97sma195
THE ROLE OF ADAPTIVE SELLING IN SALES TRAINING: A SALESPERSON PERSPECTIVE James G. Maxham III, Louisiana State University ABSTRACT This composition explores the personal selling concept of adaptive selling and its role in salesperson training. The author discusses the current trends in the personal selling arena which have a direct impact on training. Adaptive selling is examined as a doctrine which can help meet the changing demands in personal sales training. An exploratory scale is developed to assess adaptive selling as a training topic. Several hypotheses are tested which set forth an argument that adaptive sales training may translate into increased sales performance. The results depict that adaptive sales training is not often part of initial training programs. However, salespeople have positive perceptions of the effects of adaptive selling on sales performance. The results suggest that adaptive sales training increases one's usage of the concept in their sales approach. Finally, this increased usage is shown to increase sales performance. INTRODUCTION "Personal selling is arguably the most important component of the promotional mix for most business organizations" (Weitz, Castleberry, and Tanner 1992). This importance can be attributed to several issues. Personal selling is the crucial link, in many cases, between the manufacturer and the customer. Unlike other marketing methods in the propaganda function (Schwartz 1963), personal selling allows the seller to meet with the customer, face to face. This personal interaction has many advantages. For example, the seller can assess the needs of the prospect, and match those needs with his/her products or services. From this perspective, personal selling provides a forum to overcome sales objections and convince the buyer of the product's worth. Moreover, Spiro and Weitz (1990) affirm that personal selling is the only communication vehicle that allows a marketing message to be adapted to the specific needs and beliefs of each customer. In addition, the seller receives instant feedback from the prospect that may prove invaluable in understanding your customer, providing product improvement suggestions and learning about the competition. The advantages of
Page 1
97sma195
personal selling, however, are not achieved without cost. In fact, "it is estimated that about 55 percent of total sales expenses in U.S. Industry pertain to personal selling, 36 percent to advertising, and 9 percent to sales promotion" (Anderson, Hair, and Bush 1992). As these results point out, personal selling remains the most expensive method of transferring goods and services from manufacturer to customer. Combined with this expense, the selling marketplace is currently experiencing new challenges. One challenge is unwavering competition. A major source of competition stems from the emergence of the global marketplace (Allessandra and Barrera 1993). Specifically, the number of quality firms within a given industry is growing. As a result, the struggle for a differential advantage (Alderson 1957) has often become an arduous task. Another challenge involves the decreasing amount of buyer time allocated to salespeople, which can be attributed, in part, to employee cross-training and downsizing. A further challenge includes the growing expertise among buyers. In a movement towards Total Quality Management (Ciampa 1991), many firms are empowering their employees (i.e., buyers) to make decisions. During the empowerment process, accountability also increases. For this reason, buyers are becoming more knowledgeable about the products and services they purchase. The empowerment effort played a significant role in rising customer satisfaction standards and expectations (Anderson, Hair, and Bush 1992). Under effective empowerment, employees share the corporate goals with management. Consequently, employees develop a pride in workmanship, which translates into an emphasis on quality. To justify the selling expense, as well as, adjust to the challenges, manufacturers are striving to maximize the performance of their existing sales force. As such, many companies are focusing their attention on effective sales training. In recent years, "organizations [have realized] the importance of developing and implementing specifically designed sales training programs for their sales forces" (Anderson, Hair, and Bush 1992). It is estimated that organizations spend as much as $200 billion annually on employee training (Facteau, Dobbins, and Russell 1995). This figure has increased markedly since the 1970's, when the "average training expenditure per employee was approximately $75 to S100" (Facteau, Dobbins, and Russell 1995). In light of the contemporary challenges in business, these increases are likely to continue. In fact, a 1993 study suggests that it costs a
Page 2
97sma195
company approximately $28,000 to educate and train an industrial salesperson (Chonko, Tanner, and Weeks 1993). Given the importance of formal training programs for a firm's effectiveness, it is essential that companies understand the factors that contribute to training effectiveness, and design and execute training programs in the most potent manner (Facteaul, Dobbins, and Russel 1995). Sales organizations must focus their efforts on uncovering and employing the most effective sales training concepts. Adaptive selling is a personal selling concept for which training can play a vital role (Gengler, Howard, and Zolner 1995; Knowles, Grove, and Keck 1994; Levy and Sharma 1994). The purpose of this paper is to examine the importance of adaptive selling as a training topic. Since training is an expensive endeavor, it seems important for marketers to understand whether or not the inclusion of a concept such as adaptive selling in their training mix will produce results. In particular, the author investigates the following research question: can adaptive selling be employed by firms as a viable training topic that can produce better trained individuals and high performers? BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES Adaptive selling is a personal selling philosophy in which "selling behaviors and approaches are altered during a sales interaction or across customer interactions, based on information about the nature of the selling situation" (Levy and Sharma 1994, p.39). Adaptive salespersons will tailor their sales presentation, probing techniques, closure skills, etc. based on the customer type or selling environment. For example, an adaptive seller may choose a concise, cost driven presentation when calling on a hurried, economic buyer (i.e., purchasing agent). The same salesperson could select a socially driven approach that emphasizes the features, advantages and benefits of the product when calling on a product operator who enjoys conversation. Some dimensions on which sales behaviors can be adapted include (Weitz 1984): 1.
Base of influence established--expert, refere coercive, legitimate, or reward power bases.
2.
Influence technique used--open versus closed, rational versus emotional.
3.
Cognitive element toward which messages are directed--
Page 3
97sma195
specific beliefs and values or importance weights. 4.
Communication style--aggressive versus passive, high pressure versus low pressure.
5.
Message format employed one-sided vs two-sided.
6.
Services, delivery dates, price, terms offered.
The practice of adaptive selling can have a positive effect on sales performance (Gengler, Howard, and Zolner 1995; Levy and Sharma 1994). This effect, however, does not occur through practice alone. Adaptive selling must be employed for it to yield positive results effectively (Spiro and Weitz 1990). In short, adaptive selling can be utilized in an effective, as well as an ineffective manner. Effective use of adaptive selling depends on selecting the befitting level of adaptation and electing to employ the sales behaviors that property correspond to this adaptation. This optimal level of adaptation occurs when the variance in the sales situations matches the variance in sales behaviors" (Weitz 1984). From this stance, such abilities as sensing (registering) various cues from prospective buyers and correctly perceiving (interpreting) them are consequential to adaptive selling and are an substantial link between salesperson behaviors and selling effectiveness (Knowles, Grove and Keck 1994). Precisely, effective adaptive selling depends on ones ability to correctly perceive the customer and environment, and respond appropriately. Adaptive selling has prompted contradictory research results over the past twenty years (Weitz 1984). One possible premise behind this inconsistency is that researchers have been attempting to generalize a concept that defies generalization. The conclusion asserted by Weitz (1984) is that universally effective sales behaviors do not exist. Instead, sales behavior must be adapted to meet the needs of each unique customer and selling situation. To test the aforementioned research question, several hypotheses were conceptualized and tested in this analysis with regards to adaptive selling: H1: Salespeople maintain positive perceptions of adaptive selling, and its ability to help them close more sales. H2: Salespeople are not exposed to the adaptive selling concept during their initial sales training. H3: Salesperson performance can be explained by 1) the degree to which adaptive selling is used, 2) number formal training hours completed in adaptive selling, 3) actual amount trained in
Page 4
97sma195
adaptive selling and 4) perceptions of necessary training on adaptive selling. H4: The degree to which adaptive selling is employed can be explained by 1) the number of formal training hours completed in adaptive selling and 2) the size sales force. H5: Salespeople can be correctly classified into (high usage and low usage) groups based on their 1) actual time trained on adaptive selling, 2) perceptions of how effective adaptive selling remains in training and 3) number of formal hours trained in adaptive selling. METHODOLOGY Data Collection To conduct the adaptive selling analysis, a personal selling research questionnaire was formulated. This questionnaire was pre-tested with 1O salespeople to insure clarity and appropriateness among the questions. The revised questionnaire was distributed by facsimile and mail to 410 salespeople throughout all regions of the United States. Of the questionnaires distributed, 156 were returned and 130 were deemed suitable for this analysis, translating to a 31.7 percent response rate. The sample consisted of 58 percent females and 42 percent males. Of the salesperson respondents, 46 percent were in the retail industry, 22 percent in real estate, 17 percent in pharmaceuticals, 11 percent in computer equipment and supplies, and 4 percent in other miscellaneous industries. The mean level of sales experience (with their current firm) was 4.4 years, with 32 percent retaining one year of experience. The respondents were somewhat evenly distributed across size of sales force, from less than 5 to over 1,000. Finally, 60 percent of the salespeople sampled provided a self report measure of performance above 75 percent. Data Purification To effectively test the hypotheses set forth, the data was analyzed to develop multi-item scales, which measure the extent to which adaptive selling is a viable training topic. Thus, data purification was utilized to obtain a preliminary judgment of reliability and validity of the scales (Netemeyer, Burton, and Lichtenstein 1995). Principal components method of R-type factor analysis was employed for data reduction purposes. Forty five variables were placed on a seven point scale to measure different
Page 5
97sma195
dimensions of sales training. Twenty eight of the items were developed by 10 salespeople during telephone interviews. The salespeople were asked to list common training topics in which they have encountered during their tenure. The remaining 17 items were generated by the author based upon the sales training literature and personal experience. Exploratory factor analysis displayed a sufficient correlation among training topics (MSA > .80) in each analysis. Varimax rotation was employed to redistribute variance and solidify factors. Three distinct factors were extracted, which represent separate training related dimensions of adaptive selling. These dimensions are defined as: 1) effectiveness of training topics in assisting salespeople to close more sales, 2) amount of necessary training needed, and 3) the actual time trained. The three factor solution accounted for 70.1 percent of the variance extracted with eigenvalues ranging from 35.6 to 13.3. The first factor denoted the effectiveness dimension. The variables loading on this factor were customer relations (.796), communication skills (.767), reading your customer (.763), adaptive selling (.751) and identifying buying signals (.719). A Coefficient alpha of .90 was calculated for this factor, and item to total correlation's ranged from .71 to .77. The second factor signified the "amount of training necessary" dimension. On this dimension, four variables loaded above .76. These variables were adaptive selling (.858), buyer type (.814), need assessment (.798) and customer relations (.765). A coefficient alpha of .91 was calculated for this factor, with item to total correlation's ranging from .75 to .83. The third factor investigated the "actual time trained" dimension of adaptive selling. The variables defining this factor were adaptive selling (.831), need assessment (.841), how to read your customer (.802), identifying buying signals (.787) and customer relations (.715). These variables develop a group which defined this dimension of adaptive selling. The resulting factor was used to form a summated scale for future analyses. A coefficient alpha of .92 was extracted for the heretofore factor, with item to total correlation's ranging from .72 to .83. Dimensionality and Internal Consistency The 14 items remaining from exploratory factor
Page 6
97sma195
analysis were input into LISREL VIII (Joreskog and Sorborn 1993) for the purpose of confirmatory factor analysis. The three factor hypothesized model was examined to assess the discriminant validity and internal consistency. In the first iteration of confirmatory factor analysis, all 40 items were found statistically significant. The overall fit of the model suffered at this point with a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of .72. Several items were impeding model fit, due to a particularly high correlation between items within factors. Similarly, large standardized residuals and modification indices were detected within factors. Through the process of evaluating 4 iterations, 4 items were removed from the scales due to the aforementioned problems. The modifications described above resulted in 3 items on the actual time scale, 4 items on the necessary training scale and 3 items on the effectiveness scale. These final factors are listed in the appendix. Table 1 displays both the fit statistics and internal consistency for the 3 factor model. In general, the goodness-of-fit (GFI) was adequate at .90, while the adjusted GFI was .82. This is considered satisfactory for a 3 factor model. In addition, the comparative fit index (Bollen 1990) and the TuckerLewis index (TLI) were .94 and .92 respectively. These fit statistics are within the acceptable range for assigning adequate fit (Bentler 1990; Bollen 1989). Table 1 ADAPTRAIN: An Exploratory Measurement Scale to Assess Adaptive Selling as a Training Topic _____________________________________________________________________ ______ Internal Consisten cy Item to Fit Statistics Factor Total Cronbach Composite Vari ance Loading Correlation Alpha Alpha Extr acted Factor One Please rate the follwing training topics in terms of their ability to improve your sales performance (close more sales). .78 Adaptative Selling Skills
.90 .75
.78
Page 7
.85 .75
.78
97sma195
Customer Relations Identifying customer buying signals
.80 .76
.77 .73
Factor Two During your sales training, how much actual time was allocated to the following topics. Adaptive Selling
.83
.84
Need Assessment
.84
.84
Customer Relations
.72
.74
In your opinion, please indicate, the amount of training necessary in the following areas to improve your sales performance (close more sales). Adaptive Selling Need Assessment
.86 .80
.83 .83
Customer Relations
.77
.77
.92
.91
.88
.91
.90
.87
Factor Three
Various Buyer Types .81 .73 _____________________________________________________________________ ______ Note: All three factors were measured on a 7 pt. scale. Factor 1 was measured from not effective Fit Statistics to extremely effective. ________________________________________ ______ Factor 2 was measured GFI AGFI CFI TLI from no time to .90 .82 .94 .92 substantial time. Factor 3 was measured from training to intense training. _____________________________________________________________________ ______ Discriminant Validity
Page 8
97sma195
In the scale development process, several tests were investigated to determine the discriminant validity among the three constructs. First the phi estimates ranged from .30 to .54. Second, the average variance extracted estimates between constructs were found to be greater than the phi-squared between those same factors. Finally, the confidence intervals around phi among each pair of constructs did not include 1. These results depict discriminant validity among the 3 constructs (Fornell and Larcker 198 1; Gerbing and Anderson 1988). In addition to the scale development, the ADAPTS scale (Spiro and Weitz, 1990) was adopted for testing H4 and H5, The ADAPTS scale measures the degree to which salespeople practice adaptive selling (Spiro and Weitz 1990). The 15 items on the ADAPTS scale were subjected to a coefficient alpha test of reliability. Upon examination, 7 items illustrated item to total correlation's below .50. This deficiency may be due, in part, to the convenience sample in this study (i.e. the majority of respondents were concentrated in 4 industries). Taken in collection, however, the scale yielded a coefficient alpha of .72, which exceeds a suggested minimum of .70 (Peterson 1994). RESULTS To test H1 and H2, frequency tables were examined. These tables contained the mean, standard deviation and frequency of answer (indicated by percent) for each variable that influenced perceptions and exposure regarding adaptive selling. The frequencies indicate that adaptive selling is an effective training technique, which assists salespeople to close more sales (mean = 5.97 on a 7 point, not effective to extremely effective scale). In addition, this analysis suggests that successful adaptive selling can overcome other sales objections (i.e. price, delivery, etc.) (mean = 3.97 on a 5 point, strongly agree to strongly disagree scale). Additionally, the salespeople here purport that additional adaptive sales training is necessary (m = 5.27 on a 7 point. no training necessary to intense training necessary scale). These results support acceptance of H1. Salespeople were asked to state when (initial, followup, no training) they were exposed to adaptive selling concepts. The descriptive statistics connote that many salespeople are not exposed to each of these notions during a formal training forum (67%). Of those respondents that were exposed to the topics during formal training, 71%
Page 9
97sma195
were exposed during follow-up training, while only 29% were exposed during their initial training). Moreover, salespeople are more frequently exposed (37%) to adaptive selling during salesperson modeling (mentoring) than by any other means (i.e. company training, intuition, personal research and trial and error). These results provide grounds to support H2. H3 and H4 were measured using multiple regression analysis. A sequential method (stepwise) was employed to approach model construction. For both H3 and H4, several tests were examined to test the assumptions of multiple regression, and the hypothesized models passed the assumptions of linearity, homoscedasticity, normality, independence of error terms and the absence of multicollinearity. First, the studentized residual plots, studentized deleted residual plots and the partial residual plots portrayed a linear relationship. Second, the scatterplot for the studentized, as well as, the deleted studentized residuals displayed a slight pattern of increased residuals at the positive end of the linear path. However, this pattern was not sufficient enough to deem the equation heteroscedastic. Third, the studentized residuals were plotted against each independent variable to test the independence of error terms. In this examination, no pattern arose that would indicate a non-random pattern of residuals. Fourth, the normal probability plot was also examined to ascertain normality. Although the residuals superficially departed from the diagonal, it was not deemed significant. Fifth, multicollinearity was assessed by viewing the VIF and tolerance values in the final equations for H3 and H4. Each independent variable which entered the equation has a tolerance of greater than .65 and no VIF values exceeded 1.5. Upon investigation of H3, each of the three independent variables entered the stepwise regression. The adjusted R-squared increased from .38 at step one to .46 for the final equation. The model was found significant (F=.0000) and none of the variables included zero in its 95 percent confidence interval. Further, no more than 30 percent of each variable was explained by the other variables in the analysis. Thus, 46 percent of the variance associated with salesperson performance can be explained, in this model, by: 1) the degree to which adaptive selling is used, 2) number of formal training hours completed in adaptive selling, and 3) actual amount trained in adaptive selling. Therefore, H3, is supported, as this model was shown to be a fair predictor of salesperson performance. The regression equation is depicted as follows:
Page 10
97sma195
-2.101+.111(usage)+.193(formal hrs.)+.088(actual training) In analyzing H4, only size of sales force entered the equation. The number of formal training hours did not enter the model due to partial correlation's of less than .10 and held a tolerance level of .93. Despite a promising tolerance level, this variable did not add unique contribution to the model, relative to size of sales force. The adjusted R-squared for the model was .35. Further, the final equation was found significant (F=.0002) at the 95 percent confidence level. From this analysis, mild support for H4, can be granted. However, there are likely other significant predictors of "adaptive selling use" that are not measured in H4. Finally, the following regression equation results from this analysis: -4.276+.165(size of sales force) To test H5, a cluster analysis was conducted in an effort to differentiate among groups of respondents based on adaptive selling usage (measured by ADAPTS). Squared Euclidean distance was used to measure similarity, while a hierarchical analysis was utilized to construct the cluster solution. Ward's method was adopted to minimize the within group distance, and the agglomeration schedule was engaged to determine the cluster solution. After examining the agglomeration schedule, it made both statistical and conceptual sense to choose the two cluster solution. Cluster one can be defined as "moderate users" of adaptive selling skills. This was determined by computing the mean for cluster one, on the variables defining the usage factor. The mean for cluster one was 3.73, on a five point scale. In contrast, cluster two can be defined as "strong users" of adaptive selling skills (mean = 4.75). This equates to an approximate 27 percent higher usage of adaptive selling for those salespeople in cluster two. Cluster one held mean scores below cluster two on all of the three variables. In fact, cluster 2 (strong usage group) averaged 21.9 more formalized training hours than did cluster 1. These clusters are utilized in the subsequent discriminant analysis. To further test H5, a discriminant analysis was employed to determine how well: 1) actual time trained on adaptive selling, 2) perceived effectiveness of adaptive selling as a training tool, 3) hours of adaptive selling formalized training, and 4) adaptive selling usage correctly classify observations into their proper cluster. A stepwise
Page 11
97sma195
solution was used in this analysis and Wilkes Lambda was the criteria adopted to minimize the distance among groups. At the univariate level, all three independent variables are significant at the (.0000) level. In the analysis, two variables (actual time trained on adaptive selling and perceptions that adaptive selling is effective) entered the stepwise model. The Wilkes' Lambda began at .515 when "actual training" entered and decreased to .504 when "effectiveness" entered the model. Likewise, the minimum D-squared increased from 1.18 to 1.31, which denotes a better model fit. To assess overall fit of the model, the sample was split 60/40 between an estimation sample and a validation sample. For the estimation sample, 77.6 percent of cases were correctly classified overall. In particular, 76.4 percent and 78.4 percent of the sample was correctly classified for group 1 and group two respectively. The validation sample, as a whole, correctly classified 74.0 percent of respondents into the correct group. Specifically, group 1 correctly classified 68.6 percent and group 2 correctly classified 78.3 percent. The model classified groups better than maximum chance criteria (55%) or the proportional chance criteria (50.6%). Thus, H5 is supported. DISCUSSION This research assessed the role of adaptive selling in the training environment. In the analysis, several interesting conclusions can be deduced. First, salespeople seemingly consider adaptive selling to be an important training concept with regards to helping one to close more sales. Furthermore, salespeople feel that effective adaptive selling skills can overcome other significant sales objections. In fact, it appears that salespeople would like to engage in further adaptive sales training. In a search for an effective training tool to maximize productivity of salespeople, management could benefit from assessing the benefits of adaptive selling. Not only is adaptive selling validated by salespeople, but they also have requested more training in this area. This analysis depicted that salespeople are often times not exposed to adaptive selling through initial company training. Instead, a large percentage of respondents learn the skill from modeling other salespeople. The implication, concerning modeling, is that firms could benefit by providing an initial training format in which modeling can thrive. Role modeling can become an effective training method, as adaptive selling is often best understood when it is observed. In fact, Bandura (1977) states that behavior development is greatly affected by
Page 12
97sma195
mentors. In other research, Fullager et al. (1995) suggest that employees will learn faster and comprehend better when socialized by a role model. Thus, role modeling may be an effective method of disseminating adaptive sales training to employees. Further, role modeling should be established in the initial training to take advantage of early strides in performance. The results suggest that salesperson performance will increase as adaptive selling training increases. Correspondingly, performance increases as the usage of adaptive selling increases. These results corroborate the research of Levy and Sharma (1994) and bolster the argument for firms to cultivate an adaptive selling training program. Customarily, sales performance is a fundamental objective of sales management. Hence, this study purports that initial training in adaptive selling can assist management in obtaining their performance objectives. Another interesting research finding in this study is that adaptive selling usage can be positively related to the size of a firm's sales force. One rationale for this finding is that large firms frequently have larger training budgets, which can translate into more adaptive sales training and thus, more usage. This finding should not discourage small firms from adopting adaptive selling. Conversely, small firms can take advantage of the relatively modest logistical costs of mentoring. That is, mentoring does not require training in formal settings, whereby firms incur multitudinous travel and lodging expenses. Finally, support was found to suggest that adaptive selling usage will increase as adaptive selling training increases. This finding implies that salespeople will likely use adaptive selling once they are trained on the topic. Furthermore, as salespeople use adaptive selling, their performance will possibly improve. Therefore, this study has potential implications for sales management. LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH The research conclusions in this analysis should be interpreted within the context of their limitations. One limitation in this study relates to common method variance. Since all items in this research were measured at the salesperson level, the correlation between constructs may be inflated. It would be beneficial to replicate this study using measures at the manager level, as such a study would likely reduce this tendency.
Page 13
97sma195
Another limitation focuses on industry type. This concentration in four industries may limit the generalizability of the research. Although the four industries in this study held fairly similar views vis-a-vis adaptive selling, it remains probable that several sales forces portray clear distinctions from those examined here. It is suggested that this study be replicated over a wide range of industries. CONCLUSIONS This study revealed a scarcity of adaptive sales training in initial training programs. Despite this finding, adaptive selling was shown to have a positive affect on salesperson performance. Ergo, In the midst of increased competition and rising training costs, management should consider incorporating adaptive sales training into their training structure. Salespeople in this study buy into adaptive selling as an effective method, it has been shown to increase sales performance (Weitz 1984), and salespeople have indicated in this study that more adaptive sales training is necessary, in relation to other training topics. This scenario seems worthwhile to investigate. REFERENCES Alderson, Wroe (1957), Marketing Behavior and Executive, Action. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Allessandra, Tony and Rick Barrera (1993), Collaborative Selling. How to Gain the Competitive Advantage in Sales. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Anderson, Rolph E., Joseph F. Hair, Jr., and Alan J. Bush (1992), Professional Sales Management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bentler, P.M. (1990), "Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models," Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2), 238-246. Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Englewood
Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Bollen, Kenneth A.(1990), "Overall Fit in Covariance Structure Models: Two Types of Sample Size Effects," Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2), 256-259.
Page 14
97sma195
Ciampa, Dan (1992), Total Quality--A User's Guide for Implementation. Addison-Wesley Publishing. Chonko, Lawrence B., John E Tanner, Jr. and William A. Weeks (1993), "Sales Training: Status and Needs," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 13 (Fall), 81-86. Facteau, Jeffery D., Gregory H. Dobbins, and Joyce E. Russell (1995), "The Influence of General Perceptions of the Training Environment on Pretraining Motivation and Perceived Training Transfer," Journal of Management, 21 (1), 1-25. Fornell, Claes and David P. Larcker (1981), "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (February), 39-50. Fullagar, Clive.A., Daniel G. Gallagher, Michael E. Gordon and Paul F. Clark (1995), "Impact of Early Socialization on Union Commitment and Participation: A Longitudinal Study," Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (1), 147-157. Gengler, Charles E., Daniel J. Howard, and Kyle Zolner (1995) "A Personal Construct Analysis of Adaptive Selling and Sales Experience," Psychology and Marketing, 12 (July), 287-304. Gerbing, David and James Anderson (1988), " An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and its Assessment," Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May), 186-192. Greenberg, Herbert and David Mayer (1971), "A New Approach to the Scientific Selection of Successful Salesman," Journal of Psychology, 57(January), 113-124. Joreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom (1996), LISREL(R) 8: Analysis of Linear Structural Relations by the Method of Maximum Likelihood Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International. Knowles, Patricia A., Stephen J. Grove and Kay Keck (1994), "Signal Detection Theory and Sales Effectiveness," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 14 (Spring), 1-14.
Page 15
97sma195
Lamont, Lawrence M. and William J. Lundstrom (1977), "Identifying Successful Industrial Salesman by Personality and personal Characteristics" Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (November), 517-529. Levy, Michael and Arun Sharma (1994), "Adaptive Selling: The Role of Gender, Age, Sales Experience, and Education," Journal of Business Research, 31, 39-47. Netemeyer, Richard G, Scot Burton, and Donald R. Lichtenstein (1995), "Trait Aspects of Vanity: Measurement and Relevance to Consumer Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (4), 612-626. Peterson, Robe (1994), "A Meta-Analysis of Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha," Journal of Consumer Research, (21), 381-391. Schwartz, George (1963), Development of Marketing Theory. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing. Spiro, RosAnn L. and Barton A. Weitz (1990) "Adaptive Selling: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Nomological Validity," Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (February), 61-69. Weitz, Barton (1984), "Sales Effectiveness through Adaptation to Situational Demands," in Personal Selling , J. Jacoby and C. S. Craig, eds. Toronto: Lexington Books. Weitz, Barton A., Stephen B. Castleberry, and John F. Tanner (1992), "Selling: Building Partnerships. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Weitz, Barton A., Harish Sujan, and Mita Sujan (1986), "Knowledge, Motivation, and Adaptive Behavior: A Framework for Improving Selling Effectiveness," Journal of Marketing, 50 (October), 174-191.
Page 16
