Sales Manager Behavior-Based Control and Salesperson Performance: The effects of Manager Control Competencies and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior
Nigel F. Piercy, David W. Cravens, and Nikala Lane Sales management control strategy attracts considerable research attention because of its importance to achieving superior salesperson performance. However, the research stream on this topic evaluates the type of control exercised by sales managers (e.g., behavior versus outcome based) and the level of control. First, this paper introduces the construct of sales manager control competencies and examines not simply how much control managers exercise, but how well they implement control. Second, the paper examines the role of sales manager organizational citizenship behavior in the implementation of control. Sales manager control competencies is examined as a moderator of the relationship between control and salesperson performance, and sales manager organizational citizenship behavior as a mediator of the controlperformance relationship. The study findings provide provocative new insights into the implementation of sales management control. Relevant new research directions and managerial implications are identified.

The dramatically changing role of the traditional sales organization is increasingly recognized as relating sales management strategy to a companys competitiveness (Olson, Cravens, and Slater 2001) and in developing appropriate responses to the growing internationalization of customer management strategies (Cravens, Piercy, and Low 2006). The changing role of sales makes sales teams strategic resources concerned with managing relationships, underlining that the organization of the sales force and the incentives given to the sales force are among the most critical decisions faced by senior executives (Stewart 2006). Radical transformation in the traditional role of the sales force is occurring in many companies and mandates renewed attention to identifying sources of superior salesperson performance. The challenge is underlined by the growing importance of effectively managing business-to-business relationships, particularly in more collaborative forms of selling (see Weitz and Bradford 1999). Accordingly, the importance of matching sales force management control systems to busi-

Nigel F. Piercy (D.Litt., Heriot-Watt University), Associate Dean and Professor of Marketing and Strategy, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK, nigel.piercy@wbs.ac.uk. David W. Cravens (DBA, Indiana University), Emeritus Professor of Marketing, MJ Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Ft. Worth, TX, d.cravens@tcu.edu. Nikala Lane (Ph.D., University of Wales), Associate Professor in Marketing and Strategic Management, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK, nikala.lane@wbs.ac.uk.

ness strategy is increasingly significant to business results (Anderson and Onyemah 2006). Insight into the sales manager controlsalesperson performance relationship remains a high priority. Interestingly, Anderson and Onyemah (2006) highlight the importance of a more holistic view of sales force controlthey identify eight components of the sales management control system. Importantly, Krafft (1999) notes that the proper design of control systems is complex because sales managers have to combine a large number of control variables, including commission rates and intensity of supervision, that may affect salesperson behaviors differently depending on their combination. A similar argument was made earlier by Bergen, Dutta, and Walker (1992) in their review of agency and related theories. Krafft (1999) emphasizes the complexity of the combination of single control elements into holistic governance systems. More recently, Flaherty, Arnold, and Hunt (2007) pursue a similar logic in their research, arguing that prior studies have generally led to conclusions regarding the fit between control and certain aspects of the organization, the environment, and the individual, but the studies have generally not been conducted in such a way as to allow for the possible simultaneous effects from a larger number of such factors. Flaherty et al. also emphasize the need to move toward a more holistic perspective. Accordingly, in our study, we examine two additional constructs that have not been fully examined in prior research and consider the interaction effects with constructs taken from prior management control research. The
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 20, no. 1 (winter 2012), pp. 722. 2012 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 1069-6679/2012 $9.50 + 0.00. DOI 10.2753/MTP1069-6679200101

8 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice constructs were chosen for their theoretical and managerial relevance. In particular, we propose sales manager control competencies as a relevant, but neglected, construct. Prior management control research has been concerned with the form of control that managers exercise (e.g., behavior based compared to outcome based) or the level of control (e.g., the extent of control activities undertaken). We argue that attention should also be given to how well control is exercised by managers (sales manager control competencies). Extant management control research focuses on the extent or level of monitoring, directing, evaluating, and rewarding activities. A compelling conceptual logic supports the relevance of these activities in accomplishing the management control function. The underlying conceptual logic is that the greater the extent of these control activities, the higher will be salesperson performance (Anderson and Oliver 1987). A substantial amount of empirical evidence supports the positive level of the control and outcomes relationship (e.g., Cravens et al. 1993; Oliver and Anderson 1994). However, missing from these initiatives is an assessment of how well the management control activities are performed. The underlying premise in prior research is that all sales managers are accomplishing the control activities at high levels of performance. Importantly, performance differences across managers in the accomplishment of control activities are very likely to occur. This study makes a significant departure from prior research concerning sales manager control strategy. The concern is not simply with how much control is exercised or what form control takes, but how well control is carried out by managers. A core management issue is whether sales manager competencies in control activities moderate the effect of sales manager control on salesperson performance. This important and managerially relevant concern is not addressed in prior research. Moreover, our second contribution is to include sales manager extra-role performance in the form of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as an important factor in the implementation of manager control strategies. Our logic is that OCBs are discretionary behaviors by managers that are particularly relevant to effective control strategy. Prior research has emphasized salesperson OCBs as a significant part of doing the selling job effectively. However, there is precedent for suggesting that OCBs may be even more relevant to how effective managers work (Organ 1988). In particular, we propose that manager OCBs help to explain how control activities affect salesperson performance. Our logic is that additional insights into the relationship between sales management control and salesperson performance can be gained by examining these constructs, which have not been previously included in sales management control research. Consequently, the purpose of this study is to introduce the sales manager control competencies construct as a moderator of the relationship between control and performance and sales manager OCBs as a mediator of the controlperformance relationship. First, the conceptual model is developed with supporting research hypotheses. Second, the research method is described. Finally, the study findings are presented, and the managerial and research implications are discussed.

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
The research model for the study shown in Figure1 examines the relationships between the sales manager control level, sales manager control competencies, sales manager OCB, and salesperson performance. We examine both the moderating role of sales manager control competencies in the controlperformance relationship and the mediating role of sales manager OCB. The supporting logic for the model and the proposed hypotheses are discussed below.

Sales Management Control Strategy

The purpose of management control in organizations is to direct and influence the attitudes and behaviors of participants to achieve the organizations objectives (Anderson and Oliver 1987; Eisenhardt 1985; Jaworski, Stathakopoulos, and Krishnan 1993; Ouchi 1979). Anderson and Oliver define a sales force control system as an organizations set of procedures for monitoring, directing, evaluating, and compensating its employees (1987, p.76). They suggest a continuum ranging from behavior- to outcome-based control. Anderson and Oliver (1987) define behavior control in terms of (1)specific sales management activities and (2)the extent to which managers perform the activities. Behavior-based sales management control strategy is characterized by high levels of supervisor monitoring, direction and intervention in activities, and subjective and more complex methods of evaluating performance, typically centered on the salespersons job inputs (Oliver and Anderson 1994, p.53). Under behavior-based control systems, salespeople are compensated by a relatively high portion of fixed salary compared to incentive pay. Under outcome-based control systems, the salespersons incentive pay (commission or bonus) accounts for a much larger portion of total compensation, and managers monitoring,

Winter 2012 9

Figure 1 Conceptual Model for Study

directing, evaluating, and rewarding activities are limited. Behavior-based control has been shown to be an antecedent to several favorable salesperson attitudes and behaviors (Cravens et al. 1993; Oliver and Anderson 1994). A growing proportion of the job responsibilities of sales managers is made up of coaching and directing salespeople as compared to commanding and scorekeeping behaviors (Bridges 1994; Shoemaker 2003). Our sales management control construct is conceptually defined as consisting of salesperson monitoring, directing, evaluating, and rewarding activities of the sales manager.

Salesperson Performance
Salesperson performance has two dimensions, comprising behavior performance and outcome performance. Prior research shows that the behavior and outcome components of salesperson performance are conceptually distinct but positively related (Babakus et al. 1996; Piercy, Cravens, and Morgan 1999). Behavior performance consists of the behaviors employed by salespeople in meeting their job responsibilities (Anderson and Oliver 1987; Behrman and Perreault 1984). Evaluating behavior performance is important because salespeople have more control over their activities and strategies than the outcomes of these actions. Examples of salesperson job activities include teamwork, adaptiveness in selling, sales support, and sales presentation. The activities may be directly linked to generating sales (e.g., technical knowledge and sales presentation) or less directly

related to immediate sales goals (e.g., sales support). Traditionally, salesperson performance assessment emphasizes sales results (outcomes). Outcomes are important to sales managers, but studies suggest that managers are concerned with team and customer relationshipbuilding activities of salespeople, as well as short-term sales results (Corcoran et al. 1995). Research evidence also suggests that when senior sales managers consider sales force performance factors, they place greater emphasis on behavior-based factors rather than outcome-based factors (Morris et al. 1991). Outcome performance is a separate dimension of salesperson performance (Behrman and Perreault 1984; Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1979), which is related to, but distinct from, behavior performance. Outcome performance relates to the sales results directly attributed to the salesperson (Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1979). Prior research proposes and finds support for a positive relationship between behavior and outcome performance (Babakus et al. 1996; Piercy, Cravens, and Morgan 1999). Considerable prior research supports the proposition that sales manager control is related to higher levels of salesperson performance. Cravens et al. (1993) report significant positive relationships for behavior-based control and salesperson planning, sales support, and customer orientation in their study of chief sales executives. Oliver and Anderson (1994) found strong support for a behavior control to behavior performance relationship. Similarly, Babakus et al. (1996) support this relationship in their Australian study of field sales manager, as do Baldauf, Cravens, and Piercy (2001a, 2001b) in their European sales manager samples.

10 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Our salesperson performance construct is a combination of the behavior and outcome performance dimensions. Based on the logic and empirical findings above, the first hypothesis is as follows: Hypothesis 1: The le vel of sales manager control (monitoring, directing, evaluating, and rewarding activities) will have a positive relationship to salesperson performance. p.12). Their sales management competency model includes coaching competency (providing feedback, role modeling, building trust) and team-building competency (designing teams, creating a supportive environment, managing team dynamics appropriately). These competencies are similar to the sales manager control dimensions such as monitoring, directing, and evaluating. Similarly, Spiro, Stanton, and Rich (2003) emphasize the team leadership role of the sales manager and the skill set appropriate to this role. This conceptual support underlines the importance of sales manager competencies in enhancing and evaluating salesperson performance. Relatedly, a number of studies examine the new competencies considered to be needed for the effective management of strategic account relationships (Harvey et al. 2003; Millman and Wilson 1996). However, only one empirical study specifically addresses sales management competencies (Rosenbaum 2000). This work was undertaken by MOHR Development Inc. with the Strategic Account Management Association (SAMA), using SAMA members as respondents. The study suggests that sales management effectiveness will be differentiated by a new emergent set of competencies. Among the highest rated of these competencies are coaching strategically and diagnosing performance, which are similar to the control activities of directing and evaluating. Interestingly, in examining marketing capabilities, Vorhies and Morgan (2005) include a selling capabilities construct comprising: giving salespeople the training they need to be effective, sales management planning and control systems, selling skills of salespeople, and sales management skills. However, they report only the results for their composite measure. The present study proposes that sales manager control competencies consist of how well the sales manager performs the control activities of monitoring, directing, evaluating, and rewarding salespeople assigned to the managers sales unit. Prior research provides strong support that these activities comprise the primary dimensions of sales manager control (Anderson and Oliver 1987). No prior research specifically evaluates the role of sales manager control competencies. However, on the basis of the conceptual support for the importance of managerial competencies to performance, to more fully assess the effects of control strategy on salesperson performance, we propose that sales manager control competencies play a moderating role in the relationship between sales manager control level and salesperson performance. The conceptual logic is as follows.

Sales Management Control Competencies

Prior studies in the sales management control research stream do not address the issue of sales manager control competencies. The question of how well sales management control is exercised by the manager has not been examined in previous research. The focus has been on the effects of more control, not better control. In contrast, many studies in the management discipline examine competencies in organizations, both at a corporate level (e.g., Prahalad and Hamel 1990) but also at the level of the individual employee or manager (Abraham et al. 2001; Burgoyne 1989; Collin 1989; Raelin and Cooledge 1995). Indeed, organizations applying competency-based systems for their employees are frequently denoted as visionary or high-performance organizations (Cockerill, Hunt, and Schroder 1995; Collins and Porras 1996). While consensus on the definition of personal or managerial competencies remains elusive (Cheng, Dainty, and Moore 2003), Abraham et al. suggest that competencies include a panoply of the characteristics, behaviors and traits necessary for job performance (2001, p. 843). Managerial competencies are frequently linked to performance management and appraisal in competency-based management approaches (Greengard 1999). Nonetheless, controversies remain regarding the real abilities of organizations to identify the managerial competencies most relevant to enhanced performance, or to create development programs that actually instill those competencies (Levenson, VanderStede, and Cohen 2006; McKenna 2004; Naquin and Holton 2006). Attention to managerial competencies and capabilities is found in several areas of marketing literature (see Vorhies and Morgan 2005; Webster et al. 2005). Perhaps the largest attention is devoted to managerial competencies in the selling and sales management domain. For example, Cron and DeCarlo place considerable emphasis on six core sales management competencies, defining sales management competencies as sets of knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes that a person needs to be effective in a wide range of industries and various types of organizations (2006,

Winter 2012 11 This study follows prior research in stating that the level of sales manager control activities has a positive relationship to salesperson performance (H1). In this sense, the existence of a formal company-wide sales force control strategy and the implementation of those controls by managers in how they supervise salespeople (i.e., the level of control activities undertaken by the manager) is likely to have a positive effect on salesperson behaviors and performance. This relationship is supported in prior research. However, the proposal in this study is that the impact of control on performance is likely to be enhanced or reduced by the extent of sales manager competencies in performing control activities. For example, one important activity that forms part of monitoring control activities is for the manager to make joint sales calls with the salesperson. However, the manager skills required to make an effective joint sales call are quite different from those required to successfully sell to the customer. The ineffective joint sales call is probably when the manager simply takes over and runs the visit because he or she believes he or she can do better than the salesperson. The result is likely to undermine the salespersons confidence and standing in the customers eyes. Similarly, providing regular feedback is an important element of rewarding control activities. Yet the skills and abilities required to provide insightful and positive feedback to a salesperson, to achieve positive impact on the salespersons behaviors and results, are unlikely to have been acquired through experience in selling. Considering more broadly the leadership attributes of sales managers, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Rich (2002) propose that transformational leadership behaviors by sales managers, compared to transactional leadership behaviors, are positively associated with salesperson performance and OCBs. Their transformational leadership conceptualization has much in common with behavior-based control. However, their analysis does not control for the potential impact of individual manager differences in capabilities for transformational leadership. We propose that the effects of sales manager control strategy (levels of monitoring, directing, evaluating, and rewarding activities) will have a larger impact on salesperson performance when manager control competencies are high and will significantly decline or disappear when sales manager control competences are lower. Accordingly, sales manager competencies will moderate the impact of the control level on salesperson performance: Hypothesis 2: Sales manager control competencies will have a moderating effect on the relationship between sales manager control level and salesperson performance: higher levels of competence will strengthen the control performance relationship and lower levels of competence will weaken the impact of control on performance.

Sales Manager Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Individuals in organizations include minimalists who contribute the least possible level of effort to maintain their membership in the organization, but also others who go the extra mile, engaging in discretionary extra-role behaviors that are advantageous to the organization (Turnipseed and Rassuli 2005). Prior research suggests that extra-role performance has a positive effect on organizational success/effectiveness (George and Bettenhausen 1990; Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1994, 1997; Podsakoff et al. 2000). The Podsakoff et al. (2000) meta-analysis also finds general support for a positive relationship between OCBs and performance. The theory of extra-role behaviors that provides the foundation for study in the sales literature has been Organs conceptualization of OCB, described as individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization (1988, p.4). While several different types of extra-role performance are identified, OCB receives the most attention in the marketing literature (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Ahearne 1998). The conceptualization of sales manager extra-role performance in this study follows this precedent. In prior sales research, concern is mainly with the antecedents and consequences of salesperson OCB, although MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Paine (1999) raise the issue of whether citizenship behaviors (extra-role performance behaviors) may be more important for managers than salespeople. Indeed, Organ suggests that the higher the rank of an organizational member, the more diffuse are the expected, role-related obligations of that member (1988, p.13), implying that managerial performance is less concrete and relies more heavily on distinctive, organizationenhancing behaviors such as OCBs (Borman and Motowildo 1993; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Paine 1999). Importantly, the display of OCB-like behaviors by managers is likely to be significant in evaluating their performance (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Paine 1999). Our conceptual logic is that sales manager OCBs provide part of a management approach by the executive and accordingly influence the way in which control activities are implemented and perceived by salespeople. We suggest that

12 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice OCBs are supportive to control strategy and help explain why and how it affects salesperson performance. For example, our logic suggests that a manager control activity, such as directing, positively affects salesperson performance because sales managers with a behavior-control approach also undertake altruistic behaviors such as helping new salespeople settle in, giving up time to help, and covering work absences. We propose that sales manager OCBs explain the relationship between control level and salesperson performance by playing a mediating role. This logic is compatible with the need for a more holistic view of sales management control. Hypothesis 3: Sales manager OCB will mediate the relationship between sales manager control level (monitoring, directing, evaluating, and rewarding activities) and salesperson performance. 8 salespeople, with approximately two-thirds of the sample supervising between 6 and 10 salespeople. The median number of levels of sales management above the sampled managers was 2, with two-thirds reporting 1 or 2 levels. Sample members reported a median of 3 others reporting to their immediate supervisors. Sales managers in the study reported a median of 2 years in post, with three-quarters of the sample having between 1 and 4 years in post. Seventyeight percent of the sales manager sample comprised male executives and 22 percent females.

Construct Measurement
The modelling uses reflective indicators, where the latent variable causes the observed variables, rather than formative indicators, which are viewed as causing rather than being caused by the latent variable (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer 2001). Constructs of the type adopted in this study are most appropriately measured by reflective rather than formative scales (Jarvis, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff 2003). The scale items and sources for each construct are shown in the Appendix. Following refinement of the scales, the analysis tested separate confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) for each of the Figure 1 and 2 models.

RESEARCH METHOD
The research hypotheses in the conceptualization are examined utilizing data from a multicompany survey of field sales managers in British companies.

Sampling Plan
The sampling objective was to include a wide range of companies employing business-to-business sales organizations. The data were collected using a mail questionnaire with two rounds of follow-up telephone calls to nonresponders. The sampling frame was provided by several published directories of manufacturing organizations in the United Kingdom. A total of 500 questionnaires were mailed to field sales managers and 301 usable responses were obtained, representing 110 companies, giving an acceptable response rate of 60 percent. Early and late responses were compared to detect nonresponse bias, and no significant differences were found (Armstrong and Overton 1977).

Sales Manager Control Level

The dimensions of the sales manager control level construct measured are monitoring, directing, evaluating, and rewarding activities. The measure used is a 19-item scale, where manager respondents evaluate the extent to which they perform each activity, on a 10-point scale anchored by 1=not at all and 10=to a great extent. Importantly, the measure of sales manager control level is based on the Babakus et al. (1996) study, which assesses the Anderson and Oliver (1987) control dimensions (monitoring, directing, evaluating, and rewarding). This scale contains items concerned with system rewarding. The logic is that pure behavior control rarely exists in sales organizations and that incentive pay is present in most salesperson compensation plans. Outcomes like sales results are extremely relevant to sales managers and are likely to be assessed alongside behaviors. The scale attempts to capture the attributes of an integrated control process. A four-factor structure for sales manager behavior control level (monitoring, directing, evaluating, and rewarding) has the following fit statistics: 2=290.4, 130 degrees of freedom (df), p=0.000; goodness-of-fit index (GFI)=0.91; comparative fit index (CFI)=0.95; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.064, indicating acceptable fit.

Sample Characteristics
The sample contains companies selling in several productmarket categories: 30 percent were selling industrial products, 11 percent industrial services, 52 percent consumer products, and 7 percent consumer services. The salespeople supervised by sales managers in the study comprised 11percent generalists, 9 percent customer specialists, 34 percent product/service specialists, and 47 percent combination product/customer specialists. The median number of salespeople supervised by sales managers in the study was

Winter 2012 13

Figure 2 Moderation of ControlPerformance Relationship by Control Competencies

The reliabilities for the global construct and for each control dimension are also acceptable (see the Appendix).

Sales Manager Control Competencies

The measure of competencies is a new construct not used in prior research. The scale items (19 items) are the same as for sales manager control level. Importantly, respondents were asked to evaluate how well they believed they perform these activities compared to other sales managers at the same level in the company. The scale is anchored by 1=below my peers and 10=above my peers. A four-factor structure for sales manager control competencies (monitoring, directing, evaluating, and rewarding) has the following fit statistics: 2=297.3, 129 df, p=0.000; GFI=0.90; CFI=0.95; RMSEA=0.066. The reliabilities for the global construct and each control competencies dimension are also acceptable (see the Appendix). The scale for measuring competencies was chosen in order to obtain an assessment of how well the control process was performed. Recognizing possible problems in using the same items for both control level and competencies, the direct comparison was considered more important than the limitations. Respondents should be able to distinguish between level and competency for each item. The most

serious concern is the relative measure when all of the sales managers are superior and the respondent considers him- or herself also superior and marks the middle of the scale(5). A similar situation would occur if the managers were all mediocre and the respondent as well. Also, the respondent could indicate a self-rating of superior in a mediocre organization. However, it is unlikely in most firms that all the managers will be superior or mediocre. The relative measure was selected to provide the respondent with a basis for competence assessment.

Salesperson Performance
Salesperson behavior performance is measured by a 10item measure adapted from prior research (Babakus et al. 1996; Behrman and Perreault 1984; Cravens et al. 1993). The scales are anchored by 1=needs improvement and 7=outstanding. Outcome performance is measured by a 5item scale adapted from Behrman and Perreault (1984). The items measure performance in generating high levels of revenue, providing high market share, making sales of the highest profit products, selling to major accounts, and producing long-term profitability. A two-factor structure for salesperson performance (behavior performance and outcome performance) has the following fit statistics: 2 = 137.2,

14 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 83df, p =0.000; GFI=0.94; CFI=0.97; RMSEA=0.047. The reliabilities for both performance dimensions are also acceptable (see the Appendix). In the interests of parsimony and to capture a more complete view of salesperson performance, the behavior and outcome performance scales are combined. mon method bias exists for the relationships observed between variables, then a single-factor confirmatory factor model should produce a good fit with the data. In fact, a single-factor measurement model did not produce good fit (2=910.7, df66, p=0.000; GFI=0.69; CFI=0.54; RMSEA=0.207), in either an absolute sense or compared to the measurement model (see above). Common method bias does not appear to be a problem in evaluating the model.

Sales Manager Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Sales manager OCB is measured by a 10item scale based on prior research concerning OCB in the sales literature (Netemeyer et al. 1997; Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1994). Respondents evaluate the extent to which item statements were true of their behavior at work, with the scale anchored by 1=not at all and 7=to a great extent. The items provide a single scale, though they represent dimensions of OCB, such as civic virtue, altruism, courtesy, cheerleading, and peacekeeping. A three-factor structure for sales manager OCB has the following fit statistics: 2=66.2, 25df, p=0.000; GFI=0.95; CFI=0.92; RMSEA=0.074. The scale reliability is also acceptable (see the Appendix). Prior to estimating the structural models for Figure1, CFA was performed to test for potential measurement problems. The measurement model shows acceptable levels of fit with the data: 2=93.3, 46 df, p=0.000; GFI=0.96; CFI=0.98; RMSEA=0.059. The constructs were examined for convergent and discriminatory validity, using the approaches recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). To assess convergent validity, analysis determined that each indicator loaded significantly on the constructs they were intended to represent, and inspected the modification indices for evidence of large cross-loadings. If the tvalues for each indicator loading are significant and cross-loadings are minimal, then the convergent validity of the constructs is supported (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). The analysis then assessed discriminant validity using the method suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), by comparing a model in which each pair of interfactor correlations is constrained to one and compared to an unconstrained model. If the constrained model fits significantly worse, using a chi-square difference test, evidence of discriminant validity is supported. The constructs used in the models show strong evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. In addition, unidimensionality is supported through confirmatory factor analyses. Evaluation of the measurement properties of the data also included a posthoc test for common variance effects, using an analysis of the fit of a single-factor measurement model (see Menon, Bharadwaj, and Howell 1996). If com-

RESULTS
The descriptive statistics, correlations, and alpha coefficients for our constructs are shown in Table1. The model shown in Figure 1 examines the relationship between sales manager control level and salesperson performance, and posits that sales manager control competencies has a moderating effect on the controlperformance relationship while sales manager OCB acts as a mediator (on the basis of our supporting logic, at least a partial mediator) between manager control level and salesperson performance. Importantly, our hypotheses propose three different types of relationships between the constructs studied: the direct impact of sales manager control level on salesperson performance, the moderation of the controlperformance relationship by sales manager control competencies, and the mediation of the control performance by sales manager OCB. Accordingly, the distinction between moderation and mediation is important to interpreting our results. A moderator variable is one that influences the strength of the relationship between two other variables (Baron and Kenny 1986). Hence, we proposed that the sales manager control levelsalesperson performance relationship will be stronger when sales manager control competencies are higher and weaker when competencies are lower. A mediator variable, on the other hand, is one that explains the relationship between two other variables. Our proposal was that the level of sales manager OCB helps to explain how and why control levels affect salesperson performance, as part of a more holistic view of the executives management approach and control strategy. This distinction can be summarized as follows: Whereas moderator variables specify when certain effects will hold, mediators speak to how and why such effects occur (Baron and Kenny 1986, p.1176).

Direct Effect of Sales Manager Control on Salesperson Performance

Our first hypothesis follows the extant literature in proposing that sales manager control level will have a positive re-

Winter 2012 15 Table 1 Descriptive Data, Construct Correlations, and Alpha Coefficients
Constructs 1. Sales Manager Control Level 2. Sales Manager Control Competencies 3. Sales Manager OCB 4. Salesperson Performance Mean 7.19 6.57 5.34 4.55 Standard Deviation 1.24 1.09 0.67 0.97 1 0.90 0.58 0.24 0.16 2 0.92 0.30 0.30 3 4

0.82 0.25

0.85

Notes: Cronbachs alpha coefficients are shown on the diagonal. All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 2 Test of Mediation Effect

Base Model Coefficient Sales Manager Control Level Sales Manager OCB Sales Manager Control Level Salesperson Performance Sales Manager OCB Salesperson Performance Overall Fit Statistics 0.16 t-Value 4.40** 0.20 0.58 3.69** 2 = 815.9; df = 48; p=0.000; GFI=0.86; IFI=0.94; CFI=0.94; CFI=0.94; RMSEA=0.046 3.22** Direct Effects Coefficient t-Value Partial Mediation Coefficient 0.16 0.12 0.47 t-Value 4.33** 2.08ns 3.05**

2 = 1,318.2; df = 865; p=0.000; GFI=0.84; IFI=0.92; CFI=0.92; RMSEA=0.042

2 = 1,313.5; df = 864; p=0.000; GFI=0.84; IFI=0.92; CFI=0.92; RMSEA=0.042

Notes: OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; ns = not significant; df = degrees of freedom; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; CFI=comparative fit index; RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation. **Significant at 0.05 or better. All path coefficients are completely standardized.

lationship with salesperson performance. The direct effects model shown in Table2 supports H1, since the direct path between sales manager behavior control and salesperson performance is positive and significant.

Moderating Effects of Sales Manager Control Competencies

The results of the moderation test to evaluate H2 are summarized in Table3. In order for the moderating effect of sales manager control competencies to be evaluated, the sample was split into two groups according to the median of the score for competencies (low competencies, n=152; high competencies, n=149). A two-group structural equation model was used to determine whether there was any significant difference in the structural parameters between the low control competencies group and the high control competencies group. First, the parameter from sales manag-

er control level to salesperson performance was constrained to be equal. Second, the parameter was not constrained (i.e., kept free). Differences in the chi-square values between the two models determine whether control competencies has a moderating effect on the relationship between sales manager control level and salesperson performance. The data in Table3 reveal that sales manager control competence significantly moderates the relationship between sales manager control level and salesperson performance. The coefficient of the high control competencies group was positive and significant, whereas the coefficient for the low control competencies group was not significant. H2 is therefore supported by the results. The moderation effect is demonstrated graphically in Figure 2, which shows a moderate positive relationship between control and performance when competencies are high and a lower impact in a negative direction for the controlperformance relationship when competencies are low.

16 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Table 3 Test of Moderating Effect

Relationship Sales Manager Control Level Salesperson Performance Moderator Low Sales Manager Control Competencies High Sales Manager Control Competencies Overall model fit: 2 = 11.77; df = 2; p = 0.003; GFI = 0.98; IFI = 0.90; CFI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.128
Notes: ns = not significant; df = degrees of freedom; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; CFI=comparative fit index; RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation. ** Significant at the 5 percent level.

Coefficient 0.55ns 0.16**

2 Difference 8.16**

Mediation Effect of Sales Manager Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Our conceptual logic led to the proposal that sales manager OCB mediated the effect of control level on salesperson performance (H3). Because regression analysis does not take into account measurement errors and can lead to biased tests of mediation (Judd and Kenny 1981), structural equation modeling is also used to undertake this analysis. The results are reported in Table2. The overall fit for the base model, the direct effects model, and the partial mediation model are acceptable: GFI varies from 0.84 to 0.86; CFI from 0.92 to 0.94; IFI (incremental fit index) from 0.92 to 0.94; and RMSEA from 0.042 to 0.046. The first model to be considered is the base model. This model provides direct paths from sales manager control level to sales manager OCB and from sales manager OCB to salesperson performance. Both paths are positive and significant. The direct effects model shows a positive and significant path between sales manager control level and salesperson performance. For the mediation model, direct paths are modeled from sales manager control level to sales manager OCB, from sales manager control level to salesperson performance, and from sales manager OCB to salesperson performance. Importantly, the results in Table2 show strong support for the mediation proposal (H3). The statistics indicate a good fit of the mediation model to the data. In the base model, the paths from sales manager control level to sales manager OCB and from sales manager OCB to salesperson performance are positive and significant. In the direct effects model, the path from sales manager control level to salesperson performance is positive and significant, whereas in the mediation model, the path from sales manager control level to salesperson performance has a lower coefficient than in the direct effects model and is not significant. In fact, our findings support full mediation rather than the partial mediation suggested in Figure1. This analysis provides strong support for H3,

demonstrating that sales manager OCB plays a substantial mediating role between sales manager control level and salesperson performance. This study results provide strong support for all three hypotheses developed in our conceptual model (Figure1).

DISCUSSION
This study makes two specific and relevant new contributions to the sales management control research stream. These contributions center, first, on introducing the sales manager control competencies construct to the research, since this important construct is not included in prior research. Prior research does not consider the role of sales manager control competencies (i.e., how well managers perform management control activities), instead of examining the level of control activities (monitoring, directing, evaluating, and rewarding activities). Nonetheless, the sales manager competencies construct is significant to the impact of control on salesperson performance. Strong supporting logic suggests that managerial competencies are important and insightful in examining initiatives such as control strategy, but this study is the first attempt to include the construct. The Figure 1 model follows prior research in proposing a positive relationship between sales manager control level and salesperson performance. However, this study introduces sales manager control competencies as a moderator of the impact of control level on performance, and this moderation effect is strongly supported by the study results. The findings support the argument that while control strategy (levels and types of managerial control activity) affects salesperson performance, attention should focus not just on what managers do in control strategy, but how well they implement control. The study results support the logic that while the implementation of control strategy affects salesperson performance, the effect is significantly greater when sales managers display higher levels of competencies in control

Winter 2012 17 activities and significantly lower when control competencies are low. At a time when, for many organizations, leveraging sales performance is a high priority, a strong case exists for devoting detailed management attention to building control competencies among first-line sales supervisors. A danger lies in assuming that such competencies exist to the levels required for effective control strategy, which may substantially undermine the effect of control on performance. Indeed, these comments should be put in the context of prior research suggesting that the training of sales managers is neglected in many companies, and many sales managers frequently receive no formal development for the sales management role (Anderson, Mehta, and Strong 1997). Managers report dissatisfaction with the managerial content of training provided (Dubinsky, Mehta, and Anderson 2001). Commentators suggest companies may assume that a newly promoted top salesperson ought to be able to pass on selling skills to other salespeople, thus making a successful transition from salesperson to sales manager (Anderson, Mehta, and Strong 1997; Jobber and Lancaster 2006). This reasoning underestimates the skills and roles involved in managing rather than selling. It appears that effective control is linked to competencies that may require training and development investments, and careful consideration in recruiting individuals to sales manager roles. We introduce sales manager OCB as an element of the management control scenario. While prior research has focused primarily on salesperson OCB, and its links with salesperson performance, in this study we examine sales manager OCB as an important aspect of how managers manage. We propose that sales manager OCB plays a mediating role between manager control level and salesperson performance. The display of OCBs by a manager affects the relationship with the salesperson at the same time as the manager implements control activities that also affect the managersalesperson relationship. Our logic is that the supportive and team-related nature of manager OCB helps to explain how control affects salesperson performance. In this sense, it is the combination of higher control activities and higher levels of manager OCB that exert a positive impact on salesperson performance. The study results strongly support the mediation role of sales manager OCB between the managers control level and the salespersons performance. portant impact on the successful implementation of control strategyhigher levels of impact for control strategy on salesperson performance are associated with higher levels of sales manager control competencies. Several implications emerge for the training and development of sales managers in the implementation of behavior-based control, and ultimately for the recruitment and selection of individuals for this pivotal role. The effective application of control to operationalize business strategy appears to rely on managerial competencies as well as control activities and forms of control. Indeed, the availability of appropriate competencies and abilities at the first-line supervisory level of the sales organization may be a major constraint on the capacity of an organization to implement business strategies that rely on enhanced customer relationships, driven by superior salesperson performance. If managerial competencies in control activities are inadequate and cannot easily be enhanced, this may provide a significant strategy implementation barrier, previously not considered in research. We also introduce sales manager OCBs as an important element of the management control scenario. The linkage between the impact of control activities on salesperson performance and sales manager OCB provides a practical basis for enhancing the performance of sales managers in this increasingly important aspect of their jobs. Our findings underline the importance of positive salesperson responses to sales manager OCB. Salesperson reciprocity in the social exchange is associated with higher levels of manager OCB. This finding is compatible with prior research examining salesperson OCBs and performance (Piercy et al. 2006). Sales manager OCBs are linked to the effectiveness of control activities in affecting salesperson performance. Executives responsible for the selection, training, and development of sales supervisors may need a broader and more holistic perspective in making those decisions, which addresses the role of sales manager OCB in the effective implementation of control strategies. These findings are managerially relevant and suggest additions to the conventional agenda to be addressed by senior executives in managing the sales organization. The urgency of addressing these issues is underlined by the growing pressure on sales organizations to achieve superior customer relationships and to focus on higher levels of performance with the most strategically important customers. The role of the sales manager is pivotal in this area and deserves management attention to supporting not simply what managers are expected to do in fulfilling their responsibilities, but also the acquisition and enhancement of relevant competencies and capabilities.

Managerial Implications
Perhaps the most important insight from this study is that sales manager control competencies appear to have an im-

18 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

Research Directions
As in most prior studies in this research stream, this study is limited by its cross-sectional nature. Future research would benefit by studying the development and application of managerial control competencies in a longitudinal research design. The current study also uses managers self-ratings of control levels and competencies, and further studies might usefully examine senior executive and salesperson perceptions of sales manager control activities and capabilities. The sales manager control competencies measure is very promising. Future research could usefully examine additional consequences of control competencies, as well as antecedents to this manager characteristic. Indeed, while the measures of monitoring, directing, evaluating, and rewarding activities and competencies follow a well-known structure from prior research (Anderson and Oliver 1987; Babakus et al. 1996), other control conceptualizations (e.g., Jaworski, Stathakopoulos, and Krishnan 1993) and other measurement approaches (e.g., Challagalla and Shervani 1996; Oliver and Anderson 1994) might be used in a similar way to contrast control strategy with managerial competencies. In addition, it would be useful to examine the link between different sales environments and appropriate control strategy. It is also interesting that while we have found a mediating role for sales manager OCBs between control level and salesperson performance, we have not proposed a relationship between control competencies and manager OCBs, mainly because of lack of support for this relationship in prior research. Nonetheless, it might be speculated, for example, that the moderating effect of manager control competencies may be partly moderated by manager OCBs. Indeed, while we have followed the precedent established by prior sales management control research in examining OCB as a higher-order construct (e.g., Piercy et al. 2006), it would be interesting in further investigations to consider whether different OCB components demonstrate different relationships with manager control and salesperson performance. We are grateful to one of our reviewers for these last insights.

REFERENCES
Abraham, Steven E., Lanny A. Karns, Kenneth Shaw, and Manuel A. Mena (2001), Managerial Competencies and the Managerial Performance Appraisal Process, Journal of Management Development, 20 (10), 842852. Anderson, Erin, and Richard L. Oliver (1987), Perspectives on Behavior-Based Versus Outcome-Based Salesforce Control Systems, Journal of Marketing, 51 (October), 7688. , and Vincent Onyemah (2006), How Right Should the Customer Be? Harvard Business Review, 84 (9), 5967.

Anderson, James C., and David W. Gerbing (1988), Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411423. Anderson, Rolph E., Rajiv Mehta, and James Strong (1997), An Empirical Investigation of Sales Management Training Programs for Sales Managers, Journal of Personal Selling& Sales Management, 17 (3), 5366. Armstrong, J. Scott, and Terry S. Overton (1977), Estimating Non-Response Bias in Mail Surveys, Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (3), 396402. Babakus, Emin, David W. Cravens, Ken Grant, Thomas N. Ingram, and Raymond 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 (4), 345363. Baldauf, Artur, David W. Cravens, and Nigel F. Piercy (2001a), Examining Business Strategy, Sales Management, and Salesperson Antecedents of Sales Organization Effectiveness, Journal of Personal Selling& Sales Management, 21 (2), 109122. , , and (2001b), Examining the Consequences of Sales Management Control Strategies in European Field Sales Organizations, International Marketing Review, 18 (5), 474508. Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny (1986), The ModeratorMediator Variables Distinction in Social Psychology Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 11731182. Behrman, Douglas N., and William D. Perreault, Jr. (1984), A Role Stress Model of the Performance and Satisfaction of Industrial Salespeople, Journal of Marketing, 48 (Fall), 921. Bergen, Mark, Shantanu Dutta, and Orville C. Walker (1992), Agency Relationships in Marketing: A Review of the Implications and Applications of Agency and Related Theories, Journal of Marketing, 56 (July), 124. Borman, Walter C., and Stephen J. Motowildo (1993), Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance, in Personnel Selection in Organizations, Neal Schmitt, Walter C. Borman, and Associates, eds., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 7198. Bridges, William (1994), Job Shift: How to Prosper in a Workplace Without Jobs, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Burgoyne, John (1989), Creating the Managerial Portfolio: Building on Competency Approaches to Management Development, Management Development and Education Journal, 20 (1), 5661. Challagalla, Goutam N., and Tasadduq A. Shervani (1996), Dimensions and Types of Supervisory Control: Effects on Salesperson Performance and Satisfaction, Journal of Marketing, 60 (January), 89105. Cheng, Mei-I, Andrew R.J. Dainty, and David R. Moore (2003), The Differing Faces of Managerial Competency in Britain and America, Journal of Management Development, 22 (6), 527537. Cockerill, Anthony P., John W. Hunt, and Harry Schroder (1995), Managerial Competencies: Fact or Fiction? Business Strategy Review, 6 (3), 112. Collin, Audrey (1989), Managers Competence, Rhetoric, Reality and Research, Personnel Review, 18 (6), 2025. Collins, James C., and Jerry I. Porras (1996), Building Your Companys Vision, Harvard Business Review, 74 (5), 6575.

Winter 2012 19
Corcoran, Kevin, Laura Petersen, Daniel Baitch, and Mark Barret (1995), High Performance Sales Organizations: Creating Competitive Advantage in the Global Marketplace, Chicago: Irwin. Cravens, David W., Nigel F. Piercy, and George S. Low (2006), Globalization of the Sales Organization: Management Control and Its Consequences, Organizational Dynamics, 35 (3), 291303. , Thomas N. Ingram, Raymond W. LaForge, and Clifford E. Young (1993), Behavior-Based and Outcome-Based Salesforce Control Systems, Journal of Marketing, 57 (October), 4759. Cron, William L., and Thomas E. DeCarlo (2006), Dalrymples Sales Management, 9th ed., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, and Heidi M. Winklhofer (2001), Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development, Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (May), 269277. Dubinsky, Alan J., Rajiv Mehta, and Rolph E. Anderson (2001), Satisfaction with Sales Manager Training: Design and Implementation Issues, European Journal of Marketing, 35 (12), 2750. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1985), Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches, Management Science, 31 (February), 134149. Flaherty, Karen E., Todd J. Arnold, and C. Shane Hunt (2007), The Influence of the Selling Situation on the Effectiveness of Control: Toward a Holistic Perspective, Journal of Personal Selling& Sales Management, 27 (3), 221233. George, Jennifer R., and Kenneth Bettenhausen (1990), Understanding Prosocial Behavior, Sales Performance, and Turnover: A Group-Level Analysis in a Service Context, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (6), 698709. Greengard, Samuel (1999), Competency Management Delivers Spectacular Corporate Gains, Workforce, 78 (3), 104106. Harvey, Michael G., Milorad M. Novicevic, Thomas Hench, and Matthew Myers (2003), Global Account Management: A Supply-Side Managerial View, Industrial Marketing Management, 32 (7), 563585. Jarvis, Cheryl Burke, Scott B. MacKenzie, and Philip M. Podsakoff (2003), A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (September), 199218. Jaworski, Bernard J., Vlasis Stathakopoulos, and H.Shanker Krishnan (1993), Control Combinations in Marketing: Conceptual Framework and Empirical Evidence, Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 5769. Jobber, D., and G. Lancaster (2006), Selling and Sales Management, 7th ed., Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Judd, Charles M., and David A. Kenny (1981), Process Analysis: Estimating Mediation in Evaluation Research, Evaluation Research, 5 (5), 602619. Krafft, Manfred (1999), An Empirical Investigation of the Antecedents of Sales Force Control Systems, Journal of Marketing, 63 (July), 120134. Levenson, Alec R., W.A. Van der Stede, and Susan G. Cohen (2006), Measuring the Relationship Between Managerial Competencies and Performance, Journal of Management, 32 (3), 360380. MacKenzie, Scott B., Philip M. Podsakoff, and Michael Ahearne (1998), Some Possible Antecedents and Consequences of InRole and Extra-Role Salesperson Performance, Journal of Marketing, 62 (July), 8798. , , and Julie Beth Paine (1999), Do Citizenship Behaviors Matter More for Managers Than for Salespeople? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (4), 396410. , , and Gregory A. Rich (2002), Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Sales Performance, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (2), 115134. McKenna, Steve (2004), Predispositions and Context in the Development of Managerial Skills, Journal of Management Development, 23 (7), 664677. Menon, Anil, Sundar G. Bharadwaj, and Roy Howell (1996), The Quality and Effectiveness of Marketing Strategy: Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict in Intraorganizational Relationships, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24 (3), 299313. Millman, Tony, and Kevin Wilson (1996), Developing Key Account Management Competencies, Journal of Marketing Practice, 2 (2), 722. Morris, Michael H., Duane L. Davis, Jeffrey W. Allen, Ramon A. Avila, and Joseph Chapman (1991), Assessing the Relationships Between Performance Measures, Managerial Practices, and Satisfaction When Evaluating the Salesforce, Journal of Personal Selling& Sales Management, 11, 3 (Summer), 2535. Naquin, Sharon S., and Elwood F. Holton, III (2006), Leadership and Managerial Capability Models: A Simplified Process and Resulting Model, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8 (2), 144165. Netemeyer, Richard G., James S. Boles, Daryl O. McKee, and Robert McMurrian (1997), An Investigation into the Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in a Personal Selling Context, Journal of Marketing, 61 (July), 8598. Oliver, Richard L., and Erin Anderson (1994), An Empirical Test of the Consequences of Behavior- and Outcome-Based Sales Control Systems, Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 5367. Olson, Eric M., David W. Cravens, and Stanley F. Slater (2001), Competitiveness and Sales Management: A Marriage of Strategies, Business Horizons, 44 (2), 2530. Organ, Dennis W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Ouchi, William D. (1979), A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms, Management Science, 25 (9), 833848. Piercy, Nigel F., David W. Cravens, and Neil A. Morgan (1999), Relationships Between Sales Management Control, Territory Design, Salesforce Performance and Sales Organization Effectiveness, British Journal of Management, 10 (2), 95111. , , Nikala Lane, and Douglas W. Vorhies (2006), Driving Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Salesperson InRole Behavior Performance: The Role of Management Control and Perceived Organizational Support, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 244262. Podsakoff, Philip M., and Scott B. MacKenzie (1994), Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Sales Unit Effectiveness, Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (August), 351363. , and (1997), The Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Organizational Performance: A Review and Suggestions for Future Research, Human Performance, 10 (2), 133151. , , Julie B. Paine, and Daniel G. Bachrach (2000), Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research, Journal of Management, 26 (3), 513563.

20 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

Prahalad, C.K., and Gary Hamel (1990), The Core Competence of the Corporation, Harvard Business Review, 68 (3), 7991. Raelin, Joseph A., and A. Sims Cooledge (1995), From Generic to Organic Competencies, Human Resource Planning, 18 (3), 2433. Rosenbaum, Bernard L. (2000), Identifying Sales Management Competencies for 21st Century Success, Velocity, Q1, 3742. Shoemaker, Mary E. (2003), Leadership Behaviors in Sales Managers: A Level Analysis, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11 (2), 1729. Spiro, Rosann L., William J. Stanton, and Gregory A. Rich (2003), Management of a Sales Force, 11th ed., Burr Ridge, IL: McGrawHill/Irwin. Stewart, Thomas A. (2006), The Top Line, Har vard Business Review (JulyAugust), 10. Turnipseed, David L., and Ali Rassuli (2005), Performance Perceptions of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors at Work: A BiLevel Study Among Managers and Employees, British Journal of Management, 16 (3), 231244. Vorhies, Douglas W., and Neil A. Morgan (2005), Benchmarking Marketing Capabilities for Sustainable Competitive Advantage, Journal of Marketing, 69 (January), 8094. Walker, Orville C., Gilbert A. Churchill, and Neil M. Ford (1979), Where Do We Go from Here: Selected Conceptual and Empirical Issues Concerning the Motivation and Performance of the Industrial Salesforce, in Critical Issues in Sales Management: State-of-the-Art and Future Research Needs, Gerald Albaum and Gilbert A.Churchill, eds., Eugene: University of Oregon Press, 1075. Webster, Frederick E., Alan J. Malter, and Shanker Ganesan (2005), The Decline and Dispersion of Marketing Competence, MIT Sloan Management Review, 46 (4), 3543. Weitz, Barton A., and Kevin D. Bradford (1999), Personal Selling and Sales Management: A Relationship Marketing Perspective, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 27 (2), 241254.

Winter 2012 21

Appendix Construct Measurement Sales Manager Control Level ( = 0.90)

Indicate the extent to which you perform these activities. (Scale anchored by 1 = not at all and 10 = to a great extent)

Sales Manager Control Competencies ( = 0.92)

Indicate how well you believe you perform these activities compared to other sales managers at the same level in your company. (Scale anchored by 1 = below my peers and 10 = above my peers)

Monitoring (Level, = 0.85; Competencies, = 0.85) (Adapted from Babakus et al. 1996)
Spend time with salespeople in the field. Make joint sales calls with salespeople. Regularly review call reports from salespeople. Monitor the day-to-day activities of salespeople. Observe the performance of salespeople in the field.

Directing (Level, = 0.81; Competencies, = 0.79) (Adapted from Babakus et al. 1996)
Encourage salespeople to increase their sales results by rewarding them for their achievements. Actively participate in training salespeople on the job. Regularly spend time coaching salespeople. Discuss performance evaluations with salespeople.

Evaluating (Level, = 0.70; Competencies, = 0.74) (Adapted from Babakus et al. 1996)
Evaluate the number of sales calls made by salespeople. Evaluate the profit contribution made by each salesperson. Evaluate the sales results of each salesperson. Evaluate the quality of sales presentations made by salespeople. Evaluate the professional development of salespeople.

Rewarding (Level, = 0.72; Competencies, = 0.80) (Adapted from Babakus et al. 1996)
Provide performance feedback to salespeople on a regular basis. Compensate salespeople based on the quality of their sales activities. Make incentive compensation judgments based on the sales results achieved by salespeople. Reward salespeople based on their sales results. Use nonfinancial incentives to reward salespeople for their achievements.

Salesperson Performance ( = 0.85)

Indicate the scale point that most closely describes your judgement about how the salespeople in your unit are performing. (Scale anchored by 1 = needs improvement and 7 = outstanding)

Salesperson Behavior Performance (Adapted from Behrman and Perreault 1984)

Knowing the design and specification of company products/services. Knowing the applications and functions of company products/services.

22 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Being flexible in sales approaches used. Varying sales style from situation to situation. Discussing selling strategies with people from various departments. Listening attentively to identify and understand the real concerns of customers. Convincing customers they understand their unique problems and concerns. Communicating their sales presentation clearly and concisely. Following up on product use. Troubleshooting application problems.

Salesperson Outcome Performance (Adapted from Behrman and Perreault 1984)

Providing a high market share for your company. Making sales of those products with the highest profit margins. Generating a high level of sales revenue. Identifying and selling to major accounts. Producing sales or blanket contracts with long-term profitability.

Sales Manager Organizational Citizenship Behavior ( = 0.77)

How much do you believe that the following statements are true about your behavior at work? (Scale anchored by 1=not at all and 7=to a great extent)

Civic Virtue (Adapted from Netemeyer et al. 1997; Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1994)
I keep up with company developments. I am willing to risk disapproval in order to express my beliefs about whats best for the company. I attend and actively participate in company meetings.

Altruism (Adapted from Netemeyer et al. 1997; Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1994)
I help new salespeople settle in, even though it is not required. I willingly give up my time to help others. I help fill in for people when they are sick or absent.

Team Building (Adapted from Netemeyer et al. 1997; Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1994)
I take steps to prevent problems with other salespeople or company personnel. I encourage others when they are down. I encourage other managers in the company to do well in their jobs. I am a stabilizing influence when disagreement and conflict occurs.

Copyright of Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.