Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

2022, VOL. 42, NO. 3, 243–264

https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2022.2044345

Salesperson’s perceived personal identification with supervisor and the

relationship with turnover intention and performance: a mediated
motivation model
Michael L. Mallin, Tyler D. Hancock, Ellen B. Pullins and Bashar S. Gammoh
John B. and Lillian E. Neff College of Business & Innovation, The University of Toledo, Edward H. Schmidt School of Professional Sales,
Toledo, OH

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study integrates identification and motivation theory to show the relationship between a Received 27 January 2021
salesperson’s perceived personal identification with his/her supervisor, intrinsic and extrinsic Accepted 16 February 2022
motivation, and three sales outcomes (turnover intention, outcome performance, and behavioral
performance). The study results find support in nine of ten hypotheses including the notion that KEYWORDS
Sales; personal identification;
both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are important mediators of the linkage between a
intrinsic motivation; extrinsic
salesperson’s perceived personal identification with their supervisor and turnover intention as well motivation; turnover intention;
as performance. This study serves to bridge a gap in the identification literature by focusing on sales performance
perceived personal identification in the salesforce domain, as well as answering the call for more
research on influences of salesperson work engagement (motivation) and drivers of sales
performance.

Salesforce performance and turnover represent two of the
major challenges that sales managers face on a day-to-day
basis (Richer, Blanchard, and Vallerand 2002; Shore,
Tashchian, and Jourdan 2006; Ingram et  al. 2012) and under-
standing ways to motivate salespeople to be more engaged
with their work to maximize performance and remain pro-
ductive in their role has become increasingly important for
research and practice (Verbeke, Dietz, and Verwaal 2011).
This understanding is relevant in that the turnover rate
among professional salespeople is double that of other pro-
fessions (Richardson 1999), not to mention the excessive
time and cost to recruit, hire, and train replacement sales-
people (Boles et  al. 2012). Furthermore, the difference
between salesforce mediocrity and superior performance
may hinge on how salespeople are self-determined or moti-
vated to engage in their role of selling (Churchill et  al. 1985;
Verbeke, Dietz, and Verwaal 2011). Sales managers play a
critical role in motivating salespeople but may impact moti-
vation in unintentional ways, including how they are per-
ceived by salespeople who identify with them. The impact
of identification has been widely studied in the context of
the brand, organization, and company. However, organiza-
tional behavior and sales literatures have devoted little atten-
tion to helping us to better understand the role of a
salesperson’s perceived personal identification with their boss
in driving individual motivation and related outcomes like
retention and performance.
According to identification theory, not all forms of identi-
fication influence an individual to the same degree and a given
identity may be more salient and frequently activated than
others (Wieseke et  al. 2009). In addition, most of the identi-
fication work in sales has been presented mainly in terms of
social identification between a salesperson and their organiza-
tion (e.g., DeConinck 2011; Tyagi 1985; Gammoh, Mallin, and
Pullins 2014; Riketta 2005; Riketta and van Dick 2005) or
brand they represent (e.g., Hughes and Ahearne 2010; Hughes
2013; Gammoh, Mallin, and Pullins 2014; Allison et  al. 2016;
Gammoh et  al. 2018). Given the efforts to study identification
in these work settings, one form of identification remains
“orphaned” in that it has received the least amount of attention
(Nubold, Dorr, and Maier 2015). Personal identification
(Ashforth, Schinoff, and Rogers 2016), which is defined as an
individual’s intrapersonal perception of oneness with another
individual, is distinct from other forms of social identification,
which involve a comparison to an entire group, workgroup,
or interpersonal relationship. Unlike other forms of identifica-
tion that are based on a reciprocal relationship, personal iden-
tification centers mainly on one’s unidirectional observational
and reflective attributes of another specific individual. Thus,
the target of personal identification is the individual versus
the relationship. This differs from other forms of identification
where the focus is on the interpersonal relationship and rec-
iprocity is necessary to assess whether identification between
the parties is congruent/incongruent (e.g., Ahearne et al. 2013).
An example of personal identification would be that of a sales-
person identifying with his/her immediate supervisor or man-
ager in a setting where the manager/supervisor is not regularly
or consistently accessible. Other situations may exist where the
manager/supervisor is not even aware of the salesperson’s iden-
tification directed at them. Such may be the case in a salesforce

CONTACT Michael L. Mallin Michael.Mallin@Utoledo.edu John B. and Lillian E. Neff College of Business & Innovation, The University of Toledo, Edward
H. Schmidt School of Professional Sales, 2801 W. Bancroft St., Toledo, OH 43606
© 2022 Pi Sigma Epsilon National Educational Foundation
244 M. L. MALLIN ET AL.
with a large span of control, virtual, or remote work setting.
In these cases, the main source of the salesperson’s identifica-
tion stems primarily from his/her perceptual observation and
is not reliant on a reciprocal assessment (of identification)
returned by the manager. This is a relevant issue to study
because of the changing nature of the salesforce. Advancements
in technology, remote working conditions, and time constraints
may make relational interactions between salespeople and their
managers/supervisors more difficult.
To date, much of the identification research in the sales-
force domain centers on collective forms of identification
and is based on the relationship between salespeople and
their managers; however, few studies have investigated sales-
persons’ perceptions of personal identification in the absence
of a salesperson-manager feedback loop. For example, in
their dyadic study of interpersonal identification between
the salesperson and their manager, Ahearne and colleagues
(2013) note the importance of continued investigation of
non-collective level identification as it uses different psy-
chological processes and may help offset benefits of collec-
tive identification when that is hard to achieve. They also
call for further investigation of attitudinal intermediates that
might lead from identification to outcomes: “Analyzing these
pathways may yield to deeper insights into the concrete
process how interpersonal identification affects performance
outcomes and thus would be a fruitful avenue for future
research” (p. 644). Taken together with the fact that scholars
have paid little attention to personal identification (van
Knippenberg et  al. 2004) and studies involving it and its
outcomes remain scarce in the salesforce domain, our study
provides an important contribution to the sales literature.
To date, identification and motivation has been studied
together relative to the brand (Hughes 2013; Gammoh,
Mallin, and Pullins 2014; Mallin et  al. 2017), workgroup
(Ashforth and Mael 1989), organization (Bergami and
Bagozzi 2000; Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail 1994), and
company (Gammoh, Mallin, and Pullins 2014). and there
remains inconsistent agreement in these studies as to
whether motivation is a cause or effect of identification
(e.g., Mallin et  al. 2017 supports a relationship between
motivation and identification). Receiving much less attention
is identification studied at the coworker, and manager level,
further leaving a gap to fully understand the motivational
impact or effects relative to personal identification (i.e.,
antecedent, mediator, outcome). Furthermore, a representa-
tive literature review in the salesforce and organizational
domains (presented later in this paper) reveals a gap in
studying motivation as a direct outcome or a mediating
influence between personal identification and other relevant
outcomes. In light of all of these opportunities to advance
our knowledge of the topic, the goal of this research is to
blend the identification and motivation literature streams
to 1) explore the role of perceived personal identification
on motivation (both intrinsic and extrinsic) in the sales
domain, and 2) confirm the mediating effects of both types
of motivation on the relationship between perceived personal
identification and important salesforce outcomes—primarily
turnover intention and performance (both outcome- and
behavior-based). Not only does our study bridge a gap in
the identification literature by focusing on perceived per-
sonal identification (arguably the most concrete and salient
form according to Ashforth, Schinoff, and Rogers 2016) in
the salesforce domain, it also answers the call to understand
the mediating processes to explain identification’s effect on
sales outcomes (Ahearne et  al. 2013) and the need for more
research on influences of salesperson work engagement
(motivation) and drivers of sales performance (Verbeke,
Dietz, and Verwaal 2011). Our research implications will
serve to provide sales managers with further insight as to
the importance of perceived personal identification in driv-
ing salesperson motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic), turnover
intention, and performance (outcome- and behavior-based).
To begin, we provide an overview of the theoretical frame-
work that we use to ground our research.
Background and theoretical framework
Personal identification and identification theory
Personal identification is defined by Ashforth, Schinoff, and
Rogers (2016, 30) as “the perceived oneness with another
individual, where one defines oneself in terms of the other…”
Similar to the notion of role modeling which requires indi-
viduals to cognitively process admired behaviors and exem-
plify them, personal identification is more primeval in that
it enables one to internalize favorable characteristics and
desirable attributes of a target person. The root of personal
identification can be traced back to social psychology. From
the research of French and Raven (1959), the base of power
“referent power” has been shown to utilize identification to
allow one to gain influence over another. Through “classical
identification”, Kelman (1958) suggests that one attempts to
emulate or be like another person. Thus, personal identifi-
cation centers on one’s unilateral observational and reflective
attributes of another specific individual. This distinguishes
it from other related forms of identification (namely rela-
tional and social). For example, distinct from personal iden-
tification, relational identification is based on bidirectional
targeted interpersonal relationships with other members of
a group or organization and is defined as “the extent to
which one defines oneself in terms of a given role-relationship”
(Sluss and Ashforth 2007, 11). Also disparate from personal
identification, social identification is focused on the collec-
tive level of self as compared to the target team, workgroup,
or entire organization (Tajfel and Turner 1985). Social iden-
tification theory has been widely used to explain how indi-
viduals form a sense of who they are from the identity of
the social groups and relationships they belong to. According
to Ashforth, Schinoff, and Rogers (2016), although the tar-
gets, level of self, and level of abstraction across these related
forms of identification differ, they are complementary, mutu-
ally reinforcing, and the core remains the same – identifi-
cation centers on valuing and feeling strongly about the
attributes of the target. In the context of the work environ-
ment, an employee may personally identify with his/her
supervisor in cases where the employee deems certain traits
distinguishable and admirable to the extent that feelings of

respect and pride of association emerge. These emotions
will lead to the subsequent desire to emulate the supervisor.
The supervisor may not be able to reciprocate and may not
even be aware the salesperson identifies with him or her.
Such may be the case where the span of managerial control
is large or remote work environments limit bi-lateral inter-
action. Kark and Shamir (2002) suggest that identification
of this nature may still serve to increase the follower’s ability
and motivation which in turn may impact performance.
Empirical support for this can be found throughout the
identification literature (see Walumbwa and Hartnell 2011;
Hobman et  al. 2011; Wang and Howell 2012). In concep-
tualizing personal identification, Ashforth, Schinoff, and
Rogers (2016) define three paths to its development. They
argue that personal identification may center on uncertainty
reduction in that by identifying with another person, a defi-
cit of valued and desirable traits is addressed. Second, by
identifying with another, one may fulfill the need for
self-enhancement as admirable attributes serve to supplement
and further build one’s character base. Third, the need for
closeness and belonging is enhanced thereby serving to fulfill
one’s innate desire for intimacy and acceptance. This notion
of employee identification with his/her supervisor is further
reviewed in the context of the sales domain.
Salesperson’s perceived identification with supervisor
Our focus in this study is on examining salesperson perceived
identification with their supervisor at the individual level.
Ashforth, Schinoff, and Rogers (2016, 30) define personal iden-
tification as “…perceived oneness with another individual, where
one defines oneself in terms of the other.” In the work envi-
ronment of professional sales, this salience may be driven by
perceptions and observations that a salesperson has of his/her
immediate sales supervisor or manager, on sales task-related
activities and performance-related behaviors and outcomes. Such
perceptions are important for influencing salesperson work
attitudes, behaviors, and learning (Kark and Shamir 2002). This
is also relevant and important because when supervisors are
viewed by salespeople as worthy of emulating, they become
favorable targets for personal identification. Here, salespeople
can observe and internalize favorable supervisory attributes that
are viewed as desirable, aspirational, and motivational for their
own self enhancement. Such qualities may include knowledge,
skills, abilities, values, and goals as demonstrated and conveyed
by the supervisor. Through perceived personal identification
with their supervisor, salespeople develop a sense of respect
and pride through their association and seek to emulate those
behaviors they view as aspirational (Badrinarayanan, Gupta,
and Chaker 2021). Unlike relational identification where the
target of identification is based on the reciprocal relationship
(between salesperson and manager), perceived personal iden-
tification mainly centers on a unidirectional target of another
person (Ashforth, Schinoff, and Rogers 2016)—in this case, the
supervisor or manager). Here, an individual’s belief and feelings
about another person becomes self-referential or self-defining
(Kark and Shamir 2002). In fact, Kark, Waismel-Manor, and
Shamir (2012) assert that personal identification can exist in
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 245
the absence of relational identification—as is the case when
the dyadic relationship required for relational identification is
not present. They also point out that personal identification
with another is an important form (of identification) as it serves
as complementary and even reinforcing to other forms (e.g.,
relational and social identification). Consistent with existing
conceptualizations in the literature, we define a salesperson’s
perceived identification with his/her supervisor as the extent
to which the salesperson perceives a sense of oneness with the
supervisor and an important part of one’s own self-identity.
This entails the internalization of the supervisor’s values, vision,
and goals as part of the salesperson’s own identity (e.g., Sluss
and Ashforth 2007; Ashforth, Schinoff, and Rogers 2016).
Salesperson perceived identification with his/her supervisor goes
beyond mere acceptance of the supervisor’s goals and views
and involves more of an integration of the supervisor views
into one’s self-concept. In this case the supervisor becomes a
part of how a salesperson defines him or herself and satisfies
their underlying needs for self-definition, self-enhancement,
and belongingness regardless of whether the supervisor shows
reciprocity or acknowledgment of the salesperson’s sense of
identification (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Kark and Shamir 2002).
Our conceptualization of a perceived salesperson’s identification
with his/her supervisor is consistent with recent research argu-
ments in the literature that suggest that sales outcomes are
partially driven by personal identification factors (e.g., Kraus
et  al. 2015; Badrinarayanan, Gupta, and Chaker 2021). An
important distinction here is that, unlike other similar forms
of identification requiring a reciprocal interpersonal relationship,
a salesperson’s perceived identification with his/her supervisor
does not account for how the supervisor perceives the sales-
person. For a review of the literature on studies relating per-
sonal identification to sales outcomes, see Table 1.
Motivation theory
Motivation theory is relevant to our study since we will
propose that a salesperson’s perceived personal identification
with his/her supervisor will be a driver of salesperson moti-
vation orientation. This notion stems from prior research
that suggests that interpersonal interactions be further exam-
ined as one impetus for salesperson motivation (Khusainova
et  al. 2018) and that relationships with key stakeholders
serve to drive salesperson motivation (Delpechitre et  al.
2020). The root of one form of motivation (intrinsic) stems
from cognitive evaluation theory or CET – a sub theory
within self-determination theory or SDT (Deci, Connell, and
Ryan 1985; Ryan and Deci 2000). CET takes the perspective
that individuals have innate needs, and the fulfillment of
these needs are vital to establishing feelings of growth, integ-
rity, and well-being. Autonomy refers to the desire for indi-
viduals to have control and freedom to determine how to
integrate their work with their sense of self (Deci, Connell,
and Ryan 1989). Competence is based on the need for indi-
viduals to feel effective and to be able to grow in their
environment (Ryan and Deci 2000). Relatedness refers to
feelings of connectedness to others (Baumeister and Leary
1995). Deci, Connell, and Ryan (1985) suggest that
Table 1.  Personal/relational identification studies: summary of outcomes, research findings, and sampling methods used.
Author
Ahearne et  al. (2013)
Ashforth, Schinoff, and Rogers
(2016)
Badrinarayanan, Gupta, and Chaker
(2021)
Chun et  al. 2009
Hobman et  al. (2011)
Kark, Shamir, and Chen (2003)
Li et  al. (2017)
Miao, Evans, and Shaoming (2014)
Nowlin, Walker, and Anaza (2019)
Siders, George, and Dharwadkar
(2001)
Sluss et  al. (2012)
Su et  al. (2020)
Vieira, da Silva, and Gabler (2019)
Walumbwa and Hartnell (2011)
Wang and Howell (2012)
Zhu et  al. (2013)
246
Outcomes of PI/RI Research findings/contribution Dyadic vs. Single-side examination
Sales performance Findings show that interpersonal identification congruence between the salesperson and Dyadic
Customer satisfaction the sales manager yield positive incremental effects on sales performance and customer
satisfaction over and above the influence of their level of organizational identification.
Findings also show that interpersonal over-identification and identification incongruence
are negatively related to both outcomes.
Receptivity to influence from the Distinguish between three paths to personal identification—threat-focused, Non-empirical
target/manager opportunity-focused, and closeness-focused paths; highlight the likely outcomes that
M. L. MALLIN ET AL.
Positive organizational-based follow in the three paths.
attitudes
Positive job performance
Turnover Intention Examined salespersons’ perceptions of their manager’s leadership worthiness (higher-order Single side (self-reported) –
construct comprising of competence, charisma, and behavioral integrity) and its employee’s identification with the
subsequent impact on salesperson turnover intentions. Salespeople personal manager
identification with their manager lower turnover intentions.
Job satisfaction Findings show that followers’ commitment to the leader (i.e., personal identification with Dyadic
Salesperson Helping Behavior the leader) and value internalization mediated relationships between leadership and
Sales performance followers’ attitudinal, behavioral, and performance outcomes in close situations, but not
in distant relationships.
Job satisfaction Examined the influence of transformational leadership dimensions on the follower outcomes Single side (self-reported).
Job performance of job satisfaction and job performance, mediated by follower identification with the
leader.
Dependence on the leader Personal identification with the leader mediated the relationship between transformational Single side (self-reported).
leadership and followers’ dependence on the leader.
Change-oriented behaviors Examined the mediating role of identification with the leader in the relationship between Single side (self-reported).
transformational leadership dimensions and employees change-oriented behaviors.
Organizational Commitment Examined the mediating influence of identification with leader on the relationship between Single side (self-reported).
Turnover Intention follower perceptions of transformational leadership behavior and their work outcomes.
Identification with leader is positively associated with affective organizational
commitment and negatively associated with turnover intentions.
Salesperson performance In addition to driving performance via relational identification, manager likeability Single side (self-reported).
strengthens the effect identification has on salesperson performance. Salesperson relational
identification with their manager.
Job Performance Identification with supervisor influenced job performance. This influence was over and Single side (self-reported).
above the influence from identification with the organization.
Identification with the Organization Relational identification with supervisor enhances newcomers’ identification with their Single side (self-reported).
organizations. This relationship is mediated through affective (i.e., affect transfer),
cognitive (i.e., social influence), and behavioral (i.e., behavioral “sensemaking”)
mechanisms; and only when the supervisor is perceived to be prototypical.
Intrinsic Motivation Employees’ identification with the leader will amplify the influences of servant leadership Single side (self-reported).
on their intrinsic motivation and service innovative behavior.
Sales Performance Salesperson interpersonal identification with their manager is positively associated with single side (self-reported).
sales performance. The relationship is curvilinear, becoming negative when
over-identification occurs. This relationship is moderated by organizational prestige such
that the negative influence is overcome by employees who have pride and confidence in
their organization.
Self-Efficacy Relational identification with the supervisor mediated the relationship between Single side (self-reported).
Employee Performance transformational leadership and self-efficacy, which was then positively related to
employee performance.
Employee performance Followers’ personal identification with the leader mediated the effects of individual-focused Single side (self-reported).
Empowerment transformational leadership behavior on individual performance and empowerment.
Innovativeness Personal identification with the leader is positively related to followers’ innovativeness and Single side (self-reported).
Affective Organizational affective organizational commitment but negatively associated with turnover intentions.
Commitment
Turnover Intention

individuals tend to function in accordance with their moti-
vation orientation or disposition. For example, people will
be more intrinsically oriented when the tasks they engage
in are viewed as pleasurable, meaningful, and valuable.
Likewise, an extrinsic motivation orientation suggests that
people will expect external rewards to be attached to the
tasks at hand (Deci et al. 1985, Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford
2014). According to Ryan and Deci (2020), activities moti-
vated by extrinsic motivation can be explained by their sense
of value – activities are perceived as worthwhile rather than
enjoyable or interesting as with intrinsic motivation. External
motivation drives activities that are instrumental. SDT iden-
tifies four subtypes of extrinsic motivation: external regula-
tion (rewards and punishments), introjected regulation
(external approvals), regulation through identification (to
please someone identified with), and integrated regulation
(activity provides value but is also enjoyed). These four
subtypes vary along the extent to which they control versus
are autonomous (controlled by the salesperson), degree of
internalization/congruence with internal motivation orien-
tation, and the extent of other’s validation.
In the context of professional sales, salespeople who are
intrinsically motivated will seek out challenges and genuinely
enjoy the task of selling while those salespeople who are
extrinsically motivated are more likely to pursue financial
compensation or rewards offered up by their sales manager
(Miao and Evans 2007; Miao, Evans, and Shaoming 2007).
There is also evidence in the literature that both forms of
motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) may co-exist and are
based on situational factors such as perceptions of how a
salesperson views a particular reward or exchange as con-
trolling or informational (Mallin and Pullins 2009). For
example, rewards which are perceived as controlling of behav-
ior undermine intrinsic motivation while those exchanges
(e.g., with a manager) that provide feedback and center on
information will foster intrinsic motivation. According to
Deci et  al. (1999), rewards can be interpreted by the recipient
as controllers of behaviors or indicators of competence. In
the latter case, where rewards are viewed as informative, they
tend to lead to greater intrinsic motivation and satisfaction
of competence. Thus, based on the reward system or the
situational environment, individuals may possess high or low
levels of both as well as a combination (e.g., high/low or
low/high) of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Gillet,
Vallerand, and Rosnet 2009; Hayenga and Corpus 2010).
Blending personal identification and motivation theories
Deci, Connell, and Ryan (1985) suggest that, when considering
one’s motivation orientation, the social environment must be
considered. Given the scope of our research, this provides an
opportunity to blend identification and motivation theory.
According to self-construal theory (van Knippenberg et  al.
2004), an individual may define themselves in terms of their
connection to another significant other, and in turn develops
a sense of self based on the values and goals that the other
exemplifies. Via this process, an individual view another as a
role model, seeks to imitate, and pursues emulation of desired
qualities. By doing so, the needs for self-enhancement,
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 247
self-expansion, and meaning are satisfied (Ashforth and
Mael 1989).
Based on our review of both personal identification and
motivation theory, we see parallels between the theoretical
development of the two and can use these to develop hypoth-
eses suggesting that a salesperson’s personal identification with
a sales manager or supervisor may have an important impact
on the development of motivation orientation. According to
Ashforth, Schinoff, and Rogers (2016) three paths to the
development of personal identification consist of reducing
uncertainty, fulfilling one’s need for self-enhancement, as well
as for closeness and belonging. Likewise, the root of intrinsic
motivation is cognitive evaluation theory (Deci et al. 1985;
Ryan and Deci 2000) and this takes the perspective that
individuals have innate needs of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness. Extrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci 2020) centers
on the notion that people may view their environment relative
to control over their behavior, internalization and alignment
of personal interests with others, and external validation rel-
ative to others. From the four types of extrinsic motivation
(reviewed above), the one most applicable to our research is
that of regulation through identification. This reflection of a
person’s conscious valuing of certain behavioral goals as per-
sonally important is due (in part) to how they perceive others
to who they wish to feel connected. By aligning personal
identification pathways with self-determination components,
we can see parallels that lead us to believe that a salesperson’s
perceived identification with his/her supervisor and motiva-
tion orientations will be positively related. According to the
conceptual foundations offered by Ashforth, Schinoff, and
Rogers (2016), personal identification is a unidimensional
construct that can be represented by three pathways to
describe processes for reducing uncertainty, increasing
self-enhancement, and activating the need for belonging. Each
of these pathways parallel the motivational dimensions (auton-
omy, competency, relatedness) set forth by self-determination
theory (Ryan and Deci 2000). For example, threat-focused
personal identification serves to discern a threat to one’s
identity through a sense of uncertainty reduction by confirm-
ing those identity attributes stemming from the felt connec-
tion (e.g., “she supports me”, “I feel like we are in this
together”) with the target of identification (Hogg and Terry
2000). This pathway should serve to satisfy one’s desire for
greater control and freedom to integrate work with a sense
of self. An example in the organizational setting might be a
new and inexperienced employee who looks to emulate the
skill and expertise of his/her supervisor to alleviate the anxiety
stemming from new and uncertain work conditions.
Opportunity-focused personal identification describes the pro-
cess of activating an individual’s need for self-enhancement
by enabling him/her to add admirable attributes (e.g., hard-
working, insightful, competent) that are seen in the target of
identification (Gecas 1982). Given this state, feelings of effec-
tiveness and ability to grow in the work environment are
likely to result. This may be exemplified in the work setting
where even an experienced employee looks to capitalize on
further enhancing his/her own competencies by emulating an
advanced level of skill that a supervisor possesses. Lastly,
closeness-focused personal identification triggers a process of
248 M. L. MALLIN ET AL.
Figure 1.  Parallels between pathways to personal identification and motivation orientation components.
Figure 2.  Path Model of Hypothesized relationships.
feelings of belonging and relatedness between the identifying
individual and the target based on shared identity attributes,
thus satisfying the individual need for closeness and belonging
(e.g., similarities in age, career stage, experience) (Baumeister
and Leary 1995). In this case, one’s need for connectedness
will be satisfied via the internalization of each other’s identity
attributes. Ashforth, Schinoff, and Rogers (2016) point out
that there are fundamental differences between these pathways
and among the three, threat-focused and opportunity-focused
are most relevant in an organizational setting. This is because,
unlike closeness-focused personal identification, the require-
ment for a mutual and reciprocal relationship with the target
of identification is not required and given the proximal or
distal working nature of the two, may not even be practical.
Given these personal identification pathways offered by
Ashforth, Schinoff, and Rogers (2016) and the effects of sup-
porting individual self-deterministic needs, we can proceed
to develop hypotheses relating personal identification to
motivation. These symmetries between personal identification
and motivation are illustrated further in Figure 1 and will
be further developed in the hypotheses section to follow.
Hypotheses
With personal identification and motivation theory as our
backdrop, we propose a set of hypotheses linking salesperson
perceived personal identification with their sales supervisor
to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In addition, both
forms of motivation will be linked to salesforce outcomes
that are of major concern to sales managers – namely turn-
over intention, outcome-performance, and
behavior-performance. Lastly, we develop the argument that
both forms of motivation will mediate the relationship
between perceived personal identification and the
above-mentioned sales outcomes. A model of hypothesized
relationships is summarized in Figure 2.

Salesperson identification and salesperson motivation
According to social psychology, intrinsically motivated peo-
ple tend to engage in activities that are inherently appealing,
personally satisfying, and lead to feelings of pride and ful-
fillment. They are consistently thought to be more actively
engaged in their chosen behaviors (Benware and Deci 1984),
more fully participative in their tasks (Patall, Cooper, and
Robinson 2008) and put forth a larger amount of intensity
and persistence toward accomplishment of goals (Cerasoli,
Nicklin, and Ford 2014). Drawing from cognitive evaluation
and self-determination theory (reviewed earlier), the indi-
vidual need for relatedness helps to provide the basis for
predicting that an individual’s perceived identification with
another who they admire will impact their intrinsic moti-
vation. For example, Ryan and Deci (2000, 71) pose that
“intrinsic motivation is likely to flourish in contexts char-
acterized by a sense of security and relatedness” and that
“many intrinsically motivated behaviors are happily per-
formed in isolation, suggesting that proximal relational sup-
ports may not be necessary for intrinsic motivation …" This
implies that, within the context of an individual identifying
with another, there may be effects on intrinsic motivation
both in the presence or absence of reciprocity. The inter-
disciplinary literature provides some further evidence of this
relationship.
From the applied psychology literature, van Knippenberg
(2000) provided a theoretical analysis and review of empir-
ical studies confirming a relationship between identification
and motivation to the extent that perceptions of collective
goals and interests are important to the identifying individ-
ual. This review concludes that identification may serve to
elicit motivation (to exert effort) due to feelings experienced
by the identifying individual that the target’s self-interest
represents their own. Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail (1994)
found that employees with higher levels of identification
tend to be psychologically attached to the target, more com-
mitted of its goals, and more willing to engage in extra role
activities and further suggests that a sense of oneness with
the target of identification may be formed when the iden-
tifying party adopts goals and interests of another as their
own. Extrapolating this to the professional sales domain,
when salespeople identify with their supervisor, they begin
to internalize the values, goals, and vision that is exemplified
from the supervisor (Sluss and Ashforth 2008). The tenden-
cies for salespeople to model or aspire to the desirable
qualities they see in their supervisor are reflective of their
need to operate in an autonomous work environment. Their
goal of continual personal development, growth, and effec-
tiveness fosters their need to feel effective in their selling
environment. Feelings of closeness and belonging associated
with perceived personal identification with their sales super-
visor should support an innate motivational need for relat-
edness through the felt connection. Salesperson perceived
personal identification with his/her supervisor goes beyond
mere acceptance of the supervisor’s goals and views and
involves more of an integration of the supervisor views into
one’s self-concept. In this case the supervisor becomes a
part of how a salesperson defines him/herself and satisfies
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 249
underlying intrinsic motivational needs for self-definition,
self-enhancement, and competence (Ashforth and Mael 1989;
Kark and Shamir 2002). Based on this discussion, we
propose:
H1: Salesperson’s perceived personal identification with his/her
supervisor will be positively related to salesperson intrinsic
motivation.
We also propose that a salesperson’s perceived personal
identification with his/her supervisor will be related to
extrinsic motivation. Construal theory (reviewed in the pre-
vious section) suggests that people can form a sense of self
through their identification with another as a role model
or their desire and willingness to adopt certain values and
qualities of another that are deemed desirable. Furthermore,
Ryan and Deci (2000) pose that one form of extrinsic moti-
vation, regulation through identification, reflects a conscious
valuing of behavioral goals to the extent that they are viewed
as personally important and thus accepted. In describing
this phenomenon, they suggest that (p. 73) … “Because
extrinsically motivated behaviors are not typically interesting,
the primary reason people initially perform such actions is
because the behaviors are prompted, modeled, or valued by
significant others to whom they feel (or want to feel)
attached or related.” This notion can be extrapolated to
suggest that perceived identification with a manager or
supervisor can drive extrinsic motivation.
In certain sales environments, the role of the supervisor
is to motivate by way of communicating achievement of
performance standards as a path to acquiring external
rewards that may be of value (e.g., high earnings, bonus
money, sales content prizes, recognition plaque). The
achievement of these rewards signals to a salesperson that
they are on track (or lagging) to meet their goals. Perceiving
that such goals are important to their supervisor should
drive a greater sense of personal importance and conscious
valuing and associated behaviors should ensue to work
toward achieving these goals (Ryan and Deci 2000).
Salespeople who identify with their supervisor may show
extra effort and will be motivated to perform well due to
their desire to gain these external rewards as much as
avoiding guilt from potentially disappointing their sales
supervisor (Nubold, Dorr, and Maier 2015). Through this
relevant regulatory process, salespeople can connect to
their sales supervisor via greater control over efforts,
increased effectiveness, and feelings of acceptance. In addi-
tion, since the external environment may be controlling
or informative (Ryan and Deci 2020), identifying with the
sales manager may help to drive extrinsic motivation along
the continuum toward enhanced autonomy, more internal-
ization, and increased value from external validation. For
extrinsically motivated salespeople this is particularly
important to support feelings of self-enhancement,
self-expansion, and meaning (Ashforth and Mael 1989).
Given this, we propose:
H2: Salesperson’s perceived personal identification with his/her
supervisor will be positively related to salesperson extrinsic
motivation.
250 M. L. MALLIN ET AL.
Salesperson motivation and salesforce outcomes
Motivation theory has been used extensively throughout the
sales literature to suggest that sales outcomes are a function
of the type of motivation orientation possessed by salespeo-
ple. Since motivation is situational, and to add validity to
our research, we felt it necessary to retest specific hypotheses
within the context of our study. In addition, the literature
is somewhat mixed (and sometimes inconsistent) on the
sales outcome impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
relative to each other (Miao and Evans 2007). Although a
plethora of studies may be found that link various sales
outcome to both motivation orientations (for a meta-analysis,
see Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford 2014), there seems to be
consensus that intrinsic motivation trumps extrinsic moti-
vation as it pertains to sales results (Tyagi 1985; Cerasoli,
Nicklin, and Ford 2014). There is also plenty of evidence
in the sales literature that motivation orientation drives
behaviors that lead to results as well as satisfaction. For
example, intrinsically motivated salespeople have been shown
to engage in positive selling behaviors such as relationship
building (Mallin and Pullins 2009) and adaptive selling
(Jaramillo et  al. 2007) to mention a few. Likewise, intrinsi-
cally motivated salespeople are less likely to leave their jobs
(Richer, Blanchard, and Vallerand 2002; Kuvaas 2006).
The sales literature is well-established relative to the
intrinsic motivational effects on various sales outcomes. One
of these outcomes of great concern to sales managers is the
turnover intention of salespeople. Turnover intention rep-
resents one’s planned willingness to leave the sales organi-
zation. Relative to salesperson turnover intention, we can
draw from cognitive evaluation theory correlates that suggest
that feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are
important drivers of intrinsic motivation. When a salesper-
son feels autonomous, they sense they are in control and
have freedom to express their creativity to make their work
exciting and interesting. Feelings of competence result when
salespeople are afforded opportunities for professional devel-
opment and a sense of relatedness connects them to the
organization and the people they work for. All of this should
lead to increased levels of commitment and support to the
organization and the people representing it. It is for these
reasons that intrinsically motivated salespeople should be
less likely to want to leave the organization (i.e., turnover).
For intrinsically motivated individuals, the events and cir-
cumstances that might lead to turnover (e.g., dissatisfaction
with the job, emotional exhaustion, and stress) are reduced
(Ilardi et  al. 1993; Keaveney and Nelson 1993; Hellman 1997;
Rush, Schoel, and Barnard 1995). The notion that an intrin-
sic motivation orientation serves as a stress buffer and
reduces the likelihood of turnover intention was tested in
the work environment by Richer, Blanchard, and Vallerand
(2002). This study involving 500 participants across various
job roles showed that intrinsic motivation increased worker
satisfaction to the extent that individuals were less likely to
leave their job. Johnston et  al. (1993) found that among 157
industrial salespeople, intrinsic motivation and intention to
leave the organization were inversely related. Likewise, Zain
and Jan (2014) were able to conclude (via a sample of 400
automobile salespeople) that intrinsically motivated
salespeople were more committed to the sales organization
to the extent that turnover intention was reduced. Low et  al.
(2001) found that burnout induced turnover in the salesforce
was less prevalent among intrinsically motivated salespeople.
From this discussion, we propose:
H3: Salesperson’s Intrinsic Motivation is negatively related to
Turnover Intention.
In keeping with Piercy, Cravens, and Lane (2001) con-
ceptualization of sales performance, we hypothesize that
intrinsic motivation will impact both outcome and behavior
performance. The former type of sales performance refers
to the quantitative results of salespeople’s efforts (e.g., dollar
sales, profit margins, hitting sales targets, etc.) while the
latter describes the activities and strategies that salespeople
exhibit during the selling process. Behavior performance
may be exemplified through providing excellent customer
service, producing high quality sales proposals, or working
to understand customer needs in order to propose the right
solution (Piercy, Cravens, and Lane 2001). There is a
well-established body of sales literature that links intrinsi-
cally motivated salespeople to higher levels of both outcome
and behavior performance because these salespeople tend
to work smarter (Sujan, Weitz, and Kumar 1994), experiment
with various selling approaches and strategies (Weitz, Sujan,
and Sujan 1986), and devote more time to the task of selling
(Amabile et  al. 1994). The general notion is that such per-
formance behaviors among intrinsically motivated salespeo-
ple will ultimately result in outcome performance (e.g., see
the 950 study meta-analysis by Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford
2014). Other studies have identified more specific behaviors
indicative of performance. For example, Mallin and Pullins
(2009) found that intrinsically motivated salespeople actively
engaged in successful relationship building while the work
of Jaramillo et  al. (2007) showed that intrinsically motivated
salespeople regularly demonstrated adaptive selling. Both
examples are evidence of sales performance “quality” which
Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014) suggests is a hallmark
of behavior performance. Miao and Evans (2007) determined
that salespeople seek out challenges in their role tend to
work both harder and smarter which lead to higher sales
(both behavior and outcome) performance. To summarize
the relationship between intrinsic motivation and perfor-
mance, we suggest:
H4: Salesperson’s Intrinsic Motivation is positively related to
Outcome-Performance.
H5: Salesperson’s Intrinsic Motivation is positively related to
Behavior-Performance.
Relative to extrinsically motivated salespeople, we expect
that these individuals will be more likely to intend to leave
their jobs. The work of Gagne and Forest (2008) suggests
that variable pay structures such as commission plus bonus
are supportive of an extrinsic motivation orientation due to
the negative effect of incentive pay on feelings of autonomy
and freedom and the positive effects on instrumentality (link-
ing performance to attainment of rewards). In circumstances
where the immediate external reward structure matches the
needs of the extrinsically motivated salesperson, we would

expect salespeople to remain in their job. However, that
loyalty goes only as far as this year’s compensation/incentive
plan or the propensity for the sales manager to alter the
external reward system (e.g., bonus plans, sales contest prizes,
formal recognition programs, etc.). As situational “pay for
performance” factors change, the likelihood that turnover
intention among extrinsically motivated salespeople will vary.
This may be due to a change in the current sales organiza-
tion’s commission rate (lower) or a competitive company’s
commission rate opportunity (higher). Typically, commission
plans breed disloyalty (Ingram et  al. 2012) and extrinsically
motivated salespeople may be particularly vulnerable due to
their desire for financial rewards. This notion was confirmed
in the study conducted by Shore, Tashchian, and Jourdan
(2006) where they found that employees were more likely to
seek alternative employment when they perceived their com-
pensation to be less than they could obtain from a different
organization. Based on these arguments, we propose:
H6: Salesperson’s Extrinsic Motivation is positively related to
Turnover Intention.
Extrinsically motivated salespeople expect that their
efforts will be reflected in their performance and in
exchange, rewards will be provided which they value.
Self-determination theory identifies the specific conditions
under which external rewards will enhance performance.
Salespeople who receive informational feedback from exter-
nal rewards are likely to improve efforts (Pullins 2001).
There is evidence from the sales literature that suggests that
extrinsically motivated salespeople will achieve higher levels
of both outcome and behavior performance. For example,
Miao and Evans (2014) concluded that compensation-seeking
salespeople were more likely to expend higher efforts and
as a result recognize higher sales performance and monetary
rewards. In their study across 79 companies, Baldauf and
Cravens (1999) concluded that both behavior and outcome
performance among sales units were reported where sales-
people displayed higher levels of extrinsic motivation. In
their review of control systems, motivation, and performance
research spanning from 1993 through 2014, Fatima and
Khalid (2016) concluded that affective dimensions of extrin-
sic motivation activated behavior performance among sales-
people. Given these and related studies, we propose the
following:
H7: Salesperson’s Extrinsic Motivation is positively related to
Outcome-Performance.
H8: Salesperson’s Extrinsic Motivation is positively related to
Behavior-Performance.
Mediation effects of salesperson motivation on
salesperson perceived identification and salesforce
outcomes
Given our development of the direct effect hypotheses above,
the question remains as to the role of motivation (both
intrinsic and extrinsic) in propagating a salesperson’s per-
ceived identification with his/her supervisor and outcomes
relative to turnover intention and performance. Such
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 251
mediating effects have yet to be tested in the professional
sales domain and might shed some interesting insight into
personal identification’s impact on turnover and perfor-
mance. Other sales researchers on the topic of identification
also suggest that there are factors that may accentuate the
effect of identification on a variety of sales outcomes (e.g.,
DeConinck 2011; Hughes and Ahearne 2010; Gammoh,
Mallin, and Pullins 2014; Gammoh et  al. 2018; Nowlin,
Walker, and Anaza 2019). To make the argument that moti-
vation may serve as one of these mediation factors, we can
draw on our (previously presented) theoretical discussion
of personal identification and motivation orientation com-
ponents. Ashforth, Schinoff, and Rogers (2016) suggested
that personal identification serves to reduce uncertainty by
affording an individual greater control to address a deficit
of some valued state. Such a condition may be improving
a particular sales skill or the need to feel closer to or
accepted by a supervisor or manager. Ryan and Deci (2000)
offered that, according to cognitive evaluation theory, intrin-
sically motivated individuals desire freedom, control, and
autonomy over their working conditions. They have a greater
need to feel effective and grow in their working environment
and they do this by seeking greater and closer connections
to those they work with. However, based on the notion that
intrinsically motivated salespeople seek autonomy, greater
sense of competence, and value feelings of connectedness
to their supervisor/manager, we expect the likelihood of
positive outcomes to be greater (e.g., lower turnover inten-
tion, higher performance). Relative to our study, a salesper-
son may personally identify with his/her supervisor or
manager. But this identification alone is unlikely to drive
whether the salesperson has intentions to leave their job or
whether he/she will perform at higher levels. For example,
a salesperson may be underperforming and as a result is
considering looking for another job (sensing he/she may be
fired). One of the qualities this salesperson sees in his/her
manager, whom he/she personally identifies with, is the
ability to ask good questions to understand customers’ needs.
The desire to address this sales skill deficiency and emulate
his/her manager is a motivational driver toward greater
feelings of competence and autonomy to correct the situa-
tion. If successful, we would expect performance to improve
and feelings of wanting to leave wane.
Evidence from applied psychology research also supports
this notion and suggests that identification drives the indi-
vidual motivation needed to improve task performance
under conditions where the tasks are seen as fulfilling per-
sonal goals and propagating self-development needs (Pilegge
and Holtz 1997). Other researchers support this argument
by suggesting that workers that personally identify with their
supervisors/managers tend to internalize observable values,
goals, and professional attitudes. This in turn may work to
change the workers’ perspectives of their own self-concept
and increase the likelihood of them adopting these same
values, goals, and attitudes as their own (Gu, Tang, and
Jiang 2015; Su et  al. 2020). Given this, we propose:
H9: Salesperson Intrinsic Motivation mediates the relation-
ship between Salesperson Perceived Personal Identification with
252 M. L. MALLIN ET AL.
Supervisor and a) negative Turnover Intention, b) positive
Outcome-Performance, c) positive Behavior-Performance.
Research findings in the applied psychology domain sup-
port a mediated relationship between identification, extrinsic
motivation, and performance. Van Leeuwen and van
Knippenberg (1999) suggest that identification with another
person or entity may serve to motivate individuals to per-
form at higher levels especially for those with a pro-self-ori-
entation (i.e., concern with maximizing individual gains).
In this circumstance, personal identification leads the indi-
vidual to experience the target’s self-interests as their own
self-interest. For example, Pat, who is more extrinsically
motivated, perceives her sales supervisor to be highly suc-
cessful based on the expensive car she (the supervisor)
drives, and the fancy watch she wears. Pat identifies with
and aspires to these qualities as well. Being externally reward
driven, Pat continually revisits the compensation plan to
ensure that she is maximizing her earnings from sales made.
The recognition received during team meetings is further
validation of her continued success. Since the subtypes of
extrinsic motivation move people along a dimension that
enables them to become more autonomous, more internal-
ized, and more validated by those they identify with (Ryan
and Deci 2020), and since extrinsic rewards tend to be more
informative (Mallin and Pullins 2009), personal identification
with the supervisor seems likely to move the extrinsically
motived individual in this direction, resulting in enhanced
performance via effort (Pullins 2001).
Relative to turnover intention, we expect a mediating
effect of salesperson extrinsic motivation when a salesperson
perceives personal identification with his/her supervisor.
According to Ryan and Deci (2000), the relevant regulatory
process for extrinsically motivated individuals is that of per-
sonal importance and conscious valuing. According to our
definition of personal identification, a salesperson perceives
a sense of oneness with his/her supervisor and an important
part of one’s own self-identity. In this context, a salesperson
may view the role of sales supervisor as important and
valuable work. As such, he/she may think about quitting to
pursue a job/role as a sales supervisor or manager himself/
herself. Badrinarayanan, Gupta, and Chaker (2021) support
this notion by suggesting that salespeople, by way of personal
identification with their manager, may gain valuable knowl-
edge, skills, and capabilities necessary for career growth and
independence. Ashforth, Schinoff, and Rogers (2016) men-
tion that subordinates with favorable perceptions of their
manager may sense opportunities for self-enhancement and
internalize desirable attributes for self-definitional purposes.
Some of these feelings may even lead to pressure and stress
to advance into a new role with increased responsibilities
and potential for promotion. Some of the sales literature
addresses this as studies have found a relationship between
higher turnover rates among salespeople when pressure and
stress levels were increased (Kuvaas 2006, Harrison, Virick,
and William 1996; Vansteenkiste et  al. 2007). This argument
may be summarized by the following:
H10: Salesperson Extrinsic Motivation mediates the relation-
ship between Salesperson Perceived Personal Identification with
Supervisor and a) positive Turnover Intention, b) positive
Outcome-Performance, c) positive Behavior-Performance.
Method and analysis
Research design and sample
To collect the data, an online survey was developed. A
cross-industry sample of salespeople was solicited using the
mTurk software application. Prior studies have shown that
Mturk samples produce reliable and consistent results
(Goodman, Cryder, and Cheema 2013) and are appropriate
for structural equation modeling research (Astakhova,
Swimberghe, and Wooldridge 2017; Hulland and Miller 2018).
The population was limited to those individuals who classi-
fied themselves as professional salespeople through a series
of qualifying survey questions. To ensure sample validity,
subjects were included only if they: described their functional
areas as sales; held job titles closely paralleling “salesperson”
(includes business development, national account manage-
ment, etc.); and answered “no” to the question “are you a
retail sales professional?” Participants who met the profile
were given access to an online Qualtrics survey. After com-
pleting the survey, participants were provided a code which
they had to enter in mTurk along with their “worker ID”.
The research team was able to match these “worker ID’s”
with a completion code to authorize compensation to be
paid to the respondent. Paying respondents a nominal wage
for survey completion helps to reduce misrepresentation and
increase attention to survey question detail (Hulland and
Miller 2018). Using this method, 256 subjects were allowed
to proceed with and complete the survey. These subjects
were self-described as selling B2B (76%), non-retail B2C
(18%), and government or nonprofit organization sales (6%).
Study respondents, on average, were 32 years of age with
about 9 years of selling experience. The average respondent
had been employed at the firm for approximately 4 years and
earned on average 52.6% of their compensation from variable
incentives. The top industries reported in the sample were
consumer products (46%), technology (31%), healthcare (5%),
automotive (4%), industrial products (4%), consulting services
(3%), and insurance/financial (2%).1 A summary of sample
characteristics is illustrated in Table 2. Intraclass correlation
coefficients were calculated to ensure the group membership
in either the customer type or industry did not justify the
creation of a multi-level model. Per the recommendations of
Hughes and Ahearne (2010) and Alavi et  al. (2018), potential
lack of independence was assessed through an unconditional
(intercepts only) model. Results showed that only minimal
variance was explained by group membership (Hox, Moerbeek,
and van de Schoot 2018).
Measures
Standard multi-item measures were adopted from previous
research. Salesperson Perceived Identification with Supervisor
was measured using 4 items adapted from the Mael and
Ashforth (1992) scale and used in the research of Ahearne
et  al. (2013). We wish to note that the identification
 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 253

Table 2. Sample characteristics.

Characteristic % of Sample Mean
Age (yrs.) 32.3
Experience (yrs.) 9.0
Company Tenure (yrs.) 4.3
Percent of Comp from Incentives 52.6
Primary Customer Type
 Business 36.7
 Distributor/Reseller 39.5
 Government/Institution 5.5
  Consumer (non-retail) 18.3
Industry Type
 Technology 30.9
  Consulting Services 2.7
 Industrial Products 3.9
 Automotive 3.5
  Consumer Products 46.1
 Healthcare 4.7
 Insurance/Financial 2.0
 Unspecified/Unknown 6.2

construct used in the research of Ahearne et  al. (2013)
consisted of two separate scales. One scale measured
Identification of the Salespersons with the Sales Manager,
while a separate scale measured Identification of the Sales
Manager with the Salespersons. We used the former scale
to capture our identification construct, Salesperson’s
Perceived Identification with Supervisor. Since our focus is
on understanding salesperson identification regardless of
how the supervisor views identification (with the salesper-
son), this seemed an appropriate use of the scale. Intrinsic
Motivation was measured using 3 items and Extrinsic
Motivation was measured using 3 items from the scales
developed by Oliver and Anderson (1994). Existing scales
from the sales literature were adapted to measure model
outcome variables. A 2-item scale adapted from the
research of Bluedorn (1982) was used to measure Turnover
Intention. Outcome Performance and Behavior Performance
were measured using an adaptation of the Piercy, Cravens,
and Lane (2001) scale. Potential covariates captured were
salesperson age, tenure with the company, selling experience,
percent of compensation from salary, and three items mea-
suring organizational identification were added as a com-
posite variable. These variables were all included to control
for the notion that our sample included subjects that
ranged in company tenure and experience levels as well
as compensation mix and primary customer type. For
example, a salesperson with less company tenure and expe-
rience has had less time to interact with his/her supervisor
and evaluate how the supervisor aligns with his/her per-
sonal values. This in turn, could impact the degree to
which he/she identifies with the supervisor. Likewise, the
degree to which compensation (e.g., more/less fixed versus
more/less variable) might impact perceived personal iden-
tification was considered. Organizational identification was
controlled for to account for potential effects that the
subjects might construe the sales organization and their
supervisor as one-in-the-same. All study items were mea-
sured on a seven-point Likert scale and the Cronbach
alpha for our study measures is consistent with those of
other studies from which these measures were adapted
(see Table 4).
Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation
model
Tests using AMOS 27 showed that the composite reliability
for all constructs exceeded 0.70, indicating evidence of con-
struct reliability (Joseph et  al. 2010; Garver and Mentzer
1999). The CFA fit statistics for the measurement model
show a satisfactory model fit. The χ2 of 223. 33 with 116
degrees of freedom (p < 0.01) provides a χ2/df ratio of 1.93.
The IFI = 0.96, TLI =0.95, CFI = 0.96 and RMSEA = 0.06
each provide additional evidence of a good model fit (Hu
and Bentler 1999; Marsh, Hau, and Wen 2004). Moreover,
the factor loadings exceeded 0.70, and AVEs for each con-
struct exceeded 0.50, providing evidence of convergent valid-
ity (Bagozzi and Yi 1988) (See Table 3). The level of shared
variance between constructs did not exceed the AVEs, pro-
viding evidence of discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker
1981). The potential for common method variance was
assessed using a latent common method factor (Podsakoff
et  al. 2003). The results indicated that the latent common
method factor’s presence did not significantly change the
model fit (Δχ2/df1 = 2.80). Therefore, common method bias
does not appear to be a major concern. The measurement
model fit statistics are illustrated in Table 4.
After assessing the measurement model, the full model
was analyzed via a covariate structural equation model
created using AMOS 27 (see Table 4). The results of the
structural model provide evidence of an acceptable model
fit (χ2 = 404.67, df = 183, χ2/df = 2.21, p < 0.01, IFI =0.94,
TLI =0.91, CFI = 0.94 and RMSEA = 0.07) (Garver and
Mentzer 1999; Marsh, Hau, and Wen 2004). Based on the
acceptable model fit, the direct effects and mediation anal-
yses can be confidently conducted.
Results
The results from the structural equation model are illus-
trated in Table 5 and reflect testing of the hypotheses. The
model from Figure 2 shows the paths to be tested in our
study. These results confirm that salesperson perceived per-
sonal identification with supervisor positively influences both
254 M. L. MALLIN ET AL.

Table 3.  Means, standard deviations, AVEs, and shared variance.

Construct Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
SP Identification with Supervisor 5.23 1.32 0.59
Intrinsic Motivation 5.55 1.08 0.27 0.55
Extrinsic Motivation 5.51 1.17 0.21 0.33 0.61
Turnover Intention 4.33 2.03 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.80
Behavior-Performance 5.78 0.99 0.17 0.54 0.41 0.00 0.58
Outcome-Performance 5.51 1.10 0.26 0.49 0.31 0.01 0.62 0.62
Note: Average Variance Extracted found in the diagonals.

Table 4.  CFA results, t-values, and composite reliability.

C. R. Standardized Factor Loadings t-values
SP Identification with Supervisor – (adapted from Mael and Ashforth 1992; used by Ahearne 0.85    
et  al. 2013)
  1. I do identify with my district manager   0.80 *
  2. My district manager’s successes are my successes   0.70 9.55
  3. When someone praises my district manager, it feels like a personal compliment 0.81 10.94
  4. I am very interested in what others think about my district manager   0.77 12.89
Intrinsic motivation – (adapted from Oliver and Anderson 1994; Miao and Evans 2014) 0.78  
  1. I feel a sense of personal growth and development in my work   0.78 *
  2. I sell because of the feeling of performing a useful service   0.71 11.46
  3. When I perform well, I know it’s because of my own desire to achieve   0.72 11.65
Extrinsic motivation—(adapted from Oliver and Anderson 1994) 0.82  
  1. I sell because of the potential to maximize my income   0.81 *
  2. I sell primarily because of the monetary and financial rewards   0.76 12.26
  3. I sell because of the potential to be well-compensated for my performance   0.76 12.34
Turnover intention (adapted from Bluedorn 1982) 0.89  
  1. I often think about voluntarily leaving my job   0.94 *
  2. I anticipate leaving my job within the next year   0.85 8.14
Outcome-performance—(adapted from Piercy, Cravens, and Lane 2001) 0.83  
  1. I generate a high level of dollar sales   0.82 *
  2. I identify and sell to major accounts in my territory   0.75 13.16
  3. I exceed all of my sales targets and objectives   0.79 14.26
Behavior-performance (adapted from Piercy, Cravens, and Lane 2001) 0.93  
  1. I communicate my sales presentations clearly and concisely   0.77 *
  2. I use established contacts to develop new customers   0.78 12.02
  3. I work out solutions to a customer’s questions or objections   0.71 13.34
Note: Model fit statistics: χ2= 223.33, df = 116, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 1.93, incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.96, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.95, comparative fit index
(CFI) =0.96, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) =0.06.
All factor loadings have a p-value <0 .001.
*
A constrained relationship to 1.00 for identification.

intrinsic motivation (β = 0.26, t = 2.89, p <.01) and extrinsic Mediation effects

motivation (β = 0.48, t = 4.17, p <.01), supporting H1 and
H2. Moreover, intrinsic motivation is found to be a strong
driver of positive sales outcomes by reducing turnover inten-
tions (β = −0.24, t= −2.45, p<.05), increasing outcome per-
formance (β = .98, t = 9.24, p<.01), and increasing behavior
performance (β = 0.99, t = 9.45, p <.01). Our study confirms
that the salesperson’s intrinsic motivation gained from per-
ceived personal identification with their supervisor has an
important role in driving sales outcomes. Thus, support-
ing H3-H5.
Finally, salesperson perceived personal identification with
supervisor positively influenced extrinsic motivation as well
as significantly influenced important outcome variables.
Extrinsic motivation was found to increase turnover inten-
tions (β = 0.29, t = 3.38, p<.01) but also increased positive
actions through outcome performance (β = 0.24, t = 3.68,
p<.01) and behavior performance (β = 0.36, t = 5.39, p<.01).
Therefore, in support of H6-H8, a salesperson’s extrinsic
motivation gained through perceived personal identification
with his/her supervisor may increase performance as well
as the likelihood that the employee may leave.2 Next, we
tested the indirect effects to determine the presence of medi-
ated relationships.
The bootstrap method with 5,000 samples and a 95% con-
fidence interval was used to calculate and test for the medi-
ating relationships (Hayes 2018). Estimands were created to
isolate the indirect effects in both mediators, intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation (Collier 2020). The indirect effects are
calculated using unstandardized estimates per the recom-
mendations of Collier (2020). The paths used to test the
mediation effects are labeled in Figure 3 and are dis-
cussed below.
Intrinsic motivation mediation effects
The a 1 -path (0.29, t = 2.89, p < 0.01) from salesperson
perceived personal identification with supervisor to intrin-
sic motivation and b 1-path from intrinsic motivation to
turnover intentions were significant (-0.57, t = −2.45,
p < 0.05). The indirect effect was also significant (a 1*b 1=
−0.17, p <.05, CI Lower = −0.66, CI Upper = −0.03) since
the confidence interval does not pass through zero
(Hayes 2018; Collier 2020; Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010),
thus supporting H9a. Additionally, the direct effect from
salesperson perceived personal identification with
 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 255

Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing.

Standardized Unstandardized Hypothesis
  Hypothesized Relationship Estimates Estimates Standard Error t-Values Supported?
Structural H1: SP Identification w Sup → Intrinsic 0.26 0.29 0.07 2.89** Yes
Motivation
  H2: SP Identification w Sup → Extrinsic 0.48 0.44 0.10 4.17** Yes
Motivation
  H3: Intrinsic Motivation →Turnover −0.24 −0.57 0.21 −2.45* Yes
Intentions
  H4: Intrinsic Motivation → Outcome- 0.98 0.99 0.11 9.24** Yes
Performance
  H5: Intrinsic Motivation → Behavior- 0.99 0.98 0.09 9.45** Yes
Performance
  H6: Extrinsic Motivation → Turnover 0.29 0.38 0.15 3.38** Yes
Intentions
  H7: Extrinsic Motivation → Outcome- 0.24 0.21 0.06 3.68** Yes
Performance
  H8: Extrinsic Motivation → Behavior- 0.36 0.34 0.05 5.39** Yes
Performance
Mediation Mediated Effects Direct Effect Indirect Effect CI: Low CI: High Hypothesis
Supported?
  H9a: S.P. Identification w Sup → 0.28 (0.41)** −0.17* −0.66 −0.03 Yes
Intrinsic Motivation → Turnover
Intentions
  H9b: S.P. Identification w Sup → Intrinsic −0.04 (−0.04) n.s. 0.30* 0.11 0.91 Yes
Motivation → Outcome Performance
  H9c: S.P. Identification w Sup −0.38 (−0.24)** 0.28* 0.09 0.94 Yes
→Intrinsic Motivation→ Behavior
Performance
  H10a: S.P. Identification w Sup → Extrinsic 0.28 (0.41)** 0.16 n.s. −0.02 0.44 No
Motivation → Turnover Intentions
  H10b: S.P. Identification w Sup → −0.04 (−0.04) n.s. 0.09* 0.03 0.29 Yes
Extrinsic Motivation → Outcome
Performance
  H10c: S.P. Identification w Sup → Extrinsic −0.38 (−0.24)** 0.15** 0.06 0.38 Yes
Motivation → Behavior Performance
Total Effects   Standardized Unstandardized CI: Low CI: High  
Total Effect Total Effect
  H9a: S.P. Identification w Sup →Turnover 0.28 0.41 0.15 0.74  
Intentions
  H9b: S.P. Identification w Sup → 0.48 0.36 0.14 0.64  
Outcome Performance
  H9c: S.P. Identification w Sup → Behavior 0.30 0.19 0.03 0.46  
Performance
Note: Model fit statistics: χ2 =404.37, df = 183, p < 0.01, χ2 /df = 2.21, incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.94, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.91, comparative fit index
(CFI) = 0.94, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07
*
indicates p < 0.05,
**
indicates p < 0.01,
Model fit statistics reflect model with control variables included. Standardized coefficients calculated for direct effects (unstandardized coefficients for direct
effects in parentheses). Unstandardized coefficients used for bootstrap analysis.

supervisor on turnover intentions is also significant
(c 1=0.41, t = 2.05, p <.05). Therefore, intrinsic motivation
drives the relationship between the salesperson perceived
personal identification with supervisor and turnover inten-
tions through a partial and competing mediated
relationship.
The a1-path (0.29, t = 2.89, p < 0.01) from salesperson per-
ceived personal identification with supervisor to intrinsic moti-
vation and b2-path from intrinsic motivation to outcome
performance were significant (0.99, t = 9.24, p < 0.01). The
indirect effect was also significant (a1*b2=0.30, p<.05, CI
Lower = 0.11, CI Upper = 0.91), supporting H9b. Additionally,
the direct effect from salesperson perceived personal identifi-
cation with supervisor on outcome performance is
non-significant (c2=-0.04, t= −0.41, p = 0.67). Thus, intrinsic
motivation drives the relationship between salesperson per-
ceived personal identification with supervisor and outcome
performance through a positive, fully mediated relationship.
The a1-path (0.29, t = 2.89, p < 0.01) from salesperson per-
ceived personal identification with supervisor to intrinsic
motivation and b3-path from intrinsic motivation to behavior
performance were significant (0.98, t = 9.45, p < 0.01). The
indirect effect was also significant (a1*b3=0.28, p<.05, CI
Lower = 0.09, CI Upper = 0.94). Thus, H9c is supported.
However, the direct effect from salesperson perceived personal
identification with supervisor on behavior performance is also
significant (c3= −0.24, t= −3.20, p< .01). Therefore, intrinsic
motivation drives the relationship between salesperson per-
ceived personal identification with supervisor and behavior
performance through a partial and competing mediated
relationship.
Extrinsic motivation mediation effects
The a2-path (0.44, t = 4.17 p < 0.01) from salesperson perceived
personal identification with supervisor to extrinsic motivation
256 M. L. MALLIN ET AL.
Figure 3.  Mediation effects path analysis.
and b4-path from extrinsic motivation to turnover intentions
were significant (0.38, t = 3.38, p < 0.01). However, the indi-
rect effect was non-significant (a 2*b4=0.16, p = 0.10, CI
Lower = −0.02, CI Upper = 0.44) since the confidence inter-
val passes through zero (Hayes 2018; Collier 2020; Zhao,
Lynch, and Chen 2010). Thus, H10a is not supported.
However, the direct effect from salesperson perceived personal
identification with supervisor on turnover intentions is sig-
nificant (c1=0.41, t = 2.05, p <.05). Therefore, extrinsic moti-
vation does not drive the relationship between salesperson
perceived personal identification with supervisor and turnover
intentions. Noteworthy is that salesperson perceived personal
identification with supervisor has a direct effect on turnover
intentions.
The a2-path (0.44, t = 4.17, p < 0.01) from salesperson per-
ceived personal identification with supervisor to extrinsic
motivation and b5-path from extrinsic motivation to outcome
performance were significant (0.21, t = 3.68, p < 0.01). The
indirect effect was also significant (a2*b5=0.09, p <.05 CI
Lower = 0.03, CI Upper = 0.29) and supports H10b.
Additionally, the direct effect from salesperson perceived
personal identification with supervisor on outcome perfor-
mance is non-significant (c 2=-0.04, t= −0.41, p = 0.67).
Therefore, extrinsic motivation drives the relationship
between salesperson perceived personal identification and
outcome performance through a full serially mediated
relationship.
The a2-path (0.44, t = 4.17, p < 0.01) from salesperson
perceived personal identification with supervisor to extrinsic
motivation and b6-path from extrinsic motivation to behav-
ior performance were significant (0.34, t = 5.39, p < 0.01).
The indirect effect was also significant (a2*b6= 0.15, p <.01,
CI Lower = 0.06, CI Upper = 0.38), supporting H10c. The
direct effect from salesperson perceived personal identifica-
tion with supervisor on behavior performance is also sig-
nificant (c 3= −0.24, t= −3.20, p< .01). Thus, extrinsic
motivation drives the relationship between salesperson per-
ceived personal identification with supervisor and behavior
performance through a partial and competing mediated
relationship.
Additional tests of nonlinear effects and latent
interactions
Additional methods were used to fully explore potential
nonlinear and latent interaction effects. The perceived per-
sonal identification with supervisor could also very well
have a quadratic relationship with both intrinsic and extrin-
sic motivation. This effect was tested using SEM in Stata
(Acock 2013; Stata 2011). The results of this test showed a
significant relationship with the linear variable and a
non-significant effect with the quadratic variable on both
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. These findings suggest
that the linear relationships from identification to intrinsic
and extrinsic motivations specified in the model fit the data
better than the curvilinear relationships. Further details on
the methods used to test for these results are summarized
in the web appendix.
Additionally, we tested for the possibility that intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation may interact and influence behavior
performance, outcome performance, and turnover intentions.
MPlus was used to conduct a latent moderating structural
equation approach to test interaction effects between intrin-
sic and extrinsic motivation on the DVs using the method
recommended by Klein and Moosbrugger (2000). The results
of these tests showed mixed results relative to interaction
effects (between both forms of motivation) and the outcome
model variables. This suggests that these interactions should
be further explored in future motivation research to deter-
mine how both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation may work
together. Further details on the methods used to test for
these results are also summarized in the web appendix.
Discussion
This study contributes to research by connecting identifi-
cation and motivation theory to examine the relationships
between a salesperson’s perceived personal identification
with their supervisor, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and
outcomes including turnover intention and outcome/behavior
performance. Our study also confirms that motivation (both

intrinsic and extrinsic) plays an important mediating role
between perceived personal identification and examined
sales outcomes. In all, nine out our ten hypotheses were
supported. Only hypothesis 10a was not supported as we
found no mediating impact of extrinsic motivation for the
relationship between salesperson perceived personal identifi-
cation with supervisor and turnover intention. H10b and
H10c were supported, showing extrinsic motivation does
mediate the effect of salesperson perceived personal identifi-
cation with supervisor on both behavior performance and
outcome performance.
We also contribute to the literature in studying personal
identification, which has been an under-represented con-
struct, particularly in salesforce studies. We specifically
choose to study perceived personal identification with the
sales manager rather than reciprocated relational identifica-
tion with the manager, since assessment of relational iden-
tification may not always be possible in practice. Additionally,
current projections are for a continuation of a significant
amount of virtual management (Lund et  al. 2021). More
sales managers managing via technology may, in fact, result
in an increase in identification that is based on fewer actual
interactions and more superficial interaction with the super-
visor. For example, Dambrin (2004) found that technology
mediated supervisor-worker relationships may reduce com-
munication and increase worker autonomy. Since virtual
management is here to stay, the value of work that considers
perceived personal identification increases. By providing an
enhanced understanding of these perceptions by salespeople
about their personal identification with their supervisors,
we help further both theory and practice in this area.
Specifically, we better understand how this construct can
affect both motivation, and important salesforce outcomes
via motivation.
Relative to specific hypotheses and their findings, first,
we found that the salesperson’s perceived personal identifi-
cation with their supervisor has a significant impact on
both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (H1 and H2). Both
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation have positive effects on
behavioral and outcome performance (H4, H5, H7, and H8),
but while intrinsic motivation negatively impacts turnover
intention (H3), extrinsic motivation positively impacts turn-
over intention (H6). Further, a salesperson’s perceived per-
sonal identification with their supervisor acts primarily
through intrinsic motivation which serves to mediate the
effects on the outcome variables (H9a-c). Extrinsic motiva-
tion, on the other hand, was confirmed as a mediator
between salesperson’s personal identification with their
supervisor and outcome performance (full mediation—H10b)
and behavior performance (partial mediation—H10c).
A notable finding was competing mediation through
intrinsic motivation to turnover intentions. This finding
suggests that perceptions of personal identification alone
can increase turnover intentions unless intrinsic values are
developed to counteract these intentions. It was also a bit
surprising that perceived personal identification’s impact on
turnover intention was not mediated by extrinsic motivation
(H10a). Results showed that extrinsic motivation had a
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 257
positive effect on turnover, which is essentially an undesir-
able outcome. This may be due to the nature of extrinsic
motivation as predominantly focused on external rewards
(Ryan and Deci 2020). Variable compensation is widespread
in selling positions (Chung, Kim, and Syam 2020). Deci,
Connell, and Ryan (1985) note that situational variables,
like variable extrinsic rewards, can override natural intrinsic
and dispositional variables, refocusing the person on their
extrinsic motivation for external rewards. Thus, a strong
focus on extrinsic rewards may overwhelm the effect of
salesperson perceived personal identification with supervisor’s
likely more negative effect on turnover intention.
One final finding of note is the competing partial medi-
ation that exists between a salesperson’s perceived personal
identification with their supervisor and behavior performance.
In this case, the direct path from salesperson’s perceived
personal identification with their supervisor to behavior per-
formance was negative and significant. However, when medi-
ated by motivation (both intrinsic and extrinsic), this path
turned positive and significant. This suggests that personal
identification alone is not enough to drive behavior perfor-
mance among salespeople. If, however, salespeople are prop-
erly motivated, personal identification can help instill the
types of selling behaviors that lead to overall better perfor-
mance. The question of why we see this counterintuitive effect
of the salesperson’s perceived personal identification with
their supervisor on behavioral performance is an interesting
one, as this result is counterintuitive. There are two possible
explanations that represent interesting directions for future
research. First, a salesperson with strong perceived personal
identification internalizes characteristics of their supervisor
(Ashforth, Schinoff, and Rogers 2016). At the same time, not
all managers are the best salespeople, and the best salespeople
may not make good sales managers (Gerdeman 2019). Hence,
sales managers have multiple roles and may not always “prac-
tice what they preach.” If this is the case, then there is a
possibility that the salesperson is identifying with sub-par
behaviors, resulting in lowered behavioral performance. The
managerial behavioral characteristics may not be well suited
to the sales behavioral performance. Additionally, the man-
ager’s sales behavioral performance may suffer as they con-
centrate on the management side of their job. Thus, emulation
of these internalized characteristics could potentially nega-
tively affect sales behavioral performance. A second potential
explanation could be that a salesperson with higher perceived
personal identification with the sales manager may violate
performance standards if they believe this is what the man-
ager wants, or that it will benefit the manager (Lee 2020).
These explanations are speculative at this stage and should
be investigated further in future research.
Implications for theory and future research
Our study confirmed that the salesperson’s perceived per-
sonal identification with his/her supervisor has an important
role in driving sales outcomes. This is important since most
research to date in this area has investigated collective social
(e.g., Hughes 2013) identification’s effect on sales outcomes
258 M. L. MALLIN ET AL.
and to a limited extent interpersonal identification (Ahearne
et  al. 2013). Introducing perceived personal identification
provides an additional mechanism for influencing salesper-
son attitudes, efforts and outcomes (Ashforth and Mael
1989). Further, perceived personal identification represents
a construct that the sales manager may not be overtly aware
of. As our findings confirm, salespeople who personally
identify with their supervisors have enhanced motivation
and performance and may be more likely (under conditions
of intrinsic motivation) to remain at the firm.
This research identified the important mediating role of
motivation to drive the effects of perceived personal iden-
tification with the supervisor on sales outcomes. To date,
no other research has simultaneously explored the role of
both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation with personal iden-
tification. Since we know that motivation impacts sales out-
comes, expanding this understanding to show its mediating
role between perceived personal identification with the
supervisor and sales outcomes is an important contribution
to the literature. Additionally, the finding of competing par-
tial mediation between the salesperson’s perceived personal
identification with their supervisor and behavioral perfor-
mance deserves further study and could help in understand-
ing more fully the impact of identifying with the supervisor.
As noted above, the study provides strong support for
the theoretical contributions of this research. Findings sup-
port the integration of two separate theories to better under-
stand the constructs which affect sales performance and
organization outcomes. Sales researchers can benefit by
supplementing either research stream with the other and
potentially further developing other forms of identification
and other components of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
and the rewards which affect them. Earlier, we discussed
the conceptualization (according to Ashforth, Schinoff, and
Rogers 2016) that personal identification develops from three
pathways or processes (i.e., one’s need to reduce uncertainty,
gain self-enhancement, and fulfill a sense of closeness and
belonging) and is based on a specific focus (i.e.,
threat-focused, opportunity-focused, closeness-focused). This
suggests that it is possible that there is a multi-dimensional
nature of the personal identification construct that may
impact salesperson motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic) dif-
ferently. This notion has yet to be empirically explored in
the literature and might serve as interesting next steps for
research on the topic. For example, a salesperson’s perceived
personal identification with their manager focused on close-
ness (e.g., sales manager is close in age, career stage or is
seen as a friend or confidant) may drive a more intrinsic
motivational orientation, whereby perceived personal iden-
tification with a threat focus (e.g., reducing uncertainty by
adherence with manager’s policies, demands, expectations)
or opportunity focus (e.g., enhancing oneself through further
education, training, and professional certifications to match
those of manager’s) may drive extrinsic motivation. Further
research might serve to explore a gap that exists between
our study (and modeled relationships) and this
multi-dimensional process/pathway view of personal
identification.
This paper may incent other avenues for fruitful explo-
ration of identification and motivation to affect sales per-
formance and organization outcomes. For example, what
other forms of identification play a role in sales outcomes?
Nowlin, Walker, and Anaza (2018) showed that salesperson
connectedness with coworkers affects sales performance but
salesperson identification with coworkers has yet to be stud-
ied. Similarly, Jelinek and Ahearne (2006) showed that sales-
person deviance can target coworkers. Thus, could
salesperson identification with coworkers affect this behav-
ior? Deviant behaviors, as well as other positive outcomes,
represent potentially interesting avenues to pursue in apply-
ing the intersection of these two theories to other sales
outcomes. Finally, boundary conditions could be considered.
Given the mediating role of motivation, compensation and
other rewards may serve as important moderators to explore.
Pullins (2001) predicts different outcomes on motivation
and relationship-building when rewards are, for example,
performance contingent like incentive compensation, com-
petitively contingent, such as in sales contests, and so on.
Understanding how rewards moderate between identification,
motivation, and sales outcomes could be fruitful. In partic-
ular, this understanding may shed light on the reason why
extrinsic motivation mediates identification’s role on both
outcome and behavioral performance, but not turnover
intention.
While this line of investigation explores the positive affect
of supervisor identification and motivation, existing research
also highlights the potential negative impact of
over-identification and identification incongruence (e.g.,
Ahearne et  al. 2013; Vieri et  al., 2019). For example, Ahearne
et  al. (2013) findings show that interpersonal
over-identification and identification incongruence are neg-
atively related to sales performance and customer satisfac-
tion. As such, future research could explore the potential
curvilinear effects of identification. This leads to the over-
arching question—Are there ideal levels of perceived sales-
person personal identification with their supervisor?
Relatedly, are there motivational conditions under which
the positive impacts of perceived personal identification may
not translate to performance? Finally, an extension of this
research might incorporate the moderating effects of sales
control on salesperson perceived personal identification with
the supervisor. Ahearne et  al. (2013) also explore the mod-
erating role of sales force control approach (i.e.,
outcome-based and behavior-based) in situations of high
interpersonal identification congruence or incongruence.
Their results indicate that outcome-based control is bene-
ficial for both customer satisfaction and sales performance
at high levels of interpersonal identification congruence. If
the salesperson’s interpersonal identification with the sales
manager is stronger than the sales manager identification
with the salesperson, behavioral based control has advantage
over outcome-based control in influencing customer satis-
faction and sales performance. Given their findings with
interpersonal identification, it would be valuable to see if
and how behavior- and outcome-based control impacts per-
ceived personal identification relationships.

Perceived personal identification is a unique perspective
not previously studied in sales in that it is a one-way rela-
tionship variable which may not be apparent to the super-
visor. The salesperson may hold attitudes of liking, similarity,
and intimacy with the supervisor which may or may not
be grounded in actual interaction. This may translate to
other areas of the company. Is it also plausible that the
salesperson develops perceived personal identification with
the CEO or other C-level executives and how would that
impact sales outcomes? Finally, we know little about sales-
person identification with the supervisor. How is it formed?
To what extent do potential antecedent constructs like trans-
formational leadership and charisma impact it? Do collective
or interpersonal identifications affect personal identifications,
and how can the different identifications be leveraged inter-
actively? Taken together there are several important theo-
retical contributions and potential future research areas that
can be incented based on the study presented here.
Implications for practitioners
There are several potential insights in this study that could
enhance the practice of selling. To begin with, understanding
that perceived personal identification with the supervisor is
related to motivation could help to identify problems that
may stem from salesperson identification (or lack thereof)
with their supervisor. When a salesperson finds a manager
to be different than them, not seeming to connect with
them, or holding opposing values, motivation and sales
outcomes may be negatively affected without an obvious
cause. While these factors are largely uncontrollable, sales
managers need to be aware that such perceived differences
may help explain salesperson motivation.
Perhaps more importantly, managers need to understand
the impact of the salesperson’s perceived personal identifi-
cation on sales outcomes. Hughes and Ahearne (2010) found
that sales managers can enhance salesperson efforts by
strengthening their identification with a relevant entity (e.g.,
a brand). In our case, the relevant entity is the sales manager
themselves. Managers can consider ways in which they can
foster such identification. Hughes (2013) found the extent
to which a salesperson identifies with brands affects effort
and performance through the creation of a psychological
relationship based on shared meaning and interests. Spending
time communicating similarities and shared values with
salespeople may well be time well spent in terms of nur-
turing stronger sales outcomes.
Additionally, sales managers must be aware of and culti-
vate their professional identity (Gerdeman 2019). Attention
to the specific values and behaviors that are portrayed should
be an important component of the job. The goals could be
to be more relatable, but also to assure that the identity is
consistent with the organization’s goals. It may be important
for senior sales leaders to select and develop sales managers
or supervisors who role model appropriate behaviors, display
ethical behavior, and promote goals that are consistent with
the organizational culture. The organization may also want
to provide training so that sales managers are aware of
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 259
motivational conditions to assure the salespeople’s identifi-
cation is translating to positive performance outcomes. With
the rapid growth in virtual workplaces, using sales managers
to grow identification to socialize these important ideas may
accelerate. Organizations should also consider the effect of
virtual work environments on the development and trans-
lation of supervisor identification.
Conclusion, limitations and future research
This paper integrates identification and motivation theory
to show the relationship between a salesperson’s perceived
personal identification with his/her supervisor, intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation, and three sales outcomes (turnover
intention, outcome and behavioral performance), a unique
contribution in that these variables have not previously been
studied together. The results of our study are generally sup-
portive of the hypothesized direct relationships as well as
those supportive of motivation as a mediator. Not only does
our study bridge a gap in the identification literature by
focusing on personal identification (arguably the most con-
crete and salient form according to Ashforth, Schinoff, and
Rogers 2016) in the salesforce domain, it also answers the
call for more research on influences of salesperson work
engagement (motivation) and drivers of sales performance
(Verbeke, Dietz, and Verwaal 2011).
These study results are promising, however as with all
research, several study limitations should be pointed out. A
limitation of our study stems from the single-source,
self-reported survey method which was used to collect our
data. Using this method poses the risk of some degree of
common method variance bias. Although we did check for
this using a latent common method factor test (Podsakoff
et  al. 2003), the results indicated an acceptable measurement
model. An additional limitation is that our cross-industry
sample was heavily weighted across the technology (31%)
and consumer products (46%) sectors. Although six addi-
tional industry segments were represented, these collectively
comprised the remaining 23% of the industry sample.
The study does not consider interpersonal identification
or collect bi-directional data. While we believe the focus
on perceived personal identification is an important contri-
bution of our study regardless of reciprocation (which is
not always possible to measure and may be increasingly
difficult to achieve in virtual management settings), we do
feel that this represents a potential area for further research.
Particularly, Ahearne et  al. (2013) illustrated that a higher
level of salesperson identification with their manager, if
mismatched with the manager’s identification with the sales-
person, will produce significant negative effects on sales-
person outcomes. They demonstrate that incongruent
identification may produce negative effects and that the
salesperson’s identification with the supervisor will not
always produce positive results; in fact, the key takeaway
from Ahearne et  al. (2013) is higher levels of unilateral
salesperson identification with the manager will do more
harm than good if this identification is unmatched with
manager’s identification with the salesperson. While we
260 M. L. MALLIN ET AL.
believe that the potential for personal identification with
the manager (Ashforth, Schinoff, and Rogers 2016) is dif-
ferent from the interpersonal identification with the sales
manager as portrayed by Ahearne et  al. (2013), it would be
interesting to test boundary conditions for personal versus
interpersonal identification with the supervisor and to deter-
mine if personal identification operates independently of
interpersonal identification. We did not have a measure of
congruence/incongruence or reciprocity, which represents a
limitation of this study. While we did not set out to study
these variables, and believe the study makes a clear contri-
bution to both theory and practice of personal identification,
future research should include these variables and consider
the interplay between salesperson perceived personal iden-
tification and (in)congruence in interpersonal identification
with the supervisor.
Additionally, the present research is not explicit about
the types of sales tasks and activities that would be intrin-
sically appealing for the various types of salespeople. Much
is known about other variables beyond personal identifica-
tion that affect both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Additional research exploring differential impacts of these
various drivers as they impact performance through intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation would be very interesting and may
even reveal moderating variables for the personal
identification-motivation relationship. We view this as a
fruitful area for additional study. We also do not consider
how specific management behaviors might impact a sales-
person’s perceived personal identification with their super-
visor. For example, we do not consider leadership behaviors
in this paper. It seems logical that a supervisor who is a
better leader, (or charismatic leaders per Shamir, House, and
Arthur 1993), may elicit more personal identification. We
encourage future research to further consider the important
role that leadership behaviors play in developing a salesper-
son’s personal identification with their sales manager.
Lastly, we would like to note that the personal identi-
fication target of our study is the sales manager, not sales
leader or sales coach. Management leadership traits, style,
and LMX are not accounted for in this study, although
they could play an important role. Sales managers help
salespeople with day-to-day operations (e.g., problem solv-
ing, role demands, prioritization, etc.) and help drive the
selling function (e.g., aligning territories, forecasting,
recruitment, training, coaching, motivation, performance
management). Leadership is a different in that it involves
communicating goals, vision, and direction). As Shamir,
House, and Arthur (1993) found, charismatic leaders have
a profound effect on followers. Therefore, understanding
how the type of leader behaviors and circumstances under
which perceived personal identification could be enhanced
is an avenue for further research. There are inevitably many
other characteristics and qualities of the sales manager that
could impact the relationships presented in this research.
For example, we don’t account for the notion that sales
managers utilize sales control systems differently (e.g., more
outcome- or behavior-based) or have differing social styles
(e.g., driver, analytical, amiable, expressive). Prior research
(Oliver and Anderson 1994) suggests that such
characteristics may impact interactions between the sales
manager and salesperson. Other sales management person-
ality traits (e.g., optimism, confidence/efficacy, competi-
tiveness, to mention a few) represent additional
characteristics that could impact how a salesperson per-
ceives his/her manager and thus impacts personal identi-
fication. Despite these limitations, this study makes an
incremental contribution to the sales literature, and our
hope is that it will stimulate thought and encourage further
work in this area.
Notes
1. The sample used for this study is part of a larger dataset, which
was also used in Gammoh et al. 2021. The measures and vari-
ables used in this paper are entirely separate from those used
in Gammoh et al. 2021.
2. Alternative models were run to test the presence of additional
relationships. A path between behavioral performance and out-
come performance was added and tested within the model.
Additionally, the relationship of outcome performance and
behavior performance on turnover intentions were also tested.
The effect of behavior performance on outcome performance was
non-significant (2.75, t =1.17, p = .24). The effects of outcome
performance (0.91, t = 1.78 p =.08) and behavior performance
(0.46, t = .17, p = .87) were both non-significant in driving
turnover intentions.
ORCID
Ellen B. Pullins http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2941-8358
References
Acock, A. C. 2013. Discovering Structural Equation Modeling Using
Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press Books.
Ahearne, Michael, Till Haumann, Florian Kraus, and Jan Wieseke.
2013. “It’s a Matter of Congruence: How Interpersonal Identification
Between Sales Managers and Salespersons Shapes Sales Success.”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 41 (6):625–48. doi:
10.1007/s11747-013-0333-x.
Alavi, Sascha, Johannes Habel, Christian Schmitz, Bianca Richter, and
Jan Wieseke. 2018. “The Risky Side of Inspirational Appeals in
Personal Selling: When Do Customers Infer Ulterior Salesperson
Motives?” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 38
(3):323–43. doi: 10.1080/08853134.2018.1447385.
Allison, Lee, Karen E. Flaherty, Jin Ho Jung, and Isaac Washburn.
2016. “Salesperson Brand Attachment: A Job Demands-Resources
Theory Perspective.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
36 (1):3–18. doi: 10.1080/08853134.2016.1141505.
Amabile, Teresa M., Karl G. Hill, Beth A. Hennessey, and Elizabeth
M. Tighe. 1994. “The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing Intrinsic
and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 66 (5):950–67.
Ashforth, Blake E., and Fred A. Mael. 1989. “Social Identity Theory
and the Organization.” The Academy of Management Review 14
(1):20–39. doi: 10.2307/258189.
Ashforth, Blake E., Beth S. Schinoff, and Kristie M. Rogers. 2016. “I
Identify with Her. I Identify with Him: Unpacking the Dynamics
of Personal Identification in Organizations.” Academy of Management
Review 41 (1):28–60. doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0033.
Astakhova, Marina, Kris Swimberghe, R., and Barbara Ross Wooldridge.
2017. “Actual and Ideal-Self Congruence and Dual Brand Passion.”
Journal of Consumer Marketing 34 (7):664–72. doi: 10.1108/
JCM-10-2016-1985.

Badrinarayanan, Vishag, Aditya Gupta, and Nawar N. Chaker. 2021.
“The Pull-to-Stay Effect: Influence of Sales Managers’ Leadership
Worthiness on Salesperson Turnover Intentions.” Journal of Personal
S el ling & S al es Manag e me nt 4 1 ( 1 ) : 3 9 – 5 5 . d oi :
10.1080/08853134.2020.1820347.
Bagozzi, Richard P., and Youyae Yi. 1988. “On the Evaluation of
Structural Equation Models.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 16 (1):74–94. doi: 10.1007/BF02723327.
Baldauf, Artur, and David W. Cravens. 1999. “Improving Effectiveness
of Field Sales Organizations.” Industrial Marketing Management 28
(1):63–72. doi: 10.1016/S0019-8501(98)00023-6.
Baumeister, Roy F., and Mark R. Leary. 1995. “The Need to Belong:
Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human
Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 117 (3):497–529. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
Benware, Carl A., and Edward L. Deci. 1984. “Quality of Learning
with an Active versus Passive Motivational Set.” American Educational
Research Journal 21 (4):755–65. doi: 10.3102/00028312021004755.
Bergami, Massimo, and Bagozzi, Richard P. 2000. “Self-Categorization,
Affective Commitment and Group Self-Esteem as Distinct Aspects
of Social Identity in the Organization.” British Journal of Social
Psychology 39 (4):555–77. doi: 10.1348/014466600164633.
Bluedorn, Allen C. 1982. “A Unified Model of Turnover from
Organizations.” Human Relations 35 (2):135–53. doi:
10.1177/001872678203500204.
Boles, James S., G. W. Dudley, Vincent Onyemah, D. Rouziès, and
William W. Weeks. 2012. “Sales Force Turnover and Retention: A
Research Agenda.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
32 (1):131–40. doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134320111.
Cerasoli, Christopher P., Jessica M. Nicklin, and Michael T. Ford. 2014.
“Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives Jointly Predict
Performance: A 40-Year Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 140
(4):980–1008. doi: 10.1037/a0035661.
Chun, Jae Uk., Francis J. Yammarino, Shelley D. Dionne, John J. Sosik,
and Hyoung Koo Moon. 2009. “Leadership across Hierarchical
Levels: Multiple Levels of Management and Multiple Levels of
Analysis.” The Leadership Quarterly 20 (5):689–707. doi: 10.1016/j.
leaqua.2009.06.003.
Chung, Dong J., Byungyeo Kim, and Niladri B. Syam. 2020. “A
Practical Approach to Sales Compensation: What Do We Know
Now? What Should We Know in the Future?” Foundations and
Trends® in Marketing 14 (1):1–52. doi: 10.1561/1700000063.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Neil M. Ford, Steven W. Hartley, and Orville C.
Walker. 1985. “The Determinants of Salesperson Performance: A
Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Marketing Research 22 (2):103–18. doi:
10.2307/3151357.
Collier, Joel E. 2020. Applied Structural Equation Modeling Using AMOS:
Basic to Advanced Techniques. New York: Routledge.
Dambrin, Claire. 2004. “How Does Telework Influence the
Manager-Employee Relationship?” International Journal of Human
Resources Development and Management 4 (4):358–74. doi: 10.1504/
IJHRDM.2004.005044.
Deci, Edward L., James P. Connell, and Richard M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic
Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior, New York:
Plenum.
Deci, Edward L., James P. Connell, and Richard M. Ryan. 1989.
“Self-Determination in a Work Organization.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 74 (4):580–90. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.580.
Deci, Edward L., James P. Connell, Richard Koestner, and Richard M.
Ryan. 1999. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining
the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation.”
Psychological Bulletin 125 (6):627–68. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.
125.6.627.
DeConinck, James B. 2011. “The Effects of Leader-Member Exchange
and Organizational Identification on Performance and Turnover
among Salespeople.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
31 (1):21–34. doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134310102.
Delpechitre, Duleep, Aditya Gupta, Arash H. Zadeh, Joon Ho Lim,
and Steven A. Taylor. 2020. “Toward a New Perspective on
Salesperson Success and Motivation: A Trifocal Framework.” Journal
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 261
of Personal Selling & Sales Management 40 (4):267–88. doi:
10.1080/08853134.2020.1805748.
Dutton, Jane E., Janet M. Dukerich, and Celia V. Harquail. 1994.
“Organizational Images and Member Identification.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 39 (2):239–63. doi: 10.2307/2393235.
Fatima, Zoha, and Azam M. Khalid. 2016. “A Study of Salesforce
Control Systems and Salesforce Motivation.” The Marketing Review
16 (4):357–71. doi: 10.1362/146934716X14636478977917.
Fornell, Claus, and David F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement
Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1):39–50. doi: 10.2307/3151312.
French, John R. P., Jr., and Bertram H. Raven. 1959. “The Bases of
Social Power.” In Studies in Social Power, edited by D. Cartwright,
150–67. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan.
Gagné, Marylene, and Jacques Forest. 2008. “The Study of Compensation
through the Lens of Self-Determination Theory: Reconciling 35
Years of Debate.” Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 49
(3):225–32. doi: 10.1037/a0012757.
Gammoh, Bashar S., Michael L. Mallin, and Ellen B. Pullins. 2014.
“Antecedents and Consequences of Salesperson Identification with
the Brand and Company.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management 34 (1):3–18. doi: 10.1080/08853134.2013.870181.
Gammoh, Bashar S., Michael L. Mallin, Ellen B. Pullins, 2018. “The
Role of Salesperson Brand Selling Confidence in Enhancing
Important Sales Management Outcomes: A Social Identity Approach.”
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 33 (3):277–90. and, and
Catherine M. Johnson. doi: 10.1108/JBIM-11-2016-0274.
Gammoh, Bashar S., Michael L. Mallin, and Ellen B. Pullins. 2021.
“Dual Foci of Identification: The Role of Salesperson Brand and
Organizational Identification in Driving Brand Performance,” Journal
of Product and Brand Management 30 (6):866–882.
Garver, Michael S., and John T. Mentzer. 1999. “Logistics Research
Methods: Employing Structural Equation Modeling to Test for
Construct Validity.” Journal of Business Logistics 20 (1):33–57.
Gecas, Viktor. 1982. “The Self-Concept.” Annual Review of Sociology
8 (1):1–33. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.08.080182.000245.
Gerdeman, Dina. 2019. “When Salespeople Become Managers, They
Often Do a Horrible Job.” Working Knowledge: Business Knowledge
for Business Leaders, Harvard Business School. Accessed August 17,
2021. https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/micromanagers-in-the-makin
g-why-salespeople-struggle-to-lead.
Gillet, Nicolas, Robert J. Vallerand, and Elisabeth Rosnet. 2009.
“Motivational Clusters and Performance in a Real-Life Setting.”
Motivation and Emotion 33 (1):49–62. doi: 10.1007/s11031-008-9115-z.
Goodman, Joseph K., Cynthia E. Cryder, and Amar Cheema. 2013.
“Data Collection in a Flat World:the Strengths and Weaknesses of
Mechanical Turk Samples.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
26 (3):213–24. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1753.
Gu, Qinxuan, Thomas Li-Ping Tang, and Wan Jiang. 2015. “Does Moral
Leadership Enhance Employee Creativity? Employee Identification
with Leader and Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) in the Chinese
Context.” Journal of Business Ethics 126 (3):513–29. doi: 10.1007/
s10551-013-1967-9.
Harrison, David A., Meghna Virick, and Sonja William. 1996. “Working
without a Net: Time, Performance, and Turnover under Maximally
Contingent Rewards.” Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (4):331–45.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.331.
Hayenga, Amynta O., and Jennifer Henderlong Corpus. 2010. “Profiles
of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: A Person-Centered Approach
to Motivation and Achievement in Middle School.” Motivation and
Emotion 34 (4):371–83. doi: 10.1007/s11031-010-9181-x.
Hayes, Andrew F. 2018. “Introduction to Mediation.” Moderation, and
Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, New
York: Guilford Publications.
Hellman, Chan M. 1997. “Job Satisfaction and Intent to Leave.” The
Jour nal of Social Psycholog y 137 (6):677–89. doi:
10.1080/00224549709595491.
Hobman, Elizabeth V., Chris J. Jackson, Nerina L. Jimmieson, and
Robin Martin. 2011. “The Effects of Transformational Leadership
262 M. L. MALLIN ET AL.
Behaviours on Follower Outcomes: An Identity-Based Analysis.”
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20 (4):553–
80. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2010.490046.
Hogg, Michael A., and Deborah J. Terry. 2000. “Social Identity and
Self-Categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts.” The
Academy of Management Review 25 (1):121–40. doi: 10.2307/259266.
Hox, Joop J., Mirjam Moerbeek, and Rens van de Schoot. 2018.
Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. Routledge.
Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes
in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New
Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal 6 (1):1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hughes, Doug E. 2013. “This Ad’s for You: The Effect of Advertising
Perceptions on Salesperson Effort and Performance.” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 41 (1):1–18. doi: 10.1007/
s11747-011-0293-y.
Hughes, Doug E., and Michael Ahearne. 2010. “Energizing the Reseller’s
Sales Force: The Power of Brand Identification.” Journal of Marketing
74 (4):81–96. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.74.4.081.
Hulland, John, and Jeff Miller. 2018. “Keep on Turkin’?” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 46 (5):789–94. doi: 10.1007/
s11747-018-0587-4.
Ilardi, Barbara C., Dean Leone, Tim Kasser, and Richard M. Ryan.
1993. “Employee and Supervisor Ratings of Motivation: Main Effects
and Discrepancies Associated with Job Satisfaction and Adjustment
in a Factory Setting.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23
(21):1789–805. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01066.x.
Ingram, Thomas N., Raymod W. LaForge, Ramon A. Avila, Charles
H. Schwepker, Jr., and Michael R. Williams. 2012. Sales Management
Analysis and Decision Making. 9th ed. New York: Routledge.
Jaramillo, Fernando, William B. Locander, Paul E. Spector, and Eric
G. Harris. 2007. “Getting the Job Done: The Moderating Role of
Initiative on the Relationship between Intrinsic Motivation and
Adaptive Selling.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
27 (1):59–74. doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134270104.74.
Jelinek, Ronald, and Michael Ahearne. 2006. “The Enemy within:
Examining Salesperson Deviance and Its Determinants.” Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management 26 (4):327–44. doi: 10.2753/
PSS0885-3134260401.
Johnston, Mark W., Rodger W. Griffeth, Scot Burton, and Paula Phillips
Carson. 1993. “An Exploratory Investigation into the Relationship between
Promotion and Turnover: A Quasi-Experimental Longitudinal Study.”
Journal of Management 19 (1):33–49. doi: 10.1177/014920639301900103.
Joseph, Hair, F. William, C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E.
Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis (7th edition), New
Jersey: Pearson
Kark, Ronit, and Boas Shamir. 2002. “The Dual Effect of
Transformational Leadership: Priming Relational and Collective
Selves and Further Effects on Followers.” In B. J. Avolio & F. J.
Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and Charismatic Leadership:
The Road Ahead Vol. 2, 67–91. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Kark, Ronit, Boas Shamir, and Gilad Chen. 2003. “The Two Faces of
Transformational Leadership: Empowerment and Dependency.” The
Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (2):246–55. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.88.2.246.
Kark, Ronit, R. Waismel-Manor, and Boas Shamir. 2012. “Does Valuing
Androgyny and Femininity Lead to a Female Advantage? The
Relationship between Gender-Role, Transformational Leadership and
Identification.” The Leadership Quarterly 23 (3):620–40. doi: 10.1016/j.
leaqua.2011.12.012.
Keaveney, Susan M., and James E. Nelson. 1993. “Coping with
Organizational Role Stress: Intrinsic Motivational Orientation, Perceived
Role Benefits, and Psychological Withdrawal.” Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science 21 (2):113–24. doi: 10.1007/BF02894422.
Kelman, Herbert C. 1958. “Compliance, Identification, and
Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change.” Journal of
Conflict Resolution 2 (1):51–60. doi: 10.1177/002200275800200106.
Khusainova, Rushana, Ad de Jong, Nick Lee, Greg W. Marshall, and
John M. Rudd. 2018. “Defining Salesperson Motivation: Current
Status, Main Challenges, and Research Directions.” Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management 38 (1):2–29. doi:
10.1080/08853134.2017.1415761.
Klein, A., and H. Moosbrugger. 2000. “Maximum Likelihood Estimation
of Latent Interaction Effects with the LMS Method.” Psychometrika
65 (4):457–74. doi: 10.1007/BF02296338.
Kraus, Florian, Till Haumann, Michael Ahearne, and Jan Wieseke.
2015. “When Sales Managers and Salespeople Disagree in the
Appreciation for Their Firm: The Phenomenon of Organizational
Identification Tension.” Journal of Retailing 91 (3):486–515. available
at: doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2015.03.001.
Kuvaas, Bård. 2006. “Performance Appraisal Satisfaction and Employee
Outcomes: Mediating and Moderating Roles of Work Motivation.”
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 17
(3):504–22. doi: 10.1080/09585190500521581.
Lee, Kangmin. 2020. “The Effect of Supervisor Identification on
Unethical Pro-Social Behavior: The Moderating Role of Employability
Perceptions.” International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health 17 (24):9344–16.
Li, J., S. Furst-Holloway, L. Gales, S. S. Masterson, and B. D. Blume.
2017. “Not All Transformational Leadership Behaviors Are Equal:
The Impact of Followers’ Identification with Leader and Modernity
on Taking Charge.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
24 (3):318–34. doi: 10.1177/1548051816683894.
Low, George S., David W. Cravens, Ken Grant, and William C.
Moncrief. 2001. “Antecedents and Consequences of Salesperson
Burnout.” European Journal of Marketing 35 (5/6):587–611. doi:
10.1108/03090560110388123.
Lund, Susan, Anu Madgavkar, James Manyika, Sven Smit, Kweilin
Ellingrod, Mary Meaney, and Olivia Robinson. ( 2021. February 18,
The Future of Work after Covid-19, McKinsey Global Institute,
Stephanie Strom and Peter Gumbel (Eds.), McKinsey & Co., re-
trieved 8/16/2021 from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/
future-of-work/the-future-of-work-after-covid-19.
Mael, Fred, and Blake E. Ashforth. 1992. “Alumni and Their Alma
Mater: A Partial Test of the Reformulated Model of Organizational
Identification.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 13 (2):103–23.
doi: 10.1002/job.4030130202.
Mallin, Michael L., and Ellen Bolman Pullins. 2009. “The Moderating
Effect of Control Systems on the Relationship between Commission
and Salesperson Intrinsic Motivation in a Customer Oriented
Environment.” Industrial Marketing Management 38 (7):769–77.
Mallin, Michael L., Bashar S. Gammoh, Ellen B. Pullins, and Catherine
M. Johnson. 2017. “A New Perspective of Salesperson Motivation
and Salesforce Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Salesperson Brand
Identification.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 25 (4):357–
74. doi: 10.1080/10696679.2017.1345597.
Marsh, Herbert W., Kit-Tai Hau, and Zhonglin Wen. 2004. “In Search
of Golden Rules: Comment on Hypothesis- Testing Approaches to
Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in Overgeneralizing
Hu and Bentler’s (1999) Findings.” Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 11 (3):320–41. doi: 10.1207/
s15328007sem1103_2.
Miao, Fred C., and Kenneth R. Evans. 2007. “The Impact of Salesperson
Motivation on Role Perceptions and Job Performance – a Cognitive
and Affective Perspective.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management 27 (1):89–101. doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134270106.
Miao, Fred C., Kenneth R. Evans, 2007. “The Role of Salesperson
Motivation in Sales Control Systems—Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Motivation Revisited.” Journal of Business Research 60 (5):417–25.
and, and Zou Shaoming. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.005.
Miao, Fred C., Kenneth R. Evans, 2014. “Motivation Industrial
Salesforce with Sales Control Systems: An Interactive Perspective.”
Journal of Business Research 67 (6):1233–42. and, and Zou Shaoming.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.04.007.
Nowlin, Edward L., Doug Walker, and Nwamaka Anaza. 2018. “How
Does Salesperson Connectedness Impact Performance?” Industrial
Marketing Management 68:106–13. doi: 10.1016/j.indmar-
man.2017.10.007.

Nowlin, Edward L., Doug Walker, and Nwamaka Anaza. 2019. “The
Impact of Manager Likeability on Sales Performance.” Journal of
Marketing Theor y and Practice 27 (2):159–73. doi:
10.1080/10696679.2019.1577684.
Nubold, Annika, Stephan L. Dorr, and Gunter W. Maier. 2015.
“Considering the Orphan: Personal Identification and Its Relations
with Transformational Leadership, Trust, and Performance in a
Three-Path Mediation Model.” Leadership 11 (2):230–54. doi:
10.1177/1742715014522679.
Oliver, Richard L., and Erin Anderson. 1994. “An Empirical Test of
the Consequences of Behavior- and Outcome-Based Sales Control
Systems.” Journal of Marketing 58 (4):53–67. doi: 10.2307/1251916.
Patall, Erika, Harris Cooper, and Jorgianne Civey Robinson. 2008. “The
Effects of Choice on Intrinsic Motivation and Related Outcomes:
A Meta-Analysis of Research Findings.” Psychological Bulletin 134
(2):270–300. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270.
Piercy, Nigel F., David W. Cravens, and Nikala Lane. 2001. “Sales
Manager Behavior Control Strategy and Its Consequences: The
Impact of Gender Differences.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management 21 (1):39–49.
Pilegge, Anthony J., and Rolf Holtz. 1997. “The Effects of Social
Identity on the Self-Set Goals and Task Performance of High and
Low Self-Esteem Individuals.” Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 70 (1):17–26. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1997.2689.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan
P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research:
A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.”
The Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5):879–903. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Pullins, Ellen Bolman. 2001. “An Exploratory Investigation of the
Relationship of Sales Force Compensation and Intrinsic Motivation.”
Industrial Marketing Management 30 (5):403–13. doi: 10.1016/
S0019-8501(99)00095-4.
Richardson, Robert. 1999. “Measuring the Impact of Turnover on
Sales.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 19 (4):
53–66.
Richer, Sylvie F., Cealine Blanchard, and Robert J. Vallerand. 2002. “A
Motivational Model of Work Turnover.” Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 32 (10):2089–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02065.x.
Riketta, Michael, and Rolph van Dick and 2005. “Foci of Attachment
in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of the Strength and
Correlates of Workgroup versus Organizational Identification and
Commitment.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (3):490–510. doi:
10.1016/j.jvb.2004.06.001.
Riketta, Michael. 2005. “Organizational Identification: A Meta-Analysis.”
Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (2):358–84. doi: 10.1016/
j.jvb.2004.05.005.
Rush, Michael C., William Schoel, A., and Steven M. Barnard. 1995.
“Psychological Resiliency in the Public Sector: ‘Hardiness’ and
Pressure for Change.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 46 (1):17–39.
doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1995.1002.
Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2000. “Self-Determination
Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social
Development, and Well-Being.” American Psychologist 55 (1):68–78.
doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2020. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Motivation from a Self-Determination Theory Perspective:
Definitions, Theory, Practices, and Future Directions.” Contemporary
Educational Psychology 61:101860. Retrieved from: . doi: 10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2020.101860.
Shamir, Boas, Robert J. House, and Michael B. Arthur. 1993. “The
Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept
Based Theory.” Organization Science 4 (4):577–94. doi: 10.1287/
orsc.4.4.577.
Shore, Ted H., Armen Tashchian, and Louis Jourdan. 2006. “Effects
of Internal and External Pay Comparisons on Work Attitudes.”
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36 (10):2578–98. doi: 10.1111/j.
0021-9029.2006.00204.x.
Siders, Mark A., Gerard George, and Ravi Dharwadkar. 2001. “The
Relationship of Internal and External Commitment Foci to Objective
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 263
Job Performance Measures.” Academy of Management Journal
44:570–9.
Sluss, David M., and Blake E. Ashforth. 2007. “Relational Identity and
Identification: Defining Ourselves through Work Relationships.”
Academy of Management Review 32 (1):9–32. doi: 10.5465/
amr.2007.23463672.
Sluss, David M., and Blake E. Ashforth. 2008. “How Relational and
Organizational Identification Converge: Processes and Conditions.”
Organization Science 19 (6):807–23. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0349.
Sluss, David M., Robert E. Ployhart, M. Glenn Cobb, and Blake E.
Ashforth. 2012. “Generalizing Newcomers’ Relational and
Organizational Identifications: Processes and Prototypicality.”
Academy of Management Journal 55 (4):949–75. doi: 10.5465/
amj.2010.0420.
Stata, L. L. C. 2011. “Stata Structural Equation Modeling Reference
Manual Release 13.”
Su, Weilin, Bei Lyu, Hui Chen, and Yanzi Zhang. 2020. “How Does
Servant Leadership Influence Employees’ Service Innovative
Behavior? The Roles of Intrinsic Motivation and Identification with
the Leader.” Baltic Journal of Management 15 (4):571–86. doi:
10.1108/BJM-09-2019-0335.
Sujan, Harish, Barton A. Weitz, and Nirmalya Kumar. 1994. “Learning
Orientation, Working Smart, and Effective Selling.” Journal of
Marketing 58 (3):39–52. doi: 10.2307/1252309.
Tajfel, Henry, and John C. Turner. 1985. “The Social Identity Theory
of Intergroup Behavior.” in Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edit-
ed by Steven Werchel and William G. Austin, 7–24. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Tyagi, Pradeep K. 1985. “Relative Importance of Key Job Dimensions
and Leadership Behaviors in Motivating Salesperson Work
Performance.” Journal of Marketing 49 (3):76–86. doi:
10.2307/1251617.
van Knippenberg, Daan, Barbara van Knippenberg, David De Cremer,
and Michael A. Hogg. 2004. “Leadership, Self, and Identity: A
Review and Research Agenda.” The Leadership Quarterly 15 (6):825–
56. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.002.
van Knippenberg, Daan. 2000. “Work Motivation and Performance: A
Social Identity Perspective.” Applied Psychology 49 (3):357–71. doi:
10.1111/1464-0597.00020.
Van Leeuwen, E., and D. van Knippenberg. 1999. Social Value
Orientations and Group Performance: The Role of Expectations of
Other Group Members’ Effort, Unpublished Manuscript, Leiden
University.
Vansteenkiste, Maarten, Bart Neyrinck, Christopher P. Niemiec, Bart
Soenens, Hans Witte, and Anja Broeck. 2007. “On the Relations
among Work Value Orientations, Psychological Need Satisfaction
and Job Outcomes: A Self-Determination Theory Approach.” Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 80 (2):251–77. doi:
10.1348/096317906X111024.
Verbeke, Willem, Bart Dietz, and Ernst Verwaal. 2010. “Drivers of
Sales Performance: A Contemporary Meta-Analysis. Have Salespeople
Become Knowledge Brokers?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 39 (3):407–28. doi: 10.1007/s11747-010-0211-8.
Vieira, Valter Afonso, Juliano Domingues da Silva, and Colin Gabler.
2019. “Overcoming over-Identification: The Power of Organizational
Prestige in Optimizing Sales Performance.” Marketing Intelligence
& Planning 37 (3):258–70. doi: 10.1108/MIP-07-2018-0261.
Walumbwa, Fred O., and Chad A. Hartnell. 2011. “Understanding
Transformational Leadership– Employee Performance Links: The
Role of Relational Identification and Self-Efficacy.” Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84 (1):153–72. doi:
10.1348/096317910X485818.
Wang, Xiao-Hua, and Jane M. Howell. 2012. “A Multilevel Study of
Transformational Leadership, Identification, and Follower Outcomes.”
The Leadership Quarterly 23 (5):775–90. doi: 10.1016/j.lea-
qua.2012.02.001.
Weitz, Barton A., Harish Sujan, and Mita Sujan. 1986. “Knowledge,
Motivation, and Adaptive Behavior: A Framework for Improving
Selling Effectiveness.” Journal of Marketing 50 (4):174–91. doi:
10.2307/1251294.
264 M. L. MALLIN ET AL.
Wieseke, Jan, Michael Ahearne, Son K. Lam, and Rolf van Dick. 2009.
“The Role of Leaders in Internal Marketing: A Multilevel Examination
through the Lens of Social Identity Theory.” Journal of Marketing
73 (2):123–46. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.73.2.123.
Zain, Osman, and Muhammad Jan, International Islamic University
Malaysia. 2014. “The Extent of Factors Influencing Automobile
Salesperson’s Career Tenure in Malaysia.” Asian Journal of Business
Research 4 (1):1–21. doi: 10.14707/ajbr.140004.
Zhao, Xinshu, John G. Lynch, Jr, and Qimei Chen. 2010.
“Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about
Mediation Analysis.” Journal of Consumer Research 37 (2):197–206.
doi: 10.1086/651257.
Zhu, Weichun, Gang Wang, Xiaoming Zhen, Taoxiong Liu, and Qing Miao.
2013. “Examining the Role of Personal Identification with the Leader
in Leadership Effectiveness: A Partial Nomological Network.” Group &
Organization Management 38 (1):36–67. doi: 10.1177/1059601112456595.
Copyright of Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management is the property of Taylor &
Francis Ltd 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.