authenticity and passion for the
selling profession (e.g., role identity). Such a
change in focus may facilitate the selection of
individuals who are better able to maintain their
authenticity in sales situations.
If authenticity is indeed a desirable salesperson
trait, sales training programs could be modified
to enhance the nurturance of the authenticity of
newly hired salespersons. Through this process,
sales managers might refrain from attempting to
“force square pegs into round holes” and instead
allow trainees to behave in ways more consistent
with their true selves. Correspondingly, if a
company’s sales training program is designed to
create sales cloning, it is likely that salespersons
will be required to behave in ways they perceive
as inauthentic. The research in this paper
suggests that such behavioral attempts may result
in lower levels of job satisfaction. Thus, training
and retention programs may be modified based
on the fact that training may be designed in a
fashion that recognizes the individual nature of
23
the salesperson and no longer advocates “sales
cloning.” Training might then be developed to
focus on sales behaviors, rather than sales
personalities, thus allowing salespeople to behave
authentically, which would then, in turn, reduce
sales force turnover levels and increase long-term
performance.
Perhaps rather than training
individuals to fit the “sales stereotype,” managers
may be better-advised to develop sales skills that
are more customer-orientated than sellingoriented, as selling-oriented behaviors generally
involve pretending to put the customer’s needs
first.
Authenticity may be enhanced by reducing
salesperson role ambiguity. Reducing ambiguity
can be accomplished by clarifying job
descriptions, increasing the accuracy and realism
of job previews, conducting regular performance
appraisals, and generally increasing the quality
and quantity of managerial/salesperson
communications. This would allow salespersons
a greater ability to engage in realistic selfappraisals in order to determine whether a
particular sales position fits “who they are,” (i.e.,
whether the position is one in which allows them
the freedom to behave in a self-expressed and
authentic manner).
Thus, reduced role
ambiguity, combined with an increased
identification of the individual with the sales role,
should result in increased levels of authenticity
for the salesperson.
Moreover, the present research suggests that
firms redesign their sales positions to allow
salespersons greater perceived job autonomy.
For example, salespersons might be given more
leeway in how they establish rapport with
customers. This would require that management
refrain from expecting their naturally sensitive
and supportive salespersons to behave as if they
were joke-telling and back-slapping extroverts.
Salespersons should be discouraged from
attempting to be something other than “who
they really are,” as “who they really are” is the
only thing they can authentically be. Consistent
with this, managers should assure newly hired
salespersons that sales success can be enjoyed by
a variety of personality types, not just the
stereotypical extroverted salesperson. Such job
Vol. 6, No. 4
24 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
design modifications would likely allow the
salesperson more unconstrained freedom for
authentic self-expression, potentially contributing
to a more satisfied salesforce. This, in turn,
would likely impact salesforce turnover in a
favorable manner.
In addition, the study might also provide
significant managerial implications with regard to
salesperson motivation.
Many pay-forperformance plans focus on inducing sales
performance, much like a theory X type manager.
However, salespeople who are behaving
authentically might be motivated more
intrinsically. The fact that being able to behave
authentically leads to heightened levels of selfesteem, which in turn results in greater levels of
self-efficacy and lower levels of rejection
sensitivity may create circumstances in which
extrinsic rewards (commissions, bonuses, etc.)
have minimal impacts on sales behaviors and
results. Thus, sales managers might discover that
authentic salespeople are more likely to be
motivated from within, and thus, the
opportunities to engage in activities that reflect
this authenticity (i.e., job autonomy, customer
orientation) meet their desires and result in the
higher performance levels desired by
management. Such findings would thus suggest
that future motivational efforts focus more on
factors such as enhancing the salesperson’s
feelings of growth, self-determination and
responsibility for the job and reduce the focus on
traditional extrinsic rewards (i.e., contests,
commissions, bonuses).
Directions for Future Research
The present study focuses on variables likely to
impact salespersons’ perceptions of the
authenticity of their own behaviors, such as
perceived job autonomy, role identity, role
ambiguity, customer-orientation, and sellingorientation. It also focuses on the impact of
such salesperson-perceived authenticity on
salesperson variables such as job satisfaction,
self-esteem, rejection sensitivity and self-efficacy.
Thus, the present study focuses on the impact of
authenticity on the salesperson, rather than the
buyer.
Northern Illinois University
While not explicitly addressed in this research,
the likely impact of salesperson authenticity on
the firm’s relationships with their customers
would seem to warrant a future research focus.
Moreover, given that a salesperson’s authenticity
level likely impacts the degree to which he/she is
perceived as trustworthy by his/her buyers, and
that perceived trustworthiness likely impacts the
quality of the buyer-seller relationship and the
probability of sales success with that customer,
future studies are needed that focus on
salesperson authenticity from the buyer’s
perspective. Such research might investigate the
criteria used by buyers in assessing salesperson
authenticity. The findings from these studies
could enhance sales professionals’ awareness of
behaviors potentially contributing to buyers’
perceptions of their authenticity. Other studies
might address the impact of salesperson
authenticity on buyer satisfaction. A similar issue
warranting research attention relates to the
customer’s level of trust when dealing with
authentic salespeople versus dealing with
inauthentic salespeople. If customers are more
satisfied and have higher levels of trust as a result
of dealing with authentic salespeople, then one
might argue that customer maintenance
(longevity) and profitability may be enhanced.
Thus, salesperson authenticity may result in
greater levels of performance, particularly longterm performance.
Regardless of the directions taken by future
studies, this study provides what insight to sales
managers and sales academicians alike.
Broaching the concept that one could actually
experience greater levels of success in
professional selling by being true, authentic and
genuine is an exciting proposition. While many
may have felt “intuitively” that authenticity was a
critical salesperson trait, this research provides
testable propositions and logic supporting the
validity of the concept that salesperson
authenticity could be a vital component in sales.
It is hoped that future research will provide
continued enlightenment with regard to this
concept.
Fall 2006
REFERENCES
Ashforth, Blake E. and M.A. Tomiuk (2000),
“Emotional Labor and Authenticity:
Views from Service Agents, In S. Fineman
(Ed.), Emotions in Organizations (2nd ed., pp.
184-203), London: Sage.
____________ and Ronald H. Humphrey (1993),
“Emotional Labor in the Service Roles:
The Influence of Identity,” Academy of
Management Review, 10 (1), 88-115.
Babakus, Emin, David W. Cravens, Mark
Johnston and William C. Moncrief (1996),
"Examining the Role of Organizational
Variables in the Salesperson Job
Satisfaction Model," Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, 16 (3), 33-36.
Bandura, Albert (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of
Control, New York: W.H. Freeman.
Buss, David M. “Evolutionary Personality
Psychology,” Annual Review of Psychology,
42, 459-491.
Behrman, Douglas and William Perreault (1984),
“A Role-Stress Model of the Performance
and Satisfaction of Industrial
Salespersons,” Journal of Marketing, 48
(Fall), 9-21.
Brotheridge, Celeste M. and Raymond T. Lee
(2002), “Testing a Conservations of
Resources of the Dynamics of Emotional
Labor,” Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 7 (1), 57-67.
Brown, Jonathon D., Keith A. Dutton, and
Kathleen E. Cook (2001), “From the
Top-down:
Self-esteem
and
Selfevaluation,” Cognition and Emotion, 15 (5),
615-631.
Brown, Tom J., John C. Mowen, D. Todd
Donavan and Jane W. Licata (2002), "The
Customer Orientation of Service Workers:
Personality Trait Effects on Self- and
Supervisor Performance Ratings," Journal
of Marketing Research, 39 (February), 110119.
Burke, Peter J. & Dietrich C. Reitzes (1981), The
link between identity and role
performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44,
83-92.
Crocker, Jennifer and Connie T. Wolfe (2001),
“Contingencies of Self-Worth,”
25
Psychological Review, 108 (3), 593-623.
Deci, Edward L. and Richard M. Ryan (1985),
Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in
Human Behavior, New York: Plenum.
Downey, G., A.L. Freitas, B. Michaelis and H.
Khouri (1998), “The Self-fulfilling
Prophecy in Close Relationships:
Rejection Sensitivity and Rejection by
Close Partners,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 545-560.
Dunlap, B.J., M.J. Dotson, T.M. Chambers (1988),
“Perceptions of Real Estate Brokers and
Buyers: A Sales-orientation, Customerorientation Approach?” Journal of Business
Research, vol. 17, (September, 175-187.
Funder, David, and C. Randall Colvin (1991),
“Explorations in Behavioral Consistency:
Properties of Persons, Situations and
Behaviors,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60 (5), 773–794.
Goldman, Brian M. and Michael H. Kernis (2002),
“The Role of Authenticity in Healthy
Psychological Functioning and Subjective
Well-being,” Annals of the American
Psychotherapy Association, 5 (6), 8-22.
Gross, Edward, and Gregory P. Stone (1964),
“Embarrassment and the Analysis of Role
Requirements,” American Journal of
Sociology, 70 (July), 1-15.
Hayes, H. Michael and Steven W. Hartley (1989),
“How Buyers View Industrial
Salespeople,” Industrial Marketing
Management, 9 (1), 73-80.
Herrman, A., Michael H. Kernis, and Brian N.
Goldman (2004), “Authenticity and
Stability of Self-Esteem,” unpublished
data, University of Georgia.
Ingram, Thomas N., Raymond W. LaForge,
Ramon A. Avila, Charles H. Schwepker
and Michael R. Williams (2004),
Professional Selling: A Trust Based Approach,
Second Ed., Mason, OH, Thomson SouthWestern.
Kahn, William (1992), “To Be Fully There:
Psychological Presence at Work,” Human
Relations, 45 (4), 321.
Kernis, Michael H. (2003), “Toward a
Conceptualization of Optimal SelfEsteem,” Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 1-26.
Vol. 6, No. 4
26 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Kernis, Michael H. (2005), “Measuring SelfEsteem in Context: The Importance of
Stability of Self-Esteem in Psychological
Function,” Journal of Personality, 73 (6).
Kernis, Michael H. and Stefanie B. Waschull
(1995), “The Interactive Roles of Stability
and Level of Self-esteem: Research and
Theory,” In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 27, pp.
93-141), San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
MacKay, H. (1988), ``Humanize Your Selling
Strategies'', Harvard Business Review, Vol.
66, March-April, pp. 36-8, 40, 44, 46, 47.
McCrae, Robert, and Paul T. Costa (1984).
“Personality is Transcontextual: A Reply
to Veroff,” Personality and Social
PsychologyBulletin, 10 (1), 175–179.
Nerdinger, Friedemann W. (2001), Psychologie des
Personlichen Verkaufs [Psychology of
Personal Selling], Munich: Oldenbourg.
Rogers, Carl (1963), “The Actualizing Tendency in
Relation to ‘Motives’ and to
Consciousness,” In M.R. Jones (Ed.),
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, (11),
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press, 1-24.
Saxe, Robert and Barton A. Weitz (1982), “The
SOCO Scale: A Measure of the Customer
Orientation on Sales Force Productivity,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (August),
343-351.
Sheldon, Kennon, Richard Ryan, Laird
Rawsthorne and Barbara Ilardi (1997),
“Trait Self and True Self: Cross-Role
Variation in the Big-Five Personality
Traits and Its Relations with Psychological
Authenticity and Subjective Well-being,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73
(6), 1380-1393.
Singh, Jagdip (1993), “Boundary Role Ambiguity:
Facets, Determinants, and Impacts,”
Journal of Marketing, 17 (April), 11-31.
Stajkovic, Alexander D. and Fred Luthans (1998),
“Self-Efficacy and Work-Related
Performance,” Psychological Bulletin, 124,
240-261.
Stryker, Sheldon and Peter Burke (2000), “The
Past, Present and Future of Role Identity
Theory,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284Northern Illinois University
297.
Stryker, Sheldon, & Richard T. Serpe, (1982).
Commitment, identity salience and role
behavior: Theory and research example.
In W. Ickes & E. S. Knowles (Eds.)
Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Verbeke, Willem and Richard P. Bagozzi (2000),
“Sales Call Anxiety: Exploring What It
Means When Fear Rules a Sales
Encounter,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (3),
88-101.
Wang, Guangping, and Richard G. Netemeyer
(2002), “The Effects of Job Autonomy,
Customer Demandingness, and Trait
Competitiveness on Salesperson Learning,
Self-Efficacy, and Performance,” Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (3), 217228.
Allen D. Schaefer (Ph.D. Oklahoma State
University) is a professor of marketing at Missouri State
University. His research interests are in the area of
personal selling and cross-cultural consumer behavior.
Recent publications have appeared in the Journal of
Advertising Research, the International Journal of
Consumer Studies, and the Marketing Management
Journal.
E-mail: allenschaefer@missouristate.edu
Charles E. Pettijohn (D.B.A. Louisiana Tech
University) is a professor of marketing at Missouri State
University. His research interests are in the area of
personal selling and sales management. Recent
publications have appeared in the Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, the Journal of Services
Marketing, and the Journal of Consumer Marketing. He
currently is serving as co-editor of the Marketing
Management Journal.
E-mail: charliepettijohn@missouristate.edu
27
Fall 2006
A New Look at Industrial Sales and its Requisite
Competencies
By Clifford S. Barber and Brian C. Tietje
Although industrial sales is widely discussed in both practitioner and academic circles, no clear definition of
“industrial” has been established. We present a definition of industrial sales that distinguishes it from other sales
domains, and we draw from a panel of industrial sales executives and a random sample of industrial sales managers to
generate and evaluate the importance of a comprehensive list of knowledge, skills, and value competencies that are
required for success in industrial sales. Technical competencies, while important, were rated relatively less so than
selling- and customer-related competencies. Among other recommendations, we implore industrial sales executives to
incorporate a global mindset into their sales organization, and we challenge academics to extend personal selling
beyond the business school to engineering, computer science, and other technical disciplines from where industrial
salespeople often recruit.
Because salespeople from different firms and
industries often face unique challenges, the
requirements for a successful salesperson in
these diverse settings vary considerably.
Moncrief (1986) explains that “the diversity of
selling tasks and responsibilities among firms
and industries is one reason why many studies of
salesperson attitudes, opinions, and behaviors
have produced conflicting results” (p. 261, see
also Churchill et al., 1985). Numerous studies
have classified sales jobs into meaningful groups
primarily by the activities they perform (e.g.,
Churchill et al., 1985, McMurray, 1961,
Moncrief, 1988, Newton, 1973), and one such
classification is that of industrial sales.
Several articles in the sales literature refer either
to industrial selling, industrial sales forces, or
industrial salespeople (e.g., Lamont, 1974,
Moncrief, 1988, Wotruba, 1996). Despite the
noted distinction of the term “industrial”, its
definition as it relates to selling is often missing,
generalized or undifferentiated from other types
of selling professions. According to Moncrief
(1988), industrial sales has been “misrepresented,
misunderstood, and mislabeled” (p. 161). In an
effort to establish greater clarity and consistency
for both sales research and practice, we offer a
definition of industrial sales, and report the
results of an empirical study to identify the
requisite competencies for success in the
industrial sales profession.
A Customer Application-Based Definition of
Industrial Sales
Although the term “industrial sales” has not
been clearly defined, several sources have
defined “industrial marketing”, under which the
activity of industrial sales is presumably
subsumed. Just as Rangan and Isaacson (1991)
distinguish industrial marketing from other
marketing domains based on the type of
customer served and how the product is used,
we define industrial sales by the customer and,
more importantly, the customer’s intended
application of the product or service. We define
industrial sales as personal selling activities that
facilitate the sale of products or services whose intended
application is in the manufacturing process.
This definition excludes consumer product sales,
such as the sale of goods by manufacturers to
wholesalers and retailers for the purpose of
resale to consumers, and is a subset of activities
described as “business-to-business” (b2b) sales.
It excludes b2b sales activities where the primary
application of the product being sold is for
commercial or institutional use outside of
Vol. 6, No. 4
28 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
manufacturing. For example, the sale of a
computer server to a bank would not be an
industrial sale, but if the server were sold for use
in operating a computer numerical controlled
(CNC) milling machine in a production line, the
sale would be industrial by our definition.
Consistent with this distinction, many firms have
established different product divisions and sales
forces for commercial and industrial
applications, where the industrial divisions focus
primarily on manufacturing applications.
We argue that industrial sales is a distinctive sales
profession because industrial products and
services serve as inputs in the customer’s
manufacturing process and value chain. Thus,
selling activities in this context present unique
challenges and require a distinctive balance of
competencies. In the next section we explore the
meaning of the term “competency”, and
describe the conceptual approach that we
employ in our empirical study to identify the
necessary competencies for success in industrial
sales.
Defining Competencies
There are many definitions of competence
available, but no single definition has been
widely accepted (Hoffmann, 1999). The
definition that is most appropriate for the
purpose of this study comes from Westera
(2001): “From an operational perspective,
competences seem to cover a broad range of
higher-order skills and behaviors that represent
the ability to cope with complex, unpredictable
situations. This operational definition includes
knowledge, skills, attitudes, metacognition and
strategic thinking, and presupposes conscious
and intentional decision making” (p.80).
Because competence covers such a broad
conceptual spectrum, researchers have identified
several sub-dimensions of the construct,
including knowledge, skills, attitudes, abilities,
and values (Fleisher, 2003, Stephenson and Weil,
1992, Westera, 2001). We use the structure
proposed by Evers et al. (1998) that subdivides
Northern Illinois University
competencies into knowledge, skills, and values
(KSV) because the KSV structure reflects the
cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains
often used to develop educational objectives.
Knowledge competencies represent the cognitive
domain, values cover the affective dimension,
and skills the psychomotor. Knowledge refers to
the ability to understand how pieces of
information (concepts, principles, facts) can be
used with context, to solve problems that are
new but are similar to previous actions. Skills
refer to the ability to demonstrate a system and
sequence of behaviors that are functionally
related to attaining a performance goal, and must
result in something observable (Boyatzis, 1982).
Values refer to one’s feelings, attitudes, opinions,
standards, and beliefs. It is an abstract,
generalized principle to which members of a
group have a strong emotional commitment. As
Garavan and McGuire (2001, p. 152) explain,
“an individual’s work performance is influenced
by professional, managerial, people, and mental
components, but also by work values and
attitudes.”
In order to identify the competencies necessary
to succeed in industrial sales, we conducted an
empirical study to assess practitioner perceptions
of requisite competencies in industrial sales.
Methodology
Our study consisted of three rounds of data
collection. The first two rounds employed an
executive panel, and the third round utilized a
random sample of industrial sales managers from
a diverse range of industries.
Executive Panel
In the first round of our study, a group of senior
sales executives was asked to self-generate a list
of knowledge, skills, and values that determine
success in industrial sales. These upper level
senior sales executives were in corporate
positions that were directly relevant to the
functions of industrial sales personnel.
For this study, criteria that defined eligibility for
involvement in the panel included:
Fall 2006
1. Upper-level executives of mid to large size
manufacturing organizations that contain an
industrial sales component.
2. Employed for at least five years with their
current organization.
3. Assurance from the potential member that
sufficient time would be dedicated to the study.
The researchers drew upon a convenience
sample of direct and indirect personal and
professional contacts to compile a group of
potential executive panelists. These upper-level
executives represented firms from a variety of
industries, including, but not limited to,
aerospace, industrial electronic systems,
plumbing products, and semiconductors, and
ranged in size from $4 million to $130 billion in
annual revenues. A pool of approximately 30
potential panelists was established. Each
potential panelist was contacted by e-mail and
presented with the specifics of the research
study. The final panel of executives who agreed
to participate in the study consisted of 25
members.
Round 1: Executive-Generated Industrial
Sales Competencies
In round 1 each respondent in the panel of
executives was asked to list at least five
knowledge, skills, and values competencies that
determine success in industrial sales.
Respondents provided responses in their own
words in an open-ended text field in an Internet
survey.
There were two primary reasons why we allowed
the executive panel to generate their own list of
competencies, rather than providing a predeveloped list of competencies based on prior
research. First, this tabula rasa approach captures
the unbiased perspective of experienced
practitioners. Second, the competencies of
successful salespeople that have been developed
to-date in the academic literature have not been
developed with a specific focus on industrial
sales.
After an initial return rate of 54%, a follow up e-
29
mail was sent to the executive panelists
requesting completion of the questionnaire. A
few weeks later, there was a 100% return rate.
285 competencies in the knowledge, skill and
value categories were generated.
Round 2: Follow-Up Importance Ratings of
Competencies by Executive Panel
The list of competencies generated in round 1
was independently analyzed by two researchers
to eliminate duplicate items. Each researcher
organized the list of items by conceptual
similarity, and then noted where two or more
items could be subsumed under a single
descriptor. Then the researchers compared their
analysis, discussed discrepancies, and resolved
any differences through discussion. An item was
only removed if another item clearly had a
similar meaning. Through this process, the list of
285 competencies created by the executive panel
was reduced to 169 – 66 knowledge
competencies, 75 skills, and 28 values.
A questionnaire listing each of the 169
competencies was developed, requiring
respondents to rate both the current and future
importance of each competency on a scale with
the headings: “extremely unimportant”,
“unimportant”, “moderately important”,
“important”, and “extremely important”. We
included both current and future importance to
capture any shifting trends in the requisite
expertise of contemporary industrial salespeople.
The URL for the Web survey was sent via email
to the executive panel. Panelists who did not
complete the survey within the initial two weeks
were subsequently contacted with reminders.
Within one month all of the executives had
completed the questionnaire.
Round 3: Competency Ratings by Random
Sample of Sales Managers
After collecting competency importance rating
data from the executive panel, we distributed a
similar survey to a random sample of industrial
sales managers. The only difference in the survey
is that respondents were required only to rate the
Vol. 6, No. 4
30 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
current importance of each of the 169
competencies. We eliminated the current vs.
future comparison to reduce respondent fatigue
and improve response rates. The URL for the
Web survey was submitted via email to 250
randomly selected sales managers from
companies classified by the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS),
numbers 31-33 (manufacturing) and another 250
salespeople were randomly selected from NAICS
codes 44-45 (retail trade), as listed in the 2001
edition of Ward’s Business Directory of U.S. Private
and Public Companies. We chose these NAICS
codes to capture a broad selection of sales
professions, industries, and companies. Of the
500 sales managers who were contacted, 82
responded (16.4% response rate). The sales
managers were classified based on their answer
to the question “How would you classify your
current sales position?”, with the following
response categories.
Because of the small samples (25 respondents in
the executive panel and 31 industrial sales
managers) compared to the large number of
competencies, factor analysis or other statistical
data reduction methods were not appropriate.
To aid the interpretative process, the researchers
grouped the knowledge and skill competencies
by their conceptual similarity. The knowledge
competencies were grouped into nine general
conceptual domains. These include knowledge
about:
• Consumer sales: selling products to
consumers for their consumption, or to resellers
for their sale to consumers.
• Product
• Industrial sales: Selling products that have an
intended application in manufacturing, assembly,
and material processing functions.
• Technological
• Commercial sales: Selling products to other
businesses for applications that are not
industrial.
• Institutional sales: Selling products to
institutions for their use in delivering services to
their constituents.
• Other: (please specify)
Among the respondents, 31 classified their
current position as industrial, 17 consumer, 0
institutional, 22 commercial, and 12 “other”. The
analysis we report in this paper includes only
those managers who classified themselves within
industrial sales.
Analysis and Results
Interpreting the importance ratings of all 169
competency items posed a difficult challenge.
Northern Illinois University
• Business concepts
• Competitors
• Customers
• The salesperson’s employer
• Financial concepts
• Industry
• Selling
Table 1 provides the average importance ratings
of the individual knowledge competencies and
the broader conceptual domains reported by the
executive panel and the sales managers.
Average importance ratings highlighted in red
(blue) were rated by the executive panel
significantly more (less) important for the future
compared to their current importance, providing
an indication of longitudinal variation.
Sales manager ratings that are italicized in the
table are significantly different than the average
current importance ratings of the executive
panel. In a further effort to assess the relative
consistency of the importance ratings between
the executive panel and sales managers, we
sorted the competencies by the average
importance rating they received from the
executive panel in descending order and
compared their relative rankings between the
Fall 2006
31
Table 1: Importance Ratings of Knowledge Competencies
Executive Panel
Sales Managers
Domain
Customer
Customer
Customer
Customer
Customer
Customer
Knowledge Competency
Influence of Contacts
Decision Making Process
Contact Information
Unique Requirements
Business and Industry
Financials
Average Customer
Future
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.79
3.88
3.92
3.87
Current
4.50
4.42
4.33
4.29
4.25
4.25
4.34
4.74
4.87
4.65
4.35
4.26
4.00
4.48
Selling
Selling
Selling
Selling
Selling*
Selling*
Selling
Sales Process
Salesmanship
Selling Techniques
Account Management
Consultative Selling*
Accurate Sales Forecasting*
Territory Management
Avg. Selling
4.46
4.33
4.21
4.29
*4.50
*4.13
3.33
4.18
4.46
4.42
4.38
4.33
*4.21
*3.96
3.63
4.20
4.52
4.65
4.74
4.77
4.42
4.10
4.13
4.48
Competitors
Competitors
Competitors
Competitors
Relative Strengths and Weaknesses
Business Strategy
Product Capabilities and Specifications
Product History
Avg. Competitors
3.88
3.71
3.54
3.25
3.60
4.42
4.25
4.00
3.79
4.12
4.48
4.16
4.19
3.55
4.10
Product
Product
Product
Product
Product
Product
Product
Product
Product
Product
Strengths
Application
Weaknesses
Quality Standards
Design
Technical Specifications
Lifecycle
History
Material Properties
Packaging
Avg. Product
4.13
3.96
3.92
3.63
3.42
3.42
3.46
2.96
2.92
2.79
3.46
4.71
4.58
4.42
4.13
4.04
4.04
3.88
3.50
3.46
3.25
4.00
4.42
4.55
4.00
4.32
4.39
4.55
3.61
3.61
3.94
3.35
4.07
Avg. Industry
3.83
3.75
3.58
2.71
3.47
4.21
4.08
3.92
3.29
3.88
3.94
4.35
4.00
3.45
3.94
Avg. Employer
3.67
3.46
**3.29
3.38
**2.88
3.29
4.13
4.00
**3.96
3.88
**3.50
3.86
4.52
4.03
3.74
4.58
3.94
4.16
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Employer
Employer
Employer**
Employer
Employer**
Market Structure
Trends
Codes and Standards
Traditions
Quality Standards
Organizational Strategy
Management Structure**
Available Resources
Corporate Mission**
Vol. 6, No. 4
32 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Table 1: Importance Ratings of Knowledge Competencies Cont’d
Executive Panel
Financial
Sales Managers
Financial Impact of Installation/Product
Costs
Cost/Benefit Analysis*
Net Income
Financial Forecasting
Corporate Budgeting
Sales Forecasting Methods
Cash Flow*
Statistical Software
Depreciation
Statistics
Tax Implications*
Avg. Financial
4.58
4.58
3.87
*4.67
4.13
3.92
3.92
4.38
*3.83
3.21
2.96
2.92
*3.13
3.79
*4.46
4.04
3.96
3.92
3.79
*3.50
3.17
2.96
2.96
*2.88
3.66
4.10
3.39
3.29
3.35
4.10
3.74
2.90
3.16
2.94
3.19
3.46
Bus. Concepts
Bus. Concepts
Bus. Concepts*
Bus. Concepts
Bus. Concepts*
Bus. Concepts*
Bus. Concepts
Bus. Concepts*
Bus. Concepts
Profitability Drivers
Basic Marketing Knowledge
E-Commerce*
Organization Structure
Legal Aspects*
Logistics and Distribution*
Purchasing
Enterprise Resource Planning*
Inventory Control
Avg. Bus. Concepts
4.50
4.42
*4.13
3.75
*3.67
*3.63
3.08
*3.63
3.17
3.78
4.38
4.29
*3.75
3.67
*3.38
*3.29
3.29
*3.25
2.83
3.57
4.29
4.23
3.39
3.45
3.77
3.55
3.77
3.19
3.42
3.67
Technological
Technological
Technological
Technological
Technological
Technological
Technological
Technological
Technological
Technological
Emerging Technologies
Basic Computer
Quality Control
Basic Engineering Principles
Materials
Manufacturing Processes
Simulation
Basic Electricity
Facilities and Facilities Management
Internal Process Control Limits
Avg. Technological
3.88
3.67
4.08
3.17
3.33
3.33
3.38
3.04
2.54
2.92
3.33
4.25
4.13
4.00
3.71
3.42
3.33
3.29
3.17
3.13
2.92
3.54
4.10
4.32
3.68
4.13
3.68
4.00
2.90
3.81
2.71
3.00
3.63
Financial*
Financial
Financial
Financial
Financial
Financial*
Financial
Financial
Financial
Financial*
* (**) = future importance significantly greater (less) than current importance (paired-sample 2-tailed ttest, p<.05).
two respondent groups. The list of
competencies was truncated to include only the
top-ranked items across both groups. Table 2
compares the importance rankings obtained in
this analysis.
Northern Illinois University
12 of the 20 knowledge competencies that
received the highest importance ratings by the
executive panel were also rated among the top
20 by the sales managers.
The skills competencies were organized around
six conceptual domains, including:
33
Fall 2006
average importance ratings as judged by the
executive panel, and comparing those rankings to
the ranking of average importance ratings by the
sales managers.
• Analysis
• Discovery
• Interpersonal
• Managerial
• Problem Solving
• Technical
Table 3 provides the average importance ratings
of each skill competency and broader conceptual
domain for the executive panel and the sales
managers.
As in the case of the knowledge competencies,
we gauged the relative consistency of importance
ratings between the executive panel and the sales
managers by comparing the average importance
ratings via t-tests, and ranking the skill
competencies in descending order of their
Table 4 compares those rankings.12 of the 20
skill competencies that received the highest
importance ratings by the executive panel were
also rated among the top 20 by the sales
managers.
The 28 value competencies represent a
manageable collection of diverse constructs for
individual interpretation, so we did not organize
them within higher-level conceptual domains.
Similar to our analysis of the knowledge and skills
competency ratings, we compare the average
importance ratings between the executive panel
and the sales managers via t-tests, and we
compare their relative rankings across the two
groups.
Table 2: Most Important Knowledge Competencies as Rated by Executive Panel and Sales
Managers
Domain
Knowledge Competency
Product
Financial
Product
Customer
Financial
Selling
Competitors
Customer
Product
Selling
Bus. Concepts
Selling
Customer
Selling
Selling
Employer
Product
Product
Employer
Strengths
Financial Impact of Installation/Product Costs
Application
Influence of Contacts
Cost/Benefit Analysis
Sales Process
Relative Strengths and Weaknesses
Decision Making Process
Weaknesses
Salesmanship
Profitability Drivers
Selling Techniques
Contact Information
Account Management
Consultative Selling
Quality Standards
Technical Specification
Design
Available Resources
Rank among
executive
panel*
1
2
2
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
8
8
11
12
14
14
18
Rank among
sales
managers
9
23
6
3
19
7
8
1
21
4
13
3
4
2
9
7
6
10
5
*By descending average of importance ratings
Vol. 6, No. 4
34 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Table 3: Importance Ratings of Skill Competencies
Executive Panel
Domain
Discovery
Discovery
Skill Competency
Uncover Customer Needs
Search Out Potential Customers
Average Discovery
Interpersonal
Interpersonal
Interpersonal
Interpersonal
Interpersonal*
Interpersonal
Interpersonal
Interpersonal
Interpersonal
Interpersonal
Interpersonal
Interpersonal
Interpersonal
Interpersonal
Interpersonal*
Interpersonal
Interpersonal*
Interpersonal
Interpersonal
Interpersonal
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving*
Problem Solving*
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
4.42
4.00
4.21
Current
4.38
3.92
4.15
4.65
4.77
4.71
Listening
Articulation
Multiple Priority Management
Audience Awareness
Open and Honest Communication*
Relational
Verbal Communication (Presentation)
Networking*
Conflict Resolution
Empathy
Humor
Probing
Translate Techno-babble
Persuasiveness
Constructive Feedback*
Written Communication (Technical)
Teamwork/Building*
Conversational
Character Building
Cultural Awareness
Avg. Interpersonal
4.38
4.25
4.00
4.13
*4.21
4.04
3.88
*4.08
3.79
3.92
3.88
3.92
3.50
3.96
*3.92
3.88
*3.92
4.08
3.63
3.46
3.94
4.25
4.13
4.08
4.04
*4.00
3.96
3.96
*3.92
3.83
3.83
3.83
3.83
3.83
3.83
*3.75
3.75
*3.71
3.67
3.54
3.46
3.86
4.94
4.65
4.29
4.26
4.68
4.23
4.74
*4.35
4.29
4.03
4.03
4.42
4.19
4.52
4.19
4.61
3.94
4.32
3.84
3.71
4.31
Closing the Deal
Customer Awareness (Understanding)
Generate Solutions
Conceptualization
Need Assessment
Negotiation
Self-Directing
Critical Thinking*
Persistence*
Prioritizing
Creativity
Crisis Management
Follow-Up Techniques
Imparting Vision
Shared Vision
Dealing with Skepticism
Monitoring
Technical Research
Handling Indifference
Avg. Problem Solving
4.25
4.00
4.21
4.17
4.04
4.04
4.13
*4.13
*4.13
4.04
3.96
3.88
3.88
3.71
3.63
3.63
3.46
3.42
3.75
3.92
4.21
4.17
4.13
4.08
4.04
4.04
4.00
*3.96
*3.92
3.92
3.83
3.75
3.75
3.71
3.58
3.54
3.46
3.38
3.29
3.83
4.61
4.55
4.48
4.35
4.26
4.61
4.84
4.52
4.74
4.61
4.32
4.13
4.55
4.00
4.00
4.29
4.00
3.77
4.26
4.36
Northern Illinois University
Future
Sales Managers
Fall 2006
35
Table 3: Importance Ratings of Skill Competencies Cont’d
Executive Panel
Managerial
Managerial*
Managerial
Managerial*
Managerial
Managerial
Managerial
Managerial
Managerial
Managerial
Managerial
Managerial*
Managerial
Managerial*
Managerial
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Technical**
Technical
Technical
Technical
Technical
Technical
Technical
Technical
Technical
Technical
Taking Ownership
Leadership Skills*
Time Management
Employee Utilization*
Motivating
Planning
Organizational Skills
Team Building Skills
Stress Management
Accountability
Delegation
Mentoring*
Project Management
Resource Allocation*
Budgeting
Sales Managers
Avg. Managerial
4.17
*4.17
3.71
*4.17
4.00
4.00
3.96
3.88
3.83
4.04
3.75
*3.88
3.63
*3.88
3.50
3.90
4.08
*4.00
3.96
*3.92
3.88
3.88
3.83
3.83
3.75
3.71
3.67
*3.67
3.54
*3.54
3.50
3.78
4.42
4.39
4.68
3.71
4.26
4.32
3.97
3.97
3.81
4.65
3.90
4.00
4.32
3.84
3.81
4.14
Avg. Analysis
4.17
3.88
3.46
3.58
3.50
3.46
3.38
3.42
3.04
3.54
3.96
3.83
3.67
3.54
3.42
3.42
3.38
3.29
2.96
3.50
3.97
4.03
3.77
3.58
4.13
3.13
3.68
3.55
3.39
3.69
Vocabulary (Industry Jargon)**
General Computer Literacy
Technology Implementation
Quality Inspection
Flowcharts (control charting)
Mechanical Troubleshooting
Materials Identification
Computer Aided Design and Drafting
Product Installation
Processing Equipment Recognition
Avg. Technical
**3.46
3.46
3.33
3.13
2.75
2.67
2.67
2.63
2.50
2.38
2.90
**3.96
3.50
3.33
3.13
2.75
2.71
2.67
2.58
2.46
2.38
2.95
4.65
4.61
3.94
3.32
2.94
3.61
3.55
2.77
3.61
3.52
3.65
Cost/Benefit (ROI)
Value Analysis
Forecasting
Quantitative
Product Category Fit
SWOT
Qualitative
Benchmarking
Cash Flows
17 of the 20 value competencies that received
the highest importance ratings by the executive
panel were also rated among the top 20 by the
sales managers.
Discussion
There are six primary insights that we believe are
noteworthy from the analysis. First, there is a
broad diversity of competencies that both the
executive panel and sales managers perceived as
important for a successful industrial salesperson.
The results indicate that a successful industrial
salesperson is a well-rounded individual with
competencies ranging from interpersonal to
technical skills and knowledge about customers,
competitors, and selling, just to name a few.
Vol. 6, No. 4
36 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Table 4: Most Important Skill Competencies as Rated by Executive Panel and Sales
Managers
Rank among
executive
Domain
Skill Competency
Discovery
Interpersonal
Problem Solving
Philosophy
Interpersonal
Problem Solving
Managerial
Problem Solving
Interpersonal
Problem Solving
Interpersonal
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Interpersonal
Managerial
Interpersonal
Managerial
Technical
Problem Solving
Interpersonal
Analysis
Discovery
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Interpersonal
Managerial
Interpersonal
Managerial
Technical
Uncover Customer Needs
Listening
Closing the Deal
Customer Awareness
Articulation
Generate Solutions
Taking Ownership
Conceptualization
Multiple Priority Management
Negotiation
Audience Awareness
Need Assessment
Self Directing
Open and honest communication
Leadership Skills
Verbal Communication
Time Management
Vocabulary (Industry Jargon)
Critical Thinking
Relational
Cost/Benefit (ROI)
Search out potential customers
Persistence
Prioritizing
Networking
Employee Utilization
Written Communication
Accountability
General Computer Literacy
Second, we were surprised that the executive
panel did not identify any competencies
specifically relating to a global business
environment or the challenges of interacting
across cultural boundaries. Given the global
propagation of manufacturing activities, we were
expecting our panel to suggest that today’s or
tomorrow’s successful industrial salesperson
should have a keen global and cultural awareness
and sensitivity.
Third, even though this study focused
specifically on industrial sales, and even though
Northern Illinois University
1
2
3
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
13
14
18
Rank among
sales managers
6
1
7
8
6
10
11
13
15
7
16
16
2
5
12
4
5
6
9
17
22
3
4
7
13
28
7
6
7
we primed participants to consider personal
selling in the context of a manufacturing
customer, surprisingly few of the competencies
identified by the executive panel are directly
related to manufacturing.
Fourth, the competencies that our executive
panel believed to be more important for the
future than in the present were related primarily
to selling knowledge, financial knowledge,
business concept knowledge, interpersonal skills,
problem solving skills, managerial skills, and
optimism. Interestingly, none of these
Fall 2006
competencies are distinctive to industrial sales
compared to other selling professions.
Fifth, there was considerable consistency
between those competencies rated most
important by the executive panel and the sales
managers. The differences in perceived
importance between the two respondent groups
are noteworthy, however. Within the knowledge
competencies, sales managers placed more
importance on certain selling- and technologicalrelated competencies than the executive panel,
and the executives placed more importance on
several financial-related knowledge competencies
than the sales managers. Within the skill
competencies, sales managers placed more
importance on certain interpersonal-, problem
solving-, managerial-, analytical-, and technicalrelated competencies than the executive panel,
37
and there were very few skill competencies
deemed more important by the executives
compared to the managers (employee utilization,
SWOT analysis). Within the value competencies,
only assertiveness received a significantly
different average importance rating across the
two respondent groups.
Finally, even though our study focused
specifically on industrial sales, which is arguably
a technical sales discipline, technological
knowledge and technical skills both received
relatively low evaluations of importance by both
participant groups.
Managerial Implications
Drawing upon the findings from this research,
we propose several actionable recommendations
Table 5: Importance Ratings of Value Competencies
Executive Panel
Value Competency
Ethical Behavior (honesty)
Integrity
Credibility (authentic)
Listening
Professionalism
Responsible
Self confidence
Trustworthiness
Achievement-orientation (competitive)
Ambitious (initiative)
Common sense
Adaptable to change
Assertive
Genuine
Customer Loyalty
Determination
Optimistic*
Patience
Friendly
Future vision
Charismatic
Comfortable in ambiguity
Unselfishness
Humility
Team Player
Curiosity
Company Loyalty (profitability)
Compassionate
Future
4.63
4.67
4.71
4.54
4.54
4.50
4.50
4.58
4.54
4.46
4.46
4.54
4.29
3.96
4.29
4.25
*4.38
4.13
4.04
4.08
3.92
4.00
3.92
4.04
4.21
3.75
3.67
3.71
Current
4.67
4.67
4.58
4.54
4.54
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.46
4.46
4.46
4.42
4.29
4.29
4.25
4.25
*4.17
4.17
4.08
4.08
4.00
3.92
3.92
3.88
3.88
3.83
3.71
3.67
Sales Managers
4.77
4.81
4.61
4.94
4.87
4.61
4.52
4.71
4.42
4.52
4.55
4.52
4.06
4.52
4.29
4.58
*4.32
4.55
4.55
3.94
4.16
3.90
3.90
4.06
4.23
3.97
3.90
3.94
Vol. 6, No. 4
38 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Table 5: Most Important Value
Competencies as Rated by Executive Panel
and Sales Managers
Value Competency
Executive
Rank
Sales
Manager
Rank
Ethical Behavior (honesty)
1
4
Integrity
Credibility (authentic)
Listening
Professionalism
Trustworthiness
Responsible
Self confidence
Common sense
Ambitious
Achievement-orientation
Adaptable to change
Genuine
Assertive
Determination
Customer loyalty
Patience
Optimistic
Friendly
Future vision
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
3
6
1
2
5
6
9
8
9
10
9
9
15
7
12
8
11
8
17
for executives, managers, and salespeople within
the industrial sales profession.
First, sales managers and human resource
executives need to evaluate sales candidates not
only on the basis of their conceptual knowledge,
but also on their skills and professional and
personal values. Successful industrial salespeople
are not one- or even two-dimensional; they are
three-dimensional personnel whose knowledge,
abilities, and values deliver value for customers
and profitability for their employer.
Second, to ensure the global and cultural
competencies of tomorrow’s industrial
salesforce, sales managers must recognize the
rapidly shifting landscape of manufacturing and
adapt through advanced training and
international sales exposure. We find it alarming
that the executive panel in our study did not
identify any globally-oriented competencies as
critical for selling success.
Northern Illinois University
Third, sales managers and executives must
recognize differences in their perceptions of the
critical competencies for industrial sales success.
In our study, the executive panel and sales
managers reported different levels of importance
across several domains. While sales managers
placed more importance on selling and
technological knowledge, the executive panel
placed more importance on financial knowledge.
Sales managers also placed more importance on
skills than their executive counterparts. These
differences seem to reflect a tendency for
executives to emphasize top-line financial
performance while sales managers are more
concerned with the day-to-day competencies that
are necessary to address customer needs and
implement a value-creating solution. Executives,
sales managers, and salespeople need to
effectively communicate their own perspective
while taking the time to understand others.
Fourth, we challenge our own profession of
academics to incorporate sales into disciplines
outside the marketing discipline. Although it is
necessary in some industries and for some
product categories that industrial salespeople
hold engineering, computer science, and other
technical degrees, selling skills and customerand selling-related knowledge and skills are of
paramount importance.
In our own research and teaching in the
industrial sales field, we have learned that the
most critical determinant of success in industrial
sales is an appreciation and understanding of the
challenges faced by today’s manufacturers. Thus,
we feel that the most important contribution of
our research is establishing a definition of
industrial sales that focuses on the customer’s
intended application of a solution within a
manufacturing process. A solution that solves a
manufacturing challenge has value, and an
effective salesperson is one who can both
develop a workable solution that is in many cases
technically complex, and communicate that value
to the customer. Firms striving to develop a
salesforce capable of delivering and
Fall 2006
communicating this value would benefit greatly
from the support of academic research that
focuses on this distinctive field of inquiry. We
hope that this research offers a fertile starting
point for the development of this field.
Limitations and Future Research
There are several limitations of our current
research that offer opportunities for refinement
and further development in future research.
First, our study does not rely on competency
scales that have already been validated in the
sales research, such as those offered by Rentz et
al. (2002). This may be considered a limitation
because the constructs we identified in our study
were not subjected to validation that defines the
gold standard of methodological rigor (such as
the use of confirmatory factor analysis).
However, because we felt that industrial sales
might require a distinctive set of competencies,
we thought it was more important to have
industrial sales executives, deemed executives, to
generate their own list of competencies, which
we then compared in importance across
different sales professions. Thus, we feel that our
tradeoff of methodological rigor for external
validity was the best course of action at this stage
in this research program. Future research needs
to validate the constructs we identified, and
compare the relative importance of both the
factors we identified as well as more established
competency scales from the literature across
different sales professions.
Another limitation of our research is that the
response rates we obtained (16.4% for the sales
managers) were somewhat low. Because we were
striving for a random sample across numerous
sales professions, our solicitations for
participation were impersonal due to our lack of
personal connections within every industry. We
chose a tradeoff between the diversity of our
sample vs. response rate. Future research can be
used to validate our findings among additional
samples.
Finally, although our research intends to identify
39
competencies that drive salesperson success, we
relied on respondents’ subjective perceptions of
“success” as the outcome of various
competencies. Future research that incorporates
objective indicators of success, such as
achievement of sales quotas or sales managers’
ratings of the salesperson’s performance, would
provide more reliable indicators of a
salesperson’s actual performance.
Despite these limitations, we feel that our study
offers an important contribution to sales
research. Because industrial sales has, to this
point, never been defined in the sales literature,
our research establishes a conceptual foundation
and practitioner-driven insights for advancing
the industrial sales profession.
REFERENCES
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982) The competent manager: A
model for effective performance, New York,
John Wiley and Sons.
Churchill, G. A., Ford, N. M. & Walker, O. C.
(1985) Sales Force Management, Homewood,
Illinois., Richard D. Irwin.
Evers, F. T., Rush, J. C. & Berdrow, I. (1998) The
Basis of Competence, San Francisco, JosseyBass.
Fleischer, C. S. (2003) The development of
competencies in international public
affairs. Journal of Public Affairs, 3, 76-84.
Garavan, T. N. & McGuire, D. (2001)
Competencies and Workplace Learning:
Some Reflections on the Rhetoric and the
Reality. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13,
144-163.
Hoffmann, T. (1999) The Meanings of
Competency. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 23, 275-285.
Lamont, L. A. W. J. L. (1974) Defining industrial
sales behavior: a factor analytic study. In
Curham, R. C. (Ed.) Chicago, American
Marketing Association.
McMurray, R. N. (1961) The mystique of superSalesmanship. Harvard Business Review, 11322.
Moncrief, W. C. (1986) Selling Activity and Sales
Vol. 6, No. 4
40 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
position taxonomies for industrial
salesforces. Journal of Marketing Research,
23, 261-70.
Moncrief, W. C. (1988) Five Types of Industrial
Sales Jobs. Industrial Marketing Management,
17, 161-167.
Newton, D. A. (1973) Sales Force Performance and
Turnover, Cambridge, MA., Marketing
Science Institute.
Rangan, K. V. & Isaacson, B. (1991) What is
Industrial Marketing? Harvard Business
School Teaching Note, 9-592-012.
Rentz, J. O., Shepherd, C. D., Tashchian, A.,
Dabholkar, P. A. & Ladd, R. T. (2002) A
Measure of Selling Skill: Scale
Development and Validation. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22, 1321.
Stephenson, J. & Weil, S. (1992) Quality in Learning:
A Capability Approach in Higher Education,
London, Kogan Page.
Westera, W. (2001) Competences in education: a
confusion of tongues. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 33, 75-88.
Wotruba, T. R. (1996) The Transformation of
Industrial Selling: Causes and
Consequences. Industrial Marketing
Management, 25, 327-338.
Clifford S. Barber (Ph.D., University of Southern
California), Assistant Professor of Industrial Technology,
Orfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo.
E-mail: cbarber@calpoly.edu
Brian C. Tietje (Ph.D., University of Washington),
Associate Professor of Marketing, Orfalea College of
Business, California Polytechnic State University, San
Luis Obispo.
E-mail: btietje@calpoly.edu
Northern Illinois University
Subscription form
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
NAME
BUSINESS/SCHOOL
ADDRESS
ZIP & STATE
TITLE
CITY
COUNTRY
Domestic Individual $50
Foreign Individual $70
Check enclosed
Domestic Corporate $60
Foreign Corporate $80
Bill me later
Mail this form to: Dan C. Weilbaker, JSMAM
128 Barsema Hall
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115
Or fax it to 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
Dan C. Weilbaker
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Department of Marketing
128 Barsema Hall
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115
FOLD HERE
Application Article
Fall 2006
43
Rethink Those Tips and Tactics:
Powerful Negotiation Is Simple
By Brian Dietmeyer
Business-to-business buyers will always tell you they can get the same thing you're selling for less. However, business
negotiation is just not that simple. Rarely is your value proposition identical to your competitor's. Rarely is price the
only item that needs to be agreed upon. Learn how simple it is to respond with facts versus reacting emotionally.
You’ve toiled for months to win the deal; you’ve
diligently studied the prospect’s issues, needs and
strategies, and you are certain that your solution
is the perfect fit. That is important because the
outcome of this deal could make or break your
future with your employer.
The big moment is finally here. It’s time to sign
the contract. You stroll confidently into the
conference room then stop cold in your tracks.
Staring back from the table is the Chief
Purchasing Officer, who’s not the friendly,
receptive contact you’ve been working with since
day one. You inquire about your contact’s
whereabouts.
“He’ll be here later,” deadpans the CPO. “How
‘bout we take a look at the contract in the
meantime?”
You smile weakly and set the contract before
him.
He briefly glances at it, pushes it away, sits back,
folds his arms and hits you with a zinger:
“Your competitor will give it to us for 20
percent cheaper.”
Panic sets in. You can’t remember a one of
those 138 tips and tactics you memorized at that
last negotiation seminar a few months ago ( just
to prepare yourself for this very moment. Your
mind races to determine which of the four
negotiation personality types you could
categorize this hard-bargainer under and all you
can come up with is “jerk.” (Unfortunately, this
fifth personality type wasn’t discussed at the
seminar.)
And if you’re like most people, according to our
formal and informal surveys of sales
professionals and their managers, chances are
you’re going to do just what the CPO wants
(slash your price to get the deal).
It’s no wonder buyers use this tactic all the time
– it works! Even though many of them have
admitted that they know the tactic is full of
holes. Unfortunately most sales professionals
don’t see them . They’re too afraid that their ship
has almost come in and it’s going to leave
without them. They don’t realize that the ship is
firmly anchored and it’s not going anywhere
without their support!
The reason for this perception is because the
negotiation has been made more complex than it
should be and that’s far worse than confusing –
it’s disempowering. What keeps the deal afloat
or makes it sink isn’t pulling one perfect
response out of an arsenal of a dozen, two
dozen, or 200 hundred negotiation tactics. It has
nothing to do with whether the person sitting on
the other side of the table is the strong silent
type, a motor mouth, obsessive compulsive, or
an ADD.
Whether you’re haggling over the price of a fleamarket watch or trying to win a global, multimillion dollar deal, every negotiation hinges on
only two elements:
Vol. 6, No. 4
44 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
1. Consequences of No Agreement (CNA):
what are the customers alternatives if you reach
an impasse. What will your client do without
you? Have they accurately analyzed their
alternatives? Do they genuinely know what
they’re getting (or getting into) without you? Are
they comparing apples to apples or apples to
orangutans?
figure out a solution to get the deal done.
Eventually, I quit calling because I knew what
Dr. Bazerman would say and I finally realized
that negotiation wasn’t complex.
Dr.
Bazerman’s formula was brilliantly simple. I had
everything I needed to structure and respond
intelligently to even the most challenging
negotiation by:
2. Trades: how will the client pay for your
solution; the total terms of the deal.
a. Making a proper diagnosis: knowing
precisely what would happen to both sides if
the deal fell apart.
When I joined Think! Inc., the negotiation
strategy firm of which I am now president, I
wasn’t genuinely convinced that negotiation
could be boiled down to two simple elements.
Every once in a while I would seek the counsel
of Think!’s founder, Max Bazerman, Vice Chair
of Harvard Law School’s Research Program on
Negotiation. (He also happens to have a
doctorate in negotiation strategy and came up
with these two elements of negotiation after a
decades of observing 20,000 deals in 46
countries.)
His phone would ring and I would be on the
other end. “I’ve got a new client trying to do a
$30 million dollar deal,” I would announce
breathlessly. “It’s a very complex, global
negotiation…we’ve hit a snag!”
“What will happen to both sides if they don’t
agree? How is your client’s offer better?”
Dr.Bazerman would patiently respond. “And
what are the terms of the deal that will fund your
solution, in rank order?”
I called him more than a few times over the next
several months.
“It’s a global communications company doing a
$100 million dollar deal…” I’d begin.
“So, what are their consequences of no
agreement and their trades?” Dr. Bazerman
would respond.
Every time, I received the same response: what
will happen if they walk away from the deal and
what are they willing to trade to move it
forward? With that information, we could easily
Northern Illinois University
b. Putting a solution on the table better than
that diagnosis,
c. Knowing what both sides were willing to
trade to fund the solution and close the deal.
Here’s the rub: to make this optimally effective,
you must think through nearly every aspect of what
you potentially have to offer, what the
competition has to offer, and the gap between
the two (what you have that the competition
doesn’t). Then, you have to think through what
each side is willing to trade to close the deal.
Very rarely do prospects analyze any of this and
that can give you the advantage. In essence,
prospects try to boil down both the
consequences of no agreement and trades to the
lowest common denominator – price. Your goal
is to expand rather than reduce the discussion.
Helping organizations attain the knowledge to
do this effectively is the basis of our consulting
business. Every organization’s offerings are
unique which provides a multitude of nuanced
opportunities to broaden any discussion or
negotiation. However, most organizations
overlook these opportunities.
We expertly
identify them and help you make the most of
them, because the more creative each side can be
with what they bring to the table, the better. The
result is often amazing situations that create
powerful business value and higher profits for
both sides. But that’s another article.
When you have a deep and broad understanding
of your total value proposition and how
important that value is to your prospect, you will
Application Article
Fall 2006
45
not be the least bit fazed when the buyer sits
back, folds his arms, and announces: “Your
competitor will give it to me for 20 percent
cheaper.”
what the competitor is offering and what you’re
offering, and reviewing the trades ( the terms of
the deal) to explore precisely what they’re
investing to get the value that you have to offer.
You won’t even be thinking about the
personality type of this “hard-bargainer,” or
what that negotiation expert spouted at that
seminar last year. Instead, you will calmly ask a
very simple, but important question. “What do
you mean by ‘it?’ How does ‘it’ compare to what
I have to offer? Does ‘it’ offer the same services
and features, delivery, guarantees, warranties,
support…”
In the process, you’ll both likely discover that 20
percent cost savings probably comes at a high
price, making your value proposition more
desirable than ever. Consequently, the hard
bargainer will be eager to do business with you,
and you’ll walk away the hero. You will keep
your job and even get a raise or promotion.
Let me illustrate this further. Every once in a
while, a client is foolish enough to call me up
and announce, “Brian, you’re going to have to
sharpen your pencil.”
“Is that right?” I’ll respond.
“That’s right. Company X’s negotiation training
is 20 percent cheaper than yours.”
“Well, let’s take a look at this more closely,” I’ll
smile. And then I’ll show them the gap between
what we offer and what Company X offers, so
they can see what they’re genuinely receiving for
their investment.
That’s the power of simplicity.
As President and CEO of Think! Inc., a global strategic
negotiation consultancy, Brian Dietmeyer’s insight
has resulted in impressive returns on investment (on
average 270 percent) for Fortune 100 companies. He
has nearly 25 years of leadership experience in sales,
marketing, and strategic planning and is a sought-after
author and speaker.
E-mail: bjd@thinkinc.com
I’ll ask questions around whether the
competition’s value proposition includes custom
case studies, expert consultants, ease of learning,
application to live deals, return-on-investment
analysis, post-training implementation – all of
the services we provide. I’ll also look beyond
price and explore the potential trades like
payment terms, length of contract, consulting
fees, and cancellation policies. My goal is to find
out whether the value proposition of Company
X is as strong as mine. It rarely is.
If you take a similar approach I can almost
guarantee the same for you when you reach the
final stages of the negotiation. When that hardbargainer hits you with the “I-can-get-it- for-20percent-less” zinger, he probably doesn’t know
what he’s talking about. It’s up to you to
enlighten him by showing him the gap between
Vol. 6, No. 4
46 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
How Can an Invisible Salesperson Become
Visible Again
By Joe Heller
Do you remember a time when you were a kid
and pretended to be invisible? Your imagination
delighted your parents as you walked through
the house inspiring them to play along with you.
All could hear your innocent giggling. This was a
positive for you because you thought you were
able to alter reality.
Fast forward to today, entrepreneurs and sales
professionals are still invisible. Only this time
it's not pretend, it's real; and you're wondering
why potential clients can't see you. Are you
confused why someone else is getting all of the
referrals or how a big deal lands effortlessly in
the lap of your competitor? You feel like
jumping up and down and screaming at the top
of your lungs, "Hey, here I am!" You are trapped
behind the "veil of visibility" being pulled down
by the same vacuum that pulls sailors to their
death as their ship sinks.
Invisibility for sales professionals is becoming
more of a reality today than ever before. The
world is more complex, more crowded, and
more integrated than ever before. Competition
is getting more rigorous; there are literally
hundreds of suitors vying for the same
opportunities in today’s marketplace, whereby
only a few a decades ago, there were fewer and
more timid competitors. Not only are there
more competitors in the marketplace, but
corporate America is increasing the noise,
confusion, and mistrust with their stock
manipulation, fraud, and mismanagement .
Adding to the confusion is the new "law of the
jungle." We no longer trust business to do the
right thing; thus, the burden of integrity and
responsibility has fallen to the individual instead
of the company. Therefore, we have renewed
our trust in the people to do the right thing,
Northern Illinois University
which adds another dimension for salespeople to
gain visibility in an already bloodthirsty
marketplace.
With this in mind, let me dispel a common belief
that many entrepreneurs and sales professionals
have today--"build it, and they will come". The
fallacy in these words is that it does not consider
your ability and efforts to build a trusted
relationship with your customers. Today the key
to building a dynamic and thriving business, in
this ever-evolving world, is building a foundation
of trust--one person at a time. I've noticed in my
travels that people have adopted a "so what”
attitude. They are less concerned about the
product/service features and advantages and are
more concerned with individuals living up to
their promises. People are doing business with
people again, and they are saying, come and see
me and please stop sending me those damn
emails. I am not saying technology is bad; it does
have its place. However, staying competitive
and growing your business today means that you
must break through the technology cloud and
focus more on building strong personal
relationships with your clients. It appears that
technology is now controlling society instead of
society controlling technology. Technology can
also be useful in building personal relationships.
For example the use of cell phones can be used
to supplement the personal visits, since it also
provides a dialogue between you and the client
(unlike email or text messaging which tends to
be a monologue.) Let's stop hiding behind emails
or text messaging and speak to our clients
whenever possible.
How can a salesperson gain control and break
through your "veil of invisibility"? The secret lies
in branding--not corporate branding--but
Application Article
personal branding. A question I was recently
asked during an interview with The Brand
Channel was "…is it possible for a person to be
a brand?" I answered no--not in the traditional
sense of a brand. A personal brand is a metaphor
for communicating your unique talents to your
'listening' market in such a way that they
immediately understand the value you offer. A
personal brand is about how to communicate the
authenticity of your unique talents, your genius
to the world. It's about earning the trust and
respect of your market by establishing yourself
as "the choice" and not "a choice" when
someone has a need. Personal Branding is all
about the quality of the communication you
have with your "listening" market.
Note: A "listening market' goes beyond a target
market. It is a market that is specifically listening
for your unique value message based on their
experiences, expectations and historical
references. In other words, it's why one
company chooses to use Intel and another
chooses AMD. Each computer microchip has
very little performance difference; the real
difference lies in the minds of the buyers who
are 'listening' for a specific benefit message. This
is a subset of how branding works.
Just having a unique value in not enough. You
cannot sit and wait expecting the world to
discover your unique talents. In order to
communicate your distinctive value to your
listening market, consider a "visibility
campaign". It's a way to communicate certain
things, to certain people in a certain way that
positions you to capture the attention of your
internal market (firm/company) and/or your
external market (clients/customers).
If you think you can be successful in sales while
staying invisible, you are misleading yourself into
the depths of mediocrity. If you wish to become
visible again to your customers then you need to
ask and answer the following questions to
prepare your visibility campaign.
First steps: Ask yourself:
1) Do you have a FEAR of being visible to your
Fall 2006
47
clients? Since being visible requires you to be
dependable, reliable, and straightforward, there
are those salespeople out there do not have or
do not want to have as part of their offering. It
does require more effort and time to be
dependable, reliable, and straightforward, and
you need to make a conscious choice about your
willingness to be the person required when you
are visible to your customers.
2) Do you have a "visibility plan" that will build
trust and credibility? If the answer is no, then
you need to continue with the remaining
questions. If the answer is yes, then you need to
begin or continue to implement your visibility
plan. Since trust and credibility take time to
build, it is important to begin your campaign as
soon as possible.
3) If you do not have a visibility plan, what is the
first step you can to today to begin your quest
for more visibility?
In order to create your visibility plan you must
find the answers to the following five (5)
questions.
1) What's your message? Remember--being
unique is part of your new image so try not to
use the same narrative that everyone else in your
market uses. Be distinct, focus on the problems
you have solved for your clients, and tie that into
an emotional account from your client's
perspective.
2) What media will be most effective? What are
the experts in your field doing, where are they
being published? This publishing helps build the
trust and respect you need in your visibility
campaign. Then you need to write an article on
the focal issues your clients are facing today and
offer your solutions.
3) What's your Brand Promise? Are you living up
to the expectations the market has for you?
Remember--you need to communicate with
clarity to you market about your successes. You
need to consistently educate as well as remind
your market on how good you are.
Vol. 6, No. 4
48 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
4) Are you distinct? A catastrophic failing with
many sales professionals is that they try to be all
things to all people. When this happens, their
brand gets diluted. Successful salespeople today
are known for something, they've specialized.
Use your specialization to define your offering to
your listening market.
5) Do you have a story that can be easily told?
Stories are viral and create buzz, hopping from
one person to the next. Craft a story that's full of
emotional facts of interest to the customer and
provide a WIIFM (What’s in it for me) to get
people excited about what you do.
Hint: A speaker practices his or her story at least
50 times before going on stage. Make sure you
'own' your story before you tell it in public. So
remember you can't stay invisible and expect to
be successful! I challenge you to rise from the
"Sea of Sameness,” and be the best sales
professional you can be. It takes time and effort
but is worth it in the end.
In conclusion, by honestly asking and answering
the questions above, you are on your way to
changing from one of the multitudes of invisible
salespeople to being one of a few visible sales
people. This will allow you to be successful
beyond your dreams. In order to be visible you
need a plan, and you need to execute the plan.
Being visible means that you are on the radar of
the customer and must provide them value
consistently.
Joe Heller is the Chief Sales Instructor at GPS
Selling Systems. For more information, please visit
www.gpsselling.com
Northern Illinois University
Application Article
49
Fall 2006
What Does It Take to Become a Great Salesperson
By John Costigan
What one quality would make the difference between an average and a superior salesperson? There has been much
debate over this fact with no clear answer to date. This article is an attempt to provide some rationale and reasoning
behind why honesty or telling the truth leads to superior selling. The article concludes with several examples of how to
put this principle into action.
The most important attribute for salespeople
Peering out the window of seat 3A at 35,000
feet, I stopped reading for a moment and sat
back and just stared at the ocean. Here I was,
heading eastbound on another transatlantic flight
anticipating training another sales force in the
UK, and I was looking at an email that was sent
to me by a young sales person who had just
graduated college. They had just read a book
which I was fortunate enough to read as well
called, “Wisdom for a Young CEO” by Douglas
Barry. At the age of 14, Douglas wrote to some
very successful people and asked them a great
question: “What does it take to become a
CEO?” Interestingly enough, most of these
incredibly powerful people wrote him back-CEO’s of companies such as General Electric,
American Express, GAP, Motorola, a virtual
who’s who of corporate America. He compiled
all of the responses which amassed over 150
pages of notes and responses and posted the
actual letters in his book. The summaries of
information included topics about their people,
integrity, service, the customer, passion, respect,
vision, humanity, curiosity, even pragmatism.
As I read Douglas’ book and absorbed its
content, I asked myself what kind of knowledge
could be obtained if we used the same concept
and sent hundreds of letters to successful sales
people and asked, “What does it take to become
an Outstanding Sales Person?”
Selling Power Magazine wrote the number one
skill a great sales person needs is charm. I found
that surprising. Another article spoke of being
extremely quick on your feet and dynamic. What
about integrity, skills, attitude, intelligence,
professionalism, and confidence? These qualities
are all very important and have their place in line
as being key ingredients that separate you from
the rest of the pack. But which one is “the” most
important.
As I took out a pen and began to write all of my
ideas on the napkin sitting on my tray table, the
passenger in seat 3B spoke up and boldly asked
what I was writing. He appeared to be a wise
man, much wiser than I. It wasn’t long before I
opened up to him. “I am in my early 40’s and
have seemed to always be in a rush to gain
wisdom, just as this book I read by Douglas
Barry. I have learned that wisdom comes to you
in its own time, not your time. And that usually
means it comes with age, and you can’t rush it.”
As we continued to speak, he said, “We do
become much wiser as we get older, and
obviously, we continue to make mistakes, but I
believe part of gaining wisdom is having the
ability to pick ourselves up much quicker than
we did when we were young. Too many times
we let the mistakes keep us down, and we fall
backwards instead of falling forward and
learning from them.”
Enjoying this
conversation, I replied back and said, “So, do
you believe that’s it? Wisdom is the key
ingredient to being a great sales person?” His
response was simple, “What do you think?”
As I began to continue to write my thoughts on
the small square napkin glancing out at the
Vol. 6, No. 4
50 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
horizon, we began to speak more and more. I
then shared with him a wonderful quote that I
had heard that represents wisdom to me. “When
you are 18 years old, all you think about is what
other people think about you. When you turn 40,
you don’t care about what other people think
about you, and when you reach 60, you realize
no one ever thought about you anyway.” He
laughed heartily and agreed. But I knew there
was a single element that rose above all of the
rest. One thing, I believe, we must embrace and
I think it took me this long to realize this was
thee ingredient: Trust.
Trust is everything. If the customer doesn’t trust
you, it doesn’t matter how wonderful the
company and the product are, they won’t buy.
Oh sure, when we talk “retail”, we can drive to
most franchise fast food restaurants where you
“trust” that the burger, the fries, and the soft
drink will taste the same, no matter who is
serving it. It doesn’t take a sales person to help
you decide on a Number 3 with a Diet Coke.
Or, if you want to buy a particular brand of car,
regardless of how scared we might be walking on
the lot of how we will be approached by the
sales person, if we want it, we’ll buy it. The days
of having that “strong” long term relationship
with a sales person at a dealership are fleeting.
From McDonalds to Mercedes, these companies
spend millions of dollars on building customer
confidence, loyalty and yes, trust.
What I am talking about is the true face to face
discussions of business done B2B. (Business-toBusiness). True sales people discussing issues
with customers while establishing trust along the
way.
Not that long ago, in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and
even before then, a hand shake and “your word”
was everything.
It meant more than the
contract. My father once told me, “Johnny, if
you ever have to get out the contract, you both
lose. Any issue you have with a customer should
be negotiated with a handshake and your word.”
Even though my father told me that in the 70’s,
it still holds true today. I believe a hand shake
Northern Illinois University
and your word have become a “lost art” if you
will. The world has changed dramatically, and
trust is becoming harder to find.
So what happened? What happened in the last
twenty to thirty years that resulted in our
cultures’ inability to trust and promote
skepticism at such high levels?
I believe there are a variety of reasons. The
internet is one. It provides us with immediate
results to any inquiry we desire, and at the speed
of light, allowing our customers to seek out
more information, more vendors, more pricing,
and more options than ever before. This results
in more information, more time to deliberate
and more time to question and “stall” their
decisions to move forward. When a customer
knows more about other options, it results in
longer sales cycles and questions themselves in
“trusting” they have made the right decision.
Look at the policies and procedures our own
government has begun to put in place to prevent
another Enron. Was that simply due to greed; or
was the pressure to perform so great that those
high level executives tumbled due to fraud,
leading to investors and employees paying
dearly? Hence, we again reduce our level of
“trust”.
The examples I can mention that have
contributed to our cultures inability to “trust’ are
endless. We live in a time where we get fired
much quicker than we did 25 or 30 years ago.
Our children are being raised in a culture where
patience may not be considered the virtue it
once was. So we have been swayed to say or do
things quickly and where trust isn’t the key
ingredient, results are!
How can you begin to earn trust?
So the real question is how can you begin to earn
trust, in a world where we all constantly have our
guards up?
Now the positive part of the equation; It’s easier
than you think. It’s no coincidence that trust and
truth are very similar in their spelling, just a two
Application Article
letter difference. Josh Billings once wrote, “As
scarce as the truth is, the supply has always been
in excess of the demand.” I love this quote
because it leads us to question if we really want
to know the truth or simply continue to listen
with “happy ears.”
I always ask my students, “What percentage of
customers lie to you?” and consistently the
answer barked out in unison, as I speak to
audiences around the world is, “100 Percent!”
And, of course, everyone laughs, but when you
think about it, that answer might be right on.
We run into so many customers who will tell us,
“Just looking for pricing.” or “Send me some
information, and we’ll get back to you.” or
“Things look really good, I just need to see more
information.” only to realize they were using our
information to get a better deal from the
incumbent.
The real reason customers may
have a tendency to lie to us is simple: US! We
forced them to lie. Think about it. When a
customer finally decides to tell us “Thanks again,
but we have chosen another vendor.” What is
our first response? We say, “Why? What
happened?” When you say that, how do you
think that makes the customer feel? You
guessed it….defensive. When was the last time
you sold a defensive customer? Their defense
mechanism is on high alert, and anything you
have to say at this point will bounce right back
off their shields because they know you will
make them feel bad about telling the truth. Did
you really expect them to say “Why?
Ummmm....We don’t know why. Heck, sorry.
Let’s just do it with you.” Of course not.
So they lie to us. It’s easier for them to say “Not
sure, we’ll get back to you.” And then they send
an email saying you lost so they don’t have to
talk to you in person. This is our fault.
How do we change this? Simply do the
opposite. When a customer says,” Looks like we
are going to chose someone else.” Simply say
with passion and positive attitude, “Great. Good
for you guys. I’m glad you found the right
vendor. Now that I know you are not moving
Fall 2006
51
forward with us, do you mind if I ask you if
there was one thing you thought we needed to
do a better job at, what would have it been?”
See, when you respond positively like you really
don’t care that you lost, they will let down their
guard and tell you the real reason. When they
tell you the real reason, you can now say, “Boy,
that’s amazing….. that’s the one thing that kept
you guys from choosing to move forward with
us. Do you mind if I ask you a question? If I
was able to fix that one thing, or make that
problem go away, do you want to keep talking?”
It’s amazing how many times you will hear the
customer ask you, “Well, can you?” Now you are
back in the game. I have numerous customers
that had told me “No fit” and when I said
“Great. Thanks for your honesty.” I was able to
get their guard down, find out the real reason,
and turn them around. Obviously, if they
already signed the deal, then the discussion was
over. But if they hadn’t signed and hadn’t
contacted the other vendor yet, it’s still open for
discussion.
The question I posed above is about getting
results in a world that may force us to “bend the
rules”, and continue to be 100 percent truthful.
Remember Harry Truman? He was our 33rd
President. He was labeled “Give’m Hell Harry”
due to his directness. In his reply to this label
that the media tagged him with, he said, “I never
gave anybody hell, I just told them the truth,
they thought it was hell.” I can’t recall a quote
as powerful.
From personal experience I can say that my
company has grown beyond all expectations due
to this simple philosophy. We tell the truth.
When customers ask us, “Are you more
expensive than the competition?” Our answer
is, “Absolutely. Do you mind if I ask you why
you asked?” Or if the customer asks us, “Can
you come down on price?” Our answer is “You
know, I lose no matter how I answer that
question. If I say “No”, that could end this
discussion. If I say “Yes”, then it gives the
appearance that we were trying to take advantage
of you with our original offer. So, there must be
Vol. 6, No. 4
52 Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
a reason you asked?”
All sales people will always have these concerns;
Are we too expensive? Where do we stand? Is
this the right fit? When are they going to make a
decision? Am I just here because I am one of the
people in the bid process? Why do they really
want to do business with us? etc…
Be Harry Truman. Cut to the chase and don’t
waste time. Example: Mr. Customer, I love
telling the story of Harry Truman, our 33rd
President known as “Give’m Hell Harry. He was
famous for saying “I never gave anybody hell. I
just told them the truth, they thought it was hell.
I want to ask you a question. My biggest fear is
you are already happy where you are at, and the
reason for my involvement is simply to give you
a gut check on making sure you have the best
deal from the incumbent. Can you help me with
that?”
This is incredibly powerful! WHY? Because it’s
the truth!!! We were just too afraid to speak it.
We would go back to our office and sit there and
wonder where we are on the deal, fill out a
forecast that we know in our heart isn’t 100
percent accurate, and “hope” we get the deal.
According to Rick Page’s book, “Hope is not a
Strategy.” I agree!
You will face this over and over and over again.
For example: A deal is stalled. Call your
customer right now and say “Mrs. Customer. My
biggest concern is that as much as I would love
to win this business, it’s becoming obvious that I
want to win this deal more than you actually
want to move forward and get your issues
resolved. So for that, I apologize. I feel like I am
a doctor begging you to go into surgery when
you’re the one with the problem.”
When you speak the truth, you gain respect from
the customer, and more importantly, from
yourself. And what happens is that you take
people by surprise because THEY ARE NOT
USED TO IT!!!
So, if and when a letter lands on my desk asking
Northern Illinois University
me “Mr. Costigan, what does it take to become a
great sales person.” I will tell them to tell the
truth, at all costs and you should too. Why?
Number one, you will feel good about it.
Number two, when you begin to lie, your
customer will see right through it. Number three,
you will gain instant credibility. No one has the
“perfect” solution. And number four, you will
win WAY more business because we live in a
society where the truth can be so hard to come
by, you will stand out among the rest.
Wheels down…Time to go be Harry Truman.
John Costigan is the President and Founder of John
Costigan Companies. Prior to founding his own company,
John was a top sales representative and account executive
for leading software and Internet companies. He created
a unique sales training program in which he demonstrates
the effectiveness of his proven techniques by making
impromptu calls to prospects that are provided to him by
the client. John holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in
Education from Northern Illinois University.
For more information, please visit
www.JohnCostiganCompanies.com
Subscription form
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
NAME
BUSINESS/SCHOOL
ADDRESS
ZIP & STATE
TITLE
CITY
COUNTRY
Domestic Individual $50
Foreign Individual $70
Check enclosed
Domestic Corporate $60
Foreign Corporate $80
Bill me later
Mail this form to: Dan C. Weilbaker, JSMAM
128 Barsema Hall
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115
Or fax it to 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
Dan C. Weilbaker
Journal of Selling & Major Account Management
Department of Marketing
128 Barsema Hall
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115
FOLD HERE