- Email: [email protected]
Comparisons of Alternative Perceptions of Sales Performance
Comparisons of Alternative Perceptions of Sales Performance Paul A. Dion Peter M. Banting This article reports on the results of a study of 111 industrial market triads each consisting of a salesperson, a sales manager, and a buyer. Data was gathered on a host of sales performance variables considered important to industrial market managers and researchers. It was found that there are discrepancies between the assessments of salesperson performance made by the three classes of respondents and that there was often disagreement in a triad as to what constituted good sales performance. Buyers did not evaluate male and female salespeople differently regardless of the gender of the buyer. © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The vast majority of studies, which have investigated the industrial trade relationship, have viewed it as a buyer– Address correspondence to Paul A. Dion, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA 17870 USA.
Industrial Marketing Management 29, 263–270 (2000) © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
seller dyad [1]. Whereas this approach is clearly superior to unilateral studies of buyers or sellers alone, it does not adequately capture the relationship between sales management and the industrial salesperson. While obviously the buyer’s view is paramount to the success of the relationship, the nature of the sales manager–salesperson interaction has a great influence on the efficacy of the marketing program. To effectively plan, the sales manager must have the same view of the salesperson’s performance as the buyer does. In addition, a lack of congruity between the sales manager and salesperson views of the salesperson’s performance can lead only to conflict and ineffectiveness. A major objective of this study is to compare the sales manager’s, salesperson’s, and buyer’s perceptions of the salesperson’s performance in the trade relationship they share. The dimensions of the trade relationship addressed in this study are listed in Table 1 with a justification for their inclusion in the study. A more extensive discussion can be found in the sources cited [1–7]. These specific salesperson behaviors evoke percep-
0019-8501/00/$–see front matter PII S0019-8501(99)00069-3
Adaptive selling efforts that salespeople and their managers see as significant are less noticeable to buyers. tions of the salesperson’s performance on these individual dimensions. These perceptions in turn support the buyer’s evaluation of the salesperson’s overall performance. There is little empirical evidence that the perceptions of the salesperson’s performance on these dimensions by the manager, salesperson, and buyer should be the same, or different. Logic would suggest that discrepancies that are large enough to be dysfunctional to the trade relationship would be corrected by the exigencies of marketplace success. However, this would occur in the long term, and markets are not always perfectly effective. A second objective of the study is to examine gender differences in salesperson performance. The tripartite view of the industrial trade relationship adopted here offers a unique opportunity to address this question. Many authors have offered rationales for differential gender performances on the variables addressed in this study and many differences have been observed. For a review of these findings [8–15] see Table 2 below. These differences have been measured as buyer and salesperson perceptions [1]. Whereas the buyer’s is the most important perspective, an interesting perspective is whether any differences in buyer perceptions observed have a parallel in sales organization perceptions, here measured as sales manager perceptions. If gender differences in perfor-
PAUL A. DION is Associate Professor of Management, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania, USA. His research interests include sales and purchasing performance, marketing logistics, and web-based marketing education. PETER M. BANTING is a consultant with Telecom Research and Professor Emeritus McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He earned his Ph.D. at Michigan State University and is coauthor of the 1993 book Business Marketing.
264
mance are significant in the eyes of buyers, they should be paralleled by seller side perceptions on the part of salespersons and managers. A three-way audit of any differences should yield clues as to how they arise. Two specific questions are addressed: 1. Do buyers observe significant gender differences in salesperson performance on the specific sales behaviors listed in Table 1? 2. Do sales managers observe significant gender differences in salesperson performance on the specific sales behaviors listed in Table 1? 3. Another related question is whether the salesperson/ sales manager gender combination influences performance perceptions.
STUDY METHOD The study collected data from 111 industrial market trade triads (buyer, salesperson, and salesperson’s sales manager) located in the eastern part of the United States
TABLE 1 List of Trade Relationship Dimensions Studied and Their Importance to the Trade Relationship Dimension
Importance
Adaptive selling Trust Presentation skills Product expertise Build trade relationship
Meet unique buyer requirements [2] Buyer vulnerable to salesperson [1] Give buyer impression of seller offer [3] Buyer’s outcome depends on advice [4] Long-term goal of industrial marketing Marketing mix negotiated with industrial market buyers Linked to trust/perfoirmance of seller [1,5,6] Linked to performance [7] Essential to direction of salesperson and marketing program
Negotiation skill Similarity to buyer Salesperson satisfaction Manager/salesperson communication
Buyers rate salespeople as more trustworthy than either salespeople or sales managers. and Canada. The objective was to assess the industrial trade relationship from three points of view on the following dimensions: adaptiveness of sales presentation, trust of salesperson, salesperson presentation skills, salesperson product expertise, success in building trade relationships, skill as a win-win negotiator, that is, integrative solutions, perceived similarity to buyer, overall salesperson performance, role ambiguity and conflict (salesperson respondents only), salesperson satisfaction, manager–salesperson communication, degree of performance feedback received by salesperson from buyer and manager, and rate of turnover of salespeople (manager questionnaire). In addition the respondent’s number of years on the job, gender, marital status, industry affiliation, educational level, and age were recorded. Separate but parallel versions of the research questionnaire were
TABLE 2 Literature Summary of Gender Differences on Sales Performances Findings by performance dimension Overall performance of women perceived as inferior Women rated higher on performance and selling skills Experience difficulty with industrial sales task Women evaluated differently Women less severely critized for infractions because less expected of them Women suffer from negative stereotypes Women have higher empathy for buyers Women excell at communication Women seen as less professional than men Women ranked lower on product knowledge by buyers Women not trusted as much as men Women make better prepared sales presentations Women lack confidence and competitive socialization Women have less access to informal communication network
Author Jolson and Comer [8] Schul and Wren [9] Swan and Futrell [10] Swan et al. [11] Bellizzi and Norvell [12] Cook and Corey [3]; Russ and McNeilly [13] Dion et al. [1] Bertrand [14] Dion et al. [1] Cook and Corey [3]; Swan et al. [11]; Russ and McNeilly [13] Bertrand [14]; Fugate et al. [15] Cook and Corey [3] Bertrand [14] Schul and Wren [9]
developed for the three classes of respondent. Triads from the following industries comprised the sample: agriculture, mining, communications, finance, construction, manufacturing, wholesale, and retail. Female respondents accounted for 33 of the buyers, 21 of the salespeople, and 15 of the sales managers. Data Collection Method Students from two educational institutions collected data, one in Southern Ontario Canada and one in the New York City area. Each student in several industrial market course sections had the responsibility of approaching an industrial sales manager and identifying a salesperson and a buyer upon whom the salesperson called. The students worked from written instructions and checked with the instructor to ensure the quality of the data. The student provided instruction to the members of the triad so that all responses pertained to the same salesperson and trade relationship. The completed questionnaires then were returned directly to the researchers by mail. Measurement of Variables The research variables were measured using six-point (value ⫽ 6 strongly agree; value ⫽ 1, strongly disagree) Likert scales. Individual research questions were then combined into multi-item scales. Table 3 lists for each multi-item scale the number of items, a sample item (sales manager version), and the Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficients for each version of the questionnaire. Validity To determine whether the research variables measured distinct concepts, the component questionnaire items for each scale were factor analyzed as a group by using a VARIMAX rotation technique. The rotated factor patterns revealed that for sales manager, salesperson, and buyer data the component variables loaded heavily on one factor. 265
There is only slight agreement between the sales manager and the buyer as to which salespersons are adaptive in their sales presentations. STUDY RESULTS Do the Salesperson, Sales Manager and Buyer Have Different Views of the Salesperson’s Performance? The answer seems to be only on some dimensions. Salespeople and sales managers view the salesperson as being more adaptive in their sales presentations than the buyer does (t ⫽ 4.92, P ⭐ .01 and t ⫽ 3.64, P ⭐ .01, respectively). Given that it is the buyer’s perceptions that count, this finding suggests that the presentations made by salespeople are not as attuned to the buyers’ needs as marketers may like to think. In other words, the adaptive selling efforts that salespeople and their managers see as significant are less noticeable to buyers. Buyers rate salespeople as more trustworthy than
either salespeople (t ⫽ 4.76, P ⭐ .01) or sales managers (t ⫽ 4.51, P ⭐ .01) view them. Salespeople and managers, however, showed no significant difference in their assessment of the salesperson’s trustworthiness. Given that trust is a major component of the industrial trade relationship [1], this lack of congruity in perceptions is important. The sales side may be overly cynical about the integrity of their marketing efforts, or buyers may be viewing their trade relationships with rose colored glasses. The present study does not resolve this question. Sales managers view their communication with salespeople as more effective than either the salesperson (t ⫽ 3.23, P ⭐ .01) or buyer does (t ⫽ 2.83, P ⭐ .01). When salesperson satisfaction was regressed on the “difference” between the salesperson’s and the sales manager’s view of communication and salesperson experience, the
TABLE 3 Sample Items and Reliability Coefficients Items (n)
Buyer
Sales Manager
Salesperson
Sample Item
Adaptive Trust Presentation skills Sales expertise Similarity
3 3 3 3 3
0.69 0.80 0.70 0.80 0.87
0.69 0.54 0.80 0.84 0.79
0.70 0.75 0.74 0.72 0.79
Build trade relationship Salesperson turnover Overall performance Salesperson satisfaction Communication Performance feedback Role ambiguity Role conflict Negotiation skills
3 3 4
0.75 na 0.73
0.75 0.77 0.64
0.72 na 0.55
This salesperson uses a variety of approaches. Buyers trust this salesperson. This salesperson has good presentation skills. Buyers can rely on the product expertise they receive from this salesperson. This salesperson is the same type of person as the buyer. This salesperson has been successful at building a trade relationship with the buyer’s company. Salesperson turnover in this company is low. Overall, this salesperson represents their company well.
3 3 4 2 2 3
0.87 0.37 0.77 0.47 0.66 0.71
0.83 0.55 0.71 0.52 0.65 0.87
0.90 0.71 0.65 0.12 0.37 0.66
This salesperson is satisfied with their job. I keep my salespeople informed about what is going on. I let this salesperson know how he is doing. This salesperson knows exactly what is expected of him. I expect this salesperson to do things against their better judgment. When this salesperson makes a sales proposal, both sides win.
Scale
na, not applicable.
266
There was no agreement on which salespersons have good sales presentation skills. communication difference had a significant impact on satisfaction (t ⫽ 3.74, P ⭐ .01). Another finding was that in terms of providing feedback to the salesperson the salesperson feels the buyer does the best job (mean 17.96). Sales managers score their feedback to the salesperson at 15.63 whereas buyers rate their feedback at 14.54. All comparisons are statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Salespeople appear to be saying that buyers’ opinions are clearer to them. This is understandable and salutary given those buyers are the decision makers in the trade relationship. Buyers seem to underestimate the effect of their views on the salesperson. Sales managers viewed salespeople as more certain about their responsibilities than either buyers or the salespeople themselves did. The means were 8.52, 7.93 and 7.11, respectively, and the differences between scores were all significant at the 0.05 level or lower. Boundary role positions, such a salespeople hold, are bound to have some ambiguities of role expectation be-
TABLE 4 Significant Correlations Scale Adaptive selling Trust Presentation Expert Similarity building trade Performance Satisfaction Communication Feedback Ambiguity Conflict Negotiation
SM/SP
SM/B
cause of their very nature. Role ambiguity can become counterproductive when the disparity of expectations hampers the achievement of common goals. It was found that differences in the sales manager’s and salesperson’s evaluation of the communication and feedback provided to the salesperson were significantly correlated to role ambiguity (r ⫽ ⫺0.33, P ⭐ .01 and r ⫽ ⫺0.25, P ⭐ .01, respectively). It also was found that the “difference” between the between the salesperson’s and the sales manager’s view of role ambiguity was a significant influence on salesperson satisfaction when salesperson experience was held constant in a regression analysis (t ⫽ 2.93, P ⭐ .0042). However, without further investigation, it is difficult to assess whether the differences observed here are large enough to seriously impede the sales effort. In summary, the differences in the perceptions of sales performance by the three different respondents are few in number but may be of interest to managers given that they involve such central variables as trust, adaptive selling, communication, and role expectations. Managers also should be aware that salesperson satisfaction may suffer as a result of differences in salesperson and sales manager views of the relationship.
SP/B
.12 .40 .47 .46 .31 .33 .53 .31 .31 .34 .20
P ⱕ .05. SM, sales manager; SP, salesperson; B, buyer.
.22 .23 .29 .37 .39 .21 .25 .36
.23 .33 .35 .30 .25 .42
Do the Salesperson, Sales Manager and Buyer Agree on What Is Good Sales Performance? The preceding analysis addressed the question as to whether the three classes of respondents viewed the level of sales performances (means) in a congruent fashion. A related question is whether they agree on what is good performance. To address this question, we calculated correlation coefficients between the three respondent scores on the research variables (see Table 4 ). If the perceptions of the sales manager, buyer, and salesperson significantly correlate, it demonstrates that where one re267
Gender differences do not assume the importance they appeared to have had in the past. spondent assesses the salesperson as above the mean, the correlation pair also does. What is most interesting about the results in Table 4 is the lack of significant correlation (blank cells) where one would expect to find a relationship. Specifically: • There is only slight agreement (r ⫽ 0.12) between the sales manager and the buyer as to which salespersons are adaptive in their sales presentations. • The sales manager and buyer do not agree on which salespersons are most trustworthy. • There was no agreement on which salespersons have good sales presentations skills. • Only the sales manager and salesperson agree as to whether the salesperson and buyer are similar and whether the salesperson is a good negotiator. The lack of correlation between the assessments means that there is either no agreement on what good performance should be and/or no agreement on which salespeople exhibit good performance. Imagine a figure skating competition where the judges all gave disparate scores. This appears to be the case in the industrial trade relationship for some sales behaviors. Effective sales management requires that there should be agreement on these dimensions because management cannot control what they cannot reliably assess. Another point to consider is that the buyer’s standard for sales performance should be dominant if the firm is really in touch with its buyers. Is Gender a Significant Factor in Performance Evaluations? BUYER EVALUATIONS. When difference of means tests were performed on male and female salesperson subsamples, the buyers saw no significant differences in performance. In addition, the gender of the buyer made no difference in their assessment. These findings are con268
trary to some of the differences reported in the literature review in Table 2. Hopefully they demonstrate improvements in the work environment for female salespeople that have occurred between the time these studies cited above were conducted and the present 1997 research time frame. It also was found that salesperson expertise and tenure were related (r ⫽ 0.20, P ⫽ 0.04), but gender and tenure were not related. Thus, gender did not influence performance through tenure. SALES MANAGER EVALUATIONS. The only distinction that sales managers made was that women were seen as more adaptive by sales managers: (means 11.68 vs. 12.8, F ⫽ 3.65, P ⫽ .03). However, when sales managers were subsampled by gender and were paired with salespeople of the same and different gender, the following differences were observed: • Male managers viewed male salespeople as more adaptive in their selling practices (F ⫽ 5.71, P ⫽ .02) and more satisfied (F ⫽ 3.75, P ⫽ .05). • Female managers viewed female salespeople as more satisfied (F ⫽ 4.19, P ⭐ .05). Two other variables; overall performance (F ⫽ 3.95, P ⭐ .062), and negotiation performance (F ⫽ 3.85, P ⭐ .065) were close to statistical significance. However, remember that the small number of female sales managers (15) limited the acuity of statistical tests on this sample. This last finding of gender nepotism is supported by research reported by Dobbins [16] that female supervisors were more supportive of female subordinates. In general, however, gender differences, as observed in this research, do not assume the importance they appeared to have had in the past. In addition, the buyers who responded showed no bias on the basis of gender. This is particularly supportive of managers seeking to hire female salespeople.
The buyers saw no differences in male and female subsample performances. SUMMARY AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS In terms of the how the three parties viewed salesperson performance, salesperson presentations were not found by the buyer to be as adaptive as the sales manager and salesperson viewed them. Also, buyers were less cynical about salesperson trustworthiness than the sales side. What this demonstrates is that sellers may in some cases be acting on false assumptions regarding the buyer. If this is in fact the case, then sales management may have to invest in buyer research projects. Salespeople also reported clearer feedback from buyers than from sales management. This is salutary for the trade relationships even though it may indicate less than optimum sales management practice. A more disturbing finding, from a managerial point of view, is that when the responses of the industrial trade triad were correlated, there was a lack of agreement in assessing a number of important sales performances, such as adaptiveness, trust, presentation skills, buyer–seller similarity, and negotiation performance. These findings are “disturbing” because, as was pointed out above, there appears to be a lack of agreement on what good performance is, or should be, and as a result of this confusion, which salespeople are performing well. This situation is an obvious impediment to effective sales force management and will require that managers more clearly define their sales performance objectives in measurable and operational terms are consistent across the triad. These must be anchored in the buyer’s viewpoint, and thus again research into the buyer’s viewpoint is recommended. Buyers observed no significant differences in the performances of male and female salespeople. Nor did the gender of the buyer have any influence on these evaluations. This is an improvement over past studies in which differences were found and may reflect a more genderneutral workplace. On the bases of these results, managers should place female sales recruits into the field with confidence. Sales managers did display some minor gender nepotism and are advised to keep in mind the buyer’s neutrality on this issue.
The reader also should keep in mind that the nature of the industrial market relationship in the buyer–salesperson–sales manager triad should vary by industry. An analysis of differences by industry grouping did not prove to be significant in this study. However, this result is probably due in part to the fact that the total sample size of 111 was distributed across eight industry groups. A larger sample would have more statistical power to discern any industry group differences and would be an improvement on the present study. REFERENCES 1. Dion, P. A., Easterling, Debbie, and Javalgi, Raj: Women in the Businessto-Business Salesforce: Some Differences in Performance Factors. Industrial Marketing Management 26(5), 447–457 (1997). 2. Weitz, B. A. , Sujan, H., and Sujan, S.: Knowledge, Motivation, and Adaptive Behavior: A Framework for Improving Selling Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing 50 (Oct), 174–191 (1986). 3. Cook, Robert W., and Corey, Robert J.: A Confirmatory Investigation of Industrial Buyer Image of the Sales-Woman. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19(3), 199–207 (1991). 4. Swan, John E., and Jones Nolan, Johannah: Gaining Customer Trust: A Conceptual Guide for the Salesperson. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management (Nov), 39–48 (1985). 5. Fine, Seymour H.: Buyer and Seller Psychographics in Industrial Purchase Decisions. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 6(1-2), 49–58 (1991). 6. Barrick, Murray R., and Mount, Michael K.: The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta Analysis. Personnel Psychology 44, 1–26 (1991). 7. Kennedy, Ellen J., and Lawton, Leigh: Men and Women in Industrial Sales: Satisfaction and Outcomes. Industrial Marketing Management 21, 5–14 (1992). 8. Jolson, Marvin A., and Comer, Lucette: Use of Sex-Role Identity to Classify Women in Selling. The Marketing Educator 6, 110 (1987). 9. Schul, Patrick, and Wren, Brent M.: The Emerging Role of Women in Industrial Selling: A Decade of Change. Journal of Marketing 56, 38–54 (1992). 10. Swan, John E., and Futrell, Charles M.: Men versus Women in Industrial Selling: A Performance Gap. Industrial Marketing Management 7, 369– 373 (1978). 11. Swan, John E., Rink, David R., Kiser, G. E., and Martin, Warren S.: Indus-
269
trial Buyer Image of the Saleswomen. Journal of Marketing 48, 110–116 (1984).
14. Bertrand, Kate: Women Break the Sales Glass Ceiling. Business Marketing 72(11), 38 (1987).
12. Bellizzi, J. A., and Norvell, D. Wayne: Personal Characteristics and Salesperson’s Justifications as Moderators of Supervisory Discipline in Cases Involving Unethical Salesforce Behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19(1), 11–16 (1991).
15. Fugate, Douglas L., Decker, Philip J., Brewer, Joyce J.: Women in Professional Selling: A Human Resource Management Perspective. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management VIII, 33–41 (1988).
13. Russ, Frederick A., and McNeilly, Kevin M.: Has Sex Stereotyping Disappeared? A Study of Perceptions of Women and Men in Sales. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management VIII, 43–54 (1988).
16. Dobbins, G. H.: Effects of Gender on Leaders’ Responses to Poor Performers: An Attributional Interpretation. Academy of Management Journal 28, 587–598 (1985).
270
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The vast majority of studies, which have investigated the industrial trade relationship, have viewed it as a buyer– Address correspondence to Paul A. Dion, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA 17870 USA.
Industrial Marketing Management 29, 263–270 (2000) © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
seller dyad [1]. Whereas this approach is clearly superior to unilateral studies of buyers or sellers alone, it does not adequately capture the relationship between sales management and the industrial salesperson. While obviously the buyer’s view is paramount to the success of the relationship, the nature of the sales manager–salesperson interaction has a great influence on the efficacy of the marketing program. To effectively plan, the sales manager must have the same view of the salesperson’s performance as the buyer does. In addition, a lack of congruity between the sales manager and salesperson views of the salesperson’s performance can lead only to conflict and ineffectiveness. A major objective of this study is to compare the sales manager’s, salesperson’s, and buyer’s perceptions of the salesperson’s performance in the trade relationship they share. The dimensions of the trade relationship addressed in this study are listed in Table 1 with a justification for their inclusion in the study. A more extensive discussion can be found in the sources cited [1–7]. These specific salesperson behaviors evoke percep-
0019-8501/00/$–see front matter PII S0019-8501(99)00069-3
Adaptive selling efforts that salespeople and their managers see as significant are less noticeable to buyers. tions of the salesperson’s performance on these individual dimensions. These perceptions in turn support the buyer’s evaluation of the salesperson’s overall performance. There is little empirical evidence that the perceptions of the salesperson’s performance on these dimensions by the manager, salesperson, and buyer should be the same, or different. Logic would suggest that discrepancies that are large enough to be dysfunctional to the trade relationship would be corrected by the exigencies of marketplace success. However, this would occur in the long term, and markets are not always perfectly effective. A second objective of the study is to examine gender differences in salesperson performance. The tripartite view of the industrial trade relationship adopted here offers a unique opportunity to address this question. Many authors have offered rationales for differential gender performances on the variables addressed in this study and many differences have been observed. For a review of these findings [8–15] see Table 2 below. These differences have been measured as buyer and salesperson perceptions [1]. Whereas the buyer’s is the most important perspective, an interesting perspective is whether any differences in buyer perceptions observed have a parallel in sales organization perceptions, here measured as sales manager perceptions. If gender differences in perfor-
PAUL A. DION is Associate Professor of Management, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania, USA. His research interests include sales and purchasing performance, marketing logistics, and web-based marketing education. PETER M. BANTING is a consultant with Telecom Research and Professor Emeritus McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He earned his Ph.D. at Michigan State University and is coauthor of the 1993 book Business Marketing.
264
mance are significant in the eyes of buyers, they should be paralleled by seller side perceptions on the part of salespersons and managers. A three-way audit of any differences should yield clues as to how they arise. Two specific questions are addressed: 1. Do buyers observe significant gender differences in salesperson performance on the specific sales behaviors listed in Table 1? 2. Do sales managers observe significant gender differences in salesperson performance on the specific sales behaviors listed in Table 1? 3. Another related question is whether the salesperson/ sales manager gender combination influences performance perceptions.
STUDY METHOD The study collected data from 111 industrial market trade triads (buyer, salesperson, and salesperson’s sales manager) located in the eastern part of the United States
TABLE 1 List of Trade Relationship Dimensions Studied and Their Importance to the Trade Relationship Dimension
Importance
Adaptive selling Trust Presentation skills Product expertise Build trade relationship
Meet unique buyer requirements [2] Buyer vulnerable to salesperson [1] Give buyer impression of seller offer [3] Buyer’s outcome depends on advice [4] Long-term goal of industrial marketing Marketing mix negotiated with industrial market buyers Linked to trust/perfoirmance of seller [1,5,6] Linked to performance [7] Essential to direction of salesperson and marketing program
Negotiation skill Similarity to buyer Salesperson satisfaction Manager/salesperson communication
Buyers rate salespeople as more trustworthy than either salespeople or sales managers. and Canada. The objective was to assess the industrial trade relationship from three points of view on the following dimensions: adaptiveness of sales presentation, trust of salesperson, salesperson presentation skills, salesperson product expertise, success in building trade relationships, skill as a win-win negotiator, that is, integrative solutions, perceived similarity to buyer, overall salesperson performance, role ambiguity and conflict (salesperson respondents only), salesperson satisfaction, manager–salesperson communication, degree of performance feedback received by salesperson from buyer and manager, and rate of turnover of salespeople (manager questionnaire). In addition the respondent’s number of years on the job, gender, marital status, industry affiliation, educational level, and age were recorded. Separate but parallel versions of the research questionnaire were
TABLE 2 Literature Summary of Gender Differences on Sales Performances Findings by performance dimension Overall performance of women perceived as inferior Women rated higher on performance and selling skills Experience difficulty with industrial sales task Women evaluated differently Women less severely critized for infractions because less expected of them Women suffer from negative stereotypes Women have higher empathy for buyers Women excell at communication Women seen as less professional than men Women ranked lower on product knowledge by buyers Women not trusted as much as men Women make better prepared sales presentations Women lack confidence and competitive socialization Women have less access to informal communication network
Author Jolson and Comer [8] Schul and Wren [9] Swan and Futrell [10] Swan et al. [11] Bellizzi and Norvell [12] Cook and Corey [3]; Russ and McNeilly [13] Dion et al. [1] Bertrand [14] Dion et al. [1] Cook and Corey [3]; Swan et al. [11]; Russ and McNeilly [13] Bertrand [14]; Fugate et al. [15] Cook and Corey [3] Bertrand [14] Schul and Wren [9]
developed for the three classes of respondent. Triads from the following industries comprised the sample: agriculture, mining, communications, finance, construction, manufacturing, wholesale, and retail. Female respondents accounted for 33 of the buyers, 21 of the salespeople, and 15 of the sales managers. Data Collection Method Students from two educational institutions collected data, one in Southern Ontario Canada and one in the New York City area. Each student in several industrial market course sections had the responsibility of approaching an industrial sales manager and identifying a salesperson and a buyer upon whom the salesperson called. The students worked from written instructions and checked with the instructor to ensure the quality of the data. The student provided instruction to the members of the triad so that all responses pertained to the same salesperson and trade relationship. The completed questionnaires then were returned directly to the researchers by mail. Measurement of Variables The research variables were measured using six-point (value ⫽ 6 strongly agree; value ⫽ 1, strongly disagree) Likert scales. Individual research questions were then combined into multi-item scales. Table 3 lists for each multi-item scale the number of items, a sample item (sales manager version), and the Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficients for each version of the questionnaire. Validity To determine whether the research variables measured distinct concepts, the component questionnaire items for each scale were factor analyzed as a group by using a VARIMAX rotation technique. The rotated factor patterns revealed that for sales manager, salesperson, and buyer data the component variables loaded heavily on one factor. 265
There is only slight agreement between the sales manager and the buyer as to which salespersons are adaptive in their sales presentations. STUDY RESULTS Do the Salesperson, Sales Manager and Buyer Have Different Views of the Salesperson’s Performance? The answer seems to be only on some dimensions. Salespeople and sales managers view the salesperson as being more adaptive in their sales presentations than the buyer does (t ⫽ 4.92, P ⭐ .01 and t ⫽ 3.64, P ⭐ .01, respectively). Given that it is the buyer’s perceptions that count, this finding suggests that the presentations made by salespeople are not as attuned to the buyers’ needs as marketers may like to think. In other words, the adaptive selling efforts that salespeople and their managers see as significant are less noticeable to buyers. Buyers rate salespeople as more trustworthy than
either salespeople (t ⫽ 4.76, P ⭐ .01) or sales managers (t ⫽ 4.51, P ⭐ .01) view them. Salespeople and managers, however, showed no significant difference in their assessment of the salesperson’s trustworthiness. Given that trust is a major component of the industrial trade relationship [1], this lack of congruity in perceptions is important. The sales side may be overly cynical about the integrity of their marketing efforts, or buyers may be viewing their trade relationships with rose colored glasses. The present study does not resolve this question. Sales managers view their communication with salespeople as more effective than either the salesperson (t ⫽ 3.23, P ⭐ .01) or buyer does (t ⫽ 2.83, P ⭐ .01). When salesperson satisfaction was regressed on the “difference” between the salesperson’s and the sales manager’s view of communication and salesperson experience, the
TABLE 3 Sample Items and Reliability Coefficients Items (n)
Buyer
Sales Manager
Salesperson
Sample Item
Adaptive Trust Presentation skills Sales expertise Similarity
3 3 3 3 3
0.69 0.80 0.70 0.80 0.87
0.69 0.54 0.80 0.84 0.79
0.70 0.75 0.74 0.72 0.79
Build trade relationship Salesperson turnover Overall performance Salesperson satisfaction Communication Performance feedback Role ambiguity Role conflict Negotiation skills
3 3 4
0.75 na 0.73
0.75 0.77 0.64
0.72 na 0.55
This salesperson uses a variety of approaches. Buyers trust this salesperson. This salesperson has good presentation skills. Buyers can rely on the product expertise they receive from this salesperson. This salesperson is the same type of person as the buyer. This salesperson has been successful at building a trade relationship with the buyer’s company. Salesperson turnover in this company is low. Overall, this salesperson represents their company well.
3 3 4 2 2 3
0.87 0.37 0.77 0.47 0.66 0.71
0.83 0.55 0.71 0.52 0.65 0.87
0.90 0.71 0.65 0.12 0.37 0.66
This salesperson is satisfied with their job. I keep my salespeople informed about what is going on. I let this salesperson know how he is doing. This salesperson knows exactly what is expected of him. I expect this salesperson to do things against their better judgment. When this salesperson makes a sales proposal, both sides win.
Scale
na, not applicable.
266
There was no agreement on which salespersons have good sales presentation skills. communication difference had a significant impact on satisfaction (t ⫽ 3.74, P ⭐ .01). Another finding was that in terms of providing feedback to the salesperson the salesperson feels the buyer does the best job (mean 17.96). Sales managers score their feedback to the salesperson at 15.63 whereas buyers rate their feedback at 14.54. All comparisons are statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Salespeople appear to be saying that buyers’ opinions are clearer to them. This is understandable and salutary given those buyers are the decision makers in the trade relationship. Buyers seem to underestimate the effect of their views on the salesperson. Sales managers viewed salespeople as more certain about their responsibilities than either buyers or the salespeople themselves did. The means were 8.52, 7.93 and 7.11, respectively, and the differences between scores were all significant at the 0.05 level or lower. Boundary role positions, such a salespeople hold, are bound to have some ambiguities of role expectation be-
TABLE 4 Significant Correlations Scale Adaptive selling Trust Presentation Expert Similarity building trade Performance Satisfaction Communication Feedback Ambiguity Conflict Negotiation
SM/SP
SM/B
cause of their very nature. Role ambiguity can become counterproductive when the disparity of expectations hampers the achievement of common goals. It was found that differences in the sales manager’s and salesperson’s evaluation of the communication and feedback provided to the salesperson were significantly correlated to role ambiguity (r ⫽ ⫺0.33, P ⭐ .01 and r ⫽ ⫺0.25, P ⭐ .01, respectively). It also was found that the “difference” between the between the salesperson’s and the sales manager’s view of role ambiguity was a significant influence on salesperson satisfaction when salesperson experience was held constant in a regression analysis (t ⫽ 2.93, P ⭐ .0042). However, without further investigation, it is difficult to assess whether the differences observed here are large enough to seriously impede the sales effort. In summary, the differences in the perceptions of sales performance by the three different respondents are few in number but may be of interest to managers given that they involve such central variables as trust, adaptive selling, communication, and role expectations. Managers also should be aware that salesperson satisfaction may suffer as a result of differences in salesperson and sales manager views of the relationship.
SP/B
.12 .40 .47 .46 .31 .33 .53 .31 .31 .34 .20
P ⱕ .05. SM, sales manager; SP, salesperson; B, buyer.
.22 .23 .29 .37 .39 .21 .25 .36
.23 .33 .35 .30 .25 .42
Do the Salesperson, Sales Manager and Buyer Agree on What Is Good Sales Performance? The preceding analysis addressed the question as to whether the three classes of respondents viewed the level of sales performances (means) in a congruent fashion. A related question is whether they agree on what is good performance. To address this question, we calculated correlation coefficients between the three respondent scores on the research variables (see Table 4 ). If the perceptions of the sales manager, buyer, and salesperson significantly correlate, it demonstrates that where one re267
Gender differences do not assume the importance they appeared to have had in the past. spondent assesses the salesperson as above the mean, the correlation pair also does. What is most interesting about the results in Table 4 is the lack of significant correlation (blank cells) where one would expect to find a relationship. Specifically: • There is only slight agreement (r ⫽ 0.12) between the sales manager and the buyer as to which salespersons are adaptive in their sales presentations. • The sales manager and buyer do not agree on which salespersons are most trustworthy. • There was no agreement on which salespersons have good sales presentations skills. • Only the sales manager and salesperson agree as to whether the salesperson and buyer are similar and whether the salesperson is a good negotiator. The lack of correlation between the assessments means that there is either no agreement on what good performance should be and/or no agreement on which salespeople exhibit good performance. Imagine a figure skating competition where the judges all gave disparate scores. This appears to be the case in the industrial trade relationship for some sales behaviors. Effective sales management requires that there should be agreement on these dimensions because management cannot control what they cannot reliably assess. Another point to consider is that the buyer’s standard for sales performance should be dominant if the firm is really in touch with its buyers. Is Gender a Significant Factor in Performance Evaluations? BUYER EVALUATIONS. When difference of means tests were performed on male and female salesperson subsamples, the buyers saw no significant differences in performance. In addition, the gender of the buyer made no difference in their assessment. These findings are con268
trary to some of the differences reported in the literature review in Table 2. Hopefully they demonstrate improvements in the work environment for female salespeople that have occurred between the time these studies cited above were conducted and the present 1997 research time frame. It also was found that salesperson expertise and tenure were related (r ⫽ 0.20, P ⫽ 0.04), but gender and tenure were not related. Thus, gender did not influence performance through tenure. SALES MANAGER EVALUATIONS. The only distinction that sales managers made was that women were seen as more adaptive by sales managers: (means 11.68 vs. 12.8, F ⫽ 3.65, P ⫽ .03). However, when sales managers were subsampled by gender and were paired with salespeople of the same and different gender, the following differences were observed: • Male managers viewed male salespeople as more adaptive in their selling practices (F ⫽ 5.71, P ⫽ .02) and more satisfied (F ⫽ 3.75, P ⫽ .05). • Female managers viewed female salespeople as more satisfied (F ⫽ 4.19, P ⭐ .05). Two other variables; overall performance (F ⫽ 3.95, P ⭐ .062), and negotiation performance (F ⫽ 3.85, P ⭐ .065) were close to statistical significance. However, remember that the small number of female sales managers (15) limited the acuity of statistical tests on this sample. This last finding of gender nepotism is supported by research reported by Dobbins [16] that female supervisors were more supportive of female subordinates. In general, however, gender differences, as observed in this research, do not assume the importance they appeared to have had in the past. In addition, the buyers who responded showed no bias on the basis of gender. This is particularly supportive of managers seeking to hire female salespeople.
The buyers saw no differences in male and female subsample performances. SUMMARY AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS In terms of the how the three parties viewed salesperson performance, salesperson presentations were not found by the buyer to be as adaptive as the sales manager and salesperson viewed them. Also, buyers were less cynical about salesperson trustworthiness than the sales side. What this demonstrates is that sellers may in some cases be acting on false assumptions regarding the buyer. If this is in fact the case, then sales management may have to invest in buyer research projects. Salespeople also reported clearer feedback from buyers than from sales management. This is salutary for the trade relationships even though it may indicate less than optimum sales management practice. A more disturbing finding, from a managerial point of view, is that when the responses of the industrial trade triad were correlated, there was a lack of agreement in assessing a number of important sales performances, such as adaptiveness, trust, presentation skills, buyer–seller similarity, and negotiation performance. These findings are “disturbing” because, as was pointed out above, there appears to be a lack of agreement on what good performance is, or should be, and as a result of this confusion, which salespeople are performing well. This situation is an obvious impediment to effective sales force management and will require that managers more clearly define their sales performance objectives in measurable and operational terms are consistent across the triad. These must be anchored in the buyer’s viewpoint, and thus again research into the buyer’s viewpoint is recommended. Buyers observed no significant differences in the performances of male and female salespeople. Nor did the gender of the buyer have any influence on these evaluations. This is an improvement over past studies in which differences were found and may reflect a more genderneutral workplace. On the bases of these results, managers should place female sales recruits into the field with confidence. Sales managers did display some minor gender nepotism and are advised to keep in mind the buyer’s neutrality on this issue.
The reader also should keep in mind that the nature of the industrial market relationship in the buyer–salesperson–sales manager triad should vary by industry. An analysis of differences by industry grouping did not prove to be significant in this study. However, this result is probably due in part to the fact that the total sample size of 111 was distributed across eight industry groups. A larger sample would have more statistical power to discern any industry group differences and would be an improvement on the present study. REFERENCES 1. Dion, P. A., Easterling, Debbie, and Javalgi, Raj: Women in the Businessto-Business Salesforce: Some Differences in Performance Factors. Industrial Marketing Management 26(5), 447–457 (1997). 2. Weitz, B. A. , Sujan, H., and Sujan, S.: Knowledge, Motivation, and Adaptive Behavior: A Framework for Improving Selling Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing 50 (Oct), 174–191 (1986). 3. Cook, Robert W., and Corey, Robert J.: A Confirmatory Investigation of Industrial Buyer Image of the Sales-Woman. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19(3), 199–207 (1991). 4. Swan, John E., and Jones Nolan, Johannah: Gaining Customer Trust: A Conceptual Guide for the Salesperson. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management (Nov), 39–48 (1985). 5. Fine, Seymour H.: Buyer and Seller Psychographics in Industrial Purchase Decisions. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 6(1-2), 49–58 (1991). 6. Barrick, Murray R., and Mount, Michael K.: The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta Analysis. Personnel Psychology 44, 1–26 (1991). 7. Kennedy, Ellen J., and Lawton, Leigh: Men and Women in Industrial Sales: Satisfaction and Outcomes. Industrial Marketing Management 21, 5–14 (1992). 8. Jolson, Marvin A., and Comer, Lucette: Use of Sex-Role Identity to Classify Women in Selling. The Marketing Educator 6, 110 (1987). 9. Schul, Patrick, and Wren, Brent M.: The Emerging Role of Women in Industrial Selling: A Decade of Change. Journal of Marketing 56, 38–54 (1992). 10. Swan, John E., and Futrell, Charles M.: Men versus Women in Industrial Selling: A Performance Gap. Industrial Marketing Management 7, 369– 373 (1978). 11. Swan, John E., Rink, David R., Kiser, G. E., and Martin, Warren S.: Indus-
269
trial Buyer Image of the Saleswomen. Journal of Marketing 48, 110–116 (1984).
14. Bertrand, Kate: Women Break the Sales Glass Ceiling. Business Marketing 72(11), 38 (1987).
12. Bellizzi, J. A., and Norvell, D. Wayne: Personal Characteristics and Salesperson’s Justifications as Moderators of Supervisory Discipline in Cases Involving Unethical Salesforce Behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19(1), 11–16 (1991).
15. Fugate, Douglas L., Decker, Philip J., Brewer, Joyce J.: Women in Professional Selling: A Human Resource Management Perspective. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management VIII, 33–41 (1988).
13. Russ, Frederick A., and McNeilly, Kevin M.: Has Sex Stereotyping Disappeared? A Study of Perceptions of Women and Men in Sales. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management VIII, 43–54 (1988).
16. Dobbins, G. H.: Effects of Gender on Leaders’ Responses to Poor Performers: An Attributional Interpretation. Academy of Management Journal 28, 587–598 (1985).
270