41 - Personal Selling and Sales

8/13/2019 41 - Personal Selling and Sales

1/14

P ersonal Selling and S alesM anagem ent A Re la tionshipMarket ing Perspect iveBarton A W ei tzUniversity of F lorida

Kevin D BradfordUniversity o f Notre D ame

The authors examine how the practice of personal sellingand sales managem ent is changing as a result of the in-creased attention on long-term buyer-seller relationshipsand identify so me implications of these changes. Changesin the traditional personal selling and sales managementactivities are need ed to support the emergence o f the part-nering role fo r salespeople. For salespeople in the part-nering role the persona l selling shifts from a focu s oninfluencing bu yer behavior to mana ging the conflict inher-ent in buyer-seller relationships. Th e emphasis on buildingrelationships rather than making short-term sales and theuse of sales teams dictates changes in the wa y irm s selecttrain evaluate and compensate salespeople and memberso f sales teams. In this article the authors have suggestedsome issues concerning the emerging partnering role fo rsalespeople that deserve the attention o f scholars inter-ested in person al selling and sales management research.

Firm s are focu sing considerab le attention on buildingsustainable, competitive advantages by developing andma intaining close, cooperative relationships with a l imitedse t o f supp l i e rs , cus tomers , and channel members .Thr oug h these relationships, firms create value by differ-ent iat ing thei r offering and/or low ering thei r costs (Ber-ling 1993 ; Hart, Wilson, and D ant 199 3; Kalwani andNar ayan das 1995; Krapfel, Salmond, and Spek ma n 1991).Journal of the Acade my of Market ing ScienceVolume 27, No. 2, pages 241-254.C o p y r i g h t 9 1999 by Aca dem y of Market ing Science

The attractiveness of this approac h for building co mp eti-tive advantage ha s led man y m arketing scholars to su ggesttha t re l a t ionsh ip marke t ing- - the focus o f marke t ingactivities on establishing, developing, and maintainingcooperative, long-term relationsh ips--is the n ew m arketingparad igm (Gumm esson 1998 ; Hun t and Morgan 1994 ;Kofler 1991; McK enna 1991; Parvat iyar and Sheth 1994;Webster 1992).

The t e rm relationship marketing is applied to a num berof di fferent market ing act ivi ties ranging from consum erf requency marke t ing p rograms to se l l ing ac t iv i t i esdirecte d towa rd building partnerships with k ey business-to-business customers. This article explore s the implica-tions o f the latter aspect of relationship m arke ting for per-sonal sell ing and sales force m anage me nt pract ice andresearch.

Salespeople play a key role in the form at ion of long-t e rm buyer -se l l e r re l a t ionsh ips . As the p r imary l inkbetween the buy ing and sel ling f inns , th ey have consider-able influen ce on the buy er s perceptions of the se ller sreliabili ty an d the value of the seller s serv ices and con se-quen tly the buye r s interest in continuin g the relationship(Biong and Selnes 1996). Bu yers often have greater loy-alty to salespeople than they have to the firms em ployin gthe salespeople (An derson and Robertson 1995; He ide andJohn 1988; Macintosh and Lo cksin 1997).

The objective of this article is to exa min e how the prac-tice of personal selling an d sales ma nag em ent is chan gingas a result of the increased attention on long -term, buyer-seller relationships and to identify som e implications ofthese changes. The article begins w ith a comp arison of thedifferen t roles salespeople pla y in implem enting their


2/14

2 4 2 J O U R N A LO F T H E A C A D E M Y O F M A R K E T I N G S C I E N C E S P R I N G 1 99 9

TABLESalesperson RolesEra/roleSales forceobjective

ProductionMaking sales

Sales force Short- term seller needsorientationCrit ical tasks Taking orders ,

o f sa le speople de l ive r in g oods

Activit ies of Making sales calls andsalespeople informing customersabout the f irm s offering

Role of ProvidersalespersonF o cu s o f s a l e s I n d i v i d u a lalespeoplemanagemen t(selection, training, Em phasis on efficientmotivation, resource allocation andevaluation, and mo tivating salespeop lecompensation) to work harder

SalesMaking sales

Short- term seller needs

Convincing buyers tobuy products

Influencing custom ers usinga hard-sell approach

Persuader

Individual salespeop leEm phasis on eff ic ientresource allocation andmotivating salespeopleto work harder

arketingSatisfying customer needs

Short- termcustomerandbuyer needsMatching available offeringsto buyerneeds

Influencing customers bypracticing adaptive selling

Problem solver

Individual salespeop leEm phasis on selection andtraining to improve abil i tyand motivating salespeopleto wo rk smarter

PartneringBuilding relationships

Long-term customer andseller needsCreating new alternatives bymatching buyer needs withseller capabilitiesBuilding and m aintainingcustomer relationshipsOrganizing and leading asales teamManaging co nflic tValue creator

Sales teams and leaders ofsales teamsEm phasis on the selectionand m otivation of teams anddeveloping leadership andconflic t managem ent skil lsin account managers

SOUR CE: B ased on data from Wotruba (1991) and W eitz , Castleberry , and Tanner (1998).

f i r m s m a r k e t i n g s t r a te g y . T h i s c o m p a r i s o n h i g h l i g h t s t h ed i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s o n a l s e l l i n g a n d sa l e s m a n a g e m e n t i n a ne r a o f r e l a t i o n a l v e r s u s t r a n s a c t i o n a l e x c h a n g e s J O n t h eb a s i s o f t h es e d i f f e r en c e s , w e s u g g e s t s o m e u n r e s o l v e di s s u e s c o n f r o n t i n g s a l e s p e o p l e a n d t h e i r m a n a g e r s i n th i sn e w e n v i r o n m e n t - - i s s u e s t h a t c o u l d b e n e f it fr o m a d d i -t i o n a l r e s e a r c h s u c h a s t h e n a t u r e o f c u s t o m e r - s a l e s p e r s o ni n t e r a c t i o n s ; t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e s e l li n g e f f o r t; a n d t h ed e s ig n , m o t i v a t i o n , a n d c o m p e n s a t i o n o f s a le s t e a m s f

C H A N G I N G N A T U RE O F P E R S O N A LS E L L IN G A N D S A L E S M A N A G E M E N TW o t r u b a ( 1 9 9 1 ) s u g g e s t s t h e n a t u r e o f p e r s o n a l s e ll i n g ,

l i k e m a r k e t i n g ( K o t l e r 1 9 9 8 ) , h a s e v o l v e d t h r o u g h t h e f o u re r a s - - p r o d u c t i o n , s a le s , m a r k e t i n g , a n d p a r t n e r i n g - -d e p i c t e d i n T a b l e 1 . I n e a c h o f t h e s e e r a s , t h e r o l e o f s a le s -p e o p l e d i f f e r s , a n d t h u s s a l e s p e o p l e i n t h e s e ro l e s e n g a g ei n d i ff e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s a n d n e e d d i f f e r e n t s e t s o f k n o w l e d g e ,s k i ll s , a n d a b i l i t i e s t o b e e f f e c t i v e . T h e n a t u r e o f s a l e s m a n -a g e m e n t a l s o c h a n g e s i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e c h a n g in g n a t ur eo f p e r s o n a l s e l l in g .

W h i l e e a c h o f th e s e s e l li n g r o le s m a y h a v e d o m i n a t e db u y e r - s e l l e r e x c h a n g e s i n th e s e e r a s , a l l o f t h e r o l e s w e r er e p r e s e n t e d i n e a c h e r a . T h u s , i n th e 1 9 9 0 s , s e l l in g a n ds a le s m a n a g e m e n t i n s o m e s i t u a ti o n s i s m o r e c o n s i s te n tw i t h t h e n a t u r e o f s e l l in g i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n , s a l e s , o r m a r -k e t i n g e r a t h a n i n t h e p a r t n e r i n g e r a . I n f a c t , t h e s e o t h e rp r o t o t y p i c a l s e l l i n g r o l e s m a y d o m i n a t e b u y e r - s e l l e r r e l a -t i o n s h i p s i n th e 1 9 9 0 s e v e n t h o u g h t h e 1 9 9 0 s a r e i d e n t if i e dw i t h t he e m e r g e n c e a n d g r o w i n g i m p o r t a n c e o f th e p a r t-n e r i n g r o l e . I n o u r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e e v o l u t i o n o f p e r s o n a ls e l l i n g , w e w i l l e m p h a s i z e t h e d i f f e r e n t r o l e s t h a t h a v ee m e r g e d r a t h e r t h a n t h e n a t u r e o f p e r s o n a l s e l l i n g i n d i f f e r -e n t e r a s .

W e a l s o r e c o g n i z e t h a t s e l le r s h a v e a p o r t f o l i o o f r e l a -t i o n sh i p s w i t h t h e ir c u s t o m e r s ( L a m b e a n d S p e k m a n1 9 9 7 ). S o m e o f th e s e r e l a t io n s h i p s a r e b a s e d o n t r a n s a c -t i o n a l e x c h a n g e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p r o d u c t i o n a n d s a l e sr o l e s, a n d o t h e r s a r e b a s e d o n r e l a t i o n a l e x c h a n g e s a s s o c i -a t e d w i t h t h e p a r t n e r i n g r o l e f o r s a l e s p e o p l e . T h i s a r t ic l ec e n t e r s o n t h e p a r t n e r i n g r o l e f o r s a l e s p e o p l e d u e t o th eg r o w i n g i m p o r t a n c e o f r e l at i o na l e x c h a n g e s a n d l i m i t e dr e s e a r c h e x a m i n i n g t h e p a r t n e r i n g r o l e o f s a l e s p e o p l e .W h i l e t r a n s a c ti o n a l e x c h a n g e s m a y d o m i n a t e t h e p o r t f o li o


3/14

Weitz, Bradford PERSONALSELLING 243

of mo st sellers, the relational exch ange s provide the great-est opportunity for developing strategic advantage andrealizing ex tranorm aI profits f rom exch ange relationships.Product ion Role

Salespeople often have a product ion role when com pe-tition is l imite d and de m and is greater than supply. In thisrole, the salespeople are concerned about satisfying theshort - term needs of thei r f irms. Th eir primary act ivit ies areinform ing custo me rs about the availability o f products andservices and taking orders. Effect ive performance of th isrole em phasizes effort rather than abi l ity . Thus, the man -agement of salespeople in this role involves effectivelyallocating ef for t across produc ts an d territories and moti-vat ing and rewarding individual salespeople to workhard--to increase the number of sales cal ls rather thanimpro ve the abilit ies of salespeople through selection andtraining. Decision support systems for territory design(e.g., Zo ltners and S inha 1983 ) and call planning (e.g.,Lod ish 1971) an d resear ch on factors affec ting the motiva-tion and e ffort of salespeople (e.g., Churchill, Ford, andWalker 1974 ; Co ughlin and S en 1989 ) provide insightsinto impr oving the e ffectivene ss of salespeople in this role.S a les Ro le

The sales role is to stimulate, rather than satisfy,demand for products . To persuade customers that theynee d a supplier's product, salespeople in this role focus onachiev ing short-term results fo r their companies by usingaggressive selling technique s to persuade custom ers o buyproducts.

Research related to the effectiveness in this role hasconcentrated on ident i fying personal i ty t rai ts such asaggressiveness related to salesperson pe rform ance (cf.Wei tz 1981) and effect ive techniques for overcomingobjections and clos ing sales . The sales force manage men tresearc h, men tione d previously, that supports the produc-tion role also supports the sales role.

arke t ing Ro leThe im plementat ion of the marke t ing concept empha-

sizes the marketing role for salespeople. Salespeople inthis role consider both the need s of thei r customers andtheir firms in d evelopin g sales strategies. W hile this role islabeled Problem So lver in Table 1 , the range of al terna-tives considered in solving the customer's problem typi-cal ly is l imi ted to the sell ing f i rm's present product andservice offerings . Even though c ustom er needs are consid-ere d in ma king sales presentations, the salesperson's pri-m ary ob jective is stil l mak ing the sale, not increasing thecus tom er's profitabili ty.

Re search on improving the effe ctivene ss of salespeoplein the m arket ing role has largely focused on developing acusto m er orientation in salespeo ple (e.g., Saxe an d Weitz1982; Siguaw, Brown, and W ilding 1994) and encou rag-ing salespeople to practice adaptive selling (e.g., Boor-mo n, Goolsby, and Ra ms ey 1998; Spiro and Weitz 1990).The sales m anagem ent research supporting this role hasexamined selection and training methods to improve theabilities and motivating salespeople to acquire the skillsand knowledge to work smarter (cf . Sujan, Wei tz, andKum ar 1994).Partner ing Role

As ind icated in Table I, partnerin g-oriente d salespeo-ple are value creators . The y work w i th thei r customers andtheir companies to develop solutions that enhance theprofits o f both firms. Thus, salespeople in this role developand maintain relat ional e xcha nges --exc hang es in whichthe buyer and seller devote their attention to increa singthe pie rather than dividing the pie. Increa sing the prof-its of both the bu yer and se ller typically involves the part-nering firms making risky, idiosyncratic investments.Since these investments are unique to the relationship,they are di ff icul tfor comp et i tors to dupl icate and thus havethe potential for building a competitive adva ntage for thebuyer-sel ler dyad over compe t ing dyads (Weitz and Jap1995).The objective of sales people in the partne ring role is todevelop long-term relationships with custo m ers (Cravens1995). The se relationships are similar to a ma rriage sincethey involve com mitm ents by both parties to wo rk togetherin a m utually beneficial man ner (Kanter 1994). Th e partiesfocus on long- t e rm ou tcomes fo r the re l a t ionsh ip - -expanding the pie--ra ther than short - term outcomes for aspecific party --sp lit t ing the pie.The partnering role, l ike the marketing role, requiressalespeople to unders tand customer needs and to convincethe customers that thei r f i rms ' products and services cansatisfy those needs. In addition, salespeople in the partner-ing role need to bui ld t rus t and c om mitm ent in both thei rf inn and the buying f i rm so that both parties w i l l freelyexchange information to explore innovative solutions toproblems and m ake the r isky investment to bui ld comp et i -tive advantage.

Three major di fferences between the partnering roleand the o ther ro l es a re (1 ) the focus o f in t e rpersona lcom mun ications--managing conflict versus influencing pur-chase decisions, (2) the salesperson's objective---buildingandmaintaining the relationship with the customer versusmaxim izing short- term sales , and (3) the uni t of analy-sis-the sales team versus the individual salesperson.Con flict is inhere nt in buye r-seller relationships due to thediffere nt goals of the two parties. In the sales and m arket-ing roles , salespeople at tempt to resolve this c onfl ict by


4/14

244 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE SPRING 999

influencing the buye r to make d ecis ions consis tent withthe seller s goals. H ow ever, in the partnering role, atten-tion shifts fro m the benef its accruing to an individual firmto the benef its accru ing to the relationship---the buye r-sel ler dyad. Salespeople in the partnering role managecon flict to strengthen the relationship and provid e benefitsto both part ies rather than influence customers to acceptsolutions advantageous to the seller. Wall and Callister(1995), in a rev iew of the co nfl ict managem ent l i terature,emphas ize the impor tance o f conf l i c t managemen t fo r re -lationship building:

Confl ict man agem ent should not , as i t does now, at-tempt only to maximize the part ies outcomes; i tshould also address the relationship . . . . Increasingthe pay off s to each [party] is admittedly of value. Yetenhance ment of their relationship wou ld probablyhave a s ignificant ly greater im pact on their jo int u t i l-ity. (P. 547)The secon d aspec t of the partnering role is the shift

from a fo cus on the seller s short-term profits and sales tothe relationship bet w een the bu yer and seller. In the part-nering era, the sale sper son s objec tive is building v aluefrom the relationship to provide long-term benefi ts to boththe bu ye r and seller. This relationship-building objec tivehas important co nseque nces for the approaches used to or-ganize, to select, to evaluate, and to com pens ate salespeo-ple and sales teams.

The th ird unique aspect of the partnering role is the shiftin the unit of analysis from the individual salesperson tothe selling team . Dev elopin g and exploiting these partner-ships typical ly requires the participat ion of a number ofpeople in the sel l ing and buying fi rms. W hile the buying-cen ter conc ep t has a rich tradition in the marketing litera-ture, the increasing em phas is on buyer-selle r partnershipshas led to the c once pt of a sel ling center or team that inter-faces wi th the m emb er o f the buy ing cen ter across func-t ions and m anage me nt levels (Cespedes 1994 ; Deeter-Schm elz and Ram sey 1995; Hutt , Johnson, and Ronch et to1985; M oo n and Gup ta 1997). Th ese cross-functional sell-ing teams are neces sary bec ause an individual salespersondoes not poss ess the know ledge or in trafirm influence topropose and im pleme nt a program that has the potent ial forbui lding a competi t ive advantage for the buyer-sel lerdyad . Thus, in the partnering role, salespeo ple assigned tocustome rs becom e relat ionship managers responsible formanag ing the act iv i ties of teams rather than s imply man-aging their personal activities (Brooksbank 1995; Ford1980; O Nea l 1989; Webster 1992). The sales manage-me nt implicat ions o f the t rend toward sales teams are dis-cus sed later in this article.

In th is sect ion, we have i l lus trated the differencebetw een the emerging partnering role for salespeople andthe more t radi t ional product ion, sales , and market ing

roles. In the next sections, w e disc uss the implications ofthese differences for personal sell ing and sales m anage-me nt research.

P E R S O N A L S E L L I N G IN T H E P A R T N ER IN GE R A T H E I M P O RT A N C E O F C O N F L I C TM A N A G E M E N T

We propose that managing confl ict rather than influ-encing c ustomers w il l be the ke y in terpersonal act iv i ty ofsalesp eople in a partnering role. Th ese partnering-orientedsalespeople wil l have to effect ively mana ge in trafirm andinterfirm conflict (Dabholkar, Johnson, and Cathey 1994).They w il l need to resolve confl ict in the sell ing team asthey coordinate the act iv i t ies of people from differentfunctional areas with different mind-sets and goals as w ellas confl icts betw een the buying and sel ling team s.

A nu mber o f defini tions of confl ict have been proposedin the literature (cf. Wall and Callister 1995). The se defini-t ions involve the percept ion o r actual behavior of on e partypreventing another party from achieving its objective. Wedefine confl ict as the behaviors or feel ings that one or bothof the part ies have wh en the other party has the potential toor actually obstructs, interferes with, or mak es less effe c-t ive a pa rty s behaviors associated with reaching theirgoals in a relat ionship . Confl ict manag eme nt is the behav-iors parties enga ge in whe n confronted w ith confl ict.

In the market ing l iterature, muc h o f the research onconfl ict has focused on factors causing c onfl ict , with con-fl ict typical ly being viewed as having a negat ive effect iveon relat ionships . This research has been directed towarduncovering the behaviors causing conflict, rather thanbehavior that resolves confl ict (for except ions, see Dantand Schul 1992; Ganesan 1993). For example, a number ofs tudies have found that the use o f coercive bases of socialpow er increases c onfl ict in a channel m anage men t context(e.g., Lusch 1976).

However, many researchers emphasize that conflict,when ef fec t ive ly managed , can have a pos i t ive e f fec t onrelat ionships and relat ionship outcom es. Som e of thepotential bene fits to arise from c onflic t are (1) stimulatinginterest in exploring ne w approaches, (2) providing anopportunity to air problems and explore potential solu-tions, (3) expanding the understanding of issues, (4) clari-fying differences in assumptions and perspect ives , (5)motivating parties in a relationship to adap t and grow, (6)mobilizing the resou rces of parties in a relationship, (7)revitalizing existing relationship nor ms and contributingto the emerge nce of new norms, and (8) bui lding com mit-ment to the relat ionship (Amason 1996; Brown 1983;Deutsch 1973; Pond y 1967; Stem, E1-Ansary, and Cough-lan 1996).

Since effect ive confl ict manag eme nt in buye r-sel ler re-lationships can minimize the negat ive effects of confl ict


5/14


and increase the ben efi ts the parties derive from the rela-tionship, tw o research-critical question s are the following:

Research Qu estion 1: W hat are the different approachesfor managing confl ict?Research Q uestion 2: What are the conditions underwhich each o f the approaches a re mos t e f fec t ive?In the fol lowing sect ion, we w il l provide som e thoughts oneach o f these ques t ions .

CONFLICT MAN AGEMEN T APPROACHESIN BUYER -SELLER RELATIONSHIPSConfl ict man agem ent has a rich t radi tion in the man-

agem ent and social psycholog y l iterature. A num ber ofdifferent taxonom ies have been suggested in the l i teratureto describe the approac hes for managing confl ict (Blakeand Mouton 1964; Hall 1969; Prui t t 1983; Rahim 1986;Thom as 1976). Although muc h of th is research examinesinterpersonal conflict, the literature repre sents a usefu lstarting po int for investigating interorganizational con flictmanagement. In th is sect ion w e describe Thom as s taxon-om y and sugge st how si tuat ional characteris tics ma y mod-erate the effect ivene ss of these confl ict approaches.Taxonom y of Con flictManagem ent Approaches

M o s t o f th e s e t a x o n o m i e s a r r a y t h e a l te rn a t i v eapproaches a long two dimensions, with one dimensionindicating the degree to w hich a party is concerned abouti ts self-in terest and the other d imension indicat ing thedegree to w hich the pa rty is concerned about the in terestsof the other party. To illustrate these taxonomies, webriefly review the five confl ict managem ent approaches ors tyles developed by Thom as (1976, 1979, 1994) s ince i t isthe mos t com monly used taxonomy in empi rica l researchon conf l ic t managemen t .

Thomas s ive conflict managementapproaches.In Fig-u re 1 , Thom as s t axonomy o f conf l i c t managemen t ap -p ro a c h e s -a v o i d a n c e , a c c o m m o d a t i o n , c o n f ro n t a t i o n ,compromise , and co l labora t ion --are a r rayed on the twodim ensio ns of assertive ness and cooperation. A ssertive-ness is associated with a concern for one s ow n outcomes,while cooperat ion is associated with a concern for theo ther par ty s ou tcomes .The avo idance approach is defined as behaviors thatignore o r fai l to consider the con fl ict betw een two parties.This approach is low on assertiveness and cooperation.Behaviors in which the sel ler recognizes confl icts andgives in to the concerns o r v iewpoints of the buye r definethe accommodative confl ict manageme nt approach. Thisappro ach is low on assertiveness and high on cooperation.

FIGURE 1Thomas s Five Conflict Managem ent Approaches

2SSERTlv

I ENE$S

~c o o r ~ n o N I

The confrontation c o n f l i c t m a n a g e m e n t a p p ro a c h i sdefined by behaviors emphasizing the perspect ive of thesel ler to the exclusion o f the buy er s perspect ive. Thisapproach is h igh on assert iveness and low o n cooperat ion.

The remaining tw o approaches incorporate concern forboth se lf and other. The compromiseconf l ic t managem en tapproach is defined by behaviors related to the buy er andsel ler reaching an agreement by making concessions toone another, while the collaborationconf l ic t managemen tapproach involves b ehaviors related to the buy er and sel lerreaching an agreeme nt by exchanging information andworking together to explore integrative solutions. Thus,the comprom ise approach invo lves d i scuss ions ab ou t howto spl i t the pie -- a win-lose s i tuat ion, while the col labora-tion investigates opportunities for expanding th e pi e -- awin -win situation.

Conflict managem ent and relationship building. R e -search sugg ests that buy er-selle r relationships, similar tointerpersonal and interorganizat ion relat ionships, se-quence through a series of s tages (Altman and Taylor1973: Dw yer, Schurr, and O h 1987; Ring and Van de Ven1994; Thibaut and Kelley 1959). As the parties progressthrough the stages, they go throug h a trial-and-error pro-cess that eventual ly builds mutual com mitm ent or leads toa dissolution. The trial-and-error proc ess involves the par-ties testing each other by making small, low-risk invest-ments in the relationship and gauging the other pa rty sresponses. W hen the responses s ignal a comm itment to therelationship, the investments of both parties esc alate to thepoint whe re the high level of id iosyncrat ic investments re-suits in a h igh level of mutual t rust and com mitm ent (An-


6/14

246 JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE SPRING 1999

TABLEDescription of Conflict Mana gem ent Appro aches

CharacteristicApproach

A v o i d an c e A c c o m m o d a t i o n C o n f r o n t a t i o n C o m p r o m i s e C o U a bo ra ti onAssertiveness Low Low High Medium HighCooperation Low High Low Medium HighNature of comm unication No-way One-way One-way Two-way Two-wayAmountof informationprovidedabout perspectivesand goals Low Low High Medium HighAmountof sensitive nform ationexchanged Low Low Medium Medium HighQualityof signal concerningcomm itment o relationship Low Medium Low Medium High

der son and Wei t z 1992 ; Gund l ach , Achro l , and Men t zer1995).

Tab l e 2 sum ma r i zes t he charac t e r i s ti cs o f t hese con f l i c tmanagemen t app roaches i n t e rms o f t wo cr i t i ca l aspec t sf o r m a n a g i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h r o u g h t h i s s e q u e n c e o fs t ages : (1 ) s i gna l i ng comm i t me n t and (2 ) exchang i ng o fi n fo rmat i on . The avo i dance app roach i nvo l ves mi n i malc o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d e x c h a n g e o f i n f o r m a t i o n b e t w e e nbuyer s and se l l e r s . The use o f t h i s app roach can have apos i t i ve e f f ec t on r e l a t i onsh i ps by mi n i mi z i ng t ens i onsar i s i ng f rom d i sag reemen t s abou t un i mpor t an t i s sues .However , t he avo i dance app roach can r esu l t i n a l ack o fc l a r i t y and d i r ec t i on , wh i ch i ncreases t he l eve l o f con f l i c tand has a neg a t i ve e f f ec t on t he r e l a t ionsh i p .

Li mi t ed i n fo rmat i on exchange a l so i s assoc i a t ed wi t ht he accommodat i on app roach ; however , t h i s app roachdoes s i gna l a w i l l ingness t o cons i der t he needs o f t he buyerand make concess i ons t o bu i l d commi t men t t o t he r e l a -t i onsh i p . On t he o t her hand , t he con f ron t a t i on manage-m e n t a p p r o a c h p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e b u y e r a b o u t t h ese l l e r s need s bu t does no t s i gna l a com mi t m en t to t herelat ionship .

The com prom i se and co l labo ra t i on app roaches p rov i def o r e x c h a n g i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a n d s i g na l in g c o m m i t m e n t ,bu t t hey d i f f e r i n t e rms o f l eve l . Sa l espeop le en gag i ng i n ac o m p r o m i s e a p p r o a c h e x c h a n g e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e irgoa l s and t hen make concess i ons t o f i nd an i n t e rmed i a t epos i t i on accep t ab l e t o bo t h t he bu yer and t he se l le r . Whe nsa l espeop l e u se co l l abo ra t i on , t hey p rov i de a s t ronger s i g -n a l o f c o m m i t m e n t b y e x c h a n g i n g s e n s i ti v e i n fo r m a t i o n tocrea t i ve l y i den t i fy m u t ua l l y ben ef i c i a l a l te rna t ives . Th i sapproach can b e dys fu nc t i ona l i f t he buyer u ses t he sens i -t i ve i n fo rmat i on p rov i ded by t he se l l e r oppor tun i s t ica l l y(Prui t t 1983; Thom as 1976). In addi t ion, the in tensi ty andsens i t i v it y o f i n fo rmat i on exchan ge and t he p rob l em so l v -i ng when us i ng t he co l l abo ra t i on app roach r equ i r e a con -s i derab l e i nves t men t i n t i me and human r esou rces . The

re t u rns j u s t i fy i ng th i s i nves t men t m ay no t be r ea l i zed i nuncom mi t t ed r e l a t i onsh ips .Situational Mod erators

T h e d i f f e re n c e b e t w e e n c o n f l i c t m a n a g e m e n ta p p r o a c h e s i n te r m s o f s ig n a l i n g c o m m i t m e n t a n dexchan g i ng i n fo rmat i on sugges t s t ha t t he e f f ec t iveness o ft h e c o n f l ic t m a n a g e m e n t a p p r o ac h e s i s m o d e r a t e d b y t h ena t u re o f t he buyer - se l l e r r e l a t i onsh i p and t he con f l i c tbe t ween t he par t ies . In t h i s sec t i on , t wo p o t en t i a l modera t -i ng var iab l es a r e d i scussed : (1 ) t he i mpo r t ance o f t he i s suegenera t i ng t he con f l i c t and (2 ) t he deg ree t o w h i ch t hebuyer and se l l e r a r e commi t t ed t o t he r e l a t i onsh i p . Theproposed na t u re o f t he modera t i ng r e l a t ionsh i p fo r t heset wo cons t ruc t s i s summ ar i zed i n Tab l e 3 .

I mpor tance o f i s sue When t he i s sue s t i mu l a t i ng t heconf l i c t is no t v ery i mpo r t an t t o t he se ll er , t he sa l espeop l ecan m ake a concess i on t o t he buyer , s i gna l i ng an i n t e r es t indeve l op i ng t he r e l a t i onsh i p , wi t h l i mi t ed cos t s o r r i sk .However , wh en t he i s sue i s very i m por t an t t o t he se ll er , t henegat i ve consequenc es o f i gno r i ng the con f l i c t m ay ou t -wei gh t he pos i t i ve benef i t s o f s i gna l i ng comm i t me n t to t here l a ti onsh i p . Thus , w e p ropose t ha t t he u se o f avo i danc eand acco mm odat i on app roaches wi l l have a pos i ti ve e f f ec twhen t he i s sues a re o f l ow i mpo r t ance t o t he se l l e r and anega t i ve e f f ec t when t he i s sues a r e o f h i gh i mpor t ance .The e f f ec t i veness o f a comp romi se app roach on r e l a t ion -sh i p qua l i t y is s i m i l a r to avo i dance fo r l ow- i mp or t ance i s -s u e s , b u t f o r h i g h - i m p o r t a n c e i s s u e s r e s o l v i n g t h ed i sag reem en t by comprom i s i ng has l ess o f a nega t i ve e f -f ec t t han s i mp l y acqu i esc i ng t o t he buyer .

T h e u s e o f t h e c o n f r o n t a ti o n a p p ro a c h m a y i n c re a s e t h echances o f se ll e r s r ea li z i ng t he i r p refer r ed ou t com e. How -ever , t he u se o f t h is app roach a l so s i gna l s a l ack o f i n t e r es ti n the buyer s conc erns and an unw i l l ingness t o mak e con -cess i ons . When t he i s sues a r e no t very i mpor t an t t o t he


7/14

We i tz , B ra d fo rd / PER SO N A L SELLIN G 2 4 7

T A B L ES i t u a t io n a l M o d e r a t o r o f C o n f l ic t M a n a g e m e n t E f f e c t iv e n e s s

ModeratorModerating Effect of Conflict Management pproach on Relationship Quality

v o i d a n ce c c o m m o d a t i o n C o n f r o n t a t i o n C o m p r o m i s e C o ll ab o ra t io nImportance of i ssue to the se l ler

Lo w i m p o r t a n ceH i g h i mp o r t a n c eC o mm i t me n t t o re l a t i o n sh ipL o w c o m m i t m e n tH i g h c o mm i t me n t

- -

- 0

-

se l l e r , t he nega t i ve consequences o f s i gna l i ng a l ack o fi n t e r es t i n deve l op i ng t he r e l a t i onsh i p may o u t wei gh t hepos i t ive benef i t s o f t he se l l e r ach i ev i ng i t s p refer r ed ou t -com e. H owe ver , i f the i ssue i s im portan t to the seller, pro-v i d i ng i n fo rmat i on abou t i t s needs and i ncreas i ng t hep robab i l i ty o f sa t i s fy i ng t hose needs b y us i ng a c on f ron t a-t i on app roach m ay r esu l t i n s i gn i f i can t l y g rea t e r benef i tsfo r t he se ll er . T h i s sugg es t s t ha t t he u se o f a con f ron t a t i onapproach wi l l have a pos i t i ve e f f ec t whe n t he i s sues a r e o fh i gh i mpor t ance and a nega t i ve e f f ec t when t he i s sues a r eo f l ow i mpor t ance .

S i nce t he u se o f co l l abo ra t ion app roaches i nvo l ves t heexpend i t u re o f cons i derab l e t i me a nd e f fo r t , t he benef i t smay no t ou t wei gh t he cos t s o f dea l i ng wi t h con f l i c t si nvo l v i ng i s sues o f l ow i m por t ance . Thus , w e expec t t ha t aco l l abo ra t i on app roach wi l l have a nega t i ve e f f ec t on r e la -t i onsh i p qua l i t y wh en t he i s sues a r e o f l ow i mpo r t ance anda pos i t i ve e f f ec t when t he i s sues a r e o f h i gh i mpor t ance .

Com mi tmen t t o re la t ionsh ip In t h i s sec t i on , we d i scusst he d i f f e r en t i a l i mpact o f t he con f l i c t managemen t ap -p roaches w hen bu yer and se l l e r a r e e i t her mu t ua l l y com -mi t t ed o r uncom mi t t ed t o t he r e la t i onsh ip . Avo i dance maybe usefu l on an i nc i den t a l bas i s i n buyer - se l l e r con f l i c ts i t ua t ions t o p reven t esca l a t i on o f d i sag reem en t s abou t mi -no r i s sues . Howe ver , t he r egu l ar u se o f t h i s app roach f ru s -t r a tes t he ab i l i t y o f bo t h par t ies t o sa t i s fy t he i r needs . Thus ,t he avo i dance co n f l i c t ma nage me n t s ty l e i s li ke l y to havedet r i men t a l e f f ec t s on r e l a t i onsh ip qua l i t y , regard l ess o ft h e l e v el o f m u t u a l c o m m i t m e n t .

In r e l a t i onsh i ps charac t e r i zed by l ow l eve l s o f mu t ua lcommi t men t , t he concess i ons o f f e red by t he se l l e r u s i ngan acc om mo dat i on app roach s i gna l an i n t e r es t i n bu i l d ingt he r e l a t i onsh i p and enco urage t he buyer t o r ec i p roca te ,l ead i ng t o t he esca l a t i on o f t ru s t and sa t i s f ac t ion . However ,t h i s wi l l i ngness t o g i ve i n t o t he o t her par t y w i t hou t con -s i dera t i on fo r one s own pos i t ion i s un l i ke l y t o be a u sefu ll ong- t e rm conf l i c t app roach i n a m u t ua l l y comm i t t ed r e l a -t i o n s h ip . T h e c o n s i s t e n t u s e o f a n a c c o m m o d a t i n gapproach does no t p rov i de t he buyer wi t h i n fo rmat i on

abou t t he se l l e r s needs and t hus d i mi n i sh i ng t he oppor t u -n i t y fo r deve l op i ng i n t eg ra ti ve so l u t ions . Thus , we p ro -p o s e t h a t a n a c c o m m o d a t i n g c o n f l i c t m a n a g e m e n tapproach has a po s i ti ve e f f ec t on r e l a t i onsh i p qua l i t y whe nt he buyer and se l l e r a r e no t commi t t ed , bu t a nega t i veef f ec t when t hey a re com mi t t ed t o t he r e l a t ionsh i p .

W hen se l l e r s u se a con f ron t a t i on app roach fo r mana g-i ng con f l i c t, t hey demons t r a t e a concern fo r t he i r i nd i v id -u a l o u t c o m e s o v e r j o i n t o u t c o m e s a n d t h u s je o p a r d i z e t h edevel opm en t o f the r e l a t ionsh i p . Thus , Tab l e 3 sugg es t st ha t t he u se o f a con f ron t a t i on app roach has a nega t i veef f ec t on r e l a t i onsh i p qua l i t y i n uncommi t t ed r e l a t i on -sh i ps. How ever , i n comm i t t ed r e l a ti onsh i ps , t he buyer r ec-ogn i zes t ha t t he se l l e r s a r e focus i ng on t he r e l a t i onsh i pra t her than an i nd i v i dua l ou t come. Hen ce , t he con f ron t a-t i ona l app roach has a pos i t i ve e f f ec t because i t com mu ni -ca t es t he need s o f t he se l l e r t o t he buyer .The c r i ti ca l d i f fe r ence i n t he e f f ec t i veness o f t he com -promi se and co l l abo ra t i on app roaches i s t he am oun t andt y p e o f i n f o rm a t i o n e x c h a n g e d . S i n c e a c o m p r o m i s eapproach i nvo lves the exch ange o f nonpropr i e t a ry i n fo r -ma t i on t o r each a m u t ua l l y sa t i s fac t o ry r eso l u t ion , w e p ro -p o s e t h a t th e u s e o f a c o m p r o m i s e c o n f l i c t m a n a g e m e n tsty le i s posi t ively related to relat ionsh ip qual i ty regard lesso f t h e c h a n n e l m e m b e r s l e ve l o f c o m m i t m e n t .

T h e e f f e c t s o f a c o l l a b o r a t i v e c o n f l i c t m a n a g e m e n ts t y l e on r e l a t i onsh ip qua l i t y may d i f f e r , depe nd i ng on t hel e ve l o f t h e m u t u a l c o m m i t m e n t . W h e n b u y e r a n d s e l l e ra re mu t ua l l y comm i t t ed t o t he r e la t i onsh i p , t hey a re mo t i -va t ed t o mai n t a i n t he r e l a t i onsh i p s ex i s t ence i n t he l ongrun and s t r ive fo r mu t ua l benef i t . The me mb ers a r e m o t i -va t ed t o r es i s t j eopard i z i ng t he r e l a t i onsh ip by oppor t un i s -t ic u se o f p rop r ie t a ry i n fo rma t i on l earned abou t t he o t herchannel member . Therefo re , t he u se o f a co l l abo ra t i ves t y l e i ncreases r e l a t ionsh i p qua l i t y i n co mm i t t ed r e l a t ion -sh i ps because t he benef i t s o f i den t i fy i ng novel so l u ti onsou t wei gh t he r i sks o f oppor t un i s t i c u se o f p rop r i e t a ryi n fo rmat i on .

In uncom mi t t ed r e l a ti onsh i ps , the bu yer and se l l e r a reconcerned wi t h t he i r ou t comes r a t her t han bu i l d i ng t he


8/14

248 JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE SPRING 1999

re l a t ionsh i p . Th ey are more l i ke l y to ac t opp or t un i s ti ca l l yt oward t he o t her par t y t o ga i n a sho r t - t e rm advan t age . Wesugges t t ha t t he u se o f a co l l abo ra ti ve app roach m ay havedet r i men t a l e f f ec t s on r e l a t i onsh i p qua l i ty i n uncom mi t t edre l a t i onsh i ps because t he shar i ng o f cand i d i n fo rmat i oncould minim ize one par ty ' s posi tion at the expense of he o ther.S u m m a r y

In t h i s sec t ion , w e have r ev i ew ed one o f severa l taxono-mi es t ha t can be used t o descr i be t he app roaches sa l espeo -p l e c a n t a k e i n m a n a g e m e n t c o n f li c t s w i th b u y e r s ( a n dconf l i c t w i t h i n t he i r sa les t eams) . W e sugges t som e po t en -t i a l cons t ruc t s t ha t mi g h t mod era t e t he e f f ec t o f t hese con -f l i c t m anag em en t app roaches on r e l a t i onsh i p qua l i ty . Theob j ec t i ve o f th i s d i scuss i on i s t o p rov i de som e i deas fo raddress i ng t he ques t i ons w e posed a t t he beg i nn i ng o f th i sd i s c u s si o n a b o u t t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f c o n f l i c t m a n a g e m e n ti n t h e p a r t n e r i n g r o l e : ( 1 ) W h a t a r e t h e d i f f e r e n ta p p r o a ch e s f o r m a n a g i n g c o n f l i c t ? a nd ( 2) U n d e r w h a tcond i t i ons a r e each o f t he app roaches mos t e f f ec t i ve?Gi ven t he l i m i t ed r esearch add ress i ng t hese ques t i ons i nt he con t ex t o f bu yer - se l l e r r e l a t ionsh i ps , i t i s hoped t ha tt h i s d i scuss i on w i l l s t i mu l a t e r esearch t o i den t i fy t heapproaches u sed by sa l espeop l e t o manage con f l i c t , t hei mpa ct o f t hese ap p roaches on r e l a t i onsh i p qua li t y , and t hebound ary cond i t i ons fo r t hese r e l a ti onsh i ps .

S A L E S M A N A G E M E N T I N T H E P A R T N E R IN GE R A T H E I M P L IC A T I O N S O F R E L A TIO N S H IPM A N A G E M E N T A N D T E A M S E L L IN G

There i s very l i t t l e r esearch on t he managemen t o fsa l espeop l e i n a par t ner i ng ro l e . Research on t he manag e-m e n t o f n a t i o n a l a c c o u n t m a n a g e r s ( N A M s ) a n d k e ya c c o u n t m a n a g e r s ( K A M s ) m a y s h e d s o m e l i g h t , s i n c em a n y N A M s a n d K A M s a r e r e sp o n s ib l e f o r b u il d in g re l a-t i onsh i ps wi t h key cus t omers r a t her t han s i mp l y be i ngh i gh -qual i t y sa l espeop l e (Lambe and Spekman 1997) .However , t h i s r esearch has l a rge l y been d i r ec t ed t owardi d e n t i fy i n g t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h f i rm s u s e d N A M s a n dK A M s , t h e t y p e s o f f i r m s u s i n g t h e m , a n d c o n d i t i o n sunder wh i ch t he i r u se i s app rop r i a t e (Wei l baker andW eeks 1997) .

Th i s sec t i on exam i nes t he i mp l i ca t ions o f t he par t ner-i ng ro l e on t he ma nag em en t o f sa l espeop l e wi t h a part ner -i ng ro l e . The d i sc uss i on o f t hese i ssues i s o rgan i zed a roundt he t r ad i t i ona l sa l es managemen t i s sues o f o rgan i za t i on ,se l ec t i on and t r a i n i ng , eva l ua t ion , and co mpensa t i on .O r g a n i z a t i o n C u s t o m e rC e nte re d a nd Sa le s Te a ms

To mi n i m i ze cos t s ( t r ave l t i me a nd expenses ) , sa l espeo -p l e a r e t y p i c a l l y o r g a n i z e d g e o g r a p h i c a l l y w i t h t h e

respons i b i l it y fo r se l l ing a l l o f t he i r f i n ns ' p roduct s t o a l lcus t omers i n a spec i f ic t e r ri to ry . Some f i rms have r e f i nedt he bas i c geograph i c o rgan i za t i on by c rea t i ng sa l es fo rcesspecialized by pro duct type, industry, or ac tivity (such as in-s ide an d f ield , or new custom er and accou nt maintenance) .

F i rms emphas i z i ng a par t ner i ng ro l e fo r sa l espeop l eo rgan i ze t he i r sa l es fo rce by cus t omers . Fo r exampl e ,Proc t o r & Gam bl e (P&G) has sh i f t ed f rom severa l sa l esfo rces o rgan i zed by p roduct ca t ego r i es t o t eam s o f sa l es-peop l e a nd spec i a l i s ts i n l og i s t ics , mark e t r esearch , andf i nance and accoun t i ng , who are a ss i gned t o a spec i f i c cus -t omer r espons i b l e fo r a l l o f P& G' s bus i ness r e l a t ionsh i psw i t h t h e c u st o m e r. T h e t e a m m e m b e r s a r e p e r m a n e n t l yass i gned t o t he team and are o f t en l oca t ed i n o r near t hecus t omer ' s headquar t e r s . IBM a l so has r eo rgan i zed f roman i ndus t ry - t o a cus t om er - focused sa l es fo rce ; however ,t he IBM t eam s are more ad hoc w i t h the r e l a t ionsh i p man-ager , ca l l i ng upon spec i a l i s t s wi t h i n t he company whent hey a re needed . Thus , t he spec i a l i s ts t eam m em bers hav ea dua l r espons i b i l it y t o t he cus t om er t eams and t he i r func-t i ona l un i t s i n IBM. Whi l e t he r esearch on sa l es fo rceo rgan i za t i on and spec i a l i za t i on i s l i mi t ed (Mahaj an andR a d a s 1 99 8; R a n g a s w a m y a n d M a h a j a n 1 99 7; R a o a n dTurner 1984) , t h is cus t ome r -cen t ered o rgan i za t i on seemst o be app rop r i a t e fo r t he par t ner i ng e ra s i nce i t f ocusessa l espeop l e ' s a t t en t i on on t he cus t om er r e l a t i onsh i p r a thert han t he p roduct s and serv i ces so l d by t he f i rm. However ,t h e i m p l ic a t io n s o f u s i n g t e a m s c o m p o s e d o f p e r m a n e n t l yass i gned memb ers ver sus mem bers w i t h dua l r espons i b il i -t ies deserve s research at tent ion.

The par t ner ing ro l e a l so has s t i mu l a t ed ano t he r o rgan -i z a ti o n a l c h a n g e - - t h e u s e o f s a le s t e a m s . S o m e i s s u e s r e -l a t ed to t he u se o f sa l es t eams deserv i ng r esearch a t t en t i onare t he fo l l owi ng :

9 U n d e r w h a t c o n d i t io n s d o e s th e u s e o f t e a m s i n -crease sa l es fo rce p roduct i v i t y?9 W h o s h o u l d b e th e m e m b e r s o f a sa l e s t e a m ?9 H o w s h o u l d t h e t e a m s b e m a n a g e d ?Use of sales teams A g r o w i n g n u m b e r o f c o m p a n i e s

are adop t i ng a t eam approach fo r se l l i ng t he i r p roduct a ndserv i ces . The na t u re o f t hese t eams r anges f rom cross -func t i ona l teams se l l ing a i rp l anes t o a i r li nes t o pharm a-ceu t i ca l compan i es o rgan i z i ng t he i r sa l espeop l e i n a d i s -t r i c t i n t o a t eam and us i ng t he t eam' s per fo rmance as af a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a lsalespeople.

R e s e a r c h n e e d s t o b e d i r e c t e d t o w a r d d e t e r m i n i n gw h e n s a le s t e a m s a r e a p p r o p r i a t e - - w h e n t h e y i n c re a s e t h ep r o d u c ti v it y o f th e s a l e s f o r c e - - a n d w h e n t h e y a r e n o tapprop ri a te . W hi l e t he u se o f sa l es t eam s has t he po t en t i a lt o i ncrease sa l es by i mprov i ng t he o f f e r i ngs p rov i ded t ocus t omers , sa l es t eams a l so i ncrease cos t s . I n a dd i t i on tot he i ncreased t i me and e f fo r t o f t he g rea t e r numb er o f peo -ple involved in the buyer-se l ler relat ionship , there are costs


9/14


associated with coordinating the activities of the salesteam members.

The nature of the task is an important factor affectingthe benefit-cost trade-off of sales teams. The research ongroup productivity has identified a number of differenttasks performed by groups (cf. McGrath and Altman1966). For example, golf teams undertake an additive task,while soccer teams participate in an interdependent task.The performance of additive tasks is simply the sum of theoutput of each of the group members, while the perfor-mance on interdependent tasks is determined by the degreeto which group members work together and contributetheir unique abilities to accomplish a goal.

We propose that as the degree of interdependency in thesales task increases, the performance of sales teams com-pared to individual salespeople increases. Thus, the forma-tion of cross-functional sales teams to sell airplanes will bemore productive than the formation of a team composed ofsalespeople responsible for their own accounts in a district.For strictly additives with no interdependency, the forma-tion of sales teams and the use of team incentives mightactually decrease sales productivity. Highly productivesalespeople on sales teams performing additive tasksmight be demotivated because the team incentives do notreward them adequately for their individual contributions.

Sales team composit ion a nd managem ent To accom-plish the interdependent tasks associated with the partner-ing role, sales teams need to be composed of people fromdifferent functional areas in the firm possessing diverseknowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs). This diversity onsales teams increases the probability of developing crea-tive, win-win solutions and realizing the support from dif-ferent functional areas for implementing the solutions.However, this diversity also increases the potential fordecreasing the team s productivity. Team members fromdifferent functional areas and backgrounds have differentgoals and mind-sets, which can lead to miscommunicationand conflict within the team (Dougherty 1992). Thesecountervailing forces may account for the mixed resultsthat have been reported on the effectiveness of cross-functional, new product development teams (Ancona andCaldwell 1992; Dougherty 1992).Research on cross-functional new product develop-ment teams suggests that the problems caused by teamdiversity can be reduced by type of people assigned to theteam and the behaviors of the relationship manager--theteam leader (cf. Stringfellow 1998). The communicationand conflict problems associated with diversity arereduced when team members have some overlap with eachother in terms of KSAs. Specifically, the productivity ofcross-functional sales teams is increased when the teammembers have some experience in other functional areassuch as the salespeople working for a time in engineeringor team members from finance having significant contact

with the firm s customers. This shared knowledge resultsin a greater understanding of the different perspectivesrepresented on the team and facilitates communicationamong team members.

The leadership style of relationship managers can alsoshift the team diversity, benefit-cost trade-off. Transfor-mational leadership involves providing inspiration for theteam, serving as a role model for appropriate team behav-iors, and fostering acceptance of team goals (Bass 1985;Podsakopf, MacKenzie, and Bommer 1993). Research oncross-functional teams has found that transformationalleadership increases team performance (Crnkovisch andHesterly 1996).

Finally, relationship managers can increase produc-tivity by effectively managing the inherent conflict incross-functional sales teams. Research in a simulatedenvironment suggests that the use of a collaboration con-flict management approach improves task performance,team creativity, and satisfaction with team performance,while the compromise approach reduces task performanceand the use of an avoidance approach reduces satisfaction(Bradford, Stringfellow, and Weitz 1998).K n o w l e d g e S k i ll s a n d A b i l it ie s N e e d e dto Perform the Partner ing Role

The critical input into the selection and training of rela-tionship managers is identifying the KSAs required toeffectively perform the partnering role (see Wotruba1995).

Knowledge Salespeople as relationship managers needto have a sophisticated knowledge of the buying firm--itsstrengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats, andstrategies for developing competitive advantage. Thisknowledge is needed to identify opportunities and ap-proaches for creating value. It addition, relationship man-agers need a detailed knowledge of their firm s capabilitiesand resources and the people within their company thatcan be accessed to address particular issues.

While customer and company knowledge is advocatedfor the training of salespeople in marketing roles, relation-ship managers need a higher level of knowledge. The rela-tionship managers need more strategic than tacticalknowledge. Knowledge of the benefits offered by the com-pany s products, services, and the customer s presentapplications is adequate for performing the marketingrole. The effectiveness in the partnering role is based onknowledge of what the seller can do and what the buyerwill want to do in the future.

The relationship manager s knowledge acquisitionprobably comes from considerable on-the-job learningexperiences rather than from formal or informal training.Thus, ideal candidates for relationship managers wouldhave worked in various functional areas of the firm and


10/14

2 5 0 J OURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE SPRING 1999

h a d c o n s i d e r a b l e e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e b u y i n g f i r m t o w h i c ht h e y w i l l b e a s s i g n e d a n d t h e b u y i n g f i r m ' s i n d u s t r y ( i t sc o m p e t i t o r s) . W h i l e t r a d i ti o n a l s a l e s p e o p l e m i g h t h a v eg o o d c u s t o m e r k n o w l e d g e , o t h e r e m p l o y e e s i n t h e se l l in gf i rm , s u c h a s p r o d u c t m a n a g e r s , m a y h a v e s u p e r i o r i n d u s-t r y a nd c o m p a n y k n o w l e d g e a n d t h u s b e g o o d c a n d i d a te sf o r r e l a t io n s h i p m a n a g e r p o s i t i o n s .

Sk i l l s an d ab i l i t i e s S o m e o f t h e s k i l ls a n d a b i l i t y u s e db y r e l a t io n s h i p m a n a g e r s a r e c r e a ti v e p r o b l e m s o l v i n g , in -n o v a t i v e n e s s , i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h p e o p l e i n d i f f e r e n t f u n c -t i o n a l a r e a s a n d l e v e l s i n t h e b u y i n g a n d s e l l i n go r g a n i z a ti o n s , c o n f l i c t m a n a g e m e n t , b u i l d i n g t r u s t ( b e i n gr e l i a b le , e mp a th e t i c , a n d e th ic a l ) w i th p e o p le in b o th o r -g a n i z a ti o n s , p l a n n i n g a n d p r o j e c t m a n a g e m e n t , a n d w o r k -i n g o n a n d l e a d i n g t e a m s . M a n y o f t h e s e s k il l s a n d a b i li t ie sd i f f e r f r o m t h o s e n e e d e d b y t r a d i t io n a l s a l e s p e o p l e a n d a r ec e r t a in ly a n t i th e t i c a l to th e s t e r e o ty p ic a l v ie w o f s a le s p e o -p l e a s l o n e r s S o m e o f t h e s k i l ls r e q u i r e d f o r t h e p a r tn e r -in g r o le a r e s imi la r to th e a t t r ib u te s o f e n t r e p r e n e u r s( M o r r i s , Av i l a , a n d T e e p le 1 9 9 0 ) , wh i l e o th e r s a r e s imi la rt o t h e a tt r i b u te s o f b r a n d m a n a g e r s . R e l a t i o n s h ip m a n a g -e r s, l i k e b ra n d m a n a g e r s , o f t e n m u s t g a i n t h e s u p p o r t o ft h e i r f i r m s ' e m p l o y e e s w i t h o u t h a v i n g t h e a u t h o r i t y t o d i-r e c t t h e e m p l o y e e s ' a c t i v i ti e s .

R e s e a r c h i n s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y o n r e l a t i o n a l c o m p e -t e n c y m a y p r o v i d e i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e u n i q u e s k i ll s a n d a b i l i-t i e s n e e d e d f o r e f f e c t i v e r e l a ti o n s h i p m a n a g e m e n t . R e l a -t i o n a l c o m p e t e n c y i s d e f i n e d a s c h a r a c t er i s ti c s o f t h ein d iv id u a l th a t f a c i l i t a t e th e a c q u i s i t io n , d e v e lo p me n t , a n dm a i n t e n a n c e o f m u t u a l l y s a t i s fy i n g [ i n te r p e rs o n a l] r e l a-t i o n s h i p s ( H a n s s o n , J o n e s , a n d C a r p e n t e r 1 9 8 4 ) . M e a -s u r e s o f r e l a ti o n a l c o m p e t e n c y a s s e s s t w o d i m e n s i o n s o fp e r s o n a l i ty : ( 1 ) in i t i a t io n a n d ( 2 ) e n h a n c e m e n t . I n i t i a t io nin c lu d e s s k i l l s r e l a t e d to in i t i a t in g a n d c o n t r o l l in g th e r e la -t i o n s h i p - - s k i l l s t h a t a r e ty p i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e sa l e sa n d m a r k e t i n g r o l e s - - a n d e n h a n c e m e n t i n v o l v e s e n h a n c -i n g a n d m a i n t a i n in g t h e r e l at i o n s h i p -- - sk i l l s m o r e a s s o c i -a t e d wi th th e p a r tn e r in g r o le ( Ca r p e n te r 1 9 9 3 ) .

T h e p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e K S A sr e q u i r e d b y r e l a t i o n s h ip m a n a g e r s d i f f e r f r o m t h o s en e e d e d b y t r a d i t i o n a l s a l e s p e o p l e . H e n c e , w e n e e d t od e v e l o p n e w a p p r o a c h e s f o r s el e c t i n g a n d d e v e l o p i n g r e la -t i o n s h i p m a n a g e r s .

ssessing Performanceof Partnering RoleR e s e a r c h o n p e r f o r m a n c e e v a l u a t i o n m a k e s a d i s t i n c -

t i o n b e t w e e n o u t p u t m e a s u r e s s u c h a s s a le s a n d g r o s s m a r -g i n a n d i n p u t m e a s u r e s s u c h a s n u m b e r o f c a l l s a n dn u m b e r o f p r o p o s a l s s u b m i t t e d ( A n d e r s o n a n d O l i v e r1 9 8 7 ) . F o r s a l e s p e o p l e i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n r o l e , b o t h s a l e s( o u t p u t m e a s u r e ) a n d n u m b e r s o f ca l ls ( i n p u t m e a s u re )a r e u s e fu l m e a s u r e s f o r p e r f o r m a n c e e v a l u at i o n b e c a u s e

t h e r e is a d i r e c t r e l a ti o n s h i p b e t w e e n i n p u t s a n d o u t p u t s - -s a l e s p e o p l e w h o m a k e m o r e c a l l s g e t m o r e o r d e r s . S a l e sa r e a l s o a u s e f u l m e a s u r e f o r e v a l u a t i n g p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h es a l e s p e o p l e p r o d u c t i o n r o l e b e c a u s e t h e i r o b j e c t i v e i s s i m -p l y t o m a k e s a l e s . T h e o b j e c t i v e o f s a l e s p e o p l e i n a p a r t -n e r in g r o l e i s m o r e c o m p l e x . T h e g o a l o f t h e s a l e s p e o p l e i nth i s r o le i s to b u i ld v a lu e in th e r e l a t io n s h ip r a th e r th a n ju s ts u p p o r t th e i r f i r ms ' s h o r t - t e r m o b je c t iv e s .

I n l i g h t o f t h is r e l a t i o n s h i p -o r i e n t e d o b j e c t i v e , m a n yf i r m s w i t h s a l e s p e o p l e i n p a r t n e r i n g r o l e s a r e c o m p l e -m e n t i n g t h e t r a d it i o n a l o u t p u t m e a s u r e s o f s a l e s e ff e c t i v e -n e s s s u c h a s s a l e s, s a l e s t o q u o t a , a n d g r o s s m a r g i n w i t hm e a s u r e s o f c u s t o m e r s a t i s f a c ti o n a n d e v e n u s i n g t h e s es a t is f a c ti o n m e a s u r e s a s p a r t o f t h e i n c e n t i v e c o m p e n s a -t i o n (L a m b e r t , S h a r m a , a n d L e v y 1 9 9 7 ) . T y p i c a l l y , t h e s em e a s u r e s a r e a s s e s s e d t h ro u g h q u e s t i o n s a n s w e r e d b y t h ec u s t o m e r s ' e m p l o y e e s a b o u t t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e i rr e l a ti o n s h i p a n d t h e i r f i r m s ' r e l a t io n s h i p w i t h t h e s u p p l i e r :H o w e v e r , a n u m b e r o f s c h o l a r s q u e s t i o n t h e u s e f u l n e s s o fs a t is f a c ti o n a s a m e a s u r e o f r e la t i o n s h i p q u a l i t y ( G a l e1 9 9 7 ; H ig g in s 1 9 9 7 ; S h a r ma 1 9 9 7 ) .

S o m e o f t h e d i s t i n c t b u t r e l a t e d c o n s t r u c t s t h a tr e s e a rc h e r s h a v e c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e i r c o n c e p t u a l iz a t i o n o fr e la t io n s h ip q u a l i ty a r e t r u s t , c o mmi tme n t , s a t i s f a c t io n ,e t h i ca l c o n d u c t , c u s t o m e r o r ie n t a t io n , m i n i m a l o p p o r t u n -i s m , w i l l in g n e s s t o i n v e s t, e x p e c t a t i o n s o f c o n t i n u i ty ,s h a r e o f c u s t o m e r , a n d g r o w t h i n c u s t o m e r v a l u e ( C r o s b y ,E v a n s , a n d C o w l e s 1 9 9 0 ; D o r s c h , S w a n s o n , a n d K e l l e y1 9 9 8 ; D w y e r e t al . 1 9 8 7 ; H a n e t a l . 1 9 9 3 ; P e p p e r s a n dR o g e r s 1 9 9 7 ) .

T a b l e 4 s u g g e s t s a f r a m e w o r k f o r d e v e l o p i n g a m u l t i d i-m e n s i o n a l o u t p u t m e a s u r e o f r e l a ti o n s h i p q u a l it y . W e p r o -p o s e t h a t a m e a s u r e o f r e l a t io n s h i p q u a l i t y n e e d s t o i n c l u d eb o t h a t t it u d i n al a n d b e h a v i o r a l m e a s u r e s o f t h e p re s e n tr e l a ti o n s h i p a n d t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p i n t h ef u t u re . S a t i s f ac t i o n i s a n i n a p p ro p r i a t e o u t p u t m e a s u r e o fr e l a t i o n s h i p q u a l i t y b e c a u s e i t a s s e s s e s o n l y t h e p r e s e n ta t t i tu d e to wa r d th e r e l a t io n s h ip a n d th u s i s n o t a g o o d p r e -d i c t o r o f t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e p a r t ie s w i l l w o r k t o g e t h e rto b u i ld v a lu e in th e r e l a t io n s h ip - - - th e g o a l o f a p a r tn e r in gr e la t io n s h ip ( J o n e s a n d S a s s e r 1 9 9 5 ) .

T h e b e h a v i o r a l m e a s u r e s i n t h e f r a m e w o r k i n d i c a t ew h a t a b u y e r i s d o i n g n o w a n d p l a n s t o d o i n t h e f u t u r e ,w h i l e t h e a t t i t u d i n a l m e a s u r e s p r o v i d e s o m e i n s i g h t i n t ow h y t h e p r e s e n t a n d f u t u r e b e h a v i o r s a r e a n d w i l l b eu n d e r t ak e n . T h e i n c l u s i o n o f b o t h a t ti t u d in a l a n d b e h a v -i o r a l m e a s u r e s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e v i e w t h a t b o t h o ft h e se c o m p o n e n t s a r e n e e d e d to a s s e s s b ra n d l o y a l t y - - ac o n s t r u c t i n d i c a t i n g t h e q u a l i t y o f th e r e l a t i o n s h i pb e t w e e n a b r a n d a n d a c o n s u m e r ( D i c k a n d B a s u 1 9 9 4 ;J a c o b y a n d K y n e r 1 9 7 8 ) .

T h e p r e s e n t m e a s u r e s a s s e s s t h e c u r r e n t s t a te o f t h er e l at i o n s h ip , w h i l e t h e f u t u r e m e a s u r e s p r o v i d e a n i n d i c a -t io n o f th e p o te n t i a l f o r g r o win g v a lu e in th e r e l a t io n s h ip .T h e i n d i c a t o rs o f th e f u t u r e s t a t e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p


11/14


T A B L EC o m p o n e n t s o f a R e l a ti o n s h ip Q u a l i ty M e a s u r eAttitudes Behaviors

Present status Satisfaction Share of customerShare of m arket

Signals of future status Comm itmentTrust Transaction-specific n vestments

p rov i de a c ruc i a l i n s i gh t i n t o t he s t ab i li t y and po t en t i a lg rowt h o f the r e l a t i onsh i p . There i s a g rowi ng consensus i nt he channel s l i t e r a t u re t ha t com mi t m en t and t ru s t ar e cen -t r a l cons t ruc t s i n r e l a t i ona l exchanges . T hey are c r i ti ca l t ot he par t i es mak i ng i nves t men t i n a r e l a t i onsh i p t o g rowval ue Mo rgan and Hun t 1994). Id i osyncra t i c i nves t men t sare a s t rong behav i o ra l s i gna l tha t t he buyer i s comm i t t edt o the r e l a t ionsh i p And er son and Wei t z 1992).

In conc l us i on , we p ropo se t ha t a mu l t i d i men s i ona l ou t-pu t meas u re i s neede d t o assess the per fo rm ance o f sa l es -peop l e a nd sa l es t eam s i n a par t ner i ng ro l e . G i ven the d i f -f i cu l t y i n co l l ec t i ng t he da t a t o deve l op t h i s mu l t i d i men-s i ona l ou t pu t me asu re and t he p rob l ems i n de t e rm i n i ng t hecon t r i bu t ion o f i nd i v i dua l t eam mem bers , f i rms wi t h sa l es -p e o p l e m a y n e e d t o p l a c e m o r e e m p h a s i s o n in p u t m e a -su res t o assess t he per fo rm ance o f r e l a t ionsh i p manager sa n d m e m b e r s o f a s a l e s te a m . T h e s e i n p u t m e a s u r e s m i g h tr ange f rom t he q ua l i t y o f p roposa l s mad e t o t he cus t omert o t he deg ree t o w h i ch a per son engage s i n team-bu i l d i ngbehav i o r s .R e w a r d i n g S a l e s p e o p l e a n d S a l e sT e a m s i n t h e P a r t n e r i n g R o l e

In t h i s sec t i on , we d i scuss t wo i s sues concern i ng t hepo l i c i es and p rocedures u sed t o r eward sa l espeop l e andsa l es t eams i n par t ner ing ro l es: 1 ) compe nsa t i on o f sal est e a m s a n d t e a m m e m b e r s a n d 2 ) p o li c ie s c o n c e rn i n g p r o -mo t i ons wi t h r espec t t o r e l a t i onsh i p manager s .

Compensation As men t i oned p rev i ous l y , t he u se o fsa l es team s has i ncrease d as f i rms focus more a t t en ti on ondevel op i ng l ong- t e rm , par t ner i ng r e l a t i onsh ips w i t h cus -t omers . Som e ques t i ons r e l a t ed t o t he mo t i va t i on and com-pensa t i on o f sa les t eams are t he fo l lowi ng :

What t ype o f i ncen t i ves axe mos t app rop r i a t e fo rm ax i m i z i ng t he p roduct i v it y o f sa l es t eams?I f t eam p er fo rm ance i ncen t i ves a re u sed , how shou l dt h i s i ncen t i ve compe nsa t i on be a l l oca t ed t o i nd iv i d -u a l t e a m m e m b e r s ?

M os t o f t he sa l es compen sa t i on r esearch in marke t i ngc e n t e r s o n d e v e l o p i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o m p e n s a t i o n

scheme fo r i nd i v i dua l sa l espeop l e under t he assumpt i ont ha t e f fo r t an i npu t) canno t be assessed ; on l y sa l es an ou t -pu t ) can be observed c f . Cou gh l i n and Sen 1989) . Whi l el i tt l e marke t i ng r esearch has cons i dered schem es fo r com -p e n s a t i n g t e a m s , r e s e a r c h i n e c o n o m i c s H o l m s t r o mI982 ; McA fee 1991) , soc ia l p syc ho l ogy Kara u and Wi l -l i ams 1993), and ma nage me n t Com er 1995 ; Ki dwel l andBenne t t 1993) p rov i des so me use fu l i n s igh t s .

Soc i a l l oaf ing , t he dec l i ne i n m em ber e f fo r t whe n on at eam, i s a ma j o r p rob l em af f ec t i ng t eam p roduct i v i t y .S o c i a l l o a f i n g i s a f o r m o f f r e e t i d i n g - - t e a m m e m b e r st h i nk t hey wi l l r ece i ve t he r ewards accru i ng t o t he t eameven t hough t hey w i t hho l d t he i r con tr i bu t i on because t heybel i eve o t her members o f t he t eam wi l l compensa t e fo rt he i r l ack o f e f fo r t . Research has fo und t ha t soc i a l l oaf i ngi s r e d u c e d w h e n e a c h t e a m m e m b e r i s a s s ig n e d a s p e c i f ict ask , there i s no r edunda ncy i n t asks, and wh en t he ac t i v i -t ie s a n d o u t p u t o f e a c h t e a m m e m b e r c a n b e a c c u r a t e l yassessed . However , t hese cond i t i ons a r e no t p resen t i n t het a sk s t y p i c a l ly a s s ig n e d t o t e a m s - - t a s k s r e q u i t in g t e a mmem bers t o work t oge t her .

The so l u t ion t o th i s p rob l em i n t he econom i cs r esearchi s t o p rov i de an a l l -o r -no t h i ng incen t i ve , a bonus , t o t het eam i f i t rea l i zes a goa l . Unde r t h i s i ncen t i ve , soc i a l l oaf -i n g i s r e d u c e d b e c a u s e t h e t e a m m e m b e r s r e c o g n i z e t h e ywi l l ge t a reward o n l y i f t he goa l i s r ea l i zed and t hus t heyhave no i ncen t i ve t o l oaf . Rat her t han r e l y i ng on j u s t i ncen -t i ves , the ma nage me n t l i te r a t u re has sugges t ed app roach esfo r bu i l d i ng t eam coh es i veness t o m o t i va t e t he par t i c ipa-t i on o f a ll t eam m embe rs .

Ano t her i s sue t ha t a r ises i s t he d i s t r ibu t i on o f t he t eami ncen t i ve , t he bonus , among t he t eam members . Shou l de a c h t e a m m e m b e r g e t a n e q u a l s h a r e o f t h e b o n u s o rshou l d t he bonus be d i s t r i bu t ed on t he bas i s o f e f fo r ta n d / o r p e rf o r m a n c e o f i n d i v i d u a l t e a m m e m b e r s ? I f t h eb o n u s i s n o t d iv i d e d e q u a ll y a m o n g t h e m e m b e r s , w h oshou l d make t he a l l oca t i on dec i s i on? Di s t r i bu t i ng t hebonus on t he bas i s o f e f fo r t and / o r per fo rmance mi gh tr educe t he po t en t i a l p roduct i v it y l o ss due t o soc i a l l oaf i ngbu t mi gh t a l so r educ e m ot i va t i on i f t he d i s t r i bu ti on i s no tcons i dered t o be f a ir . I n t e rms o f the p rocess fo r ma k i ng t hed i s t r i bu t i on dec i s i on , some r esearcher s have sugges t edt ha t team mem bers a r e i n t he bes t pos i t i on t o assess e f fo r t


12/14

2 5 2 J O U R N A L O F T H E A C A D E M Y O F M A R K E T I N G S C I E N C E S P R I N G 1 9 99

and per fo rmance o f t eam m embers and they shou ld co l lec-tively m ake th e decision. However, this process ca n intro-duc e non-pe rform anc e-bas ed social and political issuesinto the decision.

Promotions Prom otions are often used to motivate andcom pens ate salespeople. Tw o problem s arise in using pro-mo tions as an inc entive in firms with salespeople in a part-nering role. First , the KSAs of traditional salespeoplediffer from those o f relat ionship ma nagers . Thus, sales-people w ho perfo rm we l l in the t radi tional roles might notbe effect ive whe n promo ted to a relat ionship ma nagem entposition. S econ d, the relationship ma nag er plays an im-portant role in developing the customer s t rust and com -mitment . Therefore, i t i s important for the sel ler tomaintain cont inui ty betwee n the relat ionship man ager andthe buy ing company . F i rms need to deve lop ways o f recog-nizing and rewarding effect ive relat ionship managerswithout promoting them to larger accounts or highe r levelsales man age m ent positions.

O N L U S I O N

Changes in the traditional personal selling and salesma nagem ent activit ies are nee ded to support the emer-gen ce of the partne ring role for salespeople. Fo r salespeo-ple in the pa rtnering role, the personal selling shifts from afocus on influencing buyer behavior to managing the con-flict inheren t in buye r-seller relationships. The em phasison building relationships rathe r than mak ing short-termsales an d the use of sales teams dictates changes in the w ayfirms select, train, evaluate, an d com pensa te salespeopleand m em ber s of sales teams. In this article, we have sug-gested some issues concerning the emerging partneringrole for salesp eople that dese rve the attention of scholarsin te res t ed in persona l se l l ing and sa les managementresearch.

N O T E S1. Transactional o r discrete exchanges are defined as exchanges that

involve simply a chang e in ownership, independent of past history or po-tential future interactions. Thus, idiosyncratic investments in the rela-tionships or attitudes tow ard th e parties in the relationship such as trustand commitment play no role in transactional exchanges. On the otherhand, relational exchang es are mad e in the context of exchanges and o ut-com es that have occurred in the past and the expectations that exchangesbetween the parties w ill occur in the future. Thus, a specific relational ex-change is one elem ent in a sequence o f exchanges between th e parties. Itis recognized that there is a continuum of exchanges ranging from purelydiscrete exchanges such as buying wheat on a commodity exchange toexchanges betw een parties involv ing o ng-terng highly committed rela-t ionships (e l . H e de 1994; Macneil 1980) . For ease of exposi tion, we usethe term transactionalexchange o describeexehanges at the discrete endof the spectrum and relational exchanges o represent exchanges at theother end o f the spectrum.

2. In this article, we explore the implications of he mo re comp lex roleof salespeople as they becom e relationship managers. Th is emergin g rolefor salespeople is a response to changes in the business environment.However, other forces are contracting the role of salespeople in im ple-menting a f i rm's s tra tegy. For example , the development o f new co mmu -nication technologies has diminished and e ven eliminated the role ofsalespeople in som e business transactions (R. Anderson 1996; Rackham1997). Thus, it appears that the business environment in the new millenniumwill expand the role of som e salespeople and reduce th e role o f others.

3. Customers could also be asked about their satisfaction with theirrelationship with the salesperson, their satisfaction w ith the firm 's prod-ucts and services, and the performance o f the salesperson. T hese assess-ments are useful diagnostics, bu t the critical assessment in the partneringera is the quality o f the relationship of the buying and selling firm. How-ever, Lambert, Shanna, and Lev y (1997) report that the assessments ofthe firms are significantly correlated w ith assessments o f the salespeoplerepresenting the firm.

R E F E R E N E S

Altman, I. and D . A. Taylor. 1973. Social Penetration: The Developm entoflnterpersonalRelationships.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Amason, Allen C. I996. Distinguishing the Effects of Functional andDysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: R esolv ing aParadox for Top Management TeamsY Academy o f ManagementJournal 39 (February): 123-148.Ancona, Deborah and Davbid Caldwell. 1992 . Demography and De-s ign: Predic tors o f New Product Team Perform ance OrganizationalSciences 3:321-341.Anderson, Fain and Richard Oliver. 1987. Perspectives o n Behavior-Based and Outcome-Based Salesforce Control Systems Journal ofMarketing 51 (October): 76-88.

and Thomas Robertson. 1995. Inducing Mu lti-Line Salespeopleto Adopt House Brand s Journal of Marketing59 (April): 16-31.~ a n d Barton Weitz . 1992. T he Use of Pledges to Build and Sus-

tain Comm itment in Distribution Cha nn el JournalofMarketingRe-search 29 (February): 18-34.Anderson, Rolph. 1996. Personal Selling and Sales Managem ent in theN e w M i l le n i u m Journalof PersonalSetlingand Sates M anagement16 (Fall): 17-32.Bass, Bernard. 1985. Leadershipand PerformanceBeyondExpectations.New York: Free Press.Berling, Robert. 1993. Th e Em erging Approach in Business Strategy:Building a Relationship Advantage?'BusinessHorizon 36 (4): 16-27.Biong, Harold and Fred Seines. 1996. Th e Strategic Role of the Sales-person in Established Buyer-Seller Rela tion ship s Working PaperReport No. 96-118, Marketing Scie nce Institute, Cambridge, M A.Blake, R. R. and J. S. Mouton. 1964. The Ma nagerial Grid.Houston, TX:Gulf.Boormon, Michael, Jerry Goolsby, and Rosemary Ramsey. 1998. Rela -tional Communications and Th eir Effects on Adaptiveness and Sales

Performance,' Journal of the Academy of M arketing Science 26(Winter): 16-30.Bradford, Kevin, Ann e Stringfellow, and Barton Weitz. 1998. Market-ing Teams: Powerful Combination or Explosive Mixture? WorkingPaper, University of Florida, Warrington Colle ge of Business Admin-istration, Department of M arketing, Gainesville, F L.Brooksbank, Roger . 1995. The New Mo del of Personal Sel l ing: M icro-m a rke t ing Journal of Personal Sell ing and Sales M anagement 15(Spring): 61-66.Brown, David. 1983. Man aging C onflict at Organizational Interfaces.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Carpenter, Bruce. 1993. Relational Competence. In Advances in Per-sonal Relationships Vol 4. Eds. Daniel Perlman and W arren Jones.London: Jessica Kingsley, 1-28.Cespedes, Frank. 1994. Industrial Marketing; Managing N ew Require-

ment?' Stoan Management Review 35 (March): 45-60.


13/14

Weitz , Bradford / PERSONAL SEL LING 253

Churchill, Gilbert, Nei l Ford, and Orv ille Walker. 1974. Measuring theJob Satisfaction o f Industrial Salesmen?' Journal of Marketing Re-search 11 (August): 254-260.Comer, Debra. 1995. A M ode l of Social Loafing in Real Work Groups?'Human Relations 48:647-467.Coughlin, Anne and Subrata Sen. 1989. Salesforce Compensation: Theoryand Managerial Implications?'Marketing Science 8 (Fall): 324-342.Cravens, David. 1995. Th e Changing Ro le of the Sales Force?' Market-ing Managem ent 4 (2): 49-54.Crnkovisch, Paula and W illiam Hesterly. 1996. Transformational Lead-ership and S trategic Discretion: A n Empirical Test of a Frameworkfor Predicting New Product Development Program Success?' InRight Products--Products Right: Proceedings of the 1996 AnnualConference on Product Development and Management Association.Ed. K. Kahn. Chicago: Product Development and Management A sso-ciation, 19-30.Crosby, Lawrence A., Kenneth R. Evans, and Deborah Cowles. 1990.Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influ-ence Perspective : ' Journal of Marketing 54 (July): 68-81.Dabholkar, Pratibha, Wesley Johnson, and Am y Cathey. 1994. Th e Dy-namics of Long-T erm Business-to-Business Exchange R elation-ships Journal of he Academy of Marketing Science 22 (2 : 130-145.Dant, Rajiv P. and Patrick L. Schul. 1992. Conflict Resolution Processesin Contractual Ch annels o f Distribution:' Journal of Marketing 56(January): 38-54.Deeter-Schmelz, Dawn and Rosemary Ramsey. 1995. A Conceptualiza-tion of the Functions and Role s of Formalized Selling and Buy ingT e a m s Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 15(Spring): 47-60.Deutsch, Morton. 1973. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive andDestructive Processes. New Haven, C T and London: Yale UniversityPress.Dick, Alan and Kunal Basu. 1994. Customer Loyalty: Toward an Inte-grated Conceptual Framework. Journal of the Academy o f Market-ing Science 22 (Spring): 99-113.Dorsch, Michael, Scott Swanson, and Scott Kelley. 1998. The Role ofRelationship Q uality in the Stratification o f Vendors as Perceived byCus tom e rs : ' Journal of the Academ y of M arketing Sciences 26(Spring): 128-142.Dougherty, Deborah. 19 92. Interpretative Barriers to Successful New

Product Innovation in Large Firms?' Organizational Science 3:179-202.Dwyer, F. Robert, Paul Schurr, and Sejo Oh. 198 7. Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships?' Journal of Marketing 51 (April): 11-27.Ford, David. 1980. Th e Development o f Buyer-Seller Relationships inIndustrial Markets:' EuropeanJournal ofMarketing 14 (5/6): 339-353.Gale, Bradley. 1997. Satisfaction Is No t Enough. Marketing News, Oc-tobe r 27, p. 18.Ganesan, Shankar. 1993. Negotiation Strategies and the Nature of Chan-nel Rela t ionships: ' Journal of M arketing Research 30 (May): 183-202.Gumm esson, Evert (1998), Implementation Requires a RelationshipMarketing Paradigm Journal of he Academy of Marketing Science,26(Summer): 242-249Gundlach, Gregory, Ravi Achrol, and John Mentzer. 1995. The Struc-ture of Commitment in Exchange?' Journal of Marketing 59 (Janu-ary): 78-92.Hall, J. 1969. Conflict Management Survey: A Survey of O ne's C harac-teristic Reaction to and H andling o f Co nflicts Between Himself andOthers. Houston, T X: Teleometrics.Hart, Sang-Lin, David Wilson, and Shirish Dant. 1993. Buyer-Seller Re-lationship Today:' Industrial Marketing Managem ent 22 (4) : 331-338.Hansson, R . O., W. H. Jones, and B. N. Carpenter. 1984. RelationalCompetency and Social Support: ' In Review o f Personality and So-cial Psychology: Vol 5. Emotions, R elationships, and H ealth. Ed.P. Shaver. Beve rly Hills, CA: Sage.Heide, Jan. 1994. Interorganizational Governance in Marketing Chan-nels. Journal of Marketing 58 (January): 71-85.and G eorge John. 1 988. '~l'he Rol e of Dependence B alancing inSafeguarding Transaction Specific Assets in Conventional Chan-ne l s / ' Journal of Marketing 52 (January): 20-35.

Higgins, Kevin. 1997. Com ing of Age: Despite Growing Pains , Cus-tomer Satisfaction Continues to Evolve. Marketing News, October27, p. 1.Holmstrom, B. 1982. Mo ral Hazard in Teams. Bell Journal of Econom-ics 13:324-340.Hunt, Shelby and Robert Morgan. 1 994. Relationship Marketing in theEra of Network Com peti t ion: ' Marketing Management 3 (1): 19-28.Hutt, Michael, Wesley Johnson, and John Ronchetto. 1 985 . Selli ngCenters and Buyin g Centers: Formulating Strategic Exchan ge Pat-terns: ' Journal of Personal Selling and Sales M anagement 5 (May):33-40.Jacoby, Jacob and David Kyn er. 1978. Brand L oyalty Versus RepeatPurchase Behavior?' Journal of Marketing Research 10 (February):1-9.Jones, Thomas, and W. Earl Sasser. 1995. Wh y Satisfied Customers De-fec t? Harvard Business Review 73 (November-December): 88-99.Kalwani, Manohar U. and Narakesari Narayandas. 1995. Long-TermManufacturer-Supplier Relationships: Do Th ey Pay Off for SupplierFirms? Journal of Marketing 59 (1): 59-75.Kanter, Rosabeth. 1994. Collaborative Advantage: The Art of Alli-ances?' Harvard Business Review 72 (July-August): 96-108.Karan, S. and K. Williams. 1993. Socia l Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Re -view and Th eory Integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 65:681-706.Kidwell, R. and N. Bennett. 1993. Em ploy ee Propensity to Withhold Ef-fort: A Conceptual Model to Intersect Three Avenues of Research:'Academy o f Management Review 18:429-456.Kotler, Philip. 1991. Philip Kotler Explores the New M arketing Para-d igm : ' In Review Marketing Science Institute N ewsletter, V ol. 1.Cambridge, M A Marketing Science Institute, 4-5.

. 1998. Marketing Management. 9th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.Krapfel, Robert, Deborah Salmond, and Robert Spekman. 1991. A Stra-tegic Approach to Managing Buyer-Seller Relationships. EuropeanJournal of Marketing 25 (9): 22-37.Lambe, C. Jay and Robert Spekman. 1997 . National Acco unt Manage-ment: Large Account Selling or Buyer-Seller Alliance? Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales M anagement 17 (Fall): 61-74.Lambert, Douglas, Arun Sharma, and Michael Levy. 1997. Wh at Infor-mation Can Relationship M arketers Obtain Fro m Customer Evalua-t i o n s o f S a l e s p e o p l e ? Indus t r ia l Marke t ing Management26:177-187.Lodish, Leonard. 1971. CA LL PLA N: An Interactive Salesman's Ca llPlanning System. Managem ent Science 18 (4, pt. 2): 25-40.Lusch, Robert. 1976. Sources of Power: The ir Impact on Intra-ChannelConflict. JournalofMarketingResearch 13 (November): 382-390.Macintosh, Gerrard and Lawrence Locksin. 1997. Retail Relationshipsand Store Loyalty: A M ulti-Level Perspective. International Jour-nal o f Research in Marketing 14:487-497.Macneil, Inn. 1980. The New Social Contract.New H aven, CT: Yale Uni-versity Press.Mahajan, Jayashree, and Sonja Radas. 1998. Exclu sive Versus Non -Exclusive Effort Allocation Strategies for a Multiproduct Firm : Spe-cialists Versus Generalists. Working P aper, University o f Florida,Warrington Colleg e of Business Administration, D epartment o f Mar-keting, Gainesville.

McAfee, Preston. 1991. Optimal Contracts for Tea ms: ' InternationalEconomics Review 32 (3): 561-577.McGrath, Joseph E. and Irvin Altman. 1966. Small G roup Research:A S)~-thesis and Critique of the Field. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.McKenna, Regis. 1991. Relationship Marketing: Successful Strategiesfo r the Age of the Customer.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Moon , Mark and Susan Gupta. 1997. Examining th e Formation of Sell-ing Centers : A Conceptual Fram ework Journal o f Personal Sellingand Sales Management 17 (Spring): 31-41.Morgan, Robert and Shelby Hunt. 1994. Th e Comm itment-Trust The-ory o f Relationship Marketing:' Journal of Marketing 58 (July): 20-38.Morris, Michael, Ram on Avila, and Eugen e Teeple, 1990. Sale s Man-agement as an E ntrepreneurial Activity?' Journal of Personal Sellingand Sales Management 10 (Spring): 1-15.O'N eal, Charles. 1989. JIT Procurement and Relationship M arketing?'Industrial Ma rketing Management 18:55-63.


14/14

254 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE SPRING 1999

Parvatiyar, At ul and Jagdish Sheth. 1994. "Paradigm Shift in MarketingTheory and Approach: The Emergence of Relationship Marketing? 'In Relationship M arketing: Theory, Methods, and Apptications. Eds.Jagdish Sheth an d Atu l Parvatiyar. Atlanta, GA: Emory U niversity,Center for Relationship M arketing, 23-30.Peppers, Don a nd M artha R ogers. 1997. "The Money Trap: New Basesfor Incentives?'Sates & M arketingManagement149(May): 149-153.Podsakopf, Phillip, Scott MacK enzie, and William Bommer. 1993."Transformational Leader Behaviors and Substitutes for Leadershipas Determinants of Employee Satisfaction, Com mitment, Trust, andOrganizational Citizenship Behaviors?' Journal of Management22:259-298.Pondy, Louis. 196 7. "Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Mo dels?'Administrative Science Q uarterly 12 (September): 296-320.Pruitt, D. G. 1983 . "Strategic Choice i n Negotiation" American Behav-ioral Scientist 27:167-194.Rackham, Nell . 19 97. "The H unt for Growth: New Dimensions andStrategies for Selling?'Strategy & Leadership25 (3): 38-45.Rahim, M. A. 1986. Ma naging Co nflict in Organizations. New York:Praeger.Rangaswamy, Arvind and Jayashree M ahajan. 1997. "Who A re You Go-ing to Call? The Technical Specialist: Modeling the After-SalesTechnical Support Process?' Working Paper, Un iversity of Florida,Warrington College of Business Adm inistration, Departmen t of Mar-

keting, Gainesville.Rao, Ram R., and Ronald Turner. 1984. "Organization and Effectivenessof Multiple Product Salesforce?' Journal of Personal Selling andSales Management IV (1): 24-30.Ring, Peter and Andrew Van de V en. 1994. "Development Processes ofCooperative Interorganizational Relationships?' Academy of M an-agement Review 19 (January): 90-188.Saxe, Robert and Barton Weitz . 1982. "The Customer Orientation ofSales People: Measurement and Relationship to Performance?'Jour-nal o f Marketing Research 19 (August): 343-351.Sharma, Arun. 1997. "Customer Satisfaction-Based Incentive Systems:Some M anagerial and Salesperson Considerations?' Journal of Per-sonal Selling and Sales Management 17 (Spring): 61-70.Siguaw, Judy9Gen e Brown, and Robert Wilding. 1994. "The Influence ofMarket Orientation of the Firm on Sales Force Behavior and Atti-

tudes?' Journal of Marketing R esearch31 (February): 106-115.Spiro, Rosan an d Barton Weitz. 1990 . "Adaptive Selling: Conceptualiza-tion, M easurement, and Validity? 'Journal o f Marketing Research27(February): 61-69.Stem, Louis, A del E1-Ansary, and A nne Coughlan. 1996. MarketingChannels. 5th ed. Upp er Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Stringfellow, An n. 1998. "Manag

41 - Personal Selling and Sales

Documents

Transcript of 41 - Personal Selling and Sales