Erasmus School of Economics
Department of Marketing
Master’s Thesis
BEHAVIORAL AND GENETIC VALIDATION OF
CUSTOMER ORIENTATION
Name:
Niccolò G. Fanin
Student ID:
358571
Supervisor:
W. E. van den Berg
Date:
August 6, 2012
1
ABSTRACT
Representing and expressing the marketing concept applied to sales, the Customer
Orientation seems the most effective method to establish a long-term relationship and
effectively deliver value to customers. Many scholars defined the customer
orientation and explained how salespeople achieve it. On the other hand, the main aim
of this study is to explain why salespeople better and more naturally engage in this
sales approach. By doing this, we further validate the concept, taking insights from
psychology, endocrinology and genetics.
Based on the literature, we hypothesized that customer orientated salespeople are
sensation seekers, proactive and susceptible to embarrassment. On the other hand, we
stated that sales oriented salespeople are not sensation seekers, not proactive and
usually do not feel embarrassed. Based on that, we further infer that the first ones
possess a particular dopamine neurotransmitter, the DRD4-7R; while, the second ones
the DRD2-A1.
We worked with a sample of 60 salespeople, we assessed their psychological
tendencies through questionnaires and their DNA, looking for specific genes. What
we did demonstrate is that the DRD4-7R is strongly connected through the customer
Orientation and, in turn, to sensation seeking and proactivity. In fact, these behavioral
tendencies naturally help and support the salespeople in engaging in the specific sales
approach.
2
TABLE OF CONTENT
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………..2
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………….5
The concept of customer orientation…………………………………………………………...9
Customer orientation: effects, influences and correlations……………….12
Customer orientation: causes and antecedents………………………………..15
Sales orientation…………………………………………………………………………….17
Endophenotypes……………………………………………………………………………………….19
Sensation seeking…………………………………………………………………………...20
Sensation seeking and customer orientation……………………………………20
Proactivity……………………………………………………………………………………..23
Proactivity and customer orientation………………………………………………24
Embarrassment………………………………………………………………………………27
Embarrassment and customer orientation……………………………………….28
Genotypes…………………………………………………………………………………………………31
Dopamine……………………………………………………………………………………….31
Sensation seeking……………………………………………………………………………33
Proactivity………………………………………………………………………………………34
Method………………………………………………………………………………………………………38
Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………41
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………44
Endophenotypes analysis………………....……………………………………………..45
Genetic analysis……………………....………………………………………………………48
3
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………..49
Managerial implications…………………………………………………………………51
Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………………….53
Technical appendix…………………………………………………………………………………..57
References……………………………………………………………………………………………….61
4
INTRODUCTION
Scholars register a current trend in business-to-business marketing: the shift from
sales of products to sales of customized solutions (Tuli, Kohli, & Bharadwaj, 2007).
This is the result of an increased complexity of the selling process. Customers
demand more complex and customized solutions, as an answer to multifaceted
problems. This new complex environment requires salespeople to invest considerably
more time and efforts in building a trustworthy relationship with the customer, by
which they identify the needs first and then predispose a unique mix of available
resources that satisfy those needs (Bonney & Williams, 2009; Dhar, Menon, &
Maach, 2004; W. Verbeke, Dietz, & Verwaal, 2011).
The most important selling paper of the 20th century according to Leigh, Pullins, &
Comer (2007), i.e., Churchill Jr, Ford, Hartley, & Walker Jr, (1985) ,characterizes six
sales drivers that considerably affect the overall selling performance: (1) personal
characteristics, (2) skill levels, (3) role perceptions, (4) aptitude, (5) motivation, and
(6) organizational/environmental variables. Important here is that they suggest that
performance is mainly affected by so-called “influenceable” determinants (i.e., skill
level, role perceptions, and motivation), not only by personal characteristics (i.e,
aptitude, personal characteristics). .
In line with the current market developments, (Bonney & Williams, 2009) observed
that today salespeople need to engage in (sales) opportunity recognition, rather than
just products selling, and are required to provide customized and unique solutions.
5
More specifically, solution-oriented sellers engage in awareness (i.e., perception of
elements, comprehension their meanings, and projection of their status in the future),
problem-solution discovery (i.e., process of formulating responses to elements
individuated in awareness; it defines customers’ problem and explore potential
solutions), and evaluation (i.e., cognitive process used to assess the workability of
ideas, resources needed and their value). Throughout these activities, salesperson can
engage in spotting the opportunities and conceive the most effective mix of resources,
adapt to the specific customer.
Building on this work, (W. Verbeke et al., 2011) conducted a meta-study on sales
performance and found that there are five drivers of sales performance that have an
independent predictive effect on sales performance: (1) selling-related knowledge
(i.e., the depth and width of knowledge base that salespeople need to size up sales
situations, classify prospects, and select appropriate sales strategies for clients (2)
degree of adaptiveness (i.e., altering of sales behavior in accordance to perceived
information about the selling situation), (3) role ambiguity (i.e., perceived of lack of
information and uncertainty about expectations of different role set members, (4)
cognitive aptitude (i.e., general mental ability, verbal ability, and qualitative ability,
(5) and work engagement (i.e., persistent positive affective-motivational state of
fulfillment.
Their explanation is that the current environment and the world are moving toward a
knowledge-intensive (W. Verbeke et al., 2011; W. J. Verbeke, Belschak, Bakker, &
Dietz, 2008) and science-based economy (Stremersch & Van Dyck, 2009). This
forces the salespeople to engage in more complex task: knowledge brokering activity.
6
More specifically, they are required to transfer know-why and know-how to
customers and companies (W. Verbeke et al., 2011). As a result, nowadays the
(selling-related) knowledge plays an important role and has become an endogenous
part of the creation of value in terms of innovation, production, marketing, and selling
products and services (W. Verbeke et al., 2011). Salespeople are required to
communicate how their products or services solve the explicit and latent customers’
problems (W. Verbeke et al., 2011). They have to collect information from the
company about the products and transfer them to the customers; in addition, they have
to investigate customers’ needs and transfer them to the company for future
products/solutions. As a consequence, in the current knowledge-intense economy the
relationship between the customer and the seller is even more important than in the
past, as well as the salesperson’s cognitive abilities to communicate the knowledge
(Schmidt & Hunter, 2004).
To conclude, one specific and general trend is observable regarding the driver of sales
performance evolution: the overall increased amount of complexity of the customersalesperson interaction process. Customers’ needs are more multifaceted and its
profitable resolution require salespeople to be solution providers. In order to fully
understand the needs of the customer, and subsequently provide the custom solution
that they require, salespeople need to be socially skilled (W. J. Verbeke et al., 2008),
empathic, and able to metalize the customers (latent) needs (Dietvorst et al., 2009).
Finally, they need to possess the cognitive ability to manage more complex
knowledge and resources for conceiving an effective and profitable mix of those, able
to solve customers’ needs.
7
However, the concept of focusing on, and interacting with the customer, in an attempt
to co-create the best possible solutions is not new to the field of selling. Robert Saxe
and Barton Weitz in 1982 introduced the concepts of Customer Orientation and Sales
Orientation within selling context, in one of the top ten selling articles of the twentieth
century (Leigh et al., 2001). They defined the two approaches adopted by salespeople
and developed a scale to measure the degree to which salespeople engage in
consumer-orientated or sales-oriented selling (Saxe & Weitz, 1982), the SOCO. In
short, customer oriented selling is a sales orientation in which co-creation, interaction
with the customer and identifying novel opportunities and solutions are key. In
contrast, sales oriented salesperson will simply try to pressure the customer into
buying, sometimes even by moving ambiguous or distorted information towards their
clients. As we will elaborate on below, we conceive having a customer oriented sales
approach as a prerequisite towards becoming a knowledge broker.
The aim of this study is to further study the concept of customer orientation, in an
effort to further conceptualize, understand and up-date the concept of customer
oriented selling. Subsequently, we will gauge possible underlying personality traits
(endophenotypes) that might be associate with customer orientation. Finally, we will
try to link these endophenotypes with biolgocial markers, in an attempt to further
validate the concept of customer orientation. More specifically, following (Bagozzi,
Verbeke, Berg, Rietdijk, & Dietvorst, 2011) we will look for genetic variants.
The paper flows as follows. First we will present an overview of the existing literature
regarding customer orientation. Second we will present data that define potentially
interesting endophenotypes that underlie this selling strategy. After that, we will
8
present data on the genetic antecedents on customer orientation. We will draw
conclusions and end with managerial implications and limitations.
9
THE CONCEPT OF CUSTOMER ORIENTATION
Kurtz, Dodge, and Klompmaker in 1976 described professionalism in sales as the
adoption of problem-solving approach to the job. In other words, they highlighted that
professional salespeople do not sell products: they are solution providers who
understand customers’ needs and deliver value (Bosworth, 1995). This was in line by
earlier observations by Bursk, (1947), who introduced the idea of “low-pressure
selling”, and Gwinner (1968) who expressed the notion of need satisfaction/problem
solution selling approach. Later, the concept was deepened by (Rieser, 1962) and
contrasted against approaches based on camaraderie and/or pressure, which are
conceived to be characteristics of a sales orientation selling orientation.
Contempory salespeople are required to determine the needs of a target market and
adapt themselves to satisfy those needs better than its competitors (Saxe & Weitz,
1982). In other words, they create value (i.e., customers’ perspective of achieving
desired benefits attributable to the salesperson, and the company (Singh & Koshy,
2011) with customers’ needs in mind (Jaramillo, Ladik, Marshall, & Mulki, 2007).
More specifically, Michel, Vargo, & Lusch, (2008) argued that shifting the focus of
the offering from an output to a process of value creation makes the consumer to
perceive the supplier as an organizer of this process, in which the customer is a coproducer, rather than a receiver of value. Consequently, they establish a long-term
relationship, reciprocally advantageous for both involved parts (Anderson, 1996;
Bagozzi et al., 2011).
10
In their landmark paper, Saxe & Weitz, (1982) posit that the customer oriented selling
is strongly connected with the concept of marketing per se. It is an integrated and
companywide approach in which all of the firm’s activities are directed toward
providing customer satisfaction and establishing mutually beneficial, long-term
relationships with its market (Kotler, 1972). More specifically, customer orientation is
the “degree to which salespeople practice the marketing concept by trying to help
customers make the purchase decisions that will satisfy customers needs” (Saxe &
Weitz, 1982). As such, customer oriented salespeople aim at providing satisfaction to
consumers, through the application of marketing concept at individual level (Singh &
Koshy, 2012) focusing in the long-term satisfaction (Saxe & Weitz, 1982; Singh &
Koshy, 2012). Later, Singh & Koshy, (2012) updated the customer orientation
definition as customer-centric behaviors, which includes gathering and disseminating
information relevant for consumers, to understand and continuously fulfill their
hierarchy of latent needs, and to keep them satisfied by creating and delivering value
through long-term relationships. Substantially, they introduce customer orientation as
a key driver also the concept of “value” (Singh & Koshy, 2012).
According to the dimensions of the SOCO scale (Saxe & Weitz, 1982), customer
orientation has the following domain areas: desire to help customers make satisfactory
purchase decisions, ability to help customer assess their needs, offer products that
satisfy their needs, adapt sales presentations to match customer interests, avoid
deceptive or manipulative tactics, and avoid the use of high pressure selling. Later in
2012, Singh and Koshy updated the domain areas: customer oriented salespeople
must provide information to customers (i.e., declarative knowledge and procedural
knowledge), understand customers’ needs (i.e., the hierarchy of latent and expressed
11
needs, in short and long term (Simester, Hauser, Wernerfelt, & Rust, 2000), fulfill
customer needs continuously (by having motivation and enjoyment in selling process
(Brown, Mowen, Donavan, & Licata, 2002)), create and deliver customer value,
sustain customer satisfaction (“goal-directed activity to be continuously strived for”)
and maintain long-term relationships with customers.
Customer oriented salespeople, as opposed to sales-oriented, constantly source
knowledge, such that they build insights (i.e., categories and solutions) that allow
them to spot customer needs better and connect those needs categories and solutions
(i.e., knowledge brokering activity) (Bagozzi et al., 2011). Thus, they engage in
analogical reasoning, situational cognition, and involve the customer in stimulating
and functional conversations; so that, energizing discussion in intellectual and
emotional ways. As a result, the sales process becomes a “co-creation of solutions”
(Bagozzi et al., 2011).
Furthermore, customer oriented salespeople avoid behaviors that might result in
consumer dissatisfaction, and present a high concern for the others/high concern for
the self, as premise for a mutually beneficial relationship (Bagozzi et al., 2011). As a
result, customer oriented salespeople avoid actions which sacrifice customer interest
to increase the probability of making immediate sale (Jaramillo et al., 2007; Saxe &
Weitz, 1982; Singh & Koshy, 2012).
Customer orientation: effects, influences and correlations
12
Scholars agree that customer orientation not only has specific effect on the
relationship customer-seller, but also involves and affect the overall firm. According
to Jaramillo et al., (2007), the adoption of CO selling approach influences employees,
customers and the overall organization.
In fact, it affects the implementation of innovative technology, job attitudes, turnover
intentions, and organizational citizenship behavior (Jaramillo et al., 2007). On the
customer side, it fosters relationship development, satisfaction and loyalty (Jaramillo
et al., 2007). From the perspective of the company of the salesperson, it influences
innovation, the adaptive selling, relationships with supervisors, job satisfaction,
motivation and commitment toward the organization (Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & Taylor,
2002; Siguaw, Brown, & Widing, 1994; Williams & Attaway, 1996).
Additionally, Siguaw et al., (1994) concluded that there is a positive correlation
between the adoption of the customer orientation and positive sale performance
(sustained also by Rozell, Pettijohn, & Parker, (2004), especially, but not only
(Jaramillo et al., 2007), in B2B environment (Johnston & Marshall, 2005; Rackham &
DeVincentis, 1998). Consistent with this, Singh & Koshy, (2011) pinpointed positive
association between customer orientation, value creation in the relationship and
relationship development. Furthermore, Singh & Koshy, (2012) explain that customer
orientation is positively correlated with learning goal orientation which is the process
by which salespeople enjoy the process of learning and use it in order to achieve their
goals (Harris, Mowen, & Brown, 2005; Sujan, Weitz, & Kumar, 1994), interaction
orientation (i.e., task orientation) (Novicevic & Harvey, 2001), people orientation
13
(Jordan & Cartwright, 1998), and service orientation (i.e., customers’ treatment,
employee empowerment, and service aspects (Lytle, Hom, & Mokwa, 1998)).
However, customer orientation presents some side effects and risks; thus, it requires
an effective management in order to be profitable. Customer oriented salespeople
have to face and overcome the opportunity cost that arises when short-term sales are
sacrificed to maintain customer satisfaction and increase the probability of future
purchase (Pettijohn et al., 2002; Saxe & Weitz, 1982). In addition, they also have to
face the costs supported and time spent in gathering information about customers’
needs, rather than selling (Saxe & Weitz, 1982; Singh & Koshy, 2011). Saxe &
Weitz, (1982) individuated two main circumstances that permit the customer-oriented
salespeople to profitably engage in the sales approach. They need independency and
availability of resources in order to be able to tailor offering to customers’ needs.
More specifically, they need the ability to understand the needs and accessibility of a
broad range of products that can be offered as solutions. Then, they need to be able to
establish a free flow of information, result of a close and trustworthy relationship
between the seller and the customer. Indeed, the salespeople are required to represent
a source of trustworthy information and a partner with which the customers
collaborate in order to identify first, and then solve, their needs (Jaramillo et al.,
2007). By doing so, they are similarly able to reduce the cost per sale and increase
satisfaction for both parts (Saxe & Weitz, 1982).
To sum up, Saxe and Weitz propose two situational factors that determine the
customer orientation’s benefits to overweigh its cost: (1) relations, which is
conceived as the degree to which the customer-salesperson relationship is long-term
14
and cooperative” and (2) ability to help, which is “ability of salespeople to help their
customers satisfy their needs”.
Customer orientation: causes and antecedents
During the last decade, scholars focused on discovering customer orientation’s
antecedents and causes: they make connections with personality traits, psychological,
biological and genotypic antecedents. Specifically, Bagozzi et al., (2011) explored the
genetic and neurological bases for customer orientation and contrast them with sales
orientation. They have discovered many interesting findings, which are presented
here.
Firstly, customer orientation is related to empathy (Bagozzi et al., 2011; Widmier,
2002), since it is composed by perspective-taking and empathic concern (McBane,
1995), both positively correlated to adaptive selling (Giacobbe, Jackson Jr, Crosby, &
Bridges, 2006), thus to customer orientation (Franke & Park, 2006). In fact,
salespeople high in perspective-taking are better able to understand and meet the
special needs of each customer (Widmier, 2002). On the other hand, the emotional
dimension of empathy (i.e., empathic concern) permits the salesperson to have
vicarious emotional responses, as a result of emotional experiences of others (Brems,
1989). This creates a desire to maximize their vicarious enjoyment through the
satisfaction of the customer (Widmier, 2002).
Secondly, customer oriented salespeople engage in opportunity recognition (Bonney
& Williams, 2009), which is composed by contextual knowledge formation,
15
motivation to learn about the customers and buying center knowledge formation
(Bagozzi et al., 2011). More specifically, the opportunity recognition ability requires
salespeople to develop abstract insight, remain curious and sensitive to threats,
opportunity and development in the relationship with the customers (Bagozzi et al.,
2011). As a result, they establish better connections between what consumers
communicate and their own knowledge and experience of the solutions. Then, they
maintain a high motivation and readiness to learn about customers needs and to meet
those needs with products and services (Bagozzi et al., 2011). Lastly, opportunity
recognition demands to address customers’ pain with tailored solutions, but also
manage resistance to adoption and political issue concerning the purchase (Bagozzi et
al., 2011).
Thirdly, the complexity and the requirements of the current sales world make
salespersons’ role closer to the concept of entrepreneurship (Bonney & Williams,
2009). In fact, there are many similarities between them. Entrepreneurship could be
defined as discovering and exploiting resources misallocations; in other words, it
means to find new and profitable ways to allocate resources (Bonney & Williams,
2009). This concept and activities parallel the task in which is involved a solutionprovider salesperson (Bonney & Williams, 2009). Salespeople must be sensitive to
customers and market patterns, must engage in time- and effort-consuming
relationships with customers in order to understand their needs, to spot new sales
opportunities, and to establish a long-term and trustworthy relationship. To conclude,
salespeople are required to risk, invest resources in order to create future and
uncertain value; this is the main idea of entrepreneur (Bonney & Williams, 2009).
16
Sales Orientation
In order to deepen the Customer Orientation concept, Sales Orientation definition and
correlation are presented.
Sales orientation is widely discussed in the literature and opposed to Customer
orientation (Saxe & Weitz, 1982). Rieser, (1962) associated it with sales approaches
based on camaraderie and/or pressure. Later, Saxe & Weitz, (1982) correlated the
selling approach to actions aimed at realizing sales, even if they could be cause of
customer dissatisfaction in the long run. Further, they related it to low concern for the
others/high concern for the self. In fact, when a salesperson applies a sales orientation
s/he will try to achieve the sales, with no interest to the real needs of the customers.
Sales oriented salespeople are focused exclusively on “getting the sale” (Boles, Babin,
Brashear, & Brooks, 2001), performance orientation (Singh & Koshy, 2012), are
more likely to use tricks and techniques to get people to buy a product or service
(Jaramillo et al., 2007), and tend to sacrifice customer real and long-term interest
(Boles et al., 2001; Saxe & Weitz, 1982; Singh & Koshy, 2012).
In conclusion, sales orientation does not lead to value creation, even though is
positively related to relationship development (to a lesser extent than the customer
orientation, and mostly in short/medium term) (Singh & Koshy, 2011). However,
Boles et al., (2001) concluded that the sales orientation is not necessarily harmful per
se, since the customer expect to some extent selling activities, inherent with the role
itself.
17
18
ENDOPHENOTYPES
The next step in my customer orientation analysis is to gauge possible underlying
personality traits, i.e., endophenotypes, which might be associated with customer
orientation. This research’s pathway is enforced since the genotype cannot completely
explain the phenotype (i.e., the customer orientation) because the environment affects
and changes the genes’ output. As a result, the link between genotype and phenotype
is often uncertain and imprecise (Johannsen, 1909): the phenotypic output from the
brain (i.e., behavior; e.g., salespeople’s customer orientation) is not simply a sum of
all its parts (Gottesman & Gould, 2005). E.g., psychiatry scholars could not classify
the same diseases on the basis of the syndromic behaviors (i.e., phenotypes), since
they present different genotypes.
Endophenotypes are internal phenotypes discoverable by a biochemical test
(Gottesman & Gould, 2005; Gottesman & Shields, 1973). The reason why they are
often used in behavioral analysis and study is that they provide “means for identifying
the “downstream” traits or facets of clinical phenotypes, as well as the “upstream”
consequences of genes and, in principle, could assist in the identification of aberrant
genes in the hypothesized polygenic system conferring vulnerabilities to disorder”
(Gottesman & Gould, 2005). Indeed, endophenotypes denote a more stable personal
trait: they represent observable characteristics of an organism, which are the joint
product of both genotypic and environmental influences (Gottesman & Gould, 2005).
19
Sensation Seeking
Freud, Dufresne, & Richter, (2011) described the novelty as condition for enjoyment,
in which the former is the mean through people achieve the latter. Later, Marvin
Zuckerman defined sensation seeking as “biosocial dimension of personality
characterized by the need for varied, novel, and complex sensations and experiences
and the willingness to take physical and social risks for the sake of such experiences
(Zuckerman, 1979). In addition, the American scholar divided it in four different
subscales: thrill and adventure seeking (e.g., risky but exciting sports), boredom
susceptibility (i.e., aversion to monotonous situations), experience seeking (i.e.,
seeking of sensation through mind, senses and nonconforming life-style), and
disinhibition (i.e., seeking sensation through social stimulation and drinking)
(Zuckerman, 1971). The first two are socially acceptable, while the others are less
socially acceptable (Zuckerman, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1978).
Nowadays sensation seeking is a person trait used by neuro-economists to explain
many
human
behaviors.
Currently,
sensation
seeking
is
correlated
with
entrepreneurship (specifically, DRD3 gene) (Nicolaou, Shane, Cherkas, Hunkin, &
Spector, 2008), autonomous (Zuckerman, 2004) and non-routine job (Zuckerman et
al., 1978), and increased financial risk taking in men (Dreber et al., 2009).
Sensation seeking and Customer orientation
20
Salespeople’s CO is expressed by the intention of establishing with the consumers a
long-term relationship, applying the marketing concept (Kotler, 1972), motivation
(Thakor & Joshi, 2005) and empathy (Bagozzi et al., 2011; Dawson, Bloch, &
Ridgway, 1990) in order to understand the customers. All these actions require the
salespeople to take risks (Joshi & Randall, 2001; Pettijohn et al., 2002; Saxe & Weitz,
1982): they bet on uncertain long-term sales result instead of maintaining a short-term
focus (Bagozzi et al., 2011). Moreover, in a knowledge-intense environment
salespeople must be knowledge broker (W. Verbeke et al., 2011) and the activity of
sourcing information involves tradeoffs and risk-taking: time spent gathering
knowledge might be better spent on actual selling (Joshi & Randall, 2001; Saxe &
Weitz, 1982).
The literature explain that CO is also related to “opportunity recognition” (Bonney &
Williams, 2009), so the ability to spot the customers’ needs and connect those needs
with their categories and solutions (i.e., knowledge brokering; (W. Verbeke et al.,
2011). Scholars have been found the ability of recognize the opportunity to be
correlated with the genetic component of novelty seeking: the human reward system
and the activation of the dopamine pathways in the brain (Bagozzi et al., 2011).
Consequently, Customer oriented salespeople need to be novelty-seeking, condition
that allows them to recognize the (sales) opportunity. In fact, Bagozzi et al., (2011)
explain that salespeople with high CO are “especially known to be involved in
novelty seeking, by chasing new challenges, risk taking, and the satisfaction that
comes from this searching process”. Empathic CO salespeople are able to create a
“free flow of information” (Saxe & Weitz, 1982) during sales encounter with the
customers, in which they can express their novelty seeking attitude and curiosity in
21
order to (1) “feel the customers’ pain”, (2) uncover their needs and (3) connect those
needs to firm’s products (see knowledge-brokering activity) (Jaramillo et al., 2007).
As a result, there are many factors that contribute salespeople to be sensation seekers:
the knowledge-intense environment and the customer orientation itself require them
to be risk-taker, while the opportunity recognition entails their novelty seeking nature.
In conclusion, customer oriented salespeople are sensation seekers.
Hypothesis:

H1: Customer Oriented salespeople score medium-high on SSS (i.e., sensation
seeking scale)
On the other hand:

H2: Sales Oriented salespeople score low on SSS (i.e., sensation seeking
scale)
Note that this hypothesis would be consistent with Brown et al., (2002) findings: the
scholars identified dimensions that foster the customer orientation: meeting
customers’ needs (Brown et al., 2002), enjoyment (Brown et al., 2002), and job
satisfaction (Flaherty, Dahlstrom, & Skinner, 1999; Siguaw et al., 1994). In other
words, the enjoyment/satisfaction itself determines the motivation for salespeople to
engage in customer orientation. Indeed, sensation seekers are able to investigate the
consumers’ needs, looking for novelty and engaging in risk-taking activity, because
by doing this they can increase the dopamine level and, as a consequence, get
arousal/enjoyment and satisfaction.
22
Finally, to be noted that high sensation seekers are more likely than low sensation
seekers to engage in risky behaviors then, after the fact, less likely to label them as
risky (Hoyle, Stephenson, Palmgreen, Lorch, & Donohew, 2002). Thus, since
salespeople’s behavior has to be focused on concrete long-term relationship with the
customers, and not only on the sake of novelty seeking’s experiences (Zuckerman,
1979), the salesperson has to control his natural curiosity, avoiding to fail as a
consequence of the enamor for the novelty (W. Verbeke et al., 2011). As a result,
sales managers could find it effective to coach salespeople dealing with their
sensation-seeking nature: they must to learn (1) that sensation seeking is only a mean
finalized to achieve better sales performance, and (2) to control the side-effects
arising from exasperated sensation seeking (i.e., disinhibition and boredom
susceptibility (Zuckerman, 1971)).
Proactivity
According to interactionist perspective in psychology, people and situations shape and
determine each other’s in a mutual relationship (Schneider, 1983). Consequently,
proactivity is considered a relatively stable behavioral tendency to affect
environmental change (Bateman & Crant, 1993). In other words, proactive people, as
opposed to reactive subjects, tend to actively affect the situation/context in which they
are. They “intentionally and directly change their current circumstances, social or
nonsocial” (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Moreover, they dynamically alter and shape the
23
environments, rather than adapt and react to them (Maddi, 1989). The main elements
that constitute proactivity are: intended realization for a pre-planned outcome,
effective change in reality, and creation of new circumstances (Bateman & Crant,
1999). Proactivity is a personal disposition/proclivity; as a result, people are assumed
to be differently predisposed to behave proactively towards their situations (Bateman
& Crant, 1993). In other words, there are people that assume a proactive behavior
towards the environment in which they are, and people that react passively to, adapt
and are shaped by environment
Among the economic literature, proactivity is widely studied and assessed as a key
explanation of organizational behavior (Bell & Staw, 1989). It is associated with
potential of leadership (Bateman & Crant, 1993), career satisfaction (Ng, Eby,
Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005), extraversion (i.e., the extent to which a subject is
outgoing, active, and high spirited) and openness to experience (i.e., imagination,
intelligence, curiosity, originality and open-mindedness) (Wanberg & KammeyerMueller, 2000), feedback seeking and relationship building (Bateman & Crant, 1993;
Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000).
Proactivity and CO
As previously explained nowadays salespeople operate in a knowledge-intense
environment, as knowledge brokers (W. Verbeke et al., 2011). Knowledge-brokering
activity per se requires salespeople to be proactive: salespeople have to transfer
know-why (from companies to customers) and know-how (from customers to
24
salespeople) (W. Verbeke et al., 2011). They also have to absorb knowledge, work
cooperatively with diverse team members, tailor messages to an increasingly complex
audience of stakeholders, and shape the minds of their customers (W. Verbeke et al.,
2011). All these are complex and demanding activities that require freedom and
personal initiative; in other words, proactivity. Furthermore, proactivity is correlated
with other knowledge-brokering proper activities: taking initiative in pursuing
organizational goals (Frese & Fay, 2001), craft job and tasks (Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001) according to diverse customers’ needs, and being independent, as they
have to manage and adapt to different, often unique, customers (W. Verbeke et al.,
2011).
Grant
&
Ashford,
(2008)
described
proactivity’s
situational
antecedents:
accountability (i.e., situation in which employees have to justify their actions to
others), ambiguity (i.e., uncertain and unclear situation) and autonomy (i.e., situations
in which employees have a high degree of freedom in deciding). Customer orientation
shares the same situational antecedents: salespeople have to justify their performance
to superior and peers, have to work in an unclear context in which every customer is a
new “unique problem to solve” and are independent and free in their knowledgetransferring activity (W. Verbeke et al., 2011).
Furthermore, according to Frese & Fay, (2001), proactivity is related to long-term
focus that enables the employees to consider thing to come and do something about
them. Also CO salespeople focus on long-term, and must be able to sacrifice
immediate sales in order to improve the long run performance (Jaramillo et al., 2007).
Then, proactivity is also considered as the ability to identify a market opportunity
25
(Bateman & Crant, 1993, 1999; Frese & Fay, 2001). CO salespeople need to have the
ability of “opportunity recognition” (Bagozzi et al., 2011), in order to realize longterm sales relationships with customers (W. Verbeke et al., 2011).
In conclusion, there are many similarities between proactivity and what customer
orientation requires nowadays to salespeople. They have to engage in demanding and
complex activities, proper of being a knowledge broker; they have to face uncertainty
and move independently between supplier and customers, transferring knowledge.
They have to be focused on long-term objectives, adapt to unique customers,
providing them tailored services. Salespeople need to take personal initiatives, and
ably recognize market opportunity. For all these reasons customer orientation is
positively correlated with proactivity.
Hypothesis:

H3: Customer Oriented salespeople score medium-high on proactivity scale
On the other hand,

H4: Sales Oriented salespeople score lower than Customer Oriented on
proactivity scale
Note that proactivity is also related to a tendency towards seeking new experiences
and activities (Bateman & Crant, 1993); in other words, it is related to sensation
seeking. In fact, proactivity and sensation seeking share common correlation with
taking risks: the latter by definition (Zuckerman, 1979), the former since strongly
26
related to entrepreneurship (Crant, 1996; Nicolaou et al., 2008), in other words, to a
risk-taking activity (Lawrence, Clark, Labuzetta, Sahakian, & Vyakarnum, 2008).
Embarrassment
Embarrassment is one of the so-called Self Conscious Emotions, with guilt, pride and
shame (Tangney & Fischer, 1995). They are different and distinct emotions and all of
them have value under social context and interaction (Miller, 1997).
According to Modigliani, (1968) and Miller (1996) analysis, embarrassment is a
common experience that may be elicited by a great variety of social interactions. It is
caused by a violation of social expectation and, as a result, by being socially
inappropriate. Consequently, (1) the subject feels sense of exposure, of inadequacy, of
awkward self-consciousness. Then, (2) he will engage in coping responses (i.e.,
reconciliation and face-work), (3) (more likely) loosing adaptive resources. Finally,
(4) he will generate future avoidant behavior with regard to the significant other
present during the embarrassing event. The first phase tends to have positive effect on
the relationship between two people: it reveals a shared system of values existing
between two interacting subjects, and it is an important mechanism of social control
in face-to-face interactions (Miller, 1997). In addition, it is critical during social
interactions and it functions as “sincere nonverbal apology for possible misbehavior
that informs others of one’s contrition and desire to avoid rejection” (Semin &
Manstead, 1982).
Within the selling interaction/context, embarrassment tends to show to the customer
salespeople’s concern about his evaluation, showing trustworthy attitude and fostering
27
a long-term relationship (W. Verbeke & Bagozzi, 2002). In fact, feeling embarrassed
could help the salesperson being accepted by the customers, due to their shared
values, and trust may emerge in the relationship (W. Verbeke & Bagozzi, 2002). On
the other hand, the others phases could determine negative effects on the social future
interactions and sales encounters. In fact, the (3) loss of adaptive resources in
response to embarrassment, more likely lead to (4) avoidance of future contacts, and,
in turn, to negative sales performances (W. Verbeke & Bagozzi, 2002).
Embarrassment and CO
Initially, customer oriented salespeople are more likely to engage in SC emotions,
since their necessary and characteristic adaptive selling is positively related to “selfmonitoring” (i.e., “ability to modify one’s self-presentation to match role expectation
in different social situations (Snyder, 1974)) (Golsby et al, 1992).
According to (Modigliani, 1968), there are two traits that affect one’s
embarrassability (i.e., susceptibility to embarrassment): (1) “sensitivity to immediate
evaluations of others (i.e., high empathy), and (2) general readiness to believe that
these evaluations are more negative than they really are”. The first trait is
characteristic of highly empathic people. In fact, they have a greater sensitivity to
others’ feelings and perceptions, so they are more likely to be conscious of others’
(negative) evaluations. As a result, they are more likely to loose situationalsubjective-public-esteem and feel embarrassed (Modigliani, 1968). Empathy is also a
fundamental characteristic in Customer oriented salespeople (Sin et al., 2005; W.
28
Verbeke et al., 2011). In fact, it allows them to feel the consumers’ pain (Eades, 2004)
and interact with them, instead of just selling (Bagozzi et al., 2011). As a result,
Customer oriented salespeople make the customers feel psychologically comfortable
(Edmondson & Woolley, 2003; Tanner, Ferraro, Chartrand, Bettman, & Van Baaren,
2008). This is important since, according to Saxe & Weitz, (1982), it allows the
salespeople to establish a trustworthy relationship with the customers, which is one
condition that make the customer orientation’s benefit overweigh its costs.
Salespeople with CO should have more embarassability than salespeople sales
oriented. In fact, the former are more empathic and sensible to other ideas, needs, and
judgments. This, in turn, allow them to (better) investigate and comprehend their
latent needs, as opposed to the latter; however, this personal trait also makes them
more likely to be affected by others’ negative perceptions, feeling embarrassed.
Hypothesis:

H5: Customer Oriented salespeople score medium-high embarrassment scale
On the other hand,

H6: Sales Oriented salespeople score low on embarrassment scale
Note that I cannot infer that there is a secure positive correlation between CO and
embarrassability because and I cannot be sure about the (Modigliani, 1968) second
trait condition that regulates the SC emotion (i.e., general readiness to believe that
these evaluations are more negative than they really are). However, according to their
29
nature more empathic by definition, CO salespeople should be more likely to feel/
have felt embarrassed during sales encounter.
Lastly, note that, in accordance with the existing literature, the embarrassment per se
has positive influence on the relationship between two persons. Conversely, it can
indirectly and negatively affect sales performance, due to the avoidance behaviors
(W. Verbeke & Bagozzi, 2002). As a result, sales managers could find it useful to
coach salespeople to manage and be conscious about embarrassment and how to
effectively deal with its emotional responses.
30
GENOTYPES
In the following step we will try to link the endophenotypes with biolgocial markers,
in an attempt to further validate the concept of customer orientation. In other words,
we will look for biological/genetic traits governing salespeople’s customer
orientation. By doing this, we follow Roiser et al., (2009) findings: individual’s
genetic make-up influences his/her economic decision-making bias known as the
“frame effect” (Roiser et al., 2009), which occurs when the framing of a decision
affects an individual’s eventual choice (Roiser et al., 2009). More specifically, the
present study focuses on the genes for the neurotransmitter dopamine, which seem to
have important roles in decision-making (Dreber et al., 2009; Ebstein et al., 1996;
Nicolaou et al., 2008) and personality traits (Noblett & Coccaro, 2005; Reuter &
Hennig, 2005).
Note that this part is based on currently available literature about endophenotypes and
genotypes, so correlations will be hypothesized and tested whenever the extant
findings allow it. Actually, there is no literature investigating the genotype associated
with the endophenotype embarrassment. As a consequence, the hypothesis will be
formulated only on sensation seeking and proactivity.
Dopamine
Dopamine is a catecholamine neurotransmitter that plays a role in reward and
reinforcement (Neve, 2009). When dopamine pathways are activated the subject feels
31
physiological arousal, sensation of well-being and pleasure (Peterson, 2005).
Consequently, the subject associates with them the behavior that triggers the
activation (Dreber et al., 2010), making dopamine pathways responsible for
anticipation of rewards (Dreber et al., 2010; Kelley, Schiltz, & Landry, 2005; Netter,
2006) and motivation for obtaining them (Dreber et al., 2010; Kelley, 2004; Munafò,
Yalcin, Willis-Owen, & Flint, 2008). In other words, dopamine and the activation of
its neurotransmitters affect one’s decisions and economic behavior (Schultz, 2007).
Specifically, two particular genes are responsible of the dopamine release: DRD2 and
DRD4 (Bagozzi et al., 2011; Dreber et al., 2009; Nicolaou, Shane, Adi, Mangino, &
Harris, 2011).
The dopamine neurotransmitter DRD4 present a trimodal distribution of 2, 4 and 7
repeat alleles (2R, 4R and 7R) (Ding et al., 2002). The 7-repeat allele of DRD4 is one
of the most studied by neuro-economists and has been used to explain different
economic behaviors (e.g., taking financial risks, entrepreneurship). Carriers of this
gene require an increased amount of dopamine for normal functioning (Swanson et
al., 2000), since they are less sensitive to dopamine intake (Dreber et al., 2010). As a
consequence, they are more likely to engage in more stimulating behaviors and, thus,
have been found correlated with novelty seeking (Munafò et al., 2008), (economic)
risk activities and preferences (Dreber et al., 2009, 2010; Kuhnen & Chiao, 2009),
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Li, Sham, Owen, & He, 2006),
entrepreneurship (Nicolaou et al., 2008) and the personal trait of extraversion (Reuter
& Hennig, 2005).
32
On the other hand, the dopamine receptor DRD2 presents different “variants”
(alleles); the most studied is DRD2 A1. It has been associated with a reduced number
of dopamine binding sites in the brain (Thompson et al., 1997) and, thus, its carriers
require and seek more stimulation (Bagozzi et al., 2011). But, as opposed to DRD4, it
has a different impact on people’s behavior (Dreber et al., 2009). First of all, neuroeconomists have associated it to difficulties in adapting cognitive strategies (Bagozzi
et al., 2011), making the subjects less able to, for example, engage in adaptive selling.
Then, the gene has been found correlated with a continuous research of immediate
gratification, thus, with subsequent difficulties in achieving long-term objectives
(Bagozzi et al., 2011; Dreber et al., 2009). As a consequence, its carriers tend to be
impulsive, short-term focused and continuously looking for source of quick
gratification. In fact, (Bagozzi et al., 2011) has been found the gene DRD2 A1
positively correlated with sales orientation, selling practice focused on achieving
immediate sales, with no regard to the customers’ long-term needs (Saxe & Weitz,
1982).
Sensation seeking
As previously explained, sensation seeking is a biosocial dimension of personality
that has already been associated by scholars with both novelty seeking and risk-taking
activities (Dreber et al., 2009; Zuckerman, 1979). For these reasons we infer a
positive association between it and DRD4 7R (Bagozzi et al., 2011; Nicolaou et al.,
2008).
Hypothesis:
33

H7: The presence of the endophenotype sensation seeking is correlated with
7R-variant DRD4
On the other hand, following Bagozzi et al (2011) findings, we associate the absence
of this endophenotype sensation seeking with the presence of DRD2 A1 gene.
Hypothesis:

H8: The absence of endophenotype sensation seeking is correlated with A1variant DRD2
Proactivity
Genetically speaking, there is no extant literature that investigates specifically the
correlation between proactivity and some specific genotype. However, there are many
similarities between proactivity and certain dopamine receptors, which allow us to
infer and formulate hypothesis.
As previously described, proactive people affect their environment (Bateman &
Crant, 1993), creating new circumstances (Bateman & Crant, 1999); they are
extrovert and open to new experiences (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000).
Proactivity is thus related to long-term focus that enable them to think, project and
plan what to do in the future and how to change and shape the present environment
(Bateman & Crant, 1999; Frese & Fay, 2001). Then, proactivity is also correlated
with novelty seeking, since proactive people affect the present environment in order
34
to determine a new and novel shape and structure (Bateman & Crant, 1993). In other
words, proactive people intentionally and stably affect the environment, seeking
novelties and environmental changes (Maddi, 1989). Then, we infer that proactivity is
also related to risk-taking. In fact, both the focus on the long-term and the active
shaping of the present entail present investment of resources, in front of future and
uncertain
outcomes.
As
a
demonstration,
proactivity
is
correlated
with
entrepreneurship (Crant, 1996; Nicolaou et al., 2008), risk-taking activity (Lawrence
et al., 2008). In conclusion we hypothesize a positive correlation between the
endophenotype proactivity and the DRD4 7R. In fact, among others, proactivity and
DRD4 7R share positive correlations with the personal trait of extraversion (Reuter &
Hennig, 2005; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000).
Hypothesis:

H9: the presence of the endophenotype proactivity is positively correlated
with 7-variant DRD4
People that exhibit a non-proactive behavior tend to react to the environment, and
adjust to its evolving, rather than actively change it (Bateman & Crant, 1993). As a
consequence, we infer that they possess a short-term focus that fosters a proclivity
towards reactive strategies. On the other hand, long-term focus, i.e., intended
realization for a pre-planned outcome (Bateman & Crant, 1999), is related to a
tendency towards realizing environmental changes, in other words, to proactive
behaviors (Bateman & Crant, 1999). Furthermore, we infer a relation between the
short-term focus and the difficulties in adapt cognitive strategies (Bagozzi et al.,
2011), since the latter support the former. In conclusion, we hypothesize a positive
35
correlation between the absence of endophenotype proactivity and the gene DRD2
A1.
Hypothesis:

H10: The absence of the endophenotype proactivity is positively correlated
with A1 variant DRD2
36
37
METHOD
In order to test the stated hypothesis we analyze a sample of 64 business-to-business
salespeople coming form a variety of firms across different industries and
participating in an executive education program at the collaborating University. More
specifically, 4% are working in automotive industry, 3% in food and beverage, 13%
in banking, 3% in utilities, 8% in manufacturing, 31% in professional services, 4% in
pharmaceuticals, 2% in telecom, 5% in logistics, 16% in IT, 3% in retailing, 3% in
energy and the remaining 5% in other industries. The sample is composed by 71%
men, 29% women, with an average age of 36.3 (s.d.=9.1) and a relevant experience in
selling activity of 10.4 years (s.d.=8.0).
Firstly, we assess salespeople’s score on customer orientation and sales orientation;
secondly, we measure their attitude towards behavioral tendencies such as sensation
seeking, embarrassability, and proactivity. Thirdly, we investigated their genetic
make-up through DNA analysis in order to scan the presence of particular genes
involved in behavioral conditioning: the dopamine neurotransmitters DRD4 7R and
DRD2 A1. Lastly, we ran statistical analysis so as to check the hypothesized
correlations among behaviors (phenotype), personal traits (endophenotype), and
genetic (genotype) (see model).
We used the SOCO scale developed by Bagozzi et al (2011): a ten-item short-form
scale, in which five items measure sales orientation, and five items the customer
orientation. Using confirmatory factor analysis the scholars showed that a two-factors
38
SOCO model fit their data well (see table 1). Initially we use the same SOCO scale,
however, we found out that nine out of ten item worked well and load sufficiently
high to properly constitute a factor. As a result, we dropped item number two in the
customer orientation short-form scale since it loaded only 0.096 with the CO factor.
The remaining items' loadings ranged between 0.600 and 0.850 in CO and SO factors.
The two formed factors, i.e., SO and CO, explain more than 70% of the variance of
the sample, thus, are considered efficient. The items composing the factors are
relevantly correlated among themselves and uncorrelated among the others. The CO
factor’s alpha is 0,750, while the SO factor’s one is 0,820. So that, there is sufficiently
high internal consistency between the data, and the SO-CO factors effectively
measure single unidimensional latent constructs. The new-formed factors correlated
0,200. In conclusion, the factors achieve discriminant validity and we confirm the
SOCO scale presented by Bagozzi et al (2011).
The sensation-seeking questionnaire is composed by eight items (see technical
appendix), which reveal one latent unidimensional construct (Cronbach’s alpha =
0,820) and it is well represented by one factor (more than 60% of the variance). The
factor loadings range sufficiently high.
The proactivity questionnaire is composed by seventeen items (see technical
appendix). They underline one latent and unique dimension (Cronbach’s alpha =
0,855) and it could be effectively represented by one factor.
39
The embarrassability questionnaire is composed by eight items (see technical
appendix). They relevantly underline one latent and unique dimension (alpha =
0.700).
The DNA analysis revels the presence of specific genes: we looked for the DRD4 7R
and DRD2 A1, following recommended practices to gather DNA data and analysis,
and allele frequencies analysis using the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium. More
specifically, 20 salespeople possess the first gene (14 men and 6 women), whereas 21
possess the second one (18 men and 3 women). We used parametric t-test for equality
of means on the four-items CO scale and five-items SO scale and DRD2 A1 and
DRD4 7R polymorphism of participants.
40
RESULTS
First of all, we checked possible correlations among the variables: we found out that
two endophenotypes are positively correlated, namely, sensation-seeking and
proactivity. More specifically, they register a correlation of almost 0.4, with a
significance of 0.003. Thus, proactive and sensation-seeking behaviors are somehow
connected and present an increasing linear correlation in almost all the salespeople
sample (more than 99,99% of the cases). Unfortunately, the correlation matrix did not
reveal any other significant relations among the variables.
Secondly, we ran linear regressions in order to check which variables determine a
significant effect on the salespeople Customer Orientation or Sales Orientation. More
specifically, we failed to create a model composed by endophenotypes able to
determine and affect the final salespeople’s behavior in terms of customer orientation
or sales orientation. However, we did find out some significant and relevant
correlations.
We did confirm the positive correlation between proactivity and sensation-seeking
presented in the correlation matrix. Representing more than 12% of cases, with a level
of significance of 99,94%, proactive behavior determines an increase in sensationseeking behavior of a coefficient of +0.338. Same effect and same significance are
registered for the effect of sensation seeking trait in proactive behavior. To sum up,
we appreciate the existence of a positive correlation between the two personal traits,
expressing the likelihood of a combined presence in people. In other words, proactive
41
people are more likely to be sensation seeking. On the other hand, we register no
significant relation between the endophenotype embarrassability and other
variables/behaviors.
The second important correlation we discovered affects the correlation between
sensation-seeking behavior and Sales Orientation. Explaining a total variance of more
than 8% of the cases, with a level of significance greater than 96%, the sensation
seeking behavior decreases the Sales Orientation by 0.264. In other words, we
highlight the opposition between Sales Orientation and sensation seeking behavior,
partially confirming the statistically insignificant positive relation between the
endophenotype and the Consumer Orientation.
The genetic analysis involves t-tests, used to compare the average score of
respondents in terms of the different variables that constitute the model (i.e.,
endophenotypes and phenotypes), with and without the genetic variant. Significant
differences were found for the effects of DRD4 7R on Customer Orientation. More
specifically, with a significance level of 98%, salespeople that possess the 7-repeat
form score on average higher (M=6.6) on the CO scale, than those without it (M=6.2).
This result is in strong accordance with what discovered by Bagozzi et al (2011).
The second relevant and significant correlation found out in the present dataset
establishes a link between the presence of DRD2 A1 and a lower score on sensation
seeking. More specifically, salespeople that possess this gene score significantly
lower (M=4.8) on sensation seeking scale than those who do not possess it (M=4.0),
42
with a significance level of 97,5%. In other words, possessors of gene DRD2-A1 are
more likely to have a behavior less sensation seeking than others.
43
DISCUSSION
The concept of Customer Orientation finds its origin in late 1970’s when Kurtz,
Dodge and Klompmaker described the efficiency of a problem-solving sales
approach. Then, scholars subtly defined the concept by adding the focus on offering
solutions to customers, and concepts such as understanding customers’ needs and
delivering value in the long-term. Later on, academics opposed the customer
orientation to the sales orientation, as explained by Robert Saxe and Barton Weitz in
their landmark paper (1982). In addition, long-term customers’ satisfaction,
consumer-centric behavior, avoidance of deceptive or manipulative tactics became
expression of the Customer Orientation approach. Lastly, scholars found correlations
between it and positive sales performance, needs-satisfaction, and building relations
with customers (see 2nd chapter for more information).
To sum up, scholars profoundly described the customer orientation, applying an
outside-in approach. As opposed to them, Bagozzi et al (2011) used the opposite
method: an inside-out analysis that aims to define a stronger and more stable
foundation of Customer Orientation. By doing so, they pinpointed out correlations not
only with behavior and attitudes, but also with psychological traits, endophenotypes
and biomarkers. Specifically, they found customer orientation correlated with
empathy,
opportunity-recognition
and
knowledge-brokering
activities,
entrepreneurship’s spirit, and, genetically speaking, the DRD4 7R gene.
44
Following Bagozzi et al (2011) approach and analysis, we aimed to create and test
links between the phenotype Customer Orientation, a model composed by
endophenotypes, i.e., proactivity, sensation seeking and embarrassability, and specific
genes involved in behavioral conditioning, DRD4 7R and DRD2 A1. In other words,
the major aim of this study is to provide a clear, deep and stable explanation of why
salespeople engage in this sales approach, not limiting the analysis on how they do it.
First, we measure salespeople’s attitudes toward customer orientation and sales
orientation, assessing their score on a validated short-form SOCO scale; then we
assess their proclivity towards specific behavioral tendencies expressed by the chosen
endophenotypes. Lastly, we measure the presence of specific genes and their
influence in terms of sales orientation.
Endophenotypes analysis
We hypothesized that sensation-seeking salespeople more easily engage in a customer
orientated sales approach since these activities are similar and complementary. In fact,
both of them involve taking risks in discovering something new and liking that
process. Sensation seeking by definition; customer orientation since it requires to (1)
bet on uncertain long-term sales rather than focusing on short-term results, and (2)
spend time on gathering information in order to play the knowledge-broker role
during sales encounter. Then, according to literature, customer orientation is related to
opportunity recognition, as well as to novelty seeking, characteristic of sensationseeking tendency. In conclusion, we suggested a positive correlation between
45
customer orientation and sensation seeking and negative one between sales
orientation and the specific endophenotype.
We failed to demonstrate the positive link, but we did validate the negative relation
between sensation seeking and sales orientation: the presence of the endophentype
reduces and has a negative effect on sales orientation. In other words, the more a
salespeople is sensation-seekers, the less s/he engages in the sales orientated
approach. In fact, sales oriented salespeople do not look for novelty and demonstrate
no passion and/or curiosity towards the clients and their needs. They are not interested
in discovering the particular customers’ situation and how to fully solve their
problems with products offered by the firm. They are focused on the immediate
objective of achieve the sales, whatever are the product and the customer. They push
the sales and refuse to take risks and invest time and effort in building long-lasting
relationships. Then, they are less likely to engage in opportunity recognition activity,
since it requires passion and natural interest toward customers’ needs. On the other
hand, sensation seekers look for novelty and naturally have passion and willingness to
take risk in order to discover, understand, and solve it. In addition, they are likely to
take risks and invest time and effort so as to build a long-term relation with
customers. As a consequence, (1) we validate the negative correlation between the
endophenotype and the sales orientation, and (2) we infer the statistical insignificant
positive link between the endophenotype sensation seeking and the customer
orientation.
The second relevant relation that we obtain form the current dataset regards the
correlation between sensation seeking and proactivity. More specifically, it appears
46
that the presence of these two endophenotypes is combined: the more a person is
sensation seeker, the more s/he is proactive. In fact, we can conclude that sensation
seekers need to be proactive in order to fulfill their natural proclivity: looking for
novelty and demonstrating passion toward its discovery and understanding require a
proactive behavior, intended toward a pre-planned environmental change. Moreover,
both endophenotypes share a strong focus on long-term, since both of them entail a
demanding process toward their realization. To sum up, we validate a strong
correlation between sensation seeking and proactivity.
Regarding the endopheotype embarrassability we did not find out any relevant
correlations, not in terms of SOCO, not in terms of other endophenotypes. Thus, we
conclude that it is not relevant as component of sales orientation or customer
orientation. However, we did observe that most of salespeople have a very low score
on embarrassability scale (M=2,6 s.d.=0,6), while they still reveal a medium-high
level of empathy, that we deduce form they high score on customer orientation. As a
consequence, we infer that, even if in the past they had a medium-high level of
embarrassability, with time and experiences, salespeople have learned how to cope
with it, making it irrelevant during sales transaction. They still use their empathic
ability to understand customers’ needs and perceive their pain, but, most likely due to
developed work routines, they do not express their embarrassability and do not let its
protective reactions influence the sales.
In conclusion, we tested a model composed by endophenotypes, in order to explain
and analyze the customer and sales orientation. We found out that basically two
personal traits are considered combined characteristics of the customer orientation:
47
sensation seeking and proactivity. In fact, their presence is strongly related to each
others and sensation seeking resulted negatively correlated to sales orientation.
Sensation seeking salespeople tend to be proactive and demonstrate higher score on
customer orientation. They possess natural interest and curiosity in discovering
something new (e.g., customers’ situation and their needs) and are willing take risks
and invest time and effort in building a trustworthy relationship with the customers.
More importantly, we suggest that they developed a proactive behavior and attitude
that make them able to express their sensation seeking nature, also in their
relationship with the customers. On the other hand, salespeople that do not have a
natural proclivity in discovering the customers, are not wiling to take risk and support
cost opportunity in order to achieve a better and long-term sales relationship. They do
not possess a proactive behavior, since they are just focused on the short-term
objective to achieve the sales and are not interested in realize substantial change in the
circumstances. Lastly, they are willing just to push the customers to buy, even if the
product is not the complete answer to customers’ needs.
Genetic analysis
To further validate the customer orientation, we checked the presence of specific
genes and their effects on the endophenotypes and on customer/sales orientations. We
focused our research on genes that are well-known to affect people behavior:
dopamine neurotransmitters (for further details, see 2nd chapter). We controlled the
presence of the genes DRD4 7R and DRD2 A1 in the current salespeople sample and
we did find significant correlations.
48
We did not validate the studied correlations between sensation seeking and DRD4 7R
gene, not even the hypothesized relation with proactivity. However, we found out
relevant the relation between this gene and the customer orientation. Specifically,
possessors of the gene score significantly higher on customer orientation scale. We
are not able to validate the link genotype-endophenotype-phenotype, but we do are
able to highlight the significant presence of a particular genetic make-up in terms of
customer orientation. We are not sure from the sample’s analysis about how these
genes influence the behavior and choices of its possessors, but we did successfully
replicate Bagozzi et al (2011) findings, which explicitly show the strong influence of
genes in terms of customer orientation.
The other significant observation regards the link between DRD2 A1 and the
endophenotype sensation seeking: possessors of the gene have substantially a
behavior less sensation seeking than the others. The explanation could be that its
possessors look for immediate gratification, with a short-term focus on impulsive
objective achievement. On the other hand, sensation-seeking activities require more
commitment, a longer-term focus, and higher level of engagement. As a result,
possessors of the genes are less likely to engage in sensation seeking activities and, in
turn, in customer orientated sales approach. Following the trend, we also infer less
attitude toward proactive behaviors since the short-term focus forces the possessors of
the gene to avoid big changes of the circumstances where they are.
Conclusion
49
We studied different endophenotypes and genes, we made assumptions and we tested
their influences on behavior and attitudes. In conclusion, after careful analysis, we are
able to better define and further explain the consumer orientation and sales
orientation, taking insights not only for behavioral science, but also from
endocrinology, psychology and genetic.
The customer orientation is a particular sales approach that requires a specific
tendencies and attitudes. Studies highlighted particular genetic make-up that allows
salespeople to engage in this particular sales method. DRD4 7R possessors tend
naturally to be curious and active in investigating novelties. They are able to engage
and invest time end efforts in risky activities since their dopamine neurotransmitter
needs a higher dopamine intake, but permits longer time to achieve it. In other words,
their genetic make-up allows them to focus on longer-term objectives and more
engaging and risky activities. Both sensation seeking and proactive behaviors require
investment in time- and effort-consuming activities, long-run focus and natural
engagement towards them. Then, these activities strongly match what is today
required by salespeople’s role: knowledge brokering and opportunity-recognition
need time, effort, and natural curiosity in order to be investigated, understood and
realized. Thus, salespeople that possess this particular genetic make-up are free to
naturally engage in the customer orientation in the long run. In conclusion, we suggest
that salespeople that possess the DRD4 7R are naturally and better able to engage in
behavioral tendencies, such as sensation seeking and proactive behaviors and, in
turns, knowledge brokering and opportunity recognition, that make them more natural
customer oriented salespeople.
50
On the other hand, the sales orientation has a different genetic and endophenotypes
structure as well. More specifically, the genetic conformation forces them to achieve
immediate goals (i.e., sales), in order to have frequently releases of dopamine in their
brain. As a consequence, they are less likely to engage in activities that require a longterm focus and are characteristics of customer orientation. These activates are:
investigating customers’ needs and study products’ attributes in order to successfully
match them (i.e., knowledge brokering), investing time and efforts in building a stable
relationship with customer, being able to sacrifice short-term result for better long run
results. As a result, people that possess the DRD2 A1 are less sensation seeking, less
proactive and more likely to apply a sales oriented approach during sales encounter.
Managerial implications
As managerial implications we suggest actions for managers that hire and manage
sales forces. First of all, we suggest to work on different areas: firstly, on hiring;
secondly, on coaching who has been hired. For the first part, as suggested by the
presented findings, we recommend to assess salespersons’ natural tendency toward
different sales approach. This can be done using questionnaires created in order to
measure the subject’s customer orientation and sales orientation. Then, the analysis
can shift to the evaluation of their level of proactivity and sensation seeking. We
propose to hire subjects that demonstrate high level of proactivity, sensation seeking
and customer orientation. Most likely, they would possess the DRD4 7R gene and
most likely will be genetically willing to apply the customer orientation over time. On
the other hand, also sales oriented salespeople could achieve discrete sales results,
51
especially in the short-term. However, we would advise that the current sales
environment requires salespeople to possess some abilities and behavioral tendencies
that in the long term substantially affect the sales performance. Today, salespeople
need to be proactive, knowledge broker, sensation seekers, passionate and curious
about the customers and products’ features, thus, able to recognize the sales
opportunity. The genetic make-up cannot be changed and a particular form of it can
naturally allow people to engage in the described behavior. In fact, the action of
coaching cannot make people different, it can just fine-tune and help them live
themselves in a more efficient way.
In terms of coaching, we would recommend first of all to analyze the personal
salesman’s situation in terms of orientations and behavioral tendencies. After that, the
coach can better define the area that needs to be improved. Then, it could be useful to
keep in mind the particular characteristics of each tendency, in order to better handle
it. For example, the sensation seeking behavior presents one relevant side effect:
salespeople risk to enamor of the just discovering novelties, omitting to persevere on
achieving the sales as a result of a trustworthy sales relationship with the customer.
As a consequence, sales manager could find it useful to coach the salesman to be
focused on discovering the customer, as just a mean to better serve him/her with
firm’s products in the long run.
52
APPENDIX
Tables from SPSS
53
T-test for DRD4-7R and Customer Orientation
54
T-test for DRD2-A1 and sensation seeking behavior
55
56
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
SOCO short-form scale
Customer Orientation
1. I try to get customers to discuss their needs with me.
2. I try to find out what kind of product would be most helpful to a customer.
3. I try to bring a customer with a problem together with a product that helps him
solve the problem.
4. I try to give customers an accurate expectation of what the product will do for
them.
5. I try to figure out what a customer’s needs are.
Sales Orientation
1. I try to sell a customer all I can convince hi to buy, even it I think it is more
than a wise customer would buy.
2. I try to sell as much as I can rather than satisfy a customer.
3. If I am not sure a product is right for a customer, I will still apply pressure to
get him to buy.
4. I paint too rosy a picture of my products, to make them sound as good as
possible.
5. It is necessary to stretch the truth in describing a product to a customer.
57
Sensation-seeking questionnaire (7-points Likert scale)
Sensation seeking questions (agree-disagree)
1.
I would like to explore strange places
2.
I get restless when I spend too much time at home
3.
I like to do frightening things
4.
I like wild parties
5.
I would like to take off on a trip with no pre-planned routes or timetables
6.
I prefer friends who are excitingly unpredictable
7.
I would like to try bungee jumping
8.
I would love to have new and exciting experiences, even if they are illegal
Proactivity questionnaire (7-points Likert scale)
Proactivity (agree-disagree)
1.
I am constantly on the outlook for new ways to improve my life
2.
I feel driven to make a difference in my community, and maybe the world
3.
I tend to led others take the initiative to start new projects
4.
Wherever I have been, I have been a powerful force for constructive change
5.
I enjoy facing and overcoming obstacles to my ideas
6.
Nothing is more exciting than seeing my ideas turn into reality
7.
If I see something I don’t like, I fix it
8.
No matter what odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen
9.
I love being a champion for my ideas, even against others’ opposition
58
10. I excel at identifying opportunities
11. I am always looking for better ways to do things
12. If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen
13. I love to challenge status quo
14. When I have a problem, I tackle it head-on
15. I am great in turning problems into opportunities
16. I can spot a good opportunity long before others can
17. If I see someone in trouble, I help out in any way I can
Embarrassability questionnaire (7-Likert points scale)
Below are listed a number of social situations. Try to imagine that each of these
events is happening to you. Then, state how embarrassed you would feel by using the
scale below to describe your own reaction. Each statement is followed by seven
choices, in which you can indicate in what degree you would feel embarrassment.
1.
Suppose you were just beginning a talk in front of the class
2.
Suppose you slipped and fell on a patch of ice in a public place, dropping a
package of groceries
3.
Suppose you discovered you were the only person at a particular social occasion
without a coat and tie (or dress)
4.
Suppose you were muttering aloud to yourself in an apparently empty room and
discovered someone else was present
5.
Suppose you entered an apparently empty classroom, turned on the lights, and
59
surprised a couple necking
6.
Suppose you were a dinner guest and could not eat the main course because you
were allergic to it
7.
Suppose you were walking into a room full of people you did not know and were
being introduces to the whole group
8.
Suppose you were conversing in a small group which included a blind student,
when someone next to him unthinkingly made a remark about everyone being “blind
as a bad
60
References:
Anderson, R. E. (1996). Personal selling and sales management in the new millennium. The Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, 17–32.
Bagozzi, R. P., Verbeke, W. J. M. I., Berg, W. E. van den, Rietdijk, W. J. R., & Dietvorst, R. C.
(2011). Genetic and neurological foundations of customer orientation: field and experimental
evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–20.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A
measure and correlates. Journal of organizational behavior, 14(2), 103–118.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1999). Proactive behavior: Meaning, impact, recommendations.
Business Horizons, 42(3), 63–70.
Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture: the roles of personality and
personal control in organizations. Handbook of career theory, 232.
Boles, J. S., Babin, B. J., Brashear, T. G., & Brooks, C. (2001). An examination of the relationships
between retail work environments, salesperson selling orientation-customer orientation and
job performance. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 1–13.
Bonney, F. L., & Williams, B. C. (2009). From products to solutions: the role of salesperson
opportunity recognition. European Journal of Marketing, 43(7/8), 1032–1052.
Bosworth, M. T. (1995). Solution selling: Creating buyers in difficult selling markets. McGraw-Hill.
Brems, C. (1989). Dimensionality of empathy and its correlates. Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied; Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied.
Brown, T. J., Mowen, J. C., Donavan, D. T., & Licata, J. W. (2002). The customer orientation of
service workers: Personality trait effects on self-and supervisor performance ratings. Journal
of Marketing Research, 110–119.
Bursk, E. C. (2006). Low-pressure selling. Harvard Business Review, 84(7/8), 150.
Churchill Jr, G. A., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W., & Walker Jr, O. C. (1985). The determinants of
salesperson performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing research, 103–118.
Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal
of Small Business Management, 34(3).
Dawson, S., Bloch, P. H., & Ridgway, N. M. (1990). Shopping motives, emotional states, and retail
outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 66(4), 408–427.
61
Dhar, R., Menon, A., & Maach, B. (2004). Toward extending the compromise effect to complex
buying contexts. Journal of marketing research, 258–261.
Dietvorst, R. C., Verbeke, W. J. M. I., Bagozzi, R. P., Yoon, C., Smits, M., & van der Lugt, A. (2009).
A sales force-specific theory-of-mind scale: Tests of its validity by classical methods and
functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(5), 653–668.
Ding, Y. C., Chi, H. C., Grady, D. L., Morishima, A., Kidd, J. R., Kidd, K. K., Flodman, P., et al.
(2002). Evidence of positive selection acting at the human dopamine receptor D4 gene locus.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(1), 309.
Dreber, A., Apicella, C. L., Eisenberg, D. T. A., Garcia, J. R., Zamore, R. S., Lum, J. K., & Campbell,
B. (2009). The 7R polymorphism in the dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4) is associated
with financial risk taking in men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(2), 85–92.
Dreber, A., Rand, D. G., Garcia, J. R., Wernerfelt, N., Lum, J. K., & Zeckhauser, R. (2010). Dopamine
and risk preferences in different domains. Harvard Kennedy School Faculty Research
Working Paper Series.
Eades, K. M. (2004). The New Solution Selling: The Revolutionary Sales Process That Is Changing
the. McGraw-Hill.
Ebstein, R. P., Novick, O., Umansky, R., Priel, B., Osher, Y., Blaine, D., Bennett, E. R., et al. (1996).
Dopamine D4 receptor (D4DR) exon III polymorphism associated with the human personality
trait of novelty seeking. Nature genetics, 12(1), 78–80.
Edmondson, A. C., & Woolley, A. W. (2003). Understanding outcomes of organizational learning
interventions. International handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management.
London: Blackwell, 185–211.
Flaherty, T. B., Dahlstrom, R., & Skinner, S. J. (1999). Organizational values and role stress as
determinants of customer-oriented selling performance. The journal of personal selling and
sales management, 1–18.
Franke, G. R., & Park, J. E. (2006). Salesperson adaptive selling behavior and customer orientation: a
meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 693–702.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st
century. Research in organizational behavior, 23, 133–188.
Freud, S., Dufresne, T., & Richter, G. C. (2011). Beyond the pleasure principle. Broadview Pr.
62
Giacobbe, R. W., Jackson Jr, D. W., Crosby, L. A., & Bridges, C. M. (2006). A contingency approach
to adaptive selling behavior and sales performance: Selling situations and salesperson
characteristics. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 26(2), 115–142.
Gottesman, I. I., & Gould, T. D. (2005). The endophenotype concept in psychiatry. Etymology and
strategic intentions, in advances in genetics and genomics: implications for psychiatry.
American Psychiatric Publishing, Washington DC, 63–84.
Gottesman, I. I., & Shields, J. (1973). Genetic theorizing and schizophrenia. The British Journal of
Psychiatry, 122(566), 15–30.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in
organizational behavior, 28(1), 3–34.
Harris, E. G., Mowen, J. C., & Brown, T. J. (2005). Re-examining salesperson goal orientations:
personality influencers, customer orientation, and work satisfaction. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 33(1), 19–35.
Hoyle, R. H., Stephenson, M. T., Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E. P., & Donohew, R. L. (2002). Reliability
and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences,
32(3), 401–414.
Jaramillo, F., Ladik, D. M., Marshall, G. W., & Mulki, J. P. (2007). A meta-analysis of the relationship
between sales orientation-customer orientation (SOCO) and salesperson job performance.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 22(5), 302–310.
Johannsen, W. (1909). Elemente der exakten Erblichkeitslehre. Fischer.
Johnston, M. W., & Marshall, G. W. (2005). Relationship selling and sales management. McGrawHill/Irwin.
Jordan, J., & Cartwright, S. (1998). Selecting expatriate managers: Key traits and competencies.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 19(2), 89–96.
Joshi, A. W., & Randall, S. (2001). The indirect effects of organizational controls on salesperson
performance and customer orientation. Journal of Business Research, 54(1), 1–9.
Kelley, A. E. (2004). Ventral striatal control of appetitive motivation: role in ingestive behavior and
reward-related learning. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 27(8), 765–776.
63
Kelley, A. E., Schiltz, C. A., & Landry, C. F. (2005). Neural systems recruited by drug-and foodrelated cues: studies of gene activation in corticolimbic regions. Physiology & behavior, 86(12), 11–14.
Kotler, P. (1972). A generic concept of marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 46–54.
Kuhnen, C. M., & Chiao, J. Y. (2009). Genetic determinants of financial risk taking. PLoS One, 4(2),
e4362.
Lawrence, A., Clark, L., Labuzetta, J. N., Sahakian, B., & Vyakarnum, S. (2008). The innovative brain.
Nature, 456(7219), 168–169.
Leigh, T. W., Pullins, E. B., & Comer, L. B. (2001). The top ten sales articles of the 20th century. The
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 217–227.
Li, D., Sham, P. C., Owen, M. J., & He, L. (2006). Meta-analysis shows significant association
between dopamine system genes and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Human
molecular genetics, 15(14), 2276–2284.
Lytle, R. S., Hom, P. W., & Mokwa, M. P. (1998). SERV< sup>∗ </sup> OR: A managerial measure
of organizational service-orientation. Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 455–489.
Maddi, S. R. (1989). Personality theories: A comparative analysis . Dorsey Press.
McBane, D. A. (1995). Empathy and the salesperson: A multidimensional perspective. Psychology and
Marketing, 12(4), 349–370.
Michel, S., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Reconfiguration of the conceptual landscape: a tribute
to the service logic of Richard Normann. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1),
152–155.
Miller, R. S. (1997). Embarrassment: Poise and peril in everyday life. The Guilford Press.
Modigliani, A. (1968). Embarrassment and embarrassability. Sociometry, 313–326.
Munafò, M. R., Yalcin, B., Willis-Owen, S. A., & Flint, J. (2008). Association of the dopamine D4
receptor (DRD4) gene and approach-related personality traits: meta-analysis and new data.
Biological Psychiatry, 63(2), 197–206.
Netter, P. (2006). Dopamine challenge tests as an indicator of psychological traits. Human
Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 21(2), 91–99.
Neve, K. A. (2009). The dopamine receptors. Humana Pr Inc.
64
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and
subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel psychology, 58(2), 367–408.
Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Adi, G., Mangino, M., & Harris, J. (2011). A polymorphism associated with
entrepreneurship: evidence from dopamine receptor candidate genes. Small Business
Economics, 36(2), 151–155.
Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Hunkin, J., & Spector, T. D. (2008). Is the tendency to engage in
entrepreneurship genetic? Management Science, 54(1), 167–179.
Noblett, K. L., & Coccaro, E. F. (2005). Molecular genetics of personality. Current psychiatry reports,
7(1), 73–80.
Novicevic, M. M., & Harvey, M. G. (2001). The emergence of the pluralism construct and the
inpatriation process. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(3), 333–356.
Peterson, R. L. (2005). The neuroscience of investing: fMRI of the reward system. Brain research
bulletin, 67(5), 391–397.
Pettijohn, C. E., Pettijohn, L. S., & Taylor, A. J. (2002). The influence of salesperson skill, motivation,
and training on the practice of customer-oriented selling. Psychology and Marketing, 19(9),
743–757.
Rackham, N., & DeVincentis, J. (1998). Rethinking the sales force: Refining selling to create and
capture customer value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reuter, M., & Hennig, J. (2005). Association of the functional catechol-O-methyltransferase
VAL158MET polymorphism with the personality trait of extraversion. Neuroreport, 16(10),
1135.
Rieser, C. (1962). The Salesman Isn’t Dead-He’s Different. Fortune, 66(5), 124–7.
Roiser, J. P., de Martino, B., Tan, G. C. Y., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., Wood, N. W., & Dolan, R. J.
(2009). A genetically mediated bias in decision making driven by failure of amygdala control.
The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(18), 5985–5991.
Rozell, E. J., Pettijohn, C. E., & Parker, R. S. (2004). Customer-oriented selling: Exploring the roles of
emotional intelligence and organizational commitment. Psychology and Marketing, 21(6),
405–424.
Saxe, R., & Weitz, B. A. (1982). The SOCO scale: a measure of the customer orientation of
salespeople. Journal of marketing research, 343–351.
65
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: occupational
attainment and job performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(1), 162.
Schneider, B. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. Research in
organizational behavior.
Schultz, W. (2007). Behavioral dopamine signals. Trends in neurosciences, 30(5), 203–210.
Semin, G. R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1982). The social implications of embarrassment displays and
restitution behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12(4), 367–377.
Siguaw, J. A., Brown, G., & Widing, R. E. (1994). The influence of the market orientation of the firm
on sales force behavior and attitudes. Journal of Marketing research, 106–116.
Simester, D. I., Hauser, J. R., Wernerfelt, B., & Rust, R. T. (2000). Implementing quality improvement
programs designed to enhance customer satisfaction: Quasi-experiments in the United States
and Spain. Journal of Marketing Research, 102–112.
Sin, L. Y. M., Tse, A. C. B., Yau, O. H. M., Chow, R. P. M., Lee, J. S. Y., & Lau, L. B. Y. (2005).
Relationship marketing orientation: scale development and cross-cultural validation. Journal
of Business Research, 58(2), 185–194.
Singh, R., & Koshy, A. (2011). Does salesperson’s customer orientation create value in B2B
relationships? Empirical evidence from India. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(1), 78–
85.
Singh, R., & Koshy, A. (2012). A new conceptualization of salesperson’s customer orientation:
Propositions and implications. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(1), 69–82.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 30(4), 526.
Stremersch, S., & Van Dyck, W. (2009). Marketing of the life sciences: A new framework and research
agenda for a nascent field. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 4–30.
Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effective
selling. The Journal of Marketing, 39–52.
Swanson, J., Oosterlaan, J., Murias, M., Schuck, S., Flodman, P., Spence, M. A., Wasdell, M., et al.
(2000). Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder children with a 7-repeat allele of the dopamine
receptor
D4
gene
have
extreme
behavior
but normal
performance
on critical
66
neuropsychological tests of attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
97(9), 4754.
Tangney, J. P., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt,
pride, and embarrassment. New York: Guilford Press.
Tanner, R. J., Ferraro, R., Chartrand, T. L., Bettman, J. R., & Van Baaren, R. (2008). Of chameleons
and consumption: The impact of mimicry on choice and preferences. Journal of Consumer
Research, 34(6), 754–766.
Thakor, M. V., & Joshi, A. W. (2005). Motivating salesperson customer orientation: insights from the
job characteristics model. Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 584–592.
Thompson, J., Thomas, N., Singleton, A., Piggott, M., Lloyd, S., Perry, E. K., Morris, C. M., et al.
(1997). D2 dopamine receptor gene (DRD2) Taq1 A polymorphism: reduced dopamine D2
receptor binding in the human striatum associated with the A1 allele. Pharmacogenetics, 7(6),
479.
Tuli, K., Kohli, A., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking customer solutions: From product bundles
to relational processes. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 1–17.
Verbeke, W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). A situational analysis on how salespeople experience and cope
with shame and embarrassment. Psychology and Marketing, 19(9), 713–741.
Verbeke, W., Dietz, B., & Verwaal, E. (2011). Drivers of sales performance: a contemporary metaanalysis. Have salespeople become knowledge brokers? Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 39(3), 407–428.
Verbeke, W. J., Belschak, F. D., Bakker, A. B., & Dietz, B. (2008). When intelligence is (dys)
functional for achieving sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 44.
Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the
socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 373.
Widmier, S. (2002). The effects of incentives and personality on salesperson’s customer orientation.
Industrial Marketing Management, 31(7), 609–615.
Williams, M. R., & Attaway, J. S. (1996). Exploring salespersons’ customer orientation as a mediator
of organizational culture’s influence on buyer-seller relationships. The Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, 33–52.
67
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work. Academy of Management Review, 179–201.
Zuckerman, M. (1971). Dimensions of sensation seeking. Journal of consulting and clinical
psychology, 36(1), 45.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Erlbaum Hillsdale, NJ.
Zuckerman, M. (2004). The shaping of personality: Genes, environments, and chance encounters.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(1), 11–22.
Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America:
Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology;
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(1), 139.
68