- Email: [email protected]
Technology and the Sales Force
Technology and the Sales Force Increasing Acceptance of Sales Force Automation
Amy J. Morgan Scott A. Inks Sales force automation systems are fast becoming a marketplace reality. Implementation of these systems represents a significant change for many organizations, often presenting difficult challenges for managers. This paper proposes several factors relating to sales force acceptance of automation. These factors are examined as potential characteristics in a successful implementation program. Results of the study are used in providing a series of recommendations for managerial use in enhancing the potential for success of automation implementation programs. © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Address correspondence to Dr. A.J. Morgan, Department of Marketing, Bradley University, 407 Baker Hall, Peoria, IL 61625. E-mail: [email protected].
Industrial Marketing Management 30, 463–472 (2001) © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
INTRODUCTION Broadly defined, sales force automation (SFA) refers to the use of computer hardware, software, and telecommunications devices by salespeople in their selling and/or administrative activities. In many organizations, these tools are further integrated into enterprise-wide data management systems encompassing sales, marketing, and customer service [1]. The exact nature of SFA varies dramatically from one firm to the next. Regardless of its form, however, the SFA system integrates its various activities and applications to support one overriding goal: enhancement of the collection, assimilation, analysis, and distribution of information to improve productivity of the sales force, while enhancing customer relationships. Common SFA applications include, but are not limited
0019-8501/01/$–see front matter PII S0019-8501(99)00115-7
SFA is no longer the future of sales but rather a competitive imperative. to, the following: contact management, enhancement of sales presentations, automation of administrative tasks, strategic information exchange throughout the organization, and computer-based training. Specific activities supported by SFA include the use of e-mail, word processing, financial management, personal information management, presentation creation, and presentation delivery. Applications are available through both standardized software programs and customized systems created for individual organizations. Proponents argue that SFA is no longer the “future of sales,” but rather a competitive imperative [2]. Through implementation of SFA, they suggest, firms increase the capacity to develop successful customer relationships through a variety of organizational benefits [1, 3–5]. Seeking these benefits, many firms have chosen to become involved in the SFA arena. Indeed, the SFA market is booming [3]. Revenues for the SFA software industry alone are projected to hit $1.92 billion by 2001 [1]. Further, industry experts estimate three-quarters of largeand medium-sized organizations use or are implementing some degree of SFA [6]. The popularity of SFA stems from the numerous benefits that these systems promise, including increased productive selling time, enhanced contact management abilities, and most important, the ability to deliver superior customer value through information sharing across sales,
AMY J. MORGAN is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Bradley University. She is involved in research that examines technology in sales and in retailing, as well as in marketing communications applications of the Internet. SCOTT A. INKS is currently Assistant Professor of Marketing at Middle Tennessee State University. He is actively involved in research and publishing in the areas of selling and sales management.
464
marketing, and customer service personnel. One proposed benefit, the ability of the system to increase quality selling time, is particularly appealing. Salespeople are frustrated often with the amount of time they spend on “nonselling” activities, such as call reports, expense reports, and so forth. In addition, activities more closely associated with selling, such as bid preparation and contract qualification, also take a tremendous amount of the salesperson’s time. The promise of SFA is that through automation, the time taken for these activities can be greatly reduced, thus freeing the salesperson to engage in more direct selling activities. While the potential benefits of SFA are numerous and quite valuable, implementation of SFA can be complex. In fact, many firms are finding the path to successful SFA implementation quite rocky, with many obstacles to overcome on the way to realizing any benefits from the system. Some firms never get there at all. Industry studies indicate SFA failure rates between 25% and 60% [5, 6]. Understandably, then, questions arise as to whether SFA is a large and potentially messy mistake or a productive investment. For firms embarking on an SFA program, understanding where the difficulties and pitfalls of implementation lie is an important and seldom-addressed issue. Given the potential benefits of a successful SFA implementation, it is important to understand why some organizations are successful at implementing SFA and why others are not. While much has been written about SFA systems themselves, along with their potential benefits, successes, and failures, little attention has been given to exploring the reasons why SFA systems succeed or fail. Successful implementation of SFA is a serious challenge because it involves a significant organizational change. For the organization, implementation of SFA represents a significant change in both form and function. That organizational change will create turbulence is a likely scenario. Organizational change is much like learning to drive a car. Initially, starts are abrupt, stops
Implementation of SFA represents a significant change in both form and function. are sudden, and turning onto a new road can be terrifying. Over time, starts become more confident, stops are smoother, and turns are less intimidating. Eventually, the entire driving process becomes second nature. The trick is to not crash, to minimize engine damage, and to avoid frustrating other drivers during the learning process. Just as the case of learning to drive a car proficiently and comfortably, successful implementation of SFA depends on acceptance by those actually learning the new skill—the sales force. While SFA systems are chosen, and their implementations are planned at higher levels of the organization, it is the salesperson in the field that is ultimately responsible for accepting and making use of that system. When salespeople are resistant to an organizational change, the outcome of the change process is likely to be negative. The purpose of this paper is to forward understanding of sales force acceptance of SFA. By investigating the factors related to SFA acceptance, insight can be gained in developing appropriate implementation systems with higher probabilities of success. In the sections that follow, background material is presented in developing a framework for SFA acceptance. Following this, we describe a study that tests those proposed relationships. We subsequently discuss managerial implications for dealing with typical impediments to SFA acceptance including fear of technology, fear of management interference, loss of power, and resistance to change. Finally, we build on those results to provide a series of implications for successful SFA implementation. BACKGROUND Managing SFA Implementation The benefits of SFA would seem to make any salesperson eager to embrace such technology. Yet, sales force
resistance is still a major stumbling block that prevents successful implementation of SFA [7]. Sales automation consultants and other industry experts prescribe various methods for implementing SFA. While most of these recommendations include providing training, obtaining managerial commitment, and user involvement in development, consistent evidence of successful SFA implementation is not available. Many authors have suggested methods for managing change in an organization [8–15]. Although these suggestions differ in specific content, several characteristics are repeatedly mentioned as central to successful change management. They include managerial commitment, training, user involvement, and accurate expectation setting. Figure 1 shows these characteristics in relation to the acceptance of sales force automation. MANAGERIAL COMMITMENT. One element that is necessary to successfully manage any type of organizational change is the need for commitment from managers (e.g., [6, 7, 9, 13, 16]). The likelihood of successful change implementation is greater when commitment to a change is strong at high levels within the organization. Edward Deming, noted management theorist, subscribed to this notion in the area of total quality management (TQM). Deming believed that management’s complete commitment was necessary for successful TQM implementation programs. While TQM initiatives are organization-wide, most SFA implementation efforts are directed toward the sales force. Although other areas of the organization are often affected, it is the sales force that drives an SFA system. Field salespeople, especially those on a straight commission compensation program, typically have little contact with anyone in the organization, with the exception of their sales manager and are notorious for their independence. This begs the question of whether the research findings on the importance of managerial commitment to acceptance of change will apply to cases of SFA implementation. 465
It is the salesperson in the field that is ultimately responsible. Yet, SFA implementation recommendations by industry experts typically include a call for strong commitment to the change effort by the organization’s management. Although not tested empirically, the rationale for this recommendation is that salespeople are likely to resist changes that are perceived as lacking high levels of managerial commitment. Simply, salespeople are unlikely to apply the effort necessary for successful SFA implementation if they perceive management is not doing the same. Thus: H1: The greater the salesperson’s perception of managerial commitment to SFA implementation, the greater the likelihood of that salesperson’s acceptance of SFA.
TRAINING. The implementation of an SFA system requires salespeople (users) to learn how to use the system. Therefore, some form of formalized, organizationsponsored SFA training would seem to be a necessary ingredient for effective implementation. Research that empirically examines the relationship between organization-sponsored training and successful implementation of
FIGURE 1.
466
SFA systems is virtually nonexistent. However, training is consistently described in the practitioner-oriented literature as a key component of successful SFA implementation (e.g., [2, 7, 9, 17]). A common theme throughout this literature is that training must be appropriate for the task(s) being automated. Further, the training must specifically consider the type of SFA system used. It must also be readily available. In other words, the mere existence of a training program is not enough. Salespeople must perceive that the training directly relates to their use of the SFA system and that after attending the training they will be more productive (via SFA) than they were prior to the training. The extent to which the organization meets the SFA training needs of the salespeople is likely to affect their acceptance of the SFA system itself, suggesting the following: H2: The greater the salesperson’s perception that his or her SFA training needs will be met, the greater the likelihood of that salesperson’s acceptance of SFA.
Factors related to successful sales force automation.
Salespeople must perceive that the training directly relates to their use of the SFA system. USER INVOLVEMENT. Another factor potentially contributing to the success of SFA implementation is the involvement of salespeople (users) in the early stages of the implementation process. Individuals involved in creating and implementing change tend to feel ownership and are less likely to resist change [10]. The rationale is that involvement in the decision process promotes a sense of inclusion and fairness, which leads to ownership of the change. Intuitively, then, salespeople are more likely to embrace change in which they have some sense of ownership. A common source of sales force resistance cited by practitioners is the “fear of big brother.” Salespeople may resist SFA because they perceive it as a tool that management will use to further monitor and control their day-today activities. Sales force involvement in the early stages of implementation may serve to reduce these fears as salespeople perceive that their interests are being represented and protected. Thus: H3: The greater the salesperson’s perception that salespeople are involved in the SFA process, the greater the likelihood of that salesperson’s acceptance of SFA.
ACCURATE EXPECTATION SETTING. Another important component of successful SFA implementation is setting accurate expectations [7]. Salespeople must understand what they can expect from using SFA and, prior to rollout of the SFA system, should be given some indication of what they can expect from the implementation process. Although the existence or degree of the proposed relationship has not yet been tested empirically, some support is indicated. One of the few areas of change within the sales force that has been studied is turnover. A link has been established between salespeople’s initial expectations when hired and turnover [18]. This research indicates that salespeople with inaccurate expectations at time of hire
are more likely to leave the organization or experience job dissatisfaction than are salespeople with accurate expectations. The former concluded that sales managers wishing to reduce both sales force job dissatisfaction and turnover should endeavor to ensure that candidates for a sales position have accurate expectations of the job before being hired [18]. Adapting these findings to the area of salespeople’s acceptance of SFA is the following: H4: The more that a salesperson perceives accuracy in his or her expectations for SFA implementation (as established by the organization), the greater the likelihood of that salesperson’s acceptance of SFA.
THE STUDY Data Collection The organization selected for this study was a large global insurance underwriter in the process of implementing SFA among its domestic sales force at the time of data collection. The level of analysis is the individual salesperson. The organization was selected because its sales force is comprised of salespeople of various ages, educational backgrounds, and levels of sales experience. Furthermore, the firm’s domestic sales force is dispersed geographically across the United States. The objective of using such a diverse sales force was to reduce the potential for bias in the results. In the first stage of the data collection process, the measurement instrument was sent through e-mail to 35 managing executives (domestic sales managers) for their review. Twenty of these managing executives approved the instrument for distribution to their salespeople. During the second stage of data collection, packets consisting of a cover letter, a survey, and a coded reply envelope (postage paid) were assembled. Each packet was labeled with the name of a salesperson and then 467
Individuals involved in creating and implementing change tend to feel ownership.
grouped by office for distribution. The aggregated packets were sent directly to each participating office for distribution. Packets were sent to 19 participating offices. Three weeks after the initial distribution of the survey packets, a follow-up message was sent via e-mail to each salesperson in the participating offices. The message indicated gratitude to those that had already responded and encouraged those who had not to complete and return the survey as soon as possible.
TABLE 1 Demographic Information
Variable Age (n 126) 30 30–39 40–49 50–59 60 Gender (n 123) Female Male Education (n 128) High School Bachelor degree Some graduate Graduate degree Income (thousands of $; n 123) 30 30–60 60–90 90–120 120–150 150 Own a computer at home (n 129) Yes No
468
Frequency
Valid Percent of Respondents
12 32 40 34 8
09.5 25.4 31.7 27.0 06.3
23 100
18.7 81.3
10 80 21 17
07.8 62.5 16.4 13.3
1 29 29 25 16 23
00.8 23.6 23.6 20.3 13.0 18.7
90 39
69.8 30.2
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Surveys were sent to 387 of the organization’s salespeople. Of the 133 surveys returned, 132 were complete and usable for a response rate of 34%. Tables 1, 2, and 3 summarize the demographic data provided by the survey respondents. As shown on Table 1, the typical respondent was between 40 and 50 years of age, male, held a Bachelor’s degree, and owned a computer at home. The salary ranges for the respondents were fairly evenly dispersed ($30,000 to over $150,000). With the exceptions of San Francisco, CA, and Portland, OR, respondents were also fairly evenly dispersed geographically (Table 2). The experience level of the respondents (Table 3) included the number of years in the current sales position and the number of years of sales experience overall. A wide distribution of experience levels among the respondents is indicated in Table 3. The average number of years in sales was approximately 15, while the average number of years in the current position was 11. This suggests that the average salesperson for this organization had sales experience prior to being hired. Study Measures Data for this study were collected through the use of a survey instrument consisting of existing and new scale items developed to assess the key variables in the research hypotheses. Table 4 is a summary of the measures, including origin and reliability, as indicated by coefficient alpha [21] estimates. With the exception of the training measure, all other scales were modified versions of existing measures. The existing measures were modified to change the context of the item to reflect SFA implementation. Every effort was taken to ensure that modifications to items retained the theoretical foundations on which the measures were de-
Individuals must perceive the benefits of training as outweighing the cost of not being in the field. veloped. As a final check, a panel of experts reviewed each of the reworded items for clarity and content. The reliability estimates of the measures used in this study are reported in Table 4. Exploratory investigation of Hypotheses 1 through 4 was done using correlation analysis. Table 5 is a summary of the correlations between the variables included in this study. The results suggest a statistically significant positive correlation between salespeople’s acceptance of SFA and their expectations (.550, p .05), training (.372, p .05), and influence in the implementation process (.417, p .05). The results also suggest statistically significant correlations between each of the factors re-
lated to SFA acceptance (with the exception of managerial commitment and user influence). The findings of this study, albeit exploratory, support three of the four proposed relationships. First, the more that salespeople are assured that adequate training will be provided, the more accepting they are of the SFA implementation process. It seems that salespeople may not be content to know simply that training will be provided; rather, they must perceive the benefits of training as outweighing the cost of not being in the field. This relationship is likely stronger for commission-based salespeople, as they are better able to quantify the opportunity costassociated with spending one to two weeks in training.
TABLE 2 Response Rate by Office Office San Francisco, CA Portland, OR Orange, CA Philadelphia, PA Seattle, WA Dallas, TX Boston, MA Little Rock, AR Pittsburgh, PA Boise, ID Denver, CO Harrisburg, PA Minneapolis, MN Rochester, NY Fort Lauderdale, FL Maitland, FL Birmingham, AL West Palm Beach, FL Nashville, TN Omaha, NE Total Average
Surveys Sent
Number Responding
72 61 29 21 23 22 18 13 13 12 11 16 13 9 11 8 7 7 4 9 379
20 31 12 6 7 4 7 4 4 5 5 3 4 2 6 3 2 4 0 2 131
Percent Responding 27.78 50.82 41.38 28.57 30.43 33.33 38.89 30.77 30.77 41.66 45.45 18.75 30.77 22.22 54.55 37.50 28.57 57.14 0.00 22.22 34.56 31.98
Percent of Respondents 15.27 23.66 9.22 4.68 5.34 3.05 5.34 3.05 3.05 3.82 3.82 2.29 3.05 1.53 4.68 2.29 1.53 3.05 0.00 1.53 100 4.77
469
Table 3 Respondent Experience
Table 5 Pearson Correlations between Measures
Employment Experience
Mean
Standard Deviation
Years with current employer Years with current position Years in sales
08.86 11.80 15.13
06.81 17.79 09.73
Acceptance AccExpect ManComm Training UserInfl Acceptance AccExpect ManComm Training UserInfl
1.000 .550* .113 .372* .417*
.550* 1.000 .243* .477* .519*
.113 .243* 1.000 .271* .071
.372* .477* .271* 1.000 .346*
.417* .519* .071 .346* 1.000
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tail).
Second, the more that salespeople believe they have influence in the SFA implementation process, the more accepting they are of that implementation. This supports conventional wisdom that involvement promotes ownership. However, this sense of involvement seems somewhat contradictory to the current findings related to training. Specifically, involvement would necessitate taking time away from the field and selling activities. It may be that salespeople want representation but do not necessarily want to be the ones doing the representation. Further, it is unclear as to the underlying nature of this relationship. Do salespeople want involvement because of the sense of ownership, or do they want to make sure that the SFA system is not simply a monitoring tool for management? Additional research is needed to explore this question. Third, the more that salespeople have accurate expectations as to what SFA will mean for them in practical terms, the more accepting they are of the implementation process. This finding is similar to previous work regarding sales force turnover and the importance of establishing accurate expectations. This relationship suggests that salespeople who perceive they know what to expect, in terms of inputs and outcomes from the SFA implementation, will have a greater acceptance. Additional research is needed to explore the relationship between the relative desirability of the expectations and acceptance. In other words, what impact will accurate but undesirable expectations have on acceptance? The one dissenting finding reported here is the lack of a statistically significant correlation between managerial
Table 4 Measures Summary Scale Name Expectations Managerial Commitment User Influence Training Acceptance of SFA Implementation
470
Source
Initial Reliability
Dubinsky et al.[19] Hart et al. [20] Dubinsky et al. [19] New Hart et al. [20]
.75 .88 .73 .83 .69
commitment and salespeople’s acceptance of SFA. The basis for such a relationship is that managerial commitment to an implementation of change is essential to the acceptance of the implementation or change by frontline employees—in this case, salespeople. One explanation for this contrary finding may rest in the autonomous nature of the sales force used in the study. Specifically, the salespeople utilized in this study were compensated through commission only, and they tended to operate autonomously. Under such conditions, the sales force may not be concerned with whether management is committed to SFA, so long as they believe they will be able to use the SFA system (training) and will benefit from it (expectations). Although simple correlations in no way suggest causality, along with the theoretical foundations, they are consistent with the relationships proposed in Figure 1. Accordingly, these results have important implications for organizations wishing to implement SFA. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS AND DISCUSSION Sales force automation tools may improve the performance of an organization and/or its salespeople but only if the system is utilized properly by the sales force. Without the acceptance of the salespeople of the SFA system, the SFA investment is likely to fail. Several implications about fostering SFA acceptance may be drawn from this study. First, organizations should ensure that salespeople know what to expect from and during the SFA implementation. Communication of these expectations should come from a source that the sales force perceives as credible. Second, organizations must cultivate some influence in the implementation process from the sales force, whether individually or through “representatives.” Meth-
ods of involving employees in the change process include soliciting input from employees regarding the need to change (e.g., what activities need to be changed), allowing employees to explore change options, and asking employees to participate in planning the actual implementation of the change. Third, organizations should make sure that salespeople believe they will be adequately trained, such that they will be able to realize the benefits of SFA with minimal “downtime.” Management also needs to make sure that salespeople understand what to expect from SFA, and then endeavor to meet those expectations. For example, telling salespeople both the good points and bad points of SFA will allow them to better estimate what they can expect from successful use of the SFA system. Without full commitment to SFA by the sales force, implementation will be problematic. “Selling” the idea of SFA to the sales force will involve management taking steps to overcome objections to SFA. Salespeople may resist implementation of SFA for a variety of reasons, including fear of technology, fear of management interference, loss of power, and resistance to change.
Fear of Technology Fear of technology is a likely impediment to sales force acceptance of automation. If salespeople feel that they are not capable of using the SFA system, their motivation to do so will be greatly reduced. To reduce this fear, appropriate training must be available to each salesperson prior to the official rollout. Further, technical support must be readily available (preferably 24 hours/day) to the sales force for the technical problems that may arise as they adjust to the SFA system.
Fear of Interference Most SFA systems will provide sales management with real-time access to salesperson performance information. The number of sales calls per day, the amount of attention given to each customer, the position of customers in the sales cycle, and the implementation of promotional programs information will be instantly available to management. To help reduce concerns about management interference in selling activities, SFA should be positioned and used as a tool to help the productivity of the sales force, rather than as a monitoring tool for sales management.
Loss of Power To many salespeople, the information they hold about their customers represents a base of power—that is, the more information they possess about their customers, the more dependent their organization becomes. Salespeople who feel this way may be reluctant to transfer their customer knowledge base into a format that is standardized, readily accessible, and easily transferable. The solution to this problem is SFA positioning. Management must ensure that its salespeople perceive SFA as a productivity tool, not as a tool for management to gain control over the sale force’s customers. General Resistance to Change It is human nature to resist change, simply because it is a deviation from the status quo. Generally speaking, overcoming this most basic reason for resistance requires that the individuals being asked to make the change perceive some advantage in doing so. Without the perception of an advantage, the sales force is less likely to whole-heartedly use the SFA system. Consequently, the benefits of SFA (e.g., the capture and flow of strategic information) will be diminished. To address this type of resistance, management needs to clearly demonstrate the advantage(s) (e.g., more selling time, shorter sales cycle, less administrative hassle, etc.) of using the SFA system over the current system. CONCLUSION Although the findings of this research are compelling, some limitations of the current study need be recognized. First, the sample used in the study came from a single organization. Second, the organization’s individual sales managers were given the opportunity to refuse distribution of the surveys to salespeople under their span of control. This may have introduced bias into the study, because the reasons that certain managers declined participation may have been systemically related to the project topic. This lack of complete participation limited the ability to obtain an accurate description of the population under study. Without this information, our ability to draw generalizations from these results is clearly limited. Finally, some of the scales utilized in this study were modifications of, or adapted from, existing scales. Consequently, the validity of the measures may have been adversely affected. 471
As business-related technology (e.g., telecommunications and computers) improves and the competitive environment intensifies, the need for SFA becomes more compelling. Successful implementation of SFA programs requires sales force acceptance. This acceptance may be enhanced through training, sales force involvement in the implementation decision process, and establishment of accurate sales force expectations as to what the implementation will entail.
REFERENCES 1. Nelson, K.: Brave New World: Sales Force Automation is Changing the Way Companies Reach and Keep Their Customers. Business Marketing 83(June), 14 (1998). 2. Rasmusson, E.: Get Plugged In: The 5 Steps to Successful Sales Force Automation. Sales & Marketing Management 151(March), 34–40 (1999). 3. Blodgett, Mindy: Sales Force Automation Tools: You Just Gotta Have Em, Computerworld 30(July), 77–78 (1996). 4. Harris, Kim, and Pike, John: Issues Concerning Adoption and Use of Sales Force Automation in the Agricultural Input Supply Sector. Agribusiness 4, 317–326 (1996). 5. Stein, Tom: Software for the Hard Sell—By Adding Functionality, Sales Force Automation Systems are Overcoming a Bad Reputation. InformationWeek 671(March),18–19 (1998). 6. Nelson, Kristi: Increase Your Odds for Automation Success. Sales and Marketing Strategies and News 5, 1–2 (1995).
9. Cummings, Thomas G., and Worley, Christopher G.: Organizational Development and Change. West Publishing Company, New York, 1993. 10. Joshi, Kailash: A Model of Users’ Perspectives on Change: The Case of Information Systems Technology Implementation. MIS Quarterly 15, 229–241 (1991). 11. Kotter, John P.: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review 73, 59–67 (1995). 12. Kyle, Neil: Staying with the Flow of Change. Journal for Quality and Participation 16(July/August), 34–42 (1993). 13. Pitman, Ben: Critical Success Factors to Organizational Change. Journal of Systems Management 45(September), 40 (1994). 14. Robertson, Peter J., Roberts, Darryl R., and Porras, Jerry I.: Dynamics of Planned Organizational Change: Assessing Empirical Support for a Theoretical Model. Academy of Management Journal 36(June), 619–634 (1993). 15. Schultz, Randall L., Ginzburg, Michael J., and Lucas, Henry C. Jr.: A Structural Model of Implementation, in Applications of Management Science: Management Science Implementation, R. Schultz, ed., JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1984. 16. Robey, Daniel, Conflict Models for Implementation Research, in Applications of Management Science: Management Science Implementation, R. Schultz, ed., JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1984. 17. Colombo, George W.: Sales Force Automation: Using the Latest Technology to Make Your Sales Force More Competitive. McGraw Hill, Boston, MA, 1995. 18. Wotruba, Thomas R., and Tyagi, Pradeep K.: Met Expectations and Turnover in Direct Selling. Journal of Marketing 55(July), 24–35 (1991). 19. Dubinsky, Alan J., Yammarino, Francis J., Jolson, Marvin A., and Spangler, William D.: Transformational Leadership: An Initial Investigation in Sales Management. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 15, 17–29 (1995).
7. Goldenberg, Barton: Ten Steps Toward Successful Sales Automation. Inc. 17(December), 28 (1994).
20. Hart, Sandra Hile, Moncrief, William C., and Parasuraman, A.: An Empirical Investigation of Salespeople: Performance, Effort and Selling Method During a Sales Contest. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 17, 29–40 (1989).
8. Battaglia, Alfred J.: Getting Out of the Box. Chief Executive 87(July/ August), 24–27 (1993).
21. Cronbach, L.J.: Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika 16, 297–334 (1951).
472
Amy J. Morgan Scott A. Inks Sales force automation systems are fast becoming a marketplace reality. Implementation of these systems represents a significant change for many organizations, often presenting difficult challenges for managers. This paper proposes several factors relating to sales force acceptance of automation. These factors are examined as potential characteristics in a successful implementation program. Results of the study are used in providing a series of recommendations for managerial use in enhancing the potential for success of automation implementation programs. © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Address correspondence to Dr. A.J. Morgan, Department of Marketing, Bradley University, 407 Baker Hall, Peoria, IL 61625. E-mail: [email protected].
Industrial Marketing Management 30, 463–472 (2001) © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
INTRODUCTION Broadly defined, sales force automation (SFA) refers to the use of computer hardware, software, and telecommunications devices by salespeople in their selling and/or administrative activities. In many organizations, these tools are further integrated into enterprise-wide data management systems encompassing sales, marketing, and customer service [1]. The exact nature of SFA varies dramatically from one firm to the next. Regardless of its form, however, the SFA system integrates its various activities and applications to support one overriding goal: enhancement of the collection, assimilation, analysis, and distribution of information to improve productivity of the sales force, while enhancing customer relationships. Common SFA applications include, but are not limited
0019-8501/01/$–see front matter PII S0019-8501(99)00115-7
SFA is no longer the future of sales but rather a competitive imperative. to, the following: contact management, enhancement of sales presentations, automation of administrative tasks, strategic information exchange throughout the organization, and computer-based training. Specific activities supported by SFA include the use of e-mail, word processing, financial management, personal information management, presentation creation, and presentation delivery. Applications are available through both standardized software programs and customized systems created for individual organizations. Proponents argue that SFA is no longer the “future of sales,” but rather a competitive imperative [2]. Through implementation of SFA, they suggest, firms increase the capacity to develop successful customer relationships through a variety of organizational benefits [1, 3–5]. Seeking these benefits, many firms have chosen to become involved in the SFA arena. Indeed, the SFA market is booming [3]. Revenues for the SFA software industry alone are projected to hit $1.92 billion by 2001 [1]. Further, industry experts estimate three-quarters of largeand medium-sized organizations use or are implementing some degree of SFA [6]. The popularity of SFA stems from the numerous benefits that these systems promise, including increased productive selling time, enhanced contact management abilities, and most important, the ability to deliver superior customer value through information sharing across sales,
AMY J. MORGAN is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Bradley University. She is involved in research that examines technology in sales and in retailing, as well as in marketing communications applications of the Internet. SCOTT A. INKS is currently Assistant Professor of Marketing at Middle Tennessee State University. He is actively involved in research and publishing in the areas of selling and sales management.
464
marketing, and customer service personnel. One proposed benefit, the ability of the system to increase quality selling time, is particularly appealing. Salespeople are frustrated often with the amount of time they spend on “nonselling” activities, such as call reports, expense reports, and so forth. In addition, activities more closely associated with selling, such as bid preparation and contract qualification, also take a tremendous amount of the salesperson’s time. The promise of SFA is that through automation, the time taken for these activities can be greatly reduced, thus freeing the salesperson to engage in more direct selling activities. While the potential benefits of SFA are numerous and quite valuable, implementation of SFA can be complex. In fact, many firms are finding the path to successful SFA implementation quite rocky, with many obstacles to overcome on the way to realizing any benefits from the system. Some firms never get there at all. Industry studies indicate SFA failure rates between 25% and 60% [5, 6]. Understandably, then, questions arise as to whether SFA is a large and potentially messy mistake or a productive investment. For firms embarking on an SFA program, understanding where the difficulties and pitfalls of implementation lie is an important and seldom-addressed issue. Given the potential benefits of a successful SFA implementation, it is important to understand why some organizations are successful at implementing SFA and why others are not. While much has been written about SFA systems themselves, along with their potential benefits, successes, and failures, little attention has been given to exploring the reasons why SFA systems succeed or fail. Successful implementation of SFA is a serious challenge because it involves a significant organizational change. For the organization, implementation of SFA represents a significant change in both form and function. That organizational change will create turbulence is a likely scenario. Organizational change is much like learning to drive a car. Initially, starts are abrupt, stops
Implementation of SFA represents a significant change in both form and function. are sudden, and turning onto a new road can be terrifying. Over time, starts become more confident, stops are smoother, and turns are less intimidating. Eventually, the entire driving process becomes second nature. The trick is to not crash, to minimize engine damage, and to avoid frustrating other drivers during the learning process. Just as the case of learning to drive a car proficiently and comfortably, successful implementation of SFA depends on acceptance by those actually learning the new skill—the sales force. While SFA systems are chosen, and their implementations are planned at higher levels of the organization, it is the salesperson in the field that is ultimately responsible for accepting and making use of that system. When salespeople are resistant to an organizational change, the outcome of the change process is likely to be negative. The purpose of this paper is to forward understanding of sales force acceptance of SFA. By investigating the factors related to SFA acceptance, insight can be gained in developing appropriate implementation systems with higher probabilities of success. In the sections that follow, background material is presented in developing a framework for SFA acceptance. Following this, we describe a study that tests those proposed relationships. We subsequently discuss managerial implications for dealing with typical impediments to SFA acceptance including fear of technology, fear of management interference, loss of power, and resistance to change. Finally, we build on those results to provide a series of implications for successful SFA implementation. BACKGROUND Managing SFA Implementation The benefits of SFA would seem to make any salesperson eager to embrace such technology. Yet, sales force
resistance is still a major stumbling block that prevents successful implementation of SFA [7]. Sales automation consultants and other industry experts prescribe various methods for implementing SFA. While most of these recommendations include providing training, obtaining managerial commitment, and user involvement in development, consistent evidence of successful SFA implementation is not available. Many authors have suggested methods for managing change in an organization [8–15]. Although these suggestions differ in specific content, several characteristics are repeatedly mentioned as central to successful change management. They include managerial commitment, training, user involvement, and accurate expectation setting. Figure 1 shows these characteristics in relation to the acceptance of sales force automation. MANAGERIAL COMMITMENT. One element that is necessary to successfully manage any type of organizational change is the need for commitment from managers (e.g., [6, 7, 9, 13, 16]). The likelihood of successful change implementation is greater when commitment to a change is strong at high levels within the organization. Edward Deming, noted management theorist, subscribed to this notion in the area of total quality management (TQM). Deming believed that management’s complete commitment was necessary for successful TQM implementation programs. While TQM initiatives are organization-wide, most SFA implementation efforts are directed toward the sales force. Although other areas of the organization are often affected, it is the sales force that drives an SFA system. Field salespeople, especially those on a straight commission compensation program, typically have little contact with anyone in the organization, with the exception of their sales manager and are notorious for their independence. This begs the question of whether the research findings on the importance of managerial commitment to acceptance of change will apply to cases of SFA implementation. 465
It is the salesperson in the field that is ultimately responsible. Yet, SFA implementation recommendations by industry experts typically include a call for strong commitment to the change effort by the organization’s management. Although not tested empirically, the rationale for this recommendation is that salespeople are likely to resist changes that are perceived as lacking high levels of managerial commitment. Simply, salespeople are unlikely to apply the effort necessary for successful SFA implementation if they perceive management is not doing the same. Thus: H1: The greater the salesperson’s perception of managerial commitment to SFA implementation, the greater the likelihood of that salesperson’s acceptance of SFA.
TRAINING. The implementation of an SFA system requires salespeople (users) to learn how to use the system. Therefore, some form of formalized, organizationsponsored SFA training would seem to be a necessary ingredient for effective implementation. Research that empirically examines the relationship between organization-sponsored training and successful implementation of
FIGURE 1.
466
SFA systems is virtually nonexistent. However, training is consistently described in the practitioner-oriented literature as a key component of successful SFA implementation (e.g., [2, 7, 9, 17]). A common theme throughout this literature is that training must be appropriate for the task(s) being automated. Further, the training must specifically consider the type of SFA system used. It must also be readily available. In other words, the mere existence of a training program is not enough. Salespeople must perceive that the training directly relates to their use of the SFA system and that after attending the training they will be more productive (via SFA) than they were prior to the training. The extent to which the organization meets the SFA training needs of the salespeople is likely to affect their acceptance of the SFA system itself, suggesting the following: H2: The greater the salesperson’s perception that his or her SFA training needs will be met, the greater the likelihood of that salesperson’s acceptance of SFA.
Factors related to successful sales force automation.
Salespeople must perceive that the training directly relates to their use of the SFA system. USER INVOLVEMENT. Another factor potentially contributing to the success of SFA implementation is the involvement of salespeople (users) in the early stages of the implementation process. Individuals involved in creating and implementing change tend to feel ownership and are less likely to resist change [10]. The rationale is that involvement in the decision process promotes a sense of inclusion and fairness, which leads to ownership of the change. Intuitively, then, salespeople are more likely to embrace change in which they have some sense of ownership. A common source of sales force resistance cited by practitioners is the “fear of big brother.” Salespeople may resist SFA because they perceive it as a tool that management will use to further monitor and control their day-today activities. Sales force involvement in the early stages of implementation may serve to reduce these fears as salespeople perceive that their interests are being represented and protected. Thus: H3: The greater the salesperson’s perception that salespeople are involved in the SFA process, the greater the likelihood of that salesperson’s acceptance of SFA.
ACCURATE EXPECTATION SETTING. Another important component of successful SFA implementation is setting accurate expectations [7]. Salespeople must understand what they can expect from using SFA and, prior to rollout of the SFA system, should be given some indication of what they can expect from the implementation process. Although the existence or degree of the proposed relationship has not yet been tested empirically, some support is indicated. One of the few areas of change within the sales force that has been studied is turnover. A link has been established between salespeople’s initial expectations when hired and turnover [18]. This research indicates that salespeople with inaccurate expectations at time of hire
are more likely to leave the organization or experience job dissatisfaction than are salespeople with accurate expectations. The former concluded that sales managers wishing to reduce both sales force job dissatisfaction and turnover should endeavor to ensure that candidates for a sales position have accurate expectations of the job before being hired [18]. Adapting these findings to the area of salespeople’s acceptance of SFA is the following: H4: The more that a salesperson perceives accuracy in his or her expectations for SFA implementation (as established by the organization), the greater the likelihood of that salesperson’s acceptance of SFA.
THE STUDY Data Collection The organization selected for this study was a large global insurance underwriter in the process of implementing SFA among its domestic sales force at the time of data collection. The level of analysis is the individual salesperson. The organization was selected because its sales force is comprised of salespeople of various ages, educational backgrounds, and levels of sales experience. Furthermore, the firm’s domestic sales force is dispersed geographically across the United States. The objective of using such a diverse sales force was to reduce the potential for bias in the results. In the first stage of the data collection process, the measurement instrument was sent through e-mail to 35 managing executives (domestic sales managers) for their review. Twenty of these managing executives approved the instrument for distribution to their salespeople. During the second stage of data collection, packets consisting of a cover letter, a survey, and a coded reply envelope (postage paid) were assembled. Each packet was labeled with the name of a salesperson and then 467
Individuals involved in creating and implementing change tend to feel ownership.
grouped by office for distribution. The aggregated packets were sent directly to each participating office for distribution. Packets were sent to 19 participating offices. Three weeks after the initial distribution of the survey packets, a follow-up message was sent via e-mail to each salesperson in the participating offices. The message indicated gratitude to those that had already responded and encouraged those who had not to complete and return the survey as soon as possible.
TABLE 1 Demographic Information
Variable Age (n 126) 30 30–39 40–49 50–59 60 Gender (n 123) Female Male Education (n 128) High School Bachelor degree Some graduate Graduate degree Income (thousands of $; n 123) 30 30–60 60–90 90–120 120–150 150 Own a computer at home (n 129) Yes No
468
Frequency
Valid Percent of Respondents
12 32 40 34 8
09.5 25.4 31.7 27.0 06.3
23 100
18.7 81.3
10 80 21 17
07.8 62.5 16.4 13.3
1 29 29 25 16 23
00.8 23.6 23.6 20.3 13.0 18.7
90 39
69.8 30.2
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Surveys were sent to 387 of the organization’s salespeople. Of the 133 surveys returned, 132 were complete and usable for a response rate of 34%. Tables 1, 2, and 3 summarize the demographic data provided by the survey respondents. As shown on Table 1, the typical respondent was between 40 and 50 years of age, male, held a Bachelor’s degree, and owned a computer at home. The salary ranges for the respondents were fairly evenly dispersed ($30,000 to over $150,000). With the exceptions of San Francisco, CA, and Portland, OR, respondents were also fairly evenly dispersed geographically (Table 2). The experience level of the respondents (Table 3) included the number of years in the current sales position and the number of years of sales experience overall. A wide distribution of experience levels among the respondents is indicated in Table 3. The average number of years in sales was approximately 15, while the average number of years in the current position was 11. This suggests that the average salesperson for this organization had sales experience prior to being hired. Study Measures Data for this study were collected through the use of a survey instrument consisting of existing and new scale items developed to assess the key variables in the research hypotheses. Table 4 is a summary of the measures, including origin and reliability, as indicated by coefficient alpha [21] estimates. With the exception of the training measure, all other scales were modified versions of existing measures. The existing measures were modified to change the context of the item to reflect SFA implementation. Every effort was taken to ensure that modifications to items retained the theoretical foundations on which the measures were de-
Individuals must perceive the benefits of training as outweighing the cost of not being in the field. veloped. As a final check, a panel of experts reviewed each of the reworded items for clarity and content. The reliability estimates of the measures used in this study are reported in Table 4. Exploratory investigation of Hypotheses 1 through 4 was done using correlation analysis. Table 5 is a summary of the correlations between the variables included in this study. The results suggest a statistically significant positive correlation between salespeople’s acceptance of SFA and their expectations (.550, p .05), training (.372, p .05), and influence in the implementation process (.417, p .05). The results also suggest statistically significant correlations between each of the factors re-
lated to SFA acceptance (with the exception of managerial commitment and user influence). The findings of this study, albeit exploratory, support three of the four proposed relationships. First, the more that salespeople are assured that adequate training will be provided, the more accepting they are of the SFA implementation process. It seems that salespeople may not be content to know simply that training will be provided; rather, they must perceive the benefits of training as outweighing the cost of not being in the field. This relationship is likely stronger for commission-based salespeople, as they are better able to quantify the opportunity costassociated with spending one to two weeks in training.
TABLE 2 Response Rate by Office Office San Francisco, CA Portland, OR Orange, CA Philadelphia, PA Seattle, WA Dallas, TX Boston, MA Little Rock, AR Pittsburgh, PA Boise, ID Denver, CO Harrisburg, PA Minneapolis, MN Rochester, NY Fort Lauderdale, FL Maitland, FL Birmingham, AL West Palm Beach, FL Nashville, TN Omaha, NE Total Average
Surveys Sent
Number Responding
72 61 29 21 23 22 18 13 13 12 11 16 13 9 11 8 7 7 4 9 379
20 31 12 6 7 4 7 4 4 5 5 3 4 2 6 3 2 4 0 2 131
Percent Responding 27.78 50.82 41.38 28.57 30.43 33.33 38.89 30.77 30.77 41.66 45.45 18.75 30.77 22.22 54.55 37.50 28.57 57.14 0.00 22.22 34.56 31.98
Percent of Respondents 15.27 23.66 9.22 4.68 5.34 3.05 5.34 3.05 3.05 3.82 3.82 2.29 3.05 1.53 4.68 2.29 1.53 3.05 0.00 1.53 100 4.77
469
Table 3 Respondent Experience
Table 5 Pearson Correlations between Measures
Employment Experience
Mean
Standard Deviation
Years with current employer Years with current position Years in sales
08.86 11.80 15.13
06.81 17.79 09.73
Acceptance AccExpect ManComm Training UserInfl Acceptance AccExpect ManComm Training UserInfl
1.000 .550* .113 .372* .417*
.550* 1.000 .243* .477* .519*
.113 .243* 1.000 .271* .071
.372* .477* .271* 1.000 .346*
.417* .519* .071 .346* 1.000
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tail).
Second, the more that salespeople believe they have influence in the SFA implementation process, the more accepting they are of that implementation. This supports conventional wisdom that involvement promotes ownership. However, this sense of involvement seems somewhat contradictory to the current findings related to training. Specifically, involvement would necessitate taking time away from the field and selling activities. It may be that salespeople want representation but do not necessarily want to be the ones doing the representation. Further, it is unclear as to the underlying nature of this relationship. Do salespeople want involvement because of the sense of ownership, or do they want to make sure that the SFA system is not simply a monitoring tool for management? Additional research is needed to explore this question. Third, the more that salespeople have accurate expectations as to what SFA will mean for them in practical terms, the more accepting they are of the implementation process. This finding is similar to previous work regarding sales force turnover and the importance of establishing accurate expectations. This relationship suggests that salespeople who perceive they know what to expect, in terms of inputs and outcomes from the SFA implementation, will have a greater acceptance. Additional research is needed to explore the relationship between the relative desirability of the expectations and acceptance. In other words, what impact will accurate but undesirable expectations have on acceptance? The one dissenting finding reported here is the lack of a statistically significant correlation between managerial
Table 4 Measures Summary Scale Name Expectations Managerial Commitment User Influence Training Acceptance of SFA Implementation
470
Source
Initial Reliability
Dubinsky et al.[19] Hart et al. [20] Dubinsky et al. [19] New Hart et al. [20]
.75 .88 .73 .83 .69
commitment and salespeople’s acceptance of SFA. The basis for such a relationship is that managerial commitment to an implementation of change is essential to the acceptance of the implementation or change by frontline employees—in this case, salespeople. One explanation for this contrary finding may rest in the autonomous nature of the sales force used in the study. Specifically, the salespeople utilized in this study were compensated through commission only, and they tended to operate autonomously. Under such conditions, the sales force may not be concerned with whether management is committed to SFA, so long as they believe they will be able to use the SFA system (training) and will benefit from it (expectations). Although simple correlations in no way suggest causality, along with the theoretical foundations, they are consistent with the relationships proposed in Figure 1. Accordingly, these results have important implications for organizations wishing to implement SFA. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS AND DISCUSSION Sales force automation tools may improve the performance of an organization and/or its salespeople but only if the system is utilized properly by the sales force. Without the acceptance of the salespeople of the SFA system, the SFA investment is likely to fail. Several implications about fostering SFA acceptance may be drawn from this study. First, organizations should ensure that salespeople know what to expect from and during the SFA implementation. Communication of these expectations should come from a source that the sales force perceives as credible. Second, organizations must cultivate some influence in the implementation process from the sales force, whether individually or through “representatives.” Meth-
ods of involving employees in the change process include soliciting input from employees regarding the need to change (e.g., what activities need to be changed), allowing employees to explore change options, and asking employees to participate in planning the actual implementation of the change. Third, organizations should make sure that salespeople believe they will be adequately trained, such that they will be able to realize the benefits of SFA with minimal “downtime.” Management also needs to make sure that salespeople understand what to expect from SFA, and then endeavor to meet those expectations. For example, telling salespeople both the good points and bad points of SFA will allow them to better estimate what they can expect from successful use of the SFA system. Without full commitment to SFA by the sales force, implementation will be problematic. “Selling” the idea of SFA to the sales force will involve management taking steps to overcome objections to SFA. Salespeople may resist implementation of SFA for a variety of reasons, including fear of technology, fear of management interference, loss of power, and resistance to change.
Fear of Technology Fear of technology is a likely impediment to sales force acceptance of automation. If salespeople feel that they are not capable of using the SFA system, their motivation to do so will be greatly reduced. To reduce this fear, appropriate training must be available to each salesperson prior to the official rollout. Further, technical support must be readily available (preferably 24 hours/day) to the sales force for the technical problems that may arise as they adjust to the SFA system.
Fear of Interference Most SFA systems will provide sales management with real-time access to salesperson performance information. The number of sales calls per day, the amount of attention given to each customer, the position of customers in the sales cycle, and the implementation of promotional programs information will be instantly available to management. To help reduce concerns about management interference in selling activities, SFA should be positioned and used as a tool to help the productivity of the sales force, rather than as a monitoring tool for sales management.
Loss of Power To many salespeople, the information they hold about their customers represents a base of power—that is, the more information they possess about their customers, the more dependent their organization becomes. Salespeople who feel this way may be reluctant to transfer their customer knowledge base into a format that is standardized, readily accessible, and easily transferable. The solution to this problem is SFA positioning. Management must ensure that its salespeople perceive SFA as a productivity tool, not as a tool for management to gain control over the sale force’s customers. General Resistance to Change It is human nature to resist change, simply because it is a deviation from the status quo. Generally speaking, overcoming this most basic reason for resistance requires that the individuals being asked to make the change perceive some advantage in doing so. Without the perception of an advantage, the sales force is less likely to whole-heartedly use the SFA system. Consequently, the benefits of SFA (e.g., the capture and flow of strategic information) will be diminished. To address this type of resistance, management needs to clearly demonstrate the advantage(s) (e.g., more selling time, shorter sales cycle, less administrative hassle, etc.) of using the SFA system over the current system. CONCLUSION Although the findings of this research are compelling, some limitations of the current study need be recognized. First, the sample used in the study came from a single organization. Second, the organization’s individual sales managers were given the opportunity to refuse distribution of the surveys to salespeople under their span of control. This may have introduced bias into the study, because the reasons that certain managers declined participation may have been systemically related to the project topic. This lack of complete participation limited the ability to obtain an accurate description of the population under study. Without this information, our ability to draw generalizations from these results is clearly limited. Finally, some of the scales utilized in this study were modifications of, or adapted from, existing scales. Consequently, the validity of the measures may have been adversely affected. 471
As business-related technology (e.g., telecommunications and computers) improves and the competitive environment intensifies, the need for SFA becomes more compelling. Successful implementation of SFA programs requires sales force acceptance. This acceptance may be enhanced through training, sales force involvement in the implementation decision process, and establishment of accurate sales force expectations as to what the implementation will entail.
REFERENCES 1. Nelson, K.: Brave New World: Sales Force Automation is Changing the Way Companies Reach and Keep Their Customers. Business Marketing 83(June), 14 (1998). 2. Rasmusson, E.: Get Plugged In: The 5 Steps to Successful Sales Force Automation. Sales & Marketing Management 151(March), 34–40 (1999). 3. Blodgett, Mindy: Sales Force Automation Tools: You Just Gotta Have Em, Computerworld 30(July), 77–78 (1996). 4. Harris, Kim, and Pike, John: Issues Concerning Adoption and Use of Sales Force Automation in the Agricultural Input Supply Sector. Agribusiness 4, 317–326 (1996). 5. Stein, Tom: Software for the Hard Sell—By Adding Functionality, Sales Force Automation Systems are Overcoming a Bad Reputation. InformationWeek 671(March),18–19 (1998). 6. Nelson, Kristi: Increase Your Odds for Automation Success. Sales and Marketing Strategies and News 5, 1–2 (1995).
9. Cummings, Thomas G., and Worley, Christopher G.: Organizational Development and Change. West Publishing Company, New York, 1993. 10. Joshi, Kailash: A Model of Users’ Perspectives on Change: The Case of Information Systems Technology Implementation. MIS Quarterly 15, 229–241 (1991). 11. Kotter, John P.: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review 73, 59–67 (1995). 12. Kyle, Neil: Staying with the Flow of Change. Journal for Quality and Participation 16(July/August), 34–42 (1993). 13. Pitman, Ben: Critical Success Factors to Organizational Change. Journal of Systems Management 45(September), 40 (1994). 14. Robertson, Peter J., Roberts, Darryl R., and Porras, Jerry I.: Dynamics of Planned Organizational Change: Assessing Empirical Support for a Theoretical Model. Academy of Management Journal 36(June), 619–634 (1993). 15. Schultz, Randall L., Ginzburg, Michael J., and Lucas, Henry C. Jr.: A Structural Model of Implementation, in Applications of Management Science: Management Science Implementation, R. Schultz, ed., JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1984. 16. Robey, Daniel, Conflict Models for Implementation Research, in Applications of Management Science: Management Science Implementation, R. Schultz, ed., JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1984. 17. Colombo, George W.: Sales Force Automation: Using the Latest Technology to Make Your Sales Force More Competitive. McGraw Hill, Boston, MA, 1995. 18. Wotruba, Thomas R., and Tyagi, Pradeep K.: Met Expectations and Turnover in Direct Selling. Journal of Marketing 55(July), 24–35 (1991). 19. Dubinsky, Alan J., Yammarino, Francis J., Jolson, Marvin A., and Spangler, William D.: Transformational Leadership: An Initial Investigation in Sales Management. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 15, 17–29 (1995).
7. Goldenberg, Barton: Ten Steps Toward Successful Sales Automation. Inc. 17(December), 28 (1994).
20. Hart, Sandra Hile, Moncrief, William C., and Parasuraman, A.: An Empirical Investigation of Salespeople: Performance, Effort and Selling Method During a Sales Contest. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 17, 29–40 (1989).
8. Battaglia, Alfred J.: Getting Out of the Box. Chief Executive 87(July/ August), 24–27 (1993).
21. Cronbach, L.J.: Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika 16, 297–334 (1951).
472