See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260178415

Advancing Sales Performance Research: A Focus on Five UnderResearched Topic

Areas

Article  in  Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management · December 2012

DOI: 10.2307/23483344

CITATIONS READS
104 10,857

4 authors, including:

Richard G. Mcfarland Fernando Jaramillo

ESSEC - Ecole Supérieur des Sciences Economiques et Commerciales University of Texas at Arlington
27 PUBLICATIONS   1,163 CITATIONS    52 PUBLICATIONS   5,536 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard G. Mcfarland on 11 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Advancing Sales Performance Research:
A Focus on Five UnderResearched Topic Areas
Kenneth R. Evans, Richard G. McFarland, Bart Dietz, and Fernando Jaramillo

This paper focuses on five critical, yet underresearched, areas vital to sales performance in a marketplace that is increasingly
more complex, more demanding of customized solutions, and more relationship focused. The five topic areas addressed
are the ability to marshal intraorganizational resources by salespeople, salesperson creativity, examining the buyer–seller
interaction in terms of salesperson influence tactics behaviors and the importance of establishing credibility with buyers
as a basis of influence, ethics relative to the buying and selling organization simultaneously, and selling teams. Research
implications for each topic area are advanced.

Sales performance has been conceptualized in frameworks and
various literature reviews to be the result of a vast array of en-
dogenous, moderator, and mediating variables (e.g., Anderson
and Oliver 1987; Babakus et al. 1996; Churchill et al. 1985;
Verbeke, Dietz, and Verwaal 2011). Despite significant progress,
unfortunately, our ability to predict sales performance based
on the extensive, published research on topics such as salesper-
son selection, buyer–seller interactions, job design, incentive
systems, sales controls, supervision, and many other topics in
the sales/sales management domain has been less than ideal.
Because extant research can explain a relatively small variance
in sales performance, there is ample opportunity for advancing
our understanding of sales performance and a need for new
theoretical models to accomplish this goal.
The purpose of this paper is to identify five underresearched
topic areas believed to provide promising opportunities for
future researchers who are seeking to advance marketers’ un-
derstanding of the sales performance domain. No doubt the act
of selecting these five areas overlooks promising opportunities
elsewhere; however, there is an underlying rationale for the top-
ics addressed. These five topics were selected and are viewed as
particularly salient based on recent changes in the sales environ-
Kenneth R. Evans (Ph.D., University of Colorado–Boulder), Dean
and Fred E. Brown Chair of Business, University of Oklahoma, Price
College of Business, Norman, OK, evansk@ou.edu.
Richard G. McFarland (Ph.D., Georgia Institute of Technology),
Associate Professor, West Virginia University, College of Business and
Economics, Morgantown, WV, richard.mcfarland@mail.wvu.edu.
Bart Dietz (Ph.D., Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus
University), Assistant Professor, Human Resource Management,
Erasmus University, Rotterdam School of Management, Nether-
lands, bdietz@rsm.nl.
Fernando Jaramillo (Ph.D., University of South Florida), Associate
Professor of Marketing, The University of Texas at Arlington, College
of Business, Arlington, TX, jaramillo@uta.edu.
ment, and they represent significant differences from status quo
research. As such, these research topics potentially may lead to
large as opposed to incremental advances in sales performance
models and frameworks.
More specifically, these five topics are based on the following
considerations. First, managing customer relationships in an
ever increasingly complex marketplace with growing evidence
of the vital role of customer relationships and solution selling is
placing a different set of demands on today’s sales force. Man-
aging today’s selling environment calls for client interactions
that involve complex alignments of both the buying and selling
firms’ resources; hence, being able to manage these resources has
become an important skill for salespeople. Second, the process
of securing and maintaining these client relationships places ad-
ditional pressure on salespeople to identify and execute creative
solutions; thus, salesperson creativity is a particularly relevant
consideration. Third, this creativity often manifests in the
need for the identification and execution of effective influence
techniques that are sensitive to buyer needs. Furthermore, the
need to establish credibility with buyers as a basis of influence
is especially critical today given growing buyer skepticism and
resistance. Fourth, this resource alignment behavior and creativ-
ity should attend to ethical activities if salesperson credibility is
to be maintained. Finally, these issues are particularly imperative
when many individuals are selling in team contexts where the
nature of individual effects may differ greatly from team effects
and sales performance becomes a multilevel phenomenon.
Figure 1 details the key topics to be addressed in this paper and
the selling environmental factors supporting the examination
of these five sales performance topic areas.
Marshalling Intraorganizational
Resources
Salesperson performance is a function of an intricate mosaic of
the relative influence of person and context. One area related

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. XXXII, no. 1 (winter 2012), pp. 89–105.
© 2012 PSE National Educational Foundation. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0885-3134 / 2012 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/PSS0885-3134320108
90  Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Figure 1
Identifying Five Underresearched Sales Performance Research Areas Based on Changing Environmental Dynamics
to salesperson performance that has begun to receive some at-
tention in the literature is how more successful salespeople are
able to manage the intraorganizational resources of their firms
to achieve better performance (Plouffe and Barclay 2007). The
salesperson who can facilitate expediting a shipment, acceler-
ate invoicing, commit to prompt installation, and perform
assorted other deliverables is often the person who gains the
customers confidence and in turn becomes a trusted partner
in future exchanges (e.g., Steward et al. 2010; Ustuner and
Godes 2006). Next, we discuss what factors tend to prompt
the creation of these support networks, how they function,
and to what extent management can help in facilitating these
valuable infrastructures without incurring inefficiencies and
negative operational consequences.
Informal Versus Formal Networks
The notion of support networks across functions, products,
or geographic areas and working collaboratively within the
selling organization raises questions about the nature and
characteristics of these formal, or more often informal,
groups, and what configurations tend to yield better results
(Ustuner and Godes 2006). The more traditional response by
management when these internal networks are revealed and
there is evidence of positive consequences on performance
is to strive to impose formal structures that mirror these
emergent work groups (Ustuner and Godes 2006). Efforts
in this regard have produced more effective capabilities for
firms to interface between salesperson needs and firm align-
ment, particularly in less uncertain environments. These
formalized network configurations have been less successful
in uncertain markets particularly when a firm’s offerings are
complex (Cespedes, Doyle, and Freedman 1989). Hence,
organizations may be motivated to find ways to facilitate
the formation of these networks in ways that do not impose
the traditional barriers often presented by functional silos.
Ad hoc teams such as virtual networks where mutual interests
might partner and assorted other tools are encouraged to help
key network members co-align (Plouffe and Barclay 2007;
Ustuner and Godes 2006). Another way of looking at the
practice of creating these informal networks is what is termed
“operating in white space” or simply areas where there is no
formal component of the organizational chart (Maletz and
Nohria 2001).
There are drawbacks to using these networks in addressing
unique challenges of the firm. Like any community, abuses
can arise as a result of barriers that are erected limiting or
denying others access to the internal network (Maletz and
Nohria 2001). Moreover, more dense networks can become
redundant thereby defeating their original purpose. The
challenge is to build networks where both characteristics of
density and sparsity are evident, allowing for a degree of inti-
macy among members who also possess complementary skills
thereby resulting in less overlap and more unique information
nodes within the network (Ustuner and Godes 2006). In fact,
the value of network assembly and management has resulted

in firms such as IBM, Accenture, Boston Consulting Group,
Procter & Gamble, and Merck turning to network modeling
tools to ascertain who to assemble among the key individuals
in their respective firms that can/do serve in vital roles in the
delivery of the firm’s goods and services (McGregor 2006).
Intrapreneurship
Increasing attention has been directed toward the unique
skills of the sales staff in building support networks (Plouffe
and Barclay 2007). Intrapreneurship has often been used as
a label to describe the facility of the salesperson to locate
personnel or other resources within the selling organization
and deploy them to assist the customer account. Empirical
findings indicate that the greater the intrapreneurial ability
of the salesperson, the greater their customer’s trust in them
(Sengupta, Krapfel, and Pusateri 2000). A related expression
of this same notion is advanced by Plouffe, Sridharan, and
Barclay (2010), which they term “exploratory navigation” or
the activities salespeople engage in as they seek to learn and
master their own organization and its capabilities, personnel,
skills, and aptitudes. The salesperson is motivated to secure
these skills either intrinsically or in recognition that acquir-
ing these sets of skills translates into defined performance
gains. The key to successfully engaging in exploratory navi-
gation is for salespeople to be willing to seek out new and
often unfamiliar personnel, departments, or other resources
within their organization as it is these unique/differentially
advantageous capabilities that often distinguish excellence
among top performing salespeople (Plouffe, Sridharan, and
Barclay 2010).
How salespeople secure these internal networks has also
been attributed to their intelligence (not necessarily based on
conventional notions of analytical or logical deduction). As
Sujan (1999) notes, there are three types of IQ: analytical,
which is manifest in logical deductive reasoning; creative,
which is demonstrated by an individual’s ability to deal with
novel tasks; and street smart, which is evidenced by an indi-
vidual’s ability to obtain an in-depth understanding of the
context in which they operate. Focusing on street smarts and
its relevance in aligning with the salesperson’s environment,
Sujan (1999) notes that options confronting one’s street smart
IQ are to change oneself, choose environments better suited
for one’s capabilities/resources, or change aspects of one’s en-
vironment. In effect, street smart is part of the individual-level
capability of the salesperson to adapt to his or her environ-
ment. One or all of the change options are often used by a
salesperson. More to the point, it is his or her environmental
sensitivity that dictates which option(s) are selected. Hence, it
is the ability to shape one’s environment that is most aligned
with individuals who are more likely to engage in successful
intraorganizational alignment with their sales tasks.
Winter 2012  91
Conclusions and Future Research Directions
It is vital that salespeople possess the ability to obtain the sup-
port of others within their firms to provide the support needed
to produce satisfactory short- and long-term sales performance
(Workman, Homburg, and Jensen 2003). These internal influ-
ence skills often involve assembling and managing an ad hoc
team of organizational members who possess the knowledge
and skills to deliver a superior customer solution. In short, the
success of a salesperson in adapting to various selling situa-
tions may hinge on his or her ability to persuade one or more
of the intraorganizational experts to affiliate with a loosely
configured/informal sales team. Future research should begin
to study the linkage between these behaviors and sales per-
formance. Following the work of Plouffe and Barclay (2007),
research on intrapreneurship should be developed—network
theory is a promising theoretical basis for doing so.
Findings in the key account management context suggests
that a key account manager’s ability to amass internal resources
from the marketing and sales function is important in deter-
mining their success (e.g., Sengupta, Krapfel, and Pusateri
2000; Steward et al. 2010). Research agendas that seek to bet-
ter understand what constitutes effective intraorganizational
alignment from a sales perspective, how this alignment is
successfully achieved, and the organizational and environ-
mental factors that facilitate effective intraorganizational
alignment are strongly encouraged. Further, the research
on key account management could be extended using this
framework and building from extant research, such as that
by Homburg, Workman, and Jensen (2002) and Richards
and Jones (2009).
SALESPERSON CREATIVITY:
THE PERFORMANCE EQUALIZER
Salespeople play an essential role in identifying and defin-
ing opportunities for their firm. Some authors have equated
opportunity identification to that of an entrepreneur who is
seeking to establish a differential advantage with his or her
customer or, in a broader sense, the market as a whole (Bonney
and Williams 2009). These sales entrepreneurs must also be
facile in aligning the resources of their firms such that they can
assemble winning solutions targeted toward the customer’s fo-
cal problem. Successful efforts to recognize client opportunities
and engage in solution selling are not due merely to creative
crafting of sales messages, but rather salespersons’ cognitive
abilities to identify problems and assess strategic options for
potentially successful solutions through creativity.
Wang and Netemeyer (2004) view salesperson creativity as
evidenced when the salesperson generates and evaluates new
solutions for old problems, sees old problems from a different
perspective, defines and solves a new problem, or detects a
92  Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
neglected problem. Wang and Netemeyer define salesperson
creative performance as “the amount of new ideas generated
and novel behaviors exhibited by the salesperson in perform-
ing his or her job activities” (2004, p. 806). This definition is
consistent, yet sales context specific, to that of Amabile (1983),
which is more broadly applicable to the domain of social psy-
chology noting that creativity is best not characterized as either
a trait or general ability, but rather a behavior resulting from a
constellation of personal characteristics, cognitive abilities, and
social environments. Wang and Netemeyer (2004) advance a
seven dimension scale that includes the following:
1.
making sales presentations in innovative ways,
2.
carry out sales tasks in ways that are resourceful,
3.
new ideas for satisfying customer needs,
4.
generating and evaluating multiple alternatives for
novel customer problems,
5. having fresh perspectives on old problems,
6. improving methods for solving a problem when an
answer is not apparent, and
7. generating creative selling ideas.
As is evident in the dimensions of creative selling articulated
above, there is a strong emphasis on incorporating both idea
generation and behavior in capturing the creativity of the
sales force. It is also important to note that creativity may be
manifest in the identification of new ideas for new problems
or creative solutions for existing customer problems/needs.
Antecedents of Creativity
The literature on creativity has followed two major streams.
Individual person characteristics have been linked to creative
performance through studies that have investigated personality
and cognitive style. It is here where the sales-specific research
that has investigated salesperson adaptive selling and cognitive
frameworks is certainly relevant. The ability of the salesperson
to identify and adapt to differences in customers and their
circumstances has been attributed to individual salesperson
adaptive skills (Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986). These adaptive
capabilities have been linked to both declarative knowledge
(e.g., knowledge about products, customers, industries) and
procedural knowledge (e.g., relationship-building skills, net-
working acumen, and capability of amassing organizational
resources to solve customer problems). It has been suggested
that these individual-level adaptive skills are linked to implicit/
explicit cognitive frameworks that influence how salespeople
either adapt or not to certain circumstances (e.g., Evans et al.
2000; Leigh and McGraw 1989; Szymanski 1987).
Wang and Netemeyer (2002) find that salesperson learning
orientation and trait competitiveness demonstrate a linkage
with salesperson innovation. Their study of real estate sales
agents revealed that learning is the most important sales
behavior through which competitiveness affects sales per-
formance. Hence, salespeople should be motivated to learn
more about the customer, thereby elevating their ability to
provide unique, tailored solutions for customer needs and
problems.
The other major stream of research addressing individual
creativity has sought to assess the role of contextual charac-
teristics. These characteristics in the sales context might stem
from the firm’s perspective include rewards, job complexity,
relationships with supervisors and coworkers, as well as job
characteristics that contribute to supporting/encouraging an
employee to be creative. Often investigated are the role of
job characteristics and their influence on salespeople and,
more specifically, their creativity (Coelho and Augusto 2010).
Linkages between job characteristics and creativity have been
conjectured as follows:
• Job autonomy—this job characteristic is often lined
to intrinsic motivation and creativity. High levels of
autonomy provide the salespeople the freedom to ex-
ercise their own judgment in the selling task, thereby
encouraging greater levels of intellectual and creative
engagement.
• Task variety—nonredundant work is more likely to
result in addressing issues with less routine and thereby
more creative approaches.
• Task identity—personal attachment to the work
product and the resolution to address a particular
customer’s needs elevates the incentive to find creative
solutions.
• Task feedback—information that assists the salesper-
son in improving domain-relevant skills thereby elevat-
ing the salesperson’s ability to engage in more effective
problem solving.
• Task significance—tasks with higher significance place
greater value on finding winning solutions that are
more often than not due to creative problem solving.
In addition to the contextual contributions of job charac-
teristics, psychological climate has been linked to salesperson
propensity to be innovative. Perceived innovation within a
sales organizational climate has been defined as a salesperson’s
perception that change and originality are encouraged and
valued in the firm inclusive of risk taking in both familiar and
unfamiliar domains (Strutton, Pelton, and Lumpkin 1993).
Findings in this area suggest that more creative employees
experience greater levels of role conflict because they may ex-
perience frustration in initiating creative work behaviors that
are perceived as unwelcome in their work environment (Evans,
Arnold, and Grant 1999). Evidence also seems to suggest that
the influence of innovative behaviors on elevating role conflict
can be ameliorated in instances where high levels of trust are
ascribed to one’s supervisor.

Conclusions and Future Research Directions
The argument for the role of context and its influence on
salesperson creativity suggests that it may be the sales force
that is the firm’s best resource for identifying and creating
opportunities. In spite of initiatives in data mining and
management, market research, and assorted other boundary
management initiatives, it is the sales force that is ultimately
embedded in these customer contexts and is best able to
observe how the pieces and the players fit together (Evans
and Maio 2011). It is this pattern recognition in complex
sales contexts with all its nuances that offers what may be
the most promising environment for sales creativity to take
place and is an important area for future research (Timmons
and Spinelli 2007).
As firms seek to explore more extensive/embedded cus-
tomer relationships, salespeople are asked to identify and
engage in innovative solutions to increasingly more intricate
and most likely cross-disciplinary problems. Evidence seems
to indicate that as customers become more demanding,
salespeople are more likely to increase their innovative activ-
ity as well. Potentially, in high customer demand situations,
a process of natural selection plays out, thereby retaining
those who can operate in these unstructured contexts; future
research should examine this topic. An exploratory study
investigating the organizational context that contributes to
more successful relationship selling suggests that firms may
need to adopt flatter organizational structures with more
flexible cultures if they desire to more effectively align with
the needs of a relational sales force (Beverland 2001); link-
ing flatter organizations to creativity and sales performance
provides a promising avenue of future research.
BUYER–SELLER INTERACTION
The buyer–seller interaction, conducted either face-to-face
or via other mediated forms of verbal communication, is
ultimately where the majority of what constitutes sales perfor-
mance objectives are determined. As firms have increasingly
moved to relationship and consultative selling, the importance
and frequency of interactions between buyers and sellers has
increased at all stages of the relationship (e.g., whether in the
selling phase or in the pre- or postsales phases). Furthermore,
buyers are more knowledgeable about persuasion attempts
and more skeptical about the messages they hear daily from
salespeople than in the past (Freese 2010). Despite a signifi-
cant amount of influential research in this area, what happens
within the buyer–seller interaction remains an underresearched
area (McFarland, Challagalla, and Shervani 2006). The pur-
pose of this section of the paper is to provide a framework
for extant research in this area and offer suggestions for future
research based on this framework.
Winter 2012  93
Extant Research
Weitz’s (1981) contingency framework for sales interac-
tions and the related adaptive selling literature of Weitz and
colleagues notes three key factors of relevance in the sales
interaction: (1)  the adaptive use of influence techniques,
(2)  the importance of establishing bases of influence, and
(3) the effectiveness of the adaptive use of influence tactics.
The effective deployment of these techniques is contingent
upon selecting the right tactics based on characteristics of the
interaction and of the buyer (e.g., Spiro and Weitz 1990; Weitz
1978, 1981; Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986). Strong empiri-
cal evidence across a number of studies supports the general
predicted positive effects of adaptive selling on performance
outcomes, more so for salespeople with greater knowledge
(e.g., procedural, categories), experience, emotional intelli-
gence, and so on (e.g., Kidwell, McFarland, and Avila 2007;
Szymanski 1988). However, the second and third components
of the contingency framework have seen limited research. We
believe that these are critical gaps in the literature that must
be addressed and that the contingency framework is a criti-
cal sales performance model that has stood the test of time,
as evidenced by the breadth of work on its first component
(adaptive selling).
The importance of establishing a basis of influence (or
what we also refer to here as establishing credibility) is probably
more critical today in explaining success in sales interactions
than when the contingency framework was developed, yet
almost no research regarding this important topic exists. A
salesperson cannot simply start off a relationship by saying,
“Trust me, I am the most trustworthy, knowledgeable, and
experienced salesperson in this industry.” Nor can he or she
simply say, “Our products are innovative and offer the best
solutions in the industry.” This is truer today than ever given
the increasing resistance buyers have to the multitude of sales
messages they are inundated with in both professional and
personal settings. Buyers, at face value, need more evidence
than solely the salesperson’s word for it. Salespeople must first
establish credibility with buyers. For example, if salespeople
are proposing expert solutions, they first have to establish
their expertise, including demonstrating an understanding of
the customer’s problems for which they are providing solu-
tions. Furthermore, establishing credibility is the first step in
establishing trust.
Furthering our understanding of the underlying sales tactics
that are used by salespeople is an underresearched area. Yet
without defining and understanding the actual sales behaviors
that occur within sales interactions, we can offer little advice
regarding which sales behaviors should be adapted. As noted
by Spiro and Weitz: “adaptive selling can be undertaken in an
effective and an ineffective way; hence effectiveness is not part
of the [adaptive selling] definition” (1990, p. 62); and as noted
94  Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
by Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan: “altering sales behaviors (adap-
tive selling) can be effective or ineffective” (1986, p. 175).
The logic of this assertion is quite compelling; simply chang-
ing one’s sales approach, versus using a “canned” approach,
only leads to greater success if the adaptations are made in
the correct direction. Making the wrong adaptations will
do more harm than relying on canned presentations. Thus,
a key research question that remains is: How does manage-
ment determine whether somebody is making the correct or
incorrect adaptations to specific sales behaviors? The ADAPTs
scale (Spiro and Weitz 1990) addresses whether salespeople
globally change their sales behaviors within or across sales
interactions; however, what actual sales behaviors are used or
modified are not measured (e.g., a representative ADAPTs
item is: “I am very flexible in the selling approaches I use”).
In order to know whether correct or incorrect adaptations are
made, management first must know what sales behaviors are
used and varied. Fortunately, “salesperson behaviors can be
classified in terms of the influence techniques” that salespeople
use (Weitz 1981, p. 92), and an important body of research
exists that has examined salesperson influence tactics (e.g.,
Brown 1990; McFarland, Challagalla, and Shervani 2006;
Spiro and Perreault 1979), yet research in this area remains
sparse. Next, we discuss the topics of establishing credibility
followed by salesperson influence tactics.
Establishing a Basis of Influence
“Salespeople need to develop source credibility and legitimacy
during the initial stages of an interaction. Without such a base
of influence, salespeople cannot effectively influence their
customers” (Weitz 1981, p. 92). On a theoretical level, power
and influence are distinct constructs. Influence is the exercised
use of power. One can only exercise power if one first possesses
it. On a practical level, buyers are besieged with persuasive
attempts both in terms of personal consumption and in their
role as boundary spanners interacting with salespeople. As
noted earlier, buyers are likely to be skeptical of any claims
salespeople make before they have established credibility;
therefore, the old adage that salespeople must sell themselves
before they can sell their products continues to ring true.
Based on Kelman’s three social influence processes/mecha-
nisms (1958), McFarland, Challagalla, and Shervani (2006)
define three categories of influence tactics (see Table 1). The
first influence mechanism utilizes rational arguments that at-
tempt to make the case that the action the source of influence
(salesperson) wants the target of influence (buyer) to take is
in the buyer’s own best interest. This type of persuasion is
effective when the target of influence believes this to be the
case—that is, the desired action is beneficial in and of itself.
The second influence mechanism rests on emotional utilities
and/or personal relationships. The target of influence complies
if it feels right, if they are in a positive mood, and/or if they
identify with the source of influence. The third influence
mechanism relies on source controlled sanctions or rewards.
One possesses coercive power when they can punish or reward
the target of influence. Typically with this form of influence,
the target complies because they want to be rewarded or avoid
punishment, but the underlying actions are not in and of
themselves viewed as beneficial.
As depicted in Figure 2, we predict that each category of
influence is most effective when the salesperson possesses the
appropriate basis of power. Hence, before a buyer will take
the advice of a salesperson, the salesperson must be viewed as
credible and knowledgeable by the buyer. Before salespeople
can draw on a personal relationship, they must be liked by
the buyer. Threats and promises can be effectively used only
if the salesperson and/or his or her firm has the power to
reward or punish the buyer. Surprisingly, little research ex-
ists on this topic. Given that “personal selling is inherently a
dynamic influence process” (Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986,
p. 187) and given that influence is effective only if the correct
influence tactics are used and only then if the salesperson has
established the correct basis of power, it is critical for future
research to examine this topic endeavoring to more fully
understand what leads to better sales performance within the
buyer–seller interaction.
Salesperson Influence Tactics
As discussed above, in order to further our understanding of
the sales interaction, including a better understanding of the
effectiveness of adaptive selling, future research should focus
on the use of influence tactics. In this way, which interactional
sales behaviors are or should be used can be examined, and
related theory expanded. An influence tactic is the communi-
cated portion of an influence attempt (Payan and McFarland
2005). All communication that takes place between a buyer
and seller can broadly be viewed as influence tactics, even
if the communication is simply for coordination purposes.
While a vast array of different taxonomies of influence tactics
exist, the McFarland, Challagalla, and Shervani (2006) seller
influence tactics (SITs) taxonomy (listed in Table 1) offers a
theoretically based (and empirically supported) taxonomy
developed specifically for the sales context. Moving forward,
using the same measures and categories across studies will al-
low for researcher to build on the work of others and compare
results across studies.
Conclusions and Future Research Directions
If salespeople are ineffective when they are interacting with
buyers, in competitive markets their sales performance is
likely to be low regardless of sales management practices.
 Winter 2012  95

Table 1
Seller Influence Tactics

Rational Influence Tactics

Information Exchange: A communication process that the seller uses to educate the buyer about products and services he or she has to offer,
make product demonstrations, and gain information from the buyer about any needs or problems they or their company are experiencing
without making any specific recommendations.
Recommendations: A logical or rational argument used to explain the benefits of a purchase. This may include comparisons with competitors’
products or services, conducting cost–benefits analyses, overcoming buyer objections, etc.
Emotional/Relational Influence Tactics
Ingratiation: Behaviors designed to enhance the seller’s interpersonal attractiveness in order to gain the approbation of the buyer. May also
involve other enhancement (e.g., giving complements to the other person).
Inspirational Appeals: A tactic that seeks to elicit an emotional response such as enthusiasm for the salesperson’s offerings. This may also
include appeals to the values and ideals of the buyer with appeals such as “buy American,” for example.
Coercive Influence Tactics
Promises: The seller offers a specific reward contingent on the customer complying with the seller’s request.
Threats: The seller implies or suggests that sanctions will be applied to the buyer or buyer firm if the buyer does not complying with the
seller’s request.

Source: Adapted from McFarland, Challagalla, and Shervani (2006).

Figure 2
Influence Tactics Basis of Power as Determinants of Effectiveness

One of the most important areas of sales research within this
domain has focused on adaptive selling. However, two related
areas of research within the buyer–seller interaction remain
critically underresearched and need to be examined to make
significant incremental advancements to existing research. It
was argued that sales behaviors should be examined at the
influence tactics level and further that research should utilize
consistent measures and categories of seller influence tactics
(e.g., McFarland, Challagalla, and Shervani 2006; see Table 1).
Although at least one of the authors may be biased, we be-
lieve that the SITs framework of McFarland, Challagalla, and
Shervani (2006) offers a theoretically sound and empirically
supported taxonomy for examining sales tactics. Research
has tended to focus on theory regarding the use of individual
sales tactics, rather than considering tactics used together or
in sequence. Thus, important research questions that remain
include whether using certain combinations of influence tac-
tics or certain sequences of influence tactics have differential
effects on sales performance.
It was argued that salespeople cannot influence buyers un-
less they have credibility or a basis of influence/power. Build-
ing on this, a theoretical framework was offered linking bases
96  Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
of power and influence tactics to sales performance within
the buyer–seller interaction (see Figure  2). Future research
should empirically test this theoretical framework and could
further advance credibility research in a number of ways.
Some important research questions to be addressed include
the following: whether establishing credibility is the first step
in the formation of trust, the relationship between sales firm
credibility and salesperson credibility, and a framework for
examining which of these is more important under which
circumstances.
CONSIDERING Ethics on Performance:
A Dual Salesperson–Buyer Perspective
This section posits that ethical sales behaviors can lead to better
sales performance through mediating processes that involve the
salesperson and the customer. Based on an in-depth review of
the literature and premised on shareholder theory, relationship
marketing theory, and the principles of the service-dominant
(S‑D) view of marketing, a conceptual model is proposed
that incorporates extant research and suggests future avenues
of research (depicted in Figure 3). Importantly, this model
simultaneously incorporates the salesperson and customer
perspectives.
Theoretical Framework
Stakeholder theory posits that firms have relationships (con-
tracts) with many groups and individuals (stakeholders) who
can influence or are affected by the achievement of the firm’s
performance (Freeman 1994). Ethical behaviors result in ef-
ficient contracting since opportunistic behaviors are reduced
and resources are not wasted (Jones 1995). The sales and
marketing literature provide evidence that ethical contracting
is beneficial for salespeople, customers, and the organization
as it reduces costs associated with opportunism. A perspective
advocated in relationship marketing asserts that “success-
ful relationship marketing requires trust and commitment”
(Morgan and Hunt 1994, p. 20). Abela and Murphy posit
that the cocreation of value presupposes a minimum level
of buyer–seller trust and a customer-oriented culture where
teamwork and honesty are the norm, and they conclude that
the S‑D logic has an “inherently ethical base because the focus
of major ethical systems is on how human beings ought to
behave and relate to one another” (2008, p. 45).
Impact of Ethics on the Salesperson
An ethical climate (EC) helps salespeople evaluate ethical
problems and defines acceptable and unacceptable behavior at
work (Fournier et al. 2010). EC has long been hypothesized
as a proximal antecedent of ethical behaviors and performance
in sales (Wimbush and Shepard 1994). Research shows that
EC has both a direct (e.g., Weeks et al. 2004) and an indirect
effect on salespersons’ job performance through a mediating
process that involves job attitudes and stress perceptions (e.g.,
Jaramillo, Mulki, and Solomon 2006).
Role stress that results from an unethical climate is perva-
sive since salespeople may find themselves in a situation that
escapes their control—working harder or smarter will not help
them when company leaders explicitly or implicitly tolerate
or even direct salespeople to engage in questionable actions in
searching for economic rewards (Badarcco and Webb 1995).
Salespeople also report higher levels of mental and physical
stress when they use coercive sales tactics to achieve sales
objectives (McFarland 2003).
A review of the literature, summarized in Table 2, shows
consistent empirical evidence in support of the notion that
salespeople prefer to work in firms with a positive EC. As
shown in Table 2, there is a moderate and significant negative
relationship between EC and turnover intention that holds
across a wide range of sales jobs. Table 2 also illustrates that
EC has a significant effect on salesperson job satisfaction and
organizational commitment and that ethics helps the firm
build a lower-stress job environment where employees report
lower levels of role conflict and role ambiguity. EC can thus
help organizations retain salespeople. In addition, Table  2
shows that salesperson perceptions about the firm ethics are
positively related with job performance.
Impact of Ethics on the Customer
A host of studies have shown that customer judgment about
sales ethics influences customer emotions, behaviors, and
the willingness to form a relationship with the company.
Buyers value firms that engage in ethical practices because it
enables them to develop a mutually trusting and cooperative
relationship with the supplier. Ethical sales behaviors have
been associated with several indicators of the strength of
the customer–firm relationship (see Palmatier et al. 2006),
namely, buyer commitment (e.g., Hansen and Riggle 2009),
customer trust (e.g., Román and Ruiz 2005), relationship
satisfaction (e.g., Lagace, Dahlstrom, and Gassenheimer
1991), and customer rapport (Gremler and Gwinner 2008).
In addition, customer’s perceptions about the ethical level
of the organization are positively related to customer value
perceptions (Valenzuela, Mulki, and Jaramillo 2010). Table 3
summarizes empirical research linking ethics and customer-
related variables.
Conclusions and Future Research Directions
This section posits that the impact of ethics on performance
operates through several mediating processes that involve the

Figure 3
Impact of Ethics on Sales Performance
salesperson and the customer. However, a limitation of extant
empirical studies is the reliance on responses from either
employees or customers, but not both. This is troublesome
since several relationship mediators are present and ethics
perceptions from employees and customers are known to be
different (Powell et al. 2009). In addition, behaviors from the
seller will likely affect actions from the buyer and vice versa.
This is consistent with a number of authors who have noted
the importance of conducting dyadic research in the sales arena
(e.g., Jones, Busch, and Dacin 2003; McFarland, Challagalla,
and Shervani 2006; Williams and Spiro 1985).
Managers play a pivotal role in fostering an EC and ethical
sales behaviors. Salespeople learn which behaviors are accept-
able through a socialization process that involves observing
others, particularly management. Salespeople are influenced
by the values and behaviors of first-level managers who in
turn are influenced by values and actions from middle and
top managers (Harris 1990). Sales managers can also influence
a firm’s culture by hiring salespeople who hold high ethical
values and by communicating and training salespeople about
ethical expectations (Schwepker and Good 2007). Ethics is
thus critical when job candidates ask themselves, should I
work for this company? As previously noted, ethics is also
critical when salespeople ask themselves, should I stay with
this company?
Empirical research demonstrates that ethics is associated
with sales performance because of its role in developing mutu-
ally beneficial relationships with two critical stakeholders—
Winter 2012  97
customers and salespeople. However, empirical research
linking sales ethics to the firm’s relationship with internal
suppliers, investors, and regulators is limited. Such research is
warranted to enhance our understanding about the processes
by which ethics affects marketing and financial outcomes. An-
other promising avenue for future research relates to questions
about when ethical contracting may be particularly influential.
For instance, to what extent does ethics influence exchanges
that are more or less tangible? Are salesperson ethical behaviors
more influential in transactional versus relational exchanges?
Individual perceptions about ethics are also affected by na-
tional culture. National culture affects employee perceptions
about a firm’s ethical work climate (e.g., Lopez, Babin, and
Chung 2009), ethical decision making (e.g., Spicer, Dunfee,
and Bailey 2004), and consumer’s tolerance for unethical
practices (e.g., Husted 2000). Further researchers might seek
to enhance marketer’s understanding of the role played by
national culture as a moderator on the impact of sales ethics
on stakeholder relationships and organizational outcomes.
A MULTILEVEL FRAMEWORK PERSPECTIVE
Research on sales performance has largely concentrated on
explaining why some salespeople are more effective than
others. However, the level of analysis has undergone a major
shift: from salesperson to sales team (e.g., Brown et al. 2005).
Indeed, it has been argued that about 75 percent of modern
firms likely use sales teams (Cummings 2007). This transition
 Table 2
Impact of Ethics: Salesperson-Focused Outcomes
Salesperson and Organizational
Ethical Relationship Mediators Outcomes
Ethics Behavior
Sample Size and Perception or Organizational Supervisor Job Stress Job
Sales Study Industry Construct Intention Commitment Trust Satisfaction Turnovera Measureb Performance

Amyx et al. (2008) 120, Retail Ethical climate 0.31 0.44 0.21
Babin et al. (2000) 122, Retail and Ethical norms –0.18RC
98  Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

services
DeConinck (2011) 393, Service and Ethical norms 0.46 0.58 –0.30TI,
manufacturing –0.35T
Fournier et al. (2010) 130, B2B and direct Ethical climate 0.19 –0.26TI 0RO
sales
Grisaffe and Jaramillo 299, National Ethical level –0.36TI
(2007) sample
salespeople
Honeycutt et al. 160, Retail Company ethics 0.35 –0.06 0.07
(1995) (automotive)
91, Retail Company ethics 0.73 –0.01 0.12
(automotive)
Jaramillo et al. (2006) 138, Retail (boats) Ethical climate 0.42 0.43 –0.38TI –0.28RC, 0.37
–0.40RA
Mulki et al. (2006) 333, Pharmaceutical Ethical climate 0.39 0.18 –0.24TI
Mulki et al. (2009) 333, Pharmaceutical Ethical climate 0.14 0.26
Pettijohn et al. (2008) 156, Retail Employer’s 0.59 –0.55TI
(shopping goods) ethics
Román and Munera 280, Financial Ethical behavior 0.12 –0.10RC 0.07
(2005) services
Schwepker et al. 152, B2B Ethical climate –0.35RC
(1997)
Schwepker (2001) 152, B2B Ethical climate 0.44 0.48 –0.36TI
Weeks et al. (2004) 199, B2B Ethical climate 0.16 0.14
Weeks et al. (2006) 153, B2B Ethical climate 0.17 0.04
79, B2B Ethical climate 0.04 –0.03
Wimbush et al. 525, Retail Ethical climate 0.09
(1997)
Valentine and Barnett 181, Sales managers Ethical climate 0.63
(2003)
Valentine and Barnett 324, salespeople Ethical culture 0.16
(2007) and sales
managers
Valentine (2009) 324, Sales managers Ethical culture 0.49
Number of Effect 4 9 2 10 TI = 7 RC = 4 9
Sizes (k)
Sample Size (n) 827 1,748 — 2,003 1,601 692 1,553
Attenuated Mean 0.24 0.37 — 0.30 –0.33 –0.20 0.15
Effect Sizec
Standard Error 0.16 0.13 — 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.07
Disattenuated Mean 0.28 0.42 — 0.36 –0.38 –0.25 0.18
Effect Sized
Population Standard 0.22 0.16 — 0.24 0.09 0.08 0.09
Deviation
Q-Statistic 34.5 56.8 — 106.0 15.7 6.9 19.2
a
Turnover measure: TI = turnover intention, T = actual turnover. b Stress measure: RA = role ambiguity, RC = role conflict, RO = role overload. c Effect sizes are estimated using random effects
models with Pearson’s correlations (Hunter and Schmidt 2004). Estimates are shown when k ≥ 3. d Effect sizes are corrected for measurement error.
Winter 2012  99
 Table 3
Impact of Ethics: Customer-Focused Outcomes
Relationship Mediators Customer Outcomes
Ethical
Ethics Behavior Satisfaction Commitment Satisfaction Attitudinal Behavioral
Sales Sample Size Perception or Trust in with to Satisfaction with Customer Trust in Loyalty to Loyalty to Word of
Study and Industry Construct Intention Salesperson Salesperson Salesperson with Org. Exchange Value Org. Org. Org. Mouth

De los 781, Financial Ethical 0.71 0.71 0.65 0.72

Salmones services responsibility
et al.
(2009)
Swan et al. 187, Purchase Salesperson 0.80
(1988) managers honesty
100  Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Kennedy et 786 Car Manufacturers 0.19 0.20 0.75

al. (2001) buyers ethical
concern
Hansen and 153 Supply Ethical 0.60 0.37 0.40
Riggle management salesperson
(2009) professionals behavior
Bejou et al. 568 Financial Ethical 0.41 0.40
(1998) advisor salesperson
behavior
Lagace et al. 90 Medical Ethical 0.43 0.40
(1991) doctors salesperson
behavior
Román 630 Bank Ethical 0.46 0.40 0.47
and Ruiz customers salesperson
(2005) behavior
Valenzuela 299 Bank Ethical level 0.45 0.48 0.58
et al. customers organization
(2010)

Number of Effect Sizes (k) 6 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 1

Sample Size (n) 2,414 — — — — — 1,866 — — —
Attenuated Mean Effect Sizea 0.39 — — — — — 0.69 — — —
Standard Error 0.18 — — — — — 0.40 — — —
Disattenuated Mean Effect Sizeb 0.42 — — — — — 0.77 — — —
Population Standard Deviation: 0.20 — — — — — 0.10 — — —
Q-Statistic: 121.9 — — — — — 0.5 — — —

a
Effect sizes are estimated using random effects models with Pearson’s Correlations (Hunter and Schmidt 2004). Estimates are shown when k ≥ 3. b Effect sizes are corrected for measurement error.

toward team selling in the contemporary world of sales has
pushed sales researchers to address a novel research question:
What makes sales teams effective (e.g., Ahearne et al. 2010;
Jones et al. 2005)? Scholars have recently suggested that
principally comparable associations may manifest differently
across analytical levels (e.g., Chen et al. 2007; Chen et al. 2009;
DeShon et al. 2004; Klein and Kozlowski 2000). Correspond-
ing to this reasoning, researchers discussing individual-level
determinant–sales performance relationships have recently
argued that “[w]e do not know which of these insights can
be generalized to the sales team level” (Ahearne et al. 2010,
p. 458). Indeed, scholarly knowledge about salespeople can
and should not simply be applied to sales teams. For instance,
the creativity or adaptiveness of salespeople may help them
become more effective as individuals, whereas the creativity or
adaptability of a sales team may lead to team dynamics (e.g.,
intrateam conflict) that could be dysfunctional for the team’s
performance. In addition to the shift from individual-level
performance to team-level performance considerations, the
shift toward sales teams also creates at least two novel and
important multilevel research questions: (1) how do variables
at the sales team level predict salesperson performance and
(2)  how may sales team variables moderate determinant–
salesperson performance associations?
On the one hand, characteristics of a selling team such
as the level of reflexivity (West 1996) could well affect the
performance of salespeople. This may be especially relevant
in so-called core selling teams that represent relatively perma-
nent work groups (Moon and Armstrong 1994). These effects
in turn could be mediated or moderated by variables at the
salesperson level. On the other hand, sales team characteristics
could moderate relationships at the salesperson level, akin
to the findings of Hirst et al. (2009), who recently showed
that the relationship between learning goal orientations and
creativity is moderated by team learning behavior. Indeed,
authors in organizational behavior have pointed to the fact that
many individuals that are organized in teams carry individual
as well as team goals (e.g., DeShon et al. 2004), and probably
nowhere is this more the case than in the sales environments.
Individual salespeople who are nested within sales teams typi-
cally have individual goals as well as team goals that are not
always simple aggregations of individual goals. This notion has
also been referred to as the “multiple-goal, multilevel model”
(Chen et al. 2009; DeShon et al. 2004).
In addition to the sales performance of salespeople and sales
teams, a third analytic level of interest ought to be the sales
force. From a chief marketing officer perspective, probably
the most interesting level of analysis is the sales force. Yet, at
present, “sales performance” studies at the firm/organization
level remain scarce. Here, sales performance research could
find inspiration in the field of strategic management. For
instance, investigating how sales force characteristics (e.g., its
Winter 2012  101
organizational flexibility or sales-oriented culture) directly or
indirectly affects firm performance could contribute substan-
tially to the field.
Conclusions and Directions for Future Research
Just as being a great salesperson does not mean one will be a
great sales manager (and sometimes even a poor sales manager),
the factors that make individual salespeople effective may not
make them good sales team performers, or in some cases even
poor sales team performers. Because sales teams have become
so common, these types of potentially contradictory outcomes
should be examined in the literature. In addition, it is likely
that the individual salesperson factors and motivations of
team members cannot simply be aggregated at the team level,
but rather should be examined at a multilevel unit of analysis
considering simultaneously individual and team factors (i.e., a
salesperson may have different individual-level and team-level
goals). This may be particularly salient when compensation
is team dependent and if sales performance is determined at
the team or team and individual levels.
OVERALL DISCUSSION
The search for advancing marketers’ understanding of sales
performance will no doubt be an endless quest. Five areas are
advanced in this paper that seek to address the complexities,
uncertainties, and ever-increasing challenges of achieving ef-
fective performance in the contemporary marketplace. These
five areas provide significant promise to advancing sales per-
formance research. Brief reviews of the five topic areas were
then linked to proposed research opportunities.
• A salesperson certainly brings individual traits to the
job but the selling organization and support provided
in serving the customer is vital to initial and, more
importantly, ongoing success. How salespeople achieve
effective intraorganizational resource alignment, what
is effective alignment, and how firms can facilitate the
effective provision of resources are all critical questions
whose answers can enhance sales performance.
• Differential advantages for firms in today’s marketplace
are increasingly determined by the facility of sellers
to provide value added solutions for their customers.
Creative problem solving and novel applications are
mandatory to win in the marketplace. Selecting the
right people, providing an environment that supports
creativity, and rewarding desired performance are all is-
sues that call for research attention.
• Salesperson interaction with customers while exten-
sively investigated offers important opportunities for
future research. Sales tactics moderated by bases of
102  Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
power provide for intriguing future research. The in-
teraction context is particularly interesting as manage-
ment seeks to find appropriate influence techniques
that serve to initiate, build, and maintain relationships.
• Ethical behavior, while explored extensively in sales,
has important performance implications. Sales organi-
zations are more desirable to work for, expend effort,
and represent in the marketplace. Similarly customers
who demonstrate a desire to engage in ethical relation-
ships present a very different opportunity for the sell-
ing firm, particularly in terms of long-term reciprocity
and commitment. A variety of research questions re-
garding the role ethical attributions play in relationship
formation and retention deserves marketers’ attention.
• Finally, while team research both in and outside of
sales have certainly offered valuable insights to date,
the context of sales makes direct application of team
concepts potentially questionable. Both theory build-
ing and a more extensive array of sales team–related
questions need to be addressed if marketers are to ad-
vance their understanding of the effectiveness of teams
in selling.
Although the focus of this paper was on determinants of
sales performance. Research concerning the key dependent
variable, sales performance, is also in need of further advance-
ment. After having reviewed the past few decades of sales
performance research, Verbeke, Dietz, and Verwaal reason
that “the sales performance construct is becoming increasingly
complex” (2011, p. 425). In line with their notion, we argue
that the modern-day practice of selling suggests that multiple
conceptual or substantive types of sales performance achieve-
ments exist (e.g., Brown et al. 2005). Future research on sales
performance ought to be sensitive to such differences and aim
to carve out different substantive types of sales performance.
Indeed, authors in selling have called for a more nuanced
treatment of the sales performance construct, emphasizing cus-
tomer relationship–based measures of sales performance (e.g.,
Weitz and Bradford 1999). However, a review of construct
operationalizations of sales performance does not evidence
these complexities of sales goals.
There is a contrasting array of sales performance goals
that selling firms typically delegate to their salespeople. This
contrast suggests the need to explain what sales performance
is and develop a “theory of sales performance.” Echoing
Whetten’s (1989) reasoning about theory development, we
can ask: Which factors should be considered as part of the
sales performance phenomenon? A key question to address
here is how sales performance is objectively different and
unique from other types of performance in organizational
contexts (Hunt 1993). Hence, future research might seek to
carve out how, and along what dimensions, the sales context
distinguishes itself from other performance contexts, as well
as what are the effects of variations among these variables. In
this regard, a natural starting point would the conceptualiza-
tion of salespeople as boundary spanners (e.g., Singh and
Rhoads 1991). Probably, this line of research would need to
integrate qualitative research methods (e.g., interviews, or
free listing procedures) with quantitative modeling and scale
development. Beyond novel conceptualizations, this research
may also yield to new research instruments to measure sales
performance, perhaps even at multiple analytic levels.
As the domain of sales changes, it is imperative for mar-
keters to expand the research agenda thereby incorporating
key drivers of contemporary sales performance. The topic
areas addressed in this paper are hopefully the beginning of
conversations and future research in enhancing marketers’
understanding of sales performance.
References
Abela, Andrew V., and Patrick E. Murphy (2008), “Marketing
with Integrity: Ethics and the Service-Dominant Logic for
Marketing,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
36 (1), 39–53.
Ahearne, Michael, Scott B. MacKenzie, Phillip M. Podsakoff,
John E. Mathieu, and Son K. Lam (2010), “The Role of
Consensus in Sales Team Performance,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 47 (June), 458–469.
Amabile, Teresa M. (1983), The Social Psychology of Creativity,
New York: Springer.
Amyx, Douglas, Shahid Bhuian, Dheeraj Sharma, and Katherine
E. Loveland (2008), “Salesperson Corporate Ethical Values
(SCEV) Scale: Development and Assessment Among Sales-
people,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28,
4 (Fall), 387–401.
Anderson, Erin, and Richard L. Oliver (1987), “Perspectives on
Behavior-Based Versus Outcome-Based Salesforce Control
Systems,” Journal of Marketing, 51 (October), 76–88.
Babakus, Emin, David W. Cravens, Ken Grant, Thomas N.
Ingram, and Raymond W. LaForge (1996), “Investigating
the Relationships Among Sales Management Control, Sales
Territory Design, Salesperson Performance and Sales Or-
ganization Effectiveness,” International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 13 (4), 345–363.
Babin, Barry J., James S. Boles, and Donald P. Robin (2000),
“Representing the Perceived Ethical Work Climate Among
Marketing Employees,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28 (3), 345–358.
Badarcco, Joseph L., and Allen P. Webb (1995), “Business Eth-
ics: A View from the Trenches,” California Management
Review, 37 (2), 8–28.
Bejou, David, Christine T. Ennew, and Adrian Palmer (1998),
“Trust, Ethics, and Relationship Satisfaction,” International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 16 (4), 170–175.
Beverland, Michael (2001), “Contextual Influences and Adoption
and Practice of Relationship Selling in a Business-to-Business

Setting: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of Personal Selling
& Sales Management, 21, 3 (Summer), 207–215.
Bonney, F. Leff, and Brian C. Williams (2009), “From Prod-
ucts to Solutions: The Role of Salesperson Opportunity
Recognition,” European Journal of Marketing, 43 (7–8),
1032–1052.
Brown, Steven P. (1990), “Use of Closed Influence Tactics by
Salespeople: Incidence and Buyer Attributions,” Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 10, 4 (Fall), 17–29.
———, Kenneth R. Evans, Murali K. Mantrala, and Goutan
Challagalla (2005), “Adapting Motivation, Control, and
Compensation Research to a New Environment,” Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25, 2 (Spring),
155–167.
Cespedes, Frank V., Stephen X. Doyle, and Robert J. Freedman
(1989), “Teamwork for Today’s Selling,” Harvard Business
Review (March–April), 44–55.
Chen, G., B.L. Kirkman, R. Kanfer, D. Allen, and B.  Rosen
(2007), “A Multilevel Study of Leadership, Empowerment,
and Performance in Teams,” Journal of Applied Psychology,
92 (2), 331–346.
———, Ruth Kanfer, Richard P. DeShon, John E. Mathieu, and
Steve W.J. Kozlowski (2009), “The Motivating Potential of
Teams: Test and Extension of Chen and Kanfer’s Cross-Level
Model of Motivation in Teams,” Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 110 (1), 45–55.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Neil M. Ford, Steven W. Hartley, and
Orville C. Walker (1985), “The Determinants of Salesper-
son Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 22 (May), 103–118.
Coelho, Filipie, and Mario Augusto (2010), “Job Characteristics
and the Creativity of Frontline Service Employees,” Journal
of Service Research, 13 (4), 426–438.
Cummings, Betsy (2007), “Group Dynamics,” Sales & Marketing
Management, 159 (1), 8.
De los Salmones, María del Mar, Andrea Perez, and Ignacio
Rodriguez del Bosque (2009), “The Social Role of Financial
Companies as a Determinant of Consumer Behaviour,” In-
ternational Journal of Bank Marketing, 27 (6), 467–485.
DeShon, R.P., S.W.J. Kozlowski, A.M. Schmidt, K.R. Milner, and
D. Wiechmann (2004), “A Multiple-Goal, Multilevel Model of
Feedback Effects on the Regulation of Individual and Team Per-
formance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (6), 1035–1056.
Evans, Kenneth R., and Fred C. Maio (2011), “Sales Force–Gen-
erated Marketing Intelligence,” in The Oxford Handbook of
Strategic Sales and Sales Management, David W. Cravens,
Kenneth Le Meunier-FitzHugh, and Nigel F. Piercy, eds.,
New York: Oxford University Press, 174–200.
———, Todd Arnold, and John Grant (1999), “Combining Ser-
vice Sales at the Point of Customer Contact: A Retail Bank-
ing Example,” Journal of Service Research, 2 (1), 50–67.
———, Robert Kleine, Timothy Landry, and Lawrence Crosby
(2000), “How First Impressions of a Customer Impact
Effectiveness in an Initial Sales Encounter,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (4), 512–526.
Fournier, Christophe, John F. Tanner, Jr., Lawrence B. Chonko,
and Chris Manolis (2010), “The Moderating Role of Ethical
Winter 2012  103
Climate on Salesperson Propensity to Leave,” Journal of Per-
sonal Selling & Sales Management, 30, 1 (Winter), 7–22.
Freeman, R. Edward (1994), “The Politics of Stakeholder Theory:
Some Future Directions,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 4 (4),
409–421.
Freese, Thomas A. (2010), Sell Yourself First, New York: Portfolio/
Penguin.
Gremler, Dwayne D., and Kevin P. Gwinner (2008), “Rapport-
Building Behaviors Used by Retail Employees,” Journal of
Retailing, 84 (3), 308–324.
Grisaffe, Douglas B., and Fernando Jaramillo (2007), “Toward
Higher Levels of Ethics, Preliminary Evidence of Positive
Outcomes,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
27, 4 (Fall), 355–371.
Hansen, John D., and Robert J. Riggle (2009), “Ethical Sales-
person Behavior in Sales Relationships,” Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 29, 2 (Spring), 151–166.
Harris, James R. (1990), “Ethical Values of Individuals at Dif-
ferent Levels in the Organizational Hierarchy of a Single
Firm,” Journal of Business Ethics, 9 (9), 741–750.
Hirst, Giles, Daan van Knippenberg, and Jing Zhou (2009),
“A Cross-Level Perspective on Employee Individual Sales:
Goal Orientation, Team Learning Behavior, and Individual
Sales,” Academy of Management Journal, 52 (2), 280–293.
Homburg, Christian, John P. Workman, Jr. and Ove Jensen
(2002), “A Configurational Perspective on Key Account
Management,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (2), 38–60.
Honeycutt, Earl D., Judy A. Siguaw, and Tammy G. Hunt
(1995), “Business Ethics and Job-Related Constructs: A
Cross-Cultural Comparison of Automotive Salespeople,”
Journal of Business Ethics, 14 (3), 235–248.
Hunt, Shelby D. (1993), “Objectivity in Marketing Theory and
Research,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (April), 76–91.
Hunter, John E., and Frank L. Schmidt (2004), Methods of Meta-
Analysis, 2d ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Husted, Bryan W. (2000), “The Impact of National Culture on
Software Piracy,” Journal of Business Ethics, 26 (3), 197–211.
Jaramillo, Fernando, Jay Prakash Mulki, and Paul Solomon
(2006), “The Role of Ethical Climate on Salesperson’s Role
Stress, Job Attitudes, Turnover Intention and Job Perfor-
mance,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 24,
3 (Summer), 271–282.
Jones, Eli, Paul S. Busch, and Peter Dacin (2003), “Firm Market
Orientation and Salesperson Customer Orientation: Inter-
personal and Intrapersonal Influences on Customer Service
and Retention in Business-to-Business Buyer–Seller Relation-
ships,” Journal of Business Research, 56 (April), 323–340.
———, Andrea Dixon, Lawrence Chonko, and Joseph Cannon
(2005), “Key Accounts and Team Selling: A Review, Frame-
work and Research Agenda,” Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 25, 2 (Spring), 181–198.
Jones, Thomas M. (1995), “Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A
Synthesis of Ethics and Economics,” Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 20 (2), 404–437.
Kelman, Herbert C. (1958), “Compliance, Identification, and
Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change,” Jour-
nal of Conflict Resolution, 2 (1), 51–60.
104  Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Kennedy, Mary Susan, Linda K. Ferrell, and Debbie Thorne
LeClair (2001), “Consumers’ Trust of Salesperson and
Manufacturer: An Empirical Study,” Journal of Business
Research, 51 (1), 73–86.
Kidwell, Blair, Richard G. McFarland, and Ramon A. Avila
(2007), “Perceiving Emotion in the Buyer–Seller Inter-
change: The Moderated Impact of Performance,” Journal
of Personal Selling  & Sales Management, 27, 2 (Spring),
119–132.
Klein, Katherine J., and Steve W.J. Kozlowski (2000), “From
Micro to Meso: Critical Steps in Conceptualizing and
Conducting Multilevel Research,” Organizational Research
Methods, 3 (3), 211–236.
Lagace, Rosemary R., Robert Dahlstrom, and Jule B. Gas-
senheimer (1991), “The Relevance of Ethical Salesperson
Behavior on Relationship Quality: The Pharmaceutical
Industry,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
11, 4 (Fall), 39–47.
Leigh, Thomas W., and Patrick McGraw (1989), “Mapping
the Procedural Knowledge of Industrial Sales Personnel: A
Script-Theoretic Investigation,” Journal of Marketing, 53
(January), 16–34.
Lopez, Tará Burthone, Barry J. Babin, and Crhistina Chung
(2009), “Perceptions of Ethical Work Climate and Person–
Organization Fit Among Retail Employees in Japan and the
U.S.: A Cross-Cultural Scale Validation,” Journal of Business
Research, 62 (6), 594–600.
Maletz, Mar C., and Nitin Nohria (2001), “Whitespace,” Har-
vard Business Review, 79 (2), 103–111.
McFarland, Richard G. (2003), “Crisis of Conscience: The Use
of Coercive Sales Tactics and Resultant Felt Stress in the
Salesperson,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
23, 3 (Summer), 311–325.
———, Goutam N. Challagalla, and Tasadduq A. Shervani
(2006), “Influence Tactics for Effective Adaptive Selling,”
Journal of Marketing, 70 (October), 103–117.
McGregor, Jena (2006), “The Office Chart That Really Counts:
Mapping Informal Relationships at a Company Is Revealing
and Useful,” BusinessWeek (February 27) (available at www
.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_09/b3973083
.htm).
Moon, Mark A., and Gary M. Armstrong (1994). “Selling Teams:
A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda,” Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 14, 1 (Winter),
17–30.
Morgan, Robert M., and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), “The Com-
mitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing,” Journal
of Marketing, 58 (July), 20–38.
Mulki, Jay Prakash, Fernando Jaramillo, and William B. Locander
(2006), “Effects of Ethical Climate and Supervisory Trust
on Salesperson’s Job Attitudes and Intentions to Quit,”
Journal of Personal Selling  & Sales Management, 26, 1
(Winter), 19–26.
———, ———, and ——— (2009), “Critical Role of Leader-
ship on Ethical Climate and Salesperson Behavior,” Journal
of Business Ethics, 86 (2), 125–141.
Palmatier, Robert W., Rajiv P. Dant, Dhruv Grewal, and Ken-
neth R. Evans (2006), “Factors Influencing the Effectiveness
of Relationship Marketing: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of
Marketing, 70 (October), 136–153.
Payan, Janice M., and Richard G. McFarland (2005), “De-
composing Influence Strategies: Argument Structure and
Dependence as Determinants of the Effectiveness of Influ-
ence Strategies in Gaining Channel Member Compliance,”
Journal of Marketing, 69 (July), 66–79.
Pettijohn, Charles, Linda Pettijohn, and A.J. Taylor (2008),
“Salesperson Perceptions of Ethical Behaviors: Their Influ-
ence on Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention,” Journal
of Business Ethics, 78 (4), 547–557.
Plouffe, Christopher R., and Donald W. Barclay (2007), “Sales-
person Navigation: The Intraorganizational Dimension of
the Sales Role,” Industrial Marketing Management, 36 (4),
528–539.
———, Srinivas Sridharan, and Donald W. Barclay (2010),
“Exploratory Navigation and Salesperson Performance:
Investigating Selected Antecedents and Boundary Condi-
tions in High-Technology and Financial Services Contexts,”
Industrial Marketing Management, 39 (4), 538–550.
Powell, Shaun, Wim J.L. Elving, Chris Dodd, and Julia Sloan
(2009), “Explicating Ethical Corporate Identity in the Fi-
nancial Sector,” Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 14 (4), 440–455.
Richards, Keith, and Eli Jones (2009), “Key Account Manage-
ment: Adding Elements of Account Fit to an Integrative
Theoretical Framework,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 29, 4 (Fall), 305–320.
Román, Sergio, and José Luis Munera (2005), “Determinants
and Consequences of Ethical Behaviour: An Empirical
Study of Salespeople,” European Journal of Marketing, 39
(5–6), 473–495.
———, and Salvador Ruiz (2005), “Relationship Outcomes of
Perceived Ethical Sales Behavior: The Customer’s Perspec-
tive,” Journal of Business Research, 58 (4), 439–445.
Schwepker, Charles H., and David J. Good (2007), “Sales
Management’s Influence on Employment and Training in
Developing an Ethical Sales Force,” Journal of Personal Sell-
ing & Sales Management, 27, 4 (Fall), 325–339.
———, O.C. Ferrell, and Thomas N. Ingram (1997), “The
Influence of Ethical Climate and Ethical Conflict on Role
Stress in the Sales Force,” Journal of the Academy of Market-
ing Science, 25 (2), 99–108.
Sengupta, Sanjit, Robert E. Krapfel, and Michael A. Pusateri
(2000), “An Empirical Investigation of Key Account Sales-
person Effectiveness,” Journal of Personal Selling  & Sales
Management, 20 (4), 253–261.
Singh, Jagdip, and Gary K. Rhoads (1991), “Boundary
Role Ambiguity in Marketing-Oriented Positions: A
Multidimensional, Multifaceted Operationalization,” Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 28 (3), 328–338.
Spicer, Andrew, Thomas W. Dunfee, and Wendy J. Baily
(2004), “Does National Context Matter in Ethical De-
cision Making? An Empirical Test of Integrative Social
Contracts Theory,” Academy of Management Journal, 47
(4), 610–620.

Spiro, Rosann L., and William D. Perreault, Jr. (1979), “Influ-
ence Use by Industrial Salesmen: Influence–Strategy Mixes
and Situational Determinants,” Journal of Business, 52 (2),
435–455.
———, and Barton A. Weitz (1990), “Adaptive Selling: Con-
ceptualization, Measurement, and Nomological Validity,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (February), 61–69.
Steward, Michelle D., Beth A. Walker, Michael D. Hutt, and
Ajith Kumar (2010), “The Coordination Strategies of High-
Performing Salespeople: Internal Working Relationships
That Drive Success,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 38 (5), 550–566.
Strutton, David, Lou E. Pelton, and James R. Lumpkin (1993),
“The Relationship Between Psychological Climate and
Salesperson–Sales Manager Trust in Sales Organizations,”
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 13, 4 (Fall),
1–14.
Sujan, Harish (1999), “Optimism and Street-Smarts: Identifying
and Improving Salesperson Intelligence,” Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 19, 3 (Summer), 17–33.
Swan, John E., I. Fred Trawick, David R. Rink, and Jenny J.
Roberts (1988), “Measuring Dimensions of Purchaser Trust
of Industrial Salespeople,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 12, 1 (May), 1–9.
Szymanski, David M. (1987), “Explaining Differences in Selling
Effectiveness: A Knowledge Structure Approach to Examin-
ing the Ability of Sales Personnel to Prospect for Clients,”
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
——— (1988), Determinants of Selling Effectiveness: The Im-
portance of Declarative Knowledge to the Personal Selling
Concept,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (January), 64–77.
Timmons, Jeffry A., and Stephen Spinelli (2007), New Venture
Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century, 7th ed., New
York: McGraw Hill.
Ustuner, Tuba, and David B. Godes (2006), “Better Sales Net-
works,” Harvard Business Review (July–August), 102–112.
Valentine, Sean (2009), “Ethics Training, Ethical Context, and
Sales and Marketing Professionals’ Satisfaction with Super-
visors and Coworkers,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 24, 3 (Summer), 227–242.
———, and Tim Barnett (2003), “Ethics Code Awareness,
Perceived Ethical Values, and Organizational Commit-
ment,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23,
4 (Fall), 359–367.
———, and ——— (2007), “Perceived Organizational Ethics
and the Ethical Decisions of Sales and Marketing Person-
nel,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 27, 4
(Fall), 373–388.
Valenzuela, Leslier M., Jay P. Mulki, and Jorge Fernando Jaramillo
(2010), “Impact of Customer Orientation, Inducements
and Ethics on Loyalty to the Firm: Customer’s Perspective,”
Journal of Business Ethics, 93 (2), 277–291.
Verbeke, Willem, Bart Dietz, and Ernst Verwaal (2011),
“Drivers of Sales Performance: A Contemporary Meta-
Analysis—Have Salespeople Become Knowledge Bro-
kers?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39
(3), 407–428.
Winter 2012  105
Wang, Guangping, and Richard G. Netemeyer (2002), “The
Effects of Job Autonomy, Customers Demandingness, and
Trait Competitiveness on Salesperson Learning, Self-Effica-
cy, and Performance,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 30 (3), 217–228.
———, and ——— (2004), “Salesperson Creative Performance:
Conceptualization, Measurement, and Nomological Valid-
ity,” Journal of Business Research, 57 (8), 805–812.
Weeks, William A., Terry W. Loe, Lawrence B. Chonko, and
Kirk Wakefield (2004), “The Effect of Perceived Ethical
Climate on the Search for Sales Force Excellence,” Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 24, 3 (Summer),
199–214.
———, ———, ———, Carlos Ruy Martinez, and Kirk
Wakefield (2006), “Cognitive Moral Development and
the Impact of Perceived Organizational Ethical Climate
on the Search for Sales Force Excellence: A Cross-Cultural
Study,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 26,
2 (Spring), 205–217.
Weitz, Barton A. (1978), “Relationships Between Salesperson
Performance and Understanding of Customer Decision
Making,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (November),
501–516.
——— (1981), “Effectiveness in Sales Interactions: A Con-
tingency Framework,” Journal of Marketing, 45 (Winter),
85–103.
———, and Kevin D. Bradford (1999), “Personal Selling and
Sales Management: A Relationships Marketing Perspec-
tive,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (2),
241–254.
———, Harish Sujan, and Mita Sujan (1986), “Knowledge,
Motivation, and Adaptive Behavior: A Framework for
Improving Selling Effectiveness,” Journal of Marketing, 50
(October), 174–191.
West, Michael A. (1996), “Reflexivity and Work Group Effec-
tiveness: A Conceptual Integration. In Handbook of Work
Group Psychology, Michael A. West, ed., Chichester, UK:
John Wiley & Sons, 555–579.
Whetten, David A. (1989), “What Constitutes a Theoretical
Contribution?” Academy of Management Review, 14 (4),
490–495.
Williams, Kaylene, and Rosann Spiro (1985), “Communica-
tion Style in the Salesperson–Customer Dyad,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 22 (November), 434–442.
Wimbush, James C., and John M. Shepard (1994), “Toward an
Understanding of Ethical Climate: Its Relationship to Ethi-
cal Behavior and Supervisory Influence,” Journal of Business
Ethics, 13 (8), 37–647.
———, John M. Shepard, and Steven E. Markham (1997),
“An Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between
Ethical Climate and Ethical Behavior from Multiple
Levels of Analysis,” Journal of Business Ethics, 16 (16),
1705–1716.
Workman, John P., Jr., Christian Homburg, and Ove Jensen
(2003), “Inraorganizational Determinants of Key Account
Management Effectiveness,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 31 (1), 3–21.
Copyright of Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats