Measuring the performance of industrial salespersons

Measuring the Performance of Industrial Salespersons Douglas N Behrman, Florida State Unwers@ Wllham D Perreault, Jr , Unwerslty of North Carolma

Sales force pet$ormance 1s a crrttcal concern of most mdustnalfirms, yet m thrs area of research there are d$tkultles m measurrng salespersons perfbrmance issues relevant to measurrng the performance of mdustrlal salespersons are reviewed A self-report perjormance scale developed and evaluated based on the responses of 200 salespersons and 42 managers from five major mdustnalfirms 1s presented

The sales force and its performance are cntlcal to the success of almost every mdustnal firm, and it 1s of httle surpnse that marketing researchers and managers alike have studied salespersons, the sales process, and exchange mteractlons to provide insights on how to make sales managers and the sales force more effective These efforts have been useful, yet there 1s little doubt that research progress m the area of personal selling has been hindered by the conceptual and methodological problems of measunng salesperson performance [3,5,6,7,8, 15, 16, 19,20,25] Measuring Salesperson Performance Quantitative Measures It is compelling to rely on quantitative company data (such as dollar or unit sales or contnbutlon to profit over some time penod) as a logical cntenon measure of salesperson performance, moreover, these measures have been widely used m past research Yet there can be problems with quantitative measures For example, Forrester [lo] has persuasively described the dynamics of mdustnal markets, and how this volatlhty 1s reflected m dramatic swmgs m sales volume inequality across different sales temtones, product lines, or customer accounts often exist [23] Thus sometimes quantitative company data that appear to be obJective may suggest differences m performance among salespersons that may be attnbutable to factors beyond the control of the mdlvldual Such uncontrollable factors can Address correspondence to William D Perreault, Jr ) College of Busmess Admmrstranon, Umverslty of North Carolrna, Chapel HI& NC 27.514 Journal of Buslne\s Research 10, 355-370 ( 1982) 0 El\evler Saence Publchlng Co Inc 1982 52 Vanderbilt Ave New York NY 10017

0148.2963/82/030355-

355 16$2 75

356

Douglas N Behrman and W&am D Perreault, Jr

sometimes be taken into account by consldermg performance relative to quotas, or by statlstlcally partlalhng out the Impact of uncontrollable factors [7, 201 Even with such adJustments, quantltatlve measures may be problematic when team selhng, mlsslonary selling, or long selling cycles are an issue The unldlmenslonal focus of quantitative measures of S&S performance may not be appropnate for sales research purposes [3, 191 However, to the extent that a number of relevant, but dlssmnlar, quantitative measures (sales, new accounts, conversion rates, expenses, etc ) are available on each salesperson, It IS possible to develop composite performance measures for each salesperson [61 Evaluation by Knowledgeable Others A sales manager evaluates the Such evaluations can exphcltly or performance of the salesperson implicitly consider different facets ofjob performance However, as was pointed out over three decades ago [3], sales manager’s evaluations may leave much to be desired when the managers have not been specifically trained m evaluation, Cocanougher and Ivancevlch [5] have recently reviewed common dlfficultles with sales manager evaluations One concern 1s that salespersons operate across orgamzatlonal boundanes [ 11, and much of their effort may be beyond the “view” of the company The manager may have little firsthand knowledge about what the salesperson does to represent the company, other than what shows up m summary reports of quantltatlve data This may accentuate bias from halo effects [ 161 Furthermore, expenmental evidence suggests that the salesperson can use personal relationships to bias evaluations upwardly [121 Sales managers are sometimes unable or unwlllmg to dlscnmmate between different performance levels among salespersons when provldmg evaluations This problem can be accentuated when a number of different sales managers are each evaluatmg many salespersons because differential leniency or harshness effects create measurement and analysis problems Thus although sales manager evaluations have face validity to other executives, there has been httle published effort to evaluate the rehablhty or validity of their ratings A different approach IS for customers to rate the salesperson, at least on those aspects of performance that impact customer attitudes and their purchases from the salesperson’s firm The major lumtatlons of this approach are the evaluative cntena may vary widely among customers, and only a hmlted subset of the cntena relevant to the employing company may be important to customers Self-Evaluations A number of studies have asked sales representatives to provide self-reports of overall performance The salesperson

Industrial Salespersons’ Performances

357

best knows the detail of the many requirements of the Job, how well she or he actually performs, and what could be accomplished Several sales research studies have used a self-rating scale adapted by Pruden and Reece [ 171 from a measure proposed by Pym and Auld [ 181 for ambiguous Job situations This measure is attractive because it is easy to administer and has been used m other studies, but it IS not specific to mdustnal sales Furthermore, the rellablhty of the single item, four response category, Pruden and Reece measure 1s not known In addition, with self-ratmg scales based on only one (or very few) item(s), the self-evaluation may be strongly biased by the salesperson’s perception of what he or she does well, not by a balanced perspective of performance on the different, important aspects of the Job This problem can be partially overcome wrth the use of rating scales that tap different aspects of sales performance and that are based on response items that sample from different actlvltles for each aspect Another possible concern with self-rating scales IS that people may tend to be overly generous when rating their own performance However, m sales research it 1s typically possible to insure that each salesperson’s responses will be anonymous (or confidential) so there IS less motrvatlon for a respondent to give inflated ratings In summary, self-report evaluations are most appropnate when responses can be confidential, when much of the effort 1s not directly observable by the manager, when aspects of performance are not reflected m quantitative data, when multlcompany samples are used, and when a reliable scale has been developed to tap different aspects of performance Inventory of Performance Items Generating Representative Items A useful first step m the process of developing a sales performance scale was to analyze the Job of mdustnal salespersons and generate scale items representative of the major Job responslblhtles and domams of performance relevant to most mdustnal salespersons A number of different theoretlcal and practical stlmuh were used m this process The sales management literature [7, 14, 15, 19, 21, 221, a number of sales textbooks, and issues of Sales and Murketmg Management were reviewed for relevant theoretlcal and practical performance constructs A number of published [ 151 and unpublished sales Job descnptlons and performance evaluation forms were also reviewed Each of the sources noted above served as stlmuh m developmg an extensive set of statements, representing different aspects of performance, to serve as potential items for the scale Then items that were

358

Douglas N Behrman and Wllllam D Perreault, Jr

unique to only limited types of mdustnal selling sltuatlons and those that were redundant were deleted One hundred items remained m the pool Then, based on an analysis of the item content by the researchers, each of the items was grouped with other items from the same content domain This resulted m seven categones of items 1) achieving quantity and quality sales ObJectives, 2) controlling unnecessary company expenses, 3) developing and mamtammg cu5tomer goodwill, 4) provldmg mformatlon to the company and followmg company pohcy, 5) developmg and using technical knowledge, 6) glvmg high-quality sales presentatlons and working well with customers, and 7) working well with other personnel m the fum Achieving quality and quality sales ObJectives considers 15sues such as generating new customers, meeting specific sales ObJectives, improving temtory penetration, and selling profitable products Controllmg unnecessary costs and expenses includes such areas as operating wlthm budget constramts and Judicious use of promotional allowances and travel expenses Developmg and mamtammg customer goodwill concerns faclhtatmg relatlonshlps and reducing fnctlon between the fum and its customers, and includes resolving customer problems and complamts, developmg “goodwill,” projecting d professional image for the firm, and the like Item5 related to glvmg high-quality sales presentations and dealing with cubtomers reflect the role of the salesperson as an external representative of the company, and include such factors as understanding customers’ needs, glvmg clear, well thought out presentations, responding to questions, and the like Provldmg the company with mformatlon reflects the sdlesperson’s gatekeepmg and feedback role m provldmg the company with accurate feedback and paperwork concerning sales, and provldmg mputs about company operations, customers, and competition Items concerning the sales representative’s development and use of technical knowledge (such ds relates to product apphcatlons, speclllcatlons, and customer use sltuatlons) facilitates the salesperson’s coordmdtion responslblhtles both wlthm the company and with Its customers The final category of Items, about working well with other personnel m the firm (acting as a special resource to other departments, working with other sales representatives and the salesmanager to achieve corporate goals, and the like), is concerned with the mtemdl representative and coordmatlon responslbllltles of a salesperson A Panel of Judges To reduce possible item ambiguity and to obtain feedback concemmg the content groupings (categories) of items, the wordmg and content of the items for these categones were then reviewed by a number of researchers mvolved with sales performance Issues and

Industrial Salespersons’ Performances

359

practlcmg marketing managers with field sales and sales management expenence Performance items that were evaluated as ambiguous, not well categorized,,“› not representative of the majonty of mdustnal selling Job situations, or simply not important were eliminated or modified Several new items were also suggested and added to the pool At the end of this review, 65 items remained for the 7 performance areas This set of items was reviewed again by the Judges, and minor modlficatlons were made until agreement was achieved A 7-cue rating scale format was chosen to elicit responses The most response was labeled “outand at the low end the verbal cue selected as “needs standing,” improvement *’ Research Methods Sample Firms and Respondents To select companies with sales orgamzatlons and sales responslblhtles (creative, technical selling) representative of those typical to mdustnal sales, interviews were conducted with executives from a number of major mdustnal trade assoclatlons Based on these dlscusslons, we selected five (noncompeting) companies as charactenstlc of a broad class of mdustridl sellers All five fums participated wlllmgly m the study Each of the multlproduct companies IS prominent m its product areas and has an effective natlonal sales organization From across the five firms, 2 19 salespersons and 43 of their managers were invited to participate m the study, 200 (91 percent) of the salespersons and all but one of the sales managers (98 percent) returned completed questionnaires The salespersons m the sample are first-line field sales representatives responsible for sales to ongmal equipment manufacturers, end users, and dlstnbutors They are paid a base salary with some form of commlsslon or bonus as an incentive The sample 1s comprised pnmanly of mamed men, most of whom have a college education Data Collection Procedures Data were collected from salespersons and their sales managers using self-administered questionnaires Assurances were made that all responses would be confidential Along with other directions, salespersons were asked to rate their own “current level of performance” on the previously discussed items by evaluating how well they “perform m that area compared with an average salesperson in similar selling situations ” However, to comply with hmltatlons set by several companies concerning avallablhty of sales managers’ time, the managers’ questionnaire used a different method to gather evaluations Specl-

360

Douglas N Behrman and W&am D Perreault, Jr

fically, each of the performance cntena was described m a bnef composite paragraph (I e , not usmg mdlvldual items as was the case with the salespersons) For example, the descnptlon of the “controllmg unnecessary or excessive company expenses” cntenon was Salesmen help to generate revenues for the company, but there 1s also expense In supportmg a sales force Salesmen must make Judlclous use of expense accounts for travel and lodgmg, as well as entertamment costs Slmdarly, they frequently allocate promotlonal and gift allowances In addmon, the salesman may keep costs down In other areas of the company by consldenng order preparation, dehvery costs, and the hke when wntmg sales orders Clearly there are many other areas of salesman-related expenses, and many of these are necessary and desirable However, some salesmen do not work at controlhng unnecessary or excessive expenses Consldenng Issues such as those noted above, please rate each salesman on his efforts at controllmg unnecessary or excessive company expenses

After consldenng such a descnptlon, the manager was asked to evaluate and rate each “salesman under your authonty as he compares with all other salesmen you have known or worked with m a similar selling situation ” To rate the salespersons, a vertical percentage scale was provided on the page below the descnptlon The manager rated the salesperson by pnntmg his name m the margin to the nght of the scale and drawing an arrow to the correspondmg centlle position on the scale for that cntenon Item Analysis and Selection The first step m the scale analysis was concerned with item selection and evaluating the items that remained after the semantic and content review Approximately one-fourth of the salespersons were selected as an ltemselection subsample, and an item-scale analysis [9] was conducted As an lmtlal step, to evaluate the basic homogeneity of items for the seven components fo performance and for the overall scale, Cronbach’s alpha was computed A summary of these results IS provided m Table 1 The rehablhtles were suffieclently high to move to the next step of evaluating mdlvldual items [4] To punfy the items, related items were totaled to develop a prehmmary score for each of the a pnorz item groupings Then each of the mdlvldual items were correlated with each of the item-adjusted subtotals (1 e , the total scale score minus the score for the item of concern) If an item correlated lower with the mtended subcomponent of performance than with other components that it was not mtended to

Sales presentation Provldmg mformatlon Technical knowledge Sales objectives Controlhng expenses Teamwork Customer relations Overall scale

Item Group

Table 1 Rehabhes,

Inrt~al Alpha 96 93 91 90 86 14 81 97

Number of Items

8 8 8 9 8 6 8 65

Item Selection Subsample

Means, and Standard

Scale

90 81 86 87 82

93

31

Alpha Estnnate of Rehabllity

17051

19 46

69 48 52 82 05

4 4 5 5 5

33 26 32 38 39

46 52 41 15 96

Standard Devlatlon

Mean

Hold-out Sample Evaluation of Fmai Scale

for Job Performance

6 5 6 7 I

Number of Items

Devlatlons

70

54 59 77 60 46

Test-Retest Rebabllity

ch

w

2 2

2L,

P z

P

h

362

DoLtglas IV Behrman and W&am D Perreault, Jr

measure, the item was not dlscnmmatmg as Intended Thus Items were deleted if 1) the adjusted item-total scale correlations for the intended subscale was smaller than the item-scale correlation for any of the other SIX subscales, or if 2) the expected item-scale correlation was not significant These cntena resulted m the deletion of 25 items All of the items for relations and goodwill” subscale were the proposed “customer eliminated because the items from this group correlated highly across other performance subscales This suggests that customer relations and goodwill was not perceived by the respondents as a distinct component of performance, but rather as an Important part of other aspects of performance An exploratory prmclpal factormg analysis was then used to evaluate and display the underlying structure of the remaining items Since the item analysis had reduced the number of performance components, a 6-factor, vanmax rotated solution was considered In the resulting factor structure, however, the sixth factor had a elgenvalue less than 1 0, and the loadings for the remammg items ongmally intended to be associated with the “workmg well with other personnel m the firm” subcomponent were cross-loaded with other factors Being a “team worker” 1s not viewed as a distinct dimension of performance for these salespersons, but rather a facet of their performance on other dimensions Thus remaining items for this subscale were deleted At this pomt m the analysis, the content review and subsample item-analysis had been used to punfy the imtlal item pool and to reduce it to a set of 3 1 mdlvldual items that represented five aspects of mdustnal sales performance Item and Scale Evaluation on the Hold-out Sample Reliability The alpha coefficients for the rellablhty of the hold-out (evaluation) subsample (n = 148), as well as the means and standard deviations for the subcomponents, are displayed m Table 1 All of the alpha coefficients, which provide lower bound estimates of rehabdlty, are over 75 Test-retest rehablhty, which estimates the stabdlty of a measure over time, 1s also a relevant concern with this type of scale In this research, resource constraints and llmltatlons imposed by the host companies prohlblted readmmlstenng the instrument to the total sample However, permission was obtained to send a second-wave questionnaire to the sales force of the company with the largest partlclpatlon Two months after the first malmg, a followup questlonnalre was sent to each of the 7 1

Industrial

Salespersons’ Performances

363

salespersons from the firm who had responded to the first questlonnare, completed, second-wave questionnaires were returned by 59 (83%) of the salespersons A test of equality of covarlance matrices [ 13, p 2821 did not detect significant @ 5 16) differences between the covmance structures of the mtlal responses and the retest responses Thus the retest performance scale score was computed and correlated with scores from the first-wave admmlstratlon The test-retest correlation was 70 This test-retest rehablhty estimate IS not as strong as the estimate of mtemal consistency ( 93), but IS still wlthm accepted standards for behavioral research Validity While it IS not Intended that the subcomponents of the self-rating scale be used as independent measures of performance, there may be added confidence m the validity of the overall scale if the self-report subcomponents correlate with the comparable component evaluations for sales managers (The composite paragraphs used to focus sales manager ratings were developed before ehmmatmg the items that were not included m the final scale, and the paragraph descnptlons tended to be somewhat more general than the mdlvldual items This may have an impact on the correlations between the manager ratings and the salesperson ratings ) The resulting component correlation coefficients were 36 0, 5 001) for “achieving overall sales objectives,” 33 (p 5 001) for “understanding and use of technical knowledge,” 23 @ 5 and 15 (p 5 023) for “controlling 001) for “sales presentations,” unnecessary expenses ” The self-ratings for “provldmg useful mformation” did not slgmficantly correlate (r = 06) with the manager evaluations (Table 2) When these coefficients are recomputed wtthtn the three firms with eight or more sales managers, the statistics are generally higher In two the the three firms the different measures of “provldmg mformatlon” are slgmflcantly correlated, for Company I the correlation was 56 @ 5 032) and for company V it was 22 (p 5 05) In the same vein, the managers’ overall evaluations correlated slgmficantly with the salespersons’ overall scale scores, although the shared vanance was modest (Table 2) Only company V already had m use a (management completed) quantitatively scored performance rating form, this measure, based on a weighted sum of ratings (from 1 to 10) on each of ten prespeclfied items, also correlates ( 29, p 5 007) with the self-report measure The partlclpatmg companies were also asked to pnvlde, when possible, internal data (such as actual sales, expenses, quota, and budget information) so that the predictive validity of the performance scale could be assessed further There were substantial differences m the

a These correlations

at (1 4

05

280 28‘J

10 580

Company Company

are sgmt’xant

230 480

360 450

Total sample Company I

IV V

Sales Presentations

Self-Report

Sales ObJechves

between

Respondents

Table 2 Correlations

290 43”

33a 4@

Techmcal Knowledge

- 05 22Q

06 560

Proudmg Information

Ratmgs and Managers’ Evaluation

260 320 30a 38a

320 14

Overall Performance ISa 26Q

Controllmg Expenses

b

5

9 Q

2 4

k %

b : OS F 2

Industwal Salespersons’ Performances

365

completeness of data avadable from deferent compames and temtones wlthm companies Data from only three of the companies were of sufficient quality to be used for analysis For each salesperson m these companies a sales performance index was computed This index 1s a ratio of the salesperson’s contnbutlon to profit for the year (the numerator) divided by his or her expected profitability (based on budget and quota proJections) for the year This profitablhty index correlated 21 @ 5 06) with the salesperson’s overall self-ratings, as a point of companson, the correlation between this mdex and the overall evaluation of the sales managers was 23 @ 5 05) A salesperson’s need for achievement was expected to be related to overall performance So as an evaluation of concurrent validity, the self-report scores were correlated with the respondent’s scores on a need for achievement scale [ll] The correlation was 25 @ 5 001) The self-report mesure correlates slgmficantly with manager’s evaluations, profitabdlty data, internal company ratings, and a need for achievement measure Indlvldually, none of these relationships 1s strong, yet m combmatlon they suggest that the self-report scale developed here captures some common vanance with other surrogate indicators of sales performance As a final validity-related issue, It 1s relevant to consider the underlying structure of the instrument and the content domam of the items Scale rehabdlty is sometimes obtamed at the cost of validity If the items are too highly homogeneous One analytical means to further evaluate this possibility 1s agam to factor analyze the responses to the final set of 3 1 performance items, but using the hold-out subsample The results of the five factor, vanmax rotated factor analysis are displayed m Table 3, which also lists the items used m the final scale In general, the item loadings are consistent with the expected structure and support the item heterogeneity of the measure Most of the items are loaded substantially on a pnmary factor and exhibit low or moderate loadings on the factors In summary, then, there are relatively homogeneous subsets of Items, but each different subset taps an Important and relatively distinct aspect of sales performance Discussion and Conclusions Limitations In this research an effort has been made to focus on elements of Job performance common to most mdustnal sales Jobs As a result, the items tend to be generalized but this to some extent lmphes that speclficlty of content has been traded off There certainly ~111be specific mdustnal sales Jobs where Important aspects of performance are

Statement

43

07

21

22

27 19

28

08

43

4s

22

20

08

65

13

22

13

19

14

03

21

17 06

24

79

06

17

09

OS

13

86

16

14

11

21

23 10 23 21 24

V Sales Presentations

26

20

69

05

57

10

20 22 12 21 14

IV Controllmg Expenses

Rotation

31

13

69

OS 11 14 10 02

III Provldmg InformatIon

Factor

Vulmax

23

20 12 10 30 12

II Techmcal Knowledge

Vdrlables

70 65 77 51 67

I Sales ObJectIves

for Job Performance

ProduLmg d high market share for your company m your territory Makmg sales oi those products with the highest profit margms Generatmg a high level ot dollar \ales QulLklY generating sdles of new company product? Identlfymg and sehg to mdJor dccounts In your territory Producmg SdleS or bldnket contracts with long-term protltabihty Euceedmg all sales targets and obJectIves tor your territory durmp the year Knowmg the deqlgn dnd speclflcatlons of ‘ompdny products Knowmg the apphcdtlons and functions of company products Berng dble to detect causes ot operatmg tadure of company products Acting as a special resource to other departments that need your assistance Keeping abreast of your company’s productlon and technological developments When possible, troubleshootmg system problems dnd conduLtmg mmor field service to Lorrect product mlsapphcattons and/or product failures Carrymg our company pohc~e~, procedures, and programs for provldmg mtormatlon

Performance

Table 3 Factor Analysis Solution

34

31

61

43

49

71

80

43

59

61 50 69 48 5s

Item Communahtles

Provldmg accurate and complete paperwork related to orders, expenses, and other routme reports Recommendmg on your own mltlatlve how company operations and procedures can be improved Submlttmg required reports on time Mamtammg company speclfled records that are accurate, complete, and up to date Operating wlthm the budgets set by the company Using expense accounts with Integrity Using busmess gift and promotional allowances responsibly Spending travel and lodging money carefully Arranging sales call patterns and frequency to cover your territory economically Entertammg only when it IS clearly m the best Interest of the company to do so Controlling costs in other areas of the company (order processing and preparation, delivery, etc ) when taking sales orders Listening attentively to Identify and understand the real concerns of your customer Convmcmg customers that you understand their umque problems and concerns Using established contacts to develop new customers Communicating your sales presentation clearly and concisely Making effective use of audlovlsual aids (charts, tables, and the hke) to improve your sales presentation Working out solutions to a customer’s questions or obJections Origmal elgenvalues Cumulative portion o! variance 42 86

05 03 20 11 16 14 16 19 20

09 18 18 10 14 08 22 2 46 43

07 12 14 15 01 03 05 23 31

34 21 28 24 33 21 30 10 89 35

33 2 20 50

19

27

21 19

18 201 57

49 II

IO 1 52 62

55

66 60

68

49

54

32

53 71

64 36 60

24 1-I

51

55

58

09 28

68 66

74

00

00

13

16 19

25 18 32

21 10

21

21 24

14

60

07 19

61

43

68 19

29 54 61

13 00

14

17

20

16 12

65 02 13

69

15

09

368

Douglas N Behrman and Wzlllam D Perreault, Jr

not tapped by this scale A related concern 1s the problem of setting pnontles m mdustnal sales activities In this measure there 1s no exphclt differential weighting of the importance of the different aspects of sales performance Of course, weights could be provided (by salespersons, managers, or researchers) and used m computmg the composite More speckally, each step m the scale development process (1 e , the selection of participant firms, the sample, and items, as well as the item analysis) introduces sequential measurement error In addition, the use of correlation techmques assumes no measurement error Thus the findings may be characterized by both random and systematic error Although these problems plague almost all efforts at scale development, they should be exphcltly recognized and considered m future apphcatlons and evaluation of the scale Research and Applied Uses The scale proposed here may not be consistently supenor to other measures of sales performance that might be used Rather, different measures offer different advantages and disadvantages, and m some cases a self-rating measure may provide an important and complementary perspective to other measures For example tks scale could be used simultaneously with other performance measures m sales research, confidence m the validity and generahzablhty of results from a sales force research project will be enhanced if concurrent use of alternative operatlonahzatlons of the same cntenon vanable yields the same results and conclusions Altematlvely, self-report performance measures could be used m combmatlon with other types of measures For example, it would be possible to develop a performance cntenon vanable based on the vanance that was common to self-report and management evaluations as well as quantitative vanables On the other hand, there are research situations where a self-report measure would have unique advantages For example, a study design that called for sampling across many companies might preclude developing full cooperative relationships with host firms, and thus reduce the posslblhty that company input (managenal evaluations, sales data, etc ) would be avalable Slmllarly, there are frequently research situations where the comparablhty of measures across time or units of analysis (temtones, firms, mdustnes, or the hke) 1s a major concern A generahzable measure of performance will help to eliminate some of these problems of measurement mconslstency An alternative use of the inventory might be to focus and direct diagnostic dlscusslons between salespersons and sales managers concerning what is important in the performance of a given sales Job For example, ambiguity concerning managenal perceptions and expectations might be reduced if a sales manager would rate his or her perceived

Industrial Salespersons’Performances

369

importance for each of the actlvltles, and also his or her rating of the salesperson’s performance on that Issue [2] Where differences of oumlon between the sales manager and the salesperson existed, they cbuld be discussed and resolved-The inventory iay also be useful in guiding performance apprrusal dlscusslon between managers and their salespersons

References 1

Adams, J Stacy, The Structure and Dynamics of Behavior m Organizational Boundary Roles, m Handbook of Orgamzattonal Psychology M D Dunnett, ed Rand McNally, Chicago, 1976, pp 1175-l 199

,

2

Behrman, Douglas N , Blgoness, William J , and Perreault, William D Jr, Sources of Job Related Ambiguity and Their Consequences Upon Salespersons’ Job Satisfactlon and Performance, Mgmt Sctence 27 (November 198 1) 1246-l 260

3

Bolanvich, D J , and KirkpatrIck, F H , Measurement and SelectIon of Salesmen, Educattonal and Psychologrcal Measurement 3 (Autumn 1943) 333-339

4

Churchill, Gilbert A , Jr , A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures Constructs, J Marketrng Res 16 (February 1979) 64-73

5

Cocanougher, A Benton, and lvancevlch, John M , “BARS” for Sales Force Research, J Marketmg 42 (July 1978) 87-95

6

Cotham, James C , and Cravens, David W , Improvmg Performance, Bus Honzons 12 (June 1969) 79-83

7

Cravens, David W ,Woodruff, Robert B , An Approach for Determining of Sales Performance, J Apphed Psy 57 (June 1973) 242-247

8

Cravens, David W , Woodruff, Robert B , and Stamper, Joe C , An Analytical Approach for Evaluating Sales Territory Performance, J Marketrng 36 (January 1972) 31-37 Cronbach, Lee J , Essenttals of Psychologtcal Testtng New York, Harper & Row, 1970,p 160

9

J W , Industrtal Dynamtcs

of Marketmg

Performance

Measurement

Rating

of Salesman Criteria

, 196 1

10

Forrester,

11

Frus, Robert H , and Knox, Alan, A Validity Study of Scales to Measure Need Achievement, Need Affiliation, Compulsiveness Intellectuality, Educatronal and Psychologtcal Measurement 32 (Sprmg 1972) 147-154

12

Jones, E E , Gergen, K J , Cumpert, P , and Thlbaut, J W , Some Condltlons Aftectmg the Use of Ingratiation to Influence Performance Evaluation, J Personalrty and Socral Psy 1 (June 1965) 613-625 Kendall, M G , and Stuart, A , The Advanced Theory of Stattstlcs, Vol 3 Charles Grlffm and Co , London, 196 1

13 14

M I T Press, Cambridge,

Mass

Lamont, Lawrence M , and Lundstrom, William G , Defmmg Industrial Sales Behavior A Factor Analytic Study, in New Marketmg for Soctal and Economtc Progress and Marketmg’s Contrrbuttons to the Ftrm and to Soctety, Series No 36 Ronald C Curhan, ed , American Marketing Association, Chicago, 1975, pp 493498

Douglas N Behrman and U’dl~amD Perreault,

370

Measurmg Salesman Performance, Studies Industrial Conference Board, New York,

15

Natlonal Industrial m Busmess Policy, 1965

16

Perreault, Wdham D , Jr , and Russ, Frederick A , Comparmg Multiattribute atlon Process Models, Behav Sn 22 (November 1977) 423-431

17

Prude”, Henry 0 , and Reece, Richard and the Performance and Sdtisfaction 17 (1972) 601-609

18

Pym, D L A , and Auld, H D , The Self-Rating as a Measure factlon, Occupaflonal Psy 39 (April 1965) 103-l 13

19

Rush, 9-24

20

Rpans, mg Res

D H

Conference Board, No 114 National

, A Factoridl

Study

Jr

M , Interorganizational of Industridl Sdlesmen,

of Sales Criteria,

Adrian B , and Weinberg, Charles 16 (November 1979) 453-465

B

Role-Set Relations Admmlstr Scz Q of Employee

Personnel Psy 6 (Sprmg

, Territory

Evalu-

Sales Response,

Satls1953)

J Marker

21

Spiro, Rosann L , Perreault, William D , Jr , and Reynolds, Fred D , The Personal Selling Process A CrItical Review and Model, Industrial Markebng Mgmt 5 (December 1976) 351-364

22

Walker, Orville C , Jr, Churchill, Gdbert A, Jr, and Ford, Ned, M ,Motivation and Performance in Industrial Selling Present Knowledge and Needed Research, J MarketmgRes 14 (May 1977) 156-168

23

Wolfe, Harry Deane, and Albaum, Gerald, Inequality in Products, Orders, tomers, Salesmen, and Sales Territories, J Bus 35 (July 1962) 298-301

Cus-