05 453
Conceptualization, implementation,
benefits and limitations of relationship
selling
Sergio Román Nicolás
University of Murcia
Abstract
The negative image that salespeople have traditionally had is in direct con trast to the most actual role of the selling function in the company: rela tionship selling. Under this new approach, salespeople are focused not
only on making the sale, but also on satisfying their customers and ulti mately on the establishment of a mutually satisfactory relationship with
them. In this article, the author provides a definition of relationship
selling, analyzes its implementation in the company as well as its benefits
and limitations. Finally, managerial implications are presented and future
research guidelines suggested.
Key words: relationship selling, sales management, salespeople.
JEL code:
may · august 2005 · esic market
[169]
454 05
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
1. Introduction
“Willy (to her wife): -Because I feel extremely lonely, especially when I do not sell
and I do not have anybody to talk to. All of a sudden, I have the impression that I
won’t sell anymore, that I won’t be able to provide you with a decent life…”
Arthur Miller (1949)
The sales profession has traditionally been marginalized by society
(Hawes et al., 2004). For instance, plays such as “Death of a salesman” show
f rustrated people who are obsessed with closing a sale despite buyer’s interests. Accordingly, it is very common that today in Spain the term “salesman”
is avoided in favor of other terms that have the same meaning (Barroso and
Cossío, 1998). This evidence is clear if you have a look at the job offers in
the newspapers. You can hardly see the term salesman, yet it is easy to re a d
other words such as: sales promoter, sales adviser or representative.
This situation can explain the fact that the area of personal selling and
sales management as an academic discipline has received little attention
from Spanish scholars, in comparison to other marketing topics (Román
et al., 2002a). Furthermore, the negative image that salespeople have traditionally had is in direct contrast to the most actual role of the selling
function in the company: relationship selling. Under this new approach,
salespeople are focused not only on making the sale, but also on satisfying
their customers and ultimately on the establishment of a mutually satisfactory relationship with them
We do agree with Professors Torán and Bigné, who in the prologue of
the recent book by Küster (2002), that deals with relationship selling,
argue that: “Several excellent articles and books have been written dealing
with relationship marketing….[ ]. Nonetheless, it is quite difficult to find
publications regarding relationship selling. Furthermore, most of them are
anecdotic and suffering from a theoretical background”. Yet, in the international arena, it is easy to find a great number of academic publications
dealing with relationship selling. Nevertheless, most of them build their
[170]
may · august 2005 · esic market
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
05 455
conceptual framework on the basis of relationship marketing, ignoring the
specific characteristics of the relationship selling paradigm. Furthermore,
there exists a lack of agreement and contradictory views regarding the
conceptualization and implementation of relationship selling (e.g., Jolson,
1997; Weitz and Bradford, 1999; Wilson, 2000; Jones et al., 2005).
Consequently, the main objective of the present article is to conceptualize the construct of relationship selling, and to analyze its implementation
in the company stressing both its benefits and limitations. In order to
achieve such objective, first the evolution of the personal selling function
is revised. Next, a brief discussion on relationship marketing is provided.
A formal conceptualization of relationship selling is provided based on
earlier literature. The latter leads us to show the main differences between relationship selling and a closely related construct: partnering selling.
In what follows the implementation of relationship selling in the company,
its benefits and limitations are analyzed. Finally, conclusions are presented, managerial implications discussed and future research proposed.
2. The evolutonary process in personal selling
In 1960 the American Marketing Association defined personal selling as
an: “oral presentation that takes place between a salesman and one or
more potential customers with the objective of closing the sale”. Yet, it is
worth taking into account that the salesperson’s activities and responsibilities evolve at the time that companies react to competitive pressures
(Wilson, 2000). More than forty years later of AMA’s definition, Jones’s
(2005:4) contribution brings together the changes which took place in the
personal selling function, “professional selling is the interpersonal communication process in which a seller uncovers and satisfies the needs and
wants of a prospect to the mutual, long-term benefit of both parties”.
Based on both definitions is it plausible to realize that “selling as a profession and a function has evolved and dramatically changed over recent
decades” (Moncrief and Marshall, 2005:21). In this sense, the AMA’s definition does not consider customers’ needs, and focuses on closing the sale.
may · august 2005 · esic market
[171]
456 05
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
While in recent contributions the customer gains relevance in that the
salesperson has to make the sale but satisfying customer needs. In short,
personal selling has evolved from a sales orientation –transactional oriented– to a relationship marketing orientation, where the salesperson is
meant to create and maintain mutually beneficial relationships with customers based on the satisfaction of their needs (Wotruba, 1991; Anderson,
1996; Donaldson et al., 1997; Weitz and Bradford 1999; Futrell, 2002;
Williams and Attaway, 2003; Ingram et al., 2004).
Table 1 shows that the nature of personal selling, like marketing, has
evolved through five orientations. The production orientation precedes the
sales orientation. The former takes places in markets where demand is greater than supply. Consequently, selling is limited to accepting orders for the
supplier’s available offering and conveying it to the buyer (Wo t ruba, 1991).
Table 1. The evolution in the salesperson role
ROLE
CHARACTERISTICS
Production
Sales
Marketing
Relationship
marketing
Making sales
Making sales
Satisfying customer
needs
Building relationships
Short-term seller
needs
Short-term seller
needs
Seller and buyer
needs
Long-term seller and
buyer needs
Critical tasks of
salespeople
Taking sales orders
and deliver the
products
Convince customers
to buy the product
Adapt seller’s offer
to customer’s needs
Manage the
relationship with
the customer
Activities of
salespeople
Making sales calls
and informing
customers about the
firm’s offering
Influencing
customers using a
hard-sell approach
Help customers to
make decisions that
satisfy their needs
and solve their
problems
Creating new
alternatives by
matching buyer
needs with seller
capabilities
Provider
Persuader
Problem solver
Value creator
Objective
Orientation
Role of salespeople
Source: Based on Wotruba (1991), Weitz et al. (1998), Weitz and Bradford (1999), Futrell (2002), Ingram et al. (2004).
[172]
may · august 2005 · esic market
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
05 457
On the contrary, supply is greater than demand in the sales, marketing,
and relationship marketing orientations. A sales-oriented salesperson
implements high-pre s s u re selling techniques in order to persuade customers without considering their needs (Wotruba, 1991; Weitz et al., 1998;
Weitz and Bradford, 1999). Consequently, such an approach is short - t e rm
oriented, whereas in the other two approaches the salesperson listens to
the customer first, identifies customer and then offers the product that
best matches their specific circumstances and needs (Weitz et al., 1998;
Ingram et al., 2004). Salespeople in the relationship marketing orientation
work with their customers and their companies to develop solutions that
enhance the profits of both firms. In other words, they develop and maintain relational exchanges –exchanges in which the buyer and the seller
devote their attention to “increasing the pie” rather than “dividing the
pie”. In such a context, the salesperson becomes a key advisor for the
buying company (Wo t ruba, 1991; Weitz and Bradford, 1999; Ingram et
al, 2004).
In short, the most current approach to personal selling implies that the
salesperson not only has to implement the traditional activities of the personal selling process (i.e., presentation, overcoming objections, closing),
but also to identify customers’ needs, provide relevant information that
solves their problems and provide an after-sales service that warrants customer relationship maintenance (Cravens, 1995; Weitz et al., 1998;
Futrell, 2002; Ingram et al., 2004).
Nevertheless, it is important to consider that the evolution in the personal selling function is not only a matter of time evolution, but also in the
activities carried out by salespeople, that vary depending on the type of
industry, company and resources, as well as on the particular customers’
needs, characteristics of the competitors and the market (Wotruba 1991;
Darmon, 1998). Marshall et al.’s (1999) study provides empirical evidence to the evolutionary process in personal selling. They found that salespeople carry out most of the activities implemented in the mid 80’s (see
Moncrief, 1986), yet 49 new activities are identified.
may · august 2005 · esic market
[173]
458 05
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
3. Theoretical foundations of relationship selling:
3. relationship marketing
One of the most recognized definitions of relationship marketing is that of
Morgan and Hunt (1994:22), “relationship marketing refers to all marketing activities directed toward establishing, developing, and maintaining
successful relational exchanges”. Under this perspective, relationship marketing involves not only exchanges with customers, but also with internal
units in the company, suppliers and lateral organizations. More specifically, the selling company can have relational exchanges with suppliers of
goods or services, governmental institutions, final consumers, intermediate customers, employees, several business units in the company, competitors and nonprofit organizations.
Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) article implies to adopt a wide perspective
regarding the relationships that the company can establish, both inside
and outside. Moreover, it is possible to distinguish between those relationships that are established with customers, from those established with
other exchange partners. As for the former relationships, they achieve
their greatest manifestation in the vertical integration between the seller
and the buyer (Webster, 1992). On the contrary, discreet transactions take
place when parties exchange money for products, with no continuation in
the relationship. These two types of exchanges are the extremes of a continuum. Nevertheless, it is not only a company decision to establish in
which point of the continuum wants to be. The selling company has to
take into account the other party of the exchange, the customer (Jackson,
1985). The company needs to assess the predisposition of their customers
in such a continuum, being possible that some of their customers want
relational exchanges, whereas others transactional exchanges (Jackson,
1985; Berry, 1995; Holmlund, 2004).
Taken together, the above reveals how this new approach forces companies to abandon the traditional short-term focus –one sale– in favor of
the creation of a long-term relationship –continuing sales– (Berry and
Parasuraman, 1993). Furthermore, the company has to implement several
[174]
may · august 2005 · esic market
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
05 459
activities in order to effectively manage relationship marketing with their
customers. For instance: “salespeople need to focus on more longer-term
and customer-oriented selling strategies rather than selling techniques
directed toward immediate sales transactions” (Williams and Attaway,
1996:34). In this sense, relationship selling implies the tactical aspects of
the relationship marketing approach in order to strengthen the relationship (Jobber and Lancaster, 2000). For several companies, the responsibility of establishing and cultivating relationships with customers through
trust and satisfaction lies in the salesforce (Futrell, 2002). Consequently,
the success of the relationship strategy of the company with their customers is very much dependent on its salesforce in that they have a major
influence on the customers (Harris et al., 2005).
4. Conceptualization of relationship selling and differences
4. from partnering selling
Only recently, the relationship perspective in marketing has extended to
the area of personal selling. Webster (1992:15) argues that: “the traditional role of the salesperson is evolving towards a broader definition of responsibilities where the salesperson is a relationship manager”.
Accordingly, the salesperson is an advisor of the customer. Results from
Macintosh et al. (1992) reveal that the most successful salespeople place
special emphasis on establishing a relationship with the customer, rather
than on closing the sale.
From the early 90’s several articles are published dealing with the relationship selling paradigm. Some of them are theoretical pieces, though
they place special emphasis on industrial selling (Doyle and Roth, 1992;
Jolson, 1997; Schultz et al., 1999; Weitz and Bradford, 1999; Wilson,
2000; Küster, 2002). As for the empirical studies, some are focused on the
context of services (Crosby et al., 1990; Sharma et al., 1999; Boles et al.,
2000a and 2000b; Frankwick et al., 2001; Román and Ruiz, 2005), industrial markets (Williams and Attaway, 1996; Williams, 1998; Keillor et al.,
1999; Keillor et al., 2000; Beverland, 2001; Jap, 2001; Liu and Leach,
may · august 2005 · esic market
[175]
460 05
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
2001) or, recently, retailing (Beatty et al., 1996; Macintosh and Lockshin,
1997; Reynolds and Beatty, 1999; Reynolds and Arnold, 2000).
The studies related to the industrial markets are focused on the relationship between the buyer and the seller companies. In such a context, the
role played by the salesperson is not sufficiently identified and valued
(Doney and Cannon, 1997; Cannon and Homburg, 2001; Holmlund,
2004). On the contrary, the relationships between the individual salesperson and the buyer company have received little attention from scholars
(Boles et al., 1997a). Despite the fact that in industrial markets, the salesforce becomes a key vehicle to develop and cultivate long-term relationships between the two companies (Macintosh et al., 1992).
Table 2 shows the most relevant definitions of relationship selling.
Most of them refer to the development of a relationship between the individual salesperson and the customer, through a series of interactions that
take place aimed at maintaining a regular contact with the customer
(Crosby et al., 1990; Czepiel, 1990; Donaldson et al., 1997; Donaldson,
1998; Küster, 2002; Jones et al., 2005). These definitions are closely related to what Futrell (2002) has labeled consultative selling: “the process of
helping the customer achieve strategic short and long-term goals through
the use of the seller’s good and/or service” (p. 51).
[176]
may · august 2005 · esic market
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
05 461
Table 2. Definitions of relationship selling
Crosby et al. (1990)
Salesperson’s behavior focused on cultivate and develop the relationship with the customer.
Czepiel (1990)
It takes place after a series of interactions between the salesperson and the customer leading to the parties to know each other.
Doyle and Roth (1992)
It implies to get the position of preferential provider through the development of longterm trust in the key accounts of the seller.
Donaldson et al. (1997) and Donaldson (1998)
Sales strategy based on the development of a long-term relationship with customers.
Each sales interaction is perceived by the seller as a way to strengthen the relationship
with the customer and achieve customer loyalty to the seller.
Jolson (1997)
It refers to the development of trust between the seller and the buyer through the longterm delivery of high value benefits.
Williams (1998)
Degree to which the buyer trusts the salesforce and commits to maintain and develop the
interdependency with the salesforce of the selling company.
Jobber and Lancaster (2000)
It pursues to establish a long-term reliable relationship with the customer based on the
consideration of all their needs.
Küster (2002)
Sales process focused on the development of mutual trust between the buyer and the
seller with the aim of offering anticipated high-value long-term benefits to the buyer.
Jones et al. (2005)
Relationship selling is a process that occurs over time and its main goal is to provide
excellent long-term service to customers.
Source: Own elaboration.
On the contrary, Doyle and Roth (1992), Jolson (1997), Ingram et al.
(2004), and to a lesser extend Jobber and Lancaster (2000), restrict the
application of relationship selling to industrial markets. Likewise, even
may · august 2005 · esic market
[177]
462 05
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
though Johnston and Marshall (2003) do not provide a formal definition
of relationship selling, they confine its implementation between the buyerseller relationship. Williams (1998) provides a broader applicability of
relationship selling, though in industrial markets, but the role of the individual salesperson is highlighted.
Based on the definitions of relationship marketing and relationship selling
by Morgan and Hunt (1994) and Crosby et al. (1990) respectively, we define relationship selling as: all selling activities directed toward establishing,
developing, and maintaining successful relational exchanges between the
salesperson and the customer –either an organization or an individual–, and,
in turn, between the selling and the buying companies. Also, this approach
requires the ongoing satisfaction of the customer needs, both those related to
the product as well as the interaction. Likewise, we agree with Küster (2002)
in that trust is the key component of this concept. Yet, following Sharma et
al. (1999) it is also necessary that both parties have a predisposition to engage in a relationship based on mutual interests, commitment and loyalty.
F rom the previous definition the diff e rence with relationship marketing
becomes evident. Relationship selling pursues to establish one relationship
(not several) with the customer, and not with other relational agents.
Moreover, the customer can be either an organization or the final consumer.
Likewise, the selling process is emphasized in that the salesperson has to
satisfy customer needs re g a rding both the product and the sales interaction.
The latter is done, for example, by actively and empathetically listening
(Román et al., 2005), and adapting the message and the call lengh (Keillor
et al., 2000). To our understanding, relationship selling leads to a relationship between the buyer and the seller. In short, it implies to translate the
relationship marketing construct, that takes place between organizations, to
the individual relationship between the salesperson and the buyer, placing
special emphasis on the activities implemented by the salesperson.
Relationship selling finds its maximum expression in what has been
termed partnering selling. For instance, Jolson (1997) uses both terms
indistinctly. On the contrary, we defend that they are different constructs.
[178]
may · august 2005 · esic market
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
05 463
Yet, the partnering selling approach requires that the salesperson previously engages in relationship selling. Weitz and Bradford (1999) argue
that partnering selling is the emerging paradigm in personal selling.
Accordingly, salespeople “work with their customers and their companies
to develop solutions that enhance the profits of both firms […] the emphasis is on increasing the pie rather than dividing the pie, this involves for
the partnering firms to make risky, idiosyncratic investments” (p. 243).
Jolson (1997) argues that partnering selling can be implemented in
every context regardless of the size of the company, the type of product or
the type of customers. However, a review of the relevant publications dealing with partnering selling, allows us to verify that this approach needs
certain conditions to be successfully implemented:
1. As well as in relationship selling, there needs to be a favorable predisposition from the buyer to adopt such an approach. Otherwise the
relationship will not occur (Jolson, 1997; Weitz and Bradford, 1999).
2. The activities and tasks of the salesperson transform towards the
figure of relationship manager (Weitz and Bradford, 1999; Wilson,
2000) or marketing executive (Wotruba, 1991) adjusting all the
marketing mix components to meet the needs of a target market in
a competitively successful manner. In Weitz and Bradford’s (1999)
words: “the salesperson needs a detailed knowledge of their firm’s
capabilities and resources, and what the customer is going to
demand in the future” (p. 249). Similarly, they have worked in
various functional areas of the firm and have considerable experience with the buying firm, as well as its industry. Moreover, their
skills and abilities must allow them to: suggest creative and innovative solutions to the complex problems of the buying firm, coordinate the relationship with the client, deal with different departments of the buying firm, manage the conflict with them, and generate trust (Doyle and Roth, 1992; Jolson, 1997; Weitz and
Bradford, 1999). Even the salesperson or relationship manager
needs to integrate in the buying firm’s culture (Schultz et al., 1999).
may · august 2005 · esic market
[179]
464 05
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
3. The salesperson needs to count with the help of a sales team with
people from different departments of the selling company (Moon
and Armstrong, 1994; Weitz and Bradford, 1999; Wilson, 2000).
Likewise, several interactions are necessary to happen between both
companies at different levels: sales, engineering, and production
from the selling company and purchasing, finance, engineering and
production from the buying company (Schultz et al., 1999).
4. Moreover, it is necessary for the selling company to get integrated
in the production process of the buying company, and that both
work together towards the same goals, being the selling company
the only supplier of the selling company for a specific product
(Wilson, 2000; Ingram et al., 2004).
5. The relationships develop in the partnering role can only take place between companies, there is no place for final consumers (Futrell, 2002).
In short, we do not see partnering selling as the new paradigm in personal selling, rather as the update of the activities, skills and knowledge of
the traditionally known as the key account manager (Schultz and Evans,
2002), and now called relationship manager. They have to be leaders of a
team with people belonging to different functions of the firm. Following
Jobber and Lancaster (2000), and as it can be seen in several job offers in
the newspapers, this type of selling has particular importance in high-tech
industries, such as the software/hardware industry.
[180]
may · august 2005 · esic market
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
05 465
Table 3. Differences between relationship selling and partnering selling
Type of selling
Relationship selling
Partnering selling
Objective
Developed customer relationships through
the satisfaction of their needs implementing
behaviors that lead to trust
Develop customer relationships through
the achievement of their strategic objectives
Seller and buyer needs.
Seller needs and strategic objectives of
the customers
Critical tasks
Advice the customer and provide solutions
that satisfy their needs
Creating new alternatives by matching
buyer needs with seller capabilities
Activities
Maintaining and improving customer
satisfaction both with the salesperson and
the products he/she represents
Building and maintaining customer
relationships through the organization
and management of a sales team and the
management of conflict with the customer
Context of
implementation
All type of customers (organizations and
final consumers)
In the case of inter-organizational markets
the integration of the selling company in
the buying company is not necessary
Industrial markets, buyer-seller relationships
where it is necessary the integration of the
selling company in the buying company
Individual salesperson (supported by
the organization)
Sales team.
Salespeople or other personnel integrated
in the buying company
Orientation
Unit of analysis
Source: Own elaboration.
5. Application, benefits and limitations of relationship selling
In the preceding section we have shown that partnering selling is a highly
restricted concept when it comes to its implementation. It can only be implemented by a few salespeople. In this line, Weitz and Bradford (1999) and
Wilson (2000) acknowledge that transactional operations involve most of
the operations carry out by salespeople. Similarly, Johnston and Marshall
(2003) argue that the selling company may not be able to adopt a relational approach with all its customers, rather only with its key accounts.
may · august 2005 · esic market
[181]
466 05
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
Table 3 reveals that relationship selling can be implemented in more
contexts as opposed to partnering selling, for example: final consumers
markets and business to business markets, and in this latter case it is not
necessary for the selling company to integrate in the buying company.
Likewise, a selling team is not necessary yet it is convenient for the salesperson to have the support of several departments in his/her company.
There are several benefits achieved through the implementation of
relationship selling for the seller company and its salesforce: the price of
the product loses importance in the sales negotiations, the learning process is fostered, the knowledge of the buyer company is facilitated, the
salesperson’s credibility is improved, favorable word-of-mouth is pro m oted, and the likelihood of future purchases is increased (Crosby et al.,
1990; Johnston and Withers, 1995; Boles et al., 1997a, 2000a and
2000b; Sharma et al., 1999). On the other hand, the buyer obtains higher levels of ongoing satisfaction, both with the product and with the
sales interaction.
According to Johnston and Withers (1995:20): “in the relationship
selling approach making profits is a result, not a cause”. We do not agree
completely with this statement in that we reckon that the main goal of
relationship selling is not to obtain short-term sales, but the development
of a mutually beneficial relationship between the buyer and the seller, that
in the mid-run will provide economical benefits, if not, the seller may consider to abandon the relationship. Accordingly, it is worth mentioning that
it is not always convenient for the selling company and its salesforce to
adopt a relationship selling approach in that relational customers are more
difficult to satisfy, and the effective implementation of such an approach
presents several difficulties. Consequently we agree with several researchers when they argue that this approach is more likely to be effective
when the salesperson calls on a few highly profitable customers who are
engaged in frequent purchases (Crosby et al., 1990; Boles et al., 2000a;
Küster, 2002). In this sense, findings from DelVecchio et al. (2003) reveal
that the higher the hierarchical position of the contact person in the
[182]
may · august 2005 · esic market
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
05 467
buying company, the better his/her evaluations of the relational efforts
carried out by the salesperson.
In short, we understand that companies need to assess the degree to
which they want its salesforce to adopt a relational approach. At first, it
does not make too much sense that all salespeople practice relationship
selling with all their customers, without having determined if profits can
be made, and if resources, capabilities and skills are available. Even in one
company, the salesforce may adopt different approaches with their customers. For example, those in charge of supplying the product to the customer may operate under a production orientation. On the contrary, those
involve in creating new accounts may work under a relational approach,
if the company wants to have long-term relationships with their customers. Nevertheless, in certain contexts relationship selling has very little
application, as for example when selling low-involvement tangible goods
to final consumers.
6. Conclusions, management recommendations
6. and future research
The present article has conceptualized the construct of relationship selling,
and established the differences from the concept of partnering selling.
Likewise, we have shown the context where the practice of relationship
selling becomes more appropriate, as well as its benefits and limitations.
With this article we aimed to reduce the existing gap in the Spanish literature devoted to the field of personal selling and sales management by
presenting the role of personal selling in the new millenium. Similarly, the
conceptualization of relationship selling is necessary for the development
of future research on this topic.
Several aspects need to be taken into account by the company when
deciding the optimal level of relational approach in their salesforce. In particular, the present competitive environment characterized by world-wide
deregulation, the emergence of new forms of technology, industry - w i d e
consolidation, higher customer expectations, forces companies to diff e re n-
may · august 2005 · esic market
[183]
468 05
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
tiate their offerings. The implications for management are that it is of
i n c reasing importance that new, non-price factors, such as relational behaviors of the salesforce be used as a means of diff e rentiation, to achieve higher revenue growth and improved market share, through the establishment
of mutually satisfied relationships with customers. Yet, an efficient implementation of relationship selling implies, for the selling company, to incur
in higher costs in terms of sales training, supervision, evaluation and re m uneration. Once the company has analyzed the aforementioned factors, if
relationship selling is likely to bring profits to the company, several actions
should be carried out to foster such approach among their salespeople.
a) In first place, company policies should try to influence salespeople’s
attitude to practice relationship selling. This is because a customer
orientation approach can not be imposed by management, and
salespeople need to believe and value such orientation in order to
effectively implement it (Siguaw et al., 1994). In this vein, it is of
great importance that the sales supervisors act as an example to
follow to the sales team.
b) In addition, training can be used to re i n f o rce salespeople’s positive
attitudes towards relationship selling, and pre p a re salespeople to
e ffectively satisfy customer needs. Likewise, training should pro v i d e
salespeople with the necessary knowledge in terms of products and
competition (Román et al., 2002b). Product knowledge should emphasize the benefits and utilities off e red to the customers. Competitor
knowledge is to be used in a professional an ethical manner, and not
to criticize competition without any objective reason.
c) Sales training should also provide salespeople with the necessary
skills and abilities so that they are able to distinguish different types
of customers, identify their buying motive, and effectively analyze
their needs. All these skills could be taught through role-playing
where the salesperson acts consecutively as the customer and as the
salesperson. These exercises can be complemented with interactive
[184]
may · august 2005 · esic market
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
05 469
training assisted through computers. Finally, salespeople need to
practice what they have learned through on-the-job training, since
such methodology allows supervisors to evaluate and monitor
salesperson’s behavior, with the chance to correct the mistakes
made.
d) Nevertheless, besides the above, there has to be a commitment from
management that short-term goals will not be pursued and that the
satisfaction of long-term customer needs is a priority in the company (Anderson and Oliver, 1987). Accordingly, managers should
implement a behavior-based control system, where the activities
carried out by salespeople (e.g., through customers evaluations) are
considered when evaluating their performance.
e) Moreover, managers should try to communicate with their salespeople, assisting and guiding them in accurately viewing their day-today sales activity from a relational perspective; then they should not
reward them on a 100% commission based on the sales made, but
evaluate their various activities, not just the outcomes achieved
(sales volume). We do not imply that companies should avoid
incentive programs, rather they could use a combination of base
salary plus incentive pay in the form of commissions, bonuses or
both based not only on the sales performance but on how well longterm objectives such as customer satisfaction have been achieved.
Overall, if the company wants their salespeople to adopt a relationship
selling approach it is necessary to incur in an important inversion in term s
of the policies and actions described above. Consequently, management
should maximize the time that highly skilled and motivated salespeople
spend calling on their customers, since these activities have a major impact
on the customer. In this re g a rd, it is convenient to distinguish between the
actions that only the salesperson can carry out such as: preparing for the
sales call, presenting the product, handling objections, closing the sale, providing a follow-up service, from other actions, less specialized and easy to
may · august 2005 · esic market
[185]
470 05
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
implement: prospecting potential customers, maintaining a customer dataset, management of the sales operation, implementing routinely after sales
service. In this sense, recent findings from Johnson and Bharadwaj (2005)
suggest to use new technologies (e.g., internet) as a way to implement several administrative tasks more efficiently and faster. In short, the pro f i t a b l e
way of implementing a relational selling approach implies that salespeople
do not carry out all selling activities, but only those where their skills are
re q u i red and valued by the customers. Furt h e r, salespeople should need the
s u p p o rt of a selling team both before and after the sales is made.
This research provides several directions for future research. First, once
the concept of relationship selling has been rigorously delimited, we
encourage future researchers to develop and validate a scale to measure
relationship selling. In this vein, the work by Crosby et al. (1990) can be
very useful in the items generation. Second, results from experimental
and/or longitudinal designs may provide new insights into the changes in
the relationship between seller and the buyer, and the role placed by the
salesforce. In this regard, research by Frankwick et al. (2001) and Martín
and Román (2003) may be used as a starting point. Finally, it can be
argued that relationship selling represents just one of several approaches
to personal selling. For instance, the benefits of the frequency of contact
and communications may lead to the misperception that all organizational buyers prefer to be called on and checked up with a lot. In fact, some
organizational buyers may not desire excessive contact (Liu and Leach,
2001). Future research should certainly address this issue.
7. References
ANDERSON, E. and OLIVER, R.L. (1987), “Perspectives on BehaviorBased Versus Outcome-Based Salesforce Control Systems”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 51 (October), pp. 76-88.
ANDERSON, R.E. (1996), “Personal Selling and Sales Management in
the New Millenium”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, Vol. 16 (Fall), 17-32.
[186]
may · august 2005 · esic market
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
05 471
ANDERSON, R.E., HAIR, J.F. and BUSH, A.J. (1995), Administración de
Ventas, 2ª Edición. McGraw Hill.
BARROSO, C. and COSSÍO, F.J. (1998), “El Proceso de Reclutamiento de
la Fuerza de Ventas: Una Investigación Empírica de las Ofertas de
Empleo en Prensa” Revista Europea de Economía and Dirección de
Empresas, Vol. 7 (1), pp. 95-110.
BEATTY, S.E., MAYER, M., COLEMAN, J.E., REYNOLDS, K.E. and
LEE, J. (1996), “Customer-Sales Associate Retail Relationships”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72 (3), pp. 223-247.
BERRY, L.L. (1995), “Relationship Marketing of Services: Growing
Interest, Emerging Perspectives”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 23 (4), pp. 236-245.
BERRY, L.L and PARASURAMAN, A. (1993), Marketing de Servicios: La
Calidad como Meta, Parramón Ediciones. Barcelona.
BOLES, J.S., BARKSDALE, C. Jr. and JOHNSON, J.T. (1996), “What
National Account Decision Makers Would Tell Salespeople About
Building Relationships”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 11 (2), pp. 6-19.
BOLES, J.S, BARKSDALE, C. Jr. and JULIE, T. (1997a), “Business
Relationships: An Examination of the Effects of Buyer-Salesperson
Relationships on Customer Retention and Willingness to Refer and
Recommend”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 12
(3/4), pp. 253-264.
BOLES, J.S, JOHNSON, J.T. and HAIR, J.F. Jr. (1997b), “Role Stress
Work-Family Conflict and Emotional Exhaustion: Interrelations and
Effects on Some Work Related Consequences”, Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 17 (Winter), pp. 17-28.
BOLES, J.S, JOHNSON, J.T. and BARKSDALES, H.C. Jr. (2000a), «How
Salespeople Build Quality Relationships: A Replication and
Extension», Journal of Business Research, Vol. 48 (April), pp. 75-81.
BOLES, J.S, BRASHEAR, T., BELLENGER, D. and BARKSDALE, H. Jr.
(2000b), “Relationship Selling Behaviors: Antecedents and Relation-
may · august 2005 · esic market
[187]
472 05
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
ship with Performance”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 15 (2/3), pp. 141-153.
CANNON J.P. and HOMBURG, C. (2001), “Buyer-Supplier
Relationships and Customer Firm Costs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
65 (January), pp. 29-43.
CRAVENS, D.W. (1995), “The Changing Role of the Sales Force”,
Marketing Management, Vol. 4 (2), pp. 49-57.
CROSBY, L.A., EVANS, K.R., and COWLES D. (1990), “Relationship
Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 68-81.
CZEPIEL, J.A. (1990), “Service Encounters and Service Relationships:
Implications for Research”, J o u rnal of Business Researc h, Vol. 20 (1),
pp. 13-21.
DELVECCHIO, S.K., ZEMANEK, J.E., MCINTYRE, R.P. and CLAXTON,
R. (2003), “Buyers’ Perceptions of Salesperson Tactical Approaches”,
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 23 (1), pp. 39-49.
DONALDSON, B. (1998), Sales Management: Theory and Practice,
Second Edition, Macmillan Business.
DONALDSON, B., SAREN, M. and TZOKAS, N. (1997), “Project RELATOR: Assesing the Relationship Orientation of Salespeople”, 31st Annual
Conference Academy of Marketing Manchester, (July), pp. 1293-1298.
DONEY, P.M. and CANNON, J.P. (1997), “An Examination of the
Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationship”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 61 (April), pp. 35-51.
DOYLE S.X. and ROTH, G.T. (1992), “Selling and Sales Management in
Action: The Use of Insight: Coaching to Improve Relationship Selling”,
J o u rnal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 12 (1), pp. 59-64.
ELLIS, K.L. and BEATTY, S.E. (1995), “Customer Relationships with
Retail Salespeople: A Conceptual Model and Propositions”, Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 594-598.
FUTRELL, C.M. (2002), Fundamentals of Selling, International Edition.
7th Edition. McGraw-Hill.
[188]
may · august 2005 · esic market
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
05 473
HARRIS, E.G., MOWEN, J.C. and BROWN, T.J.. (2005), “Re-examining
Salesperson Goal Orientation: Personality Influencers, Customer
Orientation, and Work Satisfaction ”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 33, pp. 19-35.
HAWES, J.M., RICH, A.K. and WIDMIER, S.M. (2004), “Assesing the
Development of the Sales Profession”, Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, Vol. 24 (1), pp. 27-37.
HOLMLUND, M. (2004), “Analyzing business relationships and distinguishing diff e rent interaction levels”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 33, pp. 279-287.
HUMPHREYS, M.A. and WILLIAMS, M.R. (1996), “Exploring the
Relative Effects of Salesperson Interpersonal Process Attributes and
Technical Product Attributes on Customer Satisfaction”, Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 16 (3), pp. 47-57.
INGRAM, T.N, LAFORGE R.W., AVILA, R.A., SCHWEPKER, C.H. JR.
and WILLIAMS, M.R. (2004), Professional Selling: A Trust-Based
Approach. Thomson-Southwestern.
JACKSON, B.B. (1985), “Build Customer Relationships that Lasts”,
Harvard Business Review, November-December, pp. 120-128.
JOBBER, D. and LANCASTER, G. (2000), Selling and Sales
Management, Fifth Edition, Prentice Hall.
JOHN, G. and WEITZ, B. (1989), “Salesforce Compensation: An
Empirical Investigation of Factors Related to
JOHNSON, D.S. and BHARADWAJ, S. (2005), “Digitization of Selling
Activity and Sales Force Performance: An Empirical Investigation”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33, pp. 3-18.
JOLSON, M.A. (1997), “Broadening the Scope of Relationship Selling”,
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 17 (Fall), pp. 75-88.
JONES, E., STEVENS, C. and CHONXO, L. (2005), Selling ASAP: Art,
Science, Agility Performance, Thomson, South-Western.
KEILLOR, B.D., PARKER, R.S., and PETTIJOHN, C. (1999) “Sales
Force Performance Satisfaction and Aspects of Relational Selling:
may · august 2005 · esic market
[189]
474 05
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
Implications for Sales Managers”, Journal of Marketing Theory &
Practice, Vol. 7 (Winter), pp. 101-115.
KEILLOR, B.D., PARKER, R.S. and PETTIJOHN, C. (2000),
“Relationship-Oriented Characteristics and Individual Salesperson
Performance”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 15
(1), pp. 7-22.
KÜSTER, I. (2002), La Venta Relacional, ESIC, Madrid.
MARTÍN, P.J. and ROMÁN, S. (2003), “Efectos del aumento de la frecuencia de visita vendedor-comprador en los mercados industriales”,
XV Encuentro de Profesores Universitarios de Marketing, Septiembre,
Córdoba.
MACINTOSH, G., ANGLIN, K.A., SZYMANSKI, D.M. and GENTRY,
J.W. (1992), “Relationship Development in Selling: A Cognitive
Analysis”; Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 12
(Fall), pp. 24-34.
MACINTOSH, G. and LOCKSHIN L. S. (1997), “Retail relatinships and
store loyalty: A multi-level perspective”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 14 (5), pp. 487-497.
MARSHALL, G.W., MONCRIEF, W.C. and LASSK, F.G. (1999), “The
Current State of Sales Force Activities”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 28, pp. 87-98.
MONCRIEF, W.C. (1986), “Selling Activity and Sales Position
Taxonomies for Industrial Salesforces”, J o u rnal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 23 (August), pp. 261-270.
MORGAN, R.M. and HUNT, S.D. (1994), “The Commitment-Trust
Theory of Relationship Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 (3),
pp. 20-38.
REYNOLDS, K.E. and BEATTY, S.E. (1999), “Customer Benefits and
Company Consequences of Customer-Salesperson Relationships in
Retailing”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 (1), pp. 11-32.
REYNOLDS, K.E. and ARNOLD, M.J. (2000), “Customer Loyalty to the
Salesperson and the Store: Examining Relationship Customers in an
[190]
may · august 2005 · esic market
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
05 475
Upscale Retail Context”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, Vol. 20 (2), pp. 89-98.
ROMÁN, S., RUIZ, S. and MUNUERA, J.L. (2002a), “Efectos de la
Formación y la Intensidad Competitiva sobre el Rendimiento and la
Efectividad de la Fuerza de Ventas: Un Estudio Empírico a Nivel
Europeo”, Revista Europea de Economía and Dirección de Empresas,
Vol. 11 (1), pp. 183-196.
– (2002b), “Sales Training Effects on Salespeople Activity”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 (11/12), pp. 1344-1366.
ROMÁN, S. and S. RUIZ (2005), «Relationship outcomes of perceived
ethical sales behaviour: The customer’s perspective», J o u rnal of
Business Research, Vol. 58 (4), pp. 439-445.
ROMÁN, S., RUIZ, S. and MUNUERA, J.L. (2005), “The influence of
the compensation system and personal variables on a salesperson’s
effective listening behaviour”, Journal of Marketing Management (en
prensa).
RUYTER, K., MOORMAN L. and LEMMINK J. (2001), “Antecedents
of Commitment and Trust in Customer-Supplier Relationship in High
Technology Markets”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 30, pp.
271-286.
SCHULTZ, R.J, EVANS, K.R. and GOOD, D.J. (1999), “Intercultural
Interaction Strategies and Relationship Selling in Industrial Markets”,
Industrial Marketing Management, (November), pp. 589-600.
SCHULTZ, R.J and EVANS (2002), “Strategic Collaborative
Communication by Key Account Representatives”, Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 22 (1), pp. 23-31.
SHARMA, A. (1999), “Does the Salesperson Like Customers? A
Conceptual and Empirical Examination of the Persuasive Effect of
Perceptions of the Salesperson’s Affect toward Customers”,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 16 (2), pp. 141-162.
SIGUAW, J.A., BROWN, G, and WIDING, R.E. (1994), “The Influence
of the Market Orientation of the Firm on Sales Force Behavior and
may · august 2005 · esic market
[191]
476 05
conceptualization, implementation, benefits
and limitations of relationship selling
Attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 (February), pp.
106-16.
WEBSTER, F.E. Jr. (1992), “The Changing Role of Marketing in the
Corporation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.56 (4), pp. 1-17.
WEITZ, B.A., CASTEBERRY S.B. and TANNER, J.F. Jr. (1998), Selling:
Building Partnerships. 3ª Edición. Irwin/McGraw Hill.
WEITZ, B.A. and BRADFORD, K.D. (1999), “Personal Selling and Sales
Management: A Relationship Marketing Perspective”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 (2), pp. 241-254.
WILLIAMS, M.R. (1998), “The Influence of Salespersons’ Customer
Orientation on Buyer-Seller Relationship Development”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 13 (3), pp. 271-287.
WILLIAMS, M.R and ATTAWAY, J. (1996), “Exploring Salespersons’
Customer Orientation as a Mediator of Organizational Culture’s
Influence on Buyer-Seller Relationships”, Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, Vol. 16 (Fall), pp. 33-52.
– (2003), “At the Interface: The Nature of Buyer-seller interactions and
relationships”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 243-246.
WILSON, D.T. (2000), “Deep Relationships: The Case of the Vanishing
Salesperson”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol.
20 (1), pp. 53-61.
WOTRUBA, T. (1991), “The Evolution of Personal Selling”, Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 11 (Summer), pp. 1-12.
[192]
may · august 2005 · esic market