The underlying states of salesperson product

buy-in and product strategy buy-in

Jessica Zeiss and Joseph Chapman
Department of Marketing, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to collect data that allows researchers to capture both affective and cognitive buy-in influenced by both
product and product strategy targets.
Design/methodology/approach – Analysis of 13 salesperson interviews followed the cluster and axial coding of grounded theory interview
protocol.
Findings – This study finds two types of buy-in that are uniquely contingent on the target, and for which are influenced by both cognitive and
affective states of being. Additionally, it finds that either affective or cognitive states of being can both drive and inhibit salesperson buy-in of either
target. While the targets of buy-in appear to be mutually exclusive, the cognitive nature of disconfirming evidence appears to directly inhibit both
targets of buy-in while also resulting in negative affect.
Research limitations/implications – Further study that uncovers the causal role of an affective state inhibiting buy-in after the introduction of
disconfirming evidence is warranted.
Practical implications – Managerial training and messaging approaches for achieving the two buy-in targets will likely differ or focus on only one
type for efficient training.
Originality/value – This study is the first to examine the simultaneous effects of the two underlying states of cognition and affect on buy-in
development. It is found that the two states can influence each other to stunt buy-in. The present study contributes to sales behavior literature by
allowing the possibility of a sequence of states that stunt buy-in, positioning simultaneous examination is vital to the conceptualization of buy-in.
Keywords Internal marketing, Sales, Buy-in
Paper type Research paper

Introduction research is, therefore, understand buy-in antecedents and

Superior customer satisfaction is the goal for many
organizations because of its ability to drive greater economic
performance. The salesperson is often the customer’s only
impression of the firm (Bitner et al., 1990). Therefore, the
interaction and relationship between the salesperson and
customer can have a significant impact on customer
satisfaction. Salespeople participate in essential and frequent
customer interactions as a requisite of their job. Therefore,
salespeople represent a key link between firm strategy and
customer satisfaction (Depshandé et al., 1993; Kirca et al.,
2005). Yet, the link may not always be positive, especially when
the customer perceives the salesperson as not truly believing in
what is being presented, such as in the product itself. Research
finds that such perceived inauthenticity leads to a negative
change in customer affect (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006) and
decreased consumer perception of the employee’s customer
orientation (Groth et al., 2009). Given that salespeople are so
important to customer impressions (Bitner et al., 1990), the
salesperson’s successful sales presentation can lead to
rewarding customer reactions (Pugliesi, 1999). The present
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0885-8624.htm
outcomes among salespeople. Specifically, it examines
salesperson buy-in as potentially targeting the product or
product strategy, which are influenced by either affective or
cognitive states, as is not done across prior buy-in research. Not
only does the present research find that either state can
similarly influence either target but also that the two states can
influence each other to stunt buy-in. It is found that a negative
cognitive state can lead to negative affect when the cognition is
in the form of customer or marketplace evidence. In this way,
the present research contributes to sales behavior literature by
allowing the possibility of a sequence of states that stunt buy-in.
Next, prior research examining buy-in targets separately is
reviewed.
Literature review
Targets of buy-in
Prior research indeed examines various targets for salespeople
to get behind, such as the product or marketing strategy targets
(Hultink and Atuahene-Gima, 2000; Kimpakorn and Tocquer,
2009; Malshe and Sohi, 2009), but not simultaneously in a
given study. Such a simultaneous examination could
potentially uncover (dis)similarities regarding states of being

Received 29 December 2019

Revised 4 May 2020
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 2 September 2020
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624] 10 September 2020
[DOI 10.1108/JBIM-12-2019-0551] Accepted 10 September 2020
 Underlying states
Jessica Zeiss and Joseph Chapman
facilitating buy-in across targets, which is the goal of this
research. Product buy-in can be defined as a salesperson’s
positive affective or cognitive state of being regarding the
product or product class represented by a given product
campaign. Product strategy buy-in can be defined as a
salesperson’s positive affective or cognitive state of being
regarding the product strategy marketing campaign.
Buy-in should not be confused with salesperson motivation
(Ingram and Bellenger, 1983; Johnson and Sohi, 2017; Miao
and Evans, 2007; Miao et al., 2007; Walker et al., 1977; Weitz
et al., 1986). Motivation is an employee’s set of stable
personality traits that can be influenced by the work
environment (Amabile, 1996; Ryan and Deci, 2000). Instead
of traits, salesperson buy-in is specific to frontline employee
states of being (i.e. coordination, alignment, satisfaction,
commitment, etc.; Ahmed and Rafiq, 2003; Berry, 1981;
Piercy and Morgan, 1995; Sasser and Arbeit, 1976; Tansuhaj
et al., 2008). Internal marketing alters the work environment
through work quality and performance rewards policy to drive
motivation (Azêdo and Alves, 2014; Lings and Greenley, 2005;
Miao et al., 2007), but persuasive communications to drive
buy-in (Ahmed and Rafiq, 2003; Lings and Greenley, 2005;
Malshe and Sohi, 2009; Wasmer and Brunner, 1991). Such a
distinction is important because buy-in represents an internal
feeling or idea relatively more powerful in persuading
customers and implementing sales strategy than extrinsically
rewarded salesperson behaviors, such as commission or sales
quotas. For example, Lam et al. (2010) examine product and
marketing orientation in a manner similar to the concepts of
product buy-in and product strategy buy-in examined in the
present research. As another example, Hultink and Atuahene-
Gima (2000) test an adoption concept with product adoption
and product strategy adoption measurement scale items
intermingled throughout the construct. However, salesperson
orientation represents a firm-wide culture not marketed or
tailored specifically for the selling role, and salesperson
adoption focuses on the rewards related to sales performance
for motivation. Buy-in uniquely captures the manner in which a
salesperson gets behind the product or product strategy
internally.
Malshe and Sohi (2009) unwrap the internal intricacies of
buy-in when examining salesperson buy-in of marketing
strategies. Interpretation of qualitative data leads the authors to
highlight (unsuccessful) successful salesperson buy-in of
marketing strategy when the salesperson is (not) able to make
the underlying elements of the strategy a story of their own.
While they do not also examine product buy-in, Malshe and
Sohi (2009) find that the salesperson buy-in of a product
strategy is an internalization process key to the successful
implementation of strategy goals. In this way, the buy-in is
uniquely capable of earning long-term customer satisfaction
through authentic sales presentations. Customer satisfaction
research suggests that product strategy buy-in is likely to lead to
a long-term type of customer satisfaction through customer
solutions (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Oliver et al., 1997).
However, internalized buy-in is not fully vetted across prior
research by examining all buy-in targets. The gap left behind is
important because internalized buy-in is relatively more likely
to lead to long-term customer satisfaction. Next, the literature
gap related to affective and cognitive buy-in is identified.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Affect and cognitive states underlying buy-in
Cognitive- and affective-based buy-in can be thought of as
intellectual and emotional influences, respectively. Prior
examinations position buy-in as a salesperson belief that an idea
has merit or is appropriate (Malshe and Sohi, 2009) or
positions adoption as both an emotional attachment to the
product and a willingness to put forth effort in making the
product strategy successful (Hultink and Atuahene-Gima,
2000). As such, prior research either narrowly examines buy-in
as a cognitive belief or examines the similar concept of adoption
as simultaneously both a cognitive decision and affective
attachment. Not only does this prior research produce
equivocal findings but also it pays differential attention to
affective or cognitive states of buy-in depending on the target
being examined.
As reviewed earlier, Malshe and Sohi (2009) highlight the
internalization involved when salespeople make a marketing
strategy their own story so as to develop buy-in of the strategy.
The authors define such product strategy buy-in as a cognitive
belief. When prior research instead examines the adoption
concept similar to buy-in with the product itself as the target, it
measures both affect and cognition simultaneously, producing
equivocal findings (Hultink and Atuahene-Gima, 2000).
Hultink and Atuahene-Gima (2000) find that training and field
attention weakens the product adoption-performance
relationship and suggest this counter finding may be due to
accidentally measuring poor training and experience. However,
the authors’ focus on buy-in driving sales performance may
have unintentionally tapped primarily into affective buy-in.
Thomson et al. (1999) propose that employee commitment to
their employer’s overall firm brand – a concept similar to
salesperson buy-in – can consist of intellectual commitment,
emotional commitment or a combination thereof. They posit
that while a cognitive (i.e. intellectual) influence depends on
the employee’s knowledge, an affective (i.e. emotional)
influence depends on the employee’s feelings that lead the
individual to act on knowledge. It is possible that Hultink and
Atuahene-Gima’s motivation to measure changes in sales
performance with changes in the bi-dimensional affective and
cognitive buy-in construct erroneously measured salesperson
inactivity after the training and field experience presented
negative feedback. In other words, prior research is unclear as
to the role of affective buy-in when salespeople receive
knowledge regarding the product (e.g. in the field when
interacting with customers) or do not receive appropriate
knowledge to support a product campaign (e.g. resources
during training).
The goal of the present research is to collect data, which
allows researchers the opportunity to capture both affective and
cognitive buy-in influenced by both product and product
strategy targets. This research uniquely examines both types of
salesperson buy-in, product buy-in and strategy buy-in,
simultaneously. The qualitative interviews are described next.
Method
Sample
One focus group and six depth interviews were conducted with
sales professionals (Table 1). The focus group consisted of
seven salespeople of mixed genders, contexts (i.e. B2B and
 Underlying states
Jessica Zeiss and Joseph Chapman
Table 1 Participant characteristics
Focus group (n = 7) Depth interviews (n = 6)
Gender
Five men, two women Three men, three women
Sales
4 B2C, 3 B2B 1 B2B and B2C, 1 B2B, 4 B2C
Product
search engine applications, personal cell phones and service, personal
insurance, media content and insurance, office supplies
channels, manufacturing
Tenure
Mean of 7.7 years Mean of 18.3 years
B2C) and markets (e.g. personal insurance and media
products). Focus group participants were recruited on a large
Midwest university campus with author visits to marketing
classes and cold visit recruitments in the downtown business
district surrounding this campus. Salespeople participating in
the six depth interviews were also of mixed genders, contexts
and markets. These participants were initially recruited at a
student career fair at a different, large Midwest university
campus. From the initial recruits, additional salespeople were
recruited using a snowball technique (Goodman, 1961).
Across both types of data collection, all salespeople had to be
19 years of age or older, currently work as a professional
salesperson and have at least three years of professional selling
experience to qualify for participation in the study.
Data collection
Both the focus group and depth interviews followed a semi-
structured interview format, with the following three main
questions serving as a discussion guide:
Q1. What motivates you to sell?
Q2. What types of things or events demotivate you to sell?
Q3. Has there been a time when you did not feel like you had
the resources necessary to effectively sell (such as mass
advertising campaigns, promotional materials or
adequately targeted lead lists? if probing was necessary).
The focus group and interviews always ended with a question
that directly addresses the main topic of this research study to
serve as a validity and reliability check of the qualitative data
collection, i.e. Do you believe you need to believe in the
product you sell to be able to effectively sell in your role? This
central questioning serves as a validity check in that it allows the
participant to disconfirm the research proposition. It also serves
as a reliability check in that it illustrates consensus or no
consensus with regard to product buy-in versus product
strategy buy-in (Husserl, 1970; Moustakas, 1994).
Additionally, reporting a great deal of data collected through
the use of several interview excerpt quotes to illustrate a data
pattern generates transparency in the researcher’s conclusions
drawn from interviews (Suddaby, 2006).
The focus group lasted approximately 40 min and each
interview approximately 25 min. Focus group participants were
compensated $75. Interview participants were informed before
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
data collection that there would be no compensation or direct
rewards for participating. Both the focus group and interviews
were audio recorded.
Analysis
The focus group and interviews were transcribed and such
content was analyzed by an author through notions of
grounded theory. Grounded theory allows for a theoretical
explanation that is “grounded” in participants’ experience with
the given phenomenon. This induction process relied on
reiterated data analysis where emerging themes were looped
back and compared to original themes in a continuous fashion.
The prescriptive steps for analyzing in vivo data (Corbin and
Strauss, 2008) included:

Clustering in vivo codes into higher-level (first-order)
categories.

Comprehending the manner in which participants
connect accounts through axial coding.

Assembling categories into explanatory (second-order)
themes.
Relying on the participants’ verbatim accounts, i.e. Vivo codes, is a
key element of this grounded theory method, and works against
mistakenly deductive themes. Finally, a scholar uninvolved in this
research was instructed to assess the researcher’s logic across
analysis conclusions. Moustakas (1994) prescribes this examination
so that a researcher can conclude reliability when the outside scholar
understands the given researcher’s analysis logic (rather than
agreement with logic). No conclusions or first- or second-order
categories were identified in which the logic was not understood by
the outside scholar. Therefore, and according to Moustakas’ (1994)
qualitative prescription, the qualitative measures appear reliable. To
reiterate, a large quantity of interview excerpts are shared
throughout the following Findings section. This extensive reporting
of numerous verbatim excerpts is an effort to provide transparency
in the data collection and their ensuing analytical conclusions.
Findings
Affective and cognitive states of salesperson buy-in
Prior literature describing salesperson buy-in largely focuses on
the salesperson buying into marketing functions (Ahmed and
Rafiq, 2003; Cespedes, 1993; Malshe and Sohi, 2009). As
such, that literature describes buy-in with decision-like
qualities, such as acceptance of a marketing plan (Malshe and
Sohi, 2009) or commitment to a new product (Hultink and
Atuahene-Gima, 2000). Yet, the salespeople interviewed in the
present study do not always describe buy-in as a decision, but
instead, as a state of emotion. At a glance, the following
interview excerpts highlight the first main finding of the present
research, i.e. both cognitive and affective states are present
across both product buy-in and product strategy buy-in targets.
Both states contribute to both successful and failed buy-in.
For example, when describing the company’s shift to digital
products one salesperson comments, [1] “digital is not
something that we, we just do not speak it well, do not
understand, not, outside comfort zone (Focus Group, B2C).”
Another participant notes simply, [2] “I just never was able to,
they did not communicate well the difference between that
particular [product] and other [products] out there, [. . .] I just
did not see the benefit in it (Focus Group, B2B).” In these two
 Underlying states Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Jessica Zeiss and Joseph Chapman

instances, buy-in does mirror prior literature’s and Allen (1991) delineate cognitive commitment to the
conceptualization in that the instances are a matter of getting organization as intellectual side-bets that continued
behind marketing functions (Ahmed and Rafiq, 2003) or the commitment will involve rewards Thus, Table 2 supports the
sales function simply believing in the merit of a proposition characterizations noted in an earlier section of a cognitive- and
(Malshe and Sohi, 2009). These two interview excerpts affective-based buy-in as representing intellectual and
illustrate negative experiences with cognitive buy-in states. emotional influences, respectively. Table 2 allows
Yet, many other instances of salesperson buy-in across interpretation of the interview excerpts reviewed, thus far and
interviews revolved around the degree to which a salesperson remaining illustrative excerpts.
experienced an affective state of being with regard to their buy-
in. As an example of affective buy-in, a salesperson comments,
[3] “I think [employing company] has the best product on the Successful and underdeveloped buy-in
market, (Interview, B2C)” with another salesperson similarly It should also be noted that in addition to the presence of both
commenting with an affective state, [4] “I am a firm believer in states across both product buy-in and product strategy buy-in
our product (Focus Group, B2B)”. targets, the states also seem to equally contribute to successful
Although prior research does not clearly define affective and and failed buy-in. Indeed, many interviews revolve around
cognitive salesperson buy-in, it – combined with the similar undeveloped buy-in, often from poor management. Take, for
organizational commitment literature stream – does go to great instance, the following excerpts as examples of salesperson buy-
lengths in describing facets of each state. Table 2 lists the in breach due to seemingly unreliable management.
manner in which prior research uses facets to describe each [5] Inconsistency from management, you know, [laugh], they
state of buy-in. As Table 2 outlines, prior research defines an tell you one thing or say one thing and when you get on the street it
affective state of employee buy-in through eight facets (e.g. is not the same thing, very demotivating, frustrating to the
attachment and attraction) and a cognitive state of buy-in salesperson when you feel like you are not supported (Focus
through four facets (e.g. knowledge and obligation to Group, B2B).
continue). Thus, while prior research lacks a clear definition of [6] However, there are enough times you see people spending
the state of salesperson buy-in, the manner in which it describes the money and not really getting results, not really working for
each state’s facets clarifies how the states differ. For example, them at all. Kinda demotivating that way. You can kinda see that
while Meyer and Allen (1991) delineate affective employee the product is not working. However, the company forces, not
commitment to their organization as a desire to continue forces you, but they reiterate all the time how it is set up to work. It
the commitment, they delineate cognitive (i.e. “normative”) will work. It does work, works for all these other people. However,
commitment as an obligation to continue the commitment. at the same time you are seeing it not (Focus Group, B2C).
Hultink and Atuahene-Gima (2000) delineate affective These two salespeople appear to be experiencing discomfort
salesperson buy-in as the internalization of a goal and Meyer with not knowing how to get behind management. In the first
excerpt, the salesperson describes attempts to deploy a product
strategy with inaccurate and evolving information voiced by upper
Table 2 Facets of affective and cognitive buy-in states management. In the second excerpt, the salesperson describes a
Affective state facets Cognitive state facets disconnect between product performance as described by top
management and product performance as described by actual
1 act* on knowledge (Thomson et 1 knowledge [present tense]
users. In both cases, the salespeople describe a lack of buy-in
al., 1999)) (Thomson et al., 1999)
resulting from feeling uncertain about the product they are tasked
2 attachment (Buchanan, 1974;, 2 side-bets/weighing of costs
to sell (second excerpt) or the manner in which they are asked to
Meyer and Allen, 1991) [future tense] (Meyer and
sell the product (first excerpt).
Allen, 1991)
3 partisan (Buchanan, 1974)) 3 obligation to continue:
internalization of normative Both states spanning successful and underdeveloped
pressures (Meyer and Allen, buy-in
1991) Table 3 illustrates the manner in which both affective and
4 identification (Mowday et al., 4 effort as in working smarter cognitive states contribute to both successful and
1979) (Brown and Peterson, underdeveloped buy-in across both targets. For example,
1993)
excerpt [5] represents underdeveloped product strategy buy-in
5 desire to continue (Meyer and
due to the salesperson’s negative experience with a cognitive
Allen, 1991)
state of being. As such, the fourth column (“state”) of Table 3
6 attraction (Meyer and Allen, 1991)
designates this illustrative excerpt as negative cognition, i.e.
7 emotional commitment as an
“neg c.” As Table 3 highlights in the fifth column (“facet
attitude (Hultink and Atuahene-
Gima, 2000) illustration”), the “inconsistency” and “not the same thing”
8 acceptance and internalize goal phraseology of excerpt [5] illustrates the first cognitive facet
(Hultink and Atuahene-Gima, 2000) (i.e. knowledge) and “forces [. . .] works [. . .]. same time you
are not seeing it” illustrates the second cognitive facet (i.e. side-
Notes: *Others consider such effort as a behavior construct (Hultink and bets/weighting of costs) across a list of facets of cognitive buy-in
Atuahene-Gima, 2000), rather than either affect or cognition facets, according to prior literature (Table 2).
 Underlying states Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Jessica Zeiss and Joseph Chapman

Table 3 Excerpts illustrative of overall findings

Excerpt
1. “Digital is. . .”
2. “I just. . .”
3. “I think [employing
company]. . .”
4. “I am a. . .”
5. “Inconsistency from. . .”
6. “But, there. . .”
7. “There is. . .”
8. “When you. . .”
9. “If you. . .”
10. “See your. . .”
11. “I own. . .”
12. “Especially like. . .”
13. “If we. . .”
14. “Even just. . .”
15. “I had. . .”
16. “We have. . .”
17. “There were. . .”
18. “And I. . .”
19. “I think there is. . .”
20. “I would. . .”
Notes: Numbers (see first column) cross-reference excerpts discussed throughout the manuscript text. “lo” refers to low. “hi” refers to high. “p” refers to
product buy-in. “ps” refers to product strategy buy-in. “pos” refers to positive. “neg” refers to negative. “c” refers to a cognitive state. “a” refers to an
affective state. *See facets in Table 2. c† Indicates cognitive evidence resulting in negative cognitive states. Italic font in the disconfirming evidence column
indicates the resulting positive cognitive state and evidence ignored across excerpts 10 and 19, respectively
Target Target support State *Facet illustration Disconfirming evidence
lo p “digital [products]” neg c “do not speak,” “do not understand”
=lo c1, “outside comfort zone” =lo c2
lo p “particular [product]” neg c “did not” = lo c1, “difference
between” products = lo c2
hi p “the. . .product” pos a “think” = hi a8, “best” = hi a6,
“think. . .best” = hi a3
hi p “product” pos a “firm” = hi a2, “believer” hi a8
lo ps “supported” neg c† “inconsistency” = lo c2, “not the same “get on the street it is not
thing” = lo c1 the same thing”
lo p “the product” neg c† “can kinda see. . .not working” = lo c1, “not really getting
“forces . . . works . . . same time you results,” “seeing it not”
are seeing it not” = lo c2
lo p “a product” neg c† “try and convince us,” “probably it is “numbers tell you that it
not going to work” = lo c2 is not”
lo ps “back-up. . . shipping. . .finance” neg c “not the labor,” “do not have” = lo c1
lo p “your product” neg c† “issue” = lo c2, “does not do that very “causing pain for your
well” = lo c1 customer,” “hearing
feedback from your
customer”
hi p “your product” pos c “see,” “work” = hi c1 they come back and say
that really made a
difference [led to positive
cognitive state]
hi p “our product” pos a “own” = hi a3, “believe” = hi a8
lo ps “launch,” “resources” neg c† “not having,” “do not have” = lo c1 “customer calling you out
. . . do not have the
answers to”
lo ps “roll out,” “marketing department neg c† “a lot of times. . .does not work” = lo “a lot of times the
. . . back burner” c1, “might be working,” “ours is on product does not work”
the back burner” = lo c2
lo ps “marketing materials” neg c “What,” “why” = lo c3; “not always
super clear” = lo c1
lo ps “do not think. . .product, . . . It is neg a “insecurity,” “pressures” = lo a8; “try
all the other” . . . insecurity” = lo a5
hi ps “campaign” pos c “behind that” = hi c3, “seems a really
honest and truthful” = hi c2
hi ps “culture created by management,” pos a “motivation,” “motivated you” = hi a5
“nothing to do with the product”
lo p “the product” neg c “did not have” = lo c1
hi ps “resources behind it” pos c “time and effort,” “go all in” = hi c2 guess customer did not
see it [ignored
disconfirming evidence]
hi ps “other pieces. . . regardless pos c “other pieces are there” = hi c2, “has
of. . .product,” “product is not all not stopped us” = hi c4, “how we can
that important” advise,” “expertize” = hi c1

Two unique buy-in targets: product and product
strategy
Excerpt [6] also represents underdeveloped buy-in, but of
product buy-in rather than the underdeveloped product
strategy buy-in illustrated in excerpt [5]. Such varying states
across varying buy-in targets represent the second major
finding of the present research and second intent underlying
Table 3. The second column in Table 3 (“target”) notes each
illustrative excerpt’s intended buy-in target, while the third
column (“target support”) justifies each excerpt’s target. As
these excerpts illustrate, the buy-in uncovered in the present
research is found to span both product buy-in and product
strategy buy-in targets, with some underdeveloped (“lo”) and
 Underlying states
Jessica Zeiss and Joseph Chapman
others successful (see “hi” in the second column of Table 3,
labeled “target”). In line with the definitions of each target
outlined earlier, excerpt [5] represents a negative cognitive state
with feeling “supported” by the management responsible for
developing and implementing the product strategy, and, thus, a
failed cognition leading to underdeveloped product strategy
buy-in. While excerpt [5] illustrates a negative cognitive
experience leading to underdeveloped product buy-in, excerpt
[6] illustrates a negative cognitive experience leading to
underdeveloped product strategy buy-in. The phrase “the
product” (see third column, labeled “target support” of
Table 3) in excerpt [6] represents underdeveloped product
buy-in. In this manner, Table 3 guides the interpretation of the
following, additional interview excerpts. Each excerpt offers
thorough evidence of these two major findings:

both states (cognitive and affective).

across both targets (product buy-in and product strategy
buy-in), regardless of buy-in success.
The evidence from these excerpts offers transparency in the
research conclusions.
Further support for both states varying across both
targets
Consider interview excerpts number [7] and [8] as presented
next. In the first excerpt, the salesperson voices a breach in buy-
in because she is not confident the sales strategy behind the
product will be efficacious. She is hearing within organizational
functions that the internal data analysis does not support the
strategy management has asked the salesforce to carry out. In
the second excerpt, the salesperson similarly describes buy-in
breach as knowledge negating available infrastructure for post-
sales support.
[7] There is a product they are trying, they are trying to make
it work in the USA, [. . .] but most of the company believe[s]
that they do not think that it is going to work. And then they are
trying to do whatever they can to try and convince us that we
can sell it. And then the numbers tell you that it is not going to
work. So, I do not know, it is having a negative face in the
company. And then in front of the customer, you have to, not
lie, but, uhm, try to make it work, when probably it is not going
to work (Focus Group, B2B).
[8] When you got, not the labor, do not have the back-up,
you cannot promise that many things in the end, the shipping
department or finance (Focus Group, B2B).
To reiterate, it is important to point out that many of the
interview excerpts shared, thus far center on the topic of
product performance. Interview excerpts reveal salespeople
believing that they sell the best product on the market or are at
least who are firm believers of the product. Other interview
excerpts display buy-in breach as a result of product failure,
such as clients spending money and not getting results. As the
following examples reveal even further, buy-in that revolves
around the product appears to revolve specifically around the
product’s performance.
[9] If you have a feature issue on your product that was
causing pain for your customer that would definitely be a
negative experience. And your product does not do that very
well. You are really, really making it hard on your customer,
considering that is your “tire.” It can be demotivating cause you
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
are hearing feedback from your customer that tends to be
negative (Focus Group, B2B).
[10] See your product work, and they come back and say that
really made a difference, [. . .] The thing that is a reward is when
you get that buy-in from the client (Interview, B2C).
[11] I own more [product] than any of my other clients just
because I believe so much in our product (Focus Group, B2C).
While these examples describe salesperson confidence in the
product performing as intended and providing customers with
results, i.e. product buy-in, other interviews very narrowly
focused on buy-in of the product sales strategy, such as in the
following examples. Again, it is not surprising that the present
research finds underdeveloped product buy-in as often
revolving around product performance. Prior buy-in research
examines such product buy-in (Hultink and Atuahene-Gima,
2000). Examined to a much lesser degree is that of product
strategy buy-in. Malshe and Sohi (2009) offer a rare
examination of salesperson product strategy buy-in. The
excerpts presented next and throughout, not only support
Malshe and Shohi’s uncovering of product strategy buy-in but
also further examine its varying states of cognitive and affective
states. These excerpts illustrate product strategy buy-in
revolving around cognitive states, while later excerpts, such as
excerpt [15], illustrate product strategy buy-in revolving
around affective states.
[12] Especially like with a new product launch, a lot of times
not having the resources to back, such as going into a meeting
or something without the best resources to sell that product,
feeling unprepared and the fear that comes with that person,
the customer calling you out or just asking you questions you
do not have the answer to (Focus Group, B2C).
[13] If we roll out a new product, a lot of times the product
does not work like our marketing department is slammed with
all sorts of things to do and different areas of the company, so
that when a new product is available for us they might be
working on a different product and ours is on the back burner
(Focus Group, B2B).
These two interview excerpts offer examples of buy-in breach
due to an underdeveloped product strategy, which lacks the
selling resources needed to make the salesperson feel confident.
It becomes relatively clearer that buy-in may often come with
the feeling of being supported. This was commonly voiced
across interviews in which buy-in was present and interviews in
which buy-in was not present. In fact, phrases such as “having
my back,” “feel like you are not supported” or “just trusting
that, yeah, this is going to work” serve as underlying themes to
interviews in which buy-in was present and interviews in which
buy-in was not present. In other words, buy-in materialized
when the salesperson was backed-up in immaterial ways, such
as managerial support or seeing a strategy through and in
material ways, such as promotional materials. Take the
following interview excerpt as an example of both material and
immaterial support the salesperson explains is needed for,
perhaps, buy-in.
[14] Even just like marketing materials or even from a sales
standpoint, [. . .] What need does this solve? Why did we build
the product the way we did, from a design standpoint? What
need does it solve? A lot of times it is not always super clear, just
like marketing materials, brochures, flyers (Focus Group,
B2C).
 Underlying states
Jessica Zeiss and Joseph Chapman
Thus, having support, whether in the form of promotional
materials or the mere attention of leadership, facilitated buy-in.
Some interviews appear to position strategy back up (e.g.
resources, clear direction and prioritizing the product) as the
catalyst to cognitive product strategy buy-in. In fact, buy-in by
way of clear product strategy direction and appropriate
provision of resources is often described without discussion of
product buy-in itself. As further evidence, consider the
following interview excerpt in which a salesperson delineates,
albeit indirectly, the two types of buy-in, i.e. product buy-in
and product strategy buy-in.
[15] I had so many products, [examples]. You know, being a
master, a jack of all trade[s], breeds some insecurity as well.
Probably as well. All at the same time, you get six months of
training. Now you gotta go out and try and make money for
your family. All together; breed that insecurity. All these
pressures. I do not think it is the product is what I am, what I
am getting back to. It is all the other things that breeds that
insecurity (Interview, B2C).
In this example, the salesperson suggests that he does not
hold buy-in. He has not bought into the product because, as he
explains, there are so many different product options he has
been tasked to sell that it is difficult to be confident in all of
them. Further, he suggests that many elements involved in his
sales role leaves him feeling less than confident. At the same
time, excerpt [15] is the first, thus far to illustrate product
strategy buy-in of an affective state. The phrases “insecurity”
and “pressure” align with the affective facet of goal
internalization (see the eighth affective state facet of Table 2)
and “try [. . .] insecurity” with desirable continuance (see fifth
affective facet), illustrating a negative affective experience with
the product strategy. This idea, that either product buy-in or
product strategy buy-in may effectively motivate sales, emerged
as another pattern across interviews and is discussed with
greater detail next.
Mutually exclusive salesperson product and product
strategy buy-in
As just noted, excerpt [15] illustrates the mutually exclusive
nature of the two buy-in targets. Participants often expressed
the difference between the two targets without researcher
prompts. The following interview excerpt also delineates
product strategy buy-in from product buy-in.
[16] We have different levels of products. And our cheaper
product, then, I mean its a good product. You get what you pay
for. I try to upsell. More look out for the customer, and I mean I
think that is the whole company I work for. [We] try and not
really sell this cheapest product, and that is kinda our
campaign. We have it if they only wanna spend this much
money. It is not going to be the greatest product for everybody.
I am kinda behind that. We actually do have this product but
they are not really pushing us to sell that. It is not the greatest
product we have,. . . and so I can get being that. It seems a really
honest and truthful step by the company (Focus Group, B2B).
In this interview excerpt, the salesperson explains that the lower
price product option he has to sell at his discretion is an
acceptable product campaign option, i.e. product strategy buy-
in. However, he does not voice confidence in the performance
of this product option, i.e. product buy-in. Instead, he
specifically describes avoiding this product in sales
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
presentations to look out for the interests of the firm. It appears
that this is how his employing firm is oriented toward sales. He
is behind his firm in doing so, a clear example of product
strategy buy-in that is separate from product buy-in.
Furthermore, he suggests that product buy-in is unnecessary
for the degree of buy-in that motivates him to sell. Additionally,
excerpt [16] again illustrates the span of buy-in states across
buy-in targets. While excerpt [16] illustrates successful product
strategy buy-in through a cognitive state, excerpt [15]
illustrates underdeveloped product strategy buy-in through
failed affect. Additionally, excerpt [11] also illustrates a positive
affective experience with buy-in, but leading to successful
product buy-in rather than product strategy buy-in, etc.
(Table 3 for such spanning state findings).
Aside from separating product buy-in and product strategy
buy-in, a few salespeople also describe holding buy-in so that
adequate motivation to sell was present despite a lack of
product buy-in. As examples of such, consider the following
interview excerpts.
[17] There were other things that motivated me. Uhm, but it
had nothing to do with the product I sold. The motivation came
from competitiveness, the culture created by management
above you, the contests and things going on. That motivated
you, but I do not think it motivated you to sell a specific
product (Interview, B2C).
[18] And I think that is why people shift to selling themselves
as opposed to a, a product. [Be]cause you are always going to
have limitations with the product. But, yes. I have been put in
those situations where I did not have the best product for the
needs of the customer (Interview, B2C).
The first excerpt does not necessarily voice a lack of
confidence in a given product’s ability to perform for the
customer. It does, however, suggest that such performance
confidence, i.e. product buy-in, was unnecessary for the
development of at least a degree of buy-in. In this case,
the salesperson developed buy-in of the overall firm strategy,
rather than a given product strategy. However, the second
excerpt does indeed suggest buy-in can develop without
necessarily getting behind a product. He explains that often
products do not perform in a satisfactory way for customers.
Yet, motivation to sell is communicated in this excerpt. He just
focuses on selling himself more than the product. The following
excerpt, however, most clearly indicates product strategy buy-
in without product buy-in.
[19] I think there is been a couple that were not quite as
effective as they thought they would be. [. . .] [But], I would say
when [company] does it, they are going to put resources behind
it. They are going to spend some time and effort and see if it
works, and then when they decide to do it they are going to go
all in. So, I guess the customer did not see it (Interview, B2C).
This salesperson is certainly behind his employing firm in a
way that exudes confidence in management to provide him
with all of the resources necessary to be able to sell effectively.
These resources allow him to sell confidently, regardless of not
being entirely confident that his clients will enjoy the product’s
performance. As noted earlier, this was not the only example of
the mutually exclusive nature of product buy-in and product
strategy buy-in. This opinion is supported further by the
following excerpt example.
 Underlying states
Jessica Zeiss and Joseph Chapman
[20] I would say that is a no brainer. To me, that difference
there, it, it takes and we call, we wanna move from the
transactional to the trusted adviser. [. . .] All the other pieces are
there regardless of what the product may look like. Our
products here at [company], they do not have the most, uhm
top of the line products today because it requires a platform
sophistication we do not have. So, there is all those other
components. However, that has not stopped us from selling the
product. We know where it fits, [. . .] and all the other things.
How we can advise. It is all that other expertize that the product
is not all that important (Interview, B2C).
Disconfirming evidence
While the last few interview illustrations work to highlight the
mutually exclusive nature of buy-in targets, excerpt [19] also
highlights the role of disconfirming evidence in salesperson
buy-in. Table 4 offers a visualization of such a role. Thus, the
second and fourth columns (“target” and “state,” respectively)
of Table 3 represent first-order and the four quadrants of
Table 4 represent second-order categories in accordance with
grounded theoretical methodology. Table 4 summarizes the
present research’s findings, namely, both states appear across
two buy-in targets, while also noting a third finding. The third
finding revolves around the salesperson receiving disconfirming
evidence within or outside firm “walls” while meeting with
prospective or current customers, such as product-specific
consumer feedback or marketplace information.
With two exceptions (see italicized text of Table 3), all
instances of receiving such disconfirming consumer feedback
or marketplace information created a negative cognitive
experience. It is not surprising that such feedback and
information represents a cognitive state. Such a trend is evident
by examining the last column of Table 3, labeled
“disconfirming evidence.” It does appear striking, however,
that receiving such negative knowledge (i.e. cognition, see the
first cognitive state facet of Table 2) seems to have also
snowballed into the development of negative affect. The notion
related to snowballed negative affect is a third finding
represented by Table 4.
These data represent a mere sample of salesperson buy-in,
but do indicate that disconfirming cognition in the form of
customer or marketplace evidence likely leads to a
compounding negative affective state. With the exception of
excerpt [19] in which disconfirming evidence is ignored, each
time salespeople in this sample received disconfirming
cognitive evidence, they then experienced a negative affective
state. For example, the affective state of “feeling unprepared”
(aligning with “attraction” of Table 2) and “fear” (aligning with
goal internalization) expressed in excerpt [12] appears to be a
result of the negative cognitive experience that the
disconfirming evidence of “customer calling you out . . . do not
Table 4 Visual array of illustrative excerpts 1–20
High target buy-in
Buy-in state p. strategy product
Affect excerpt 17 3, 4, 11
Cognitive 16, 19, 20 10
Note: * Evidence prevents affective failure
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
have the answers to” created. As another example, the affective
state of a “negative experience” (“attraction”) and a
“demotivating” feeling (continuance desire), expressed in
excerpt [9], appears to be a result of the negative cognitive
experience that the disconfirming evidence of “causing pain for
your customer” and “hearing feedback from your customer”
created. Similarly, the demotivating affective feelings of
excerpts [5] and [6] appear to be the result of the negative
cognition that “on the street, it is not” and “not really getting
results” evidence, respectively, creates. The remaining
illustrative excerpts of Table 3 follow the same snowball
pattern.
The negative affect resulting from the negative cognition that
disconfirming evidence creates does not appear to actually be
that catalyst underdeveloped buy-in. In other words, it is the
negative affective experience appearing to actually cause
underdeveloped buy-in, such as illustrated in excerpt [15]. In
this illustration, it is the affective experience itself that stunts
buy-in rather than cognitive evidence resulting in the affective
experience. Another distinction relates to a negative cognitive
experience causing underdeveloped buy-in without ever also
snowballing into a negative affective experience, as is illustrated
in excerpts [1], [2], [8], [14] and [18]. In those illustrations,
disconfirming evidence was absent, leaving negative cognition
to stunt buy-in absent of negative affective states. As such,
because the disconfirming evidence is a cognitive state, it is the
negative cognition that stunted the buy-in from developing
despite also appearing to create a negative affective experience.
Thus, it appears that the cognitive facet of disconfirming
evidence prevents a negative affective experience from causing
underdeveloped buy-in. A discussion of such snowballing is
offered in the proceeding section.
Discussion
The present study is motivated to better understand
salesperson buy-in. Specifically, the authors wished to
understand if buy-in is contingent on its target, i.e. product and
product strategy and if affective and cognitive states of buy-in
are influenced by the target. In other words, this study asks:
does salesperson buy-in depend on what exactly management is
expecting them into which to buy? As such, a focus group and
depth-interviews were conducted to garner such an
understanding regarding salesperson buy-in. Cluster and axial
coding of verbatim participant interviews through grounded
theory methodology resulted in three main findings, as are
presented in Table 5 alongside ensuing research propositions
(P1-5), limitations (L1-3) and questions (RQ1-3). Because
qualitative data and the relatively small sample size used in the
present research limits conclusions, this research relies largely
on concluding propositions.
Low target buy-in
Buy-in state p. strategy product

Failed affect excerpt 15
Failed cognitive 5, 8, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 18
 Underlying states Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Jessica Zeiss and Joseph Chapman

At a glance, the analytical results indicate that salesperson buy-
in could involve separate targets:

buy-in of the product’s performance; and

buy-in of the likely success of the campaign strategy
behind the product.
Importantly, both appear to be influenced by an affective or
cognitive state of being, with disconfirming cognitive evidence
stunting buy-in, while also producing negative affect. However,
for the simultaneous examination of both buy-in states, the
sequence in which negative cognition influences negative affect
in a manner that stunts buy-in may not have been uncovered.
The present research contributes to theory, ongoing
salesperson buy-in research and managerial practice. Data
indicate that cognitive and affective states influence salesperson
buy-in in a theoretical pattern: disconfirming evidence allows
negative cognition to result in negative affect while also stunting
buy-in (see third finding of Table 5). Also, this theoretical
finding lends itself to future research regarding the negative role
of control dimensions of cognitive-based buy-in, as is discussed
at the end of the Theoretical Contributions section. Finally, either
state can facilitate buy-in and a salesperson can buy-into the
two targets independently, providing relatively more efficient
routes to buy-in for managerial practice (see first two findings
of Table 5). Managerial implications, theoretical contributions
and ideas for future research questions (referenced throughout
this discussion), are discussed next.
Implications for salesforce managers
Internal messaging of only one buy-in target
The independent nature of product buy-in and product
strategy buy-in may be particularly important for sales
managers. Using internal marketing to effectively sell
salespeople on either the product they sell or the trickle-down
benefits of a successful product would be significantly less
resource intense relative to selling both buy-in targets to the
salespeople. Internal marketing, the use of internal messages to

Table 5 Summary of research findings alongside propositions and questions

Summary of research findings
1 Salesperson buy-in is based on
either affective or cognitive states
of being, regardless of the target
of the buy-in
2 Two unique buy-in targets emerge,
i.e. buy-in of the product and
product strategy, a finding offered
by the first research endeavor to
examine both in the same study
Prompted research Limitations of present Future research question inspired by
proposition research finding
P1 Salesperson buy-in is L1 Qualitative data and RQ1 Do both states produce the same
driven by positive (a) methodology do not allow levels of successful buy-in?
affective or (b) cognitive for the assessment of state-
experienced states of buy-in relationship
being magnitude
P2 Salesperson buy-in is
inhibited by negative (a)
affective or (b) cognitive
experienced states of
being
P3 Product and strategy L2 Numeric mean comparison RQ2 Does either target equally produce
salesperson buy-in are with the inclusion of favorable outcomes for the
mutually exclusive controls would offer salesperson (e.g. sales performance)
relatively more robust or employing firm (e.g. organizational
research conclusions commitment)?

3 When the salesperson receives P4 Disconfirming evidence L3 The lack of experimental

evidence from customers or the causes underdeveloped methods do not allow for
marketplace that disconfirms buy-in causal inferences
positive aspects of the product or
product strategy, this negative
cognition results in negative affect.
However, the resulting
underdeveloped buy-in is a result
of the negative cognitive, rather
than affective, state the
disconfirming evidence creates
P40The negative affective
state created by
disconfirming evidence
causes underdeveloped
buy-in
P5 Disconfirming evidence RQ3 Does disconfirming evidence
drives a negative represent a sequence of buy-in where
affective buy-in state evidence creates negative cognition,
which then creates negative affect?
 Underlying states
Jessica Zeiss and Joseph Chapman
convince an employee of the potential benefits of a practice or
event, is widely understood as a useful tool for effective strategy
implementation through buy-in (Berry, 1981; Winter, 1985).
Gaining such implementation and/or performance success via
only one type of internal message, such as the likely growth in
market share or thwarting of a major competitor given the
success of product sales, should be relatively easier.
Additionally, messaging revolving around only one target
should be more convincing due to less message confusion.
Finally, messaging for only one target would require fewer
resources by way of necessary evidence or illustration rather
than multiple types of internal messages.
However, future research should compare the degree to
which each buy-in target is capable of producing such firm and
salesperson success (see the second research question of
Table 5). While both targets are capable of providing success,
they may provide different levels of success. For example, there
could be a situation where both product buy-in and product
strategy buy-in targets achieve promising sales revenue, with
one (say product strategy buy-in) achieving relatively more.
Additionally, an internal marketing strategy should account for
the role of trust in cognitive-based product strategy buy-in. The
product strategy target appears rooted in notions of managerial
backing (e.g. “having my back” and “feel like you are not
supported”). Prior research indeed links trust to buy-in through
perceived “backing” during managerial field training and
cultural perceptions of trust (Hultink and Atuahene-Gima,
2000). Finally, future research should examine the magnitude
of each state-buy-in relationship to assess the relative
effectiveness of internal messaging facilitating only one state of
being in developing salesperson buy-in. As is noted in Table 5
(L1), the present research’s reliance on qualitative data does
not allow for such an assessment.
Sales performance given buy-in of only one target
It is proposed that salesperson buy-in of the product sales
strategy, in spite of a lack of buy-in of the actual product
performance, may be enough in and of itself to effectively
motivate salesperson performance, and vice versa (see third
proposition of Table 5). Some interviews voiced a lack of
confidence in the product(s), yet confidence in the firm’s
mission for that product and vice versa. This finding may help
salesforce management perfect their internal marketing
messages so that those messages sure to succeed are used over
those which management has less control. For example, prior
research has focused on the nuances of convincing salespeople
to get behind a new product (Hultink and Atuahene-Gima,
2000). Such new product buy-in is difficult when the features
of a product have yet to be vetted by customers, and the
salesperson lacks the time necessary to be able to feel fully
knowledgeable and comfortable with the product.
Additionally, even products with a legacy of customer feedback
may have inherent limitations or simply are not a fit for all
customers, both points voiced by salespeople in the present
study. Perhaps, effectively convincing salespeople to buy-into a
product through internal marketing is an impossible feat in the
long-term for some firms. Yet, convincing salespeople that the
successful sale of a product will benefit the firm (e.g. profit
margin growth), and, in turn, benefit the salesperson (e.g.
greater job security) may be relatively more practical.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Firm performance given salesperson buy-in of only one
target
Finally, if product strategy buy-in alone does indeed garner
enough motivation among salespeople to effectively encourage
higher sales levels, the employing firm may find relatively
greater performance rewards by way of long-term customer
satisfaction. As noted earlier, marketing research suggests that a
salesperson who has bought into the employing firm’s mission
is more likely to garner holistic rather than product satisfaction
(Lam et al., 2010). That research suggests that cumulative
satisfaction occurs when the customer is satisfied with their
experience with the selling firm. Product buy-in is likely to lead
the salesperson to “create value for customers because, with
their mastery of product knowledge, they are able to identify,
which products and services that will better solve customers’
problems” (Lam et al., 2010, p. 66). Product strategy buy-in is
likely to lead the salesperson to support firm actions and
missions with an emotional concern for the future well-being of
the firm (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). Therefore, while prior
research links buy-in of both targets to strong customer
satisfaction results, it links product strategy buy-in to the
important outcome of cumulative, long-term satisfaction with
the firm, regardless of the product. Product strategy buy-in
holds a relatively greater capacity for salespeople to identify
with the brand offered to customers (Underwood et al., 2001).
A salesperson with product strategy buy-in is confident that the
successful implementation of that strategy will trickle down to
role benefits for the salesperson. Thus, a salesperson who has
bought into the product sales strategy is focused on seeing to it
that the campaign, rather than a given purchase, is successful.
Therefore, salespeople with product strategy buy-in are
relatively more likely to push for customer satisfaction with
doing business with the salesperson and the salesperson’s
employing firm. These ideas revisit the second research
question derived from the present research’s findings (Table 5).
It is hoped that future research will examine the relative firm
and salesperson performance for both targets.
Theoretical contributions
To reiterate, the present research finds two types of buy-in that
are uniquely contingent on the target (see second finding of
Table 5), and for which appear to be influenced by both
cognitive and affective states of being (see first finding). As
reviewed in a preceding section, prior research indeed examines
product (Hultink and Atuahene-Gima, 2000) and product
strategy buy-in (Malshe and Sohi, 2009). However, the present
research is the first to examine both targets of buy-in in the
same study. Additionally, the present research finds that either
affective or cognitive states of being can both drive and inhibit
salesperson buy-in of either target (see first and second
proposition of Table 5). However, while the targets of buy-in
appear to be mutually exclusive (see third proposition of Table
5), the same notion cannot be clearly concluded with regard to
the underlying states of buy-in. Again, without researcher
prompts, many participants expressed having product buy-in
without product strategy buy-in, and vice versa (see content
under the “mutually exclusive [. . .]” header; excerpts [15] and
[16] as examples, etc.). Disconfirming evidence muddies
notions tied to this inclusive nature of buy-in states.
 Underlying states
Jessica Zeiss and Joseph Chapman
While the sample size and data parameters of this research
study are certainly limited, it is found that the cognitive state
underlying disconfirming evidence appears to inhibit buy-in
across both targets, while also resulting in a negative affective
state (see third finding of Table 5). However, this finding seems
to indicate that one occurs alongside the other, i.e.
disconfirming evidence is a cognitive state inhibiting buy-in,
while also resulting in a negative affective state. Prior research is
limited with regard to comparing the affective and cognitive
states underlying buy-in. Prior research, which comes closest to
such an endeavor is that of Meyer and Allen’s (1991); Meyer
et al., 1993), which does not examine buy-in, but instead
examines organizational employee commitment. However,
Hultink and Atuahene-Gima (2000) provide relevant insight
regarding the manner in which buy-in appears offset by
evidence. Hultink and Atuahene-Gima examine new product
salesperson buy-in. Their positive buy-in–salesperson
performance finding weakens when evidence-based employee
training and field attention is introduced. The authors suggest
that ineffective training and field attention may have weakened
buy-in’s effect on performance. As such, when evidence is
introduced, such as unconvincing product performance during
training, the affective (the commitment facet) state of buy-in
appears to no longer produce strong salesperson performance
results.
In other words, Hultink and Atuahene-Gima (2000) find
disconfirming evidence to:

inhibit;

product buy-in because of a; and

negative affective experience.
The present research finds disconfirming evidence to also:

inhibit;

both product buy-in and product strategy buy-in targets,
but seemingly because of a;

negative cognitive experience, though; and

a negative affective experience ensues as well.
The data and sample size limitations of the present research do
not allow for direct comparison of the present findings to those
of Hultink and Atuahene-Gima’s. Thus, further research is
needed to clarify the role of disconfirming evidence in
inhibiting buy-in through the underlying cognitive state (see the
fourth proposition and its null proposition labeled “P40” of
Table 5).
As Table 5 iterates (L3), a limitation to inferring the role of
disconfirming evidence in buy-in development is the lack of an
experimental data collection method, which would allow for a
causal inference related to such evidence. Further research that
uncovers the role of an affective state in inhibiting buy-in after the
introduction of disconfirming evidence also appears warranted.
Data analyzed from the present research seem to indicate that it is
the cognitive nature of disconfirming evidence that inhibits buy-in.
Yet, a negative affective state also appears to ensue. This pattern
incites a research question regarding the relative roles of the
underlying states of buy-in for successful buy-in (see the first
research question of Table 5). To reiterate, Hultink and Hultink
and Atuahene-Gima (2000) positive buy-in–salesperson
performance finding weakens when evidence-based employee
training and field attention is introduced. In other words, at a
minimum that research establishes a diminishing effect of
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
cognition on successful buy-in, but does not clarify the relative
diminishing effects of both cognition and affect. Further, if this
pattern – negative affect ensuing (see fifth proposition) but stunted
buy-in caused by the cognitive nature of disconfirming evidence –
held true given further research (null proposition labeled “P40”)
with relatively more robust data, a sequence may appear (third
research question of Table 5).
Data collected here indicate that product buy-in and product
strategy buy-in operate independently. Although mean target
buy-in statistical comparison across quantitative data would
offer additional confirmation (as noted in L2 of Table 5),
participants indeed directly inform this research of this
independent nature (see excerpts 15 and 16, for example). Yet,
while these data indicate product buy-in and product strategy
buy-in are mutually exclusive, there may still exist a sequence
for ultimate salesperson buy-in. Thomson et al. (1999) hint at
such a sequence when proposing that while a cognitive (i.e.
intellectual) influence depends on the employee’s knowledge,
and affective (i.e. emotional) influence depends on the
employee’s feelings. In their conceptualization of employee
commitment to their employing organization, Meyer and Allen
(1991) identify several influences of such commitment. On the
one hand, their conceptualizations of the building of
committed behavior support an affective!cognitive sequence
of salesperson buy-in. They posit that affective commitment –
emotional attachment to the employing firm – influences
continuance commitment – side-bets that leaving the firm has
greater perceived costs than staying. In other words, just as
affective employee commitment may influence continuance
commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1991), affective-based buy-in
may influence cognitive-based buy-in. On the other hand, the
more endogenous side of their conceptual model supports a
cognitive!affective sequence of salesperson buy-in. Meyer and
Allen go a step further to posit that continuance commitment
influences normative commitment, i.e. internalization of
normative pressures from early firm investments. This latter
pattern is not dissimilar from a salesperson developing negative
affect after experiencing the negative cognition of disconfirming
evidence. It is, therefore, possible that just as continuance
employee commitment influences normative commitment
(Meyer and Allen, 1991), cognition precedes affect in the
inhibited buy-in sequence. However, this pattern may be true
only in the presence of disconfirming evidence, which is a
cognition.
Prior literature similarly hints at a cognitive!affective
sequence of salesperson motivation. Again, salesperson
motivation is distinct from buy-in in. Motivation represents
traits largely influenced by work quality and performance
rewards policy (Azêdo and Alves, 2014; Lings and Greenley,
2005; Miao et al., 2007), while buy-in represents states
influenced by persuasive workplace communications (Ahmed
and Rafiq, 2003; Lings and Greenley, 2005; Malshe and Sohi,
2009; Wasmer and Brunner, 1991). Yet, similar to buy-in,
salesperson motivation is comprising both affective (e.g. task
enjoyment and recognition seeking) and cognitive (e.g.
challenge and compensation seeking) dimensions, which
influence each other (Khusainova et al., 2018 for an extensive
review). That literature stream indicates that employer
attempts at influencing cognition, such as compensation
rewards, can offset the influence potential of affect, such as
 Underlying states
Jessica Zeiss and Joseph Chapman
personal growth goals, in motivating salespeople over time
(Weitz et al., 1986). Specifically, when the cognitive-based
policy (e.g. compensation and rewards) is viewed as a control,
the salesperson is relatively less likely to be driven by affective
dimensions of motivation (growth goals and work interest;
Ryan et al., 1983). Such research suggests that even cognitive
dimensions of motivation may further be broken down into
sub-dimensions of control attempts and information. It is
possible that cognitive-based buy-in produces negative affect,
as is found in the present buy-in research, when such failed
buy-in is due to the evidence being perceived as failed employer
attempts at manipulating, omitting, exaggerating or other
attempts at controlling information communicated to
salespeople. Indeed, future research should examine a
sequence of the states underlying buy-in, and if such a sequence
changes when disconfirming evidence is introduced.
References
Ahmed, P.K. and Rafiq, M. (2003), “Internal marketing issues
and challenges”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37
No. 9, pp. 1177-1186.
Amabile, T.M. (1996), “Creativity and innovation in
organizations”, working paper, Harvard Business School
Background Note 396-239, Harvard Business School,
Harvard University.
Azêdo, D. and Alves, H. (2014), “Internal marketing practices
in health care and their influence on nurse motivation: public
versus nonpublic management models”, Home Health Care
Management & Practice, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 92-100.
Berry, L.L. (1981), “The employee as a customer”, Journal of
Retail Banking, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 33-40.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), “The
service encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfavorable
incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
Brown, S.P. and Peterson, R.A. (1993), “Antecedents and
consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: meta-analysis
and assessment of causal effects”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 63-77.
Buchanan, B. (1974), “Building organizational commitment:
the socialization of managers in work organizations”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 533-546.
Cespedes, F.V. (1993), “Coordinating sales and marketing in
consumer goods firm”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 37-55.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008), Basics of Qualitative Research,
3d ed., Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA.
Depshandé, R., Farley, J. and Webster, F. (1993), “Corporate
culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in
Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 23-37.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles
of satisfaction, trust and commitment in customer
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2,
pp. 70-87.
Goodman, L.A. (1961), “Snowball sampling”, The Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 148-170.
Groth, M., Hennig-Thurau, T. and Walsh, G. (2009),
“Customer reactions to emotional labor: the roles of
employee acting strategies and customer detection
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
accuracy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 5,
pp. 958-974.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Groth, M., Paul, M. and Gremler, D.D.
(2006), “Are all smiles created equal? How emotional
contagion and emotional labor affect service relationships”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 58-73.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The
experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies,
feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 132-140.
Hultink, E.J. and Atuahene-Gima, K. (2000), “The effect of
sales force adoption on new product selling performance”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 435-450.
Husserl, E. (1970), Ideas, (W.R. Boyce Gibson, Trans.),
George Allen & Unwin, London.
Ingram, T.N. and Bellenger, D.N. (1983), “Personal and
organizational variables: their relative effect on reward
valences of industrial salespeople”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 198-205.
Johnson, J.S. and Sohi, R.S. (2017), “Getting business-to-
business salespeople to implement strategies associated with
introducing new products and service”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 137-149.
Khusainova, R., de Jong, A., Lee, N., Marshall, G.W. and Rudd, J.
M. (2018), “(re) defining salesperson motivation: current status,
main challenges, and research directions”, Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 2-29.
Kimpakorn, N. and Tocquer, G. (2009), “Employees’
commitment to brands in the service sector: luxury hotel
chains in Thailand”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16
No. 8, pp. 532-544.
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 No. 2, pp. 24-41.
Lam, S.K., Kraus, F. and Ahearne, M. (2010), “The diffusion
of market orientation throughout the organization: a social
learning theory perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74
No. 5, pp. 61-79.
Lings, I.N. and Greenley, G.E. (2005), “Measuring internal
market orientation”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 290-305.
Malshe, A. and Sohi, R.S. (2009), “Sales buy-in of marketing
strategies: exploration of its nuances, antecedents, and
contextual conditions”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 207-225.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component model
conceptualization of organizational commitment”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993),
“Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension
and test of a three-component conceptualization”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 538-551.
Miao, C.F. and Evans, K.R. (2007), “The impact of
salesperson motivation on role perceptions and job
performance – a cognitive and affective perspective”, Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 89-101.
 Underlying states
Jessica Zeiss and Joseph Chapman
Miao, C.F., Evans, K.R. and Zou, S. (2007), “The role of
salesperson motivation in sales control systems – intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation revisited”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 417-425.
Moustakas, C. (1994), Phenomenological Research Methods,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1978), “The
measurement of organizational commitment”, Working
paper (technical report) 15, Oregon University Eugene
Graduate School of Management and Business, Oregon
University, July.
Oliver, R.L., Rust, R.T. and Varki, S. (1997), “Customer
delight: foundations, findings, and managerial insight”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 311-336.
Piercy, N.F. and Morgan, N. (1995), “Internal marketing – the
missing half of the marketing programme”, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 82-93.
Pugliesi, K. (1999), “The consequences of emotional labor:
effects on work stress, job satisfaction, and well-being”,
Motivation & Emotion, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 125-154.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory
and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55
No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Ryan, R.M., Mims, V. and Koestner, R. (1983), “Relation of
reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic
motivation: a review and test using cognitive evaluation
theory”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45
No. 4, pp. 736-750.
Sasser, W.E. and Arbeit, S.P. (1976), “Selling jobs in the
service sector”, Business Horizons, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 61-65.
Suddaby, R. (2006), “From the editors: what grounded theory
is not”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4,
pp. 633-642.
Tansuhaj, P., Wong, J. and McCullough, J. (2007), “Internal
and external marketing: effects on consumer satisfaction in
banks in Thailand”, International Journal of Bank Marketing,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 73-83.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Thomson, K., de Chernatony, L., Arganbright, L. and Khan,
S. (1999), “The Buy-in benchmark: how staff understanding
and commitment impact Brand and business performance”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 8,
pp. 819-835.
Underwood, R., Bond, E. and Bae, R. (2001), “Building
service brands via social identity: lessons from the sports
marketplace”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Walker, O.C., Jr, Churchill, G.A., Jr. and Ford, N.M. (1977),
“Motivation and performance in industrial selling: present
knowledge and needed research”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 156-168.
Wasmer, D.J. and Brunner, I.I., G.C. (1991), “Using
organizational culture to design internal marketing
strategies”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 35-46.
Weitz, B.A., Sujan, H. and Sujan, M. (1986), “Knowledge,
motivation, and adaptive behavior: a framework for
improving selling effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 174-191.
Winter, S., (1987), “Knowledge and competence as strategic
assets”, in Teece, D. (Ed.), The Competitive Challenge,
Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, MA, pp. 159-184.
Further reading
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1997), “Adoption of new products by the
sales force: the construct, research propositions, and
managerial implications”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 498-514.
Oliver, R.L. and Swan, J.E. (1989), “Consumer perceptions of
interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: a field
survey approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 21-35.
Corresponding author
Jessica Zeiss can be contacted at: jgmikeska@bsu.edu