Customer orientation and salesperson performance Mark E. Cross Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Thomas G. Brashear Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA, and Edward E. Rigdon and Danny N. Bellenger Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to examine the impact of customer orientation, at the levels of both the company and the salesperson, on salesperson performance. Design/methodology/approach – A survey of 283 salespeople provides the database that was analyzed using structural equation modeling. Findings – Prior studies suggest that both company and salesperson customer orientation has a positive effect on performance. The findings of this study suggest that a salesperson’s customer orientation completely mediates the relationship between company customer orientation and salesperson performance. Thus, the influence of a company’s customer orientation on salesperson performance acts through the customer orientation of the salespeople. Originality/value – The study reinforces the importance of customer orientation and the role of salespeople in putting customer orientation into practice. Keywords Customer orientation, Sales performance Paper type Research paper Customer orientation has been shown to have a positive impact on performance at both the company (Narver and Slater, 1990; Singh and Ranchhod, 2004) and salesperson (Sujan et al., 1994; Donavan et al., 2004) levels. Such findings support the fundamental tenet of the marketing concept. The question addressed in the research reported here is – does company level customer orientation have a direct impact on salesperson performance or does it enhance salesperson performance indirectly by impacting the orientation of the salesforce? A great deal of practitioner literature suggests that the role of the salesperson is declining (Brooks, 2004; Weeks, 2000). Electronic and various self-service means are increasingly employed to handle transactional exchanges while team selling is reserved for dealing with large accounts in more of a consultative role. It is asserted that the traditional salesperson is becoming less important and can survive only by providing added value in the exchange process. However, if the salesperson’s customer orientation actually mediates the relationship between the company and their customers, eliminating this role could be detrimental to sales performance. A company’s market orientation, as popularly conceptualized (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Kirca et al., 2005; Narver and Slater, 1990), incorporates two primary dimensions: The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm Customer orientation 821 Received May 2005 Accepted April 2006 European Journal of Marketing Vol. 41 No. 7/8, 2007 pp. 821-835 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0566 DOI 10.1108/03090560710752410
Transcript
Customer orientation andsalesperson performance
Mark E. CrossRobinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Thomas G. BrashearIsenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts at Amherst,
Amherst, Massachusetts, USA, and
Edward E. Rigdon and Danny N. BellengerRobinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the impact of customer orientation, at the levels of both thecompany and the salesperson, on salesperson performance.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey of 283 salespeople provides the database that wasanalyzed using structural equation modeling.
Findings – Prior studies suggest that both company and salesperson customer orientation has apositive effect on performance. The findings of this study suggest that a salesperson’s customerorientation completely mediates the relationship between company customer orientation andsalesperson performance. Thus, the influence of a company’s customer orientation on salespersonperformance acts through the customer orientation of the salespeople.
Originality/value – The study reinforces the importance of customer orientation and the role ofsalespeople in putting customer orientation into practice.
Keywords Customer orientation, Sales performance
Paper type Research paper
Customer orientation has been shown to have a positive impact on performance at boththe company (Narver and Slater, 1990; Singh and Ranchhod, 2004) and salesperson(Sujan et al., 1994; Donavan et al., 2004) levels. Such findings support the fundamentaltenet of the marketing concept. The question addressed in the research reported here is– does company level customer orientation have a direct impact on salespersonperformance or does it enhance salesperson performance indirectly by impacting theorientation of the salesforce?
A great deal of practitioner literature suggests that the role of the salesperson isdeclining (Brooks, 2004; Weeks, 2000). Electronic and various self-service means areincreasingly employed to handle transactional exchanges while team selling isreserved for dealing with large accounts in more of a consultative role. It is assertedthat the traditional salesperson is becoming less important and can survive only byproviding added value in the exchange process. However, if the salesperson’s customerorientation actually mediates the relationship between the company and theircustomers, eliminating this role could be detrimental to sales performance.
A company’s market orientation, as popularly conceptualized (Kohli and Jaworski,1990; Kirca et al., 2005; Narver and Slater, 1990), incorporates two primary dimensions:
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
Customerorientation
821
Received May 2005Accepted April 2006
European Journal of MarketingVol. 41 No. 7/8, 2007
(1) Customer orientation, which is a focus on the needs and wants of the customers.
(2) Competitive orientation, which emphasizes a focus on competitive threats.
Part of the power of the market orientation concept comes from the fact that it includesmost of the elements that have traditionally been associated with successful salesperformance. Market orientation reflects the focus of the entire company.
Academic literature examining market orientation has consistently found that marketoriented organizations achieve higher levels of sales performance, but this ignores thepossibility that the effect seen is the result of intervening variables at a lower level ofanalysis. Companies that have achieved higher levels of market orientation have done soby creating a culture and environment that supports the marketing philosophy (e.g.Hartline et al., 2000). Such an environment might reasonably be expected to influencesalespeople within the organization to be more customer-oriented. The research focusedon salespeople and their customer orientation, reports that salespeople who have astronger customer orientation tend to achieve higher levels of sales performance (Harriset al., 2005). It is conceivable that the effects of market orientation at the company levelact indirectly through salespeople who are the organization’s ambassadors to theircustomers, and who implement the company’s philosophy on the front lines.
Conceptual backgroundFor nearly 50 years market orientation was seen primarily as an organizationalphenomenon. Market orientation was recognized in academic literature as early as the1920s (Strong, 1925), and by the 1950s market orientation was viewed as anoperationalization of the marketing concept at the organizational level (Borch, 1957;McKitterick, 1957). The initial interest in organizational market orientation wasfocused on the ability of top management to shape the values and orientation of theirorganizations (Felton, 1959). By the mid-1960s, empirical studies were beginning tomeasure the effects of market orientation, and for the next few years emphasis movedto theory construction which examined the effects of organizational structure onorganizational market orientation. In the early seventies, the importance oforganizational market orientation was seen to diminish in the face of rapidtechnological change which reduced the advantages gained by responsiveness to anindividual customer’s needs (Kaldor, 1971; Tauber, 1974).
Over the next decade, the focus of the literature moved inside the selling organizationand began to examine the market orientation of the salesforce as a consequence ofevaluation and reward systems (Hopwood, 1974; Anderson and Chambers, 1985). Thisindividual level of market orientation, referred to as salesperson customer orientation, isof great interest because of salespeople’s direct contact with customers and the belief thatthis will impact sales outcomes. Continuing with their focus inside the sellingorganization, researchers theorized that information flow within the organizationfacilitated organizational market orientation (Patton, 1978; Deshpande and Zaltman,1982), and saw conflict as an inhibitor (Lusch et al., 1976; Ruekert and Walker, 1987).
In the 1980s, interest in relationship marketing brought increased attention tomarket orientation (Shapiro, 1988; Webster, 1988; Deshpande and Webster, 1989). Thisled to an examination of the influence of market orientation as it applied to relationaloutcomes, such as satisfaction and trust (Stock and Hoyer, 2005). The link betweenorganizational market orientation and performance was empirically examined as early
EJM41,7/8
822
as 1990 (Narver and Slater, 1990). The link between a salesperson’s customerorientation and performance was observed by Saxe and Weitz as early as 1982, andwas the subject of empirical examination by Sujan et al. (1994).
Market orientationThe idea of market orientation as a unifying focus for the organization has promptedconsiderable research (e.g. Kirca et al., 2005). By collecting and sharing informationabout the customers’ needs and competitors actions, an organization can be sensitive tocustomer needs, responsive to competitor threats, and prepared to respond rapidly(Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Kulp et al., 2004). A number of articles have found positivedirect effects of an organization’s market orientation on sales performance (Boles et al.,2001; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). Accordingly, we hypothesize:
H1a. Customer orientation of an organization is positively related to salespeople’sperformance.
H1b. Competitive orientation of an organization is positively related tosalespeople’s performance.
According to Jaworski and Kohli (1993), an organization’s market orientation reflectsthe degree to which the marketing concept has been adopted into an organization’sbusiness philosophy. From a cultural perspective, organizational market orientation isdescribed as a culture that:
. places the highest priority on the profitable creation and maintenance of superiorcustomer value while considering the interest of the other stakeholders; and
. provides norms for behavior regarding the organizational development of andresponsiveness to market information (Slater and Narver, 1995, p. 67).
A “market-driven culture supports the value of thorough market intelligence and thenecessity of functionally coordinated actions directed at gaining a competitiveadvantage” (Day, 1994, p. 43).
Salesperson customer orientationOther studies have investigated the direct effects of the individual salesperson’scustomer orientation. Salespeople can be the only representatives of the sellingorganization that a customer sees, so the individual salesperson’s focus on satisfyingcustomer needs is a crucial subject of inquiry (Crosby et al., 1990). Swenson and Herche(1994) in a study of industrial salespeople, found that customer oriented sellingbehaviors are positively related to salesperson performance. In a study of residentialreal-estate agents, the highest performers were found to be more customer orientedthan the lower performers, given equal levels of experience (Dunlap et al., 1988). Similarresults were found in separate settings by Babin and Boles (1998) and Boles et al.(2001). Evidence for a positive relationship between a salesperson’s customerorientation and performance was also represented by Saxe and Weitz (1982). Therefore,we propose:
H2. Salesperson customer orientation is positively related to sales performance.
Customerorientation
823
The customer orientation of salespeople is central to modern sales theory. The primaryfocus of marketing and sales efforts in the current business environment is to accuratelydetermine and satisfy customer needs in order to create value in long-term relationships,and this is the essence of customer orientation. This long-term orientation of salespeopletoward their customers, or customer orientation, is “the practice of the marketing conceptat the level of the individual salesperson and customer” (Saxe and Weitz, 1982, p. 343).This concept is based on the principle that salespeople must understand a customer’sneeds and wants in order to generate customer perceived value in sales interactions. Ahigh level of customer orientation reflects a high level of concern for the customer’slong-term needs, while a low level of customer orientation reflects a selfish concern forthe achievement of short-term sales objectives. A salesperson’s concern for the customeris an emotional investment, which has been shown to act as a strong motivator that isassociated with higher levels of performance (Brown et al., 1997).
Saxe and Weitz (1982) as well as Williams and Wiener (1990), assert that customerorientation is a learned behavior that can be influenced by environmental factors, anadaptation that evolves over time. Individual salespeople may adopt a customerorientation as a result of organizational and marketing management practices (Williamsand Wiener, 1990). The organization’s culture helps to shape employee attitudes andbehaviors (Rozell et al., 2003). It is also possible that market oriented firms recruitsalespeople who are more customer oriented. This suggests that salesperson customerorientation will increase as organizational market orientation increases.
H3a. Customer orientation of an organization is positively related to salespeople’scustomer orientations.
H3b. Competitive orientation of an organization is positively related tosalespeople’s customer orientation.
The conceptual model, in Figure 1, posits both direct and indirect effects oforganizational market orientation on salesperson performance.
Figure 1.Proposed theoreticalmodel
EJM41,7/8
824
MethodologySampleStudy participants were field salespeople based in a large metropolitan city in thesoutheastern US, with sales territories across the US. The sample in this study consistsof business-to-business salespeople who were selected from a broad cross-section of“big ticket” business-to-business sales positions selling services and/or products.Potential respondents were individually screened to make sure they were full-timebusiness-to-business salespeople who worked in the field and not inside sales. A totalof 500 surveys were distributed to potential respondents by the drop-off methodsimilar to Babin and Boles (1998) that resulted in a usable sample of 283 surveys. Theaverage age of the respondents was 35, with the average sales experience being 8.7years. Males and females responding were almost evenly distributed, with 51.7 percentbeing males. About half were married with children. These demographiccharacteristics are similar to other industrial sales samples in the literature (e.g.Brashear et al., 2005; Chandrashekaran et al., 2000; Grant et al., 2001). All respondentshad at least some college, and the majority had received a bachelor’s degree. Thesalespeople were paid on commission based sales plans and averaged over $40,000 inannual income. A comparison of early and late respondents found no differencesamong the demographic characteristics, length of employment, products sold,industry, or the research constructs (Armstrong and Overton, 1977).
MeasuresThe constructs were measured using multi-items scales adapted from the literature. Allscales used a seven point Likert scale anchored by “strongly disagree” and “stronglyagree” unless stated otherwise. The scale for organizational market orientationdeveloped by Narver and Slater (1990) is divided here into the two dimensions oforganizational customer orientation and organizational competitive orientation.Organizational customer orientation was assessed with a six-item measure.Captured in this measure are elements of satisfying customer needs, creating value,obtaining commitment, and service. Organizational competitive orientation is reflectedin a four-item measure. Captured in this measure are elements of “information sharing”about the market conditions experienced by the organization, including competitoraction awareness, and competitive advantage.
A study associating marketing orientation with new product innovation (Lukas andFerrell, 2000) found both customer orientation and competitive orientation to beimportant. The findings imply that customer oriented businesses may be moreproficient at uncovering hidden customer needs and even changing the mindset of thecustomers to consider new possibilities that would otherwise be rejected. Competitiveoriented businesses may be more responsive to turbulence in the marketplace.Customer orientation of the salesperson was measured using a 12-item scale developedby Saxe and Weitz (1982). The respondents were asked to describe their relationshipwith customers with regard to their helping customers and attempts to satisfycustomer needs. Finally, performance is an assessment of the salesperson’s salessuccess in terms of quantity and quality of achievement. The survey items are similarto those used in a scale developed by Brown and Peterson (1994). Items asked thesalesperson to evaluate their efforts relative the rest of the company ranging from“among the worst in the company” to “among the best in the company”. Behrman and
Customerorientation
825
Perreault (1982) found that self-evaluated salesperson performance measures produceresults consistent with manager evaluations and company quantitative measurementsof sales performance. The seven point Likert type scale was anchored by “among thebest in the company” and “among the worst in the company”. A listing of themeasurement items for each contstruct appears in the Appendix.
ResultsMeasurement modelAlthough there are proponents (e.g. Bagozzi and Edwards, 1998; Goff et al., 1997;Ramaswami and Singh, 2003) of creating aggregate scores from multiple itemscales, all scales were modeled at the item level and Table I contains a completereporting of the individual item correlations. In order to maintain comparabilitywith previous research, this study avoided modifying the scales through itemdeletion or substitution and to assure their validity and reliability, a confirmatoryfactor analysis was performed with structural equation modeling (SEM) (Andersonand Gerbing, 1988) using AMOS. Before estimating the structural model, weevaluated the fit of the measurement model with four correlated factors. Parameterestimates and construct reliabilities from the SEM analysis are reported in Table II.The assessed fit of this model provided only limited support for the proposedcongeneric measurement model – x2
ðdf¼318Þ ¼ 781:46 (p ¼ 0:000), root mean squareerror of approximation ðRMSEAÞ ¼ 0:075 (95 percent confidence interval 0.068 –0.081), comparative fit index ðCFIÞ ¼ 0:92, standardized root mean square residualðSRMRÞ ¼ 0:052. This result falls somewhat short of guidelines suggested by Huand Bentler (1999). Hu and Bentler recommended a composite standard forapproximate fit, combining a CFI of 0.95 or above with either an RMSEA of 0.06 orbelow or an SRMR of 0.06 or below. But are the fit problems here substantive?Based on a careful re-examination of the questionnaire, and guided by modeldiagnostics, we developed an alternate model which was consistent with Hu andBentler’s criteria. This alternate model added seven free parameters. Two of thesewere cross-loadings of organizational competitive orientation items (“my companystrives to respond rapidly to competitors’ actions” and “my company strives totarget opportunities for competitive advantage”) onto the organizational customerorientation construct. These items’ loadings on the competitive orientation constructremained significant and large – larger than the cross-loadings. One of the otherfive free parameters was a correlated error term linking two items in theorganizational customer orientation scale (“my company strives to develop customercommitment” and “my company strives to create customer value”). These resultspoint to the high level of complexity in the larger market orientation scale. Theother four free parameters were correlated error terms linking pairs of items fromthe 12-item salesperson customer orientation scale. Given the large number of itemsin this scale, the need for some model modification is not surprising. Still, despiteprior use of these scales in the literature, these results point to a need for furtherrefinement in these key scales.
The modified model 2 produced x2ðdf¼311Þ ¼ 588:47 (p ¼ 0:000), RMSEA ¼ 0:056 (95
percent confidence interval 0.049 – 0.063), CFI ¼ 0:95, standardized RMR ¼ 0:049.While this model satisfied Hu and Bentler’s criteria, the modifications slightly alter thecorrelations among the factors (see Table III). In particular, the modifications
EJM41,7/8
826
OC
1O
C2
OC
3O
C4
OC
5O
C6
OK
1O
K2
OK
3O
K4
SC
1S
C2
SC
3S
C4
SC
5S
C6
SC
7S
C8
SC
9S
C10
SC
11S
C12
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Org
aniz
ati
onalcu
stom
eror
ienta
tion
OC
11
OC
20.
871
OC
30.
770.
791
OC
40.
790.
800.
801
OC
50.
670.
650.
620.
671
OC
60.
660.
610.
580.
650.
581
Org
aniz
ati
onalco
mpe
titi
veor
ienta
tion
OK
10.
290.
290.
310.
280.
290.
411
OK
20.
410.
410.
390.
430.
380.
520.
421
OK
30.
350.
340.
360.
370.
350.
440.
690.
591
OK
40.
550.
520.
520.
510.
430.
500.
570.
480.
721
Sale
sper
son’s
cust
omer
orie
nta
tion
SC
10.
460.
440.
450.
400.
320.
340.
160.
210.
180.
261
SC
20.
470.
430.
490.
430.
370.
320.
170.
160.
130.
260.
801
SC
30.
390.
380.
460.
360.
290.
310.
170.
180.
140.
220.
620.
641
SC
40.
450.
500.
460.
390.
380.
340.
150.
210.
150.
260.
650.
640.
531
SC
50.
360.
330.
370.
310.
290.
260.
120.
130.
110.
210.
580.
660.
520.
641
SC
60.
420.
400.
420.
390.
340.
300.
150.
190.
150.
290.
720.
750.
540.
700.
721
SC
70.
350.
330.
340.
290.
260.
280.
160.
140.
210.
310.
620.
600.
590.
570.
550.
621
SC
80.
410.
360.
380.
310.
270.
260.
190.
060.
170.
320.
620.
650.
510.
560.
500.
620.
721
SC
90.
460.
420.
440.
370.
330.
260.
150.
140.
170.
290.
610.
680.
570.
610.
610.
700.
700.
721
SC
100.
460.
430.
400.
420.
280.
330.
150.
180.
220.
340.
620.
660.
440.
570.
550.
700.
630.
690.
721
SC
110.
340.
280.
320.
260.
290.
250.
260.
100.
300.
350.
380.
400.
320.
330.
350.
370.
440.
500.
440.
491
SC
120.
490.
440.
420.
400.
390.
350.
120.
210.
130.
270.
510.
570.
380.
430.
480.
560.
490.
570.
600.
690.
451
Per
form
ance
P1
0.15
0.14
0.09
0.08
0.13
0.14
0.05
0.06
0.09
0.05
0.20
0.23
0.19
0.25
0.16
0.18
0.11
0.17
0.20
0.26
0.14
0.22
1P
20.
150.
160.
120.
080.
110.
150.
090.
120.
100.
060.
340.
280.
270.
250.
220.
250.
240.
310.
310.
310.
180.
270.
561
P3
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.17
0.20
0.20
0.04
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.33
0.37
0.35
0.30
0.31
0.29
0.33
0.36
0.39
0.40
0.24
0.37
0.51
0.55
1P
40.
110.
070.
050.
040.
020.
090.
050.
080.
002
0.02
0.27
0.24
0.20
0.18
0.21
0.25
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.27
0.09
0.20
0.44
0.61
0.52
1P
50.
170.
160.
120.
110.
130.
130.
040.
030.
030.
020.
340.
340.
220.
280.
300.
320.
340.
350.
390.
370.
210.
350.
540.
610.
630.
611
Table I.Item correlations
Customerorientation
827
weakened the correlation between the two dimensions of organizational marketorientation, from 0.55 (in the original model) to 0.44, and weakened the correlationbetween salesperson customer orientation and organizational competitive orientationfrom 0.30 to 0.23.
Model 1 Model 2Estimate * t-value Estimate * t-value
Structural modelTo monitor the impact of the modifications on the structural model, we evaluated thestructural model both with and without these modifications (the structural model issaturated, so overall fit indices are the same as for the CFA models.) While parameterestimates differ between model 1 and model 2 (see Table IV), the substantiveconclusions are the same. H3a, the direct effect of organizational customer orientationon salesperson customer orientation, is supported. The parameter estimate for the pathwas 0.58 (t ¼ 8:26) in model 1 and 0.59 (t ¼ 8:77) in model 2. In H2, the direct effect ofsalesperson customer orientation on salesperson performance, was also supported. Inmodel 1, the estimate was 0.54 (t ¼ 6:3): in model 2, the estimate was 0.56 (t ¼ 6:43). Allof the other structural parameters were nonsignificant; therefore, H1a, H1b and H3bwere not supported in either model.
Direct vs. mediated market orientation effectsAs stated earlier, there are two possible avenues for organizational market orientationto impact salesperson performance. The first is through the organization’s market
Model 2 SC 0.942/0.578P 0.49 0.862/0.556OC 0.58 0.20 */ *
OK 0.23 0.08 0.44 */ *
Notes: SC = salesperson customer orientation; P = salesperson performance; OC = organizationalcustomer orientation; OK = organizational competitive orientation; Values on the diagonal are compositereliability/average variance extracted; *These quantities are not defined for cross-loaded items
Table III.Factor correlation
matrices for confirmatoryfactor models
Model 1 Model 2
H1a. Organizational customer orientation to salespersonperformance 20.09 (20.99) 20.13 (21.57)
H1b. Organizational competitive orientation to salespersonperformance 20.02 (20.28) 20.00 (20.07)
H2. Salesperson customer orientation to salespersonperformance 0.54 (6.30) 0.56 (6.43)
orientation which would lead directly to sales performance. The second involves theorganization’s market orientation which influences sales performance, but the linkageis mediated by salesperson customer orientation. This mediation is due to the fact thatsalespeople carry out the company’s customer facing policies and are responsible formaking direct contact with the customers which leads to sales performance. Analysishere supports the mediated path where there is only an indirect effect on salespersonperformance. Our analysis also indicates that the organizational customer orientationdimension that leads to higher levels of salesperson customer orientation. Theorganizational competitive orientation does not have a significant impact onsalesperson customer orientation or performance.
LimitationsThe findings of this study must be viewed in light of limitations. First, the survey anddata collection were cross-sectional. Second, all of the measures for constructs underexamination in this study were self-report by a single respondent. This means that thestrength of some of the relationships as reported may be inflated due to commonmethod variance. The size of the survey (21 different constructs and 142 responses) andthe structure (mixed throughout) made it difficult for a respondent to surmise thehypotheses being examined, and to “invent” responses that would reinforce this guess.Since the anonymity of respondents was stressed in the survey instrument, the chancesthat self-evaluations were biased towards self-leniency are reduced (Heneman, 1974).
Implications and future researchThere are a number of interesting conclusions that can be drawn from the results of thisstudy. By combining the theoretical perspectives that examine customer orientation at theorganizational and individual levels of measurement, a more complete view of the effectsof market orientation can be seen. Examinations of the market orientation which haveignored the possible influence of salespeople, have omitted a key predictor. Asorganizations expend considerable effort communicating to their customers aboutcreating value, building commitment, understanding and satisfying customer’s needs,these goals will go unmet without in the inclusion of the key boundary spanners, thesalespeople. Salespeople support, deliver and reinforces the organizations customer focus.It is the salesperson who ultimately succeeds or fails to demonstrate customer orientedbehaviors and companies might benefit by directing efforts inward to better train, supportand develop a climate that supports marketing orientation (Schwepker and Good, 2004).
Customer orientation by definition is a long-term focus and it is important that thisfocus be communicated to customers by a stable long-lived source, such as apermanent salesforce. In many sales organizations, salespeople move from customer tocustomer fairly often, and only the company itself remains stable and constant. Thismay have encouraged previous researchers to conclude that the market orientation ofthe organization was of paramount importance, but this study indicates that, at least inthis context, the customer orientation of the salesperson is most directly important.Even if the customer believes in the sincerity of the salesperson’s intent, that ability islimited if salespeople do not attend to their customer.
A significant result of this study is that the organization’s competitive orientation hasno direct or indirect impact on salesperson performance. Sharing competitor informationand targeting areas of competitive advantage would reasonably have importance for the
EJM41,7/8
830
company as it positions itself in the marketplace, and competes for market share, butseems to have no significant impact on the individual salesperson’s sales performance. Itis the organizations themselves that must respond to their competition by putting theresources of the firm to their best use, but a salesperson’s performance is not typicallymeasured on how well their company responds to competitors. Salespeople are often inthe best position to gather much of the information companies are seeking on theircompetitors, but are often offered rewards only for those things that directly affect theirsales. Since this study clearly points to the result that the individual salesperson’s salesperformance is not improved by participating in this type of information gathering anddissemination, companies should consider creating some mechanism to provide suitablerewards if they wish to encourage the salesforce to assist in implementing anorganizational competitive orientation.
Reichheld (1993) laments that customer value and indirectly customer-orientedbehaviors are not measured or accounted for in the financial statements of mostcompanies. How one motivates and aligns incentives with behaviors is an importantarea of research in sales (e.g. Schwepker and Good, 2004; Thakor and Joshi, 2005). Thisis also consistent with the literature on control and how to develop control mechanismsto promote and disseminate the organizational level values down through the salespeople (Joshi and Randall, 2001) and/or customer contact employees (e.g. Hartline et al.,2000). Some suggest behavioral controls, but Reichheld (1993) promotes the incentiveside, suggesting that the best way to align employee, company and customer interestsis through the reward system. Therefore, an investigation into the combined uses ofbehavioral controls and incentives would be fruitful.
The predictors and outcome examined in this study may also be viewed in light of afaceted view of customer orientation. Stock and Hoyer (2005) have determined that thereare two facets or components to customer orientation, the attitudinal and behavioralcomponents. Research into the organizational and personality variables affect each ofthese components would be of interest. Brown et al. (2002) looked at various personalitytraits of service workers and found emotional stability, agreeability and the need foractivity all contributed to higher levels of customer orientation. This could be extendedto look at the attitudinal and behavioral components. Additionally, research to determinewhich of the two components is the most important in developing and maintaining acustomer orientation would also add to the understanding of this topic.
Future study needs to be directed toward a fuller examination of other possiblerelationships, both mediating and moderating (Mavondo et al., 2005). The role conflictand role ambiguity of salespeople, the degree of centralization, formalization, andentrepreneurial orientation may all contribute to our understanding of therelationships examined here. Other outcome variables such as satisfaction andpropensity to leave might also be examined. Finally, future studies might benefit fromconcentrating on context specific aspects affecting the elements being studiedincluding job, task, and product level variables such as technical complexity.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review andrecommended two step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 411-23.
Anderson, P. and Chambers, T. (1985), “A reward/measurement model of organizational buyingbehavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 7-23.
Customerorientation
831
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journalof Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Babin, B.J. and Boles, J.S. (1998), “Employee behavior in a service environment: a model and testof potential differences between men and women”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 77-91.
Bagozzi, R.A. and Edwards, J. (1998), “A generalized approach for representing constructs inorganizational research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1, pp. 45-87.
Behrman, D.N. and Perreault, W.D. Jr (1987), “A role stress model of the performance andsatisfaction of industrial salespersons”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 9-21.
Boles, J.S., Babin, B.J., Brashear, T.G. and Brooks, C.M. (2001), “An examination of therelationships between retail work environments, salesperson selling orientation-customerorientation and job performance”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9, p. 113.
Borch, F. (1957), “The marketing philosophy as a way of business life”, in Marting, E. andNewgarden, A. (Eds), The Marketing Concept: Its Meaning to Management, AmericanManagement Association, New York, NY, pp. 3-16.
Brashear, T.G., Manolis, C. and Brooks, C.M. (2005), “The effects of individual salespersoncontrol on trust and justice”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 241-9.
Brooks, B. (2004), “Providing the greatest value”, The American Salesman, Vol. 49, pp. 20-3.
Brown, S.P. and Peterson, R.A. (1994), “The effect of effort on sales performance and jobsatisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 70-80.
Brown, S., Cron, W. and Slocum, J. (1997), “Effects of goal-directed emotions on salesperson volitions,behavior, and performance: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 39-50.
Brown, T.J., Mowen, J.C., Donnavan, T. and Licata, J.W. (2002), “The customer orientation ofdervice workers: personality trait effects on self- and supervisor performance ratings”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, pp. 110-19.
Chandrashekaran, M., McNeilly, K., Russ, F.A. and Marinova, D. (2000), “From uncertainintentions to actual behavior: a threshold model of whether and when salespeople quit”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, pp. 463-79.
Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990), “Relationship quality in services selling:an interpersonal perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 68-81.
Day, G. (1994), “Continuous learning about markets”, California Management Review, Vol. 36,pp. 9-31.
Deshpande, R. and Webster, F.E. (1989), “Organizational culture and marketing: defining theresearch agenda”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, pp. 3-15.
Deshpande, R. and Zaltman, G. (1982), “Factors affecting the use of marketing researchinformation: a path analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 14-31.
Donavan, D.T., Brown, T.J. and Mowen, J.C. (2004), “Internal benefits of service-worker customerorientation: job satisfaction, commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, pp. 128-46.
Dunlap, B.J., Dotson, M.J. and Chambers, T.M. (1988), “Perceptions of real-estate brokers andbuyers: a sales-oriented, customer-oriented approach”, Journal of Business Research,Vol. 17, pp. 175-87.
Felton, A.P. (1959), “Making the marketing concept work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37,pp. 55-65.
Goff, B.G., Boles, J.S., Bellenger, D.N. and Stojack, C. (1997), “The influence of salesperson sellingbehaviors on customer satisfaction with products”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73, pp. 171-83.
Grant, K., Cravens, D.W., Low, G.S. and Moncrief, W.C. (2001), “The role of satisfaction withterritory design on the motivation, attitudes, and work outcomes of salespeople”, Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29, pp. 165-78.
EJM41,7/8
832
Harris, J.G., Mowen, J.C. and Brown, T.J. (2005), “Re-examining salesperson goal orientations:personality influencers, customer orientation, and work satisfaction”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33, pp. 19-35.
Hartline, M.D., Maxham, J.G. III and McKee, D.O. (2000), “Corridors of influence in thedissemination of customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, pp. 35-50.
Heneman, H.G. III (1974), “Comparison of self and supervisor ratings of managerialperformance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 628-42.
Hopwood, A. (1974), Accounting and Human Behaviour, Haymarket Publishing, London.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6, pp. 1-31.
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 53-70.
Joshi, A.W. and Randall, S. (2001), “The indirect effects of organizational controls on salespersonperformance and customer orientation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Kaldor, A.G. (1971), “Imbricative marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, pp. 19-25.
Kirca, A.H., Jayachandran, S. and Bearden, W.O. (2005), “Market orientation: a meta-analyticreview and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 69, pp. 24-41.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions,and managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 1-18.
Kulp, S.C., Lee, H.L. and Ofek, E. (2004), “Manufacturer benefits from information integrationwith retail customers”, Management Science, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 431-44.
Lukas, B. and Ferrell, O.C. (2000), “The effect of market orientation on product innovation”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, pp. 239-47.
Lusch, R.F., Udell, G. and Lacaniak, G.R. (1976), “The practice of business”, Business Horizons,Vol. 19, pp. 65-74.
McKitterick, J.B. (1957), “What is the marketing management concept?”, in Bass, F.M. (Ed.),The Frontiers of Marketing Thought and Science, American Marketing Association,Chicago, IL, pp. 71-92.
Mavondo, F.T., Chimhanzi, J. and Stewart, J. (2005), “Learning orientation and marketorientation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 11/12, pp. 1235-63.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The effect of market orientation on business profitability”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 20-35.
Patton, M.A. (1978), Utilization Focused Evaluation, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Ramaswami, S.N. and Singh, J. (2003), “Antecedents and consequences of merit pay fairness forindustrial salespeople”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, pp. 43-66.
Reichheld, F. (1993), “Loyalty-based management”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 64-73.
Rozell, E.J., Pettijohn, C.E. and Parker, R.S. (2003), “Cusomter-oriented selling: exploring the rolesof emotional intelligence and organizational commitment”, Psychology and Marketing,Vol. 21, pp. 405-24.
Ruekert, R.W. and Walker, O.C. Jr (1987), “Marketing’s interaction with other functional units:a conceptual framework and empirical evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 1,pp. 1-19.
Saxe, R. and Weitz, B.A. (1982), “The SOCO scale: a measure of the customer orientation ofsalespeople”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 343-51.
Schwepker, C.H. Jr and Good, D.J. (2004), “Marketing control and sales force customerorientation”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 24, pp. 167-79.
Customerorientation
833
Shapiro, B.P. (1988), “What the hell is ‘market oriented’?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66,pp. 119-25.
Singh, S. and Ranchhod, A. (2004), “Market orientation and customer satisfaction: evidence fromBritish machine tool industry”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, pp. 135-44.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 63-74.
Stock, R.M. and Hoyer, W.D. (2005), “An attitude-behavior model of salespeople’s customerorientation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33, pp. 536-52.
Strong, E.K. Jr (1925), “Theories of selling”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 75-86.
Sujan, H., Weitz, B.A. and Kumar, N. (1994), “Learning orientation, working smart, and effectiveselling”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 39-52.
Swenson, M.J. and Herche, J. (1994), “Social values and salesperson performance: and empiricalexamination”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, pp. 283-9.
Tauber, E.M. (1974), “How marketing discourages major innovation”, Business Horizons, Vol. 17,pp. 22-6.
Thakor, M.V. and Joshi, A.W. (2005), “Motivating salesperson customer orientation: insightsfrom the job characteristics model”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 584-92.
Webster, F.E. Jr (1988), “Rediscovering the marketing concept”, Business Horizons, Vol. 31,pp. 29-39.
Weeks, B. (2000), “Setting sales force compensation in the internet age”, Compensation andBenefits Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 25-34.
Williams, M.R. and Wiener, J. (1990), “Does the selling orientation-customer orientation (SOCO)scale measure behavior or disposition?”, in Bearden, W., Despande, T.J., Madden, P.R. andVaradarajan, A. (Eds), Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, AmericanMarketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Appendix. Measurement scale itemsOrganization’s customer orientation (Narver and Slater, 1990)My company strives to:
. develop customer commitment;
. create customer value;
. understand customer needs;
. meet customer satisfaction objectives;
. provide service after the sale; and
. measure customer satisfaction.
Organization’s competitive orientation (Narver and Slater, 1990)My company strives to:
. encourage salespeople to share competitor information;
. respond rapidly to competitor’s actions;
. motivate top managers to discuss competitor’s actions; and
. target opportunities for competitive advantages.
Salesperson’s customer orientation (Saxe and Weitz, 1982). I try to help customers achieve their goals.. I try to achieve my goals by satisfying customers.
EJM41,7/8
834
. A good salesperson has to have the customer’s best interest in mind.
. I try to get customers to discuss their needs with me.
. I try to influence a customer by information rather than by pressure.
. I try to find out what kind of product would be most helpful to a customer.
. I offer the product that is best suited to the customer’s problem.
. I answer a customer’s questions about products as correctly as I can.
. I try to figure out what a customer’s needs are.
. I try to bring a customer with a problem together with a product that helps him solve thatproblem.
. I am willing to disagree with a customer in order to help him make a better decision.
. I try to give customers an accurate expectation of what the product will do for them.
Performance (Brown and Peterson, 1994)How do you rate yourself in terms of:
. The quantity of work (e.g. sales) you achieve?
. Tour ability to reach your goals?
. The quality of your performance in regard to customer relations?
. The quality of your performance in regard to management of time, planning ability, andmanagement of expenses?
. The quality of your performance in regard to knowledge of your products, company,competitors’ products, and customer needs?
About the authorsMark E. Cross is a doctoral student in the marketing department in the Robinson College ofBusiness at Georgia State University.
Thomas G. Brashear is associate professor of marketing in the Isenberg School ofManagement at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His research has appeared in anumber of academic journals including the Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, theJournal of Advertising, the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, the Journal ofBusiness & Industrial Marketing and the Journal of Business Research. Thomas G. Brashear isthe corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Edward E. Rigdon is professor and chairman of the marketing department in the RobinsonCollege of Business at Georgia State University. His research on interactive marketing and on thestatistical methodology of structural equation modeling (SEM) has been published in leadingmarketing and research methodology journals, including Journal of Marketing Research, Journalof Consumer Research, Journal of Retailing, Multivariate Behavioral Research and StructuralEquation Modeling. He is the co-founder and frequent contributor to SEMNET, an e-maildiscussion list devoted to SEM.
Danny N. Bellenger is professor and research fellow in the marketing department in theRobinson College of Business at Georgia State University. His research has appeared in anumber of academic journals including the Journal of Marketing Research, the Journal ofMarketing, the Journal of Advertising Research, the California Management Review, the Journalof Retailing, the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Industrial MarketingManagement, and the Journal of Business Research. He has authored four monographs and fourtextbooks on marketing research, sales, and retailing.
Customerorientation
835
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
