Volume 30 Number 2 Spring 2005 Leadership Edition Contents A New Paradigm: Entrepreneurial Leadership Lloyd W. Fernald, Jr., George T. Solomon, and Ayman Tarabishy . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Emerging Role of the “Sales Technologist” David J. Good and Roberta J. Schultz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Leadership and Upward Influence: A Survey of Business School Deans J. Michael McDonald and Carl W. Gooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A Preliminary Model of Abusive Behavior in Organizations Matthew Valle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Southern Business Review Spring 2005 Volume 30 Number 2 RONALD E. SHIFFLER, DEAN College of Business Administration, Georgia Southern University WILLIAM W. MCCARTNEY AND DARRELL F. PARKER, CO-EDITORS JAMES E. DAVIS, JR., MANAGING EDITOR Editorial Review Board Robert J. Angell NC A&T State University Joseph A. Giacalone St. John's University Niles Schoening University of Alabama-Huntsville Edwin W. Arnold Auburn University-Montgomery David Good Grand Valley State University JoAnna Burley Shore Frostburg State University H. Kent Baker The American University Al L. Hartgraves Emory University Robert W. Stone University of Idaho S. J. Chang Illinois State University Jerry G. Hunt East Carolina University Dai Tanno Aomori Public College Richard M. Conboy UNC-Charlotte William W. McCartney Georgia Southern University Michael J. Toma Armstrong Atlantic State University Philip P. Crossland University of Missouri-Kansas City Carl McDevitt Auburn University-Montgomery Sheb L. True Kennesaw State University Lester Digman University of Nebraska Muroki F. Mwaura William Paterson University Robert J. Walsh Marist College John Eatman UNC-Greensboro Steve Norman University of Nebraska William H. Wells Georgia Southern University Karen L. Fowler University of Northern Colorado Jerome S. Osteryoung Florida State University Douglas E. Ziegenfuss Old Dominion University Charles R. Franz University of Missouri-Columbia James A. Pope University of Toledo The Southern Business Review is published semi-annually, in spring and fall, by the College of Business Administration, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia 30460. The annual subscription rate for the SBR is $12.00 domestic and $15.00 international. The SBR does not prepare reprints of individual articles; however, these are available from ProQuest Information and Learning (www.il.proquest.com). The information and conclusions presented in the SBR are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Office of Publications & Faculty Research Services, College of Business Administration, or Georgia Southern University. The authors assume such responsibility. Copyright 2005, College of Business Administration, Georgia Southern University. Third-class postage paid at Statesboro, Georgia 30458. A New Paradigm: Entrepreneurial Leadership Lloyd W. Fernald, Jr., George T. Solomon, and Ayman Tarabishy As the 1990’s gave way to the next millennium, the current social, economic, and political environments were constantly being affected by the actions of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial ventures. The current literature in entrepreneurship devotes considerable discussion to the role entrepreneurs play within their businesses and as opinion leaders in their markets and the general economy. Often described as Lloyd W. Fernald, Jr., D.B.A., is professor of management, Management Department, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32817. George T. Solomon, D.B.A., is associate professor of entrepreneurship, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052. Ayman Tarabishy, is a doctoral student, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052. Southern Business Review innovators, paradigm pioneers, and visionaries, entrepreneurs are confronted with the issue of developing leadership qualities in order to grow their businesses and to transform them to a level of professionalism. Since the 1980’s, an increased level of entrepreneurial activity has spawned, not only because of the electronic age but due to a plethora of new materials, products, financial networks, joint venture possibilities, and paradigmatic changes in politics, economics, and societies. It appears a whole new remodeling of the ways in which business, communication, and government are conducted has emerged. Thus, it is imperative for anyone involved in entrepreneurial ventures, especially the entrepreneur, to fully comprehend the impor-tance of sound leadership practices. This article attempts to reveal those characteristics common to both successful leaders and entrepreneurs who operate in dynamic, changing environments. It also attempts to show the characteristics Spring 2005 entrepreneurs use to cope with their need to excel and explore new vistas. In essence, it seeks to demonstrate a new style of evolving leadership, entrepreneurial leadership, which offers a break from the past and movement into the future. Literature Review Entrepreneurship is a relatively new, sometimes controversial, and burgeoning field of management research. Leadership has been studied since around 500 BC. New to the field is the subject of entrepreneurial leadership. Both entrepreneurship and leadership will be briefly discussed in turn. Entrepreneurship Selection of the appropriate basis for defining and understanding entrepreneurs created a challenging problem for entrepreneurial research. More than ten years ago, the field of research was described as young, i.e., in its formative stage (Paulin, Coffey, & Spaulding, 1982; 1 Perryman, 1982; Peterson & Horvath, 1982; Sexton, 1982). Even now, no generally accepted definition of an entrepreneur exists, and the literature is replete with criteria ranging from creativity and innovation to personal traits such as appearance and style. Models of the entrepreneur are almost as plentiful as the number of researchers studying entrepreneurs (Churchill & Lewis, 1986; Cunningham & Lischeron, 1991). Krackhardt (1995) stated that research on entrepreneurship has defined entrepreneurship in two ways, the entrepreneurial firm and entrepreneurial people. Entrepreneurial firms are small (Aldrich & Austen, 1986), fast-growing (Drucker, 1985), organic, and network-based rather than mechanistic and bureaucratic (Birley, 1986). In studying work flow leadership, a form of firm-level entrepreneurship, Sayles and Stewart (1995) defined entrepreneurship as having three components: (1) it is activity that seizes profit opportunities without regard to resources currently controlled (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990); (2) it expands existing resources through enhanced learning, synergies, or bootstrapping (Burgelman, 1983; Leibstein, 1968; Stewart, 1989; Venkatara2 man, McMillan & McGrath, 1992); and (3) it promotes change and innovation leading to new combinations of resources and new ways of doing business (Burgelman, 1983; Schumpeter, 1943). Entrepreneurial people take advantage of opportunities to acquire added value. This definition sees entrepreneurship as a behavioral characteristic of employees and managers in a firm, not as a characteristic of the firm itself. Stevenson, Roberts, and Grousbeck (1989) argued that entrepreneurship is an approach to management. They distinguished between “promoters,” individuals whose strategic direction is driven by the perception of opportunity, and “trustees,” who are driven by the resources they currently control. One could argue from this that “promoters” are actually leaders while “trustees” are managers. Others, however, have written that both management and leadership skills play important roles in determining the growth rate of a small business. The skills required include (1) seeing and clearly communicating a clear direction for the future, (3) recognizing shortcomings in the team and supplementing those skills, and (4) having the business skills from an educational and experience viewpoint (Eggers, Leahy, & Churchill, 1994). Over the years, several schools of thought on entrepreneurship have been generated that combine psychological traits with management/leadership skills. With respect to entrepreneurial activities, most important to entrepreneurs are (1) seeking opportunities, (2) needing to achieve set goals, (3) being independenceminded, (4) taking risks, and (5) innovating (Lepnurm & Bergh, 1995). McClelland (1961) believed that entrepreneurial behavior was embedded in an individual’s personality, the result of one’s upbringing. Stewart (1989) documented the “fire in the belly” of employees who are always “running hot” within the firm. Thus, entrepreneurial behavior appears to be internal, similar to what is often described as characteristic of leaders. (2) leading and motivating others, Spring 2005 Southern Business Review Leadership (2) leadership motivation; Zaleznik (1977) has reported that managers and leaders are different. They differ in what they attend to and how they think, work, and interact. Also, managers and leaders have different personalities and experience different developmental paths from childhood to adulthood. Further, managers perceive life as a steady progression of positive events, resulting in security at home and at work. Leaders are “twice born.” They endure major events that lead to a sense of separateness, or perhaps estrangement, from their environments (James, 1985). As a result, they turn inward in order to re-emerge with a created rather than an inherited sense of identity. This condition may be necessary for the ability to lead. Finally, managers appear to be narrowly engaged in main-taining their identities and self-esteem through others. Leaders have selfconfidence growing out of the awareness of who they are and the visions that drive them to achieve (Zaleznik, 1990). Although research shows that certain traits alone do not guarantee leadership success, evidence that effective leaders are different from other people in certain key respects exists. Key leader characteristics are (3) honesty and integrity; (1) drive, which includes achievement motivation, ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative; Southern Business Review (4) self-confidence; (5) cognitive ability; and (6) knowledge of the business. The key leader characteristics help the leader acquire necessary skills, formulate an organizational vision and an effective plan for pursuing it, and take the steps needed to implement the vision into reality (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991). It is not necessarily the individual possessing the most formal authority who is the leader in an organization, large or small. The leader is anyone who exerts influence over others. Specific traits, characteristics, and personal attributes that will predict superior performance in any given role, team, and organization can be identified and defined. Entrepreneurial Leadership On the surface, one can associate entrepreneurs with leadership functions such as providing vision to the development of a new product, service, or organization. A leader has to be entrepreneurial as well. It has been written that entrepreneurial leadership deals with concepts and ideas, and these are often related to problems that are not of an organiza- Spring 2005 tional nature (El-Namaki, 1992). Instead, they tend to be individual characteristics or behaviors. These include vision, problem solving, decision-making, risk taking, and strategic initiatives. A short discussion of each follows. Vision. Only in the first decade of the 20th century has the role of vision in the strategic management process and the possible relationship between vision and creativity, leadership, and entrepreneurship been given much attention. A vision is formulated by explicitly identifying a domain for competitive behavior, a set of sources of competitive strength, and a profile for resource capability. A vision implies a capability construct. This capability construct is determined by many factors including managerial vision, competence and capacity, logistic and technological profiles, as well as the financial resource access of the firm. A good vision is realistic and feasible. It provides a challenge for the whole organization and mirrors the goals of its constituents. Visions may be killed by fear of mistakes, inability to tolerate ambiguity, and lack of challenge. Problem solving. Taskoriented leadership gets best results with purely technical, fact-based problems. Consideration-oriented leadership copes more effectively with emotional, personal, and interpersonal problems. 3 Effective leadership must solve, or face, problems quickly and forcefully, regardless of their nature. Decision making. Managers are more likely to seek assistance from subordin-ates in solving problems than when making decisions. As a general rule, whether leaders are directive or supportive, they know they must make decisions that commit the organization to critical actions. If a leader avoids this responsibility, subordinates will poorly judge him or her and the organization will suffer accordingly. Risk taking. Balancing risk is a necessity of leadership. Leaders must weigh the multitudinous factors involved, while understanding that no one can predict the future with certainty. Inability to deal with uncertainty precludes an organization from achieving its goals. Strategic initiatives. Leaders must have a vision and plan for beyond a year or two in order to achieve longterm success (El-Namaki, 1992). Entrepreneurial leadership has been coined by those who realize a change in leadership style is necessary in order for America’s businesses, large and small, to be competitive with the rest of the world. Knowdell, Branstead, and Moravec (1994) have noted that corporations now undergo paradigm shifts rather than linear change. One such paradigm shift is from a “producer mentality” that 4 seeks instructions to an “entrepreneurial mentality” that seeks results. This has lead to structural changes in organizations and new ways of doing business. The development of the MacIntosh computer is, perhaps, the prime example. Other similar “skunk works,” or entrepreneurial projects, are increasing in number throughout corporate America. One might question whether entrepreneurial leadership is truly a new style of leadership, an escape from management, or both. Since the 1980’s, the concern has been that major business corporations have lost their competitiveness through an emphasis on management rather than leadership. A survey of 90 top executives and entrepreneurs revealed that the four basic competencies common to all leaders are management of attention, meaning, trust, and selfesteem (Bennis, 1988). Bennis’s research indicated that potential entrepreneurs are much more likely to have had business-owning fathers or relatives and to have owned their own firms at some stage of their careers. While no differences were found between subgroups in terms of their needs for achievement or their locus of control, the likely entrepreneurs were found to have a greater need for autonomy, more creative tendencies, and a higher calculated risk-taking orientation than other managers. In all, factors in the Spring 2005 family background or personal profile of managers that may attract them to entrepreneurship have some potential for detecting entrepreneurs among managers (Cromie & O’Donaghue, 1992). It is argued that the organizational archetype of the future will be entrepreneurial. Its leadership, strategies, and structure will reflect entrepreneurial thinking with associated characteristics, e.g., a problem-solving and actionorientation. The characteristics and behaviors that spell success in entrepreneurial firms and small businesses now are being considered as vital for success, even for large transnational corporations. That even large companies are interested in this phenomenon is reflected in the popularity of what has been coined as “Intrapreneurship” by Pinchot (1985). Intrapreneurship is said to exist in situations in which individuals utilize entrepreneurial thinking to initiate and implement new ideas within large corporations (Chittipeddi & Wallet, 1991). Based on these prescriptions, and a myriad of other sources too numerous to mention here, the similarities between what is known as leaders and what is known as entrepreneurs are considerable. Regardless of the amount of study each has been given, particularly with respect to leaders, much learning is still needed. Yukl (1994) reported that, although the leadership literature includes more than 5,000 studies, the confused Southern Business Review state of the field can be attributed primarily to the sheer volume of publications, the disparity of approaches, confusing terms, many trivial studies, and the preference for simplistic explanations. This same charge has been levied at the research involving entrepreneurship (Vesper, 1996; Sexton & Kasarda, 1992; Zimmerer & Scarborough, 1996). Nevertheless, much is known about both leaders and entrepreneurs. As discussed earlier, both leaders and entrepreneurs have been studied relative to their traits, skills, and behavioral characteristics. Numerous studies have been conducted in an attempt to define a successful leader or entrepreneur (Welsh & White, 1983). The general agreement is that a leader influences others toward the attainment of a vision and goals (Zaleznik, 1990; Stoner, 1995). A successful entrepreneur, likewise, influences those who can help achieve a desired goal or vision, whether the entrepreneur is a banker or other financial lender or those who can help to manufacture or distribute a product or service. Many also agree that leaders are visionary. They know what they want and where they want to go. They have a vision of their goals (Locke & Kirkpatrick, 1995; Hajek, 1995). This is best stated in a quote from Theodore Hesburgh: Southern Business Review [t]he very essence of leadership is that you have a vision. It’s got to be a vision you articulate clearly and forcefully on every occasion. You can’t blow an uncertain trumpet (Brainyquote .com, 2005). (2) problem-solving skills; These characteristics are intended to provide sufficient information to support a basis for the argument that the behavioral characteristics of leaders and entrepreneurs are more similar than different. In addition, it provides a basis for viewing entrepreneurial behavior as another type of leadership. This is particularly evident in view of the fact that changes in the workplace are demanding a new style of leadership. A flatter organizational hierarchy with its shrinking management ranks and less bureaucracy, coupled with the push for greater speed, better customer responsiveness, and on-going innovation, will require such. Every employee will be required to think and to act like an owner/entrepreneur (Turknett, 1995). (3) timely decision-making; Methodology (4) a willingness to accept risks; and Characteristics possessed by both entrepreneurs and leaders were collected from various sources such as journal articles, dissertations and theses, books, and magazine articles. These characteristics were listed and then compared, resulting in a list of common characteristics. No scale was attached to these characteristics. The existence of the characteristics and the degree to which they exist in any individual can be Successful entrepreneurs also envision the need for a product or service and how that product or service is to be provided. In summary, based on a review of the literature, both leaders and entrepreneurs are successful largely to the extent that they provide (1) strategic leadership (vision and long-term goals); (5) good negotiating skills. “Successful” is a key adverb and a vital factor in this review. Clearly, many leaders and entrepreneurs fail. Whenever possible, the authors have made an effort to include only those behavioral characteristics shared by leaders and entrepreneurs that lead to successful attainment of visions and goals. Spring 2005 5 most reliably determined by an in-depth, structured interview by an experienced and trained psychologist. Nevertheless, the number of times each characteristic was noted in the review of literature was used to compare the characteristics of leaders and entrepreneurs. Results Table 1 identifies characteristics that are associated with successful entrepreneurs and leaders and the number of times those characteristics have been noted in the literature. Risk-taker, achievement-orientated, and creative are the most highly cited characteristics among entrepreneurs whereas visionary, able to motivate, charismatic, able to communicate, honest and sound, and trustworthy are the most highly cited characteristics among leaders. By comparing the characteristics of entrepreneurs and leaders, a model can be developed that specifies the personal characteristics reflected in those who practice entrepreneurial leadership. Characteristics that are common to both entrepreneurs and leaders are presented in Table 2. Table 2 reveals that the characteristics common to both entrepreneurs and leaders are visionary, risktaker, achievement-orientated, able to motivate, creative, flexible, persistent, and patient. Discussion Table 1 is the result of a generally exhaustive search for entrepreneur and leader characteristics. Nevertheless, only 136 sources were included in this study. The authors believe that the numbers associated with each of the characteristics would Table 1 Characteristics of Entrepreneurs and Leaders* Entrepreneurial Characteristics Leadership Characteristics Able to motivate (3) Able to communicate (12) Achievement orientated (15) Able to listen (9) Autonomous (6) Able to motivate (15) Creative (10) Able to work with others (7) Flexible (2) Achievement orientated (7) Highly tolerant of ambiguity (5) Charismatic (13) Passionate (3) Committed to mission (7) Patient (1) Creative (5) Persistent (3) Flexible (6) Risk-taker (24) Honest and sound (12) Visionary (6) Patient (3) Persistent (2) Risk-taker (6) Strategic thinker (5) Trustworthy (12) Visionary (29) *Cites for these characteristics may be obtained from the authors. 6 Spring 2005 Southern Business Review Table 2 Common Characteristics Entrepreneur Able to motivate Leader 3 15 Achievement orientated 15 7 Creative 10 5 Flexible 2 6 Patient 1 3 Persistent 3 2 Risk-taker 24 6 Visionary 6 29 change, perhaps considerably, if more sources were included. At the same time, the authors believe that it is likely that the same characteristics found in Tables 1 and 2 would remain in a future study. Some of the characteristics noted appear consistent with anecdotal reports. For example, entrepreneurs are generally known as risktakers, high achievers, and creative in their abilities to produce unique goods and services. Anecdotal evidence suggests the most successful leaders are visionaries. Additionally, they are charismatic, able to communicate, have reputations of being honest, and are trusted by others. Conversely, while anecdotal evidence suggests that such characteristics as autonomous, highly tolerant of ambiguity, passionate, and persistent are generally found in entrepreneurs, the study data support such, but reflect a remarkably small number of sources. So as with leaders, it would appear from anecdotal evidence that characteristics such as achievement-oriented, strategic thinker, and committed to mission would have been more evident than the data found in this study. A more in-depth study would likely shed light on this issue. Nevertheless, the study results reflect actual citations in the entrepreneurship and leadership journals. The data provided are considered more valid in describing entrepreneurs and leaders than that of anecdotal evidence. Table 2 is interesting as well. Eight common characteristics were found in entrepreneurs and leaders. Risk-taker clearly led all other entrepreneurial characteristics, and visionary was the strongest characteristic in leaders. These findings are well-supported by anecdotal evidence. Other characteristics Southern Business Review Spring 2005 common to entrepreneurs and leaders are not surprising, with the possible exception that the numbers were smaller than the authors anticipated. Table 2 offers researchers several questions. When the number of cites is small, such as with “Patient,” should it be discarded as a common characteristic? Could other characteristics be added to this table? Most importantly, does possessing the common characteristics found in this study predict an individual whose performance would exhibit entrepreneurial leadership and successfully contribute to an organization’s success? Conclusions The findings of this study, i.e., the common characteristics shared by both entrepreneurs and leaders, represent an attempt to both reveal the commonality of 7 these two populations and to provide a base for further studies on entrepreneurial leadership. The lists shown in Tables 1 and 2 include those characteristics often found in a successful leader or entrepreneur. This information may be helpful to individuals considering the entrepreneurial life or seeking other leadership positions. Clearly, much remains to be done in clarifying the role and characteristics of tomorrow’s leaders. New organizational designs, new thinking patterns, and new information systems will require new leadership styles. Entrepreneurial leadership offers one answer. The question remains as to whether entrepreneurial leadership will consist of the characteristics found common to both the successful entrepreneur and leader in this study. Some will argue that entrepreneurs are not necessarily “good” or successful leaders. Such doubters can find support in the literature for the iconoclastic characteristics found in many entrepreneurs that are inconsistent with “good” leadership characteristics. For doubters, the term “entrepreneurial leadership” is seen as an oxymoron, a combination of terms that are contradictory to what they have been accustomed in the past. Successful entrepreneurs, however, have provided the risk-taking, achievement orientation, and creativity that 8 have lead to the birth and growth of numerous major firms in the U.S. and globally and continue to do so. Entrepreneurial thinking is being increasingly demanded in even the largest corporations. More research in this area is essential. Future studies may rank preferences of the characteristics of leaders and entrepreneurs to permit a rank order or other statistical analyses of the characteristics of leaders and entrepreneurs, helping to further define the characteristics needed for entrepreneurial leadership. References Aldrich, H. & Austen, E. R. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic limitations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8: 165-198. Bennis, W. (1988). Ten traits of dynamic leaders. Executive Excellence: 8-9. Birley, S. (1986). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 1:107-117. Brainyquote.com. [On-line]. Available: http://www .brainyquote.com/quotes/ quotes/t/theodorehe1307 60.html. Accessed: March 9, 2005. Burgelman, R. A. (1983). Corporate entrepreneur- Spring 2005 ship and strategic management: Insights from a process study. Management Science, 29(2): 1349-1363. Chittipeddi, K. & Wallet, T. A. (1991). Entrepreneurship and competitive strategy for the l990’s. Journal of Small Business Management: 94-98. Churchill, N. C. & Lewis, V. (1986). Entrepreneurial research: Directions and methods. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship (pp. 333365), Cambridge: Ballinger. Cromie, S. & O’Donaghue, J. (1992). Research note: Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations. International Small Business Journal: 66-73. Cunningham, J. B. & Lischeron, J. (1991). Defining entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 6: 45-60. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship in the American corporation. New York: Harper & Row. Eggers, J. H., Leahy, K. T., & Churchill, N. C. (1994). Entrepreneurial leadership in the development of small businesses. 14th Annual Entrepreneurial Southern Business Review Research Conference, Babson College, MA. El-Namaki, M. S. S. (1992). Creating a corporate vision. Long Range Planning: 25-29. Hajek, M. (1995). What is leadership? Leading the World in Aviation/ Aerospace Education. Titusville, FL: EmbryRiddle Aeronautical University. James, B. G. (1985). Business wargames. Cambridge, MA: Abacus Press. Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive: 48-60. Knowdell, R. L., Branstead, E., & Moravec, M. (1994). From downsizing to recovery. Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books. Krackhard, T. (1995). Entrepreneurial opportunities in an entrepreneurial firm: A structural approach. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice: 53-69. Leibstein, H. (1968). Entrepreneurship and economic development. American Economic Review, 58: 7283. Lepnurm, R. & Bergh, C. (1995). Small business: Entrepreneurship or strategy? The Center for Southern Business Review Entrepreneurship Review: 4. Locke, E. A. & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1995). Promoting creativity in organizations. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: van Nostrand. Paulin, W. L., Coffey, R. E., & Spaulding, M. E. (1982). Entrepreneur research: Methods and directions. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 352373), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Perryman, R. (1982). Commentary on research in the field of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 377378), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Peterson, R. & Horvath, D. (1982). Commentary on research in the field of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 374-376), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Spring 2005 Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneurs innovate. Management Today: 5461. Sayles, L. R. & Stewart, A. (1995). Belated recognition for work flow entrepreneurs: A case of selected perception and amnesia in management thought. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 19(3): 7-23. Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: George Allen & Unwin. Sexton, D. L. (1982). Research needs and issues in entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 383-389), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sexton, D.& Kasarda, J. (1992). The state of the art of entrepreneurship. Boston: PWS-Kent. Stevenson, H. H. & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 17-27. Stevenson, H. H., Roberts, M. J., & Grousbeck, H. I. (1989). New business ventures and the entrepreneur. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. 9 Stewart, A. (1989). Team entrepreneurship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Stoner, J. A. Management, 7th edition (1995). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Turknett, R. (1995). New work place to require leadership qualities in all. The Atlanta Journal/ Constitution, B3: 3-12. Venkataraman, S., McMillan, I. C., & McGrath, R. G. (1992). Progress in research on corporate venturing. In D. L. Sexton 10 & J. D. Kasarda (Eds.), The state of the art in entrepreneurship (pp. 487-519), Boston: PWS-Kent. Vesper, K. (1996). New venture experience. Seattle, WA: Vector Books. Welsh, J. A. & White, J. F. (1983). The entrepreneur’s master planning guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations, 3rd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Spring 2005 Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review: 5-6. Zaleznik, (1990). The leadership gap. Academy of Management Executive: 7-22. Zimmerer, T. W. & Scarborough, N. M. (1996). Entrepreneurship and new venture formation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Southern Business Review The Emerging Role of the “Sales Technologist” David J. Good and Roberta J. Schutlz Marketers have long sought to craft marketplace opportunities to provide a differential advantage that is both significant and sustainable. Particularly important in the sales organization, creating and maintaining a marketplace advantage are often the keys to success or failure. In this pursuit, a host of strategies, mechanisms, and processes have evolved through marketing departments as managers constantly seek the “best” tools for rapidly changing marketplaces. Employing considerable resources to obtain such marketplace advantages, management has sought to integrate many different David J. Good, Ph.D., is professor of marketing, Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, MI 49504. Roberta J. Schultz, Ph.D., is associate professor of marketing, Western Michigan University, Grand Rapids, MI 49503. Southern Business Review elements into the marketing domain. One contemporary effort that has received a great deal of attention has been the increased usage of sales force automation, coupled with the need to enhance the relationship management of clients through communications technology. This effort has resulted in an escalated need to determine where and how technology is being used in personal selling (Widmier, Jackson, & McCabe, 2002) to maximize technological integration within the sales organization. Correspondingly, sellers have become increasingly aggressive in recent years as they seek and implement constructive assets that improve their positions and opportunities for success. For instance, training has become a key strategic organizational tool being visualized as an important vehicle for success (e.g., Leach & Liu, 2003). Spending in some situations more than $100,000 and two years in the development of one salesperson (Johnston & Marshall, 2003) to cultivate a competitive advantage in a Spring 2005 single territory, marketers have demonstrated their interest and willingness in acquiring and deploying assets that can cultivate a significant, sustainable differential advantage under virtually any condition. Actual applications of sales force automation indicate a range of failure that suggests technology cannot be automatically and easily intertwined within the sales force. One study used identity theory to better understand these failures and found salespeople have positive perceptions of the technology immediately after the training; however, six months after implementation, the technology had been widely rejected (Speier & Venkatesh, 2002). To make sales technology more functionally valuable, some European companies have discovered that technology that dictates how salespeople behave will fail while technology that respects how salespeople really behave has a better chance at success (Schrage, 2003). What this suggests is that, while technology may be 11 a positive force in some situations, as with any tool, its usage must be balanced against the value it brings and the resources required for its implementation. Similar advances in other areas such as hiring practices, market identification techniques, strategic development, and compensation systems are but a few of the elements considered for usage in contemporary marketplaces to gain a differential advantage by salespeople. The critical issue as it relates to the sales force, therefore, is that marketing managers are increasingly demonstrating a willingness to take risks in discovering tools and strategies that maximize field opportunities. In turn, the failure to maximize situations as they occur can result in mixed opportunities. As the shift toward relational sales approaches and emerging technologies continues to drive the changing nature of selling, it is important for the sales organization to identify, explore, adjust to, and exploit the needs of the marketplace in highly competitive situations. For example, the critical role of marketing communications as part of relational strategies (Andersen, 2001) suggests B2B sellers are learning to craft relational selling strategies in an environment in which ecommerce is increasingly viewed as a critical marketplace tool. In this regard, most marketing tools, 12 whether implemented by upper management or by local field managers, are designed to satisfy the core needs of the seller (identify, explore, adjust, and exploit). It is reasonable to anticipate, therefore, that when new methods, processes, tools, and strategies are considered for future implementation, the criterion for acceptance will rest on this same ability to meet selling needs. It is in this spirit of sellers constantly needing new tools and strategies that this research examines the emerging role of the sales organization becoming oriented toward the usage of technology. The next generation of B2B sellers may require a newer form of specialists to manage this focus on technology. Why Combine Sales and Technology? Selling is evolving to the point at which professionals will have two related, but quite separate skills. Specifically, successful contemporary B2B sellers will increasingly need technological abilities. For example, at the Aetna Insurance Company, educating sales professionals about customer-facing technology has become a high priority (O’Donnell, 2003). Facing the need to enhance customer connections, a new generation of sales strategies starting to evolve is of a move toward a “sales technologist” Spring 2005 (ST). As discussed in the following sections, these employees will assume a broader marketing orientation and will be less restricted to specific functional areas as they expand the role and connections of traditional salespeople. What is a “sales technologist”? The sales technologist is, in most contexts, an employee who carries many of the traditional sales responsibilities (e.g., creating revenue), but utilizes technology as a critical sales tool for strategic and tactical purposes. The ST is primarily focused on selling and providing organizationally required performance output. As part of his/her performance guidelines, he/she incorporates contemporary technologies into the selling effort. For instance, STs seek methods in which e-commerce efforts are incorporated into relational and selling efforts. This could include fostering customer relationship systems driven through web order points, customer records and inventory management systems, and automatic reorder points derived from the buyer to the seller. The critical aspect of the sales technologist is that he/she utilizes contemporary technologies to gain and retain competitive advantages through technology. Hence, the ST is not tied to any particular technology but to technologies in general. As the technologies change, so does Southern Business Review the focus on the types of tools that the ST utilizes. The sales technologist is more of an operational title than a functional title. These employees may be drawn from a variety of functional roles in and out of the traditional sales function. New to these positions may be skilled employees from finance, logistics, information technology, and other areas previously not included in the selling function. Possible titles may include customer data specialist, information technology analyst, technology solution advisor, customer solutions developer, contact center professional, or professional services engineer. These sales technologists will become more skilled and participative in a wider array of organizational levels than has previously existed for those who came strictly from the sales area of the business. The inclination of many managers when faced with the challenge of hiring or developing a sales technologist would be to employ someone who is fundamentally technologically inclined (e.g., computer analyst) and, then, attempt to transform him/her into a salesperson who understands technology. A number of years ago, when selling was not considered to be a professional skill, sales organizations routinely found salespeople internally from a host of positions throughout the company (e.g., engineers). Employers found that simply knowing the product, under- standing the employer, and being willing to hire a technologist is not the same as meeting the needs of the buyer in competitive markets. In today’s business climate, more of what were previously considered to be non-boundary spanning employees are now boundaryspanning at an increasingly fast pace. More of the organization is interfacing with customers. While these non-customer contact personnel may have been socialized in a non-client orientation, they may be likely candidates to move into these positions and receive the additional training to handle the customer development/ maintenance and sales responsibilities. More individuals are being asked to wear multiple hats, and, just as salespeople are also being asked to provide return on investment and become finance-savvy employees, finance people are becoming increasingly sales- and marketing-oriented. It is a two-way street. The wide range of integration will, in turn, allow B2B sellers to create more sustainable advantages in highly competitive markets. As a result, organizations that cultivate these STs will prosper over those organizations that reject their usage. Changing the very nature of the marketing organization, this research proposes that the usage of the ST will foster an advantageous atmosphere that will enrich Southern Business Review Spring 2005 the competitive benefit of B2B marketers. The Emerging Environment The role of the salesperson has historically and consistently been defined in a reasonably confined context and structure. Producing revenue through sales activity, salespeople are expected in very basic terms to retain existing customers, find new accounts, sell accounts, and/or replace clients when they depart. While other general expectations of salespeople often exist (training new salespeople, servicing complaints and accounts, overseeing territories, etc.), the main managerial direction of the salesperson has been altered very little in recent decades. Salespeople are first and foremost expected to create and maintain revenue. Of course, the tactics underlying this performance may vary, as sellers utilize a variety of mechanisms (e.g., relational selling, major accounts, teamwork) to accomplish performance objectives. Therefore, while the specific content of how one engages most effectively in selling for particular markets may have varied in recent years, the focus has been on, and continues to remain on, revenue performance for the vast majority of salespeople. Pursuing increased revenue as an outcome 13 measure has been evidenced by sales organizations seeking various methods to enhance their effectiveness in their operational environments. For example, while the ABC’s of selling (“always be closing”) were at one time considered an effective selling method, today’s environment relies increasingly on creating and maintaining long-term relationships between clients and sellers. Efforts to improve B2B sales force productivity have suggested revisions in the way most sales divisions traditionally view salesperson time. Revenue per available salesperson hour is proposed to integrate the salesperson’s time in calculations of sales potential and revenue generation (Siguaw, Kimes, & Gassenheimer, 2003). As part of this evolution, it will be important to examine the effects of technology-mediated tools upon the important relationship outcomes such as trust and future intentions (MacDonald & Smith, 2004). The question for sales organizations, therefore, rests on the next major evolution in the sales force. In this vein, what strategic and operational adjustments should management make to prepare both salespeople and customers for the environment of the next decade? Further, given that the salesperson will continue to sell products, how will sellers be shaped to be able to meet changing environmental needs? To respond to these concerns, it has been proposed 14 industry is on the verge of a third industrial revolution, in which issues such as technology are becoming the driving force of business commerce. The rapid and explosive growth of technology has cultivated an environment in which electronic commerce has been widely adopted to improve efficiencies in the marketing of products (Osmonbekov, Bello, & Gilliland, 2002). This environment needs visionaries who are able to incorporate increasingly rapid technological changes with the needs of the marketplace. This suggests that the possibility of recasting some of the sales force and employees from other functional areas as STs provides interesting strategic and operational opportunities for B2B sellers. Technology as an Emerging Force Sales organizations increasingly operate in an environment in which participating in risk and innovation is needed for a trade-off of gain that would not be otherwise possible. In other words, successful sales organizations are able to respond to changing conditions. Organizations that conduct stagnant operations and strategic actions in their markets will eventually be lead to declining performance results. Several aspects of salesperson attitudes (perceived usefulness, attitude Spring 2005 toward the new system, and compatibility) about sales force automation technology (Jones, Sundaram, & Chin, 2002) are worthy of examination as they affect the success of the business. In an examination of market conditions, a number of changes have occurred over the last several decades, encouraging and demanding successful firms to adjust to environmental fluctuations. For instance, a growing diversity in the types, locations, and nature of purchases has reformulated how many sellers are now addressing their markets. Changing market conditions have forced sellers to alter their methods of business in order to survive. While other alterations have occurred during the past years, dramatic changes have been seen in the application, usage, and management of data and their transmission via electronic mail (Bean, Boles, & Rodriguez Cano, 2003) and online databases (Wilson, 2003). Rapid advancements in computer and related technologies have changed how markets operate. For instance, the rapid exchange of information between customers and sellers now allows buyers to carry minimal inventory, reduce costs, and gain selective competitive advantages. Subsequent changes in e-commerce and other related types of technological progressions Southern Business Review have caused most organizations to adjust, at least to some degree, how they do business. These changes in sales approaches and emerging technologies require sales managers to examine factors important to the success of the salespeople they hire. Skills, content knowledge, attributes, and historical indicants of performance are such factors to consider (Marshall, Goebel, & Moncrief, 2003) for incorporating technology into the sales force. A tidal wave of technological advancements has created a new and very unique differential advantage among those marketers able to capitalize on these advance-ments. Among the tools of the trade in the sales arsenal is the irreplaceable laptop. The ST would find it difficult to work without the ability to close sales in the field. Mobile communication allows instant contact with sales staff personnel. Even more important is the quick access to clients. A popular handheld device allows the ST to receive calls and e-mails simultaneously, enabling negotiations of contract specifications while communicating with customer employees. Increased coordination and productivity become the key component. Even wireless ear pieces made possible by Bluetooth allow the ST to press a button to talk even when the cell phone is not in reach. Navigation systems, powerful PDA’s that quickly sync to office computers, lightweight projectors that eliminate compatibility problems for presentations, and small storage devices that allow transfers of large data files while at the client’s premise are all tools to differentiate a great marketing firm from a mediocre firm (Cummings, 2003). Sales force automation systems are electronic software-based devices that enable field salespeople and companies to keep detailed records of their dealings with customers at all stages of the sales cycle, from initial contacts through closing contracts. Companies have found success with incorporating sales and automation systems. The 60 or so salespeople at Pegasus Airwave, which markets special air mattresses to medical facilities, willingly accepted a new online system that helped speed up payments. Completely Internet-based systems such as MyNetSales .com propose suitability for small businesses. These systems have the capability to streamline the sales processes in companies with several different offices since individual sites do not need their own servers (Riggs, 2000). Those sales organizations able to construct and utilize technology in a competitive sense within the sales field are likely to gain a sustainable advantage that will enhance existing and future buyer-seller connections. STs offer unique opportunities and challenges to the sales organi- Southern Business Review Spring 2005 zations that utilize their skills and knowledge. Incorporating the Sales Technologist Sales organizations have historically gone through a number of positional changes as market conditions have demanded market adjustments. For instance, a few years ago many sales organizations determined that one method of creating greater connections to major clients was to create major accounts managers. These individuals were (and remain in many sales organizations today) chiefly responsible for crafting better relationships with significant accounts that generated large amounts of revenue. The idea behind the concept rested on the notion that better personal relationships allowed for a stronger understanding of the client, and, through this understanding, the potential for greater amounts of longterm revenue could be generated. As in most markets, the response of the sales organization has been to create connections with customers that enhance opportunities for the buyer and seller. The specific type of technologies utilized by the ST is of little strategic importance from the standpoint of the organization. What is most important is that because technologies have, and always will, change, organizations 15 adopting STs as part of their sales structures will systematically ensure that these professionals remain current in the needed technologies of that time period. Much like the salesperson of the 70’s who became more connected to telecommunications (e.g., programs like “Phone Power”), a similar type of role transformation will occur in the next decade. The role of this seller will, in many cases, expand and be more inclusive and participative in current technologies. The move toward the ST is a more formal recognition that technologies need to be increasingly incorporated into the training and development of sales organizations. As such, technologies are not just idle tools, but, instead, they offer vibrant opportunities for sellers to advance their competitive causes. It is critical in such environments that sellers are able to incorporate a variety of these changing technologies into their technological “tool boxes,” as advancements rapidly outdate new innovations. Of course, not all salespeople, or their organizations, will want or need their sellers to become STs; however, it appears that this role will increasingly become merged with the selling function, and eventually most salespeople will incorporate at least some of the ST skills and capabilities into their daily functional responsibilities. In the short-term, organizations desiring this type of strategic advantage will need to make distinct structural decisions that incorporate these skills and knowledge into the selling function. As such, the ST is a unique professional offering an array of qualities and skills. Implications for Usage of the Sales Technologist A number of implications can be gathered from the utilization of an ST. These implications represent impacts at the organizational and managerial levels. These implications are provided in Table 1 and are discussed in more detail following the table. As noted in Table 1, a number of organizational and managerial implications exist as they relate to the utilization of the ST. While these implications address a number of issues that are germane to the selling organization, they are also implications that impact top management and Table 1 Implications of the Sales Technologist Organizational Implications Organizational support from upper management needed Challenges in measuring outcome performance Managerial blending of technologies with other organizational tactics and strategies Managerial Implications Must continuously educate and re-retrain employees of seller and buyer in technologies Impact on traditional monitoring (outcome versus behaviors based) Inter-departmental educational responsibilities Ability to move between positions and/or between companies Technology provides a common connection point and mechanism for communication within the selling organization and externally with the buying organization 16 Spring 2005 Southern Business Review ultimately customers. As a result, selling organizations need to closely consider these implications before determining if the utilization of a technologist is in the best interest of the firm. For the principle of the ST to succeed, upper management organizational support of the concept is strongly needed. Because sales personnel have many conflicting responsibilities, it is easy for sales managers to minimize the technology aspect of salespeople. Upper management must commit to the concept of the ST, and this commitment must be expressed throughout the organization to clarify that its usage and continuance is a dominant beacon. One of the chief problems of using STs remains in that its usage represents a “blended strategy” designed to incur long-term results through some sort of synergy. What this suggests is that the ST is not a stand-alone strategy or tool but is, instead, part of a bigger set of organizational issues designed to work in combination with other assets. Seldom is technology able to be a standalone tool in the marketing organization since it offers no immediate advantages to clients unless it is directly linked with advantages customers need. As a result, technologies utilized to advance selling strategies need to be aligned with these strategies, ensuring consistency in assignments, principles, objectives, and resources. For example, if relational selling is the selected message a seller wishes to send buyers, the usage of technology must be crafted in such a manner to ensure clients continue to connect with the relationship message. The biggest concern in this regard is that it is easy to separate issues and not utilize technology as the supporting strategy, but instead make it the driving force around which all other issues revolve. Under such conditions, the advantage of technology to construct meaningful support mechanisms will lose its favor with the customer. Foremost, firms deciding to utilize technology as part of their selling strategies and tools must accept the idea that, from an organizational perspective, such a decision can be costly if it is determined by upper management to position the sales organization at the forefront of technologies. A firm cannot take the risk of becoming committed to technologies as part of the connection process with customers and then, a short period later, change this decision. The decision to utilize technology as an integral aspect of internal strategies should be viewed as a long-term commitment. Alterations in this approach “mid-stream” will negatively impact buyer-seller relationships. Sellers can be seen as fickle if they change their positions on the usage of Southern Business Review Spring 2005 key buyer interconnection tools. Similarly to being at the front of the product life cycle, the decision to utilize technology aggressively in the sales force suggests, from a firm perspective, that the seller is attempting to be a “leader” in technological advancements. Therefore, being placed in the leader category provides risk and costs as part of the potential returns to the firm. Other more managerial implications exist with the use of the ST concept. As part of the internal costs of adoption of this strategy, and for sellers to utilize an ST, the selling organization encumbers significant development and related training responsibilities for field personnel. If the selling organization employs personnel who do not have current technological understanding and skills, the firm has to develop these skills to an acceptable level. Correspondingly, if the organization hires personnel with these skills, it still incurs the expensive responsibility of maintaining this knowledge as the requirements of technology change. Further, part of the advantage is in allowing customers to benefit from the usage of technology. This may include the client actually participating in the usage of the technology, suggesting that critical professional training, maintenance, and preparations for the utilization of the technology will often fall into the hands of the seller. Under these circumstances, it is 17 critical to provide the highest degree of professional education for clients, which is likely, at least in part, to fall into the responsibility domain of the seller. The measurement of the STs’ success is one of the factors that separates them from other organizational members. It is not likely, however, that the issues of quota and account productivity will become unimportant for these individuals. Instead, much like account managers have in many firms been directed toward longer term outcome measurement systems (less immediate sales results expected), it is possible that, if a limited number of sales personnel are designated as STs, a restructuring of outcome measurements may be necessary for firms. For instance, one of the responsibilities of the ST might be to work with other salespeople implementing new technologies into the sales force. As a major objective, the accomplishment of this task will need to be measured. The task should not be minimized if it is to be successful. The ST is the key for linking sales and staff personnel in implementing new technologies in the field. The ST should be utilized to first determine the suitability and acceptability of new field technologies. Then, based on successful field experiences, he/she should be utilized as an opinion maker in the integration of technologies to 18 other sales professionals and inter-departmental colleagues. Again, such quasi-management activities suggest he/she needs to be on a separate or different control system. Employees who represent STs are individuals who are at the introduction stage of the product life cycle in terms of application and usage of technologies. These salespeople will offer flexibility in moving between positions in and between business units. As with the PLC, early stages are more expensive to maintain, and replacement can be costly. Equally, competitive firms will seek more rapid remedies of perceived lost marketplace positioning by duplicating successful strategies through the least expensive manner possible such as hiring away successful Sts; however, once a selling organization has made the decision to utilize STs, managers should be reminded that in many respects retention of current employees is less expensive than retraining and efforts to maintain these resources should be made. Sales Technologists will have to assume much of the field training of internal and external personnel. Forms of elearning modules are being successfully implemented to help salespeople understand products at Fifth Third Bank (Nelson, 2003). This type of learning tool may be expanded to assist participants of both sides of the exchange. The STs will be expected to enhance Spring 2005 knowledge in the selling organization as well as that of customers. As a result, they must be skilled communicators who are able to build the knowledge base of users in a very non-threatening atmosphere. One of the real strengths of STs is that they allow the sales organization to cross over to a variety of other organizational and functional levels through the language of technology. Because technology is the language of the next decade, it provides a common connection point and mechanism for internal communications that seem to be becoming prevalent. Further, as customers become increasingly more technologically demanding, the technologist is able to reach more of the client’s functional areas through this common language. In turn, STs are able to construct a stronger linkage with clients via a common thread of “language.” References Andersen, P. H. (2001). Relationship development and marketing communication: An integrative model. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 16(3): 167-182. Bean, C. J., Boles, J. S., & Rodriguez Cano, C. (2003). Electronic mail appraisal: A buyer and seller survey. Journal of Business and Industrial Southern Business Review Marketing, 18(4-5): 419434. Cummings, B. (2003). Tools of the trade. Sales and Marketing Management, 155(10): 46-47. Johnston, M. W. & Marshall, G. W. (2003). Churchill, Ford, and Walker’s sales force management, 7th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Jones, E., Sundaram, S., & Chin, W. (2002). Factors leading to sales force automation use: A longitudinal analysis,” The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22 (Summer): 145-156. Leach, M. P. & Liu, A. (2003). Investigating interrelationships among sales training evaluation methods. Journal of Personnel Selling & Sales Management, 23(Fall): 327-339. MacDonald, J. B. & Smith, K. (2004). The effects of technology-mediated communication on industrial buyer behavior. Industrial Marketing Management, 33 (February): 107-116. Southern Business Review Marshall, G. W., Goebel, D. J., & Moncrief, W. C. (2003). Hiring for success at the buyer-seller interface. Journal of Business Research, 56 (April): 247253. Nelson, K. (2003). Fifth Third improves cross-sell ratios with e-learning. Bank Systems & Technology, 40 (September): 20-21. O’Donnell, A. (2003). Tech stressed at New Aetna school. Insurance & Technology, 28 (September): 13-14. Osmonbekov, T., Bello, D. C., & Gilliland, D. J. (2002). Adoption of electronic commerce tools in business procurement: Enhanced buying structure and processes. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17 (2/3): 151166. Riggs, L. (2000). Speeding sales: Companies want fast automation systems that do it all. Direct Marketing Business Intelligence, (July1): 1-2. Sales and Marketing Management, 155 (August): 25-26. Siguaw, J. A., Kimes, S. E., & Gassenheimer, J. B. (2003). B2B sales force productivity: Applications of revenue management strategies to sales management. Industrial Marketing Management, 32 (October): 539-547. Speier, C. & Venkatesh, V. (2002). The hidden minefields in the adoption of sales force automation. Journal of Marketing, 66 (July): 98-112. Widmier, S. M., Jackson, Jr., D. W., & McCabe, D. B. (2002). Infusing Technology into personal selling. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22 (Summer): 189-198. Wilson, D. R. (2003). Using online databases for developing prioritized sales leads. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 18 (4-5): 388-402. Schrage, M. (2003). Software that’s actually useful. Spring 2005 19 20 Spring 2005 Southern Business Review Leadership and Upward Influence: A Survey of Business School Deans J. Michael McDonald and Carl W. Gooding An empirical study of how business school deans use “upward” influence tactics as a leadership tool to get things done has never appeared in the research literature on management. The purpose of this study is to examine what types of influence tactics business school deans use with their superiors. The methodology includes examining how frequently deans used various upward influence tactics and how effective those tactics were considered to be. Additionally, the researchers seek to compare the tactics used by business school deans to those used by managers in general. Do business school deans use the same upward J. Michael McDonald, Ph.D., is director of Graduate Studies, College of Business Administration, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30460-8050. Carl W. Gooding, Ph.D., is professor of management, College of Business, Jacksonville State University, Anniston, AL, 36205. Southern Business Review influence tactics as other managers? Are those tactics used as frequently by deans as by other managers? Are the tactics used by deans viewed as effective for managers? While some might argue business school deans are no different than other managers in terms of their leadership styles and patterns of behavior, the researchers hypothesize otherwise. Business managers generally have clearly defined goals to work toward such as profitability, return on investment, cost reduction, productivity, and quality improvements. Academic deans, however, work in environments in which the goals are less clearly defined and much more subject to budgetary constraints and philosophical differences. Business school deans, in particular, often report to superiors whose backgrounds are not in business. Those superiors frequently do not share the same goals, values, points of view, or needs (e.g., AACSB accreditation) as business deans. Hence, it is incumbent upon the business dean to learn how to lead Spring 2005 “upward.” In a very real sense, the business school dean is leading upward as resources are negotiated. To be effective, the dean of business must understand that upward power (and influence) is partly based on the ability and willingness to use influence tactics. To negotiate for limited resources, an effective dean will, by necessity, have to appreciate the upward influence nature of leadership. Literature Review Power and Upward Influence Leadership, influence, and power are inextricably linked. In fact, some scholars think that understanding power and the use of influence might be the most important concepts in all of leadership (Burns, 1978; Gardner, 1990; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989). While the concepts “power” and “influence” are often used synonymously, for this study, power is defined as the capacity to cause change. Influence is the degree of actual change in a target 21 person’s attitude, values, beliefs, or behaviors (Hughes, Gannett, & Curphy, 2002). In one sense, power is the potential that a leader has to influence others. The leader then uses influence tactics, methods, and actual behaviors to affect change in others. Several authors note that successful managers expand their power by learning how “to influence someone higher in the formal hierarchy of authority in the organization” (Kanter, 1983; Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Kotter, 1985; 1990). Early research (Pelz, 1959) suggests that upward influence is a key factor in the effectiveness of managers. Others observe that the ability to influence superiors can be “acquired, enhanced, or reduced” by a manager’s behavior (Case, Dosier, Murkison, & Keys, 1988; Bartolome & Laurent, 1986). Research has demonstrated that leaders’ effectiveness with subordinates depends heavily on their abilities to develop upward influence with superiors (Pelz, 1959; Bartolume & Laurent, 1986). Likewise, influence with superiors depends on the ability of a leader to accomplish things through subordinates (Uyterhoeven, 1972; Ruello, 1973). Consequently, the more the leader enters into a set of reciprocal relationships, the more a resulting cycle develops. As the leader becomes more effective in influencing the superior, he/she will become more 22 effective with subordinates. The reverse is equally true; as the leader gains influence with subordinates, influence will be enhanced with the superior. In terms of using upward influence tactics effectively, several empirical studies offer strong support for the idea that the most effective leaders in organizations understand the nature of influence, understand what influence tactics are available to them, and know “how” and “when” to use those tactics (Case et al., 1988; Kaplan, 1986; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Mowday, 1978; Schilit & Locke, 1982; Yukl & Falbe, 1990). It is difficult to find empirical data supporting these conclusions. Numerous articles have been published in trade-oriented publications like the Chronicle of Higher Education, Selections (Graduate Management Admissions Council–GMAC), and various AACSB publications such as Biz Ed. While these articles do provide guidance and interesting, anecdotal, caseoriented advice, none has an empirical, research-oriented focus (Tyson, 2003; Bijoux, 2003; Schmotter, 1998). One empirical study found in the literature that examined leadership among business deans basically examined clique formation (Hartman, Lundberg, & Lee, 1997). In this study of 18 deans at AACSB schools, the predictability in what causes deans to form communication cliques was very limited. This Spring 2005 study attempted to identify which factors might cause business deans to form informal networks. The primary focus of this study was how business school deans form communication cliques as a way of dealing with changes in AACSB guidelines. Location (i.e., proximity to another college) and opinion similarity on AACSB issues were the most important factors related to clique formation. Research Methods Based on the work of Keys and Case (1990), ten upward influence tactics identified in similar surveys were used. Preliminary field interviews conducted among several business deans (or retired deans), yielded two additional upward influence tactics. These two tactics (“developing and showing support of other people” and “showing confidence and support for my boss”) were added to the survey. Then a survey identifying the twelve upward influence methods (i.e., tactics) was designed. The actual ordering of these methods was random to avoid affecting the resulting rankings. The surveys were administered to a group of business school deans attending a meeting of the Southern Business Administrators Association. This group meets semiannually to discuss issues of importance to business school leaders. While most of the deans present were from Southern Business Review As the results show in Table 2, the most frequently used tactic for deans influencing their own bosses was to “present a rational explana- tion” for what was needed. This is consistent with research with other types of leaders and in other types of settings, be it in the not-forprofit or for-profit sectors. In fact, most of the influence literature suggests that direct, simple, rational, logical explanation for why something is needed tends to be the most effective tactic with any “direction” of influence, i.e., with subordinates, peers, customers, etc. The next most frequently used tactic was, surprisingly, to “tell, argue, or talk without support.” The ranking of this tactic was surprising since it was assumed that the deans as a group would be less likely to be this forceful so quickly without exhausting other tactics; however, in defense of deans, other surveys suggest that managers in general tend to quickly move into the “telling-arguing” tactic if their first tactic does not achieve results (Case et al., 1988). As seen in Table 1, the third most frequently used tactic was to “use other people as a platform to present ideas.” This tactic, while used more frequently by the deans, is the sixth most used tactic by managers in general (Case et al., 1988). Since the third, fourth, and fifth most frequently used tactics by the deans also involved people issues, it might be that business deans place a much greater emphasis on human relations and collegial behavior than do managers in other settings. The deans in Southern Business Review Spring 2005 AACSB schools, not all of them were. The deans represented a cross-section of schools from large to small, from private to public, and mostly from the Southeastern U.S. A 100 percent response rate was obtained from the 53 deans participating in the conference. The survey asked the deans to rank twelve influence methods (tactics) from one to twelve in terms of frequency of use. For example, if a dean used the tactic of “presenting a rational explanation” with his/her boss more than he/she used any other tactic, he/she was to rank that tactic as number one. Then, the dean was asked to identify the second most frequently used tactic. These rankings of “frequencies of use” were summed and divided by the total number of deans responding. The result of this was a rank ordering that could be compared to the Case et al. (1988) study of managers. This same ranking procedure was used to identify how effective the deans found each influence tactic. Similar procedures were used to sum the individual rankings and a mean response was calculated. The resulting sum totals and mean rankings are shown in Table 1. Survey Results this study ranked “threatening” the boss as the least frequently used tactic. This is consistent with other studies of upward influence. The dean in an academic environment has learned to be “collegial” (if nothing else) with his/her superior, even when the dean’s requests are turned down. One particularly interesting result from this survey of deans is that all 53 ranked “threatening the boss” as the least used of any of the tactics. This does suggest that business deans are slightly different from the managers in the Case et al. (1988) study. (Their study found that “offering to trade favors or concessions” with their bosses was the least used upward influence tactic.) The effectiveness of the influence methods/tactics are shown in Table 2 as well. Consistent with other surveys, the deans ranked “presenting a rational explanation” to your boss as the most effective tactic; however, after this tactic, the effectiveness rankings do not match the frequency rankings on items “b” through “h.” For example, while the deans ranked “telling, arguing, or talking without support” as their second most frequently used tactic, they ranked it fifth in terms of effectiveness. Likewise, “presenting a complete plan to your boss” was seventh in frequency, yet second in terms of effectiveness. 23 Discussion The biggest difference between deans and executives appears to be the time devoted to “presenting complete plans.” Industry managers ranked “presenting a complete plan” as their third most used tactic, while deans ranked it seventh. Industry managers ranked “presenting an example of parallel situations” as the fourth most frequently used, while deans ranked it eighth. Clearly, the deans in this study do differ from other leaders in terms of their frequency of presenting complete plans and examples from parallel situations. This may be an area in which deans could become more effective as leaders. For example, a surprising finding in this survey was learning how quickly business deans shift to a tactic of “telling, arguing, or talking without support.” Since the researchers were able to summarize the data from the surveys and feed it back to the deans before they adjourned from their meeting, it was interesting to hear one dean’s explanation: “I suppose we all know what we ought to be doing, but sometimes we’re only human and fail to do it.” These survey results suggest that most deans of business schools are like their counterparts in industry. Clearly, followup research needs to be done with a larger sample. An interesting possibility would be to compare deans of business schools to their peer deans in Table 1 Influence Methods* To Influence your boss … How frequently do you use this tactic? Sum Total a. Presenting a rational explanation b. Mean Ranking How effective is this tactic? Sum Total Mean Ranking 84 1.6 64 1.2 Telling, arguing, or talking without support 117 2.2 296 5.6 c. Using other people as a platform 137 2.6 202 3.8 d. Developing and showing support of other people (e.g., employees, staff, faculty, alumni, etc.) 219 4.1 370 6.9 e. Showing confidence and support for my boss 286 5.4 425 8.0 f. Using persistence and repetition 347 6.5 219 4.1 g. Presenting a complete plan 391 7.4 150 2.8 h. Presenting an example of parallel situation 455 8.6 213 4.0 i. Listening, offering advice, or soliciting advice 463 8.7 447 8.4 j. Offering to trade favors or concessions 478 9.0 569 10.7 k. Using manipulative techniques 552 10.4 544 10.3 l. Threatening 636 12.0 625 11.8 * The “Sum Total” was calculated by adding all individual rankings of the 53 deans. The “Mean” was calculated by dividing the “Sum Total” by the number of deans responding (N = 53). 24 Spring 2005 Southern Business Review Table 2 Influence Methods To Influence your boss … How frequently do you use this tactic? Deans Managers* How effective is this tactic? Deans Managers* a. Presenting a rational explanation 1 1 1 1 b. Telling, arguing, or talking without support 2 2 5 2 c. Using other people as a platform 3 6 3 6 d. Developing and showing support of other people (e.g., employees, staff, faculty, alumni, etc.) 4 7 7 7 e. Showing confidence and support for my boss 5 N/A+ 8 N/A+ f. Using persistence and repetition 6 5 6 5 g. Presenting a complete plan 7 3 2 3 h. Presenting an example of parallel situation 8 4 4 4 i. Listening, offering advice, or soliciting advice 9 N/A+ 9 N/A+ j. Offering to trade favors or concessions 10 10 11 10 k. Using manipulative techniques 11 8 10 9 l. Threatening 12 9 12 8 * Case et al., 1988 + not available from the Case et al. (1988) study. Rank ordering of the Case et al. research is not exactly parallel to the deans survey because in this study’s field interviews, several deans mentioned that “showing confidence and support for my boss” and “listening and offering advice” were important methods. These tactics were not used in the Case et al. study. other disciplines to see what similarities and differences might exist. A reasonable argument can be made that influence tactics are learned behaviors, and anything that can be learned, can be “unlearned” or changed. Hopefully, a dean who wants to be as effective as possible will want to learn how to develop more influence in all directions. Southern Business Review References Bartolume, F. & Laurent, A. (1986). The manager: Master and servant of power. Harvard Business Review, 64 (6): 77-81. Bijoux, T. (2003, MarchApril). Diving into the dean pool. Biz Ed: 36-41. Spring 2005 Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Rowe. Case, T., Dosier, L., Murkison G., & Keys, B. (1988). How managers influence superiors: A study of upward influence tactics. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 9 (4): 25-31. 25 Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press. Hartman, S., Lundberg, O., & Lee, D. (1997, October). Factors related to the formation of a communication clique among business deans. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5 (4): 388-400. Hinkin, T. R. & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of new scales to measure the French and Raven bases of power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 561-567. Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2002). Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kaplan, R. E. (1986). Trade routes: The manager’s network of relationship. Organizational Dynamics, (Spring): 37-52. 26 Keys B. & Case, T. (1990). How to become an influential manager. Academy of Management Executive, 4 (4): 38-51. Kipnis, D. & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward influence styles: Relationship with performance evaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: 528-542. Kotter, J. R. (1985, September). Power and influence: Beyond formal authority. Macmillan Executive Summary Program: 1-8. Kotter, J. R. (1990, MayJune). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review: 103-111 Mowday, R. T. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 137-156. Pelz, D. C. (1959). Influence: Key to effective leadership in the first line supervisor. Personnel, 29: 209-217. Spring 2005 Ruello, S. H. (1973, July). Transferring managerial concepts and techniques to operating management. Advanced Management Journal. Schilit, W. K. & Locke, E. (1982). A study of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 304-316. Schmotter, J. W. (1998). An interview with Dean D. Joseph White. Selections, (Winter): 22-27. Tyson, G. (2003). As uncertainty persists, deans talk dollars. Selections, (Spring): 24-28. Uyterhoeven, H. (1972). General managers in the middle. Harvard Business Review, 50 (92): 75-85. Yukl, G. & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 132-140. Southern Business Review SOUTHERN BUSINESS REVIEW P. O. Box 8109 Statesboro, GA 30460-8109 A Unit of the University System of Georgia Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED Non-Profit Organization U.S. Postage Paid Permit No. 286 Statesboro, GA