Institute for Market-Oriented Management

University of Mannheim P.O. Box 10 34 62 68131 Mannheim

Germany

Series: Scientific Working Papers

No.: W136e

Mannheim

December 2010

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. Dr. Michael Müller was research and teaching assistant at the Business Administration and Marketing I department at the University of Mannheim and is now Managing Director of the Oskar Widmer GmbH. Prof. Dr. Martin Klarmann is Assistant Professor for Empirical Research Methods at the University of Mannheim.

Institute for Market-Oriented Management

Homburg, Ch. / Müller, M. / Klarmann, M.

When should the customer really be king? On the optimum level of salesperson

customer orientation in sales encounters

The Ins

The Inst

consider

and acad

Marketin

level. Th

Prof. Dr

The IMU

Ma

The

bus

resu

orie

Scie

The

orie

seri

nen

keti

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

ing Associati

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 Insti

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 honored w

ion)..

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

tute for M

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

with awards

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-Orie

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

at internatio

Papers (in G

ractical insig

interested in

ned academic

y of Marketi

king papers, t

mplary scienti

any questionnheim, L5, .imu-mannh

nt

ented Man

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

onal conferen

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.

nagement

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

nces (e.g., by

y)

cent research

and sales. Ou

uch as the J

focus on resu

cooperation w

from the fie

ontact the Insannheim, Ge

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

y the Ameri

h findings. T

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-

can Mar-

They are

ummaries

Marketing

plications,

publish-

-oriented

Market- one: +49

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,

The Ins

W135e Ho

ThW134e HoW132e Ku

PeW130e Ho

AfW129e 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

Fi

stitute for

omburg, Ch. / Mhe Differential Eomburg, Ch. / Kuester, 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 Bus

For more w

r Market-O

Müller, M. / KlarmEffects of RelatioKlarmann, M. / Sng, 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-Busine

working pap

Oriented M

mann, M.: Whenonal and FunctioSchmitt, J.: Wheers’ 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, 199

pers, please v

Manageme

n Does Salespeonal Customer

en Does Brand AAlliance 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

visit our we

nt

eople’s CustomeOrientation, 201Awareness in Bon 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

ebsite at: ww

er Orientation Le10 usiness Markethe 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

ww.imu-man

ead to Custome

ts really pay off?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-

nnheim.com

er Loyality?

?, 2010 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.

m

HombuWhen s

In toda

to wha

fore, th

encoun

attitude

sales r

suppor

orienta

custom

optimu

salespe

strateg

Keywor

perform

urg / Mülleshould th

ay’s age of

at degree c

his study

nters has a

es. Using t

representa

rt for a cu

tion on s

mer attitude

m level of

eople sell

y and in m

rds: perso

mance, cus

er / Klarmae Custom

f relational

customer-o

analyzes

an optimu

triadic data

atives, and

urvilinear,

sales perfo

es is cont

customer

ing individ

markets with

onal sellin

stomer sati

ann er Really

ABselling, it

oriented b

whether a

m level w

a from a cr

d 538 cus

inverted

ormance,

inuously p

orientation

dualized p

h a high de

ng, custom

isfaction

be king?

BSTRACis a key ch

behaviors a

a salespe

with regard

ross-indus

stomers, t

U-shaped

while the

positive. M

n with rega

products,

egree of co

mer orienta

CT hallenge fo

also drive

rson’s cus

to sales

try survey

he author

effect of

e effect o

Moreover, t

ard to sale

in firms p

ompetitive

ation, sale

or salespe

sales per

stomer ori

performan

of 56 sale

rs provide

a salespe

of custome

the finding

es perform

pursuing a

intensity.

es encoun

ople to de

rformance.

entation in

nce and cu

es manage

strong e

erson’s cu

er orientat

gs reveal t

ance is hig

a premium

nter, sales

termine

There-

n sales

ustomer

ers, 195

mpirical

ustomer

tion on

that the

gher for

m price

sperson

HombuWhen s

1  Intr

2  Con2.12.2

3  Hyp3.13.23.3

4  Met4.14.24.3

5  Res5.15.25.35.4

6  Dis6.16.26.3

urg / Mülleshould th

roduction

nceptual B  Custom

2  Concep

potheses d  Effects o

2  Effects o3  Hypothe

thodology  Collectio

2  Measure3  Measure

sults ........  Results

2  Results 3  Robustn4  Addition

sales en

cussion ..  Researc

2  Manage3  Limitatio

er / Klarmae Custom

................

Backgrouner orientat

ptual frame

developmof Customof Customeses and M

y ...............on of Triade Develope Assessm

................related to related to

ness Checnal analysencounters .

................ch Issues .erial Implicons ...........

ann er Really

CO................

nd ............tion in Salework ........

ment ..........er Orientaer Attitude

Moderating

................dic Data ....ment ........

ment .........

................Main EffecMain Effec

cks ............es of cos................

................

................ations ......................

be king?

ONTENT................

................es Encount................

................tion in Sale

es .............g Effects ...

................

................

................

................

................cts ...........cts ...........................

sts and be................

................

................

................

................

TS ................

................ters ..........................

................es Encoun................................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................enefits of ................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................nters .........................................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................customer ................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................orientation................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................n in ................

................

................

................

................

... 1 

... 3 

... 3 

... 5 

... 8 

... 8 

. 11 

. 12 

. 16 

. 16 

. 18 

. 20 

. 23 

. 23 

. 25 

. 26 

. 27 

. 31 

. 31 

. 33 

. 35 

HombuWhen s

1 Int

Custom

research

the larg

1990).

employe

Park 20

The con

nearly 3

Weitz 1

son’s ne

firms”

behavio

element

Steenka

At the s

both in

costs ar

Gupta, a

is no cl

(2006, p

than sa

environ

Onyema

More f

salesper

survey d

this stud

dered.

First, it

depend

urg / Mülleshould th

troductio

mer orientatio

hers have st

ger concept

On the oth

ees, especia

006).

ncept of sal

30 years ago

1982). Sinc

ew imperat

(Hunter an

ors, such as

ts in build

amp 2007).

same time,

terms of s

rising from

and Niarasi

ear effect o

p. 700) war

alespeople r

nments to a

ah 2006, p.

formally, thi

rson’s custo

data from 5

dy addresse

is highly li

on produc

er / Klarmae Custom

on

on has beco

tudied the c

of market

her hand, m

ally salespe

lesperson c

o to oppose

e then, sale

tive is to he

nd Perreaul

s identifyin

ding relation

adopting c

salesperson

customizin

imhan 2001

of salesperso

rn that “the

realize”. T

ask themsel

59)

is amounts

omer orient

56 sales man

es this ques

ikely that th

ct and mark

ann er Really

ome a key c

customer or

orientation

many studi

eople (e.g.,

customer or

the prevale

esperson ob

elp forge re

lt 2007, p.

ng custome

nships (Ca

customer-or

time (e.g.,

ng products

1). In fact, b

on custome

costs of im

Thus, it bec

lves “How

to the impo

tation with

nagers, 195

stion. In thi

he magnitud

ket charact

be king?

construct in

rientation of

n (e.g., Koh

ies look at

Hartline, M

rientation w

ent selling o

bjectives ha

elationships

16). In th

r needs an

annon and

riented beha

Saxe and W

and proce

based on th

er orientatio

mplementing

comes imp

Right Sho

ortant questi

regard to s

sales repre

is context,

de of the op

teristics. Fo

the marketi

f firms, wh

hli and Jawo

t the custom

Maxham, a

was introduc

orientation o

ave changed

and height

his new en

nd adapting

Perreault 1

aviors also

Weitz 1982

sses to mee

eir recent m

on on sales

g customer-

portant for

ould the Cu

ion, whethe

sales perform

esentatives,

three addit

ptimum lev

or instance,

ing literatur

ere it is oft

orski 1990;

mer orienta

and McKee

ced to the m

of many sal

d dramatica

ten coopera

nvironment,

g the offer,

1999; Palm

requires su

2) and in te

et customer

meta-analyti

performanc

oriented sel

salespeopl

ustomer Be

er there is an

mance. Bas

and more t

ional issues

el of custom

, Tuli, Koh

re. On the o

ten subsume

; Narver an

ation of in

e 2000; Fra

marketing l

lespeople (S

ally: “The s

ation with c

, customer-

have beco

matier, Sche

ubstantial re

erms of com

r needs (e.g

ic finding th

ce, Franke a

lling may b

e in today

e?” (Ander

n optimal le

sed on a ric

than 500 cu

s need to b

mer orientat

hli, and Bh

1

ne hand,

ed under

nd Slater

ndividual

anke and

literature

Saxe and

salesper-

customer

-oriented

ome key

eer, and

esources,

mplexity

g., Niraj,

hat there

and Park

be higher

y’s sales

rson and

evel of a

ch set of

ustomers,

be consi-

tion will

haradwaj

HombuWhen s

(2007)

solution

same tim

may eve

for stan

product

custome

Second,

of using

question

wrong

reaction

as outco

not expe

Third,

remaine

instead

and tra

Exampl

to build

employe

with thi

of sales

contact

urg / Mülleshould th

find that it

ns that they

me, accord

en reduce s

ndardized p

t importance

er orientatio

, due to tod

g financial s

ned (e.g., H

measure in

ns to a succ

omes of cus

ected.

scholars ha

ed somewha

of studying

its that can

les include

d personal r

ee’s custom

is developm

s encounters

with a custo

er / Klarmae Custom

t is a key p

y still lack

ing to Verb

sales perform

products). T

e, price pos

on.

day’s import

sales perfor

Hunter and

n a relatio

cessful sale.

stomer orie

ave criticiz

at vague an

g the concep

n be consi

a predispos

relationship

mer need kn

ment, this st

s, because s

omer in a bu

ann er Really

problem of

a proper un

beke et al.

mance, if th

Therefore,

sitioning, an

tance of dev

rmance as o

Perreault 2

nal selling

Therefore,

entation. He

ed that the

nd imprecis

pt as a who

dered custo

sition to me

ps with cust

nowledge (

tudy focuse

sales encoun

usiness rela

be king?

f many sup

nderstandin

(2008) a de

he sales task

we test w

nd competit

veloping lon

outcome var

2007). In p

context, b

, in this stu

ere, the exis

e concept o

se (e.g., Sch

ole, recent re

omer-orient

eet customer

tomers (Do

(Homburg,

es on salesp

nters repres

ationship (e.

ppliers of h

ng of their

eep underst

k is highly

whether prod

tive intensit

ng-term cus

riable in sal

particular, it

because it

dy custome

stence of an

of salesper

hwepker 20

esearch has

ted accordi

r needs (Br

onavan, Bro

Wieseke, a

person custo

sent a suppl

.g., Verbeke

highly indiv

customer’s

tanding of

structured (

duct indivi

ty affect th

stomer relat

les research

t is feared

neglects lo

er attitudes

n optimum

rson custom

003). Probab

s focused on

ng to the

own et al. 2

own, and M

and Bornem

omer orienta

lier’s most

e and Bagoz

vidualized c

businesses

a customer

(as is often

iduality as

he optimum

tionships, th

h has genera

that this m

ong-term c

are also co

level is spe

mer orientat

bly for this

n specific b

original de

2002), the t

Mowen 2004

mann 2009)

ation in the

important p

zzi 2000).

2

customer

s. At the

r’s needs

the case

well as

level of

he utility

ally been

may be a

customer

nsidered

ecifically

tion has

s reason,

ehaviors

efinition.

tendency

4), or an

. In line

e context

points of

HombuWhen s

2 Co

2.1 C

When th

orientat

ensuring

orientat

and mee

This de

encount

the nee

negotiat

less cu

encount

specific

urg / Mülleshould th

onceptua

Customer o

hey introdu

tion as comm

g long-term

tion in sales

ets custome

efinition cal

ter. Typical

ed identifica

tion stage, a

ustomer-orie

ters can be

c stage in the

er / Klarmae Custom

al Backg

orientation

ced the con

mitment to

m customer

s encounter

er needs and

lls for furth

lly, five maj

ation stage,

and (5) the

ented. Thus

thought of

e encounter

ann er Really

round

n in Sales

ncept, Saxe a

understandi

r satisfactio

rs can be de

d interests in

her specific

jor stages a

, (2) the p

closing sta

s, as visua

as a constru

r.

be king?

s Encounte

and Weitz (

ing and mee

on. Against

efined as the

n the differe

cation with

are consider

presentation

age. In each

alized in F

uct with fiv

ers

(1982) char

eting a cust

t this backg

e degree to

ent stages of

regard to t

red (e.g., Jo

stage, (3)

h stage, a sa

Figure 1, c

ve dimensio

acterized sa

tomer’s nee

ground, sal

which a sa

f a sales enc

the differen

obber and L

the object

alesperson c

customer o

ons, each co

alesperson c

ds and inter

lesperson c

alesperson id

counter.

nt stages of

Lancaster 20

tions stage,

can behave

orientation

orrespondin

3

customer

rests and

customer

dentifies

f a sales

006): (1)

(4) the

more or

in sales

ng to one

HombuWhen s

Need and p

Presentatio

Dealing with

Negotiation

Closing the 

Stages of a s(Jobber and La

FIGU

First, in

to preci

requirem

behavio

needs.

Second,

through

custome

custome

as comm

Third, i

relation

salespeo

urg / Mülleshould th

roblem ident

n and demon

h objections

n

sale

ales encountencaster 2006, p

URE 1 Dim

n the need id

sely unders

ments is the

ors aimed a

, in the pre

h offering p

er’s benefit

er solutions

munication

in the obje

nships” (Ma

ople will em

er / Klarmae Custom

tification

nstration

erp. 250) A

mensions of a

dentification

tand a custo

e first dimen

at identifyi

esentation st

products tha

s (Dwyer, H

s as second

behaviors f

ection stage

alhotra 1999

mploy a co

ann er Really

Dimeorien

Identrequ

Presecusto

Collaof obdisag

Conscusto

Use oclosi

a Salesperso

n stage of a

omer’s requ

nsion of cus

ng the cus

tage of a sa

at correspo

Hill, and M

dimension

focusing on

e of a sale

9, p. 118) is

ollaboration

be king?

ension of custntation in sale

tification of cirements

entation of omer solution

aborative hanbjections and greements

sideration of omer interest

of informativeng technique

on’s Custom

a sales encou

uirements. T

stomer orien

stomer’s int

ales encoun

nd to spec

Martin 2000)

of custome

the product

es encounte

s likely to b

n approach

tomer es encounters

customer 

ns

dling 

ts

e s

mer Orienta

unter, it is a

Thus, identif

ntation in sa

terests, goa

nter, custom

ific custom

). Therefore

er orientatio

ts and servi

er, the conf

become app

(Weitz and

s Defin

Behavagreemfindingthe intand th

Behavinformsales e

Behavcustomdisagrintegr

Common themeet 

Behavcustomother 

ation in Sale

a key challe

fication of c

ales encoun

als, and oth

mer orientat

mer needs w

e, we consi

on in sales e

ces that me

flict “inher

arent. Here

d Bradford

nition

viors aimed at ament in sales neg a compromiseterests of the suhe interests of t

viors that emphamation in the cloencounter.

viors aimed at stmer objections reements and fiative solution.

munication behae products and scustomer need

viors aimed at idmer’s interests, product‐related

es Encounte

enge for sale

customer

nters. It is de

her produc

tion manife

while clarify

ider present

encounters,

et customer

rent in buy

e, customer-

d 1999) by

4

chieving an egotiations by e betweenupplierhe customer.

asize the use ofosing stage of a 

timulating andnding an

aviors focusingservices thats.

dentifying the goals, and d needs.

rs

espeople

efined as

ct-related

sts itself

fying the

tation of

, defined

r needs.

yer-seller

-oriented

actively

f 

HombuWhen s

exchang

collabor

stimulat

Fourth,

Bradfor

sales en

interests

finding

Finally,

(Brooks

often pe

they rel

encount

techniqu

2.2 C

In this

presents

urg / Mülleshould th

ging inform

rative hand

ting custom

the collabo

rd 1999), m

ncounter. H

s, defined

a comprom

for custom

sbank 1995

erceived as

ly on infor

ter, custom

ues, defined

Conceptua

study, sales

s an overvie

er / Klarmae Custom

mation and

dling of obj

mer objection

oration app

making it nec

ere, custom

as behavio

mise between

mer-oriented

, p. 62). In

manipulativ

rmation (Sa

mer orientati

d as behavio

al framewo

sperson cus

ew of the re

ann er Really

creatively

bjections an

ns and disag

roach cann

cessary to e

mer orientati

ors aimed a

n the interes

d salespeopl

nstead of ne

ve and redu

axe and W

ion become

ors that emp

ork

stomer orien

sulting conc

be king?

identifying

nd disagree

greements a

not be appli

engage in co

ion will ma

at achieving

sts of the su

le closing a

eeding to em

uce custome

Weitz 1982).

es apparent

phasize the u

ntation is li

ceptual fram

g mutually

ements is d

and finding

ied to all co

ompromisin

anifest itself

g an agreem

upplier and t

sale becom

mploy spec

r trust (Haw

Hence, in

t through th

use of infor

inked to key

mework.

y beneficial

defined as b

an integrati

onflicts of

ng in the ne

f as conside

ment in sal

the interests

mes “relative

ific persuas

wes, Strong,

n the closin

he use of i

rmation to c

y outcome

l alternative

behaviors a

ive solution

interest (W

egotiation st

eration of c

les negotiat

s of the cust

ely straightf

sion tactics

, and Winic

ng stage of

informative

close a sale.

variables. F

5

es. This

aimed at

n.

Weitz and

tage of a

customer

tions by

tomer.

forward”

that are

ck 1996),

f a sales

e closing

Figure 2

No

HombuWhen s

Outcom

environ

because

fore, in

perform

the ach

custome

impress

custome

custome

son. Sec

toward

exhibits

These c

evaluati

Custoorientationsales enco

(SP

otes: (SP) Salesp

urg / Mülleshould th

mes of a Sal

nments, fina

e it neglects

n this study

mance is def

ieved sales

er reaction

sion of the

er’s attitude

er exhibits

cond, custom

a supplier’

s a learned p

constructs a

ion of purch

mer n (CO) in ounters P)

person data  (SM

er / Klarmae Custom

lesperson’s

ancial sales

s more long

y two type

fined as the

volume or

ns, two att

salesperso

e toward th

a learned p

mers form j

’s products

predispositi

are then link

hase and con

Contex

M) Sales manag

Micro•Prod•Prod

ann er Really

Figure 2 C

Customer

s performan

g-term cust

es of outco

financial re

r contributi

titudinal co

on. Against

he salesper

predispositio

judgments o

is also cons

ion to respo

ked to cust

nsumption.

xtual influences

ger data  (C)  Cus

oenvironmentalduct individualitduct importance

be king?

Conceptual F

Orientation

nce may no

omer reacti

omes are c

esult of a sa

ion margin

onstructs ar

t this back

rson, which

on to respon

of a supplie

sidered, def

ond in a fav

tomer satisf

Attitude towproduct

(C)

Attitude towsalespers

(C)

s (SM):

stomer data      

:tye

Mac•Sup•Com

Framework

n in Sales E

ot be a suf

ions (Hunte

considered.

lesperson’s

(Oliver and

re included

kground, th

h is defined

nd in a favo

r’s products

fined as the

vorable man

faction, defi

ward ts                  

ward son              

             Effects a

roenvironmentapplier price posimpetitive intens

k

Encounters.

fficient per

er and Perre

As financ

selling acti

d Anderson

d. First, c

he research

d as the de

orable man

s. Hence, a

e degree to w

nner to the s

fined as the

Custosatisfa

(C

are analyzed     

al:tioningsity

. In relation

rformance m

eault 2007)

cial outcom

ivities, for e

n 1994). Re

customers f

model inc

egree to wh

nner to the s

customer’s

which the c

supplier’s p

customer’s

Sales pe

mer ction                )

         Effects 

6

nal sales

measure,

). There-

me, sales

example,

egarding

form an

cludes a

hich the

salesper-

s attitude

customer

products.

s overall

erformance       (SP)

are not analyze

Directe

ffecto

fCO

Indirecteffectof

CO

    

ed

Direct e

ffect o

f CO

Indirect effect o

f CO

HombuWhen s

In turn,

both a d

As will

links re

from cu

specific

importa

At the s

covered

degree t

value”)

effect v

mance c

Context

mance W

depends

analyze

salesper

the dire

level of

With re

buying

offers in

supplier

variable

is a sup

marketp

urg / Mülleshould th

customer s

direct and a

be explain

eflect benef

ustomer ori

c benefit of

ant, because

same time,

d by the ind

to which se

has a direc

via custome

covers these

tual Influen

Weitz (198

s on macro

s how four

rson custom

ct link from

f customer o

egard to mic

task (Weitz

ndividualize

r’s product

es we consid

pplier’s relat

place (Kohli

er / Klarmae Custom

satisfaction

an indirect li

ned in more

fits and cos

ientation vi

f customer

e it addresse

it is highly

direct effec

ervices are a

ct effect on

er satisfactio

e remaining

nces. In his

81) has prop

oenvironme

r contextua

mer orientati

m customer o

orientation v

croenvironm

z 1981). Pr

ed products

ts and serv

der two face

tive price le

i and Jawor

ann er Really

is also link

ink from sa

e detail in t

ts of custom

a attitudes

orientation

es possible l

y likely that

ct. For insta

adapted to t

n loyalty in

on. The dir

g benefits as

contingenc

posed that

ntal and m

al variables

ion with reg

orientation

varies depen

mental varia

roduct indiv

s. Product i

vices for th

ets of the fi

evel, and co

rski 1990).

be king?

ked to sales

alesperson c

the hypothe

mer orienta

and satisfa

n. As menti

long-term ef

many othe

ance, Croni

the custome

ntentions tha

rect link fr

s well as all

cy framewo

the effectiv

microenviron

(two of ev

gard to sales

to performa

nding on the

ables, we lo

viduality is d

importance

he custome

rm’s compe

ompetitive i

performanc

customer ori

esis develop

ation. More

action to sa

ioned befor

ffects of sal

er benefits o

in, Brady,

ers’ needs (

at is three

om custom

the costs of

ork for und

veness of s

nmental va

very type)

s performan

ance. Thus,

e context of

ook at two c

defined as t

is defined

ers. With r

etitive posit

intensity is

ce. Thus, in

ientation to

pment secti

e specificall

ales perform

re, this ben

lesperson cu

of customer

and Hult (2

(labeled in t

times as st

mer orientati

f customer o

derstanding

salesperson

ariables. Th

influence t

nce. In this r

we assess w

f the sales e

characterist

the degree

as the gene

egard to m

tion. Supplie

the degree

n the model

o sales perfo

ion, general

ly, the indir

mance captu

nefit is par

ustomer orie

r orientation

2000) find

their study

trong as an

ion to sales

orientation.

salesperson

behaviors

hus, this stu

he effective

regard, we

whether the

ncounter.

tics of the c

to which a

eral importa

macroenviro

er price pos

of competit

7

l there is

ormance.

lly these

rect link

ures one

rticularly

entation.

n are not

that the

“service

indirect

s perfor-

n perfor-

strongly

udy also

eness of

focus on

e optimal

customer

supplier

ance of a

onmental

sitioning

tion in a

HombuWhen s

3 Hy

3.1 E

In the fo

a nonlin

with cu

of custo

attitude

Our arg

custome

oriented

through

custome

of sales

and thus

orientat

The rea

ing retu

perform

Diminis

satisfyin

and Cro

firm’s o

Brady,

through

have be

drive sa

custome

(George

At the

higher w

Wieseke

urg / Mülleshould th

ypothese

ffects of C

following, it

near, invert

ustomer attit

omer orient

s.

gument is b

er orientatio

d behaviors

h increased s

er orientatio

sperson reso

s salesperso

tion.

asoning beh

urns applies

mance, wher

shing Benef

ng custome

onin 2001; F

offering and

and Hult 20

h customer

een studied

ales volume

er retention

e 1991).

same time,

willingness-

e, and Born

er / Klarmae Custom

es develo

Customer

t is argued t

ed U-shape

tudes is con

tation with

based on a

on affects s

s trigger cu

sales volum

on. On the o

ources and

on financial

ind our non

s to the be

reas costs in

fits of Cus

er needs, cu

Franke and

d is thus a st

000). Thus,

orientation

d quite exte

through inc

n (Dean 200

, customers

-to-pay (Pih

nemann (20

ann er Really

opment

Orientatio

that a salesp

ed relationsh

ntinuously p

regard to

distinction

salesperson

ustomer rea

mes and high

other hand,

firm resour

performanc

nlinear hypo

enefits of in

ncrease stead

stomer Ori

ustomer-orie

Piller 2004

trong direct

customers

n by purcha

ensively. Sa

creases in c

07; Jones,

s also rewa

hlström and

09) find tha

be king?

on in Sale

person’s cu

hip with sa

positive. Th

sales perfo

between tw

financial p

actions tha

her prices. W

customer-o

rces that m

ce. We will

othesis is ba

ncreasing c

dily. These

entation in

ented salesp

4). This add

predictor o

are likely t

asing more.

alesperson

cross buying

Busch, and

rd addition

d Brush 200

at customer

es Encoun

stomer orie

ales perform

his implies

rmance but

wo opposin

performance

at positively

We will refe

oriented beh

may negative

l refer to the

ased on the

ustomer or

ideas are no

n Sales Enc

people creat

ded value in

of customer

to respond

. These ben

customer o

g (Siders, G

d Dacin 200

nal value of

08). Consist

rs are willin

ters

entation in s

mance, wher

that there i

t not with

ng ways in

e. On the o

y affect rev

er to these e

haviors requ

ely affect re

ese effects a

idea that th

rientation w

ow outlined

counters. B

te customer

ncreases the

purchasing

to increases

nefits of cu

orientation h

George, and

03), and im

f a supplier

tent with th

ng to pay m

sales encoun

reas its rela

s an optimu

regard to c

which sale

ne hand, cu

venues and

effects as be

uire inputs

evenues and

as costs of c

he law of d

with regard

d in more de

By identify

r value (e.g

e attractiven

g intentions

s in custom

ustomer ori

has been sh

Dharwadka

mmediate pu

r’s products

is effect, H

more, if the s

8

nters has

ationship

um level

customer

esperson

ustomer-

d profits

enefits of

in terms

d profits

customer

diminish-

to sales

etail.

ying and

g., Brady

ness of a

(Cronin,

mer value

ientation

hown to

ar 2001),

urchases

s with a

Homburg,

salesper-

HombuWhen s

son pos

will als

and mar

Howeve

effectiv

that, inc

regard t

(2008) f

creation

regardin

and Steg

to custo

This log

and fou

conside

apprecia

concern

techniqu

main be

custome

which im

Costs o

increasi

Park 20

salesper

Implem

applies

tion of

process

the cus

requires

compro

urg / Mülleshould th

ssesses a pr

o translate

rgins.

er, some re

ve in creatin

creases in c

to the first d

find that un

n, whereas

ng the secon

ger (2009) f

omers if it co

gic also ext

urth dimensi

ration of c

ate collabor

n issues per

ues (i.e., the

enefits (e.g.

er orientatio

mplies that

of Custome

ing salesper

006; Kumar

rson time an

menting a cu

to all of its

customer

(Franke, K

tomer inste

s more prep

mises in co

er / Klarmae Custom

rofound kno

into better

ecent studi

g customer

customer-or

dimension,

nderstanding

understand

nd dimensio

find that ad

oncerns fea

tends to the

ion (i.e., co

customer in

ration and c

rceived as im

e fifth dime

. Jobber and

on are large

there are di

er Orientat

rson custom

r, Venkates

nd in terms

ustomer orie

dimensions

requiremen

Keinz, and S

ead of usin

paration tim

onflicts betw

ann er Really

owledge of

salesperson

ies suggest

value, if th

rientation a

i.e., the ide

g the core n

ing intricat

on (i.e., the

dapting a pro

atures they a

e other dime

ollaborative

nterests), W

compromisi

mportant. S

ension), stra

d Lancaster

er if the sale

iminishing b

ion in Sal

mer orientati

san, and Re

of added co

entation req

s. For instan

nts), gainin

Steger 2009

ng a “one

me. Likewise

ween buyer

be king?

f their need

n financial

t that custo

ey help cus

add less va

entification

eeds of the

te details of

e presentatio

oduct to the

are highly in

ensions of c

handling o

Weitz and

ing approac

Similarly, w

ategies such

r 2006). Thu

esperson’s in

benefits of c

es Encount

ion is a reso

einartz 200

omplexity fo

quires a lot o

nce, regardi

ng insights

9). Also, ad

fits all”-sty

e, with resp

s and seller

ds. Thus sal

performanc

omer-orient

tomers to sa

alue for the

of custome

customers i

f the custom

on of custom

e customers

nvolved wit

customer or

f objections

Bradford

ches to buye

with regard

as summar

us, the incr

nitial level

customer or

ters. It has

ource-intens

08). In parti

for the sellin

of time (e.g

ing the first

into custom

dapting sales

yle present

pect to looki

rs instead o

lesperson cu

ce through

ed behavio

atisfy their

customer.

er requireme

is an import

mer’s need

mer solutio

s’ needs is m

th.

rientation. R

s and disagr

(1999) arg

er-seller con

to the use i

rizing the of

remental be

of customer

rientation in

s repeatedl

sive endeavo

icular, cost

ng organizat

g., Saxe and

dimension

mer prefere

s presentati

ation (the

ing for inte

of relying on

ustomer ori

increased r

ors are par

core needs.

For instan

ents, Verbe

tant source

ds is not. L

ons), Franke

much more

Regarding t

reements as

gue that cu

nflicts more

informative

ffer should

enefits of in

r orientation

n sales enco

ly been no

or (e.g., Fra

ts arise in t

tion.

d Weitz 198

(i.e., the id

ences is a

ions to the n

second dim

egrative solu

n persuasio

9

ientation

revenues

rticularly

Beyond

nce, with

eke et al.

of value

Likewise,

e, Keinz,

valuable

the third

s well as

ustomers

e if they

e closing

focus on

ncreasing

n is low,

ounters.

oted that

anke and

terms of

82). This

dentifica-

lengthy

needs of

mension)

utions or

n and/or

HombuWhen s

pressure

1999, p

These t

associat

orientat

time pe

increasi

custome

and Kum

to spend

tradition

This m

perform

Additio

the spe

“preemi

tions.”

complex

find tha

organiza

for offe

and Pin

lower c

salesper

Optimal

increase

more ex

implies

the form

hypothe

H1: T

s

urg / Mülleshould th

e “involves

. 247).

time requir

ted with im

tion need to

r customer,

ing custom

er retention

mar 2005).

d relatively

nal selling

ay also res

mance.

nally, custo

cific needs

inent amon

Consequen

xity costs fo

at for firms

ational com

ering custom

ne 1997). Su

customer p

rson financi

l Level of C

e their custo

xpensive to

that the rel

m of an inv

esize:

The relation

sales perfor

er / Klarmae Custom

s the expen

rements ma

mportant opp

o reallocate

, which red

mer orientat

, which doe

Additionall

y more time

activities, s

sult in few

omer-orient

of the cus

ng the indiv

ntly, salesp

or the sellin

s offering t

mplexity is a

mized produ

uch addition

rofits” (Nir

ial performa

Customer O

omer orienta

o produce. C

lationship b

verted U, i

nship betwe

rmance is cu

ann er Really

nditure of c

ay affect fin

portunity co

e how they

duces the tot

tion means

es not neces

ly, in the rem

e on acquiri

such as pro

wer sales op

ed salesper

stomer. In

vidual-level

person cust

ng organizat

their custom

a key challe

ucts, the ef

nal complex

raj, Gupta,

ance.

Orientation

ation need t

Coupled wi

etween cus

implying th

een a salesp

urvilinear in

be king?

considerable

nancial sal

osts. Salesp

spend their

tal number

shifting r

ssarily impr

maining cus

ing informa

moting and

pportunities

rson behavio

fact, as Jo

l drivers of

omer orien

tion. For ins

mers compr

enge. In part

fficiency of

xity results i

and Narsi

in Sales En

to focus on

ith diminish

tomer orien

he existence

person’s cus

n the shape

e time and

esperson p

people wish

r time. The

of custome

resources f

rove perform

stomer relat

ation and ad

d persuadin

and thus

ors result in

oshi (2010,

f product m

ntation is l

stance, Tuli

rehensive p

ticular, to m

f these orga

in “higher c

imhan 200

ncounters. I

fewer custo

hing returns

ntation and

e of an opt

stomer orien

e of an inver

d effort” (W

erformance

hing to incre

ey are requi

ers they can

from custom

mance (e.g.,

tionships sa

dapting thei

g (Weitz an

reduced sa

n offerings

p. 94) not

modification

likely to b

i, Kohli, and

product solu

maintain the

anizations is

customer ser

1, p.7). Th

In sum, sale

omers while

s of custom

sales perfor

timum leve

ntation in sa

rted U.

Weitz and B

e, because t

ease their c

ired to spen

n serve at a

mer acquis

, Reinartz, T

alespeople w

ir offer and

nd Bradford

alesperson f

that are ad

tes, salespe

ns within o

be associat

d Bharadwa

utions, ove

e required fl

s reduced (

rvice costs

hus, it will

espeople se

e their offer

mer orientat

rmance is sh

el. Accordin

ales encoun

10

Bradford

they are

customer

nd more

ll. Thus,

sition to

Thomas,

will need

d less on

d 1999).

financial

dapted to

ople are

organiza-

ted with

aj (2007)

ercoming

lexibility

(Gilmore

and thus

l reduce

eeking to

rings are

tion, this

haped in

ngly, we

nters and

HombuWhen s

Effects

regard t

attitude

likely th

is reflec

several

custome

2001; G

In addit

reflect w

more th

studies

custome

1997).

Thus, t

orientat

increase

terms o

custome

Thus, w

H2: Th

cu

H3: Th

cu

3.2 E

Consiste

attitude

continuo

satisfact

increasi

custome

urg / Mülleshould th

of Custome

to sales per

s is continu

hat the supe

cted in mo

empirical

er orientatio

Goff et al. 19

tion to enha

well on the

hat they per

support th

er attitudes

there is re

tion and bo

es in salesp

of customer

er attitudes

we hypothes

The relations

ustomer atti

The relations

ustomer atti

ffects of C

ent with pr

s to be str

ously positi

tion. Simila

ing share o

er satisfact

er / Klarmae Custom

er Orientati

rformance,

uously posi

erior value

ore positive

studies alre

on and cus

997).

ancing prod

e salesperso

ceive in sal

he existence

towards th

eason to ex

oth types o

person cust

r attitudes.

deteriorate

ize:

ship betwee

itudes towar

ship betwee

itudes towar

Customer

revious res

rong driver

ive relation

arly, as cust

of wallet (

tion has a

ann er Really

ion in Sales

we expect

itive. With

of products

e customer

eady suppo

stomer attit

duct evaluat

on. Custome

les encount

e of a posi

he salespers

xpect a po

of attitudes.

tomer orien

Consequen

e as a resu

en a salespe

rds the sale

en a salespe

rds the supp

Attitudes

earch (e.g.,

rs of overa

nship betwe

tomer satisf

e.g., Keinin

positive i

be king?

s Encounter

that the eff

regard to a

s and servic

evaluation

ort the exist

udes towar

tions, custo

ers can be

er as being

itive effect

on (e.g., Br

ositive rela

. At the sa

ntation are

ntly, it seem

lt of increa

erson’s cust

esperson is c

erson’s cust

plier’s prod

, Crosby an

all custome

en the two

faction is po

ngham, Mu

impact on

rs on Custom

ffect of cust

attitudes tow

ces sold by

ns (e.g., Wo

tence of a

rds the offe

omer-oriente

expected to

responsive

of salespe

rady and C

ationship b

ame time,

associated

ms unlikely

ases in sale

tomer orien

continuously

tomer orien

ducts is cont

nd Stephen

er satisfacti

specific cu

ositively ass

unn, and E

sales perfo

mer Attitud

tomer orien

ward the p

customer-o

oodruff 1

positive re

ering (e.g.,

ed behavior

o appreciate

e to their ne

erson custom

ronin 2001

etween sal

there is lit

with any s

y that situa

esperson cu

ntation in sa

ly positive.

ntation in sa

tinuously po

ns 1987), w

ion. Thus,

ustomer attit

sociated wit

Evans 2003

formance. A

des. Other th

ntation on c

product, it i

oriented sale

997). Addi

elationship

Brady and

rs are also

e those sale

eeds. Again

mer orienta

; Ramsey a

lesperson c

ttle to sugg

significant

ations arise

ustomer orie

ales encoun

ales encoun

ositive.

we expect c

we hypoth

tudes and c

th outcomes

3), we pred

As these p

11

han with

customer

s highly

espeople

itionally,

between

d Cronin

likely to

espeople

, several

ation on

and Sohi

customer

gest that

costs in

e, where

entation.

nters and

nters and

customer

hesize a

customer

s such as

dict that

proposed

HombuWhen s

relation

hypothe

Investiga

Customer’

supplier’s 

Customer 

Customer’

the salesp

satisfactio

Customer 

performan

3.3 H

It is lik

varies w

on the

individu

Product

custome

or her r

product

perceive

adverse

costs or

(McQui

informa

urg / Mülleshould th

nships are

eses (H4-H6)

ated relations

’s attitude towa

products   

satisfaction 

’s attitude towa

erson   Custo

on 

satisfaction 

nce 

Hypothese

kely that the

with context

optimum l

uality, a sup

t importan

ers perceive

requiremen

t (e.g., Dow

ed risk is h

consequen

r, in busines

iston 1989)

ation and as

er / Klarmae Custom

well estab

) in Table 1

hip Exp

ef

ard a conti

posit

ard 

omer conti

posit

 Sales  conti

posit

T

s and Mod

e optimum

tual influen

level of cu

pplier’s pric

ce. Accord

e buying de

nts and the

wling and S

higher for i

nces of buyin

ss-to-busine

. As a resu

sistance.

ann er Really

blished in

.

pected 

ffect 

nuously 

tive (H4) 

-

-

-

nuously 

tive (H5) 

nuously 

tive (H6) 

-

- T

- T

-

Table 1 Ou

derating E

level of cu

nces. In this

ustomer orie

ce positionin

ding to the

cisions as r

magnitude

taelin 1994

important p

ng a wrong

ess settings

ult, to reduc

be king?

sales resea

Ba

fo

Customer satisrepresents an obusiness relatiovarious factorsIn this context,salesperson anrepresent two customer satisfEmpirical supp

Customer satiscustomer loyalThus, increasinassociated withpositive word‐opurchases These benefits performance Empirical supp

utline of Hyp

Effects

stomer orie

section, the

entation is

ng, and com

e theory o

isky with re

of adverse

4). In this re

products. In

product, su

, due to pro

ce perceived

arch, we s

asic rationale 

r hypotheses

faction with thoverall evaluationship and is de

 a positive attitd toward a supmajor antecedefaction ort for positive

faction is a stroty g customer sath increasing wilof‐mouth, and f

are reflected in

ort for positive

potheses 4-

entation wit

e impact of

discussed:

mpetitive int

f perceived

egard to the

e conseque

egard, it ca

n particular,

uch as mone

oduction do

d risk, cust

summarize

 

e supplier on of the etermined by 

tude toward thepplier’s productents of overall 

 impact 

ong driver of 

tisfaction is llingness to payfuture 

n salesperson 

 impact 

6

th regard to

f four such c

product im

tensity.

d risk (e.g

e issue of th

nces when

an be expec

, with impo

etary losses

owntimes, a

tomers have

the corres

Sele

suppo

litera

e ts 

Crosby and

19

Goff et a

Humphr

William

y, 

Ahearne, 

and Rap

Anderso

Keiningha

and Eva

o sales perfo

contextual v

mportance,

g., Bettman

he product m

buying the

cted that cu

ortant produ

due to repl

are more su

e a higher n

12

sponding

ected  

orting 

ature 

d Stephens 

87; 

al. 1997; 

reys and 

ms 1996 

Mathieu,  

pp 2005; 

on 1998; 

am, Munn, 

ans 2003 

formance

variables

product

n 1973),

meets his

e wrong

stomer’s

ucts, the

lacement

ubstantial

need for

HombuWhen s

Thus, c

valued b

custome

specific

offering

reduce

Likewis

it can b

orientat

hypothe

H7: T

r

t

Product

highly

specific

ments, c

of a sol

specific

particul

Howeve

demand

(Tuli, K

product

valuable

The situ

a salesp

custome

highly i

indicate

busines

product

urg / Mülleshould th

ustomer-ori

by custome

ers are likel

c needs. In

gs adapted t

perceived

se, a collabo

be interprete

tion is likel

esize:

The optimu

regard to sa

to low impo

t individual

individualiz

c needs (Tu

customer-or

lution suppl

c customer n

arly so, bec

er, many so

d a better un

Kohli, and

ts are offere

e strategy.

uation is dif

person’s ge

er needs) i

individualiz

e that “cust

s solutions

ts, customer

er / Klarmae Custom

iented beha

rs buying im

ly to show

the present

to their spec

risk here

orative appr

ed as non-op

ly to be hig

um level of

ales perform

ortance for t

lity. In man

zed solutio

li, Kohli, an

riented sale

lier’s produ

needs and e

cause custom

olutions off

nderstandin

Bharadwaj

ed, increasin

fferent with

eneral ment

s much mo

zed products

tomers may

as inadeq

r orientation

ann er Really

aviors in th

mportant pr

more appre

tation stage,

cific needs.

by offering

roach to han

pportunistic

gher with im

a salespers

mance is hi

the custome

ny industrie

ons, where

nd Bharadw

esperson beh

ucts. In parti

ensuring ne

mers may n

ffered today

ng of their n

j 2007). T

ng salesper

h regard to s

al ability (

ore strongly

s are sold. M

y perceive

quate” (Verb

n seems to

be king?

he course of

roducts. For

eciation for

, customers

Also, custo

g additiona

ndling disag

c. As a con

mportant th

son’s custo

igher if a su

er.

es, suppliers

products a

waj 2007). N

haviors play

icular, sales

ecessary pro

not be aware

y are still i

needs, espec

hus, in env

son custom

standardized

and conseq

y related to

Moreover fo

the develo

beke et al.

be much l

f a sales en

r instance, i

r any efforts

s are likely

omer-orient

al services

greements w

nsequence, t

han with un

mer orienta

upplier’s pr

s have turn

are custom

Naturally, i

y a crucial r

speople are

oduct modi

e of some of

ineffective

cially with r

vironments

mer orientati

d products.

quently the

o sales per

or more stan

opment of

. 2008, p.

ess valuabl

ncounter are

n the need i

s aimed at

to respond

ted salespeo

such as s

will be mor

the optimum

nimportant p

ation in sal

roducts are

ned to offeri

mized to me

in this kind

role in deter

essential to

ifications (J

f their need

in this rega

regard to th

where hig

ion still app

Verbeke et

ability to u

rformance i

ndardized pr

highly com

55). Thus,

le. This lea

e likely to

identificatio

understandi

d more posit

ople may be

specific gua

re valuable,

m level of c

products. T

les encount

of high as

ing their cu

eet the cus

of selling

rmining the

o understan

Joshi 2010)

ds (Simonso

ard, i.e., cu

heir own bu

ghly indivi

pears to be

al. (2008)

understand

in situation

roducts thei

mplex and

with stand

ds to the fo

13

be more

on stage,

ing their

tively to

e able to

arantees.

because

customer

Thus, we

ters with

opposed

ustomers

stomers’

environ-

e success

nding the

. This is

on 2005).

ustomers

usinesses

dualized

a highly

find that

specific

ns where

ir results

creative

dardized

ollowing

HombuWhen s

hypothe

H8: T

r

o

Supplier

orientat

From a

supplier

Monroe

average

As a pr

higher p

stages o

through

solution

prices.

On the

most pr

level of

outcome

orientat

opposed

H9: T

r

p

Compet

encount

In highl

competi

have hi

quality

urg / Mülleshould th

esis:

The optimu

regard to s

opposed to

r’s price p

tion in sales

customer’s

r’s products

e 1989). Co

e, customers

rimary info

prices. On a

of a sales en

h the definit

ns, salespeo

other hand,

robably rely

f customer

e. In other

tion in sales

d to clearly

The optimu

regard to sa

posed to be

titive intens

ters to be hi

ly competiti

itive enviro

igher dema

and service

er / Klarmae Custom

um level of

sales perfor

standardize

positioning.

s encounters

s point of v

s and accor

onsequently

s expect add

ormation so

an overall b

ncounter ma

tion of custo

ople may b

if a supplie

y on lower

orientation

r words, we

s encounters

below the m

um level of

ales perform

low the mar

sity. Finally

igher in hig

ive environm

nments (Ap

ands in high

e levels. Mo

ann er Really

a salespers

rmance is h

ed.

Furthermo

s is expected

iew, a supp

rdingly the

y, if a supp

ditional ben

ource for th

basis, a sale

ay strengthe

omer requir

e able to c

er’s price le

prices in t

n in sales e

e expect th

s to be more

market aver

a salespers

mance is hig

rket averag

, we expect

ghly compet

ments, custo

ppiah-Adu a

hly compet

oreover, in

be king?

son’s custo

higher if a s

re, the opt

d to vary de

plier’s gener

equivalent

plier’s price

efits in retu

he customer

esperson’s c

n a custome

rements and

create an eq

evel is clear

their argum

encounters

he additiona

e substantia

rage. Thus, w

son’s custo

gher if a su

ge.

t the optimu

titive marke

omers have

and Singh 1

titive marke

highly com

mer orienta

supplier’s p

imum level

epending on

ral price lev

value a cus

e level is su

urn for accep

r, salespeop

customer-or

er’s benefit

d the presen

quivalent v

rly below th

mentation an

may be su

al benefits

l if a suppli

we hypothe

mer orienta

upplier’s pri

um level of

ets compare

e greater rela

1998). Acco

ets, for exa

mpetitive m

ation in sal

products ar

l of a sale

n a supplier’

vel indicate

stomer rece

ubstantially

pting higher

ple have to

riented beh

perceptions

ntation of ap

value for th

he market a

nd, as a con

ufficient to

of higher

ier’s prices a

esize that

ation in sal

ice position

f customer

ed to less co

ative marke

ordingly, cu

ample with

markets, the

les encount

re individua

sperson’s c

’s price pos

es the qualit

eives (e.g., R

y above the

r prices.

o be able to

haviors in th

s. For exam

ppropriate c

he supplier’

average, sale

nsequence,

achieve a

levels of c

are clearly a

les encount

ning is abov

orientation

ompetitive m

et power tha

ustomers mo

h regard to

quality of p

14

ters with

alized as

customer

itioning.

ty of the

Rao and

e market

o justify

he single

mple,

customer

s higher

espeople

a lower

a desired

customer

above as

ters with

ve as op-

in sales

markets.

an in less

ost likely

product

products

HombuWhen s

and serv

As a co

means o

perceive

high lev

more be

can mo

supplier

encount

H10: T

reg

com

urg / Mülleshould th

vices of diff

onsequence,

of differenti

ed as a valu

vels of a sal

eneficial if c

ore easily d

r’s products

ters is likely

The optimu

gard to sale

mpetitive ma

er / Klarmae Custom

ferent suppl

in highly c

iation thems

ue per se (Y

esperson’s

competitive

differentiate

s and servic

y to be suffi

um level of

es performa

arkets.

ann er Really

liers is often

competitive

selves, e.g.,

Yim, Tse, a

customer or

e intensity is

from com

es, a lower

icient. Again

a salespers

ance is high

be king?

n quite simi

e environme

, by establis

and Chan 2

rientation in

s high. If co

mpetition, fo

level of a s

nst this bac

son’s custo

her in high

lar, thus com

ents, the sal

shing a relat

2008). Ther

n the single

ompetitive in

or example,

salesperson’

kground, w

mer orienta

hly competit

mplicating

lespeople ar

tionship to

refore, it ca

stages of a

ntensity is l

, in terms

’s customer

we hypothesi

ation in sal

tive market

differentiat

re pressured

the custome

an be suppo

sales encou

low and sale

of the qual

r orientation

ize that

les encount

ts compared

15

ion.

d to be a

er that is

osed that

unter are

espeople

lity of a

n in sales

ters with

d to less

HombuWhen s

4 Me

4.1 C

To test t

atives, a

our univ

differen

of the

compan

logistics

particip

units pa

In these

sales re

question

from 56

In a sec

ers per

sales rep

contacte

usable r

urg / Mülleshould th

ethodolo

Collection

these hypot

and custom

versity, wh

nt industries

study resul

nies mainly

s, health ca

ate (a respo

articipated.

e business u

epresentativ

nnaires with

6 sales mana

cond step, w

participatin

presentative

ed them by

responses fr

er / Klarmae Custom

ogy

of Triadic

theses, we c

ers. In a fir

hether they

s were conta

lts (includin

operating

are, machin

onse rate of

units, we con

ves. After i

h a request f

agers (a resp

we obtained

ng sales rep

e. After info

y telephone

rom 538 cus

ann er Really

Data

conducted a

rst step, we

were intere

acted. As in

ng benchm

in B2B ma

ne building,

f 25.6%), mo

nducted two

informing t

for complet

ponse rate o

d the contac

resentative,

orming thes

to obtain t

stomers. Ta

be king?

a large surve

asked chief

ested in par

ncentives, th

mark analyse

arkets in si

, chemicals

ost with mu

o separate s

them about

tion within f

of 84.9%) an

t data of, on

, which allo

se customer

their respon

able 2 presen

ey among s

f executives

rticipating. T

hey were o

es) and a

x different

s, and infor

ultiple busin

surveys amo

t the goals

four weeks.

nd 195 sale

n average, t

owed us to

rs by mail ab

nses to our

nts responde

ales manag

s who coope

This way, 4

ffered an in

consulting

industries

rmation tech

ness units. O

ong the sale

s of our re

. We obtain

es representa

ten random

survey mul

bout the go

survey que

ents’ charac

ers, sales re

erate regula

47 compani

ndividualize

workshop.

(financial s

hnology) ag

Overall, 33

es managers

esearch, we

ed usable re

atives (67.2

mly selected

ltiple custom

als of the st

estions, resu

cteristics.

16

epresent-

arly with

ies from

ed report

Twelve

services,

greed to

business

s and the

e mailed

esponses

2%).

custom-

mers per

tudy, we

ulting in

HombuWhen s

urg / Mülleshould th

A. Indu

Financ

Logisti

Health

Machi

Chemi

Inform

B. Sale

< 5 yea

5 ‐ 10 y

11 ‐ 15

16 ‐ 20

21 ‐ 25

26 ‐ 30

> 30 ye

C. Num

1 ‐ 10 

11 ‐ 20

21 ‐ 50

51 ‐ 10

> 100 

D. Len

< 2 yea

2 ‐ 5 ye

6 ‐ 10 y

11 ‐ 20

21 ‐ 30

31 ‐ 50

> 50 ye

er / Klarmae Custom

ustries acco

cial services 

cs 

h care 

ne building 

cals 

mation techn

es experien

ars 

years 

5 years 

0 years 

5 years 

0 years 

ears 

mber of cus

0 

0 

00 

gth of relat

ars 

ears 

years 

0 years 

0 years 

0 years 

ears 

ann er Really

ording to sa

 

nology 

ce of salesp

stomers ser

tionship bet

be king?

alespeople s

people surv

ved by sale

tween supp

surveyed 

veyed 

espeople 

plier and cuustomer 

% 

32 

22 

14 

2 

17 

13 

% 

14 

31 

21 

19 

5 

5 

5 

% 

20 

16 

22 

17 

25 

% 

5 

8 

11 

26 

16 

20 

14 

17

HombuWhen s

Data fro

study is

custome

variance

Demare

construc

custome

2005).

strategy

4.2 M

For item

new. Th

(includi

As in p

encount

Given t

tion, e.g

custome

Items g

scale we

on exist

encount

from th

listening

tion of c

with ite

Dwyer,

disagree

collabor

compro

urg / Mülleshould th

om the three

s the indivi

er response

e in judgme

ee, and Wo

cts (i.e., att

er satisfacti

As a resul

y.

Measure De

m generation

he measures

ing the new

previous res

ters was as

the study ob

g., the degr

ers.

enerally com

ere modifie

ting scales

ter. More sp

he Saxe and

g behaviors

customer so

ems referrin

Hill, and

ements, tw

rative hand

mising scal

er / Klarmae Custom

e sources w

dual salesp

s for each s

ents related

lf 1984) fo

titude towa

on) are all a

lt, aggregat

evelopme

n, we modi

s were furth

and the ori

search (Fran

sessed via

bjectives, th

ree to whic

me from tw

ed to match

measuring

pecifically,

d Weitz (19

s (Castleber

olutions, aga

ng to custo

Martin (2

o new item

dling of co

le were com

ann er Really

Table 2 S

were matche

erson, data

salesperson.

d to the sam

or the custo

ard the sale

above .89, i

ting the cu

ent

ified existin

her refined b

ginal wordi

nke and Pa

salesperson

his is adequ

ch an offer

wo sources.

the specific

specific beh

to measure

982) scale a

rry, Shepher

ain one item

omer-orient

000). To m

ms were co

onflicts. Sim

mbined with

be king?

Sample Com

ed using cod

was match

. As aggreg

me salespers

mer constru

esperson, at

indicating st

ustomer resp

ng scales, w

based on an

ing) can be

ark 2006), s

n self-report

uate, as asp

is customi

First, items

c context of

haviors rele

e identifica

are combine

rd, and Rid

m from the

ted techniq

measure co

ombined wi

miliarly two

h one item f

mposition

de numbers

hed at the s

gation may

son, we com

ucts. The rw

ttitude towa

trong consi

ponses for

with only ver

intensive p

found in th

salesperson

ts (as oppo

pects related

ized, often

s from the o

f sales encou

evant for th

tion of cust

ed with thr

dnour 1999)

Saxe and W

ques in sale

ollaborative

ith Rahim’

o modified

from the Sa

. As the uni

salesperson

be problem

mputed the

wg(J) values

ard a suppl

stency (Bro

each sales

ry few item

pretest. A co

e Appendix

customer o

osed to cust

d to costs o

cannot eas

original Sax

unters. Seco

he respectiv

tomer requ

ree items re

). With rega

Weitz (1982

es presenta

e handling

s (1983) sc

d items from

axe and Wei

it of analysi

level by av

matic if there

rwg(J) index

for the thr

lier’s produ

own and Ha

sperson is

ms being com

omplete list

x.

orientation

tomer asses

of customer

ily be obse

xe and Weit

ond, items a

ve stage of t

irements tw

eferring to e

ard to the p

2) scale is co

ations ident

of objectio

cale for m

m Rahim’s

itz (1982) c

18

is in this

veraging

e is high

x (James,

ree focal

ucts, and

auenstein

a viable

mpletely

of items

in sales

sments).

orienta-

erved by

z (1982)

are based

the sales

wo items

effective

presenta-

ombined

tified by

ons and

easuring

s (1983)

customer

HombuWhen s

orientat

measuri

the Saxe

Followi

perform

margin.

assessed

A subje

perform

and Per

better jo

52).

A self-r

maintain

perform

measure

of orga

“consum

previou

results w

Third, a

to comm

Using

salesper

and Soh

with thr

Custom

Two co

number

perform

custome

urg / Mülleshould th

tion scale t

ing the use

e and Weitz

ing Oliver a

mance comp

Thus, in l

d through su

ective (versu

mance betwe

rreault 1982

ob of tappin

report (ver

n employe

mance inform

es are valid

anizational

mes a lot o

us research

with regard

a series of te

mon method

evaluations

rson is mea

hi (1997). L

ree modifie

er satisfacti

ontrol variab

r of years t

mance. Qual

er attitude c

er / Klarmae Custom

to measure

of informat

z (1982) sca

and Anders

pared to tha

ine with re

ubjective (v

us objective

een salespe

2, p. 357). A

ng the cont

rsus superv

e trust ma

mation. Mor

d. First, sup

citizenship

of time com

on the perf

d to self-rep

ests describ

d variance.

s from the

asured with

Likewise, a

ed items fro

ion is measu

bles are inc

the salesper

lity of serv

constructs. I

ann er Really

the consid

tive closing

ale.

son (1994),

at of their c

ecent sales r

versus objec

e) sales per

eople from

Also, there

tent domain

visor-rated)

any firms d

reover, for

ervisor perf

p behaviors

mplaining”

formance o

ported and

bed in the re

participati

three items

a customer’s

om a scale

ured with fo

cluded in th

rson has w

vices and cu

It is measure

be king?

deration of

techniques

the particip

colleagues

research (e.

ctive) self-re

rformance m

different co

is empirical

n of the per

sales perfo

did not all

at least thre

formance ra

s of the sa

(MacKenzi

outcomes of

supervisor

esults sectio

ing custom

s adapted fr

s attitude to

e used by M

our items fr

he model. S

worked in s

ustomer-rel

ed using tw

f customer

s are specifi

pating sales

regarding o

.g., Wiesek

eport (versu

measure wa

ompanies c

l evidence t

formance c

ormance m

low their m

ee reasons i

atings may

alesperson,

ie, Podsako

f customer

r-rated perfo

on establishe

mers, a cus

from a relate

oward a su

Miyazaki, G

rom Hombu

Salesperson

sales) is mo

lated busine

wo items from

interests. T

cations of a

speople had

orders, sale

ke et al. 200

us superviso

as used, bec

cannot be co

that subject

construct” (R

measure was

managers t

t is likely th

be biased b

such as w

off, and Fet

orientation

ormance (B

es that our f

stomer’s a

ed scale em

upplier’s pr

Grewal and

urg and Stoc

n experienc

odeled as a

ess process

m Homburg

The two it

a broader ite

d to rate th

es, and cont

09), perform

or-rated) me

cause otherw

ompared (B

tive measur

Rich et al.

s used, bec

to share in

hat these se

by their per

whether he

tter 1993).

n yielded co

Brown et al

findings are

ttitude tow

mployed by

roducts is m

Goodstein

ck (2004).

ce (measure

antecedent

ses is linke

g and Stock

19

tems for

em from

eir sales

tribution

mance is

easures.

wise the

Behrman

res “do a

1999, p.

cause to

ndividual

elf-report

rceptions

e or she

Second,

onsistent

l. 2002).

e not due

ward the

Ramsey

measured

n (2005).

ed as the

of sales

ed to the

k (2004).

HombuWhen s

The mo

product

the ind

importa

and com

overall

assessed

and Ros

4.3 M

Reliabil

for each

orientat

construc

variance

construc

Overall

compos

custome

custome

ly signi

1987).

urg / Mülleshould th

oderator va

t individual

dividuality

ance is mea

mpetitive int

price posi

d through a

ssiter 2007)

Measure As

lity and val

h factor. Th

tion in sales

cts. Thus, e

e of the fi

ct.

, the meas

site reliabili

er orientatio

er orientatio

ificant, indi

er / Klarmae Custom

ariables are

lity, manage

of typical

asured with

tensity with

itioning of

single item

.

ssessmen

lidity of the

his include

s encounters

equivalent t

five dimens

sures used

ties well ab

on and its

on to its five

icating unid

ann er Really

e measured

ers were pro

products s

two items

five items

their busin

m, because it

nt

e measures

d a higher

s as second

to item relia

sions expla

exhibit goo

bove the rec

outcomes,

e dimension

dimensional

be king?

d through s

ovided with

sold by the

adapted fro

adapted fro

ness unit i

t refers to a

were asses

order facto

order const

abilities, it

ained throu

od psychom

commended

item loadi

ns) are all p

lity and est

sales manag

h four new

eir busines

om Porter, W

m Jaworski

in comparis

a concrete an

sed through

or analysis

truct and its

is possible

gh the und

metric prop

d threshold

ings (as we

ositive, high

tablishing c

ger assessm

items askin

ss unit. Fur

Wiener, and

i and Kohli

son to thei

nd singular

h confirmat

(Brown 20

s five dimen

to compute

derlying cu

perties. All

of .70 (see

ell as the c

h in magnit

convergent

ments. To

ng them to

rthermore,

d Frankwick

(1993). Fin

ir competit

concept (B

tory factor

006) with c

nsions as fi

e the perce

ustomer ori

constructs

Table 3). B

coefficients

tude, and sta

validity (A

20

measure

evaluate

product

k (2003)

nally, the

tors was

Bergkvist

analyses

customer

rst order

entage of

ientation

s exhibit

Both, for

s linking

atistical-

Anderson

HombuWhen s

1.  Custo

in  s

(SP) 

2.  Sales 

3.  Custo

towa

salesp

4.  Custo

towa

produ

5.  Custo

satisf

6.  Sales

exper

7.  Quali

custo

businSP = SalesC = Custo* Constrube compu

Also, m

gartner

custome

the mod

of the f

Followi

internal

Nesselro

urg / Mülleshould th

Variable 

omer  orien

sales  enco

performan

omer’s  a

rd 

person (C) 

omer’s  a

rd  a  sup

ucts (C) 

omer  

faction (C) 

person  

rience (SP) 

ty of servic

omer‐relate

ness processsperson data omer data uct measured uted. 

most item re

1994; see

er interests

del to preser

five dimens

ing suggesti

consistenc

oade 1999)

er / Klarmae Custom

Mea

ntation

ounters 5.8

ce (SP)  4.9

ttitude

the 6.1

ttitude

pplier’s 5.3

5.6

13.3

ces and

d 

ses (C) 

4.8

through a sin

Table 3

eliabilities a

Appendix).

dimension

rve concept

ions of cus

ions to prior

cy) we kep

.

ann er Really

an  SD  C

83  .55  .8

96  .93  .8

13  .98  .9

33  .94  .8

67  .96  .9

30  8.36 n/

89  .61  .7

ngle indicator,

Correlation

are above t

. The most

of custome

tual compre

stomer orien

ritize conce

pt these ite

be king?

CR  AVE 

88  .60 

88  .71 

93  .81 

85  .59 

94  .78 

/a* n/a*

71  .56 

 composite re

n and Measu

the recomm

t important

er orientatio

hensiveness

ntation. Ag

eptual conce

ems in the

1  2 

1.00  

.31  1.00

.23  .30

.25  .09

.07  .32

‐

.02 .30

‐

.13 .26

eliability and a

urement Inf

mended valu

exception

on with a va

s. The few o

ain, deviati

erns in indic

e model (e

3  4 

   

   

1.00  

.36  1.00

.51  .63 

.02  ‐.19

.36  .27 

average varian

formation

ue of .40 (B

concerns th

alue of .37,

other excep

ions from .4

cator selecti

.g., Little,

5  6

   

   

   

0     

1.00   

9  .02  1.0

.54  .08

nce extracted 

Bagozzi and

he consider

, which was

ptions conce

40 are rathe

ion (vs. max

Lindenberg

21

7 

 

 

 

 

 

00   

8  1.00

cannot 

d Baum-

ration of

s kept in

ern items

er small.

ximizing

ger, and

HombuWhen s

Additio

clearly

construc

through

(assesse

custome

fit of t

RMSEA

urg / Mülleshould th

nally, it is i

distinguish

cts exhibits

h both cons

ed through s

er orientatio

the CFA m

A = .07).

er / Klarmae Custom

important to

hable pheno

s discrimin

structs is hi

squared cor

on meet this

model conta

ann er Really

o assess wh

omena. Acc

nant validit

igher than

rrelations). I

s criterion (

aining all c

be king?

hether the ou

cording to F

ty, if the a

their contri

In a CFA m

(as well as t

constructs i

utcomes of

Fornell and

average ite

ibution to e

model with

the remainin

is satisfacto

customer o

d Larcker (

em variance

explaining

all construc

ng construc

ory (χ2/d.f.

orientation r

(1981), any

e extracted

the other c

cts, the outc

cts). In addi

. = 1.58; CF

22

represent

y pair of

d (AVE)

construct

comes of

ition, the

FI = .94;

HombuWhen s

5 Re

5.1 R

We em

using M

at a ma

construc

of the i

encount

To anal

orientat

in our m

(2006),

All indi

converg

coeffici

and He

between

orientat

As in r

perform

shaped

Here, n

H3) the

2003).

With re

indicate

(Bentler

(RMSE

satisfact

urg / Mülleshould th

esults

Results rel

mployed stru

Mplus 4.2 (M

anageable le

ct, it is mea

items for e

ters.

lyze the po

tion on sales

model. Usin

to measure

icators wer

gence (e.g.,

ents (e.g., C

ess 2007). W

n customer

tion.

regression,

mance (η4) is

effect. Othe

onsignifican

relationshi

egard to mo

es good fit (

r and Bone

A = .07) is

torily fits th

er / Klarmae Custom

ated to Ma

uctural equa

Muthen and

evel while p

asured throu

each dimen

otential non

s performan

ng the uncon

e the quadra

re mean-cen

Lee, Song,

Cohen et al.

With mean

orientation

H1 is supp

s statisticall

er than hypo

nt path coe

ip between

odel fit, the

(Kline 2004

ett 1980; K

s a sign of

he data. Para

ann er Really

ain Effects

ation mode

Muthen 20

preserving

ugh item pa

sion serve

nlinear, inv

nce (H1), w

nstrained mo

atic term we

ntered befo

and Poon 2

. 2003) with

n-centered d

n and the d

ported if γ4

ly significan

othesized, w

fficients ca

these cons

ratio of chi

4), the comp

Kline 2004),

reasonable

ameter estim

be king?

s

eling to test

006). To kee

the multi-fa

arcels (Bago

as five ind

verted U-sh

e included t

odel specifi

e squared th

ore creating

2004), whil

hout altering

data the lin

dependent v

1×1 linking

nt and nega

we also link

an be viewe

tructs is in

i-square va

parative fit

, and the r

fit (Brown

mates are sh

t our hypot

ep the numb

faceted natu

ozzi and Ed

dicators of

haped effect

the square o

ication prop

he five indi

g the produ

e facilitatin

g the form o

near coeffic

variables at

the latent

ative, indica

k the quadra

d as suppor

ndeed contin

lue to degre

index (CFI

oot mean s

ne and Cude

hown in Fig

thesized m

ber of param

ure of the cu

dwards 1998

customer o

t of a sale

of customer

posed by Ma

cators of cu

uct indicator

ng the interp

of the relati

cient captur

t the mean

quadratic t

ating a curv

atic term to

rt that (as p

nuously pos

ees of freed

I = .90) sug

square error

eck 1993).

gure 3.

ain effects

meters in th

ustomer ori

8), i.e., the a

orientation

sperson’s c

r orientation

arsh, Wen,

ustomer orie

rs to enabl

pretation of

ionship (Ech

res the rela

n level of c

term ξ1×ξ1

vilinear, inv

customer a

predicted by

sitive (Coh

dom (χ2/d.f

ggests accep

r of approx

Overall, th

23

(H1-H6)

he model

ientation

averages

in sales

customer

n (ξ1×ξ1)

and Hau

entation.

e model

the path

hambadi

ationship

customer

to sales

verted U-

attitudes.

y H2 and

en et al.

f. = 1.69)

ptable fit

ximation

he model

HombuWhen s

* p < .05  Notes: C  The con  control v

Fi

Consiste

perform

p < .05)

optimum

implies

We also

orientat

p < .05)

same tim

not sign

orientat

Also, co

< .01) a

custome

Custorienta

ξ(linea

Custorienta

ξ1(quadra

urg / Mülleshould th

5; ** p < .01 Completely statinuous lines variables used

igure 3 Dim

ent with H1

mance (γ41x1

). Thus, the

m level of s

that at the a

o find empi

tion has a p

) and a cus

me, the effe

nificant (γ1

tion in sales

onsistent wi

and a custo

er satisfactio

tomer tion (SP) ξ1r term)

tomer tion (SP) 

1xξ1atic term)

er / Klarmae Custom

andardized coindicate the ed in the mode

mensions of

1, the quadra

= -.28, p <

e overall eff

salesperson

average lev

rical suppor

positive imp

stomer’s att

ects of the q

11x1 = -.10, p

encounters

ith H4, H5, a

omer’s attitu

on, which in

γ41 = .21*

γ41x1 = ‐.28*

γ21x1 = ‐.02n.

γ11 = .24

ann er Really

oefficients areeffects of the el. 

f a Salespers

atic term of

< .05), whil

ffect is nonl

customer o

el of custom

rt for H2 an

pact on a cu

titude towa

quadratic te

p > .10; γ21

s has a conti

and H6, a cu

ude toward

n turn posit

Attitudsalesp

Quserviproce

s.

**

Attto

prod

be king?

e shown. n.s. =major variable

son’s Custo

f customer o

le the effec

linear in the

orientation.

mer orientat

nd H3. More

ustomer’s a

ard a suppli

erm of custo

x1 = -.02, p

inuously po

ustomer’s at

a supplier’

tively affect

de toward person (C) η1

ality of ices and esses (C)              ξ3

γ33

γ23 = .40**

γ13 =.46**

titude oward ducts (C)  η2

= not significaes, while the d

omer Orienta

orientation

ct of the lin

e shape of

The positiv

tion, its effe

e specificall

attitude tow

ier’s produc

omer orienta

p > .10). Th

ositive effec

ttitude towa

’s products

ts sales perf

Csat 

SEx

3 = 37**.

nt. dotted lines in

ation in Sal

has a negat

near term is

an inverted

ve coefficien

ect is still po

ly, the linea

ward the sal

cts (γ21 = .2

ation on cus

hus, a sales

ct on custom

ard the sales

(β32 = .45,

formance (β

Customer tisfaction (C) 

η3

Salesperson         perience (SP) 

ξ2

(SP)  Sa

(C)  Cu

ndicate the ef

es Encounte

tive impact

positive (γ

d U and the

nt of the lin

ositive.

ar term of c

esperson (γ

26, p < .05)

stomer attit

sperson’s c

mer attitudes

sperson (β3

p < .01) in

β43 = .24, p <

     

β43 = .24**

γ42 = .31**

alesperson data

ustomer data

24

ffects of    

ers

on sales

γ41 = .21,

ere is an

near term

customer

γ11 = .24,

). At the

tudes are

customer

s.

1 =.22, p

nfluence

< .01).

Sales performance (S

η4

SP) 

HombuWhen s

5.2 R

H7 to H

custome

First, w

line with

(SPERF

custome

[1]

Using O

sales en

equation

variable

COopt =

Based o

high va

estimate

orientat

 

 

Parame

Optimusalespeorientatencount

Chow st

p value 

Wald st

p value 

a) Based o

Table

urg / Mülleshould th

Results rel

H10 predict

er orientatio

we determin

h the match

F) was regr

er orientatio

SPE

OLS estimat

ncounters (

n as (βl/(-2

es, a transfo

6.20.

on median s

alues of the

ed in both s

tion for low

eters 

m level of arson’s custotion in salestersa) 

tatistic 

atistic 

on unstandard

4 Impact of

er / Klarmae Custom

ated to Ma

t that conte

on. To test t

ed the optim

hing structur

ressed on t

on, on custo

ERF = α + β

tes for this m

COopt) can

2×β2) =(.26/

ormation ba

splits, we cr

e moderator

ubsamples.

and high le

i

lo

a omer s  

.2

dized coefficie

f Moderator

ann er Really

ain Effects

extual vari

these hypoth

mum level

ral equation

the linear (

omer satisfa

1 × CO + β2

model, the o

be compu

/(-2×-.35)=.

ack to the or

reated for e

r. For every

Then, it wa

evels of the

Product mportance

ow  high

25  1.25

3.42 

.01 

2.13 

.14 

ents for mean

r Variables

Orientatio

be king?

s

ables influ

heses we re

of custome

n in the SEM

(CO) and q

ction (CS),

2 × (CO)2 +

optimum le

uted based

37). These

riginal scal

each modera

y moderator

as possible

contextual

Proindiv

h  low   

5  .13 

4

6

‐centered var

on the Opti

on in Sales E

ence the o

ly on multi-

er orientatio

M model (se

quadratic (C

and on sale

β3 × CS + β

evel of sales

on the firs

values are

e from 1 to

ator subsam

r, the mode

to compare

variable. Re

Moderator

oduct  viduality 

    high     

2.52 

4.91 

.00 

6.59 

.01 

riables. 

imum Level

Encounters

optimum le

-group regre

on across th

ee Figure 3)

CO2) terms

es experienc

β4 × EXP +

sperson cust

t derivation

e based on

o 7 results in

mples with lo

el from equ

the optima

esults are pr

r variables 

Supplier’sposition

low      

.18 

4.47

.00 

5.95

.01 

l of a Salesp

evel of sale

ession.

he entire sam

), sales perfo

of a sales

ce (EXP):

+ ε.

tomer orien

n of the re

the mean-

n an optimu

ow values a

uation (1) w

al levels of c

resented in

s price ning 

C

high      lo

1.63  .2

7 

5 

person’s Cu

25

esperson

mple. In

formance

person’s

ntation in

egression

centered

um level

and with

was then

customer

Table 4.

Competitiveintensity 

ow      high

22  1.99

3.47 

.01 

4.13 

.04 

ustomer

 

h     

9 

HombuWhen s

Table 4

strongly

first use

vector o

and the

statistic

cantly b

differ as

Second,

forcing

values o

(i.e., H0

significa

provide

5.3 R

Nested d

are nest

units, w

statistic

[2] S

This mo

of the s

custome

(CS), a

specifie

subgrou

support

Also, in

with H1

show th

the form

urg / Mülleshould th

4 shows th

y between g

ed a Chow

of regressio

correspond

is highly s

between sub

s well.

, using a W

the optimu

of the mode

0: COoptlow =

ant for all

strong emp

Robustnes

data. The d

ted in sales

which are n

al conclusio

SPERFijkl=

odel takes th

salesperson

er orientatio

and salespe

ed as a rand

ups in the

for H1, as

n random co

1, in all firm

hat the relat

m of an inve

er / Klarmae Custom

hat, for eac

groups. To

Test to tes

on coefficien

ding vector o

significant

bgroups, wh

Wald test (M

um level CO

erator to be

= COopthigh)

contextual

pirical suppo

s Checks

data in this s

units (repre

nested in f

ons. Therefo

αjkl + β1jklC

he sample s

n i in sales

on (CO), th

erson exper

dom coeffic

sample. H

s they repli

oefficient m

ms, business

tionship bet

erted U.

ann er Really

ch moderat

test wheth

st the null

nts Blow in t

of the high

for all mod

hich indica

Muthen and

Ooptlow of sal

e equal to th

. Table 4 sh

variables,

ort for H8, H

study is hie

esented by t

firms. Igno

fore, we also

O + β2jklCO

structure exp

unit j, bus

he square o

rience (EXP

cient model

HLM results

icate the SE

models, para

s units, or sa

tween custo

be king?

tor, optimu

her these di

hypothesis

the group w

values grou

derators. Th

ates that the

d Muthen 2

lesperson cu

he optimum

hows the re

except pro

H9, and H10

erarchical in

the 56 sales

ring these

o tested hyp

O2 + β3jklCS

plicitly into

siness unit

of customer

P). As ind

l, i.e., the p

s regarding

EM results

ameters are

ales units st

omer orient

m levels o

ifferences a

H0: Blow =

with low va

up Bhigh. As

hus, regress

e optimum

006) we te

ustomer ori

m level COo

esulting chi-

duct impor

, while H7 i

n nature. Sal

s managers)

dependenc

pothesis H1

+ β4jklEXP

o account. T

k, and firm

r orientation

dicated by

parameters

g the avera

(β1jkl = .16,

estimated f

tudied the re

tation and s

of customer

are statistica

Bhigh, i.e.,

alues of the

shown in T

sion coeffic

levels of cu

ested more

ientation in

opthigh in the

-square test

rtance. In s

s only parti

lespeople (t

), which are

cies may re

using the fo

.

The sales per

m l is here

n (CO2), cu

the subscri

are allowed

age effects

, p < .05; β

for every su

esulting reg

sales perform

r orientatio

ally signific

the equalit

contextual

Table 4, the

cients differ

ustomer ori

specific co

the group w

e high-value

statistics. T

um, these

ally support

the unit of a

e nested in b

esult in mi

ollowing mo

rformance (

explained

ustomer sati

ipts, this m

d to vary ac

provide ad

β2jkl = -.37, p

ubgroup. Co

gression coe

mance is sh

26

on differ

cant, we

ty of the

variable

Chow F

r signifi-

ientation

nstraints

with low

es group

They are

analyses

ted.

analysis)

business

isleading

odel:

(SPERF)

through

isfaction

model is

cross all

dditional

p < .05).

onsistent

efficients

haped in

HombuWhen s

Commo

salesper

regardin

(it impl

subgrou

method

First, a

a single

salesper

whereas

improve

Second,

loads on

testing.

factor w

equally

other co

true ma

stable a

results.

Third, w

mance

manage

the squa

significa

supporte

5.4 Aen

The arg

The ben

(2) Incr

urg / Mülleshould th

on Method B

rson self-re

ng H1 (Pod

lies that th

ups of the s

bias.

Harman sin

e factor wou

rson self-re

s a model w

ement in fit

, a common

n all items b

To achieve

were specifi

affected by

onstructs, re

agnitude of

after the inc

we replicat

information

ers) on the a

are of custo

ant at the 1

ed using da

Additional ncounters

gument behi

nefits of inc

reasing cust

er / Klarmae Custom

Bias. Custom

eports. Thu

dsakoff et al

e relationsh

sample), w

ngle factor t

uld account

eports. The

where all rel

(Δχ²(2df) =

n method f

based on sa

e model con

ied as being

y CMV. Als

eflecting th

customer o

clusion of th

ed the non

n at the sal

average cus

omer orient

10% level, b

ata from mu

analyses s

ind our foca

creasing cu

tomer orien

ann er Really

mer orienta

us, common

l. 2003). Al

hip between

e conducted

test was em

for a large p

e single fac

levant const

= 171.8, p <

factor was i

alesperson s

nvergence (

g of the sam

so, the meth

he assumptio

orientation

he method

nlinear effec

les unit lev

stomer orie

tation negat

but this see

ltiple sourc

of costs a

al nonlinear

ustomer orie

ntation is co

be king?

ation and sa

n method v

lthough this

n both con

d three test

mployed (Po

part of the v

ctor model

tructs are sp

< .01). This

included in

self-reports

(Rindfleisch

me size, ref

hod factor n

on that the

and/or sale

factor, whi

ct of custom

vel. We reg

ntation in t

tively affect

ems accepta

es, again su

and benef

r hypothesis

entation fol

ostly. The p

ales perform

variance (C

s risk is redu

nstructs has

ts to rule o

odsakoff et a

variance of

l yielded a

pecified ind

suggests tha

n the structu

and thus co

h et al. 200

flecting the

eeded to be

degree of C

s performan

ich also sug

mer orienta

gressed sale

the sales un

ts sales (γ41

able given t

uggesting th

fits of cus

s H1 is base

llow the pri

receding se

mance are bo

CMV) may

uced, becau

a differen

out the poss

al. 2003) to

all manifest

a chi-square

dividually le

at CMV is n

ural model

ontrols for C

08), all load

e assumptio

e specified a

CMV is ind

nce. Result

ggests CMV

ation using

es unit sale

nit. Again, c

1×1 = -.320)

the small sa

hat CMV is

stomer ori

ed on two k

inciple of d

ections were

oth measur

y bias the

use H1 is no

nt form in d

sibility of c

o determine

t variables b

e of 226.1

eads to a sig

not a seriou

used to tes

CMV in hy

dings of the

n that all it

as uncorrela

dependent f

ts regarding

V does not

managerial

es (reported

consistent w

. The effect

ample. Thu

not a major

entation i

key proposit

diminishing

e devoted to

27

ed using

findings

on-linear

different

common

whether

based on

(27df),

gnificant

us threat.

st H1. It

ypothesis

e method

tems are

ated with

from the

g H1 are

bias the

l perfor-

d by the

with H1,

t is only

us, H1 is

r threat.

n sales

tions. (1)

returns.

o testing

HombuWhen s

the

general

orientat

closely

can onl

Figure 3

Diminis

from a n

of dimi

models

anteced

positive

salespeo

characte

urg / Mülleshould th

implication

tion and sal

at some da

ly be consi

3 in mind.

shing Benef

nonlinear m

inishing ret

where the s

dent to cust

e word of m

ople (using

eristics were

er / Klarmae Custom

n of these

les perform

ata regarding

idered tenta

fits of Cust

multilevel re

turns applie

square root

omer intent

mouth (WO

g HLM) an

e included.

ann er Really

ideas, i.e.,

mance in the

g these two

ative, as the

tomer Orien

egression an

es to the be

of custome

tions to bu

M). In all m

nd a numb

be king?

, the existe

e shape of

o propositio

e empirical

ntation in S

nalysis that w

enefits of c

er orientatio

uy more, cu

models cus

ber of cont

ence of a r

an inverted

ns. Howeve

l study was

Sales Enco

was designe

customer or

n (reflecting

ustomer pric

tomers wer

trol variabl

relationship

d U. This

er, the analy

s designed

unters. Tab

ed to test w

rientation.

g diminishi

ce insensiti

re specified

les pertaini

between c

section loo

yses describ

with the m

ble 5 show

whether the p

We analyz

ng returns)

ivity, and c

d as being n

ing to rela

28

customer

ks more

bed here

model in

s results

principle

ed three

acted as

customer

nested in

ationship

HombuWhen s

Indepen

Custom

Square 

Control

Salespe

Control

Costs of

Size of C

Numbe

Length o

Length 

SalespeNotes: Una) Measubusines

b) Measuwould 

c) Measud) Measuthe  surelation

e) Measu

Tabl

The squ

intentio

and BIC

data tha

salesper

smaller.

Costs of

orientat

salespeo

groups,

urg / Mülleshould th

ndent Varia

mer Orientat

Root of Cus

 Variable (S

rson Experi

 Variables (

f Changing t

Customer F

r of Alterna

of Firm Rela

of  Respo

rson nstandardizedred  through ss relationshipred through sneed to be (inred through tred through  fpplier  (contranship). red through c

le 5 Results

uare root of

ns to buy m

C) indicate

an its linear

rson custom

.

of Customer

tion we use

ople. In Ta

created thro

er / Klarmae Custom

ables 

tion (Salesp

stomer Orie

Salesperson

ience 

(Customer 

the Supplie

irme)  

ative Supplie

ationship w

ondent  Rel

d coefficients two  Likert‐scp with the supsingle item (5n percent of thtwo Likert‐scafour Likert‐scactual  obligat

closed questio

s of Multilev

Cus

f customer o

more is onl

in all three

equivalent.

mer orienta

r Orientatio

ed data rega

able 6 the

ough a quin

ann er Really

person Data

entation  

n Data) 

Data) 

r d) 

ers 

with Supplier

ationship 

are shown. +: caled  items  (pplier.  scale points)he current priled items (α=aled  items  (αtions,  individ

on (12 scale po

vel Regress

tomer Orien

orientation i

ly significan

cases that

. Thus, thes

ation, the

on in Sales

arding the c

mean vales

ntile split alo

be king?

Inte

Buy

a) 

.

r 

with 

p ≤ .10; *: p ≤α=.75)  asking

 asking custoice of the sup.83) referring α=.65) referrinualized  produ

oints) asking f

sion to Asse

ntation in S

is linked to

nt at the 10

the nonline

e results co

incrementa

Encounter

customer st

s of these

ong the valu

Dependent

ention to 

y Morea) 

 

1.01+ 

 

‐.00 

 

.08** 

‐.05 

.27* 

‐.00 

.00 

≤ .05; **: p ≤ .g  customers  t

mers to stateplier) to maketo positive W

ng to  four diffucts,  specific 

for the revenu

ess Diminish

ales Encoun

all three ou

0% level. A

ear model is

onfirm the id

l benefits

rs. To look

tructure and

variables a

ues of the cu

t Variables 

Price 

Insensitiv

 

.60* 

 

‐.00 

 

.00 

‐.09**

‐.07+ 

‐.00+ 

.01 

.01.  to  state  thei

e how much loe them changeWOM behaviorferent aspectinvestments,

ues of the cust

hing Return

nters

utcomes, alt

Also, inform

s a better ap

dea that wit

of further

at possible

d time use

are listed fo

ustomer ori

(Customer 

vityb) 

P

W

* 

r  plans  to  ex

ower compete the supplierr. s of costs  for,  costs  for  e

tomer firm. 

ns of Salesp

though the e

mation criter

pproximatio

th growing l

increases

e costs of c

of the parti

for five sale

ientation co

29

Data) 

Positive 

WOMc) 

 

1.53* 

 

.02 

 

.11** 

‐.10* 

.09 

‐.01 

.07* 

xpand  the 

itor prices r.  

r changing nding  the 

erson

effect on

ria (AIC

on to the

levels of

become

customer

icipating

esperson

nstruct.

HombuWhen s

Variable

Custom

Sales Pe

# of Cus

#  of 

Average

%  of 

Interact

%  of  C

Elemena)  Measub)  Averagunit. 

Ta

Coincid

level of

those sa

reasonin

forced t

custome

custome

relative

informa

Table 6

costly i

ships.

urg / Mülleshould th

e 

er Orientat

erformance

stomers Ser

Customers

eb) 

Purely  In

tionsa)  

Customer  I

tsa) red through oge number of 

able 6 Descr

dentally, the

f customer o

alespeople t

ng behind H

to spend m

ers in total.

ers if one lo

number of

ative custom

6 provides s

n terms of

er / Klarmae Custom

tion 

 

rveda) 

s  Served/S

nformative 

nteractions

open questioncustomers se

riptive Anal

e mean cust

orientation d

that are too

H1, to main

more time w

. In line wi

ooks at the a

f customers.

mer interacti

some eviden

how salesp

ann er Really

Sales  Unit

Custome

s  with  Sale

n. erved calculate

lysis of Cos

tomer orient

derived earl

o customer-

ntain a very

with the cu

ith this reas

absolute num

At the sam

ions (i.e., w

nce that ver

people alloc

be king?

Lowest

(n=38)

5.13 

4.67 

104 

t .91 

r 50.45

es 49.55

ed from respo

sts of Salesp

Encounters

tation of gr

lier. Thus, g

-oriented ac

y high leve

ustomers th

soning, the

mber of cus

me time, the

without any s

ry high leve

cate their ti

Salesperso

in S

Low 

(n=39)

5.64 

4.86 

86 

.95 

50.52

49.48

onses from al

person Cust

s

roup 4 equa

group 5 with

ccording to

el of custom

ey serve, r

salespeopl

stomers and

e salespeopl

sales elemen

els of custom

ime within

on Custome

Sales Encou

High 

(n=38) 

5.90 

5.05 

117 

1.03 

47.83 

52.13 

l participating

tomer Orien

als almost ex

h even high

our results

mer orientat

requiring th

e in group

d rank fourth

le in group

nt) than any

mer orienta

and across

er Orientati

unters 

Optimal

(n=40) 

6.21 

5.36 

111 

1.16 

49.95 

50.05 

g salespeople

ntation in Sa

xactly the o

er values re

s. As argue

tion salespe

hem to serv

5 serve the

h if one loo

5 have mor

y other grou

ation may in

s customer

30

on  

l  Too high

(n=38)

6.68 

5.21 

67 

.95 

54.81 

45.19 

 in a sales 

ales

optimum

epresents

ed in the

eople are

ve fewer

e fewest

oks at the

re purely

up. Thus,

n fact be

relation-

h

HombuWhen s

6 Dis

Custom

ships. A

complex

positive

the ques

determi

more th

and man

6.1 R

First, in

166) co

oriented

nature

concept

stages o

It is wo

ment be

evidenc

presenta

same ti

relation

Brown,

standing

custome

Second,

of cust

construc

optimum

Althoug

contradi

urg / Mülleshould th

scussion

mer-oriented

At the same

xity for the

e effect of c

stion arises,

ne its magn

han 500 cus

nagers.

Research Is

n his review

ncludes tha

d selling”. T

of the con

tualized wit

of a sales en

orth noting t

ehaviors (e

ce that sales

ation appro

me, our co

nship with t

and Mowe

g of custom

er orientatio

, this study

omer orien

cts shaped

m level of c

gh some m

icts scholar

er / Klarmae Custom

salesperso

e time, imp

selling orga

customer or

, whether th

nitude. Usi

stomers, thi

ssues

w of the sa

at “research

This study

nstruct (Sto

th five dim

ncounter.

that this con

e.g., collabo

sperson cus

oach”, which

onstruct doe

the custome

en 2004). F

mer orientat

on.

explicitly t

ntation. In

in the form

customer or

might find

rly and man

ann er Really

n behavior

plementing

anization. T

rientation o

here is an op

ing survey

is study add

alesperson c

is needed t

addresses

ock and H

mensions, e

nceptualizat

orative han

stomer orie

h is implied

es not com

er, such as

Future resea

tion and ou

akes a nonl

particular,

m of an inve

rientation in

this result

nagerial pr

be king?

s are key f

a customer

Taken togeth

on salespers

ptimal level

data from

dresses this

customer or

o fully unco

this issue b

Hoyer 2005

ach corresp

tion explici

dling of di

ntation can

d by earlier

mprise behav

getting to

arch could a

ur results re

linear persp

we find a

erted U. Th

n sales enco

to be con

actice. For

for building

r orientatio

her with the

son perform

l of custom

195 salesp

issue. It ha

rientation li

over the dim

by acknowl

5). Salespe

ponding to

itly refers to

isagreement

nnot be redu

r scales (Sch

viors that a

know a cu

analyze, ho

elate to thes

ective on st

a curviline

hus, we pro

ounters with

nsistent wit

instance, t

g lasting bu

on requires

e lack of ev

mance (Fran

mer orientatio

eople, 56 s

as implicati

iterature, Sc

mensions un

ledging the

erson custo

behaviors

o salesperso

ts). Thus, t

uced to bei

hwepker 20

aim at estab

ustomer pe

ow our mor

se purely re

tudying per

ar relations

ovide eviden

h regard to

th their int

to the best

uyer-seller

time and i

idence supp

nke and Park

on and wha

sales manag

ions for res

chwepker (

nderlying cu

e multi-dim

omer orient

in one of

on conflict m

this study p

ing “simply

003, p. 165)

blishing a p

rsonally (D

re functiona

elational as

formance o

ship betwe

nce that the

sales perfo

tuition, it

of our kno

31

relation-

ncreases

porting a

k 2006),

at factors

gers and

searchers

2003, p.

ustomer-

mensional

tation is

the five

manage-

provides

y a sales

). At the

personal

Donavan,

al under-

spects of

outcomes

een both

ere is an

ormance.

severely

owledge,

HombuWhen s

none of

custome

the sale

perspec

selling

our stud

relation

Against

salespeo

Park (2

they ex

relation

Finally,

Siders,

custome

look at

salesper

(e.g., re

Third, t

mance i

financia

reaction

focused

Venkate

simultan

custome

sales p

provide

custome

Cronin

(Franke

Fourth,

urg / Mülleshould th

f the studie

er orientatio

esperson cu

tive. For in

(e.g., Palma

dy, it seem

nships betwe

t this backd

ople exhibit

006) sugge

xperience d

nship (e.g., G

another po

George, an

er and sales

this issue m

rson commi

garding pric

there has be

is the best p

al sales per

ns (e.g., Hu

d sales cam

esan, and R

neously: fi

er orientatio

erformance

s an integ

er orientatio

2001; Goff

e and Park 2

this study

er / Klarmae Custom

es used in

on by Frank

ustomer orie

nstance, thi

atier, Schee

ms advisable

een key phe

drop, it ne

t levels of c

st, maybe s

difficulties

Ganesan 19

ossible reas

nd Dharwad

sperson (Gr

more closely

itment to sp

ce concessi

een some d

performance

rformance

unter and P

mpaign still

Reinartz 20

inancial sal

on affects t

e, the effec

grating expl

on is found

f et al. 1997)

2006).

responds to

ann er Really

the compre

ke and Park

entation lite

is approach

er, and Stee

e that resea

enomena.

eeds to be

customer ori

salespeople

in identify

994) and thu

on could be

dkar 2001),

rayson 200

y. For instan

pecific custo

ons).

discussion i

e measure in

might not

Perrault 200

l look at t

008). There

les perform

these outco

ct on custo

lanation to

d to consist

), whereas (

o calls to i

be king?

ehensive m

(2006) has

erature that

h can also

enkamp 200

archers in t

emphasized

ientation th

underestim

fying the a

us focus to

e an exagge

maybe as a

07; Heide an

nce, it woul

omers influe

n the sales

n relational

adequately

07). At the

the bottom

efore, in th

mance and

omes differe

omer attitu

the mixed

tently to af

(linear) effe

dentify the

meta-analysis

tested nonl

t limits itse

be found i

07; Yim, Ts

these fields

d that this

hat are highe

mate the cos

appropriate

o much on

erated comm

a result of

nd Wathne

ld be intere

ences their d

literature w

selling con

y account f

same time

line to ju

his study t

customer

ently. Whil

des is con

d findings

ffect custom

ects on sales

influence

s on outcom

linear effect

elf to a “th

in recent st

se, and Cha

s routinely

study doe

er than optim

sts of custom

time-horiz

securing lo

mitment to

a personal

2006). Fut

esting to bet

decisions in

whether fin

ntexts. It has

for more l

e, firms ad

udge its res

two outcom

attitudes.

le it has a n

ntinuously p

of previou

mer attitude

s performan

of moderat

mes of sale

ts. But it is

he more the

tudies on re

an 2008). B

consider n

es not addr

mal. As Fra

mer orienta

zon in a b

ong-term ou

the custom

friendship

ture researc

tter understa

n the selling

nancial sales

s been objec

ong-term c

opting a cu

sults (e.g.,

mes are co

Results sh

nonlinear e

positive. T

us research

es (e.g., Br

nce are sma

tor variable

32

esperson

not only

e better”

elational

Based on

nonlinear

ress why

anke and

ation. Or

business

utcomes.

mer (e.g.,

between

ch could

and how

g process

s perfor-

cted that

customer

ustomer-

Kumar,

nsidered

how that

effect on

This also

h, where

rady and

ll at best

s on the

HombuWhen s

effectiv

of cust

product

price str

These f

orientat

and Har

mance i

6.2 M

A first

reconsid

Particul

right sh

always

value of

also the

follow”

everybo

that this

custome

should n

This fin

manage

custome

strategy

orientat

30% of

It is nec

ward en

aversion

than th

urg / Mülleshould th

veness of sal

tomer orien

ts, in compe

rategy.

findings al

tion. For in

rdigree (19

in insurance

Managerial

important

der the lin

larly, while

hould the cu

right”. As

f corporate

e advice of U

or the rec

ody in the c

s widely he

er-oriented

not be king.

nding is es

ers look for

er-orientatio

y. In this con

tion levels b

the salespe

cessary to p

ndeavor (Ho

n, negative

e positive

er / Klarmae Custom

lesperson cu

ntation in

etitive envi

low for an

stance, the

94) do not

e companies

l Implicatio

managerial

nk between

in the era

ustomer be?

the Wall St

leaders is s

UK’s Mark

commendat

ompany un

eld belief is

behaviors i

.

specially im

ways to re

on of salesp

ntext, it is w

beyond the o

ople exhibi

point out tha

omburg, Dr

reactions to

reactions t

ann er Really

ustomer ori

sales enco

ronments, a

n integratio

effect of p

find an eff

s, whereas i

ons

l implicatio

n salespers

of relation

?”, they ofte

treet Journa

ome varian

keting Week

tion of form

derstands th

only partia

in sales enc

mportant in

educe costs

people who

worth emph

optimum m

t customer-

at reducing

roll, and To

o decreases

to increases

be king?

ientation (Fr

unters is s

and for sup

on of diver

product indi

fect of sales

in a real esta

on of this

son custom

nal selling m

en only get

al observed

nt of ‘We pu

k (2009) to

mer Orange

he customer

ally true, as

counters. T

n the ongo

while main

are “too cu

asizing that

may be quite

orientation

salesperson

otzek 2008)

s in perceive

s they exp

ranke and P

substantially

pplier firms

rging findin

ividuality e

sperson’s cu

ate context

study is th

mer orienta

many sales

an answer

d recently: “

ut customers

“Put the cu

e CEO Han

r is king” (T

there is an

Thus, there

ing econom

ntaining pe

ustomer-ori

t the numbe

e high. For i

levels high

n customer

). In particu

ed service l

perienced b

Park 2006).

y higher w

that have a

ngs on sal

explains wh

ustomer ori

McIntyre et

hat practitio

ation and s

people ask

of the type

“Perhaps th

s first’” (Pri

ustomer firs

ns Snook t

Tomkins 20

n optimum l

are times,

mic crisis,

rformance.

ented” prom

er of salespe

instance, in

her than the

orientation

ular, as cus

levels are li

efore. Thu

The optimu

with indivi

adopted a p

lesperson c

hy Howe, H

ientation on

t al. (2000)

oners are u

sales perfo

themselves

e: “The cus

he most ofte

ice 2009). C

st, then succ

to “make s

005, p. 13).

level with r

when the c

where man

Here, redu

mises to be

eople with c

our sample

optimum of

is not a stra

stomers exh

ikely to be

s, practition

33

um level

dualized

premium

customer

Hoffman,

n perfor-

do.

urged to

ormance.

s: “How

stomer is

en stated

Consider

cess will

sure that

We find

regard to

customer

ny sales

ucing the

a viable

customer

e, around

f 6.20.

aightfor-

hibit loss

stronger

ners are

HombuWhen s

advised

Kumar,

be a ver

costs of

Another

orientat

simply

encoura

In this c

salesper

custome

optimum

If salesp

warning

on our d

signals

the fewe

address

combine

addition

A third

product

interacti

particul

strongly

manage

characte

individu

level of

consist

custome

standard

urg / Mülleshould th

d to “soften

Venkatesan

ry effective

f serving ind

r word of c

tion levels th

renounce

aging custom

context, ano

rson custom

er orientati

m level of c

people score

g signal that

descriptive

can be iden

est custome

sales-relate

ed with a s

nal warning

important m

t portfolio in

ions and sal

ar, the resul

y to sales

ers are advi

eristics of th

ualized prod

f salesperso

mostly of o

er (Anderso

dized produ

er / Klarmae Custom

n the blow”

n, and Rein

e way to ma

dividual acc

caution is r

hat are opti

salesperson

mer-oriented

other import

mer orientati

ion scale t

customer ori

e consistent

t their beha

analysis reg

ntified. First

ers in absolu

ed issues in

salesperson

signs for pr

managerial

n heterogen

lesforce con

lts from this

performanc

ised to dev

he product

ducts at a p

on is very h

outcome co

on and Onye

ucts in ma

ann er Really

” of reduci

nartz (2008)

aintain perc

counts.

required. In

imal or low

n customer

d behaviors

tant manage

ion more clo

to assess s

ientation fro

tly higher th

aviors may b

garding the

t, salespeop

ute numbers

n less than 5

n’s customer

roblematic

implication

neous marke

ntrol system

s study sugg

ce in some

velop differ

and its spe

premium pri

high. In suc

ontrols, whi

emah 2006)

arketplaces

be king?

ing salespe

) find that im

eived custo

n our sampl

er. Thus, ou

r-orientation

s is still mor

erial implica

osely. Here

alesperson

om this sam

han a 6 on t

be potential

costs of cus

ple that are t

s. Second, s

50% of their

r orientatio

levels of sa

n from this

ets a “one f

ms leads to a

gest that cu

e market e

rent custom

cific marke

ice in highl

ch a context

ich are likel

). At the sam

with little

erson custom

mproving th

omer orienta

le 70% of t

ur study can

n as a w

re the issue

ation of this

, this study

customer

mple (6.20) c

this scale, th

lly counterp

stomer orie

too custome

salespeople

r customer

on score, th

alesperson c

research is

fits all” app

a substantial

ustomer orie

environmen

mer interacti

et. For insta

ly competiti

t, salesforce

ly to streng

me time, in

competitio

mer-orienta

he timelines

ation levels

the salespeo

nnot be seen

whole. For

than discou

s study is to

provides m

orientation

can also ser

his could be

productive.

ntation two

er-oriented

that are too

interactions

hese indicat

customer ori

that for firm

proach to sa

l misallocat

entation con

nts and les

ion models

ance, in bus

ive environ

e control sy

gthen salesp

business un

on, salesforc

ation. For i

ss of sales c

while redu

ople have c

n as an invi

many sale

uraging them

o monitor in

managers wit

. Additiona

rve as a ben

e used as a p

Additionall

o additional

in our samp

o customer-

s. Particular

ors can be

ientation.

ms offering

alesperson-c

tion of resou

ntributes mu

s in others

s depending

siness units

nments the o

ystems will

person focu

nits offering

ce control

34

instance,

calls can

ucing the

customer

itation to

espeople

m.

ndividual

th a new

ally, the

nchmark.

potential

ly, based

warning

ple serve

-oriented

rly when

used as

g a broad

customer

urces. In

uch more

s. Thus,

g on the

offering

optimum

need to

us on the

g mostly

systems

HombuWhen s

should f

to a spe

6.3 L

At least

further

orientat

Howeve

explaine

dimensi

Second,

orientat

of custo

describe

data col

needed

mance.

Third, m

25% la

orientat

instance

ship wit

using ou

Finally,

limits o

measure

complet

mance m

by analy

urg / Mülleshould th

focus on be

cific custom

imitations

t four limita

research. F

tion reveals

er, only 37%

ed through

ion “Use of

, the overa

tion on sale

omer orienta

e several ad

llected for th

to better u

most buyer-

asting for 1

tion might

e, customer

th the custo

ur data.

it needs to

our ability

ed at the s

tely covered

more strong

yzing its foc

er / Klarmae Custom

ehavioral co

mer) to stren

s

ations of th

First, the m

that most i

% of the va

the custom

f informative

arching them

s performan

ation, where

dditional ana

his study do

understand t

-supplier re

10 years o

also depen

-oriented be

omer. Unfor

o be noted t

to make c

ame time,

d. In partic

gly in the lo

cal hypothe

ann er Really

ontrols (e.g.

ngthen the f

his study ne

multidimensi

items and d

ariance of t

mer orientati

e closing te

me behind

nce is that t

eas the cost

alyses that p

oes not allo

the mechan

elationships

or less. Ho

nd on the s

ehaviors co

rtunately, h

hat this stu

causal infer

long-term

ular, it may

ong-run. Th

eses using lo

be king?

, a maximu

firm focus o

eed to be co

ional measu

dimensions

the conside

on construc

echniques” a

our predic

the law of d

ts of custom

provide som

w us to full

nisms linkin

covered in

owever, the

specific sta

ould be mor

hypotheses o

dy relies on

rences. Mo

effects of s

y well be th

erefore, fut

ongitudinal

um number

of the salesp

onsidered. T

urement mo

have very

ration of cu

ct. Also, the

are not entir

ction of a

diminishing

mer orientati

me evidence

ly test these

ng customer

n our sampl

e effectiven

age of the

re effective

of this kind

n data from

ost importan

salesperson

hat custome

ure research

data (Rindf

of follow-u

people.

They also p

odel for sa

good psych

ustomer int

e properties

rely satisfac

nonlinear

g returns app

ion increase

e for this re

e ideas. Thu

r-oriented b

le are quite

ness of sal

buyer-selle

in earlier s

d cannot be

m a cross-sec

ntly, as all

n customer

er attitudes

h could com

fleisch et al.

up calls with

provide ave

lesperson c

hometric pr

terests dime

s of the item

ctory.

effect of c

plies to the

e steadily. W

asoning, in

us, future res

behaviors to

old, with l

lesperson c

er relationsh

stages of a

e effectively

ctional surv

l our varia

orientation

affect sales

mplement th

. 2008).

35

h respect

enues for

customer

operties.

ension is

ms of the

customer

benefits

While we

sum the

search is

o perfor-

less than

customer

hip. For

relation-

y studied

vey. This

ables are

are not

s perfor-

his study

HombuWhen s

Item used i

I. Custome

Identificatio

Presentation

Solution-or

Considerati

Use of infor

II. Facets o

Identificatiseven-pointI ask myrequirementI ask directcustomers. I actively inspecific neeI attentiveunderstandiI summarizunderstandiPresentatio

I particulaespecially r

I focus on are of partic

I adapt my s

When presindividually

Collaboratseven-point

I am very atI routinely objections. I am very customers a

I actively cbetween my

I bring all dopen to reso

urg / Mülleshould th

APPEN

in this study

er orientation in

on of customer re

n of customer sol

riented handling o

ion of customer in

rmative closing te

of a salesperson’

ion t scale: “totally diy customers abts. ted questions to d

nvolve my customeds. ely listen to ming of their specifze my customeing of their specifon of customer s

arly focus on frelevant for my cu

those benefits ocular relevance fo

sales pitch very m

enting our produy to my customer

tive ht scale: “totally di

ttentive to customask my custom

committed to reand me.

create win/win sy customers and m

difference betweeolve disagreemen

er / Klarmae Custom

NDIX 1: SC

sales encounters

equirements

lutions

of objections and

nterests

echniques

s customer orien

of isagree” to “stronbout their spec

determine the spe

mers in meetings

my customers tfic needs. ers’ statements fic needs. olutions (salespe

functional inforustomers.

f our products anor my customers.

much to my custo

ucts and servicers’ requirements.

handling isagree” to “stron

mer objections. mers for the rea

esolve disagreem

ituations to resome.

en my customers nts.

ann er Really

ALE ITEM

s

disagreements

ntation in sales e

ngly agree” cific performanc

ecific needs of m

to determine the

to get a prope

to get a prope

eople); seven-poin

mation which

nd services whic

omers’ interests.

es, I respond ver

of ngly agree”

sons behind the

ments between m

olve disagreemen

and me out in th

be king?

MS FOR CO

Item rel. a) O

.78b) n/

.82b) n/

.62b) n/

.37b) n/

.46b) n/

encounters

customer

ce .42 “Ine

my .58 “I

eir .69 “Ine

er .63 “Ibu

er .36 “I

nt scale: “totally

is .41 “Mcuea

ch .48 “Fth

.73 “Isu

ry .70 “Mcuea

objections

.36 Neir .49 “I

unmy .60 N

nts .40 “Itoex

he .46 “Ithre

ONSTRUCT

Original item

/a

/a

/a

/a

/a

I try to figure oueeds are.”

I ask probing que

I try to get custoeeds with me.” I make an efforuyer’s point of vi

I summarize what

disagree” to “stroMake a sales ustomized or spach prospect.” Focus the sales tahe benefits it offerI offer the producuited to the customMake a sales ustomized or spach prospect.”

and

Newly developedI try to work wnderstanding of a

Newly developed

I try to work wito a problem xpectations.” I try to bring allhe open so thatesolved in the bes

T MEASUR

requirements

ut what a custom

estions.”

omers to discuss

rt to understandiew.”

t the buyer has sa

ongly agree” presentation thaecifically tailore

alk on the productrs.” ct of mine that is mer’s problem.” presentation thaecifically tailore

disagr

with X for a pra problem.”

th X to find solutthat satisfy

l our concerns out the issues canst possible way.”

REMENT

Source

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

mer’s Saxe and W

CastleberrRidnour (

their Saxe and W

d the CastleberrRidnour (

aid.” CastleberrRidnour (

at is ed to Dwyer, H

(2000)

t and Dwyer, H(2000)

best Saxe and W

at is ed to Dwyer, H

(2000)

reements

n/a roper Rahim (19

n/a

tions our Rahim (19

ut in n be Rahim (19

36

(salespeople

Weitz (1982)

ry, Shepherd, an1999)

Weitz (1982)

ry, Shepherd, an1999) ry, Shepherd, an1999)

Hill, and Mart

Hill, and Mart

Weitz (1982)

Hill, and Mart

(salespeople

983)

983)

983)

e);

nd

nd

nd

tin

tin

tin

e);

HombuWhen s

Item used i

ConsideratIn sales neginterests. I reconcileachieve an aI make coagreement iUse of infoI recommeappropriate facilitate theI summarizin a non-obIII. OutcomSalespersonHow do yowith your c… on the a… on the ac… on the months? Customer’I consider customer-orOverall, I manager at Overall, I company X

Customer’seven-point

The produc

The producrequirementCompared company XCustomer sWe are vecompany X

We intensiv

On an oververy positiv

On an overa

urg / Mülleshould th

in this study

tion of customergotiations, I exten

e my interests wagreement in saleompromises within sales negotiatiormative closing nd my customerfrom my point

eir buying decisioze for my customliging way to fac

mes of salespeopn performance (u evaluate your

colleagues, basedchieved sales in chieved orders inachieved total c

s attitude towarmy account ma

riented. have a very pocompany X. am very satisfi

X.

s att scale: “totally di

ts and services of

cts and services ots. to other supplie

X are very good. satisfaction (custery pleased wit

X.

vely enjoy collabo

rall basis, our expve.

all basis, we are v

er / Klarmae Custom

r interests (salespnsively account f

with my customes negotiations. h my customerons. techniques (salers products and of view in a noon.

mers the major beilitate their buyin

ple’s customer or(salespeople); sevsales performan

d … the last 12 month the last 12 month

contribution marg

d the salespersoanager at compa

ositive opinion a

ed with my acc

ttitude isagree” to “stron

f company X are

of company X ext

ers, the products

tomers); seven-poth the products

orating with com

perience with com

very satisfied with

ann er Really

APPEND

people); seven-pofor my customer

mers’ interests t

rs to achieve a

speople); seven-pservices that ar

n-obliging way t

enefits of our offeng decision. rientation ven-point scale: “nce in compariso

hs? hs? gin in the last 1

n (customers); seany X to be ver

about my accoun

count manager

toward ngly agree”

of high quality.

tensively meet ou

s and services o

oint scale: “totalland services o

mpany X.

mpany X has bee

h company X.

be king?

DIX 1: CONItem rel. a) O

oint scale: “totallys’ .30 “A

cuto .55 “I

anan .44 “I

copoint scale: “totalre to .49 c) “I

in

fer .36 c) “Iin

much worse” to “on

.79 “Cwyope

.80 12 .55

even-point scale: ry .60 “I

mnt .96 N

at .88 “Ith

a

.69 Th

ur .81 N

of .50 Thgo

y disagree” to “stof .61 “W

an

.76 “Wco

en .85 “Owpo

.92 “Ow

NTINUEDOriginal item

y disagree” to “strA good salesperustomer’s best intI try to find a midn impasse.” I negotiate with ompromise can belly disagree” to “

I try to influennformation rather

I try to influennformation rather

“much better”

Compared withworking for your cou evaluate erformance?” “totally disagree”In general, I am

my dealings with t

Newly developed.

I am satisfied wihis salesperson ha

supplier

his is a high qual

Newly developed.

he quality of tood. trongly agree” We are very pleand services of comWe enjoy collaompany.” On an overall b

with company ositive.” On an overall ba

with this company

rongly agree” rson has to havterest in mind.” ddle ground to res

my boss so the reached.” strongly agree”

nce a customerthan by pressure

nce a customerthan by pressure

other salespecompany, how w

your ov

” to “strongly agrpretty satisfied

this salesperson.”

ith the level of seas provided.”

r’s p

lity product.

this product is

sed with the prodmpany X.” aborating with

basis, our experiX has been

asis, we are satiy.”

Source

e the Saxe and W

solve Rahim (19

hat a Rahim (19

r by .” Saxe and W

r by .” Saxe and W

eople would verall Oliver and

ree” with

” Ramsey an

n/a

ervice Ramsey an

products

Miyazaki,Goodstein

n/a

very Miyazaki,Goodstein

ducts Homburg

this Homburg

ience very Homburg

sfied Homburg

37

Weitz (1982)

983)

983)

Weitz (1982)

Weitz (1982)

d Anderson (1994

nd Sohi (1997)

nd Sohi (1997)

(customers

, Grewal an (2005)

, Grewal ann (2005)

and Stock (2004

and Stock (2004

and Stock (2004

and Stock (2004

4)

s);

and

nd

)

)

)

)

HombuWhen s

Item used i

IV. Contex

Product ind

Our produccustomers. Our producneeds. The major highly adju

Our produc

Product imOur produccustomers.

Our producthe achievem

Competitiv

In our mark

The number

In our markvery often. In our markhigh (e.g., new producIn our mdevelopmenSupplier’s How do yoand serviceV. Control Salesperson

For how ma

Quality seven-point

How do ycompared tcall centers

How do yoprocesses aprocessing o

urg / Mülleshould th

in this study

xtual influences o

dividuality (sale

cts and services a

ts and services ar

characteristics osted to our custom

ts and services ar

mportance (sales cts and services

cts and services prment of our custo

ve intensity (sale

ket, competition i

r of our direct com

ket, we hear of ne

ket, the intensitycustomer acqui

cts/services). market, competints very quickly. price positionin

ou evaluate the os compared to covariables

n experience (sa

any years have yo

of t scale: “much wo

you evaluate theto its competitor, or personal serv

ou evaluate the quat company X cof orders, handlin

er / Klarmae Custom

on the optimum

s managers); seve

are individually

re highly adapted

of our products mers.

re highly individu

managers); seven are of high im

rovide an importomers’ goals.

s managers); seve

s very hard and in

mpetitors is very

ew campaigns fro

y of competitive sition campaign

itors respond

g (sales managerverall price levelmpetition?*

lespeople); open-

ou been working

services orse” to “much be

e service qualityrs (e.g., quality ovice of account m

uality of customecompared to its ng of complaints)

ann er Really

APPEND

level of custome

en-point scale: “t

developed for ou

d to our customer

and services ar

ualized.

n-point scale: “tomportance for ou

ant contribution t

en-point scale: “t

ntensive.

high.

om our competitor

campaigns is vers, introduction o

to new mark

s); seven-point scl of your produc

-ended question

in sales?

and etter”

y at company Xof online service

managers)?

er-related businescompetitors (e.g

)?

be king?

DIX 1: CONItem rel. a) O

er orientation

totally disagree” t

ur .57 N

s’ .89 N

re .73 N

.66 N

tally disagree” tour .57 d) “O

pu

to .93 d) “Tinor

totally disagree” t

.37 “Ccu

.54 N

rs .63 “Oal

ry of .71 “T

in

et .58 “Aof

cale: “much lowects _ e) N

_ e)

customer-re

X es, .61 f)

Revsu

ss g., .53 f)

Revwre

NTINUEDOriginal item

to “strongly agree

Newly developed.

Newly developed.

Newly developed.

Newly developed.

o “strongly agree”Our products arurchase for the buThe purchase of nfluences other arganization. to “strongly agreeCompetition in utthroat.”

Newly developed.

One hears of a nelmost every move

There are many pndustry.”

Anything that offer others can maer” to “much high

Newly developed.

elated b

Relative to othevaluate the peupplier with respe

Relative to othevaluate the perfor

with respect to theelated business pr

e”

” re a very impouyer’s organizatiof our product graspects of the buy

e” our industry

ew competitive me.”

promotion wars in

one competitor atch readily.”

her”

business

er suppliers, plerformance of ect to service qua

er suppliers, prmance of this supe quality of custorocesses.

Source

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

ortant on.”

Porter, Frankwick

eatly yer’s Porter,

Frankwick

y is Jaworski a

n/a

move Jaworski a

n our Jaworski a

can Jaworski a

n/a

Levy and

processes

lease this

ality. Homburg

please pplier omer- Homburg

38

Wiener, ank (2003)

Wiener, ank (2003)

and Kohli (1993)

and Kohli (1993)

and Kohli (1993)

and Kohli (1993)

Sharma (1994)

(customers

and Stock (2004

and Stock (2004

nd

nd

)

)

)

)

s);

)

)

HombuWhen s

AhearneYwP

AndersoH

AndersoS

AndersoE4

Appiah-S

BagozziMB

---- andO

BehrmaI

Bentler,t

BergkviVs

BettmanT

Brady, S5

Brooksb

urg / Mülleshould th

e, Michael, Your Sales werment BPsychology

on, Erin, aHarvard Bu

on, EugeneService Res

on, James CEquation M41.

-Adu, KwakStudy of SM

i, Richard PModels andBagozzi, ed

d Jeffrey ROrganizatio

an, DouglasIndustrial S

, Peter M., the Analysi

ist, Lars, aVersus Sinsearch, 44 (

n, James RTest”, Journ

Michael anService Per51.

bank, Roger

er / Klarmae Custom

John MathForce? An

ehavior on y, 90 (5), 94

and Vincentusiness Revi

e W. (1998search, 1 (1)

C. (1987), Modeling of

ku and SatyMEs,” Mana

P. and Hand Hypothesds. Cambrid

. Edwards onal Researc

s N. and WSalespersons

and Douglas of Covari

and John Rngle-Item M(2), 175-84.

R. (1973), “nal of Mark

nd Joseph Jrceptions an

r (1995), “T

ann er Really

REF

hieu, and Adn Empirical

Customer 5-55.

t Onyemahiew, 84 (7/8

8), “Custom), 5-17.

“An Approf Organizati

yendra Singhagement De

ns Baumgartses Testing,dge: Blackw

(1998), “Ach,” Organi

William D. s,” Journal

as G. Bonetance Structu

R. Rossiter Measures of.

“Perceived Rketing Resea

J. Cronin (2nd Outcome

The New M

be king?

FERENC

dam Rapp (ExaminatioSatisfaction

h (2006), “8), 59-67.

mer Satisfac

oach for Coional Proper

h (1998), “Cecision, 36 (

tner (1994),” in Princi

well, 386-42

A General Aizational Re

Perreault of Business

tt (1980), “Sures,” Psyc

(2007), “Tf the Same

Risk and Itarch, 10 (M

2001), “CusBehaviors,

Model of Pe

CES

(2005), “To on of the Inn and Perfo

How Right

ction and W

onfirmatoryrties,” Man

Customer O(6), 385-94.

), “The Evaiples of Ma2.

Approach foesearch Me

(1982), “Ms Research,

Significancehological B

The Predicti Constructs

ts ComponMay), 184-90

stomer Orie,” Journal of

rsonal Selli

Empower nfluence of

formance,” J

t Should th

Word of M

y Measuremnagement Sc

Orientation a.

aluation of arketing Re

or Representhods, 1 (1)

Measuring th10 (3), 355

e Tests andBulletin, 88

ive Validitys,” Journal

nents: A Mo0.

entation: Efof Service R

ing: Microm

or Not to Ef LeadershipJournal of

he Custome

Mouth,” Jou

ment and Science, 33 (

and Perform

Structural Eesearch, Ric

nting Const), 45–87.

he Perform-70.

d Goodness (3), 588-60

y of Multipl of Marke

odel and E

ffects on Cesearch, 3 (

marketing,”

39

Empower p Empo-f Applied

er Be?”,

urnal of

tructural (4), 525-

mance: A

Equation chard P.

tructs in

mance of

of Fit in 6.

ple-Item ting Re-

Empirical

Customer (3), 241-

Journal

HombuWhen s

o

Brown, A

Brown,

Brown, Cp

Browneib

CannonM

Castlebesm3

Cohen, Rb

Cronin, Qv

Crosby,Si

Dean, Ao(

DonavaWt

Dowling

urg / Mülleshould th

of Personal

Reagan DAn Alternat

Timothy (2

Tom J., JCustomer Opervisor Pe19.

e, Michael Win Testing Sbury Park, 1

n, Joseph P.,Markets,” J

erry, Stephsonal Listement, And N38.

Jacob, PatrRegression/baum.

J. Joseph, MQuality, Vavice Enviro

, Lawrence Satisfactioning Researc

Alison M. (2on Custome(2), 161-73

an, D. ToddWorker Cutizenship Be

g, Grahame

er / Klarmae Custom

l Selling and

. and Neil tive to the r

2006), Conf

John C. MOrientation erformance

W., and RobStructural E136-62.

, and WilliaJournal of M

en B., C. Dening in theNomologica

ricia Cohen,/Correlation

Michael K. alue, and Cuonments,” Jo

A. and Nn, Retentionch, 24 (4), 4

2007), “Theers’ Affecti3.

, Tom J. Brstomer-Orieehaviors,” J

e R. and Ric

ann er Really

d Sales Man

M.A. Hauerwg Indices,”

firmatory Fa

owen, D. Tof Service Ratings,” J

bert CudeckEquation M

am D. PerreMarketing R

David Shephe Personal al Validity,

, Stephen Gn Analysis f

Brady, andustomer Satournal of Re

ancy Stephn, and Prices404-11.

e Impact of ve Commit

rown, and Joentation: JoJournal of M

chard Staeli

be king?

nagement, 1

enstein (200” Organizat

actor Analy

Todd DonaWorkers: P

Journal of M

k (1993), “AModels, Ken

eault (1999)Research, 36

herd, and RSelling En

” Journal of

G. West, andfor the Beha

d G. Tomas tisfaction onetailing, 76

hens (1987)s in the Life

f the Customtment and L

ohn C. Mowob SatisfactiMarketing, 6

in (1994), “

15 (2), 61-6

05), “Interrational Resea

ysis for App

avan, and JPersonality Marketing R

Alternative Wnneth A. Bo

), “Buyer-Se6 (4), 439-6

Rick Ridnounvironment:of Marketing

d Leona S. Aavioral Scie

M. Hult (20n Consumer (2), 193-21

), “Effects fe Insurance

mer OrientaLoyalty,” Jo

wen (2004),ion, Commi68 (January

“A Model o

6.

ater Agreemarch Method

lied Resear

Jane W. LTrait EffecResearch, 3

Ways of Asollen and J.S

eller Relatio0.

ur (1999), “ Conceptua

g Theory &

Aiken (2003ences. Mahw

000), “Asser Behaviora18.

of Relatione Industry,”

tion of Callournal of Se

, “Internal Bitment, and

y), 128-46.

of Perceived

ment Reconds, 8 (2), 16

rch, New Yo

Licata (2002cts on Self- 39 (Februar

ssessing MoS. Long, ed

onships in B

“Effective Ialization, MPractice, 7

3). Applied Mwah: Lawre

essing the Eal Intention

nship MarkeJournal of

l Center Emervice Rese

Benefits of d Organizati

d Risk and I

40

nsidered: 65-84.

ork.

2), “The and Su-

ry), 110-

odel Fit,” ds. New-

Business

Interper-Measure-7 (1), 30-

Multiple ence Erl-

Effects of s in Ser-

eting on f Market-

mployees arch, 10

Service-ional Ci-

Intended

HombuWhen s

R

Dwyer, SP

EchambP4

Fornell,U(

Franke, C

Franke, Cr

----, andT4

Ganesans

George,a

GilmoreH

Goff, BIo

GraysonM

HartlineIS

urg / Mülleshould th

Risk-Handl

Sean, JohnSuccess FacPersonal Se

badi, Raj, anProblems in45.

, Claes andUnobservab(1), 39-50.

George R.Customer O

Nikolaus, Customizatrences?”, Jo

d Frank PilThe Case o401-15.

n, Shankar ships,“ Jour

, Jennifer Mat Work,” J

e, James H.Harvard Bu

Brent G., JInfluence oof Retailing

n, Kent (20Marketing,

e, Michael Influence inService Em

er / Klarmae Custom

ling Activity

n Hill, and ctors in theelling & Sal

nd James Dn Moderated

d David Lable Variable

and JeongOrientation,”

Peter Keiion: When ournal of M

ller (2004), of the Watch

(1994),” Drnal of Mark

M. (1991), “Journal of A

. and B. Josusiness Revi

James S. Bf Salesperso

g, 73 (2), 17

007), “Frien71 (4), 121

D., James n the Disse

mployees,” J

ann er Really

y,” Journal

Warren Mae Personal Sles Manage

D. Hess (200d Multiple

arcker (198es and Mea

-Eun Park (” Journal of

inz, and CDo Custom

Marketing, 7

“Value Crh Market,”

eterminantsketing, 94 (

“State or TraApplied Psyc

seph Pine Iiew, 75 (1),

Boles, Dannon Behavio

71-83.

ndship versu-39.

G. Maxhaemination oJournal of M

be king?

of Consum

artin (2000)Selling Procement, 20 (3

07), Mean-CRegression

81), “Evalusurement E

(2006), “Saf Marketing

Christoph J.mers Really3 (5), 103-2

reation by TJournal of

s of Long-te2), 1-18.

ait: Effects chology, 76

II (1997), “T 91-101.

ny N. Belleors on Custo

us Business

m III, and of CustomerMarketing, 6

er Research

), “An Empcess for Ho), 151-59.

Centering Dn Models, M

uating StrucError,” Journ

alesperson Ag Research,

Steger (2 Prefer Pro

21.

Toolkits forf Product In

erm Orienta

of Positive (2), 299-30

The Four F

enger, and omer Satisfa

s in Market

Daryl O. r-Oriented

64 (April), 3

h, 21 (1), 11

pirical Invesmogenous

Does Not AlMarketing Sc

ctural Equanal of Mark

Adaptive Se43 (Novem

2009), “Tesoducts Tailo

r User Innonovation M

ation in Buy

Mood on P07.

Faces of Ma

Carrie Stofaction with

ing Relatio

McKee (20Strategy to

35-50.

19-34.

stigation ofGoods,” Jo

lleviate Colcience, 26 (

ation Modeketing Rese

elling Behamber), 693-7

sting the Vored to The

ovation and Management

yer-Seller R

Prosocial B

ass Customi

ojack (1997Products,”

onships,” Jo

000), “Corro Customer

41

f Critical ournal of

llinearity (3), 438-

els With arch, 18

vior and 702.

Value of ir Prefe-

Design: t, 21 (6),

Relation-

ehaviors

ization,”

7), “The Journal

ournal of

ridors of Contact

HombuWhen s

Hawes, D

Heide, JR(

HomburI3

--- and Cn

----, Janto

Howe, BB

HumphrSt4

Hunter, J

James, LIg

JaworskC

Jobber, E

Jones, ECa

urg / Mülleshould th

Jon M., JaDiminish Pr

Jan B., andRoles: A C(3), 90-103

rg, ChristiaIt Pay Off, 30.

Ruth-MariCustomer Snal of the A

n Wieseke, the Employof Marketin

Vince, DouBetween EBusiness Et

reys, MichaSalespersontomer Satis47-57.

Gary K. aJournal of M

Lawrence RInterrater Rgy, 69 (1), 8

ki, BernardConsequenc

David and Education L

Eli, Paul BuCustomer Oand Retenti

er / Klarmae Custom

ames T. Strrospect Tru

d Kenneth HConceptual F

.

an, Mathias and How S

ia Stock (2Satisfaction Academy of M

and Torstenyee-Customng, 73 (July)

uglas K. HEthical and thics, 13 (7)

ael A. and Mn Interpersofaction,” Jo

and WilliamMarketing,

R., Robert GReliability W85-98.

d J. and Ajces,” Journa

Geoff LanLimited.

usch, and POrientation: ion in Busin

ann er Really

rong, and Bust?”, Indust

H. Wathne Framework

Droll, and Should It Be

2004), “Thein a Busin

Marketing S

n Bornemaner Interface), 64-81.

Hoffman, anCustomer-

), 497-506.

Michael R. onal Processournal of P

m D. Perrea71 (January

G. DemareeWith and Wi

Ajay K. Koal of Marke

caster (200

Peter DacinInterperson

ness-to-Bus

be king?

Bernard S. trial Marke

(2006), “Fand a Rese

Dirk Totzee Implemen

e Link Betwess-to-BusiScience, 32

nn, (2009), e: The Role

nd Donald W-Oriented S

Williams (s Attributes ersonal Sel

ault (2007)y), 16-34.

e, and Gerritithout Resp

ohli (1993),eting, 57 (Ju

6), Selling

n (2003), “Fnal and Intrasiness Buye

Winick (19ting Manag

riends, Busearch Agen

ek (2008), “nted?” Jour

ween Salesness Contex(2), 144-58

“Implemen of Custom

W. HardigrService Pro

1996), “Expand Techni

lling & Sale

, “Making

t Wolf (198ponse Bias,”

, “Market uly), 53-70.

and Sales M

Firm Markeapersonal Iner–Seller Re

996), “Do Cgement, 25 (

sinesspeoplenda,” Journa

“Customer Prnal of Mark

people’s Joxt: A Dyad

8.

nting the Mamer Need Kn

ree (1994), ovider Beha

ploring the ical Productes Managem

Sales Tech

84), “Estima” Journal of

Orientation

Managemen

et Orientationfluences onelationships

Closing Tec(5), 349-60.

e, and Relaal of Marke

Prioritizatioketing, 72 (

ob Satisfactdic Analysis

arketing Conowledge,”

“The Relaaviors”, Jou

Relative Et Attributes ment, 16 (Su

hnology Ef

ating Withif Applied Ps

n: Antecede

nt. Harlow:

on and Salen Customers,” Journal

42

chniques

ationship eting, 70

on: Does (5), 110-

tion and s,” Jour-

oncept at Journal

ationship urnal of

ffects of on Cus-

ummer),

ffective,”

n-Group Psycholo-

ents and

Pearson

esperson r Service of Busi-

HombuWhen s

n

Joshi, AS

KeiningCJ

Kline, RN

Kohli, AP

Kumar, A

Lee, SikEv

Levy, ME

Little, Tfd2

MacKenOJ

MalhotrD

Marketi3

Marsh, LC

McIntyr

urg / Mülleshould th

ness Resear

Ashwin W. Study of Sm

gham, TimoCustomer SJournal of S

Rex B. (20New York.

Ajay K. andProposition

V., RajkumAdopting a

k-Yum, XinEstimating vioral Resea

Michael andExperience,

Todd D., Ulfor Multivadicators are211.

nzie, Scott OrganizatioJournal of M

ra, Naresh KDiscipline,”

ing Week (23.

Herbert W.Latent InterCourse, G.

re, Roger P

er / Klarmae Custom

rch, 56 (4),

(2010), “Samall Manufa

othy L., TiffSatisfactionService Res

04), “Princ

d Bernard J.ns, and Man

mar VenkateCustomer-F

n-Yuan SonInteraction arch, 39 (4)

d Arun Shar, and Educa

lman Lindeariate Measue Bad and ‘

B., Philiponal CitizenMarketing,

K. (1999), “” Journal of

2009), “Put

., Zhonglin raction and Hancock an

P., Reid P.

ann er Really

323-40.

alesperson acturing Org

ffany Perkinn on Share-earch, 6 (1)

ciples and P

Jaworski (agerial Imp

esan, and WFocused Sa

ng, and Waand Quadra

), 653-86.

rma (1994),ation,” Jour

enberger, Jourement andBad’ Indica

p M. Podsanship Beha57 (1), 70-8

“Guest Editf the Academ

t the Custom

Wen, and Quadratic E

nd R. O. Mu

Claxton, K

be king?

Influence oganizations

ns Munn, anof-Wallet i), 37-50.

Practice of

1990), “Maplications,” J

Werner Reinles Campai

ai-Tin Poonatic Effects

, “Adaptivernal of Busin

ohn R. Nessd Modelingators are Go

akoff, and avior on Ev80.

torial: The Pmy of Mark

mer First, Th

Kit-Tai HauEffects,” inueller, eds.

Kenneth An

on Product s,” Journal o

nd Heather in a Busine

f Structural

arket OrientaJournal of M

artz (2008),gn,” Journa

n (2004), “Cs of Latent V

e Selling: Thness Resear

selroade (19 With Latenood,” Psych

Richard Fevaluations o

Past, Presenketing Scien

hen Succes

u (2006), “ Structural Greenwich,

selmi, and

Developmeof Marketin

Evans (200ess-to-Busin

Equation M

ation: The CMarketing,

, “Performaal of Marke

ComparisonVariables,”

he Role of rch, 31 (1),

999), “On Snt Variableshological M

etter (1993of Salesper

nt, and Futuce, 27 (2), 1

s Will Follo

Structural EEquation M

, 225-65.

Edward W

ent: Insightsng, 74 (1), 9

03), “The Imness Enviro

Modeling,”

Construct, R54 (April),

ance Implicating, 72 (5)

n of ApproMultivaria

Gender, Ag39-47.

Selecting Ins: When ‘G

Methods, 4 (

), “The Imrson Perfor

ure of the M116-19.

ow,” 11/19/

Equation MModeling: A

W. Wheatley

43

s from a 4-107.

mpact of onment,”

2nd ed.,

Research 1-18.

ations of , 50-68.

aches in te Beha-

ge, Sales

ndicators Good’ In-(2), 192-

mpact of rmance,”

Marketing

/2009, p.

Models of A Second

y (2000),

HombuWhen s

“P

McQuiso

MiyazakEe

Muthen

Narver, B

Niraj, Rt

Oliver, B5

PalmatiLJ

Pihlströt

PodsakoCa

Porter, Sos

Price, D(

Rahim, A

RamseyI

urg / Mülleshould th

“Cognitive Perceived S

ston, Danielof Industria

ki, AnthonyExtrinsic Cuer Research

n, Linda K. a

John C. aBusiness Pr

Rakesh, Mahty in a Supp

Richard L.Behavior- a53-67.

er, Robert WLoyalty to WJournal of M

öm, Minna ation and En

off, Philip MCommon Mand Recomm

Stephen S., of Selling Sship,” Journ

David A. (20(Eastern Ed

M. AfzaluAcademy of

y, RosemaryImpact of

er / Klarmae Custom

Style as anSelling Perfo

l H. (1989),al Buyer Beh

y, Dhruv Grues on Quah, 32 (2), 14

and Bengt O

and Stanleyrofitability,”

hendra Gupply Chain,”

. and Erin Aand Outcom

W., Lisa KWhom? MaMarketing R

and Gregorntertainment

M., Scott BMethod Biasmended Re

Joshua L. WSituation onnal of Busin

009), “Busidition), Sep

ur (1983), f Manageme

y P. and RPerceived

ann er Really

n Antecedenormance,” J

, “Novelty, havior,” Jou

rewal, and Rality Percept46-153.

O. Muthen (

y F. Slater” Journal of

pta, and ChaThe Journa

Anderson (me-Based Sa

. Scheer, ananaging the Research, 4

y J. Brush t Mobile Se

B. MacKenzses in Behamedies, Jou

Wiener, andn the Adaptiness Resear

iness Books2, 2009, A.

“A Measuent Journal

Ravipreet SSalesperson

be king?

nt to AdaptJournal of B

Complexityurnal of Ma

Ronald C. Gtions: A Ma

(2006), Mpl

r (1990), “f Marketing

akravarthi Nal of Market

(1994), “Anales Contro

nd Jan-BeneBenefits an4 (2), 185-9

(2008), Comervices, Psyc

zie, Jeong-Yavioral Reseurnal of App

d Gary L. Five Selling rch, 56 (4), 2

shelf: Do as.13.

ure of Styll, 26 (2), 368

. Sohi (199n Listening

tiveness, CuBusiness and

y, and Impoarketing, 53

Goodstein (2atter of Con

lus User’s G

The Effectg, 54 (Octob

Narasimhanting, 65 (Jul

n Empiricall Systems,”

edict E.M. nd Risks of 99.

mparing thechology & M

Yeon Lee, aearch: A Crplied Psych

rankwick (2Strategy – S275-81.

s I Say And

es of Hand8-76.

97), “Listeng Behavior

ustomer Ord Psycholog

ortance as C (April), 66

2005), “Thensistency,” J

Guide, Los A

t of a Marber), 20-35.

(2001), “Culy), 1-16.

l Test of th” Journal of

Steenkamp f Salesperso

e PerceivedMarketing,

and Nathanritical Revieology, 88 (5

2003), “TheSelling Effe

d as I Do,”

dling Interp

ning to Yoon Relatio

rientation, agy, 15 (2), 1

Causal Deter6-79.

e Effect of MJournal of C

Angeles.

rket Orienta

ustomer Pro

he Consequef Marketing

(2007), “Con-Owned L

d Value of I25 (8), 732-

n Podsakoffew of the L5), 879-903

e Moderatinectiveness R

Wall Street

personal C

ur Customeonship Out

44

and Self-179-96.

rminants

Multiple Consum-

ation on

ofitabili-

ences of g, 58 (4),

Customer Loyalty,”

Informa--55.

f (2003), Literature

.

ng Effect Relation-

Journal

Conflict,”

ers: The tcomes,”

HombuWhen s

J

Rao, AkNM

ReinartzR(

Rich, GJAo

RindfleiSJ

Saxe, RO

SchwepD(

Siders, aM

SimonsoC4

Stock, Rp5

Tomkin0

Tuli, KS(

urg / Mülleshould th

Journal of t

kshay R. anName on BMarketing R

z, Werner, Retention R(1), 63-79.

Gregory A, Jonathan LAnalysis ofof Personal

isch, Aric, ASectional VJournal of M

Robert and BOrientation

pker, CharlDirections f(Spring), 15

Mark A., Gand ExternaManagemen

on, Itamar Conceptual 45.

Ruth Mariapeople’s Cu536-52.

ns, Richard06/17/2005

Kapil R., AjSolutions: F(3), 1-17.

er / Klarmae Custom

the Academy

nd Kent B. Buyers’ PercResearch, 2

Jacquelyn Resources to

William H. Johnson (

f Objective l Selling and

Alan J. MaVersus LongMarketing R

Barton A. Wof Salespeo

es H. (200for Future R51-71.

Gerard Georal Commitmnt Journal,

(2005), “DFramework

a, and Wayustomer Ori

d (2005), “, p. 13.

jay K. KohFrom Produ

ann er Really

y of Market

Monroe (1ceptions of P26 (3), 351-5

S. Thomas,o Maximize

H. Bommer(1999), “Apand Subjecd Sales Man

alter, Shankagitudinal SuResearch, 4

Weitz (198ople,” Journ

03), “CustoResearch,” J

rge, and Ravment Foci to44 (3), 570

Determinantk and Resea

yne D. Hoyientation,” J

“The Art o

hli, and Suuct Bundles

be king?

ting Science

1989), “TheProduct Qu57.

, and V. Kue Customer

r, Scott B.pples and Ative Measurnagement, 2

ar Ganesanurvey Resear5 (3), 261-7

2), “The SOnal of Mark

omer-OrientJournal of P

vi Dharwado Objective -79.

ts of Custoarch Propos

yer (2005), Journal of t

of Keeping

undar G. Bs to Relatio

e, 25 (2), 12

e Effect of Puality: An In

umar (2005r Profitabili

. MacKenzApples or Ares of Sales29 (4), 41-5

, and Chrisrch: Concep79.

OCO Scaleketing Resea

ted SellingPersonal Se

dkar (2001),Job Perform

omers’ Respsitions,” Jou

“An Attituthe Academy

g Customer

haradwaj (nal Process

27-37.

Price, Branntegrative R

5), “Balanciity,” Journa

ie, Philip MApples and sperson Per2.

tine Moormpts, Finding

e: A Measuarch, 19 (Au

g: A Revieelling & Sal

, “The Relamance Mea

ponses to Curnal of Ma

ude-Behavioy of Market

rs Happy,”

2007), “Reses,” Journa

nd Name, anReview,” Jo

ing Acquisial of Marke

M. PodsakOranges? A

rformance,”

man (2008),gs, and Guid

ure of the Cugust), 343

ew, Extensiles Managem

ationship of asures,” Aca

Customizedarketing, 69

or Model oting Science

” Financial

ethinking Cal of Marke

45

nd Store ournal of

tion and eting, 69

koff, and A Meta-Journal

“Cross-delines,”

Customer -51.

ion, and ment, 23

f Internal ademy of

d Offers: 9 (1), 32-

of Sales-e, 33 (4),

l Times,

Customer eting, 71

HombuWhen s

VerbekeI

----, Fra(4

Weitz, BJ

---- andM

WiesekeL

Woodrut

Yim, ChTR

urg / Mülleshould th

e, Willem JIt Means W

ank D. Bel(Dys)Funct44-57.

Barton A. (Journal of M

d Kevin D. BMarketing P

e, Jan, MicLeaders in I

uff, Robert tage,“ Journ

hi K., DaviThrough IntRelationship

er / Klarmae Custom

J. and RichaWhen Fear R

lschak, Arnional for A

(1981), “EfMarketing,

Bradford (1Perspective

chael AheaInternal Ma

B. (1997),nal of the A

id K. Tse, atimacy and ps in Servic

ann er Really

ard P. BagoRules a Sales

nold B. BakAchieving S

ffectiveness45 (1), 85-1

999), “Pers,” Journal o

arne, Son Karketing,” Jo

“Customercademy of M

and KimmyPassion: Ro

ces,” Journa

be king?

ozzi, R. (200s Encounter

kker, and Bales Perform

s in Sales In103.

sonal Sellinof the Acade

K. Lam, anournal of M

r Value: ThMarketing S

y W. Chan (oles of Custal of Marke

00), “Sales r,” Journal

Bart Dietz (mance,” Jo

nteractions:

ng and Salesemy of Mar

nd Rolf vanMarketing, 7

he Next SoScience, 25,

(2008), “Strtomer-Firm

eting Resear

Call Anxieof Marketin

(2008), “Wurnal of M

: A Conting

s Managemrketing Scien

n Dick (203 (2), 123-4

ource for C, 2, 139-54.

rengtheningm Affection rch, 45 (Dez

ety: Explorinng, 64 (3), 8

When IntelligMarketing, 72

gency Fram

ent: A Relance, 27 (2),

009), “The 45.

Competitive

g Customer and Customzember), 74

46

ng What 88-101.

gence Is 2 (July),

mework,”

ationship 241-54.

Role of

Advan-

Loyalty mer-Staff 41-56.