- Email: [email protected]
Sales force commitment and turnover
Sales Force Commitment and Turnover Thomas N. Ingram Keun S. Lee This article investigates salesperson turnover by examining the dtflering effects ofjob and organizational commitment on industrial salespeople’s propensity to withdrawfrom selling jobs. Traditional approaches havefocused on company turnover thus failing to consider salespeople’s attitudinal and behavioral orientations that may lead them to leave selling jobs. The results of this study indicate that organizational commitment is signtficantly related to withdrawalfrom an organization.
INTRODUCTION While studies of sales force turnover have helped managers gain a better understanding of this costly phenomenon, they have yet to address the distinction between job turnover and company turnover. Sales force turnover has typically been examined in terms of the extent to which a salesperson is likely to remain with his or her employing organization. The extent to which a salesperson may display a propensity to change jobs (from selling to non-selling) has not been previously researched.
Address correspondence to Professor Thomas N. Ingram, Department of Marketing, Fogelman College of Business and Economics, Memphis State University, Memphis, TN 38152. Industrial Marketing Management 19, 149-154 (1990) 0 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 1990 65.5 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
The purpose of this article is to present a realistic conceptualization of the propensity aspect of sales force turnover with a distinction between job withdrawal propensity (from selling to non-selling) and organizational withdrawal propensity (from the present employer to another employer). The present study also assesses empirically the differing effects of job commitment and organizational commitment on propensity to withdraw from a job and from an organization, respectively. Both job and organizational commitment have been suggested as important-but-neglected variables in the study of sales force turnover [ 15, 181. Propensity to leave, despite its limitation as a surrogate measure of turnover, is a significant indicator of the withdrawal decision [ 151 and has been used in several major turnover studies [9, 181. Previous research on these variables and subsequent development of hypotheses are discussed in the following sections.
LITERATURE
REVIEW
Commitment
and Turnover
Organizational commitment and job commitment have long been studied in the non-selling employee turnover literature [24-281. Recently, salespeople’s commitment has also been investigated as a potential predictor of turnover propensity and of actual turnover 149 0019-8501/90/$3.50
The importance
of job commitment
by sales management researchers [ 15, 181. Salespeople who are highly committed to their employers and to selling jobs are believed to be less likely to withdraw from the firm or to change from a selling job to a nonselling job. The present research is guided by a model incorporating commitment and turnover propensity, as shown in Figure 1. The commitment component is divided into organizational commitment and job commitment, while propensity to leave is dichotomized into organizational and job aspects of turnover propensity.
Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment appears to be a relevant attitudinal variable when predicting propensity to leave and actual turnover, since commitment is viewed as “an internal feeling, belief, or set of intentions that enhances an employee’s desire to remain with an organization” [ 131. A number of studies in organization behavior have found organizational commitment to be a predictor of turnover [8, 24, 25, 271. In marketing, researchers have recently increased their attention to organizational commitment as a strong antecedent variable in explaining such outcome variables as satisfaction and turnover [5, 7, 12, 16, 18, 23, 291. Most researchers consistently hypothesize that organizational commitment is a significant predictor of sales force turnover. In an empirical study of salespeople, Johnston and colleagues [16] reported a negative relationship between the two variables.
THOMAS N. INGRAM is Professor of Marketing in the Fogel man College of Business and Economics at Memphis State University. KEUN S. LEE IS Assistant Professor of Marketing University.
150
at Hofstra
Job Commitment Fewer studies of job commitment (also termed job involvement) have been conducted than of organizational commitment [20]. However, several researchers have indicated the importance of job commitment in understanding worker behavior [ 13, 301. In sales force management, job commitment has been empirically related to S/B: salespeople’s career stages [4]. The definition of job commitment focuses on the degree of absorption an individual experiences in work activity. It is closely aligned with the employee’s psychological identification to the work [ 171. The extent to which a salesperson is psychologically absorbed in selling activities may be related to his or her propensity to leave a selling job for a non-selling job. For example, outside sales representatives may gradually develop a “not-forme” attitude toward a selling job and may ultimately leave the job if they cannot cope with negative job aspects such as frequent rejection and the loneliness of extensive travel. Empirically, Rusbult and Farrell [26] have reported that employee turnover is related to a decline over time in the degree of job commitment.
Relative Effects of Commitment on Propensity to Leave An individual at work may simultaneously experience varying degrees of commitment toward the job and the employing organization [ 13, 301. Attitudinal outcomes, therefore, may be better understood as a function of different types of commitment rather than as a function of only one type of commitment. From a logical standpoint, the extent to which a salesperson psychologically identifies with the employer (organizational commitment) may affect the formation of propensity to withdraw from organization. The degree of absorption in and identification with the selling job (job commitment) may explain more about a salesperson’s propensity to withdraw from the sales job. Although a few studies in the sales management area have examined the association between organizational
Propensi
Commitment
tv-to-Leave
Propensity-to-Leave Organization
Organizational Commitment +
+ Propensity-to-Leave Job
Job Commitment i FIGURE 1.
The Hypothesized Linkage Between Commitment and Propensity to Leave. Plus and minus signs represent the direction and relative strength of relationships. A double minus sign indicates a stronger relationship than a single minus sign.
commitment and propensity to leave an employer [ 161, no previous studies have assessed the impact of commitment on propensity to leave a sales job. In a study of retail salespeople, Jackofsky and Peters [14] made conceptual distinctions between “inter-company” and “inter-job” (e.g., selling vs. non-selling) turnover. They concluded that there is a need to match predictors and criteria of turnover since it is appropriate to predict job turnover from job-specific variables (e.g., job commitment) and organizational turnover from organization-specific variables.
RESEARCH
METHOD
Sample The data required to test the hypotheses were collected from 37 industrial firms whose participation was gained in exchange for a summary report of the study findings. A total of 402 questionnaires were mailed to salespeople through their sales managers, and 235 usable questionnaires were returned. The response rate of 58.5% compares quite favorably with other surveys of industrial salespeople. Indirect assessment of nonresponse bias as described by Armstrong and Overton [l] revealed no bias.
HYPOTHESES Previous research suggests four exploratory which are tested in this study.
hypotheses
Salespeople’s propensity to withdraw from an organization is positively related to the propensity to withdraw from a selling job. H2: Salespeople’s organizational commitment is positively related to job commitment. H3: Organizational commitment will have a stronger negative effect on salespeople’s propensity to withdraw from an organization than job commitment. H4: Job commitment will have stronger negative effect on salespeople’s propensity to withdraw from selling jobs than will organizational commitment. Hl:
Measures Organizational commitment was measured via a 15item instrument originally developed by Porter, Crampon, and Smith [24]. Johnston et al. [ 161 recently employed this instrument in measuring levels of organizational commitment among salespeople. Strong reliability and evidence of validity have been reported for this measure [2, 16, 211. Using Likert-type 7-point statements, respondents were requested to indicate the extent of their disagreement (scored 1) or agreement (scored 7) with the particular statement. The score of organizational commitment is the sum of the individual responses to all 15 items.
151
Job commitment and organizational commitment are highly related Job commitment, defined as the extent to which a salesperson becomes absorbed in and identifies with his or her job (selling activities), was assessed by a 4-item Likert scale developed by Hall et al. [ 111. This scale has demonstrated acceptable reliability properties in a study of 66 industrial salespeople [4]. To measure propensities to leave, respondents were asked to respond to a two-part question: “To what extent are you presently seeking to change: ( 1) organizations (going to another company), and (2) selling jobs (quit selling for nonselling). ” Salespeople were asked to indicate one of the 5 points ranging from (I) no extent, to (5) great extent. Most previous studies used a single-item scale to measure salespeople’s propensity to leave [3, 9, 161. The present study further clarifies the distinction between “organization” and “selling job”; this reduces the ambiguity often associated with the simple statement: “change jobs. ” Propensity measures were used rather than actual tumover for two primary reasons. First, propensity measures are more appropriate in tapping attitudinal orientation toward two aspects of turnover motives (e.g., companyrelated or job-related). Despite its practical value, actual turnover is a manifest outcome behavior that does not provide a motive for the salesperson’s decision to leave. Second, numerous studies have presented empirical evidence of a strong relationship between intentions and actual withdrawal behavior [16, 24, 271.
RESULTS As shown in Table 1, all four hypotheses are supported at a statistically significant level (P< 0.02). As proposed in H 1, salespeople’s propensity to withdraw from an organization is positively related to their propensity to withdraw from a selling job (r= 0.36). Furthermore, H2 receives strong support, as job commitment and organizational commitment are highly related (r= 0.44). The relative impact of organizational commitment and job commitment on propensity to withdraw from the organization is examined in the test of H3. Consistent with
152
the hypothesis, organizational commitment is negatively related to propensity to withdraw from the organization at a statistically significant level (r= -0.42), whereas job commitment is not. As also shown in Table 1, H4 is supported, suggesting that job commitment has a stronger negative effect on salespeople’s propensity to withdraw from selling jobs (r = -0.13) than does organizational commitment.
DISCUSSION
AND IMPLICATIONS
The principal findings of this study suggest that salespeople not only develop intentions to leave an employer but also experience departure intentions from selling to non-selling jobs. These two orientations of departure are separate but related. Previous research has not isolated job-orientation aspects of departure from sales force turnover and propensity to leave, despite the importance of salespeople’s attitudes toward selling jobs (careers) as a factor influencing sales force turnover. This study also provides evidence that commitment constructs are significant predictors of sales force withdrawal propensity. While organizational commitment is a strong predictor of propensity to leave an organization, job commitment explains a significant portion of the variance in the propensity to leave a selling job. The significant association between organizational commitment and propensity to leave reported here is consistent with the findings and propositions reported in previous research on sales force turnover [ 16, 181. No previous studies have focused on job commitment and its relationship with turnover variables. The findings reported in the present article have theoretical and managerial implications. This study highlights the significant contribution of organizational commitment and job commitment to the explanation of turnover behavior of salespeople. The present finding is consistent with the suggested value of organizational commitment as a predictor of sales force turnover [ 181. Sales managers should view commitment as an important
TABLE 1 Pearson and Partial Correlation
Matrix and Alpha Reliability
Coefficients Correlation
Variables Organizational Commitment (OC) Job Commitment (JC) Propensity to Leave Firm (PO) Propensity to Leave Job (PI)
JC 0.52 (ON)*
for Study Variables Matrix
PO -0.54 -0.27
(-0.42)t (0.06)
PJ - 0.39 ( - 0.09) -0.29 (-0.13)t - 0.49 (0.36)
Items
Alpha
I5 4
0.91 0.84 -
I 1
*Values shown in the correlation matrix are Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients, followed in parenthesis by second-order partial correlations coefficients. tThese partical correlation coefficients are significant at 0.02 levels; all other partical correlation coefficients are not significant at the 0.05 level.
factor, along with motivation, role perceptions, and other variables in understanding sales force behavior. Another major managerial implication can be found in the reported linkage between job commitment and propensity to leave a sales job. Job commitment does not affect propensity to leave the organization directly. However, the findings suggest that the organizational aspect of withdrawal propensity is strongly affected by the job aspect of withdrawal propensity. This implies that salespeople -may leave the company due to their lack of commitment to a selling job, which reinforces their intention to change jobs from selling to non-selling. Therefore, sales force turnover may be reduced to some extent by creating a job atmosphere where salespeople enjoy selling as a long-term profession. Managers also should take caution in recruiting salespeople to ensure that new salespeople have an acceptable psychological orientation toward selling jobs [lo]. Sales managers should also be encouraged to undertake sales force socialiefforts to enhance serious zation. Socialization is especially critical during recruitment and selection and initial training periods for new salespeople[6]. During these formative stages of the salesperson-organization relationship, it is essential that new hires be given a realistic view of the sales job, and that recruits’ needs and skills are consistent with job demands and organizational resources. After sales recruits have joined the organization, socialization efforts should concentrate on providing the new salespeople with a clear idea of what their job entails, and ensuring that the newcomers feel competent and accepted as working partners.
FUTURERESEARCH The results of this study provide some encouraging findings for future research on sales force turnover. First,
the significant linkage between company turnover propensity and job turnover propensity suggests that some of the variance in salespeople’s actual turnover can be explained by their intention to withdraw from selling jobs. Future research may benefit from adopting the propensity to leave a selling job for a non-selling job as another antecedent variable for actual sales force tumover. Previous studies have focused only on the intention to leave an organization as a surrogate measure for actual turnover. Future research might also examine intraorganizational mobility as well as interorganizational mobility in studies of sales force turnover. For example, both job turnover (leaving a job within or outside of the firm) and organizational turnover (leaving a firm) may provide a more appropriate criterion for conceptual propositions regarding the prediction of turnover than interorganizational mobility alone. As previously mentioned, it has been suggested that it would be appropriate to predict job tumover from job-specific variables and organizational tumover from organization-specific variables [ 141. The present article provides some basis for the above contention by reporting that job commitment is a predictor of job turnover intention, whereas organizational commitment is not; and that organizational commitment is a predictor of organizational turnover intention, whereas job commitment is not. Finally, there is a need for studies that include turnover intentions (job and organization) along with commitment variables as antecedents of actual turnover. This study has shown that different types of work commitment have varying effects on turnover intentions. Past research [ 19, 22, 3 I] yields a generalized link between turnover intentions and actual turnover behavior. Thus, additional studies including measures of commitment, turnover intentions, and actual turnover could generate a better understanding of sales force turnover.
153
REFERENCES I.
16. Johnston,
Armstrong, S., and Overton, T., Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys, Journal of Marketing Research 14 (August), 396-402 (1977).
2. Bateman, T., and Strasser, S., A Longitudinal Analysis of the Antecedents of Organizational Commitment, Academy of Management Journal. 27 (March), 95-112 (1984). 3. Busch, P., The Sales Manager’s Bases of Social Power and Influence Upon the Sales Force, Journal ofMarketing 44 (Summer), 9 I - 10 I (1980). 4. Cron, W., and Slocum, J. W., Jr., The Influence of Career Stages on Salespeople’s Job Attitudes, Work Perceptions, and Performance, Journal of Marketing Research 23 (May), 119-129 (1986). 5. Chonko.
L. B., Organizational
Commitment
in the Salesforce. Jourrtul of Personul Selling and Sales Management 6 (November), 19-27 (1986).
M. W., Varadarajan. R., Futrell, C. M.. and Sager, I., The Relationship Between Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Among New Salespeople, Journal of Personal Selliq and Sales Manqement 7 (November), 29-38 (1987).
17. Lawler, E. W.. and Hall, D. T., Relationships of Job Characteristics to Job Involvement, Journal of AppliedPs_vchology 54, 305-312 (1970). 18. Lucas, G. H., Jr.. Parasuraman, A., Davis. R. A.. and Enis, B. M., An Empirical Study of Salesforce Turnover, Journal ofMarketing 51 (July), 34-59
(1987).
19. Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W.. Hand, H. H., and Meglino, B. M., Review and Conceptual Analysis of the Employee Turnover Process. P.sycholo#xd Bulletin 86 (May), 493-522 (1979). 20. Morrow, P. C., Concept Redundancy in Organizational Research: The Case of Work Commitment, Academy of Munagement Review 8 (3), 486500 (1983).
A. J., Howell, R. D., Ingram, T. N., and Bellenger, D. N., Socialization, Journal C$ Marketing 50 (October), 192-207
21. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., and Porter, L. W., The Measurement of Organizational Commitment, Journal of Vocationul Behavior 14 (February). 224-247 (1979).
I. Dubinsky, A. J.. and Skmner. S. J.. Impact of Job Characteristics on Retail Salespeople’s Reactions to Their Jobs, Journal ofRetailing 60 (2),
22. Muchinsky, P. M., and Tuttle, M. L., Employee Turnover: An Empirical and Methodological Assessment, Journal ofVocationu[Behavior 14 (February), 43-77 (1979).
6. Dubinsky, Salesforce (1986).
35-63
(1984).
8. Farrell, D., and Rusbult, C. E., Exchange Variables as Predictors of Job Satisfaction. Job Commitment and Turnover: The Impact of Rewards, Costs, Alternatives, and Investments, Orgunizrrtioncd Behavior cmd Human Performunce 27 (February). 78-95 (198 I). A.. The Relationship of Satisfaction 9. Futrell, C. M., and Parasuraman, and Performance to Salesforce Turnover, Journcrl ofMarketing 48 (Fall), 33-40 (1984). 10. Greenberg, H. M., and Greenberg, J.. Job Matching for Better Sales Performance, Harvurd Business Reviesr 58 (September-October), 12% 133 (1980). II.
Hall. D. T., Goodale, J., Rabinowitz, S., and Morgan, M.. Effects of Top-Down Departmental and Job Change Upon Perceived Employee Behavior and Attitudes: A Natural Field Experiment, Journal of Applied Psvchology 63 (February), 62-72 (1978).
12. Hampton, R., Dubinsky, A. 1.. and Skinner, S. J., A Model of Sales Supervisor Leadership Behavior and Retail Salespeople’s Job-Related Outcome, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 14 (Fall), 333 43 (1986). Com13. Hunt, S. D., Chonko, L. B., and Wood, V. R., Organizational mitment and Marketing, Journrrl of Marketing 49 (Winter). 112-126 (1985). 14. Jackofsky, E. F., and Peters, L. H., Job Turnover Versus Company Tumover: Reassessment of the March and Simon Participation Hypothesis. Journul of Applied Psychology 63 (3). 490-495
( 1983).
15. Johnston, M. W., Futrell, C. M.. Parasuraman, A., and Sager, J.. Performance and Job Satisfaction Effects on Salesperson Turnover: A Replication and Extension, Journcrl oj’ Business Research 16 (I), 67-83 (1988).
23. Nunnally, Jum C., Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, York, 1978.
24. Porter, L. W., Crampon, J., and Smith, F. J., Organizational Commitment and Managerial Turnover: A Longitudinal Study, Organizutional Behavior and Human Perjormance 15 (February), 87-98 (1976). 25. Porter, L. W.. Steers. R. M., Mowday, R. T., and Boulian, P. V., Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Among Psychiatric Technicians, Journal qf Applied Psychology 59 (October), 603609
( I 974).
26. Rusbult, C. E., and Farrell, D., A Longitudinal Test of the Investment Model: The Impact on Job Satisfaction, Job Commitment, and Turnover of Variations in Rewards, Costs, Alternatives, and Investment, Journrrl of Applied Psychology 63 (3). 429-438
( 1983).
27. Steers, R. M.. Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment, Administrative Science Quarter/_v 22 (March), 46-56 (1977). 28. Stevens, J. M., Beyer, Role, and Organizational
J. M., and Trite, H. M., Assessing Personal, Predictors of Management Commitment, Academy of Management Journal 21 (3), 380-396 (1978).
29. Still, L. V., Pan-Time versus Full-Time Salespeople: Individual Attributes, Organizational Commitment, and Work Attitudes, Journal of Retailing 59 (Summer), 55-79 (1983). 30. Weiner, Y., and Vardi. Y., Relationships Between Job, Organization, and Career Commitments and Work Outcomes-An Integrative Approach, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 26, 81-96 (1980).
31. Youngblood, S. A., Mobley, W. H., and Meglino, B. M., A Longitudinal Analysis of the Turnover Process, Journal of AppliedPsychology 68(3),
154
New
507-516
(1983).
INTRODUCTION While studies of sales force turnover have helped managers gain a better understanding of this costly phenomenon, they have yet to address the distinction between job turnover and company turnover. Sales force turnover has typically been examined in terms of the extent to which a salesperson is likely to remain with his or her employing organization. The extent to which a salesperson may display a propensity to change jobs (from selling to non-selling) has not been previously researched.
Address correspondence to Professor Thomas N. Ingram, Department of Marketing, Fogelman College of Business and Economics, Memphis State University, Memphis, TN 38152. Industrial Marketing Management 19, 149-154 (1990) 0 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 1990 65.5 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
The purpose of this article is to present a realistic conceptualization of the propensity aspect of sales force turnover with a distinction between job withdrawal propensity (from selling to non-selling) and organizational withdrawal propensity (from the present employer to another employer). The present study also assesses empirically the differing effects of job commitment and organizational commitment on propensity to withdraw from a job and from an organization, respectively. Both job and organizational commitment have been suggested as important-but-neglected variables in the study of sales force turnover [ 15, 181. Propensity to leave, despite its limitation as a surrogate measure of turnover, is a significant indicator of the withdrawal decision [ 151 and has been used in several major turnover studies [9, 181. Previous research on these variables and subsequent development of hypotheses are discussed in the following sections.
LITERATURE
REVIEW
Commitment
and Turnover
Organizational commitment and job commitment have long been studied in the non-selling employee turnover literature [24-281. Recently, salespeople’s commitment has also been investigated as a potential predictor of turnover propensity and of actual turnover 149 0019-8501/90/$3.50
The importance
of job commitment
by sales management researchers [ 15, 181. Salespeople who are highly committed to their employers and to selling jobs are believed to be less likely to withdraw from the firm or to change from a selling job to a nonselling job. The present research is guided by a model incorporating commitment and turnover propensity, as shown in Figure 1. The commitment component is divided into organizational commitment and job commitment, while propensity to leave is dichotomized into organizational and job aspects of turnover propensity.
Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment appears to be a relevant attitudinal variable when predicting propensity to leave and actual turnover, since commitment is viewed as “an internal feeling, belief, or set of intentions that enhances an employee’s desire to remain with an organization” [ 131. A number of studies in organization behavior have found organizational commitment to be a predictor of turnover [8, 24, 25, 271. In marketing, researchers have recently increased their attention to organizational commitment as a strong antecedent variable in explaining such outcome variables as satisfaction and turnover [5, 7, 12, 16, 18, 23, 291. Most researchers consistently hypothesize that organizational commitment is a significant predictor of sales force turnover. In an empirical study of salespeople, Johnston and colleagues [16] reported a negative relationship between the two variables.
THOMAS N. INGRAM is Professor of Marketing in the Fogel man College of Business and Economics at Memphis State University. KEUN S. LEE IS Assistant Professor of Marketing University.
150
at Hofstra
Job Commitment Fewer studies of job commitment (also termed job involvement) have been conducted than of organizational commitment [20]. However, several researchers have indicated the importance of job commitment in understanding worker behavior [ 13, 301. In sales force management, job commitment has been empirically related to S/B: salespeople’s career stages [4]. The definition of job commitment focuses on the degree of absorption an individual experiences in work activity. It is closely aligned with the employee’s psychological identification to the work [ 171. The extent to which a salesperson is psychologically absorbed in selling activities may be related to his or her propensity to leave a selling job for a non-selling job. For example, outside sales representatives may gradually develop a “not-forme” attitude toward a selling job and may ultimately leave the job if they cannot cope with negative job aspects such as frequent rejection and the loneliness of extensive travel. Empirically, Rusbult and Farrell [26] have reported that employee turnover is related to a decline over time in the degree of job commitment.
Relative Effects of Commitment on Propensity to Leave An individual at work may simultaneously experience varying degrees of commitment toward the job and the employing organization [ 13, 301. Attitudinal outcomes, therefore, may be better understood as a function of different types of commitment rather than as a function of only one type of commitment. From a logical standpoint, the extent to which a salesperson psychologically identifies with the employer (organizational commitment) may affect the formation of propensity to withdraw from organization. The degree of absorption in and identification with the selling job (job commitment) may explain more about a salesperson’s propensity to withdraw from the sales job. Although a few studies in the sales management area have examined the association between organizational
Propensi
Commitment
tv-to-Leave
Propensity-to-Leave Organization
Organizational Commitment +
+ Propensity-to-Leave Job
Job Commitment i FIGURE 1.
The Hypothesized Linkage Between Commitment and Propensity to Leave. Plus and minus signs represent the direction and relative strength of relationships. A double minus sign indicates a stronger relationship than a single minus sign.
commitment and propensity to leave an employer [ 161, no previous studies have assessed the impact of commitment on propensity to leave a sales job. In a study of retail salespeople, Jackofsky and Peters [14] made conceptual distinctions between “inter-company” and “inter-job” (e.g., selling vs. non-selling) turnover. They concluded that there is a need to match predictors and criteria of turnover since it is appropriate to predict job turnover from job-specific variables (e.g., job commitment) and organizational turnover from organization-specific variables.
RESEARCH
METHOD
Sample The data required to test the hypotheses were collected from 37 industrial firms whose participation was gained in exchange for a summary report of the study findings. A total of 402 questionnaires were mailed to salespeople through their sales managers, and 235 usable questionnaires were returned. The response rate of 58.5% compares quite favorably with other surveys of industrial salespeople. Indirect assessment of nonresponse bias as described by Armstrong and Overton [l] revealed no bias.
HYPOTHESES Previous research suggests four exploratory which are tested in this study.
hypotheses
Salespeople’s propensity to withdraw from an organization is positively related to the propensity to withdraw from a selling job. H2: Salespeople’s organizational commitment is positively related to job commitment. H3: Organizational commitment will have a stronger negative effect on salespeople’s propensity to withdraw from an organization than job commitment. H4: Job commitment will have stronger negative effect on salespeople’s propensity to withdraw from selling jobs than will organizational commitment. Hl:
Measures Organizational commitment was measured via a 15item instrument originally developed by Porter, Crampon, and Smith [24]. Johnston et al. [ 161 recently employed this instrument in measuring levels of organizational commitment among salespeople. Strong reliability and evidence of validity have been reported for this measure [2, 16, 211. Using Likert-type 7-point statements, respondents were requested to indicate the extent of their disagreement (scored 1) or agreement (scored 7) with the particular statement. The score of organizational commitment is the sum of the individual responses to all 15 items.
151
Job commitment and organizational commitment are highly related Job commitment, defined as the extent to which a salesperson becomes absorbed in and identifies with his or her job (selling activities), was assessed by a 4-item Likert scale developed by Hall et al. [ 111. This scale has demonstrated acceptable reliability properties in a study of 66 industrial salespeople [4]. To measure propensities to leave, respondents were asked to respond to a two-part question: “To what extent are you presently seeking to change: ( 1) organizations (going to another company), and (2) selling jobs (quit selling for nonselling). ” Salespeople were asked to indicate one of the 5 points ranging from (I) no extent, to (5) great extent. Most previous studies used a single-item scale to measure salespeople’s propensity to leave [3, 9, 161. The present study further clarifies the distinction between “organization” and “selling job”; this reduces the ambiguity often associated with the simple statement: “change jobs. ” Propensity measures were used rather than actual tumover for two primary reasons. First, propensity measures are more appropriate in tapping attitudinal orientation toward two aspects of turnover motives (e.g., companyrelated or job-related). Despite its practical value, actual turnover is a manifest outcome behavior that does not provide a motive for the salesperson’s decision to leave. Second, numerous studies have presented empirical evidence of a strong relationship between intentions and actual withdrawal behavior [16, 24, 271.
RESULTS As shown in Table 1, all four hypotheses are supported at a statistically significant level (P< 0.02). As proposed in H 1, salespeople’s propensity to withdraw from an organization is positively related to their propensity to withdraw from a selling job (r= 0.36). Furthermore, H2 receives strong support, as job commitment and organizational commitment are highly related (r= 0.44). The relative impact of organizational commitment and job commitment on propensity to withdraw from the organization is examined in the test of H3. Consistent with
152
the hypothesis, organizational commitment is negatively related to propensity to withdraw from the organization at a statistically significant level (r= -0.42), whereas job commitment is not. As also shown in Table 1, H4 is supported, suggesting that job commitment has a stronger negative effect on salespeople’s propensity to withdraw from selling jobs (r = -0.13) than does organizational commitment.
DISCUSSION
AND IMPLICATIONS
The principal findings of this study suggest that salespeople not only develop intentions to leave an employer but also experience departure intentions from selling to non-selling jobs. These two orientations of departure are separate but related. Previous research has not isolated job-orientation aspects of departure from sales force turnover and propensity to leave, despite the importance of salespeople’s attitudes toward selling jobs (careers) as a factor influencing sales force turnover. This study also provides evidence that commitment constructs are significant predictors of sales force withdrawal propensity. While organizational commitment is a strong predictor of propensity to leave an organization, job commitment explains a significant portion of the variance in the propensity to leave a selling job. The significant association between organizational commitment and propensity to leave reported here is consistent with the findings and propositions reported in previous research on sales force turnover [ 16, 181. No previous studies have focused on job commitment and its relationship with turnover variables. The findings reported in the present article have theoretical and managerial implications. This study highlights the significant contribution of organizational commitment and job commitment to the explanation of turnover behavior of salespeople. The present finding is consistent with the suggested value of organizational commitment as a predictor of sales force turnover [ 181. Sales managers should view commitment as an important
TABLE 1 Pearson and Partial Correlation
Matrix and Alpha Reliability
Coefficients Correlation
Variables Organizational Commitment (OC) Job Commitment (JC) Propensity to Leave Firm (PO) Propensity to Leave Job (PI)
JC 0.52 (ON)*
for Study Variables Matrix
PO -0.54 -0.27
(-0.42)t (0.06)
PJ - 0.39 ( - 0.09) -0.29 (-0.13)t - 0.49 (0.36)
Items
Alpha
I5 4
0.91 0.84 -
I 1
*Values shown in the correlation matrix are Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients, followed in parenthesis by second-order partial correlations coefficients. tThese partical correlation coefficients are significant at 0.02 levels; all other partical correlation coefficients are not significant at the 0.05 level.
factor, along with motivation, role perceptions, and other variables in understanding sales force behavior. Another major managerial implication can be found in the reported linkage between job commitment and propensity to leave a sales job. Job commitment does not affect propensity to leave the organization directly. However, the findings suggest that the organizational aspect of withdrawal propensity is strongly affected by the job aspect of withdrawal propensity. This implies that salespeople -may leave the company due to their lack of commitment to a selling job, which reinforces their intention to change jobs from selling to non-selling. Therefore, sales force turnover may be reduced to some extent by creating a job atmosphere where salespeople enjoy selling as a long-term profession. Managers also should take caution in recruiting salespeople to ensure that new salespeople have an acceptable psychological orientation toward selling jobs [lo]. Sales managers should also be encouraged to undertake sales force socialiefforts to enhance serious zation. Socialization is especially critical during recruitment and selection and initial training periods for new salespeople[6]. During these formative stages of the salesperson-organization relationship, it is essential that new hires be given a realistic view of the sales job, and that recruits’ needs and skills are consistent with job demands and organizational resources. After sales recruits have joined the organization, socialization efforts should concentrate on providing the new salespeople with a clear idea of what their job entails, and ensuring that the newcomers feel competent and accepted as working partners.
FUTURERESEARCH The results of this study provide some encouraging findings for future research on sales force turnover. First,
the significant linkage between company turnover propensity and job turnover propensity suggests that some of the variance in salespeople’s actual turnover can be explained by their intention to withdraw from selling jobs. Future research may benefit from adopting the propensity to leave a selling job for a non-selling job as another antecedent variable for actual sales force tumover. Previous studies have focused only on the intention to leave an organization as a surrogate measure for actual turnover. Future research might also examine intraorganizational mobility as well as interorganizational mobility in studies of sales force turnover. For example, both job turnover (leaving a job within or outside of the firm) and organizational turnover (leaving a firm) may provide a more appropriate criterion for conceptual propositions regarding the prediction of turnover than interorganizational mobility alone. As previously mentioned, it has been suggested that it would be appropriate to predict job tumover from job-specific variables and organizational tumover from organization-specific variables [ 141. The present article provides some basis for the above contention by reporting that job commitment is a predictor of job turnover intention, whereas organizational commitment is not; and that organizational commitment is a predictor of organizational turnover intention, whereas job commitment is not. Finally, there is a need for studies that include turnover intentions (job and organization) along with commitment variables as antecedents of actual turnover. This study has shown that different types of work commitment have varying effects on turnover intentions. Past research [ 19, 22, 3 I] yields a generalized link between turnover intentions and actual turnover behavior. Thus, additional studies including measures of commitment, turnover intentions, and actual turnover could generate a better understanding of sales force turnover.
153
REFERENCES I.
16. Johnston,
Armstrong, S., and Overton, T., Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys, Journal of Marketing Research 14 (August), 396-402 (1977).
2. Bateman, T., and Strasser, S., A Longitudinal Analysis of the Antecedents of Organizational Commitment, Academy of Management Journal. 27 (March), 95-112 (1984). 3. Busch, P., The Sales Manager’s Bases of Social Power and Influence Upon the Sales Force, Journal ofMarketing 44 (Summer), 9 I - 10 I (1980). 4. Cron, W., and Slocum, J. W., Jr., The Influence of Career Stages on Salespeople’s Job Attitudes, Work Perceptions, and Performance, Journal of Marketing Research 23 (May), 119-129 (1986). 5. Chonko.
L. B., Organizational
Commitment
in the Salesforce. Jourrtul of Personul Selling and Sales Management 6 (November), 19-27 (1986).
M. W., Varadarajan. R., Futrell, C. M.. and Sager, I., The Relationship Between Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Among New Salespeople, Journal of Personal Selliq and Sales Manqement 7 (November), 29-38 (1987).
17. Lawler, E. W.. and Hall, D. T., Relationships of Job Characteristics to Job Involvement, Journal of AppliedPs_vchology 54, 305-312 (1970). 18. Lucas, G. H., Jr.. Parasuraman, A., Davis. R. A.. and Enis, B. M., An Empirical Study of Salesforce Turnover, Journal ofMarketing 51 (July), 34-59
(1987).
19. Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W.. Hand, H. H., and Meglino, B. M., Review and Conceptual Analysis of the Employee Turnover Process. P.sycholo#xd Bulletin 86 (May), 493-522 (1979). 20. Morrow, P. C., Concept Redundancy in Organizational Research: The Case of Work Commitment, Academy of Munagement Review 8 (3), 486500 (1983).
A. J., Howell, R. D., Ingram, T. N., and Bellenger, D. N., Socialization, Journal C$ Marketing 50 (October), 192-207
21. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., and Porter, L. W., The Measurement of Organizational Commitment, Journal of Vocationul Behavior 14 (February). 224-247 (1979).
I. Dubinsky, A. J.. and Skmner. S. J.. Impact of Job Characteristics on Retail Salespeople’s Reactions to Their Jobs, Journal ofRetailing 60 (2),
22. Muchinsky, P. M., and Tuttle, M. L., Employee Turnover: An Empirical and Methodological Assessment, Journal ofVocationu[Behavior 14 (February), 43-77 (1979).
6. Dubinsky, Salesforce (1986).
35-63
(1984).
8. Farrell, D., and Rusbult, C. E., Exchange Variables as Predictors of Job Satisfaction. Job Commitment and Turnover: The Impact of Rewards, Costs, Alternatives, and Investments, Orgunizrrtioncd Behavior cmd Human Performunce 27 (February). 78-95 (198 I). A.. The Relationship of Satisfaction 9. Futrell, C. M., and Parasuraman, and Performance to Salesforce Turnover, Journcrl ofMarketing 48 (Fall), 33-40 (1984). 10. Greenberg, H. M., and Greenberg, J.. Job Matching for Better Sales Performance, Harvurd Business Reviesr 58 (September-October), 12% 133 (1980). II.
Hall. D. T., Goodale, J., Rabinowitz, S., and Morgan, M.. Effects of Top-Down Departmental and Job Change Upon Perceived Employee Behavior and Attitudes: A Natural Field Experiment, Journal of Applied Psvchology 63 (February), 62-72 (1978).
12. Hampton, R., Dubinsky, A. 1.. and Skinner, S. J., A Model of Sales Supervisor Leadership Behavior and Retail Salespeople’s Job-Related Outcome, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 14 (Fall), 333 43 (1986). Com13. Hunt, S. D., Chonko, L. B., and Wood, V. R., Organizational mitment and Marketing, Journrrl of Marketing 49 (Winter). 112-126 (1985). 14. Jackofsky, E. F., and Peters, L. H., Job Turnover Versus Company Tumover: Reassessment of the March and Simon Participation Hypothesis. Journul of Applied Psychology 63 (3). 490-495
( 1983).
15. Johnston, M. W., Futrell, C. M.. Parasuraman, A., and Sager, J.. Performance and Job Satisfaction Effects on Salesperson Turnover: A Replication and Extension, Journcrl oj’ Business Research 16 (I), 67-83 (1988).
23. Nunnally, Jum C., Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, York, 1978.
24. Porter, L. W., Crampon, J., and Smith, F. J., Organizational Commitment and Managerial Turnover: A Longitudinal Study, Organizutional Behavior and Human Perjormance 15 (February), 87-98 (1976). 25. Porter, L. W.. Steers. R. M., Mowday, R. T., and Boulian, P. V., Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Among Psychiatric Technicians, Journal qf Applied Psychology 59 (October), 603609
( I 974).
26. Rusbult, C. E., and Farrell, D., A Longitudinal Test of the Investment Model: The Impact on Job Satisfaction, Job Commitment, and Turnover of Variations in Rewards, Costs, Alternatives, and Investment, Journrrl of Applied Psychology 63 (3). 429-438
( 1983).
27. Steers, R. M.. Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment, Administrative Science Quarter/_v 22 (March), 46-56 (1977). 28. Stevens, J. M., Beyer, Role, and Organizational
J. M., and Trite, H. M., Assessing Personal, Predictors of Management Commitment, Academy of Management Journal 21 (3), 380-396 (1978).
29. Still, L. V., Pan-Time versus Full-Time Salespeople: Individual Attributes, Organizational Commitment, and Work Attitudes, Journal of Retailing 59 (Summer), 55-79 (1983). 30. Weiner, Y., and Vardi. Y., Relationships Between Job, Organization, and Career Commitments and Work Outcomes-An Integrative Approach, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 26, 81-96 (1980).
31. Youngblood, S. A., Mobley, W. H., and Meglino, B. M., A Longitudinal Analysis of the Turnover Process, Journal of AppliedPsychology 68(3),
154
New
507-516
(1983).