A Contingency Adaptive Selling and Selling Perfomance

A Contingency Approach to Adaptive Selling Behavior and Sales Performance: SellingSituations and Salesperson CharacteristicsAuthor(s): Ralph W. Giacobbe, Donald W. Jackson Jr., Lawrence A. Crosby and Claudia M.BridgesSource: The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Spring, 2006),pp. 115-142Published 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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.69 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 23:50:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40472048?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


A CONTINGENCY APPROACH TO ADAPTIVE SELLING BEHAVIOR AND SALES PERFORMANCE: SELLING SITUATIONS AND

SALESPERSON CHARACTERISTICS

Ralph W. Giacobbe, Donald W. Jackson Jr., Lawrence A. Crosby, and Claudia M. Bridges

The Weitz (1981) model of adaptive selling suggests that situational variables will moderate the relationship between adaptive selling behavior and sales performance. In this paper, a path model is analyzed and supports the positive role of adaptive selling on sales performance under "adaptive" conditions. Surprisingly, there is also a positive relationship in the "nonadaptive" condition. Furthermore, salesperson characteristics such as the ability to monitor the selling situation and modify self-behaviors and strategies within the exchange setting are determined to be related to the intention to sell adaptively in the "adaptive" conditions. Finally, results of this study suggest that selling experience affects sales performance in both "adaptive" and "nonadaptive" situational contexts, but the sources of effects differ.

Since the 1960s, many relationships between predictor variables and sales performance measures have been examined

empirically across situations, companies, industries, products/ services, and types of buyers. However, despite some recent

progress in this area, there is still much to learn about factors that influence sales performance. Weitz (1979) originally offered six reasons for the poor performance of sales effectiveness research, and there have been contributions in many of these areas, most of which have offered solutions to these short-

comings. Churchill et al. (1985) identified inconsistencies across predictor variables, generally weak relationships, and a

worsening of predictive power in later studies compared to earlier works. Hence, the authors have concluded that al-

though no single factor is likely to explain a large proportion of sales performance variability, the continuing development of better methods and measures can improve the explanatory power of the independent variables.

Ralph W. Giacobbe (Ph.D., Arizona State University), Associate Professor of Marketing, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, [email protected]. Donald W. Jackson, Jr. (Ph.D., Michigan State University), Profes- sor of Marketing, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, [email protected]. Lawrence A. Crosby (Ph.D., University of Michigan), CEO, Synovate Loyalty, larry.crosby^synovate.com. Claudia M. Bridges (Ph.D., Arizona State University), Assistant Professor of Marketing, California State University, Sacramento, [email protected]. The authors acknowledge Professor Ajith Kumar, Marketing De- partment, W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State Univer- sity, for his helpful comments and suggestions.

Adaptive selling behavior (ASB) gained momentum from Weitz and his colleagues (Saxe and Weitz 1982; Weitz 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982; Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986) as a determinant of sales performance and is defined as altering sales- related behaviors during a customer interaction or across interactions based upon perceived information about the nature of the selling situation. Theoretically, as the flexibility engaged in by the seller increases, sales performance should

improve. However, this relationship ignores the added mar-

ginal costs and time associated with selling adaptively. Sales

performance is, therefore, contingent upon the marginal cost- benefit trade-off of being more adaptive. This trade-off is based on the increased revenues gained by tailoring the presentation, balanced against higher costs and greater time needed to engage in adaptive selling, and can range from positive to

negative as a function of the situation. That is, any relation-

ship between ASB and sales performance is expected to be

situationally sensitive, as suggested by Weitz s (1979) sixth reason for the poor performance of sales effectiveness research and the results from Porter, Wiener, and Frankwick (2003).

As recently as 2003, Porter, Wiener, and Frankwick devel-

oped a model of the relationship between ASB and sales performance, moderated by the selling situation. While their model and results set the groundwork for the role of selling situation in this relationship, it is only a part of the overall

picture of the nature of this relationship. As stated in Porter, Wiener, and Frankwick, "Over and over again in their research, Weitz (1981), Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan (1986), and Spiro and Weitz (1990) emphasize that personal selling is not a simple process but is based on the interaction of two levels of contin-

gencies: (1) the first-order contingencies focus on the sales-

person and their specific capability(s) and behavior(s) during the sales interaction; and (2) the second-order contingencies focus on the nature of the selling situation encountered . . .

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. XXVI, no. 2 (spring 2006), pp. 1 15-142. © 2006 PSE National Educational Foundation. All rights reserved.

ISSN 0885-3134 / 2006 $9.50 + 0.00.



116 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

by the salesperson and its moderating effect on selling strat-

egy" (2003, p. 276). The full model, as presented in this study, includes both of these contingencies. Our objective, therefore, is to present a comprehensive model of the relationship between ASB and sales performance contingent upon the sell-

ing situations, which also includes capabilities and behaviors of the seller. These first-order contingencies, as described above, include empathie ability toward the buyer, ability to perceive contextual cues, ability to modify ones own behavior in the

selling situation, and knowledge (operationalized as experience), and they are expected to moderate the ASB -* sales

performance relationship. In addition, an antecedent to ASB, identified as motivation (operationalized as intention), is included in the model as a result of research by Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan (1986), which suggests that this factor is integral in the adoption of knowledge structures necessary to develop specific capabilities and behaviors.

BACKGROUND

Conceptual Foundation and Empirical Findings

Evidence that sellers engage in ASB is found in a number of studies (e.g., Bello 1992; Bodkin and Stevenson 1993; Jolson 1973; Porter, Wiener, and Frankwick 2003; Spiro and Perreault 1979; Tanner 1994; Verbeke, Belschak, and Bagozzi 2004; Weilbaker 1990a; Wise 1974). It is also suggested that

delivering the same "canned" presentation or structured sell-

ing (an example of "nonadaptive" selling behavior) is utilized, even preferred by some sellers, and may be more effective than adaptive selling in certain contexts (Jolson 1973; 1975). A significant number of studies over the past 1 5 years have

investigated the relationship of ASB and a number of personal selling variables including salesperson characteristics and abilities, situational variables, and multiple measures of sales performance. A detailed review of the empirical work in this area is presented in Table 1 .

An investigation of the empirical research reveals insight regarding characteristics of the studies and the findings. With respect to findings, they are best described as mixed. The most frequently investigated direct relationships are between ASB and sales performance and ASB and selling experience. Spiro and Weitz (1990) reported their ADAPTS measure of ASB was positively correlated with a self-reported measure of sales performance but negatively related to sales performance based on managerial assessments. Anglin, Stoltman, and Gentry (1990) found support for the ASB and sales performance relationship to be tentative and mixed; Siguaw (1993) reported a positive association between the two variables, and Blackshear and Plank (1994) identified a direct relationship in two out of three analyses. Sujan, Weitz, and Kumar (1994)

found that "working smart" (a construct with ASB as a subdimension) was modestly related to sales performance. Moreover, Predmore and Bonnice (1994) found that sellers who were more adaptive were more likely to be successful at

closing sales. In 1996, Marks, Vorhies, and Badovick sepa- rated adaptive selling into two categories - beliefs and behaviors - and found that beliefs did not influence sales

performance directly, whereas behaviors were positively related to sales performance. While Boorom, Goolsby, and

Ramsey (1998) observed a modest positive association between ASB and sales performance for insurance sellers, Eppler et al. (1998) found that there was a significant relationship between ASB and two different measures of sales performance. On the other hand, in both Keillor, Parker, and Pettijohn (2000) and Pettijohn et al. (2000), ASBs were not determined to be significant predictors of sales performance. In 2003, Park and Holloway found that ASB had a significant positive influence on both objective and subjective measures of performance. Finally, Porter, Wiener, and Frankwick (2003) in-

vestigated the moderating effect of selling situation on the

relationship between ASB and sales performance, determin-

ing that there is a positive relationship between ASB and sales

performance and that the selling situation increased the

strength of the relationship. Although selling experience was positively related to ASB

in one study (Siguaw 1993), it was found unrelated to ASB in two others (Spiro and Weitz 1990; Tanner 1994). In addition, Bodkin and Stevenson (1993) found sales experience was positively related to adaptation made during sales call

planning, negatively related to adaptive behavioral intention (ASBI), and unrelated to two other ASB measures.

Finally, ASBI has been suggested as an antecedent of ASB. The idea of intention (or motivation) to practice adaptive selling was directly discussed in Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan (1986). They describe the link between motivation (intention), the practice of ASB, and the development of knowl-

edge structures. Outside of the actual selling situation, the

salesperson observes the "outcomes associated with different sales approaches" and develops customer categories "related to the effectiveness of sales approaches" (Weitz, Sujan, and

Sujan 1986, p. 182).

Situational Influence

One reason for the inconsistency of results could be the effect of situational influences. For example, the ASB -* sales performance relationship is expected to be positive only within certain prescribed situational contexts. Jolson (1989) argues that effective selling occurs when the salesperson incorporates the appropriate blend of structure and flexibility based on broad situational characteristics, including the heteroge-



117

o

0) CD M

TÍ tf)

Sí î o

« -g

•5. UJ "S

¡ <

ut <u c 5 o ^0 w

à- I 3 =5 i ia* le ç§M o

M 1 M ti s M #r h «M « sî-8-î Sii i

g» s s g e| £§-o 5 -8 ? " ;.»; « £ a -ï < í "8 "B * I I! 1 I! m ¡¡H ïf ilïfll ÜI f gilí îî * 5- iïitjif: ihïï^-if I lui H jJ§ Sîlltsiî îllllli?!!

11 îi Ut Ai H si ili g li ài unii sì 11 lu i

2fe¡=«|§| -S §8 3 5"g S í S If g s s? I«, ìmi 8s |S s§£

I lili j |{ ti lili t|¡ 11 tilt

|osg g» _ ¡le 'sé^c «¿!! i "»I . ti*

_ si *fsí fí ÏS{

il ili HI il HI., UH if li ! MHli mu? Ili Hi! iiii ili iìi%4 I iilli ßtits !?! 11K& f 1 mu? tu iiii iìi%4 ßtits 11K&

, H i, III! !i itiiiìfiUtli ü ì , lift il ÍIHÜitlililHüííli. it. I lili II liiilliiiliîlltlllelli I rî

2 ?î S~ì~ >^g£ -g» ë8



118

-1 li F o

U

n í.i ! <S» iHs- li«. iHí ìiìil So *- 5 *¡ « c « c 33-e« *c>-£*<« î?«FG« ccc^go, E 8 Pu S

î if *P|i Jill JíMf? PH? Hlîtï Util Mi ill ̂ -î lilîï lililí i-flîll lîllfi ijtî-5

n ïijug i li lit îîïî iff d II J ïli. i lilt ÌH Iff! SM s

. i ufi il» m i!!¡! 1!. il I 8 I £ I Ì ! £ olii 2 || SSg"i| R ̂ i Sí¡

<U . úi

fil ú ì II 111! |i| Ht il h sii *i*¡? lîi s Ifì gli il 1H Isiil |*ï

ìfflìr iì gli 1| t¡| ìli z^llgíã 2s ¿gì S,8ifS3fì2 !î

et "è"

hiHilîî ii ni li iP fh!ì s sibili?!? il Sii H 13 S* Hill f s

¡liliali sibili?!?

jff il Sii

il! Ili H

ili! 13 S*

1 Hill 1 ? f I

a. 3!ì 3^ oesiiì1 á!ÍS. ûS"S iSl"s i2c§8 i^ < ^ i Ë.

§§ Î o Î - S5 3 -S -5o

< ã > i¿ C FC ¿«¿SC S S E KIC Z>(23- ûSOC



119

o "So . ö 2> w o. « « IT

MM o

M ûûiiî . ö

II w

i,i li «

i * li« i ij IlilílK Jîliîifiî i ! jlh §§M|f¡í! ¡i?o Slìii 9 í s; fi II îi In ¿*Siï * -3

< I ¿ El. Elf 8 £1| S, 81¿-sl

fe g £

[* Al H ! 5. 1 I ¡i Ut ]M?«ir i ils ¿i i li 111 tijliJi i ili li l li - DE - û.E<Z<N*fc o - Q.O noq) - - -o

í U ì , ti ìij li Ut I <|J| , Í HI

H III It I5&Ï «I ! «|i ! . lit -I! flilli li iiî

!2 1 5 óll^ã 31 ? 'S 52 î2 1 11 ils

i 111» 11 S? 1 «51 IS s «6i y ftiis Ipil III If IJil I Hi III Ili itili «■aja« DJ" -o« e«8m ^eo^-ei"1« S1*^ e^-É-si

~O 00 - ~O c c -o aí 00 - «»

s -s .£^ £*;; tö Sc e g§ 2 "Î-S^ S2*-=! rtOC -^O1* - -2 Z» O D O í*«. -CO z £ ̂ Sai, á (S c2 iS-^ Í2 £ í2 §. á! G. £ I á â



120

- * S 8 3

& ¡111 Jas i fi-i lífüífif* Jl U I tfl« |l"oii|§ "Si-slil 5lS§ tí l£

I fc¡s* &|_| §'?*> g i s|a s M 8 IIJ 5 S. e g 8 1 I ilîl i -i 1 1-i 5 1 fililí ititi il I i f J

Jjj-5 . Ì I •

<£i£Í ^ Z Ï I u «Su

Ifl Il8 8.| 1^1 Î1 I I

i dj . II < í 8 £ i s 2

. !$ 5 -2 >

l¡ Off. íi f<* 8 ?| Î "I f | J |j Uff . i 5î ¡!i|§ ír Sii8 S I 11 JÎIÎ4 11 lili 3

fi-g if ïiiîïi i;°ll iî^ usi

r 1 J&lilll^Ss^iJllli lì Iti îlllîiîH Hi liliali ¡HÜ ¿ J&lilll^Ss^iJllli ás liliali

< ¿Ci. c2 1 ci. £ £ £ d ^ a £ u « ci.



Spring 2006 121

neity of customers' needs, product characteristics (portabil- ity, technical complexity), and time pressure to train/activate

large numbers of new sellers. Additional situational factors (primarily based on economic considerations) have been suggested as potential moderators of adaptive selling effectiveness (Jackson, Cunningham, and Cunningham 1988; Weitz 1979, 1981; Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986). Porter, Wiener, and Frankwick (2003) were the first to empirically test the

moderating effect of the selling situation encountered by a

salesperson on the relationship between ASB and sales performance. Their findings show that there is an increasingly positive relationship between these two variables depending upon the specific buying task. Collectively, the aforementioned

body of literature suggests that the greatest relative advantage from engaging in ASB occurs when, jointly:

• the buying task is either a modified rebuy or new task

purchase (Robinson, Faris, and Wind 1967), • the buyer's perceived purchase risk is high, • the relationship is believed to produce considerable

future profit opportunities, • the buying center is complex, • the offering is complex, • customers' needs vary considerably, • the seller has the resources to alter various facets of the

offering, and • the seller's perceived importance of the sale is high.

This situational condition is identified for the remainder of the study as the "adaptive condition." Conversely, ASB is

expected to be less effective (perhaps ineffective or even coun-

terproductive) in the opposite composite condition (identified as the "nonadaptive condition"). Presuming that sellers want to be more effective than less effective, salespeople operating in situational contexts similar to the "adaptive condition" are expected to demonstrate a greater intention to sell

adaptively than do their counterparts. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 1: In "adaptive condition" contexts, ASB is positively related to sales performance.

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between ASB and sales performance is increasingly dependent upon the selling situation. "Adaptive condition' contexts should show a stronger positive ASB -> sales performance relationship than "non-

adaptive condition" contexts.

Hypothesis 3: Sellers in "adaptive condition" contexts will demonstrate stronger intentions to sell adaptively than do sellers in "nonadaptive condition" contexts.

Hypothesis 4: Sellers in "adaptive condition" contexts will demonstrate a greater level of ASB than will sellers in

"nonadaptive condition" contexts.

Salesperson Characteristics

In addition to situational factors, characteristics of the seller are expected to relate to ASB. Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan (1986) propose that the sellers' information acquisition skills, along with their levels of categorical and declarative knowledge, should influence the motivation or intention (used synony- mously per the definition of motivation presented by Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986) to practice adaptive selling (ASBI) and moderate adaptive selling effectiveness. Marks, Vorhies, and Badovick (1996) suggested that ASB is actually comprised of salespeople's adaptive selling beliefs and behaviors, finding that only behaviors influenced sales performance directly. The ASB literature therefore suggests that the following characteristics influence ASB indirectly through an intention (or motivation) to sell adaptively. While there seems to be little distinction in the ASB literature between the motivation to sell adaptively and the intention to sell adaptively, admittedly, they probably differ on conceptual grounds. However, they are quite similar constructs pragmatically. In fact, Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan describe motivation to adapt as a seller's "tendency to practice adaptive selling" (1986, p. 186). In the context of this study, ASBI has been hypothesized as an antecedent to ASB with respect to the salespersons characteristics, as none of the salesperson characteristics have been shown to have a consistent direct effect on ASB.

Empathie Ability

Spiro and Weitz define empathy as "the reaction of individuals to the observed experiences of other individuals" (1990, p. 63) and argue that empathie ability is directly related to ASB. Their rationale is that these skills allow the seller to in-

corporate useful information at the time of the presentation to better tailor informational content and delivery style toward potential buyers with heterogeneous needs.

The definition of empathie ability for this study is the abil-

ity of salespeople to spontaneously adopt the perspective of their customers through intellectual apprehension of their mental state or condition, thereby generating a genuine feel-

ing of concern toward the customer. This definition is adapted from Spiro and Weitz (1990) and also incorporates that of Davis, which states that empathy is "the tendency to spontaneously adopt the psychological point of view of others" (1983, pp. 113-114). The idea that sellers with greater empathie ability should be able to improve their adaptive selling effectiveness is based mainly on the premise that sellers gain "unique insights" by being able to place themselves psychologically and emotionally in the position of the customer. Such sellers "would have a greater appreciation of their customers' needs and be in a better position to tailor their sales presentations to the customers with [whom] they are interacting" (Weitz 1979, p. 156).



1 22 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

It is also suggested that empathie ability involves the mani- festation of genuine concern for others. This component of

empathy enables adaptive sellers to share their feelings with customers. Although outward demonstration of concern may not be necessary for one to possess this ability (Mehrabian and Epstein 1972), being able to provide customers with signals that the seller is sensitive to the buyers' perspectives should

positively affect trust and relationship building. Empathie ability as a moderator of adaptive selling effec-

tiveness has been conceptualized by several authors (Grikscheit and Crissy 1973; Robertson and Chase 1968; Spiro, Perreault, and Reynolds 1977; Weitz 1979, 1981; Wenschlag 1987) and used in empirical studies as a predictor of sales performance (Greenberg and Meyer 1964; Lamont and Lundstrom 1977; Spiro and Weitz 1990; Tobolski and Kerr 1952) with little success. However, Spiro and Weitz (1990) did find that there are subcomponents of empathie ability (perspective taking, empathie concern, and social self-confidence) that correlate with ASB, implying an antecedent relationship with the behavior. It is therefore suggested that empathie ability overall

may be positively related to the intention to sell adaptively when it is important for sellers to respond to customers' signals and tailor the presentation. Therefore, the following re-

lationship is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 5: In "adaptive condition" contexts, the sellers

empathie ability will be positively related to ASBI.

Cue Perception Ability

Another ability expected to influence the efficacy of ASB, and the intention to practice it (ASBI), is the skill with which sellers perceive pertinent situational cues (verbal and nonverbal). It is suggested and supported that successful sellers may be more aware of nonverbal signals and be better able to in- terpret them than their less successful counterparts (Goolsby, Lagace, and Boorom 1992; Grikscheit 1971; Grikscheit and Crissy 1973). However, results from Szymanski and Churchill (1990) and Goolsby, Lagace, and Boorom (1992) raise questions about the relationship between cue perception ability and sales effectiveness. Weilbaker (1990a), on the other hand, suggests that keen, diverse cue perception ability is a necessary condition for effective adaptive selling. Porter and Inks (2000) suggest that high "attributional complex" sellers are better able to assess buyers cues, which influences their pre- disposition to practice ASB. And, although some evidence suggests that a type of cue perception ability, "sensitivity to the expressive behavior of others" (cf. Lennox and Wolfe 1 984; Snyder 1979), is also related to adaptive behavior, it, too, seems not to be directly related to sales performance (Goolsby, Lagace, and Boorom 1992; Spiro and Weitz 1990). There- fore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 6: In "adaptive condition" contexts, the sellers cue perception ability will be positively related to ASBI.

Ability to Modify Self-Presentation

The ability to modify self-presentation was suggested as a moderator of the ASB -* sales performance relationship by Weitz (1979; 1981) and proposed as a determinant of the intention to sell adaptively by Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan (1986). Self-presentation relates specifically to the visual and audio cues generated by the seller and excludes other dimensions the seller can adjust in response to stimuli within the exchange encounter (e.g., alterations in tactics and strategies). As they improve their modifying skills, sellers are expected to be better at timing the adjustments, be less awkward when making them, and appear more genuine to the customer during the

process. Each of these outcomes is expected to improve the effectiveness of the adaptive behavior, thus motivating sellers to engage in ASB with more customers and in different set-

tings. That is, as their modification abilities increase, sellers' determination to sell adaptively should increase as well.

To date, no empirical research has examined the seller's

ability to modify self-behaviors as a moderator of the ASB -*

sales performance relationship. However, Sujan, Sujan, and Bettman (1988) found the self-modifying trait a significant covariate in the relationship between the salespersons knowl-

edge and sales performance, but self-modification was not

significantly related to sales performance (p < 0.05). Spiro and Weitz (1990) found a modest correlation between ASB and the ability to modify self-presentation. The latter finding is consistent with the proposition by Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan (1986) that the seller's "ability to modify" -> ASBI. This rela-

tionship suggests the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 7: In "adaptive condition" contexts, the sellers

ability to modify self-presentation and strategies will be

positively related to ASBI

Experience

Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan (1986) also propose that the intention to practice ASB increases as other capabilities needed to be an effective "adapter" improve. Based on research in the field of social cognition, these authors express that sellers who

engage in ASB (perhaps due to intrinsic benefits, behavioral

modeling, supervisory directives, etc.) learn experientially from the outcomes of different sales approaches employed in varied contexts. That is, "the salesperson assays the current situation relative to their recollections of prior sales encounters and then acts in a way thought to be most likely to lead to a sale" (Morgan and Stoltman 1990, p. 44). Theoretically, sellers become more efficient and effective at adaptation as their



Spring 2006 123

ability to categorize customers and situations improves com- mensurate with developments in their procedural knowledge (e.g., Which strategy or action should be used in such contexts?).

As sellers gain more and varied sales experiences, their

knowledge structures, which contain an integration of selling events, outcomes, customer and contextual characteristics, and seller and buyer behaviors, is expected to be enriched. That is, through experience, sellers improve their skills and develop more elaborate knowledge of selling situations, customer types, and selling strategies (Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986). This broadened knowledge base enables the seller to identify a wider

variety of selling contexts, thereby enhancing the practice of

adaptive selling (Spiro and Weitz 1990). Consequently, this

development leads sellers to feel more confident about their own abilities to adapt and become more assured that their ASBs will improve sales performance and increase their intentions to sell adaptively. Empirically, Siguaw (1993) found ASB to be positively related to sales experience. Using a shortened version of the ADAPTS scale, Robinson et al. (2002) also found ASB to be significantly positively correlated with sales

experience. Therefore, the following is hypothesized that the intention to practice ASB will be positively correlated as well.

Hypothesis 8: In "adaptive condition* contexts, salespeople with more selling experience will exhibit greater ASBI than those with less selling experience.

ASB tends to coincide with exposure to new selling situations, and the ability to adapt cannot be quickly taught in the classroom (Jolson 1989). Jolson further remarks, "How many sales situation categories are known to the novice seller, and how likely will s/he be able to respond effectively to each one?" "Such instinctiveness is a function of experience" (1989, p. 10). Sellers who operate in "adaptive condition" contexts are more likely (than their counterparts in "nonadaptive" settings) to gain more and varied experiences that are directly associated with (1) monitoring the situation, (2) altering the sales

presentation, (3) understanding broad differences in customers' needs, and (4) obtaining informational feedback related to the successes and failures of the adaptive behaviors they engaged in. Thus, the following hypothesis is offered:

Hypothesis 9: The salespersons selling experience will be related to ASBI more strongly in "adaptive condition" contexts than in "nonadaptive condition" contexts.

Finally, knowledge gained through personal selling experience can impact sales performance in ways completely unrelated to adaptiveness. For instance, improving task-specific behaviors such as managing time, improving ones product and competitor knowledge, planning sales call sequences, adhering to schedules, following through on promises, sub-

mitting timely/accurate reports, and preparing and maintain-

ing support equipment should directly affect sales performance in all situational contexts. Also, besides aiding the practice of adaptive selling, knowledge enables the salesperson to build self-confidence, better satisfy customers' needs, and gain buyers' trust (Weitz, Castleberry, and Tanner 1998). Sales experience is also expected to influence sales performance by increasing a salesperson's motivation to sell. According to Walker, Churchill, and Ford (1977), experienced sellers should exhibit less role conflict, role inaccuracy, and role ambiguity, and improve their instrumentalities (i.e., the perceived prob- ability that a seller's performance improvement on some dimension leads to a reward). These factors combine to increase one's motivation to sell, thereby improving performance outcomes as suggested in the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 10: The salespersons selling experience will be positively related to sales performance in "adaptive condition" contexts as well as in the "nonadaptive condition" context.

Figure 1 depicts the expected relationships among empathie ability, ability to perceive cues, ability to modify, experience, ASBI, ABI, and sales performance.

METHOD

Research Design and Data Collection

In order to test the above hypotheses, a company-based field survey of salespeople was undertaken. This research design was chosen in order to compare independent variables between two different selling contexts. Two large, U.S. companies serving nationwide markets were selected on the basis of both customer and product characteristics that classified one as operating in a selling context similar to the theoretically described "adaptive condition" and the other as operating in a context much more similar to the "nonadaptive condition." Based on discussions with sales executives for both organizations, it was concluded that, compositely, the two companies represented markedly different selling contexts regarding the seven dimensions discussed earlier (Situational Influence section). A detailed discussion of these dimensions, and the related measures used to operationally validate this manipulation, is presented later in the Measurement section.

The firm representing the "adaptive condition" is a multi- division health-care product organization. Three divisions (hos- pital and surgical equipment, operating room equipment, and

pharmaceuticals) were selected to participate based on the number of salespeople, product lines, and market and customer characteristics. The company representing the "nonadaptive condition" sells a consumer durable to household buyers through direct personal selling. This firm is divided into geo- graphic regions where in each region a general manager oversees




Figure 1 Model of Adaptive Selling Behavior and

Sales Performance

f Empathie ^ [ Sales ^ V Ability J V Perfonnancey

( Perception j ' / 'AbVátyJ' ' /

' 'V /Adaptive SeUingN f^ ^^' ' /' '^ Ben»v*or J I Modify J 'J ' ^^*" ~**0^

^^ ^^ /intention to ̂ ( Experience ^ )

»> I Practice ASB )

V^ (Knowledge) ) X^^ ^^^

several distributor territories. Seven territory distributors from one region participated in the study.

Salespeople employed by the two firms served as the units of analysis. Data were collected via a mailed questionnaire and included responses from salespeople and their immedi- ate supervisors. Regional sales managers were mailed a packet consisting of questionnaires to be routed to their salespeople, a questionnaire to be completed by the sales managers, and a set of directions for administration and the return envelopes.

Sample Characteristics

In total, 380 sales representatives and 50 regional sales managers jointly provided complete information for analysis. Of the 529 questionnaires originally mailed, 414 were returned, of which 380 were usable. Of the 380 usable questionnaires, 144 were from the adaptive A1 group, 142 were from the adaptive A^ group, and 84 were from the nonadaptive B group. The response rate was 85 percent for Aj, 61 percent for A^ and 67 percent for B.

Salespeople from all three groups are predominately male

(Aj = 74 percent, A^ = 78 percent, and B = 85 percent). Re-

spondents from the two "adaptive condition" contexts are similar regarding age, experience, and education level, but differ on each of these characteristics when compared to sellers of

group B. Typically, sellers in groups Kx znàA^ are about seven

years older and have six more years of selling experience than their counterparts in group B. The former two consist mainly of college graduates, whereas the latter primarily includes high school graduates. Also, salespeople from all groups assessed themselves as being relatively effective sellers. Table 2 presents a detailed comparison of the sellers' characteristics across

groups. Finally, for each group, regional sales managers indicated they were confident in their ability to assess their sellers' adaptiveness (x = 1.55, 1.52, and 1.43 for A,, A^ and B,

respectively; 1 = very able to assess, 5 = unable to assess).

Measurement

Selling Situation

Consistent with the definition used by Bagozzi (1978) and Hackman and Lawler (1971), the selling situation is viewed in this study as the set of physical characteristics that are co- ercive, facilitative, or constraining on the sellers behaviors.

Conceptually, the "adaptive condition" and "nonadaptive condition" represent maximally different theoretical contexts. However, because an experimental manipulation of the criteria set that defines the selling situation (i.e., the "composite" adaptive and nonadaptive conditions described earlier) was not possible, two firms were selected on the basis of their "close proximity" to expectations on each criterion.

Although it was not anticipated that the two firms would

represent maximally different contexts on the entire set of criteria simultaneously, an effort was made to select companies whose selling situations differed substantially and systemati- cally on all of them. Prior to conducting the mail survey, re-

gional sales managers from each company were asked by telephone to assess the characteristics of their respective "general selling situation" using single-item, seven-point, bipolar rating scales for all situational criteria but one. Data for the

remaining criterion, average dollar volume per sale, were provided by the regional managers from their companies' records.

The "adaptive selling condition" was represented by a firm (hereafter company "A") whose salespeople addressed customers whose perceived purchase risk was high and who developed a long-term or ongoing relationship with the customer after the sale, dealt with complex buying centers, sold a com-

plex product, sold to customers whose needs were heterogeneous, offered a wide variety of offerings, had price setting flexibility, and dealt with a significantly large sales dollar value

per sale. Alternately, the "nonadaptive condition" context was



Spring 2006 125

Table 2 Characteristics of the Samples

Group

A, A2 B "Adaptive" "Adaptive" "Nonadaptive"

Characteristic n = 154 n = 142 n = 84

Gender (percent male) 71.4 77.5 84.5

Age (mean, standard deviation) 36.2 (7.6) 37.0(8.2) 29.9(9.1) Years Selling Experience (mean, standard deviation) 10.9 (5.9) 11.8(5.6) 5.0(3.7) Years Company Experience (mean, standard deviation) 8.3 (4.5) 7.5 (5.1) 3.2(2.5) Years Formal Education (mean, standard deviation) 16.3 (0.8) 16.2(0.7) 12.9(1.5) Self-Rating of Selling Skills (mean, standard deviation)* 5.8 (0.8) 5.7 (0.8) 5.4 ( I . I )

Notes: Item nonresponse for each characteristic within groups was negligible except for "age," where 16, 13, and 4 salespeople, respectively, failed to

respond; * seven-point scale: 7 = outstanding, 4 = average, 1 = poor.

represented by a company (hereafter "B") whose salespeople operated in an opposite composite condition.

Figure 2 presents the average ratings and the dollar volume per sale for the three divisions of company A and for

company B. Although, overall, the measures support the

operationalized situational contexts, division 3 of company A departed from divisions 1 and 2 on a few important criteria. Conversely, mean scores for divisions 1 and 2 were not

significantly different on any dimension except average dollar volume per sale (p < 0.05). Because concern about this difference was mitigated by high repeat sales common in division 2, and because of the strong similarities on the other dimensions, divisions 1 and 2 of firm "A" were combined to

represent one type of "adaptive selling condition" context la- beled Ar Division 3 was treated as a separate (second) "adaptive selling condition" context, '. On each of the eight criteria, firm B represents a situation much more characteristic of the theoretical context where one would expect adaptive selling to be ineffective or even counterproductive, thus it was

operationalized as the "nonadaptive condition."

Sales Performance

Although sales performance can be viewed from the stand-

point of a single event (e.g., how effective a seller is in a given exchange setting, Weitz 1981), here, sales performance refers to an index of effectiveness for a salesperson across a set of sales interactions.

The appropriate way to measure sales performance is dis-

puted. There is no basis to generalize that higher correlations between predictors and sales performance can be expected for a particular measure of the dependent variable (Churchill et al. 1985). However, evidence cautions against using a single dimension of sales effectiveness in the analysis of theoretical

relationships (Avila and Fern 1986; Lamont and Lundstrom 1977; van der Westhuizen 1993). Furthermore, sales performance measures are expected to vary to some degree due to differential criteria used by the type of respondent (i.e., self-

rating versus managerial rating) in making assessments (Landy and Farr 1980). Therefore, three measures of sales performance were obtained - regional managers' ratings, the company's effectiveness rating used for internal management purposes, and sales representatives' self-ratings. The actual scales used to measure sales performance and several other variables are presented in detail in Appendix A.

Adaptive Selling Behavior

ASB refers to alterations in selling strategies, tactics, social

style, verbal communication, and physical appearance of the seller. Adjustments may be across customers/prospects or across instances and are based on the seller's perception of the characteristics of the customer, prospect, or situation for the

purpose of improving the buyer's likelihood of purchase com-

pliance. Three measures of adaptive selling were taken; each is described below.

• ASBji Sales managers rated each of their salespeople on a 0- to 100-point scale. "How adaptive is this seller when faced with different customers and sales situations?" (0 = extremely nonadaptive, 100 = extremely adaptive). As a validity check, managers rated their ability to assess the ASB of their salespeople using a

seven-point scale (1 = very able, 7 = unable to assess). • ASB2: Two profiles were presented to the respondent.

One represented a highly adaptive seller, the other, a

nonadaptive seller. Salespeople indicated how similar or dissimilar they were using a single-item, seven- point scale.




Figure 2 Comparative Mean Scores on Seven Situational Dimensions

Situational Dimension Relative Mean Ratings

Buyer's Perceived Purchase Risk ! ''' "*•• - >

?

Extremely Low ' ^"

^'^' ^ '

Extremely High

' ^

^:>y}r Type of Buyer-Seller Relationship | ^ | | ^ „ >'^y '

Very Short Term ' ^-^ y / Very Long Term

' ^ ~~~~ y I Complexity ofthe Decision-Making Unit ) A''~ '' i' 'v

Very Simple 7 / / / Very complex (one person) / /

: / (many people)

Complexity of the Seller's Produces) | ^ 1 ^JJ 1 l' | I Extremely Simple 'T ^^

'

Extremely Complex

Homogeneity of Customers' Needs I S | ^^ | | Very Similar Needs

/

/'

Very Different Needs

/ // V Width of Seller's Product Line*

|

^ | | | W ' ̂ Single Offering N^ j // Very Wide Line

X j / ^__^ Seller's Flexibility to Adjust Price* |

|

|

X | | |

:i / ^__^ |

No Flexibility Complete Flexibility

Average Dollar Value of a Closed Sale $1,100 : $5,200 : , $12^300 I I $144,200 .

Company B Company A Company A Company A Division 2 Division 3 Division 1

OwA-DMI.il »R-9.O ComblDedllltoGrollpAl(Adllp||ve) Company A -Division 2; /Ir-11 J

^- Company A - Division 3; nR-23 Represents Group A2 (Adaptive)

- ^^- Company B; n^l Represents Group B (Nonadaptf ve)

Notes: * Items relate to separate aspects of the specific situational dimension: "the seller has the resources to alter various facets of the offering." **

nR refers to the number of regional sales managers in each subgroup who responded to the set of situational items.

• ASB3: Two sales approaches were presented to each salesperson. One described a differentiated (adaptive) sales approach, the other an undifferentiated (nonadaptive) approach. Sellers responded to a single- item, seven-point scale that best describes their own selling behavior.

Adaptive Selling Behavioral Intention

Intention to adapt (ASBI) was broadly discussed as a prede- cessor of adaptive behavior in the review of conceptual litera-

ture presented earlier. The idea that behavioral intention or motivation to behave are antecedents of actual behavior is well established and fundamental in many marketing-related models (e.g., Azjen and Fishbein 1980; Howard 1989; Morrison 1979; Warshaw 1980; Zeithaml and Bitner 2000; Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman 1996; among others). From a scientific standpoint, "intentions" can act as a critical explanatory mediator between other antecedents and behavior, thereby enhancing the understanding of important relationships. A key purpose for including behavioral intention in theoretical models is because some, and often considerable,



Spring 2006 127

variation in the behavior results from exogenous factors that restrict one s opportunity to act in a predisposed or predicted manner. In a selling context, this includes, but is not limited to, the buyers time constraints, the sellers time constraints, the sellers flexibility to adjust a critical attribute of the offer-

ing, and the availability of discernable contextual cues that would trigger adaptive responses.

Salespeople were asked to consider their upcoming sales encounters and indicate what their expected actions would be by agreeing/disagreeing with each of four items pertaining to adaptive behavior (i.e., seven-point scale, 1 = very strongly agree, 7 = very strongly disagree). For example, one statement is: I expect I would "before selling anything, first find out what the customer is feeling and thinking" (see Appendix A).

Empathie Ability

Several subdimensions of empathy have been applied in social psychology and psychology (Davis 1983; Grief and Hogan 1973; Johnson, Cheek, and Smither 1983; Mehrabian and

Epstein 1972). Among them, two were used in this study -

perspective taking and empathie concern. Both were measured using seven-point, agree/disagree scales. Scales were created by first identifying items from social psychology and

psychology literature that appeared applicable in a personal selling context and then by generating a pool of eight to ten items per construct. Each selected item was then reworded to reflect a personal selling application and subjected to a judg- mental screening process that reduced the number of items

per scale to five and four, respectively.

Ability to Perceive Cues

Three subdimensions of cue perception ability (verbal, nonverbal, and intuitive) were measured separately, using the same basic approach used for empathy. Items for "ability to perceive cues" were derived partially from a subdimension of the revised self-monitoring scale (i.e., sensitivity to the expressive behaviors of others) developed by Lennox and Wolfe (1984). Other sources used to develop items include publications by Hunt and Cusella (1983), LaMonica (1986), and Lewis and Reinsch (1988). Item pools were created separately for verbal, nonverbal, and intuitive cue perception ability that fo- cused specifically on aspects of personal selling. After a

purification process, the resulting cue perception ability sub- scales consisted of five, four, and four items, respectively.

Ability to Modify

Three subdimensions of the sellers ability to modify the sales

presentation (i.e., ability to modify their actions, their strate-

gies, and their personality) were measured separately in the

same manner as discussed earlier. Items for "ability to modify" were derived from the self-monitoring scale (Lennox and Wolfe 1984; Snyder 1974, 1979) and augmented to reflect a sales context. Each subdimension consisted of four items measured with seven-point agree/disagree scales.

Experience

The types of knowledge that can assist sellers in developing task-related selling efficiencies or broaden the scope and depth of situational schemata to enhance their adaptive selling skills can come from numerous sources. Clearly, two major sources are the seller s general selling experience and the sales or sales

management experience for the firm within which performance is measured. Consequently, salespeople were asked to indicate the total number of years of professional selling ex-

perience they had and the number of years of experience they had with their current company.

Other Measures

Three demographic variables measuring the characteristics of the salesperson, age, gender, and the number of years of formal education were obtained to provide a profile of the re-

spondent set. Sellers also rated their own selling skills and abilities on a seven-point scale (1 = poor, 7 = outstanding).

ANALYSIS

Measurement Assessment

Exploratory Procedures

The 34 items developed to separately measure empathie abil-

ity (perspective taking, empathie concern), cue perception ability (verbal, nonverbal, and intuitive), and ability to modify (actions, strategies, and personality) were evaluated using ex-

ploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis on the entire 380 observations. Factor analysis produced six interpretable dimensions that were highly consistent with the expected constructs: (1) perspective taking ability, (2) empathie concern, (3) verbal cue perception ability, (4) nonverbal cue perception and intuitive abilities, (5) ability to modify personality, and (6) ability to modify actions and strategies. Three items were selected from the item pool to serve as manifest variables for each of the six constructs in a hierarchical confirma-

tory factor analysis (HCFA). The selection process was based on the item s content validity (the item was originally intended to measure that construct), factor loadings, and the internal

consistency of the resulting three-item scale. As such, 18 items were retained and used to determine the dimensionality of the six constructs that represented these "characteristics of




the seller" (see Appendix A regarding empathie ability, cue perception ability, and ability to modify).

Confirmatory Procedures

Three separate HCFA models were created and analyzed us-

ing LISREL 8 (Jöreskog and Sörbom 1998). Each model included the same 18 measures as reflective indicators of the six constructs described above; cross-loadings were not permitted. A description of the models is presented below:

• Model 1 . The six first-order latent variables comprised three second-order constructs: empathie ability = / (perspective taking ability and empathie concern), cue

perception ability = /(verbal and nonverbal/intuitive cue perception abilities), and ability to modify = /(ability to modify personality and ability to modify ac-

tions/strategy). • Model 2. The six first-order latent variables comprised

two second-order constructs: ability to monitor = f (perspective taking ability, empathie concern, verbal cue perception ability, and nonverbal/intuitive cue

perception ability), and ability to modify = /(ability to

modify personality [self] and ability to modify ac-

tions/strategy). • Model 3. The six first-order latent variables comprised

one second-order construct: adaptive skills = /(perspective taking ability, empathie concern, verbal cue perception ability, nonverbal/intuitive cue perception ability, ability to modify personality [self] , and ability to modify actions/strategy).

• A fourth model was explored based on the identified correlations of the first-order latent variables obtained from Model 2. The fit indices were on par with Model 3 and were therefore removed from further consideration.

The fit indicators for Model 1 were acceptable (%2 = 307.03, degrees of freedom [df] = 126; goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = 0.92; normed fit index [NFI] = 0.89; nonnormed fit index [NNFI] = 0.91; comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.92; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.06), however, the covariance matrix for the second-order latent variables was nonpositive definite (i.e., correlation between empathie ability and cue perception ability > 1.00). Although such conditions can be attributed to several factors (Shumacker and Lomax 1996), the most likely was deemed to be model mispecification due to collinearity among the indicators of the two constructs in question. This finding led to the explo- ration of Model 2. Model 2 s fit measures were equally adequate (x2 = 320.7, df = 127; GFI = 0.91; NFI = 0.87; NNFI = 0.90; CFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.06). There were no conver- gence problems as identified in Model 1, and the model is

obviously more parsimonious. Finally, while Model 3 was the most parsimonious, its fit declined considerably from Model 2 s Of2 = 424.0, df = 129; GFI = 0.88; NFI = 0.83; NNFI =

0.88; CFI = 0.88; RMSEA = 0.08). Based on these findings, Model 2 was thought to best represent the dimensionality of the set of salesperson s characteristics addressed in the study.

The results of the HCFA required adjusting the hypothesized ASB model presented earlier in this paper (see Figure 1). More specifically, 'cue perception ability "and "empathie ability" formed a single construct "ability to monitor" (the selling situation). The revised model, presented in Figure 3, provided the framework for assessing measurement reliabilities for the six remaining latent variables and for designing the structural model used to test the hypotheses.

Finally, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the six latent variables depicted in Figure 3 (with 30 manifest variables) to assess the internal consistency and validity of the measures. Table 3 presents the standardized results of that procedure. The overall model fit is reasonably good (GFI = 0.87, NFI = 0.95, NNFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.05). Alpha coefficients exceed 0.7 for each construct, indicating satisfactory measurement reliability (Nunnally 1978). In addition, all item construct standardized loadings exceed 0.5 (except one, which = 0.49) and all are statistically significant (p < 0.01), suggesting adequate con-

vergent validity. Finally, to explore the discriminant validity of the measures, chi-square difference tests were conducted

separately for all the pairwise comparisons of the latent variables by fixing their respective correlation coefficients to 1.0 in the constrained models. This resulted in 15 model com-

parison tests, and in all instances, the constrained models'

chi-square values significantly exceeded those of the unconstrained models (lowest A%2 = 15.54,/> < 0.01), an indication that the latent variables are distinct. Particularly noteworthy is the result of the discriminant validity test for "adaptive sell-

ing behavioral intention" - that is, ASBI * ASB. The results

strongly support the measure of ASBI as a distinct construct from ASB (A#2 = 44.76, p < 0.0001).

In addition to structural equation modeling (SEM), analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were used with those hypotheses that required comparisons of means (H3 and H4).

Structural Model

Because the measurement properties were sufficiendy strong to permit reasonable interpretation of parameter estimates, the proposed structural relationships were tested using path analysis. Summated indices were created for each latent variable using equally weighted items from each scale. Indices formed from measures having different scales (e.g., ASB^ ASB , and ASB ) were transformed to extract scaling effec^



Spring 2006 129

Figure 3 Revised Structural Model of Adaptive Selling and Sales Performance

I Âbility to^V ^SalcsS, I I 12 measures | ^ J Monitor J Í Performance Ì ^ I 3 measures I

'(MON)^/' V^SP)^^

' Y / ^

>^TkñiZTr' V /Âdaptive Selling^ ■ ■

1 n=n/Wi

' >^TkñiZTr' A V C /Âdaptive

^^Ü2 -sar Selling^

^ ) <L3- ■ i ■

1 ' VíMOD)^ / ' ^^Ü2 ^

/' ' fe

^^^ *^. /intention to ̂ ______ I - 2 !

1 /Experience^ il p> V Practice AS ) ^ *■ I 4 measures I

" | 2 measures |^( ^ ) p>

'ÂSW)^/ ^ *■ "

before summating. The measurement reliabilities (i.e., Cronbachs a) for these indices are presented for each group in Table 3. The item-to-item correlations used in the measurement model, and the index-to-index correlations used in the structural models for each group, are presented in Appen- dix Tables Bl and B2, respectively.

The choice of a path analysis model rather than a full structural model was made because within-group sample sizes were too restrictive, especially for group B (n = 84). This limitation restricted the number of parameters that could be accurately estimated using a full structural model. While the use of summated scores reduced the technical rigor of the analysis, other options (e.g., elimination of constructs, widespread use of constraints, reduction in the number of items/measures) were impractical or inadequate. Under similar circumstances, summated scores have been used as measures of latent variables by several researchers (e.g., Calantone, Schmidt, and Song 1996; Cauvusgil and Zou 1994; Li and Calantone 1998; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Ahearne 1998; Osterhaus 1997; Price, Arnould, andTierney 1995; Sujan, Weitz, and Kumar 1994).

RESULTS

Model Testing The path model was analyzed with LISREL 8 using general- ized least squares (GLS) estimation for each group. GLS was selected because it tends to perform better when sample sizes are under 250 (Hu and Bender 1995). Table 4 provides a summary of the fit indices and standardized path coefficients for all three situational conditions. In each case, the model seems to fit the data adequately. In two of the three situations (Aj and B), the fit indicators are rather good - chi-square is not significant at p < 0.05; GFI, NFI, NNFI, and CFI all exceed 0.96; and RMSEA >value of close fit" > 0.10 (indicating that RMSEA < 0.05 cannot be rejected at the 0.10 level of significance). In the A2 situation, the fit indices are not as strong, however, they still appear reasonably adequate (although x2 is significant at p < 0.05, GFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.99).

The proportion of explained variance for each endogenous construct was relatively high in the two "adaptive" conditions.




Table 3 Measurement Assessments

Overall Group

LISREL Estimates Variance A, A2 B

Construct Measure Loading t-Value Alpha Extracted Alpha* Alpha* Alpha*

Sales Performance SP, 0.86 (SP) SP2 0.76 13.62

SP3 0.62 10.48 0.793 0.57 0.790 0.741 0.821 Adaptive Selling ASB, 0.83 Behavior (ASB) ASB2 0.81 13.55

ASB3 0.85 15.41 0.872 0.69 0.832 0.820 0.855

Adaptive Selling ASBI, 0.68 Intention (ASBI) ASBI2 0.74 11.32

ASBI3 0.72 11.39 ASBI4 0.69 10.82 0.802 0.50 0.786 0.730 0.835

Ability to Monitor PT, 0.58 (MON) PT2 0.54 7.62

PT3 0.71 10.09 ECN, 0.52 6.77 ECN2 0.77 8.47 ECISI3 0.64 8.44 VRB, 0.58 7.86 VRB2 0.73 9.06 VRB3 0.76 9.32 NVB, 0.49 6.77 NVB2 0.55 7.36 NVB3 0.64 8.19 0.887 0.40 0.894 0.829 0.824

Ability to Modify MPER, 0.55 (MOD) MPER2 0.71 9.38

MPER3 0.74 9.40 MACT, 0.66 8.54 MACT2 0.80 9.63 MACT3 0.79 9.61 0.859 0.51 0.824 0.832 0.859

Experience EXP, 0.83 (EXP) EXP2 0.87 8.05 0.838 0.72 0.831 0.858 0.861

Notes: Fit indices for the measurement model are GFI = 0.87, NFI = 0.95, NNFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.050. PT = perspective taking, ECN = empathie concern, VRB = verbal cue perception, NVB = nonverbal cue perception, MPER = modify personality, and MACT = modify actions and strategies. Overall sample size is 380; group sample sizes are 154, 142, and 84 for Aj, A^ and B, respectively.

* Alpha for each subgroup is

Cronbachs alpha based on summated indices of measures for each construct within each group. The "overall alpha" is based on LISREL 8 estimates from the measurement model.

In Aj, predictors accounted for 38 percent of the variation in sales performance, 34 percent of ASB, and 31 percent of ASBI. In A^ the predictors explained 45, 35, and 52 percent of the variance in sales performance, ASB, and ASBI, respectively. In group B, a large portion of the variance in ASB (46 percent) and ASBI (38 percent) is explained by the model, whereas a lesser amount (27 percent) of the variance in sales performance is attributed to the predictors. This latter observation was anticipated, however, because ASB was not expected to be strongly associated with sales performance, the "nonadaptive" condition.

Hypotheses Tests

HI and H2 deal with the ASB -* sales performance relationship. HI is clearly supported. The standardized path coefficient /Jj is 0.56 in condition Ax and 0.64 in A^ both significant at/> < 0.01. Thus, in situational contexts consistent with the "adaptive condition," ASB is positively related to sales performance, and the association is relatively strong. H2 is also supported. H2 predicted that the relationship between ABS and sales performance would be dependent on the selling situation. The ASB -* sales performance relationship is signifi-



Spring 2006 131

Table 4 Structural Relationships Results Summary

Group

A, A2 B Adaptive Adaptive Nonadaptive

Path Standardized Standardized Standardized Structural Path Coefficient Coefficient t-Value Coefficient t-Value Coefficient t-Value

ASB-SP j8, 0.56* 6.49 0.64* 7.14 0.23** 2.24 ASBI -ASB ß2 0.58* 6.49 0.60* 6.53 0.68* 6.14 MON-* ASBI y, 0.26* 3.30 0.27* 3.23 0.1 1 0.86 MOD -ASBI y2 0.34* 4.29 0.49* 5.12 0.52* 3.73 EXP-ASBI y3 0.18* 2.49 0.19* 3.03 -0.14 -1.46 EXP-SP y4 0.19* 2.78 0.13** 1.95 0.49* 4.31

Goodness-of-Fit Statistics

£ Rvalue) 1 1 72(7) (0. 1 1 ) 21 .94(7) (0.003) 1 0.43(7) (0. 1 7) GFI 0.97 0.95 0.96 NFI 0.98 0.98 0.98 NNFI 0.98 0.97 0.99

CFI 0.99 0.99 0.99

RMSEA (p-value close fit) 0.066 (0.29) 0.118 (0.02) 0.077 (0.28)

Notes: Group sample sizes are 154, 142, and 84 for A1? A2, and B, respectively. * p< 0.01, ** p< 0.05.

cantly stronger (p < 0.01) in both "adaptive" contexts (Aj and

A^) compared to context B. Statistical comparisons between

A(Ai) and Ao» and between ^KA2)Mand A(B) were Performed

using the "multiple sample model" procedure for a category variable (Schumacker and Lomax 1996). The method is a

chi-square difference test with df = 1 for two nested structural models, the unconstrained model {ßx is a free parameter in both groups), and the constrained model, which restricts

ß and j81(B) to be equal. For0I(A1) and£(B), the AX2 is 9.43

(p < 0.01); for j81(A2) andß1(B) it is 9.18 (p < 0.01), indicating significant differences between the compared coefficients.

H3 and H4 refer to the relative levels of ASB and ASBI between sellers in the "adaptive" and "nonadaptive" groups. MANOVA and ANOVA were used to compare the mean scores for the composite indices and vectors of individual measures of ASBI and ASB, respectively. The complete results are presented in Table 5. The findings do not support H3. Mean scores for the ASBI composite index are not significantly different among the three groups (F = 1.19, /> =

0.33). And, while findings from MANOVA, applied to the four individual ASBI measures, are statistically significant (p < 0.01), a single item completely accounts for the observed differences.

H4 is supported. Sellers from both "adaptive" contexts en-

gage more so in ASB than do their counterparts in the

"nonadaptive" context. Mean scores for the summated ASB index are significantly higher in groups A1 and A^ compared

to group B (F= 6.48, p < 0.01). Also, the vector of means for the individual ASB measures differs significantly by group (Wilkss A = 0.941, p < 0.01). Post hoc comparisons reveal that for every ASB measure, group means are higher for A1 and A^ than for group B (p < 0.05; see Table 5).

H 5 and H6 involve the impact of empathie and cue perception abilities on ASBI. Because empathie ability and cue

perception ability were subsequently merged into a single construct, ability to monitor (MON), H5 and H6 are examined

jointly. The MON -> ASBI relationship is positive and statis-

tically significant (p < 0.01) in both "adaptive" situations

(y1A1 = 0.26; y1A2 = 0.27), thereby affirming H5 and H6. The same path coefficient is not statistically significant for group B (y1B = 0.1 1). H7 proposes that ability to modify (MOD) is related positively to ASBI in "adaptive" contexts. The association is confirmed for both "adaptive" groups (y2Al = 0.34;

^2A2 = 0.49, /> < 0.01). Interestingly, in situational context B, the MOD -* ASBI relationship is equally prevalent (y2B =

0.52, p< 0.01). H8, H9, and H 10 involve the impact of sales experience

on ASBI and sales performance. H8 states that the EXP -* ASBI relationship should be positive in A1 and A^, while H9

proposes that both these associations should be stronger than the one observed in context B. Although the observed rela-

tionships are weak, both hypotheses are supported by the find-

ings (y3A1 = 0.18,/ < 0.05; y3A2 = 0.19, p< 0.01; y3B = -0.14 ns). The A#2 test described earlier (for H2) was performed



132

I £ .o

i s ì ï ! i e

li 1 I

c

Û.

i o

M a. o ÍT tt ai cû cû où - 2 5 .2 a.

| o

S ÍT

A A A A A S - 2

£ ^

I |v c c c c < < < < < « gs

gli © t>û g

4 'S "B

li J ^ m 9k - <N ô popp wd < ööööö ÖÖÖÖ -¿caS

-o ö ^ S § .Ë

O <N LO nO 00 LOh^UìvO ^"Oc U. - p h*. ^ rs oqoNvqp ,£cg - Ö - - LO >OO^rô<*: Oll!i3

,|a SS* ̂ I ïî 1^1

> s g ö a * g -S ^

,*; x w r ¡ •? uSöuS - lo - io - tri- NÒglin-in- 3^-S ,*; ° S««

r •? - - - lo - - io - - - - ^w - - gwS

¡I-« > ^ S >-v S u «2

rf 9- S e 'S roo^^r - tn - avetoro vON^I^-o-t 5^3

^ w-§ "S g 2

Ma M*

x § I I S * 5 5 5 | ? I II x

| z | z z | z | ol * i i i Î-M s^ z z z z I - z ^ £ :s¿^ esiliili -§11 "8 8 §

Si *{3 0û fiû Cû CÛ Cû "n fiû cû Cû Cû öjS

S t^ *{3

2 5 g < f^ 2 < ^ | S.| s < < ^ S ̂



Spring 2006 133

again for groups A1 and B and A2 and B to test the differences between the groups' standardized path coefficients. Both com-

parisons are statistically significant (A#2 = 7.43, 6.82 for A^B and A^B, respectively, p < 0.01).

Finally, H 10 states that the relationship between EXP and sales performance should be positive in "nonadaptive" as well as "adaptive" situational contexts. This hypothesis also is supported, but the associations were much stronger in group B than in groups Aj or A^ (y4A1 = 0. 1 9, p< 0.0 1 ; y4A2 = 0. 1 3, p< 0.05; y4B = 0.49, /> < 0.01).

DISCUSSION

Adaptation during the sales presentation is an activity en-

gaged in by most salespeople in contexts where (1) needs vari-

ability is high, (2) the buying unit and offerings are complex, and (3) each customer/prospect affords significant long-term profit potential. In addition, ASB is more prominent in such contexts as compared to settings traditionally classified as conducive to "canned" or "structured" selling. The findings also strongly indicate that ASB is positively associated with the performance of salespeople and that the sales situation moderates the strength of the relationship. ASB alone ex-

plained about one- third of the variation in sales performance in each of two "adaptive" situations. These results are strik-

ing, compared to the findings by Churchill et al. (1985) that the average variation in sales performance associated with

single predictor variables is less than four percent. In a context where ASB theoretically should be ineffective,

an association with sales performance is still observed, but it is much weaker (5 percent explained variation in sales performance). Therefore, while the findings support the contin-

gency theory of ASB proposed by Weitz (1981; 1982) and Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan (1986), the observation of a positive ASB -» sales performance relationship in the "nonadaptive" situation is especially insightful and consistent with the find-

ings of Porter, Wiener, and Frankwick (2003). In such contexts - that is, those traditionally associated with a strict, door-to-door "canned" selling approach - some degree of ad-

aptation may prove beneficial. This finding, along with observations that such sellers intend to engage and do engage in ASB, suggests that perhaps no actual selling context is a truly "nonadaptive" one. This proposition is consistent with Jolson, who, in discussing structured sales presentations, said

A sales approach cannot ever be completely prefabricated. A

completely canned approach would call for the same script to be delivered to each prospective customer; insertions, dele- tions, modifications or any sort of salesperson input would not be permitted. . . . Ideally, the salesperson should attempt to match the content and format of the sales presentation to the mood, questions, comfort zone and personality of each prospective customer. The degree to which standardized sell-

ing content is acceptable is a function of the uniformity of customers' needs. (1989, p. 9)

Consequently, the integration of ASB with other traditional selling methods, tactics, and strategies may enhance sales performance regardless of the type of selling condition. The selling context simply moderates the role that ASB plays at improving sales performance.

Having stronger empathie and cue perception abilities and superior presentation modifying skills stimulate salespeople to want to sell more adaptively. When considered jointly, these "adaptive" skills substantially account for sellers' intentions to engage in ASB. Furthermore, these collective skills are statistically related to sales performance through mediators ASBI and ASB, although the association is modest. It may also be

possible that these characteristics associated with ASBI might be the foundation of the ability of the salesperson to develop a relationship with the customer.

It is important to note that the findings likely underesti- mate the importance of monitoring and modifying abilities for two reasons. First, in both "adaptive" contexts, most sellers already exhibited moderate-to-strong intention to sell

adaptively. Over 85 percent of the sellers combined had ASBI index scores above the scale s midpoint. Had the data included a greater number of sellers who demonstrated "little" or "no" intention to adapt, quite likely the results would have been more pronounced. Second, besides affecting sales performance through the mediators ASBI and ASB, these abilities are ex-

pected to positively moderate the ASB -* sales performance relationship as well (Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986). Examin-

ing the moderator effects was beyond the scope of this study. However, logically, such influence would further elevate the

importance of the sellers ability to monitor the situation and

modify the sales presentation. For salespeople who operate in "adaptive" settings, more

selling experience is associated with an increase in the intention to adapt; however, the relationship is not strong. Experi- ence accounts for a modest amount of the variation in ASBI in "adaptive" contexts. Conversely, in more "structured sell-

ing" contexts (group B), there is some indication that experience may actually dissuade sellers from wanting to sell

adaptively. Although the finding was not statistically significant, an inverse relationship is consistent with (1) Weitz's (1982) premise that effective adaptive selling can consume substantial resources and (2) our finding that within such contexts, the benefit from ASB is marginal. Perhaps these sellers learn that greater benefits accrue from improving other

selling efficiencies as opposed to spending the time and effort to be more adaptive.

Finally, the more experienced salespeople are, the more effective they tend to be. While this finding seems rather intuitive, prior confirmation has been inconsistent, especially in




studies involving adaptive selling. In each situational context examined here, the total effect of selling experience on sales

performance is statistically significant. More interesting, perhaps, is that better sales performance is mostly attributed to the direct effect of sales experience rather than from effects mediated by adaptive selling constructs. These findings are consistent with conclusions drawn by Blackshear and Plank (1994) that even for the adaptive seller, task-specific activities are important determinants of sales performance. It should also be recognized that in "adaptive" contexts, sell-

ing experiences mediated by ASBI and ASB make an im-

portant contribution to the total effect on sales performance. That is, the sellers' experience plays a dual role in its rela-

tionship with performance. Conversely, while sales experience also is associated with performance in "nonadaptive" contexts, adaptive selling experiences contributed virtually nothing to the relationship.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

It is no surprise that adaptive selling leads to an increase in sales performance, even in "nonadaptive" selling contexts. This

paper indicates that salespeople must perform ASB effectively in the appropriate situation. There are, therefore, several significant issues that need to be considered, which are discussed in this section. Effective ASB is not just a matter of the ability to adapt a sales presentation, nor is it just awareness of the situation. Managers have to be able to determine, depending on the sales situation, whether capabilities and behaviors can be taught or are inherent to a particular type of salesperson. Both training and hiring practices, under the control of the

manager, are important considerations before a sales call is made. Listed below are several practical implications that can be drawn from the findings.

First, sales managers always need to be sensitive to the costs of training and retraining sellers, but adaptive selling training programs that address multiple objectives should prove to be quite effective. For firms operating in conditions similar to

Aj or A^ managers must realize that the most adaptive salespeople tend to be the best sales performers and that this association is strong. Thus, encouraging "less adaptive" sellers to be "more adaptive" is a clear implication.

Second, managers must train salespeople to be efficient and effective situational monitors; having a set of superior listening skills is necessary but not sufficient. Improving sellers' sensitivities to the expressive behaviors of their customers and to the physical cues of the exchange environment are also critical. Third, salespeople must be trained to modify their presentations smoothly and convincingly and in a direction consistent with available situational cues. Training programs that provide salespeople with simulated selling contexts (real- time interactive, virtual reality) or provide opportunities for

reviewing and critiquing sales activities made in such contexts could be very effective here. Admittedly, this sort of train-

ing will not replace experience as a means to permanently develop and refine such skills, however, it should greatly enhance that process.

To the extent that a measure of an individuals adaptiveness can be obtained prior to hiring, such a measure may provide a practical means for recruiting and selecting experienced sales-

people. While the entire composite measure of ASB used in this study would not be suitable for this purpose, one or both of the self-assessment measures (ASB2 or ASB3) or the ASBI measure may be. Furthermore, the composite ASB measure

may be useful in identifying some general individual characteristics that correlate with adaptive selling ability. If a set of these characteristics could be obtained, prospective sales-

people, even inexperienced ones, could be screened on the basis of their propensity to become effective adaptive sellers.

The findings also suggest that managers should permit sellers to sell adaptively or to at least include adaptation in sales

presentations even when selling contexts are "traditionally conducive to structured selling." That is, if sellers are com- fortable with and effective at selling adaptively, they should be allowed to do so. At the same time, these sales managers should probably restrain from allocating resources to promote ASB (either via training or selection). This is because, in contexts similar to that faced by company B, the association between ASB and sales performance is quite modest and such efforts may not be cost justified.

LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Several limitations of the study provide direction for future research. First, only a portion of Weitz, Sujan, and Sujans adaptive selling framework (1986) was used to examine adaptive selling relationships. Additional components of the framework, including proposed antecedents of adaptive intention, sales management variables (e.g., organizational culture, self-

management), and moderators were omitted. Furthermore, other constructs associated with sales effectiveness (e.g., effort [working hard], job satisfaction, organizational commitment, role ambiguity) were beyond the scope of the study. How these variables might alter the observed relationships is unknown, hence, future research may want to explore these

relationships more comprehensively. Another limitation emerges from examining only two com-

panies. Because the sample was not drawn from a cross-section of personal sellers, generalizations must be conducted with discretion. While there is no certainty that the findings represent other firms across various industries, the results are more

safely generalizable to organizations whose sellers operate in situational contexts similar to those examined in the study;



Spring 2006 135

however, even within similar contexts, generalizations should be made cautiously. Consequently, future research should include examining other situational settings.

The within-group sample sizes limited the study as well. One consequence was the inability to test relationships using full SEM. Using indices as measures of latent variables can sometimes compromise the interpretation of associations made at the construct level. Often, this compromise is a very minor one, but one that also is unpredictable. The other concern stems from having a considerably smaller sample in group B, relative to Aj and A^ Because of sample size effects, one should avoid making comparative interpretations of construct

relationships based on statistical significance. For instance, a standardized path coefficient in context A2 of 0.13 was significant at/> = 0.05, whereas the one in context B of -0.14 was not. Thus, future research should involve larger samples, especially in contexts similar to the "nonadaptive" condition examined here.

While it is difficult to offer prioritized recommendations on the types of adaptive selling research yet needed, some areas deserve special consideration. Research should be undertaken that can improve and further validate measures of ASB. Although reliability and validity were demonstrated for the measure used in this study, little is known about the va-

lidity of this and other measures in varied settings. For ex-

ample, some sales occasions provide little opportunity to be

adaptive because of conditional restrictions, whereas others such as pharmaceutical sales are quite the opposite (Weilbaker 1990a). Diverse methods and measures, including observation (Tanner 1994), adaptability-initiating factor (AIF) (Weilbaker 1990b), and ADAPTS (Spiro and Weitz 1990) could be used jointly with the approach used in this study to further explore measurement validity issues. Although Boorom, Goolsby, and Ramsey (1998) have taken a step in this direction, more work is needed. Similarly, other constructs included in adaptive selling models require across-situation

reliability and validity confirmation, too. Research is also needed that further investigates the rela-

tionships addressed in this study by extending the investigation to different industries, companies, and settings, and

expanding the scope to include analyses of theoretically proposed relationships that have not yet been addressed. Two

primary examples of the latter are the moderating effects of the sellers capabilities on adaptive effectiveness and the reverse effect of ASB on skills development.

Sales performance studies that integrate ASB and related constructs with other "traditional" predictors (i.e., role per- ceptions, aptitude, effort, job satisfaction) are also encour-

aged. Accomplishing this task presents a challenge to the researcher to collect multiple measures of constructs while

simultaneously expanding the number of variables investi-

gated. Future research should focus on the questions related

to the composition of the selling condition that moderates adaptive selling effectiveness. That is, what is the relative importance of variables such as "homogeneity of customers' needs" compared to "the complexity of the offering" in defin- ing an "adaptive" selling context? Are all the dimensions necessary to define this context? Which (if any) can be eliminated?

Finally, and perhaps the most important pragmatically, research needs to be conducted to determine the costs associated with selecting, training, improving, and retaining adaptive sellers. As the understanding of ASB improves, this cost information becomes essential for researchers to recommend ways to better allocate resources and improve the firms profitability.

REFERENCES

Anglin, Kenneth A., Jeffrey J. Stoltman, and James W. Gentry (1990), "The Congruence of Manager Perception of Sales- person Performance and Knowledge-Based Measures of Adaptive Selling," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Man- agement, 10, 4 (Fall), 81-90.

Avila, Ramon A, and Edward F. Fern (1986), "The Selling Situ- ation as a Moderator of the Personality-Sales Performance Relationship: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of Per- sonal Selline & Sales Management, 6, 3 (November), 53-63.

Azjen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein (1980), Understanding Atti- tudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bagozzi, Richard P. (1978), "Salesforce Performance and Satis- faction as a Function of Individual Differences, Interper- sonal, and Situational Factors/' Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (November), 517-531.

Bello, Daniel C. (1992), "Industrial Buyer Behavior at Trade Shews" Journal of Business Research, 25 (1), 59-80.

Blackshear, Thomas, and Richard E. Plank (1994), "The Impact of Adaptive Selling on Sales Effectiveness Within the Phar- maceutical Industry," Journal of Marketing Theory and Prac- tice, 2, 3 (Summer), 107-125.

Bodkin, Charles D., and Thomas H. Stevenson (1993), "Adap- tive Behavior in Selling: A Discriminant Analysis of the Effects of Situational Variables ," Journal of Marketing Man- agement, 3 (Fall-Winter), 25-35.

Boorom, Michael L., Jerry K. Lroolsby, and Kosemary K Kamsey (1998), "Relational Communication Traits and Their Ef- fect on Adaptiveness and Sales Performance," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26 (Winter), 16-30.

Bush, Victoria D., Gregory M. Rose, Faye Gilbert, and Thomas N. Ingram (2001), "Managing Culturally Diverse Buyer- Seller Relationships: The Role of Intercultural Disposition and Adaptive Selling in Developing Intercultural Commu- nication Competence," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (4), 391-404.

Calantone, Roger J., Jeffery Schmidt, andX. Michael Song (1996), "Controllable Factors of New Product Success: A Cross-Na- tional Comparison," Marketing Science, 15 (4), 341-358.

Cauvusgil, S. Tamer, and Shaoming Zou (1994), "Marketing




Strategy- Performance Relationship: An Investigation of the

Empirical Link in Export Market Ventures," Journal of Marketing, 58 (January), 1-21.

Chakrabarty, Subhra, Gene Brown, Robert E. Widing, II, and Ronald D. Taylor (2004), "Analysis and Recommendations for the Alternative Measures of Adaptive Selling," Journal of Personal Selüngá Sales Management, 24, 2 (Spring), 125-133.

Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr., Neil M. Ford, Steven W. Hartley, and Orville C. Walker, Jr. (1985), "The Determinants of Sales-

person Performance: A Meta- Analysis," Journal of Market-

ing Research, 22 (May), 103-118. Davis, Mark H. (1983), "Measuring Individual Differences in

Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimensional Approach/' Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (1), 113-126.

DelVecchio, Susan K., and Janet E. Oglethorpe (1997), "ADAPTS Scale Dimensions: A Lack of Confirmation," in

Enriching Marketing Practice and Education, Einora W. Stuart and Ellen M. Moore, eds., Atlanta: Southern Mar-

keting Association, 239-243. Dion, Paul A., Debbie Easterling, and Raj Javalgi (1997),

"Women in the Business-to-Business Salesforce: Some Dif- ferences in Performance Factors," Industrial Marketing Management, 26, 5 (September), 447-457.

bppler, Dianne b., barí Ü. Honeycutt, Jr., John b. rord, and Edward P. Markowski (1998), "The Relationship of Self-

Monitoring and Adaptiveness to the Performance of Real Estate Sales Professionals," Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 4 (Fall), 37-51.

Goolsby, Jerry R., Rosemary R. Lagace, and Michael L. Boorom (1992), "Psychological Adaptiveness and Sales Perfor- mance," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 12, 2 (Sorine), 51-66.

Greenberg, Herbert, and David Meyer (1964), "A New Approach to the Scientific Selection of Successful Salesmen," Journal of Psychology, 5 (January), 113-123.

Grief, Esther B., and Robert Hogan (1973), "The Theory and Measurement of Empathy," Journal of Counseling Psychol- ogy, 20 (3), 280-284.

Grikscheit, Gary M. (1971), "An Investigation of the Ability of Salesmen to Monitor Feedback." Ph.D. dissertation, Mar-

keting and Transportation Administration, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

, and William J.E. Crissy (1973), "Improving Interper- sonal Communication Skill," MSU Business Topics, 21 (Au- tumn), 63-68.

Hackman, J. Richard, and Edward E. Lawler, III (1971), "Em- ployee Reactions to Job Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology, 55 (June), 722-726.

Howard, John A. (1989), Buyer Behavior in Marketing Strategy, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hu, Li-Tze, and Peter M. Bender (1995), "Evaluating Model Fit," in Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications, Richard H. Hoyle, ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 76-99.

Hunt, Gary T, and Louis P. Cusella (1983), "A Field Study of Listening Needs in Organizations," Communication Edu- cation, 32 (October), 393-410.

Jackson, Donald W, Jr., William H. Cunningham, and Isabella CM. Cunningham (1988), Selling: The Personal Force in

Marketing, New York: John Wiley. Johnson, John. A., Jonathan M. Cheek, and Robert Smither

(1983), "The Structure of Empathy," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (6), 1299-1312.

Jolson, Marvin A. (1973), "Should the Sales Presentation Be Fresh or Canned?" Business Horizons, 16 (October), 81-88.

(1975), "The Underestimated Potential of the Canned Sales Presentation," Journal of Marketing 30 (January), 75-78.

(1989), "Canned Adaptiveness: A New Direction for Modern Salesmanship," Business Horizons, 32, 1 (January- February), 7-12.

Jöreskog, Karl G., and Dag Sörbom (1998), LISREL 8: Program Reference Guide, Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Keillor, Bruce D., R. Stephen Parker, and Charles E. Pettijohn (2000), "Relationship-Oriented Characteristics and Indi- vidual Salesperson Performance," Journal of Business & In- dustrial Marketing, 15 (1), 7-22.

Lamonica, Elaine L. (1986), The Lamonica Empathy Profile, Tux- edo, NY: Xicom.

Lamont, Lawrence M., and William J. Lundstrom (1977), Iden-

tifying Successful Industrial Salesmen by Personality Char- acteristics," Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (November), 517-529.

Landy, Frank J., and James L. Farr (1980), "Performance Rat- ine," Psychological Bulletin, 87, 1 (January), 72-107.

Lennox, Richard D., and Raymond N. Wolfe (1984), "Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (6), 1349-1364.

Lewis, Marilyn H., and N. Lamar Reinsch (1988), "Listening in

Organizational Environments ," Journal of Business Commu- nications, 25 (Summer), 49-67.

Li, Tiger, and Roger J. Calantone (1998), "The Impact of Mar- ket Knowledge Competence on New Product Advantage: Conceptualization and Empirical Examination," Journal of Marketing, 62 (October), 13-29.

MacKenzie, Scott B., Philip M. Podsakoff, and Michael Ahearne (1998), "Some Possible Antecedents and Consequences of In-Role and Ex-Role Salesperson Performance," Journal of Marketing, 62 (July), 87-98.

Marks, Ronald, and Gordon J. Badovick (1997), "The Relation-

ship Between Adaptive Selling, Task-Related Sales Behav- ior and Commitment to Performance - Some Promising Results," Developments In Marketing Science, Elizabeth J. Wilson and Joseph F. Hair, eds., Coral Gables, FL: Acad-

emy of Marketing Science, 78-184. , Douglas W. Vorhies, and Gordon J. Badovick (1996),

"A Psychometric Evaluation of the ADAPTS Scale: A Cri-

tique and Recommendations ," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16, 4 (Fall), 53-65.

Mehrabian, Albert, and Norman Epstein (1972), "A Measure of Emotional Empathy," Journal of Personality, 40 (4), 525-543.

Morgan, Fred W, and Jeffrey J. Stoltman (1990), "Adaptive Sell-

ing: Insights from Social Cognition," Journal of Personal

Selling & Sales Management, 10, 4 (Fall), 43-54.



Spring 2006 137

Morrison, Donald G. (1979), "Purchase Intentions and Purchase Behavior " Journal of Marketing, 43 (Spring), 65-74.

Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2d ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.

Osterhaus, Thomas L. (1997), Pro-Social Consumer Influence Strategies: When and Why They Work," Journal of Mar- keting, 61 (October), 16-29.

Park, Jeong-Eun, and Betsy B. Holloway (2003), "Adaptive Sell- ing Behavior Revisited: An Empirical Examination of Learn- ing Orientation, Sales Performance and Job Satisfaction," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23, 3 (Sum- mer), 239-251.

Pettijohn, Charles E., Linda S. Pettijohn, R. Stephen Parker, and AJ. Taylor (1996), "Is Adaptive Selling Viable Behavior? A Review of the Literature," Association of Marketing Theory and Practice, 5 (Spring), 196-204.

, , AJ. Taylor, and Bruce D. Keillor (2000), "Adaptive Selling and Sales Performance: An Empirical Ex- amination," Journal of Applied Business Research, 16 (Win- ter), 91-111.

Porter, Stephen S., and Lawrence W. Inks (2000), "Cognitive Complexity and Salesperson Adaptability: An Exploratory Investigation," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Manage- ment, 20, 1 (Winter), 15-21.

, Joshua L. Wiener, and Gary L. Frankwick (2003), "The Moderating Effect of Selling Situation on the Adaptive Sell- ing Strategy-Selling Effectiveness Relationship," Journal of Business Research, 56 (4), 275-281.

Predmore, Carolyn E., and Joseph G. Bonnice (1994), "Sales Success as Predicted By a Process Measure of Adaptability," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 14, 4 (Fall), 55-66.

Price, Linda L, Eric Arnould, and Patrick Tierney (1995), Go-

ing to Extremes: Managing Service Encounters and Assess- ing Provider Performance," Journal of Marketing, 59 (April), 83-97.

Robertson, Thomas S., and Richard B. Chase (1968), "The Sales Process: An Open Systems Approach," MS U Business Top- ics, 16 (Fall), 45-52.

Robinson, Leroy, Jr., Greg W. Marshall, William C. Moncrief, and Felicia G. Lasek (2002), "Toward a Shortened Measure of Adaptive Selling," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22, 2 (Spring), 111-119.

Robinson, Patrick J., Charles W. Faris, and Yorim Wind (1967), Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Saxe, Robert, and Barton A. Weitz (1982), "The Customer Ori- entation of Salespeople: Measurement and Relationship to Performance," Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (August), 343-351.

Schumacker, Randall E., and Richard G. Lomax (1996), A

Beginners Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Siguaw, Judy (1993), "An Examination of Adaptive Selling An- tecedents and Outcomes," in Developments of Marketing Sci- ence: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 16, Michael Levy and Dhrvu Grewal,

eds., Miami: Academy of Marketing Science, 295. , and Earl D. Honeycutt, Jr. (1995), "An Examination of

Gender Differences in Selling Behaviors and Job Attitudes," Industrial Marketing Management, 24 (1), 45-52.

Snyder, Mark (1974), "Self-Monitoring of Expressive Behavior," Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 30 (4), 526-537.

(1979), "Self-Monitoring Process," in Advances in Ex- perimental Social Psychology, vol. 12, L. Berkowitz, ed., New York: Academic Press, 86-128.

Spiro, Rosann L., and William D. Perreault, Jr. (1979), "Influ- ence Used by Industrial Salesmen: Influence- Strategy Mixes and Situational Determinants," Journal of Business, 52 (3), 435-455.

, and Barton A. Weitz (1990), "Adaptive Selling: Con- ceptualization, Measurement, and Nomological Validity," Journalof Marketing Research, 27 (February), 61-69.

, William D. Perreault, Jr., and Fred D. Reynolds (1977), "The Personal Selling Process: A Critical Review and Model," Industrial Marketing Management, 5 (December), 351-363.

Sujan, Harish, and Barton A. Weitz (1985), The Amount and Direction of Effort: An Attributional Study of Salesperson Motivation, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

, Mita Sujan, and James Bettman (1988), "Knowledge Structure Differences Between More Effective and Less Ef- fective Salespeople,

" Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (Feb-

ruary), 81-86. , Barton A. Weitz, and Nirmalya Kumar ( 1 994) , Learn-

ing Orientation, Working Smart, and Effective Selling," Journal of Marketing, 58 (July), 39-52.

Szymanski, David M., and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1990), "Cli- ent Evaluation Cues: A Comparison of the Successful and Unsuccessful Salespeople," Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (May), 163-174.

Tanner, John F. (1994), "Adaptive Selling at Trade Shows ," Jour- nal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 14, 2 (Spring), 15-23.

Tobolski, Francis P., and Willard A. Kerr (1952), "Predictive Value of the Empathy Test in Automobile Salesmanship," Journal of Applied Psychology, 36 (October), 310-311.

van der Westhuizen, Brian (1993), "Antecedents, Outcomes and Personal Factors Used by Sales Managers to Assess the Per- formance of Salespeople," in Developments of Marketing Sci- ence: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 16, Michael Levy and Dhrvu Grewal, eds., Miami: Academy of Marketing Science, 317-321.

Verbeke, Willem, Frank Belschak, and Richard P. Bagozzi (2004), "The Adaptive Consequences of Pride in Personal Selling," Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (4), 386-402.

Vink, Japp, and Willem Verbeke (1993), "Adaptive Selling and Organizational Characteristics: Suggestions for Future Re- search," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 1 3, 1 (Winter), 15-23.

Walker, Orville C, Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., and Neil M. Ford (1977), "Motivation and Performance in Industrial Sell- ing: Present Knowledge and Needed Research," Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (May), 156-168.




Warshaw, Paul R. (1980), "A New Model for Predicting Behav- ioral Intentions: An Alternative to Fishbein," Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (May), 153-172.

Weilbaker, Dan C. (1990a), "The Identification of Selling Abili- ties Needed for Missionary Type Salespeople," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 10, 3 (Summer), 45-58.

(1990b), Measurement of Adaptive Selling Behavior, in Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Educa- tors Conference, David Wilson and Robert Speckman, eds., Scottsdale, AZ: American Marketing Association, 47-52.

Weitz, Barton A. (1978), "The Relationship Between Salesperson Performance and Understanding of Consumer Decision

Making," Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (November), 501-516.

(1979), "A Critical Review of Personal Selling Research: The Need for a Contingency Approach," in Critical Issues in Sales Management: State of the Art and Future Needs, Gerald Albaum and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., eds., Eugene: University of Oregon Press, 76-126.

(1981), "Effectiveness in Sales Interactions: A Contin-

gency Framework," Journal of Marketing, 45 (Winter), 85-103.

(1982), "Adaptive Selling Behavior for Effective Inter-

personal Influence," in Buyer-Seller Interactions: Empirical Research and Normative Issues, PH. Reingen and A.G. Woodside, eds., Columbia, SC: American Marketing Asso-

ciation, 115-123. , Stephen B. Castleberry, and John F. Tanner, Jr. (1998),

Selling: Building Partnerships, 3d ed., Homewood, IL: Ri- chard D. Irwin.

, Harish Sujan, and Mita bujan (19ö6), J<oiowledge, Motivation and Adaptive Behavior: A Framework for Im-

proving Selling Effectiveness," Journal of Marketing, 50

(October), 174-191.

Wenschlag, Roger (1987), The Versatile Salesperson: Selling the Way Your Customer Wants to Buy, New York: John Wiley.

Wise, Gordon L. (1974), "Differential Pricing and Treatment by New Car Salesmen: The Effect of the Prospects Race, Sex, and Dress" Journal of Business, 47 (April), 218-230.

Zeithaml, Valarie A., and Mary Jo Bitner (2000), Services Mar-

keting: An Integrated Customer Focus Across the Firm, 2d ed., Boston: McGraw-Hill, 466-479.

, Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman (1996), The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality," Journal of Marketing, 60 (April), 31-46.

APPENDIX A Measurement Scales

Measures of Ability to Monitor (seven-point agree/disagree)

Empathie Ability - Perspective Taking

1. I have the ability to identify how things look from each customers perspective.

2. Putting myself in the customer s position to see

things from his or her perspective is something that is often a bit difficult for me.*

3. I am nearly always able to look at my customers side of a disagreement before I make my next move.

Empathie Ability - Empathie Concern

1 . I am often able to think of my customer as a good friend.

2. I am able to personally care about my customers a

great deal.

3. If a customer indicates that a serious problem exists, it is easy for me to feel like I really want to help.

Cue Perception Ability - Verbal Cue Perception Ability

1. Patiently listening to what a customer is telling me is

something I am able to do with little difficulty. 2. Compared to other sellers, I am able to listen more

effectively to what the customer says. 3. My ability to listen attentively when a customer is

explaining something is very strong.

Cue Perception Ability - Nonverbal Cue Perception Ability

1 . I can always tell when customers do not really understand what I have said just by the look in their

eyes. 2. I seem to have a strong sense that enables me to

identify my customer s true mood. 3. If something is troubling customers, I can identify it

by just watching their expressions and behaviors.



Spring 2006 139

Measures of Ability to Modify (seven-point agree/disagree)

Ability to Modify - Self-Personality

1. When selling, it is just as easy for me to be aggressive as it is to be passive.

2. I have the ability to control how I come across to my customers, depending on the impression I want to give them.

3. I can portray a wide variety of different personality types if the selling situation calls for it.

Ability to Modify - Ability to Modify Actions/Strategy

1 . Changing my actions during the sales presentation is

something that I can do very well. 2. I have found that I can adjust my actions to suit

different customers and situations without a lot of effort.

3. I have virtually no difficulty altering my selling strategy during my presentation, in fact, I do so without the customer even knowing it.

* indicates the item was reverse coded.

Measures of Adaptive Behavioral Intention

(seven-point agree/disagree)

ASBI - Think about your upcoming sales encounters and indicate what your anticipated actions would be:

1. Before selling anything, I will first find out what the customer is feeling and thinking.

2. I will try to adjust the direction of my presentation during the sales encounter.

3. I will deal with customers pretty differently from one to the next.

4. I will often handle a long-time client in a much different way if his mood is unusual.

Measures of Adaptive Behavior

ASB1 - Managers' ratings of each of their seller's adaptive behavior, 100-point scale (0 = extremely nonadaptive, 100 =

extremely adaptive)

ASB2 - Seller's self-report, seven-point scale (1 = much more like B than A, 7 = much more like A than B)

Descriptive scale anchors:

• Seller Type A: Even before I meet a prospective customer, I know that my sales presentation must be very

flexible. I enter my meeting with the customer con- cerned about learning as much as I can about him or her. This way I can adjust what I say and do and alter how I speak so I come across the way I think is best for that specific customer. My sales presentations tend to vary quite a bit from one sales call to the next because every customer's needs and problems differ.

• Seller Type B: I approach the customer well prepared and well rehearsed about what I am going to say. I be- lieve my presentation is very straightforward and I concentrate on communicating it clearly. My sales presentation varies very little from one customer to the next and, when it does, it is usually due to questions brought up by the customer. I go into each sales situation knowing that I will not have to make many changes either in what I say and do or in my personal style.

As a salesperson, how would you describe yourself?

ASB3 - Salesperson self-report, seven-point scale (1 = very undifferentiated, 7 = very differentiated)

• There are several approaches that are used to sell. On one hand, a given salesperson may use the same selling style, strategy, and presentation method from one customer to the next; a very undifferentiated approach. On the other hand, a seller may tailor virtually every facet of the presentation, including style, strategy, and

personal image to fit the particular customer; a very differentiated approach. There is no evidence that suggests one way is more effective than the other.

What best describes your selling approach?

Measures of Sales Effectiveness

SP1 - Managers' rating for each salesperson, 100-point scale (0 = extremely poor, 100 = extremely excellent).

SP2 - Internal rating used for annual evaluation for the most recent fiscal year, 15-point scale (1 = poor [needs much im-

provement], 15 = exceptional [highly distinguished])

SP3 - Salesperson's self-report, seven-point scale (1 = poor, 7 =

outstanding)

How would you rate your sales performance over the past 12 months?



140

o

! i

I

s > M

i

P -ONiS-iflOQMQifltCONCI C OfSNtmttWiNmiNrn-fSNm ino £ - ööööööoöööööoödin -

C p "*: - <"i ̂ ^ <"i ̂ ^ P ^ ^ °i * - öööööööoööoooööom -

- t^rSCONCOOOOtmOOUlOOMnM« U Q^-^-^- - m<NOOO^toôom>omm^5 - ^ OntrstNmrnmrirsNrn - rj - m (S fN t; O g - öööööÖöödööööööööuS -

£* ^D ro 00 *™ ̂ n ■■• ̂^ 00 ro ^1 ^^ ro ^D ^^ co ro ^™ ^^

UJ - ÖOÖÖÖÖÖÖÖOÖÖÖÖOÖÖÖOin

2 - oöoöööööööooooooooovo^-

S õq-rjfSN-nn (SN^NíSíNísmn ^w ¡g

- ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖLri -

S o S 5 £ £ 3 S S S S S S S ^ $ ¥ ^ fc S 2: 3C $ 2 ¡g

- ööööööööööööööööööööötri- :

S PT^P~r1f>!rÌ~r>!rÌpÌrÌ<>!pÌrÌfyìi>!f>!f>!T'*ÌTl/ì~: lg - ööööööööööööööööööööööin- :

■ qi:ttqoNrj«-Pj«-N«P|NNPjis«pjnn w- ¡2 - öööööööööööööööööööööööio -

(Ã p^^-^roOO - - - O - - - - - - - - - (NciíNmm- io 5 -ööööoööööööööööööööööööduS -

S q*tttnq-(S-N rs (Srjrjmfnnt on Jg - oööödöööööööööööööööööööö ui -

- (SQN000pmrS'0(S-00(NO-UiNDNi/)«0v0lON>Omm«0 CD On?fsa>O(S (SQN000pmrS'0(S-00(NO-UiNDNi/)«0v0lON>Omm«0 Mfluimm-oottvOMoSiAtNêoooN - CD !J! qiflimmmNqq oo OfSMfMNNM o - Zf - ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ nO tri ^ ^ -

CL ô rn (S m N - fS<N - - - - - - - - - r>j - - - - - - - <n <N <N in - M - ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ iiS -

C 8«NON»ifl^«ui3eoîo-S'ommmotN>ns-ooNM m CL 9 ^! T ^ **! ~ - -"■'"~'ri<"i~P - ^P - - - ~~ - ^P~"P - - - "~ - **> in - ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ <S<N

Wï - ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ ai in o



141

I 331 SB

£ "" ö d ö ~~

£ "" d d ö ö -

J ~ © O O O O ~

S 8-S^oÇSí^g 2 ~dddddd~

CD 5ioöv-Nn^- tíi > Pt-nnnnm „; 9 2 - oöööoöö -

CD 2 o» N - >o e* o* m p* m ̂ > •". m. ™. <*.-.**<* r*. iñ - 2 - oooooooo"

§S -SSSSSoSSS *S

5 ""dddddddddd"

!£ ~ooooooooooo~

z r: ggîCSïgiïgJiïS Pfsmmmm^- - N O N N M og ^j9 z r: Pfsmmmm^- - N O N N M ^j9 ¡2 ~dddddooooodd~

2 - ööoööööciciciciöo ~

Jjj "dddddddddddddd ~



142

i .S

j S*

il I

i I

9 o io Q p lo lo Z - 3 K

0 sLí ö ni lo

CL o >o m o X P - - ^ « Ili - o o oo lo

CÛ - oo t n

< - <f d © © *

^ f>» -«■ 00 00 CD ^ o n% ̂ - - >o m (/) p >o - rn^ôq < - öoööoiö

O ON Ci Ci ^ o r.

o^ôg^^ V» - Ö dÖÖÖiNÖ

9 O <N O o t s z -sK Z o 2 ^ Q O in rn m z - ö ?; "*

tt CU o - ■ O rn 5 X q - q <*. e*. S 1AJ - O O ON ON

u?

* . ..."

jj < - ö d <S ¿ «

ô m on lo CO Q <N on ro ^- lo (/I p 10 - fS ifl N >q < - ÖÖÖÖfSÖ

A O 0N >4> lo O >O ro A V g? O >O ^ ^ 1 **! T T V - Ö ÖÖÖÖfSÖ

9 O nO O o lo - Z - 3 * I 1 Z o S r>. s "§ ^ O p ^ r>. p ^

ö - lo £ m g S

0- o O ? m -5 g> X

o O <N

O O (N

m vO -5

UJ - Ö Ö ON ON g

_ _ o 01 w

g §S?!îu,S .2

o 00 O vO 00 S

CO o ^» lo - h». - 2 (/) q lo - fyìf¥ìr>tp>: e < - öööötNÖrs ©

lo - ro 00 - t3 Q. p * >o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^. JJ "» - * ö Ö Ö Ö O <N Ö <*• O - 1

- I . §î 's riilf 1 5

I |}!}ijffi{ Ï



A Contingency Adaptive Selling and Selling Perfomance

Documents

Transcript of A Contingency Adaptive Selling and Selling Perfomance