RESEARCH NOTE

DOES CUSTOMER ORIENTATION IMPACT OBJECTIVE SALES PERFORMANCE?

INSIGHTS FROM A LONGITUDINAL MODEL IN DIRECT SELLING
Fernando Jaramillo and Douglas B. Grisaffe

Since the inception of the concept, researchers have hypothesized that customer orientation plays a fundamental role in
explaining sales performance. However, Franke and Park’s (2006) meta-analysis challenged this notion with findings of a
nonsignificant effect of customer orientation on objective sales performance. This counterintuitive result was explained
by noting that the impact of customer orientation on objective sales measures may be present in the long run. In this
research note, we evaluate that notion by testing a model in which customer orientation is used to predict individual
rates-of-change in sales performance over time. Longitudinal salesperson performance in dollars, from the database of a
direct selling organization, is merged with survey responses and modeled using an emerging method called latent growth
modeling (LGM). Results confirm Franke and Park’s findings that customer orientation has a nonsignificant direct effect
on the static initial-level aspect of objective sales performance. However, as postulated, customer orientation does show
a significant direct effect on longitudinal sales performance trajectories. Our findings also suggest that customer-oriented
selling’s nonsignificant direct effect on cross-sectional performance may be due to a fully mediated indirect effect through
adaptive selling.

Due to their impact on performance, customer orientation
(Saxe and Weitz 1982) and adaptive selling (Spiro and Weitz
1990) have been the focus of “two prominent research streams
in sales force research” (Franke and Park 2006, p. 693). Sales-
people with high levels of customer orientation truly care
about customers, and thus engage in actions that customers
value, such as listening to customer feedback and solving
customer problems. Salespeople with high levels of adaptive
selling adjust their sales strategies in ways that better fit cus-
tomers’ needs and preferences (Hunter and Perreault 2006).
Together, then, customer orientation and adaptive selling lead
to win-win outcomes because customers are served in better,
more individually relevant ways, producing higher levels of
success for the sales force and the organization.
This suggests that organizations can use customer orien-
tation and adaptive selling to predict whether a salesperson
is a top or a bottom performer. Franke and Park’s (2006)
meta-analysis showed that adaptive selling had a significant
and direct effect on sales performance, regardless of whether
Fernando Jaramillo (Ph.D., University of South Florida), Assistant
Professor of Marketing, College of Business Administration, Uni-
versity of Texas at Arlington, jaramillo@uta.edu.
Douglas B. Grisaffe (Ph.D., Vanderbilt University), Assistant Profes-
sor of Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of
Texas at Arlington, grisaffe@uta.edu.
performance was measured using self-reported, managerial
ratings, or objective sales figures. Yet this meta-analysis also
found that customer orientation had a significant effect on
performance only when performance was measured with self-
reported measures. Contrary to expectations, the meta-analysis
found that the mean correlations linking customer orienta-
tion with both managerial ratings of performance (r = 0.01,
p > 0.1) and objective sales performance (r = 0.02, p > 0.1)
were nonsignificant. One explanation for these findings is
that the short-term impact of customer orientation is not
recognized by management or reflected in sales figures in the
short run, but could manifest itself in the long run (Franke and
Park 2006). If so, the long-term impact of customer orienta-
tion may be related to its positive association with customer
satisfaction (e.g., Homburg and Stock 2005), customer trust
(e.g., Langerak 2001), and customer’s willingness to maintain
his or her business relationship with the salesperson (e.g.,
Jones, Busch, and Dacin 2003). Another possibility is that
the impact of customer orientation on short-term objective
performance is mediated by adaptive selling wherein “a high
level of concern for customers does not automatically translate
into higher objective performance because adaptive selling
The authors thank Larry Chonko, Dawn Iacobucci, Paul Spector,
and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and
recommendations.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. XXIX, no. 2 (spring 2009), pp. 167–178.
© 2009 PSE National Educational Foundation. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0885-3134 / 2009 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/PSS0885-3134290205
168 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Figure 1
Impact of Customer Orientation and Adaptive Selling on Sales Performance
Note: Dotted lines denote a nonsignificant relationship (at α = 0.05).
behaviors must occur first” (Jaramillo et al. 2007, p. 69). Thus,
the impact of customer orientation on objective performance
could be mediated through adaptive selling in the short term,
while having a direct influence on longer-term, longitudinal
performance.
Although prior research has investigated the impact of
customer orientation on the level aspect of salesperson’s perfor-
mance, our current understanding of the impact of customer
orientation on the longitudinal trajectory aspect of salesperson’s
performance is limited. This limitation occurs because em-
pirical studies have mostly relied on static, one-shot observa-
tions that cannot capture dynamic longitudinal performance
(Williams and Plouffe 2007). This is a serious shortcoming
because sales leaders are not just interested in understanding
the factors that can explain a salesperson’s static performance.
As Ployhart and Hakel assert, understanding the dynamic
nature of performance is critical because “individuals who
are perhaps high-performing initially may be low-performing
later” (1998, p. 860). In fact, longitudinal performance reflects
the salesperson’s ability to sustain, decrease, or increase initial
sales levels—a vital dimension of performance beyond single
static snapshots (Ash 1995).
The aim of this research note is to make a contribution
beyond purely cross-sectional studies by investigating the
impact of customer orientation on both level and trajectory
aspects of performance. Specifically, this paper tests a model
in which customer orientation has (1) an indirect effect on the
level aspect of objective performance through adaptive selling,
and (2) a direct effect on objective performance trajectory (Fig-
ure 1). As such, this research note serves as an initial response to
Franke and Park’s (2006) call for longitudinal studies investi-
gating the relationships among customer orientation, adaptive
selling, and salesperson’s performance. The data structure is
tested using latent growth modeling (LGM), an application of
structural equation modeling for the analysis of longitudinal
data (Bollen and Curran 2006; Duncan, Duncan, and Strycker
2006). Linear LGM is specifically designed to simultaneously
test questions concerning individual’s static starting levels
and subsequent longitudinal trajectories (i.e., intercepts and
slopes, respectively) using longitudinal data. LGM also has
explicit provision for explanatory latent covariates that have
been purified of measurement error (Bollen and Curran 2006;
Williams, Edwards, and Vandenberg 2006). While not focused
on customer orientation, but among the rare exceptions to
cross-sectional studies, Ployhart and Hakel’s (1998) study of
securities salespeople demonstrated that LGM can provide
valuable insights in longitudinal sales contexts. LGM is thus
well suited to our substantive research questions about cus-
tomer orientation’s impact on short-term performance levels
and long-run performance trajectories.

BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Franke and Park’s (2006) meta-analysis hypothesized that
customer orientation and adaptive selling are two important
characteristics of high-performing salespeople. Customer-
oriented selling has been conceptualized as “the degree to
which salespeople practice the marketing concept by trying to
help their customers make purchase decisions that will satisfy
customer needs” (Saxe and Weitz 1982, p. 344). Customer-
oriented salespeople are solution providers who deliver value
by assessing customers’ needs, then responsively helping
customers identify alternatives, evaluate them, and select the
best solution (Ehert 2004). In view of this, researchers have
noted that customer orientation should have a positive effect
on performance (e.g., Pettijohn, Pettijohn, and Taylor 2007;
Saxe and Weitz 1982). Results from Franke and Park’s (2006)
meta-analysis were thus quite counterintuitive in showing the
relationship between customer orientation and objective sales
to be statistically nonsignificant. In their interpretation of this
finding, Franke and Park state that “customer-oriented selling
does not consistently lead to sales” (2006, p. 700). This is in
contrast, however, to some individual unaggregated studies,
where in fact the expected relationship is found. For example,
Joshi and Randall’s (2001) study shows that in a direct sell-
ing environment, customer orientation had a positive effect
on salesperson’s performance, measured in terms of self-rated
achievement of sales objectives. All things considered, we start
with the hypothesis that customer orientation does have a
positive effect on job performance level:
Hypothesis 1: Customer orientation has a positive effect on
sales performance level.
Psychologists have long argued that goal orientations
may explain individual differences in the rate of change on
performance (e.g., Hofmann, Jacobs, and Baratta 1993). We
posit that the salesperson’s drive to serve the customer plays
an important role in explaining performance improvement.
Customer-oriented salespeople avoid short-sighted sales tactics
that sacrifice customer interests, and engage in relationship-
building behaviors directed at increasing long-term customer
satisfaction (Saxe and Weitz 1982). It makes sense that a deeper
focus on meeting customer needs would help to forge stronger
relationships across time, paying off in the long term. Actually,
researchers have used customer-oriented selling as a surrogate
of salespersons’ long-term performance (see Joshi and Randall
2001). Ployhart and Hakel (1998) found that empathy had a
significant impact on sales performance growth rate. Empathic
salespeople care about customer emotions and have a greater
ability to understand and meet customer needs (Widmier
2002). This explains why empathy is a significant driver of
salesperson’s customer orientation (Widmier 2002). As also
proposed by Franke and Park’s (2006) interpretation, the above
Spring 2009 169
discussion suggests that customer orientation influences the
rate of performance growth across time periods:
Hypothesis 2: Customer orientation has a positive effect on
sales performance growth rate.
Adaptive selling refers to a salesperson’s ability to collect
information from the customer, listen to customer input, and
respond by altering sales behaviors during customer interac-
tions (Jaramillo et al. 2007; Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986).
The salesperson modifies technical, logistic, administrative,
financial, and organizational practices (Hagberg-Anderson
2006), thereby bringing a more customized, value-producing
solution to the customer. The logical consequence of these
aspects of adaptive selling is higher levels of sales. Numerous
studies have found that adaptive selling is an important driver
of salesperson’s performance (e.g., Giacobbe et al. 2006; Jara-
millo et al. 2007). Therefore, we hypothesize that
Hypothesis 3: Adaptive selling has a positive effect on sales
performance level.
Franke and Park (2006) tested the premise that customer
orientation also might play an indirect role in performance
through adaptive selling. This mediated formulation was speci-
fied in their meta-analysis and was used to explore significant
shared variance between the two marketing constructs. The
specified causal direction is consistent with research indicat-
ing that salespeople who display a high level of concern for
customers are more likely to adapt their behavior to effectively
satisfy individual customer needs and preferences (Saxe and
Weitz 1982). Jaramillo et al.’s (2007) study found that adap-
tive selling mediates the impact of customer orientation on
objective sales performance. That logic, combined with our
earlier hypothesis about customer orientation’s direct effect on
sales level, leads us to propose the following partially mediating
hypothesis in our model:
Hypothesis 4: Adaptive selling partially mediates the impact
of customer orientation on sales performance level.1
Control Variable
Experienced salespeople generally are assumed to be more
capable of identifying customer needs, more willing to en-
gage in adaptive selling, and eager to provide customers with
solutions, which ultimately helps them achieve higher overall
performance levels (Franke and Park 2006). Also, experienced
salespeople tend to have larger, more established installed
customer bases, logically resulting—all else equal—in more
potential repeat business (Franke and Park 2006). Further,
if customer reference and word-of-mouth effects are in play,
as is often the case in direct selling, these larger established
customer bases could “compound” at incrementally faster
170 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
rates across time. In their study of insurance salespeople, Hof-
mann, Jacobs, and Baratta (1993) found that experience in
the company had a significant impact on performance growth
rates. In their study of sewing machine operators, Deadrick,
Bennett, and Russell (1997) also found that experience was
related to the rate of performance improvement over time.
Together, these effects may cause experience to relate to higher
performance levels and growth rates. Thus, we treat sales
experience as a control variable affecting customer orienta-
tion, adaptive selling, performance level, and performance
growth trajectories.
METHODOLOGY
Data
We drew our data from a sample of independent sales con-
sultants working for a large direct selling organization. Direct
selling is an important context for sales research, as it has
become a sizable and rapidly growing part of the sales domain
and the economy. The Annual Review of the Direct Selling
Association (2006) highlights the importance of this sector in
the United States, noting total annual sales of $2.6 billion, 80
percent growth in the past 10 years, and a workforce of over
13.6 million people. Outside the United States, total sales are
greater than $105 billion, with 100 percent growth in the last
decade, and employment of over 57 million people.
Direct sellers are formal representatives of a company but
are also considered to be independent agents. They are not
viewed as employees and are not subject to the same kind of
control systems found in traditional sales departments. They
are required to follow the legal and ethical guidelines set forth
by the parent organization (Pratt 2000), albeit through a less
formal structure. Direct salespeople typically work with a
sales director who is responsible for ensuring adherence to
the overall policies of the firm. Beyond that guidance, direct
salespeople often organize in more informal collaborative
working groups of several independent representatives to ex-
change information and selling tips, hold sales workshops to
create shared opportunities, and assist each other by loaning
inventory (Sparks and Schenk 2001).
We started with a sample of 1,266 independent sales repre-
sentatives of a single large direct selling organization, randomly
selected from across the United States. These individuals
received online access to a questionnaire that we designed.
Our executive contact posted this survey on a company Web
site and sent an e-mail invitation to the sample, stressing the
importance of the project to the firm. The invitation was sent
from corporate headquarters, worded with contextually ap-
propriate terminology, and contained typical company logo
headings and other familiar icons of the firm. It also contained
a password granting access to the survey for each potential
respondent. Data were accumulated through the Web site and
electronically transmitted to the researchers.
A total of 608 respondents completed the survey, 455 of
which had matched sales data from company records, render-
ing an effective response rate of 36 percent. Because the data
were collected quickly by electronic means over a two-week
period, assessment of early versus late respondents is not war-
ranted. Descriptively, respondents came from 49 states and
Puerto Rico. Respondents were all female due to the nature of
the products sold by this particular organization. Participant
ages ranged from 19 to 78 years, with an average age of 39.86
years (standard deviation [SD] = 11.1). The average tenure
with the organization was 3.86 years (SD = 3.67), ranging
from 0.1 to 26.8 years of experience. Among respondents
reporting their ethnicity, the majority were Caucasians (60
percent) followed by Hispanics (34 percent) and African
Americans (6 percent).
Longitudinal Dependent Variable Measurement
In addition to the survey data, the company provided us
with 12 months of sales data matched at the individual sales
representative level. These sales figures came from a separate
and independent internal company database. At the time
of the data capture, six months of postsurvey sales data were
available. We also had access to sales data for the six months
immediately prior to the survey, creating an equal number of
pre- and postobservations exactly balanced around the survey
administration. To smooth some of the month-to-month
variability in sales figures, we aggregated the 12 months of
sales data into quarterly groupings (e.g., Ployhart and Hakel
1998). This produced two quarterly presurvey observations
(Time 1 and Time 2) and two quarterly postsurvey observa-
tions (Time 3 and Time 4). Of the 608 respondents, 455 had
matched sales data from all four time periods (74.8 percent
of respondents). We used these individuals with complete
matches to the four-period sales data to perform our analysis.
We also applied a logarithmic transformation to correct posi-
tive skewness inherent in the raw dollar measures (Bollen and
Curran 2006; Sriram, Balachander, and Kalwani 2007).
Measures
The constructs depicted in Figure 1 were operationalized
with items taken from established scales. Table 1 presents
the scale items and relevant summary statistics for each of
the measures. An initial confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was used to test the measurement properties of these scales
in our sample (Gerbing and Anderson 1988). Resulting
indices suggest adequate fit (χ2 = 19.78, degrees of freedom
[df ] = 8, p < 0.01; root mean square error of approximation
[RMSEA] = 0.071, CI90% 0.031 to 0.011; comparative fit index

Table 1
Scale Items and Scale Statistics
Mean
(Standard
Construct Name and Items Deviation)
Customer Orientation (Saxe and Weitz 1982) 6.44
(0.82)
I offer the product that is best suited to the
customer’s need.
I answer a customer’s question about products
as correctly as I can.
I try to bring a customer with a need together
with a product that satisfies that need.
Adaptive Selling (Robinson et al. 2002) 5.08
(1.38)
When I feel my selling approach is not working
in a selling situation, I tend to change to
another approach.
I experiment with different sales approaches.
I tend to use a wide variety of selling approaches.
Note: Factor loadings are standardized and significant at α = 0.01.
[CFI] = 0.99; goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = 0.94, normed
fit index [NFI] = 0.98). All intraconstruct indicator loadings
(λ) were significant at α = 0.01, thus providing evidence of
convergent validity (cf. Speier and Venkatesh 2002). Evidence
of discriminant validity is indicated by a comparison of a two-
factor confirmatory model (χ2 = 19.78) that treats customer
orientation and adaptive selling as separate constructs with a
one-factor confirmatory model (χ2 = 336.17) that treats them
as a single construct. The difference in χ2df = 1 was significant
at α = 0.01, in support for the two-factor model (Gerbing
and Anderson 1988).
Results also evidence adequate reliability (Bagozzi and Yi
1988). As shown in Table 1, all Cronbach alphas and structural
equation modeling (SEM) composite reliability indices are
above 0.7. In addition, all average variance extracted indices
(ρv ) were above 0.5. Finally, we note that the longitudinal
dependent variable—actual sales—originated from sources
that were independently measured and differently scaled. This
enhances the validity of our findings because it minimizes
the possibility of empirically observed relationships occur-
ring simply as a result of common method bias (Podsakoff
et al. 2003).
MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND RESULTS
Latent Growth Models
LGM was used to test all hypotheses. LGM is an advanced
application of SEM used to analyze longitudinal data. LGM
allows researchers to explicitly address questions about pat-
Spring 2009 171
Average
Composite Variance Factor
α Reliability Extracted Loading
0.94 0.95 0.86
0.90
0.95
0.94
0.87 0.89 0.74
0.82
0.98
0.76
terns in measures observed across multiple points in time
(Bollen and Curran 2006; Duncan, Duncan, and Strycker
2006). We leveraged LGM’s capability to model (1) the ini-
tial status of a construct (e.g., level of sales performance at
the first time period), (2) the longitudinal trajectory of the
construct (e.g., rate of sales performance growth across all
time periods), and (3) a system of latent explanatory covariates
that can be modeled as influencers of the initial status and
trajectory variables.
LGM estimation typically follows a two-step procedure
(Bollen and Curran 2006). An unconditional latent growth
model (ULGM) is tested first. Thus, we tested an uncon-
ditional linear model (Figure 2) that fit only unobserved
intercept and slope “constructs” to the repeatedly measured
dependent variables. The initial level is an “intercept” and
the rate of growth is a “slope.” Because these are modeled as
“random effects” (i.e., a person-specific intercept and slope
is estimated for each respondent), also assessed in this step
is the degree of between-person variability in these estimates
(Bollen and Curran 2006). Statistically significant variability
(i.e., nonzero) implies the presence of variance that may be
explainable in subsequent modeling steps.
Given that the unconditional model demonstrates evidence
of adequate model fit and statistically significant individual-
level variability, a second step is undertaken called the con-
ditional latent growth model (CLGM) (Bollen and Curran
2006). In the CLGM, not only are intercepts and slopes
modeled, but a system of explanatory covariates can be intro-
duced following familiar SEM principles (see Figure 1). These
covariates are theoretically justified predictors of the previously
172 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Figure 2
Unconditional Latent Growth Model (ULGM)
modeled ULGM intercept-slope structure. The covariates help
to explain “which cases will start high versus low and which
will increase steeply and which will not” (Bollen and Curran
2006, p. 9). The entire CLGM system is estimated simulta-
neously using the maximum likelihood method. Just as in
traditional SEM applications, the causal effects are estimated
wherein the theoretical constructs have been disattenuated
for the influence of measurement error. The usual variety of
standard structural equation model fit indices are produced
as outputs. A brief description is given in the Appendix of the
functional forms of the ULGM and CLGM.
Unconditional Latent Growth Model Results
Per Bollen and Curran (2006), we estimated the ULGM us-
ing LISREL 8.80 (Figure 2). This model fit well (χ2 = 7.39,
df = 5, p > 0.05; RMSEA = 0.034 (CI90% 0.00 to 0.079);
CFI = 0.993; GFI = 0.995, NFI = 0.980), with the mean
intercept and slope estimates significantly differing from 0
(μα = 6.12, t = 78.5, μβ = –0.34, t = –8.86), and with statisti-
cally significant individual-level variation sufficient for further
modeling in both the intercepts (σ2α = 1.53, t = 8.69) and
slopes (σ2β = 0.24, t = 4.96).
Results of the ULGM show that (1) the sales performance
level (intercept in natural log dollar units) is positive and
different from 0; (2) the sales performance slope trajectory is
also different from 0, with the negative sign indicating that
sales are decreasing with the passage of time (consistent with
the observed quarterly means in Table 2); and (3) there is
sufficient variation in individual-level random intercept and
slope effects to warrant introduction of explanatory covariates.
Thus, we move to the CLGM.
Conditional Latent Growth Model Results
CLGMs include a set of variables used to predict the inter-
cepts and slopes of the ULGM (Bollen and Curran 2006).
Results for our model of Figure 1 indicate that the CLGM
has an adequate fit: χ2 = 69.6, df = 42, RMSEA = 0.038
(CI90% 0.021 to 0.054), CFI = 0.989, GFI = 0.974, and
NFI = 0.973 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Also, as suggested by
Bollen and Curran (2006), model fit was assessed by examin-
ing the magnitude of parameter estimates, squared multiple
correlations, size of modification indices, and differences
between the observed and predicted variance–covariance ele-
ments. These inspections further supported the presence of
an adequate model. Finally, the model explains 6.3 percent
of the variance in performance level2 and 15.3 percent of the
variance in performance growth. Given the adequate model
diagnostics, the next section describes results for our specific
hypothesis tests, as summarized in Table 3.
Model Hypotheses
H1 predicted a positive effect of customer orientation (CO)
on objective sales level (SL). Contrary to our expectations,
this relationship was nonsignificant (H1: β = 0.11, p > 0.10).
It is, however, consistent with the nonsignificant CO → SL
finding in Franke and Park’s (2006) meta-analysis. Results
of additional hypothesis tests help to clarify and extend the
 Spring 2009 173

Table 2
Pairwise Correlation Coefficients

Variables

Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Sales Time 1
2. Sales Time 2 0.29
3. Sales Time 3 0.36 0.38
4. Sales Time 4 0.33 0.39 0.43
5. Customer Orientation 0.12 0.15 0.23 0.20
6. Adaptive Selling 0.08 0.19 0.06 0.05 0.35
7. Experience 0.01 –0.03 0.15 0.13 –0.03 –0.07
Mean 1,000.1 827.0 763.1 687.5 6.44 5.08 3.86
Standard Deviation 1,041.8 840.5 687.5 868.0 0.82 1.38 3.97
Number of Scale Items — — — — 3 3 —
Cronbach’s α — — — — 0.89 0.83 —
Composite Reliability — — — — 0.89 0.83 —
Average Variance Extracted — — — — 0.74 0.62 —

Note: Correlations coefficients with magnitudes greater than 0.11 are significant at α = 0.05.

Table 3
Results of the Conditional Latent Growth Model (CLGM)

SP1, UP2 Significance

Hypothesized Relationships (t-value) (α = 0.05, two-tailed)

H1: Customer orientation → sales level 0.11, 0.19 (1.57) Nonsignificant

H2: Customer orientation → sales growth rate 0.32, 0.21 (3.60) Significant
H3: Adaptive selling → sales level 0.18, 0.20 (2.42) Significant
H4: Adaptive selling partially mediates the impact of Partial mediation is
customer orientation on sales performance level. nonsignificant
Customer orientation → adaptive selling 0.42, 0.65 (8.71) Mediation is significant3
Control Variable
Experience → sales level 0.008, –0.000 (0.007) Nonsignificant
Experience → sales growth rate 0.263, 0.003 (3.40) Significant
Experience → adaptive selling –0.053, –0.001 (–1.14) Nonsignificant
Experience → customer orientation –0.042, –0.001 (–0.88) Nonsignificant
Adaptive selling → sales growth rate –0.140, –0.06 (–1.49) Nonsignificant
Percentage of Variance Explained (R 2)
Sales level (intercept) 0.063 —
Sales growth rate (slope) 0.153 —
Adaptive selling 0.180 —
Customer orientation 0.002 —

Notes: 1 SP = standardized path. 2 UP = unstandardized path. 3 Mediation requires: (1) significance of the CO → AS relationship, (2) significance of the
AS → SL relationship (after controlling for the CO → SL relationship), and (3) a nonsignificant CO → SL relationship (Kenny 2008).

interpretation of this replicated nonsignificant path. In H3,
we predicted a positive direct effect of adaptive selling (AS)
on sales level. We found support for this hypothesis (H3:
β = 0.18, p < 0.05). Thus, the finding of a nonsignificant
CO → SL relationship and a significant AS → SL relationship
in our data reaffirm, and are directly in line with, the findings
of Franke and Park’s (2006) meta-analysis.
We predicted in H4 that adaptive selling would partially
mediate the impact of customer orientation on sales level (i.e.,
CO → SL, and CO → AS, AS → SL). Because the impact of
customer orientation on sales level was nonsignificant in H1,
our data do not support this partially mediated structure.
However, results show that customer orientation affects sales
level through a fully mediated process that involves adaptive
174 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
selling. As indicated by Kenny (2008), full mediation can
be concluded under conditions of (1) significance of the
CO → AS relationship (β = 0.42, p < 0.01), (2) significance
of the AS → SL relationship (β = 0.18, p < 0.05, after control-
ling for the CO → SL relationship), and (3) a nonsignificant
CO → SL relationship (β = 0.11, p > 0.10). This is also in line
with results from Jaramillo et al.’s (2007) study.
Perhaps of central interest to the core purpose of our paper,
and an explicit benefit of our modeling approach, is the test
of H2—that customer orientation affects longitudinal sales
trajectory. We found clear support for this hypothesis in our
data (H2: β = 0.32, p < 0.01). The experience control variable
was the only other significant influence on sales trajectory
(β = 0.26, p < 0.01).3
Taken together, the results of our hypothesis tests clarify
and extend an understanding of how customer orientation
affects sales performance. In our data, customer orientation
did not impact sales performance level directly, consistent with
Franke and Park (2006). It did affect sales performance in two
ways: (1) by its indirect effect on sales level through adaptive
selling, and (2) by its direct effect on sales growth trajectories
over time. Regarding our test of this second means of influ-
ence, as called for by Franke and Park (2006), we know of no
other study that has yet brought empirical evidence to bear
on this clarification/extension of the positive role of customer
orientation on longitudinal sales performance.
DISCUSSION
A well-known quip has long been recognized regarding sales:
“nothing happens until somebody sells something” (Gordon
1965, p. 25). This acknowledged connection between sales and
the firm as a whole magnifies the importance of salesperson
performance and helps to explain why, despite meta-analyses
of hundreds of previous studies (e.g., Brown and Peterson
1993; Churchill et al. 1985; Franke and Park 2006; Vinchur
et al. 1998), new attention to sales performance continues to
emerge in leading marketing literature (e.g., Evans et al. 2007;
Hunter and Perreault 2007; Piercy et al. 2006). However, with
few exceptions (e.g., Hofmann, Jacobs, and Baratta 1993;
Ployhart and Hakel 1998), extant sales research has mostly
relied on static data to explain the level aspect of performance,
to the neglect of its longitudinal trajectory side.
Our paper addresses this limitation by testing a model that
explains the effect of customer orientation, adaptive selling,
and experience simultaneously on the level and trajectory as-
pects of sales performance. Firms are rightly concerned about
variables that can predict whether a salesperson is a top or a
bottom performer (a “level” question). But, in addition, firms
must be concerned about what drives a salesperson to sustain,
decrease, or increase their initial level of performance (a “trajec-
tory” question). As stated by one prominent leader in direct
selling, “The world is rife with flashes in the pan—people who
perform well for short periods but fizzle out over time . . . a
strong beginning is a good thing only when coupled with a
strong finish” (Ash 1995, p. 52).
We modeled longitudinally observed sales performance in
dollars using LGM. Our study confirms that adaptive selling
has a direct effect on performance level but does not show an
impact on sales growth. Conversely, our study also shows that
customer orientation explains individual differences in perfor-
mance growth but does not have a direct effect on performance
level. This is an important finding because it evidences that
performance level and performance growth may have a distinct
set of predictors, in terms of significance and magnitude. As
Deadrick, Bennett, and Russell assert, “the determinants of ini-
tial performance differ from the determinants of performance
improvement” (1997, p. 755). Our findings also bring further
support to Ployhart and Hakel’s (1998) claim that studying
sales performance trends over time is vital because it avoids
the possible erroneous conclusions that can result from studies
that rely on performance data collected at one time period.
The enhanced understanding offered by the type of model-
ing in our research is critical to the broad overarching goal of
explaining sales performance more comprehensively.
Understanding the longitudinal aspect of performance is
critical because performance is a dynamic process (see Walker,
Churchill, and Ford 1979). Researchers have claimed a longer-
term payoff of customer-oriented approaches through the
development of mutually reinforcing exchanges and relation-
ships that tend to deepen and strengthen over time (Franke
and Park 2006). Yet again, most studies examining the effects
of those constructs on sales performance also rely on static
data (Saxe and Weitz 1982; Siguaw, Brown, and Widing
1994; Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986). In fact, static data are
often recognized as a serious limitation of extant empirical
research (e.g., Franke and Park 2006; Siguaw, Brown, and
Widing 1994). For instance, Williams and Plouffe’s (2007)
review of 1,012 sales articles published in 15 leading marketing
journals found that less than 1 percent of all articles include
longitudinal data.
By contrast, our study used truly longitudinal performance
data to address questions about factors that account for in-
dividual differences in rates of change in sales performance
over time. We found that customer orientation and sales
experience relate directly to sales performance growth. Thus,
salespeople who are more likely to increase their initial level
of performance (or decrease at a lower rate) are those who
truly care about customer needs and who have been in the
company for a long time. Other factors not included in this
study may also affect performance growth rates. For instance,
researchers have argued that differences in cognitive ability
(Sturman, Cheramie, and Cashen 2005), learning orienta-
tion (Hofmann, Jacobs, and Baratta 1993), and age (Avolio,

Waldman, and McDaniel 1990) may also affect the trajectory
of job performance. Future research in sales that investigates
the impact of these factors on the dynamics of performance is
warranted. Dynamic models are available and appropriate for
such explorations, including the LGM approach we used, or
the hierarchical linear modeling approach used by others in
the past (e.g., Mathieu, Ahearne, and Taylor 2007).
While clarification of customer orientation’s role was
central to our study following the call from Franke and Park
(2006), we also note that the effect of experience on trajec-
tory is explainable in light of theories of relationship selling.
Salespeople who remain loyal to the firm are better able to
build and maintain long-term relationships with customers
(Palmatier et al. 2006). Positive consequences of building
long-term relationships include cumulative financial effects
that grow across time (Reichheld 1996). Again, all else equal,
we clearly would expect better long-term performance from
well-established relationships with customers, as opposed to
relationships that are right-censored by employee departures,
or those that have not had sufficient time to develop and
mature in broader and deeper ways (Bolton, Lemon, and
Verhoef 2004).
Taken together, these are important findings with clear
managerial implications. They stress the need to hire and
retain customer-oriented salespeople who, in the short run,
can adaptively sell in transactions, and who, in the long run,
can help to build lasting customer-focused relationships. There
also may be sales training implications. Our findings suggest
that a customer-centric point of view helps salespeople to bet-
ter recognize cues from customers and prospects that indicate
when an approach is not working, and to implement adaptive
selling techniques to get back in alignment with whatever is
valued by a particular customer or prospect.
Limitations and Future Research
Whereas our sales performance data were truly longitudinal,
the self-reported construct measures were captured at a single
point in time (time-invariant latent covariates). LGM can also
accommodate longitudinal latent covariates and outcomes.
There may be “virtuous circles” of mutually reinforcing effects
between the covariates or sales performance that longitudinal
modeling approaches such as LGM can be used to explore.
We were unable to test such notions with our data. The con-
straints of accessing a large organization’s sales force made
reasonable and feasible for us only a single administration of
the survey.
An additional limitation is the placement of our time-
invariant covariates in the center of the longitudinal sales per-
formance sequence. This means two presurvey observations are
predicted by a later measurement, posing a technical problem
for causal interpretation. However, given the reliability of the
Spring 2009 175
well-established constructs used, we would expect extremely
high test–retest reliability correlations with measures obtained
at the beginning of the dependent variable sequence—that is,
six months earlier. According to standards in psychological test
theory, six months is a reasonable minimum for computing
such a coefficient of stability (Crocker and Algina 1986).
Thus, we would expect nearly identical responses had our
measures been obtained six months prior. Further, it is not
any pre- or postmeasure in isolation being predicted in the
longitudinal portion of our analysis. Rather, LGM estimates
the slope values for the entire sequence taken as a whole. It
is those whole-sequence estimates that are actually predicted
in the model. Finally, we note that LGM’s static tests of the
intercept explicitly model the first time point in the sequence,
making those tests similar to many cross-sectional sales stud-
ies that use survey data to model prior objective performance
measures (e.g., Jaramillo et al. 2007).
Other limitations include the fact that our data were drawn
from a single company, in a direct selling context, with an
exclusively female sales force. This specificity raises questions
about generalizability. The concern may be assuaged partly
by clear replications found in the intercept component of our
modeling. Confirmation of previous research findings from
other diverse contexts provides some reassurance that our data
are not especially anomalous. Finally, our longitudinal study
relied on a one-year period, which could be deemed too short
to capture the dynamic aspect of performance. However, di-
rect selling is characterized by a short selling cycle, and thus,
this period was viewed as sufficient to explore the impact of
customer orientation and experience on performance growth
(Deadrick, Bennett, and Russell 1997).
Given the gaping dearth of longitudinal studies as revealed
in Williams and Plouffe (2007), our research minimally
adds one empirical study to an otherwise underpopulated
body of work. Further, since we know of no other published
longitudinal sales research which has yet applied LGM, this
study also offers an introductory application of an important
methodological approach available for other studies beyond
the particular limitations of our data. Regarding such future
research, extensions to other types of samples, conditions, and
sales contexts are clearly in order.
With these limitations and needed extensions noted, our
research still offers contributions to the sales literature by
assessing salesperson performance longitudinally, and by
implementing a powerful emergent approach to modeling
longitudinal trajectories, to clarify two ways that customer
orientation may influence sales performance. Future research
should acknowledge that sales performance has both level and
trajectory components, and that application of techniques
such as LGM to model both simultaneously may uncover
different sets of forces and dynamics driving these distinct
components.
176 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
NOTES
1. Following Franke and Park (2006), we also tested a competing
model with adaptive selling influencing customer orientation. In the
competing model, this path was significant, with model fit, diagnos-
tics, and all other estimates and significance levels extremely similar
to those for the model of Figure 1. We prefer as more plausible the
notion that the “mind-set” of customer orientation influences the
“behaviors” of adaptive selling.
2. Results are comparable with Franke and Park’s (2006) meta-
analysis that found that the combined effect of gender, experience,
job satisfaction, customer orientation, and adaptive selling predicted
only 11.2 percent of the variance in objective performance.
3. In testing our key hypothesis of the effect of customer orienta-
tion on sales trajectory, we controlled for the potential influence
of adaptive selling. Adaptive selling and sales trajectory showed a
statistically nonsignificant relationship.
REFERENCES
Ash, Mary Kay (1995), Mary Kay: You Can Have It All, Rocklin,
CA: Prima.
Avolio, Bruce J., David A. Waldman, and Michael A. McDaniel
(1990), “Age and Work Performance in Nonmanagerial
Jobs: The Effects of Experience and Occupational Type,”
Academy of Management Journal, 33 (2), 407–422.
Bagozzi, Richard P., and Youjae Yi (1988), “On the Evaluation
of Structural Equation Models,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 16 (Winter), 74–94.
Bollen, Kenneth A., and Patrick J. Curran (2006), Latent Curve
Models: A Structural Equation Perspective, Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
Bolton, Ruth N., Katherine N. Lemon, and Peter C. Verhoef
(2004), “The Theoretical Underpinnings of Customer Asset
Management: A Framework and Propositions for Future
Research,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32
(3), 271–292.
Brown, Steven P., and Robert A. Peterson (1993), “Anteced-
ents and Consequences of Salesperson Job Satisfaction:
Meta-Analysis and Assessment of Casual Effects,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 30 (February), 63–77.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Neil M. Ford, Steven W. Hartley, and
Orville C. Walker, Jr. (1985), “The Determinants of Sales-
person Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 22 (May), 103–118.
Crocker, Linda, and James Algina (1986), Introduction to Clas-
sical and Modern Test Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Deadrick, Dianna L., Nathan Bennett, and Craig J. Russell
(1997), “Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling to Examine
Dynamic Performance Criteria Over Time,” Journal of
Management, 23 (6), 745–757.
Direct Selling News (2006), Annual Review, Lake Dallas, TX:
Direct Selling Association.
Duncan, Terry E., Susan C. Duncan, and Lisa A. Strycker (2006),
An Introduction to Latent Variable Growth Curve Modeling,
2d ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ehert, Michael (2004), “Managing the Trade-Off Between Re-
lationships and Value Networks: Towards a Value-Based
Approach for Customer Relationship Management in
Business-to-Business Markets,” Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment, 33 (August), 465–473.
Evans, Kenneth R., Timothy D. Landry, Po-Chien Li, and
Shaoming Zou (2007), “How Sales Controls Affect
Job-Related Outcomes: The Role of Organizational Sales-
Related Psychological Climate Perceptions,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (September), 445–459.
Franke, George R., and Jeong-Eun Park (2006), “Salesperson
Adaptive Selling Behavior and Customer Orientation: A
Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (Novem-
ber), 693–702.
Gerbing, David W., and James C. Anderson (1988), “An Updated
Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimen-
sionality and Its Assessment,” Journal of Marketing Research,
25 (May), 186–192.
Giacobbe, Ralph W., Donald W. Jackson, Jr., Lawrence A. Crosby,
and Claudia M. Bridges (2006), “A Contingency Approach
to Adaptive Selling Behavior and Sales Performance: Selling
Situations and Salesperson Characteristics,” Journal of Person-
al Selling & Sales Management, 26, 2 (Spring), 114–142.
Gordon, Howard L. (1965), “What Is the Next Breakthrough in
Research?” Journal of Marketing, 29 (January), 25–27.
Hagberg-Anderson, Asa (2006), “Does Adaptation Pay Off?” In-
dustrial Marketing Management, 35 (February), 202–209.
Hofmann, David A., Rick Jacobs, and Joseph E. Baratta (1993),
“Dynamic Criteria and the Measurement of Change,” Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78 (2), 194–204.
Homburg, Christian, and Ruth M. Stock (2005), “Exploring the
Conditions Under Which Salesperson Work Satisfaction Can
Lead to Customer Satisfaction,” Psychology & Marketing, 22
(5), 393–420.
Hunter, K. Gary, and William D. Perreault (2006), “Sales Tech-
nology Orientation, Information Effectiveness, and Sales
Performance,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
26, 2 (Spring), 95–113.
———, and ——— (2007), “Making Sales Technology Effec-
tive,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (January), 16–34.
Jaramillo, Fernando, William B. Locander, Paul E. Spector, and
Eric G. Harris (2007), “Getting the Job Done: The Moderat-
ing Role of Initiative on the Relationship Between Intrinsic
Motivation and Adaptive Selling,” Journal of Personal Selling
& Sales Management, 27, 1 (Winter), 59–74.
Jones, Eli, Paul Bush, and Peter Dacin (2003), “Firm Market
Orientation and Salesperson Customer Orientation: Inter-
personal and Intrapersonal Influences on Customer Service
and Retention in Business-to-Business Buyer–Seller Relation-
ships,” Journal of Business Research, 56, 4 (April), 323–340.
Joshi, Ashwin W., and Sheila Randall (2001), “The Indirect Effects
of Organizational Controls on Salesperson Performance and
Customer Orientation,” Journal of Business Research, 54, 1
(October), 1–9.
Kenny, David A. (2008), “Mediation: Baron and Kenny Steps,”
David A. Kenny’s Webpages (May 20) (available at http://
davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm).

Langerak, Fred (2001), “Effects of Market Orientation on the
Behaviors of Salespersons and Purchasers, Channel Rela-
tionships, and Performance of Manufacturers,” Interna-
tional Journal of Research in Marketing, 18, 3 (September),
221–234.
Mathieu, John, Michael Ahearne, and Scott R. Taylor (2007), “A
Longitudinal Cross-Level Model of Leader and Salesperson
Influences on Sales Force Technology Use and Performance,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 2 (March), 528–537.
Palmatier, Robert W., Rajiv P. Dant, Dhruv Grewal, and Ken-
neth R. Evans (2006), “Factors Influencing the Effectiveness
of Relationship Marketing: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of
Marketing, 70 (October), 136–153.
Pettijohn, Charles E., Linda S. Pettijohn, and A.J. Taylor (2007),
“Does Salesperson Perception of the Importance of Sales
Skills Improve Sales Performance, Customer Orientation,
Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment, and
Reduce Turnover?” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Man-
agement, 27, 1 (Winter), 75–88.
Piercy, Nigel F., David W. Cravens, Nikala Lane, and Douglas
W. Vorhies (2006), “Driving Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors and Salesperson In-Role Behavior Performance:
The Role of Management Control and Perceived Orga-
nizational Support,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34 (Spring), 244–262.
Ployhart, Robert E., and Milton D. Hakel (1998), “The Sub-
stantive Nature of Performance Variability: Predicting In-
terindividual Differences in Intraindividual Performance,”
Personnel Psychology, 51 (4), 859–901.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and
Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003), “Common Method Bias in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88
(October), 879–903.
Pratt, Michael G. (2000), “The Good, the Bad, and the Am-
bivalent: Managing Identification Among Amway Dis-
tributors,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (September),
456–493.
Reichheld, Frederick F. (1996), The Loyalty Effect, Boston: Har-
vard Business School Press.
Robinson, Leroy, Greg W. Marshall, William C. Moncrief, and
Felicia G. Lassk (2002), “Toward a Shortened Measure of
Adaptive Selling,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Man-
agement, 22, 2 (Spring), 111–119.
Saxe, Robert, and Barton A. Weitz (1982), “The SOCO Scale:
A Measure of the Customer Orientation of Salespeople,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (August), 343–351.
Siguaw, Judy A., Gene Brown, and Robert E. Widing (1994),
“The Influence of Market Orientation of the Firm on
Spring 2009 177
Sales Force Behavior and Attitudes,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 31 (February), 106–116.
Sparks, John R., and Joseph A. Schenk (2001), “Explaining the
Effects of Transformational Leadership: An Investigation of
the Effects of Higher-Order Motives in Multilevel Market-
ing Organizations,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22
(December), 849–869.
Speier, Cheri, and Viswanath Venkatesh (2002), “The Hidden
Minefields in the Adoption of Sales Force Automation
Technologies,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (July), 98–111.
Spiro, Rosann L., and Barton A. Weitz (1990), “Adaptive Selling:
Conceptualization, Measurement, and Nomological Valid-
ity,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (February), 61–69.
Sriram, S., Subramanian Balachander, and Manohar U. Kalwani
(2007), “Monitoring the Dynamics of Brand Equity Us-
ing Store-Level Data,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (April),
61–78.
Sturman, Michael C., Robin A. Cheramie, and Luke H. Cashen
(2005), “The Impact of Job Complexity and Performance
Measurement on the Temporal Consistency, Stability, and
Test-Retest Reliability of Employee Job Performance Rat-
ings,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (2), 269–283.
Vinchur, Andrew J., Jeffrey Shippmann, Fred S. Switzer, and
Philip L. Roth (1998), “A Meta-Analytic Review of Predic-
tors of Job Performance for Salespeople,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83 (August), 586–597.
Walker, Orville C., Gilbert A. Churchill, and Neil M. Ford
(1979), “Where Do We Go From Here? Some Selected
Conceptual and Empirical Issues Concerning the Motiva-
tion and Performance of Industrial Salespeople,” in State
of the Art and Future Research Needs, Gerald Albaum and
Gilbert A. Churchill, eds., Eugene, OR: University of Or-
egon Press, 10–75.
Weitz, Barton A., Harish Sujan, and Mita Sujan (1986), “Knowl-
edge, Motivation, and Adaptive Behavior: A Framework
for Improving Sales Effectiveness,” Journal of Marketing,
50 (October), 174–191.
Widmier, Scott (2002), “The Effects of Incentives and Personality
on Salesperson’s Customer Orientation,” Industrial Market-
ing Management, 31, 7 (October), 609–615.
Williams, Brian C., and Christopher R. Plouffe (2007), “Assess-
ing the Evolution of Sales Knowledge: A 20-Year Content
Analysis,” Industrial Marketing Management, 36 (May),
408–419.
Williams, Larry J., Jeffrey R. Edwards, and Robert J. Vandenberg
(2006), “Recent Advances in Causal Modeling Methods
for Organizational and Management Research,” Journal of
Management, 29 (6), 903–936.
178 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
APPENDIX
LATENT GROWTH MODEL
We are necessarily limited here and provide only a short de-
scription of latent growth modeling (LGM) features relevant
to our application. More complete technical details and ap-
plication possibilities may be found in Bollen and Curran
(2006) and Duncan, Duncan, and Strycker (2006).
Unconditional and Conditional Latent Growth Models
The assumption of a linear unconditional model is that the
trajectory of the observed longitudinally measured dependent
variable (y) is explained by Equation (1):
yit = αi + λtβi + εit, (1)
where yit is the dependent variable for the ith person at time
t, αi is a latent random intercept for case i, and βi is a latent
random slope for case i. The λt parameter is a constant, which
by convention in linear trajectories takes on values = t – 1.
Thus, with four observations, λ1 = 0, λ2 = 1, λ3 = 2, and
λ4 = 3. Finally, εit is a disturbance term with E (εit ) = 0 for
all i and t.
Also estimated across all individual growth curves are
aggregate parameters for the mean and variance of the ar-
ray of individual intercepts (μα and σ2α), and the mean and
variance of the array of individual slopes (μβ and σ2β). Each
individual’s intercept and slope may be expressed in relation
to the aggregate-level parameters according to the intercept
and slope equations for unconditional latent growth modeling
(ULGM), where
αi = μα + δαi (2)
βi = μβ + δβi. (3)
In the conditional model, covariates are introduced to ex-
plain variation in αi and βi. Now, the random intercepts and
slopes are a function not only of the overall mean parameters
but also of a set of covariates X1 ... Xk. Thus, the intercept
and slope equations for the conditional latent growth model
(CLGM) are expanded to
αi = μα + γα1X1i + γα2X2i ... + γαkXki + δαi (4)
βi = μβ + γβ1X1i + γβ2X2i ... + γβkXki + δβi. (5)
The X1 ... Xk covariates may be observed variables, or they
may be latent constructs indicated by a set of observed vari-
ables, or a combination thereof. We also note that some Xs
may be specified as exogenous (ksi “ξ” in LISREL notation)
while some Xs may be specified as endogenous (eta “η” in
LISREL notation), the latter being influenced in the model
by other covariate Xs (ksis or other etas). This capability, along
with others (e.g., model testing, modification indices, latent
constructs with multiple indicators, estimation of measure-
ment error, flexibility in specifying a variety of types of effects,
etc.), distinguish LGM from other possible approaches to
longitudinal estimation (e.g., multilevel models) (see Bollen
and Curran 2006 for contrasting approaches).
Estimating the Latent Growth Models
The ULGM in our study is depicted in Figure 2. The yit of
Equation (1) are the four quarterly sales performance values
(for the ith salesperson at time t). The pattern of individual
sales performance over those four time periods is explained
by two individual-level random effect parameters—the in-
tercept (αi ) and the slope (βi ). Also shown are the aggregate-
level means and variances across individuals on the intercept
estimates (μα and σ2α ), and on the slope estimates (μβ and
σ2β ). Then, as depicted in Figure 1, our CLGM models that
structure as a function of a causal system of explanatory
latent covariates.