Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG...
Transcript of Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG...
![Page 1: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Institute for Market-Oriented Management
University of Mannheim P.O. Box 10 34 62 68131 Mannheim
Germany
Series: Scientific Working Papers
No.: W 138e
Mannheim
February 2011
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Christian Homburg is Chair of the Business Administration and Marketing I department at the University of Mannheim, Scientific Director of the Institute for Market-Oriented Management (IMU) at the University of Mannheim, and Head of Advisory Board of the consulting firm Homburg & Partner. Prof. Dr. Jan Wieseke is Chair of the Marketing department at the Ruhr-University of Bochum. Prof. Bryan A. Lukas, Ph.D. is Head of the Department of Management and Marketing at the University of Melbourne and visiting lecturer at the University of Mannheim. Sven Mikolon is research and teaching assistant at the Marketing department at the Ruhr-University of Bochum.
Institute for Market-Oriented Management
Homburg, Ch. / Wieseke, J. / Lukas, B. / Mikolon, S.
When Salespeople Harbor Negative Stereotypes of their Corporate
Headquarters:
How Harmful is it and How can it be Avoided
![Page 2: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The Ins
The Inst
consider
and acad
Marketin
level. Th
Prof. Dr
The IMU
Ma
The
bus
resu
orie
Scie
The
orie
seri
nen
Mar
NE
The
tailo
of c
Res
thus
Ser
In a
ing
man
If you reOriented621/ 181
stitute for
titute for M
rs itself to be
demic standa
ng at the Un
he Academic
r. H. H. Bau
U offers the f
anagement K
e IMU publi
iness practic
ults are effic
ented researc
entific Work
e scientific st
ented manag
ies of scienti
nt journals an
rketing Asso
EW: Marketi
ese new wor
ored to resea
current studi
search or the
s, bridging th
ries Publicat
addition to pu
house, issue
nagement.
equire additiod Managem1-1755) or vi
r Market-O
The Ins
Market-Orien
e a forum fo
ard is guaran
niversity of M
c Directors of
uer, Prof. Dr
following ser
Know-How W
ishes papers
ce are presen
iently comm
ch and coope
king Papers
tudies condu
ement. On th
ific working
nd are hono
ociation).
ing Exzellenz
rking papers
archers and p
ies published
e Journal of
heory and pr
tion
ublishing sci
es a series fea
onal informament, Univer
isit our webs
Oriented M
stitute for
nted Manag
or dialogue b
nteed by the
Mannheim, w
f the IMU ar
r. Dr. h.c. m
rvices and ex
Working Pa
geared towa
nted here in
municated. In
ration projec
s
ucted by the
his basis, pr
papers. Tod
red with aw
z Working P
s provide pr
practitioners
d in renown
the Academy
actice.
ientific work
aturing exem
ation or have rsity of Mansite at: www.
Manageme
Market-O
gement (IMU
between scien
e close netw
which are hig
re
mult. Ch. Hom
xpertise:
apers
ards manage
n a compact
n many cases
cts involving
IMU analyz
ractice-orient
day, many of
wards at inter
Papers (in G
ractical insig
interested in
ned academic
y of Marketi
king papers, t
mplary scienti
any questionnheim, L5, .imu-mannh
nt
riented M
U) at the Uni
ntific theory
working of th
ghly renowne
mburg und P
ers in compa
and concise
s, these publi
g a large num
ze new trend
ted findings
f our publicat
rnational con
German only
ghts into rec
n marketing a
c journals su
ing Science f
the IMU, in c
ific findings
ns, please co1, 68131 Ma
heim.com.
anagemen
iversity of M
and practice
he IMU with
ed on a natio
Prof. Dr. S.
anies. Subjec
e manner, an
ications are b
mber of globa
ds that have a
are derived
tions have b
nferences (e
y)
cent research
and sales. Ou
uch as the J
focus on resu
cooperation w
from the fie
ontact the Insannheim, Ge
nt
Mannheim (G
e. The high
h the three C
onal and inte
Kuester.
cts highly re
nd scientific
based on app
al companies
an impact on
and publish
een printed i
.g., by the A
h findings.
ur German su
Journal of M
ults and imp
with Gabler
ld of market
stitute for Mermany (pho
Germany)
scientific
Chairs of
ernational
elevant to
research
plication-
.
n market-
ed in our
in promi-
American
They are
ummaries
Marketing
plications,
publish-
-oriented
Market- one: +49
![Page 3: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The Ins
The wor
AUDI AGPeter SchBASF SEHans W. Dr. Ralf Bremer LDr. StephBSH GmMatthias Carl ZeisAxel JaegCognis DDr. JürgeContinenDr. HartmCoty GmBernd BeDeutscheRainer NDeutscheErnst RauDeutscheThomas KDeutscheDr. ChrisDürr AGRalf W. DE.On RuDr. BernhEvoBus GMichael GEvonik DDr. VolkeFiege StiDr. StefanFocus MFrank-MiFreudenbDr. MohsFuchs PeStefan FuStephan HeidelbeAndreas KHeidelbeMarcel KHeraeus Jan RinneIBM DeuVeronika
stitute for
rk of the IMUG, hwarzenbauer E, Reiners Bethke Landesbank,han-Andreas K
mbH, Ginthum ss AG, ger
Deutschland Gen Scherer ntal AG, mut Wöhler mbH eetz e Bank AG, eske e Messe AG, ue e Post AG, Kipp e Telekom AGstian Illek G, Dieter uhrgasAG, hard ReutersbGmbH, Göpfarth Degussa Gmber Grunwald iftung & Co. n Kurrle
Magazin Verlaichael Müller berg & Co. Ksen Sohi etrolub AG, uchs M. Heck
ergCement AKern erger Druckm
Kießling Holding Gm
ert utschland Gma Teufel
r Market-O
U is supporte
Kaulvers
GmbH & Co.
G,
berg
bH,
KG,
ag,
KG,
G,
maschinen AG
mbH,
mbH,
Oriented M
ed by a group
. KG,
G,
Manageme
p of partner
KChKMPrKMLRoMMNn.PfJüDThPrWDHRURJüRDRCaRHSaUThSALuPrFHTRDUMVDVBezeD
nt
rs comprisingKabel BW,
hristoph NiedKnauf Gips KGManfred Grund
rof. Dr. Dr. hKörber PaperLMartin Weicken
’Oréal Deutsolf Sigmund
MVV Energie Matthias Brück
estlé Deutschn. fizer Pharmaürgen Braun r. Volker Pfahomas Pflugrocter & Gam
Willi Schwerdtr. Jürgen Ra
Hans Riedel Robert Bosch
we Raschke Roche Diagnosürgen Redman
Roche Pharmar. Hagen Pfun
Rudolf Wild Garsten Kaisig
R+V Lebensveeinz-Jürgen Kaint-Gobain Bdo H. Brandthomas SattelAP Deutschlauka Mucic rof. Dr. DieteH LudwigshafRUMPF Gmr. Mathias Kanited Interne
Matthias EhrlicDMA e.V., r. Hannes Hesoith AG, ertram StaudeetVisions AGr. h.c. Holger
g:
der. G,
dke h.c. Richard KLink GmbH,nmeier
schland Gmb
AG, kmann hland AG,
a GmbH,
ahlert
mble GmbH, le
autert
GmbH,
stics Deutschnn a AG, ndner GmbH & Co.
ersicherung AKallerhoff Building Dist
lberger and AG & Co
er Thomaschefen
mbH & Co. KGammüller et Media AG,ch
sse
enmaier , Reichardt
Köhler
H,
hland GmbH,
KG,
AG,
tribution Dtld
o. KG
ewski
G,
,
d. GmbH,
![Page 4: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The Ins
W136e HoSa
W132e KuPe
W130e HoAf
W129e KuW128e Ho
ImW127e LuW125e Ho
auW123e HoW121e Ba
AsW120e Ba
SyW119e KuW117e Ba
ReW116e W
in W105e Ho
reW104e Ho
towW102e HoW101e HoW094e Ba
liteW091e Ho
of W084e Ho
MW083e Ho
MW080e Ho
PoW079e Ho
beW070e Ba
of W068e Ho
BuW057e BaW055e Ho
SiW053e
HoW036e Ho
anW035e Kr
InW030e Ho
FiW029e Ho
anW021e Ho
Cu
stitute for
omburg, Ch. / alesperson Cusuester, S. / Rilliersonality Traitsomburg, Ch. / Fffects Customeruester, S. / Heßomburg, Ch. / F
mpact in Specificuo, X. / Homburomburg, Ch. / Wutomation adoptomburg, Ch. / Wauer, H. H. / Fasymmetric and Dauer, H. H. / Faystems, 2008 uester, S. / Hesauer, H. H. / Doelevance, Globa
Wieseke, J. / UllrService Organi
omburg, Ch. / evival activities, omburg, Ch. / wards Customeomburg, Ch. / Jomburg, Ch. / Lauer, H. H. / Reerature, 2005 omburg, Ch. / Bf the Role of Inteomburg, Ch. / arkets: A Crossomburg, Ch. / echanistic and tomburg, Ch. / Bost-Merger Perfomburg, Ch. / etween Customeauer, H. H. / Mäf Brand Portfolioomburg, Ch. / Susiness Contextauer, H. H. / Haomburg, Ch. / milarity in Mark
omburg, Ch. / Womburg, Ch. / Pnd Performancerohmer, H. / Hoternational Empomburg, Ch. / ndings in a Busomburg, Ch. / Gnd Loyalty. An Eomburg, Ch. / Wustomer-focuse
For more w
r Market-O
Müller, M. / Kstomer Orientationg, T.: Manage
s, 2010 Fürst, A. / Priggers and Business
ß, S. / Stier M.: HFürst, A. / Koschc Complaint Siturg, Ch. / WiesekWieseke, J. / Ktion with a quad
Wieseke, J. / Hoalk, T. / HammerDynamic Effectsalk, T. / Schepe
s, S. / Young, Jonnevert, T. / Halness and Archrich, J. / Christ, izations, 2008 Hoyer, W. / Sto2006 Fürst, A.: See
er, 2006 ensen, O.: The
Luo, X.: Neglecteeichardt, T. / Sc
Bucerius, M.: Is ernal and ExternKuester, S. /
s-Cultural CompFürst, A.: Ho
the Organic AppBucerius, M.: A formance, 2004Koschate, N. / er Satisfaction aäder, R. / Valtino ConsolidationsStock, R.: The Lt. A dyadic Ana
ammerschmidt, MFaßnacht, M. /
keting Channels
Workman, J. P. /Pflesser, Ch.: Ae Outcomes., 20omburg, Ch. / Wpirical EvidenceGiering, A. / M
siness-to-BusineGiering, A.: PerEmpirical AnalysWorkman, J. P.ed Organizations
working pap
Oriented M
Klarmann, M.: Won in Sales Enc
ers’ Marketing A
e, J.-K.: A Custs Relationships,How to Design Ihate, N.: On theuations, 2009 ke, J.: Customeruehnl, Ch.: If o
dratic dataset, 2oyer, W. D.: Socrschmidt, M. / Ss, 2008 rs, J. J. L. / Ha
. / Hinkel, J.: BrHammerschmidthitecture on BraO. / van Dick, R
ock-Homburg, R
No Evil, Hear
Thought Worlded Outcomes ofchüle, A.: User
Speed of Integnal RelatednessBeutin, N. / M
parison, 2005 w Organizationproach, 2005 Marketing Pers
Hoyer, W. D.:
and Willingness, A.: The Effects, 2007 Link between Salysis, 2003 M. / Staat, M.: A/ Schneider, J.:, 2002
/ Jensen, O.: A CA Multiple Layer000 Workman, J.P.., 2000
Menon, A.: Relaess Context, 199sonal Charactesis, 1999 / Jensen, O.: Fs, 1998
pers, please v
Manageme
When should tcounters, 2010Alliance Formati
tomer Perspecti 2009 nternational Loy
e Importance of
r Satisfaction, Ane Steps out of009
cial Identity and Schepers, J. J. L
mmerschmidt, M
rands as Meanst, M.: Making B
and Efficiency, 2R.: Organization
R.: How to get
No Evil, Speak
s of Marketing af Customer SatiRequirements
gration really a Ss, 2006
Menon, A.: Dete
nal Complaint
spective on Me
Do Satisfied Cs to Pay, 2004 s of Brand Ren
alespeople's Jo
Analyzing Produ: Opposites Att
Configurational r Model of Mar
: Should Marke
ationship Chara99
eristics as Mode
Fundamental C
visit our we
nt
the customer re
on Behavior: Th
ve on Product E
yalty Programs,f Complaint Han
Analyst Stock Ref the Phalanx. A
the Service ProL.: New Insights
M.: Exploring C
s of Self-expressBrand Managem2008 nal Identification
lost customers
k No Evil: A St
and Sales: Whicisfaction, 2006for Location Ba
Success Factor
erminants of C
Handling Drive
ergers and Acqu
Customers Real
aming on Brand
b Satisfaction a
uct Efficiency. Aract, but Simila
Perspective onket-Oriented Or
eting Be Cross-
acteristics as M
erators of the R
hanges in Mark
ebsite at: ww
eally be King?
he Role of Exte
Eliminations: Ho
, 2009 ndling Design: A
ecommendationAnalyzing leade
ofit Chain, 2008 s in the Quality-
Cross Channel D
sion: A Cross-cment Accountab
n as a Determin
s back? Insights
tudy of Defensi
ch Differences M
ased Services.
r of Mergers an
ustomer Benef
es Customer L
uisitions: How M
ly Pay More? A
d Equity: An An
and Customer S
A Customer-Oriearity Works. A
n Key Account Mrganizational C
-Funktional? Co
Moderators of th
elationship Betw
keting Organiza
ww.imu-man
On the optim
ernal Factors an
ow the Remova
A Multi-Level An
ns, and Firm Valers’ influence o
-Satisfaction Lin
Dissynergies in
ultural Comparile – The Influen
nant of Custome
s into customer
ive Organizatio
Make a Differen
An analysis on
nd Acquisitions?
fits in Business
Loyalty: An Ana
Marketing Integr
A Study of the
nalysis of the Co
Satisfaction in a
ented ApproachStudy of Intero
Management. 20ulture. Measure
onceptual Deve
he Satisfaction-
ween Custome
ation. The Move
nnheim.com
mum Level of
nd Managers’
al of Products
nalysis of the
lue, 2009 n sales force
nk. Identifying
Multichannel
son, 2008 nce of Brand
er Orientation
r relationship
onal Behavior
nce?, 2006
n the basis of
? An Analysis
s-to-Business
alysis of the
ration Affects
Relationship
onsequences
Business-to-
, 2002 organizational
002 ement Issues
elopment and
-Loyalty Link.
r Satisfaction
ement toward
m
![Page 5: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
HomburWhen S
This st
when t
ters. H
examin
manag
negativ
market
adhere
mance
through
the sale
rg / Wiesekealespeople
tudy exam
their sales
How such
ned. The s
ers, sales
ve headqu
ting-related
ence to co
. Findings
h manager
es unit leve
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
mines the
speople de
stereotype
study draw
speople, c
uarters ste
d performa
rporate str
also show
rial action,
el.
Mikolon gative Stereo
ABperforman
evelop neg
es can be
ws on ma
ustomers,
ereotypes
ance acros
rategy, the
w that nega
but more
otypes of th
BSTRACnce implica
gative stere
e remedied
atched dat
and com
among sa
ss a range
eir custome
ative headq
so at the
heir Corpora
CT ations tha
eotypes of
d through
ta from fo
mpany repo
alespeople
of outcom
er orientat
quarters st
corporate
ate Headqua
at organiza
f their cor
manager
our differen
orts. Findi
e are asso
mes, includ
tion, and t
tereotypes
e managem
arters
ations may
rporate hea
ial action
nt sources
ngs indica
ociated wit
ding salesp
their sales
can be re
ment level
y suffer
adquar-
is also
s: sales
ate that
th poor
people’s
perfor-
emedied
than at
![Page 6: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
HomburWhen S
1 Intr
2 The
3 Hyp3.1
3.2
3.3
4 Met4.14.24.3
5 Res
6 Dis6.16.2
7 Con
rg / Wiesekealespeople
roduction
eoretical b
potheses . Conseq
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
2 ManageStereoty3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
3 Control
thodology Collectio
2 Measure3 Analytic
sults ........
cussion .. Theoret
2 Manage
nclusion ..
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
................
backgroun
................uences of Salespeop
Salespeop
Salespeop
erial Influypes .........Organizati
Employee
Charismat
Corporate
Sales Unit
Variables
y ...............on of Multies ............
cal Approac
................
................tical Implicerial implica
................
Mikolon gative Stereo
CO
................
nd and fra
................Salespeop
ple’s Adher
ple’s Custo
ple’s Annua
ences on................onal Supp
Orientatio
tic Leaders
Bureaucra
t Managem
................
................level Data ................ch ............
................
................ations ......ations ......
................
otypes of th
ONTENT
................
mework ..
................ple’s Negarence to C
omer Orien
al Sales ...
n Salesp................
port ...........
on .............
ship ..........
acy ...........
ment’s Ster
................
................from Four................................
................
................
................
................
................
heir Corpora
TS
................
................
................ative Headqorporate S
ntation ......
................
eople’s N................................
................
................
................
reotypes ...
................
................r Sources .................................
................
................
................
................
................
ate Headqua
................
................
................quarters S
Strategy ....
................
................
Negative ................................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
arters
................
................
................tereotypes................
................
................
Headquar................................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................s ...............................
................
................
rters ................................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
... 1
... 4
... 6
... 7
... 8
... 9
. 10
. 11
. 11
. 12
. 13
. 14
. 14
. 16
. 18
. 18
. 19
. 23
. 24
. 27
. 27
. 28
. 30
![Page 7: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
HomburWhen S
“In our
too com
has bee
also ma
General
“It is tru
represen
perks th
with. A
organiza
Executiv
1 Int
Stereoty
certain
types in
2008). T
Cuddy,
social p
Bargh 1
conclud
scapego
behalf o
types. P
hence, f
1987).
For sale
reason i
differen
rg / Wiesekealespeople
local sales
mfortable in
n worrying
akes strategy
l Manager o
ue that we s
ntatives at t
han in our c
Anyway, I d
ations I kno
ve Director
troductio
ypes can be
groups (Kr
nvolve judgm
The effects
Fiske, and
psychology
1997; Devi
de that stere
oating, judgm
of the targe
Physical sep
further prec
espeople, a p
is that peop
nt from peo
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
organizatio
their fancy
me for som
y implemen
of a Large P
sometimes h
the coalface
company’s
do not perce
ow.”
r of an Inter
on
e defined as
rueger et al
ments of ho
of stereoty
Glick 2007
(e.g., Barg
ine 1989; C
eotypes resu
mentalism,
et group. P
paration of
conditions t
potential ste
le working
ople workin
Mikolon gative Stereo
on, our sale
y offices and
me time bec
ntation in the
Pharmaceu
have negati
e. That we
welfare is
eive this to
rnational Ba
s over-gene
. 2008; for
ow typical c
yping can va
7). For insta
gh et al. 19
Cuddy, Fisk
ult in discrim
lack of sup
erceived di
social grou
the develop
ereotype tar
in corporat
ng in a sal
otypes of th
espeople be
d have no cl
cause it doe
e field fairly
tical Compa
ive beliefs t
are seen to
just one of
be a major
ank
eralized, illo
a review s
certain perso
ary, but the
ance, a num
996; Caprar
ke, and Gli
mination ag
pport for the
ifferences a
ups entrench
pment of ste
rget can be
te headquart
les force. H
heir Corpora
elieve that o
lue about w
es not go un
y difficult.”
any.
towards our
o be more i
f those thin
r problem.
ogical, or ri
see Hilton a
onality trait
ey tend to b
mber of emp
iello, Cudd
ick 2007; H
gainst target
e target grou
among socia
hes percept
ereotypes (e
found in co
ters are ofte
Hence, from
ate Headqua
our headqua
what custom
nnoticed by
”
r headquarte
interested in
ngs we exec
Such belief
igid beliefs
and von Hip
s are of a gr
be negative
pirical studi
dy, and Fisk
Heilmann a
ted groups,
up, and lack
al groups p
ions of gro
e.g., Fiske
orporate hea
en perceived
m a salespe
arters
arters perso
mers are sayi
y our custom
ers among o
n our headq
cutives have
fs crop up
s about mem
ppel 1996).
roup (Krueg
in most cas
es in sociol
ke 2009; C
and Okimot
e.g., in the
k of perform
precondition
oup differen
1998; Turn
adquarters. T
d to be disti
erson’s pers
1
onnel are
ing. This
mers and
our sales
quarters’
e to live
in many
mbers of
. Stereo-
ger et al.
ses (e.g.,
logy and
Chen and
to 2008)
form of
mance on
n stereo-
nces and,
ner et al.
The first
inctively
spective,
![Page 8: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
HomburWhen S
people
those m
factor is
than oth
close to
example
Whethe
a firm i
some no
disciplin
racism
consum
concept
marketi
relation
This stu
In a fir
stereoty
marketi
corpora
attempt
what ex
problem
this end
the sale
from wi
are mor
To gain
drew d
potentia
we drew
respons
rg / Wiesekealespeople
in corporat
mentioned in
s that a sale
her business
o their custo
es of firms w
er the stereo
is an open q
otable impl
ne, stereoty
(e.g., Oulle
mer animosit
t of stereo
ng literatur
nship of fron
udy introduc
rst step, we
ypes of the
ng-related p
ate strategy,
to answer
xtent do neg
m for the firm
d, we addres
es unit level
ithin the ste
re important
n a broad an
data from s
al corporate
w data from
es from 10
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
te headquar
n the quota
es force is o
s functions.
omers. Firm
with a sales
otyping of c
question. T
lications, as
ype-related
et 2007), c
ty (e.g., Kl
typing has
re and, hen
nt-line, custo
ces the conc
e analyze th
eir corporat
performanc
, their custo
the fundam
gative head
m? In a sec
ss whether
l. More spe
ereotyping s
t NHS reme
nd empirica
salespeople
e manageme
m sales mana
009 salespeo
Mikolon gative Stereo
rters lend th
ations at th
often separa
The separa
ms operating
s force mark
corporate he
he sociolog
s outlined i
phenomena
consumer e
ein et al. 1
not been
nce, has no
omer-facing
cept of stere
he manager
te headquar
e outcomes
omer orient
mental quest
dquarters ste
ond step, w
NHS can b
ecifically, w
sales force
edies.
ally robust u
, customer
ent and sale
agers and sa
ople, 472 s
otypes of th
hemselves
e beginning
ated from c
ation is norm
g with a dea
kedly separa
eadquarters
gy and socia
in the introd
a have bee
ethnocentris
998). Beyo
examined
ot been ap
g employee
eotyping to
rial relevan
rters by lin
s in organiza
tation, and
tion underly
ereotypes (N
we analyze h
e managed
we examine
or, instead,
understandi
rs, and sale
es unit mana
alespeople.
sales manag
heir Corpora
to particula
g of this pa
corporate he
mally due to
aler or bran
ated from th
by salespeo
al psycholo
ductory par
en addresse
m (e.g., Sh
ond these c
from a m
plied to th
s with their
the literatu
nce of sales
nking these
ations, such
their sales
ying the quo
NHS) in a
how these st
more effec
whether m
from the ta
ng of the p
es perform
agement rem
Overall, ou
gers, 499 c
ate Headqua
ar social co
aper. The s
eadquarters
o the need fo
nch structure
heir headqu
ople bears a
ogy literatur
ragraph. W
d in fields
himp and S
onsumer be
managerial
he circumst
r corporate m
ure on sales
speople’s d
e negative
h as salespe
performanc
otations hea
firm’s sale
tereotypes c
ctively at th
management
argeted corp
otential out
mance recor
medies for
ur analysis i
ustomers, a
arters
omparisons
second cont
to a greate
for salespeop
e are organi
arters.
any implicat
re, at least,
ithin the m
such as co
Sharma 198
ehavior stud
perspective
tances defin
managemen
force mana
developing
stereotypes
eople’s adhe
ce. In doing
ading this p
s force con
can be reme
e corporate
actions ori
porate head
tcomes of N
rds. To un
salespeople
s based on
and second
2
such as
tributing
er degree
ple to be
izational
tions for
point to
marketing
onsumer
87), and
dies, the
e in the
ning the
nt.
agement.
negative
s to key
erence to
g so, we
paper: to
nstitute a
edied. To
level or
iginating
dquarters
NHS, we
derstand
e’s NHS,
matched
ary firm
![Page 9: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
HomburWhen S
data on
Given th
of this
importa
related
salespeo
both the
these tw
In the
stereoty
about so
show ho
manage
rg / Wiesekealespeople
salespeople
he absence
study is to
ance of inc
performanc
ople’s NHS
e sales unit
wo managem
next sectio
yping. Then
ome likely o
ow we teste
erial implica
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
e’s performa
of stereotyp
o introduce
cluding ster
ce. For prac
S can be avo
t and corpo
ment levels.
on, we prov
n we develo
outcomes o
ed the hypot
ations of our
Mikolon gative Stereo
ance.
pe research
marketing
reotype phe
ctitioners, it
oided—and
orate level,
vide an ov
op a conce
f, and reme
theses. Afte
r findings.
otypes of th
h in the sale
researcher
enomena in
t is importan
d why it sho
and how th
verview of
eptual fram
edies for, NH
er reporting
heir Corpora
s managem
rs interested
n prediction
nt to under
ould be avo
he effects o
the theorie
mework con
HS held by
the results,
ate Headqua
ment literatur
d in sales m
ns and exp
stand how t
oided—by m
of these acti
es underlyi
sisting of s
salespeople
, we discuss
arters
re, one cont
managemen
planations o
the develop
managerial a
ions differ
ing the con
specific hyp
e. Subseque
s the theoret
3
tribution
nt to the
of sales-
pment of
action at
between
ncept of
potheses
ently, we
tical and
![Page 10: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
HomburWhen S
2 Th
The bas
typos (i
beliefs
endorse
provide
The co
complex
often d
categori
Corneill
ton et a
individu
applied
conduct
engage
sum, th
stereoty
behavio
The soc
1987) p
people’
approac
(referred
reasons
benefits
from pe
in-group
1979; T
The pre
underpi
reasons
rg / Wiesekealespeople
heoretica
sic meaning
mpression,
about mem
ed and accep
d by the cog
gnitive app
xity, people
do this unc
ization pro
le and Judd
al. 1998). T
ual category
to all mem
ted in the co
in stereotyp
he cognitiv
ypes’ forma
or when they
cial identity
provides a
s group me
ch is that a
d to as in-g
of self-enh
s, then mem
erceived gro
p; that is, t
Turner et al.
esent study
nning of o
. First, the
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
al backgr
g of the term
imprint). S
mbers of cer
pted as bein
gnitive appr
proach mai
e often cate
consciously
ocess involv
d 1999; Que
These exagg
y members
mbers of the
ognitive trad
ping (e.g., B
e approach
ation, how
y are activat
y approach (
motivation
emberships
a person’s s
group) that i
hancement,
mbers of the
oup differen
the member
1987).
y concentra
ur study w
social ident
Mikolon gative Stereo
round an
m stereotyp
Stereotypes
rtain group
ng true. The
roach and s
intains that
egorize eac
(e.g., Barg
ves the ex
eller et al. 2
gerations ca
actually are
e category
dition of soc
Bargh and C
h discusses
they are s
ted (Akram
(Hogg and
nal explana
(Akrami 2
sense of id
is superior t
if the in-gr
e in-group w
nces—to the
rs of the in
ates on org
we rely on
tity approac
otypes of th
nd framew
e originates
are describ
ps (Hilton a
oretical exp
ocial identi
t, to make
ch other as
gh and Ch
xaggeration
2006) and w
an lead to a
e because th
(e.g., Park
cial psycho
Chartrand 1
stereotype
stored in m
mi 2005).
Abrams 19
ation for w
2005). The
entity is a
to other soc
roup and ou
will seek to
e out-group
n-group dev
ganizational
the social i
ch focuses o
heir Corpora
work
s from the G
bed as over-
and von Hi
planations fo
ty approach
sense of
members o
hartrand 19
of betwee
within-categ
a distortion
he over-gen
et al. 1990
logy shows
1999; Bargh
es as perce
memory, ho
988; Tajfel a
why stereoty
central assu
function of
ial groups (
ut-groups tu
o attribute n
ps, or attribu
velop stereo
l groups. T
identity app
on people’s
ate Headqua
Greek stere
-generalized
ippel 1996)
for why stere
h in the exta
the world
of a social
999; Bargh
en-category
gory similar
of what th
neralized cat
0). Most im
s that people
h et al. 1996
eptual proce
ow they sh
and Turner
ypes emerg
umption of
f belonging
(referred to
urn out to of
negative ass
ute positive
otypes (e.g.,
Therefore,
proach. Th
s group mem
arters
eos (solid, fi
d, illogical,
). These be
eotypes dev
ant literature
and reduc
category, a
et al. 199
y difference
rities (e.g.,
he character
tegory stere
mportantly,
e can uncon
6; Devine 1
esses and
ape judgme
1979; Turn
ge and foc
f the social
g to a socia
as out-grou
ffer similar
sociations—
e association
, Tajfel and
for the the
is is based
mberships a
4
firm) and
or rigid
liefs are
velop are
e.
ce social
and they
96). The
es (e.g.,
Livings-
ristics of
eotype is
research
nsciously
1989). In
explores
ent, and
ner et al.
cuses on
identity
al group
ups). For
r identity
—derived
ns to the
d Turner
eoretical
d on two
as major
![Page 11: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
HomburWhen S
source o
identity
research
Within
role. In
corpora
the sale
as a sep
usually
headqua
salespeo
custome
rg / Wiesekealespeople
of intergrou
y approach
h (e.g., Ashf
the social i
n the conte
ate-level ma
s unit mana
parate socia
physically
arters are la
ople is wit
er interactio
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
up stereotyp
for group b
forth and M
identity app
ext of the p
anagers, con
agers, const
l group is a
separated fr
argely diffe
th customer
on.
Mikolon gative Stereo
ping (Akram
behavior in
Mael 1989; E
proach the d
present stu
nstitute the
titute the in-
appropriate
from the sale
erent from
rs, whereas
otypes of th
mi 2005). Se
n organizati
Ellemers, de
distinction b
udy, membe
out-group;
-group. Con
for two rea
es force. Se
those in th
s headquart
heir Corpora
econd, the e
ions has be
e Gilder and
between in
ers of corp
and membe
nsidering co
asons: First,
econd, the k
he sales for
ters membe
ate Headqua
explanatory
een demons
d Haslam 20
- and out-g
porate head
ers of the s
orporate hea
as mention
kinds of acti
rce—the typ
ers typicall
arters
power of th
strated by p
004).
group play a
dquarters, in
sales unit, in
adquarters m
ned before,
ivities carrie
pical intera
ly have mu
5
he social
previous
a crucial
ncluding
ncluding
members
they are
ed out at
action of
uch less
![Page 12: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
HomburWhen S
3 Hy
Our con
salespeo
manage
sales un
allows u
minimiz
concept
consequ
concept
Note: Somresults re
A serie
consequ
employe
CoO
CoE
Corp
CoCh
SalCha
SalE
Sales
SalOr
SNe
rg / Wiesekealespeople
ypothese
nceptual fra
ople’s nega
ement facto
nit factors.
us to more c
zed by man
tual framew
uences of N
tual framew
me constructs emain stable ir
s of hypoth
uences of s
ee, custom
orporate Managementrganizational Support
orporate ManagementEmployee Orientation1
porate ManagemEffects
CorporateBureaucracy1
orporate Managementharismatic Leadership
les Unit Managementarismatic Leadership1
les Unit Managementmployee Orientation1
s Unit ManagemEffects
les Unit Managementrganizational Support
Sales Unit Manager’s egative Stereotypes1,
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
es
amework is
ative headq
rs that may
The inclusi
comprehens
nagerial ac
work addre
NHS among
work to optim
were measurrrespective of
FIGURE
heses under
salespeople’
er, and fin
Contro• Co
He• Pe
Co• Pe
of • Pe
of
t’st1
t’s1
ment
t’sp1
t’s1,2
t’s
ment
t’s1
2
Mikolon gative Stereo
depicted in
quarters ster
y affect NH
ion of both
sively analy
ction at dif
sses potent
salespeopl
mize its spe
red from moref the measurem
1 Conceptu
rpin the co
’s NHS are
nancial perf
N
ol Variables:ontact Frequency with Ceadquarters1
ersonalization of Contacorporate Headquarters1
erceived External ImageCompany1
erceived Uniformity Corporate Headquarter
otypes of th
n Figure 1. T
reotypes. T
HS among
a corporat
yze how neg
fferent orga
tially impor
e. A numbe
ecification.
than one datament level.
ual Framew
onceptual fr
e motivated
formance a
SalespeopleNegative Headq
Stereotypes (N
Corporate
ct with
e
rs Members1
Cont• S• S• S
R• S
b
heir Corpora
The central
To the left
salespeople
e and sales
gative stere
anizational
rtant emplo
er of contro
a source. Whe
work and Da
ramework.
d by the fo
ssociated w
e’s quarter NHS)1
trol Variables:Salespeople’s Job SatisSalespeople’s EmpathySales Unit Management’Rewards1,2
Sales Unit Management’by-Exceptions1,2
ate Headqua
construct in
of this con
e, grouped
s unit persp
eotypes in o
levels. The
oyee, custo
ol variables
en this is indic
ata Sources
Our hypoth
ollowing qu
with its sal
Sat
Em
S
Cu
F
Sale
Dat1 n =2 n =3 n =
4 n =
sfaction1’
1
’s Contingent
’s Management-
arters
n this frame
nstruct, we
into corpo
ective in th
organization
e right par
omer, and f
are include
cated in the fig
heses regard
uestion: Is
espeople h
alespeople’s Adherento Corporate Strategy
mployee Outcom
Salespeople’s CustomOrientation3
ustomer Outcom
inancial Outcom
espeople’s Annual Sa
ta Sources:= 1009 salespeople= 472 sales manager= 499 customers
(matched to 206 sa= objective data from
database
6
ework is
present
rate and
his study
ns can be
rt of the
financial
ed in our
gure, then
ding the
a firm’s
arboring
ncey1
mes
mer
mes
mes
ales4
rs
alespeople)m company
![Page 13: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
HomburWhen S
negative
salespeo
targets
outset o
Our hyp
the foll
stereoty
originat
out-grou
in our
leadersh
because
importa
now tur
3.1 C
Two of
a plausi
the perf
social c
When p
people’
part of a
social g
member
act on b
they sho
Social c
organiza
specific
their ow
blue-col
rg / Wiesekealespeople
e stereotypi
ople be incl
if they harb
of this paper
potheses reg
lowing que
ypical view
ting from w
up itself (he
conceptual
hip, corpora
e they emerg
ant factors f
rn to our hyp
Consequen
the main in
ible explana
formance o
omparisons
people categ
s self-conce
an individua
group (or gr
rship” (Tajf
behalf of th
ow behavior
comparison
ational grou
cally, for re
wn in-group
llar worker
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
ical views o
lined to adh
bor the ster
r?
garding the
estion: Wh
ws of corp
within the st
ere the corp
l framewor
ate bureauc
ged from th
for stereoty
potheses.
nces of Sa
ntrapsycholo
ation for bo
of salespeop
s (Ellemers,
gorize thems
epts, resulti
al’s self-con
roups) toge
fel 1978, p.
ose groups
rs supportin
refers to th
up) is invest
easons of s
p from othe
s vs. white-
Mikolon gative Stereo
of their corp
here to corp
reotypical b
e manageria
hich manag
orate head
tereotyping
porate headq
rk—organiz
cracy, and s
he extant lit
ype manage
alespeople
ogical proce
oth, why sal
ple adverse
de Gilder a
selves in ter
ing in a soc
ncept which
ther with th
. 63). Once
comprising
ng their grou
he process b
ted with me
self-enhance
r relevant c
-collar work
otypes of th
porate headq
porate strate
beliefs refer
al influences
gement fac
dquarters am
in-group (h
quarters)? T
zational sup
sales unit m
terature that
ement. Buil
e’s Negati
esses under
lespeople ca
ely. These
and Haslam
rms of a gro
cial identity
h derives fro
he value an
e a social id
g their ident
ups.
by which a
eaning (Elle
ement, grou
comparison
kers). This
heir Corpora
quarters? Fo
egy, be cust
red to in th
s on salespe
ctors are a
mong sales
here the sal
The five ma
pport, empl
manager’s o
t we review
ding on the
ve Headq
rlying the so
an develop
processes a
m 2004; Tajf
oup, this gro
y. Social id
om his know
nd emotiona
dentity is fo
tities (e.g.,
social categ
emers, de G
up member
groups thro
comparison
ate Headqua
or example,
tomer orien
he two quot
eople’s NH
associated w
speople—m
les force) o
anagement f
loyee orien
own stereoty
wed for this
e social ide
uarters St
ocial identit
NHS and w
are: social
fel and Turn
oup become
dentity can
wledge of h
al significan
ormed, grou
Ashforth an
gorization (
Gilder and H
rs try to fav
ough social
n process, i
arters
, to what ex
nted, and m
tations state
HS are motiv
with less
management
or from the
factors we f
ntation, cha
ypes—were
study as po
entity appro
tereotypes
ty approach
why NHS ca
categorizat
ner 1979).
es incorpora
be defined
his members
nce attached
up members
nd Mael 19
(e.g., in term
Haslam 2004
vorably dis
l compariso
in turn, is b
7
xtent will
eet sales
ed at the
vated by
negative
t factors
targeted
focus on
arismatic
e chosen
otentially
oach, we
s
h provide
an affect
tion and
ated into
as “that
ship of a
d to that
s tend to
89), i.e.,
ms of an
4). More
stinguish
ons (e.g.,
biased in
![Page 14: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
HomburWhen S
favor of
been sh
social i
stereoty
Furtherm
of a gro
actual b
1989).
tendenc
Given t
behavio
NHS-in
their lev
3.1.1
The ad
salespeo
(Tyler a
perform
1989).
Howeve
Consequ
only a s
Blader
related
headqua
that are
adheren
Accordi
salespeo
beliefs t
likely t
automat
rg / Wiesekealespeople
f the in-gro
hown to acco
identity the
yping and di
more, resea
oup can lead
behavior ag
Research f
cies (e.g., Cu
the potenti
oral outcom
nduced perfo
vel of custom
Salespeo
dherence of
ople to foll
and Blader
mance becau
er, salespeo
uently, prev
small portio
2005). Give
research, it
arters subtly
handed do
nce can be e
ing to the
ople’s ident
that membe
o make sal
tion system
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
oup in order
ount for ste
eory, self-e
iscriminator
arch in socia
d to a higher
gainst that g
further sho
uddy et al. 2
al impact
mes of stere
ormance ou
mer orienta
ople’s Adhe
f salespeop
low the pro
2005). Emp
use it is fu
ople have a
vious resea
on of strateg
en the impa
is likely th
y reject, or
own by corp
explained w
e social co
tities from
ers of corpo
lespeople r
ms) and se
Mikolon gative Stereo
r to provide
ereotypes (e
enhancemen
ry behavior
al psycholo
r level of ne
group (e.g.,
ows that st
2007).
of stereoty
eotypes in a
utcomes—na
ation as perc
erence to C
le to corpo
ocedures an
ployees’ str
undamental
a high degre
arch has fou
gy adheren
act of stere
hat salespeo
even blatan
porate head
ith social id
omparison
their corpo
orate headqu
reluctant to
elling-behav
otypes of th
e the in-grou
e.g., Tajfel a
nt is the k
against out
gy confirm
egative judg
, Bargh et
tereotypes e
ypes on ind
a sales con
amely: sale
ceived by cu
Corporate S
orate strate
nd guideline
rategy adhe
for organiz
ee of freed
und that co
ce behavior
otypes on b
ople holding
ntly boycott
dquarters. Th
dentity theor
assumption
orate headqu
uarters are a
comply w
vior strateg
heir Corpora
up with a p
and Turner
key motiva
t-groups.
s that a hig
gments, beh
al. 1996; C
elicit emot
dividuals’ b
ntext. We e
speople’s a
ustomers, an
Strategy
egy can be
es establish
rence is an
zations to
om in their
ommand an
r among sa
behavior, as
g strong neg
t, sales strat
his link bet
ry.
n, NHS fo
uarters. As
an inferior o
with sales st
gies (e.g.,
ate Headqua
positive soc
1986). Ther
ational reas
h level of n
havioral inte
Chen and B
tions which
behavior, w
explain next
dherence to
nd their ann
e defined a
hed by corp
important
function ef
r strategy a
nd control d
les employe
s suggested
gative stere
tegy sugges
tween stereo
orm to pos
a result, N
out-group. T
trategies (e
prescribed
arters
cial identity
refore, acco
son for in
negative ste
entions and
Bargh 1997;
h shape be
we expect
t, three like
o corporate
nual sales le
as the tend
porate head
aspect of em
ffectively (O
adherence b
devices can
ees (e.g., T
d by social
otypes of c
tions and d
otypes and
sitively dis
NHS will co
Therefore, N
e.g., new sa
customer-
8
and has
ording to
tergroup
reotypes
negative
; Devine
ehavioral
negative
ely such
strategy,
evels.
dency of
dquarters
mployee
O’Reilly
behavior.
n explain
Tyler and
identity-
corporate
directives
strategy
stinguish
onsist of
NHS are
alesforce
-greeting
![Page 15: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
HomburWhen S
behavio
H1: Th
w
3.1.2
Salespe
orientat
and Hoy
for a n
salespeo
Researc
custome
tion Acc
content
genuine
believe
strong a
themsel
i.e., the
Wieseke
tion’s re
custome
Applied
predicts
salespeo
predicti
(1992)
satisfact
Hoyer
employe
satisfact
organiza
Howeve
rg / Wiesekealespeople
or) decreed b
he more neg
ill adhere to
Salespeo
ople’s beha
tion. Buildin
yer 2009), w
number of r
ople’s custo
ch on the
er value is c
cording to H
with, and
ely excite c
that they a
ability to p
lves with th
y are more
e and Hoye
esources an
er problems
d to the res
s that salesp
ople are s
on is consi
and Homb
tion and th
(2009) find
ee-custome
tion to be r
ations.
er, accordin
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
by corporat
gative sales
o corporate
ople’s Custo
avioral focu
ng on the s
which is an
reasons tha
omer orienta
service-pro
created by
Heskett, Sas
enthusiastic
customers. S
are making
provide me
heir organiz
inclined to
er 2009). As
nd, therefor
s.
search conte
people will
atisfied, lo
istent with
burg and S
heir custom
d a positiv
r orientatio
related posi
ng to the so
Mikolon gative Stereo
te headquart
speople’s he
e strategy.
omer Orien
us on creat
social ident
n extension
at salespeop
ation.
ofit chain (
satisfied an
sser, and Sc
c about, th
Satisfied em
g a contribu
emorable ex
ation becom
o conform t
s a result th
re, can com
ext of this
l be custom
oyal, and i
a large stre
tock (2004
mer-oriented
ve relationsh
n. Puffer (1
itively to p
ocial compa
otypes of th
ters. Theref
eadquarters
ntation
ting custom
tity based s
of the conv
ple’s NHS
(Heskett, Sa
nd loyal emp
chlesinger (
eir organiza
mployees h
ution to som
xperiences
me prototyp
to organizat
hey are able
mprehensivel
study, the
mer oriented
identify the
eam of rese
4) show a
d behavior.
hip betwee
1987) and S
pro-social be
arison princ
heir Corpora
fore, we hyp
s stereotype
mer value d
service- pro
ventional se
are likely
asser, and
ployees wh
(1997), loya
ation and, t
have a passi
mething me
for custom
pical represe
tional norm
e and willin
ly respond
social ident
d and, thus
emselves w
earch. For i
positive lin
. Furthermo
en employe
Smith, Organ
ehaviors, in
iple of soci
ate Headqua
pothesize:
es are, the l
efines their
ofit chain (H
ervice-profi
to have a
Schlesinger
ho identify w
al employee
therefore, a
ion for thei
eaningful. H
mers. Emplo
entatives of
ms and pecu
ng to fully u
to custome
tity based s
, create cus
with their
nstance, Ho
nk between
ore, Homb
ee-company
n, and Near
ncluding he
ial identity
arters
less the sale
r level of c
Homburg, W
it chain, we
negative e
r 1997) sho
with their o
es are those
are in a po
ir organizat
Hence, they
oyees who
f their organ
uliarities (H
utilize the o
er wishes an
service-prof
stomer valu
organizatio
offman and
n employee
burg, Wiese
y identificat
r (1983) sho
elping behav
theory, sale
9
espeople
customer
Wieseke
e suggest
effect on
ows that
organiza-
who are
sition to
tion and
y have a
identify
nization,
Homburg,
organiza-
nd solve
fit chain
ue if the
on. This
d Ingram
es’ work
eke, and
tion and
ow work
viors, in
espeople
![Page 16: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
HomburWhen S
who har
for reas
intentio
headqua
Fiske, a
be very
H2: Th
w
3.1.3
Besides
also be
salespeo
Social i
transmit
group.
stereoty
other, i
custome
son for
informa
2002) a
transmi
general
purchas
In addit
2009; Z
the core
tasks su
group m
headqua
hypothe
H3: Th
rg / Wiesekealespeople
rbor NHS a
sons of self
ns and act
arters of th
and Glick 2
customer-o
he more neg
ill be perce
Salespeo
s the impact
e detriment
ople are abl
identity rese
t, their ster
For examp
ypes on to t
it is possib
ers, for exam
advice and
ation than on
and in the m
ssion of NH
perception
se from an o
tion, harbor
Zyphur et al
e job tasks (
uch as sellin
members h
arters amon
esize:
he more ne
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
are not likel
f-enhancem
tual behavi
he organizat
007). Henc
oriented. Th
gative sales
ived to be c
ople’s Annu
t on import
tal to finan
le to achieve
earch shows
reotypes to
ple, Stephan
their pupils.
ble that sal
mple, durin
d an opinion
n positive in
making of d
HS by a sa
n of the sa
organization
ing NHS ca
l. 2007). W
(e.g., Engle
ng. Further,
arboring st
ng stereoty
egative sale
Mikolon gative Stereo
ly to be pro
ment negativ
ior associat
tion) (e.g.,
ce, it is unli
herefore, we
speople’s he
customer or
ual Sales
tant employ
ncial outco
e. There are
s that in-gro
non-group
n and Step
. Because s
lespeople w
ng a sales co
n. Because
nformation
decisions (H
alesperson
lesperson’s
n portrayed
an absorb co
When cogniti
and Lord 1
the sharing
tereotypes,
yping salesp
espeople’s s
otypes of th
ductive, loy
ve stereotyp
ted with th
Bargh et a
kely that sa
e put forwar
eadquarters
riented by cu
yee and cus
omes such
e several rea
oup membe
members w
phan (1984
alespeople
with NHS
onversation
customers o
in the form
Herr, Karde
may have
organizati
so negative
ognitive cap
ive capaciti
997), espec
g and reinfo
such as di
people, mig
stereotypes
heir Corpora
yal, and sati
pes tend to
he stereotyp
al. 1996; C
alespeople w
rd the follow
s stereotype
ustomers.
tomer outco
as the sal
asons for thi
ers often com
who are no
4) show th
and custom
may transm
n, where the
often put a
mation of ev
es, and Kim
a negative
on and, thu
ely by an em
pacity (e.g.,
ies are taxe
cially in the
orcing of N
iscussing re
ght distract
are, the le
ate Headqua
isfied. Rath
result in n
pe target (
Chen and B
with NHS w
wing hypoth
es are, the l
omes, sales
les revenue
is possibilit
mmunicate,
ot part of th
at educator
mers directly
mit these s
e customer
greater we
aluative jud
m 1991), it
effect on
us, on how
mployee.
, Kearney, G
ed, fewer ca
case of cog
NHS that is c
ecent “mish
t from selli
ess sales th
arters
her, as noted
negative be
(here the c
argh 1997;
will be perc
hesis:
less the sale
speople’s N
e that stere
ty.
, and as a re
he stereotyp
rs often pa
y interact w
stereotypes
consults a s
ighting on
dgments (Ah
is possible
a customer
w desirable
Gebert, and
apacities rem
gnitively dem
common am
haps” by c
ing. Theref
he salespeo
10
d earlier,
ehavioral
corporate
Cuddy,
ceived to
espeople
NHS may
eotyping
esult can
ped out-
ass their
with each
to their
salesper-
negative
hluwalia
that the
r’s more
it is to
Voelpel
main for
manding
mong in-
corporate
fore, we
ople will
![Page 17: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
HomburWhen S
ge
3.2 Mty
We firs
headqua
charism
ment to
manage
3.2.1
As perc
beliefs a
contribu
the sale
of work
commit
250).
Previou
benefici
“remain
Rhoade
support
tendenc
aided th
their org
research
organiza
stereoty
even fe
while re
feeling
In addit
because
rg / Wiesekealespeople
enerate.
Managerialypes
st concentr
arters level
matic leaders
o either corp
er’s own ster
Organizat
ceived by e
about the ex
utions” (Eis
es context: “
k experienc
tment and a
us research h
ial employe
n loyal wh
s and Eise
and what G
cy of “recipi
hem” (Eder
ganization a
h context, th
ational sup
ypes of thei
el obligated
educing ne
supported b
tion, perceiv
e it may tr
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
l Influenc
rate on man
and sales
ship. Then
porate head
reotypes, re
tional Supp
employees,
xtent to whi
senberger et
“Salesperso
ces by con
assistance to
has found p
ee outcome
en they fe
enberger (20
Gouldner (
ients of fav
and Eisenb
also strengt
hese findin
port from c
ir headquart
d to increas
gative outp
by corporate
ved organiz
igger decat
Mikolon gative Stereo
es on Sa
nagerial fa
unit level:
we turn to
dquarters or
espectively.
port
organizatio
ich the orga
t al. 1986, p
on perceptio
nsidering h
o the individ
erceived or
s. For insta
el that the
002) identi
1960) calls
vourable trea
erger 2008,
thens emplo
ngs point to
corporate m
ters (see Ed
se their pos
puts (e.g., s
e manageme
zational sup
tegorization
otypes of th
alespeople
actors that
: organizati
managerial
the sales u
onal suppor
anization car
p. 501). Pier
ons of organ
ow the sal
dual in perf
rganizationa
ance, Tyler
eir organiza
ify positive
the “norm
atment to h
, p. 56). Thi
oyee-organi
the possibi
managemen
der and Eis
itive output
stereotypes
ent.
pport can he
n processes
heir Corpora
e’s Negat
can be dep
ional suppo
l factors tha
unit: corpor
rt can be d
res about th
rcy et al. (2
nizational s
lesperson f
forming his
al support to
(1999, p. 2
ations […]
e links betw
of reciproc
help and to a
is reciproca
ization relat
ility that sa
nt are likely
senberger 2
ts (e.g., pos
and harmf
elp to blur t
. As a con
ate Headqua
ive Headq
ployed at
ort, employ
at are speci
ate bureauc
defined as e
heir well-be
006) specif
support capt
feels about
or her job
o be an impo
235) conclu
value and
ween percei
city”. This
avoid harmi
l trade betw
tionships. W
alespeople w
y to avoid
2008). Indee
sitive attitud
ful behavior
the salience
nsequence o
arters
quarters S
both the c
yee orientati
ific in their
cracy and sa
employees’
ing and valu
fy this defin
ture several
the organi
responsibili
ortant antec
udes that em
d appreciate
ived organi
norm descr
ing those w
ween employ
When applie
with high p
expressing
ed, employ
des and beh
r), in excha
e of group i
out-groups
11
Stereo-
corporate
ion, and
deploy-
ales unit
“global
ues their
nition for
l aspects
ization’s
ities” (p.
cedent of
mployees
e them”.
izational
ribes the
who have
yees and
ed to our
erceived
harmful
ees may
haviors),
ange for
dentities
may be
![Page 18: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
HomburWhen S
judged m
Turning
organiza
boundar
headqua
them” f
unit to b
hand, a
actively
corpora
reduce t
perceive
of the c
categori
arises. T
H4: Th
m
un
3.2.2
In both
importa
Luo, an
resource
(Grinste
posit em
Althoug
de-centr
delegati
2002).
motivat
research
these no
rg / Wiesekealespeople
more favora
g to the sale
ational sup
ries or diff
arters. Spec
feelings held
be supportin
also to be t
y supports
ate level sho
the propens
e their sales
corporation,
ize more st
Therefore, w
he likelihoo
ore the sal
nit managem
Employee
h the marke
ant dimensio
nd Shi 200
es, putting
ein 2008, p.
mployee orie
gh employe
ralized dec
ion of respo
These com
tion, and or
h (e.g., Fritz
otions.
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
ably and acc
es unit mana
pport on sa
ferences be
cifically, fo
d by salesp
ng them in a
their advoc
salespeople
ould neutra
sity for NHS
s unit to car
, which ma
trongly in t
we hypothes
od that sale
lespeople ar
ment.
e Orientatio
eting and m
on of manag
02). Emplo
g employee
119). As a
entation to b
e orientatio
cision-makin
onsibility (F
mponents ar
rganizationa
z 1996; Har
Mikolon gative Stereo
curately (se
agement lev
alespeople’
etween sale
llowing the
people may
achieving c
cate at hea
e in their
alize percei
S among sa
re for them
ay further re
terms of th
size:
espeople ste
re supporte
on
managemen
gerial behav
oyee orient
es’ well-be
second imp
be inversely
on is related
ng process
Fritz 1996;
re thought
al commitm
rris and Ogb
otypes of th
ee Anastasio
vel, we reas
s NHS is
espeople in
e logic of s
be weakene
orporate ob
dquarters. T
job execut
ved differe
lespeople. I
, the more t
educe “us v
he whole or
ereotype the
ed by their
nt literature
viour (e.g.,
tation relate
eing and
portant man
y related to
d to organiza
ses, investm
Harris and
to increas
ment (Fritz
bonna 2001
heir Corpora
o et al. 1997
son that the
essentially
the sales
social identi
ed if sales e
bjectives on
Thus, the p
tion and su
ences betwe
In addition,
the sales em
vs. them” n
rganization
eir headqua
(a) corpora
, employee
Baker and
es to “firm
satisfaction
nagement fa
NHS that s
ational supp
ments in e
Ogbonna 2
se organiza
1996; Ruek
; Pfeffer and
ate Headqua
7).
e effect of s
y one that
unit and p
ity approac
employees
the one han
perception
upports the
een the two
the more th
mployees ar
notions. Sal
so that on
arters negat
ate manage
e orientation
Sinkula 199
ms’ internal
n before o
actor to com
alespeople m
port, it is un
employees’
2001; Piercy
ational mem
kert 1992).
d Veiga 199
arters
ales unit m
bridges p
people in c
ch, negative
perceive th
nd and, on t
that the sa
eir interests
o groups an
hat sales em
re likely to
lespeople th
ne holistic i
tively decre
ement and (
n is consid
99; Fritz 19
l focus on
other stake
mbat stereoty
may harbor
nique in its f
developme
y, Harris, a
mbers’ sati
Previous e
99) largely
12
managers’
erceived
corporate
e “us vs.
heir sales
the other
ales unit
s at the
nd, thus,
mployees
feel part
hen self-
in-group
eases the
(b) sales
dered an
996; Liu,
n human
holders”
ypes, we
r.
focus on
ent, and
and Lane
sfaction,
empirical
supports
![Page 19: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
HomburWhen S
Again o
approac
strength
same go
in term
negative
At the
manage
headqua
corpora
can lead
H5: Th
m
ag
3.2.3
It is w
individu
an attra
behavio
previou
Shamir,
influenc
the lead
collectiv
with, an
charism
Kelman
With re
headqua
approac
their ab
charism
rg / Wiesekealespeople
our reasoni
ch. More sp
hen employ
oals as they
ms of their
e stereotype
sales unit
ement can
arters, thus
ate managem
d to a decrea
he likelihoo
ore employ
gement and
Charisma
widely acce
uals who po
ctive vision
ors (Conger
us research
, House, a
ce on follow
der, low role
ve vision fo
nd internali
matic leaders
n 1958).
espect to p
arters—a ro
ch—such fe
bility to inf
matic leaders
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
ng can be
pecifically,
yees’ belief
y do. This, i
organizatio
es of their c
level, too,
help to br
reducing th
ment level,
ase in headq
od that sale
yee orientat
d (b) sales un
atic Leader
epted in be
ossess high
n for the org
r and Kanu
on charism
nd Arthur
wers’ attitud
e conflict an
for the orga
ize charism
s as possess
potential “u
oot cause fo
eelings are m
fluence foll
s are likely
Mikolon gative Stereo
based on t
we argue
fs that mem
in turn, shou
on (not jus
orporate he
a high lev
ridge the p
he propensit
we suggest
quarters ster
espeople ste
tion the sal
nit managem
rship
ehavioral m
sensitivity
ganization,
ungo 1998;
matic leade
1993) has
des and beh
nd ambigui
anization. F
matic leaders
sing inspirat
us vs. them
or the devel
more likely
owers’ beli
to promote
otypes of th
the categori
that a hig
mbers of th
uld lead sal
st in terms
eadquarters.
vel of empl
perceived g
ty for NHS
t that sales
reotypes. In
ereotype the
lespeople ex
ment.
models of
to the env
and inspire
Conger, K
ership (e.g.
s found tha
havior, rang
ity to perfor
ollowers ar
s’ mission
tional quali
m” feelings
lopment of
to be dispe
iefs, attitud
a collectiv
heir Corpora
ization assu
gh level of
eir corpora
lespeople to
of salespe
oyee orient
gap betwee
among sale
unit manag
n summary,
eir headqua
xperience f
leadership
ironment an
subordinat
Kanungo, an
., Conger,
at charisma
ging from h
rmance imp
re more lik
and directiv
ities (Conge
s of emplo
f stereotypes
ersed by hig
des and beh
e organizat
ate Headqua
umption of
f employee
ate headqua
o self-catego
eople) and,
tation displ
en salespeo
espeople. H
gement’s em
we propose
arters negat
from their (
that chari
nd follower
tes to follow
nd Menon 2
Kanungo,
atic leaders
heightened
provement,
ely to be a
ves because
er and Kanu
oyees towar
s as implied
ghly charism
havior. In o
ional sense
arters
f the social
orientation
arters adher
orize more
therefore,
layed by sa
ople and c
Hence, simil
mployee ori
e:
tively decre
(a) corpora
smatic lead
rs’ needs, a
w their attitu
2000). Emp
and Meno
s have a p
motivation,
and inspirat
attracted to,
e they rega
ungo 1998;
rds their c
d by social
matic leader
other words
of belongin
13
identity
n should
re to the
strongly
prevent
ales unit
corporate
ar to the
ientation
eases the
ate man-
ders are
articulate
udes and
pirically,
on 2000;
profound
, trust in
tion of a
comply
ard these
see also
corporate
identity
rs due to
s, highly
ng while
![Page 20: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
HomburWhen S
boundar
or empi
leaders
relation
H6: Th
m
(b
We now
manage
potentia
3.2.4
Althoug
Dugger
harm of
organiza
bureauc
not deal
Corpora
leadersh
distance
self-cate
which a
hence, s
Miller e
H7: Th
le
3.2.5
The exp
people’
have be
attitude
rg / Wiesekealespeople
ries betwee
irical eviden
at the corp
nship:
he likelihoo
ore the sal
b) sales unit
w turn to th
ement or sa
al stereotype
Corporate
gh some co
1980), bot
f corporate
ational bure
cracy as the
l with the is
ate bureaucr
hip and emp
e raises the
egorize in t
are seen as
so is interg
et al. 1985).
he likelihoo
ess bureaucr
Sales Un
planation f
s stereotype
een found fo
s has been
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
n the intern
nce to sugg
porate or sa
od that sale
lespeople ar
t manageme
he headqua
ales unit m
es, respectiv
e Bureaucr
orporate bu
th managem
bureaucrac
eaucracy as
eir primary
ssues that m
racy impose
mployee grou
likelihood
terms of the
being dista
group stereo
Therefore,
od that sale
ratic the sal
nit Manage
for the pos
es can be a
for importan
found for
Mikolon gative Stereo
nal groups b
gest that the
ales unit m
espeople ste
re led char
ent.
arters stereo
management
vely.
racy
ureaucracy
ment and m
y. For insta
s the bigges
complaint.
matter, and m
ed on emplo
ups. Accord
of intergrou
eir own grou
ant. In turn
otyping (e.g
we propose
espeople ste
lespeople’s
ement’s S
itive influe
dopted from
nt marketin
market ori
otypes of th
become les
ese charism
management
ereotype the
rismatically
otype remed
t: corporate
may be ne
marketing re
ance, Leona
st boost to p
Piercy (19
may actually
oyees symb
ding to the
up stereotyp
up than it is
n, social co
g., Bettenco
e:
ereotype the
corporate m
Stereotype
ence of sal
m existing r
g construct
ientation (J
heir Corpora
s salient. W
ma effects di
t level. Hen
eir headqua
y by their (a
dies that ar
e bureaucra
ecessary for
esearchers h
ard (2000) n
productivity
94) states t
y make thin
bolizes a lar
social iden
pes because
s for them t
mparison p
ourt et al. 19
eir headqua
managemen
es
es unit ma
research on
ts. For exam
ones, Bush
ate Headqua
We are not a
iffer marked
nce we pro
arters negat
a) corporat
re specific
acy and sa
r steering o
have highli
notes that e
y, and too m
that bureauc
gs worse.”
rge distance
ntity approa
e it is easie
to try and in
processes ar
992; Brewe
arters negat
nt is.
anagers’ ste
n “trickle-do
mple, trickle
h, and Daci
arters
aware of the
dly if facili
opose the fo
tively decre
te managem
to either c
ales unit m
organization
ighted the p
employees r
much organi
cracy “usua
e between c
ach, such p
r for salesp
nclude othe
re more lik
er and Mill
tively decre
ereotypes o
own” effect
e down of m
in 2003) an
14
eoretical
itated by
ollowing
eases the
ment and
corporate
manager’s
ns (e.g.,
potential
rank less
izational
ally does
corporate
erceived
people to
er groups
kely and,
er 1984;
eases the
on sales-
s, which
manager
nd brand
![Page 21: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
HomburWhen S
adoption
Theoret
planned
Terry a
significa
1986) is
down o
significa
subjecti
intentio
From a
social c
process
distingu
conceiv
stereoty
1994). F
Christ a
manage
headqua
H8a: Th
m
qu
The rela
charism
unit ma
should b
An exp
already,
and insp
Conger,
of them
rg / Wiesekealespeople
n (Wieseke
tically, trick
d behavior t
and Hogg 1
ant others (
s centered o
of attitudes
ant others w
ive norms h
ns (e.g., Ajz
social iden
comparative
, which is
uish the in-g
ved to cont
ypes can act
For in-grou
and van Dic
ers’ stereoty
arters views
he likelihoo
ore their sa
uarters.
ationship pr
matic leaders
anagers’ he
be significa
planation of
, charismati
pire subord
, Kanungo,
m”, who stan
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
, Homburg,
kle-down e
theory. Bot
996). Socia
(Luthans an
on the conce
s. A subjec
will welcom
have been
zen and Ma
ntity theore
e informatio
fundamen
group from
tain (biased
t as social n
up members
ck 2009). Th
ypes of corp
s. This trick
od that sale
ales unit ma
roposed in H
ship ability
eadquarters
antly stronge
f this mode
ic leaders a
dinates to fo
and Menon
nds for wha
Mikolon gative Stereo
, and Lee 20
effects have
th theories
al learning
nd Kreitner
ept of “subj
ctive norm
me or rejec
found to d
adden 1986)
etical persp
on (Terry an
ntal to soci
other releva
d) social c
norms for in
, in turn, th
hus, we pre
porate head
kle-down eff
espeople ste
anagers har
H8a howev
highlighted
stereotype
er if the sale
erator effec
are those wh
ollow their a
n 2000). Th
at group me
otypes of th
008).
e been exp
can be link
theory sug
1985). Plan
jective norm
represents
ct a given a
directly rela
).
ective, peo
nd Hogg 19
ial identity
ant compari
comparative
-group mem
heir leaders
edict that sa
dquarters as
fect leads to
ereotype the
rbor negati
ver, is likely
d in H6. Sp
s on simila
es unit man
ct is provid
ho articulate
attitudes an
is might cau
mbers have
heir Corpora
plained wit
ked to the
gests that i
nned behavi
m”, which i
an individ
attitude or b
ate to indiv
ple constru
996). Accor
theory, st
ison groups
e informatio
mbers (see a
can act as s
lespeople u
s a subjectiv
o the follow
eir headqua
ve stereotyp
y to be cont
ecifically, t
ar stereotyp
agers are ve
ded by soc
e an attract
nd behavior
use followe
e in commo
ate Headqua
th social le
social iden
individuals
ior theory (
is also impo
dual’s perc
behavior (A
idual attitu
uct a social
rding to the
tereotypes
. Therefore
on. It follo
also Oakes,
significant
utilize their
ve norm in
wing hypothe
arters nega
pical views
ingent on s
the trickle-d
pes held by
ery charism
cial identity
ive vision f
s (Conger a
ers to percei
on and what
arters
earning the
ntity approa
learn by ob
(Ajzen and
ortant for th
ception of
Ajzen 1985
udes and be
norm from
e social com
serve to fa
, stereotype
ows that ou
Haslam and
others (e.g.
evaluations
forming th
esis:
tively incre
of corpora
ales unit m
down effect
y their sale
matic.
y theory. A
for the orga
and Kanung
ive a leader
t distinguish
15
eory and
ch (e.g.,
bserving
Madden
he trickle
whether
). These
ehavioral
m shared
mparison
avorably
es can be
ut-group
d Turner
, Ulrich,
s of sales
heir own
eases the
ate head-
anagers’
t of sales
espeople
As noted
anization
go 1998;
r as “one
hes them
![Page 22: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
HomburWhen S
from oth
result, a
social id
ratings o
Dick 20
the lead
H8b: Th
manage
by their
3.3 C
We co
headqua
custome
research
Regardi
custome
salespeo
(e.g, M
salespeo
al. 2002
controll
manifes
2001; M
In addit
perceive
member
A class
Allport
about th
1997), P
reduces
rg / Wiesekealespeople
her groups
a charismati
dentity-relat
of leader en
009) This su
der displays
he positive
ers and thei
r sales unit m
Control Var
ontrolled fo
arters stere
er orientati
h related to
ing both- th
er orientatio
ople’s job s
acKenzie, P
ople’s overa
2), we con
led for cont
stations of
Morhart; Her
tion to the
ed external
rs on NHS.
ical variabl
(1954), mo
he effects o
Pettigrew an
the develo
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
(Ulrich, Ch
ic leader ca
ted research
ndorsement
uggests that
high levels
relationship
ir salespeop
managers.
riables
or several
otypes and
ion and sal
stereotypes
he overall
on and thei
atisfaction b
Podsakoff a
all performa
ntrolled for
tingent rew
the transac
rzog; Tomc
aforementio
l image of
This is mot
le in stereot
ore than 50
of intergrou
nd Tropp (2
opment of n
Mikolon gative Stereo
hrist and van
an become a
h has shown
(e.g., Plato
t followers
s of charism
p between
ple strength
factors th
d the perfor
les perform
s in social p
performanc
r adherence
because it h
and Ahearn
ance have a
salespeopl
ard and ma
ctional lead
czak 2009).
oned variab
f the compa
tivated by th
type resear
00 studies h
up contact
2006) find in
negative ste
otypes of th
n Dick 2009
a prototpyp
n that leade
w and van K
are more li
matic leaders
the negativ
ens the mor
hat potenti
rmance var
mance). Ou
sychology a
ce variables
e to corpora
has been sho
ne 1998). F
also been sh
le’s empath
anagement-b
ership style
bles, we con
any and pe
he followin
ch is interg
have dealt w
on stereoty
n their meta
ereotypes. I
heir Corpora
9; van Knip
pical part of
er prototypic
Knippenber
ikely to ado
ship. More f
ve headquar
re the salesp
ially influe
riables (adh
ur factor se
and previou
s (salespeop
ate strategy
own to be in
urthermore
hown to be
hy (e.g., Bu
by-exceptio
e (e.g., Ma
ntrolled for
erceived un
g reasons.
group conta
with this v
ypes (e.g., H
a-analysis th
n accordan
ate Headqua
penberg and
f the group
cality is sign
rg 2001; Ulr
opt their lea
formally:
rters stereo
people are
ence salesp
herence to
election is
us research i
ple’s sales
y) and NHS
nfluential b
, because tr
of importa
ush et al.
ons leader b
acKenzie, P
r effects of
niformity o
act. Since th
variable. Wh
Hopkins, R
hat intergrou
nce with pre
arters
d Hogg 200
they lead. P
nificantly re
rich, Christ
ader’s stereo
otypes of sa
led charism
people’s c
corporate
based on
in marketing
performanc
S, we contro
by previous
rait anteced
ance (e.g., B
2001). Fin
behaviors as
Podsakoff a
intergroup
of the head
he seminal
hile there i
Reicher, and
up contact t
evious resea
16
03). As a
Previous
elated to
and van
otypes if
ales unit
matically
corporate
strategy,
existing
g.
ce, their
olled for
research
dents for
Brown et
ally, we
s typical
and Rich
contact,
dquarters
work of
s debate
d Levine
typically
arch, we
![Page 23: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
HomburWhen S
included
and Vo
between
We also
“constru
Gruen 2
refers to
when e
believe
relevant
induce
them fro
We also
refered
perceive
Social
deperso
to be a
research
stereoty
(e.g., Cr
In order
and wit
findings
rg / Wiesekealespeople
d both cont
oci 2007) a
n salespeopl
o controlled
ued externa
2005; Berg
o a person’s
mployees p
that the att
t others), em
employees
om develop
o controlled
to as “ent
ed as being
psychology
onalization o
determinan
h has show
ype of an ou
rawford, Sh
r to test the
thout inclus
s that we pr
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
tact frequen
and persona
le and corpo
d for perce
al image” o
gami and B
s beliefs abo
perceive th
tributes tha
mployee ide
to recatego
ping negativ
d for any p
titativity”. E
g a coheren
y theorists
of out-group
nt of prejudi
wn that the
ut-group an
herman, and
e robustness
ion of the c
resent below
Mikolon gative Stereo
ncy (e.g., V
alization of
orate headq
eived extern
or “organiz
agozzi 200
out outsider
e external
at distinguis
entification
orize their p
ve stereotype
perceived un
Entitativity
nt social un
s have arg
p members;
ice formatio
perception
nd the trans
d Hamilton 2
s of our con
control vari
w are stable
otypes of th
Van de Ven
f contact (e
quarters as c
nal image o
zational pre
00; Smidts,
rs’ perceptio
image of a
sh the comp
with the co
perceptions
es of aspect
niformity o
is the deg
it (Spencer
gued that
; a process i
on (e.g., De
n of high u
sfer of that
2002).
nceptual fram
iables. The
irrespective
heir Corpora
n and Ferry
e.g., Turner
control varia
of a compa
estige” (e.g.
Pruyn, and
ons of the c
a company
pany are po
ompany is st
s of group
ts or membe
of corporate
gree to wh
r-Rodgers, H
this varia
involving st
evine 1995)
uniformity
stereotype
mework, w
results of t
e of the incl
ate Headqua
1980; Von
r, Voci, an
ables.
any—someti
., Ahearne,
d Van Riel
company. It
as attractiv
ositive and
trengthened
boundaries
ers of their
e headquart
hich membe
Hamilton an
able leads
tereotypes w
). Previous
involves th
across all o
we conducted
these analys
lusion of the
arters
nofakou, He
nd Hewston
imes referr
Bhattachar
2001). Th
t is conceiva
ve (i.e., em
socially va
d. This, in tu
and theref
organizatio
ters membe
ers of a gr
nd Sherman
to a pro
which is co
empirical p
he abstracti
out-group m
d our analy
ses showed
ese variable
17
ewstone,
ne 2007)
ed to as
rya, and
is factor
able that
mployees
alued by
urn, may
fore stop
n.
ers—also
roup are
n 2007).
ocess of
nsidered
prejudice
ion of a
members
yses with
d that the
es.
![Page 24: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
HomburWhen S
4 Me
4.1 C
We test
structur
distinct
separati
agency
structur
characte
ployees
A major
manage
data in
question
legal pu
for obta
dents. C
indicate
contribu
in the sa
While s
sample
differen
that cou
Data fo
random
sample
1 Seven ty
city, cent
including
on the rel
rg / Wiesekealespeople
ethodolo
Collection
ted our con
re. This res
operative s
ion between
corporation
re are also
eristic that
’ headquart
r challenge
ers’ stereoty
our conte
ns about ste
unishment i
aining acces
Corporate m
ed that they
utor to the t
ame firms o
selecting th
as balanced
nt geographi
uld bias our
or the study
m interviews
and mana
ypes of store
tral; large-size
g store location
lationships we
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
ogy
of Multilev
nceptual mo
search conte
sales unit s
n operative
ns). As oper
o character
is especial
ters stereoty
for us in th
ypes becaus
xt are sens
ereotypes m
in some cas
ss to stereo
management
placed a h
trust that we
on different
he travel ag
d as possibl
ic locations
results.1
y were coll
was condu
agers from
locations eme
ed city, suburb
n (operational
e examined, an
Mikolon gative Stereo
vel Data fr
del with da
ext is suita
structure (th
sales units
rative sales
rized by
lly conduci
ypes.
his study wa
e of the hig
sitive becau
may reveal co
ses (see Ak
otype data w
t, the salesp
high level of
e received w
constructs o
gencies for
le. A key is
s in order to
lected in tw
ucted with s
their corp
erged in the sa
b; medium-siz
lized as dumm
nd thus this va
otypes of th
rom Four
ata from tra
able for our
he individu
and corpor
units, agenc
close emp
ive to testi
as to obtain
ghly sensitiv
use, from
ompany vie
krami 2005)
was for us
people, and
f trust in ou
was that we
one year be
our study,
ssue was th
o control fo
wo stages.
salespeople
porate head
ample of trave
zed city; smal
my variables)
ariable was dr
heir Corpora
Sources
avel agencie
r study bec
al travel ag
ate centers
cies embed
ployee-custo
ing potenti
n access to d
ve nature of
the respond
ews that cou
). Against th
to gain the
the sales m
ur university
e already ha
efore the ste
we took a
he inclusion
or possible h
First, a qu
from the tr
dquarters. T
el agencies: la
ll-sized city; a
as a covariate
ropped from fu
ate Headqua
es in a dece
cause it is
gencies) and
(the headqu
ed in a dece
omer intera
al custome
data on sale
f this pheno
dents’ pers
uld be subje
his backgro
e trust of ou
managers w
y research t
ad conducted
reotype stud
number of
of travel a
headquarter
ualitative st
ravel agenci
The aim o
arge-sized city
airport; and sh
e did not exert
further analyse
arters
entralized c
characteriz
d an organi
uarters of th
entralized c
actions—a
er reactions
espeople’s a
omenon. Ste
spective, an
ect to fines a
ound, a prer
ur potential
who we surv
team. An im
d a research
dy took pla
f steps to m
agencies fro
rs-proximity
tudy with i
ies containe
of interview
y, first-class; la
hopping mall.
t any significa
es.
18
corporate
zed by a
izational
he travel
corporate
context
to em-
and sales
ereotype
nswering
and even
requisite
respon-
veyed all
mportant
h project
ce.
make the
om many
y effects
in-depth,
ed in our
wing the
arge-sized
However,
ant impact
![Page 25: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
HomburWhen S
salespeo
regards
beliefs
over-ge
understa
informe
In the n
quantita
custome
people,
collecte
collecte
perceive
perform
Data fro
number
to the r
salespeo
agencie
for 206
be seen
4.2 M
Append
included
develop
and Dar
Lepore
2007; V
We firs
associat
corpora
rg / Wiesekealespeople
ople was to
to their hea
reflected ac
neralized a
anding of
ed our meas
next data col
ative study
ers, sales m
customers
ed from sale
ed from sal
ed custome
mance came
om the sales
rs. With resp
respective
ople (respon
s (with one
salespeople
in Figure 1
Measures
dix A provi
d. To meas
pment appro
rden 1995;
and Brown
Vorauer, Ma
st conducte
tion techniq
ate headquar
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
o identify
adquarters.
ctual circum
and, hence
how negat
ure of stere
llection stag
is that it is
managers, a
, and sales
es managers
espeople, a
er orientati
from comp
speople, cus
pect to the
employee’s
nse rate: 30
e manager p
e; response
.
ides a comp
sure the key
oach, which
Gardner 1
n 1997; McC
ain, and O'C
ed in-depth
que to gen
rters in the t
Mikolon gative Stereo
some of th
The manag
mstances in
, stereotyp
tive stereot
eotypes.
ge, quantita
s based on
and a comp
s managers
s. Data on sa
as were all
on were g
pany databan
stomers, and
employee-c
s code num
0.1 %), 472
per travel ag
rate: 41.4 %
plete list o
y construct
h is consiste
994; Katz a
Conahay, H
Connell 199
h interview
nerate a lis
travel indus
otypes of th
he typical n
gers were in
n the corpor
pical. Overa
types manif
ative data w
data from
pany databa
s). Data on
alespeople’
other pred
gathered fro
nks.
d sales man
customer dy
mber. The f
sales mana
gency), and
%). The data
f scales tha
in our stud
ent with exi
and Hass 1
Hardee, and
8; Wittenbr
ws with 15
st of chara
stry (most a
heir Corpora
negative be
nterviewed t
rate headqu
all, this fir
fest themse
were collecte
four differ
ank) and th
n sales unit
s stereotype
dictor and c
om custom
nagers were
yads, intervi
final match
agers (respo
499 custom
a sources fo
at we used.
dy, NHS, w
sting work
1988; Lee,
Batts 1981
rink, Judd, a
travel age
cteristics th
associated ch
ate Headqua
eliefs that t
to then esta
uarters or w
rst stage h
elves in an
ed. An impo
rent data so
hree respon
t managers
es and strate
control vari
ers. Data o
matched w
iewers alloc
hed sample
nse rate: 44
mers (collec
or each mea
. The scale
we conducte
in this area
Sandfield a
1; Turner, V
and Park 19
ents using
hat are mo
haracteristic
arters
they harbor
ablish wheth
were exagge
helped deep
n organizat
ortant featur
ources (sale
ndent levels
s’ stereotyp
egy adheren
iable data.
on employ
with the help
cated the cu
consisted
4.5 %) in 47
cted by inter
asured const
es’ sources
ed a two-st
a (e.g., Babi
and Dhaliw
Voci, and H
97;).
a projectiv
ost associat
cs, or MAC
19
red with
her these
erated or
pen our
tion and
re of our
espeople,
s (sales-
pes were
nce were
Data on
ee sales
p of code
ustomers
of 1009
72 travel
rviewers
truct can
are also
tep scale
in, Boles
al 2007;
Hewstone
ve word
ted with
Cs). Then
![Page 26: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
HomburWhen S
a sampl
MACs i
stateme
corpora
Gardner
polarity
conduct
ters ster
scale ar
We firs
scales w
data, we
than .30
validity
results i
CFI =
manage
Table 1
correlat
extracte
operatio
thus me
Nunnall
We asse
Larcker
extracte
fulfill th
To cont
The con
absence
rg / Wiesekealespeople
le of 25 tra
identified in
nt describin
ate headqua
r 1994; Lee
y on the sc
ted a one-sa
reotype (e.g
e the MACs
st conducte
with more th
e ran separa
0 were exc
y of our con
indicate acc
.916; sales
er-level cons
1 displays t
tions of the
ed for all sc
onalizations
eeting or e
ly and Bern
essed the di
r (1981), w
ed exceeds
his requirem
trol for mul
ntrol variab
e of serious
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
avel agents
n the in-dep
ng the cor
arters stereo
e, Sandfield,
cale used t
ample t-test
g., Gardner 1
s that we fo
d explorato
han one item
ate factor an
cluded from
nstructs, con
ceptable fit
s-manager-le
structs: IFI
the psychom
e scales. C
cales indicat
s. No coeffic
exceeding t
nstein (1994
scriminant
which is th
the square
ment.
lticollineari
bles and the
multicollin
Mikolon gative Stereo
s was asked
pth interview
rporate head
otypes, we
, and Dhaliw
to operatio
t to determi
1994; Lee, S
ound to repr
ory factor a
m, using pr
nalyses for
m further a
nfirmatory f
statistics (s
evel constr
= .922; TLI
metric prop
Cronbach’s
te sufficien
cient alpha
the recomm
4).
validity of t
at discrimi
ed correlatio
ity, we insp
e anteceden
earity probl
otypes of th
d to compl
ws. The MA
dquarters. I
applied a
wal 2007;).
nalize the
ine those M
Sandfield an
resent corpo
analyses to
omax rotati
each data le
analyses. T
factor analy
salespeople-
ructs: IFI =
I = .907; CF
erties of ou
alpha, com
nt reliability
values and
mended thre
the scales u
nant validi
ons betwee
pected the v
nts yield va
lems (see K
heir Corpora
ete a quest
ACs were o
In order to
a stereotype
According
MACs wo
MACs that re
nd Dhaliwa
orate headqu
evaluate th
ion. Due to
evel. All ite
o further a
yses were fo
-level const
= .922; TL
FI = .922).
ur final sca
mposite reli
y and conve
composite
esholds by
using the cri
ity is suppo
en all pairs
variance inf
alues betwe
Kleinbaum e
ate Headqua
tionnaire co
perationaliz
o identify w
e differenti
to this tech
ould reflect
epresent a c
al 2007). Th
uarters stere
he factor s
the multile
ems with cr
assess meas
or each data
tructs: IFI =
I = .907; C
ales, and Ta
iability, and
ergent valid
reliabilities
Bagozzi a
terion propo
orted if the
of constru
flation facto
en 1.0 and
t al. 1988).
arters
ontaining al
zed in the fo
which MAC
ial techniqu
hnique, a sig
t a stereoty
corporate he
he items in o
eotypes.
tructure for
evel structur
ross loading
sure reliabi
a level. Ove
= .916; TLI
CFI = .922
able 2 prov
d average
ity of our c
s are lower t
and Yi (19
osed by For
e average
ucts. All co
ors of the v
2.9, indica
20
ll of the
form of a
Cs were
ue (e.g.,
gnificant
ype. We
eadquar-
our NHS
r all the
re of our
gs higher
ility and
erall, the
I = .908;
2; sales-
vides the
variance
construct
than .65,
988) and
rnell and
variance
onstructs
variables.
ating the
![Page 27: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
HomburWhen S
Variable
1. Sale2. Sale to C3. Sale Orie4. Sale5. Corp Org6. Corp Emp7. Corp Cha8. Corp9. Sale Org10. Sale Emp11. Sale 12. Sale Cha13. Con Corp14. Pers with15. Perc of C16. Perc Corp Mem17. Sale Sati18. Sale19. Sale Con20. Sale Man
1 Sales pe2 Constru
cannot bCR: compAVE: ave
rg / Wiesekealespeople
es
espeople’s NHespeople’s Corporate Stratespeople’s entation espeople’s Anporate Ma
ganizational Suporate Maployee Orientaporate Ma
arismatic Leadporate Bureaues Unit Maganizational Sues Unit Maployee Orientaes Unit Negative Ste
es Unit Maarismatic Leadntact Frequeporate Headqusonalization h Corporate Hceived Exter
Company ceived Unifporate Hmbers espeople’s Jobisfaction espeople’s Emes Unit Mantingent Rewaes Unit Management by Eerformance wauct measured tbe computed. posite reliabilerage variance
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
HS Adherence
tegy Customer
nnual Sales anagement’s upport anagement’s ation anagement’s dership ucracy anagement’s upport anagement’s ation
Manager’s reotypes anagement’s dership ency with uarters of Contact
Headquarters rnal Image
formity of Headquarters
b
mpathy anagement’s ards anagement’s Exceptions as measured wthrough one i
lity e extracted
Tab
Mikolon gative Stereo
Mean
3.83
5.69
6.50
570,027
4.38
4.06
4.61
3.97
5.64
4.99
4.09
5.04
3.05
1.90
5.26
3.83
5.81
5.13
5.93
5.39
with annual satem. Coefficie
ble 1 Psycho
otypes of th
SD
.7
.8
.6
180,
1.2
1.0
.9
1.2
1.1
1.4
.8
1.4
1.7
1.4
1.1
1.0
1.1
.9
.8
1.0
ales per emploent alpha, com
ometric prop
heir Corpora
D
9
3
0
601
21
06
9
25
14
40
3
41
72
47
18
01
13
2
2
05
oyee (in thousamposite reliab
perties of sc
ate Headqua
α
.78
.72
.92
-2
.88
.84
.90
.85
.91
.93
.75
.95
-2
.71
.93
.86
.80
.84
.85
.80
ands). bility, and ave
cales
arters
CR
.78
.73
.92
-2
.88
.85
.91
.86
.91
.93
.77
.95
-2
.73
.93
.87
.83
.85
.87
.82
erage variance
21
AVE
.38
.41
.70
-2
.65
.59
.58
.61
.71
.76
.37
.74
-2
.48
.78
.63
.63
.65
.57
.53
e extracted
![Page 28: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
HomburWhen S
Variables1. Sales2. Sales to Co3. Sales Orien4. Sales5. Corp Orga6. Corp Empl7. Corp Char8. Corp9. Sales Orga10. Sales Empl11. Sales Nega12. Sales Char13. Cont Corp14. Perso w. Co15. Perce of Co16. Perce Corp Mem17. Sales Satis18. Sales19. Sales Cont20. Sales
Manations
Notes: Cororientation
rg / Wiesekealespeople
speople’s NHS speople’s Adhereorporate Strategyspeople’s Customntation speople’s Annualporate Managemeanizational Suppoporate Managemeloyee Orientation
porate Managemeismatic Leadersh
porate Bureaucracs Unit Managemeanizational Suppos Unit Managemeloyee Orientations Unit Manager’s ative Stereotypess Unit Managemeismatic Leadershact Frequency wi
porate Headquarteonalization of Conorporate Headqueived External Imompany eived Uniformity
porate Headquartembers speople’s Job faction people’s Empath
s Unit Managemeingent Rewardss Unit Managemeagement by Exce
rrelations betwn which is based
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
1
nce -.40**
mer -.21**
Sales -.09**nt’s
ort -.49**
nt’s n -.44**
nt’s hip -.48**
cy .44** ent’s ort -.19**
ent’s n -.20**
.13**
ent’s hip -.20**
ith ers -.16**
ntact uarters -.07*
mage -.33**
y of ers -.20**
-.24**
hy -.19**ent’s .05
ent’s ep- .05
een constructs d on the custom
Mikolon gative Stereo
2 3
.22**
.16** .04
.36** .05
.29** .07
.40** .10*
-.16** -.02
.20** .03
.13** -.03
-.02 -.05
.14** -.01
.18** .04
.06 -.08
.35** .04
.16** .01
.14** .08
.33** .11*
.01 .11*
-.01 -.06
at different levmer level. Two-t
Table 2 Co
otypes of th
4 5
.09**
.06 .55**
.12** .61**
.02 -.37**
.08* .37**
.07* .31**
-.03 -.07*
.08* .30**
.09** .21**
.08* .10**
.15** .48**
.07* .35**
.02 .25**
.05 .17**
.03 -.01
-.03 -.02
vels of analysis tailed significanorrelations o
heir Corpora
6 7
.52**
-.34** -.37**
.25** .30**
.26** .24**
-.04 -.04
.23** .27**
.15** .16**
.11** .07*
.35** .59**
.27** .31**
.15** .20**
.11** .16**
-.01 .01
-.02 -.01
are based on thnce tests. of variables
ate Headqua
8 9
*
-.21**
-.24** .65**
.10** -.05
-.21** .51**
-.07* .07*
.02 .03
-.22** .22**
-.14** .18**
-.28** .44**
-.05 .19**
-.02 .05
-.03 -.01
he salespeople l
s
arters
10 11
*
.04
* .69** -.01
.09** -.02
.03 .02
* .24** -.01
* .16** -.02
* .39** -.05
* .10** -.03
.06 .07*
.01 .12*
level, except fo
22
12 13
1
2 .12**
2 .06 .28*
1 .22** .14*
2 .15** .14*
5 .35** .01
3 .14** .09*
* .08* -.0
* .04 -.0
or customer
3 14 1
**
** .02
** .04 .24
1 -.01 .15
** .05 .17
1 -.01 .0
6 -.04 -.0
5
4*
5*
7*
01
0
![Page 29: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
HomburWhen S
On the
and Ov
respond
the two
followin
chance
intervie
number
telephon
did not
the non
issue in
4.3 A
As alre
Custom
into acc
Muthén
rg / Wiesekealespeople
salespeople
verton’s (1
ders were de
samples. In
ng approach
to particip
ws. To take
r. We then
ne. Regardi
find any si
n-responden
our data.
Analytical A
eady noted
mers, salespe
count (see R
n and Muthé
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
e and sales m
977) time-
etected on a
n order to t
h. All visitin
pate in a l
e part in th
collected ad
ing the scale
ignificant d
t sample. T
Approach
d, the data
eople, and s
Raudenbush
én 2006) as
Mikolon gative Stereo
manager lev
-trend extra
any of the c
test for non
ng custome
ottery whic
e lottery, cu
dditional da
e mean of th
differences b
These result
a structure
sales unit m
h and Bryk
this program
otypes of th
vel, non-res
apolation. N
onstructs of
-response b
ers during th
ch was ind
ustomers ha
ata from 75
he customer
between the
ts provide e
underpinn
managers. In
2002), we e
m permits th
heir Corpora
sponse bias
No differen
f interest or
bias in the c
he days of t
dependent f
ad to provid
5 non-respo
r construct i
e responden
evidence th
ning our st
n order to pr
employed th
he analysis
ate Headqua
was assesse
nces betwe
r demograph
customer sa
the interview
from the p
de their add
ondents by
included in
nts in our o
at non-resp
tudy comp
roperly take
he Mplus so
of multilev
arters
ed using Ar
een early a
hic variable
ample, we c
ws were off
participation
dress and te
contacting
our framew
original sam
ponse bias i
prises three
e this data s
oftware (Ve
vel datasets.
23
rmstrong
and late
es within
hose the
fered the
n in the
elephone
them by
work, we
mple and
is not an
e levels:
structure
ersion 6;
![Page 30: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
HomburWhen S
5 Re
The res
on the
predict
(H1), cu
negative
salespeo
orientat
.05). He
The ne
headqua
sales un
support
(H6a an
ters are
(b = -.1
charism
manage
howeve
H6b we
Our last
level or
related
predicte
corpora
and sale
charism
ly and p
confirm
negative
relation
leadersh
rg / Wiesekealespeople
esults
ults of our
outcomes o
a negative
ustomer ori
e stereotyp
ople’s adhe
tion (b = -.1
ence, the da
ext three h
arters are re
nit level. Sp
(H4a and
nd H6b). Re
related sign
151, SE = .
matic leader
ement’s org
er, were insi
ere not supp
t two hypot
r sales unit
positively
ed to be re
ate headquar
espeople’s s
matic leaders
positively w
m that salesp
e stereotype
nship is mod
hip (b = .05
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
hypothesis
of salespeop
effect of su
ientation (H
pes of corp
erence to c
128, SE = .
ata support H
hypotheses
elated to th
pecifically,
H4b), emp
esults show
nificantly a
029, p < .0
rship (b =
ganizational
ignificant. H
ported.
theses conc
t manageme
to corpor
elated posi
rters (H8a),
stereotypes
ship (H8b).
with corpora
people’s NH
es of corpo
derated sign
51, SE = .0
Mikolon gative Stereo
tests are pr
ple’s negat
uch stereoty
H2), and an
porate head
orporate st
039, p < .0
H1, H2, and
focus on
he same ma
NHS are p
ployee orien
w that salesp
and inversel
01), employ
-.132, SE
l support,
Hence, H4a
entrate on f
ent level. S
ate bureau
itively to s
, with the re
expected to
Our results
ate bureaucr
HS are relate
rate headqu
nificantly an
024, p < .05
otypes of th
resented in
tive stereoty
ypes on sale
nnual sales
dquarters is
trategy (b =
01), and ann
d H3.
how salesp
anagerial ac
predicted to
ntation (H5
people’s neg
ly to corpor
yee orientat
= .033, p
employee
a, H5a, and
factors parti
Specifically
ucracy (H7)
sales unit m
elationship
o be modera
s show that
racy (b = .1
ed significan
uarters (b =
nd positively
5; high char
heir Corpora
Table 3. O
ypes toward
espeople’s a
(H3). Resu
related si
= -.372, SE
nual sales (b
people’s st
ction execu
o be related
5a and H5b
gative stere
rate manage
tion (b = -.
< .01). Th
orientation,
d H6a were
icular to eit
, salespeop
). These n
managers’
between sa
ated positive
salespeople
175, SE = .
ntly and pos
= -.054, SE
y by sales u
risma: b =
ate Headqua
ur first thre
ds corporat
adherence to
ults indicate
gnificantly
E = .034, p
b = -26,062
tereotypes
uted at both
d inversely
b), and cha
eotypes of c
ement’s org
114, SE =
he coeffici
, and char
supported,
ther the corp
ple’s NHS a
negative ste
negative st
ales unit ma
ely by sales
e’s NHS are
022, p < .0
sitively to s
= .021, p <
unit manage
.116, SE =
arters
ee hypothes
te headquar
o corporate
e that sales
and negat
p < .01), c
2, SE = 11,8
of their c
h the corpo
with organi
arismatic le
corporate he
ganizational
.029, p < .
ients for sa
rismatic lea
but H4b, H
porate man
are predicte
ereotypes a
tereotypes
anagers’ ste
unit manag
e related sig
01). Our res
sales unit m
< .01), and
ements’ cha
.068, p <
24
ses focus
rters and
strategy
people’s
tively to
customer
814, p <
corporate
orate and
izational
adership
eadquar-
l support
01), and
ales unit
adership,
H5b, and
agement
ed to be
are also
of their
reotypes
gements’
nificant-
ults also
anagers’
that this
arismatic
.05; low
![Page 31: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
HomburWhen S
charism
rg / Wiesekealespeople
ma: b = .006,
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
, SE = .070,
Mikolon gative Stereo
, n.s.). Henc
otypes of th
ce, the data
heir Corpora
support H7
ate Headqua
7, H8a, and
arters
H8b.
25
![Page 32: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
HomburWhen S
Depende
Salespeopl
CorporateCorporate Support Corporate Corporate LeadershipCorporate
Sales UnitSales UnSupport Sales Unit Sales ULeadershipSales Unit Sales UnitManageme
Control VContact FrPersonalizHeadquartPerceived Perceived HeadquartSalespeoplSalespeoplSales UnExceptionSales Unit
* p < .05hypothesi
rg / Wiesekealespeople
ent Variable
le’s NHS
e Management EManagement
Management’s EManagemen
p Bureaucracy
t Effects nit Managemen
Management’s EUnit Managemp Manager’s Nega
t Manager’s Sterent’s Charismatic
Variables requency with Coation of Contaers External Image o
Uniformity ers Members le’s Job Satisfactile’s Empathy it Management
Management’s C
5; ** p < .01; Nized relationshi
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
Effects t’s Organizati
Employee Orientant’s Charism
nt’s Organizati
Employee Orientament’s Charism
ative Stereotypesreotypes x Sales c Leadership
orporate Headquaact with Corpo
of Company of Corpo
ion
’s Management
Contingent Rewar
Notes: Significips.
T
Mikolon gative Stereo
Sa
UnstandaCoeffic
(Standard
ional -.151(.0
ation -.114(.0matic -.132(.0
.175(.02
ional .049(.0
ation -.009(.matic .007(.0
.054(.02Unit .051(.0
arters -.033(.orate -.016(.
-.023(.orate .011(.0
-.072(.0.070(.02
by .019(.0
rd .035(.0
cance is based
Table 3 Esti
otypes of th
alespeople’s N
ardized cient
d Errors)
StanCo
029)** -
029)** -
033)** -
22)**
034)
036)
030)
21)**
024)*
023)
021)
029)
024)
024)** -21)** -023)
023)
on one-tailed t
imated path
heir Corpora
NHS S
ndardized oefficient
U
(St
-
-.19**
-.15**
-.17**
.22**
.06
-.01
.01
.07**
.06*
-.04
-.02
-.03
.01
-.09** -.09**
.02
.04
tests. We tested
h coefficient
ate Headqua
Salespeople’s Corporate
Unstandardized Coefficient
tandard Errors)
-.372(.034)**
-.010(.029) .215(.026)**
.006(.031)
.012(.028)
d the model wi
ts
arters
Adherence te Strategy
StandardizedCoefficient
-.36**
-.01 .26** .01
.01
ith, and withou
26
o SalespO
d UnstandarCoefficie
(Standard E
-.128(.039
.050(.03
.048(.03-.065(.03
.093(.034
ut, the inclusion
people’s CustoOrientation
rdized ent
Errors)
StandCoeff
9)** -.1
36) .37) .37)* -.
4)** .1
n of our contro
o
daffi
14
000
2
ol
![Page 33: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
HomburWhen S
6 Dis
Our res
research
determi
first stu
perspec
quences
such ste
marketi
6.1 T
Our res
firm per
we find
reluctan
custome
These f
persona
This hig
used in
percepti
ranging
further u
Against
stereoty
corpora
the mar
conside
negative
marketi
Regardi
rg / Wiesekealespeople
scussion
search objec
h in market
ne its susce
udy (1) to
tive; (2) em
s of headqu
ereotypes ca
ng context.
heoretica
sults show t
rformance a
d that salesp
nt to adhere
er-oriented,
findings pr
ality, social,
gh relevanc
this study c
ions, and ob
from strat
underlines t
t this back
yping in dif
ate headquar
rketing inte
ring stereot
e stereotyp
ng vs. R&D
ing manage
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
n
ctives were
ing, analyz
eptibility to
conceptual
mpirically
uarters stere
an be reduce
l Implicati
that NHS h
across three
people who
e to a firm
and (3) dis
rovide evid
, and cogni
ce is underl
come from t
bjective dat
tegy adhere
the relevanc
kground, w
fferent cont
rters hold n
erface with
types since
pes of mem
D).
rial remedie
Mikolon gative Stereo
e to introdu
e the releva
managerial
lize headqu
examine p
eotypes am
ed by mana
ons
held by sale
e key outcom
o have deve
m’s sales st
splay poorer
dence that
itive psycho
ined by the
three differe
ta. The conc
ence to cus
ce of the ste
we suggest
texts in the
negative ste
other func
it is entirel
mbers of a
es for negat
otypes of th
uce the con
ance of the
l influence.
uarters ster
potential em
mong salesp
agerial actio
espeople can
mes conside
eloped NHS
trategy, (2)
r sales perfo
the concep
ology, is hi
e fact that t
ent sources
ceptual brea
tomer orien
ereotype con
that sales
e future. Fo
ereotypes of
ctional units
ly possible
another fun
tive stereoty
heir Corpora
cept of ster
concept for
To the bes
reotypes fro
mployee, cu
eople; and
on at the cor
n have sev
ered relevan
S of their c
) are percei
ormance.
pt of stereo
ighly releva
the data for
: salespeopl
adth of thes
ntation to o
nstruct for s
manageme
or example
f salespeop
s in an org
that membe
nctional un
ypes, we co
ate Headqua
reotypes to
r sales forc
st of our kn
om a mark
ustomer, an
(3) empiri
rporate and
ere negativ
nt for salesp
corporate h
ived by cu
otypes, typ
ant for the
r the three d
le’s self ass
se three per
objective sa
sales manag
ent researc
, it is poss
ple. Addition
ganization w
ers of one f
it (e.g., m
onclude that
arters
sales man
e managem
owledge, th
keting man
nd financia
cally exam
sales unit l
ve conseque
people. Spec
headquarters
ustomers to
ically grou
field of ma
dependent v
sessments, c
rformance e
ales perform
gement.
ch should
sible that p
nally, resea
would bene
functional u
marketing vs
t the corpor
27
nagement
ment, and
his is the
agement
l conse-
mine how
evel in a
ences for
cifically,
s (1) are
be less
unded in
arketing.
variables
customer
effects—
mance—
consider
eople in
arch into
efit from
unit have
s. sales;
rate level
![Page 34: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
HomburWhen S
is more
for our
distinct
levels o
support
we did
possibil
may be
corpora
force).
Another
salespeo
study (s
significa
processe
from th
Althoug
zation,
that in m
that bur
Furtherm
potentia
wish to
and Ferr
6.2 M
A key i
NHS ve
mance
manage
semanti
psychol
rg / Wiesekealespeople
important
hypotheses
difference
of their ex
, employee-
not find th
lity arises th
more effec
ate headqua
r noteworth
ople’s stere
see the stand
ant extent
es. That suc
he field ma
gh the conc
has attracte
more recent
reaucracy sh
more, futur
ally importa
examine h
rell 1996).
Managerial
implication
ery seriousl
outcomes,
ers that this
ic differenti
logy can ser
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
than the sal
s at the cor
in the impo
ecution. Sp
-oriented be
he same evi
hat managem
ctive when t
arters) rathe
hy finding
otypes than
dardized co
when hea
ch bureaucr
ay explain
ept of burea
ed a lot of r
t research th
hould remai
re research
ant attitudin
ow stereoty
l implicatio
for manage
ly. Our find
including s
s phenomen
ial scale th
rve as an ea
Mikolon gative Stereo
les unit lev
rporate leve
ortance of th
pecifically,
ehavior, and
idence at th
ment action
they origina
er than from
is that pe
n any of the
oefficients in
adquarters
ratic proced
salespeopl
aucracy, inc
research int
here is less
in an import
h should e
nal respons
ypes are rel
ons
ement pract
ding that N
subjective a
non should
hat we deve
asy-to-use m
otypes of th
el. We base
el than at t
he same NH
while we
d charismat
he sales uni
ns to comba
ate from wit
m within th
erceived bu
e manageria
n Table 3).
strongly fo
dures often
le’s tendenc
cluding its
terest in the
emphasis p
tant concep
explore the
ses of sales
ated to role
tice is that
NHS in the
and objectiv
d not be n
eloped on
monitoring to
heir Corpora
e this conclu
the sales un
HS remedie
found that
tic leadersh
it level for
at negative
thin the targ
he stereoty
ureaucracy
al anteceden
Apparently
ormalize an
inhibit the
cy to deve
component
e 1980s (e.
laced on thi
t in marketi
e relationsh
speople. Fo
e ambiguity
managers s
sales force
ve salespeo
eglected an
the basis o
ool.
ate Headqua
usion on fin
nit level. F
s depending
t corporate-
hip explain
the same f
stereotypes
geted out-gr
yping in-gro
is more s
nts that were
y salespeopl
nd standard
implement
elop headqu
s, formaliza
g., Deshpan
is concept.
ing and sale
hip between
or instance,
y or role con
should take
are related
ople perform
nd should b
of previous
arters
nding more
urther, we
g on the ma
-level man
salespeople
factors. Ove
in a firm’s
roup itself (
oup (here t
strongly re
e considere
e develop N
dize organi
ation of go
uarters ster
ation and st
nde 1982),
Our analysi
es studies.
n NHS an
, researcher
nflict (e.g.,
their salesp
d to various
mance, clea
be monitor
research i
28
e support
found a
anagerial
agement
e’s NHS,
erall, the
s context
(here the
the sales
elated to
ed in this
NHS to a
izational
od ideas
reotypes.
tandardi-
we note
is shows
nd other
rs might
Hartline
people’s
s perfor-
arly tells
red. The
in social
![Page 35: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
HomburWhen S
Other im
headqua
more ef
results a
of organ
influenc
manage
benefits
such as
Our find
stereoty
leadersh
One im
by sale
manage
to mana
may be
if their l
rg / Wiesekealespeople
mportant im
arters stereo
ffective if i
also tell ma
nizational r
ce on stereo
ers should b
s of bureauc
an increase
ding of a po
ypes—and t
hip displaye
mplication is
s managers
ers to salesp
agers of sal
extremely h
level of NH
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
mplications
otypes. One
mplemente
anagers that
rules, regula
otypes may
be careful
cracy are of
ed chance of
ositive relat
the strength
ed by the sa
s that the su
s because o
people. The
es units wh
helpful in th
HS is high.
Mikolon gative Stereo
for manage
e implicatio
d at the cor
t they shoul
ations, and
emerge from
about an e
ften fairly s
f NHS in sa
tionship bet
hening of th
ales manage
uperiors of
of the pote
second imp
ho have a hi
he sales uni
otypes of th
ers relate to
on is that m
rporate leve
ld not forge
formalities
m corporate
scalation o
straight forw
ales units.
tween sales
he relations
rs—also pro
sales manag
ential trickle
plication is t
ighly charis
ts if their le
heir Corpora
o the remed
managers ca
el rather th
et the negati
s. Specifica
e bureaucra
f bureaucra
ward, but th
s managers’
ship subject
ovides impo
gers should
e-down eff
that special
smatic lead
evel of NHS
ate Headqua
dies for sale
an expect N
an at the sa
ive perform
ally, we find
acy. We sug
acy in their
here are neg
’ stereotype
t to the deg
ortant mana
d attempt to
fect of ster
l considerati
ership style
S is low, but
arters
espeople’s
NHS remedi
ales unit le
mance conse
d that the s
ggest, theref
r organizati
gative conse
es and sales
gree of cha
agerial impl
o remedy N
eotypes fro
ion should b
e. These ind
t extremely
29
negative
ies to be
vel. Our
equences
strongest
fore, that
ion. The
equences
people’s
arismatic
ications.
NHS held
om sales
be given
dividuals
harmful
![Page 36: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
HomburWhen S
7 Co
This stu
around
develop
understa
firm. Th
perform
factors
academ
rg / Wiesekealespeople
onclusion
udy was des
the perform
p negative
anding how
he overarch
mance outco
at the corpo
mics and prac
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
n
signed to op
mance impl
stereotypes
w such stere
hing finding
omes at the
orate and sa
ctitioners to
Mikolon gative Stereo
pen a new s
lications th
of corpora
eotypes can
g of this stu
customer in
ales unit lev
o consider m
otypes of th
stream of re
at organiza
ate headqu
n be minim
udy is that N
nterface and
vel. We hop
more careful
heir Corpora
esearch in th
ations may
arters. Part
mized at var
NHS among
d can be re
pe that our
lly headqua
ate Headqua
he sales ma
suffer whe
ticular atten
rious manag
g salespeopl
educed by d
study findi
arters stereot
arters
anagement l
en their sale
ntion was g
gerial level
le are linke
different ma
ings will en
types in the
30
literature
espeople
given to
ls of the
ed to key
anagerial
ncourage
e future.
![Page 37: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
HomburWhen S
I.&II. Salsalespeopldifferentia
1.
2.
3. 4. 5. 6.
III. Salespdisagree” t
1. 2. 3.
4.
IV. Salesp“totally ag
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
V. Salespe1.
VI. & VII(1986); “to
1. 2. 3. 4.
VIII. & IXdisagree” t
1. 2. 3.
4.
X. & XI. C(1998); “to
1. 2. 3.
4. 5.
6.
7.
8.
rg / Wiesekealespeople
lespeople’s [Sale) Wittenbrinkal scale
The people i(7) not at allThe people iconcerned wThe people iCompared toCompared toOur corpora
people’s Adherto “totally agre
I adhere to thI try my bestTo be able tostay well infMy main aim
people’s Custogree” on a seven
The travel agThe travel agWhen sellingThe travel agThe travel ag
eople’s Sales PAnnual Sale
I. Corporate [Sotally disagree”
Help is availCorporate [sCorporate [sCorporate [s
X.Corporate [Sto “totally agre
The travel agCorporate [sMuch is donagents. Travel agent
Corporate [Salotally disagree”
Corporate [SCorporate [SCorporate [Sfor the futurCorporate [SCorporate [Sizational objCorporate [Stance of whaCorporate [Sexternal pubCorporate [S
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
Appendi
ales Unit] Manak, Judd, and Park
in corporate heal. in corporate hea
with their own inin corporate heao salespeople ano here, the workte headquarters
rence to Corpoe” on a seven-phe strategic guit to sell our coro optimally impformed. m is to sell our
mer Orientation-point scale gent tried to figgent had my beg me products, gent recommengent tried to fin
Performance (des per salesperso
Sales Unit] Ma” to “totally agrlable from corpsales unit] manasales unit] manasales unit] mana
Sales Unit] Mae” on a seven-pgents’ interests sales unit] manane by corporate
t work satisfact
les Unit] Mana” to “totally agrSales unit] manSales unit] manSales unit] mane. Sales unit] manSales unit] manjectives. Sales unit] manat they are doinSales unit] manblic. Sales unit] man
Mikolon gative Stereo
ix: Scale Ite
ager’s Stereotyk (1997); Turne
adquarters know
adquarters are pnterest. adquarters earnnd sales managking conditionss… (1) is worth
orate Strategy point scale idelines of our crporate brands wplement the stra
corporate brand
on (data source
gure out what mest interest in m
my needs werended products ond out which kin
data source: firmon
anagement’s Oree” on a seven-porate [sales uniagement is williagement cares vagement is prou
anagement’s Epoint scale
are at the centragement does ev[sales unit] ma
tion is a major g
agement’s Charee” on a seven-agement has a vagement providagement regula
agement is comagement recogn
agement is ableng. [dropped froagement is com
agement is com
otypes of th
ems for Con
ypes of Corporer, Voci, and H
w what is really
primarily… (1)
n… (1) too littlegers, the people s in corporate heh more than it co
(data source: sa
corporation. whenever it is pategic guideline
ds.
e: customers) Th
my needs were.mind. e very importanor services that wnd of products
m records) Schn
rganizational S-point scale it] managementing to help me wvery much abouud of my achiev
mployee Orien
re of corporate verything for th
anagement for th
goal of our corp
arismatic Lead-point scale vision that it trides inspiring strarly creates new
mprised of entrenizes new oppo
e to motivate thom further analymprised of indiv
mprised of peop
heir Corpora
nstruct Mea
rate Headquarewstone (2007)
y involved with
concerned with
e (7) too much.in corporate heeadquarters areosts (7) costs m
alespeople) Ajz
possible. es of my corpor
homas, Soutar,
nt to the travel awere best suitedor services wou
neider et al. (20
Support (data
t when I have awhen I need a sut my opinion avements as an e
ntation (data so
[sales unit] manhe well-being ohe personal and
porate [sales un
dership (data so
ies to achieve wrategic and orga
w ideas to make
epreneurial peoportunities in the
he travel agents yses] viduals who rep
le one can be p
ate Headqua
asurement
rters (data sour); Gardner (199
h running a trave
h the interest of
eadquarters wor… (1) less plea
more than it is w
zen and Madden
rate headquarter
and Ryan (200
agent. d to solving myuld be most help
005)
source: salespe
a problem. special favor. as an employee.mployee.
ource: salespeop
nagement’s conf the travel age
d professional d
nit] managemen
ource: salespeop
with creative ideanizational goalthe travel agen
ple who readilymarket that hel
by articulating
present the comp
proud of.
arters
ce: sales manag94) seven-point
el agency… (1)
f the travel agen
rk… (1) more (asant (7) more p
worth.
n (1986); “total
rs, I make majo
01); “totally disa
y problems. pful to me.
ople) Eisenberg
ple) Fritz (1996
nsiderations. ents. development of
nt.
ple) Conger and
eas. ls.
ncies [travel age
y seize opportunlp us achieve ou
effectively the
pany convincin
31
gers and sementic
) very well
ncies (7)
7) less. pleasant.
lly
or efforts to
agree” to
ger et al.
6); “totally
the travel
d Kanungo
ency] ready
nities. ur organ-
impor-
ngly to the
![Page 38: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
HomburWhen S
XII. Corp1. 2. 3. 4.
XIII. Condisagree” t
1. 2.
XIV. Pers(2007); “to
1. 2. 3. 4.
XV. Perce(2005); “to
1. 2. 3. 4.
XVI. Unifto “totally
1. 2. 3. 4.
XVII. Salagree” on
1. 2. 3.
XVIII. Saon a seven
1. 2. 3.
XIX. Saledisagree” t
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
XX. Sales“totally di
1. 2. 3. 4.
rg / Wiesekealespeople
porate BureaucWorking forCorporate mIn my daily When I have
ntact Frequencto “totally agre
I stay in reguThe Intranet[dropped fro
sonalization ofotally disagree”
I have friendI personally I have persoI know our c
eived Externalotally disagree”
Our corporaThe public aOther peopleOthers like t
formity of Coragree” on a sev
The memberThe memberThe member
Generally, th
lespeople Job Sa seven-point s
Generally spI am generalI frequently
alespeople Empn-point scale
I always senI realize whaIt is easy for
es Unit Manageto “totally agre
I clarify rewI assist my sI reward myI recognize mI continuous
s Unit Managemsagree” to “tota
I focus on mI ‘put out firI track my saI concentrate
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
cracy (data sour [Company X]
management haswork, I experiee a good idea, it
cy with Corpore” on a seven-pular contact witt is the only chaom further analy
f Contact with” to “totally agrds in corporate hknow some colnally seen our c
corporate headq
l Image of Co” to “totally agrtion has a very
appearance of oe like our corpothe advertising
rporate Headqven-point scale rs of corporate hrs of corporate hrs of corporate hhe performance
Satisfaction (dscale peaking, I am vlly satisfied witthink of quittin
pathy (data sou
nse exactly whaat customer’s mr me to take the
ement’s Contine” on a seven-p
wards. sales reps basedy sales reps’ achmy sales reps’ asly reward my s
ment’s Managally agree” on a
my sales reps’ mres’. ales reps’ mistae on my sales re
Mikolon gative Stereo
Appe
urce: salespeoplis fairly difficu
s imposed too mence a high degrt is difficult to r
rate Headquarpoint scale th corporate heaannel through wyses]
h Corporate Hree” on a seven-headquarters. [dlleagues in corpcorporate headqquarters very we
mpany (data sree” on a seven-good image in
our corporation orate image in pof our corporat
uarters Memb
headquarters arheadquarters shheadquarters co
e of our headqua
data source: sale
ery satisfied with the kind of wng this job (Rev
urce: salespeopl
t customers wamean even when
customer’s per
ngent Reward point scale
d on their effort.hievements. achievements.sales reps’ achie
gement-by-excea seven-point sc
mistakes.
akes. eps’ failures.
otypes of th
endix conti
e) “totally disagult because of exmany standards ree of bureaucrrealize it becau
rters (data sour
adquarters. which I have con
Headquarters (-point scale dropped from fporate headquarquarters and I kell.
source: salespeo-point scale public. is very good.
public. tion.
bers (data sourc
re very similar. hare many charaope very well warters members
espeople) Hack
ith this job. work I do in thisverse coded).
le) Barrett-Lenn
ant. n they have diffrspective.
(data source: sa
.
evements.
eptions (data socale
heir Corpora
inued
gree” to “totallyxisting regulatithat impede my
ratic impedimense of bureaucra
rce: salespeople
ntact with corpo
(data source: sa
further analysesrters.
know it from wi
ople); adapted
ce: salespeople)
acteristics.
with each other. s is fairly simila
kman and Oldh
s job.
nard (1978, 198
ficulty in saying
ales manager) A
ource: sales man
ate Headqua
y agree” on a seons. y work. nts at the corporatic corporate ob
e) Van de Ven
orate headquart
alespeople) Tur
s]
ithin.
from Ahearne,
) Park and Judd
ar.
ham (1975); “to
81); “totally dis
g it.
Avolio, Bass, an
nager) Avolio,
arters
even-point scal
rate level. bstacles.
and Ferry (198
ters. (reverse co
rner, Voci, and
Bhattacharya,
d (1990); “totally
otally disagree”
agree” to “total
nd Jung (1999)
Bass, and Jung
32
e
80); “totally
oded)
d Hewstone
and Gruen
y disagree”
” to “totally
lly agree”
; “totally
g (1999);
![Page 39: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
HomburWhen S
AhearneCJ
AhluwaJ
Ajzen, IB
__________
&4
AkramiAt
Allport,
AnastasR&2
ArmstroJ
AshfortM
Avolio, mn
Babin, EM
Bagozzit
Baker, WLk
Bargh,
rg / Wiesekealespeople
e, M. J., BhCustomer-CJournal of A
alia, R. (200Journal of C
I. (1985). FrBeckmann Springer. _ & Madden& Perceived453-72.
, N. (2005)Acta Univetations from
, G. W. (195
sio, P. A., Recategoriz& S. A. Ha256). Oxfor
ong, J. S., &Journal of M
th, B. F., & Managemen
B. J., Bassmational annaire. Journ
B. J., BoleEmotions, aMarketing S
i, R. P., & Ythe Academ
W. E., & SiLearning Oketing Scien
J. A., & C
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
hattacharyaCompany IdApplied Psy
02). How PConsumer R
rom Intentio(Eds.), Acti
n, T. J. (198d Behaviora
. Prejudice:ersitatis Upsm the Facult
54). The Na
Bachman, zation & Coaslam (Eds.)rd: England
& Overton,Marketing R
Mael, F. (1nt Review, 1
s, B. M., & nd Transactnal of Occup
es, J. B., &and Their IScience, 23(
Yi, Y. (198my of Marke
inkula, J. MOrientation o
nce, 27(4), 4
Chartrand, T
Mikolon gative Stereo
REFa, C. B., & dentificationychology, 90
Prevalent IsResearch, 2
ons to Actioion Control:
86). Predictial Control. J
: The Interpsaliensis. Dty of Social
ature of Prej
B., Gaertnommon Ingr), The Socia
d: Blackwell
, T. S. (197Research, 1
1989). Socia14(1), 20-39
Jung, D. I. tional Leadpational an
& Darden, Impact on I(2), 94-105
8). On the Eeting Science
M. (1999). Thon Organiza411-28.
T. L. (1999
otypes of th
FERENCGruen, T. n: Expandi0(3), 574–8
s the Negat9(2), 270-7
ons: A Theo: From Cog
ion of Goal Journal of E
play of Persigital CompSciences 5,
judice. Rea
ner, S., & roup Identit
al Psychologl.
77). Estima4(3), 396-4
al Identity T9.
(1999). Redership Usinnd Organiza
W. R. (19Information.
Evaluation oe, 16(1), 74
he Synergisational Perfo
9). The unb
heir Corpora
CES (2005). An
ing the Rol5.
tivity Effect9.
ory of Planngnition to Be
Directed BExperimenta
sonality, Coprehensive S, Uppsala.
ding, MA: A
Dovidio, ty. In R. Spgy of Stereo
ating Nonre402.
Theory and
-examiningng the Mul
ational Psyc
95). Salespn Processin
of Structura4-97.
stic Effect oormance. Jo
bearable aut
ate Headqua
ntecedents &le of Relat
t in Consum
ned Behavioehavior (pp
Behavior: Atal Social Ps
ognition, & Summaries
Addison-W
J. F. (199pears, P. J. otyping & G
esponse Bia
d the Organi
g the Compoltifactor Le
chology, 72(
person Sterng. Journal
al Equation
f Market Orournal of the
tomaticity o
arters
& Consequetionship Ma
mer Enviro
or. In J. Kuhp. 11-39). Be
ttitudes, Intesychology, 2
Social Psycof Uppsala
Wesley.
97). CategoOakes, N. E
Group Life (
as in Mail S
ization. Aca
onents of Teadership Q(4), 441-462
eotypes, Coof the Aca
Models. Jo
rientation ae Academy
of being. A
33
ences of arketing.
onments?
hl & J. erlin:
entions, 22(5),
chology. a Disser-
orization, Ellemers (pp. 236-
Surveys.
ademy of
Transfor-Question-2.
onsumer ademy of
ournal of
and of Mar-
American
![Page 40: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
HomburWhen S
P__________
oc
Barrett-J
BergamGJ
BettencRJ
Brewer,oc
Brown, Si
Bush, VBJ
CaprarieSP
Chen, MSm
Conger,O
———J
Corneillz
rg / Wiesekealespeople
Psychologis_ , Chen, Mof Trait Concial Psycho
-Lennard, GJournal of C
mi, M., & BGroup SelfJournal of S
ourt, B. A.Reduction oJournal of E
, M. B., & Mon Desegrechology of D
T.J., MowService Woings. Journa
V.D., RoseBuyer-SelleJournal of t
ello, P. A., StereotypesProcesses a
M., & BargSelf-Fulfillimental Soci
, J. A., & KOaks, CA:
, ——— &Journal of O
le, O., and Jzation of M
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
st, 54(7), 46
M., & Burronstruct & S
ology, 71(2)
G. T. (198Counseling
Bagozzi, Rf-Esteem as Social Psyc
, Brewer, Mof IntergrouExperimenta
Miller, N. (1gation. In NDesegregat
wen J.C., Doorkers: Persal of Marke
, G.M., Gier Relationsthe Academy
Cuddy, A. s and Emotand Intergro
gh, J. A. (1ing Conseqial Psycholo
Kanungo, R. Sage Public
& Menon, Organizatio
Judd, C. M.Multifaceted
Mikolon gative Stereo
62-479.
ows, L. (199Stereotype A, 230-244.
1). The EmPsychology
R. P. (2000)Distinct A
chology, 39(
M. B., Croaup Bias: Thal Social Ps
1984). BeyoN. Miller, &tion (pp. 28
onavan D.Tsonality Traeting Resear
ilbert, F., Iships: The y of Market
J. C., & Ftions: A Caoup Relation
1997). Nonquences of Aogy, 33(5),
N. (1998). cations.
S. T. (200onal Behavi
. (1999). AcStimuli. Jo
otypes of th
96). AutomActivation o
mpathy Cyy, 28(2), 91
). Self-Catespects of S(4), 555–77
ak, M. R., &he Role of Rsychology, 2
ond the Con& M. B. Bre1-301). Orla
T., Licata J.ait Effects orch, 39(1): 1
Ingram, T.NRole of In
ting Science
Fiske, S. T. ausal Test ons, 12(2), 1
nconscious Automatic S541-560.
Charismati
00). Charismior, 21(7), 7
ccentuation ournal of P
heir Corpora
maticity of Son Action. J
ycle: Refine-100.
egorization,ocial Identi.
& Miller, NReward Str28(4), 301-
ntact Hypotewer (Eds.)ando: Acad
W. (2002).on Self- and110-119.
N. (2001). ntercultural e, 29(4), 39
(2009). Soof the Stere47-155.
Behavioral Stereotype A
ic Leadersh
matic Lead747–67.
and Sensitiersonality a
ate Headqua
Social BehavJournal of P
ement of a
, Affective ity in the O
N. (1992). Cructure and 19.
hesis: Theo, Groups in
demic Press.
The Custod Superviso
Managing Communic
1-404.
ocial Structueotype Con
ConfirmatActivation.
hip in Organ
dership and
ization Effeand Social P
arters
vior: DirectPersonality
a Nuclear C
CommitmOrganization
CooperationSocial Orie
oretical Persn Contact: T.
omer Orientor Performan
Culturally cation Com
ure Shapes ntent Model
ion ProcessJournal of
nizations. T
d Follower
ects in the CPsychology
34
t Effects and So-
Concept.
ent, and n. British
n and the entation.
spectives The Psy-
tation of nce Rat-
Diverse mpetence.
Cultural l. Group
ses: The f Experi-
Thousand
Effects.
Categori-y, 77(5),
![Page 41: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
HomburWhen S
9
CrawforFS
Cuddy, A
DeshpanM
Devine,n
__________
P
DuggerJ
Eder, P.I
Eisenbe
EllemerWo
Engle, EE
Fiske, SL
Fritz, WE
Fornell,b
Gardner(L
GouldneS
rg / Wiesekealespeople
927-941.
rd, M. T., SFormation, Social Psyc
A. J.C., FisAffect and S
nde, R. (198Marketing,
, P. G. (198nents. Journ_ 1995. PrejPsychology
, W. M. (19Journal of E
., & EisenbeInfluence o
erger, R., HuSupport. Jo
rs N., de GWork: A Soof Managem
E. M., & LExchange. A
S. T. (1998)L. Gardner
W. (1996). European J
, C., & Larcble Variable
r, R. C. (1(Eds.), The Lawrence E
er, A. W. Sociologica
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
Sherman, S. and the Int
chology, 83(
ske, S. T., &Stereotypes
82). The Or46(4), 91-1
9). Stereotynal of Perso
judice and Oy (pp. 467-5
980). CorpoEconomic Is
erger, R. (2f Coworker
untington, Rournal of Ap
Gilder, D., &ocial Identitment Review
Lord, R. G. Academy of
). Stereotypi(Eds.), Han
Market OJournal of M
cker, D. F. (es & Measu
994). SterePsychology
Erlbaum.
(1960). Thal Review, 2
Mikolon gative Stereo
J. &, Hamiterchangeab(5), 1076-94
& Glick, P. s. Journal of
rganizationa101.
ypes and Preonality and
Outgroup Pe24). New Y
rate BureauIssues, 14(2)
008). Percer Withdrawa
R., Hutchisopplied Psych
& Haslam, ty Perspecti
w, 29(3): 45
(1997). Imf Manageme
ing, Prejudindbook of S
Orientation Marketing, 3
(1981). Evaurement Err
eotypes as y of Prejud
he Norm o25(2), 161-7
otypes of th
ilton, D. L. bility of Gro4.
(2007). Thf Personalit
al Context o
ejudice: TheSocial Psyc
erception. IYork: McGr
ucracy: The ), 399-410.
eived Organal Behavior
on, S., & Shology, 71(3
S. A. (2004ive on Lead9-478.
mplicit Theoent Journal,
ice, and DisSocial Psych
and Corpo30(8), 59-74
aluating Struror. Journal
Consensualdice: The On
f Reciproci78.
heir Corpora
(2002). Peroup Membe
he BIAS Maty and Socia
of Market R
eir Automatchology, 56
n A. Tesserraw-Hill.
Incidence o
nizational Sur. Journal of
owa, D. (193), 500-507
4). Motivatidership and
ories, Self-S, 40(4), 988
scriminationhology (pp.
rate Succe4.
uctural Equl of Marketi
l Beliefs. Inntario Symp
ity: A Prel
ate Headqua
rceived Entiers. Journal
ap: Behavioal Psycholo
Research Us
tic and Con(1), 5-18.
r (Ed.), Adva
of the Burea
upport: Redf Manageme
986). Percei7.
ing IndividGroup Perf
Schemas, an8-1010.
n. In S.T. G357-411). G
ss: Finding
uation Modeng Researc
n M.P. Zanposium (pp.
liminary St
arters
itativity, Stel of Persona
ors From Inogy, 92(4), 6
e. Journal o
ntrolled Com
anced Socia
aucratic Pro
ducing the Nent, 34(1), 5
ived Organi
duals and Gformance. A
nd Leader-
Gilbert, S.F. Gardner, Bo
gs From G
els with Unoh, 18(1), 39
nna, & J.M.1-31). New
tatement. A
35
ereotype ality and
tergroup 631-648.
of
mpo-
al
ocess.
Negative 55-68.
izational
Groups at Academy
Member
Fiske & oston.
Germany.
observa-9–50.
M. Olson w Jersey:
American
![Page 42: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
HomburWhen S
GrinsteiO
HackmaJ
HarastyPt
Harris, LO
HartlineE
HeilmanE
Herr, PI
HeskettY
HeskettEP
Hilton, 2
HoffmaO
Hogg, MR
HomburJ
HomburCo
Hopkina
James, L
rg / Wiesekealespeople
in, A. (2008Orientation
an, J. R., &Journal of A
y, A. S. (199Patterns Abtin 23, 270-
L. C., & OgOrientation157-66.
e, M. D., FeEmployees
n, M. E., &Employmen
. M., KardeInformationConsumer R
t, J. L., SassYork: The F
t, J. L., SassEmployees Press.
J. L., & von237-71.
an, K. D., &Oriented Pe
M. & AbraRelations &
rg, C., WiesJournal of M
rg, C., & StCustomer Oof the Acad
s, N., Reichand the ‘Ne
L. R., Mula
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
8). The Relans: A Meta-A
& Oldham,Applied Psy
97). The Intbout In-Gro-284.
gbonna, E. (n, and Organ
errell, O.C. (: An Empiri
& Okimotont Decisions
es, F., & Kin on PersuResearch, 1
ser Jr., W. EFree Press.
ser Jr., W. ELike Custo
n Hippel, W
& Ingram, Terformance.
ams, D. (19& Group Pro
seke, J., & HMarketing,
tock, R. M. Orientation idemy of Mar
her, S., & Lew Racism.
aik, S. A., &
Mikolon gative Stereo
ationships BAnalysis. Eu
, G. R. (19ychology, 60
terpersonal Noups and Ou
(2001). Stranizational P
(1996). Theical Investig
o, T. G. (2s. Journal o
im, J. (199asion: An 7(4), 454-5
E., & Schle
E., & Schleomers and
W. (1996). St
T. N. (1992. Journal of
988). Socialocesses. Lo
Hoyer, W. (73(2), 38-5
(2004). Thein a Businerketing Scie
Levine, M. . British Jou
& Brett, J. M
otypes of th
Between Mauropean Jo
975). Deve0(2), 159–1
Nature of Sut-Groups. P
ategic Humaerformance
e Managemegation. Jou
2008). Mothof Applied P
1). Effects Accessibili
58.
esinger, L. A
esinger, L. ACustomers
tereotypes.
2). Service f Services M
l Identificatndon: Rout
(2009). Soc54.
e Link Betwss-to-Busin
ence, 32(2),
(1997). Onurnal of Soc
M. (2006).
heir Corpora
arket Orienturnal of Ma
elopment of70.
Social StereoPersonality
an Resourcee. Journal of
ent of Custournal of Mar
herhood: APsychology,
of Word-ofity-Diagnos
A. (1997). T
A. (2003). s Like Emp
Annual Rev
Provider JoMarketing, 6
tions: A Socledge.
ial Identity
ween Salespness Context
144-58.
n the Parallcial Psychol
A Tale of
ate Headqua
tation and Aarketing, 42
f the Job D
otypes: Diffy and Social
e Managemf Business R
omer-Contarketing, 60(
A Potential 93(1), 189-
f-Mouth ansticity Persp
The Service
The Value Pployees. Ne
view of Psyc
ob Satisfact6(2), 68-78.
cial Psycho
and the Ser
people’s Jobt: A Dyadic
lels Betweelogy, 36, 30
Two Metho
arters
Alternative S2(1), 115-34
Diagnostic
ferential Dil Psycholog
ment, MarketResearch, 5
act Service (4), 52-70.
Source of -198.
d Product-Apective. Jou
e Profit Cha
Profit Chaiew York: T
chology, 47
tion and Cu
ology of Int
rvice–Profit
b Satisfactioc Analysis. J
en Social C05–29.
ods. Organi
36
Strategic 4.
Survey.
scussion gy Bulle-
t 1(2),
Bias in
Attribute urnal of
ain. New
in: Treat The Free
7(1),
ustomer-
tergroup
t Chain.
on and Journal
Cognition
izational
![Page 43: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
HomburWhen S
R
Jones, EOts
Katz, I.,tS
KearneyTJ
KelmanA
Klein, JP6
KleinbaA
Kruegeri
Lee, N.tk
LeonardM
Lepore,J
Liu, S. n
LivingsIo
LuthansO
MacKena
rg / Wiesekealespeople
Research M
E., Bush, P.Orientationtention in Bsearch, 56(4
, & Hass, Rtional and PSocial Psyc
y, E., GeberThe ImportJournal, 52
n, H. C. (19Attitude Ch
J. G., EttensPurchase: A62(1), 89-10
aum, D. G.,Analysis an
r, J. I., Hallin the Repr11(3), 401-
, Sandfieldtypes Amonketing Man
d, B. (2000)Magazine, N
L., & BrowJournal of P
S., Luo, X.neurship, aStudy. Inter
ton, K. R.,Induced by ory, and Co
s, F., & KreOperational
nzie, S. B.,and Conseq
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
Methods, 9(2
., & Dacin, n: InterpersoBusiness-to4), 323-41.
R. G. (1988)Priming Stuchology 55(6
rt, D., & Votance of Te
2(3), 581-59
958). Comphange. Journ
son, R. & MAn Empirica00.
, Kupper, Lnd Other Mu
, J., Villanoresentation -414.
d, A., & Dhngst UK Stagement, 23
). Worker PNovember 2
wn, R. (1997Personality
, & Shi, Y.and Learninrnational Jo
, Andrews, Category L
ognition, 24
eitner, R. (19l and Social
Podsakoffquences of
Mikolon gative Stereo
2), 233-244.
P. (2003). onal and Int-Business B
. Racial Amudies of Dua6), 893-905
oelpel, S. Ceam Memb98.
pliance, Idenal of Confl
Morris, M. Dal Test in th
L. L., Mulleultivariate M
o, P., & Jonof Gender
haliwal, B. tudents & T3(7), 723-74
roductivity 2000, 34.
7). Category & Social P
. (2002). Inng Orientaournal of Re
J. K., & Learning. Jo4(3): 732-75
985). Organl Learning A
f, P. M., & In-Role an
otypes of th
.
Firm Marktrapersonal Buyer-Selle
mbivalence aal Cognitive5.
C. (2009). Wers’ Need
entification,flict Resolut
D. (1998). The People’s
er, K. E., &Methods. Pa
es, M. (200Stereotypes
(2007). AnTheir Implic44.
May Be Ta
y and SterePsychology,
ntegrating Cation in Oresearch in M
Harnard, Sournal of Ex53.
nizational BApproach. G
Ahearne, Mnd Extra-Ro
heir Corpora
ket OrientatInfluences
er Relations
and Americe Structures
When and Hfor Cogniti
, and Internion, 2(1), 5
The AnimoRepublic o
& Nizam, Aacific Grove
08). Attributs. Group Pr
n Empirical cations for
angled in Co
otype Activ72(2), 275-
Customer OrrganizationsMarketing 1
S. (1998). CExperimenta
Behavior MoGlenview, I
M. J. (1998ole Salespe
ate Headqua
ion and Salon Custom
ships. Journ
can Value C. Journal of
How Diversiion. Academ
nalization: T1–60.
sity Model f China. Jou
A. (1998). Ae, CA: Duxb
tion and Catrocesses In
Study of SRecruitmen
orporate Bu
vation: Is Pr-87.
rientation, Cs-In-Transit19(4), 367-8
Categorical l Psycholog
odification aL: Scott Fo
8). Some Poerson Perfor
arters
lesperson Cmer Service nal of Busin
Conflict: Corf Personality
ity Benefitsmy of Man
Three Proc
of Foreign urnal of Ma
Applied Regbury Press.
tegorizationtergroup R
Salespersonnt. Journal
ureaucracy.
rejudice Ine
Corporate Eion: An E
82.
Perceptiongy: Learning
and Beyondresman.
ossible Antermance. Jo
37
Customer and Re-
ness Re-
rrela-ty and
s Teams: agement
cesses of
Product arketing,
gression
n Effects elations,
n Stereo-of Mar-
HR
vitable?
Entrepre-Empirical
n Effects g, Mem-
d: An
ecedents urnal of
![Page 44: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
HomburWhen S
M__________
McConaD
Miller, S
MorhartE
Muthén&
NunnallM
Oakes, B
O’Reillyi
Ouellet,PM
Park, BJ
PettigreJ
Pfeffer, o
Piercy, A
__________
E__________
CMo
rg / Wiesekealespeople
Marketing, _, __________ Salesperson134.
ahay, J.B., HDepends on563-79.
N., BrewerSettings: A
t, F.M., HerEmployees
n, L. K., & M& Muthén,
ly, J. C., &McGraw-H
P.J., HaslamBasil Black
y, C. (1989in Organiza
, J. (2007)Purchase: AMarketing 7
B., & Judd,Journal of P
ew, T. F., &Journal of P
J., & Veigof Managem
N. F. (1994Administrat_, Harris, Expectation_, Cravens, CitizenshipManagemenof Marketin
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
62(3), 87-9
& Rich, G.n Performan
Hardee, B. n Who is As
r, M. B., &Laboratory
rzog, W., &into Br& C
Muthén, B. available at
& BernsteiHill.
m, S.A., &kwell.
9). Corporatations. Calif
. ConsumeAn Empiric71(1), 113-1
, C. M. (1Personality
Tropp, L. RPersonality
ga, J. F. (19ment Execut
4). The Realtive Neatne
L.C., & Lns. Journal
D. W., Lanp Behaviors nt Control ang Science,
Mikolon gative Stereo
98.
A. (1998).nce. Journa
B., & Battssking & Wh
& Edwards, y Analogue.
& Tomczak TChampions.
O. (2006). Mt: http://ww
in, I. H. (
& Turner, J.C
tions, Cultufornia Mana
r Racism acal Test in 128.
990). Meas and Social
R. (2006). A and Social
999). Puttingtives, 13(2)
l Strategic Iess. Manage
Lane, N. (2of Business
ne, N., & Voand Salespe
and Perceiv34(2), 244-
otypes of th
Transformal of the Ac
, V. (1981).hat is Asked
K. (1985). Journal of
T. (2009). BJournal of M
Mplus Userww.statmode
1994). Psy
C. (1994).
ure and Comagement Re
and Its Effthe United
sures and Ml Psychology
A Meta-Anal Psychology
g People Fi, 37-48.
Issues versuement Decis
2002). Mars Research,
orhies, D. Werson In-Roed Organiza62.
heir Corpora
mational andcademy of M
. Has Racismd. Journal o
Cooperativf Social Issu
Brand-SpeciMarketing,
r’s Guide. 4el.com.
chometric
Stereotypin
mmitment: Meview, 31(4)
fects on Dod States, Ca
Models of y, 59(2), 17
alytic Test oy, 90(5), 75
irst For Org
us Organizatsion, 32(4),
rket Orient55(4), 261-
W. (2006). Dole Behavioational Supp
ate Headqua
d TransactioMarketing S
m Declinedof Conflict R
ve Interactioues, 41(3), 6
ific Leaders73(5), 122-
4th ed., Los
Theory, 3r
ng and Soci
Motivation ), 9–25.
omestic Cranada, and
Perceived 73-82.
of Intergrou51-83.
ganizational
tional Burea5-8.
tation adn -73.
Driving Orgr Performanport. Journa
arters
onal LeaderScience, 29(
d in AmericaResolution,
on in Deseg63-81.
ship: Turnin-142.
s Angeles: M
rd ed., New
ial Reality.
and Social
ross-Ethnic France. Jo
Group Var
up Contact T
l Success. A
aucracy and
Retail Ope
ganizational nce: The Roal of the Ac
38
ship and (2), 115-
a? It 25(4),
gregated
ng
Muthén
w York:
Oxford:
Control
Product urnal of
riability.
Theory.
Academy
d
eratives’
ole of cademy
![Page 45: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
HomburWhen S
Platow, Eg
Puffer, a
Quellera9
RasbashDM
RaudenA
RhoadeL
RuekertP
Schneid
J
Shamir,L
Shimp, t
Smidts, CA
Smith, N
SpencerEi
StephanNt
rg / Wiesekealespeople
M. J., & vaEndorsemengroup Fairn
S. M. (198among Com
, S., Schell,and Within91(3), 406-4
h, J., BrownDraper, D.,Multilevel M
nbush, S.W.Analysis Me
s, L., & EiLiterature. J
t, R. W. (Perspective
der, B., Ehrhstanding OrJournal, 48
, B., HouseLeadership
T, A., & Sthe CETSC
A., PruynCommunicaAcademy of
C. A., OrgNature and
r-Rodgers, Entitativity ity and Soci
n, W. G., &N. Miller &tion. Orland
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
an Knippenbnt: The effe
ness. Person
87). Prosocimmission Sa
, T., & Winn-Category 422.
ne, W., Go, Langford, Modeling In
, Bryk, A. Methods. Tho
senberger, Journal of A
(1992). Dee. Internatio
hart, M. G.,rganization-
8(6), 1017-3
e, R. J., & A: A Self-Co
harma, S. (ALE. Journ
n, Ad T. Hation and Pf Manageme
gan, D., & Antecedent
J., Hamiltoin Stereoty
ial Psycholo
& Stephan, C& M.B. Bredo: Academ
Mikolon gative Stereo
berg, D. (20ects of Leadnality and S
ial Behavioalespeople.
nter, M. (20Assimilatio
oldstein, H.I., & Lewi
nstitute of E
S. (2002). Housand Oak
R. (2002).Applied Psy
veloping aonal Journa
Mayer, D. -Customer L
32.
Arthur, M. oncept Based
(1987). Connal of Mark
H., & Van Perceived Eent Journal
Near, J. Pts. Journal
on, D. L., ypes of Sociogy, 92(3),
C. W. (1984ewer (Eds.),
mic Press, 22
otypes of th
001). A Socder Ingroup Social Psych
or, NoncomJournal of A
006). A Novon. Journal
, Yang, M.is, T. (2000Education, U
Hierarchicas, CA: Sage
Perceived Oychology, 87
a Market Ol of Researc
M., Saltz, JLinks in Ser
B. (1993). d Theory. O
nsumer Ethnketing Resea
Riel, C. BExternal Prl, 44(5), 105
. (1983). “of Applied P
& Shermial Categori369-388.
4). The Role, Groups in29-257.
heir Corpora
cial IdentityPrototypica
hology Bulle
mpliant BehApplied Psy
vel View ofl of Person
., Plewis, I0). A User’sUniversity o
al Linear Me Publicatio
Organizatio7(4), 698-71
Orientation:ch in Marke
J. L., & Nilervice Settin
The MotivOrganization
nocentrism:arch, 24(3),
B. M. (200restige on 51–62.
“OrganizatioPsychology
man, S. J. (es and Task
e of Ignorann Contact: T
ate Headqua
y Analysis oality and Dietin, 27(11)
avior, and ychology, 7
f Between-Cnality and
., Healy, Ms Guide to of London.
Models: Appons.
onal Suppor14.
An Organeting, 9(3), 2
es-Jolly, K. ngs. Academ
vational Effen Science, 4
Constructi280-289.
1). The ImOrganizati
onal Citizeny, 68(4), 653
(2007). Thk Groups. Jo
nce in InterThe Psycho
arters
of Leadershistributive In
), 1508-1519
Work Perfo2(4), 615-2
Categories Social Psy
M., WoodhoMLwiN. Ce
plications a
rt: A Review
nizational 225-45.
(2005). “Umy of Manag
fects of Cha4(4), 577-94
ion & Valid
mpact of Emonal Identi
nship Beha3-63.
he Central Journal of P
rgroup Relalogy of Des
39
ip nter-9.
formance 1.
Contrast chology,
ouse, G., entre for
and Data
w of the
Strategy
Under-gement
arismatic 4.
dation of
mployee ification.
avior: Its
Role of Personal-
ations. In segrega-
![Page 46: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
HomburWhen S
Tajfel, Hi
Tajfel, HA4
——— WN
Terry, DR9
ThomasOa
Turner, v
Turner, Pa
Tyler, TB
——— A4
Ullrich,L9
Van KnEh
Van de W
VonofakPM
VorauerV
rg / Wiesekealespeople
H. (1978). Dintergroup
H., & TurneAustin, & S47). Monter
& ——— Worchel, &Nelson-Hal
D. J., & HogRole for Gr93.
s, R. W., SoOrientationand Sales M
J. C., Hoggvering the SSons Ltd.
R. N., VocPrejudice Vand Intergro
T. R. (1999Behavior, 2
& Blader, Antecedent48 (6), 1143
J., Christ, OLeaders Ar94 (1), 235-
nippenberg,Effectivenehavior (pp.
Ven, A. H.Wiley.
kou, C., HePredictor ofMen. Journ
r, J. D., MaiViewed By Stereotypes
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
Differentiatrelations. L
er, J. C. (19S.Worchel (rey, CA: Br
(1986). The& W. G. Ausll.
gg, M. A. (1roup Identif
outar, G. N.,n (S.O.C.O.)Managemen
g, M. A., OSocial Grou
i, A., & HewVia Direct anoup Anxiety
). Why Peo21, 201–46.
S. L. (2005)ts of Rule F3-58.
O., & van De Endorsed -344.
, D., & Hess. In R.M.
245-297). A
., & Ferry, D
ewstone, M.f Meta-Attit
nal of Perso
in, K. J., & Members Os. Journal of
Mikolon gative Stereo
tion betweeLondon: Aca
79). An Inte(Eds.), The Srooks-Cole,
e Social Idestin (Eds.), P
1996). Groufication. Per
, & R., M. M) Scale: A Pnt, 21(1), 63
Oakes, P. J.,up – A Self
wstone, M. nd Extendedy. Journal o
ople Cooper
). Can BusiFollowing in
Dick, R. (20Whether T
ogg, M. A. Kramer, &Amsterdam
D. (1980). M
, & Voci, Atudinal Stre
onality and S
O’Connell,Of Lower Sf Personali
otypes of th
en social grademic Pres
egrative ThSocial Psyc 33-47.
entity TheorPsychology
up Norms &rsonality an
M. (2001). TProposed Sh-69.
Reicher, Sf-Categoriza
(2007). Red Contact: Tof Personali
rate with O
inesses Effen Work Set
009). SubstitThey Are Fa
A. (2003). A& B.M. Staw
m: Elsevier.
Measuring
A. (2007). Cength and ASocial Psyc
, G. B. (199tatus Groupty and Socia
heir Corpora
roups. Studiss.
heory of Intechology of In
ry of Inter-Gy of Intergro
& the Attitudnd Social Ps
The Selling hort Form. J
S. D. & Wetation Theor
ducing ExpThe Mediatity and Soci
Organization
ectively Regttings. Acad
tutes for Proair or Not. J
A Social Iw (Eds.), R
and Assess
Contact WithAccessibility
hology, 92(
98). How Dops? Contental Psycholo
ate Headqua
ies in the so
ergroup Conntergroup R
Group Behavoup Relation
de-Behaviousychology B
OrientationJournal of P
therell, M. ry. Worches
plicit and Imting Role ofial Psycholo
ns. Research
gulate Empldemy of Ma
ocedural FaJournal of A
Identity Moesearch in
ing Organiz
h Out-Groupy of Attitude(5), 804-20.
o Individuat and Implicogy, 75(4), 9
arters
ocial psych
nflict. In WRelations (pp
vior. In S. ns (7-24). C
ur RelationsBulletin, 22(
n-CustomerPersonal Sel
S. (1987). Rster, UK: B
mplicit Outgf Self-Discloogy, 93(3),
h in Organi
loyee Conduanagement J
airness: ProtApplied Psy
odel of LeOrganizatio
zations. Ne
p Friends aes Toward G
ls Expect Tcations of M917-37.
40
ology of
. G. p. 33-
Chicago:
ship: A (8), 776-
r lling
Redisco-Billing &
group osure 369-88.
izational
uct? The Journal,
totypical chology,
adership onal Be-
ew York:
s a Gay
To Be Meta-
![Page 47: Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060703/606f912f5d18ef79440392ac/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
HomburWhen S
WiesekeTS
WittenbLS
Zyphur,PH
rg / Wiesekealespeople
e, J., HombThrough SaScience, 36
brink, B., JuLevel and itSocial Psyc
, M. J., WaPerformancHuman Perf
e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg
burg, C. & Lalespeople: (2), 278-91
udd, C. M. &ts Relations
chology, 72(
arren, C. R.ce in High-Frformance, 2
Mikolon gative Stereo
Lee, N. (200A Multileve.
&, Park B. (ship with Qu(2), 262-74.
, Landis, RFidelity Sim20(2), 103-
otypes of th
08). Understel Framewo
(1997). Eviduestionaire .
R. S. &, Thomulations: A118.
heir Corpora
tanding the ork. Journal
dence for RMeasures. J
oresen, C. JAn Extensio
ate Headqua
Adoption ol of the Acad
Racial PrejudJournal of P
J. (2007). Son of Ego-D
arters
of New Brandemy of Ma
dice at the ImPersonality
Self-RegulaDepletion R
41
nds arketing
mplicit y and
ation and Research.