Managing sales teams in a virtual environment

Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 213–224

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Intern. J. of Research in Marketing j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i j r e s m a r

Managing sales teams in a virtual environment Adam Rapp a, Michael Ahearne b,⁎, John Mathieu c, Tammy Rapp c a b c

Clemson University, USA University of Houston, USA University of Connecticut, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: First received in 5, October 2009 and was under review for 2½ months Keywords: Sales Virtual teams Team processes Virtuality Empowerment Experience Team performance

a b s t r a c t We investigate the linear and interactive influences of leader-empowering behaviors, team experience, and the degree of virtuality on team planning processes and performance among virtual sales teams. Collecting data across three separate time periods with 218 pharmaceutical sales teams, our results indicate that empowering leadership improves team planning processes and is moderated by the team's experience. Interestingly, it seems that, as teams gain more experience, they are less likely to engage in effective planning; however, these effects are attenuated as the team becomes more virtual in nature. Our findings have relevance for sales managers and salespeople in terms of leveraging team processes to influence performance as well as in terms of presenting the issues associated with virtual means of interaction. © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

“If you do [team selling] right, it can be the most rewarding selling situation because of the synergy that multiple reps can bring to a situation. One rep might get along better with a certain person in the office, another rep may say something to the customer a little differently, and that might just be enough to turn the doctor around. It gives us more chances to be successful.” (On pharmaceutical sales teams, McGuire, J.& Strandboge, P., 2006). 1. Introduction Few would argue that the nature of work in today's sales-based organizations is changing. Many sales organizations have responded to the escalating complexity, dynamism, and competition characterizing today's marketplace by implementing team-based selling structures (Deeter-Schmelz & Ramsey, 1995). The reasons underlying the shift to team-based selling are based on a belief that sales teams aid the formation of buyer–supplier relationships (Moon & Armstrong, 1994). Deeter-Schmelz and Ramsey, for example, point out that “One of the reasons for using teams over individuals is to facilitate an integration of information that results in more informed decisions and a more coordinated effort that can improve

⁎ Corresponding author. Sales Excellence Institute, University of Houston 334 Melcher Hall Houston, Texas, United States. Tel.: +1 713 743 4155; fax: +1 713 743 4572. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Ahearne). 0167-8116/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.003

performance, including responses to customers” (1995, p. 409). Advances in information and communication technology represent a related trend that is exerting a strong influence on sales-based organizations. Technology-based tools such as Customer Relationship Management (CRM) applications have enabled sales representatives to leverage immense databases containing information about customer buying patterns, product sales patterns, competitors' products, and so forth to better focus and customize selling efforts (Ahearne, Hughes, & Schillewaert, 2007; Jones, Dixon, Chonko, & Cannon, 2005). More recently still, CRM tools have given sales representatives the ability to share customer information and selling strategies as well as to balance workloads and facilitate cross-selling efforts with one another from a distance, or “virtually”. In this way, technology has prompted the advent of virtual sales teams, and, thus, it has allowed sales representatives to work in a way that was not possible before. Virtual sales teams offer flexibility, responsiveness, and a variety of benefits (for a review, see Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004) that sales-based organizations increasingly seek to leverage. Recently, Hackman (2002, p. 131) observed that virtual teams are especially prevalent in knowledge-work where “front-line activities… keep individual team members on the road much of the time, such as sales and service work [emphasis added]”. Despite becoming increasingly prevalent, virtual sales teams are not well researched. This is a cause for concern when one considers that the element of virtuality introduces a host of new challenges for sales managers charged with leading virtual sales teams. Existing research, for instance, has yet to examine how virtuality relates to sales teams' processes and effectiveness. The roles that

214

A. Rapp et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 213–224

external leadership and team experience play in the process are also not fully understood. This study addresses these questions and adds to our understanding of how best to manage virtual sales teams. We make several contributions to the literature. First, we advance a theory of how sales team leaders (i.e., empowering behaviors) and team composition (i.e., team experience) influence a team's processes (i.e., the behaviors that enable teams to orchestrate taskwork activities for goal accomplishment; see Marks, Mathieu, & Zacarro, 2001) and, thereby, the effectiveness of virtual sales teams. We consider those relationships as the core, more established features, of this research. Next, we examine the interaction of those two variables to gain insight into the complex interplay of factors influencing the effectiveness of virtual sales teams. Finally, we recognize that all virtual teams are not created equal; rather, they fall along a virtuality continuum, with some teams relying more heavily on virtual tools (i.e., any technology tool other than face-to-face interaction) to work and communicate (Cohen & Gibson, 2003; Griffith, Sawyer, & Neal, 2003). We examine how the degree of virtuality characterizing a virtual sales team combines with the two antecedent factors to influence virtual sales team processes. Because these interactive relationships can be explained in several ways, we believe that our exploration to uncover their relative effects within this research provides insight into a budding research stream. Our findings have important and surprising implications for managers in terms of the effects that virtuality and sales team composition (i.e., team experience) have on team processes. Fig. 1 summarizes our hypothesized relationships, which we test in a sample of virtual pharmaceutical sales teams.

1.1. Virtual sales teams Moon and Armstrong (1994, p. 21) described sales teams as “consist[ing] of selling organization members assigned to a particular customer who are actively involved in the development or implementation of the sales strategy for that customer”. Using the work team criteria established by Kozlowski and Bell (2003), the virtual sales teams examined in this research (a) exist to service and sell to the customer, (b) have performance goals that hinge on team-level performance, (c) interact socially, (d) coordinate and plan among

members to call on customers, (e) operate with certain expectations and boundaries regarding the task (i.e., providing information, closing, etc.), and (f) operate within an organizational context that establishes team territories and quotas and provides the technology for communication amongst team members. Given their increasing prevalence, there is a growing body of research on sales teams. In the marketing literature, the research consists primarily of anecdotal reports (e.g., Blessington, 1989; Cespedes, Doyle, & Freedman, 1989), descriptions of team selling contexts and characteristics (e.g., Arnett & Badrinarayanan, 2005; Deeter-Schmelz and Ramsey, 1995; Jackson, Widmier, Giacobbe, & Keith, 1999; Perry, Pearce, & Sims, 1999), and conceptual frameworks of sales team effectiveness (e.g., Dixon, Gassenheimer, & Barr, 2003; Jones et al., 2005; Moon & Armstrong, 1994; Moon & Gupta, 1997; Smith & Barclay, 1990; Cespedes, 1992). While largely limited to conceptual frameworks that describe sales teams or propose factors that may influence their effectiveness, marketing research has clearly identified team-based selling as an important trend in personal and professional selling. The majority of empirical work on sales teams derives from the management literature. With an early example of sales team research, Gladstein (1984) tested a comprehensive I–P–O model (i.e., Input– Process–Output) and found that active leadership, communication, supportiveness, and company tenure were associated with team ratings of satisfaction and performance but not with an objective measure of performance (i.e., sales revenue). Strutton and Pelton (1998) found that ingratiatory behavior influenced relationship quality among sales team members. Workman, Homburg, and Jensen (2003) empirically examined factors (e.g., activities and resources) influencing key account management team effectiveness. Jackson and Joshi (2004) examined team composition, finding that combinations of diversity (i.e., gender, tenure, and ethic) were negatively associated with sales team performance. They later examined pay inequalities in sales teams (Joshi, Liao, & Jackson, 2006). Haas and Hansen (2005) explored how different knowledge types affect task performance in consulting sales teams. Mehra and colleagues examined leaders' network centrality (Mehra, Dixon, Brass, & Robertson, 2006) and decentralized leadership structures (Mehra, Smith, Dixon, & Robertson, 2006) as related to sales team performance. Stock (2006) focused on interorganizational teams comprising members from both the

Fig. 1. Hypothesized model.

A. Rapp et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 213–224

buying and selling companies. While much remains to be learned about sales teams, researchers have clearly identified team selling as an important trend (Moon & Armstrong, 1994). It is surprising to note, however, that very little research has examined virtual sales teams. In addition to the numerous practitioner accounts of virtual sales teams (e.g., Beishon, 2006; Hennings, 2000), we located only one empirical study of virtual teams that used a sample of thirty-five sales and service teams (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004). 1.2. Team processes and team outcomes Much of the sales teams research subscribes to the I–P–O model (Hackman 1987), which depicts inputs (e.g., member characteristics) as leading to processes, which, in turn, drive team outcomes. Many classifications of team processes exist (e.g., Fleishman & Zaccaro, 1992; Prince & Salas, 1993); however, we use the Marks et al. (2001) taxonomy, which delineates three categories of team processes: planning (i.e., what Marks et al. referred to as transition), action, and interpersonal. Importantly, the focus within this research is on the team processes that enable the team to orchestrate taskwork activities for team effectiveness. Because “…virtual teams tend to have more of a task-focus and less of a social-focus than traditional teams” (Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004, p. 10), we limit our focus to the first two, taskrelated categories of team processes. 1.3. Relationship between planning and action processes Planning processes refer to team interactions that focus on evaluation and/or planning activities to guide team task accomplishment. These include mission analysis, goal specification, and strategy formulation. Action processes reflect four types of activities that occur as the team works toward the accomplishment of its goals and objectives. These include monitoring progress toward goals, systems monitoring, team backup, and coordination. Marks et al. (2001) maintain that planning and action phase processes have a natural temporal rhythm and relationship to one another, with planning processes preceding action processes. Supporting their contention, the goal-setting literature maintains that developing a shared vision, team goals, and objectives is an important way to improve cooperation among team members. Goals direct the attention, effort, and persistence of team members (Locke & Latham, 1990). Moreover, shared team goals improve the development of cooperative strategies and facilitate team performance (Weingart & Weldon, 1991). Thus, goal-setting can facilitate coordination by guiding members toward the same goal. Similarly, teams that develop and assign goals in their planning phases will be more cognizant of members' achievements relative to goals, and they will be able to provide backup behaviors if necessary to get their performance levels on track. Additionally, teams that engage in strategy formulation should experience a greater sense of ownership and responsibility with respect to the team's goals. In turn, this should give rise to both effective monitoring of team members and more effective backup behaviors when problems should arise. Hence, we hypothesized: Hypothesis 1. Planning processes will have a significant, positive effect on the execution of subsequent action processes. 1.4. Team outcomes Hackman (1987) proposed that a comprehensive assessment of success in ongoing work teams must capture both current effectiveness (i.e., team performance) and future effectiveness (i.e., capability/ desire to continue working together). In line with those recommendations, we examine sales team performance and team commitment as two outcomes in this research.

215

1.4.1. Team performance There are many examples of research demonstrating that action processes positively influence team performance. For instance, Weldon, Jehn, and Pradham (1991) found that performance monitoring positively influenced team performance, presumably because it gave members the opportunity to increase their efforts or adjust plans if it appeared that team goals would not be met. Similarly, research on team backup behaviors (Porter et al., 2003) and similar concepts including cooperation, workload sharing, and organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997; Jehn & Shah, 1997) provide evidence that backing up behavior has positive effects on performance. Recent meta-analytic results depict action processes as relating positively to team performance (LePine et al., 2008). We also expect that action processes will facilitate team performance. Thus, we hypothesized: Hypothesis 2. Action processes will have a significant, positive effect on subsequent sales team performance. 1.4.2. Team commitment Team commitment refers to “the relative strength of an individual's identification with, and involvement in, a particular team” (Bishop & Scott, 2000, p. 439). A central element of teamwork is a shared commitment to the team itself (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Research has linked team processes such as backing up behavior (Bishop & Scott, 1997), communication, and coordination (Campion, Papper, & Mesdsker, 1996) to feeling satisfied with ones' teammates. LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, and Saul's (2008) meta-analysis confirmed that action processes related positively to team satisfaction. Based on these findings, the logic that effective task-related interactions should foster affective commitment to the team, and that team commitment positively affects team performance (Bishop & Scott, 1997), we hypothesized: Hypothesis 3. Action processes will have a significant, positive effect on virtual sales team commitment. Hypothesis 4. Team commitment will have a significant, positive effect on subsequent team performance. 1.5. Antecedent factors While the relationship between team processes and performance represents a linchpin in team I–P–O models, our central interest lies in the antecedent factors that contribute to effective team processes in virtual sales teams. As team leadership and team composition have been shown to be important to team success, we focus on two key variables that have been shown to be particularly relevant in the sales context: (1) empowering leadership and (2) team experience. 1.5.1. Team leadership Researchers have recently highlighted empowering leadership as an important issue for selling team performance (e.g., Arnettt & Badrinarayanan, 2005). For example, Perry et al. (1999) comment on the “criticality of leadership and empowerment in the sales team context” and argue that many “…potential benefits exist with sales teams that can manage themselves via empowerment” (p. 35). However, Bell and Kozlowski (2002, p. 15) noted, “There is little current theory to guide research on the leadership and management of virtual teams.” While teams may be led in a variety of different ways, our focus here is on the role of the formal external leader in team processes and effectiveness. Bell and Kozlowski (2002, p. 26) argued that “… the need for virtual team leaders to monitor or develop team members may not be as crucial [as traditional settings] …. It is important for virtual team leaders to distribute aspects of these functions to the team itself, in effect; making it more of a selfmanaging team….Leaders need to implement a system in which team members will be able to regulate their own performance as a team.”

216

A. Rapp et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 213–224

One way leaders can accomplish this is to cultivate a sense of autonomy or empowerment among team members. Empowering leadership has been recognized as important for team performance (Manz & Sims, 1987) as well as for a number of team processes including knowledge sharing (Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006) and various self-management skills (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). Leader-empowering behaviors encourage teams to take on greater authority and responsibility for their work than in more traditional teams. This includes taking initiative for handling activities such as assessing environmental conditions and available team resources, developing effective sales strategies, and identifying and prioritizing sales and related goals. Thus, we anticipate that: Hypothesis 5. Leader-empowering behaviors will have a significant, positive effect on planning processes.

1.5.2. Team experience Team composition has been shown to have important implications for both team processes and effectiveness in a variety of contexts (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005), including sales (Park & Holloway, 2003). While team experience can be conceptualized along many dimensions, including organizational tenure (e.g., Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990) and experience in teams in general (Rentsch & Klimoski, 2001), we focus on the time that team members have spent in the team itself. In general, the evidence suggests that team experience encourages more effective team processes. Janz, Colquitt, and Noe (1997), for instance, found that team processes were more positive when teams had been established for longer periods. Likewise, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, LePine, Colquitt, and Hedlund (1998) found that team experience allows members to deal with information more competently. To the extent that members possess relevant experience and a history of working together, they are better able to leverage their collective knowledge and abilities (cf. Reagans, Argote, & Brooks, 2005). Time spent in a particular team allows members to accumulate customer-related insights (i.e., customer needs/preferences) that expand a team's capacity for effective planning because members are likely to have similar understandings of tasks, goals, and environmental conditions. Thus, shared team experiences should encourage teams to engage in planning processes such as evaluating team goals, planning and allocating resources, specifying the tasks required for goal accomplishment, and formulating a strategy to achieve the goals. Team experience also allows members to develop knowledge about one another, such as member personalities, abilities, and behavioral tendencies. This knowledge enables teams to efficiently allocate resources, assign roles, and anticipate the actions of team members (Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Wegner, 1995). For these reasons, we argue that: Hypothesis 6. Team experience will have a significant, positive effect on planning processes. Hypothesis 7. Team experience will have a significant, positive effect on subsequent team performance.

1.6. Interactive effects 1.6.1. Degree of virtuality Kirkman and Mathieu (2005, p. 702) defined virtuality as “the extent to which team members utilize virtual tools to coordinate and execute team processes while taking into consideration the amount of informational value provided by such communication tools.” Thus, teams can be characterized on a virtuality continuum, in which some teams rely exclusively on virtual tools for their interaction and many others use a mix of face-to-face and virtual interactions.

For sales teams, using technology for communication is important because of their boundary-spanning nature (LeBon & Merunka, 2006). Therefore, virtual tools actually enable dispersed sales representatives to work as a team more so than they ever could without such tools. However, a paradox of sorts emerges because virtuality may both challenge and benefit a sales team's functioning (Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005). On one hand, virtual tools enable sales team members to coordinate actions that they would not be able to accomplish otherwise. On the other hand, interacting through virtual means loses much of the richness of direct team interaction, which may detract from the effectiveness of team processes (Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005; Martins et al., 2004). All else being equal, research has generally shown that teams function more effectively when their interactions occur face-to-face than virtually (Baltes, Dickson, Sherman, Bauer, & LaGanke, 2002; Gibson & Cohen, 2003). However, because teams rely on virtual tools to varying degrees, we consider how the degree of virtuality characterizing a team interacts with leader-empowering behaviors and team experience to influence the team's processes. First, we address the interaction of leader-empowering behaviors and a team's degree of virtuality. There is evidence to suggest that the influence of leader-empowering behaviors on sales team processes may depend on the degree of virtuality characterizing the team. For instance, while a number of researchers have found that team empowerment relates positively to team performance (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1997), Kirkman et al. (2004) found that virtuality moderated the effects of empowerment on team process improvement such that the relationship was stronger with higher degrees of virtuality. They argue that “… teams with few opportunities to meet face-to-face are highly vulnerable to process losses and performance problems” (Gibson & Cohen, 2003) and continue to say that “[O]ne factor that might offset performance problems is team empowerment.” However, when considering the nature of the selling task, we believe that these empowering behaviors may enhance planning processes but that, as the degree of virtuality increases, the effect of this empowerment will be reduced for different reasons. Because salespeople often act as lone-wolves or as autonomous units under situations of high empowerment and little face-to-face interaction, the team members may be quick to undertake and complete a task but engage in little planning prior to doing so. This argument is in alignment with the positive effect uncovered in the work of Kirkman et al. (2004) when considering reduction in implementation cycle time, but it may demonstrate a negative relationship with planning processes, as presented in this research. Also, as teams may find themselves more intrinsically motivated via empowerment to engage in planning processes to achieve success, increasing virtuality may impede this effect. Researchers have argued that developing a shared vision or mission may be more difficult for virtual teams because it is often more difficult for members to establish a unified sense of purpose due to diminished member interactions (Blackburn, Furst, & Rosen, 2003). Kayworth and Leidner (2000: p. 186) also found that difficulties in planning and coordination were barriers to successful virtual team performance. The extant literature offers several reasons why this would be the case, including the fact that virtual media conveys “lean” information and lacks the “richness” available in face-to-face interactions. Moreover, many studies have found that the overall amount of communication declines as teams become more virtual (Martins et al., 2004). For these reasons, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 8. The degree of virtuality moderates the relationship between leader-empowering behaviors and sales team processes, such that higher degrees of virtuality will dampen the positive effect of empowering behaviors on team planning processes. Second, we address the interaction of team experience and the degree of virtuality characterizing a team in relation to team planning processes. Specifically, we anticipate that the degree of virtuality

A. Rapp et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 213–224

characterizing a team will detract from a more experienced sales team's propensity to engage in team planning processes. Teams that have worked together for longer periods of time are likely to have accumulated a greater level of territory-specific tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1967) covering customer, product and service, competitor, and market domains that can be used as teams specify goals, formulate strategies, and assess the tasks, environmental conditions, and available resources needed to accomplish a team's task. However, because this tacit knowledge is difficult to codify and articulate, it generally requires extensive personal interaction to share (Polyani, 1967). Because virtual communication is typically impoverished as compared with face-to-face interactions and tacit knowledge is particularly difficult to transfer through virtual means of communication, we believe that virtual means of communication will reduce planning among experienced teams. Considering that these planning processes consist of complex knowledge structures (i.e., strategy formulation, environmental scanning, etc.), we propose that, as teams become more virtual, they will rely more on past experiences residing within the team than on planning for future interactions partly because of the complications and frustrations of communicating difficult topics through virtual means. Therefore, we hypothesized: Hypothesis 9. The degree of virtuality moderates the relationship between team experience and planning processes, such that higher degrees of virtuality will dampen the positive effect of team experience on team planning processes. Finally, we anticipate that team experience and leader-empowering behaviors will interact to influence team planning processes. In general, empowered teams are more likely to exhibit effective processes as compared with their less autonomous counterparts (Campion et al., 1996; Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997; Kirkman et al., 2004; Srivastava et al., 2007). Kozlowski and colleagues (1996a,b) proposed that different leader behaviors are effective as teams progress through various phases of development. In other words, the effectiveness of any given leader behavior depends on the team's needs and capabilities at any particular time. In addition, Kozlowski et al. (1996b) argued that when leading expert teams, leaders can still affect and facilitate their performance by engaging in a variety of activities such as encouraging reevaluation of the situation, ensuring that members get needed assistance, helping the team to learn from its experiences, and assisting the team in environmental scanning and interpretation functions. When virtual sales teams gain experience working together as a unit, members have the opportunity to develop the knowledge and capabilities required for effective self-management. In short, they reach a stage at which the team is ready to take on the added responsibilities of self-management should their leader engage in empowering behaviors. Therefore,

217

team services approximately 100 accounts, which consist of physicians who prescribe a full range of products. The team members have an order of responsibility of products in that they have primary and secondary products which they must sell; however, they do have a shared responsibility for all other products offered. The team's performance is assessed as the average extent to which the team has hit its targets across all products. On average, about 15% of the team's compensation is based on sales to target or bonus. Therefore, it was critical that they shared information about physician and patient needs, coordinated all of their sales calls, cross-sold product lines, shared sales strategies, and followed up on visits by other members of the team. Our qualitative grounding indicated both that salespeople had many opportunities to use virtual tools and that they had varying levels of experience. Next, we administered two separate surveys over a three-month period. Initially we hosted a Web-based survey and then sent a followup paper version of the survey to non-respondents. Our response rate was approximately 89%. We found no meaningful differences between responses to the electronic and paper survey versions. We administered a second survey approximately three months later in a similar manner, and received a 79% response rate. We then paired the two separate samples with archival company data and were left with complete information from 651 salespeople who were members of 218 virtual sales teams. This represents 64% of individuals and 95% of teams from the sample population. Incomplete data were attributable to people failing to respond to one or both surveys, missing performance data, or employee movement in and out of the sales force. Supplemental analyses showed that the subsample did not differ significantly from the total sample on any study variables. The study sample was 52% female, and their ages ranged from 26 and 55. Sample statistics revealed that they had an average of 11.4 years in sales (SD = 8.6), 6.5 years (SD= 6.2) tenure within the company, and experience in the specific sales territory was an average of 4.3 years (SD= 5.3). 2.2. Measures (see Appendix) 2.2.1. Leader-empowering behaviors We assessed external leader-empowering behaviors in the first survey using four multi-item subscales adapted from Ahearne et al. (2005). We treated these empowering behaviors as a higher-order formative construct formed by the four dimensions (i.e., enhancing the meaningfulness of work; fostering participation in decision making; expressing confidence in high performance; and providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints) that were developed based on the conceptual foundation of Conger and Kanungo (1988). Item stems referred to the behavior of the team's external leader and used response anchors ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”).

Hypothesis 10. Team experience moderates the relationship between leader-empowering behaviors and planning processes. Specifically, leader-empowering behaviors are more strongly related to planning processes in sales teams with high levels of team experience, relative to those with lower levels of team experience.

2.2.2. Team experience We assessed virtual sales team experience using the amount of time (i.e., years) that the team had spent in their sales team/territory as of the first survey. In this research, the amount of time in territory is synonymous with the time spent in the team.

2. Methods

2.2.3. Degree of virtuality We also measured degree of virtuality in the first survey administration. Specifically, we asked members to apportion the percentage of time that they conducted team activities through: (1) face-to-face meetings (29.3%); (2) telephone meetings (51.2%); (3) email (17.2%); and (4) other (e.g., Web chat, Lotus notes, Web conferences) (2.4%). We subtracted the face-to-face meetings from 100% to index degree of virtuality, and then aggregated to the teamlevel (Mean = 71%, SD = 13%). This approach permits us to index degree of virtuality as the relative extent to which sales teams coordinate their efforts using technology versus face-to-face interaction. This is consistent both with the primary dimension of virtuality

2.1. Sample We conducted this study in a U.S.-based multinational pharmaceutical company. The pharmaceutical selling teams used in this research were required to service a territory as a collective unit, and their evaluations were based, in part, on team sales (for a detailed review of pharmaceutical selling teams, see Zoltners et al. 2001). Specifically, these teams consist of approximately five members on a primary care team. They are responsible for selling a portfolio of products that includes both specialty and general drugs. An average

218

A. Rapp et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 213–224

(degree) articulated by Kirkman and Mathieu (2005) as well as with the majority of research in this area (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Cohen & Gibson, 2003; Griffith et al., 2003). 2.2.4. Team processes We assessed team planning and action processes using two multiitem scales. The scales were developed on the basis of Marks et al.'s (2001) taxonomy. This approach has been shown to be comparable in LePine et al.'s (2008) extensive meta-analysis on team processes and related outcomes. Individual items assessed members' perceptions of their: (1) planning processes (3 items) in the first survey, and they assessed (2) action processes (4 items) in the second survey. This time lag between planning and action processes helps capture the temporal nature of the relationship and infer causality. All items referred to team, rather than individual, processes and were responded to using behavioral anchors that ranged from 1 (“poor”) to 5 (“excellent”). Both process measures were treated as formative in nature. 2.2.5. Sales team commitment Sales team commitment was assessed using four items adapted from Shapiro and Kirkman's (1999) team commitment scale, completed as part of the second survey. The items assessed the extent to which a team's members agreed or disagreed that the team members were committed to their goals and accountable for their outcomes. The scale was treated as formative. 2.2.6. Team performance From company records, we accumulated team sales data for a three-month period following the second survey administration to serve as our criterion. The measure used was the percentage of teambased sales quotas achieved across products in the female health care division. Quotas are discussed with the entire team to ensure that they understand the methods used to determine them and are considered a strong measure of sales team performance because they control for potential contaminating factors, such as the team's territory size (Churchill et al., 1985). Using the average month-to-month correlations, we calculated a reliability (i.e., stability) coefficient of rxx = 0.70 for the sales data. We averaged the three monthly sales to serve as a criterion. Because past research posits a direct, positive relationship between effort and performance (e.g., Rapp et al. 2006), we included a measure of call activity as covariate to performance. Sales team call activity was assessed as the number of calls made over a three-month period following the second survey. The number of sales calls was an archival measure taken from company records. Using the average month-to-month correlations, we calculated a reliability (i.e., stability) coefficient of rxx = 0.92. 2.3. Analytical strategy 2.3.1. Aggregation To examine the effects of the team-level leadership and process variables, it is necessary to average survey responses across individuals within each team. James, Demarre, and Wolf (1984) proposed the use of an rwg index for evaluating member agreement, with average values around 0.70 conventionally being deemed as sufficient to warrant aggregation. In addition, sufficient betweengroup variance (i.e., reliability) must exist to drive relationships at the aggregate level. Intra-class correlations (ICC) are valuable for gauging group-level reliability. Specifically, ICC1 represents the percentage of individual level variance that is attributable to team membership, whereas ICC2 represents the reliability of team mean scores (Bliese, 2000). All F values associated with the ICCs reported in this study were significant, suggesting that there was sufficient variance to model team-level effects.

Our analyses revealed support for aggregating the empowering leadership and team process responses. Specifically, for empowering leadership we obtained the following results: (1) fostering participation in decision making (median rwg = 0.94, ICC1 = 0.10, ICC2 = 0.25); (2) enhancing the meaningfulness of work (median rwg = 0.94, ICC1 = 0.10, ICC2 = 0.24); (3) expressing confidence in high performance (median rwg = 0.95, ICC1 = 0.10, ICC2 = 0.26); and (4) providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints (median rwg = 0.95, ICC1 = 0.12, ICC2 = 0.28). Similarly, the team process ratings evidenced sufficient justification for aggregation: (1) planning processes (median rwg = 0.94, ICC1 = 0.03, ICC2 = 0.09), (2) action processes (median rwg = 0.92, ICC1 = 0.02, ICC2 = 0.04), as well as team commitment (median rwg = 0.93, ICC1 = 0.04, ICC2 = 0.10). Members' agreement concerning their extent of virtuality was calculated as 0.79 using James et al.'s (1984) formula for a single continuous item (p.96). We also calculated an ICC1 = 0.07 and an ICC2 = 0.19. Notably, although the rwg indices suggest that there is sufficient agreement to warrant aggregating members' responses to the team-level of analysis, the ICCs indicate that there is relatively little between team variance to be modeled. Therefore, the team-level results may well be susceptible to range restriction effects. 2.3.2. Partial Least Squares To take advantage of the benefits offered from the use of structural equation modeling, we adopted a Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach (Reinartz, Haenlein, & Henseler, 2009). This approach allowed us to empirically test our conceptual framework consisting of both formative and reflective constructs and their interactions. To test for our interactive effects using PLS, we first examined a linear effects (baseline) model and compared it to an interactive effects (hypothesized) model where interaction terms (calculated by multiplying the standardized scores of the linear terms) were entered into the model. Finally, we test for any additional significant paths not hypothesized and test those in our final model. In order to test our hypotheses, we use bootstrapping as the resampling procedure with 500 runs, as recommended by Chin (1998). 3. Results Table 1 contains correlations and descriptive statistics for all study variables. As seen in Appendix, the scales used within this research were based on established scales. We assess relative fit through the examination of reliability, average variance extracted, inter-item, and inter-construct correlations. All scales used demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties. Due to the formative nature of some of the constructs used in this research, internal consistency and reliability are not the appropriate methods for assessing item-construct fit. Item loadings demonstrate that all indicators for planning and action processes constructs loaded significantly on their respective latent variables (all standardized loadings N.70, ts N 12.0). The results for empowering leadership show that one of the factors has a standardized loading b.70; however, we see that the average inter-item correlation is 0.737(p b 0.001), thus warranting its inclusion. 3.1. Hypothesis testing In Table 2, we report the standardized path coefficient results for three separate models: the linear effects model, interactive effects model, and a final model examining omitted paths. First, we fit the linear effects structural model. Inspection of the parameters of this model revealed support for the hypothesized influence of planning processes (H1; β = 0.381, p b 0.01) on action processes. Results also indicate that action processes directly influence both team commitment (H3; β = 0.361, p b 0.01) and team performance (H2; β = 0.181, p b 0.05). Although team commitment

A. Rapp et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 213–224

219

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, reliabilities, and correlations.

1. Participation in decision-making 2. Meaningfulness of work 3. Confidence in high performance 4. Autonomy from bureaucratic constraints 5. Virtuality 6. Team experience 7. Planning processes 8. Action processes 9. Team commitment 10. Team performance 11. Call activity

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

5.74 5.84 6.02 5.66 0.71 4.31 4.14 4.26 6.11 1.08 122.6

0.86 0.85 0.84 0.90 0.13 5.31 0.48 0.45 0.97 0.20 32.6

0.95 0.80 0.81 0.74 −0.01 −0.01 0.24 0.19 0.09 0.09 −0.05

0.96 0.80 0.71 −0.07 0.03 0.21 0.29 0.12 0.12 −0.01

0.96 0.74 0.02 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.10 −0.04

0.96 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.19 0.00 −0.01 −0.02

– −0.15 −0.04 −0.07 −0.09 0.00 −0.10

– −0.20 −0.09 0.09 −0.05 0.01

0.86 0.40 0.17 0.17 0.01

0.88 0.27 0.15 0.06

0.96 0.24 0.22

0.70 0.19

0.92

Notes: reliabilities for each measure are on the diagonal. N = 218. Corr ≥ |0.13|, p b 0.05; corr ≥ |.17|, p b 0.01.

does demonstrate a significant effect on performance (H4; β = 0.182, p b 0.01), team experience does not (H7; β = −.064, ns), as related to team performance. This lack of a significant result may be, in part, due to the notion that the performance metric of percentage-of-quota is established with the level of team experience in mind, thus acting as a covariate for this effect. Interestingly, further examination uncovered that planning processes have a significant influence on performance (β = 0.129, p b 0.05); however, this effect loses its

Table 2 Results of structural equation analyses. Hypothesized path

Standardized estimate Main-effects model

Team planning processes H5: leadership empowering behaviors → planning processes H6: team experience → planning processes H8: leadership empowering behaviors x degree of virtualness→ planning processes H9: team experience x degree of virtualness → planning processes H10: leadership empowering behaviors × team experience → planning processes Team action processes H1: planning processes → action processes (Additional path) leadership empowering behaviors → action processes Team commitment H3: action processes → team commitment (Additional path) team experience → team commitment Team performance H2: action processes → team performance H4: team commitment → team performance H7: team experience → team performance Call activity → team performance (Additional path) Team commitment → call activity

Hypothesized model

Final model

0.112a 0.265⁎

0.165 0.266⁎

0.164 0.237⁎

−0.210⁎

−0.228⁎

−0.229⁎

–

−0.044

−0.055

–

0.148⁎⁎

0.141⁎

–

0.152⁎⁎

0.155⁎

0.147 0.383⁎

0.191 0.334⁎

0.146 0.381⁎ –

0.217⁎

–

0.130 0.361⁎ –

0.130 0.361⁎

0.131 0.348⁎ 0.125⁎⁎

– 0.127 0.181⁎⁎

0.127 0.180⁎⁎

0.134 0.177⁎⁎

0.182⁎

0.182⁎

0.205⁎

−0.064

−0.064

0.151⁎⁎ –

a Variance explained in endogenous variables. ⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01.

0.151⁎⁎ –

significant impact on performance (β = 0.03, ns) when action processes are added, suggesting full mediation. We find that the call activity covariate does exhibit a significant relationship on performance (β = 0.151, p b 0.05). Examination of the antecedents of planning processes uncovers the significant linear effects for empowering leadership (H5; β = 0.265, p b 0.01) and team experience (H6; β =−.210). Surprisingly, although significant, the effect of team experience on planning processes is in the opposite direction than hypothesized. Collectively, the linear effects accounted for 11.2% of planning process variance, 14.6% of action process variance, 13.0% of team commitment process variance, and 12.7% of the variance of sales performance. We next added the three hypothesized interactions to the model that accounted for an additional 5.3% of variance in planning processes and, thereby, virtual sales team performance. The parameter estimates for this model are presented in Table 2. Inspection of the individual interactions revealed that virtuality failed to moderate the leader empowerment relationships with planning processes, thereby rejecting Hypothesis 8 (H8; β = −.044, p b ns). However, the

−0.066 0.142⁎⁎ 0.161⁎

Fig. 2. Empowering leadership by experience, interaction as related to team process.

220

A. Rapp et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 213–224

other two interactions were significant: team experience by virtuality (H9; β = 0.148, p b 0.05); and leader-empowering behaviors by experience (H10; β = 0.152, p b 0.05). While our findings were consistent with Hypothesis 10, our findings for Hypothesis 9 were opposite to our expectations. We plotted the nature of interactions using standard practices for moderated regression analyses (Aiken & West 1991). Specifically, using the information from the hypothesized model analyses, we plotted the relationships between an exogenous variable and planning processes that corresponded to the average, low (one standard deviation below the mean), and high (one standard deviation above the mean) values of the moderator. Fig. 2 depicts the relationship between empowering leadership and planning processes for different levels of team experience. As illustrated, as one moves from relatively low to relatively high amounts of team experience the relationship between empowering leadership and planning processes becomes progressively more positive. The nature of the interaction is most evident at relatively low levels of leaderempowering behaviors. These results are consistent with the form of interaction anticipated in Hypothesis 10. Also evident is the fact that, when considered together with empowering leadership, relatively inexperienced teams reported the most effective team processes (i.e., evidenced the highest intercept). Lastly, the interaction between team experience and virtuality is depicted in Fig. 3. Team experience evidenced a positive relationship with planning processes to the extent that teams reported relatively high, as compared to relatively low, levels of virtuality. In other words, experienced teams reported better team processes if combined with relatively high virtuality. Our final model tests whether any direct or indirect paths have been omitted from our framework. We added individual direct paths from the antecedent factors to subsequent outcomes and reran the bootstrap resampling procedure to assess the level of significance. Our supplementary analyses enabled us to uncover three additional significant relationships. Leader-empowering behaviors were found to positively influence team action processes (β = 0.217, p b 0.01), and team experience was found to influence team commitment (β = 0.125, p b 0.05). Although not formally

hypothesized in our framework, the measure of call activity was significantly influenced by the level of team commitment (β = 0.161, p b 0.01). 4. Discussion Virtual sales teams are complex dynamic systems that operate in the larger contexts of people, technologies, and organizational factors (Martins et al., 2004; Ilgen et al., 2005). We believe that our study contributes to the understanding of these systems as, to our knowledge, this is the first simultaneous empirical examination of the influence of these antecedents and their interactive effects on team processes and effectiveness in virtual sales teams. Our study also reveals several important findings. First, we illustrated that virtual sales teams vary in their processes and effectiveness and that leaderempowering behaviors can have a positive influence on these processes. In contrast, and opposite our hypothesis, team experience exhibited a negative effect on team planning processes among virtual sales teams. Team experience did not evidence a significant linear relationship with team performance. Consistent with previous research on traditional, face-to-face teams (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Mathieu et al., 2008), we found that highly empowered sales teams exhibit more effective team planning processes as compared to less empowered sales teams. Second, we examined more complex combinations of antecedent influences on virtual sales team processes, and we unearthed a pair of interactions with important implications. The interaction between leader-empowering behaviors and team experience suggested that teams with a longer history of working together benefit more from managers who empower their employees than with less experience working together. Surprisingly, the degree of virtuality interacted to attenuate the negative effect that team experience exhibited with team planning processes. Our study also illustrated that team processes have important consequences for the effectiveness of sales teams. We found that teams who engaged in effective team processes yielded significant gains in overall team performance and team commitment (most likely due to enhanced planning and targeting activities) as well as better coordination of activities and interpersonal relations. 4.1. Theoretical implications

Fig. 3. Team experience by degree of virtuality interaction as related to team process.

The use of virtual sales teams is increasing in organizations, and this research is one of the first that we know of to examine the relationships among their composition, leader-empowering behaviors, and degree of virtuality. One finding which makes our results more interesting is that team experience had a negative rather than positive relationship with team planning processes. A potential explanation for this result derives from the literature on shared mental models (SMM). The SMM literature maintains that shared understandings of the task and teammates allow team members to anticipate one another's actions (Mathieu et al., 2000). Because of this, SMMs can prompt teams to engage in implicit rather than explicit coordination and communication (Espinosa, Lerch, & Kraut, 2004). Because SMMs take time to develop as members gain experience working with one another, it is possible that teams who have worked together for longer periods of time may rely on their past experience with the task and team rather than engage in extensive planning activities. Thus, future research that adopts a SMM perspective would be valuable. A related and no less interesting finding concerns the interaction of team experience and virtuality. The results of our study indicate that the degree of virtuality characterizing a team lessened the negative effect of team experience on team planning processes. We believe that our findings stem from the idea that members recognize that all members must do their part if the sales team is to reach its goals and

A. Rapp et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 213–224

objectives. Thus, teams that rely more heavily on virtual communications may make a concerted effort to engage in effective planning processes to ensure that all plans are in place to allow the team to reach its sales goals. This may be a function of the nature of the job, as sales representatives are largely believed to be highly self-motivated. It may also be a function of the fact that more virtual teams have fewer impromptu opportunities to check on the progress of teammates as they meet “at the water cooler” in the office and, thus, make conscious efforts to plan with teammates. Nonetheless, it is an interesting finding that could be explored further. Our findings also suggest that the decision regarding how much to empower virtual sales teams hinges on the level of experience characterizing a team. Leader-empowering behaviors appear to be more beneficial for sales teams that have more experience working together. Kozlowski and colleagues (1996a) advanced a similar argument and suggested that different leadership styles are most effective at different stages of a team's development. Finally, a notable theoretical implication is that engaging in team planning processes leads to higher levels of action processes in virtual sales team performance and, thus, ultimately, to higher levels of team performance and team commitment. While the focal point of our research was on the combinations of antecedents of team processes, we believe that it was also critical to demonstrate that those processes related significantly to subsequent virtual sales team effectiveness. 4.2. Managerial implications For better or worse, contemporary sales teams are adopting virtual technologies to manage their workloads and to coordinate activities. Such teaming would not have been possible, or at a minimum would have been unwieldy, before the advent of digital forms of interaction. Most executives predict that technologymediated communication and virtual teaming will increasingly replace face-to-face interactions (Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk, & McPherson, 2002). Consequently, the managers of sales teams should recognize that these teams vary in the degree to which they use virtual tools to interact, plan, and coordinate. Moreover, in environments such as sales, linking members through virtual means is critical. Below, we discuss specific manager-relevant implications arising from this research. First, empowerment may be a leadership style that is effective in surmounting some of the compositional issues that challenge team process development. Based on our findings, it appears that managers should consider providing teams with autonomy and exhibit confidence in their decision making ability when working with experienced sales teams. More specifically, it seems that more experienced teams reap the benefit most from being empowered. Therefore we suggest that managers empower those teams to a greater level while keeping a close eye on performance metrics to ensure that these teams do not stray too far from the performance path. Second, sales managers and team members should consider team composition and its impact on process and performance, making staffing replacements or adjustments as needed. For example, our findings suggest that when leading sales teams, managers might consider that teams having spent more time together appear to engage in less developmental processes. Thus, it is important that managers emphasize the importance of planning processes in teams who have spent more time working together if those teams are to attain higher levels of team performance. Because of the significant performance-related gains associated with effective team processes, training members in team processes appears to be a valuable investment. This result, combined with a long history of research confirming that effective team processes

221

benefit both quantitative and subjective performance outcomes, suggests that investments in educating team members on how to strategize and set goals, monitor progress toward these goals, and coordinate activities pays off with dividends in the form of team performance. Based on our findings, the direct effect of these processes and the other predictors explained approximately 13% of the variance in sales team performance. In our study's setting, this percentage translates into roughly $200 million in sales. Most managers would agree that the ability to reap these types of rewards would be well worth the investment. However, important questions arise regarding what a manager can do to ensure that teams are engaging in these team processes. Practitioners are familiar with the steadfast concepts of coaching, mentoring, training, and motivating; but what new behaviors can a manager engage in to change the behaviors of the team and team members? We believe that by subscribing to Thompson's (2004) “building the team” framework, team leaders and managers can better align tasks with people and then begin to develop appropriate team member relationships. Thompson's framework focuses on team member socialization, role negotiation, norm establishment, and the development of cohesion and trust as critical upfront (i.e., at team formation) team-building activities intended to facilitate a collaborative form of cooperation. As teambuilding activities are one of the most commonly applied group development interventions in organizations today, activities that promote goal-setting, environmental scanning, and systems monitoring can be incredibly useful in enhancing team effectiveness (Klein et al., 2009). Fourth, it is apparent that a team's level of commitment has a significant impact on its performance. Our findings indicated that the team's experience working together influences this relationship; consequently, companies and sales managers should use care when adding or replacing team members. Firms that have adopted frequent territory realignment strategies, which often realign team membership, should reconsider this strategy and determine whether these realignments are having the anticipated performance effects. Finally, regarding the team's experience, our results indicate that teams with more experience together appear to be somewhat resistant to planning processes. Based on the negative impact of team experience on planning processes, we speculate that more experienced teams prefer to skip the planning processes and engage directly in work-related activities. Sales managers should pay careful attention to the behaviors of experienced salespeople when working as part of a sales team and consider implementing behavior-based controls to ensure effective team planning. Also, to this point, our interactive findings suggest that when dealing with experienced teams, providing tools that enable them to communicate virtually may help reduce these negative effects to planning. It appears that teams which operate virtually and have higher levels of experience realize that they must be proactive and plan for success, while those that operate face-to-face embrace more of a reactive strategy and engage in less planning as they begin to rely more on the team's experience and the ability to communicate faceto-face as a substitute for planning. That being said, many sales force automation or CRM technology applications may hold additional value if they include communication tools for sales team members. Sales team managers should also ensure that those more experienced teams that operate less virtually are engaging in regular planning meetings and activities. 4.3. Limitations and further research Although our study design offered many advantages, we would be remiss if we failed to note some limitations. For example, although we collected data over time and from multiple sources, this does not

222

A. Rapp et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 213–224

unequivocally establish causal precedence or eliminate the possible influence of feedback mechanisms. A truly longitudinal design that assessed all substantive variables over time would strengthen any causal inferences. In addition, the choice of substantive variables in this work is not exhaustive, and there may be other important predictors. Future research would be enhanced if it expanded the number and types of variables that were included (e.g., contextual antecedents or team emergent states as mediators). Finally, we sampled only one type of team setting, which may limit the scope of the generalizability of our findings. The data we used were from multiple sources and, thus, minimize many of the potential biases inherent in single-source studies. Nevertheless, we asked individuals to rate their leader's empowering behavior, which introduces a concern that members with little experience or contact with their manager may not know how empowering the person actually is. Similarly, individuals with more experience and/or those who have developed leadership substitutes may not fully realize when a manager is empowering them. Additionally, because the perceptions of leader-empowering behaviors, virtuality, and team processes all came from team members, any potential “same-source method bias” may have inflated the magnitudes of the observed linear effects (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). However, because our primary hypotheses focused on interactive effects, we used both a time-lagged design (DeSarbo et al., 2002) and archival performance data; our findings are not overly susceptible to method effects. Finally, we should note that we had incomplete responses for all teams. Team response rates have been shown to undermine the validity of team composition–outcome relationships (see Allen, Stanley, Williams & Ross, 2007). However, because our focus was primarily on what are known as referent shift constructs (e.g., leader behaviors, team processes, etc., see Chan, 1998; Chen et al., 2004) and members exhibited high agreement, randomly missing data should have relatively little influence on the observed relationships. The findings involving team experience, however, may have been attenuated and should be interpreted cautiously. Our study adds to the literature on both the leadership of virtual sales teams as well as the influence of team composition on team processes and sales team performance. It also suggests several promising avenues for further research. First, there are several other potential antecedents and outcomes of sales team processes that warrant additional research. These include team composition (e.g., personality), team design (e.g., interdependence), and contextual factors. Second, future research should expand the criteria domain beyond outcome-based measures of virtual sales team performance and commitment to include factors such as customer satisfaction, team viability, and so forth. Third, it would be interesting to investigate whether engaging in team processes enables individuals to become more efficient. Fourth, different operationalizations of variables (i.e., measures of experience and virtuality) may yield richer conceptualizations and lend further insights to these relationships. For example, researchers could both examine a broader conceptualization of experience (i.e., experience in the job, company, etc.) and collect information about the use of a variety of virtual media (e.g., email, video conferencing, wikis, etc.) to better understand the nature of virtuality influences. It would also be interesting to investigate the level of ‘teamness’ within a team. Specifically, are sales teams truly teams — or merely a group of individuals or ‘lone-wolves’ grouped together? Similarly, it would be interesting to capture and assess the impact of the diversity within each sales team which could be measured using any dispersion measure, such as concentration indices. Finally, additional research that tests the relationships contained within our hypothesized framework on the virtual sales teams working in contexts other than the pharmaceutical setting would be a meaningful pursuit.

Appendix

Information on construct loadings*, weights, items and reliabilities Standardized Path factor loadings weights Item and construct reliability for leader empowering behavior's first-order subdimension — participation in decision making (α = 0.95) My manager encourages my sales team members to express ideas/suggestions My manager listens to my sales team's ideas and suggestions My manager uses my team's suggestions to make decisions that affect us My district manager often consults my team on strategic decisions My district manager makes many decisions together with my team Item and construct reliability for leader empowering behavior's first-order subdimension — meaningfulness of work (impact) (α = 0.96) My manager helps my team understand the importance of my work to the overall effectiveness of the organization My manager helps my team understand how our job fits into “the bigger picture” My manager helps my team understand how the objectives and goals of our team relate to that of the entire organization My manager helps my team understand the positive impact we have on our customers Item and construct reliability for leader empowering behavior's first-order subdimension — confidence in high performance (α = 0.96) My manager always shows confidence in my team's ability to do a good job My manager believes that my team can handle demanding tasks My manager believes in my team's ability to improve even when we make mistakes Item and construct reliability for leader empowering behavior's first-order subdimension — autonomy from bureaucratic constraints (α = 0.96) My manager makes it more efficient for my team to do our job by keeping the rules and regulations simple My manager allows my team to do our job our way. My manager allows our team to make important decisions quickly to satisfy customer needs. My manager allows my team to determine what needs to be done My managers allows our team to make its one choices Item and construct reliability for second order leader empowering behaviors Participation in decision making Meaningfulness of work (impact) Confidence in high performance Autonomy from bureaucratic constraints Item and construct reliability for planning processes Environmental analysis: interpretation and evaluation of the team's mission, including identification of their main tasks as well as the operative environmental conditions and team resources available for performance. Goal specification: identification and prioritization of goals and sub-goals for mission accomplishment. Strategy formulation and planning: formulation of strategies and courses of action for mission accomplishment. This dimension includes generic planning, contingency planning, and reactive strategic adjustment.

0.915 0.927 0.932 0.896 0.867

0.957 0.961

0.946 0.926

0.966 0.969 0.963

0.862 0.932 0.934 0.956 0.929

0.813 0.501 0.256 0.754

0.443

0.495

0.189

A. Rapp et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 213–224 Appendix (continued) Information on construct loadings*, weights, items and reliabilities Item and construct reliability for action processes Monitoring progress towards goals: tracking task and goal progress toward mission accomplishment, interpreting system information in terms of what needs to be accomplished for goal attainment, transmitting goal progress to team members. Coordination activities: orchestrating the sequence and timing of interdependent actions. Team monitoring and backup behavior: assisting team members to perform their tasks. Assistance may occur by: a) providing a teammate verbal feedback or coaching by assisting a Teammate behaviorally in carrying out actions, or b) by assuming and completing a task for a teammate. This includes providing feedback and task-related support and the seeking of help from teammates when necessary. Systems monitoring: tracking team resources and environmental conditions as they relate to mission accomplishment. This dimension includes internal systems monitoring and environmental monitoring. Item and construct reliability for team commitment My team is really committed to our performance goals. My team is enthusiastic about achieving our performance goals. It is important to the members of my team that we achieve our performance goals. My team intends to achieve its goals.

0.281

0.064

0.448

0.360

0.209 0.232 0.217 0.238

Experience For how long have you been working in your current team? _____ years _____ months Virtualness On average, when you communicate with sales team members, what percentage of your time do you spend in: _______ Face-to-face meetings _______ Telephone meetings _______ E-mail _______ Other electronic methods (i.e., Web chat) * Loadings from linear effects model

References Ahearne, M., Hughes, D., & Schillewaert, N. (2007). Why sales reps should welcome information technology: Measuring the impact of CRM-based IT on sales effectiveness. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(4), 336−349. Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945−955. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Allen, N. J., Stanley, D., Williams, H., & Ross, S. (2007). Assessing the impact of nonresponse on work group diversity effects. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 262−286. Arnettt, D., & Badrinarayanan, V. (2005). Enhancing customer-needs-driven CRM strategies: Core selling teams, knowledge management competence, and relationship marketing competence. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 25 (4), 329−343. Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 156−179. Beishon, M. (2006). Star performer. Salesforce, 109, 8−10. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams. Group & Organization Management, 27, 14−49. Bishop, J., & Scott, D. (1997). How commitment affects team performance. HR Magazine, 42, 107−111. Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (2000). An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed team environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 439−450. Blackburn, R., Furst, S., & Rosen, W. (2003). Building a winning virtual team: KSA's, selections, training, and evaluation. In C. B. Gibson, & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 95−120). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blessington, M. (1989). Five ways to make team selling work. Business Month, 134(2), 71−72. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analyses. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski

223

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349−381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Campion, M. A., Papper, E., & Medsker, G. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429−452. Cespedes, F. V. (1992). Sales coordination: An exploratory study. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 12(3), 13−29. Cespedes, F. V., Doyle, S. X., & Freedman, R. J. (1989). Teamwork for today's selling. Harvard Business Review, 67, 44−58. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234−246. Chen, G., Mathieu, M. J., & Bliese, P. D. (2004). A framework for conducting multilevel construct validation. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issuesMulti-level issues in organizational behavior and processes (pp), 3. (pp. 273−303) Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Chin, W. W. (1998). The Partial Least Squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295−336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Churchill, G. A., Jr., Ford, N., Hartley, S., & Walker, O. (1985). The determinants of salesperson performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 103−118. Cohen, S. G., & Gibson, C. B. (2003). In the beginning: Introduction and framework. In C. B. Gibson, & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 1−13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471−482. Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., & Ramsey, R. (1995). A conceptualization of the functions and roles of formalized selling and buying teams. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management., 15, 47−62. DeSarbo, W., Degeratu, A., Ahearne, M., & Saxton, M. (2002). Disaggregate market share response models. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(3), 253−266. Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435−457. Dixon, A., Gassenheimer, J., & Barr, T. F. (2003). Identifying the lone wolf: A team perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23(3), 206−219. Espinosa, A., Lerch, J., & Kraut, R. (2004). Explicit vs. implicit coordination mechanisms and task dependencies: One size does not fit all. In E. Salas, & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Process and performance at the inter- and intra-individual level (pp. 107−129). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top management team tenure and organizational outcomes: the moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 484−503. Fleishman, E. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of team performance functions. In R. W. Swezey, & E. Sallas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 31−56). Norwood (NJ): Ablex Publishing Corp. Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual collaboration effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in Context: a model of task group effectiveness, Administrative Science. Quarterly, 29, 499−517. Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly, 27, 265−287. Haas, M., & Hansen, M. T. (2005). When using knowledge can hurt performance: the value of organizational capabilities in a management consulting company. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1−24. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hennings, T. (2000). Applying call center business-to-business know-how to the Web. Call Center CRM Solutions, 18, 56−59. Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Hedlund, J. (1998). Extending the multilevel theory of team decision making: Effects of feedback and experience in hierarchical teams. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 269−282. Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 187−220). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hyatt, D., & Ruddy, T. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breach. Personnel Psychology, 50, 553−585. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From I–P–O models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517−543. Jackson, D. W., Jr., Widmier, S. M., Giacobbe, R., & Keith, J. E. (1999). Examining the use of team selling by manufacturers' representatives: A situational approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(2), 155−167. Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2004). Diversity in social context: A multi-attribute, multilevel analysis of team diversity and performance in a sales organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 675−702. James, L., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85−98. Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50, 877−904. Jehn, K., & Shah, P. (1997). Interpersonal relationship and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775−790.

224

A. Rapp et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 213–224

Jones, E., Dixon, A., Chonko, L., & Cannon, J. (2005). Key accounts and team selling: A review, framework, and research agenda. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management., 25(2), 181−198. Joshi, A., Liao, H., & Jackson, S. E. (2006). Cross-level effects of workplace diversity on sale performance and pay. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 459−481. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. E. (2000). Managing global virtual teams: A prescription for success.European Management Journal, 183−193 April. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley. Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31, 700−718. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). A model of work team empowerment. In R. W. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development, 10 (pp. 131−167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58−75. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 67−79. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 175−192. Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., & Salas, E. (2009). Does team building work? Small Group Research, 40(2), 181−222. Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial & organizational psychology, 12 (pp. 333−375). New York: Wiley. Kozlowski, S., Gully, S., McHugh, P. P., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Developmental and task contingent leader roles. Research in Personnel & Human Resources Management, 14, 253−305. Kozlowski, S., Gully, S., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (1996). Team leadership and development: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams, 3. (pp. 253−291)Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lebon, J., & Merunka, D. (2006). The impact of individual and managerial factors on salespeople's contribution to marketing intelligence activities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(4), 395−408. LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork process: Towards a better understanding of the dimensional structure and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273−308. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). Work motivation: The high performance cycle. In U. Kleinbeck (Ed.), Work motivation (pp. 3−25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106−129. Marks, M., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356−376. Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805−835. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273−283. Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 410−476. McGuire, J.& Strandboge, P. (2006). Two sides of the team. Pharmaceutical Representative, Sep 1, 2006. (Accessed October 2, 2007), [available at http://www.pharmrep. com]. Mehra, A., Dixon, A., Brass, D. J., & Robertson, B. (2006). The social networks of leaders: Implications for group performance and leader reputation. Organization Science, 17, 64−79.

Mehra, A., Smith, B., Dixon, A., & Robertson, B. (2006). Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 232−245. Moon, M., & Armstrong, G. (1994). Selling teams: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management., 14, 17−30. Moon, M., & Gupta, S. (1997). Examining the formation of selling centers: A conceptual framework. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 17(2), 31−42. Park, J. E., & Holloway, B. B. (2003). Adaptive selling behavior revisited: An empirical examination of learning orientation, sales performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 23(3), 239−251. Perry, M., Pearce, C., & Sims, H. (1999). Empowered selling teams: How shared leadership can contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19(3), 35−51. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, Y. L., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879−903. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday / Anchor Books. Porter, C. O. L. H., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Backing up behaviors in teams: The role of personality and legitimacy of need. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 391−403. Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions for future research. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35, 4−37. Prince, C., & Salas, E. (1993). Training and research for teamwork in the military aircrew. In E. L. Weiner, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 337−366). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Rapp, A., Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Schillewaert, N. (2006). The impact of knowledge and empowerment on working smart and working hard: The moderating role of experience. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 279−293. Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. (2005). Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science, 51, 869−881. Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332−344. Rentsch, J. R., & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). When do great minds think alike? Antecedents of team member schema agreement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 107−120. Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. (1999). Employees' reaction to the change to work teams. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1), 51−67. Smith, B., & Barclay, D. (1990). Theoretical perspectives on selling center research. AMA Winter Educators' Conference. In D. Lichtenthal (Ed.), Marketing theory and applications. Chicago: American Marketing Association. Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1239−1251. Stock, R. M. (2006). Interorganizational teams as boundary spanners between supplier and customer companies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 588−599. Strutton, D., & Pelton, L. E. (1998). Effects of ingratiation on lateral relationship quality within sales team settings. Journal of Business Research, 43, 1−12. Thompson, L. L. (2004). Making the team: A guide for managers, 2d ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Weingart, L., & Weldon, E. (1991). Processes that mediate the relationship between a group goal and group member performance. Human Performance, 4, 33−54. Weldon, E., Jehn, K. A., & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes that mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 555−569. Workman, J. P., Jr., Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2003). Intraorganizational determinants of key account management effectiveness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 3−21. Zoltners, A., Sinha, P., & Zoltners, G. (2001). The complete guide to accelerating sales force performance. New York: Amacom.