An E mpi ric al Inv est ig at io n of Cr it ic al Suc cess Facto rs in the P ers on al Se llin g

Pr ocess for Hom og eno us Goo ds .

Source: Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management: Summer, 2000

issue
Author(s): Dwyer, Sean; Hill, John; Martin, Warren
Related Topics: Sales management (Planning)
Selling (Methods)
Salespeople (Methods)
Product Ref.: Sales Force Training & Management

Introduction

In today's highly competitive markets where competitors offer products that are
largely homogenous, the effectiveness of the salesperson during customer
interactions is critical to success. More specifically, particular communication
approaches employed by salespeople have been posited to exert direct influence on
performance (Harris and Spiro 1981; Szymanaki 1988).

One aspect of salespersons' communications involves the behaviors and tactics used
in the sales presentation itself. These selling techniques, while employed to varying
extents by all salespeople, have not been directly examined. Given the critical nature
of communication in personal selling, it seems logical that particular selling
techniques salespeople employ may be associated with sales success (i.e.,
consistently high performance) (Peterson, Cannito, and Brown 1995; Predmore and
Bonnice 1994; Spiro and Perreault 1979). Although a number of studies have
examined salespeople's use of selling techniques, no study has attempted to
determine their association with selling success (cf. Dubinsky 1980; Dubinsky and
Rudelius 1980; Hite and Bellizzi 1985). The study reported here examines selling
techniques relative to sales performance of salespeople involved in selling a
homogenous product.

The Critical Success Factor Approach

Critical success factors are skills, tasks, or behaviors that influence performance
(Bisp, Sorensen, and Grunert 1998; Boynton and Zmud 1984; Leidecker and Bruno
1984; Williams and Ramaprasad 1996). Bullen and Rockart (1981) observe that
performing critical success factors (hereafter, CSFs) satisfactorily ensures successful
competitive performance. Williams and Ramaprasad (1996) note that there are about
six or seven CSFs in any particular context. In addition, CSFs are measurable,
actionable, market-specific, and linked to perceived value in the marketplace (Bisp,
Sorensen, and Grunert 1998; Boynton and Zmud 1984; Leidecker and Bruno 1984;
Williams and Ramaprasad 1996).

It has been suggested that the association between potential CSFs and performance
measures be assessed (Day and Wensley 1988). This assessment may entail
correlating CSFs with relevant measures of success or, alternatively, comparing CSFs
across winning versus losing competitors (Day and Wensley 1988; Keck, Leigh, and
Lollar 1995).

A considerable stream of research has focused on CSFs at the industry and

organizational levels (e.g., Belassi and Tukel 1996; Boynton and Zmud 1984; Day
and Wensley 1988; Yang 1998). However, the CSF approach has also been applied at
the individual level (Magal, Carr, and Watson 1988; Williams and Ramaprasad 1996).
Keck, Leigh, and Lollar (1995) utilized the CFS approach with salespeople in an
insurance sales setting. A small sample of successful insurance agents identified 35
general success items associated with successful agency practices. A subsequent
survey of a larger sample of the sales force revealed eight CSFs that distinguished
high performing agents from lower performers. A CSF approach is used in the
current study to explore what selling techniques are more critical to sales success for
salespeople who sell homogenous products.

Stages of the Personal Selling Process

The personal selling process is the sequence of steps or stages through which
salespersons proceed in making a sale (Dubinsky 1980; Hite and Bellizzi 1985). The
process can be applied across many selling scenarios, particularly for homogenous
products or services. Seven steps are generally recognized as comprising the
personal selling process (Dubinsky 1980; Hite and Bellizzi 1985; Ingram 1990). Table
1 summarizes the stages.

Table 1 The Personal Selling Process(*)

1. Prospecting: Salespeople use multiple sources to identify

prospective buyers for their products and services. A potential
buyer is considered a prospect when qualified in terms of (a)
need or want, (b) ability to buy, (c) authority to buy, and (d)
eligibility.

2. Pre-approach: Information is gathered about the prospect in

preparation for the sales call. This information is used to both
further qualify the prospect and to develop an effective approach
and presentation to the customer. This stage typically
culminates in setting an appointment with the prospect.

3. Approach: This step covers the first few minutes of the sales
call--a critical time for salespeople. The salesperson's objective
is to make a favorable first impression and to gain the customer's
attention and interest sufficiently to make the presentation.

4. Sales Presentation: This is the "core" of the sales process

where salespeople present their offerings' features and benefits to
potential customers. Attempts are made to arouse customer's desire
for the product.

5. Handling Objections and Overcoming Resistance: Salespeople

attempt to overcome the prospect's resistance and reluctance
to purchase by responding to objections and emphasizing particular
product benefits to promote purchase decisions.

6. Closing. Salespeople initiate purchase decisions through methods

designed to solicit orders. In the most appropriate and
effective manner, customers are asked to purchase the offering.

7. Post-Sale Follow-up: Salespeople continue to emphasize customer

satisfaction in the post-sale period. Activities during this
time include reducing post-purchase concerns of customers; ensuring
timely delivery, installation, and/or training; providing
periodic follow-up or maintenance service; and handling complaints
and questions. In general, the goal is to build goodwill to
enhance future sales chances.

(*) Based on Dubinsky and Rudelius (1980) and Hite and Bellizzi (1985)

For each of these seven steps, there are numerous sales techniques, methods, and
approaches that salespersons can use to enhance customer communications and
relations. The techniques can be used individually or in combination with each other
at the discretion of the salesperson.

Dubinsky (1980) made a significant contribution to sales process research by

compiling a taxonomy of 84 selling techniques that salespersons employ in the field.
The techniques are regarded as being representative of the repertoire of techniques
salespeople use in the personal selling process (Dubinsky and Rudelius 1980; Hite
and Bellizzi 1985). Dubinsky's study suggested that personal selling was indeed a
systematic process. A number of additional studies examine the taxonomy,
advancing knowledge of the personal selling process by exploring areas such as
reducing commonly occurring frustrating sales situations (Dubinsky and Lippitt
1980); the efficacy of sales training programs (Dubinsky and Staples 1981); and the
use of different selling techniques in service versus product settings (Dubinsky and
Rudelius 1980) and consumer versus industrial sales contexts (Hite and Bellizzi
1985).

Selling Techniques as Critical Success Factors

It has been suggested that some selling techniques may generate better sales
results than others (Dubinsky 1980; Dubinsky and Rudelius 1980; Hite and Bellizzi
1985). While considerable empirical research has focused on explaining salesperson
performance, in general only relatively weak associations have been found between
the determinants of performance and measures of performance (Churchill et al.
1985; Ford et al. 1988). The need to explore antecedents of performance thus
continues (Swenson and Herche 1994). It is in this light that this study explores
whether the use of one or more selling techniques has the potential to be a critical
factor in the success or failure of salespeople who sell homogenous goods. A critical
success factor approach was used to explore whether selling techniques contribute to
the success or failure of life insurance salespersons (Bisp, Sorensen, and Grunert
1998; Boynton and Zmud 1984; Keck, Leigh, and Lollar 1995; Leidecker and Bruno
1984; Williams and Ramaprasad 1996).

CSFs are useful to the study of sales success for several reasons. First, selling
techniques are pervasive to sales scenarios where homogenous goods are sold.
Second, CSFs offer a means to examine selling techniques across scenarios. Third,
CSFs can be used to develop tactical recommendations for salespeople, sales
managers, or sales trainers.

Study Methodology

Sample and Data Collection

The sampling frame for the study was the life insurance industry. Life insurance is a
homogenous product marketed by a large number of professional sales forces. A
considerable number of studies have used samples drawn from the life insurance
industry (e.g., Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990; Hoffman, Howe, and Hardigree
1991; Keck, Leigh, and Lollar 1995; Landau and Werbel 1995; MacKenzie, Podsakoff,
and Fetter 1993). Evidence suggests that there is considerable variation in the
performance of life insurance salespeople (Macintosh et al. 1992; Szymanski and
Churchill 1990).

Data were collected from the agency sales force of a large domestic insurance firm.
The firm agreed to provide a sample of 350 life insurance salespeople. This type of
research sponsorship has been recommended for sales force research by Richardson,
Swan, and McInnis-Bowers (1994).

Questionnaires were mailed from the firm's national headquarters to sales agents in
27 agency offices located throughout the US. A cover letter with a request from the
firm's CEO to fully cooperate with the study was attached to each participant's
survey. The agents were instructed to complete and return the surveys to their
managers in sealed envelopes to ensure anonymity and candid responses. The
managers collected the envelopes and mailed them directly to the researchers for
data entry and analysis.

CSFs are useful to the study of sales success for several reasons. First, selling
techniques are pervasive to sales scenarios where homogenous goods are sold.
Second, CSFs offer a means to examine selling techniques across scenarios. Third,
CSFs can be used to develop tactical recommendations for salespeople, sales
managers, or sales trainers.

Study Methodology

Sample and Data Collection

The sampling frame for the study was the life insurance industry. Life insurance is a
homogenous product marketed by a large number of professional sales forces. A
considerable number of studies have used samples drawn from the life insurance
industry (e.g., Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990; Hoffman, Howe, and Hardigree
1991; Keck, Leigh, and Lollar 1995; Landau and Werbel 1995; MacKenzie, Podsakoff,
and Fetter 1993). Evidence suggests that there is considerable variation in the
performance of life insurance salespeople (Macintosh et al. 1992; Szymanski and
Churchill 1990).

Data were collected from the agency sales force of a large domestic insurance firm.
The firm agreed to provide a sample of 350 life insurance salespeople. This type of
research sponsorship has been recommended for sales force research by Richardson,
Swan, and McInnis-Bowers (1994).
Questionnaires were mailed from the firm's national headquarters to sales agents in
27 agency offices located throughout the US. A cover letter with a request from the
firm's CEO to fully cooperate with the study was attached to each participant's
survey. The agents were instructed to complete and return the surveys to their
managers in sealed envelopes to ensure anonymity and candid responses. The
managers collected the envelopes and mailed them directly to the researchers for
data entry and analysis

A total of 324 surveys were received. Of the 324 surveys, 309 were fully completed
and useable for purposes of the study, representing 88% of the 350 surveys
originally requested from the participating firm.

Respondents were predominantly male (89 percent), married (80 percent), and
college educated (80 percent had over sixteen years of formal education). Average
tenure with the firm was nine years, and average experience with insurance sales
was ten years. Ninety-three percent of respondents depended on commission for at
least half of their earnings.

Selling Technique and Performance Measures

The typology of selling techniques used in this study was developed by Dubinsky
(1980). His listing of 84 sales techniques has been used in prior studies (e.g.,
Dubinsky 1980; Dubinsky and Lippitt 1980; Dubinsky and Rudelius 1980; Hite and
Bellizzi 1985) and is generally recognized as the most comprehensive typology of
personal selling techniques (Hite and Bellizzi 1985).

Some modifications to Dubinsky's typology were made in this study to exclude

techniques that were not applicable to insurance sales and to add several new items
reflecting recent trends in selling. In addition, some techniques were consolidated
into broader-based, higher-order measures based on Dubinsky's (1980) factor
analysis of the original 84 selling techniques. Appendix 1 summarizes the 51 selling
techniques used in this study.

Salespersons were asked to indicate how important each selling technique was to
their individual success in selling in the life insurance industry. A seven-point, Likert-
like scale assessing the importance of these selling techniques was used (with "1"
indicating "Not At All Important" and "7" indicating "Very Important").

Respondent-generated performance measures have been used in sales research

(e.g., Behrman and Perreault 1982) and were used in this study. Churchill et al.
(1985) indicate that claims of upward bias in self-reports of performance were ill-
founded. The performance measure used in this study was a summated scale
comprised of the average of five direct, outcome-related items as reported by the
insurance agent: sales commissions earned; exceeding sales objectives and targets;
generating new-customer sales; generating current-customer sales; and overall
selling performance. A seven-point, Likert-like scale was used to assess salesperson
relative performance within the sales organization (with "1" indicating "Far Below
Average" and "7" indicating "Far Above Average"). A coefficient alpha of 0.81 was
obtained for this construct.

Data Analysis

To evaluate the influence of CSFs, the sample was divided into top and bottom
deciles. Such dichotomization was used for several reasons. First, the method allows
examination of techniques used by "expert" salespeople as suggested by Weitz,
Sujan, and Sujan (1986). Secondly, the method allows the determination of what
CSFs differentiate performance-based winners from losers (Day and Wensley 1988;
Keck, Leigh, and Lollar 1995). Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations
for the selling technique variables for high and low-performing salespersons.

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Logistic Regression Results

Low
Performers
n = 39

Std.
Selling Technique Mean Dev.

Prospecting

Personal observation/research 6.23 1.04

"Cold call" in person ("canvass") 3.18 1.39
"Cold call" by mail 3.62 1.76
"Cold call" by telephone 3.51 1.73
Use "cold call" specialists 3.13 1.99
Prospect Inquiries 4.10 1.77
Centers of influence 6.26 .85
Examine records 3.64 1.50
Public exhibitions 4.26 1.76
Referral approach 6.77 .43
Introduction approach 5.97 1.31
Community contact 5.97 .97
Non-competing salespeople 5.23 1.40
Contact organizations 5.13 1.45
Pre-notification ("warm call") 4.82 1.64
Personal networking 6.31 1.08
Constant
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Pre-Approach

Prospecting information 5.13 1.34

Intermediary approach 4.10 1.79
Direct Contact approach 5.79 1.26
Constant
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Approach

Prospecting-focused approach 5.41 1.58

Product-benefit approach 4.41 1.82
Statement approach 5.97 1.01
Peak interest approach 2.69 1.62
Constant
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Presentation

Ask prospect questions 6.36 .81

Tailored (customized) presentation 5.82 1.07
Help prospect visualize offering 5.59 1.04
Product-benefit approach 5.46 1.29
Talk prospect's language 5.90 1.19
Partially standardized presentation 5.33 1.08
Use competitor comparisons 3.23 1.46
Need-satisfaction approach 6.59 .68
Use showmanship/dramatic efforts 3.05 1.64
Standardized/"canned" presentation 2.64 1.37
Constant
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
 -2LL

Overcoming Objections

Direct answer method 5.90 1.12

Non-dispute method 3.46 1.35
Offset method 5.15 1.35
Dispute method 3.18 1.69
Comparative item method 3.71 1.58
Turn-around ("boomerang") method 4.44 1.52
Constant
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Closing

Straightforward close 5.74 .91

Presumptive close 5.56 1.23
Clarification close 4.72 1.52
Arousal close 4.95 1.52
Minor-decision close 5.18 1.32
Single obstacle close 5.26 1.22
Use silence 4.50 1.70
Constant
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Follow-Up Service

Follow-up cust. questions/complaints 6.51 .79

Periodic follow-up of cust. satisfaction 6.26 .82
Reassure the customer 6.05 1.02
Proper billing procedures & policies 5.54 1.05
Send thank-you notes to customers 5.44 1.43
Constant
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

High
Performers
n = 34
 Std.
Selling Technique Mean Dev.

Prospecting

Personal observation/research 6.47 .90

"Cold call" in person ("canvass") 2.53 1.81
"Cold call" by mail 2.76 1.84
"Cold call" by telephone 2.82 1.88
Use "cold call" specialists 1.97 1.27
Prospect Inquiries 3.71 1.88
Centers of influence 6.35 .98
Examine records 3.76 1.72
Public exhibitions 4.53 1.73
Referral approach 6.68 .59
Introduction approach 6.15 1.10
Community contact 5.53 1.38
Non-competing salespeople 4.41 1.86
Contact organizations 4.35 1.69
Pre-notification ("warm call") 3.47 1.80
Personal networking 6.06 1.20
Constant
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Pre-Approach

Prospecting information 4.76 1.84

Intermediary approach 4.50 2.06
Direct Contact approach 5.68 1.57
Constant
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Approach

Prospecting-focused approach 5.65 1.30

Product-benefit approach 4.35 1.59
Statement approach 5.56 1.50
Peak interest approach 2.38 1.39
Constant
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
 -2LL

Presentation

Ask prospect questions 6.21 .84

Tailored (customized) presentation 5.85 1.28
Help prospect visualize offering 6.00 1.21
Product-benefit approach 4.64 1.34
Talk prospect's language 6.06 1.10
Partially standardized presentation 4.76 1.56
Use competitor comparisons 2.47 1.42
Need-satisfaction approach 6.79 .64
Use showmanship/dramatic efforts 2.91 1.69
Standardized/"canned" presentation 2.74 1.68
Constant
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Overcoming Objections

Direct answer method 5.82 1.29

Non-dispute method 3.88 1.75
Offset method 5.03 1.49
Dispute method 2.97 1.62
Comparative item method 3.03 1.60
Turn-around ("boomerang") method 4.29 1.53
Constant
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Closing

Straightforward close 5.24 1.71

Presumptive close 5.15 1.64
Clarification close 4.32 1.74
Arousal close 4.47 1.78
Minor-decision close 4.68 1.72
Single obstacle close 4.50 1.63
Use silence 5.09 1.29
Constant
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL
Follow-Up Service

Follow-up cust. questions/complaints 6.47 .96

Periodic follow-up of cust. satisfaction 6.26 .83
Reassure the customer 6.15 .89
Proper billing procedures & policies 5.48 1.56
Send thank-you notes to customers 5.41 1.78
Constant
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Selling Technique Coefficient

Prospecting

Personal observation/research .8144

"Cold call" in person ("canvass") -.4472
"Cold call" by mail .2577
"Cold call" by telephone .3441
Use "cold call" specialists -.7786(*)
Prospect Inquiries -.0294
Centers of influence 1.2500(*)
Examine records 1.1002(*)
Public exhibitions .9337(**)
Referral approach -1.2278
Introduction approach .7239
Community contact -.6855
Non-competing salespeople -.9396(*)
Contact organizations -.3449
Pre-notification ("warm call") -1.0880(*)
Personal networking -.2185
Constant -.1244
Model Chi-Square/dof/p < 44.15/16/.0002
-2LL 55.436

Pre-Approach

Prospecting information -.1756

Intermediary approach .1342
Direct Contact approach -.0310
Constant .3327
 Model Chi-Square/dof/p < 2.162/3/.5396
-2LL 98.69

Approach

Prospecting-focused approach .0985

Product-benefit approach -.0021
Statement approach -.2699
Peak interest approach -.1463
Constant 1.2615
Model Chi-Square/dof/p < 3.194/4/.5259
-2LL 97.662

Presentation

Ask prospect questions -.8330

Tailored (customized) presentation -.2025
Help prospect visualize offering 1.2810(**)
Product-benefit approach -.8689(**)
Talk prospect's language .3900
Partially standardized presentation -.7795(*)
Use competitor comparisons -.1776
Need-satisfaction approach .4534
Use showmanship/dramatic efforts -.0860
Standardized/"canned" presentation .2355
Constant 2.0093
Model Chi-Square/dof/p < 29.29/10/.0011
-2LL 70.023

Overcoming Objections

Direct answer method -.1633

Non-dispute method .2482
Offset method -.1492
Dispute method .0255
Comparative item method -.4558(*)
Turn-around ("boomerang") method .0533
Constant 1.8349
Model Chi-Square/dof/p < 9.462/6/.1492
-2LL 85.830

Closing
Straightforward close -.1080
Presumptive close -.2327
Clarification close .1321
Arousal close -.1308
Minor-decision close .0322
Single obstacle close -.5087(*)
Use silence .5329(*)
Constant 1.4792
Model Chi-Square/dof/p < 13.192/7/.0676
-2LL 82.10

Follow-Up Service

Follow-up cust. questions/complaints -.1517

Periodic follow-up of cust. satisfaction -.0429
Reassure the customer .1857
Proper billing procedures & policies -.0024

Send thank-you notes to customers -.0284

Constant .1210
Model Chi-Square/dof/p < .422/5/.9947
-2LL 98.89

Wald
Selling Technique Statistic

Prospecting

Personal observation/research 2.05

"Cold call" in person ("canvass") 2.40
"Cold call" by mail 0.34
"Cold call" by telephone 0.74
Use "cold call" specialists 4.15
Prospect Inquiries 0.01
Centers of influence 4.36
Examine records 5.95
Public exhibitions 6.80
Referral approach 1.81
Introduction approach 2.01
Community contact 1.48
Non-competing salespeople 4.64
Contact organizations 0.78
Pre-notification ("warm call") 6.03
Personal networking 0.28
Constant 0.00
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Pre-Approach

Prospecting information 1.27

Intermediary approach 1.06
Direct Contact approach 0.03
Constant 0.05
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Approach

Prospecting-focused approach 0.323

Product-benefit approach 0.000
Statement approach 1.806
Peak interest approach 0.788
Constant 0.581
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Presentation

Ask prospect questions 2.874

Tailored (customized) presentation 0.373
Help prospect visualize offering 9.108
Product-benefit approach 7.213
Talk prospect's language 1.779
Partially standardized presentation 5.468
Use competitor comparisons 0.563
Need-satisfaction approach 0.869
Use showmanship/dramatic efforts 0.145
Standardized/"canned" presentation 1.056
Constant 0.261
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL
Overcoming Objections

Direct answer method 0.478

Non-dispute method 1.680
Offset method 0.499
Dispute method 0.024
Comparative item method 5.256
Turn-around ("boomerang") method 0.078
Constant 0.863
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Closing

Straightforward close 0.205

Presumptive close 0.847
Clarification close 0.443
Arousal close 0.296
Minor-decision close 0.013
Single obstacle close 3.908
Use silence 5.39
Constant 0.688
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Follow-Up Service

Follow-up cust. questions/complaints 0.153

Periodic follow-up of cust. satisfaction 0.015
Reassure the customer 0.328
Proper billing procedures & policies 0.000
Send thank-you notes to customers 0.249
Constant 0.002
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Selling Technique Significance

Prospecting

Personal observation/research .151

"Cold call" in person ("canvass") .120
"Cold call" by mail .557
"Cold call" by telephone .387
Use "cold call" specialists .041
Prospect Inquiries .920
Centers of influence .036
Examine records .014
Public exhibitions .009
Referral approach .178
Introduction approach .156
Community contact .223
Non-competing salespeople .031
Contact organizations .375
Pre-notification ("warm call") .014
Personal networking .595
Constant .981
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Pre-Approach

Prospecting information .257

Intermediary approach .303
Direct Contact approach .857
Constant .806
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Approach

Prospecting-focused approach .569

Product-benefit approach .988
Statement approach .178
Peak interest approach .374
Constant .445
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Presentation

Ask prospect questions .090

Tailored (customized) presentation .514
Help prospect visualize offering .002
Product-benefit approach .007
Talk prospect's language .182
Partially standardized presentation .019
Use competitor comparisons .452
Need-satisfaction approach .351
Use showmanship/dramatic efforts .702
Standardized/"canned" presentation .304
Constant .609
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Overcoming Objections

Direct answer method .489

Non-dispute method .194
Offset method .479
Dispute method .876
Comparative item method .021
Turn-around ("boomerang") method .779
Constant .352
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Closing

Straightforward close .650

Presumptive close .357
Clarification close .505
Arousal close .586
Minor-decision close .909
Single obstacle close .048
Use silence .020
Constant .406
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

Follow-Up Service

Follow-up cust. questions/complaints .695

Periodic follow-up of cust. satisfaction .901
Reassure the customer .566
Proper billing procedures & policies .993
Send thank-you notes to customers .874
Constant .956
Model Chi-Square/dof/p <
-2LL

(**) p < .01

Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the CSFs that best differentiated
observations from the two groups. Logistic regression was appropriate because the
dependent variable, sales performance, was dichotomous--high versus low
performing salespersons. Further, logistic regression is recommended for statistical
use in predicting group membership by assessing the influence (i.e., sign and
magnitude) of an independent variable on a change in the dependent variable (Hair
et al. 1995; Tansey et al. 1995).

Analyses were completed for each of the seven stages of the personal selling
process. The resultant coefficients for each of the selling techniques are interpreted
in a manner similar to those in multiple regression. In multiple regression, the
coefficient indicates the amount of change in the dependent variable for a one-unit
change in the independent variable. In logistic regression, the coefficients are
measures of change in the odds (logged) of an event occurring with a one-unit
increase in an independent variable. In this study, significant positive (negative)
coefficients indicated the increasing likelihood of a salesperson being a high (low)
performer as the selling technique increases in use (Hair et al. 1995; Norusis 1990).

Results

Table 2 presents the coefficients and Wald statistics for the logistic regression
analyses. For the high and low performing salespeople groups, significant differences
were found within four of the seven stages in the sales process. A total of twelve
variables (out of 51) were found to be significant (p [is less than] .05) within these
four stages. These were: Prospecting: Use "Cold Call" Specialists ([Beta]=-.78; p [is
less than] .05), Centers of Influence ([Beta]=1.25; p [is less than] .05), Examine
Records ([Beta]=1.10; p [is less than] .05), Public Exhibitions ([Beta]=.93; p [is less
than] .01), Non-Competing Salespeople ([Beta]=-.94; p [is less than] .05), and
Presentation Notification ("Warm Call") ([Beta]=-1.09; p [is less than] .05);
Presentation: Help Prospect Visualize Offering ([Beta]=1.28; p [is less than] .01),
Product-Benefit Approach ([Beta]=-.87; p [is less than] .01), and Partially
Standardized Sales Presentation ([Beta]=-.78; p [is less than] .05); Overcoming
Objections: Comparative Item Method ([Beta]=-.46; p [is less than] .05); and
Closing: Single Obstacle Close ([Beta]=-.51; p [is less than] .05) and Use Silence
([Beta]=.53; p [is less than] .05).

Five of the techniques' coefficients were positive in sign, indicating distinctively

greater use by the high performing salespeople. Seven of the twelve techniques'
coefficients were negative, indicating characteristically greater use by the low
performing salespersons. Overall, these significant coefficients suggest that there are
critical selling techniques that distinguish high and low performing salespeople.

The two groups differed along several other variables. The high performers had on
average considerably more experience selling insurance (13 years versus 5 years)
and more overall sales experience (15 years versus 10 years). The high performers
also worked longer weekly hours (an average of 53 versus 47 hours), were slightly
more educated (17 years of education versus 16 years), and had a prospect base
with slightly more income. The low performing group had a larger percentage of their
sales from new customers compared to existing customers (an average of 78%
versus 49%).

No differences were found between the two groups in terms of salesperson gender,
marital status, age, percent of compensation based on commission, and competition
in the local market. Interestingly, no significant differences were found between the
groups with regard to the extent (measured in days) of their pre-contract training,
career training, or advanced training.

It thus appears that the two groups of salespeople are primarily distinguished by
their selling experience. This suggests that the selling techniques that top performers
have learned to use with great success may largely be a function of on-the-job
training and trial-and-error learning. It may also be that the low performing
salespeople have not yet learned what techniques are more (or less) appropriate and
tied to the success of the sale of homogenous goods such as insurance. If so, it may
behoove sales managers to train the low-performing salespersons in the sales
techniques and methods used successfully by top performers.

(**) p < .01

Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the CSFs that best differentiated
observations from the two groups. Logistic regression was appropriate because the
dependent variable, sales performance, was dichotomous--high versus low
performing salespersons. Further, logistic regression is recommended for statistical
use in predicting group membership by assessing the influence (i.e., sign and
magnitude) of an independent variable on a change in the dependent variable (Hair
et al. 1995; Tansey et al. 1995).

Analyses were completed for each of the seven stages of the personal selling
process. The resultant coefficients for each of the selling techniques are interpreted
in a manner similar to those in multiple regression. In multiple regression, the
coefficient indicates the amount of change in the dependent variable for a one-unit
change in the independent variable. In logistic regression, the coefficients are
measures of change in the odds (logged) of an event occurring with a one-unit
increase in an independent variable. In this study, significant positive (negative)
coefficients indicated the increasing likelihood of a salesperson being a high (low)
performer as the selling technique increases in use (Hair et al. 1995; Norusis 1990).

Results

Table 2 presents the coefficients and Wald statistics for the logistic regression
analyses. For the high and low performing salespeople groups, significant differences
were found within four of the seven stages in the sales process. A total of twelve
variables (out of 51) were found to be significant (p [is less than] .05) within these
four stages. These were: Prospecting: Use "Cold Call" Specialists ([Beta]=-.78; p [is
less than] .05), Centers of Influence ([Beta]=1.25; p [is less than] .05), Examine
Records ([Beta]=1.10; p [is less than] .05), Public Exhibitions ([Beta]=.93; p [is less
than] .01), Non-Competing Salespeople ([Beta]=-.94; p [is less than] .05), and
Presentation Notification ("Warm Call") ([Beta]=-1.09; p [is less than] .05);
Presentation: Help Prospect Visualize Offering ([Beta]=1.28; p [is less than] .01),
Product-Benefit Approach ([Beta]=-.87; p [is less than] .01), and Partially
Standardized Sales Presentation ([Beta]=-.78; p [is less than] .05); Overcoming
Objections: Comparative Item Method ([Beta]=-.46; p [is less than] .05); and
Closing: Single Obstacle Close ([Beta]=-.51; p [is less than] .05) and Use Silence
([Beta]=.53; p [is less than] .05).

Five of the techniques' coefficients were positive in sign, indicating distinctively

greater use by the high performing salespeople. Seven of the twelve techniques'
coefficients were negative, indicating characteristically greater use by the low
performing salespersons. Overall, these significant coefficients suggest that there are
critical selling techniques that distinguish high and low performing salespeople.

The two groups differed along several other variables. The high performers had on
average considerably more experience selling insurance (13 years versus 5 years)
and more overall sales experience (15 years versus 10 years). The high performers
also worked longer weekly hours (an average of 53 versus 47 hours), were slightly
more educated (17 years of education versus 16 years), and had a prospect base
with slightly more income. The low performing group had a larger percentage of their
sales from new customers compared to existing customers (an average of 78%
versus 49%).

No differences were found between the two groups in terms of salesperson gender,
marital status, age, percent of compensation based on commission, and competition
in the local market. Interestingly, no significant differences were found between the
groups with regard to the extent (measured in days) of their pre-contract training,
career training, or advanced training.

It thus appears that the two groups of salespeople are primarily distinguished by
their selling experience. This suggests that the selling techniques that top performers
have learned to use with great success may largely be a function of on-the-job
training and trial-and-error learning. It may also be that the low performing
salespeople have not yet learned what techniques are more (or less) appropriate and
tied to the success of the sale of homogenous goods such as insurance. If so, it may
behoove sales managers to train the low-performing salespersons in the sales
techniques and methods used successfully by top performers.

Discussion

The study reported here evaluated what CSFs were associated with both great
success and low success in the performance of salespeople engaged in the sale of a
homogenous good (life insurance). A set of fifty-one performance behaviors, to a
large extent developed by Dubinsky (1980), were employed to evaluate the
importance of CSFs. Twelve CSFs were linked to high and low performance.

Six of the CSFs associated with high and low performance were prospecting
techniques. High-performing salespersons were more likely to use the Centers of
Influence, Examine Records, and Public Exhibitions techniques. Low performers were
more prone to use the "Cold Call" Specialists, Non-Competing Salespeople, and Pre-
Notification ("Warm Call") Approach techniques.

Three presentation techniques distinguished the top and bottom performers. Greater
use of the Help Prospect Visualize Offering technique characterized the top
performers. The use of Product-Benefit Approach and Partially Standardized Sales
Presentation characterized the poor performers.
The final three attributes differentiating high and low performers were found in
overcoming objections and closing strategies. The overcoming objections technique
of Comparative-Item Method was used significantly more by the poor performers, as
was the closing technique of Single Obstacle Close. Use Silence was employed more
so by the top performing sales group during the closing step.

Profile of High Versus Low Performance

The results provide an interesting picture of the critical practices that distinguish the
successful salespeople from the less successful. In the prospecting step of the
personal selling process, the top performers, for one, do not hesitate to cultivate and
employ prominent customers who can influence other potential life insurance buyers
on their behalf. They also are more willing than the poor performers to use and
examine directories and membership lists for leads. Top-performers also are not shy
with regard to participating in public seminars and exhibitions, recognizing them as
sound prospecting methods that perhaps offer the potential customer the ability to
meet the salesperson in a "neutral" setting in which they can assess the salesperson
in a more informal, low-pressure manner.

On the other hand, the poor performers use a more impersonal, detached
prospecting formula. Their significantly greater use of specialists such as junior
salespeople or staff workers to initiate contact with potential customers appears to
start them off at a disadvantage. This could be a reflection of the customer's distaste
for a once-removed form of personal contact or just an outcome of the quality of
service the cold call specialists provide. Similarly, mailing prospects a notification of
an impending personal contact is an indirect approach that lacks a personal touch.
Finally, the impersonal acquisition of names of potential prospects from non-
insurance salespeople may, when the inevitable question of "How did you get my
name?" arises, be perceived by the prospect as an affront or an indignity.

With regard to the activities related to the presentation of the product, clear
differences are again apparent between the two groups of salespeople. The top
sellers use two techniques to their advantage. First, they have a propensity to use
diagrams, printouts, and charts to more clearly explain the complex life insurance
products. In addition, these salespersons let the prospect make the final decision
uninterrupted, saying nothing during the final moments of the close. Both of these
techniques could be seen as non-manipulative, customer-oriented practices.

The less successful salespersons, on the other hand, tend to lean toward more
manipulative, soiling-oriented practices. They focus their presentations on the
product and its benefits--as opposed, perhaps, to the needs of the prospect. More
alarmingly, they change the sales presentation only slightly for each prospect,
essentially treating each prospect in an identical manner in terms of their process
needs. Additionally, they provide prospects two or more offerings to compare, forcing
choices between products--a potentially manipulative, product-oriented approach as
opposed to a needs-based focus to product selection. Finally, the low-performing
salespeople place strong emphasis on overcoming the single obstacle in the way of
the sale--perhaps to the detriment of taking a more positive, need-satisfying
approach to overcoming objections

Overall, the top-performing salespersons met their clients' process needs by taking a
more personal, customer-oriented focus. The practices that separated them from the
poor-performing salespersons relate closely to relationship-oriented selling (Jolson
1997). Poor-performing salespersons took a more sales-oriented, impersonal
approach that did not allow them to meet the unique, personal selling needs of their
customers. Inevitably, and for reasons perhaps beyond those speculated above, the
critical techniques they emphasized or failed to emphasize characteristically
distinguished them from their top-performing colleagues.

Research Implications

The results of this exploratory study suggest, at least in part, that performance
differences between high and low performing insurance agents can be traced back to
critical aspects of salesperson-client interactions. Broadly speaking, this implies that
in addition to meeting customers' product needs, upon which past sales research and
discussions have placed primary emphasis, researchers and sellers may be advised
to also focus on the sales process needs of the customer--needs relating to the
manner in which customers prefer salespersons to communicate and sell to them
over the course of the personal selling process (Szymanski 1988).

One interesting research finding in this study relates to the seven techniques that
were used significantly more so by the low performing salespeople. While CSFs can
be defined as those practices that increase the probability of success, these seven
techniques appear to potentially inhibit the chances of success. The CSF literature
distinguishes such practices as critical failure factors (CFFs) and recognizes the
importance of identifying and controlling such barriers to success (Dickinson,
Ferguson and Sircar 1984; Ferguson and Dickinson 1982; Williams and Ramaprasad
1996). This research has empirically verified the existence of critical failure factors in
a sales setting.
Implications for Sales Managers

The critical selling techniques that distinguish the top and bottom performers in a
firm have considerable prescriptive contributions to offer sales management with
regard to selling effectiveness. First, in a manner similar to that done in this study,
the critical techniques used to a more significant extent by the top sellers should be
identified. An assessment should then be made as to why the poor-performing
salespersons underutilized these techniques. It may be that they are not aware of
them or were not well trained in their application. The firm should then consider
introducing (or reintroducing) the techniques to these salespersons and training
them in their use.

Similar assessment needs to be made of those techniques characteristically favored

by the poor performing salespeople. To the extent that these techniques are found
inappropriate in meeting the sales process needs of the firm's customers, sales
management may consider extinguishing their use among the sales force. The sales
effectiveness of these salespeople should he appreciably increased as a result. The
benefits of these sales process adjustments would ultimately accrue to the customer,
whose sales process needs would more closely be met and whose satisfaction would
more likely be achieved.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Several limitations within this study should be noted. First, this study examined only
one industry--life insurance--and only one firm. As such, its conclusions may not
generalize to other industries or even other life insurance firms. Secondly, focus was
placed on the seller side of the salesperson-customer dyad. Future research should
examine customer preferences with regard to the selling techniques surveyed in this
study. A more valid representation of customer sales process needs could then be
established. Additionally, this research examined critical salesperson practices as
defined by a set of 51 selling techniques. Sales practices and behaviors can be
measured in other ways, an examination of which awaits future research.