Industrial Marketing Management 68 (2018) 106–113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman

How does salesperson connectedness impact performance? It depends upon T

the level of internal volatility
⁎
Edward L. Nowlina, , Doug Walkerb, Nwamaka A. Anazac
a
Kansas State University, Department of Marketing, BB 2052, 1301 Lovers Lane, Manhattan, KS 66506, United States
b
Kansas State University, Department of Marketing, BB 2051, 1301 Lovers Lane, Manhattan, KS 66506, United States
c
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Department of Marketing, Rehn Hall 235A - Mail Code 4629, 1025 Lincoln Drive, Carbondale, IL 62901, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Salespeople feel connected to their coworkers when they know they can depend on and talk with one another.
Connectedness Employing social exchange theory, this study investigates the impact of connectedness on salesperson perfor-
Internal volatility mance. Specifically, the paper reveals the processes by which this relationship occurs, and the conditionality of
Performance the process itself. In fact, connectedness increases performance by one of two paths or both, depending on
Salespeople
internal volatility. Specifically, connectedness increases performance either through sales strategy im-
Sales strategy implementation
plementation or through selling effort, or both. The findings show that under conditions of high internal vola-
Selling effort
tility, such as manager turnover, connectedness increases performance via sales strategy implementation. Under
conditions of low internal volatility, connectedness increases performance through selling effort. In this scenario,
management provides the sales strategy allowing salesperson interaction to focus on motivating selling effort,
resulting in higher levels of performance. Under conditions of average internal volatility, connectedness in-
creases performance through both sales strategy implementation and selling effort. This research contributes to
the industrial sales literature, both theoretically and managerially, by illuminating the value of connectedness
within the sales force.

1. Introduction
Imagine you are working as a salesperson in a stable work en-
vironment with the same boss and unchanging job responsibilities.
Moreover, you feel connected to your colleagues. Your work perfor-
mance is enhanced through the mutual reliability between you and
your coworkers. Now, consider a dramatic change in your environment.
Your manager changes, along with the duties of your job. The ambi-
guity in this new work environment leads to a change in how you in-
teract with your colleagues. You realize that you now depend on them
less for motivation and more for determining how best to do your job.
Interestingly, your connectedness with colleagues seems to fill different
needs for you based upon the stability of your work environment.
Existing research suggests that employee disconnectedness nega-
tively influences job satisfaction, organizational commitment (Mulki,
Locander, Marshall, Harris, & Hensel, 2008), and extra-role perfor-
mance, while increasing turnover intentions (Mulki & Jaramillo, 2011).
Disconnected employees also believe that they suffer from a lack of
mentorship and career support, which, in turn, decreases their oppor-
tunities for project assignments and advancement (DeSanctis, 1984;
Fitzgerald, 1994). Chen and Kao (2012) find that being disconnected
not only decreases job performance, but also increases health problems.
Like disconnected employees, those who are ostracized have a greater
tendency toward experiencing distress and diminished self-esteem.
Furthermore, it negatively affects job performance, particularly in-role
performance and organizational citizenship behavior (Ferris, Lian,
Brown, & Morrison, 2015). Specifically, these studies suggest that
salesperson performance suffers from coworker isolation and os-
tracization. As a result, this raises the question of whether salesperson
productivity would benefit from coworker connectedness. The
Merriam-Webster dictionary (1828) defines ‘to connect’ as “to put or
bring together so as to form a new and longer whole.” Further, it defines
‘connection’ as “a relation of personal intimacy (as of family ties).”
Social exchange theory identifies that social connections can potentially
yield economic benefits (Blau, 1964; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). However,
research has not specifically addressed how social connectedness be-
tween coworkers can produce economic benefits for salespeople.
This research gap warrants attention for three primary reasons.
First, it echoes the need and significance of coworker connectedness
(Huang & Liu, 2017), which researchers have minimal understanding of
in an industrial sales setting. Second, no research studies investigate the
process(es) by which connectedness leads to performance. Third, an

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: elnowlin@ksu.edu (E.L. Nowlin), dmwalker@ksu.edu (D. Walker), nanaza@business.siu.edu (N.A. Anaza).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.10.007
Received 10 January 2017; Received in revised form 11 October 2017; Accepted 12 October 2017
Available online 12 November 2017
0019-8501/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
E.L. Nowlin et al.
investigation explaining the conditionality of these processes is lacking
in an industrial sales context. In this study, coworker connectedness
refers to the extent salespeople have coworkers available to them for
conversations, social engagement, and relationship building. Coworker
connectedness is the opposite of coworker isolation. Isolated employees
feel a lack of social connection (Marshall, Michaels, & Mulki, 2007);
whereas, connected employees experience high levels of closeness and
interaction with people in their organizational circle.
To advance our understanding of the importance of social connec-
tions in the sales context, this research study uses social exchange
theory to investigate how coworker connectedness increases perfor-
mance. Specifically, it explores how coworker connectedness improves
salespeople's performance through either the increase of selling skills
and capabilities (i.e., sales strategy implementation), or through the
increase of selling effort, or both. In addition, this study considers the
selling environment in which social exchange occurs, because research
indicates that external and internal factors can influence exchange re-
lationships. For example, Achrol and Stern (1988) find that external
forces influence exchange relationships among channel members. As a
result, this makes internal coordination mechanisms less effective,
while increasing the degree of decision-making uncertainty. Thus, this
study considers how internal conditions and changes (i.e., internal
volatility) influence the relationship between salespeople's connected-
ness with coworkers and their performance. The simultaneous evalua-
tion of sales strategy implementation, which is planning based; and
selling effort, which is motivation based; is critical in revealing the
potential differential effects of coworker connectedness. In addition,
this research investigates whether the process through which coworker
connectedness influences performance is dependent upon work en-
vironment. Specifically, this research proposes the following research
questions:
1. Does salespeople's connectedness to their colleagues influence their
performance?
2. If so, what is (are) the process(es) by which this occurs?
3. And are these processes conditional?
For example, under some circumstances, coworker connectedness
may lead to a focus on sales strategy implementation while shifting the
concentration away from selling effort. Conversely, under other cir-
cumstances, coworker connectedness leads to an emphasis on selling
effort rather than sales strategy implementation. This study investigates
these conditions from an internal volatility perspective.
This paper makes several contributions. First, this study introduces
coworker connectedness to the sales literature. Second, the findings
grounded in social exchange theory demonstrate that coworker con-
nectedness is a driver of performance in a sales context. Third, the
paper reveals multiple processes by which this effect occurs. Fourth, the
findings show that the total effect of connectedness on performance is
conditional on internal factors. This study not only makes these con-
tributions to the literature, but also has important implications for
managers.
2. Literature review
Social exchange theory provides the theoretical background for this
study. This theory explains how norms of reciprocal behavior occur
within an organizational context with economic and/or social benefits
(Blau, 1964; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). If one individual benefits from
this reciprocal exchange, then that individual should respond in kind
(Gergen, 1969). Meaning, one salesperson's actions are dependent upon
another salesperson's behavior, creating a sense of interdependence,
which reduces risk and encourages cooperation (Molm, 1994). With
this norm or exchange rule, one salesperson engages in a behavior that
benefits another salesperson. If the other salesperson reciprocates, then
additional rounds of exchanges will occur. This interaction provides the
107
Industrial Marketing Management 68 (2018) 106–113
foundation for an on-going exchange and the development of a long-
term social exchange relationship (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Thus,
reciprocity acts as the basis of the interdependent and mutual ex-
changes.
Relationships can develop from economic exchanges or social ex-
changes (Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000). Economic exchanges are
exchanges for something of equal or greater value. Conversely, social
exchanges include an emotional connectedness, loyalty, and a shared
identity. An important aspect of social exchange theory is that a per-
son's actions or responses to actions are based upon the type of emotive
attachment he or she has with another individual (Walumbwa &
Schaubroeck, 2009). Salespeople create emotional attachment with one
another through the common challenges they experience in trying to
achieve sales objectives and success.
According to social exchange theory, benefiting from the opportu-
nity to discuss one's challenges creates an obligation for the receiving
party to respond in kind (Lambe, Wittmann, & Spekman, 2001). The
receiving party should then be willing to listen to coworkers' concerns,
which produces a beneficial interdependence. On the relationship scale
of economic to social exchanges, colleague connectedness is firmly
ensconced as a social exchange. Hence, high levels of colleague con-
nectedness suggest that salespeople would help their colleagues in
need. Two needs that salespeople have include: a) successfully im-
plementing sales strategy and b) maintaining high selling effort.
Sales strategy implementation refers to the extent to which the ex-
ecution of sales strategy and strategic effort is considered successful
(Noble & Mokwa, 1999). Strategists contend that strategic im-
plementation should be the starting point as well as the underlying
model for how salespeople plan to attain organizational goals
(Hambrick and Fredrickson, 2001). In fact, strategic implementation is
a key predictor for superior employee performance (Porter, 1996).
Following this logic, we premise that being connected to coworkers and
strategic implementation are positive resources vital for operational
effectiveness. Nevertheless, how salespeople draw upon these resources
vary according to the internal conditions in which they find themselves.
This means that different levels of internal volatility alter the type of
connectedness that a salesperson requires from his or her coworkers.
Internal volatility (i.e., structural flux) refers to “the rate at which an
organization changes its structure, rules, personnel, and procedures”
(Maltz & Kohli, 1996, p. 52). Under conditions of high internal volati-
lity, there is a greater dependence on coworkers to provide guidance on
how best to implement their sales strategy. Maltz and Kohli (2000) link
selling atmospheres with high internal turbulence to conflict. The au-
thors argued that internal turbulence prevented salespeople from col-
laborating in a strategic manner with others in the firm and directly
fostered conflict (Maltz & Kohli, 1996).
High internal turbulence breeds frequent managerial changes and
uncertain structural adjustments that hinder sales performance (Maltz
& Kohli, 1996). For example, the constant coming and going of man-
agers creates a gap in pragmatic leadership that undermines the suc-
cessful implementation of sales strategy. Under this scenario, coworkers
would take on any absent upper management roles by providing gui-
dance to colleagues that need it, thus increasing the implementation of
sales-focused strategies (Panagopoulos & Ogilvie, 2015). In fact, Maltz
and Kohli (1996) argue that when internal volatility is high, integrating
mechanisms that foster coworker closeness should decrease interfunc-
tional conflict. Connectedness, a version of coworker closeness, can be
considered an integrating mechanism that encourages salespeople to
work as a team. Thus, ensuring that the selling process is moving right
along, particularly when everything around them appears uncertain.
The heightened uncertainty during volatile times can only yield
positive effects if salespeople pool together their strategic efforts and
capabilities to enhance performance. The strategic consensus needed
for sales strategy implementation can only manifest itself when sales-
people are connected. Although existing research has yet to investigate
coworker connectedness, it does identify a positive relationship
E.L. Nowlin et al.
between vertical communication (i.e., marketing's communication with
the top management team) and strategy implementation (Rapert,
Velliquette, & Garretson, 2002), which provides an expectation that
coworker connectedness should drive sales strategy implementation.
Unlike sales strategy implementation, selling effort acts as a pre-
cursor to sales success in times of low internal volatility. Selling effort
refers to the overall amount of energy and devotion that salespeople
dedicate to their work (Brown & Peterson, 1994; Sujan, Weitz, &
Kumar, 1994). Selling effort reflects the extent to which salespeople are
actively involved in their job and the degree to which they work hard to
accomplish organizational responsibilities (Sujan et al., 1994). Re-
search indicates that selling effort increases sales performance (Sujan
et al., 1994; van der Borgh & Schepers, 2017). However, researchers are
unaware of the dynamics of this relationship during uncertain or stable
times in an organization.
We, therefore, argue that the positive influence from coworker
connectedness on selling effort is conditional upon internal volatility.
During periods of low internal volatility, salespeople have access to
managerial direction, allowing them to focus on selling effort and
thereby increasing performance. For example, Sujan et al. (1994) found
a link between manager positive feedback, selling effort, and sales-
person performance. Meaning, they do not need coworkers to help with
the implementation of their sales strategy. Instead, they depend upon
them for motivation, which will improve their selling effort. When
salespeople are faced with low or little turbulent change, they are able
to draw on their colleagues to increase their selling effort. This is due, in
large part, because under these conditions salespeople's chief obstacle
might be simply sustaining their selling intensity. According to social
exchange theory, receiving help from sales colleagues obligates the
recipients to provide the same support in kind. Chiaburu and Harrison
(2008) in their meta-analysis find that coworker support decreases role
ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload. In addition, they also find
that it increases job satisfaction and job involvement. Based on these
arguments, we hypothesize that the positive outcomes extend to per-
formance in general.
H1. When volatility is low, the indirect effect of connectedness on
performance via sales strategy implementation is less than the indirect
effect of connectedness on performance via selling effort.
H2. When volatility is high, the indirect effect of connectedness on
performance via sales strategy implementation is greater than the
indirect effect of connectedness on performance via selling effort.
3. Data
A U.S. based market research firm was used to collect data for this
study. This market research firm was contracted for its specialization in
studying business-to-business organizations and employees across var-
ious online panels. According to the research firm, six thousand in-
vitations were sent to likely participants requesting their voluntary
participation in an online study. Qualifying questions were posed to
enlist only full-time salespeople working in an active sales capacity
directly for U.S.-based business-to-business firms. In the survey script,
participants were asked to provide responses concerning their re-
lationships with fellow salespeople working in their sales department
(not other employees and managers across the selling organization).
One thousand and thirty-nine B2B salespeople met these targeted cri-
teria and 990 started the survey, of which 234 participants fully com-
pleted the online questionnaire and passed the attention filter questions
embedded within the survey. English-language comprehension was also
authenticated via the use of attention filters. Subjects were asked ad-
ditional questions about their fellow salespeople to ensure accurate
depictions, reflections, and assessments of coworker connectedness and
relationships. Specifically, we asked questions about the sales depart-
ment, including how many people work in the sales department, ratio
108
Industrial Marketing Management 68 (2018) 106–113
Sales strategy
implementation
Connectedness
Internal Performance
volatility
Selling effort
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
of team-to-individual selling, number of people involved in team
selling, etc.
Of the 234 completed surveys – only four were usable. All partici-
pants spent at least 50% of their work time engaged in field sales. The
average respondent had just over 13 years of sales experience, with
about seven of those years with the current firm. Fifty-seven percent of
the respondents were male, with an average age of 38 years and annual
income of $60,000. Participants worked for a variety of industries in-
cluding professional, scientific, technical, services, manufacturing, fi-
nance, information, construction, food services and accommodation.
4. Model
The model incorporates two moderated-mediation paths linking
salesperson connectedness and performance (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
Ultimately, the comparative impact of these two indirect effects is the
substantive focus of this paper. The conceptual model appears in Fig. 1.
The direct effect of salesperson connectedness on performance is in-
cluded in the empirical model, but is suppressed in Fig. 1.
The model uses three equations. The first two equations represent
the impact of connectedness on the two mediators, sales strategy im-
plementation and selling effort, respectively, with internal volatility as
the moderator,
SSIi = β0 + β1 Ci + β2 IVi + β3 Ci × IVi + εSSI (1)
and
SEi = γ0 + γ1 Ci + γ2 IV + γ3 Ci × IVi + εSE (2)
where for each salesperson, i, SSI is sales strategy implementation, C is
the salesperson's connectedness to colleagues, IV is internal volatility,
and SE is selling effort. The third equation encapsulates the entire
conceptual model,
Pi = δ0 + δ1 SSIi + δ2 SEi + δ3 Ci + ∑ Xiδk + εP
k (3)
where P is salesperson performance and X represents a matrix of control
variables.
Therefore, using the reduced form of Eq. (3), the effect of con-
nectedness on performance is the partial derivative.
∂P
= δ1 β1 + δ1 β3 IVi + δ2 γ1 + δ2 γ3 IVi + δ3
∂C (4)
The first two terms in Eq. (4) represent the indirect effect of con-
nectedness on performance via the mediating process of sales strategy
implementation (ISSI),
ISSI = δ1 β1 + δ1 β3 IVi (5)
The third and fourth terms represent the indirect effect of con-
nectedness on performance via the mediating process of selling effort
(ISE),
ISE = δ2 γ1 + δ2 γ3 IVi (6)
E.L. Nowlin et al. Industrial Marketing Management 68 (2018) 106–113

Table 1
Constructs, items, and measurement model.
Construct
Connectedness (α = 0.915)
I have friends available to me at work
I have one or more co-workers available who I talk to about
day-to-day problems at work
I have co-workers available whom I can depend on when I have
a problem
I have enough people available at work with whom I can talk
about my job
I have people around me at work
I have people I can turn to at work
Internal volatility (α = 0.892)
The way we do things in our department keeps changing
You can never tell when you're going to have a new boss
around here
You never know when your job is going to change in this
business unit
The only thing you can be sure of in my department is that
something is going to change
It seems like we are always reorganizing
Sales strategy implementation (α = 0.880)
Our sales strategy was effectively implemented
The implementation of our sales strategy was generally
considered to be a success
I personally think that the implementation of the sales strategy
was a success
The implementation of the sales strategy was considered a
success in my area
Selling effort (α = 0.759)
I work long hours to meet my sales objectives
I do not give up easily when I encounter a difficult customer
I work untiringly at selling a customer until I get an order
Performance (α = 0.921)
Rate your contribution to …
Your company's market share
Selling high profit margin products or services
Generating a high level of dollar sales
Quickly generating sales of new products
Identifying major accounts in your territory and selling to
them
Exceeding sales targets
Assisting your sales supervisor meet his or her goals
Internal competition (α = 0.962)
Some of my co-workers are hostile to one another:
when one co-worker outperforms the rest
when one co-worker appears to have more advantages
when one co-worker has a better relationship with the
manager
when one co-worker achieves more with less effort
⁎
Significant at the 0.05 level.
And the final term is the direct effect of connectedness on perfor-
mance, δ3.
The hypotheses will be tested by comparing the indirect effects
shown in Eqs. (5) and (6). H1 will be supported if the effect in Eq. (5) is
less than the effect in Eq. (6) when internal volatility is low. H2 will be
supported if the effect in Eq. (5) is greater than the effect in Eq. (6)
when internal volatility is high.
Factor loading⁎
5. Measures
0.786
A variety of latent measures was used in this study. The items for
0.732
each construct, factor loadings, and reliabilities are reported in Table 1.
0.859 Connectedness was measured using a scale developed by Marshall et al.
(2007). The scale was modified to fit the context of this study. Five of
0.875 the six items from Maltz and Kohli's (1996) internal volatility scale were
0.715
used. Substituting “sales” for “marketing” in each item, four of the 5
0.850 items from Noble and Mokwa's (1999) scale were used to measure the
effectiveness of sales strategy implementation. Selling effort was mea-
0.745 sured using a 3-item scale developed by Sujan et al. (1994). Salesperson
0.777
performance was assessed with Behrman and Perreault's (1982) scale
0.872 measuring salesperson performance across seven categories.
Several variables were incorporated into the performance equation
0.820 as controls. Sales experience and tenure with the current firm have both
been found to be positively correlated with performance. Internal
0.741
competition among salespeople, distinct from connectedness, was also
0.777 included, based on a 4-item scale from Anaza and Nowlin (2017). The
0.766 salesperson's education level (i.e., college degree or higher), was also
considered.
0.852
All of the latent constructs used 7-point, Likert-type scales, with the
0.833 exception of the 5-point, Likert-type scales for internal volatility and
sales strategy implementation.
0.614
0.735
5.1. Confirmatory factor analysis
0.804
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using MPlus 7.
The CFI (0.936) and RMSEA (0.061) indicate an adequate fit.
0.684
Reliabilities were assessed with Cronbach's alphas reported in Table 1.
0.791
0.877 The alphas exceed the 0.70 level as prescribed by Nunnally (1978).
0.761 Additional properties of the latent constructs are presented in Table 2.
0.790 Convergent validity was established with significant standardized item
loadings on their underlying proposed factors (Bagozzi and Youjae,
0.837
1988). The composite reliabilities all exceeded 0.70, and discriminant
0.791
validity is evident given that the average variances extracted exceed the
shared variances (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Composites of the model
0.892 constructs were used in the analysis to aid in the estimation of the
0.958
conditional model and to allow for clear tests of the hypotheses.
0.961
0.904 5.2. Common method bias
The marker variable technique (Lindell & Whitney, 2001) was used
as an empirical test for method bias, where the smallest correlation in
the correlation matrix is used as a conservative estimate of bias. The
lowest correlations (absolute value of 0.02) exist between connected-
ness and internal competition as well as between selling effort and in-
ternal competition (see Table 2). The correlations were adjusted and
then reassessed for statistical significance, consistent with the

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and correlations of study variables (N = 230).

Variable Mean Standard deviation Composite reliability 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Connectedness 5.73 0.83 0.92 0.65 0.02 0.23 0.04 0.09 0.00
2 Internal volatility 2.69 0.82 0.89 − 0.13 0.63 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.20
3 Sales strategy implementation 3.93 0.69 0.88 0.48⁎ − 0.39⁎ 0.65 0.09 0.17 0.04
4 Selling effort 5.51 0.80 0.76 0.20⁎ − 0.06 0.30⁎ 0.52 0.24 0.00
5 Performance 5.40 0.80 0.92 0.30⁎ − 0.03 0.41⁎ 0.49⁎ 0.63 0.01
6 Internal competition 3.83 1.68 0.96 − 0.02 0.44⁎ − 0.19⁎ 0.02 0.12 0.86

Average variance extracted is on the diagonal.

Correlations are below the diagonal.
Shared variances (squared correlations) are above the diagonal.
⁎
Significant at 0.05.

109
E.L. Nowlin et al.
prescribed test. The significance among the correlations in Table 2 re-
mained after the adjustments, providing no evidence of common
method bias.
We also conducted a more sophisticated test of bias using Williams,
Hartman, and Cavazotte's (2010) CFA marker technique. The latent
construct “knowledge hoarding” was used as the marker variable in the
test – a variable theoretically unrelated to the substantive variables in
the model. Knowledge hoarding concerns the predisposition to accu-
mulate and store information (Anaza & Nowlin, 2017), a behavior
distinct from the phenomena included in the model. The test assesses
the impact the variance of the marker variable has on the substantive
factor correlations (i.e., structural parameters). In the unconstrained
model, the correlations between the substantive constructs are esti-
mated. However, those same correlations are fixed at the values from
the baseline model in the restricted model. No statistically significant
difference was found between the two models (difference
in = 0.742 < critical value = 18.307). Thus, validating the finding
from the simple marker variable test that method bias does not appear
to be present.
6. Results
Five thousand bootstrapped samples were drawn using MPlus to
assess the conditional and indirect effects, following Preacher and
Hayes (2008). The model parameter estimates appear in Table 3. As
shown in the table, connectedness impacts both sales strategy im-
plementation and selling effort, when internal volatility is at its mean
[β1 = 0.277, 95% CI (0.189, 0.382) and γ1 = 0.184, 95% CI (0.031,
0.354); respectively]. And both sales strategy implementation and
selling effort affect performance [δ1 = 0.382, 95% CI (0.181, 0.581)
and δ2 = 0.264, 95% CI (0.132, 0.397); respectively].
However, our substantive interest lies in the indirect effects of
connectedness on performance via sales strategy implementation and
selling effort. As shown in Table 3, the indirect effect of connectedness
on performance via sales strategy implementation is conditional on
internal volatility (see Eq. (5)). At low levels of internal volatility, the
indirect effect is not significant, but the effect is significant at higher
levels of internal volatility. This is displayed graphically in Fig. 2 using
a floodlight analysis (Spiller, Fitzsimons, Lynch Jr., & McClelland,
2013), indicating the ranges of internal volatility at which the indirect
effects are significant (i.e. Johnson-Neyman points). As shown in the
Figure, connectedness has a significant indirect effect on performance
via sales strategy implementation when internal volatility is above
− 1.34 standard deviations below the mean of internal volatility.
The indirect effect of connectedness on performance via selling ef-
fort is also conditional on internal volatility (see Eq. (6) and Fig. 3a). At
high levels of internal volatility, the indirect effect is not significant, but
the effect is significant at lower levels of internal volatility. This is also
shown in Fig. 2, with the Johnson-Neyman point indicating that the
indirect effect is significant when internal volatility is below 0.6 stan-
dard deviations above the mean of internal volatility.
The hypotheses can be tested using these depictions. When internal
volatility is low (− 1.34 standard deviations below the mean) the in-
direct effect of connectedness on performance via sales strategy im-
plementation (see Eq. (5)) becomes insignificant [0.054, 95% CI (0.000,
0.132)], while the indirect effect of connectedness on performance via
selling effort (see Eq. (6)) is significant [0.076, 95% CI (0.008, 0.183)];
supporting H1 (see Fig. 3b).
Likewise, when internal volatility is high (0.6 standard deviations
above the mean) the indirect effect of connectedness on performance
via sales strategy implementation (see Eq. (5) and Fig. 3c) is significant
[0.129, 95% CI (0.059, 0.227)]. Meanwhile the indirect effect of con-
nectedness on performance via selling effort (see Eq. (6)) becomes in-
significant [0.036, 95% CI (0.000, 0.094)]; providing evidence for H2.
The direct effect of connectedness on performance (δ3) is not sig-
nificant [0.119, 95% CI (− 0.035, 0.278)]. This finding indicates a
110
Industrial Marketing Management 68 (2018) 106–113
mediation-only model, following Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010). As a
result, our findings fully support the conceptual model shown in Fig. 1.
7. Discussion
Research suggests that employee feelings of disconnectedness ne-
gatively affect their performance (Chen & Kao, 2012; Mulki et al., 2008;
Mulki & Jaramillo, 2011). Yet, research does not address how sales-
people's social connections with coworkers improve their performance.
Using survey data from business-to-business salespeople, this study
investigates this issue. We also investigate the mediating mechanisms
through which coworker connectedness influences salesperson perfor-
mance. The study's findings offer several theoretical contributions as
well as relevant managerial insights.
7.1. Theoretical implications
First, we introduce coworker connectedness to the sales literature.
Prior to this work, we are unaware of any existing research addressing
connectedness in a marketing or sales context. This study finds that
salespeople's level of connectedness to their colleagues has a positive
impact on their performance through two mediating processes. This
study also finds that the size of this effect is not conditional on the
volatility of the workplace (i.e., the sum of the indirect effects are not
conditional upon internal volatility). The implication is that the more
salespeople feel connected to their coworkers, the more these feelings
of connection will translate into higher levels of sales performance via
selling effort and strategy implementation.
Second, this study contributes to social exchange theory by applying
the theory in a new context and explaining the relationship between
employee connectedness and salesperson performance. Empirically, the
study demonstrates how coworker connectedness yields the economic
benefits of higher levels of sales performance. Contemporary sales re-
search has often used social exchange theory to study relational ex-
changes between business partners with trust and commitment oper-
ationalized as key constructs of the theory (e.g., Lambe et al., 2001).
Until this study, researchers had not captured an equally relational
facet of social exchange. For instance, connectedness that triggers not
only economic outcomes (e.g., selling effort and performance), but also
the strategic outcome of sales strategy implementation. This study thus
introduces connectedness as a critical relational motivator for social
and economic exchanges.
Third, this study reveals the processes by which connectedness
impacts performance and shows that the mechanism is conditional.
Historically, internal volatility is considered a telltale sign of in-
traorganizational conflict (De Gregorio, Cheong, & Kim, 2012). Inter-
estingly, our research provides empirical evidence showing internal
volatility playing a moderating role. Our study reveals that when in-
ternal volatility is high, connectedness is primarily manifested in
salespeople supporting each other by filling the voids in management
functions (i.e., strategy implementation). However, the path from
connectedness to performance via selling effort is no longer significant.
When volatility is low, management is effectively handling strategy
implementation. Moreover, the support and encouragement among
salespeople creates connectedness, which enhances their performance
through higher levels of selling effort. However, the path from con-
nectedness to performance via sales strategy implementation is no
longer significant. At mean levels of internal volatility, both paths are
significant. This indicates that connectedness increases performance
through both sales strategy implementation and selling effort. The
implication is that when the selling environment is experiencing just
average levels of internal volatility, then connectedness increases
salesperson performance both through selling effort and sales strategy
implementation. These findings can be explained by social exchange
theory in the sense that the exchange conditions between salespeople
are disrupted by environmental uncertainties. Yet, the utility involved
E.L. Nowlin et al. Industrial Marketing Management 68 (2018) 106–113

Table 3
Parameter estimates.

Effect Parameters (see Eq. (1)-(6)) Parameter Bootstrapped lower 2.5% of Bootstrapped upper 2.5% of
estimate confidence interval confidence interval

Effects on sales strategy implementation (SSI)

Connectedness (C) β1 0.277⁎ 0.189 0.382
Internal volatility (IV) β2 −0.803⁎ − 1.445 − 0.117
Connectedness × internal volatility (C × IV) β3 0.098 − 0.016 0.206
Moderated effect of C on SSI when IV is … β1 + β3IV
−2 sd from mean 0.076 − 0.146 0.294
−1 sd from mean 0.176⁎ 0.050 0.302
at mean 0.277⁎ 0.189 0.382
+1 sd from mean 0.377⁎ 0.217 0.543
+2 sd from mean 0.477⁎ 0.210 0.741
Effects on selling effort (SE)
Connectedness (C) γ1 0.184⁎ 0.031 0.354
Internal volatility (IV) γ2 0.423 − 0.482 1.331
Connectedness × internal volatility (C × IV) γ3 −0.075 − 0.233 0.080
Moderated effect of C on SE when IV is … γ1 + γ3IV
−2 sd from mean 0.338 − 0.048 0.750
−1 sd from mean 0.261⁎ 0.007 0.536
at mean 0.184⁎ 0.031 0.354
+1 sd from mean 0.107 − 0.083 0.291
+2 sd from mean 0.030 − 0.270 0.346
Effect on performance (P)
Sales strategy implementation (SSI) δ1 0.382⁎ 0.181 0.581
Selling effort (SE) δ2 0.264⁎ 0.132 0.397
Connectedness (C) Direct effect (δ3) 0.119 − 0.035 0.278
Moderated indirect effect of C on P via SSI when IV Eq. (5) indirect effect
is … δ1β1 + δ1β3IV
−2 sd from mean 0.029 − 0.054 0.124
−1.34 sd from mean (Johnson-Neyman point) 0.054 0.000 0.132
−1 sd from mean 0.067⁎ 0.018 0.138
at mean 0.106⁎ 0.049 0.182
+1 sd from mean 0.144⁎ 0.063 0.262
+2 sd from mean 0.182⁎ 0.069 0.353
Moderated indirect effect of C on P via SE when IV Eq. (6) indirect effect
is … δ1γ1 + δ1γ3IV
−2 sd from mean 0.089⁎ 0.000 0.221
−1 sd from mean 0.069⁎ 0.011 0.161
at mean 0.048⁎ 0.012 0.107
+0.6 sd from mean (Johnson-Neyman point) 0.036 0.000 0.094
+1 sd from mean 0.028 − 0.017 0.090
+2 sd from mean 0.008 − 0.069 0.102
Internal competition 0.075⁎ 0.017 0.132
Salesperson experience 0.010 − 0.004 0.023
Salesperson tenure with firm 0.008 − 0.015 0.031
Salesperson education 0.028 − 0.223 0.277

⁎
Significant at 0.05 level.

Fig. 2. Indirect effects of connectedness on performance con-

bold line indicates
statistical significance at ditional on internal volatility.
95% confidence interval

indirect effect of
indirect effect of connectedness connectedness on
on performance via selling effort performance via sales
strategy
H2
implementation
H1

Johnson-Neyman Johnson-Neyman
point is -1.34 sd point is .6 sd

impact thru impact thru sales strategy

selling effort impact thru both selling effort implementation only
only and sales strategy
implementation

111
E.L. Nowlin et al.
SSI SSI
+ +
Con Perf Con Perf
+ Sell + + Sell + Sell
Eff Eff
a) internal volatility b) internal volatility
< -1.34 sd between
below mean -1.34 sd and .6 sd
from mean
in maintaining connected relationships can yield maximum benefits to
performance. In the end, this outweighs the cost of being bogged down
by structural changes often present in many selling environments.
In effect, when internal volatility is high, connectedness to perfor-
mance via sales strategy implementation is significant; whereas the
path via selling effort is not. Conversely, when internal volatility is low,
connectedness to performance via selling effort is significant; whereas
the path via sales strategy effectiveness is not. While the valence of the
total effect of connectedness on performance (i.e., the sum of the two
indirect effects) is not conditional on internal volatility, the process by
which the effect occurs is. Importantly, the direct effect of connected-
ness on performance in our model is not significant. Following Zhao
et al. (2010), this null finding along with the significance of the indirect
paths provides full support for our conceptual model.
7.2. Managerial implications
The findings of this research have several important managerial
implications. First, firms may undervalue the coworker bond, especially
given that internal competition is widely preferred by management as
the chief source of salesperson motivation (Jelinek & Ahearne, 2006).
Connectedness appears to be versatile in its positive impact within the
firm. Contrary to popular practice and belief, we show that there is
strength in connectedness among salespeople given that it can serve as
a source of guidance or motivation or both, depending on internal
conditions, and ultimately act as a driver of performance. That being
said, we do not suggest that connectedness and competition are mu-
tually exclusive. Our data suggest that they are not correlated (see
Table 2, ρ = − 0.02), suggesting that managers can have both con-
nectedness and friendly internal competition. Instead, what we suggest
is that managers can foster friendly competition without sacrificing
coworker connectedness. In other words, managers should want sales-
people to compete against each other. In theory, this competition brings
out the best in their selling capabilities without sacrificing the ability to
draw on coworkers for support.
Second, managers should always encourage connectedness among
the sales teams. It always helps salesperson performance either through
selling effort or implementation of the sales strategy. Managers should
actively promote connectedness among team members by including
outside activities involving social interaction. Team-building activities
could be particularly valuable in preparing salespeople for times of high
volatility. Salespeople could also be actively involved in the hiring of
colleagues, providing time in the process to reveal shared interests,
commonalities, and similarities that could aid in developing connec-
tions. Creating opportunities for salespeople to identify shared com-
monalities could be viewed as a potential waste of firm resources.
However, research suggests that creating such opportunities for people
to discover similarities leads people to find commonalities, which in
turn would lead to feelings of attraction/connectedness (Byrne, 1971).
Third, any negative ramification associated with internal volatility
will be to some extent compensated for by a connected sales force. For
example, in periods of organizational instability such as management
turnover, the expectation would be that the sales team's performance
would diminish dramatically due to a lack of management oversight.
Industrial Marketing Management 68 (2018) 106–113
Fig. 3. Significant model effects for various levels of in-
SSI ternal volatility.
+ + Note: “Con” refers to coworker connectedness. “SSI” refers
to sales strategy implementation. “Sell Eff” refers to selling
Con Perf
effort, and “Perf” refers to salesperson performance.
Eff
c) internal volatility
> .6 sd
above mean
However, the more the sales team is connected, the less productivity
would be negatively affected by such disruption. In effect, this research
suggests that connectedness will offset the potential impact of in-
stabilities (i.e., high turnover, lack of oversight, etc…) on performance.
Finally, a connected sales team offers managers insight into how
they can effectively leverage their efforts to increase their salespeople's
productivity. This means that in very volatile situations with a sales
team with high social connectedness, managers should narrow their
focus to helping their salespeople implement their sales strategy.
Conversely, under conditions of low internal volatility, managers
should encourage their salespeople's selling effort.
7.3. Limitations and future research
Our research has several limitations. First, our data is cross-sec-
tional. While we can show effects across salespeople operating under
various levels of internal volatility, we cannot directly comment on the
benefits of connectedness during times of volatility change within a
firm. The most obvious remedy to this issue would be to study the
phenomenon longitudinally, but this approach would introduce new
problems, including salespeople changing firms, changing territories
within the firm, earning promotions, etc.
Second, quality managers are likely to enjoy longer tenures within a
firm, which would contribute to lower levels of internal volatility. If
this adept management includes the ability to build connectedness
among salespeople, issues of endogeneity concerning our model may
arise. However, as discussed earlier, fostering internal competition,
rather than camaraderie, seems to be a more common practice.
Third, other variables correlated with internal volatility, but un-
specified in our model, could actually be providing the process con-
ditionality demonstrated in our model. One candidate variable might be
technological turbulence. Investigating external factors could also be of
interest (e.g., market dynamism).
This study also points to several additional possibilities for future
research. First, the investigation of a model similar to the one used in
this study could focus on the antithesis of connectedness, namely
workplace isolation. An avenue of particular interest could be to show
that the effects of isolation are not just the opposite of the effects found
in this study. One reason this may occur is that isolation is unilateral,
while connectedness, operating under the reciprocity suggested by so-
cial exchange theory, is bilateral. Second, future research should also
consider that coworker connectedness could also lead to negative re-
sults, such as the potential for free-riding behavior in the workplace.
For example, Noordhoff, Kyriakopoulos, Moorman, Pauwels, and
Dellaert (2011) investigate both the “bright side” and the “dark side” of
embedded ties in business-to-business relationships as well as the fac-
tors that offset or weaken the negative effect. Likewise, future research
should not only identify negative outcomes from coworker connected-
ness. Instead, it could investigate the simultaneous effects of the bright
side and the dark side of connectedness in the same model. Finally, this
study suggests that a more connected workforce is a more versatile one.
Future research should investigate ways in which the versatility might
manifest itself in terms of other important outcomes.
112
E.L. Nowlin et al.
8. Conclusion
In closing, this study addresses a major gap in the marketing lit-
erature. To date, issues concerning salespersons' disconnectedness (e.g.,
isolation) have attracted a great deal of attention. The same degree of
attention has not been given to salesperson connectedness. In today's
sales organizations, where organizational internal volatility plagues
performance, it is important to explore if and how salesperson con-
nectedness motivates higher sales output. Equally important is under-
standing how exactly salesperson connectedness enhances salesperson
performance during periods of internal volatility. Drawing on social
exchange theory, results from this study show that the indirect effect of
connectedness on performance via selling effort and sales strategy im-
plementation is conditional on internal volatility. As a blueprint for
further studies, our findings indicate that examination of the link be-
tween coworker connectedness and performance should not be tested
independent of internal and external conditions affecting selling op-
erations.
References
Achrol, R. S., & Stern, L. W. (1988). Environmental determinants of decision-making
uncertainty in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(1), 36–50.
Anaza, N. A., & Nowlin, E. L. (2017). What's mine is mine: A study of salesperson
knowledge withholding & hoarding behavior. Industrial Marketing Management, 64,
14–24.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Youjae, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Behrman, D. N., & Perreault, W. D. (1982). Measuring the performance of industrial
salespersons. Journal of Business Research, 10(3), 355–370.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. (2000). Support, commitment, and em-
ployee outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1113–1132.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.
van der Borgh, M., & Schepers, J. (2017). Are conservative approaches to new product
selling a blessing in disguise? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–22 (pre-
print document).
Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1994). The effect of effort on sales performance and job
satisfaction. The Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 70–80.
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.
Chen, C. F., & Kao, Y. L. (2012). Investigating the antecedents and consequences of
burnout and isolation among flight attendants. Tourism Management, 33(4), 868–874.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis
and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and perfor-
mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.
De Gregorio, F., Cheong, Y., & Kim, K. (2012). Intraorganizational conflict within ad-
vertising agencies. Journal of Advertising, 41(3), 19–34.
DeSanctis, G. (1984). Attitudes toward telecommuting: Implications for work-at-home
programs. Information Management, 7(3), 133–139.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1828). Connection. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
connection.
Ferris, D. L., Lian, H., Brown, D., & Morrison, R. (2015). Ostracism, self-esteem, and job
performance: When do we self-verify and when do we self-enhance. Academy of
Management Journal, 58(1), 279–297.
Fitzgerald, K. M. (1994). Telecommuting and the law. Small Business Reports, 19(9),
14–18.
113
Industrial Marketing Management 68 (2018) 106–113
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Gergen, K. J. (1969). The psychology of behavioral exchange. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Hambrick, D. C., & Fredrickson, J. W. (2001). Are you sure you have a strategy? Academy
of Management Executive, 15(4), 48–59.
Huang, L. V., & Liu, P. L. (2017). Ties that work: Investigating the relationships among
coworker connections, work-related Facebook utility, online social capital, and em-
ployee outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 512–524.
Jelinek, R., & Ahearne, M. (2006). The abc's of acb: Unveiling a clear and present danger
in the sales force. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(4), 457–467.
Lambe, C. J., Wittmann, C. M., & Spekman, R. E. (2001). Social exchange theory and
research on business-to-business relational exchange. Journal of Business-to-Business
Marketing, 8(3), 1–36.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.
Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. K. (1996). Market intelligence dissemination across functional
boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 47–61.
Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. K. (2000). Reducing marketing's conflict with other functions: The
differential effects of integrating mechanisms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28(4), 479.
Marshall, G. W., Michaels, C. E., & Mulki, J. P. (2007). Workplace isolation: Exploring the
construct and its measurement. Psychology & Marketing, 24(3), 195–233.
Molm, L. D. (1994). Dependence and risk: Transforming the structure of social exchange.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(3), 163–176.
Mulki, J. P., & Jaramillo, F. (2011). Workplace isolation: Salespeople and supervisors in
USA. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(4), 902–923.
Mulki, J. P., Locander, W. B., Marshall, G. W., Harris, E. G., & Hensel, J. (2008).
Workplace isolation, salesperson commitment, and job performance. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28(1), 67–78.
Noble, C. H., & Mokwa, M. P. (1999). Implementing marketing strategies: Developing and
testing a managerial theory. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 57–73.
Noordhoff, C. S., Kyriakopoulos, K., Moorman, C., Pauwels, P., & Dellaert, B. G. (2011).
The bright side and dark side of embedded ties in business-to-business innovation.
Journal of Marketing, 75(5), 34–52.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Panagopoulos, N. G., & Ogilvie, J. (2015). Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-
leadership strategies and their influence on sales performance. Industrial Marketing
Management, 47(May), 190–203.
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 1–19.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Rapert, M. I., Velliquette, A., & Garretson, J. A. (2002). The strategic implementation
process: Evoking strategic consensus through communication. Journal of Business
Research, 55(4), 301–310.
Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & McClelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights,
floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression.
Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.
Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and
effective selling. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 39–52.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: John
Wiley.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice
behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275–1286.
Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., & Cavazotte, F. (2010). Method variance and marker vari-
ables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research
Methods, 13(3), 477–514.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and
truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.