The Role of Satisfaction With Territory Design on the Motivation, Attitudes, and Work Outcomes of Salespeople

Ken Grant
Monash University

David W. Cravens George S. Low William C. Moncrief

Texas Christian University

The primary emphasis of previous research concerning salespeople has beenfocused on their attitudes and behavior. The relationship between organizational variables and salesperson attitudes and behavior has received very limited attention. Sales territory design is largely uncontrollable by the salesperson, yet is acknowledged by managers and researchers as an important factor enabling salespeople to perform well. The objective is to examine satisfaction with territory design from the perspective of the salesperson. A conceptual model and hypotheses are developed linking the satisfaction with territory design with role ambiguity, intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction, and performance. Role conflict, met expectations, organizational commitment, and intention to leave are also included in the model Survey results provide strong support for 19 of the 21 hypotheses examined. The findings offer significant insights concerning the role of territory design satisfaction in face-to-face selling and its consequences. Several managerial implications and avenues f or future research are discussed.

Walker, Churchill, and Ford (1979) brought into sharp perspective the impact of organizational and environJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Volume 29, No. 2, pages 165-178. Copyright 9 2001 by Academy of Marketing Science.

mental variables on the results achieved by salespeople. Nonetheless, sales research during the past two decades has been dominated by studies investigating relationships among constructs directly associated with salespeople, such as their attitudes and behavior. As Brown and Peterson (1993) indicate, few studies examine the relationship between organizational variables and salesperson outcomes, and these studies consider primarily supervisory behaviors and job/task characteristics. For example, Brown and Peterson were unable to include organizational variables in their job satisfaction meta-analysis because of the limited number of study effects available. The few studies they found that do investigate organizational variables and salesperson outcomes identify general antecedents of salesperson role perceptions and job satisfaction such as organizational structure and job design (Brown and Peterson 1993). Sales territory design is an organizational variable that is acknowledged as an important sales management responsibility (Churchill, Ford, and Walker 1997). Sales territory design concerns decisions by sales management about assignment of customers, products, geographical areas, and other territory dimensions to individual salespeople. While the term territory implies a geographical configuration, it may also be defined as a group of assigned customers (accounts). Territory design is emphasized in sales management literature as an important factor in enabling salespeople to perform well (Cravens 1995; Cravens, Ingrain, LaForge, and Young 1992). Surprisingly,

166

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

SPRING 2001

territory design has been largely ignored in studies of salespeople's motivation, attitudes, and work outcomes. A salesperson's satisfaction level with territory design may have an important impact on attitudes and behavior. For example, a salesperson who perceives the territory to be unfairly designed (e.g., low sales potential) may consider leaving the organization because of this uncontrolled negative influence on performance. Similarly, low satisfaction with territory design may reduce the salesperson's motivation and job satisfaction. Research concerning sales territories typically has been centered on salesperson selling effort allocation models using allocation criteria such as workload and market potential (LaForge and Cravens 1985; Lodish 1980). The relevance of designing effective sales organizations is highlighted by the array of organizational restructuring, which occurred during the late 1980s and 1990s (Bailey 1989). Two recent studies examine territory design from the perspective of the sales manager to which a small number (typically less than 10) of salespeople report (Babakus, Cravens, Grant, Ingrain, and LaForge 1996; Piercy, Cravens, and Morgan 1999). This research considers relationships between sales management control, territory design, sales force performance, and sales organization effectiveness. The studies were conducted in Australia and the United Kingdom. However, no research has yet looked at how territory design affects an individual salesperson's attitudes and behavior. Our objective is to contribute to the emerging field of research in this area by examining territory design from the perspective of the individual salesperson. First, a conceptual model linking satisfaction with territory design to important salesperson variables is developed. Hypotheses are formulated based on the model. Next, the research design is described. Finally, the study results are presented and the managerial and research implications examined.

FIGURE 1 Satisfaction With Territory Design: A Conceptual Model

J, m (-)

i-x
I

- -

HI(+)

i
I

;.h
I Job

i
I

F ~e

"I Sq
F"

. (-) I

Intrln~

I (

.I

I (-) I . I t r e n t o n

'l

=TIIt:: IT
I

TLS
I

is abbreviated for the relationships that have received prior research attention.

Satisfaction With Territory Design

Sales territory design determines the scope of work responsibilities for the individual salesperson defined either by geography or by customer account responsibilities. Sales management must decide the number of accounts to be assigned to the salesperson, product responsibilities, and the geographical area to include (or other basis for identifying accounts such as type of industry). Several considerations may be important in deciding the territory design, including the buying power of the accounts, geographical dispersion of accounts, time required to service each account, and competitive intensity. The design objective is to provide approximately equal opportunities for salespeople to perform well across all territories. The construct of interest in our study is the salesperson's satisfaction with his or her territory design based on the perceived workload, sales potential, intensity of competition, and other relevant design factors. The salesperson's perception of the adequacy of the territory design is likely to affect his or her attitudes and behavior. For example, a poorly designed territory (e.g., a large number of low-potential and widely dispersed accounts) will limit the salesperson's opportunity to perform well. In contrast, a territory with too much potential relative to other territories may require more selling effort than one salesperson is

CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

The proposed conceptual model is shown in Figure 1. We begin with a discussion of the satisfaction with territory design construct; then we consider salesperson motivation, attitudes, and work outcomes and offer hypotheses regarding various relationships in the conceptual model. We opted to include variables and relationships from previous studies because of their demonstrated importance and the lack of research linking these variables to territory design satisfaction in a complete model. Hence, our objective is to extend research on salesperson attitudes and behavior by adding a relevant, yet overlooked, construct--satisfaction with territory design. The discussion

Grantet al. / ROLEOF SATISFACTION 167 able to provide. Importantly, poor territory design has negative consequences for both salespeople and the organization. While the salesperson's satisfaction with the territory design may not be solely a function of the territory itself, there should be a high correlation between satisfaction and the actual design, and this perception is likely to have primary impact on important consequences such as salesperson performance. Moreover, experienced salespeople are typically aware of interterritory differences. They communicate with each other. They attend group meetings and share information. Salespeople have demonstrated that they are able to make accurate self-assessments of performance (Churchill, Ford, Hartley, and Walker 1985). They should also be able to make correct assessments of territory design satisfaction. A study conducted with Australian field sales managers and chief sales executives using LISREL analysis reports significant relationships between managers' sales territory design satisfaction, behavior-based sales management control, salesperson behavior performance, salesperson outcome performance, and sales unit effectiveness (Babakus, Cravens, Grant, et al. 1996). Another study was conducted in the United Kingdom using a sample of field sales managers (Piercy et al. 1999). These appear to be the only studies that examine the relationship of territory design satisfaction with salesperson and organizational outcomes. Performance (as perceived by the sales manager) is the only salesperson construct included in these models. In addition, neither study considers the territory design satisfaction relationship to the individual salesperson's attitudes and behavior. Instead, the sales manager provides a composite assessment of his or her satisfaction with territory designs in the sales unit and overall performance for the salespeople assigned to the unit. The results of the Babakus, Cravens, Grant, et al. (1996) study of sales managers indicate the positive impact of satisfaction with sales territory design on the performance of salespeople and the effectiveness of the sales unit. Piercy et al. (1999) found a similar relationship between managers' satisfaction with sales territory designs and salesperson performance and sales unit effectiveness. Our objective is to add to the understanding of how the salesperson's satisfaction with territory design affects his or her attitudes and behavior. These relationships have not been considered in previous salesperson research. While salespeople have limited control over territory design, the extent of their satisfaction with the design has important consequences for the salespeople and their organizations. Moreover, salespeople who are not satisfied with their territory designs present situations that require possible sales management actions. Although the features and characteristics of the territory's design itself are important, the salespersons' satisfaction level with the territory's design is critical in understanding how their attitudes and behavior are affected by these features and characteristics.

Salesperson Motivation and Role Stressors

Salesperson intrinsic motivation and role stressors are recognized as important, relevant antecedents of salesperson work outcomes in past research (Anderson and Oliver 1987; Brown and Peterson 1993), and satisfaction with territory design is a potentially important antecedent to both constructs.
Intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is defined as the salesperson's feeling of challenge or competence resuiting from performing the job (Keaveney 1992). Intrinsically motivated individuals appear to be better able to handle work situations that require interpreting conflicting or ambiguous demands as challenging and stimulating aspects of their job responsibilities (Keaveney and Nelson 1993). A positive relationship between satisfaction with territory design and intrinsic motivation is consistent with the general theory of individual perceptions of personal causality (Deci and Ryan 1985). Applying this logic to salespeople, Anderson and Oliver (1987) propose that "individuals must feel they are responsible for the results of their efforts if intrinsic motivation is to be enhanced" (p. 82). Lack of satisfaction with territory design is a potential constraint regarding the salesperson's acceptance of responsibility for the results of his or her efforts. Salespeople are more likely to be intrinsically motivated if they are satisfied with the territory design that management has created. Therefore, we offer the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: The higher the salesperson's satisfaction with the territory design, the higher the salesperson's intrinsic motivation. Role stress. Pruden and Reese (1972) define role stressors as salespeople's perceptions concerning their roles as organizational boundary spanners. Stressors related to specific aspects of the salesperson's role in the organization have been examined in prior salesperson research (Dubinsky and Mattson 1979; Ford, Walker, and Churchill 1975; Johnston, Parasuraman, Futrell, and Black 1990; Michaels, Cron, Dubinsky, and Joachimsthaler 1988; Michaels, Day, and Joachimsthaler 1987). Two major stressors, role ambiguity and role conflict, have received primary attention in marketing because of the interest in boundary role stress (Singh, Verbeke, and Rhoads 1996). They are included in our conceptual model (see Figure 1). Both constructs have been found to have a significant effect on salespeople's job-related attitudes and behaviors (Michaels and Dixon 1994).

168

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

SPRING 2001

Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) define roleambiguity as a stress situation in which a person lacks clear direction about the expectations of his or her role in the job or organization. When role ambiguity is high, the salesperson does not fully understand the job in terms of necessary activities, how to perform them, and their relative importance (Behrman and Perreault 1984; Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1972). Role conflict is defined as incompatibility in communicated expectations that impinge on perceived role performance. For example, when the requests of a customer and the sales manager are at odds, the salesperson is likely to experience role conflict. Role ambiguity is conceptualized to be positively related to role conflict (Brown and Peterson 1993; Sager 1994). Perceived role ambiguity by the salesperson concerning the job situation will increase role conflict. There is also empirical support for this relationship (Babakus, Cravens, Johnston, and Moncrief 1996; Brown and Peterson 1993; Sager 1994). Intrinsically motivated salespeople are expected to experience less role ambiguity because they perceive their activities to be self-determined (Deci and Ryan 1985). Intrinsic motivation seems more likely to affect role ambiguity than role conflict, assuming that role ambiguity is an antecedent of role conflict. In addition, intrinsically motivated salespeople would be more likely to seek out and clarify job responsibilities on their own, thus reducing role ambiguity. Therefore, we offer the following hypotheses:

Work Outcomes
To relate the territory design construct to existing salesperson research, we include salesperson performance, job satisfaction, met expectations, organizational commitment, and intention to leave as work outcome constructs in the satisfaction with territory design model (see Figure 1). The relevance of these constructs has been shown in previous sales studies, and the constructs are potentially relevant in our conceptual model, particularly as they relate to satisfaction with territory design.

Performance. Salesperson performance is conceptualized to include behavior and outcome components (Anderson and Oliver 1987; Behrman and Perreault 1984; Cravens, Ingrain, LaForge, and Young 1993; Oliver and Anderson 1994). Behavioral performance is defined as the evaluation of various activities and strategies salespeople engage in when performing their job responsibilities (e.g., developing and making sales presentations). The consequences of salespeople's efforts and skills are outcomes (results) that comprise outcome performance. Our salesperson performance construct is a higher level conceptualization that includes both behavior and outcome dimensions of performance. Babakus, Cravens, Grant, et al. (1996) and Piercy et al. (1999) offer conceptual support for a positive relationship between managers' satisfaction with territory design and salesperson performance. Well-designed territories enable salespeople to perform well, recognizing that they must direct the necessary skills and effort to take advantage of the performance potential. These studies consider an overall assessment of performance for the salespeople in the manager's sales unit. Significant positive paths were found in the manager studies between satisfaction with sales unit territory designs and both behavior and outcome performance dimensions for Australian and U.K. samples of field sales managers. These research results suggest that managers who make effective sales organization design decisions provide salespeople with an opportunity to perform well. 1Assuming that satisfaction with sales territory design affects salespeople's activities and outcomes, a salesperson's satisfaction with territory design should affect performance. Such a relationship at the salesperson level is consistent with the conceptual logic at the sales manager level of the organization. Salespeople who are more satisfied with their territory designs will perceive a favorable opportunity to perform well. We acknowledge that attribution theory may suggest that salespeople will blame prior past performance on uncontrollable factors such as territory design, thus positioning performance as a design antecedent. However, we propose, based on previ-

Hypothesis 2: The higher the intrinsic motivation, the

lower the role ambiguity of the salesperson. Hypothesis 3: The higher the role ambiguity, the greater the role conflict. Researchers have proposed that organizations influence how role stress develops for individuals (Singh et al. 1996). Understanding these linkages may enable organizations to create low-stress environments. Territory design is an organizational variable, and the salesperson's extent of satisfaction with the territory design is proposed to have an impact on his or her role ambiguity. If the design is perceived as unsatisfactory, this may be viewed as an unfavorable organizational environment by the salesperson, contributing to greater role ambiguity. Since role ambiguity is considered an antecedent of role conflict in our model, we propose that satisfaction with territory design will be more closely related to role ambiguity. Accordingly, we offer the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: The higher the salesperson's satisfaction

with the territory design, the lower will be the salesperson's role ambiguity.

Grantet al. / ROLEOF SATISFACTION 169 ously cited research, that performance is more likely to be a consequence of satisfaction with territory design. ing the territory. Accordingly, we predict the following relationship:

Hypothesis 5: The greater the extent of the salesperson's satisfaction with the sales territory design, the higher the level of salesperson performance.
There is conceptual support for a negative relationship between role ambiguity and performance (Brown and Peterson 1993). Salespeople who experience role ambiguity are expected to display lower performancebecause they do not clearly understand the expectations of their role in the job or organization (Rizzo et al. 1970). Babakus, Cravens, Johnston, and Moncrief (1999) found a significant negative path between role ambiguity and performance in a single-company study of emotional exhaustion using a sample of salespeople. The Brown and Peterson (1993) meta-analysis also supports a negative relationship between role ambiguity and performance. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 7: The greater the extent of the salesperson's satisfaction with territory design, the higher the level of job satisfaction.
People who are intrinsically oriented are more likely to be motivated toward challenge and stimulation in their jobs (Deci and Ryan 1985). Anderson and Oliver (1987) propose that "implicit in the Deci and Ryan scheme is the belief that individuals prefer their activities to be self-determined rather than other-determined and therefore that they also prefer intrinsically motivated states" (p. 82). This logic provides strong support for the logic that salespeople with high intrinsic motivation are likely to display high satisfaction with their jobs. Keaveney and Nelson (1993) propose and report a significant positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction in their sample of 305 buyers for retail organizations. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: Higher levels of role ambiguity will have a negative impact on salesperson performance.
There is no compelling conceptual support for a relationship between role conflict and performance. Brown and Peterson (1993) conceptualize a path between the two constructs, but they eliminate the path in their revised conceptual model. Other studies do not conceptualize the relationship (Babakus et al. 1999).

Hypothesis 8: Higher levels of intrinsic motivation will have a positive impact on the salesperson's job satisfaction.
Role ambiguity and role conflict are expected to have negative effects on the salesperson's job satisfaction (Brown and Peterson 1993; Jackson and Schuler 1985). Salespeople experiencing these role stressors are likely to be less satisfied with their jobs because of perceptions of confusion and uncertainty related to their job responsibilities. In the selling environment, role conflict appears to have a somewhat stronger effect on job satisfaction than does role ambiguity (Netemeyer, Johnston, and Burton 1990; Teas 1983). Accordingly,there is support for a negative relationship between both role stressors and salesperson job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction. Churchill, Ford, and Walker (1974) define the job satisfaction construct as "all characteristics of the job itself and the work environment which [salespeople] find rewarding, fulfilling, and satisfying or frustrating and unsatisfying" (p. 255). Individuals' satisfaction with their jobs has received research attention in seeking to understand employee behaviors and attitudes. Churchill et al. examined job satisfaction in a sales setting. The job satisfaction construct has been conceptualized as an antecedent of several job-related attitudes and behavior in sales organizations (Johnston et al. 1990; Sager 1994). Empirical support has been found for these relationships.
Salespeople's satisfaction with their territory designs is proposed to be positively related to salesperson job satisfaction. Salespeople who perceive their assigned territory to be poorly designed are likely to be less satisfied with their jobs than those who are very satisfied with their territory designs. Satisfaction with territory design should be positively linked with several of the job satisfaction components. For example, high satisfaction with the territory design should have a positive impact on salespersons' satisfaction with the sales manager who has a role in design-

Hypothesis 9: The greater the amount of role ambiguity, the lower the salesperson's job satisfaction. Hypothesis 10: The greater the amount of role conflict, the lower the salesperson's job satisfaction.
The existence of a conceptual relationship between performance and job satisfaction and whether performance is an antecedent or consequence have received considerable attention by researchers (Behrman and Perreault 1984; Brown and Peterson 1993). Conceptual logic would argue that high-performance salespeople should display high job satisfaction. However, an opposite logic may be offered. High-performing salespeople may be less satisfied because of lower than expected re-

170

JOURNAL OF TIlE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

SPRING 2001

wards. Consistent with this, Behrman and Perreault (1984) suggest that the inconsistent and weak empirical results in prior research may be because both constructs concerning the performance-satisfaction relationship are linked to common antecedent variables. Brown and Peterson (1993) eliminated the path in their revised job satisfaction meta-analysis model. Based on the research evidence, we decided not to include the relationship in our conceptual model (see Figure 1).

Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment is defined as the relative strength of a person's identification with and involvement in an organization (Mowday, Porter, and Steers 1982). "Greater job satisfaction appears to be associated with more significant, challenging, and varied tasks, with greater amounts of participation and involvement, with shared values, and with higher pay" (Brown and Peterson 1993:65). Higher levels ofjob satisfaction of salespeople should lead to higher commitment to the organization. When salespeople are satisfied with various aspects of their jobs and their work environment, they are more likely to identify with the organization in which they work. Sager (1994) conceptualizes and reports job satisfaction to have a significant positive effect on organizational commitment. Other research findings indicate a positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Johnston et al. 1990). Therefore, we hypothesize the following relationship: Hypothesis 11: Higher levels of job satisfaction will be positively related to the salesperson's organizational commitment.
The earlier discussion of the antecedent role of job stressors regarding job outcomes suggests a direct relationship between role ambiguity and organizational commitment. High role ambiguity is more likely to occur when the salesperson does not understand the activities that should be performed, how to perform them, and their importance (Behrman and Perreault 1984; Walker et al. 1972). Salespeople experiencing role ambiguity are expected to be less committed to their organization because the organization is viewed as being responsible for establishing clear expectations for employees. When these expectations are not clearly communicated, salespeople may have a harder time identifying with the organization itself. Johnston et al. (I 990) propose a negative relationship between ambiguity and commitment and report a significant negative path. Because of the conceptual and empirical support for the ambiguity-commitment relationship, we offer the following hypothesis:

Intention to leave. Intention to leave the organization is defined as the propensity or the extent to which the salesperson is likely to leave the organization (Bluedom 1982). Intention to leave is conceptualized as the immediate precursor of actual turnover, and thus intention to leave is an important consequence in our model (Mobley, Homer, and Hollingsworth 1978). Greater job satisfaction and greater organizational commitment are expected to decrease the salesperson's intention to leave the organization (Bedian and Achilles 1981; Netemeyer et al. 1990; Sager 1994). Salespeople who are not satisfied with various aspects of their jobs and are not committed to their organizations would be more likely to seek employment at another organization. Johnston et al. (1990) found a strong negative relationship between organizational commitment and intention to leave. Brown and Peterson (1993) model intention to leave as a consequence of organizational commitment, but they do not show a path between satisfaction and intention to leave. Other studies propose and provide support for a negative relationship between job satisfaction and intention to leave (e.g., Babakus et al. 1999; Netemeyer et al. 1990; Sager 1994). Therefore, there is substantial support for the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 13: Higher levels of salesperson job satisfaction will reduce intention to leave the sales force. Hypothesis 14: Higher levels of salesperson organizational commitment will reduce intention to leave the sales force.
Brown and Peterson (1993) propose a positive relationship between role ambiguity and intention to leave in their meta-analysis model. Salespeople who consider their role in the organization to be ambiguous may view the uncertainty and confusion associated with this ambiguity in a negative way, increasing their intention to leave the organization. Recent studies do not include a direct path between these constructs (Babakus et al. 1999; Sager 1994). However, based on our conceptual logic, we hypothesize an ambiguity/intention to leave path in our model:

Hypothesis 15: Higher levels of role ambiguity will increase the salesperson's intention to leave the organization.
In our model, we propose a path between performance and organizational commitment. Brown and Peterson (1993) observe that"to the extent that salespeople attribute performance outcomes to organizational support, their commitment to the organization is likely to increase" (p. 67). They emphasize that sales performance appears to be only weakly related to work outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention to leave. We suggest that poorly performing salespeople tend to attribute their poor performance to a lack of organizational sup-

Hypothesis 12: Higher levels of role ambiguity will have a negative impact on the salesperson's organizational commitment.

Grant et al. / ROLE OF SATISFACTION

171

port, thus undermining their commitment to the organization. Accordingly, we offer the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 19: The more positive the salesperson's met expectations, the greater will be the salesperson's organizational commitment.
Role stressors (role ambiguity and role conflict) may also have a direct impact on met expectations. When the salesperson does not understand the job and its responsibilities (role ambiguity), he or she is likely to feel more uncertainty about whether it has met his or her expectations. Similarly, incompatibility in communicated expectations (role conflict) is also likely to negatively affect the salesperson's met expectations. Thus, there is an underlying conceptual logic regarding the impact of role ambiguity and role conflict on met expectations. Therefore, we propose a role ambiguity-met expectations relationship and a role conflict-met expectations relationship since both role stressors are expected to affect attitudes in a similar way. We offer the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 16: The higher the level of salesperson performance, the higher the salesperson's organizational commitment.
We propose a relationship between performance and intention to leave. High performance is expected to contribute to favorable job attributes and lower turnover (Brown, Cron, and Leigh 1993). The issue of interest is whether the relationship is direct or indirect. We propose a direct relationship from performance to intention to leave. The conceptual logic is that intention to leave should be higher for lower performing salespeople compared with higher performers. Low performers may be more likely to attribute their situation to the job and organization and, in an effort to seek higher performance,may be more likely to seek employment elsewhere. Consequently, we favor investigating the performance-intention to leave relationship, and we include the path in our model. We propose a negative relationship, though it is possible that high-performing salespeople who are not satisfied in their jobs may display high intentions to leave the organization. Nonetheless, basic management logic points to a negative relationship between the constructs: 2

Hypothesis 20: The higher the salesperson's role conflict, the lower the salesperson's met expectations. Hypothesis 21: The higher the salesperson's role ambiguity, the lower will be the salesperson's met expectations.

RESEARCH DESIGN Research Setting

We selected Australia as the research site for the present study because of the prior sales manager territory design study conducted in this country. Comparisons of sales management research conducted in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States indicate generally consistent findings across these countries (of. Babakus, Cravens, Grant, et al. 1996; Cravens et al. 1993; Piercy et al. 1999). We would expect similar findings at the salesperson level of analysis. The questionnaire was pretested in personal interviews with sales managers and salespeople. Since several of the scales have been used in prior studies, the primary objective of the pretest was to ensure that terms and wording were understandable to respondents.

Hypothesis 17: The higher the level of salesperson performance, the lower the salesperson's intention to leave the organization. Met expectations. The met expectations construct considers how the salesperson's actual job experience corresponds to expectations at the time of employment. This construct has received limited research attention (Babakus, Cravens, Johnston, and Moncrief 1996). Conceptually, job satisfaction should be positively related to the met expectations construct since they both relate to similar perceptions of their jobs. While satisfaction gets at the salesperson's present feelings about his or her job, met expectations convey the salesperson's feelings about whether the job turned out as expected. Salespeople who feel that their jobs have met their expectations should be more satisfied with those jobs and should also display higher commitment to the organization. Salespeople may attribute their job's fulfillmentof their expectations to the organization, increasing their commitment to it. Babakus, Cravens, Johnston, and Moncrief (1996) conceptualize these relationships and report significant paths between met expectations and job satisfaction and organizational commitment in their job satisfaction study in a single company. Based on the conceptual logic of the relationships, we offer the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 18: The higher the salesperson's job satisfaction, the higher the met expectations.

The Sampling Plan

The study objective was to obtain salesperson responses from a large number of organizations with sales forces across different industries. The sales forces were from different selling environments such as telecommunications, printing (commercial, magazines/catalogues), mail delivery, chemical, paint, packaging, tires, building materials, and snack foods. The sample included companies representing both industrial and consumer products and services.

172

JOURNAL THEACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE OF

SPRING2001 for not at all was used to measure the salesperson's level of satisfaction. The reliability coefficient was 0.82 (Cronbach 1970). Intrinsic motivation was measured using a four-item scale based on Anderson and Oliver (1987) and subsequent research by Cravens et al. (1993) and Oliver and Anderson (1994). This scale measures the salesperson's motivation toward the job (e.g., personal satisfaction from doing the job well). The respondent indicated the extent of agreement concerning each item using a scale anchored by strongly agree (7) and strongly disagree (1). The reliability coefficient was 0.77. Role ambiguity and role conflict were measured using Rizzo et al.'s (1970) six- and eight-item scales, respectively. These scales have been used extensively in salesperson research studies (Johnston et al. 1990). The respondent indicated the frequency of encountering each situation described using a scale anchored by always (5) and never (1). The reliability coefficient was 0.77 for role ambiguity and 0.74 for role conflict. Salesperson performance was measured using a nine-item scale based on the Behrman and Perreault (1984) Self-Rating of Performance Scale. Self-ratings have been found to be highly correlated with sales manager ratings of salesperson performance (Churchill et al. 1985). The items are summary dimensions from more extensive scales intended to provide multiple-item measures of behavioral and outcome performance (Babakus, Cravens, Grant, et al. 1996; Cravens et al. 1993). The scale was anchored by outstanding (7) and needs improvement (1). The reliability coefficient for performance was 0.84. Job satisfaction (Churchill et al. 1974) and organizational commitment (Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian 1974) were measured using 28- and 9-item scales, respectively. The job satisfaction measure is a reduced scale developed by Comer, Machleit, and Lagace (1989). It includes satisfaction with the sales manager, work in general, promotional opportunities, pay, coworkers, and customers. The 9-item organizational commitment scale gauges the salesperson's feelings toward the organization (e.g., I really care about the future of this organization). Respondents indicated the level of agreement for each statement, using a scale anchored by strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1). Both scales have been used in prior sales research. The reliability coefficient was 0.89 for satisfaction and 0.90 for organizational commitment. The intention to leave measure is a four-item scale developed by Bluedorn (1982). The measure considers the respondent's chances of quitting the job during the next 3 months, 6 months, next year, and next 2 years. It is anchored by very high (7) to very low (1). The reliability coefficient was 0.88. Met expectations was measured using a 44-item scale developed by Griffith, Hair, and Johnston (1994). The scale has been used in a salesperson job satisfaction study

A judgment sampling methodology was adopted to include diverse selling environments. This is a similar method to other intercompany research studies in sales and marketing (e.g., Cravens et al. 1993; Lilien and Weinstein 1984). Participating organizations were selected from a list of companies selling consumer and/or industrial products and services and representing various sales force sizes with a designated selling department and salespeople. A manager in each firm was contacted by telephone to determine if a company field sales force was used and if the sales manager would be willing to cooperate in the study. Each manager distributed questionnaires to the individual salespeople who returned them directly to the researchers, ensuring confidentiality. For ethical reasons, the questionnaire clearly stated the noncompulsory nature of the study, and this tended to lower the response rate. The sales managers distributed memorandums stressing the significance of the study and requesting salesperson cooperation. The participating firms received a summary of the research results. A total of 148 salespeople from 27 companies participated in the study. Responses were obtained from 55 percent of salespeople in the companies that agreed to participate in the study. The response rate of 55 percent was considered acceptable given the length of the questionnaire. The response range and rate satisfied the sample objectives to include data from a variety of selling environments. Comparisons of demographic characteristics for the entire sales force to the characteristics in the sample indicated no apparent nonresponse bias. The sample was 87 percent male and 13 percent female, had a median age of 34 years, and had a median tenure with the company of 4 years. Approximately 52 percent of the respondents had college degrees. Fixed salary was 82 percent (mean) of total compensation.
Instruments

Each of the constructs shown in Figure 1 was operationalized using scales in the extant literature.

Satisfaction with territory design. This construct was measured using a multiple-item scale based on the sales force deployment and territory design literature (Babakus, Cravens, Grant, et al. 1996). The scale was first developed for use by sales manager respondents. Each of the six items considers a relevant aspect of territory design and should be very familiar to salespeople. The six items (number of accounts, number of calls, amount of travel, market potential, workload, and overall territory design) are applicable to designs based on geography and customer or product specialization. Thus, the scale items should provide a meaningful assessment of satisfaction with territory design from the perspective of the salesperson. A 7-point scale anchored by 7 for very satisfied and 1

Grantet al. / ROLEOF SATISFACTION 173

TABLE 1 Measure Intercorrelations, Reliability Coefficients, Means and Standard Deviations, and Measurement Model Goodness-of-Fit Indexes
Measures Intrinsic Role Role Satisfaction With Job Organizational Intention Met Motivation Ambiguity Conflict Territory Design Satisfaction Commitment Performance to Leave Expectations 0.77

Intrinsicmotivation Role ambiguity Role conflict Satisfactionwith territorydesign Job satisfaction Organizational commitment Performance Intentionto leave Met expectations Samplemean Standard deviation Measurementmodel Goodness-of-FitIndex

-0.29 -0.21 0.18 0.37 0.37 0.18 -0.08* 0.18 6.19 0.75 0.93

0.77

0.35 -0.34 -0.44 -0.54 -0.33 0.41 -0.54 1.97 0.53 0.98

0.74

-0.21 -0.45 -0.46 -0.11" 0.31 -0.38 2.59 0.55 0.93

0.82

0.46 0.45 0.40 -0.17 0.32 4.79 0.94 0.92

0.89

0.72 0.24 -0.42 0.55 4.73 0.69 0.94

0.90

0.35 -0.42 0.62 4.96 1.04 0.91

0.84

0.05* 0.20 4.95 0.88 0.84

0.88

--0.36 2.16 1.40 0.81

0.94

3.18 0.46 0.79

NOTE: Scalereliabilitiesare shownon the diagonal. All correlationsare significantat p < .05, exceptthose markedwith *.

(Babakus, Cravens, Johnston, and Moncrief 1996). The respondent compares his or her work experience with the expectations about the job at the time of employment. Examples of items include doing interesting work, having competent supervisors, and learning new skills and knowledge. The scale is anchored by much better (5) and much worse (1). The reliability coefficient for met expectations was 0.94. The construct measures were subject to confirmatory factor analysis to further assess their measurement properties as recommended by Gerbing and Anderson (1992). Confirmatory factor analysis of each measure indicated acceptable levels of fit and significant loadings of all scale items on their respective latent constructs. Specifically, the results of the linear structural equations modeling analyses produced goodness-of-fit indices ranging from 0.79 to 0.98, which indicate reasonable levels of model fit (Sharma 1996). See Table 1 for the measurement model goodness-of-fit indices. A series of pairwise confirmatory factor analyses was conducted to assess discriminant validity of the measures using chi-square difference tests (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). For each pair of measures, the chi-square difference test produced a significant result (see Table 2). That is, trying to force measures of different constructs into a single underlying factor led to a significant deterioration of model fit relative to a two-factor model. These results provide evidence of discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Based on the satisfactory measurement tests and the large number of individual scale items included in this study (more than 140), summated scores of the multi-item scales were used to test the research hypotheses. The use of summary constructs reduced the model's complexity,

identification problems, and the variable to sample size ratio, as suggested by Calantone, Schmidt, and Song (1996). This method also allows us to test the 21 hypotheses based on the sample size of 148 respondents. The correlations among the summed construct measures and Cronbach's (1970) alpha coefficient for each variable are shown in Table 1.

RESEARCH RESULTS
The 21 hypotheses based on Figure 1 and the structural model were simultaneously tested using Amos 3.6 (Arbuckle 1997). The results offer strong support for the hypothesized model relationships. The overall model fit statistics indicate that the hypothesized model provides an excellent fit to the data. In particular, the values of chi-square, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 3 were 17.25, 0.97, 0.92, and 0.03 respectively. The p value associated with the chi-square statistic indicates acceptance of the model (p = .30). Other statistics also suggest a good fit, especially on the basis of the Normed Fit Index (NFI = 0.96, recommended by Bentler and Bonett 1980), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI = 0.99), and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI = 0.99).

Hypothesis Tests
The results of the empirical test of the satisfaction with territory design model are shown in Table 3. All hypothesized paths are significant at .05 or better, except for the

174

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

SPRING 2001

TABLE 2 Discriminant Validity Checks: Chi-Square Differences

Constructs
Intrinsic motivation Role ambiguity Role conflict Satisfaction with territory design Job satisfaction Organizational commitment Performance Intention to leave Met expectations

Intrinsic Role Role Satisfaction With Job Organizational Intention Met Motivation Ambiguity Conflict Territory Design Satisfaction Commitment Performance to Leave Expectations
154.67 158.58 177.19 127.73 138.28 175.28 184.59 162.73

110.38 187.69 121.85 128.49 190.83 194.00 103.96 132.20 71.75 90.73 165.22 140.95 119.74

178.82 175.43 170.12 417.99 228.71 69.42 368.31 331.55 327.76

326.86 320.34 284.51

424.78 382,40

364.23

NOTE: Chi-square difference between the separate latent constructs measurement model and a one latent construct measurement model (all tests = 1 dJ); z Z > l l , p <.001.

role conflict to met expectations path (Hypothesis 20), and all these were in the hypothesized direction, except for the path from performance to intention to leave (Hypothesis 17). Thus, 19 of the21 hypotheses are supported. The variations in salesperson outcomes explained by the hypothesized antecedents are 20 percent for performance, 42 percent for met expectations, 62 percent for organizational commitment, 40 percent for job satisfaction, and 30 percent for intention to leave. The paths from satisfaction with territory design to intrinsic motivation, role ambiguity, performance, and job satisfaction highlight a potentially important role of the territory design satisfaction construct in salesperson motivation, attitudes, and work outcomes. Satisfaction with
d e s i g n is p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to f a v o r a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s

TABLE 3 Hypothesized Path Results

Hypothesis Hypothesized Path Coefficient t Values
0.18 -4).24 0.35 -0.30 0.32 -0.21 0.31 0.21 -0.18 -0.29 0.49 -0.16 -0.21 -0.19 0.30 0.13 0.26 0.34 0.24 -0.11 -0.36 2.22 -3.11 4.48 -3.95 4.11 -2.72 4.53 3.13 -2.43 --4.20 7.88 -2.47 -2.12 -1.75 3.57 2.42 3.48 4.58 3.59 -1.50 (ns) -5.00

nl
H2

H3
H4

H5
H6 I-I7 H8 H9

(intrinsic motivation, performance, and job satisfaction) and negatively related to role ambiguity. The results involving the paths from intrinsic motivation and the role stressors to job outcomes are generally consistent with prior research results. Since most of these studies have been conducted in the United States, the consistency of prior findings in another developed country is a relevant extension of knowledge. In addition, the strong overall model results further highlight the importance of the satisfaction with territory design construct in gaining a better understanding of prior research results. The magnitudes of the standardized path coefficients offer some useful insights into the relative roles of each construct. Interestingly, role ambiguity displays the largest path coefficient to intention to leave. Its value of 0.30 compares with--0.18 for job satisfaction, -0.16 for organizational commitment, and -0.21 for performance. The largest path coefficient in the model is between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (0.49), and the smallest significant coefficient is between performance and commitment (0.13).

H10 HI1 H12 a13

H14

H15 H16
H17 H18

H19 a20 H21

Satisfaction with territory design ~ intrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation ~ role ambiguity (-) Role ambiguity --* role conflict Satisfaction with territory design --~ role ambiguity (-) Satisfaction with territory design ~ performance Role ambiguity -~ performance (-) Satisfaction with territory design --~ job satisfaction Intrinsic motivation -~ job satisfaction Role ambiguity -~ job satisfaction (-) Role conflict -~ job satisfaction (-) Job satisfaction -~ organizational commitment Role ambiguity --~ organizational commitment (-) Job satisfaction ~ intention to leave (-) Organizational commitment --4 intention to leave (-) Role ambiguity -o intention to leave Performance ~ organizational commitment Performance --~ intention to leave (-) Job satisfaction --* met expectations Met expectations ~ organizational commitment Role conflict ~ m e t expectations (-) Role ambiguity --->met expectations (-)

Grant et al. / ROLE OF SATISFACTION

175

The positive path between performanceand intention to leave the organization is both interesting and surprising. This finding suggests that salespeople who display high performance are more likely than others to leave the organization. We should note that the simple correlation between the two construct measures is not significant (see Table I). Apparently, the performance antecedents are contributing to the positive relationship between performance and intention to leave. This finding warrants further study. It is also possible that the finding is the consequence of a different sales culture (Australia).

FIGURE 2 Satisfaction With Territory Design: Submodel Role Ambiguity (,17)*

.24

-.21

~. Performance (.20)*
.32

-.26

Motivation

Intrinsic L

Discussion
The research findings offer significant insights concerning the role of territory design satisfaction in face-to-face selling and its consequences. The results provide support for the relevance of the satisfaction with territory design construct in salesperson research. Importantly, since territory design is largely uncontrollable by the salesperson, proactive efforts by management are necessary to achieve favorable consequences of design. The study findings concerning territory design satisfaction and salespeople's motivation, attitudes, and work outcomes highlight the importance of design in achieving favorable salesperson outcomes. Interestingly, design satisfaction's largest path coefficient is with performance. Design satisfaction also has a nearly equal path coefficient to job satisfaction. The potential importance of satisfaction with territory design as a sales management initiative is apparent. A relevant issue is the contribution of the satisfaction with territory design construct to the model presented in Figure 1. To assess the significance/empirical relevance of the construct, the submodel shown in Figure 2 was analyzed. It includes the four constructs influenced by satisfaction with territory design and the hypothesized interrelationships among the five constructs. The significance and explanatory power of the submodel are apparent. All paths are significant at .05 or better and in the direction hypothesized. The overall model fit statistics display an excellent fit to the data (AGFI = .98, p = .66). A key issue is understanding the role of perceived performance on salespeople's intentions to leave the organization. This positive relationship between performance and intention to leave may be the consequence of the indirect impact of other constructs through performance on intention to leave. Another possibility is that in the Australian work environment, top performers may be more likely than lower performers to consider leaving the organization and to change jobs more frequently. Successful salespeople may be more influenced in this business environment by factors such as limited advancementopportunities, lack of recognition, and low salary/benefits as reasons to seek other positions compared with those who are less

(.03)* [

.18

I Sausfacuon with I t~ Ter

Job Satisfaction
(.35)*

NOTE: X2= 0.82; df=2;p = .66; Goodness-of-Fit Index = 1.00; Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index = 0.98; root mean square error o f approximation = .00; Normed Fit Index = 0.99. * variance explained.

successful. The high percentage of fixed compensation in this sample may also be driving top performers to look elsewhere for positions that offer more incentive compensation or incremental salary improvements. In looking at the constructs in our model that have been examined as antecedents and consequences in previous salesperson research, it is apparent that role ambiguity plays a central role in the satisfaction with territory design model. Satisfaction with territory design has a desirable negative impact on role ambiguity. In turn, role ambiguity has a positive impact on role conflict and intention to leave the organization and a negative impact on performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and met expectations.

IMPLICATIONS
The study findings highlight several implications of potential importance to sales management. We also examine certain possibilities for continuing the research stream related to territory design and discuss limitations of the study.

Management Implications
Our findings indicate the potential usefulness of the satisfaction with territory design construct in reducing negative salesperson consequences (e.g., role ambiguity) and

176 JOURNAL THEACADEMYOFMARKETINGSCIENCE OF enhancing positive consequences (intrinsic motivation, performance, and job satisfaction). To identify the need for possible territory design initiatives, the sales manager should assess the adequacy of each territory design and determine the extent of satisfaction with territory design for each salesperson. Satisfaction of the salesperson could be determined from regular discussions with the salesperson, issues raised by the salesperson, and answers to questions posed by the manager. Sales management should determine, in situations where the salesperson's satisfaction with design is low, whether the perception is correct and the action(s) that should be taken to improve the level of design satisfaction. If the salesperson's perception is not correct, then better communications may be needed. A correct perception may call for either redesign or adjustment in performance expectations to account for design imbalances. Otherwise, as predicted in the model (see Figure 1), job satisfaction may decline and affect organizational commitment and intention to leave. Another important study implication is that sales management should make a major effort to explain to salespeople how territories are designed and to discuss the proactive efforts made by management to provide salespeople with fair and equitable opportunities to perform well. The study results strongly suggest that this issue is relevant to salespeople. The salespeople in the sample vary in their satisfaction with their territory designs, and the study results indicate that design differences directly and indirectly affect important salesperson consequences. The study findings also highlight the roles of job sarisfaction and organizational commitment in reducing salesperson turnover. In addition to increasing intrinsic motivation and reducing role conflict and role ambiguity, management's actions to strengthen job satisfaction and organizational commitment of salespeople are important in reducing intention to leave the organization. This supports research findings from other studies that indicate that sales managers' monitoring, directing, evaluating, and rewarding activities should be helpful in strengthening satisfaction and commitment as well as communicating territory design information (Oliver and Anderson 1994).

SPRING2001 earlier, poor past performance could be attributed to poor design by the salesperson. Attention should also be given to the measure used for satisfaction with territory design. Are there other aspects of design that should be included in the measure? For example, product complexity, the extent of product specialization, and number of prospects may be relevant design considerations. The frequency of design changes made by management may also be an important factor influencing salesperson perceptions. For example, given the rapidly changing business environment, territory designs that have not been altered for several years are likely to lead to salesperson dissatisfaction. Our measure does not capture a direct assessment of design change. Future research should also consider alternative measures of performance. We employ a summary salesperson assessment of major dimensions of behavior and outcome performance. An alternative approach may be to use scales to measure behavior and outcome performance as separate constructs (Babakus, Cravens, Grant, et al. 1996; Oliver and Anderson 1994). In addition, performance measurement would benefit by linking outcome performance measures with quantitative measures such as sales volume, unit sales, sales growth, quota achievement, and contribution to profits. The use of salesperson performance ratings by managers should also be considered as alternative measures. The logic of our conceptual model was to incorporate several salesperson constructs that have been found relevant in other studies. Consideration should be given in the future to examining other relevant constructs such as salesperson burnout, sales management control, and organizational citizenship behavior. We were concerned with model parsimony in the present study and, as a result, focused our research on the constructs in Figure 1.

Study Limitations
Several study limitations are noted in the Avenues for Future Research section (design measure, alternative performance measures, and design antecedents). In addition, sales manager measures of satisfaction with territory design and salesperson performance would be very useful. The difference between manager and salesperson design satisfaction is a potentially interesting construct for investigation. Conducting the study in a single organization would eliminate variation across selling environments and may offer useful insights into the Figure 1 relationships. We would expect to find stronger relationships within one organization. Our cross-sectional analyses do not take into account how satisfaction with design changes over time. A process view of territory design would provide relevant insights into the effects of antecedents to design and design

Avenues for Future Research

The opportunities for research concerning territory design at the salesperson level are very promising. It is apparent that research in other sales settings is essential to more fully explore the effects of satisfaction with territory design on salesperson behavior and outcomes. Further study is also needed to identify the possible antecedents of the satisfaction with territory design construct. Relevant antecedents may be salesperson, organizational, or environmental factors (Walker et al. 1979). As discussed

Grant et al. / ROLE OF SATISFACTION

177

consequences. The time span between data collection would probably need to be at least 2 years for changes in satisfaction to be detected. Finally, our sample is relatively small given the number of relationships investigated. A sample of 300 or more would be desirable when extending this research area in future studies. This would also allow for possible subgroup analyses by product category (e.g., consumer and organizational) and other forms of specialization.

NOTES
1. It is important to note that the field sales manager's territory design decisions include only the territories within the sales unit. There may he variations in the adequacy of territory designs between sales units. These design decisions are the responsibility of the chief sales executive. There is research support that chief sales executives fulfill these responsibilities. Babakus, Cravens, Grant, Ingram, and LaForge (1996) found similar relationships in their chief sales executive model compared with the field sales manager model. However, the path between design and outcome performance was not significant. 2. Interestingly, at the American Marketing Association Sales and Sales Management Faculty Consortium, July 12, 1999, Gary Rhoads and Jagdip Singh reported finding a positive relationship in a recent unpublished study. 3. RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) compensates for the effect of model complexity by dividing F o by the number of degrees of freedom for the tested model. The root of this ratio is RMSEA. A value of RMSEA of 0.05 or less indicates a close fit of the model (Browne and Cudeck 1993).

REFERENCES
Anderson, E. and R. L. Oliver. 1987. "Perspectives on Behavior-Based Versus Outcome-Based Salesforce Control Systems:' Journal of Marketing 51 (October): 76-88. Anderson, J. C. and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. "Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach:' Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411-423. Arbuclde, James. 1997. Amos Users" Guide Version 3.6. Chicago: Smallwaters Corp. Babakus, E., D. W. Cravens, K. Grant, T. N. Ingrain, and R. W. LaForge. 1996. "Investigating the Relationships Among Sales Management Control, Sales Territory Design, Salesperson Performance, and Sales Organization Effectiveness:' International Journal of Research in Marketing 13:345-363. - - , M. Johnston, and W. C. Moncrief 1996. "Examining the Role of Organizational Variables in the Salesperson Job Satisfaction Model." Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 16 (Summer): 1-12. --, and .1999. "The Role of Emotional Exhanstion in Sales Force Attitude and Behavior Relationships?' Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27 (Winter): 58-70. Bailey, E. L. 1989. Getting Closer to the Customer.Research Bulletin No. 229. New York: The Conference Board, Inc. Bedian, A. G., and A. Achilles. 1981. "A Path Analytic Study of the Consequences of Role Conflict and Ambiguity" Academy of Management Journal 24 (June): 417-424. Behrman, D. N. and William D. Perreault. 1984. "A Role Stress Model of the Performance and Satisfaction of Industrial Salespersons." Journal of Marketing 48 (Fall): 9-11. Bentler, P. M. and D. G. Bonett. 1980. "Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures" PsychologicalBulleting 88:588-606.

Bluedom, A. C. 1982. "A Unified Model of Turnover From Organizations" Human Relations 35 (February): 135-153. Brown, S. P., W. L. Cron, and T. W. Leigh. 1993. "Do Feelings of Success Mediate Sales Performance-Work Attitude Relationships?" Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21 (Spring): 91-100. and R. A. Peterson. 1993. "Antecedents and Consequences of Salesperson Job Satisfaction: Meta-Analysis and Assessment of Causal Effects:' Journal of Marketing Research 30 (February): 63 -77. Browne, M W. and R. Cudeck. 1993. "Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit?' In TestingStructural Equation Models. Eds. K. A. Bollen and J. Scott Long. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 136-162. Calantone, R. J., J. Schmidt, and X. M. Song. 1996. "Controllable Factors of New Product Success: A Cross-National Comparison:' Marketing Science 15 (4): 341-358. Churchill, G. A., Jr., N. M. Ford, S. W. Hartley, and O. C. Walker, Jr. 1985. "The Determinants of Salesperson Performance: A Meta-Analysis." JournalofMarketingResearch 22 (May): 103-I 18. --, and O. C. Walker, Jr. 1974. "Measuring the Job Satisfaction of Industrial Salesmen." Journal of Marketing Research 11 (August): 254-260. --, and .1997. Sales Force Management. 5th ed. Chicago: Irwin. Comer9J. M., K. A. Machleit, and R. R. Lagace. 1989. "Psychometric Assessment of a Reduced Version of INDSALES)' Journal of Business Research 18:291-302. Cravens, D. W. 1995. "The Changing Role of the Sales Force:' Marketing Management 4 (Fall): 48-57. , T. N. Ingrarn, R. W. LaForge, and C. E. Young. 1992. "The Hallmarks of Effective Sales Organizations?' Marketing Management I (Winter): 57-67. --, and .1993. "Behavior-Based and Outcome-Based Salesforce Control Systems." Journal of Marketing 57 (October): 47-59. Cronbach, L. 1970. Essentials of Psychological Testing. 3d ed. New York: Harper & Row. Deci, E. L. and R. M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and SelfDetermination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum. Dubinsky, A. J. and B. E. Mattson. 1979. "Consequences of Role Conflict and Ambiguity Experienced by Retail Salespeople?' Journal of Retailing 55 (Winter): 70-86. Ford, N. M, O. C. Walker, and G. A. Churchill, Jr. 1975. "Expectation-Specific Measures of the Intersender Conflict and Role Ambiguity Experienced by Industrial Salesmen:' Journal of Business Research 3 (April): 95-112. Gerbing, D. W. and J. C. Anderson. 1992. "Monte Carlo Evaluation of Goodness Fit Indices of Structural Equation Models:' Sociological Methods and Research 21 (November): 132-160. Griffith, R., J. E Hair, and M. W. Johnston. 1994. "Met Expectations." Working paper, Louisiana State University. Jackson, S. E. and R. S. Schuler. 1985. "A Meta Analysis and Conceptual Critique of Research on Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict in Work Settings." Organizational & Human Decision Processes 36 (August): 16-78. Johnston, M. W., A. Parasuraman, C. M. Futrell, and W. C. Black. 1990. "A Longitudinal Assessment of the Impact of Selected Organizational Influences on Salespeople's Organizational Commitment During Early Employment:' JournalofMarketing Research 17 (August): 333-344. Keaveney, S. M. 1992. "An Empirical Investigation of Dysfunctional Organizational Turnover Among Chain and Non-Chain Retail Store Buyers:' Journal of Retailing 68 (Summer): 145-172. and J. E. Nelson. 1993. "Coping With Organizational Role Stress: Intrinsic Motivational Orientation, Perceived Role Benefits, and Psychological Withdrawal:' Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21 (Spring): 113-124. LaForge, R. W. and D. Cravens. 1985. "Empirical and Judgment-based Sales Force Decision Models: A Comparative Analysis." Decision Sciences 16 (Spring): 177-195. Lilien, G. L, and D. Weinstein. 1984. "An International Comparison of the Determinants of Industrial Marketing Expenditures:' Journal of Marketing 48 (Winter): 46-53.
,

178

JOURNALOF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

SPRING 2001

Lodish, L. M. 1980. "A User-OrientedModel for Sales Force Size, Product, and Market Allocation Decisions" Journal of Marketing 44 (Summer): 70-78. Michaels, R. E., W. L. Cron, A. J. Dabinsky, and E. A. Joaehimsthaler. 1988. "Influence of Formalization on the Organizational Commitment and Work Alienation of Salespeople and Industrial Buyers?' Journal of MarketingResearch 15 (November): 376-383. -, R. L. Day, and E. A. Joachimsthaler. 1987. "Role Stress Among Industrial Buyers: An Integrative Model?' Journalof Marketing 51 (April): 28-45. ~and A. L. Dixon. 1994. "Sellers and Buyers on the Boundary:Potential Moderators of Role Stress--Job Outcome Relationships?' Journal of the Academyof MarketingScience22 (Winter): 62-73. Mobley,W. H., S. O. Homer, and A. T. HoUingsworth. 1978. "An Evaluation of the Precursors of Hospital Employee Turnover." Journal of Applied Psychology63 (4): 408-414. Mowday, R., L. Porter, and R. Steers. 1982. OrganizationalLinkages: The Psychologyof Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. New York: Academic Press. Netemeyer, R. G., M. W. Johnston, and S. Burton. 1990. "Analysis of Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Structured Equations Framework?" Journal of Applied Psychology75 (April): 148-157. Oliver, R. L. and E. Anderson. 1994. "An Empirical Test of the Consequences of Behavior- and Outcome-Based Sales Control Systems" Journal of Marketing 58 (October): 53-67. Piercy,N. E, D. W. Cravens, and N. A. Morgan. 1999. "RelationshipsBetween Sales Management Control, Territory Design, Salesforce Performance and Sales Organization Effectiveness?' BritishJournalof Management 10:95-111. Porter, L. W., R. M. Steers, R. T. Mowday,and P. V. Boulian. 1974. "Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Among Psychiatric Technicians?' Journal of Applied Psychology59 (October): 603-609. Pruden, H. O. and R. M. Reese. 1972. "InterorganizarionalRole Set Relations and the Performance and Satisfaction of Industrial Salesmen?' AdministrativeScience Quarterly 17 (December): 601-609. Rhoads, Gary, and Jagdip Singh. 1999. Paper presented at the American Marketing Association Sales and Sales Management Faculty Consortium, July. Rizzo, J. R., R. J. House, and S. I. Lirtzman. 1970. "Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly 15 (March): 150-163. Sager, J. K. 1994. "A Structural Model Depicting Salespeople's Job Stress?' Journalof the Academyof MarketingScience22 (January): 74-84. Sharma, S. 1996. Applied Multivariate Techniques. New York: John Wiley. Singh, J., W. Verbeke,and G. K. Rhoads. 1996. "Do OrganizationalPracrices Matter in Role Stress Processes? A Study of Direct and Moderating Effects for Marketing-Oriented Boundary Spanners." Journal of Marketing60 (July): 69-86. Teas, R. K. 1983. "Supervisory Behavior,Role Stress, and the Job Sarisfaction of Industrial Salespeople" Journalof MarketingResearch20 (February): 84-91. Walker,O. C., Jr., G. A. Churchill, Jr., and N. M. Ford. 1972. "Reactions to Role Conflict: The Case of the Industrial Salesperson?'Journalof BusinessAdministration3 (Spring): 25-36. , and .1979. "Where Do We Go From Here: Selected Conceptual and Empirical Issues Concerning the Motivation and Performance of the Industrial Salesforce." In CriticalIssues in

ABOUTTHEAUTHORS
Ken Grant is the deputy head in the Department of Marketing, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, He is a member of the editorial boards of the European Journal of Marketing and the Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science. He has published in the International Journal of Research in Mar-

keting, European Journal of Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, and several other journals. He advises companies
on marketing planning, new products, and sales management and conducts research and publishes in these areas.

David W. Cravens holds the Eunice and James L. West Chair of American Enterprise Studies at Texas Christian University. His research on sales management and marketing strategy has been published in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and other leading journals in marketing and management. Before becoming an educator, he held various industry and government executive positions. He is internationally recognized for his research on marketing strategy and sales management. He has been a visiting scholar at universities in Austria, Australia, Chile, Czech Republic, England, Ireland, Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, and Wales. His textbook, Strategic Marketing (Irwin/McGraw-Hill 2000), is widely used in strategy and management courses.
George S. Low is an associate professor of marketing in the M. J. Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University. He received a B.A. in advertising from Brigham Young University, an M.B.A. from the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario, and a Ph.D. in marketing from the University of Colorado-Boulder. His research on the management of integrated marketing communications and brands has been published in the Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Re-

tailing, Journal of Advertising Research, Marketing Management, Marketing Science Institute's Working Paper Series, and
other journals. Wilfiam C. Moncrief is a senior associate dean and professor of marketing at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas. He received his B.Sc. in political science and his M.B.A. from the University of Mississippi. He completed his Ph.D. at Louisiana State University in 1983. His work has been published in leading marketing and sales journals, including the Journal of Marketing

Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Business Research, Industrial Marketing Management, and Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, among others. His research interests are
in the field of sales management and include topics such as sales deployment, sales contests, international sales, telemarketing, turnover, laptop computers, sales job activities, and quality control. He has taught in Germany, conducted research in Europe, and has most recently consulted in Mexico.

Sales Management: State-of-the-Art and Future Research Needs.

F_As.Gerald Albaum and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. Eugene: University of Oregon, 10-75.