A Contingency Adaptive Selling and Selling Perfomance

A Contingency Approach to Adaptive Selling Behavior and Sales Performance: Selling Situations and Salesperson Characteristics Author(s): Ralph
W. Giacobbe, Donald W. Jackson Jr., Lawrence A. Crosby and Claudia M. Bridges Source: The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Spring, 2006), pp. 115-142 Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40472048 . Accessed: 27/01/2014 23:50
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.69 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 23:50:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A CONTINGENCY APPROACH TO ADAPTIVE SELLING BEHAVIORAND SALES PERFORMANCE: SELLING SITUATIONS AND SALESPERSON CHARACTERISTICS
W. Giacobbe, DonaldW.Jackson Lawrence A. Crosby, andClaudiaM. Bridges Jr., Ralph that situational willmoderate The Weitz(1981) modelofadaptive variables therelationship between selling suggests In this behavior andsales a path model is analyzed andsupports thepositive role of performance. paper, adaptive selling under conditions. on sales there is alsoa positive inthe performance "adaptive" adaptive Surprisingly, selling relationship characteristics suchas theability to monitor condition. theselling situation and Furthermore, salesperson "nonadaptive" within theexchange aredetermined to be related and strategies to theintention self-behaviors to sell modify setting ofthis conditions. results that in the"adaptive" affects salesperforFinally, study experience suggest selling adaptively situational butthesources ofeffects and"nonadaptive" differ. mance in both"adaptive" contexts,
varibetween Since the 1960s, manyrelationships predictor measureshave been examined ables and sales performance across industries, situations, products/ companies, empirically recent some and typesof buyers. However, services, despite about factors to learn still much there is in this area, progress ofWeitz(1979) originally salesperformance. thatinfluence of saleseffectivefered six reasonsforthepoor performance in manyof have been contributions and there nessresearch, to these shortsolutions haveoffered mostofwhich these areas, inconsistencies identified al. et Churchill (1985) comings. and a weak relationships, acrosspredictor variables, generally studies in later of comparedto power worsening predictive earlierworks.Hence, the authorshave concluded that alto explaina largeproportion is likely no singlefactor though thecontinuing of salesperformance development variability, theexplanatory can improve measures and methods ofbetter variables. powerof theindependent
behavior from (ASB) gainedmomentum Adaptiveselling Weitzand his colleagues(Saxe and Weitz 1982; Weitz 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982; Weitz,Sujan,and Sujan 1986) as a determinantof salesperformance and is defined as altering salesrelatedbehaviorsduringa customerinteraction or across based upon perceived information about thenainteractions as the tureof the sellingsituation. Theoretically, flexibility sales performance should engagedin by the sellerincreases, this the added marHowever, relationship improve. ignores withsellingadaptively. Sales ginal costsand timeassociated the costis, therefore, upon contingent marginal performance ofbeingmoreadaptive. This trade-off isbased trade-off benefit the revenues on the increased gained by tailoring presentatimeneeded costsand greater tion,balancedagainsthigher to and can rangefrom to engagein adaptiveselling, positive the That relationof situation. as a function is, any negative is expectedto be ship betweenASB and sales performance as suggested sensitive, by Weitzs (1979) sixth situationally ofsaleseffectiveness research reasonforthepoorperformance and Frankwick from and theresults Porter, Wiener, (2003). and Frankwick develAs as Porter, Wiener, 2003, Associate Arizona State recently W. Giacobbe (Ph.D., University), Ralph between ASB and sales of the a model at Illinois Southern ofMarketing, Edwardsville, Professor perrelationship oped University moderatedby the sellingsituation.While their formance, rgiacob@siue.edu. set the groundwork forthe roleof selling Profes- model and results State DonaldW.Jackson, (Ph.D.,Michigan University), Jr. in thisrelationship, it is onlya partof the overall situation State Arizona W.P.CareySchoolof Business, sorof Marketing, this As statedin Porter, the nature of of relationship. donald.jackson@asu.edu. picture University, "Over and over and research, Wiener, Frankwick, of Michigan),CEO, A. Crosby(Ph.D., University againin their Lawrence Weitz(1981), Weitz,Sujan,and Sujan (1986), and Spiroand larry.crosby^synovate.com. Loyalty, Synovate thatpersonal is not a simple Assistant Weitz(1990) emphasize selling StateUniversity), ClaudiaM. Bridges (Ph.D., Arizona ofcontinbased on the interaction of two levels but is StateUniversity, California of Marketing, Professor Sacramento, process focus on the salesthe first-order contingencies gencies:(1) bridgesc@csus.edu. and behavior(s) Despecific capability(s) Professor personand their during The authors AjithKumar, Marketing acknowledge the the sales and second-order interaction; Arizona State Univer(2) Business at of W.P.Carey School contingencies partment, focuson the natureof the sellingsituation encountered ... andsuggestions. comments for hishelpful sity,
vol. XXVI, no. 2 (spring2006), pp. 115-142. JournalofPersonal Selling& Sales Management,
2006 PSE National Educational Foundation. Allrights reserved. /2006 $9.50 + 0.00. ISSN 0885-3134
116 Journal & SalesManagement ofPersonal Selling
and its moderating effect on sellingstratby the salesperson in thisstudy, The as full model, presented egy"(2003, p. 276). Our objective,thereincludesboth of thesecontingencies. model of therelationship is to present a comprehensive fore, between ASB and salesperformance upon thesellcontingent and which also includes capabilities behaviors ingsituations, as described Thesefirst-order oftheseller. above, contingencies, to the toward includeempathie ability buyer, perceive ability in the ones own behavior to modify contextual cues,ability as and knowledge(operationalized experisellingsituation, ence), and theyare expectedto moderatethe ASB -* sales to ASB, an antecedent In addition, relationship. performance is inas as motivation identified (operationalized intention), research of cluded in the model as a result by Weitz,Sujan, in is integral thatthisfactor and Sujan (1986), whichsuggests to structures the adoption of knowledge necessary develop and behaviors. capabilities specific
found that "workingsmart" (a constructwith ASB as a relatedto sales performance. subdimension)was modestly Bonnice and Predmore Moreover, (1994) foundthatsellers at to be successful weremorelikely who weremoreadaptive and Badovicksepaclosingsales. In 1996, Marks,Vorhies, - beliefs and behavinto two ratedadaptive categories selling iors- and found that beliefs did not influence sales rewere positively whereasbehaviors directly, performance While Boorom, Goolsby,and lated to sales performance. modest a observed positiveassociationbeRamsey(1998) for ASB and salesperformance insurance tween sellers, Eppler et al. (1998) foundthattherewas a significant relationship ofsalesperformance. measures ASB and twodifferent between and Pettijohn On the otherhand, in both Keillor,Parker, not determined were ASBs etal. (2000), (2000) and Pettijohn In 2003, of sales performance. to be significant predictors Parkand HollowayfoundthatASB had a significant positive of permeasures on both objectiveand subjective influence Frankwick and formance. Wiener, (2003) inPorter, Finally, BACKGROUND on the of sellingsituation effect the moderating vestigated determinsales and ASB between performance, relationship Conceptual Foundationand EmpiricalFindings ASB and sales between is a positive relationship ingthatthere of Evidencethatsellers and that the selling situationincreasedthe engagein ASB is foundin a number performance studies of the relationship. 1993; Jolson (e.g.,Bello 1992; Bodkinand Stevenson strength to ASB related was positively 1973; Porter,Wiener, and Frankwick2003; Spiro and experience selling Although to ASB and unrelated Tanner it was found Perreault in one study(Siguaw 1993), Belschak, Bagozzi 1979; 1994; Verbeke, that in twoothers 2004; Weilbaker 1990a; Wise 1974). It is also suggested (Spiroand Weitz 1990; Tanner1994). In addisellstructured or the same "canned" and Stevenson(1993) foundsales experience Bodkin tion, presentation delivering is of relatedto adaptationmade duringsales call was utilized, behavior) selling ing(an example "nonadaptive" positively more effective be even preferred some and intention to adaptivebehavioral related sellers, may by planning, negatively in certain thanadaptive contexts ASB measures. to two other (Jolson1973; 1975). (ASBI), and unrelated selling A significant numberof studiesoverthe past 15 yearshave ofASB. as has been ASBI Finally, suggested an antecedent of the of ASB and a number to of intention The idea (or motivation) practiceadaptive perinvestigated relationship characteristics and sonalselling variables discussed in Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan salesperson including sellingwas directly of sales situational and multiple measures abilities, variables, (inten(1986). They describethe link betweenmotivation A in of the work this detailed review knowlof the of and the ASB, tion), performance. empirical development practice in Table 1. area is presented the Outside of the actual sellingsituation, edge structures. An investigation of the empirical research revealsinsight salesperson withdifferent associated the "outcomes observes characteristics ofthestudies With and thefindings. "related and developscustomer sales approaches" regarding categories to best as The most are described mixed. of sales to the effectiveness respect findings, they approaches"(Weitz,Sujan, and direct are between ASB frequently relationships investigated Sujan 1986, p. 182). and salesperformance and ASB and selling experience. Spiro and Weitz (1990) reported their ADAPTS measureof ASB SituationalInfluence was positively correlated witha self-reported measure ofsales butnegatively ofresults could be theeffect related to salesperformance One reasonfortheinconsistency based performance on managerial theASB -* salesperassessments. For example, of situational influences. Anglin,Stoltman,and Gentry fortheASB and salesperformance is expected to be positive reformance (1990) foundsupport onlywithin relationship to be tentative and contexts. certain situational mixed; (1989) (1993) Jolson lationship prescribed argues Siguaw reported a positive association between the two variables, and that effective incorposellingoccurswhen the salesperson Blackshear and Plank (1994) identified a directrelationship ratesthe appropriate and flexibility based blend of structure in twoout ofthree the and Kumar on situational broad Weitz, characteristics, (1994) analyses. Sujan, including heteroge-
117
- I
g
ut
I I! 1 I! m
sg
M s
ti
e|
=5 i
<u
sM
ia*
-o
#r h M 5 -8? "
;.;
le
H f ilfll I
ih^-if llllli?!!
lu
|S
3
s-8- Sii <

a -
^0
* "8"B
f gil *5I lui H jJ

o
0) CD M
iitjif: Slltsi
s
-S
11 i
li i
2fe=||
Ut Ai
unii
11
8
si
8s
ili
g
i
5"g S
tf)
I lili j |{ ti
!!
|osg
S If g s s? I,
mi
lili t|
ti*
_
11
*fs
le
tilt
f S{
's^c
-g
5.
UJ
"S
<
il ili HI il HI.,UH if li ! mu? tu I tits !?! Ili Hi! f iiii ili ii%4 iilli 11K& 1 MHli
"I .
si
il lift IHitlililHli. it. I r I lili II liiilliiililltlllelli

2 ? S~~ >^g -g 8
, H i, III!!i itiiifiUtli
118
if
So
n .i ! <SiHsli. iH iil
*- 5
Mi ill ^-lil lilil i-flll lllfi ijt-5 i li lit lilt H d iff Iff! SM s
*P|i
* c c
Jill JMf? PH? Hlt
33-e
*c>-*<
?FG
ccc^go,
Util
E 8 Pu
n ijug II J li. i
. i ufiilm i!!! 1!. il

li
F o U
-1
I 8I
I ! olii
<U .
2 ||
SSg"i|
i
R^ i
fil
z^llg
s If gli fflr
et
Ht il
""
2s
il i
*i*? h sii li 1H
gli
g
II
111! |i|
Isiil |* 1| t| li
S,8ifS3f2
?f 1 I f liliali jff il! Ili ili! 1

a. 3! 3^ oesii1 !S. S"S iSl"s i2c8 i^ < ^ i .
< > i C FC
s sibili?!?
ni ii li hiHil H il Sii
SC
iP 13 S* fh! Hill
3 -S
Z>(23-
S E
S5
KIC
-5o
SOC
* li i M II i,i MM ii
o "So . 2>w o. IT
119
li i ij IlillK i ! jlh Jliifi

M|f!
*
i?o Slii
9 s; fi II i In
-3
*Si
<
feg
El.
Elf 8 1|
S, 81-sl
Al H ! [* Ut ]M?ir i
111 tijliJi
DE .E<Z<N*fc
i
o
5. 1 ils i
-
ili li
Q.O noq)
I i
l
-
i li
li
-o
li
Ut I
III
5 ll^
!21
! .
lit-I! flilli li ii
? 'S5221 31 11 ils
It
<|J|
, ti
I5& I
ij
|i
HI
i 11111
aja DJ"
Ipil III If IJil I HiIII

-o e8m êo^-ei"1
~O
S?
151 IS s 6i
S1*^
Ili itili
e^--si g 2
-CO
ftiis
c c
-o a
00
s -s
.^
*;;
Sc
-2 Z O
e
D O
z ^
"-S^
Sai,
S2*-=!
(S c2
rtOC
iS-^
-Ô1*
2 2 . ! G.
*.
120
I tfl
I
i fi-i &111 Jas lffif* Jl U

|l"oii| "Si-slil 5lS t l
fcs*
I ill
Jjj-5 .
51filil ititi il Ii fJ 11-i i -i

I
&|_| '?*> g i s|a
s M8 IIJ
5 S.e g 8 1
<i
Z I
Su
Ifl
Il8
8.|
1^1
1 I I
i 5 I 11
l 8 ?|
dj . i s 2
!i| JI4
Off. i f| J |j "I
II !$ 5
< -2 >
Sii8 lili
r 11
f<* Uff .
S 3
if iii fi-g
J&lilll^SsîJllli
i;ll
i^
usi
r1 HiH l Iti llliH s liliali

Ci. c21 ci. d ^ a u ci.
<
2006 121 Spring needs,productcharacteristics neityof customers' (portabiland time to technical train/activate ity, complexity), pressure of new sellers. Additionalsituational factors largenumbers basedon economicconsiderations) havebeensug(primarily of as moderators adaptivesellingeffectivegested potential ness (Jackson, and Cunningham, Cunningham1988; Weitz and Wiener, 1979, 1981; Weitz,Sujan, Sujan 1986). Porter, to empirically testthe and Frankwick (2003) were the first of the situation encountered effect by a selling moderating between sales on the ASB and relationship persalesperson Their findings show thatthereis an increasingly formance. betweenthesetwo variables relationship depending positive theaforementioned task. the Collectively, upon specific buying relative thatthegreatest advantage bodyofliterature suggests in ASB occurswhen,jointly: from engaging the or new task a modified taskis either rebuy buying purchase(Robinson,Faris,and Wind 1967), thebuyer's purchaseriskis high, perceived the relationship is believedto produceconsiderable future profit opportunities, the is complex, center buying the is offering complex, customers' needsvaryconsiderably, thesellerhas the resources of the to altervariousfacets and offering, theseller's of thesale is high. importance perceived forthe remainder conditionis identified This situational ASB is condition." as the "adaptive of thestudy Conversely, or evencounineffective to be lesseffective (perhaps expected condition in the (identioppositecomposite terproductive) sellers that fiedas the "nonadaptive condition").Presuming thanlesseffective, wantto be moreeffective opersalespeople condito the similar contexts in situational "adaptive ating to sell intention a greater to demonstrate tion"are expected it is their do than Therefore, hypothcounterparts. adaptively esizedthat: ASB isposicondition" 1: In "adaptive contexts, Hypothesis to sales related performance. tively ASB and sales between 2: Therelationship perHypothesis situais increasingly upontheselling dependent formance showa stronger should contexts condition' tion."Adaptive -> than"nonsales ASB relationship performance positive contexts. condition" adaptive will contexts condition" in "adaptive 3: Sellers Hypothesis do than to selladaptively intentions demonstrate stronger contexts. condition" in "nonadaptive sellers will contexts condition" in "adaptive 4: Sellers Hypothesis in levelofASB than will sellers a greater demonstrate contexts. condition" "nonadaptive SalespersonCharacteristics In additionto situational characteristics of theseller factors, areexpected to relate to ASB. Weitz,Sujan,and Sujan (1986) information skills, proposethatthesellers' acquisition along with theirlevels of categorical and declarative knowledge, should influence the motivation or intention (used synonyof motivation mouslyper thedefinition presented byWeitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986) to practiceadaptiveselling(ASBI) and moderate Marks,Vorhies, adaptivesellingeffectiveness. and Badovick that ASB is (1996) suggested actually comprised of salespeople's beliefs and behaviors, adaptive selling finding thatonlybehaviors influenced salesperformance The directly. ASB literature therefore that the characsuggests following teristics influence ASB indirectly an intention (or through to sell adaptively. While there seemsto be little motivation) in theASB literature distinction betweenthe motivation to to selladaptively, selladaptively and theintention admittedly, differ on conceptualgrounds.However, theyprobably they In fact, constructs arequitesimilar Weitz, pragmatically. Sujan, to adaptas a seller's motivation and Sujan describe "tendency to practice of (1986, p. 186). In thecontext adaptive selling" as an antecedent to thisstudy, ASBI has been hypothesized as none to thesalespersons ASB withrespect characteristics, characteristics have been shownto have a of the salesperson on ASB. effect consistent direct Ability Empathie of individuas "thereaction empathy Spiroand Weitzdefine of otherindividuals" als to the observedexperiences (1990, is directly relatedto p. 63) and arguethatempathieability to inis thattheseskillsallow theseller ASB. Their rationale time of the at the information useful presentation corporate contentand delivery tailorinformational to better styletoneeds. withheterogeneous wardpotential buyers is theabilforthisstudy ofempathie The definition ability of the to of adopt perspective ity salespeople spontaneously of their intellectual theircustomers apprehension through a genuinefeelmentalstateor condition, thereby generating is adapted This definition the customer. concern toward of ing thatof fromSpiro and Weitz (1990) and also incorporates to is "the thatempathy Davis, whichstates tendency sponta(1983, pointofviewofothers" neously adoptthepsychological with that sellers The idea 113-114). empathie greater pp. their effecshouldbe able to improve adaptiveselling ability that sellers on thepremise is basedmainly tiveness gain"unique themselves able to place psychologically by being insights" Such sellers in thepositionof thecustomer. and emotionally of their customers' needs "wouldhave a greater appreciation sales presentations and be in a better positionto tailortheir to the customers with [whom]theyare interacting" (Weitz 1979, p. 156).
122 Journal Personal & Sales of Management Selling

thesellers condition" It is also suggested 6: In "adaptive thatempathie involves themanicontexts, ability Hypothesis to ASBI. related will be cueperception festation of genuineconcernforothers. This componentof positively ability with to share their enables sellers empathy adaptive feelings ofconcern customers. outward demonstration may toModify Although Self-Presentation Ability forone to possessthisability(Mehrabian not be necessary as a was suggested The abilityto modify withsigcustomers and Epstein1972), beingable to provide self-presentation -* sales ASB of the moderator should by to thebuyers' relationship theseller issensitive nalsthat performance perspectives of the a determinant as and Weitz 1981) (1979; trust and affect proposed relationship building. positively to selladaptively of adaptivesellingeffec- intention as a moderator Sujan,and Sujan (1986). byWeitz, Empathieability to the visualand audio relates several authors has been tiveness specifically (Grikscheit Self-presentation by conceptualized otherdimensions excludes and seller the cues and Chase 1968; Spiro,Perreault, and Crissy by 1973; Robertson generated theexchange within stimuli to in can adjust response theseller and Reynolds 1977; Weitz1979, 1981; Wenschlag 1987) and As they in tactics and strategies). of sales performance encounter studiesas a predictor used in empirical (e.g., alterations to are sellers their skills, Lundstrom Lamont and and Meyer1964; expected be bet1977; modifying improve (Greenberg whenmaking less awkward be the ter at timing adjustments, Spiro and Weitz 1990; Tobolskiand Kerr 1952) with little the customer to them,and appearmoregenuine duringthe success.However, Spiroand Weitz(1990) did findthatthere the to of empathieability(perspective are subcomponents taking, process.Each of theseoutcomesis expected improve sellers thus the of effectiveness behavior, correlate that motivating and social self-confidence) adaptive empathieconcern, setand in different to engagein ASB withmorecustomers withthe bean antecedent withASB, implying relationship sellers' abilities That is, as theirmodification increase, overall thatempathie It is therefore havior. tings. ability suggested as well. increase should sell to determination sell to the intention related to be adaptively adaptively may positively the seller's examined has research no To date, to respondto customers' forsellers whenit is important empirical sigASB -* of the a moderator as self-behaviors to modify rethe following nals and tailorthepresentation. Therefore, ability sales performance However,Sujan, Sujan, and is hypothesized: relationship. lationship a significant trait Bettman(1988) foundthe self-modifying thesellers condition" 5: In "adaptive contexts, Hypothesis knowlthesalespersons between in therelationship covariate related toASBI. willbepositively empathie ability not was self-modification but edge and sales performance, relatedto sales performance (p < 0.05). Spiro significantly Cue Perception ASB between and Weitz (1990) founda modestcorrelation Ability The latter to modify and theability finding self-presentation. of ASB, Anotherabilityexpectedto influence the efficacy withtheproposition is consistent Weitz,Sujan,and Sujan by and theintention withwhich to practice it (ASBI), is theskill -> ASBI. This relato modify" (1986) thattheseller's "ability sellers and nonversituational cues (verbal perceive pertinent the following hypothesis: tionship suggests sellers and supported thatsuccessful bal). It is suggested may thesellers condition" be moreawareof nonverbal able to in7: In "adaptive contexts, Hypothesis signalsand be better will be and to them than their less successful terpret (Goolsby, self-presentation strategies counterparts ability modify related to ASBI and 1971; Grikscheit Lagace,and Boorom 1992; Grikscheit positively from results and Churchill 1973). However, Crissy Szymanski (1990) and Goolsby, Lagace,and Boorom (1992) raisequesExperience tionsabout the relationship betweencue perception ability and saleseffectiveness. Weilbaker hand, Weitz,Sujan, and Sujan (1986) also proposethattheinten(1990a), on theother neededto thatkeen,diverse as othercapabilities cue perception is a necestionto practice ASB increases suggests ability in the condition for on research effective Based Porter and Inks be an effective sary adaptiveselling. "adapter" improve. who that that sellers these authors "attributional sellers are field of social (2000) suggest express high complex" cognition, better able to assessbuyerscues,whichinfluences behavioral their benefits, preengagein ASB (perhapsdue to intrinsic to practice ASB. And, althoughsome evidence from learn directives, etc.) disposition experientially supervisory modeling, that a of in cue to the of sales outcomes different suggests type ability, perception "sensitivity employed varapproaches theexpressive behavior ofothers" 1 situLennox and Wolfe "the ied contexts. That 984; is, (cf. assaysthecurrent salesperson to adaptive ation relative to theirrecollections of priorsales encounters behavior, it,too,seems 1979), isalsorelated Snyder not to be directly relatedto sales performance in to lead to a then to be mostlikely and acts a (Goolsby, waythought and Boorom and Weitz sellTheresale" and Stoltman 1992; 1990, p. 44). Theoretically, 1990). Lagace, Spiro (Morgan the is proposed: as their at adaptation ersbecomemoreefficient and effective fore, following hypothesis
2006 123 Spring to categorize customers and situations comability improves in their withdevelopments mensurate procedural knowledge or actionshould be used in such con(e.g.,Which strategy texts?). As sellersgain more and varied sales experiences, their of which contain an structures, integration selling knowledge customer and contextual and characteristics, events, outcomes, is expected to be enriched. That is, seller and buyer behaviors, theirskillsand develop sellersimprove experience, through of customer elaborate more situations, types, knowledge selling and sellingstrategies (Weitz,Sujan, and Sujan 1986). This to identify a wider theseller baseenables broadened knowledge of the of contexts, thereby variety selling enhancing practice this adaptiveselling(Spiro and Weitz 1990). Consequently, about their to feelmoreconfident leads sellers development to adapt and become more assuredthattheir own abilities their intenand increase salesperformance ASBs willimprove ASB tions to selladaptively. Empirically, Siguaw(1993) found a shortened to salesexperience. related to be positively Using versionof the ADAPTS scale, Robinson et al. (2002) also withsales correlated foundASB to be significantly positively thatthe is hypothesized thefollowing Therefore, experience. as well. correlated ASB willbe positively to practice intention condition* 8: In "adaptive contexts, salespeople Hypothesis than ASBI will exhibit more with greater experience selling withless those experience. selling situato new selling ASB tendsto coincidewithexposure in be cannot to and theability adapt tions, taught the quickly "How many further classroom remarks, 1989). Jolson (Jolson and novice to the known are salessituation seller, categories one?" to each be ableto respond wills/he howlikely effectively of experience" is a function "Such instinctiveness (1989, p. are contexts condition" 10). Sellerswho operatein "adaptive in their morelikely (than settings) counterparts "nonadaptive" associthatare directly to gain moreand variedexperiences the thesituation, ated with(1) monitoring (2) altering sales in custombroaddifferences (3) understanding presentation, related feedback informational ers'needs,and (4) obtaining behaviors the of failures and to the successes they adaptive is offered: the in. Thus, hypothesis following engaged shoulddirectly affect salesperformance ingsupport equipment in all situational contexts. of Also,besidesaidingthepractice enablesthe salesperson to build adaptiveselling, knowledge better customers' self-confidence, needs,and gainbuysatisfy ers'trust and Tanner1998). Salesexperi(Weitz,Castleberry, ence is also expected to influencesales performance by a salesperson's motivation to sell. Accordingto increasing and Ford(1977), experienced sellers should Walker, Churchill, exhibit less roleconflict, roleinaccuracy, and roleambiguity, and improve their instrumentalities (i.e., theperceived probthata seller's on some diability performance improvement mension leadsto a reward). These factors combineto increase one'smotivation to sell,thereby outperformance improving in the following comes as suggested hypothesis: 10: Thesalespersons will be Hypothesis experience selling to sales in related condipositively performance "adaptive as wellas in the "nonadaptive tion"contexts condition" context. 1 depicts theexpected relationships Figure amongempathie to to cues, ability modify, ability, ability perceive experience, ASBI, ABI, and salesperformance. METHOD ResearchDesign and Data Collection
a company-based field In orderto testtheabove hypotheses, This research was undertaken. of survey salespeople design variables bewas chosen in orderto compareindependent Two U.S. contexts. tweentwo different compalarge, selling wereselected on thebasisof markets nationwide niesserving one thatclassified and productcharacteristics bothcustomer similarto the theoretically in a sellingcontext as operating in a as operating condition" and theother described "adaptive condition." to the "nonadaptive much moresimilar context forbothorganizawithsalesexecutives Based on discussions thetwocompanies tions,it was concludedthat, compositely, the contexts different markedly selling regarding represented Influence secearlier discussed sevendimensions (Situational and the reof thesedimensions, tion).A detaileddiscussion this validate usedtooperationally latedmeasures manipulation, will be 9: The salespersons experience selling Hypothesis section. laterin theMeasurement is presented concondition" in "adaptive toASBI more related strongly is a multithe "adaptive condition" The firm representing contexts. condition" thanin "nonadaptive texts Three divisions health-care division (hosproduct organization. and room and equipment, operating equipment, pital surgical experiselling personal Finally, knowledge gainedthrough on the numto based were selected unrein wayscompletely ence can impactsalesperformance participate pharmaceuticals) and customer For instance, lated to adaptiveness. productlines,and market task-specific ber of salespeople, improving the The characteristics. ones product such as managingtime,improving behaviors companyrepresenting "nonadaptive a condition" sells consumer durable to household buyers call sales and competitor sequences, knowledge,planning direct subThis firm is dividedintogeoon to schedules, personal through selling. through promises, following adhering in maintainwhere and each a and oversees timely/accurate reports, preparing graphic regions mitting region general manager
124 Journal & SalesManagement ofPersonal Selling
Figure1 Model of AdaptiveSellingBehaviorand Sales Performance f Empathie ^ V Ability J Sales ^ [ V Perfonnancey
( Perception j 'AbVtyJ'
'
'
/ /
f^ ^^' I Modify J
'
'
/' 'J '
'V
/Adaptive SeUingN
J '^ Benv*or ^^*" ~**0^
male all three groupsare predominately Salespeoplefrom = = = ReB and 85 78 74 percent). percent, percent, A^ (Aj are simicontexts condition" two from the "adaptive spondents and educationlevel,but differ lar regarding age, experience, of when comparedto sellers on each of thesecharacteristics seven about are in sellers B. groups group Typically, KxznA^ than ofselling olderand havesixmoreyears experience years consist two in groupB. The former their mainly counterparts includes thelatter whereas ofcollegegraduates, high primarily school graduates. Also, salespeoplefromall groupsassessed Table 2 presellers. effective as being relatively themselves across characteristics ofthesellers' a detailed sents comparison indisales for each managers group,regional groups.Finally, selltheir to assess in their cated theywereconfident ability = and for and 1.43 B, ers'adaptiveness (x 1.55, 1.52, A,, A^ able to assess,5 = unableto assess). 1 = very respectively; Measurement Situation Selling used by Bagozzi (1978) and withthe definition Consistent is viewed situation Hackman and Lawler(1971), theselling thatare cocharacteristics as thesetof physical in thisstudy on the sellersbehaviors. or constraining ercive,facilitative, conand "nonadaptive condition" the Conceptually, "adaptive contexts. theoretical different dition" represent maximally of thecritebecausean experimental However, manipulation situation theselling ria set thatdefines (i.e., the"composite" was conditionsdescribed earlier) adaptiveand nonadaptive of their basis on the were selected not possible,two firms on each criterion. to expectations "closeproximity" would thatthetwo firms not it was anticipated Although set the entire contexts on different ofcrirepresent maximally an effort was made to selectcompanies teriasimultaneously, and systematisituations differed whose selling substantially rethe mail to on all them. Prior of survey, cally conducting were asked each from sales by company gional managers oftheir to assessthecharacteristics respective "gentelephone eral sellingsituation" bipolar seven-point, usingsingle-item, criteria but one. Data forthe scalesforall situational rating dollarvolumepersale,wereprocriterion, remaining average records. from their videdbytheregional companies' managers was The "adaptive condition" bya firm represented selling addressed customwhose (hereafter "A") company salespeople erswhose perceived purchaseriskwas highand who devela withthecustomer or oped long-term ongoingrelationship thesale,dealtwithcomplexbuying sold a comafter centers, were sold to customers whose needs plex product, heterogea wide variety of offerings, had pricesetting neous, offered value and dealtwitha significantly salesdollar flexibility, large context was sale. the condition" Alternately, "nonadaptive per
^^ Experience ( ^ V^ (Knowledge))
^^
/intentionto ^ ASB ) > I Practice X^^ ^^^
several distributor territories. Seventerritory distributors from one region in thestudy. participated as theunits served bythetwo firms Salespeople employed of analysis.Data were collectedvia a mailed questionnaire and includedresponses fromsalespeopleand theirimmediatesupervisors. weremaileda packet Regionalsalesmanagers of to be routed to their consisting questionnaires salespeople, a questionnaire to be completed the sales and a by managers, setof directions foradministration and thereturn envelopes. Sample Characteristics In total,380 salesrepresentatives and 50 regional salesmanforanalysis. Of agersjointly provided completeinformation the529 questionnaires mailed,414 werereturned, originally ofwhich380 wereusable.Of the380 usablequestionnaires, 144 were fromthe adaptiveA1 group, 142 were fromthe and 84 werefrom thenonadaptive B group. adaptive A^ group, The response ratewas 85 percent forAj, 61 percent forA^ and 67 percent forB.
2006 125 Spring Table 2 Characteristicsof the Samples

Group A, "Adaptive" n = 154
71.4 36.2 10.9 8.3 16.3 5.8
Characteristic
Gender (percent male) Age (mean,standarddeviation) Years SellingExperience (mean,standarddeviation) Years Company Experience (mean, standarddeviation) Years Formal Education(mean,standarddeviation) of SellingSkills(mean,standarddeviation)* Self-Rating
A2 "Adaptive" n = 142
77.5
B "Nonadaptive" n = 84
84.5 29.9(9.1) 5.0(3.7) 3.2(2.5) 12.9(1.5) 5.4 ( I . I )
(7.6) (5.9) (4.5) (0.8) (0.8)
37.0(8.2) 11.8(5.6) 7.5 (5.1) 16.2(0.7) 5.7 (0.8)
withingroupswas negligible foreach characteristic failedto Notes:Item nonresponse exceptfor"age,"where 16, 13, and 4 salespeople,respectively, * = = = 4 1 scale: 7 outstanding, average, poor. respond; seven-point
"B") whosesalespeople by a company(hereafter represented condition. in an composite opposite operated and the dollarvolthe averageratings Figure2 presents of companyA and for ume per sale forthe threedivisions companyB. Although,overall,the measuressupport the division3 of company situational contexts, operationalized crite1 and 2 on a fewimportant divisions A departed from 2 not 1 were and mean scoresfordivisions ria. Conversely, dolon any dimension different exceptaverage significantly lar volumeper sale (p < 0.05). Because concernabout this was mitigated difference by highrepeatsalescommonin dion the other similarities vision2, and becauseof the strong "A" werecombinedto 1 and 2 of firm divisions dimensions, lacontext condition" one typeof "adaptive selling represent as a treated was beledAr Division3 (second)"adapseparate the each of On condition" tive criteria, context, eight selling '. of the muchmorecharacteristic a situation B represents firm whereone would expectadaptiveselling context theoretical thus it was or even counterproductive, to be ineffective condition." as the "nonadaptive operationalized SalesPerformance can be viewedfromthe standsales performance Although is in a given a seller event(e.g.,how effective pointofa single refers sales Weitz here, 1981), performance setting, exchange acrossa set of fora salesperson to an indexof effectiveness sales interactions. is dissalesperformance The appropriate way to measure correlations that to no basis There is generalize higher puted. can be expected and sales performance betweenpredictors variable of thedependent measure fora particular (Churchill cautions evidence etal. 1985). However, against usinga single in theanalysis of theoretical dimension of saleseffectiveness
(Avilaand Fern 1986; Lamontand Lundstrom relationships salesperfor1977; van derWesthuizen 1993). Furthermore, to varyto some degreedue to mancemeasures are expected criteria used by the typeof respondent differential (i.e., selfin assessments versus (Landy managerial rating) making rating ofsalesperformance three measures and Farr1980). Therefore, - regional thecompany's efwereobtained managers' ratings, and for internal used fectiveness purposes, management rating The actual scales used to sales representatives' self-ratings. other variables arepreand several salesperformance measure A. sentedin detailin Appendix Behavior Selling Adaptive in sellingstrategies, social to alterations ASB refers tactics, of and verbalcommunication, physical appearance the style, or seller.Adjustments may be across customers/prospects of the and arebasedon theseller's acrossinstances perception forthe or situation of thecustomer, characteristics prospect, of comlikelihood purchase thebuyer's ofimproving purpose weretaken;each of adaptiveselling pliance.Three measures is described below. ratedeach of their salespeople ASBji Sales managers on a 0- to 100-pointscale. "How adaptiveis thisseller and salessituacustomers when facedwithdifferent = 100 = extremely tions?"(0 extremely nonadaptive, ratedtheir check,managers adaptive).As a validity the ASB of their to assess salespeopleusinga ability = scale (1 very able, 7 = unableto assess). seven-point werepresented to the respondent. ASB2: Two profiles a a highly theother, One represented seller, adaptive seller. indicated how similar nonadaptive Salespeople or dissimilar seventheywereusinga single-item, scale. point
126 Journal & Sales ofPersonal Selling Management Figure2 Mean Scores on Seven SituationalDimensions Comparative
Dimension Situational
Risk Purchase Perceived Buyer's
Relationship TypeofBuyer-Seller
Term Short Very
Mean Ratings Relative

!
Low Extremely
'''
'
"* -
^"
>
^'^'
?
High Extremely
'
^
'
^
^-^
^:>y}r
'
| A''~
/ /
^ >'^y
'
)
Unit ofthe Decision-Making Complexity

Simple Very (oneperson)
^ ~~~~
''
i'
yy I
'v
Term Long / Very
'
the Seller's of Produces) Complexity

Extremely Simple
7 /
/ / : /
complex Very (many people)
|
I
'T
1
S /
/
^JJ
^^
1l'
| W
j
'
|
^^ | V '^ /
//
Extremely Complex
I
|
Needs ofCustomers' Homogeneity

Needs Similar Very
// | X
/'
Needs Different Very
Line* Width ofSeller'sProduct

Offering Single
^ | |
N^
X
| | | |
Line Wide Very
Price* toAdjust Seller'sFlexibility
NoFlexibility
:i
^__^
Flexibility Complete
DollarValueofa ClosedSale Average
$1,100
B Company
: $5,200 :
A Company 2 Division
, $12^300I
A Company 3 Division
I $144,200.
A Company Division 1
OwA-DMI.il R-9.O ComblDedllltoGrollpAl(Adllp||ve) A -Division 2; /Ir-11 J Company ^^Â - Division 3; nR-23 Company B; n^l Company A2 Group (Adaptive) Represents B (Nonadaptf ve) Represents Group
** Notes:* Itemsrelateto separateaspectsof the specific situational dimension:"thesellerhas the resources to altervariousfacets of the offering." nR refers to the numberof regional sales managers in each subgroupwho respondedto the set of situational items.
werepresented to each ASB3:Two salesapproaches One described a differentiated salesperson. (adaptive) salesapproach,the otheran undifferentiated to a single(nonadaptive) approach.Sellersresponded scale thatbestdescribes their item,seven-point own sellingbehavior.
Behavioral Intention Adaptive Selling Intention to adapt (ASBI) was broadly discussed as a predecessor ofadaptive in thereview behavior ofconceptual litera-
turepresented earlier. The idea thatbehavioral intention or motivation to behave are antecedents of actual behavioris wellestablished and fundamental in manymarketing-related models (e.g., Azjen and Fishbein 1980; Howard 1989; Morrison1979; Warshaw1980; Zeithamland Bitner 2000; and Parasuraman From Zeithaml, 1996; Berry, amongothers). a scientific "intentions" can act as a critical exstandpoint, mediator between otherantecedents and behavior, planatory the of relationthereby enhancing understanding important A for behavioral in intention ships. key purpose including theoretical modelsis becausesome, and oftenconsiderable,
2006 127 Spring that from in thebehavior results variation exogenousfactors or predicted to act in a predisposed restrict ones opportunity thisincludes, but is not limited In a selling manner. context, the sellerstimeconstraints, to, the buyerstimeconstraints, of theofferattribute to adjusta critical thesellersflexibility cues that contextual of discernable the availability ing,and would trigger adaptiveresponses. Salespeoplewere asked to considertheirupcomingsales and indicatewhat theirexpectedactionswould encounters itemspertaining witheach offour be byagreeing/disagreeing behavior to adaptive scale,1 = very (i.e., seven-point strongly = one statement For 7 disagree). example, strongly agree, very first findout is: I expectI would "before sellinganything, and thinking" is feeling whatthecustomer A). (seeAppendix Ability Empathie have been applied in soof empathy Severalsubdimensions and Hogan and psychology cialpsychology (Davis 1983; Grief and Mehrabian Smither and 1983; Cheek, 1973; Johnson, in this were used two study Epstein1972). Amongthem, takingand empathieconcern.Both were meaperspective scales. Scales were sured using seven-point, agree/disagree and social from items first created psychology identifying by in a thatappearedapplicable literature personal psychology to ten of a then and context pool eight by generating selling to reworded then was item selected Each construct. items per to a and a personal reflect judgsubjected application selling mentalscreening processthatreducedthe numberof items respectively. perscaleto fiveand four, Cues toPerceive Ability nonof cue perception Threesubdimensions (verbal, ability same the measured were and verbal, intuitive) using separately, to perItemsfor"ability basic approachused forempathy. ofthe a subdimension from ceivecues"werederived partially to theexpressive scale (i.e., sensitivity revised self-monitoring Wolfe(1984). and Lennox ofothers) behaviors developedby include items to Othersourcesused develop by publications Hunt and Cusella (1983), LaMonica (1986), and Lewisand forverReinsch(1988). Item pools werecreatedseparately fothat cue intuitive and bal, nonverbal, ability perception a After of on aspects personal selling. cused specifically subcue perception theresulting ability process, purification and fouritems, of five, scalesconsisted four, respectively. toModify Ability thesales to modify ofthesellersability Threesubdimensions stratetheir their to actions, (i.e., ability modify presentation in the measured were separately gies,and theirpersonality) samemanner as discussed earlier. Itemsfor to modify" "ability were derivedfromthe self-monitoring scale (Lennox and Wolfe1984; Snyder1974, 1979) and augmented to reflect a sales context.Each subdimensionconsistedof fouritems withseven-point measured scales. agree/disagree Experience The typesof knowledge thatcan assistsellers in developing efficiencies or task-related broaden the selling scopeand depth ofsituational schemata to enhancetheir skills adaptive selling can come from numerous sources. two sources Clearly, major s general and thesalesor sales are theseller experience selling forthe firm withinwhich perforexperience management wereaskedto manceis measured. Consequently, salespeople exindicatethe totalnumberof yearsof professional selling of of and the number had they years experience they perience current had withtheir company. Measures Other of thecharacteristics variables Threedemographic measuring forof of and the number thesalesperson, years age, gender, of the remal educationwereobtainedto providea profile their own rated also sellingskillsand spondentset. Sellers = scale (1 poor,7 = outstanding). on a seven-point abilities ANALYSIS Assessment Measurement Procedures Exploratory abilmeasure The 34 itemsdevelopedto separately empathie cue perception taking,empathieconcern), ity (perspective to modify and ability and intuitive), nonverbal, (verbal, ability were evaluated and (actions, usingexstrategies, personality) the entire on and factor analysis reliability analysis ploratory six Factor 380 observations. analysis produced interpretable conwiththeexpected consistent werehighly that dimensions concern, structs: (2) (1) perspective takingability, empathie cue percep(4) nonverbal (3) verbalcue perception ability, to modify tion and intuitive abilities, (5) ability personality, Three items actionsand strategies. to modify and (6) ability variwere selectedfromthe itempool to serveas manifest confirmain hierarchical a the six constructs of for each ables was based factor (HCFA). The selection process analysis tory intended was item s content on theitem (the validity originally internal and the factor to measurethatconstruct), loadings, 18 scale.As such, items three-item oftheresulting consistency of the dimensionality and used to determine were retained these"characteristics of that represented the six constructs
128 Journal Personal & Sales of Selling Management

the seller"(see AppendixA regarding cue empathieability, and to ability, ability modify). perception Procedures Confirmatory and analyzedusThreeseparate HCFA modelswerecreated 8 and Srbom LISREL 1998). Each modelining (Jreskog ofthesix indicators as reflective cludedthesame 18 measures were not permitconstructs described above; cross-loadings below: of themodelsis presented ted.A description Model 1. The six first-order latentvariables comprised =/ constructs: three second-order ability empathie and empathieconcern),cue (perspective takingability = perception ability /(verbal and nonverbal/intuitive = /(abilto modify and ability cue perception abilities), acto and to ity modify personality ability modify tions/strategy). Model 2. The six first-order latentvariables comprised =f to monitor constructs: two second-order ability verbal ability, empathieconcern, (perspective taking cue and nonverbal/intuitive cue perception ability, = to and ability), perception ability modify /(abilityto acto modify [self]and ability modify personality tions/strategy). Model 3. The six first-order latentvariables comprised = skills one second-order construct: /(peradaptive verbalcue ability, spective empathieconcern, taking cue perception nonverbal/intuitive ability, perception to modify , and ability [self] ability, ability personality to modify actions/strategy). A fourth model was exploredbased on the identified correlations of the first-order latentvariables obtained from Model 2. The fitindiceswereon par with Model 3 and weretherefore removed from further consideration. The fit indicators for Model 1 wereacceptable (%2= 307.03, = of freedom index [df] 126; goodness-of-fit [GFI] = degrees = fitindex 0.92; normedfitindex [NFI] 0.89; nonnormed fit index[CFI] = 0.92; rootmean [NNFI] = 0.91; comparative of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.06), however, square error the covariancematrixforthe second-order latentvariables was nonpositive definite betweenempathie (i.e., correlation > and cueperception suchcon1.00). ability ability Although ditionscan be attributed to severalfactors and (Shumacker Lomax 1996), the most likelywas deemed to be model due to collinearity of mispecification among the indicators thetwoconstructs in question. This finding led to theexplorationof Model 2. Model 2 s fitmeasures wereequallyad= = = = 0.87; NNFI = df GFI NFI 127; 0.91; equate(x2 320.7, = = 0.90; CFI 0.92; RMSEA 0.06). There wereno converas identified in Model 1, and the model is genceproblems whileModel 3 was the moreparsimonious. Finally, obviously from Model itsfitdeclinedconsiderably mostparsimonious, = 424.0, df = 129; GFI = 0.88; NFI = 0.83; NNFI = 2 s Of2 0.88; CFI = 0.88; RMSEA = 0.08). Based on thesefindings, of thedimensionality to bestrepresent Model 2 was thought in thestudy. addressed s characteristics theset of salesperson the hypothof the HCFA required The results adjusting in thispaper (see Figure earlier esizedASB model presented "and "empathie 'cue perception 1). More specifically, ability to construct a formed "ability monitor"(the ability" single in Figure3, The revised model,presented sellingsituation). reliabilities measurement for theframework assessing provided the and fordesigning latentvariables forthe six remaining model used to testthehypotheses. structural factor a confirmatory (CFA) wasperformed analysis Finally, in Figure 3 (with30 manivariables on thesixlatent depicted and validity festvariables)to assessthe internal consistency of results the standardized Table 3 presents of the measures. that procedure.The overall model fitis reasonably good (GFI = 0.87, NFI = 0.95, NNFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.98, exceed0.7 foreach conRMSEA = 0.05). Alpha coefficients measurement struct, indicating satisfactory reliability standard(Nunnally1978). In addition,all itemconstruct ized loadingsexceed0.5 (exceptone, which= 0.49) and all arestatistically adequatecon(p < 0.01), suggesting significant the discriminant to explore validity Finally, validity. vergent testswereconducted difference of the measures, chi-square variof thelatent forall thepairwise comparisons separately to 1.0 coefficients correlation their ables by fixing respective in model comin the constrained models.This resulted 15 models' in the constrained all instances, and tests, parison of the unconthose exceeded values chi-square significantly = < an indication strained models(lowest A%2 15.54,/> 0.01), variables are distinct. thatthelatent noteworthy Particularly sellfor test is theresult ofthediscriminant validity "adaptive - thatis,ASBI * ASB. The results intention" behavioral ing construct ofASBI as a distinct themeasure support strongly = from ASB (A#2 44.76, p < 0.0001). In addition to structural (SEM), analysis modeling equation of variance of variance(ANOVA) and multivariate analysis thatrequired (MANOVA) wereused withthosehypotheses of means(H3 and H4). comparisons Structural Model weresufficiendy Becausethe measurement properties strong to permitreasonableinterpretation of parameter estimates, the proposedstructural weretestedusingpath relationships variSummated indices were created foreach latent analysis. able using equallyweighteditemsfromeach scale. Indices scales (e.g., ASB^ formedfrommeasureshavingdifferent ASB , and ASB ) weretransformed to extract scalingeffec^
2006 129 Spring 3 Figure Revised Structural ModelofAdaptive and SalesPerformance Selling I 12measures Âbility to^V I | ^ J Monitor J '(MON)^/' ^SalcsS, Performance I ^ I 3 measures V^SP)^^ ^
'
n=n/Wi ' VMOD)^

1
>^TkiZTr'
/ '
) <L3- i A C -sar ^ ^^2

V /Âdaptive Selling^
/'
'
fe
*^. ^^^ I- ! 1 /Experience^ | 2 measures |^( ^ )
il
/intention to ^ ______ AS ) Practice I 4 measures I V p> ^ * " 'ÂSW)^/
reliabilities The measurement before (i.e., summating. for eachgroup arepresented indices these Cronbachs a) for usedin themeacorrelations in Table3. The item-to-item usedin correlations index-to-index the and surement model, in are each for models structural the group, presented AppenBl andB2, respectively. dixTables struca full than rather model ofa path Thechoice analysis sizes because wasmade model tural sample were within-group = B for toorestrictive, group (n 84).Thislimitation especially couldbe accurately that ofparameters thenumber restricted theuseofsumWhile model. full structural a estimated using other the of thetechnical reduced scores mated analysis, rigor use of constructs, widespread of (e.g.,elimination options were ofitems/measures) inthenumber reduction constraints, sumsimilar Under circumstances, or impracticalinadequate. variables oflatent beenusedas measures have scores mated by andSong1996; researchers Schmidt, several Calantone, (e.g., andZou 1994;Li andCalantone 1998;MacKenzie, Cauvusgil Osterhaus Ahearne and Arnould, Price, 1997; 1998; Podsakoff, Kumar and Weitz, 1994). 1995;Sujan, andTierney
RESULTS Model Testing with LISREL 8 using wasanalyzed The pathmodel generalwas GLS for each estimation izedleast (GLS) group. squares when sizes better toperform ittends because selected sample a are under 250 (Hu and Bender1995).Table4 provides coefficients standardized and fit indices of the path summary In eachcase,themodel conditions. situational all three for In twoofthethree situations thedataadequately. tofit seems is arerather indicators good chi-square (Aj and B), thefit atp < 0.05; GFI, NFI, NNFI, and CFI all notsignificant > 0.10 (indiexceed 0.96; andRMSEA>value ofclosefit" < at the0.10 be rejected thatRMSEA 0.05 cannot cating are thefitindices In theA2situation, levelofsignificance). still notas strong, however, reasonably adequate they appear atp < 0.05, GFI = 0.95, NFI = x2is significant (although 0.98,NNFI = 0.97,CFI = 0.99). variance for eachendogenous ofexplained Theproportion in wasrelatively the two conditions. construct "adaptive" high
130 Journal Personal & Sales of Selling Management

Table 3 Measurement Assessments
Overall LISREL Estimates Construct Sales Performance (SP) Adaptive Selling Behavior (ASB) Selling Adaptive Intention (ASBI) to Monitor Ability (MON) Measure SP, SP2 SP3 ASB, ASB2 ASB3 ASBI, ASBI2 ASBI3 ASBI4 PT, PT2 PT3 ECN, ECN2 ECISI3 VRB, VRB2 VRB3 NVB, NVB2 NVB3 MPER, MPER2 MPER3 MACT, MACT2 MACT3 EXP, EXP2 Loading 0.86 0.76 0.62 0.83 0.81 0.85 0.68 0.74 0.72 0.69 0.58 0.54 0.71 0.52 0.77 0.64 0.58 0.73 0.76 0.49 0.55 0.64 0.55 0.71 0.74 0.66 0.80 0.79 0.83 0.87 t-Value 13.62 10.48 13.55 15.41 11.32 11.39 10.82 7.62 10.09 6.77 8.47 8.44 7.86 9.06 9.32 6.77 7.36 8.19 9.38 9.40 8.54 9.63 9.61 8.05 Alpha Variance Extracted A, Alpha* Group A2 Alpha* B Alpha*
0.793 0.872
0.57 0.69
0.790 0.832
0.741 0.820
0.821 0.855
0.802
0.50
0.786
0.730
0.835
to Modify Ability (MOD)
0.887
0.40
0.894
0.829
0.824
0.859 0.838
0.51 0.72
0.824 0.831
0.832 0.858
0.859 0.861
Experience (EXP)
Notes:Fit indicesforthe measurement model are GFI = 0.87, NFI = 0.95, NNFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.050. PT = perspective taking, ECN = empathieconcern, VRB = verbalcue perception, NVB = nonverbal and MACT = modify actions cue perception, MPER = modify personality, * and strategies. Overallsamplesize is 380; groupsamplesizes are 154, 142, and 84 forAj, A^ and B, respectively. for is each Alpha subgroup Cronbachsalpha based on summatedindicesof measures foreach construct withineach group.The "overall alpha" is based on LISREL 8 estimates fromthe measurement model.
In Aj, predictors accountedfor38 percent of thevariation in salesperformance, ofASB, and 31 percent ofASBI. 34 percent In A^ thepredictors of the 45, 35, and 52 percent explained variancein sales performance, and ASB, ASBI, respectively. In groupB, a largeportionof thevariancein ASB (46 perisexplained whereas cent)andASBI (38 percent) bythemodel, a lesseramount(27 percent) of thevariancein sales performanceis attributed to thepredictors. This latter observation was anticipated, becauseASB was not expectedto however, be strongly associated with sales performance, the "noncondition. adaptive"
HypothesesTests HI and H2 deal withtheASB -* salesperformance relationHI is The standardized ship. clearly supported. path coefficient is 0.56 in condition /Jj Axand 0.64 inA^ bothsignificant < 0.01. in situational contexts consistent withthe Thus, at/> ASB is related to sales "adaptivecondition," positively perand theassociation is relatively H2 is also formance, strong. H2 predicted thatthe relationship between ABS supported. and salesperformance wouldbe dependent on theselling situation.The ASB -* sales performance is relationship signifi-
2006 131 Spring Table 4 Structural RelationshipsResults Summary

Group A, Adaptive Structural Path
ASB-SP ASBI -ASB MON-* ASBI MOD -ASBI EXP-ASBI EXP-SP Goodness-of-Fit Statistics Rvalue) GFI NFI NNFI CFI RMSEA (p-value close fit) 11 11 72(7) (0. ) 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.066 (0.29) 21 .94(7) (0.003) 0.95 0.98 0.97 0.99 0.118 (0.02) 10.43(7) (0. 17) 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.077 (0.28)
A2 Adaptive Standardized Coefficient

0.64* 0.60* 0.27* 0.49* 0.19* 0.13**
B Nonadaptive Standardized Coefficient

0.23** 0.68* 0.1 1 0.52* -0.14 0.49*
Path Coefficient
j8, 2 y, y2 y3 y4
Standardized Coefficient
0.56* 0.58* 0.26* 0.34* 0.18* 0.19*
t-Value
6.49 6.49 3.30 4.29 2.49 2.78
t-Value
7.14 6.53 3.23 5.12 3.03 1.95
t-Value
2.24 6.14 0.86 3.73 -1.46 4.31
** * Notes:Group samplesizesare 154, 142, and 84 forA1?A2,and B, respectively. p< 0.01, p< 0.05.
contexts (Aj and (p < 0.01) in both"adaptive" stronger cantly between B. Statistical comparisons A^) comparedto context were between and and Performed A(B) Ao A(Ai) ^KA2)Mand fora category samplemodel" procedure usingthe "multiple and Lomax 1996). The methodis a variable(Schumacker withdf = 1 fortwo nestedstructest difference chi-square model{xis a free the unconstrained tural models, parameter model,whichrestricts in both groups),and the constrained to be equal. For0I(A1) andj81(B) and(B), theAX2is 9.43 it is 9.18 < for (p < 0.01), indicating (p 0.01); and1(B) j81(A2) the between differences comparedcoefficients. significant levelsof ASB and ASBI to the relative H3 and H4 refer and "nonadaptive" in the "adaptive" sellers between groups. MANOVA and ANOVA were used to compare the mean scoresforthe compositeindices and vectorsof individual The completereof ASBI and ASB, respectively. measures do not support in Table 5. The findings sultsare presented are not sigindex ASBI the for scores H3. Mean composite = = different among the threegroups(F 1.19, /> nificantly fromMANOVA, applied to the 0.33). And, whilefindings are statistically fourindividualASBI measures, significant for theobserved accounts itemcompletely (p < 0.01), a single differences. encontexts both"adaptive" from Sellers H4 is supported. in the their do in than ASB so more counterparts gage ASB Mean scoresforthe summated context. "nonadaptive" in groupsA1 and A^ compared indexare significantly higher
ofmeansfor to groupB (F= 6.48, p < 0.01). Also,thevector the individualASB measuresdiffers by group significantly reveal (WilkssA = 0.941, p < 0.01). Post hoc comparisons for are means ASB measure, thatforevery higher A1 group and A^ thanforgroupB (p < 0.05; see Table 5). and cue perH 5 and H6 involvethe impactof empathie and cue Because on ASBI. abilities ability empathie ception cona into were single merged subsequently ability perception are examined H6 and to monitor struct, (MON), H5 ability -> and statisis positive ASBI MON The relationship jointly. < in both 0.01) "adaptive"situations (p ticallysignificant = = H5 and H6. The affirming (y1A1 0.26; y1A2 0.27), thereby forgroup is not statistically same pathcoefficient significant = 0.1 1). H7 proposes to modify thatability B (y1B (MOD) is The assocontexts. to ASBI in "adaptive" relatedpositively = 0.34; forboth "adaptive" ciationis confirmed groups(y2Al = context in situational B, ^2A2 0.49, />< 0.01). Interestingly, = is equally prevalent the MOD -* ASBI relationship (y2B 0.52, p< 0.01). H8, H9, and H 10 involvethe impactof salesexperience H8 statesthatthe EXP -* on ASBI and sales performance. in A1 and A^, whileH9 shouldbe positive ASBI relationship than should be stronger associations these both that proposes relaobserved B. Althoughthe the one observedin context aresupported areweak,bothhypotheses bythefindtionships = = = < 0.19, 0.01; p< ings(y3A1 0.18,/ 0.05; y3A2 y3B -0.14 was earlier(forH2) ns). The A#2testdescribed performed
132
M
a. o T .2 | S
I |v
tt A
ai A
c A
c A
o A
<
<
<
<
<
- 2 5 ^
gs
t> g
gli
I
.o
^
4 'S "B
m
<
9k
li J
-caS -o ^
wd
<N
popp
s
U.
S .
<N
LO
h*.
-
nO
^ -
00
rs
LO
oqoNvqp
LOhÛvO
>OO^r<*:
,cg
^"Oc
Oll!i3
i e li 1
1^1
,|a SS* ^
> s g a * g -S ^
I
c
,*;
w r
uSuS -
lo -
io -
tri--
Nglin-in-
^w
3^-S
gwS
> rf 9- S
S roo^^r tn avetoro
>-v vONÎ^-o-t
I-
S u 2 5^3
e 'S
w-
"S g 2
Ma
M*
II s^
S s t^ <
Si
x I I S
esiliili
| z | z | z | z
C C
* ol i î i - z
-11
c C C
5 5 5 | ?I
-M
:s^ "88
*{3 0
fi
g <
f^ <
"n fi
<
| S^ ^ S.|
jS
2006 133 Spring thedifferences groups againfor A1and B and A2and B to test Bothcomcoefficients. standardized between thegroups' path = arestatistically (A#2 7.43, 6.82 for parisons significant A^B < and A^B, respectively, 0.01). p EXP and between H 10 states thattherelationship Finally, as well in be should salesperformance positive "nonadaptive" also is supThis hypothesis situational contexts. as "adaptive" in were much associations but the stronger groupB ported, = 0. 13,p< = 1; y4A2 1 0.0 0. or thanin groups Aj A^ (y4A1 9,p< = 0.05; y4B 0.49, />< 0.01).
of the uniformity of ing contentis acceptableis a function customers' needs. (1989, p. 9)
the integration of ASB withothertraditional Consequently, and methods, tactics, mayenhancesalesperstrategies selling formance of the of condition. The selltype selling regardless context moderates the role that ASB simply plays at ing sales performance. improving and cue perception abilities and empathie Havingstronger skills stimulate superior presentation salespeople modifying Whenconsidered towantto sellmoreadaptively. these jointly, account forsellers'intentions "adaptive"skillssubstantially DISCUSSION thesecollective skills arestato engagein ASB. Furthermore, to sales mediators ASBI related tistically performance through enis an activity Adaptationduringthe sales presentation is modest. It also be theassociation and ASB, although may where(1) needsvariin contexts gagedin bymostsalespeople withASBI might associated possiblethatthesecharacteristics arecomplex, unitand offerings is high,(2) thebuying ability to develop of thesalesperson of theability be thefoundation affords and (3) each customer/prospect long-term significant withthecustomer. a relationship in such ASB is moreprominent In addition, potential. profit underestito note thatthe findings It is important likely as classified as comparedto settings contexts traditionally abilities and modifying of monitoring mate the importance The findings conduciveto "canned"or "structured" selling. mostsellin both "adaptive" fortwo reasons.First, contexts, associatedwith indicatethatASB is positively also strongly intentionto sell ers alreadyexhibitedmoderate-to-strong of salespeopleand thatthe sales situation the performance had ASBI combined ofthesellers Over 85 percent adaptively. ASB alone exof the relationship. the strength moderates Had thedataincluded abovethescales midpoint. indexscores in salesperformance of thevariation third plainedaboutone"little" or "no" who demonstrated of sellers number a greater are strikThese results situations. in each of two "adaptive" been would have results the to adapt,quite likely intention et al. (1985) that to thefindings byChurchill ing,compared salesperformance morepronounced. Second,besides affecting associatedwith the averagevariationin sales performance are exthese abilities and ASBI the mediators ASB, through is less thanfourpercent. variables singlepredictor -* sales the ASB moderate to performance shouldbe ineffective, pected positively ASB theoretically where In a context as well (Weitz,Sujan,and Sujan 1986). Examinrelationship but it is stillobserved, withsalesperformance an association was beyondthescope of thisstudy. effects ingthemoderator in sales variation is muchweaker (5 percent perforexplained elevatethe would further influence such However, logically, while the findings mance). Therefore, supportthe continand the situation monitor to sellers of the ability importance of ASB proposedby Weitz (1981; 1982) and gencytheory thesalespresentation. modify of a positive Weitz,Sujan,and Sujan (1986), theobservation more For salespeoplewho operatein "adaptive" settings, in the "nonadaptive" ASB - sales performance relationship in intenthe increase with an is associated experience selling withthefindand consistent is especially situation insightful is notstrong. therelationship tionto adapt;however, Experi(2003). In such conWiener,and Frankwick ingsof Porter, in ASBI a modestamountof thevariation for accounts ence - that is, those traditionally associatedwith a strict, texts sellin more"structured contexts. in "adaptive" Conversely, ofad"canned"selling door-to-door approach somedegree that indication is some there contexts experi(groupB), ing" This finding, along withobaptationmayprovebeneficial. ence may actually dissuade sellers fromwanting to sell to engageand do engagein intend thatsuchsellers servations was not statistically the finding signifiAlthough is a truly adaptively. context actual no thatperhaps ASB, suggests selling with (1) Weitz's is consistent an inverserelationship cant, with is consistent one.This proposition Jolson, "nonadaptive" (1982) premisethateffective adaptivesellingcan consume said salespresentations, structured who, in discussing thatwithinsuch and (2) our finding resources substantial these sellis from ASB the benefit A contexts, be ever Perhaps marginal. A salesapproachcannot prefabricated. completely to other same for the from call accrue benefits would that learn ers canned script improving approach greater completely deleto each prospective insertions, customer; be delivered thetimeand effort as opposedto spending efficiencies selling or any sortof salesperson tions,modifications inputwould to be moreadaptive. shouldattempt thesalesperson . . . Ideally, not be permitted. themoreexperienced are,themoreefsalespeople Finally, to of thesalespresentation and format to matchthecontent intuiseems rather While this be. tend to fective of each finding zone and personality they comfort the mood, questions, in has been inconsistent, sellThe degreeto whichstandardized customer. tive,priorconfirmation especially prospective
134 Journal & Sales Personal Selling Management of

In each situational context studies adaptive involving selling. on effect of examined the total here, sellingexperience sales More interesting, is statistically perperformance significant. to attributed is is that better sales mostly performance haps, than fromeffects rather of sales experience the directeffect are These findings mediatedby adaptivesellingconstructs. and Plank drawnby Blackshear withconclusions consistent activifor the even that seller, (1994) task-specific adaptive It of sales performance. ties are importantdeterminants sellthatin "adaptive"contexts, should also be recognized ASBI and ASB make an immediated by ing experiences on salesperformance. effect total to the contribution portant a That is, the sellers'experience plays dual role in its relawhile sales experiConversely, tionshipwith performance. in "nonadaptive" ence also is associatedwith performance contributed contexts, virtually adaptivesellingexperiences to the relationship. nothing made in such consales activities and critiquing reviewing oftrainthis sort here. effective couldbe very texts Admittedly, to a means as will not permanently replaceexperience ing enit shouldgreatly such skills, however, developand refine hance thatprocess. ofan individuals thata measure To theextent adaptiveness sucha measure to can be obtainedprior hiring, mayprovide salesand selecting meansfor a practical experienced recruiting of ASB used in measure composite people. While theentire one or both forthispurpose, would notbe suitable thisstudy or or measures of theself-assessment (ASB2 ASB3) theASBI ASB measure the composite measuremaybe. Furthermore, characindividual some general in identifying maybe useful If withadaptiveselling thatcorrelate teristics ability. a setof salescould be obtained, prospective these characteristics on the ones, could be screened people, even inexperienced effective become to basisof their adaptivesellers. propensity sellshould that also The findings suggest permit managers in sales or to at leastincludeadaptation ersto sell adaptively MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS are "traditionally when even sellingcontexts presentations are comif sellers That to structured is, in conducive increase an to leads thatadaptiveselling It is no surprise selling." at effective and with fortable This contexts. evenin "nonadaptive" theyshould salesperformance, sellingadaptively, selling ASB effectively be allowedto do so. At the same time,thesesales managers mustperform thatsalespeople paperindicates to promote resources from restrain shouldprobably several There are,therefore, in theappropriate situation. allocating sigin conis This or via because, ASB discussed which are issuesthatneedto be considered, nificant (either training selection). beassociation the to thatfacedby companyB, similar texts oftheability ASB is notjusta matter in thissection. Effective is quite modestand such tweenASB and sales performance of the nor is it just awareness to adapt a sales presentation, be cost not efforts able to have to be situation. determine, justified. may depending Managers can and behaviors whether on thesalessituation, capabilities to a particular be taught or are inherent typeof salesperson. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR of the the control under Both training and hiring practices, FURTHER RESEARCH beforea sales call is considerations are important manager, forfuture of the studyprovidedirection Severallimitations thatcan made.Listedbelowareseveral practical implications research. be drawnfrom thefindings. First, only a portionof Weitz,Sujan, and Sujans framework the costs to be sensitive to salesmanagers need (1986) was usedto examine First, adapadaptive selling always frameof the Additional tive oftraining but and retraining sellers, adaptive components relationships. selling training selling of adaptiveintention, shouldproveto be thataddress work,including proposedantecedents multiple objectives programs selfvariables in conditionssimilarto salesmanagement For firms culture, (e.g.,organizational quite effective. operating omitted. were moderators and salesor the most must realize that Furthermore, adaptive management), Aj A^ managers associatedwith sales effectiveness otherconstructs and thatthisasso(e.g., efpeopletendto be thebestsalesperformers commitciationis strong. sellers to fort[working "lessadaptive" Thus, encouraging hard],job satisfaction, organizational were beyondthe scope of the study. be "moreadaptive" is a clearimplication. ment,role ambiguity) is altertheobserved must trainsalespeopleto be efficient How thesevariables Second, managers relationships might these to want research and effective future situational a set of unknown, hence, monitors; may explore superior having morecomprehensively. skillsis necessary sellbut not sufficient. relationships listening Improving from ers'sensitivities limitation to theexpressive behaviors of their customers Another onlytwocomexamining emerges from a cross-section not drawn and to thephysical was cuesoftheexchange environment arealso Because the sample panies. with be conducted critical. must their of personalsellers, Third, salespeoplemustbe trainedto modify generalizations thatthefindings is no certainty and convincingly and in a direction discretion. While there reprepresentations smoothly are more consistent the results withavailablesituational cues. Training sent other firms across various industries, programs thatprovide whose sellers with contexts to simulated (realoperatein salespeople safely selling generalizable organizations in timeinteractive, contexts similarto thoseexamined the study; virtual or provideopportunities for situational reality)
2006 135 Spring should similar evenwithin contexts, however, generalizations inshould future research be madecautiously. Consequently, othersituational clude examining settings. The within-group samplesizes limitedthe studyas well. to testrelationships was theinability One consequence using can of latentvariables fullSEM. Using indicesas measures of associations sometimescompromisethe interpretation is a very level.Often,thiscompromise madeat theconstruct conThe other also is that minor but one one, unpredictable. in smaller a considerably from cern stems sample group having one to Aj and A^ Because of samplesize effects, B, relative of construct shouldavoidmaking interpretations comparative a For instance, based on statistical significance. relationships in context standardized path coefficient A2 of 0.13 was sig= B of -0.14 in context one the whereas nificant 0.05, at/> shouldinvolve research was not.Thus, future samples, larger condition to the "nonadaptive" similar in contexts especially here. examined recommendations to offer While it is difficult prioritized research of on the types adaptiveselling yet needed, some Researchshould be unareasdeservespecialconsideration. of validatemeasures and further thatcan improve dertaken for demonstrated were and ASB. Although reliability validity littleis knownabout thevaused in thisstudy, themeasure For exin variedsettings. of thisand othermeasures lidity to be little occasions sales some opportunity provide ample, others whereas of conditional because restrictions, adaptive salesarequitetheopposite(Weilbaker suchas pharmaceutical observa1990a). Diversemethodsand measures, including factor(AIF) tion (Tanner 1994), adaptability-initiating (Weilbaker1990b), and ADAPTS (Spiro and Weitz 1990) to withtheapproachused in thisstudy could be usedjointly further explore measurementvalidity issues. Although and Ramsey(1998) have takena step in Boorom,Goolsby, constructs other workis needed.Similarly, more this direction, includedin adaptivesellingmodels requireacross-situation too. and validity confirmation, reliability the relafurther that needed is also Research investigates the in thisstudyby extending investigaaddressed tionships and tion to different industries, companies,and settings, of include to the proanalyses theoretically expanding scope Two thathave not yet been addressed. posed relationships of effects are the moderating of the latter examples primary and the reon adaptiveeffectiveness the sellerscapabilities ofASB on skillsdevelopment. verseeffect ASB and related studiesthatintegrate Sales performance withother"traditional" constructs (i.e., role perpredictors also encourare effort, satisfaction) job aptitude, ceptions, a task this presents challengeto the aged. Accomplishing while to collectmultiplemeasuresof constructs researcher simultaneously expandingthe numberof variablesinvestishouldfocuson the questionsrelated research Future gated. to the composition of the sellingconditionthatmoderates effectiveness. That is,whatis therelative imadaptiveselling of variables such as "homogeneity of customers' portance needs"compared to "thecomplexity oftheoffering" in definan context? Are all the dimensions necing "adaptive" selling to define this context? Which can be eliminated? (ifany) essary themostimportant and perhaps reFinally, pragmatically, to determine search needsto be conducted thecostsassociated withselecting, and retaining selladaptive training, improving, thiscostinformaers.As theunderstanding ofASB improves, forresearchers to recommend tionbecomesessential waysto thefirms better allocateresources and improve profitability.
REFERENCES
W. Gentry and James Kenneth A., Jeffrey J. Stoltman, Anglin, ofSalesofManager (1990), "The Congruence Perception Measures of and Performance Knowledge-Based person Sales Man& Personal Journal Selling of Adaptive Selling," 10, 4 (Fall),81-90. agement, SituF. Fern(1986), "The Selling RamonA, and Edward Avila, Performance ofthePersonality-Sales ationas a Moderator An Empirical Journal ofPerInvestigation," Relationship: & Sales 53-63. sonal Selline 6, 3 (November), Management, Atti(1980), Understanding Azjen,Icek,and MartinFishbein SocialBehavior, and Predicting tudes Cliffs, NJ: Englewood Hall. Prentice and SatisPerformance P. (1978), "Salesforce Bagozzi,Richard of Individual as a Function faction Differences, InterperandSituational Research, Factors/' sonal, Journal of Marketing 517-531. 5 (November), at Trade Bello, Daniel C. (1992), "Industrial BuyerBehavior 25 (1), 59-80. Shews"Journal Research, ofBusiness E. Plank(1994), "The Impact and Richard Thomas, Blackshear, thePharWithin on SalesEffectiveness ofAdaptive Selling andPracmaceutical Journal Theory Marketing Industry," of 107-125. tice, 2, 3 (Summer), Charles (1993), "AdapD., andThomasH. Stevenson Bodkin, of the in Selling:A Discriminant tiveBehavior Analysis ManVariables ofSituational Effects ,"Journal Marketing of 25-35. 3 agement, (Fall-Winter), K Kamsey and Kosemary K. Lroolsby, MichaelL.,Jerry Boorom, TheirEfTraits and Communication "Relational (1998), and SalesPerformance," on Adaptiveness fect Journal ofthe 26 16-30. Science, (Winter), Academy ofMarketing andThomas M. Rose,FayeGilbert, Victoria D., Gregory Bush, Diverse N. Ingram (2001), "Managing BuyerCulturally The Role ofIntercultural Seller Disposition Relationships: CommuIntercultural in Developing andAdaptive Selling the nication Journal Marketing of of Academy Competence," 29 (4), 391-404. Science, andX.Michael Schmidt, Calantone, J., Jeffery Song(1996), Roger A Cross-NaSuccess: ofNew Product Factors "Controllable tional 15 341-358. Science, (4), Comparison," Marketing Zou S. and "Marketing Tamer, (1994), Shaoming Cauvusgil,
136 Journal ofPersonal Selling& SalesManagement Performance An Investigation of the Relationship: StrategyEmpirical Link in Export Market Ventures,"Journal of 58 (January),1-21. Marketing, Subhra, Gene Brown, Robert E. Widing, II, and Chakrabarty, and Recommendations Ronald D. Taylor(2004), "Analysis MeasuresofAdaptiveSelling," fortheAlternative Journal of Personal 24, 2 (Spring),125-133. Selng SalesManagement, Neil M. Ford, StevenW. Hartley,and Churchill,GilbertA., Jr., Orville C. Walker, Jr.(1985), "The Determinantsof SalesA Meta-Analysis," JournalofMarketperson Performance: 22 (May), 103-118. ing Research, in Davis, Mark H. (1983), "Measuring Individual Differences for a Multidimensional Evidence JourApproach/' Empathy: 44 (1), 113-126. and Social Psychology, nal ofPersonality DelVecchio, Susan K., and Janet E. Oglethorpe (1997), in "ADAPTS Scale Dimensions: A Lack of Confirmation," W. Einora and Practice Education, EnrichingMarketing Stuartand Ellen M. Moore, eds., Atlanta: Southern MarketingAssociation,239-243. Dion, Paul A., Debbie Easterling, and Raj Javalgi (1997), Some DifSalesforce: "Women in the Business-to-Business ferencesin PerformanceFactors," Industrial Marketing 26, 5 (September),447-457. Management, bar . Honeycutt,Jr., Dianne b., John b. rord, and bppler, Edward P. Markowski (1998), "The Relationshipof Selfof Real Monitoringand Adaptivenessto the Performance and Economic Business EstateSales Professionals," Journal of 4 (Fall), 37-51. Studies, R., RosemaryR. Lagace, and Michael L. Boorom Goolsby,Jerry (1992), "Psychological Adaptiveness and Sales Performance," Journalof PersonalSelling & Sales Management, 12, 2 (Sorine), 51-66. and David Meyer(1964), "A New Approach Herbert, Greenberg, to the Scientific Selection of SuccessfulSalesmen,"Journal 5 (January),113-123. ofPsychology, Grief,EstherB., and Robert Hogan (1973), "The Theory and Measurementof Empathy," Journalof Counseling Psychol20 (3), 280-284. ogy, of the Abilityof Grikscheit, Gary M. (1971), "An Investigation Salesmen to Monitor Feedback." Ph.D. dissertation, Marand Administration, keting Transportation Michigan State East University, Lansing. , and William J.E. Crissy(1973), "ImprovingInterpersonal Communication Skill,"MSU Business 21 (AuTopics, tumn), 63-68. Hackman, J. Richard,and Edward E. Lawler,III (1971), "EmJournalofApplied ployee Reactionsto Job Characteristics," 55 (June),722-726. Psychology, Howard, JohnA. (1989), BuyerBehaviorin Marketing Strategy, NJ: PrenticeHall. Englewood Cliffs, Hu, Li-Tze, and Peter M. Bender (1995), "Evaluating Model Fit," in Structural Issues,and Equation Modeling: Concepts, Richard H. Hoyle, ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Applications, Sage, 76-99. Hunt, Gary T, and Louis P. Cusella (1983), "A Field Study of EduListeningNeeds in Organizations," Communication cation,32 (October), 393-410. William H. Cunningham,and Isabella Jackson,Donald W, Jr., CM. Cunningham (1988), Selling: The PersonalForcein New York:JohnWiley. Marketing, Johnson,John. A., Jonathan M. Cheek, and Robert Smither ofEmpathy,"JournalofPersonality (1983), "The Structure and Social Psychology, 45 (6), 1299-1312. Be Fresh MarvinA. (1973), "Should theSales Presentation Jolson, 81-88. 16 or Canned?" Business Horizons, (October), oftheCanned Sales Potential (1975), "The Underestimated 75-78. 30 Presentation," Journal ofMarketing (January), for Direction A New "Canned (1989), Adaptiveness: Modern Salesmanship,"Business Horizons,32, 1 (JanuaryFebruary),7-12. Karl G., and Dag Srbom (1998), LISREL 8: Program Jreskog, International. Software Guide,Chicago: Scientific Reference and Charles E. Pettijohn Keillor,Bruce D., R. Stephen Parker, and IndiCharacteristics (2000), "Relationship-Oriented & Invidual SalespersonPerformance," JournalofBusiness dustrial Marketing,15 (1), 7-22. TuxLamonica, Elaine L. (1986), TheLamonicaEmpathy Profile, edo, NY: Xicom. Lamont,LawrenceM., and WilliamJ.Lundstrom(1977), IdenCharSuccessfulIndustrialSalesmen by Personality tifying 14 (November), Research, acteristics," JournalofMarketing 517-529. RatLandy, FrankJ., and JamesL. Farr (1980), "Performance 72-107. Bulletin,87, 1 (January), ine," Psychological Lennox, RichardD., and Raymond N. Wolfe (1984), "Revision and of the Self-MonitoringScale," Journalof Personality 46 (6), 1349-1364. Social Psychology, Lewis, MarilynH., and N. Lamar Reinsch (1988), "Listeningin Commu,"Journal ofBusiness OrganizationalEnvironments 25 (Summer), 49-67. nications, Li, Tiger,and RogerJ. Calantone (1998), "The Impact of Market Knowledge Competence on New ProductAdvantage: Journal of Conceptualizationand EmpiricalExamination," 62 (October), 13-29. Marketing, and Michael Ahearne MacKenzie, Scott B., Philip M. Podsakoff, and Antecedents "Some Possible (1998), Consequences of In-Role and Ex-Role SalespersonPerformance," Journalof 62 (July),87-98. Marketing, Marks,Ronald, and Gordon J.Badovick (1997), "The Relationship Between Adaptive Selling,Task-RelatedSales Behav- Some ior and Commitment to Performance Promising In MarketingScience,Elizabeth J. Results," Developments Wilson and JosephF. Hair, eds., Coral Gables, FL: Academy of MarketingScience, 78-184. , Douglas W. Vorhies,and Gordon J. Badovick (1996), "A Psychometric Evaluation of the ADAPTS Scale: A Criand Recommendations ,"JournalofPersonal tique Selling& Sales Management,16, 4 (Fall), 53-65. Mehrabian,Albert,and Norman Epstein (1972), "A Measure of Emotional Empathy," Journal of Personality,40 (4), SellJ.Stoltman(1990), "Adaptive Morgan, FredW, and Jeffrey from Social Personal Journal ing: Insights of Cognition," Selling& Sales Management,10, 4 (Fall), 43-54.
525-543.
2006 137 Spring Intentions andPurchase DonaldG. (1979), "Purchase Morrison, " BehaviorJournal 43 (Spring), 65-74. ofMarketing, C. (1978),Psychometric 2d ed.,NewYork: Jum Nunnally, Theory, McGraw-Hill. Consumer Influence ThomasL. (1997), Pro-Social Osterhaus, When and WhyTheyWork," Journal ofMarStrategies: 61 (October),16-29. keting, B. Holloway Selland Betsy Park, (2003), "Adaptive Jeong-Eun, AnEmpirical Examination ofLearnRevisited: ingBehavior and JobSatisfaction," Sales Performance ingOrientation, Sales Personal & 23, 3 (SumJournal Management, of Selling mer),239-251. R. Stephen and Charles Parker, E., LindaS. Pettijohn, Pettijohn, A Behavior? Viable "Is (1996), Adaptive AJ.Taylor Selling Association Review of theLiterature," Theory ofMarketing and Practice, 196-204. 5 (Spring), and Bruce D. Keillor(2000), , AJ. Taylor, , ExAn Empirical Performance: Sales and Selling "Adaptive 16 Business Research, (Winamination," Journal ofApplied ter),91-111. W. Inks (2000), "Cognitive S., and Lawrence Porter, Stephen An Exploratory and Adaptability: Complexity Salesperson & Personal Journal Selling SalesManageof Investigation," 1 15-21. ment, 20, (Winter), L. Frankwick andGary L. Wiener, (2003), "The ,Joshua Sellon the Situation Effect of Adaptive Selling Moderating Effectiveness Journal Relationship," of ingStrategy-Selling Business 56 (4), 275-281. Research, G. Bonnice(1994), "Sales E., and Joseph Predmore, Carolyn ofAdaptability," Measure a Process as Predicted Success By & Sales Personal 14,4 (Fall), Management, Journal Selling of and Patrick LindaL, EricArnould, (1995), GoPrice, Tierney andAssessEncounters Service Extremes: to Managing ing 59 (April), Provider Performance," Journal Marketing, of ing 83-97. B. Chase(1968), "The Sales ThomasS., andRichard Robertson, MS U Business An Open Systems Process: TopApproach," ics,16 (Fall),45-52. WilliamC. Moncrief, Robinson, Jr., GregW. Marshall, Leroy, Measure a Shortened G. Lasek(2002), "Toward andFelicia of Adaptive Journal Selling& Sales ofPersonal Selling," 111-119. 22, 2 (Spring), Management, Wind (1967), andYorim W. Faris, Patrick Robinson, J.,Charles and Boston: and Creative Industrial Allyn Marketing, Buying Bacon. OriA. Weitz(1982), "The Customer and Barton Saxe,Robert, to and Measurement ofSalespeople: entation Relationship 19 Research, (August), Performance," Journal ofMarketing 343-351. Randall E., and RichardG. Lomax (1996), A Schumacker, toStructural Mahwah, Guide Modeling, Equation Beginners Erlbaum. NJ:Lawrence AnofAdaptive (1993), "AnExamination Selling Judy Siguaw, SciinDevelopments andOutcomes," tecedents Marketing of the Annual the ence: of of Academy Conference Proceedings of andDhrvu vol.16,Michael Grewal, Science, Levy Marketing ofMarketing eds.,Miami:Academy 295. Science, of , and EarlD. Honeycutt, (1995), "AnExamination Jr. inSelling Gender Differences Behaviors andJob Attitudes," Industrial 24 (1), 45-52. Marketing Management, Mark(1974), "Self-Monitoring ofExpressive Behavior," Snyder, andSocial 30 (4), 526-537. Journalof Personality Psychology, in Advances in ExProcess," (1979), "Self-Monitoring SocialPsychology, vol. 12,L. Berkowitz, ed.,New perimental York: Academic 86-128. Press, (1979), "InfluJr. Spiro,RosannL., and WilliamD. Perreault, enceUsedbyIndustrial Salesmen: InfluenceMixes Strategy and Situational 52 (3), Determinants," Journal ofBusiness, A. Weitz(1990), "Adaptive Con, and Barton Selling: and Measurement, Nomological ceptualization, Validity," 27 (February), 61-69. Research, Journalof Marketing D. Perreault, andFred D. Reynolds ,William (1977), Jr., "The PersonalSelling Process:A CriticalReviewand 5 (December), Model,"Industrial Marketing Management, 351-363. A. Weitz(1985), TheAmount and Sujan,Harish,and Barton An Attributional Direction Study ofSalesperson ofEffort: MA: Marketing ScienceInstitute. Motivation, Cambridge, Bettman , Mita Sujan,and James (1988), "Knowledge Between MoreEffective and LessEfDifferences Structure " fective 25 (FebResearch, Journal Salespeople, of Marketing 81-86. ruary), Kumar A. Weitz, andNirmalya , Barton ( 1994), LearnEffective and Smart, Orientation, Selling," Working ing 39-52. 58 (July), Journal ofMarketing, A. Churchill, DavidM., andGilbert (1990),"CliJr. Szymanski, and oftheSuccessful Cues: A Comparison entEvaluation Unsuccessful Research, Journal ofMarketing Salespeople," 27 (May), 163-174. atTradeShows F. (1994), "Adaptive ,"JourTanner, John Selling & SalesManagement, nal ofPersonal 14, 2 (Spring), Selling 15-23. Value A. Kerr Francis P.,andWillard Tobolski, (1952),"Predictive in Automobile Test oftheEmpathy Journal Salesmanship," 310-311. 36 (October), ofApplied Psychology, and Outcomes Brian(1993), "Antecedents, vanderWesthuizen, thePertoAssess Used bySalesManagers Factors Personal SciinDevelopments ofSalespeople," formance Marketing of the the Annual ence: of of Academy Conference of Proceedings andDhrvu vol.16,Michael Grewal, Science, Levy Marketing ofMarketing 317-321. Science, eds.,Miami:Academy P. Richard and Frank Belschak, Willem, (2004), Verbeke, Bagozzi in Personal of Pride "The Adaptive Selling," Consequences 32 (4), 386-402. Science, Journal Marketing Academy of ofthe and and WillemVerbeke Vink, (1993), "Adaptive Selling Japp, Future Refor Characteristics: Suggestions Organizational 13, & Sales Personal search," Journal Management, Selling of 1 (Winter), 15-23. and Neil M. Ford A. Churchill, Orville C, Gilbert Walker, Jr., in SellIndustrial and Performance "Motivation (1977), and Needed Present Research," Journal of Knowledge ing: 14 (May), 156-168. Research, Marketing
435-455.
55-66.
& SalesManagement 138 Journal Selling ofPersonal
BehavPaul R. (1980), "ANew Model forPredicting Warshaw, An Alternative to Fishbein," ioralIntentions: Journal of 17 (May), 153-172. Research, Marketing AbiliofSelling Dan C. (1990a), "The Identification Weilbaker, tiesNeeded forMissionary Journal of TypeSalespeople," Personal 10, 3 (Summer), Selling& Sales Management,
(1990b), Measurementof Adaptive Selling Behavior, EducaAssociation in Proceedings Marketing oftheAmerican Robert and Wilson David torsConference, Speckman,eds., Scottsdale,AZ: AmericanMarketingAssociation,47-52. BetweenSalesperson Weitz,BartonA. (1978), "The Relationship Decision Consumer of and Performance Understanding 15 Research, (November), Making," Journalof Marketing 501-516. (1979), "A CriticalReview of PersonalSellingResearch: The Need fora ContingencyApproach," in CriticalIssues in Sales Management: State of theArt and Future Needs, eds., Eugene: Gerald Albaum and GilbertA. Churchill,Jr., of 76-126. Press, University Oregon A Continin Sales Interactions: (1981), "Effectiveness 45 (Winter), Framework," Journal of Marketing, gency 85-103.
45-58.
Inter(1982), "AdaptiveSelling Behavior forEffective Interactions: in Empirical personal Influence," Buyer-Seller Researchand Normative Issues, PH. Reingen and A.G. AssoWoodside, eds., Columbia, SC: AmericanMarketing 115-123. ciation, and JohnF. Tanner,Jr.(1998), , Stephen B. Castleberry, 3d ed., Homewood, IL: RiSelling:BuildingPartnerships, chard D. Irwin. , Harish Sujan, and Mita bujan (196), J<oiowledge, forImMotivation and Adaptive Behavior:A Framework 50 Effectiveness," Journal Marketing, of proving Selling (October), 174-191. theWay Selling Salesperson: Roger(1987), The Versatile Wenschlag, toBuy,New York:JohnWiley. Wants YourCustomer by Wise, Gordon L. (1974), "Differential Pricingand Treatment of the ProspectsRace, Sex, New Car Salesmen:The Effect 47 (April),218-230. and Dress" JournalofBusiness, MarZeithaml,ValarieA., and Mary Jo Bitner(2000), Services 2d theFirm, ed., FocusAcross Customer An Integrated keting: Boston: McGraw-Hill, 466-479. and A. Parasuraman(1996), The , Leonard L. Berry, Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality,"Journalof 60 (April), 31-46. Marketing,
APPENDIX A MeasurementScales
thata seriousproblem exists, indicates 3. If a customer wantto help. it is easyforme to feellikeI really - VerbalCue Perception Cue Perception Ability Ability me is is telling to whata customer 1. Patiently listening I am able to do withlittle difficulty. something I am able to listenmore 2. Comparedto othersellers, to whatthecustomer says. effectively is whena customer to listenattentively 3. My ability is something verystrong. explaining - NonverbalCue Perception Cue Perception Ability Ability do not really 1. I can alwaystellwhencustomers whatI havesaid just by thelook in their understand eyes. sensethatenablesme to 2. I seemto havea strong mood. s true customer my identify it I can identify is troubling 3. If something customers, behaviors. and their expressions byjust watching
to Monitor Measuresof Ability (seven-point agree/disagree) - Perspective Taking EmpathieAbility look from how things to identify 1. I have theability each customers perspective. s positionto see 2. Putting in thecustomer myself thatis is something from his or her perspective things often a bit difficult forme.* side 3. I am nearly alwaysable to look at mycustomers I makemynextmove. of a disagreement before - EmpathieConcern EmpathieAbility 1. I am often as a good of mycustomer able to think friend. a 2. I am able to personally careabout mycustomers greatdeal.
2006 139 Spring Measuresof Ability to Modify (seven-point agree/disagree) - Self-Personality to Modify Ability 1. When selling, it is just as easyforme to be aggressive as it is to be passive. 2. I havetheability to control how I come acrossto my I wantto on the customers, impression depending them. give a wide variety of different 3. I can portray personality if the situation calls for it. types selling - Ability to Modify to Modify Ability Actions/Strategy 1. Changingmyactionsduringthesalespresentation is I can do well. that very something 2. I havefoundthatI can adjustmyactionsto suit a lot of without and situations different customers effort. no difficulty 3. I havevirtually myselling altering I do so in fact, duringmypresentation, strategy it. evenknowing thecustomer without * indicates coded. theitemwas reverse Measuresof AdaptiveBehavioralIntention (seven-point agree/disagree) and insalesencounters ASBI- Thinkaboutyourupcoming actionswould be: dicatewhatyouranticipated findout whatthe I will first 1. Before anything, selling and thinking. is feeling customer of mypresentation to adjustthedirection 2. I willtry thesalesencounter. during one from 3. I willdeal withcustomers differently pretty to thenext. clientin a much handlea long-time 4. I willoften different way ifhis mood is unusual. Measuresof AdaptiveBehavior of each of theirseller'sadaptive ASB1 Managers' ratings 100 = scale (0 = extremely behavior, nonadaptive, 100-point extremely adaptive) - Seller's scale (1 = muchmore seven-point self-report, ASB2 likeB thanA, 7 = muchmorelikeA thanB) scale anchors: Descriptive SellerTypeA: Even before cusI meeta prospective be must sales I know that tomer, very my presentation flexible. I entermymeeting withthecustomer concernedabout learning as muchas I can about him or her.This way I can adjustwhatI sayand do and alter how I speakso I come acrosstheway I thinkis best forthatspecific customer. tend My sales presentations to varyquite a bit from one salescall to thenextbecause every customer's needsand problems differ. Seller well prepared Type B: I approachthecustomer and well rehearsed about whatI am goingto say.I believemypresentation is verystraightforward and I concentrate on communicating it clearly. My sales varies little from one customer to presentation very thenextand, when it does, it is usually due to questionsbrought I go intoeach sales up by thecustomer. situation thatI will not have to makemany knowing in I sayand do or in mypersonal either what changes style. As a salesperson, how would you describe yourself? scale(1 = very unself-report, seven-point ASB3 Salesperson = 7 verydifferentiated) differentiated, There are several thatare used to sell. On approaches one hand,a givensalesperson mayuse thesame selling one cusand methodfrom style, strategy, presentation tomerto the next;a veryundifferentiated approach. On theotherhand,a sellermaytailorvirtually every and facetof the presentation, style, including strategy, a to fit the customer; very particular personalimage differentiated approach.There is no evidencethatsugthantheother. gestsone way is moreeffective What bestdescribes approach? yourselling Measuresof Sales Effectiveness foreach salesperson, 100-pointscale SP1 Managers'rating = = 100 excellent). (0 extremely extremely poor, forthemost used forannualevaluation rating SP2 Internal = scale fiscal recent (1 poor [needsmuch imyear,15-point = 15 exceptional distinguished]) [highly provement], scale(1 = poor,7 = seven-point self-report, SP3 Salesperson's outstanding) overthepast 12 How would you rateyoursalesperformance months?
140
P C -ONiS-iflOQMQifltCONCI OfSNtmttWiNmiNrn-fSNm
- oodin
ino
C *
U ^
p "*:- <"i ^ ^ <"i ^ ooooom
^ P
^ i
t^rSCONCOOOOtmOOUlOOMnM - m<NOOO^toôom>omm^5 Q^-^-^- rj OntrstNmrnmrirsNrn -
duS
m (S fN t; O -
* UJ -
^D ro 00 * ^n ^^ 00 ro ^1 ^^ ro ^D ^^ co ro ^ ^^ OOOOin
- ooooooooooovo^-
!i
S g
q-rjfSN-nn - Lri
(SN^NSNsmn
^w -
o S 5 3 S S S S S S S ^ $ ^ fcS 2: 3C$
- tri-
lg
PT^P~r1f>!r~r>!rpr<>!prfyi>!f>!f>!T'*Tl/~: -
in-
M i
s>
qi:ttqoNrj-Pj-NP|NNPjispjnn -
io
w-
p^^-^roOO
-oduS
(NciNmm-
io
Jg
-
q*tttnq-(S-N -
od
rs
(Srjrjmfnnt
on
ui -
CD
!J! Zf ^
On?fsa>O(S
(SQN000pmrS'0(S-00(NO-UiNDNi/)0v0lON>Omm0 Mfluimm-oottvOMoSiAtNêoooN oo qiflimmmNqq -
OfSMfMNNM
o nO tri ^ -
CL
rn (S m N -
fS<N
r>j
<n <N <N
iiS -
in -
C CL in
8NONiflûi3eoîo-S'ommmotN>ns-ooNM - ^P - - - ~~ - ^P~"P 9 T ^ **!~ - -"'"~'ri<"i~P - ^!
m - - - "~ - **> <S<N
ai in o
141
331 SB
"" d ~~
"" d d
O O O O
S
2
CD
8-SôS^g
~dddddd~
5iov-Nn^ti
>
2
CD >
Pt-nnnnm -
oo
; 9 -
2 o N - >o e* o* m p* m ^ -". m..<*.-.**<* r*. i
oooooooo"
S
5
-SSSSSoSSS
""dddddddddd"
*S
~ooooooooooo~
z r:
ggCSgigJiS - N Pfsmmmm^~dddddooooodd~
O N N M
og ^j9
- ocicicicio
Jjj
"dddddddddddddd
142
9 Q io o p - lo lo
3 K
0
CL
sL
ni lo
X
C <
Ili
o >o o - m P - o o ^ oo lo oo t o p <f n
d *
00
^ CD (/) <
f> - 00
- >o n% ^>o - rn^ôq ooi

ON Ci Ci ^
o
-
r.
o^ôg^^
diN O o t <N s
9 O
-sK
i
.S
5
S
z
tt
* u?
2 ^ o O in rn m
- ?; "*
-
O O ON ON
CU
X
.
1AJ
rn - O q <*. e*. q o
..."
S*
jj
<
CO (/I < A g? V O O Q p 0N >O
- d <S
ô m on lo ro ^<N on lo 10 - fS ifl N >q fS ro >4> lo O >O ^ ^ 1 **! T T fS nO O o lo -
il
9 O
Z
O
- 3 *
m
Z
0-
o S
o <N O ? O
o _
s p ^ r>. p - lo
O 01 (N vO ON ON
1
g
" ^
g> -5 g S
X UJ _
g
(/) <
CO o
S?!u,S
.2
S
2
q lo >o
00 O vO 00 ^ lo h. lo - fyfr>tp>: tNrs ^ ro 00 ^ ^ ^ O ^ ^. <N
o
e
Q. "
p -*
<*
t3 JJ O
's riilf I |}!}ijffi{
I .
1 5

A Contingency Adaptive Selling and Selling Perfomance

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Contingency Adaptive Selling and Selling Perfomance

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Contingency Approach to Adaptive Selling Behavior and Sales Performance: Selling Situations and Salesperson Characteristics Author(s): Ralph

116 Journal & SalesManagement ofPersonal Selling

s-8- Sii <

f gil *5I lui H jJ

il lift IHitlililHli. it. I r I lili II liiilliiililltlllelli

Jill JMf? PH? Hlt

. i ufiilm i!!! 1!. il

?f 1 I f liliali jff il! Ili ili! 1

li i ij IlillK i ! jlh Jliifi

Ipil III If IJil I HiIII

i fi-i &111 Jas lffif* Jl U

51filil ititi il Ii fJ 11-i i -i

&|_| '?*> g i s|a

r1 HiH l Iti llliH s liliali

122 Journal Personal & Sales of Management Selling

124 Journal & SalesManagement ofPersonal Selling

Figure1 Model of AdaptiveSellingBehaviorand Sales Performance f Empathie ^ V Ability J Sales ^ [ V Perfonnancey

/' 'J '

J '^ Benv*or ^^*" ~**0^

/intentionto ^ ASB ) > I Practice X^^ ^^^

2006 125 Spring Table 2 Characteristicsof the Samples

(7.6) (5.9) (4.5) (0.8) (0.8)

37.0(8.2) 11.8(5.6) 7.5 (5.1) 16.2(0.7) 5.7 (0.8)

Mean Ratings Relative

Unit ofthe Decision-Making Complexity

Term Long / Very

the Seller's of Produces) Complexity

complex Very (many people)

Needs ofCustomers' Homogeneity

Needs Different Very

Line* Width ofSeller'sProduct

Line Wide Very

Price* toAdjust Seller'sFlexibility

DollarValueofa ClosedSale Average

128 Journal Personal & Sales of Selling Management

n=n/Wi ' VMOD)^

) <L3- i A C -sar ^ ^^2

*^. ^^^ I- ! 1 /Experience^ | 2 measures |^( ^ )

/intention to ^ ______ AS ) Practice I 4 measures I V p> ^ * " '^ASW)^/

130 Journal Personal & Sales of Selling Management

to Modify Ability (MOD)

2006 131 Spring Table 4 Structural RelationshipsResults Summary

A2 Adaptive Standardized Coefficient

B Nonadaptive Standardized Coefficient

134 Journal & Sales Personal Selling Management of

& SalesManagement 138 Journal Selling ofPersonal

p "*:- <"i ^ ^ <"i ^ ooooom

t^rSCONCOOOOtmOOUlOOMnM - m<NOOO^to^oom>omm^5 Q^-^-^- rj OntrstNmrnmrirsNrn -

(SQN000pmrS'0(S-00(NO-UiNDNi/)0v0lON>Omm0 Mfluimm-oottvOMoSiAtN^eoooN oo qiflimmmNqq -

<n <N <N

8NONifl^ui3eo^io-S'ommmotN>ns-ooNM - ^P - - - ~~ - ^P~"P 9 T ^ **!~ - -"'"~'ri<"i~P - ^!

m - - - "~ - **> <S<N

2 o N - >o e* o* m p* m ^ -". m..<*.-.**<* r*. i

- >o n% ^>o - rn^^oq ooi

00 O vO 00 ^ lo h. lo - fyfr>tp>: tNrs ^ ro 00 ^ ^ ^ O ^ ^. <N

's riilf I |}!}ijffi{

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

J '^ Benvor ^^" ~**0^