The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Customer
Customer orientation and orientation
salesperson performance
Mark E. Cross
Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA 821
Thomas G. Brashear
Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Received May 2005
Accepted April 2006
Amherst, Massachusetts, USA, and
Edward E. Rigdon and Danny N. Bellenger
Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the impact of customer orientation, at the levels of both the
company and the salesperson, on salesperson performance.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey of 283 salespeople provides the database that was
analyzed using structural equation modeling.
Findings – Prior studies suggest that both company and salesperson customer orientation has a
positive effect on performance. The findings of this study suggest that a salesperson’s customer
orientation completely mediates the relationship between company customer orientation and
salesperson performance. Thus, the influence of a company’s customer orientation on salesperson
performance acts through the customer orientation of the salespeople.
Originality/value – The study reinforces the importance of customer orientation and the role of
salespeople in putting customer orientation into practice.
Keywords Customer orientation, Sales performance
Paper type Research paper

Customer orientation has been shown to have a positive impact on performance at both
the company (Narver and Slater, 1990; Singh and Ranchhod, 2004) and salesperson
(Sujan et al., 1994; Donavan et al., 2004) levels. Such findings support the fundamental
tenet of the marketing concept. The question addressed in the research reported here is
– does company level customer orientation have a direct impact on salesperson
performance or does it enhance salesperson performance indirectly by impacting the
orientation of the salesforce?
A great deal of practitioner literature suggests that the role of the salesperson is
declining (Brooks, 2004; Weeks, 2000). Electronic and various self-service means are
increasingly employed to handle transactional exchanges while team selling is
reserved for dealing with large accounts in more of a consultative role. It is asserted
that the traditional salesperson is becoming less important and can survive only by
providing added value in the exchange process. However, if the salesperson’s customer
orientation actually mediates the relationship between the company and their European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 41 No. 7/8, 2007
customers, eliminating this role could be detrimental to sales performance. pp. 821-835
A company’s market orientation, as popularly conceptualized (Kohli and Jaworski, q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
1990; Kirca et al., 2005; Narver and Slater, 1990), incorporates two primary dimensions: DOI 10.1108/03090560710752410
EJM (1) Customer orientation, which is a focus on the needs and wants of the customers.
41,7/8 (2) Competitive orientation, which emphasizes a focus on competitive threats.

Part of the power of the market orientation concept comes from the fact that it includes
most of the elements that have traditionally been associated with successful sales
performance. Market orientation reflects the focus of the entire company.
822 Academic literature examining market orientation has consistently found that market
oriented organizations achieve higher levels of sales performance, but this ignores the
possibility that the effect seen is the result of intervening variables at a lower level of
analysis. Companies that have achieved higher levels of market orientation have done so
by creating a culture and environment that supports the marketing philosophy (e.g.
Hartline et al., 2000). Such an environment might reasonably be expected to influence
salespeople within the organization to be more customer-oriented. The research focused
on salespeople and their customer orientation, reports that salespeople who have a
stronger customer orientation tend to achieve higher levels of sales performance (Harris
et al., 2005). It is conceivable that the effects of market orientation at the company level
act indirectly through salespeople who are the organization’s ambassadors to their
customers, and who implement the company’s philosophy on the front lines.

Conceptual background
For nearly 50 years market orientation was seen primarily as an organizational
phenomenon. Market orientation was recognized in academic literature as early as the
1920s (Strong, 1925), and by the 1950s market orientation was viewed as an
operationalization of the marketing concept at the organizational level (Borch, 1957;
McKitterick, 1957). The initial interest in organizational market orientation was
focused on the ability of top management to shape the values and orientation of their
organizations (Felton, 1959). By the mid-1960s, empirical studies were beginning to
measure the effects of market orientation, and for the next few years emphasis moved
to theory construction which examined the effects of organizational structure on
organizational market orientation. In the early seventies, the importance of
organizational market orientation was seen to diminish in the face of rapid
technological change which reduced the advantages gained by responsiveness to an
individual customer’s needs (Kaldor, 1971; Tauber, 1974).
Over the next decade, the focus of the literature moved inside the selling organization
and began to examine the market orientation of the salesforce as a consequence of
evaluation and reward systems (Hopwood, 1974; Anderson and Chambers, 1985). This
individual level of market orientation, referred to as salesperson customer orientation, is
of great interest because of salespeople’s direct contact with customers and the belief that
this will impact sales outcomes. Continuing with their focus inside the selling
organization, researchers theorized that information flow within the organization
facilitated organizational market orientation (Patton, 1978; Deshpandé and Zaltman,
1982), and saw conflict as an inhibitor (Lusch et al., 1976; Ruekert and Walker, 1987).
In the 1980s, interest in relationship marketing brought increased attention to
market orientation (Shapiro, 1988; Webster, 1988; Deshpandé and Webster, 1989). This
led to an examination of the influence of market orientation as it applied to relational
outcomes, such as satisfaction and trust (Stock and Hoyer, 2005). The link between
organizational market orientation and performance was empirically examined as early
as 1990 (Narver and Slater, 1990). The link between a salesperson’s customer Customer
orientation and performance was observed by Saxe and Weitz as early as 1982, and orientation
was the subject of empirical examination by Sujan et al. (1994).

Market orientation
The idea of market orientation as a unifying focus for the organization has prompted 823
considerable research (e.g. Kirca et al., 2005). By collecting and sharing information
about the customers’ needs and competitors actions, an organization can be sensitive to
customer needs, responsive to competitor threats, and prepared to respond rapidly
(Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Kulp et al., 2004). A number of articles have found positive
direct effects of an organization’s market orientation on sales performance (Boles et al.,
2001; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). Accordingly, we hypothesize:
H1a. Customer orientation of an organization is positively related to salespeople’s
performance.
H1b. Competitive orientation of an organization is positively related to
salespeople’s performance.
According to Jaworski and Kohli (1993), an organization’s market orientation reflects
the degree to which the marketing concept has been adopted into an organization’s
business philosophy. From a cultural perspective, organizational market orientation is
described as a culture that:
.
places the highest priority on the profitable creation and maintenance of superior
customer value while considering the interest of the other stakeholders; and
.
provides norms for behavior regarding the organizational development of and
responsiveness to market information (Slater and Narver, 1995, p. 67).

A “market-driven culture supports the value of thorough market intelligence and the
necessity of functionally coordinated actions directed at gaining a competitive
advantage” (Day, 1994, p. 43).

Salesperson customer orientation

Other studies have investigated the direct effects of the individual salesperson’s
customer orientation. Salespeople can be the only representatives of the selling
organization that a customer sees, so the individual salesperson’s focus on satisfying
customer needs is a crucial subject of inquiry (Crosby et al., 1990). Swenson and Herche
(1994) in a study of industrial salespeople, found that customer oriented selling
behaviors are positively related to salesperson performance. In a study of residential
real-estate agents, the highest performers were found to be more customer oriented
than the lower performers, given equal levels of experience (Dunlap et al., 1988). Similar
results were found in separate settings by Babin and Boles (1998) and Boles et al.
(2001). Evidence for a positive relationship between a salesperson’s customer
orientation and performance was also represented by Saxe and Weitz (1982). Therefore,
we propose:
H2. Salesperson customer orientation is positively related to sales performance.
EJM The customer orientation of salespeople is central to modern sales theory. The primary
41,7/8 focus of marketing and sales efforts in the current business environment is to accurately
determine and satisfy customer needs in order to create value in long-term relationships,
and this is the essence of customer orientation. This long-term orientation of salespeople
toward their customers, or customer orientation, is “the practice of the marketing concept
at the level of the individual salesperson and customer” (Saxe and Weitz, 1982, p. 343).
824 This concept is based on the principle that salespeople must understand a customer’s
needs and wants in order to generate customer perceived value in sales interactions. A
high level of customer orientation reflects a high level of concern for the customer’s
long-term needs, while a low level of customer orientation reflects a selfish concern for
the achievement of short-term sales objectives. A salesperson’s concern for the customer
is an emotional investment, which has been shown to act as a strong motivator that is
associated with higher levels of performance (Brown et al., 1997).
Saxe and Weitz (1982) as well as Williams and Wiener (1990), assert that customer
orientation is a learned behavior that can be influenced by environmental factors, an
adaptation that evolves over time. Individual salespeople may adopt a customer
orientation as a result of organizational and marketing management practices (Williams
and Wiener, 1990). The organization’s culture helps to shape employee attitudes and
behaviors (Rozell et al., 2003). It is also possible that market oriented firms recruit
salespeople who are more customer oriented. This suggests that salesperson customer
orientation will increase as organizational market orientation increases.
H3a. Customer orientation of an organization is positively related to salespeople’s
customer orientations.
H3b. Competitive orientation of an organization is positively related to
salespeople’s customer orientation.
The conceptual model, in Figure 1, posits both direct and indirect effects of
organizational market orientation on salesperson performance.

Figure 1.
Proposed theoretical
model
Methodology Customer
Sample orientation
Study participants were field salespeople based in a large metropolitan city in the
southeastern US, with sales territories across the US. The sample in this study consists
of business-to-business salespeople who were selected from a broad cross-section of
“big ticket” business-to-business sales positions selling services and/or products.
Potential respondents were individually screened to make sure they were full-time 825
business-to-business salespeople who worked in the field and not inside sales. A total
of 500 surveys were distributed to potential respondents by the drop-off method
similar to Babin and Boles (1998) that resulted in a usable sample of 283 surveys. The
average age of the respondents was 35, with the average sales experience being 8.7
years. Males and females responding were almost evenly distributed, with 51.7 percent
being males. About half were married with children. These demographic
characteristics are similar to other industrial sales samples in the literature (e.g.
Brashear et al., 2005; Chandrashekaran et al., 2000; Grant et al., 2001). All respondents
had at least some college, and the majority had received a bachelor’s degree. The
salespeople were paid on commission based sales plans and averaged over $40,000 in
annual income. A comparison of early and late respondents found no differences
among the demographic characteristics, length of employment, products sold,
industry, or the research constructs (Armstrong and Overton, 1977).

Measures
The constructs were measured using multi-items scales adapted from the literature. All
scales used a seven point Likert scale anchored by “strongly disagree” and “strongly
agree” unless stated otherwise. The scale for organizational market orientation
developed by Narver and Slater (1990) is divided here into the two dimensions of
organizational customer orientation and organizational competitive orientation.
Organizational customer orientation was assessed with a six-item measure.
Captured in this measure are elements of satisfying customer needs, creating value,
obtaining commitment, and service. Organizational competitive orientation is reflected
in a four-item measure. Captured in this measure are elements of “information sharing”
about the market conditions experienced by the organization, including competitor
action awareness, and competitive advantage.
A study associating marketing orientation with new product innovation (Lukas and
Ferrell, 2000) found both customer orientation and competitive orientation to be
important. The findings imply that customer oriented businesses may be more
proficient at uncovering hidden customer needs and even changing the mindset of the
customers to consider new possibilities that would otherwise be rejected. Competitive
oriented businesses may be more responsive to turbulence in the marketplace.
Customer orientation of the salesperson was measured using a 12-item scale developed
by Saxe and Weitz (1982). The respondents were asked to describe their relationship
with customers with regard to their helping customers and attempts to satisfy
customer needs. Finally, performance is an assessment of the salesperson’s sales
success in terms of quantity and quality of achievement. The survey items are similar
to those used in a scale developed by Brown and Peterson (1994). Items asked the
salesperson to evaluate their efforts relative the rest of the company ranging from
“among the worst in the company” to “among the best in the company”. Behrman and
EJM Perreault (1982) found that self-evaluated salesperson performance measures produce
41,7/8 results consistent with manager evaluations and company quantitative measurements
of sales performance. The seven point Likert type scale was anchored by “among the
best in the company” and “among the worst in the company”. A listing of the
measurement items for each contstruct appears in the Appendix.

826 Results
Measurement model
Although there are proponents (e.g. Bagozzi and Edwards, 1998; Goff et al., 1997;
Ramaswami and Singh, 2003) of creating aggregate scores from multiple item
scales, all scales were modeled at the item level and Table I contains a complete
reporting of the individual item correlations. In order to maintain comparability
with previous research, this study avoided modifying the scales through item
deletion or substitution and to assure their validity and reliability, a confirmatory
factor analysis was performed with structural equation modeling (SEM) (Anderson
and Gerbing, 1988) using AMOS. Before estimating the structural model, we
evaluated the fit of the measurement model with four correlated factors. Parameter
estimates and construct reliabilities from the SEM analysis are reported in Table II.
The assessed fit of this model provided only limited support for the proposed
congeneric measurement model – x2ðdf¼318Þ ¼ 781:46 (p ¼ 0:000), root mean square
error of approximation ðRMSEAÞ ¼ 0:075 (95 percent confidence interval 0.068 –
0.081), comparative fit index ðCFIÞ ¼ 0:92, standardized root mean square residual
ðSRMRÞ ¼ 0:052. This result falls somewhat short of guidelines suggested by Hu
and Bentler (1999). Hu and Bentler recommended a composite standard for
approximate fit, combining a CFI of 0.95 or above with either an RMSEA of 0.06 or
below or an SRMR of 0.06 or below. But are the fit problems here substantive?
Based on a careful re-examination of the questionnaire, and guided by model
diagnostics, we developed an alternate model which was consistent with Hu and
Bentler’s criteria. This alternate model added seven free parameters. Two of these
were cross-loadings of organizational competitive orientation items (“my company
strives to respond rapidly to competitors’ actions” and “my company strives to
target opportunities for competitive advantage”) onto the organizational customer
orientation construct. These items’ loadings on the competitive orientation construct
remained significant and large – larger than the cross-loadings. One of the other
five free parameters was a correlated error term linking two items in the
organizational customer orientation scale (“my company strives to develop customer
commitment” and “my company strives to create customer value”). These results
point to the high level of complexity in the larger market orientation scale. The
other four free parameters were correlated error terms linking pairs of items from
the 12-item salesperson customer orientation scale. Given the large number of items
in this scale, the need for some model modification is not surprising. Still, despite
prior use of these scales in the literature, these results point to a need for further
refinement in these key scales.
The modified model 2 produced x2ðdf¼311Þ ¼ 588:47 (p ¼ 0:000), RMSEA ¼ 0:056 (95
percent confidence interval 0.049 – 0.063), CFI ¼ 0:95, standardized RMR ¼ 0:049.
While this model satisfied Hu and Bentler’s criteria, the modifications slightly alter the
correlations among the factors (see Table III). In particular, the modifications
 OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5 OC6 OK1 OK2 OK3 OK4 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5 SC6 SC7 SC8 SC9 SC10 SC11 SC12 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Organizational customer orientation

OC1 1
OC2 0.87 1
OC3 0.77 0.79 1
OC4 0.79 0.80 0.80 1
OC5 0.67 0.65 0.62 0.67 1
OC6 0.66 0.61 0.58 0.65 0.58 1

Organizational competitive orientation

OK1 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.41 1
OK2 0.41 0.41 0.39 0.43 0.38 0.52 0.42 1
OK3 0.35 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.44 0.69 0.59 1
OK4 0.55 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.43 0.50 0.57 0.48 0.72 1

Salesperson’s customer orientation

SC1 0.46 0.44 0.45 0.40 0.32 0.34 0.16 0.21 0.18 0.26 1
SC2 0.47 0.43 0.49 0.43 0.37 0.32 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.26 0.80 1
SC3 0.39 0.38 0.46 0.36 0.29 0.31 0.17 0.18 0.14 0.22 0.62 0.64 1
SC4 0.45 0.50 0.46 0.39 0.38 0.34 0.15 0.21 0.15 0.26 0.65 0.64 0.53 1
SC5 0.36 0.33 0.37 0.31 0.29 0.26 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.21 0.58 0.66 0.52 0.64 1
SC6 0.42 0.40 0.42 0.39 0.34 0.30 0.15 0.19 0.15 0.29 0.72 0.75 0.54 0.70 0.72 1
SC7 0.35 0.33 0.34 0.29 0.26 0.28 0.16 0.14 0.21 0.31 0.62 0.60 0.59 0.57 0.55 0.62 1
SC8 0.41 0.36 0.38 0.31 0.27 0.26 0.19 0.06 0.17 0.32 0.62 0.65 0.51 0.56 0.50 0.62 0.72 1
SC9 0.46 0.42 0.44 0.37 0.33 0.26 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.29 0.61 0.68 0.57 0.61 0.61 0.70 0.70 0.72 1
SC10 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.42 0.28 0.33 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.34 0.62 0.66 0.44 0.57 0.55 0.70 0.63 0.69 0.72 1
SC11 0.34 0.28 0.32 0.26 0.29 0.25 0.26 0.10 0.30 0.35 0.38 0.40 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.44 0.50 0.44 0.49 1
SC12 0.49 0.44 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.12 0.21 0.13 0.27 0.51 0.57 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.56 0.49 0.57 0.60 0.69 0.45 1

Performance
P1 0.15 0.14 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.20 0.23 0.19 0.25 0.16 0.18 0.11 0.17 0.20 0.26 0.14 0.22 1
P2 0.15 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.34 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.18 0.27 0.56 1
P3 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.33 0.37 0.35 0.30 0.31 0.29 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.40 0.24 0.37 0.51 0.55 1
P4 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.00 2 0.02 0.27 0.24 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.25 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.27 0.09 0.20 0.44 0.61 0.52 1
P5 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.34 0.34 0.22 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.35 0.39 0.37 0.21 0.35 0.54 0.61 0.63 0.61 1

Item correlations
orientation
Customer

827

Table I.
EJM
Model 1 Model 2
41,7/8 Estimate * t-value Estimate * t-value

Salesperson customer orientation

SC1 0.82 16.70 0.80 15.88
SC2 0.86 17.82 0.83 17.08
828 SC3 0.68 12.79 0.69 13.03
SC4 0.75 14.69 0.74 14.36
SC5 0.74 14.33 0.72 13.65
SC6 0.85 17.67 0.83 17.09
SC7 0.77 15.25 0.77 15.13
SC8 0.79 15.80 0.79 15.74
SC9 0.84 17.15 0.84 17.42
SC10 0.81 16.37 0.83 17.05
SC11 0.51 9.07 0.52 9.25
SC12 0.69 12.98 0.70 13.30

Salesperson performance
P1 0.66 11.91 0.66 11.92
P2 0.77 14.58 0.77 14.60
P3 0.75 13.98 0.75 14.00
P4 0.72 13.33 0.72 13.33
P5 0.82 16.06 0.82 16.03

Organizational customer orientation

OC1 0.92 20.05 0.89 19.00
OC2 0.91 19.88 0.89 18.79
OC3 0.86 18.01 0.87 18.25
OC4 0.88 18.80 0.90 19.21
OC5 0.73 14.17 0.74 14.24
OC6 0.71 13.52 0.72 13.71
OK2 – – 0.26 4.72
OK4 – – 0.33 7.11

Organizational competitive orientation

OK1 0.74 13.74 0.72 13.33
OK2 0.64 11.47 0.49 8.42
OK3 0.89 18.16 0.97 19.90
OK4 0.81 15.68 0.60 11.48

Correlated errors
SC2, SC1 – – 0.14 5.58
SC6, SC5 – – 0.13 4.63
Table II. SC8, SC7 – – 0.11 4.01
Estimate factor loadings SC10, SC3 – – 2 0.13 2 4.97
and correlated errors for OC2, OC1 – – 0.07 3.75
confirmatory factor
models Note: *Completely standardized parameter estimates

weakened the correlation between the two dimensions of organizational market

orientation, from 0.55 (in the original model) to 0.44, and weakened the correlation
between salesperson customer orientation and organizational competitive orientation
from 0.30 to 0.23.
 SC P OC OK
Customer
orientation
Model 1 SC 0.943/0.585
P 0.48 0.862/0.556
OC 0.57 0.21 0.934/0.704
OK 0.30 0.09 0.55 0.856/0.601
Model 2 SC 0.942/0.578 829
P 0.49 0.862/0.556
OC 0.58 0.20 */ *
OK 0.23 0.08 0.44 */ *
Table III.
Notes: SC = salesperson customer orientation; P = salesperson performance; OC = organizational Factor correlation
customer orientation; OK = organizational competitive orientation; Values on the diagonal are composite matrices for confirmatory
reliability/average variance extracted; *These quantities are not defined for cross-loaded items factor models

Structural model
To monitor the impact of the modifications on the structural model, we evaluated the
structural model both with and without these modifications (the structural model is
saturated, so overall fit indices are the same as for the CFA models.) While parameter
estimates differ between model 1 and model 2 (see Table IV), the substantive
conclusions are the same. H3a, the direct effect of organizational customer orientation
on salesperson customer orientation, is supported. The parameter estimate for the path
was 0.58 (t ¼ 8:26) in model 1 and 0.59 (t ¼ 8:77) in model 2. In H2, the direct effect of
salesperson customer orientation on salesperson performance, was also supported. In
model 1, the estimate was 0.54 (t ¼ 6:3): in model 2, the estimate was 0.56 (t ¼ 6:43). All
of the other structural parameters were nonsignificant; therefore, H1a, H1b and H3b
were not supported in either model.

Direct vs. mediated market orientation effects

As stated earlier, there are two possible avenues for organizational market orientation
to impact salesperson performance. The first is through the organization’s market

Model 1 Model 2

H1a. Organizational customer orientation to salesperson

performance 20.09 (2 0.99) 2 0.13 (2 1.57)
H1b. Organizational competitive orientation to salesperson
performance 20.02 (2 0.28) 2 0.00 (2 0.07)
H2. Salesperson customer orientation to salesperson
performance 0.54 (6.30) 0.56 (6.43)
H3a. Organizational customer orientation to salesperson
customer orientation 0.59 (8.26) 0.59 (8.77)
H3b. Organizational competitive orientation to salesperson
customer orientation 20.03 (2 0.38) 2 0.03 (2 0.52)
Squared multiple correlations:
Salesperson customer orientation 0.33 0.34 Table IV.
Salesperson performance 0.24 0.25 Structural model:
parameter estimates and
Note: Completely standardized parameter estimates t-values
EJM orientation which would lead directly to sales performance. The second involves the
41,7/8 organization’s market orientation which influences sales performance, but the linkage
is mediated by salesperson customer orientation. This mediation is due to the fact that
salespeople carry out the company’s customer facing policies and are responsible for
making direct contact with the customers which leads to sales performance. Analysis
here supports the mediated path where there is only an indirect effect on salesperson
830 performance. Our analysis also indicates that the organizational customer orientation
dimension that leads to higher levels of salesperson customer orientation. The
organizational competitive orientation does not have a significant impact on
salesperson customer orientation or performance.

Limitations
The findings of this study must be viewed in light of limitations. First, the survey and
data collection were cross-sectional. Second, all of the measures for constructs under
examination in this study were self-report by a single respondent. This means that the
strength of some of the relationships as reported may be inflated due to common
method variance. The size of the survey (21 different constructs and 142 responses) and
the structure (mixed throughout) made it difficult for a respondent to surmise the
hypotheses being examined, and to “invent” responses that would reinforce this guess.
Since the anonymity of respondents was stressed in the survey instrument, the chances
that self-evaluations were biased towards self-leniency are reduced (Heneman, 1974).

Implications and future research

There are a number of interesting conclusions that can be drawn from the results of this
study. By combining the theoretical perspectives that examine customer orientation at the
organizational and individual levels of measurement, a more complete view of the effects
of market orientation can be seen. Examinations of the market orientation which have
ignored the possible influence of salespeople, have omitted a key predictor. As
organizations expend considerable effort communicating to their customers about
creating value, building commitment, understanding and satisfying customer’s needs,
these goals will go unmet without in the inclusion of the key boundary spanners, the
salespeople. Salespeople support, deliver and reinforces the organizations customer focus.
It is the salesperson who ultimately succeeds or fails to demonstrate customer oriented
behaviors and companies might benefit by directing efforts inward to better train, support
and develop a climate that supports marketing orientation (Schwepker and Good, 2004).
Customer orientation by definition is a long-term focus and it is important that this
focus be communicated to customers by a stable long-lived source, such as a
permanent salesforce. In many sales organizations, salespeople move from customer to
customer fairly often, and only the company itself remains stable and constant. This
may have encouraged previous researchers to conclude that the market orientation of
the organization was of paramount importance, but this study indicates that, at least in
this context, the customer orientation of the salesperson is most directly important.
Even if the customer believes in the sincerity of the salesperson’s intent, that ability is
limited if salespeople do not attend to their customer.
A significant result of this study is that the organization’s competitive orientation has
no direct or indirect impact on salesperson performance. Sharing competitor information
and targeting areas of competitive advantage would reasonably have importance for the
company as it positions itself in the marketplace, and competes for market share, but Customer
seems to have no significant impact on the individual salesperson’s sales performance. It orientation
is the organizations themselves that must respond to their competition by putting the
resources of the firm to their best use, but a salesperson’s performance is not typically
measured on how well their company responds to competitors. Salespeople are often in
the best position to gather much of the information companies are seeking on their
competitors, but are often offered rewards only for those things that directly affect their 831
sales. Since this study clearly points to the result that the individual salesperson’s sales
performance is not improved by participating in this type of information gathering and
dissemination, companies should consider creating some mechanism to provide suitable
rewards if they wish to encourage the salesforce to assist in implementing an
organizational competitive orientation.
Reichheld (1993) laments that customer value and indirectly customer-oriented
behaviors are not measured or accounted for in the financial statements of most
companies. How one motivates and aligns incentives with behaviors is an important
area of research in sales (e.g. Schwepker and Good, 2004; Thakor and Joshi, 2005). This
is also consistent with the literature on control and how to develop control mechanisms
to promote and disseminate the organizational level values down through the sales
people (Joshi and Randall, 2001) and/or customer contact employees (e.g. Hartline et al.,
2000). Some suggest behavioral controls, but Reichheld (1993) promotes the incentive
side, suggesting that the best way to align employee, company and customer interests
is through the reward system. Therefore, an investigation into the combined uses of
behavioral controls and incentives would be fruitful.
The predictors and outcome examined in this study may also be viewed in light of a
faceted view of customer orientation. Stock and Hoyer (2005) have determined that there
are two facets or components to customer orientation, the attitudinal and behavioral
components. Research into the organizational and personality variables affect each of
these components would be of interest. Brown et al. (2002) looked at various personality
traits of service workers and found emotional stability, agreeability and the need for
activity all contributed to higher levels of customer orientation. This could be extended
to look at the attitudinal and behavioral components. Additionally, research to determine
which of the two components is the most important in developing and maintaining a
customer orientation would also add to the understanding of this topic.
Future study needs to be directed toward a fuller examination of other possible
relationships, both mediating and moderating (Mavondo et al., 2005). The role conflict
and role ambiguity of salespeople, the degree of centralization, formalization, and
entrepreneurial orientation may all contribute to our understanding of the
relationships examined here. Other outcome variables such as satisfaction and
propensity to leave might also be examined. Finally, future studies might benefit from
concentrating on context specific aspects affecting the elements being studied
including job, task, and product level variables such as technical complexity.

References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 411-23.
Anderson, P. and Chambers, T. (1985), “A reward/measurement model of organizational buying
behavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 7-23.
EJM Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
41,7/8 Babin, B.J. and Boles, J.S. (1998), “Employee behavior in a service environment: a model and test
of potential differences between men and women”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 77-91.
Bagozzi, R.A. and Edwards, J. (1998), “A generalized approach for representing constructs in
organizational research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1, pp. 45-87.
832 Behrman, D.N. and Perreault, W.D. Jr (1987), “A role stress model of the performance and
satisfaction of industrial salespersons”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 9-21.
Boles, J.S., Babin, B.J., Brashear, T.G. and Brooks, C.M. (2001), “An examination of the
relationships between retail work environments, salesperson selling orientation-customer
orientation and job performance”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9, p. 113.
Borch, F. (1957), “The marketing philosophy as a way of business life”, in Marting, E. and
Newgarden, A. (Eds), The Marketing Concept: Its Meaning to Management, American
Management Association, New York, NY, pp. 3-16.
Brashear, T.G., Manolis, C. and Brooks, C.M. (2005), “The effects of individual salesperson
control on trust and justice”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 241-9.
Brooks, B. (2004), “Providing the greatest value”, The American Salesman, Vol. 49, pp. 20-3.
Brown, S.P. and Peterson, R.A. (1994), “The effect of effort on sales performance and job
satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 70-80.
Brown, S., Cron, W. and Slocum, J. (1997), “Effects of goal-directed emotions on salesperson volitions,
behavior, and performance: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 39-50.
Brown, T.J., Mowen, J.C., Donnavan, T. and Licata, J.W. (2002), “The customer orientation of
dervice workers: personality trait effects on self- and supervisor performance ratings”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, pp. 110-19.
Chandrashekaran, M., McNeilly, K., Russ, F.A. and Marinova, D. (2000), “From uncertain
intentions to actual behavior: a threshold model of whether and when salespeople quit”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, pp. 463-79.
Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990), “Relationship quality in services selling:
an interpersonal perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 68-81.
Day, G. (1994), “Continuous learning about markets”, California Management Review, Vol. 36,
pp. 9-31.
Deshpandé, R. and Webster, F.E. (1989), “Organizational culture and marketing: defining the
research agenda”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, pp. 3-15.
Deshpandé, R. and Zaltman, G. (1982), “Factors affecting the use of marketing research
information: a path analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 14-31.
Donavan, D.T., Brown, T.J. and Mowen, J.C. (2004), “Internal benefits of service-worker customer
orientation: job satisfaction, commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, pp. 128-46.
Dunlap, B.J., Dotson, M.J. and Chambers, T.M. (1988), “Perceptions of real-estate brokers and
buyers: a sales-oriented, customer-oriented approach”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 17, pp. 175-87.
Felton, A.P. (1959), “Making the marketing concept work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37,
pp. 55-65.
Goff, B.G., Boles, J.S., Bellenger, D.N. and Stojack, C. (1997), “The influence of salesperson selling
behaviors on customer satisfaction with products”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73, pp. 171-83.
Grant, K., Cravens, D.W., Low, G.S. and Moncrief, W.C. (2001), “The role of satisfaction with
territory design on the motivation, attitudes, and work outcomes of salespeople”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29, pp. 165-78.
Harris, J.G., Mowen, J.C. and Brown, T.J. (2005), “Re-examining salesperson goal orientations: Customer
personality influencers, customer orientation, and work satisfaction”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33, pp. 19-35. orientation
Hartline, M.D., Maxham, J.G. III and McKee, D.O. (2000), “Corridors of influence in the
dissemination of customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, pp. 35-50.
Heneman, H.G. III (1974), “Comparison of self and supervisor ratings of managerial
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 628-42.
833
Hopwood, A. (1974), Accounting and Human Behaviour, Haymarket Publishing, London.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6, pp. 1-31.
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 53-70.
Joshi, A.W. and Randall, S. (2001), “The indirect effects of organizational controls on salesperson
performance and customer orientation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Kaldor, A.G. (1971), “Imbricative marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, pp. 19-25.
Kirca, A.H., Jayachandran, S. and Bearden, W.O. (2005), “Market orientation: a meta-analytic
review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 69, pp. 24-41.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions,
and managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 1-18.
Kulp, S.C., Lee, H.L. and Ofek, E. (2004), “Manufacturer benefits from information integration
with retail customers”, Management Science, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 431-44.
Lukas, B. and Ferrell, O.C. (2000), “The effect of market orientation on product innovation”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, pp. 239-47.
Lusch, R.F., Udell, G. and Lacaniak, G.R. (1976), “The practice of business”, Business Horizons,
Vol. 19, pp. 65-74.
McKitterick, J.B. (1957), “What is the marketing management concept?”, in Bass, F.M. (Ed.),
The Frontiers of Marketing Thought and Science, American Marketing Association,
Chicago, IL, pp. 71-92.
Mavondo, F.T., Chimhanzi, J. and Stewart, J. (2005), “Learning orientation and market
orientation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 11/12, pp. 1235-63.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The effect of market orientation on business profitability”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 20-35.
Patton, M.A. (1978), Utilization Focused Evaluation, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Ramaswami, S.N. and Singh, J. (2003), “Antecedents and consequences of merit pay fairness for
industrial salespeople”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, pp. 43-66.
Reichheld, F. (1993), “Loyalty-based management”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 64-73.
Rozell, E.J., Pettijohn, C.E. and Parker, R.S. (2003), “Cusomter-oriented selling: exploring the roles
of emotional intelligence and organizational commitment”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 21, pp. 405-24.
Ruekert, R.W. and Walker, O.C. Jr (1987), “Marketing’s interaction with other functional units:
a conceptual framework and empirical evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 1,
pp. 1-19.
Saxe, R. and Weitz, B.A. (1982), “The SOCO scale: a measure of the customer orientation of
salespeople”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 343-51.
Schwepker, C.H. Jr and Good, D.J. (2004), “Marketing control and sales force customer
orientation”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 24, pp. 167-79.
EJM Shapiro, B.P. (1988), “What the hell is ‘market oriented’?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66,
pp. 119-25.
41,7/8 Singh, S. and Ranchhod, A. (2004), “Market orientation and customer satisfaction: evidence from
British machine tool industry”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, pp. 135-44.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 63-74.
834 Stock, R.M. and Hoyer, W.D. (2005), “An attitude-behavior model of salespeople’s customer
orientation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33, pp. 536-52.
Strong, E.K. Jr (1925), “Theories of selling”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 75-86.
Sujan, H., Weitz, B.A. and Kumar, N. (1994), “Learning orientation, working smart, and effective
selling”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 39-52.
Swenson, M.J. and Herche, J. (1994), “Social values and salesperson performance: and empirical
examination”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, pp. 283-9.
Tauber, E.M. (1974), “How marketing discourages major innovation”, Business Horizons, Vol. 17,
pp. 22-6.
Thakor, M.V. and Joshi, A.W. (2005), “Motivating salesperson customer orientation: insights
from the job characteristics model”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 584-92.
Webster, F.E. Jr (1988), “Rediscovering the marketing concept”, Business Horizons, Vol. 31,
pp. 29-39.
Weeks, B. (2000), “Setting sales force compensation in the internet age”, Compensation and
Benefits Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 25-34.
Williams, M.R. and Wiener, J. (1990), “Does the selling orientation-customer orientation (SOCO)
scale measure behavior or disposition?”, in Bearden, W., Despandé, T.J., Madden, P.R. and
Varadarajan, A. (Eds), Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.

Appendix. Measurement scale items

Organization’s customer orientation (Narver and Slater, 1990)
My company strives to:
.
develop customer commitment;
.
create customer value;
.
understand customer needs;
.
meet customer satisfaction objectives;
.
provide service after the sale; and
.
measure customer satisfaction.
Organization’s competitive orientation (Narver and Slater, 1990)
My company strives to:
.
encourage salespeople to share competitor information;
.
respond rapidly to competitor’s actions;
.
motivate top managers to discuss competitor’s actions; and
. target opportunities for competitive advantages.
Salesperson’s customer orientation (Saxe and Weitz, 1982)
.
I try to help customers achieve their goals.
.
I try to achieve my goals by satisfying customers.
 .
A good salesperson has to have the customer’s best interest in mind. Customer
.
I try to get customers to discuss their needs with me. orientation
.
I try to influence a customer by information rather than by pressure.
.
I try to find out what kind of product would be most helpful to a customer.
.
I offer the product that is best suited to the customer’s problem.
.
I answer a customer’s questions about products as correctly as I can. 835
.
I try to figure out what a customer’s needs are.
.
I try to bring a customer with a problem together with a product that helps him solve that
problem.
.
I am willing to disagree with a customer in order to help him make a better decision.
.
I try to give customers an accurate expectation of what the product will do for them.
Performance (Brown and Peterson, 1994)
How do you rate yourself in terms of:
.
The quantity of work (e.g. sales) you achieve?
.
Tour ability to reach your goals?
. The quality of your performance in regard to customer relations?
.
The quality of your performance in regard to management of time, planning ability, and
management of expenses?
.
The quality of your performance in regard to knowledge of your products, company,
competitors’ products, and customer needs?

About the authors

Mark E. Cross is a doctoral student in the marketing department in the Robinson College of
Business at Georgia State University.
Thomas G. Brashear is associate professor of marketing in the Isenberg School of
Management at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His research has appeared in a
number of academic journals including the Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, the
Journal of Advertising, the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, the Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing and the Journal of Business Research. Thomas G. Brashear is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: brashear@mktg.umass.edu
Edward E. Rigdon is professor and chairman of the marketing department in the Robinson
College of Business at Georgia State University. His research on interactive marketing and on the
statistical methodology of structural equation modeling (SEM) has been published in leading
marketing and research methodology journals, including Journal of Marketing Research, Journal
of Consumer Research, Journal of Retailing, Multivariate Behavioral Research and Structural
Equation Modeling. He is the co-founder and frequent contributor to SEMNET, an e-mail
discussion list devoted to SEM.
Danny N. Bellenger is professor and research fellow in the marketing department in the
Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University. His research has appeared in a
number of academic journals including the Journal of Marketing Research, the Journal of
Marketing, the Journal of Advertising Research, the California Management Review, the Journal
of Retailing, the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Industrial Marketing
Management, and the Journal of Business Research. He has authored four monographs and four
textbooks on marketing research, sales, and retailing.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints