Personal Selling

European Journal of Marketing
Effect of salesperson personality on sales performance from the customer’s

perspective: Application of socioanalytic theory
Said Echchakoui,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Said Echchakoui, (2017) "Effect of salesperson personality on sales performance from the customer’s
perspective: Application of socioanalytic theory", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 Issue: 9/10,
pp.1739-1767, https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2016-0147
Downloaded by AIR UNIVERSITY PAKISTAN At 02:16 01 February 2018 (PT)
Permanent link to this document:

https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2016-0147
Downloaded on: 01 February 2018, At: 02:16 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 102 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 231 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Advertised reference price and sales price as anchors of the latitude of expected price and
its impact on purchase intention", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 Iss 9/10 pp. 1597-1611 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2016-0177">https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2016-0177</a>
(2017),"The effectiveness of matching sales influence tactics to consumers’ avoidance versus
approach shopping motivations", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 Iss 9/10 pp. 1577-1596 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-05-2016-0278">https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-05-2016-0278</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:543700 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
Effect of
Effect of salesperson personality salesperson
on sales performance from the personality on
sales
customer’s perspective
Application of socioanalytic theory 1739
Said Echchakoui Received 10 March 2016
Revised 15 September 2016
Department of Management, University of Quebec at Rimouski, Lévis, Canada 11 January 2017
28 February 2017
12 April 2017
Accepted 4 May 2017
Abstract
Purpose – Drawing on socioanalytic theory, this paper aims to explore whether a moderation mediation
model can describe the mechanism linking salesperson social reputation (perceived stability and plasticity)
and performance (customer share of wallet) in relationship marketing. The mediator is the salesperson’s
overall equity, and the moderator is the salesperson-customer congruence.
Design/methodology/approach – A structured questionnaire was used to obtain data from 233
customers, served by 44 personal finance advisors at five banking agencies in Canada.
Findings – A multilevel approach showed that both perceived stability and perceived plasticity predict
salesperson equity and performance. In addition, the empirical results indicated that the relationship between
perceived stability and salesperson performance is partially mediated by salesperson overall equity. However,
equity fully mediated the relationship between perceived plasticity and salesperson performance. Finally, the
salesperson-customer congruence moderated the effect of both perceived stability and plastic on the
salesperson overall equity.
Research limitations/implications – This research suggests that the moderation mediation model
enables predicting the relationship between the perceived personality and performance. From a managerial
perspective, the author encourages sales managers to pay attention to salespersons’ equity development as well
as their performance. Notably, the author suggests that sales managers support and monitor salespeople with
regard to improving their social status as well as their social popularity in their interactions with customers.
Originality/value – Previous research in sales force literature focuses on salespersons’ self-personality to
predict sales performance. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this study is the first to show it is important
to consider the perceived personality of a salesperson in predicting their performance. This study is also the
first to introduce the salesperson reputation concept and its dimensions (perceived stability and plasticity).
Keywords Sales force, Multi-rater, Multilevel modeling, Salesperson social reputation,

Salesperson-customer congruence, Socioanalytic theory
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
What are the factors that allow a sales force to increase its performance outcomes? During
the past three decades, sales management practitioners and marketing scholars have
identified several predictor variables. One of the most studied variables driving sales force
performance outcome is the five-factor model (FFM) of personality. However, despite the
abundance of studies, researchers have not found a high correlation between personality
and sales force performance (Hough and Oswald, 2000). According to Hurtz and Donovan’s European Journal of Marketing
(2000) meta-analytic approach, the predicted magnitude of the FFM ranges from 6 to 20 per Vol. 51 No. 9/10, 2017
pp. 1739-1767
cent. Moreover, Churchill’s et al. (1985) meta-analysis of 116 studies revealed that only 4 per © Emerald Publishing Limited
0309-0566
cent of salesperson performance is explained by personality traits. DOI 10.1108/EJM-03-2016-0147
EJM According to Colbert et al. (2012), considerable research has explored self-measures of
51,9/10 personality, but despite the importance of peer rating of personality, it has received little
attention in the literature. Socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1991; Hogan and Shelton, 1998)
points out that a person’s personality can be understood by considering both inside and
outside perspectives. The inside perspective refers to the person’s identity (Hogan and
Shelton, 1998) and is measured by self-rating (i.e. view of oneself). In contrast, the outside
1740 perspective, called “social reputation” or “personality reputation”, refers to the person’s
reputation (Hogan and Shelton, 1998), and it is measured by peer rating or others’ views
(Hogan, 1991; Hogan and Shelton; 1998; Robertson et al., 2006). Social reputation rests on
others’ evaluation of a person’s motivation to get along and to get ahead (Hogan and
Shelton, 1998). A person who gets along displays a positive attitude and the ability to
cooperate and work well in a group (Hogan and Holland, 2003; Blickle et al., 2011). This
person generally scores well in ratings of the stability meta-trait (Digman, 1997; Hogan and
Holland, 2003). The stability meta-trait includes three FFM dimensions, conscientiousness,
agreeableness and emotional stability (Digman, 1997), and it can be interpreted in
socioanalytic terms as a basic human aim “toward peer popularity” (Digman, 1997; Hogan
and Holland, 2003). In contrast, an individual who gets ahead is competitive and takes the
initiative in pursuing a goal (Hogan and Shelton, 1998). This individual usually receives a
high score on ratings of the plasticity meta-trait (Digman, 1997; Hogan and Holland, 2003).
This meta-trait contains two FFF dimensions, extraversion and openness to experience
(Digman, 1997), and it can be interpreted in socioanalytic terms as a basic human aim
“toward status” (Digman, 1997; Hogan and Holland, 2003). Consistent with this literature,
the first purpose of this study is to extend the existing research by examining the
relationship of both sales person perceived stability (SPS) and salesperson perceived
plasticity (SPP) to sales force performance based on observations by multiple raters.
Barrick et al. (2002), among others, have called for additional exploration of the
mechanism through which personality traits influence a salesperson’s performance. In this
study, we explore salesperson’s overall equity as a mediator between his or her social
reputation and performance. Specifically, we draw on socioanalytic theory and suggest that
social reputation accounts for a significant share of variance in the overall equity
development of a salesperson and, in turn, in the customer’s share of wallet (SOW). The
SOW is an indicator of salesperson performance. Salesperson overall equity (SOE), as
defined by Echchakoui (2015, p. 143), is “a customer preference to buy from a particular
salesperson among others who have the same characteristics and offers”. The central
element of the definition of SOE is salesperson preference (i.e. preference of or preference for
a salesperson), a concept that is largely neglected in the literature on sales force. As noted by
Hanssens et al. (2014), brand preference represents a brand health indicator of marketing
activity. Similarly, we believe that for the sales manager, SOE can indicate the health of a
salesperson’s relationship with customers in the context of sales. Hence, the second objective
of this study is to explore how SOE mediates the relationship between the salesperson’s
social reputation (SPS and SPP) and the customer’s SOW.
In addition to investigating the mediation mechanism through which the relationship
between the salesperson’s social reputation and performance is enhanced, we also explore a
moderation mechanism. The third objective of this study is to explicitly explore the moderation
effect of the salesperson–customer congruence (SCC) as a moderator in the relationship
between social reputation (SPS and SPP) and both SOE and SOW. Drawing on the definition
by Sirgy et al. (2008), the SCC refers, in this study, to the customer’s perception that his or her
self-concept (actual self, ideal self, etc.) fits with the salesperson’s image (i.e. perceived
personality). Our choice of SCC was motivated by two factors. First, as highlighted by Jamal
and Adelowore (2008), the person–person congruence has been little investigated in the Effect of
literature. Second, the effect of this congruence on customer preference and purchase intention salesperson
has been shown in different areas such as brand management, retail management and
employee service performance (Sirgy et al., 2000; Jamal and Adelowore, 2008).
personality on
Our study makes several important contributions to the existing literature on sales force. sales
First, the distinction between self-personality and perceived personality based on
socioanalytic theory allows us to extend the literature by introducing the concept of the
salesperson’s social reputation. This introduction is important because our results show that 1741
a salesperson’s social reputation is pertinent to his or her equity and performance growth.
Our results also show that the meta-traits SPS and SPP are important sources of preference
development among customers through social interactions. These findings are important for
three reasons. First, our research is the initial study considering both of these meta-traits as
FFM dimensions in the sales force literature. Second, this study is also the first to identify
SPS and SPP as sources of salesperson equity. By considering SOE, we underscore that
sales managers and scholars should consider not only how personality assists sales
performance growth but also its role in building salesperson equity in a competitive market.
Finally, the present study introduces SOE and SCC, respectively, as a mediator and
moderator that can enhance the relationship between perceived personality and salesperson
performance. This study, thus, responds to a call made by some scholars (Barrick et al.,
2002; Barrick and Mount, 2005) to resolve the weak FFM–performance relationship.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Socioanalytic theory and social reputation
According to the socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1991; Hogan and Shelton; 1998; Hogan and
Roberts, 2004; Robertson et al., 2006), understanding an individual’s personality requires
consideration of both inside and outside perspectives. The former refers to the individual’s
identity measured by personality traits (e.g. FFM) and assessed by self-rating. The latter refers
to the individual’s social reputation, which is also measured by personality traits (e.g. via the
FFM) but judged by peer rating (Hogan and Holland, 2003). In this study, we consider the
salesperson–customer relationship as episodic social interactions. After each interaction,
the salesperson is evaluated by the customer, and these evaluations are transformed into social
reputation. According to Hogan and Holland (2003), social reputation can be assessed by the
two meta-traits proposed by Digman (1997) and DeYoung et al. (2008). The first meta-trait,
which Digman (1997) labeled “alpha” and DeYoung et al. (2008) termed “stability”, includes
three FFM dimensions: conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability. The second
meta-trait, termed “beta” by Digman (1997) and “plasticity” by DeYoung et al. (2008), contains
extraversion and openness to experience. For Digman (1997) (cited by Hogan and Holland
(2003, p. 102)), the stability meta-trait: “reflected social desirability and the socialization process
(impulse restraint and conscience vs. hostility, aggression and neurotic defense), and could be
interpreted in socioanalytic terms as a basic human aim “toward peer popularity” (p. 1251).
However, the plasticity meta-trait (according to Digman (1997) and cited by Hogan and
Holland (2003, p. 102)) “reflected personal growth (vs. personal constriction) and surgency, and
could be interpreted in socioanalytic terms as a basic human aim ‘toward status’” (p. 1251).
2.2 Salesperson’s social reputation and judgment accuracy

We define a salesperson’s social reputation as his or her personality from the perspective of
customers’ memory, namely, customers’ perception of stability and plasticity. Owing to self-
monitoring, each salesperson adapts his or her behavior to the context of each sales
interaction, which is probably why customers sometimes cannot detect the true personality
EJM of salespeople. In this respect, the Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM) states that the
51,9/10 personality judgments of others may not always be accurate (Funder, 1987; Kenny, 1994;
Letzring et al., 2006). In this study, we focus only on the customers’ perspective. Thus, we do
not assess whether these perceived traits represent the true traits of the salesperson. As
noted by Ferris and Judge (1991), even if the truth is of prime importance, persons react only
on the basis of their perceptions of reality.
1742 However, we are still concerned about the accuracy of customers’ judgments of the
salesperson’s social reputation. Kenny (1994) states that the accuracy of personality rating
by peers can be judged on three criteria:
(1) the agreement between the evaluations of the target and the peer;
(2) consensus between multiple peer raters; and
(3) predictive validity of observed personality.
Because we do not focus on the salesperson’s true personality but on his or her social
reputation, we believe that the two criteria (consensus and predictive validity) are sufficient
to assess the accuracy of customers’ judgments of salesperson social reputation. We assess
the peer rating consensus by calculating customers’ rating agreements for each salesperson
(i.e. the rWG(J) index) as recommended by James et al. (1984). The predictive validity is
operationalized by the evaluation of the relationship between salesperson social reputation
and the two dependent variables of our model (SOE and SOW).
In line with the literature, we consider each customer as an individual, and all
competitive salespersons who deal with a customer as a social group network in which each
salesperson is represented by a node; the relationship between a salesperson and this
customer is indicated by a line. After each social interaction with a salesperson, this
customer evaluates the social reputation of the salesperson based on SPS and SPP.
Consistent with Digman (1997), we define SPS by the salesperson’s social desirability and
socialization process, and SPS could be interpreted in socioanalytic terms as the
salesperson’s aim to be popular among other competitive salespersons. The perceived
conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability are used to assess this meta-trait.
Likewise, we define SPP as the salesperson’s tendency to seek personal growth and
surgency, and in socioanalytic terms, it could be interpreted as his or her aim to have a
status among competitive salespersons. This meta-trait will be evaluated using perceived
salesperson extraversion and openness to experience.
In addition to the individual level, we consider the dyadic perspective. Specifically, we
consider the relationship linking customer A with n competitive salespersons as a subsystem,
which is composed of n dyadic relationships (namely, relationships of customer A with
salespersons i, i = 1. . . n). Here, each salesperson i wants to create a strong relationship with
customer A. Back and Kenny (2010) stated that persons often perceive and behave differently
with their peers’ partners. Similarly, we believe that customer A is not likely to consider the
n dyadic relationships in the same way but probably arranges them in a hierarchy of weak and
strong relationships. We suggest that the strength of these relationships is affected by
customer A’s perception of the social reputation of each salesperson i. The strength of the
relationship is operationalized in this study by the SOE construct.
3. Conceptual framework and hypotheses

3.1 Conceptual framework
Figure 1 presents the conceptual multilevel model. At the customer level (i.e. the first level),
the model includes the salesperson’s social reputation dimensions that affect the customer’s
Effect of
salesperson
personality on
sales
1743
Figure 1.
Conceptual
framework
SOW. It also posits the moderating mediating role of SCC and SOE in the relationship
between SPS, SPP and SOW. In addition, some characteristics of the salesperson (gender,
education and sales experience) in Level 2 and some customer characteristics in Level 1
(gender, education and customer’s experience duration with the organization) are controlled.
3.2 Influence of salespersons’ social reputation and salesperson overall equity on share of
wallet
Du et al. (2007) defined SOW as the aggregate proportion of business the customer does with
the firm across all categories in which the firm competes. Drawing on this definition, we
consider SOW in the context of the salesperson–customer relationship as the aggregate
proportion of business that a customer does with the salesperson across all categories in
which the salesperson competes. Two reasons motivate this definition of SOW. First,
according to Du et al. (2007), in the service industry (in particular, the financial industry) the
SOW measure is an important metric of customer relationship strength. Second, Echchakoui
(2016, p. 57) stated that SOW is “an informative metric for a salesperson’s effectiveness
because it indicates what proportion of a customer’s potential is not captured by the
salesperson”.
Previous studies posited that all traits constituting SPS (conscientiousness,
agreeableness and emotional stability) have a positive effect on sales performance. For
example, Barrick and Mount (1991) showed that conscientiousness strongly influences job
performance. Thoresen et al. (2004) indicated that salespeople’s agreeableness significantly
affects sales performance. Finally, Barrick et al. (2001) argued that a person who scores well
on emotional stability can perform well in any job activity.
EJM We define salesperson’s stability by his or her social desirability and socialization process; it
51,9/10 could be interpreted in socioanalytic terms as the need to get along. This interpretation
means that the salesperson displays a positive attitude, cooperates with others and works
well in a group (Hogan and Holland, 2003; Blickle et al., 2011). Hogan (1983) and Blickle et al.
(2008) also indicated that a person who scores high on stability seeks positive relationships
with others and also minimizes negative behaviors that can irritate others. Accordingly,
1744 when a salesperson is perceived as scoring high on stability, his or her social behaviors are
most probably evaluated positively and desired by customers. Socially desirable behaviors
contribute to the person’s acceptance (Wolters et al., 2011) and increase his or her
performance evaluation as well as the observers’ reward (Hogan and Shelton, 1998).
Consequently, when customers deal with different salespersons, we expect that they are
more likely to purchase from salespersons with high perceived stability than ones with low
perceived stability.
Hence, drawing on the above literature, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1. SPS is positively associated with SOW.
As previously underscored, the plasticity meta-trait encompasses two FFM model traits:
extraversion and openness to experience. Previous studies showed that these traits are valid
predictors of sales performance. For example, Barrick et al. (2001) and Fumham and Fudge
(2008) found that extraversion influences sales performance significantly. Thoresen et al.
(2004) indicated that a salesperson’s openness to experience influences his or her
performance considerably.
According to socioanalytic theory, people with high scores in plasticity are motivated to
get along with others (Hogan and Shelton, 1998). To get ahead, an individual has to be
competitive and take initiative (Hogan and Shelton, 1998). The competitiveness trait is
related to a person’s aim to enhance his or her competency and improve on past performance
(Wang and Netemeyer, 2002). Hence, a salesperson who scores high in this trait is likely to
behave effectively with his or her customers and in turn perform well. In this regard, Wang
and Netemeyer (2002) showed that a salesperson’s competitiveness trait influences sales
performance directly and indirectly via learning and self-efficacy. Likewise, Brown et al.
(1998) found that salespersons with high competitiveness have ambitious self-set goals and
consequently high performance. High-performing salespeople likely deliver more value to
their customers through the sales process. Past research (Palmatier et al., 2007; Blocker et al.,
2012) has highlighted that the value perceived by the customer is one of the most important
components of the relationship with salespersons. Predictably, therefore, if a customer rates
a salesperson high on plasticity, he or she is likely to have a good relationship with this
salesperson and in turn deal more with him or her. In other words, we expect a customer to
devote a greater share of his or her wallet to a salesperson with a higher SPP than someone
with a lower SPP. Hence, drawing on the above literature, we propose the following
hypothesis:
H2. SPP is positively associated with SOW.
Salesperson equity can be viewed from the firm’s or the customer’s perspective. From the
firm’s perspective, sales force equity refers to what Blocker et al. (2012) called sales force
value appropriation. This value was defined by Kumar et al. (2014, p. 593) at the salesperson
level as “the net present value (NPV) of future cash flows from the salesperson’s customers
after accounting for appropriate costs associated with the salesperson”. From the customer’s
perspective, the concept of sales force equity highlights the role of the sales force in the value
creation process (Blocker et al., 2012; Haas et al., 2012). Drawing on the definition of overall
brand equity by Yoo et al. (2000), Echchakoui (2015, p. 143) recently defined SOE as “a Effect of
customer preference to buy from a particular salesperson among others who have the same salesperson
characteristics and offers”. We retain this definition of the SOE concept in this study. The
central element of this SOE definition is the customer’s preference for a salesperson.
personality on
Blackwell et al. (2001, p. 289) defined preferences as “attitudes toward one object in relation sales
to another”. We retain this definition in our study because it is consistent with past studies
that highlighted a close relationship between consumers’ preference and attitudes. For
example, Morgan and Hunt (1994) posited that brand attitude is the core element of 1745
consumer brand preference and equity.
To the author’s knowledge, previous research did not empirically assess the relationship
between the SOE and SOW. Nevertheless, previous studies have linked brand equity or
preference and firm success or customers’ behaviors. Indeed, several scholars highlighted
that brand equity has positive effects on consumers’ purchase intentions (Bailey and Ball,
2006; Chang and Liu, 2009), market share (Baldauf et al., 2003), share value (Bailey and Ball,
2006), performance (Park and Srinivasan, 1994), profitability (Baldauf et al., 2003) and future
profits and long-term cash flow (Srinivasan et al., 2010). Likewise, Kim and Brandon (2010)
indicated that a significant relationship exists between brand preference and customer
share. Consistent with this literature, it is expected that if a salesperson is highly preferred
by a customer, he or she will have a greater advantage for a high share command from this
customer. This expectation leads us to H3:
H3. SOE is positively associated with SOW.
3.3 Salesperson’s perceived personality and salesperson overall equity
3.4 Salesperson overall equity and share of wallet

We suggest that a salesperson’s social reputation has a positive effect on SOE. If we
consider dyadic relationships at the level of each customer subsystem, a customer’s first
interaction may take place with no formal preference for a particular salesperson. However,
along the duration of the relationship, he or she will probably form an informal hierarchical
preference among all the competitive salespersons he or she interacts with. A primary role of
this hierarchy is to facilitate the customer’s buying decision in the case that two or more
salespersons provide the same offer and have the same characteristics.
Digman (1997) [cited by Hogan and Holland (2003, p. 1251)] argued that individual
stability “could be interpreted in socioanalytic terms as a basic human aim ‘toward peer
popularity’”. Building on this view, we design the SPS as a customer’s perception of the
salesperson seeking popularity in terms of social reputation among other competitive
salespersons. Schwartz et al. (2006) stated that in the context of social interaction, a person’s
popularity is closely related to his or her social acceptance. Therefore, we expect that a
salesperson who seeks a social popularity exceeding his or her competitors (i.e. other
salespersons) is likely to seek higher levels of social acceptance from his or her customers.
According to Wentzel and Erdley (1993), social acceptance is more closely related to the
prosocial compatibility with the peers’ value and behavior. So a salesperson who adopts
more compatible (i.e. not deviance) behaviors in social interactions with customers will
probably have a higher social acceptance. Therefore, we argue that a salesperson who is
motived to seek popularity from a customer is more likely to perform compatible behaviors.
Research on deviance behaviors (also termed “anti-social behaviors”; Giacalone and
Greenberg, 1997) indicates that a negative relationship exists between salesperson deviance
behaviors and relationships with customers, such as customers’ loyalty (Jelinek and
EJM Ahearne, 2005). Not following specific customer rules and not adhering to customer etiquette
51,9/10 are two examples of salesperson deviance cited by Jelinek and Ahearne (2006).
Consequently, it is plausible that when a customer perceives that a salesperson is adopting
compatible behaviors, he or she develops a positive attitude toward this salesperson. We,
therefore, expect a positive association between a salesperson seeking social popularity and
customers’ positive attitude (i.e. preference). Accordingly, we propose the following
1746 hypothesis:
H4. SPS is positively associated with SOE.
Digman (1997) [cited by Hogan and Holland (2003)] posited that a person’s plasticity can
be interpreted in socioanalytic terms as his or her desired status. Consistent with this line
of thought, we consider SPS as the customer’s perception that the salesperson seeks
status in terms of social reputation among competitive salespersons. Previous research

(Wright et al., 2012; Li and Wright, 2014) showed that an individual’s social status goals
are closely related to his or her prosocial behaviors, which refer to the behaviors
performed by one individual in order to benefit another individual (Brief and Motowidlo,
1986; George and Bettenhausen, 1990; Kelley and Hoffman, 1997). Consistent with this
literature, we argue that a salesperson who is motived to gain status from a customer is
more likely to perform prosocial behaviors.
In the context of services industry, George and Bettenhausen (1990) indicated that
prosocial behaviors are customer service behaviors performed by an employee to help a
customer. According to these authors, organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ, 1988)
constitute a broad example of prosocial behaviors. In this regard, George and Bettenhausen
(1990) posited that if a consumer experiences prosocial behaviors from a store, he or she
develops a positive opinion about that store. Consequently, the customer very likely forms a
positive attitude toward a salesperson seeking social status. We, therefore, expect a positive
association between a salesperson who desires social status and the customer’s positive
attitude (i.e. preference) in a competitive dyadic relationship. Therefore, we propose the
following:
H5. SPP is positively associated with SOE.
3.5 Salesperson overall equity as a mediator

Kohn (1992) [cited by Brown et al., 1998] referred to two types of competitions: structural
and intentional. Structural competition refers to the context in which some people compete
to attain something that cannot be shared equally because it is scarce (Kohn, 1992; Brown
et al., 1998). In contrast, Kohn (1992) (cited by Brown et al., 1998) defines intentional
competition as part of an internal process in which a person strives to “become number one”.
In our context, we believe that salespersons competing for a customer’s SOW can be viewed
as structural competition, whereas salespersons competing to win a customer’s preferences
may be categorized as intentional competition. Brown et al. (1998) posited that a personal
intentional competition goal can be considered as an important intermediate step toward
attaining the personal structural competition goal. Consistent with this view, we expect that
a salesperson can win a share of customer sales by winning a customer’s preference.
Consequently, we believe that a salesperson’s social reputation logically influences SOW
through SOE, and we propose the following hypotheses:
H6. SOE mediates the relationship between SPS and SOW.
H7. SOE mediates the relationship between SPP and SOW.
3.6 Salesperson–customer congruence as a moderator Effect of
Sirgy et al. (2008, p. 1091) defined self-image congruence as “the match between consumers’ salesperson
self-concept (actual self, ideal self, etc.) and the user image of a given product, store,
sponsorship event, etc.”. The authors described self-image congruence as “self-congruity”. In
personality on
the context of the relationship between a salesperson and a customer, we label it as SCC. sales
Drawing on the Sirgy et al. (2008) definition, we refer to SCC as the customer’s perception
that his or her self-concept (actual self, ideal self, etc.) fits with the salesperson’s image (i.e.
perceived personality). 1747
Much of the literature in self-congruity theory highlights that to preserve or enhance self-
esteem, a consumer prefers and chooses a product, a brand, a store or an event that is
congruent with his or her self-concept (Bauer et al., 2006; Sirgy et al., 2000). Based on this
premise, this literature has shown empirically that this congruence positively affects
customer preference and purchase (Sirgy et al., 2000; Jamal and Al-Marri, 2007; Jamal and
Adelowore, 2008). In the person–person interaction, little is known about the effect of SCC on
the customer’s behavior (e.g. preference and purchase) in relationship marketing. Jamal and
Adelowore (2008) have shown that the congruence between customer and frontline employee
in the service contact significantly influences customer behavior toward the employee, such
as his or her personal interaction, relationship satisfaction and loyalty. Consistent with the
literature, we posit that in social interaction with different competitive salespersons, the more
a customer perceives self-image concept congruence with a salesperson, the more likely he or
she is to develop a positive attitude toward this salesperson and to prefer him or her. In this
regard, Bendapudi and Berry (1997, as cited in Jamal and Adelowore, 2008) pointed out that
in interpersonal contexts, a similar partner (to one’s own self) is more liked than a dissimilar
partner. The perceived salesperson image in this study is represented by salesperson
reputation, specifically by the SPS and SCC dimensions. Consequently, the level of the SPS
and SPP effects on SOE will likely be stronger for a high level of SCC than for a low level,
leading to the following hypotheses:
H8. SCC positively moderates the relationship between SPS and SOE.
H9. SCC positively moderates the relationship between SPP and SOE.
In line with the above literature, we also posit that the level of the effect of SPS and SPP on
SOW will likely be stronger for a high level of SCC than for a low level. Indeed, Sirgy et al.
(2008) stated that the incompatibility between a customer’s behaviors and self-concept
causes dissonance. Therefore, a customer is less likely to buy more from a salesperson
perceived by him or her as non-congruent to the self-image concept. Consequently, we
propose the following hypotheses:
H10. SCC positively moderates the relationship between SPS and SOW.
H11. SCC positively moderates the relationship between SPP and SOW.
3.7 Control variables

To account for their influence on the proposed outcome variables at the individual level, we
introduce some customer demographic variables: gender, age and education. These
variables are used as control variables in previous research (Baumann et al., 2005;
Echchakoui, 2015). Gender is coded as 0 for male and 1 for female, and age is coded using
Arabic numerals. Respondents indicate their education group from among four categories:
elementary school, high school, college and university. We also consider the duration of the
relationship between the customer and selling firm as a control variable. Palmatier et al.
EJM (2007) noted that this variable has a significant effect on customer loyalty. This duration is
51,9/10 also coded using Arabic numerals. In a similar manner, the following salesperson
characteristics are introduced as control variables at the second level: salesperson gender,
education and sales experience (Figure 1).
4. Methodology
1748 4.1 Data collection and sample structure
We approached a big bank in Canada that contains 20 agencies. We contacted all agencies,
and five agreed to join our research (the response rate was 25 per cent). We considered the
data of all salespersons in each agency (i.e. 44 personal finance advisors). For each
salesperson, we distributed a questionnaire to 30 randomly selected customers. In sum, we
administered surveys to 1320 customers, and 233 useful questionnaires were returned. The
overall response rate was 18 per cent, and the mean response rate for each salesperson was
5. Thirty-one per cent of the respondents were aged between 55 and 64 years and 26 per cent
were aged between 45 and 54 years. Approximately 46 per cent of the respondents were
women. In addition, 31.5 per cent had some university education or a college degree and
approximately 42 per cent had a high school education.
Salespersons were primarily female (71 per cent), 65.8 per cent had a bachelor’s degree or
a college degree, and the mean sales experience was 12.90 years (SD = 5.74). The role of
these employees is to develop and maintain professional advisory relationships with clients
to ensure that they are making adequate investments and to sell a wide range of insurance
products, including home, auto and life insurance, as well as investment products.
4.2 Measures
SPS is measured by conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability. Extraversion
and openness to experience are used to measure SPP. The literature has established several
scales to assess the five dimensions of FFM (i.e. conscientiousness, agreeableness,
extraversion, emotional stability and openness to experience). Following many scholars
(Barrick and Mount, 1991; Gosling et al., 2003; Lilford et al., 2014), we used a shorter version
to increase compliance levels. For each FFM dimension, only three items were used (Table I).
Items consist of adjectives used by several scholars (Barrick and Mount, 1991). Each
customer was asked to evaluate his or her financial adviser, rather than themselves, on a
five-point Likert scale.
Consistent with the definition of salesperson equity in this study, the four-item SOE scale
of Yoo et al. (2000) was adopted to measure salesperson equity. We adapted five items used
by Sirgy et al. (1997) to measure the SCC concept. In line with the procedure used by these
authors, we asked each customer to think about his or her personal finance advisors before
responding to these five items. We used the same five-point Likert rating scale as that
employed for the FFM questions.
SOW is measured with two items:
(1) the proportion of business that a customer gives the salesperson across one year;
and
(2) proportion of business that a customer will conduct for the next three years.
Some authors (Palmatier et al., 2007; Echchakoui, 2016) used the latter measure to include
the strength of the relationship between a salesperson and their customers. Specifically, we
used two items employed by Echchakoui (2015) and adapted from two measures selected by
Palmatier et al. (2007): market share of customers and sales growth.
Perceived FFM ICC rWG(J) l t-value a CR AVE
Salesperson perceived stability (SPS) 0.909 0.943 0.702

Conscientiousness
Calm 0.118 0.817 0.532 11.788
Secure 0.085 0.797 0.559 14.269
Agreeableness
Cooperative 0.078 0.788 0.852 36.345
Considerate 0.084 0.767 0.899 39.916
Trusting 0.086 0.763 0.702 11.499
Emotional stability
Organized 0.097 0.817 0.640 2.977
Dependable 0.070 0.727 0.671 8.201
Salesperson perceived plasticity (SPP) 0.929 0.933 0.701
Extraversion
Sociable 0.062 0.786 0.648 27.481
Active 0.052 0.790 0.755 29.616
Energetic 0.036 0.737 0.773 47.778
Openness to experience
Imaginative 0.051 0.684 0.661 2.097
Intellectual 0.059 0.655 0.666 16.496
Artistically sensitive 0.087 0.528 0.521 1.616
Salesperson -customer congruence (SCC) 0.942 0.956 0.813
I am very much like X 0.003 0.466 0.866 41.664
I can identify with X 0.190 0.430 0.934 59.055
I feel my personal profile is similar to X 0.078 0.430 0.902 27.985
I do not have anything in common with X 0.090 0.363 0.901 37.737
I am very much like X 0.129 0.300 0.829 38.981
(continued)
validity for measures

Survey items,
sales
1749
variables
reliability and
personality on
Effect of
in the study
Table I.
salesperson
EJM
1750
Table I.
51,9/10
Perceived FFM ICC rWG(J) l t-value a CR AVE
Salesperson overall equity (SOE)

It makes sense to buy from X instead of any salesperson’s offer even
if they are the same 0.071 0.614 0.713 21.206
Even if another salesperson has same features as X. I would prefer to
buy from X 0.142 0.591 0.838 19.542
If there is another salesperson as good as X. I prefer to buy from X 0.105 0.583 0.917 3.089
If another salesperson is not different from X in any way. It seems
smarter to purchase from X 0.080 0.548 0.825 15.744 0.913 0.936 0.786
Customer's share-of-wallet (SOW)
Of the potential products or services, you could purchase from this
salesperson, what per cent share do you estimate this salesperson
will have three years from now? (%) 0.125 0.978 0.968 14.967 0.980 0.990 0.980
Of the potential products or services, you could purchase from this
salesperson, what per cent share does this salesperson currently
have? (%) 0.103 0.976 0.992 2.410 0.980 0.990 0.980
Notes: X: Salesperson; l : “Loadings”; a = coefficient alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance. Two items of perceived FFM were deleted:
unemotional adjective of emotional stability and persistent adjective of conscientiousness because the loading of these items were not exceeding 0.5; the limit is
recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988)
4.3 Measurement validation Effect of
Before the psychometric properties of each scale was assessed, the Intraclass Correlation salesperson
Coefficient (ICC) was calculated. As shown in Table I, in some cases, the ICC exceeds 10 per
cent; therefore, as recommended by Krull and MacKinnon (1999), multilevel analysis was
personality on
adopted to assess the Measurement Fit Model. This analysis was conducted using Mplus 7.4 sales
(Muthén and Muthén, 1998/2007). Conducting multilevel analysis with a Robust Maximum
Likelihood (MLR) estimator allowed us to conduct multilevel exploratory factor analysis to
explore the number of factors of perceived personality. This analysis is important because, as 1751
indicated in Section 1 of this paper, some authors advocate using five dimensions for the FFM,
while others prefer two dimensions, and yet others, only one. As expected, the results (Table I)
support the use of two dimensions. The first, “stability”, includes conscientiousness,
agreeableness and emotional stability. This dimension contains seven items instead of nine, as
two items, emotional stability (adjective = unemotional) and conscientiousness (adjective =

persistent) were deleted because they do not load above the recommended limit of 0.5
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The second dimension, “plasticity”, includes all items related to
extraversion and openness to experience.
To confirm the correct number of perceived FFM dimensions, we also used the recent
method of Preacher et al. (2013). According to these authors, actual methods cannot provide
an accurate assessment of the true number of factors to be retained for observed phenomena
(e.g. number of dimensions of personality traits); rather, they only indicate the optimal
number of factors. To discover the optimal number, Preacher et al. (2013) introduced an
approach based on the comparison of rival models (i.e. number of factors), using “factor
retention criteria”. In addition to some popular fit indices (e.g. root mean square error of
approximation or RMSEA), Preacher et al. (2013) introduced the cross-validation log-
likelihood (CV-lnL) index. Based on this index, the model with the highest (least negative) CV-
lnL value provides the optimal number of factors. We estimated CV-lnL values by
performing exploratory factor analysis with Mplus. We also considered the validation
matrices of three competing models (Model 1: one-FFM factor model, Model 2: two-FFM
factor model and Model 3: five-FFM factor model). Table II shows that the highest value of
CV-lnL is 2135.96. Therefore, the optimal number of perceived FFM dimensions is two.
This model also presents the goodness-of-fit indices (Table II). This result is consistent with
the findings of the exploratory factor analysis.
To assess the consensus between multiple peer raters, we calculated the customers’
rating agreement for each salesperson (i.e. the rWG(J) index). The results in Table I show that
aside from the SCC’s items, only four items, rWG(J) exceeds the cutoff value of 0.6
recommended by Bliese et al. (2002). The four other values exceed 0.51, which LeBreton and
Senter (2008) suggested indicates moderate agreement. Hence, consistent with Braun et al.
(2013), it can be argued that an acceptable aggregation among rates for all continuous
variables (except SCC) has been attained. The SCC items measure the perceived congruence
between some customers and a salesperson, and the SCC is not related to the salesperson’s
judgment. In addition, a lower rWG(J) value is a positive result because it indicates
heterogeneity among raters regarding their self-concept for each salesperson.
We used several measures to confirm the reliability, consistency and convergent and
discriminant validity of the indicators for each level of the scale (Table I). As Table I reports,
all items show significant loading with the corresponding constructs, wherein the lowest
value of l is 0.521, and the lowest value of t is 8.201 (>1.96). All instances of Cronbach’s
alpha and composite reliability coefficients exceed the minimum level of 0.7. The average
variance extracted (AVE) exceeds the suggested limit of 0.5. As reported in Table III, the
analysis shows that each construct shares more variance (square roots of the AVE) with its
EJM
1752
51,9/10
Table II.
validation log-
Factor retention
criteria and cross-
likelihood (CV-lnL)
Log-likelihood value x 2 Test of Model Fit
No. of
FFM factors H0 H1 AIC BIC x2 df p RMSEA CV-lnL CFI TLI SRMR
1 220.305 1942.455 453.611 4755.484 515.700 130 0.000 0.112 2222.618 0.853 0.823 0.062
2 2081.348 1942.455 4316.696 4583.084 277.785 118 0.000 0.076 2135.964* 0.939 0.919 0.043
5 1973.826 1942.455 4161.651 4531.827 292.092 88 0.000 0.099 2172.117 0.923 0.863 0.017
Notes: *The highest value; H0: value always be negative for a likelihood ratio test for fitting model; H1: value always be negative for a likelihood ratio for the
unrestricted means, and variances of the observed variables; AIC: Akaike Information Criterion; BIC: Bayesian information criterion; x 2: Chi square goodness-of-
fit statistic; df: Degrees of freedom; RMSEA: Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; TLI: Tucker–Lewis Index; SRMR:
Standardized Square Root Mean Residual
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Customer gender 1
Customer education 0.013 1
CDO 0.004 0.062 1
Salesperson gender 0.096 0.060 0.201** 1
Salesperson education 0.106 0.043 0.180* 0.454** 1
Salesperson sales experience 0.062 0.060 0.119 0.274** 0.271** 1
SCC 0.106 0.061 0.077 0.030 0.000 0.044 (0.902)
SPS 0.163* 0.106 0.049 0.069 0.076 0.110 0.502** (0.838)
SPP 0.182* 0.226** 0.025 0.130 0.039 0.039 0.551** 0.788** (0.837)
SOE 0.112 0.128 0.095 0.121 0.005 0.165* 0.502** 0.723** 0.670** (0.887)
SOW 0.047 0.018 0.047 0.042 0.145* 0.055 0.438** 0.590** 0.551** 0.627** (0.990)
Mean 0.560 3.175 6.798 0.330 2.874 12.477 3.631 4.522 4.356 4.310 0.808
SD 0.498 1.187 0.887 0.471 1.059 6.085 1.064 0.531 0.588 0.815 0.196
Notes: CDO: Customers’ experience durations with organization; SCC: Salesperson-customer congruence; SPS: Salesperson perceived stability; SPP: Salesperson
perceived plasticity; SOE: Salesperson overall equity; SOW: Customer’s share-of-wallet; **p < 0.001; *p < 0.05; Test of Significance: Two-tailed; Diagonal entries
(italic data) show the square roots of average variance extracted
Mean, standard
Table III.
sales
validity
and discriminant
deviation, correlation
1753
personality on
Effect of
salesperson
EJM corresponding measures than with other constructs in the model. Therefore, all constructs
51,9/10 reveal acceptable discriminant validity.
The multilevel confirmatory factor analysis using complex-type analysis with a robust
MLR estimator provides the following statistics regarding the model-fit index of the tested
model: chi-square values ( x 2/df = 2.252, p = 0.00), comparative fit index (CFI = 0.918),
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI = 0.905), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA =
1754 0.073) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR = 0.051). Therefore, the results of
the confirmatory analysis indicate an acceptable fit of the measurement model.
4.4 Testing for common method bias

Because our data originate from a single source, we checked for potential common method
variance (CMV) using two tests recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003) and others
(Williams et al., 1989; Seigyoung and Bulent, 2013). The first was the chi-square difference
between the common method factor and our measurement model. The result indicated that
this difference was not significant (D x 2 = 40.447; Ddf = 64; p = 0.991). In the second test, all
items were entered into an unrotated exploratory factor analysis. The results showed the
variance explained by the common factor was equal to 31.6 per cent. (All factors accounted
for 64.12 per cent of total variance.) The variance explained by the common factor is below
the acceptable threshold (50 per cent); therefore, the CMV bias is unlikely to be a major
concern in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
4.5 Structural model

MLM analysis was used to estimate the main and moderating mediating effects because the
observed customer ratings (i.e. Level 1) data are nested within the salesperson (i.e. Level 2) data.
MLM analysis was conducted using Mplus version 7.4 and was tested using MLR estimation.
The advantage of the MLR estimator is that it deals with missing data, multicollinearity and
nonnormality of observed data (Muthén and Muthén, 2010). Before the MLM analysis was
conducted, some outlier values (with a z-score in excess of 63) were eliminated (less than 5 per
cent), and all predictor variables were grand-mean centered as recommended by Kreft et al. (1995)
to control for multicollinearity and for a clear interpretation of the results.
Basic MLM was conducted in two steps and four models (Table IV). The first step
included one estimated model (Model 1), which dealt with control variables only. In the
second step (including Models 2 and 3), the independent variables (SPS, SPP and SCC) and
outcome (e.g. SOW) were added, respectively.
5. Results
5.1 Main effects
Model 1 estimates the customers’ characteristics (i.e. control variables at level 1) and the
salesperson’s characteristics (i.e. control variables at level 2) regarding SOE and SOW. The
model has an acceptable fit with the data (CFI = 0.988; TLI = 0.976; RMSEA = 0.024;
SRMRWithin = 0.011; SRMRBetween = 0.010). The results of Model 1 show that only the
customer duration with organization (CDO) and the salesperson sales experience has a
significant negative impact on SOW ( g 03 = 0.255, t = 2.571, p < 0.05; g 03 = 0.120, t = 1.983,
p < 0.05), and no significant direct relationship exists among the three control variables and
SOE. In addition, these variables can hardly explain the variance of SOE and SOW (R2= 7.4
per cent and R2 = 3.3 per cent, respectively).
Model 1 estimates the customers’ characteristics (i.e. control variables at level 1) and the
salesperson’s characteristics (i.e. control variables at level 2) regarding SOE and SOW. The
results of Model 1 show that all customer characteristics (gender, education and experience
Step 1 Step 2
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
X!Y X!M X, S ! Y X, S, M !Y
Level and variables Coefficient SOW SOE SOW SOE SOW
Level 1 (Customer-level)
Control variables
Customer gender g 01 0.054 (0.692)i 0.155* (1.971) 0.053 (0.812) 0.004 (0.055) 0.054 (0.912)
Customer education g 02 0.044 (0.734) 0.149* (2.116) 0.046 (0.893) 0.066 (1.506) 0.073 (1.385)
CDO g 03 0.032 (0.923) 0.209** (3.259) 0.061 (1.397) 0.023 (.376) 0.070 (1.128)
Independent variables
SPS g 11 0.264* (2.284) 0.331*** (3.905) 0.129 (1.163)
SPP g 12 0.261* (2.781) 0.351*** (4.790) 0.118 (1.314)
SCC g2 0.147 (1.725) 0.128* (2.644) 0.095 (1.152)
SOE g3 0.408*** (4.253)
Level 2 (Salesperson level)
Salesperson gender g 41 0.486 (1.108) 0.367 (1.829) 0.300 (1.449) 0.343 (2.100) 0.300 (1.449)
Salesperson education g 42 0.838* (2.016) 0.091 (0.558) 0.346 (1.638) 0.049 (0.379) 0.346 (1.638)
Salesperson sales experience g 43 0.223 (0.483) 0.271 (0.866) 0.154 (0.677) 0.187 (0.946) 0.154 (0.677)
Total R2 0.046 0.106 0.328j 0.445 0.393
Fit Indicators
x 2/df 0.000 1.886 1.885
P-Value 0.000 0.042 0.042
CFI 1.000 0.980 0.980
TLI 1.000 0.930 0.930
RMSEA 0.000 0.072 0.072
SRMRWithin 0.001 0.061 0.061
SRMRBetween 0.011 0.002 0.002
Notes: X = SPS (Salesperson perceived stability), SPP (Salesperson perceived plasticity) and SCC: Salesperson-customer congruence; Y = SOW; M = SOE; S =
Salesperson control variables; CDO: Customers’ experience durations with organization; SOE: Salesperson overall equity; SOW: Customer’s share-of-wallet; i: t-values;
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.001; ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed test); j: Total R2SOW = R2Within (1- ICCSOW) þ R2Within ICCSOW (Hirst et al., 2009), cited by Seigyoung and Bulent
(2013)
Results of
Table IV.
sales
models
1755
hierarchical linear
personality on
Effect of
salesperson
EJM duration with organization) have a significant impact on SOE ( g 01 = 0.155, t = 1.971,
51,9/10 p < 0.05; g 02 = 0.149, t = 2.116, p < 0.05; g 03 = 0.209, t = 3.259, p < 0.01). In addition, only
salesperson’s education positively influences SOW ( g 42 = 0.838, t = 2.016, p < 0.05).
However, no significant direct relationship exists among the other control variables and
SOE or SOW. Finally, the control variables explain 4.6 per cent of SOW variance and 10.6
per cent of SOE variance.
1756 The results of Model 2 illustrate that SPS positively influences both SOW and SOE ( g 11,
Model 2 = 0.264, t = 2.284, p < 0.005; g 11, Model2 = 0.331, t = 3.905, p < 0.001). Associations
also exist between SPP and SOE and between SOW and SOE ( g 12, Model 2 = 0.261, t = 2.781,
p < 0.05; g 12, Model 2 = 0.351, t = 4.790, p < 0.001). However, SCC influences only SOE ( g 2,
Model 2 = 0.147, t = 1.725, p > 0.05; g 2, Model 2 = 0.128, t = 2.644, p < 0.05). The addition of
SPS, SPP and SCC significantly increases the variances of both SOE and SOW (DR2Total =
33.9 per cent and DR2Within = 28.2 per cent, respectively). Finally, the results for Model 3
illustrate that SOE significantly predicts SOW ( g 3, Model3 = 0.408, t = 4.253, p < 0.001).
However, the relationship between SPS, SPP, SCC and SOW is not significant ( g 11, Model 3 =
0.129, t = 1.163, p > 0.05; g 12, Model 3 = 0.118, t = 1.314, p > 0.05; g 2, Model 3 = 0.095, t = 1.152,
p > 0.05). The introduction of SOE significantly increases SOW (DR2Within = 6.5 per cent).
Consequently, according to the findings, we can state the following:
H1 and H2, which assume that both SPS and SPP influence SOW, are supported;
H3, which postulates that SOE is associated with SOW, is supported; and
H4 and H5, which suggest that each dimension of salesperson social reputation
(SPS and SPP) influence SOE, are also supported.
5.2 Moderation mediating effects

Our model in Figure 1 coincides with the first stage and direct effect moderation model
introduced by several authors (Edwards and Lambert, 2007; Preacher et al., 2007). These
authors highlighted the desirability of conducting joint rather than single moderation
mediation analysis. Preacher et al. (2007) provided an SPSS macro called MODMED,
updated later by another macro termed “Process” (Preacher et al., 2010), to conduct joint
moderation mediation analysis. However, these macros do not work for multilevel analyses.
Therefore, we opted to use the Edwards and Lambert (2007) procedure to jointly conduct
moderation mediation analysis in this research. This procedure recommends both indirect
and direct computation of the mediation effect by incorporating the integration effect
(Figure 2). This procedure was programmed by Muthén et al. (2016) on Mplus syntax. Based
on this procedure and syntax, we created an Mplus code to jointly test the moderating effect
of SCC and the mediating effect of SOE. Specifically, we created two interaction variables
(SPS SCC; SPP SCC) after centering the three variables (SPS, SPP, SCC) as
recommended by Cohen et al. (2003). Then, as specified in Figure 2, we constructed two
equations: one for the output variables (SOW) and one for the mediator (SOE). In addition,
we added the direct and indirect effect equations (Figure 2) as a model constraint to assess
the mediator effect (Preacher et al., 2010). Finally, bootstrap analysis based on the Monte
Carlo method was performed. This method conveys the most robust confidence interval of
the indirect effects (Preacher et al., 2010). The two SPS and SPP predictors are examined
separately (Figure 2).
Figure 2 shows that the direct effect of SPS on SOW is insignificant (u 1 Model 4 = 0.199, t =
1.263, p > 0.05) and the indirect effect of SPS on SOW via SOE is significant (u 2 Model 4 = 0.155,
Effect of
salesperson
personality on
sales
1757
Figure 2.
Moderation
mediation analysis
following the first
stage and direct effect
moderation model of
Edwards and
Lambert (2007) and
its statistical method
analysis
t = 2.863, p < 0.01), but the confidence interval ([0.079; 0.302]) contains zero. Therefore, SOE
partially mediates the relationship between SPS and SOW. Thus, H6 is partially supported.
Table VI also shows that SOE fully mediates the relationship between SPP and SOW: the
direct effect is insignificant (u 1 Model 5 = 0.811, t = 0.441, p > 0.05), the indirect effect of SPP
on SOW via SOE is significant (u 2 Model 5 = 0.250, t = 2.963, p < 0.01), and the confidence
interval ([0.174; 0.521]) does not contains zero. Thus, H7 is supported.
The results of the model, displayed in Figure 2, show that both the interactions (SPS SCC;
SPP SCC) have a significant effect on SE (d 3 Model 4 = 0.222, t = 2.945, p < 0.01; d 3 Model 5 =
0.207, t = 3.123, p < 0.01). However, these interactions do not have any significant relationship
with SOW (b 4 Model 4 = 0.043, t = 0.461, p > 0.05; b 4 Model 5 = 0.073, t = 0.884, p > 0.05). The plots
of the relationship between the two interactions (SPS SCC; SPP SCC) and the mediator (SOE)
and outcome variables (SOW) are presented in Figure 3. As shown in Figures 3(a) and (b), SPS
EJM
51,9/10
1758
Figure 3.
Plots of moderation
effects
(SPP) has a stronger effect on SOE for a high level of SCC than for a low level. These results
support H8, which posits that SCC moderates the relationship between SPS and SOE and H9,
which claims that SCC moderates the relationship between SPP and SOE.
However, both H10 (SCC moderates the relationship between SPP and SOE) and H11
(SCC moderates the relationship between SPS and SOW) are not supported by our results.
Figures 3(c) and (d) show that SPS (SPP) has a slightly stronger effect on SOW for a high
level of SCC than for a low level. Therefore, although these interactions are not significant,
the results are in the expected direction.
6. General discussion
Our first important result is that salesperson personality from customers’ perspective is a
good predictor of sales performance. Indeed, the findings of this study indicate that a
salesperson’s social reputation accounts for significant variance in SOW (28.2 per cent), and
these results are an improvement on Hurtz and Donovan’s (2000) findings using the meta-
analytic approach. They showed that the predicted magnitude of personality on
performance ranges from 6 to 20 per cent. Our result is consistent with prior studies (Colbert
et al., 2012) claiming that peer rating personality can allow better prediction of the impact of
personality on job performance. This result is also in line with the socioanalytic theory Effect of
(Hogan, 1991; Hogan and Shelton, 1998), which notes that it is pertinent to consider the salesperson
person’s personality not only in terms of his or her identity (i.e. self-rating), but also in terms
of his or her social reputation (i.e. peer rating).
personality on
Our second pertinent result underscores the relevance of the socioanalytic theory in sales
studying the relationship between salesperson personality and sales performance. Drawing
on this theory, we introduce the concept of salesperson social reputation and its dimensions
(SPS and SPP). In addition, our results reveal the importance of both these dimensions in 1759
predicting SOE and SOW. The moderate consistency between the raters (i.e. customers)
in the evaluation of a salesperson’s social reputation, as well the validity of social reputation
in predicting both SOE and SOW, give an acceptable accuracy to the salesperson social
reputation measure. Furthermore, the exploratory and confirmatory analyses confirm SPS
and SPP as two valid factors of FFM. Specifically, the SPS dimension includes
conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability, whereas SPP encompasses
extraversion and openness to experience. This result is consistent with the findings of
Digman (1997) and DeYoung et al. (2002). Likewise, Jang et al. (2006) showed that the two
dimensions exist and are stable across three culturally diverse samples. Therefore, the
present study provides additional support for these authors’ findings as compared to the
results of other scholars (Musek, 2007; Rushton and Irwing, 2008) who are advocates of
General Factor of Personality (i.e. who advocate using one big dimension of FFM) and
specify that it occupies the highest level in a personality’s hierarchy (Costa and McCrae,
1989; Goldberg, 1993). However, to date, most researchers have considered stability and
plasticity as second-order factors of the FFM, or meta-traits. In contrast, this analysis
reveals these dimensions as reflexive factors. One plausible explanation for this difference in
Digman’s (1997) study is the single-rater FFM for each target, which induces a bias.
Furthermore, H1 and H2, which posit that each dimension of salesperson social
reputation influences SOW, are supported. Specifically, SPS is significantly associated with
SOW (i.e. salesperson performance). This finding is in line with the results of Alessandri and
Vecchione (2012), who showed that stability significantly, predicts workers’ performances
across two different samples. One of the samples included 101 salespersons working for an
insurance company. This finding is also in line with previous studies (Barrick and Mount,
1991) indicating that the elements of stability (conscientiousness, agreeableness and
emotional stability) have positive correlations with sales performance. Likewise, regarding
H2, the association between SPP and SOW is also significant. This result contradicted the
findings of Alessandri and Vecchione (2012), who did not explain their results; they
indicated that previous studies had not examined the links between stability, SPP and job
performance.
The third important result of our analysis suggests that both SPS and SPP show a
positive association with SOE. To our knowledge, the present study is the first to explore the
relationship between FFM and SOE. However, Echchakoui (2015) showed empirically that
salespersons’ attributes are positively associated with SOE.
The fourth result of the current study indicates that SOE partially (fully) mediates the
relationship between SPS (SPP) and SOW. This finding is also in agreement with those of
other studies (Barrick et al., 2002; Barrick and Mount, 2005; Penney et al., 2011) that
established a mediation mechanism between salesperson personality and performance.
Indeed, introducing SOE into our model increases the variance of SOW from 32.8 to 39.3 per
cent. This result is consistent with the findings of brand management studies, which
highlight brand equity as having a positive influence on consumer preference (Cobb-
Walgren et al., 1995) and market share (Farquhar, 1989).
EJM Our findings show that SCC moderates the relationship between different dimensions
51,9/10 of the salesperson’s social reputation (SPS, SPP) and SOE. This result is consistent with
previous studies on brand management (Jamal and Al-Marri, 2007; Sirgy et al., 1997),
retail management (Sirgy et al., 2000) and employee service performance (Jamal and
Adelowore, 2008) that highlight that self-concept influences customer preference
towards a brand, a store or an event. However, in contrast to these previous studies, we
1760 do not find any moderation effect from SCC on the relationship between the salesperson’s
social reputation (SPS, SPP) and SOW. One plausible reason for this result is the size of
our sample. Indeed, the plots of these interactions – see Figures 2(c) and 2(d) – are in the
right direction, but the effect of SPS (SPP) on SOW differs only slightly under low versus
high SCC.
Finally, our results confirm that moderation mediation links the salesperson perceived
personality and performance. This result is important because ours is one the few studies
that confirm previous research (Barrick et al., 2002; Barrick and Mount, 2005) highlighting
the complex mechanism of the relationship between personality and performance.
7. Theoretical implications
The findings provide several contributions to the existing literature, and the present study
offers a nuanced approach to understanding the relationship between salespersons’ traits
and sales performance. Notably, this study emphasizes the need for integrating customers’
perceptions in studying the mechanism linking a salesperson’s personality and his or her
performance from a relational perspective. To do this at the individual level, we draw on the
socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1991; Hogan and Shelton, 1998) and differentiate between
salesperson identity and salesperson social reputation. The introduction of the latter concept
with its dimensions (SPS and SPP) allows a reexamination of the mixed impact of
salespersons’ adaptive selling on performance. For example, Spiro and Weitz (1990) found
that adaptive selling is positively correlated with salespersons’ assessments of performance,
but it is not associated with management rating of performance. Our research provides a
plausible explanation for this inconsistent result. First, our results highlighted the
distinction between self-evaluation (i.e. made by a salesperson) and peer evaluation (i.e.
made by a manager). Second, we believe that the salesperson has to draw attention to
himself or herself while making adaptive sales because the observer (e.g. customer and
manager) can remember a bad impression if the salesperson makes a mistake or behaves
inconsistently during the adaptive selling exercise.
Although current research in the literature on sales force mainly considers a single
customer or rater for salesperson perception or evaluation, this study highlights the
relevance of multiple raters to assess salesperson personality and other concepts (e.g. SOE
and SOW). In this regard, this study was based on RAM to highlight the importance of
verifying the score agreement among multiple raters for a salesperson, to validate the
accuracy of the customers’ judgments.
Finally, through the moderation mediation effect of both SCC and SOE, the present
research confirms the pertinence of considering the socioanalytic theory, dyadic relationship
level, customer self-concept and differentiation between the structural and intentional
competition as two nuanced approaches to explain the mechanism linking salesperson social
reputation and performance. In addition, by introducing and justifying the role of SOE, we
extend the current research on the sales force by highlighting the need for scholars to focus
not only on sales performance, but also on salesperson equity in competitive markets.
8. Managerial implications Effect of
This study provides some practical implications for sales managers from the perspective of salesperson
sales relationships. First, we advise sales managers to consider each salesperson as a critical
asset of the firm because he or she can increase the company’s market share by raising his or
personality on
her own equity. So, managers have to make significant efforts to enhance the sales force’s sales
performance by focusing not only on the salesperson’s identity during recruitment but also on
his or her social reputation with regard to relationships with customers. Specifically, this study
highlights the fact that it is not sufficient for sales managers to select good salespersons at the 1761
recruitment stage; each salesperson monitoring his or her social reputation at all times is also
important. In particular, because SPS and SPP are both necessary and sufficient conditions for
SOW, sales managers must provide specialized training to their salespeople to enhance their
perceived stability and plasticity. We also encourage sales managers to conduct annual
surveys to assess both SPS and SPP for each salesperson.

Because the sales force works in a highly competitive market, we recommend that sales
managers encourage all salespersons to do their best and to distinguish themselves from their
competitors (other salespersons) when serving each customer. To do this, we suggest that sales
managers pay as much attention to their salespersons’ equity development as they do to
salespersons’ performance. Notably, based on our research, we suggest that sales managers
support and monitor their salespeople with regard to improving their social status as well as
social popularity in their interactions with each customer. The main objective is to understand
each customer’s preference, which in turn enhances the SOE. To control the health of the
relationship between a salesperson and his or her customers as well the position of a
salesperson in customers’ mindsets, sales managers can also conduct annual surveys to assess
the SOE. They can reward the salesperson with the best SOE with an annual bonus.
Finally, we suggest, drawing on our findings, that sales managers evaluate each
salesperson–customer dyadic relationship according to the degree of self-concept congruence.
This evaluation can help sales managers assign the right salesperson to the right customer.
Such allocation can in turn enhance each salesperson’s equity and performance.
9. Limitations and future research directions

Although the present study makes several contributions, it also has some limitations. First, the
data were derived only from salespeople in agencies belonging to a big financial bank. Thus, to
enhance external validity, future research efforts should consider using sales force data from
other financial banking and from other business settings. It would be interesting to validate
whether SOE is associated with perceived personality and salesperson performance in other
sectors. Second, in this study, a salesperson’s social reputation is measured using a short
inventory of traits. As a result, the adjectives used to describe these traits do not reflect all FFM
traits. To include more global items, future research could use global inventory traits as
specified by, for example, Goldberg (1992). In addition, this study is focused on SOE. Thus,
future research could further quantify this concept and derive its dimensions. Here, salesperson
performance is measured only by SOW, and a need exists to explore other salesperson
performance indicators, such as behavior performance (e.g. sales presentation) and efficiency.
Furthermore, to complete the picture of the relationship between salesperson personality and
sales performance, we recommend integrating salesperson identity and social reputation in the
same model in future research. Considering similarities between the customer’s and
salesperson’s personalities as a moderating variable is also prudent. Finally, previous studies
have highlighted that consumers prefer brands having personalities congruent with their own.
Therefore, we recommend including personality congruence between the salesperson and his
and her customers as a moderating variable in future research.
EJM References
51,9/10 Alessandri, G. and Vecchione, M. (2012), “The higher–order factors of the big five as predictors of job
performance”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 779-784.
Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Back, M.D. and Kenny, D.A. (2010), “The social relations model: how to understand dyadic processes”,
1762 Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Vol. 4 No. 10, pp. 855-887.
Bailey, R. and Ball, S. (2006), “An exploration of the meanings of hotel brand equity”, The Service
Industries Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 15-38.
Baldauf, A., Cravens, K.S. and Binder, G. (2003), “Performance consequences of brand equity
management: evidence from organizations in the value chain”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 220-236.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a
meta–analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. and Judge, T.A. (2001), “Personality and performance at the beginning of
the new millennium: what do we know and where do we go next?”, International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, Vol. 9 Nos 1/2, pp. 9-13.
Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L. and Piotrowski, M. (2002), “Personality and job performance: test of the
mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 43-51.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (2005), “Yes, personality matters: moving on to more important
matters”, Human Performance, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 359-372.
Bauer, D.J., Preacher, K.J. and Gil, K.M. (2006), “Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and
moderated mediation in multilevel models: new procedures and recommendations”,
Psychological Methods, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 142-163.
Baumann, C., Burton, S. and Elliott, G. (2005), “Determinants of customer loyalty and share of wallet in
retail banking”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 231-248.
Bendapudi, N. and Berry, L.L. (1997), “Customer motivations for maintaining relationships with service
providers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Blackwell, R., Miniard, P., and Engel, J. (2001), Consumer Behavior, 9th ed., Harcourt, Fort Worth.
Blickle, G., Frohlicha, J.K., Ehlerta, S., Pirnera, K., Dietla, E., Hanes, T.J. and Ferris, G.R. (2011),
“Socioanalytic theory and work behavior: roles of work values and political skill in job
performance and promotability assessment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 78 No. 1,
pp. 136-148.
Blickle, G., Meurs, J.A., Zettler, I., Solga, J., Noethen, D., Kramer, J. and Ferris, G.R. (2008),
“Personality, political skill, and job performance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 72
No. 3, pp. 377-387.
Bliese, P.D., Halverson, R.R. and Schriesheim, C.A. (2002), “Benchmarking multilevel methods in
leadership: the articles, the model, and the data set”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 3-14.
Blocker, C.P., Cannon, J.P., Panagopoulos, N.G. and Sager, J.K. (2012), “The role of the sales force in
value creation and appropriation: new directions for research”, Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Braun, S.B., Claudia, P., Silke, W. and Frey, D. (2013), “Transformational leadership, job satisfaction,
and team performance: a multilevel mediation model of trust”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 270-283.
Brief, A.P. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1986), “Prosocial organizational behaviors”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 710-725.
Brown, S.P., Cron, W.L. and Slocum, J.W. (1998), “Effects of trait competitiveness and perceived Effect of
intraorganizational competition on salesperson goal setting and performance”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 88-98.
salesperson
Chang, H.H. and Liu, Y.M. (2009), “The impact of brand equity on brand preference and purchase
personality on
intentions in the service industries”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 1687-1706. sales
Churchill, G., Ford, N., Hartley, S. and Walker, O. (1985), “The determinants of salesperson
performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 103-l18.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase
1763
intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-34.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., and Aiken, L. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for
the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Hillsdale, NJ.
Colbert, A.E., Judge, T.A., Choi, D. and Wang, G. (2012), “Assessing the trait theory of leadership using
self and observer ratings of personality: the mediating role of contributions to group success”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 670-685.
Costa, P.T., and McCrae, R.R. (1989), The NEO–PI/NEO–FFI Manual Supplement, Psychological
Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
DeYoung, C.G., Peterson, J.B. and Higgins, D.M. (2002), “Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict
conformity: are there neuroses of health?”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 533-552.
DeYoung, C.G., Peterson, J.B., Seguin, J.R. and Tremblay, R.E. (2008), “Externalizing behavior and the
higher order factors of the big five”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 117 No. 4, pp. 947-953.
Digman, J.M. (1997), “Higher–order factors of the Big Five”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 1246-1256.
Du, R.Y., Kamakura, W.A. and Mela, C.F. (2007), “Size and share of customer wallet”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 94-113.
Echchakoui, S. (2015), “Drivers of sales force equity in the service industry”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 27 No. 27, pp. 140-153.
Echchakoui, S. (2016), “Relationship between sales force reputation and customer behavior: role of
experiential value added by sales force”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 28
No. 28, pp. 54-66.
Edwards, J.R. and Lambert, L.S. (2007), “Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a
general analytical framework using moderated path analysis”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Ferris, G.R. and Judge, T.A. (1991), “Personnel/human resources management: a political influence
perspective”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 447-488.
Funder, D.C. (1987), “Errors and mistakes: evaluating the accuracy of social judgment”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 101 No. 1, pp. 75-90.
Fumham, A. and Fudge, C. (2008), “The five factor model of personality and sales performance”,
Journal of Individual Differences, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 11-16.
George, J.M. and Bettenhausen, K. (1990), “Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and
turnover: a group-level analysis in a service context”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 6,
pp. 698-709.
Giacalone, R.A., and Greenberg, J. (1997), Antisocial Behaviour in Organisations, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Goldberg, L.R. (1993), “The structure of phenotypic personality traits”, The American Psychologist,
Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 26-34.
Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J. and Swann Jr, W.B. (2003), “A very brief measure of the Big-Five
personality domains”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 504-528.
EJM Haas, A., Ivan, S. and Daniela, C. (2012), “Creating value in business relationships: the role of sales”,
Journal of Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 94-105.
51,9/10
Hanssens, D.M., Pauwels, K.H., Srinivasan, S., Vanhuele, M. and Yildrim, G. (2014), “Consumer attitude
metrics for guiding marketing mix decision”, Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 534-550.
Hogan, R. (1983), “A socioanalytic theory of personality”, in Page, M.M. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 55-89.
1764 Hogan, R. (1991), “Personality and personality measurement”, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Consulting Psychologists, Palo
Alto, CA, Vol. 2, pp. 873-919.
Hogan, J. and Holland, B. (2003), “Using theory to evaluate personality and job–performance relations: a
socio–analytic perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 100-112.
Hogan, R. and Roberts, B. (2004), “A socioanalytic model of maturity”, Journal of Career Assessment,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 207-217.

Hogan, R. and Shelton, D. (1998), “A socioanalytic perspective on job performance”, Human
Performance, Vol. 11pp. 129-144.
Hough, L.M. and Oswald, F.L. (2000), “Personnel selection: looking toward the future–– remembering
the past”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 631-664.
Hurtz, G.M. and Donovan, J.J. (2000), “Personality and job performance: the big five revisited”, The
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 6, pp. 869-879.
Jamal, A. and Adelowore, A. (2008), “Customer-employee relationship—the role of self-employee
congruence”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 11/12, pp. 1316-1345.
Jamal, A. and Al-Marri, M. (2007), “Exploring the effect of self-image congruence and brand
preference on satisfaction: the role of expertise”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23
Nos 7/8, pp. 613-629.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), “Estimating within-group reliability with and without
response bias”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 85-98.
Jang, K.L., Livesley, W.J., Ando, J., Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F., Riemann, R.
and Spinath, F. (2006), “Behavioral genetics of the higher–order factors of the Big Five”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 261-272.
Jelinek, R. and Ahearne, M. (2005), “The ABC’s of ACB: unveiling a clear and present danger in the
sales force”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 457-467.
Jelinek, R. and Ahearne, M. (2006), “The enemy within: examining salesperson deviance and its
determinants”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 327-344.
Kelley, S.W. and Hoffman, D.K. (1997), “An investigation of positive affect, prosocial behaviors, and
service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 407-427.
Kenny, D.A. (1994), Interpersonal Perception: A Social Relations Analysis, Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Kim, E.Y. and Brandon, L. (2010), “Modeling brand equity for lifestyle brand extension: a strategy
approach into Generation Y. vs Baby Boomer”, Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 35-48.
Kohn, A. (1992), No Contest: The Case Against Competition, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.
Kreft, I.G.G., De Leeuw, J. and Aiken, L.S. (1995), “The effect of different forms of centering in
hierarchical linear models”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Krull, J.L. and MacKinnon, D.P. (1999), “Multilevel mediation modeling in group–based intervention
studies”, Evaluation Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 418-444.
Kumar, V., Sunder, S. and Leone, R.P. (2014), “Measuring and managing a salesperson’s future value to
the firm”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 591-608.
LeBreton, J.M. and Senter, J.L. (2008), “Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and Effect of
interrater agreement”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 815-852.
salesperson
Letzring, T.D., Wells, S.M. and Funder, D.C. (2006), “Information quality and quantity afect the realistic
accuracy of personality judgment”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1,
personality on
pp. 111-123. sales
Li, Y. and Wright, M.F. (2014), “Adolescents’ social status goals: relationships to social status
insecurity, aggression, and prosocial behavior”, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 43
No. 1, pp. 146-160. 1765
Lilford, N., Vigar-Ellis, D. and Nel, D. (2014), “Big five personality traits and financial salesperson
performance: an application of chernoff faces”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 146-154.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment–trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.

Musek, J. (2007), “A general factor of personality: evidence for the Big One in the five–factor model”,
Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1213-1233.
Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998/2007), Mplus User’s Guide, 5th ed., Muthén & Muthén,
Los Angeles.
Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (2010), Mplus User’s Guide, 6th ed., Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles,
CA.
Muthén, B.O., Muthén, L.K. and Asparouhov, T. (2016), Régression and Mediation Analysis using
Mplus, Muthén & Muthén.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Palmatier, R.W., Scheer, L.K. and Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. (2007), “Customer loyalty to whom? managing the
benefits and risks of salesperson–owned loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 2,
pp. 185-199.
Park, C.S. and Srinivasan, V. (1994), “A survey–based method for measuring and understanding brand
equity and its extendibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 271-288.
Penney, L.M., David, E. and Witt, L.A. (2011), “A review of personality and performance: identifying
boundaries, contingencies, and future research directions”, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 297-331.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42
No. 1, pp. 185-227.
Preacher, K.J., Zhang, G., Kim, C. and Mels, G. (2013), “Choosing the optimal number of factors in
exploratory factor analysis: a model selection perspective”, Multivariate Behavioral Research,
Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 28-56.
Preacher, K.J., Zyphur, M.J. and Zhang, Z. (2010), “A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing
multilevel mediation”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 209-233.
Robertson, B., Dixon, A.I. and Curry, D. (2006), “An agenda for selling and sales management research:
using the financial industry’s forward-thinkers for insight”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 293-303.
Rushton, J.P. and Irwing, P. (2008), “A general factor of personality (GFP) from two meta–analyses of
the Big Five: Digman (1997) and Mount, Barrick, Scullen, and Rounds (2005)”, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 679-683.
EJM Schwartz, D., Gorman, A., Nakamoto, J. and McKay, T. (2006), “Popularity, social acceptance, and
aggression in adolescent peer groups: links with academic performance and school attendance”,
51,9/10 Developmental Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 1116-1127.
Seigyoung, A. and Bulent, M. (2013), “Knowledge sharing behaviors of industrial salespeople: an
integration of economic, social psychological, and sociological perspectives”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 1333-1355.
Sirgy, J.M., Grewal, D. and Tamara, M.F. (2000), “Retail environment, self-congruity, and retail
1766 patronage”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 127-138.
Sirgy, M.J., Lee, D.-J., Johar, J.S. and Tidwell, J. (2008), “Scongruity with sponsorship on brand loyalty”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 10, pp. 1091-1097.
Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T.F., Park, J.O., Chon, K.-S., Claiborne, C.B., Johar, J.S.
and Berkman, H. (1997), “Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring
self-image congruence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 3,

pp. 229-241.
Spiro, R.L. and Weitz, B.A. (1990), “Adaptive selling: conceptualization, measurement, and nomological
validity”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 61-69.
Srinivasan, S., Vanhuele, M. and Pauwels, K. (2010), “Mindset metrics in market response models: an
integrative approach”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 672-684.
Thoresen, C.J., Bradley, J.C., Bliese, P.D. and Thoresen, J.D. (2004), “The big five personality traits and
individual job performance growth trajectories in maintenance and transitional job stages”,
Journal of applied psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 835-853.
Wang, G. and Netemeyer, R.G. (2002), “The effects of job autonomy, customer demandingness, and trait
competitiveness on salesperson learning, self-efficacy, and performance”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 217-228.
Wentzel, K.R. and Erdley, C.A. (1993), “Strategies for making friends: relations to social behavior
and peer acceptance in early adolescence”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 819-826.
Williams, L.J., Cote, J.A. and Buckley, M.R. (1989), “Lack of method variance in self-reported affect
and perceptions al work: Reality or artifact?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 3,
pp. 462-468.
Wolters, N., Knoors, H., Cillessen, A.H.N. and Verhoeven, L. (2011), “Predicting acceptance and
popularity in early adolescence as a function of hearing status, educational setting, and gender”,
Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 2553-2565.
Wright, M.F., Li, Y. and Shi, J. (2012), Chinese Adolescents’ Social Status Goals: Associations with
Behaviors and Attributions for Relational Aggression, Youth & Society.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand
equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 195-211.
Further reading
Anderson, E. and Oliver, R.L. (1987), “Perspectives on behavior-based versus outcome-based salesforce
control systems”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 76-88.
Brown, B.B., Clasen, D.R. and Eicher, S.A. (1986), “Perceptions of peer pressure, peer conformity
dispositions, and self-reported behavior among adolescents”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 521-553.
Cravens, D.W., Piercy, N.F. and Low, G.S. (2006), “Globalization of the sales organization: Management
control and its consequences”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 291-303.
Kelly, E. and Conley, J. (1985), “Personality and compatibility: a prospective analysis of marital stability
and marital stability and marital satisfaction”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 27-34.
Ketzmerick, B. (2007), Zur auditiven und apparativen Charakterisierung von Stimmen, TUD Press, Effect of
Dresden.
salesperson
Oliver, R.L. and Anderson, E. (1994), “An empirical test of the consequences of behavior- and outcome-
based control systems”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 53-67. personality on
Roberts, B.W. (1997), “Plaster or plasticity. Are work experiences associated with personality change in sales
women?”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 203-232.
Corresponding author
1767
Said Echchakoui can be contacted at: Said_Echchakoui@uqar.ca
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Personal Selling

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Personal Selling

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

European Journal of Marketing

Effect of salesperson personality on sales performance from the customer’s

Permanent link to this document:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Keywords Sales force, Multi-rater, Multilevel modeling, Salesperson social reputation,

2.2 Salesperson’s social reputation and judgment accuracy

(3) predictive validity of observed personality.

3. Conceptual framework and hypotheses

3.3 Salesperson’s perceived personality and salesperson overall equity

3.4 Salesperson overall equity and share of wallet

status in terms of social reputation among competitive salespersons. Previous research

3.5 Salesperson overall equity as a mediator

3.7 Control variables

Perceived FFM ICC rWG(J) l t-value a CR AVE

Salesperson perceived stability (SPS) 0.909 0.943 0.702

validity for measures

Perceived FFM ICC rWG(J) l t-value a CR AVE

Salesperson overall equity (SOE)

two items, emotional stability (adjective = unemotional) and conscientiousness (adjective =

4.4 Testing for common method bias

4.5 Structural model

5.2 Moderation mediating eﬀects

surveys to assess both SPS and SPP for each salesperson.

9. Limitations and future research directions

Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 207-217.

of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.

self-image congruence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 3,

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen