J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

(2010) 38:363–382
DOI 10.1007/s11747-009-0166-9

ORIGINAL EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Antecedents and consequences of adaptive selling

confidence and behavior: a dyadic analysis of salespeople
and their customers
Sergio Román & Dawn Iacobucci

Received: 16 October 2008 / Accepted: 12 August 2009 / Published online: 1 October 2009
# Academy of Marketing Science 2009

Abstract Personal selling is thought to be a very effective Keywords Adaptive selling behavior . Adaptive selling
marketing vehicle. The notion of adaptive selling suggests confidence . Salesperson’s outcome performance . Firm’s
that it should work better than any other means of customer orientation . Salesperson’s skills . Intrinsic
communication because salespeople are able to develop a motivation . Role ambiguity . Customer satisfaction .
unique message for each customer. This research proposes a Customer retention . Dyadic data
model of key antecedents and consequences of adaptive
selling. In particular, we distinguish, measure, and model
the attitudinal and behavioral aspects of adaptive selling, For some thirty years now, marketing scholars have been
something that is encouraged but not thoroughly examined writing about optimal sales encounters as adaptive and
in the literature. Hypotheses are tested using data from 210 interpersonally dynamic (cf., Weitz 1978, 1981). The basic
salesperson-customer dyads. The results indicate that a concept is that there is no single best way to sell, and
salesperson’s perception of the firm’s customer orientation therefore a good salesperson will be adaptive enough to
has an effect on adaptive selling behavior through the select and implement a sales strategy contingent upon the
salesperson’s adaptive selling confidence, role ambiguity, characteristics of the prospective customer and situation.
intrinsic motivation and customer-qualification skills. According to the seminal research of Weitz et al. (1986)
Adaptive selling behavior increases salesperson’s outcome and their “Adaptive Selling” framework, salespeople have
performance, customers’ evaluations of satisfaction with the opportunity to gather information and then develop and
the product and with the salesperson, which enhance implement a sales presentation tailored to the characteristics
customers’ anticipation of future interactions with the of each customer. Salespeople can observe their customers’
salesperson. The implications for management and theory reactions to a given sales pitch and make nearly instanta-
are discussed. neous strategic adjustments. Thus, while personal selling is
an extremely costly marketing vehicle (Román and Martín
2008), particularly compared to many of today’s electronic
The Authors wish to thank Bob Dwyer, Rosann Spiro, Bart Weitz, alternatives, personal selling is nevertheless thought to be
Sönke Albers, David Stewart (earlier Editor) and Tomas Hult (current extremely effective, perhaps the most effective means of
Editor), and the four anonymous JAMS Reviewers, for their many marketing communication (Spiro and Weitz 1990).
helpful insights on prior drafts of this article.
Research confirms that adaptive selling leads to strong
S. Román (*) sales performance (e.g., Boorom et al. 1998; Franke and
Marketing Department. Facultad de Economia y Empresa,
Park 2006). A recent meta-analysis revealed that adaptive
Campus de Espinardo,
Espinardo, selling enhances sales performance, whether measured by
30100 Murcia, Spain self-reported rating, manager ratings, or more objective
e-mail: [email protected] measures of performance (Franke and Park 2006). Accord-
ingly, it is not surprising that marketing managers and
D. Iacobucci
Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, scholars alike are interested in understanding how adaptive
Nashville, TN, USA selling is created and encouraged.
364 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382

Marketing scholars have established empirical evidence emphasis on relationship selling (e.g., Jones et al. 2003;
for several antecedents that enhance adaptive selling (see Ramsey and Sohi 1997; Weitz and Bradford 1999), we
Appendix A). Many studies focus on the characteristics of include a broader spectrum of measures, capturing the
the salespeople, such as ability and motivation—that is, can effects of adaptive selling not only on a salesperson’s
and will salespeople perform well (e.g., Boorom et al. outcome performance, but also on customer satisfaction
1998; Jaramillo et al. 2007; Levy and Sharma 1994; Park with the product, the salesperson, and the likelihood of
and Holloway 2003; Spiro and Weitz 1990; Sujan et al. repeat business. We believe this is an important contribu-
1994; Verbeke et al. 2004). Other studies examine tion of our research because on the one hand, the topic of
characteristics of the firm, such as its sales management adaptive selling is very important to the field of personal
policies (e.g., Grant and Cravens 1996; Piercy et al. 1998; selling and sales management, and has been extensively
Rapp et al. 2006; Rapp et al. 2008). investigated. On the other hand, the field of marketing
Yet given the acknowledged importance of personal experienced a fundamental shift in focus characterized by
sales and adaptive selling, many questions remain unan- the implementation of strategies designed for establishing,
swered. Our study is intended to contribute to the literature developing, and maintaining mutually supportive relation-
in several ways: First, while several studies examine a ships with customers rather than a more traditional focus on
number of antecedents to adaptive selling, and others its the determinants and outcomes of single discrete transac-
consequences, we model numerous antecedent and conse- tional exchanges (Berry 1995; Morgan and Hunt 1994;
quential constructs simultaneously, so as to begin to build Webster 1992). Nevertheless, past research on the con-
the foundations of a more comprehensive model, and to sequences of adaptive selling has consistently ignored the
partial out and statistically control for the effects of influence of adaptive selling on customer relational varia-
established relationships, in order to more cleanly shed bles such as customer satisfaction and retention.
light on the effects of all of the associations. We begin with Finally, we examine the salesperson-customer interac-
relationships that have been tested in the literature. Our tions in true dyadic fashion. Doing so allows us to
findings concur with those results, and then our model incorporate the perspectives of both sides of the parties
builds a nomological network above and beyond the results relevant to the sales interaction. Studies which focus on the
established thus far in the literature. salesforce’s perceptions of their own constructs, as well as
Second, we aim to be robust in testing a broad selection their estimates of their customers’ perceptions, are biased
of antecedent constructs, covering qualities of both the and less meaningful than our study for which data were
salespeople and the firm. In particular, the antecedents that obtained to represent the fully interactive richness of the
are characteristics of salespeople provide thorough cover- dyad. In the sections that follow, we propose hypotheses
age of all three major domains (rather than a subset, as is about key antecedents and consequences of adaptive
true of some past research) found to be determinants of selling.
sales performance, including salespersons’ motivations,
skills, and perceptions about their roles in the organization
(cf., Churchill et al. 1985). In addition, our model is created Literature review and research hypotheses
to be consistent with the arguments in the literature that
these properties of individual salespeople should be As a guide to the literature and hypothesis development that
examined and modeled in the context of the firm’s follows, we begin with a brief overview of our model. The
characteristics, particularly the salespeople’s perceptions three constructs in the center of Fig. 1 (in the boxes) are our
of their firm’s philosophical orientation to customers and key constructs: salesperson’s adaptive selling confidence,
marketing efforts more generally, issues that remain salesperson’s adaptive selling behavior, and salesperson’s
relatively understudied in the context of adaptive selling. outcome performance. We will develop Hypotheses H1–H4
In addition, as evidenced in Franke and Park’s (2006) to support the logic of the antecedent structure, including
meta-analysis, the extant research on adaptive selling has the firm’s customer orientation and the salesperson’s
primarily used short-term consequences such as sales motivations, skills, and understanding of the job. Hypoth-
performance (see also Appendix A for a detailed descrip- eses H5–H8 will explain the inter-connections among these
tion of the studies on the consequences of adaptive antecedents. Hypotheses H9–H11 are posited to test the
selling1). Clearly sales are important, but given today’s consequences of adaptive selling behavior, namely, its
impact on salesperson’s outcome performance, customer
1
A remarkable exception is the recent work by Rapp et al. (2006). Yet satisfaction with the product and with the salesperson.
even so, they only predicted a direct positive effect of working smart
We will show that this model fits our data, and we will
(a construct that includes adaptive selling) on customer service (a
construct closely related to customer satisfaction), and furthermore, test alternative models representing competing theoretical
their data did not support the relationship. perspectives. The model in Fig. 1 depicts several of the
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382 365

Salesperson’s perception of: Customer’s perception of:

Salesperson’s Customer’s
Salesperson’s H2a
intrinsic adaptive selling satisfaction
motivation confidence with the
(ASC) product
Customer’s
H10 anticipation of
H6a H7- H5 H1 future interaction
H2b with the salesperson
H3a
Salesperson’s H11 Customer’s
Firm’s Salesperson’s H3b satisfaction
adaptive selling
customer customer- behavior with the
orientation H6b qualification skills salesperson
(ASB)

H8- H9
H6c-
H4-

Salesperson’s Salesperson’s
role ambiguity outcome
performance

Prior research has considered these relationships, but without distinguishing between adaptive confidence and behavior.
New hypotheses (prior research has not considered these relationships in the personal selling context).
Replication hypotheses tested in the literature; our results are consistent, hence these relationships serve as statistical controls.
Figure 1 Conceptual framework: Antecedents of adaptive selling behavior (H1–H4); relationships among antecedents (H5–H8); consequences of
adaptive selling behavior (H9–H11).

intended contributions of this research. First, note the what behavior is deemed optimal in different situations.
inclusion of many antecedents and consequences in a Regarding their subsequent effects, confidence contributes to
single model. A few of the paths have already been appropriate behavior, but only behavior contributes directly to
established in the literature, and they are included for the performance measures—both salesperson’s outcome perfor-
purposes of replication and statistically controlling for these mance and reports of customer satisfaction. That is, salespeo-
basic relationships, so that the model we build and test can ple who are merely confident but whose behavior is not
be a clear contribution to the literature. adaptive will not reap the same rewards.
Also in Fig. 1, note the separation of the attitudinal and The rationale for each hypothesis follows. We begin with
behavioral components of adaptive selling; namely, “con- the focal concept of adaptive selling—confidence and
fidence” and “behavior,” as defended for decades by behavior.
psychologists (e.g., Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), and indeed
suggested originally by Spiro and Weitz (1990), and Adaptive selling confidence and behavior
recently again by Stock and Hoyer (2005), but nevertheless
rarely implemented and tested as such. The notion of adapting one’s behavior to specific environ-
While both confidence and behavioral choices are naturally mental conditions (Weitz 1978, 1981) was quickly embraced
enhanced by both skills and motivation, we will demonstrate by marketing scholars studying the sales interaction. The basis
that adaptive selling confidence and behavior are in fact for this perspective emanates from the realization that there is
distinct constructs. One strong piece of empirical evidence no one best way to sell and that the most effective salespeople
will demonstrate, per this figure, that beyond skills and use a contingency approach to selling, where the strategy
motivation, confidence and behavior are affected by different selected is based on the characteristics of the situation (Weitz
antecedents, and they affect different consequences. Confi- 1981). In particular, salespeople exhibit a high level of
dence is enhanced by knowing that one works for a firm that adaptive selling behavior when they use different sales
will likely be supportive of one’s marketing actions (i.e., the presentations across sales encounters and when they make
firm’s customer orientation), whereas appropriate adaptive adjustments during the encounter based on real-time feed-
behavior is facilitated by role clarity—namely salespeople back and perceived information about the nature of the
will behave optimally when there are clear expectations as to selling situation (Spiro and Weitz 1990; Weitz et al. 1986).
366 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382

Adaptive selling behavior includes shaping the content to measure adaptive selling as if it were unidimensional.
and amount of information shared with different customers The short form of the ADAPTS scale clearly depicts
who have different needs, e.g., a repeat customer does not coverage of the confidence and behavioral facets as distinct
need the background information required by a new conceptually, but with only five items total, the scale tends
purchaser. Salespeople also adapt their selling tactics to to be used in a summated aggregate form (cf. Robinson et
the buyer’s communication style (McFarland et al. 2006; al. 2002). Rather, more appropriately, and isomorphic to the
Williams and Spiro 1985). For instance, a salesperson may design of the original and short scale and the overarching
tailor a presentation to focus on the bottom-line when construct which it reflects, we measure these elements
talking to a “task-oriented” buyer (Williams and Spiro distinctly and demonstrate that they behave differently as
1985). predicted theoretically.
Adaptive selling is captured by ADAPTS, a multidi- To be successful, salespeople must be able to behave
mensional scale that measures a salesperson’s motivation adaptively, and they must be confident that they will be
and ability to practice adaptive selling, and their actual able to do so. In both attitude and behavior, the adaptive
adaptive selling behaviors (Spiro and Weitz 1990). Specif- salesperson assesses the situation and is able to tailor a
ically, the ADAPTS scale measures the motivation of presentation to the customer’s unique needs. Accordingly,
salespeople to practice adaptive selling (seven items), the we will show that Adaptive Selling Confidence (ASC) and
capabilities required to practice adaptive selling (two Adaptive Selling Behavior (ASB) are theoretically and
items), and the actual adaptive behavior of salespeople empirically separable (i.e., they will show discriminant
(seven items). validity). The confidence that salespeople have in their own
Research analyzing the psychometric properties of ability to execute their roles successfully should have a
ADAPTS confirms that the scale is multi-faceted, not critical influence on their behavior—both the smoothness of
unidimensional (Chakrabarty et al. 2004; Marks et al. 1996; the process and the successfulness of the outcomes of their
Robinson et al. 2002; Spiro and Weitz 1990). Yet, most subsequent sales engagement (Feldman and Weitz 1988;
studies in the literature have ignored the multidimensional Lockeman and Hallag 1982; Milord and Perry 1977). The
nature of this construct, and proceed to use the ADAPTS proposition that a salesperson’s confidence should enhance
scale as if it were unidimensional2. For example, Robinson his or her adaptive selling behavior is consistent with most
et al. (2002, p. 118) cautioned that “researchers attempting psychological theories and research, namely that the
to use ADAPTS as a single, unidimensional construct by attitudinal component serves as a precursor to the behav-
taking all 16 items and summing them in the traditional ioral component.
manner are, in effect, confounding their findings.” Because Drawing from Sujan et al. (1994, p. 41), adaptive selling
unidimensionality is one of the most critical and basic confidence can be defined as the salesperson’s belief in his
assumptions of measurement theory (Hattie 1985), the or her capability to use a variety of different sales
number and nature of items used to measure adaptive approaches and make adjustments in the message in
selling are important for drawing valid conclusions in sales response to the customer’s reactions (in contrast to adaptive
and marketing research. selling behavior which is actual behavior). Thus, rather
The ADAPTS scale has been popular and empirically directly, adaptive selling confidence is the salesperson’s
very useful. A short form has also been employed belief that he or she will be able to engage in adaptive selling
(Robinson et al. 2002). Appendix A summarizes the studies behavior. Note that the previous literature in combining
that have used the scale to measure adaptive selling. Note confidence and selling behavior had aggregated over a
that the studies use the scale as unidimensional. In addition, theoretically and empirically interesting phenomenon.
note that the studies do not capture data from both sides of Note also that a salesperson can be confident in his or
the selling dyads. Our study improves upon both of these her ability to adapt the sales strategy, yet the situational
issues. characteristics may constrain his or her behavior in such a
Per measurement theory, we are confident that a more way to be not suitable to practice and implement adaptive
precise measurement approach should lend a greater selling behaviors. In particular, Giacobbe et al. (2006,
sensitivity to the theoretical effects of the salesperson’s p. 121) indicate that adaptive selling is useful when: (i) the
adaptive selling confidence and behavior. Unlike previous sales offering is complex and the seller has many
studies, we do not aggregate across these facets and purport alternatives to offer, (ii) the customers themselves are
diverse, with their needs varying considerably, and (iii)
2
One exception is the Marks et al. (1996) study, which attempted to the sales relationship is expected to produce future profit
distinguish the factors. However, those authors acknowledged inade-
opportunities. This constraining relationship of course
quate reliabilities, except for the behavioral items (p. 63), and
Chakrabarty et al. (2004, p. 131) pointed to a lack of correspondence implies that the amount of variance explained by adaptive
with the original scale. selling confidence might not necessarily be large, yet it may
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382 367

still be a distinctive element of the overall adaptive selling precursor to self-efficacy, which we might extrapolate here
framework. In our extension of this framework, we predict: to be confidence, or a knowledge that one is capable of
adapting the sales situation, and if the efficacy is not just a
H1. Adaptive Selling Confidence (ASC) is positively
perception, then it would enhance the adaptive selling
related to Adaptive Selling Behavior (ASB).
behaviors as well. Thus, we expect intrinsic motivation to
influence both adaptive selling confidence and behavior. In
Antecedents of adaptive selling contrast, extrinsic motivation is more temporary, and is not
internalized, compared with success and evidence of self-
In this section, we derive hypotheses H2–H4. These efficacy, which continue to feed and strengthen intrinsic
hypotheses support the antecedents of adaptive selling: motivations. Intrinsically motivated salespeople should be
motivation, skills, and role ambiguity. more likely to be confident that they can adapt their
strategic approach across customers because they have a
Intrinsic Motivation Motivation is generally defined as a high need for learning more about selling and they are
psychological state that stimulates a person to engage in willing to accept potential failures as a natural part of
particular behaviors or make particular choices (Brown and learning. They will enter a sales encounter with confidence
Peterson 1994). Whereas extrinsic motivation reflects the that they can manipulate the content of the sales pitch so
extent to which salespeople treat their work as a means for that it should be successful, but that even if it is not, they
obtaining external rewards, such as money, recognition, and will learn something about the customer and about selling
promotion, in contrast, intrinsic motivation drives salespeo- in general. In addition, intrinsically motivated salespeople
ple to work for rewards that are intrinsically appealing are more likely to engage in adaptive selling behaviors
(Tyagi 1982). Examples of such intrinsic rewards include because they strive to improve their job performance.
pride, sense of accomplishment, satisfaction, and enjoy- Extrinsic motivations are intended to reward performance
ment. Intrinsically motivated salespeople find their sales also, but it is the intrinsically motivated salesperson who
work inherently interesting and rewarding (Spiro and Weitz takes the knocks of a defeat as an opportunity to learn, get
1990; Weitz et al. 1986). back up, and try to be successful again. Rather than relying
Early findings from Spiro and Weitz (1990) revealed that upon routinized methods for performing their job, intrinsically
adaptive selling (considered as a unidimensional variable motivated salespeople will try new tactics that they believe
measured with 16 items) and intrinsic motivation were may suit the customer and situation better. Accordingly,
correlated. Only recently, Jaramillo et al. (2007) showed intrinsic motivation should positively affect the extent to
that adaptive selling (again measured as a unidimensional which the selling behaviors themselves are adaptive in the
variable with five items) was influenced by intrinsic sales encounter. Consequently, we predict both that:
motivation. Miao and Evans (2007) showed the impact of
H2a. The salesperson’s intrinsic motivation is positively
perceived challenge, a cognitive element of intrinsic
related to the salesperson’s adaptive selling confi-
motivation, to affect salespeople’s perceptions of their
dence (ASC), and
experienced role conflict, whereas the extent to which they
H2b. The salesperson’s intrinsic motivation is positively
enjoyed their work tasks, deemed a more affective element
related to the salesperson’s adaptive selling behavior
of intrinsic motivation, was found to affect role ambiguity,
(ASB).
and both challenge and task enjoyment contributed to
performance behaviors. They also reasoned that extrinsic
motivation can be manipulated by the firm and clearly Skills A salesperson’s skills have generally been described
contributes to outcome performance, yet they found that the as the individual’s learned proficiency at performing the
strongest performance came from those salespeople with necessary tasks for the sales job (Grewal and Sharma 1991;
high intrinsic motivation. Gwinner et al. 2005; Rentz et al. 2002; Sharma 2001;
Harris et al. (2005) have also urged scholars to take a Szymanski 1988). Salespeople usually work in complex
closer look at salespeople’s motivations. They found environments that require the processing of much informa-
learning- oriented salespeople to be those most effective tion on the selling situation and the prospective customer.
at being customer-oriented. While the constructs do not To aid in the processing of this information, and to adapt to
map perfectly onto our own, it might be the case that the individual customer needs, salespeople rely on cues to the
findings are somewhat analogous to our predicting intrinsic customer type or category, e.g., this customer is price-
motivation effects on adaptive selling confidence and sensitive, this other customer is not tech-savvy, etc.
behaviors. In other analogous, related research, Wang and (Sharma and Levy 1995; Szymanski 1988; Weitz et al.
Netemeyer (2002; also see Artis and Harris 2007) demon- 1986). The category to which the customer belongs aids the
strate that the intrinsic drive to learn is an important salesperson in adapting the selling strategy, e.g., focus on
368 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382

value when selling to the price-sensitive customer, explain delivering different presentations, and making adjustments
the high-level benefits when selling to the low-tech customer, are clearly best accomplished—most readily and most
etc. Salespeople with more and better defined categories are effectively—by a skilled salesperson.
expected to be more effective than salespeople with less A salesperson’s knowledge about a customer’s expect-
refined or complex schemas (Sujan et al. 1988). ations and needs should facilitate adapting to the situation.
We draw on categorization theory to predict the relation- Salespeople who have higher levels of customer-qualification
ship between this specific kind of customer knowledge and skills can reduce the complexity of the selling proposition and
adaptive behavior. Categorization is a basic human function communications when interacting with prospects and “free
that helps simplify complex stimulus environments, such as up” their mental capacity. This facility and confidence will in
our interactions with other people. In selling, categories turn allow them to adapt more effectively to the selling
enable the salespeople to structure incoming data on custom- situation encountered. They will proceed with confidence
ers so as to categorize or “qualify” them; e.g., the salesperson that their sales strategies will address the needs of the
decides whether the candidate is a prime customer or a customers, more than would be true of a less skilled sales-
prospect of lesser purchase potential. A customer typology person who would not be so certain of his or her ability to
can help a salesperson predict the customer’s likely behavior, assess, categorize and adapt the sales approach.
by assuming the customers of a certain type will behave in a We posit that customer-qualification skills are positively
manner consistent with that of other, similar category related to adaptive selling confidence and behavior because
members. This information would help the salesperson they allow for the more accurate typology of customers,
understand the customer’s needs (Szymanski 1988). which subsequently facilitates the enactment of appropriate
In particular, given their importance to the sale, this study adaptive behaviors. Thus, we predict that a salesperson with
specifically focuses on what we will call the salesperson’s stronger customer-qualification skills should be more facile
customer-qualification skills. Building on the aforemen- at adaptive selling confidence and behaviors:
tioned literature, these skills refer to the salesperson’s
H3a. The salesperson’s customer-qualification skills are
learned proficiency to qualify or categorize prospects and
positively related to the salesperson’s Adaptive
customers. Qualification skills include the salesperson’s
Selling Confidence (ASC), and
ability to identify and categorize different client types, as
H3b. The salesperson’s customer-qualification skills are
well as their associated product and selling requirements.
positively related to the salesperson’s Adaptive
Note that while customer-qualification skills and
Selling Behavior (ASB).
customer-oriented selling should be related, they are
conceptually different constructs. In particular, customer-
oriented selling refers to “the degree to which salespeople Role Ambiguity Building on earlier work in organizational
practice the marketing concept by trying to help customers research by Kahn et al. (1964), the marketing literature
make purchase decisions that will satisfy customer needs” defines a salesperson’s role ambiguity as “the perceived
(Saxe and Weitz 1982, p. 344). Indeed, to successfully lack of information a salesperson needs to perform his or
implement a customer-oriented selling approach the sales- her role adequately (e.g., effort instrumentalities) and his or
person needs to have good qualification skills, but those her uncertainty about the expectations of different role set
skills are not sufficient for success in sales. The adaptive seller members” (Singh 1998, p. 70; also see Brown and Peterson
will quickly size up the situation and customer needs and 1994; Grant et al. 2001; Hartline and Ferrell 1996;
think, “For this type of customer, I should approach with tactic Michaels et al. 1987; Singh 1993). In a similar fashion,
A; for this other type of customer, tactic B; this third type of Behrman and Perrault (1984, p. 15) conceptualize role
customer might not be worth my time because a successful ambiguity as “the uncertainty the salesperson experiences
close is unlikely.” Hence our belief is that qualification skills with regard to job related expectations,” and Walker et al.
are a necessary but insufficient skill or knowledge set to (1975, p. 13) contend that role ambiguity “occurs when the
achieve customer-oriented selling. After using the qualifica- salesman does not feel he has the necessary information to
tion skills, the customer-oriented salesperson needs to provide perform his role adequately, when he is uncertain about
the appropriate type and amount of information so as to satisfy what the members of his role set expect of him.” When
customer needs and increase long-term satisfaction. salespeople perceive there to be high role ambiguity, they
Note that if qualification skills refer to a salesperson’s will not likely be capable of engaging in the most
ability to classify prospects into categories and understand appropriate or optimal selling behaviors.
their needs, then adaptive selling behaviors require a high In addition, given that adaptive selling behaviors require
level of skills because salespeople must assess and seize the extra time and effort because the salesperson is required to
opportunity to use the most effective sales presentation for focus greater attention on the customer, adaptive selling
each customer. Uncovering those needs, designing and behaviors are likely to be inefficient, misdirected, or
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382 369

insufficient when high levels of role ambiguity are Note that it is not as clear that a firm with such an
experienced. Although no empirical ties to adaptive selling orientation would enhance the effectiveness of the sales-
behavior have been made yet in a personal selling context, person’s behaviors per se, of course, as much as a sales-
we might expect that the experience of higher levels of role person’s willingness to try to do so, hence our prediction
ambiguity will be detrimental to the practice of adaptive focuses on confidence and not adaptive selling behavior.
selling behavior. Accordingly, we propose: A customer orientation helps formulate employees’ atti-
tudes and motivation, hence its position in our model as a
H4. The salesperson’s role ambiguity is negatively related
precursor to the salesperson factors—including intrinsic
to the salesperson’s Adaptive Selling Behavior (ASB).
motivation, qualification skills, and clarity regarding role
ambiguity. For example, Kohli and Jaworski (1990) argue
Relationships among the antecedents to adaptive selling
that market orientation affords certain psychological benefits
behavior
to employees, specifically a sense of pride that they work for
an organization that seeks to satisfy its customers. In contrast,
Motivation, skills and role ambiguity are themselves inter-
an external motivator continues to motivate only to the extent
related. Furthermore, each is influenced by a company’s
that they are continually available; in most sales organiza-
philosophy toward marketing and its customers. We discuss
tions, they will indeed be fairly regularly available, but it is
these antecedents in this section (H5–H8).
the pride in a job well done that is internalized and continues
A customer focus is the central element of a firm’s
to motivate a customer even when external motivation seems
market orientation (Kohli and Jaworski 1990). Narver and
less accessible or salient. For an intrinsically motivated
Slater (1990, p. 21) define customer and marketing
orientation, accomplishing a goal makes employees feel like
orientation as “the sufficient understanding of one’s target
their job is worthwhile, and enhances a sense of commitment
buyers to be able to create superior value for them
to the organization (Jaworski and Kohli 1993). Note that this
continuously.” Deshpandé et al. (1993, p. 27) refer to the
description captures the psychological state of intrinsic
philosophical orientation to marketing and the customer as
motivation which we are modeling.
“the set of beliefs that puts the customers’ interest first,
Day (1994) characterizes market-driven organizations as
while not excluding those of all other stakeholders such as
having superior market sensing, customer linking, and channel
owners, managers, and employees, in order to develop a
bonding capabilities. He argues that when human resources are
long-term profitable enterprise.” Note that in both defi-
managed by the belief that customer satisfaction is both a cause
nitions, a long-term orientation is key, and specifically, by
and a consequence of employee satisfaction, key policies will
the “firm’s customer orientation,” we mean the “sales-
naturally become market oriented, from rewards based on
person’s perception of the firm’s customer orientation,”
customer satisfaction, to hiring and recruiting based on
because Siguaw et al. (1994, p. 110) asserted that “the
problem-solving skills that help customers achieve that
salesperson’s perception of the firm’s orientation is a
satisfaction. Salespeople can begin to solve problems for
relevant way to measure this construct.”
customers and provide benefits for them once they have
For Day (1994, p. 45), a market-driven organization is
effectively categorized them, per their qualification skills.
one in which the philosophy that “all decisions start with
Kohli and Jaworski (1990), Day (1994), and Sinkula
the customer” permeates throughout all processes and
(1994) posit that organizations with strong market orienta-
corporate beliefs and values. He argues that the creation
tion value systems create strong norms for sharing
and sustainability of a market oriented culture are guided by
information and reaching a consensus on its meaning.
a deep and shared understanding of the customer’s needs
Many definitions of market orientation (Deshpandé et al.
and behavior. Customer-oriented firms are more likely to
1993; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990)
provide clear, well-defined guidelines to salespeople to help
describe the importance of developing and being responsive
them understand the expectations regarding the amount and
to market information. Such information should only
type of effort they should exert in their interactions with
enhance clarity of job responsibilities and reduce percep-
customers (Kohli and Jaworski 1990). Thus working in an
tions of the salesperson’s role ambiguity.
organization with a strong marketing and customer-oriented
The literature on how an organization shapes a psycho-
philosophy should enhance a salesperson’s confidence
logical climate in which employees can thrive, have job
regarding adaptive selling: the salesperson can proceed with
satisfaction and perform successfully is relevant here. The
certainty that taking the time to understand a customer’s
extent to which a company supports the sales force’s
particular needs is an effort that will be encouraged and
innovativeness should enhance their job satisfaction and in
rewarded, even expected, when working in such a firm.
turn propel them further in their intrinsic motivation, and in
H5. The firm’s customer orientation is positively related clarifying their roles in terms of effective behaviors (Evans
to adaptive selling confidence (ASC). et al. 2007). Martin and Bush (2006) show that such a
370 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382

supportive corporate environment leads salespeople to feel Randolph and Posner 1981). To the best of our knowledge,
empowered—they know what they must do to sell well. the relationship between a salesperson’s skills and role
In sum, customer-oriented firms help to effectively and ambiguity has not been previously examined in the
efficiently promote the necessary motivation, skills, and personal selling context. Yet it seems logical that sales
understanding among their employees, especially those training programs and experience, that is, the building of a
who interact with customers, so as to put themselves in a repertoire of expertise and skills, would reduce role
better position to create superior value for customers. ambiguity. Fang et al. (2005) have explicated the compli-
Accordingly, we expect that: cated relationships among salespeople’s attributions to their
efforts, abilities, and strategies. The current model does not
H6a. The firm’s customer orientation is positively related to
distinguish among the attributions, but to whatever source
the salesperson’s intrinsic motivation.
the salespeople attribute their successes, their roles then
H6b. The firm’s customer orientation is positively re-
become clearer for subsequent sales transactions. Therefore,
lated to the salesperson’s customer-qualification
the following hypothesis is proposed:
skills.
H6c. The firm’s customer orientation is negatively related H8. Greater customer-qualification skills will reduce a
to the salesperson’s role ambiguity. salesperson’s role ambiguity.
Intrinsically motivated salespeople are likely to work
harder and seek out job responsibilities on their own. The consequences of adaptive selling behavior
Greater motivation should enhance expertise and a building
of skill sets. In particular, Plank and Reid (1994, p. 52), in In this final set of hypotheses (H9–H11), we follow the
their conceptual work, emphasize the idea that skill consequences of adaptive selling behavior. Specifically we
development essentially requires effort and motivation on propose effects on salesperson’s outcome performance and
the part of the salesperson, since “it does not just happen.” customer satisfaction.
They argue that sales skills may be developed in many
ways, through formal training and coaching, as well as by Salesperson’s Outcome Performance This construct refers
reflecting upon past activities and drawing conclusions to the sales results that salespeople achieve thorough
about how to do a particular behavior better. In the absence application of effort and skills (Anderson and Oliver
of any intrinsic motivation to conduct such analysis, 1987). The literature on the effect of adaptive selling
salespeople are less likely to improve or develop new behavior on performance seems to present mixed results.
skills. Accordingly, we propose: As can be seen in Appendix A, numerous studies in fact
provide evidence for this relationship. Yet some authors
H7. A salesperson’s intrinsic motivation is positively related
have summarized the literature by saying, “The relationship
to the salesperson’s customer-qualification skills.
between ADAPTS and performance is inconclusive” (Spiro
A salesperson’s customer-qualification skills should and Weitz 1990, p. 67). Recall our pointing to the frequent
reduce role ambiguity in turn, because such skills help use of the multidimensional ADAPTS scale as if it were
salespeople know what to do and how to do it. Almost by unidimensional (Vink and Verbeke 1993), and indeed, some
definition, qualification skills lend the salesperson the researchers have used this contradiction to help explain the
template for success, as per, “If the customer is of type A, inconsistencies (Marks et al. 1996, p. 62):
proceed as follows, however if the customer is of type B,
researchers attempting to use ADAPTS have often
then do this instead.” That near-menu of behavior selection
noted the scale’s inability to predict sales performance
lessens ambiguity in procedure. Higher levels of sales-
consistently. The research presented here demon-
persons’ customer-qualification skills should improve their
strates that the multidimensionality of the scale
understanding of the job in terms of the necessary activities
contributes to this problem.
and how to perform them when interacting with customers,
which in turn translates into less role ambiguity. In fact,
Given that the studies in Appendix A generally find
Behrman and Perrault (1984) found that salespeople with
support for the effect of adaptive selling on sales
more experience gain a clearer understanding of their work
performance, and the logic that adaptive behavior should
environment and the activities that are important when
yield optimal sales performance outcomes, we too test this
interacting with their various role partners.
link:
Early evidence in the human resource management
literature shows that higher levels of employees’ ability H9. Adaptive Selling Behavior (ASB) positively influen-
reduces their role ambiguity (e.g., Organ and Greene 1974; ces salesperson’s outcome performance.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382 371

Customer Satisfaction with the Product Customer satisfac- Replication of relationships

tion with the product is a post-choice evaluative judgment
concerning a specific purchase selection (Oliver 1997; Several relationships are depicted in Fig. 1 that we had
Westbrook and Oliver 1991). Per the disconfirmation characterized as replications, paths that we wish to include
paradigm, customer satisfaction results when product perfor- to enhance the internal validity of our model and its
mance meets or exceeds expectations. Customer expectations consistency with the empirical evidence in the literature.
regarding a product depend in part on the salesperson’s Thus, we review these links briefly.
presentation. First, the influence of intrinsic motivation and skills on
In the practice of adaptive selling behaviors, salespeo- salesperson’s performance is well established in the literature
ple will adapt the content of their presentations to try to (e.g., Churchill et al. 1985; Rentz et al. 2002; Sujan et al.
meet the needs of different types of customers (Weitz et al. 1988; Tyagi 1985), thus we test and expect to replicate these
1986). In other words, the salesperson is more likely to relationships. Next, prior evidence in sales and services
speak the “customer’s language” while providing product marketing studies (cf., Crosby and Stephens 1987; Crosby et
information and guidelines about what should be expected al. 1990; Goff et al. 1997; Ramsey and Sohi 1997) has
during the use of the product. For example, a salesperson shown that a customer’s satisfaction with the product
may communicate more technical specifications to an influences satisfaction with the salesperson, which in turn
experienced buyer, but concentrate on basic benefits of the influences anticipation of future interactions with the
product with a less experienced buyer. With clearer salesperson. Finally, this literature has also established that
expectations, customers will have a better understanding satisfaction with the product itself influences anticipation of
of product performance, and in turn are more likely to future interactions (e.g., Cronin et al. 2000). Therefore, these
have their expectations met, and enjoy the accompanying relationships are also included in the model.
satisfaction. Also, as suggested in previous studies (e.g., To summarize briefly, our model as depicted in Fig. 1
Castleberry and Shepherd 1993; Porter et al. 2003), posits effects of a firm’s customer orientation mediated by a
salespeople truly listen to customers when engaged in salesperson’s motivation, customer-qualification skills, and
adaptive selling and thus are better equipped to identify role ambiguity. An important aspect of this model is our
and understand customers’ needs, and therefore they are distinction between the effects on, and the effects of, adaptive
more likely to recommend the product that best meets selling confidence and adaptive selling behavior. We examine
customers’ needs. Accordingly we propose: a portfolio of consequences of adaptive selling behavior,
including salesperson’s outcome performance and customer
H10. Adaptive Selling Behavior (ASB) is positively
satisfaction. We simultaneously test a profile of antecedents
related to customer satisfaction with the product.
and consequences, rather than attempt to draw theoretical
conclusions from components of partial models. Another
Customer Satisfaction with the Salesperson Customer important aspect is the dyadic nature of the data—namely that
satisfaction with the salesperson is thought to reflect an the salesperson’s perceptions are captured by data obtained on
emotional state that occurs in response to an evaluation of salespeople, and the customer’s perceptions are captured by
the interaction experience that the customer has with the data obtained on their customers. We now test the model.
salesperson (Crosby et al. 1990). Adaptive selling activities
should increase customer satisfaction with the salesperson
because adaptive selling behavior not only entails adapting Method
the content of the presentation, but also the sales tactics to
the buyer’s communication style. For example, the adaptive We begin by discussing our data collection and sample. We
salesperson may emphasize ingratiation selling tactics (e.g., then describe the measures we used.
behaviors designed to enhance the salesperson’s interper-
sonal attractiveness) when dealing with an “interaction- Data collection
oriented” buyer (McFarland et al. 2006). These adaptations
also enhance communication between the salesperson and The unit of analysis in this study is the dyadic relationship
prospective parties, which further implies that problems are between salespeople and their customers. In particular, we
more easily and rapidly addressed, and consequently test our model on salesperson-customer dyads in the
customer satisfaction is increased. Thus, we propose: context of the financial services sector. This industry has
several characteristics that make it likely that its people
H11. Adaptive Selling Behavior (ASB) is positively practice adaptive selling in general: (1) salespeople en-
related to customer satisfaction with the salesperson. counter a wide variety of customers with different needs,
372 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382

(2) most financial services are highly abstract and complex al. 2006), for subsequent data analysis, the three customer
products requiring explanation and adaptive selling (confi- responses were aggregated3 and matched with the employee
dence and behaviors), and (3) there is a wide range of responses. The effective matched sample size was 210 (210
financial services offered by financial institutions. salespeople and 630 customers). The customer sample
Data collection proceeded in several steps. First, we consisted of 441 men and 189 women, 45% were 26–
obtained the cooperation of three financial service institu- 45 years old, 25% had a college degree, 23% reported
tions of approximately the same size. Then, 300 salespeople being customers of the bank 2–5 years and 46% of the
(100 for each company) were randomly selected. Each sample worked with three or more banks.
salesperson managed a portfolio of clients and was
responsible for ongoing customer contact. Questionnaires Measures
were administered during regularly scheduled meetings to a
final sample of 280 salespeople at 12 sales office locations In order to get a better understanding of the research
(for a similar procedure see Boorom et al. 1998). variables, we interviewed nine financial services salespeo-
Respondents were assured that their responses would be ple and ten financial services customers. Based on these
kept confidential and the questionnaires were immediately interviews and the literature review, a survey comprised of
given to the researchers. In exchange for their completing 10-point Likert-scales was derived and a formal pretest of
the surveys, a training seminar on sales techniques was the questionnaire was conducted with 60 salespeople and
provided, following the data collection so as not to bias 249 financial services customers, to improve the measures
responses. The sample was composed primarily of men prior to the main survey. The respondents were asked to
(83%), one-third of whom had 4–8 years of selling point out any scale items they found confusing, irrelevant,
experience, 48% had a college degree and 60% were 26– or repetitive. During this pretest, a few refinements needed
39 years old. Salespeople were mainly specialized in selling to be made to clarify the scale items.4
to final consumers. When possible, validated existing scales were used (all
Next, the participating companies provided lists of 30 items are presented in Table 2). The five confidence items
customers from each salesperson’s portfolio of customers from the ADAPTS scale were used to measure adaptive
(for a total of 8,400 customers), selected randomly but selling confidence. According to Spiro and Weitz (1990,
screened such that the customers had been with that bank p. 62) these items refer to the salesperson’s confidence in
for at least six months, and they had bought a high- his/her ability to engage in adaptive selling behaviors,
involvement product/service in the last month (to enhance including using a variety of different sales approaches as
the validity of the responses). It is perhaps the case that well as altering the sales approach during a customer
customers retained for at least six months may be positively interaction. Adaptive selling behavior was measured using a
biased (i.e., dissatisfied customers would have terminated subset of five items from Spiro and Weitz’s (1990)
the relationship, leaving only relatively satisfied customers ADAPTS behavioral facet. Recall this subscale began with
with the bank). However, this minimum requirement was seven items, and as long as the subscale itself is
instantiated so that, for example, bank customers would at unidimensional, more items contribute to better reliability,
least be able to identify their respective salesperson. so our taking fewer items makes our tests somewhat more
Furthermore, in terms of the modeling, if there is a positive conservative, and as will be clear shortly, we obtained many
bias, then statistically there would be a range restriction on significant results. Chakrabarty et al. (2004) recently
the satisfaction (and related) variables. Thus, if there is a analyzed the ADAPTS scale and two others that have
concern about any possible bias, this sample selection errs drawn upon it: the 11-item, 2-factor model composed of
in the direction of providing a conservative test of the beliefs and behaviors (Marks et al. 1996), and the 5-item
model. version proposed by Robinson et al. (2002). Based on an
Following prior dyadic research (cf., Hartline and Ferrell item-sort by an expert judging panel and data from a random
1996), the goal was to obtain three customer assessments
3
per salesperson (840 customers). Multiple informants To test agreement across customer responses on satisfaction with the
eliminate errors resulting from the one informant’s selective product, with the salesperson, and anticipation of future interaction, we
estimated within-group interrater reliability for each multi-item scale
perception, thus increasing reliability and validity (Phillips
(James et al. 1984, p. 88). This reliability is interpreted similarly to other
1981). reliability coefficients, e.g., a value of 0.70 or higher is said to be good.
At this stage, a marketing research firm conducted 652 In our study, the average interrater reliabilities for customer satisfaction
telephone interviews (for a 77.6% response rate). Those with the product, the salesperson and anticipation of future interaction
were 0.84, 0.91 and 0.90 respectively. These results provided evidence
cases which did not have three customers per salesperson
that customer ratings were reasonably stable.
were dropped. Based on extant dyadic research (e.g., 4
The item “after-sales service” from the firm’s customer orientation
Deshpandé et al. 1993; Hartline and Ferrell 1996; Rapp et scale was eliminated.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382 373

sample of salespeople, they concluded that: “if a behavior- We also test competing models to substantiate our theoret-
only scale is desired, we recommend a scale drawn from the ical understanding.
original Spiro and Weitz behavioral facet” (p. 125).
Salesperson’s outcome performance was measured by a Measurement model evaluation
four-item scale adapted from Behrman and Perrault’s
(1982) scale developed to provide self-ratings of perfor- We used two techniques to test the factor structure and item
mance. Self-evaluations of performance have been exten- loadings of the scale constructs. We initially examined the
sively used in the sales literature (e.g., Babakus et al. 1999; factors for all the scale items simultaneously. A ten-factor
Sujan et al. 1994; Verbeke and Bagozzi 2000). Also, it has structure was achieved with items loading on their
been argued that since salespeople can observe all the respective, hypothesized dimensions. Evidence of unidi-
elements of their own job, “they may be in the best position mensionality of each construct included appropriate items
to judge their performance” (Levy and Sharma 1993, p. that loaded at least 0.70 on their respective hypothesized
232). Here too, shortened versions of role ambiguity and factor and loaded no larger than 0.256 on others. As shown
outcome performance scales have been used in many in Table 1, reliability of the measures was confirmed with
studies, and positive evidence exists on both their reliability composite reliability indices higher than the recommended
and validity (e.g., Bettencourt and Brown 2003; level of 0.6 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988).
Chakrabarty et al. 2004; MacKenzie et al. 1998). Intrinsic In addition, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis
motivation was measured using four items from the scale (see Table 2). Although the overall chi-square statistic was
developed by Spiro and Weitz (1990). We used a four-item significant (χ2(695)=1,062.52), this statistic is known to be
version of Rizzo et al.’s (1970) scale to assess salesperson’s sensitive to sample size. The observed normed X2 for this
role ambiguity. We develop a three-item scale to measure a model was 1.53, which is smaller than 3, as recommended
salesperson’s customer-qualification skills on the basis of by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Nearly all of the fit statistics
(a) the literature review (e.g., Rentz et al. 2002; Weitz et al. indicated good fit of the measurement model (CFI=0.96;
1986), and (b) the aforementioned interviews conducted NNFI=0.95; RMSEA=0.05; SMSR=0.05; GFI=0.80).
with salespeople. Salespeople were asked to rate them- Convergent validity was assessed by verifying the
selves on Likert-type items anchored by 1 “weak” and 10 significance of the t values associated with the parameter
“excellent.” Five items from Narver and Slater (1990) were estimates (see Table 2). All t values were positive and
used to measure the salesperson’s perceptions of the firm’s significant (p<.01). While alternative techniques for scale
customer orientation. Salespeople responded on a 10-point development exist (cf., Mowen and Voss 2008), our intention
Likert scale with one indicating that “their company does is not to claim we are putting forth new measures. Indeed, it
not engage in the practice at all” and ten indicating that “it was more important to us to simply establish discriminability
engages in it to a great extent.” among the constructs prior to testing possible directional
Customer satisfaction with the product was measured links. Thus, following the more established criteria of Fornell
using a three-item scale adapted from Westbrook and Oliver and Larcker (1981), discriminant validity was tested by
(1991). Similar to Brady and Cronin (2001), respondents comparing the average variance extracted by each construct
were asked to report the degree to which they were “happy,” to the shared variance between the construct and all other
“pleased,” and “delighted” with the financial products/ variables.5 For each comparison, the explained variance
services purchased from their salesperson—standard items exceeded all combinations of shared variance (see Table 1).6
used in the customer satisfaction literature. Due to the
evidence that satisfaction is primarily an affectively oriented 5
Having developed the salesperson’s customer-qualification skills
construct (cf. Oliver 1997), the adjectives used were emotive scale and demonstrated its psychometric characteristics (unidimen-
in nature. Furthermore, this three-item scale has shown very sionality, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity), we tested
whether it relates to other theoretical constructs as predicted by theory.
good levels of reliability and validity in previous research
In particular, prior research (e.g., Sujan et al. 1988) has shown that
(e.g., Brady and Cronin 2001). Customer satisfaction with such skills increase sales performance, and we were able to verify this
the salesperson and anticipation of future interaction were relationship (see the significant correlation between qualification skills
measured using a three-item and a four-item scale (respec- and performance in Table 1).
6
Alternatives also were suggested by an anonymous Reviewer to
tively) developed by Ramsey and Sohi (1997).
consider the Mowen (1999) 3 M model (“Meta-Theoretical Model of
Motivation”) as a theoretically useful framework in which to organize
our conceptualization and proceed with empirical testing. However,
Analysis and results we had not considered the 3 M model in the outset and design of our
study, and we did not wish to create a post hoc claim in such a
restructuring. Our conceptual framework is closer to the expectancy
We now present the measurement results, after which theory of Vroom (1994), long ago adopted by marketers studying sales
follows the test of the structural model and our hypotheses. performance (cf., Oliver 1974).
374 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, scale reliability, AVEa and correlations

Means s.d. AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Intrinsic motivation 8.48 1.00 .65 .88b .16 c

.13 .27 .09 .04 .04 .00 .14 .31
2. Customer-qualification skills 7.84 .90 .69 .41d .87 .24 .29 .08 .08 .04 .01 .25 .22
3. Role ambiguity 7.85 1.11 .62 −.37 −.49 .87 .23 .16 .04 .02 .02 .10 .10
4. Adaptive selling behavior 8.02 1.05 .63 .52 .54 −.48 .90 .05 .07 .06 .02 .20 .26
5. Firm’s customer orientation 8.10 1.35 .64 .30 .29 −.41 .23 .90 .02 .00 .00 .12 .08
6. Satisfaction with the product 8.73 .78 .79 .21 .29 −.22 .27 .16 .92 .11 .25 .01 .05
7. Satisfaction with the salesperson 9.00 1.30 .77 .20 .20 −.15 .25 .05 .34 .91 .21 .01 .01
8. Anticipation of future interaction 8.97 .86 .76 .05 .14 −.17 .15 .06 .50 .46 .93 .00 .00
9. Adaptive selling confidence 7.33 1.37 .63 .38 .50 −.32 .45 .35 .10 .14 .02 .90 .06
10. Salesperson’s outcome performance 7.54 1.31 .64 .56 .47 −.32 .51 .29 .23 .12 .06 .25 .87
a
AVE average variance extracted
b
Scale composite reliability (Bagozzi and Yi 1988) is reported along the diagonal
c
Shared variances are reported in the upper half of the matrix
d
Correlations above .06 are significant at the 95% level. Correlations are reported in the lower half of the matrix

Structural model evaluation and tests of hypotheses alternative model in which adaptive selling confidence and
behavior (treated as distinct variables) have the same
The results of structural model represent an acceptable fit of antecedents and consequences. In particular, the following
the data (χ2(720) = 1,084.34; χ2/df= 1.50; CFI = 0.957; paths were added: from the firm’s customer orientation to
NNFI=0.952; RMSEA=0.049; SMSR=0.06; GFI=0.797). adaptive selling behavior, from role ambiguity to adaptive
As shown in Table 3, all hypotheses were supported selling confidence, and from adaptive selling confidence to
including the replication hypotheses. To our knowledge, satisfaction with the product and with the salesperson. This
this model is the first demonstration establishing the distinct model had a χ2 value of 1,077.31, with 715 degrees of
antecedents and consequences of adaptive selling confi- freedom. The decrease of the chi-square (from the original
dence and adaptive selling behavior. χ2 value of 1,084.34) was not significant (χ2(5)=7.03; p>
0.1). In addition, none of the new paths were significant,
Rival models which suggests that these paths were not necessary or
meaningful empirically. This benchmark model offers
It is generally agreed that researchers should compare the fit strong support in favor of our model—this alternative
of rival models to that of the focal, proposed model. While model contains more paths and therefore could very well
our testing of competing conceptualizations is certainly not have fit much better and produced effects through signif-
exhaustive, we will test several models intended to be icant parameters. Yet it did not. Thus, even this substantial
meaningful and not just “straw” hypotheses. For example, additional stochastic freedom lent nothing to the modeling.
we have been making strong claims regarding the discrim- Finally, we tested an alternative model where adaptive
inant validity of adaptive selling confidence and adaptive selling was considered as a second-order construct composed
selling behavior. Thus, as a comparison, we began by fitting of adaptive selling confidence and adaptive selling behavior.
a model in which these two scales were treated as manifest Fit statistics were borderline acceptable (χ2(721)=1,196.93,
from a single latent construct. The resulting test statistics CFI=0.945, NNFI=0.940, RMSEA=0.056, SRMR=0.087,
(χ2(723)=1,908.39, CFI=0.92, NNFI=0.91, RMSEA= GFI=0.77), but in all cases our theoretical model performed
0.08, SRMR=0.07, GFI=0.68) were all worse than our better. In short, we believe that our model should serve well
focal model, which posits adaptive selling confidence and as an appropriate basis for further research.
adaptive selling behavior as distinct constructs.
We also made strong claims about adaptive selling
confidence and behavior having different antecedents and Discussion
consequences. Accordingly, we tested an unconstrained
This study contributes to the sales literature in several ways.
7
Although this GFI is below .90, this index is known to be is sensitive First, we examined the influence of some critical sales-
to model complexity and sample size (Stevens 1996). Given the
person’s variables on adaptive selling confidence and
sensitivity of this index, it has become less popular in recent years and
it has even been recommended that this index should not be used behavior. Much of the variance in adaptive selling behavior
(Sharma et al. 2005, p. 941). The other indices suggest reasonable fit. (46%) is explained by adaptive selling confidence, intrinsic
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382 375

Table 2 Construct measurement summary: confirmatory factor analysis

Item description and source Std. Loading (t-value)

Salesperson’s adaptive selling confidencea (Spiro and Weitz 1990)

When I feel that my sales approach is not working, I can easily change to another approach. .74 (12.12)
I can easily use a wide variety of selling approaches. .82 (14.07)
It is easy for me to modify my sales presentation if the situation calls for it. .88 (15.91)
I find it difficult to adapt my presentation style to certain buyers. (r)b .66 (10.56)
I feel confident that I can effectively change my planned presentation when necessary. .86 (15.18)
Adaptive selling behavior (Spiro and Weitz 1990)
I vary my sales style from situation to situation. .83 (14.55)
I am very flexible in the selling approach I use. .87 (15.53)
Basically I use the same approach with most customers. (r) .73 (11.98)
I like to experiment with different sales approaches. .80 (13.56)
I treat all of my buyers pretty much the same. (r) .74 (12.30)
Salesperson’s outcome performance (Behrman and Perrault 1982)
Produce a high market share for the company in my territory. .80 (13.65)
Generating a high level of sales. .90 (16.10)
Quickly generating sales of new company products. .72 (11.65)
Exceeding all sales targets and objectives in my territory during the year. .76 (12.50)
Salesperson’s intrinsic motivation (Spiro and Weitz 1990)
Trying to sell to new customers is funny for me. .83 (14.10)
Getting new customers is a challenge and a stimulant thing. .83 (14.24)
For me it is a challenge to find the way to sell the product to the customer. .81 (13.69)
I feel pretty good when I make a sale. .74 (12.03)
Salesperson’s role ambiguity (Rizzo et al. 1970)
I have clear, planned goals and objectives for my job. (r) .88 (15.51)
I know I have divided my time properly while performing the tasks connected with my job. (r) .78 (12.90)
I know what my responsibilities are in my job. (r) .77 (12.67)
I receive clear explanations of what has to be done in my job. (r) .71 (11.49)
Salesperson’s customer-qualification skills (new scale: 1 = “weak” to 10 = “excellent”)
My ability to identify and analyze customer’s needs is… .89 (15.60)
My ability to understand customer’s buying motive is… .83 (14.17)
My ability to distinguish different kinds of customers is... .76 (12.58)
Salesperson’s perceptions of the firm’s customer orientation (Narver and Slater 1990)
Customer commitment .78 (13.04)
Create customer value .73 (11.87)
Understand customer needs .77 (12.78)
Customer satisfaction objectives .87 (15.49)
Measure customer satisfaction .84 (14.76)
(scale: 1 = “my company does not engage in this practice at all” to 10 = “my company engages in this practice to a great extent”).
Customer satisfaction with the product (Westbrook and Oliver 1991)
I am happy with the financial services purchased from this salesperson. .89 (16.15)
I am pleased with the financial services purchased from this salesperson. .92 (17.27)
I am delighted with the financial services purchased from this salesperson. .86 (15.40)
Customer satisfaction with the salesperson (Ramsey and Sohi 1997)
The amount of contact I have had with this salesperson was adequate. .87 (15.40)
I am satisfied with the level of service this person has provided. .88 (15.87)
In general, I am pretty satisfied with my dealings with this salesperson. .89 (16.04)
Customer’s anticipation of future interaction with the salesperson (Ramsey and Sohi 1997)
It is probable that I will contact this salesperson again. .87 (15.79)
I am willing to discuss business with this salesperson again. .84 (14.97)
I plan to continue doing business with this salesperson. .91 (16.94)
I will purchase from this salesperson again. .86 (15.62)
a
Unless indicated otherwise, scales are from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 10 = “strongly agree”
b
Items with (r) are reverse-scored
376 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382

Table 3 Hypothesized model

structural coefficients (n=210) Path Hypothesis Std. Coeff.(a)

Adaptive selling confidence(+)→Adaptive selling behavior H1 .15

Intrinsic motivation (+)→Adaptive selling confidence H2a .16
Intrinsic motivation (+)→Adaptive selling behavior H2b .29
Customer-qualification skills (+)→Adaptive selling confidence H3a .37
Customer-qualification skills (+)→Adaptive selling behavior H3b .24
Role ambiguity (−)→Adaptive selling behavior H4 −.21
Firm’s customer orientation (+)→Adaptive selling confidence H5 .19
Firm’s customer orientation (+)→Intrinsic motivation H6a .30
Firm’s customer orientation (+)→Customer-qualification skills H6b .16
Firm’s customer orientation (−)→Role ambiguity H6c −.29
Intrinsic motivation (+)→Customer-qualification skills H7 .38
Customer-qualification skills (−)→Role ambiguity H8 −.40
Adaptive selling behavior (+)→Salesperson’s outcome performance H9 .21
Adaptive selling behavior (+)→Satisfaction with the product H10 .27
Adaptive selling behavior (+)→Satisfaction with the salesperson H11 .17
Intrinsic motivation (+)→ Salesperson’s outcome performance Replication .37
Customer-qualification skills (+)→ Salesperson’s outcome performance “ .18
Satisfaction with the product (+)→Satisfaction with the salesperson “ .29
Satisfaction with the product (+)→Anticipation of future interaction “ .39
a
Satisfaction with the salesperson (+)→Anticipation of future interaction “ .33
All paths significant at 95%

motivation, customer-qualification skills, and role ambigu- employee adaptability and customers’ perceived service
ity. The salesperson’s characteristics mediate the effect of a quality, which they suggested was due to a problem in
firm’s customer orientation on adaptive selling behavior. operationalization: “the conceptualization and measurement
Overall, this is noteworthy because previous studies have of adaptability may not match the way customers perceive
only been able to explain about 25% of the variance in employee adaptability.” In a pharmaceutical sales context,
adaptive selling. From an academic research standpoint, Rapp et al. (2006) found no significant influence of
this is the first attempt to analyze the relationship between a adaptive selling on customer service, which they attributed
firm’s customer orientation and salespeople’s adaptive to a customer being unable to recognize adaptive selling
selling confidence and behavior. In doing so, our study techniques. McFarland et al. (2006) showed that adaptive
begins to address the call for more empirical research selling influences buyers, but they did not consider any
concerning the effects of the firm’s customer and marketing relational consequence (i.e., satisfaction) on those customers.
orientation on a salesperson’s role perceptions, motivation Thus, another strong contribution of this study is the
and skills (e.g., Jones et al. 2003; Siguaw et al. 1994). analysis of the consequences of adaptive selling behaviors
There is little in the literature that examines the relationship on customer satisfaction and retention, and the clarity of
between the firm’s customer orientation and adaptive selling, these results, which we attribute in part to the dyadic data
but it suggests that customer orientation has an indirect (not we collected. Modeling dyadic data to examine these
direct) influence on adaptive behavior. Therefore we believe relationships add a degree of richness to our findings. We
our model refinement is reasonable. Research suggests that found that adaptive selling behavior, as perceived by the
training and empowerment represent fundamental policies in salesperson, has a direct and positive effect on a customer’s
customer-oriented firms, and that these are means by which perceptions of satisfaction with the product and with the
employees’ skills and motivation are much enhanced (Day salesperson. These variables in turn enhance customer
1994; Jaworski and Kohli 1993). As evidenced in our research, retention. We believe that these findings are very important
these variables in turn affect adaptive selling behavior. These in light of the paradigm shift that has moved the field’s
effects seem consistent with the sales literature which has long focus from transactional-based selling to one focused on
suggested that such managerial policies influence a sales- developing and maintaining relationships with customers.
person’s behavior through the modification of his/her role Given our dyadic data, it is perhaps not a surprise that
perceptions, skills and motivation (cf. Churchill et al. 1985). our results were more sensitive than many of those in the
This study overcomes some of the limitations of the literature, in that our study shows a significant influence of
scant dyadic research on the impact of adaptive behavior on adaptive selling behavior on customer satisfaction. Thus,
the customer. For example, Hartline and Ferrell (1996, customers may indeed be able to detect the use of adaptive
p. 61) found no evidence of a relationship between selling behaviors, e.g., the customer realizes that the
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382 377

salesperson is speaking “the customer’s language” and the vehicle—salespeople are able to develop a unique message
selling tactic used is consistent with his/her communication for each customer, which customers appreciate, as demon-
style. As evidenced in the results of the unconstrained strated in sales data and now in customer satisfaction data.
alternative model, perhaps customers are simply less likely to Prior research had been focused on the influence of
be aware of the salesperson’s confidence to adapt, i.e., the adaptive selling on sales performance, but given the current
salesperson’s confidence in their ability to modify his/her emphasis on relational selling, sales managers are increas-
behavior. It is also quite possible, as we argued earlier, that our ingly interested in knowing the extent to which adaptive
results were more powerful and sensitive because previous selling activities lead to customer satisfaction and retention.
research had aggregated over multiple facets of adaptive The current research provides some preliminary evidence in
selling when using the scale in a unidimensional form, this regard. In particular, our research shows that adaptive
whereas we purified the operationalization by focusing on selling behaviors directly increase customer satisfaction
two key aspects of the construct: confidence and behavior. with the product and the salesperson, and indirectly affect
customer retention.
Limitations and future directions The results from this study provide guidance in several
areas for sales managers who wish to create a more
We believe our results have contributed insights to the adaptive sales force. Our findings provide guidance for
literature, yet we acknowledge that no study is perfect, and what managers should focus on in training employees to be
we hope ours is the foundation of additional work. For adaptable. Specifically, the salesperson’s perception of the
example, this study was conducted with a sample from a firm’s customer orientation increases adaptive selling
single industry. Future research should strive to confirm these confidence and behavior through its effect on motivation,
findings with samples of salespeople from different industries. customer-qualification skills, and role ambiguity. The
A second potential limitation concerns the use of a self- customer-oriented organization should make extensive
report measure of performance. Self-evaluations may have efforts to communicate its orientation and values to
inflated the relationship between adaptive selling behavior and salespeople. While this can be readily accomplished during
salesperson’s outcome performance. Our research design initial sales training activities, it should be reinforced on an
incorporated some procedures intended to reduce this potential ongoing basis to the entire sales force.
bias. First, confidentiality of responses reduces the leniency In addition, training should focus on increasing the
bias in performance evaluations (Heneman 1974). Second, we employees’ customer-qualification skills. An effective
focused on salesperson’s outcome performance—Behrman approach is to have experienced salespeople train less
and Perrault (1982) originally called this variable achieving experienced salespeople on (a) which customer traits to
overall sales objective performance—as opposed to behav- observe, (b) how to recognize those traits, and (c) which
ioral/input performance. Prior research has found that such selling strategies might be most appropriate for specific
evaluation criteria (output rather than input related) result in customer categories. Our findings also support the assertion
self-report data that are more consistent with sales manager that intrinsic motivation increases adaptive behavior. Thus, a
ratings (Churchill et al. 1985), and objective indicators of firm might not create more adaptive employees through
performance (e.g., Behrman and Perrault 1982; Levy and increased pay or bonuses. Instead, managers looking to
Sharma 1993; Mabe and West 1982). encourage adaptive behavior in their sales team should look
We were able to demonstrate basic nomological validity to incentives beyond pay and other extrinsic motivators.
regarding our new customer-qualification skills scale. How- Specifically, sales managers should emphasize to employees
ever, it would be fruitful to see the scale tested more broadly, how their practice of adaptive behavior in the course of their
in more samples, in more contexts. We could have also tested work can lead to opportunities for being creative, growing
moderating factors, had we measured more variables. For personally, and working in a stimulating environment. Finally,
example, customers who are highly involved in the product managers should make every effort to provide detailed
category are likely to require and desire more adaptive selling information to the sales force about company expectations,
efforts. We might examine this moderator in the context of knowledge of products, selling techniques, customer require-
multiple industries, or by studying individual difference ments and performance appraisal methods.
factors, such as age (for financial investments), gender, etc. We analyzed the consequences of adaptive selling on
customer satisfaction and retention in the context of
Managerial implications personal selling and sales management. Beyond this
context, given every marketer’s concern with a customer’s
Personal selling is the most costly marketing communica- satisfaction and retention, we believe our conceptual
tion vehicle, but the higher cost is thought to be justified progress and empirical demonsrations offer consequences
because it works better than any other communication and implications to the field of marketing more broadly.
378 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382

Appendix A

Table 4 A summary of prior empirical studies examining the antecedents and consequences of adaptive selling using the ADAPTS scale

Authors Context of the study Items, scale, and dimensionality Relevant findings

Spiro and Weitz (1990) 268 salespeople of a 16-item ADAPTS Adaptive selling is correlated
manufacturer of diagnostic scale (unidimensional) significantly with eight general
equipment and supplies measures of interpersonal flexibility.
Adaptive selling is positively
correlated to intrinsic motivation.
Adaptive selling is not correlated to
experience managerial style and
management ratings of performance,
but it is positively correlated to
salespeople’s assessments of
performance.
Levy and Sharma (1994) 201 retail salespeople 16-item ADAPTS Gender, age, experience and education
from one major scale (unidimensional) are not linked to adaptive selling.
department store
Siguaw and 268 salespeople from 16-item ADAPTS No gender differences were found
Honeycutt (1995) the Association for scale (unidimensional) for adaptive selling.
Information and Image
Management
Sujan et al. (1994) 190 salespeople from 16-item ADAPTS Learning orientation positively
different industries scale (unidimensional) influences working smart.
Working smart positively
influences sales perfomance.
Grant and Cravens (1996) 146 field sales managers four behavioral items Higher levels of behavior-based
from different industries adapted from the control system in terms of
ADAPTS scale monitoring, rewarding and
(unidimensional) evaluating increase behavior
performance (a construct that
includes adapting selling).
Marks et al. (1996) 179 telecommunications Two dimensions from Adaptive selling beliefs do not
equipment salespeople the ADAPS scale: influence sales performance,
Adaptive selling beliefs but behavior does.
(four items), Adaptive
selling behavior
(seven items)
Boorom et al. (1998) 239 insurance salespeople 16-item ADAPTS Interaction involvement is positively
scale (unidimensional) associated with adaptiveness in
sales presentations
Global measure of Adaptive selling positively
adaptiveness influences sales performance.
DelVecchio (1998) 155 business to business 16-item ADAPTS Higher levels of salesperson-manager
salespeople and their scale (unidimensional) relationship quality are associated
respective managers from with higher levels of adaptive selling.
different industries
Piercy et al. (1998) 144 field sales managers four behavioral items Higher levels of behavior-based
from different industries adapted from the control system in terms of
ADAPTS scale monitoring, directing, rewarding
(unidimensional) and evaluating increase behavior
performance (a construct that
includes adapting selling).
Porter and Inks (2000) 161 industrial salespeople 16-item ADAPTS Motivation/interest to understand
scale (unidimensional) behavior and introspection of
behavior positively influence
adaptive selling.
Bush et al. (2001) 122 marketing executives ten (motivational, Intercultural disposition (a
from several industries capability and behavioral) second-order construct composed
involved in the selling items from the ADAPTS of empathy, worldmindedness,
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382 379

Table 4 (continued)

Authors Context of the study Items, scale, and dimensionality Relevant findings

process with nonretail scale (unidimensional) ethnocentrism, and attributional

customers complexity) and adaptive selling
were not positively related.
Shoemaker and 236 salespeople from 6 (motivational and Sales experience and sales training
Johlke (2002) five companies behavioral) items from positively influence adaptive selling.
the ADAPTS scale
(unidimensional)
Park and 199 salespeople from a 7 (motivational and A learning orientation is positively
Holloway (2003) major automobile company behavioral) items from related to adaptive selling.
the ADAPTS scale
(unidimensional)
Fang et al. (2004) 290 salespeople from five behavioral items Goal difficulty has a negative
several industries (U.S.) from the ADAPTS relationship with adaptive selling
247 salespeople from scale (unidimensional) behavior in the U.S. sample, but
several industries (China) not in the Chinese sample. Goal
specificity has a negative
relationship with adaptive
selling behavior in both samples.
Verbeke et al. (2004) 93 salespeople from eight itemsa from the Salespeople experiencing pride
different industries ADAPTS scale show more levels of adaptive
(unidimensional) sales behaviors.
Robinson et al. (2005) 118 field salespeople 5-item Robinsonb et al.’s Behavioral intentions to use
from a 500 Fortune firm (2002) scale (unidimensional) technology are positively related
to adaptive selling. Adaptive selling
positively influences sales performance.
Rapp et al. (2006) Matched data from 175 12 (motivational and Knowledge and empowering
female health care behavioral) items from leadership behaviors positively
salespeople, their customers the ADAPTS scale influence working smart. Experience
(a minimum of two (unidimensional) does not have a significant influence
customers per salesrep) on working smart.
and their sales managers Experience does not moderate the
effect of empowering leadership
behaviors on working smart.
Working smart positively influences
sales performance.
Jaramillo et al. (2007) 400 salespeople from 5-item Robinson Intrinsic motivation is positively
four banks et al.’s (2002) scale related to adaptive selling. Level
(unidimensional) of initiative positively moderates
the effect of intrinsic motivation
on adaptive selling.
Adaptive selling positively influences
sales performance.
Guenzi et al. (2007) 130 key account managers four items from Robinson The company’s relational selling
from different industries et al.’s (2002) scale strategy is positively related to key
(unidimensional) account managers’ adaptive selling.
Rapp et al. (2008) 662 health-care salespeople four items from ADAPTS CRM usage positively influences
and 60 sales managers adaptive selling
Adaptive selling positively
influences sales performance.
a
Items are not shown in the article, except the motivational item: “I can easily use a wide variety of selling approaches”
b
Robinson et al.’s (2002) scale has two motivational items, one capability item and two behavioral items from the original ADAPTS scale
380 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382

References Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations.

Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37–52.
DelVecchio, S. K. (1998). The quality of salesperson-manager
Anderson, E., & Oliver, R. L. (1987). Perspectives on behavior-based relationship: the effect of latitude, loyalty and competence.
versus outcome-based salesforce control systems. Journal of Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 18(1), 31–
Marketing, 51(4), 76–88. 47.
Artis, A. B., & Harris, E. G. (2007). Self-directed learning and sales Deshpandé, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster, F. E. (1993). Corporate
force performance: an integrated framework. Journal of Personal culture, customer orientation and innovativeness in japanese
Selling & Sales Management, 27(1), 9–24. firms: a quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 23–37.
Babakus, E., Cravens, D. W., Johnston, M., & Moncrief, W. C. Evans, K. R., Landry, T. D., Li, Po-Chien, & Zou, S. (2007).
(1999). The role of emotional exhaustion in sales force attitude How sales controls affect job-related outcomes: the role of
and behavior relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing organizational sales-related psychological climate percep-
Science, 27(1), 58–70. tions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(3),
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural 445–459.
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., & Evans, K. R. (2004). Goal-setting
16(1), 74–94. paradoxes? trade-offs between working hard and working smart:
Behrman, D. N., & Perrault, W. D., Jr. (1982). Measuring the the United States versus China. Journal of the Academy of
performance of industrial salespersons. Journal of Business Marketing Science, 32(2), 188–202.
Research, 10, 335–370. Fang, E., Evans, K. R., & Landry, T. D. (2005). Control systems’
Behrman, D. N., & Perrault, W. D., Jr. (1984). A role stress model of effect on attributional processes and sales outcomes: a cybernetic
the performance and satisfaction of industrial salesperson. information-processing perspective. Journal of the Academy of
Journal of Marketing, 48(4), 9–21. Marketing Science, 33(4), 553–574.
Berry, L. L. (1995). Relationship marketing of services: growing Feldman, D. C., & Weitz, B. A. (1988). Career plateaus in the
interest, emerging perspectives. Journal of the Academy of salesforce: understanding and removing. Journal of Personal
Marketing Science, 23(4), 236–245. Selling and Sales Management, 8(3), 23–32.
Bettencourt, L. A., & Brown, S. W. (2003). Role stressors and Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and
customer-oriented boundary-spanning behaviors in service organ- behavior: An introduction to theory and research. MA: Addison-
izations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), Wesley.
394–408. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
Boorom, M. L., Goolsby, J. R., & Ramsey, R. P. (1998). Relational models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
communication traits and their effect on adaptiveness and sales Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1), 39–50.
performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26 Franke, G. R., & Park, J.-E. (2006). Salesperson adaptive selling
(1), 16–30. behavior and customer orientation: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J. (2001). Customer orientation: effects on Marketing Research, 43(3), 693–702.
customer service perceptions and outcome behaviors. Journal of Giacobbe, R. W., Jackson, D. W., Jr., Crosby, L. A., & Bridges, C. M.
Service Research, 3(3), 241–251. (2006). A contingency approach to adaptive selling behavior and
Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1994). The effect of effort on sales sales performance: selling situations and salesperson character-
performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), istics. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(3),
70–80. 115–142.
Bush, V. D., Rose, G. M., Gilbert, F., & Ingram, T. N. (2001). Goff, B. G., Boles, J. S., Bellenger, D. N., & Stojack, C. (1997). The
Managing culturally diverse buyer-seller relationships: the role of influence of salesperson selling behaviors on customer satisfac-
intercultural disposition and adaptive selling in developing tion with products. Journal of Retailing, 73(2), 171–183.
intercultural communication competence. Journal of the Acade- Grant, K., & Cravens, D. W. (1996). Examining sales force
my of Marketing Science, 29(4), 391–404. performance in organizations that use behavior-based sales
Castleberry, S. B., & Sheperd, D. C. (1993). Effective interpersonal management processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 25,
listening and personal selling. Journal of Personal Selling & 361–371.
Sales Management, 13(1), 35–49. Grant, K., Cravens, W., Low, G. S., & Moncrief, W. C. (2001). The
Chakrabarty, S., Brown, G., Widing, R. E., II, & Taylor, R. D. (2004). role of satisfaction with territory design on the motivation,
Analysis and recommendations for the alternative measures of attitudes, and work outcomes of salespeople. Journal of the
adaptive selling. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Manage- Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2), 165–178.
ment, 24(2), 125–133. Grewal, D., & Sharma, A. (1991). The effect of salesforce behavior on
Churchill, G. A., Jr., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W., & Walker, customer satisfaction: an interactive framework. Journal of
O. C., Jr. (1985). The determinants of salespeople performance: Personal Selling & Sales Management, 11(3), 13–23.
a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2), 103– Guenzi, P., Pardo, C., & Laurent, G. (2007). Relational selling strategy
118. and key account manager’s relational behaviors: an exploratory
Cronin, J., Jr., Brady, M. K., & Hult, T. (2000). Assessing the effects study. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 121–133.
of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer Gwinner, K. P., Bitner, Mary Jo, Brown, S. W., & Kumar, A. (2005).
behavioral intentions in service encounters. Journal of Market- Service customization through employee adaptiveness. Journal
ing, 56(2), 55–68. of Service Research, 8(2), 131–148.
Crosby, L. A., & Stephens, N. (1987). Effects of relationship Harris, E. G., Mowen, J. C., & Brown, T. J. (2005). Re-examining
marketing on satisfaction, retention, and prices in the life salesperson goal orientations: personality influencers, customer
insurance industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), 404– orientation, and work satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of
411. Marketing Science, 33(1), 19–35.
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship Hartline, M. D., & Ferrell, O. C. (1996). The management of
quality in services selling: an interpersonal influence perspective. customer-contact service employees: an empirical investigation.
Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 68–81. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 52–70.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382 381

Hattie, J. R. (1985). Methodology review: assessing unidimensionality Mowen, J. C., & Voss, K. E. (2008). On building better construct
of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(2), measures: implications of a general hierarchical model. Psychol-
139–164. ogy & Marketing, 25(6), 485–505.
Heneman, H. G., III. (1974). Comparison of self and supervisor Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market
ratings of managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychol- orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54
ogy, 59, 628–642. (4), 20–35.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within- Oliver, R. L. (1974). Expectancy theory predictions of salesmen’s
group interrater reliability with and without response bias. performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 243–253.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98. Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: a behavioral perspective on the
Jaramillo, F., Locander, W. B., Spector, P. E., & Harris, E. G. (2007). consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Getting the job done: the moderating role of initiative on the Organ, D. W., & Green, C. N. (1974). Role ambiguity, locus of
relationship between intrinsic motivation and adaptive selling. control, and work satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 27(1), 59–74. 59, 101–102.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Park, J.-E., & Holloway, B. B. (2003). Adaptive selling behavior
antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), revisited: an empirical investigation of learning orientation, sales
53–70. performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Personal Selling &
Jones, E., Busch, P., & Dacin, P. (2003). Firm market orientation and Sales Management, 23(3), 239–251.
salesperson customer orientation: interpersonal and intrapersonal Phillips, L. W. (1981). Assessing measurement error in key
influences on customer service and retention in business-to- informant reports: a methodological note on organizational
business buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Business Research, analysis in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(4),
56(4), 323–340. 395–415.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., & Snoek, J. D. (1964). Piercy, N. F., Cravens, D. W., & Morgan, N. A. (1998). Salesforce
Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. performance and behavior-based management processes in
New York: Wiley. business to business sales organisations. European Journal of
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the Marketing, 32(1–2), 79–100.
construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Plank, R. E., & Reid, D. A. (1994). The mediating role of sales
Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18. behaviors: an alternative perspective of sales performance and
Levy, M., & Sharma, A. (1993). Relationships among measures of effectiveness. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
retail salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of 14(3), 43–56.
Marketing Science, 21(3), 231–238. Porter, S. S., & Inks, L. W. (2000). Cognitive complexity and
Levy, M., & Sharma, A. (1994). Adaptive selling: the role of gender, salesperson adaptability. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
age, sales experience, and education. Journal Business Research, Management, 20(1), 15–21.
31(1), 39–47. Porter, S. S., Wiener, J. L., & Frankwick, G. L. (2003). The
Lockeman, B. D., & Hallag, J. H. (1982). Who are your successful moderating effect of selling situation on the adaptive selling
salespeople? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 10 strategy-selling effectiveness relationship. Journal of Business
(4), 457–472. Research, 56, 275–281.
Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluations of Ramsey, R. P., & Sohi, R. S. (1997). Listening to your customers: the
ability: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychol- impact of perceived salesperson listening behavior on relation-
ogy, 67, 280–296. ship outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some (2), 127–137.
possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and extra-role Randolph, A. W., & Posner, B. Z. (1981). Explaining role conflict and
salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 87–99. role ambiguity via individual and interpersonal variables in
Marks, R., Vorhies, D. W., & Badovick, G. J. (1996). A psychometric different job categories. Personnel Psychology, 34(1), 89–102.
evaluation of the adapts scale: a critique and recommendations. Rapp, A., Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Schillewaert, N. (2006). The
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 16(4), 53–65. impact of knowledge and empowerment on working smart and
Martin, C. A., & Bush, A. J. (2006). Psychological climate, working hard: the moderating role of experience. International
empowerment, leadership style, and customer-oriented selling: Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(3), 279–293.
an analysis of the sales manager-salesperson dyad. Journal of the Rapp, A., Agnihotri, R., & Forbes, L. P. (2008). The sales force
Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 419–438. technology-performance chain: the role of adaptive selling and
McFarland, R. G., Challagalla, G. N., & Shervani, T. (2006). effort. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28(4),
Influence tactics for effective adaptive selling. Journal of 335–350.
Marketing, 70(4), 103–117. Rentz, J. O., Shepherd, D., Tashchian, A., Dabholkar, P. A., & Ladd,
Miao, C. F., & Evans, K. R. (2007). The impact of salesperson R. T. (2002). A measure of selling skill: scale development and
motivation on role perceptions and job performance—a cognitive validation. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22
and affective perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales (1), 13–21.
Management, 27(1), 89–101. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. J. (1970). Role conflict and
Michaels, R. E., Day, R. L., & Joachimsthaler, E. A. (1987). Role ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science
stress among industrial buyers: an integrative model. Journal of Quarterly, 15, 150–163.
Marketing, 51(2), 28–45. Robinson, L., Jr., Marshall, G. W., Moncrief, W. C., & Lassk, F. G.
Milord, J. T., & Perry, R. P. (1977). Traits and performance of automobile (2002). Toward a shortened measure of adaptive selling. Journal
salesmen. Journal of Social Psychology, 103(1), 163–164. of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22(2), 111–119.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of Robinson, L., Jr., Marshall, G. W., & Stamps, M. B. (2005). An
relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. empirical investigation of technology acceptance in a field sales
Mowen, J. C. (1999). The 3 M model of motivation and personality: force setting. Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 407–415.
Theory and empirical applications to consumer behavior. New Román, S., & Martín, P. J. (2008). Changes in sales call frequency: a
York: Springer. longitudinal examination of the consequences in the supplier-
382 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2010) 38:363–382

customer relationship. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(5), Szymanski, D. M. (1988). Determinants of selling effectiveness: the
554–564. importance of declarative knowledge to the personal selling
Saxe, R., & Weitz, B. A. (1982). The SOCO scale: a measure of concept. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 64–77.
customer orientation of salespeople. Journal of Marketing Tyagi, P. K. (1982). Perceived organizational climate and the process
Research, 19(3), 343–351. of salesperson motivation. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(1),
Sharma, A. (2001). Consumer decision-making, salespeople’s adap- 240–254.
tive selling and retail performance. Journal of Business Research, Tyagi, P. K. (1985). Relative importance of key job dimensions and
54(2), 125–129. leadership behaviors in motivating salesperson work perfor-
Sharma, A., & Levy, M. (1995). Categorization of customers by retail mance. Journal of Marketing, 49(3), 76–86.
salespeople. Journal of Retailing, 71(1), 71–82. Vink, J., & Verbeke, W. (1993). Adaptive selling and organizational
Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. R. (2005). A characteristics: suggestions for future research. Journal of
simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for Personal Selling & Sales Management, 8(1), 15–23.
assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Verbeke, W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Sales call anxiety: exploring
Business Research, 58(7), 935–943. what it means when fear rules a sales encounter. Journal of
Shoemaker, M. E., & Johlke, M. C. (2002). An examination of the Marketing, 64(3), 88–101.
antecedents of a crucial selling skill: asking questions. Journal of Verbeke, W., Belschak, F., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004). The adaptive
Managerial Issues, 14(1), 118–131. consequences of pride in personal selling. Journal of the
Siguaw, J. A., & Honeycutt, E. D., Jr. (1995). An examination of Academy of Marketing Science, 26(1), 16–30.
gender differences in selling behaviors and job attitudes. Vroom, V. H. (1994). Work and motivation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Industrial Marketing Management, 24, 45–52. Walker, O. C., Jr., Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Ford, N. M. (1975).
Siguaw, J. A., Brown, G., & Widing, R. E., II. (1994). The influence Organizational determinants of the industrial salesman’s role
of the market orientation of the firm on sales force behavior and conflict and ambiguity. Journal of Marketing, 39(1), 32–39.
attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(1), 106–116. Wang, G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). The effects of job autonomy,
Singh, J. (1993). Boundary role ambiguity: facts, determinants, and customer demandingness, and trait competitiveness on salesper-
impacts. Journal of Marketing, 57(2), 11–31. son learning, self-efficacy, and performance. Journal of the
Singh, J. (1998). Striking a balance in boundary-spanning positions: Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 217–228.
an investigation of some unconventional influences of role Webster, F. E. (1992). The changing role of marketing in the
stressors and job characteristics on job outcomes of salespeople. corporation. Journal of Marketing, 56(4), 1–17.
Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 69–86. Weitz, B. A. (1978). Relationship between salesperson performance
Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market information processing and organiza- and understanding of customer decision making. Journal of
tional learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35–45. Marketing, 15(4), 501–516.
Spiro, R. S., & Weitz, B. A. (1990). Adaptive selling: conceptualiza- Weitz, B. A. (1981). Effectiveness in sales interactions: a contingency
tion, measurement, and nomological validity. Journal of Market- framework. Journal of Marketing, 45(1), 85–103.
ing Research, 27(1), 61–69. Weitz, B. A., & Bradford, K. D. (1999). Personal selling and sales
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social management: a relationship marketing perspective. Journal of the
sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 241–254.
Stock, R. M., & Hoyer, W. D. (2005). An attitude-behavior model of Weitz, B. A., Sujan, H., & Sujan, M. (1986). Knowledge, motivation
salespeople’s customer orientation. Journal of the Academy of and adaptive behavior: a framework for improving selling
Marketing Science, 33(4), 536–552. effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 174–191.
Sujan, H., Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. (1988). Knowledge structure Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991). The dimensionality of
differences between effective and less effective salespeople. consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. Jour-
Journal of Marketing Research, 25(1), 81–86. nal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 84–91.
Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, Williams, K. C., & Spiro, R. L. (1985). Communication style in the
working smart, and effective selling. Journal of Marketing, 58 salesperson-customer dyad. Journal of Marketing Research, 22
(3), 39–52. (4), 434–442.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.