Eli Jones a, *, Paul Busch b, Peter Dacin c

Transcription

1 Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) Firm market orientation and salesperson customer orientation: interpersonal and intrapersonal influences on customer service and retention in business-to-business buyer seller relationships Eli Jones a, *, Paul Busch b, Peter Dacin c a Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of Houston, Houston, TX , USA b Department of Marketing, Lowry Mays College and Graduate School of Business, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845, USA c Department of Marketing, Queens University, Canada Abstract The authors examine the influence of a firm s market orientation and salesperson customer orientation on buyer seller relationships. Data from a national manufacturer s sales force and retail trade customers were used to test the influence of sales managers perceptions on salesperson attitudes toward a firm s market orientation and its salesperson customer orientation. The impact of salesperson attitudes on customers perceptions of service delivery and their propensity to switch suppliers was also examined. The results suggest that a firm s market orientation positively influences salesperson work attitudes. Sales managers influence salesperson customer orientation through their organizational commitment, and salesperson customer orientation influences industrial customers switching intentions. D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Firm market orientation; Salesperson customer orientation; Business-to-business Over the last decade, the market orientation concept has been the subject of considerable scholarly research. Typically, the unit of analysis is the organization and is centered around top management s emphasis on collecting and disseminating market information to employees, increasing interdepartmental connectedness within the firm, and creating a customer-oriented organizational culture in which customer satisfaction is essentially at the core of every decision for every employee (cf. Caruana et al., 1997; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990). In a separate but related literature stream, researchers posit that a salesperson s customer orientation positively affects customer responses (cf. Saxe and Weitz, 1982). The unit of analysis for this research is the individual. A customer orientation is defined as a selling behavior in which salespeople assist customers to satisfy their long-term wants and needs versus a sales orientation, which places the * Corresponding author. Tel.: address: eli-jones@uh.edu (E. Jones). selling organization and/or salespersons before the customers (Michaels and Day, 1985; Saxe and Weitz, 1982). Currently, there is little published research addressing the impact of both the firm s and the salesperson s orientations on customer service and retention. These are important voids in the literature. For a market orientation to be truly effective, employees must implement the firm s market orientation strategy and customers must realize the benefits of a market-oriented firm. A number of researchers note the need to incorporate employees and customers perceptions into a general theory of market orientation. Indeed, the behaviors and attitudes of a firm s boundary-spanning employees (e.g., salespeople) should significantly influence the customers perceptions of the firm s service delivery (cf. Heskett et al., 1997). The behaviors and attitudes of salespeople are, in turn, influenced by their perceptions of the firm s market orientation and their interaction with sales managers, thus, highlighting the importance of examining market orientation from the sales force s perspective. In sum, implicit in the market orientation literature to date is the idea that a critical test of a firm s market orientation is the extent to which the sales force perceives /02/$ see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S (02)

2 324 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) the firm as being concerned with satisfying customers needs and implements the firm s market-oriented strategy. Given the importance of market orientation to the marketing discipline, the need for specific research on the effects of perceived market orientation on salesperson attitudes and behaviors toward customers is accentuated. The purpose of this study is to address gaps in the existing literature by examining front line employees (e.g., salespeople and sales managers) perceptions of the firm s market orientation-first expressed by Jaworski and Kohli (1993) and the influence of the firm s market and sales force s customer orientations on the buyer seller relationship. We extend the previous research by conducting a triadic analysis that evaluates perceptions across three participants in the service delivery process: sales manager, salesperson, and customer. These are the key interfaces in buyer seller relationships. Because it has become increasingly important for firms to adopt effective teamwork to enhance performance (cf. Kolb, 1995), we include the sales managers perceptions. We expect that sales managers significantly influence salesperson attitudes and behaviors toward customers despite the limited literature on the subject (cf. Richmond et al., 1993). Thus, the model tested reflects sales managers perceptions on salespersons perceptions of the firm s market orientation and the salespersons customer orientation, salespersons attitudes toward the job and customer, and salespersons attitudes on customers perceptions of service delivery and their propensity to switch suppliers. Studying the interactions between sales managers and salespeople and between salespeople and customers is important if we are going to advance our knowledge of sales and social relations (cf. Cronin, 1994). This research is useful to top managers and sales managers because it illuminates the issue of whether a market orientation strategy formed at the top of an organization actually affects those who implement the strategy. The research findings also shed light on the impact that sales managers perceptions and behaviors have on salespersons perceptions. The study is organized as follows. First, we provide a brief review of the literature on market orientation, customer orientation, salesperson role ambiguity and conflict, and customers perceived quality of service and propensity to switch. Next, we state specific hypotheses pertaining to the influence of sales managers on salespeople. Our hypotheses are then tested in a business-to-business context using a sample of sales managers and salespeople taken from a national consumer packaged goods organization and its customers retail outlet purchasing managers. The hypotheses are presented in clusters according to the three separate interfaces evaluated in this study: the sales manager salesperson, the salesperson role, and the salesperson customer interfaces. The paper concludes with a discussion of the relevance of the findings to managers and future research directions. 1. Conceptual background 1.1. Market orientation A renewed interest in understanding organizations strategic orientations toward satisfying customers needs exists in the popular press and academic literature (Deschpande et al., 1993; Hartline and Ferrell, 1996; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990; Parasuraman, 1987). Corresponding interest in understanding organizational influences on employee motivation to satisfy customers needs also exists (Apasu et al., 1987; Beatty, 1988; Berry, 1995; Case, 1996; Hartline and Ferrell, 1996; Mohr-Jackson, 1993). One of the predominant constructs to emerge from this interest is market orientation. The marketing concept is the philosophical foundation of a market orientation (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). Marketing scholars describe a market orientation as a firm s organization-wide generation of market intelligence, dissemination of the intelligence across departments, and organizationwide responsiveness to the market intelligence (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). Jaworski and Kohli (1993) and Kohli and Jaworski (1990) state that superior customer value can best be achieved by structuring organizational activities based on customer-focused information generated by and disseminated throughout the organization. Since 1990, market orientation has been a research priority for the Marketing Science Institute. Furthermore, the subject of market orientation, in one form or another, has influenced the theory and practice of marketing strategy for nearly forty years (e.g., Kotler, 1998; Levitt, 1969; Slater and Narver, 1994; Webster, 1988a,b). Empirical support for a direct link between a firm s market orientation and its business performance has been confirmed in various studies in the United States, regardless of the organizational form that the firm may take (Caruana et al., 1997; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Narver and Slater, 1990; Ruekert, 1992). Yet, there is still a dearth of empirical research regarding market orientation and its influence on salespersons attitudes toward their job and customers. This is a concern because the salesperson is the primary contact point for the customers, and s/he is directly responsible for implementing the firm s strategies. As a company representative, the salesperson is essentially the company to the customers (Crosby et al., 1990) and reflects the firm s values, ultimately affecting the level of customer service delivered. Conceptual and empirical research on the consequences of a market orientation suggests that a firm s market orientation should lead to greater employee commitment to the organization, enhanced customer satisfaction, and increased business profitability (cf. Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). In comparison, less empirical research has been published on the relationship between market orientation and employee job attitudes than on the link between market orientation and business performance (Jaworski and Kohli,

3 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) Fig. 1. Firm market orientation and salesperson customer orientation: interpersonal and intrapersonal influences on customer service and retention. 1993; Menguc, 1996; Siguaw et al., 1994 are notable exceptions). For instance, Jaworski and Kohli (1993) find empirical support for the link between market orientation and employee commitment in their study involving senior managers; however, they call for additional research using lower level employees perceptions. Deshpande and Webster (1989) call for research using customers perceptions of the firm s customer (market) orientation. In Section 2, we begin to investigate the sales managers influence on salespersons perceptions. Specifically, our model posits relationships among several important sales manager- and salesperson-level constructs, such as the sales manager s perceptions of a firm s market orientation, his/her customer orientation and organizational commitment, as well as the salesperson s perceptions of the firm s market orientation, his/her customer orientation and attitudes toward the job and customer. Then, we extend our model to include the customers assessment of service quality and their propensity to switch suppliers (see Fig. 1). 2. A model of firm market orientation and salesperson customer orientation on customer service and retention Fig. 1 presents our conceptual model of the sales managers influence on individual salespeople s perceptions of the firm s market orientation, their own customer orientation, and their attitudes toward the job. Whereas extant studies typically investigate individual relationships between only a few of these constructs, we posit and test a model investigating all relationships simultaneously. The model posits that sales managers influence salespersons perceptions of a firm s market orientation, as well as their customer orientation, role conflict and role ambiguity. We include role ambiguity, role conflict, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in the model because previous studies suggest that the job attitudes of salespeople, as service providers, ultimately affect work outcomes such as service delivery and customers perceptions of service quality (e.g., Schneider, 1980; Shamir, 1980). The sales manager s customer orientation is positively related to the salesperson s customer orientation. Likewise, the sales manager s perception of the firm s market orientation is positively related to the salesperson s perception of the firm s market orientation The sales manager salesperson interface In this section, we examine the interface between the sales manager and the salesperson. In particular, we focus on the influence of three main factors: the sales manager s perception of the firm s market orientation, the sales manager s assessment of his/her own customer orientation, and the sales manager s organizational commitment on salesper-

4 326 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) son perceptions. These relationships have not been examined heretofore; however, this hypothesized sequence of events can be explained by three theories. First, Social Exchange Theory is used. Social Exchange Theory posits that individuals engage in reciprocal behaviors and support those who provide benefits (Adams, 1965). Therefore, when a sales manager exhibits customer-oriented behavior, the salesperson is likely to reciprocate or imitate the behavior. Second, prominent in the development of sales managers influence on salespeople is Shamir et al. s (1998) motivational theory of charismatic leadership, which posits that leaders exemplary behaviors affect followers attitudes and perceptions. Furthermore, Palich and Hom (1992) suggest that leader behavior has a direct effect on subordinates perceptions. Third, learning theory applies to our first three hypotheses. Such learning theories as associative shifting (Guthrie, 1935; Thorndike, 1932) postulate that followers learn from leaders behaviors. These theories suggest that the sales manager s behavior is critical in influencing the salespersons perspectives of the values orientation toward the customer and servicing the customer. Hoffman and Ingram (1992) argue that the service providers derive benefits from both the extrinsic (i.e., pay) and intrinsic (i.e., the work itself, co-workers, supervision, and promotion) aspects of the job. In comparing the effectiveness of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, Hoffman and Ingram (1992) find that the intrinsic factors are positively and significantly correlated with customer orientation of service providers, and play a more significant role than do extrinsic rewards in developing customer-oriented behaviors. Sales managers directly control the two intrinsic aspects of the job examined in this study, supervision and promotion. As such, one can infer that sales managers play a vital role in enhancing customer orientation among salespersons. The sales manager s customer orientation is usually exhibited through the level of meaningful support she/he offers to facilitate the salespeople s efforts to provide superior customer service. This support can be through rewards and sanctions. Burke et al. (1992) define supervisory support as the degree to which employees perceive that supervisors offer employees support, encouragement, and concern. An important means of supervisory facilitation is through the provision of key resources, such as equipment and training. Churchill et al. (1993) argue that sales managers who tailor their style and approach to the needs of subordinates and the kinds of tasks they must perform can directly facilitate a salesperson s effectiveness. A lack of facilitation offered by sales managers results in the inability of salespeople to execute tasks in desirable ways, which in turn diminishes their customer-oriented behaviors. Therefore, the sales manager s customer orientation is critical in enhancing the salesperson s customer orientation. Thus, we hypothesize the following: H 1 : The sales manager s customer orientation positively influences the salesperson s customer orientation. The sales manager plays a crucial role in transmitting organizational values from the highest levels of the organization to the organization s operating levels (e.g., the salesperson). As defined by Jones et al. (1996), leader behavior is the nature and quality of the interactions between the sales manager and the salesperson. In addition, Shamir et al. (1998) note that a leader is often seen as a representative character who embodies a unit s identity and values. Organizational commitment is the strength of an individual s identification with and involvement in an organization (cf. Mowday et al., 1979). It is a belief in the organization s goals and values. We believe that the sales manager s organizational commitment is particularly important in a market-oriented firm, because leadership theory suggests that the leaders commitment influences followers perceptions. In a related stream of literature, several scholars have argued for the key role of managerial commitment as a means of increasing the employees customer service orientation. Mohr-Jackson (1993) argues that managers must manifest a personal and affective commitment to improve the firm s service quality. George (1990) argues that managers who exhibit organizational commitment are more likely to take initiatives that help the firm and its employees deliver superior service quality. George (1990) and Zeithaml et al. (1988) posit that managers should increase their own commitment to service in order to manage boundary spanning service employees commitment to service. Ahmed and Parasuraman (1994) and Hartline and Ferrell (1996) examine a construct that stems from organizational commitment: management s commitment to service quality, which encompasses the conscious choice of quality initiatives as operational and strategic options for the firm, and engaging in activities such as providing visible quality leadership and resources for the adoption and implementation of quality initiatives (Hartline and Ferrell, 1996, p. 57). Based on these theoretical arguments, we hypothesize that the sales manager s commitment to the market-oriented organization, which, by definition, is customer-oriented, likely means that the manager provides visible service quality leadership and resources to help their salespeople deliver superior service to customers, that is, to facilitate the process of employees becoming more customer-oriented. Therefore, in addition to the customer-oriented behaviors of sales managers, the organizational commitment portrayed by the sales manager is also expected to enhance the salesperson s customer orientation. Thus, H 2 : The sales manager s organizational commitment positively influences the salesperson s customer orientation. The behavior of the sales manager is likely to be influenced by his/her perceptions of the organization s market orientation. When a sales manager displays behav-

5 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) iors consistent with the firm s market orientation in his/her interaction with the salespersons, the salespeople are likely to associate the sales manager s behavior to what the firm values, thereby enhancing the salespersons perception of the firm s market orientation. Recent research has shown an interpersonal influence of market orientation. For example, reference group theory is used to explain the impact of suppliers market orientation on distributors market orientation (Siguaw et al., 1998). Similarly, in the present research, we use reference group theory to explain the influence of the sales manager s perception of the firm s market orientation and its impact on the salesperson s perception of the firm s market orientation. Reference group theory posits two primary functions: normative and comparative. Sales managers serve as a normative reference group for salespeople when the salespeople conform to norms established by the sales manager in order to maintain an effective working relationship with sales management. Furthermore, salespeople often aspire to become managers; therefore, salespeople can use sales managers as a comparative reference group, comparing their own (salespersons ) attitudes and behaviors as a benchmark or guide for acceptable behavior. Prominent in the development of the market orientation literature is a trickle down theory, which states that market orientation emanates from the organization s leadership and filters down through the organization (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990). Other scholars have supported the position that a firm s market orientation is based on its leaders attitudes, which are an integrated part of the corporate culture (Deshpande and Webster, 1989) that permeates the organization (cf. Gronroos, 1983, 1990). A third line of reasoning is the organization-wide congruency nature. Webster (1991, p. 342) states: Employees, from the top-level executives to the operational-level workers, should have basically the same or consistent attitudes toward the marketing orientation of the firm. Thus, we hypothesize the following: H 3 : The sales manager s perception of the firm s market orientation positively influences the salesperson s perception of the firm s market orientation Salesperson role interface In this section, we investigate intrapersonal relationships concerning the salesperson s perceptions. Several researchers have found a strong association between market orientation and the organizational commitment of employees (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Siguaw et al., 1994). Beatty (1988) argues that a company s demonstrated employeeand customer-oriented values serve to enhance the employee s attachment and commitment to the firm. Siguaw et al. (1994) find a strong correspondence between the market orientation of the firm and the salesperson s customer orientation and job attitudes. Siguaw et al. (1998), in analyzing the channel relationship, argue that the distributors commitment level is strengthened by that of market-oriented suppliers because of the latter s efforts in devoting considerable resources to satisfy the former s needs. The results of Siguaw et al. s (1998) study support their hypothesis that a supplier s market orientation affects its distributor s market orientation and commitment to the relationship. Likewise, we propose that the market-oriented firm is likely to devote considerable resources (in terms of training, market information, and incentives) to facilitate the salesperson s role in satisfying customer needs. These efforts are perceived favorably by the salespersons thus enhancing their commitment to the organization. Therefore, it follows that H 4 : The greater the firm s market orientation, as perceived by the salesperson, the greater is the salesperson s organizational commitment. Siguaw et al. s (1994) study also suggests that the degree to which a firm is perceived to be market-oriented directly influences the sales force s attitudes toward customers. The authors argue that the firm s market orientation significantly influences the salesperson s customer orientation because the firm controls the resources to influence the behaviors and responses of its salespeople to customer needs. These resources include its recruitment, training, evaluation, and reward systems, which are significant factors in encouraging salespersons customer orientation. Beatty (1988) argues that the perception employees have about the extent to which their firm values employees and customers influences their actual behaviors. Williams and Attaway (1996) posit that the salesperson s customer orientation is influenced and potentially determined by the organization s culture. Williams and Attaway (1996) find that the higher the level of the selling firm s supportive organizational culture, the higher is the level of the salesperson s customer-oriented behavior. The authors define the supportive culture as analogous to a customer-oriented culture. Similarly, Kelley (1992) finds direct and positive relationships between organizational socialization, organizational climate, and service providers customer-oriented behaviors. Kelley s (1992) study supports Williams and Attaway s (1996) findings. On balance, empirical evidence indicates that the firm s market orientation plays a significant role in molding the salesperson s customer orientation. Thus, we hypothesize the following: H 5 : The greater the firm s market orientation, as perceived by the salesperson, the greater is the salesperson s customer orientation. Nonis et al. (1996) state that role stress arises when the salespersons beliefs concerning the roles that they play as

6 328 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) boundary spanners contradict the organization s established rules and procedures. The two role stress variables that Nonis et al. (1996) analyze are role conflict and role ambiguity. Role conflict occurs when a salesperson perceives incompatibility between expectations of two or more role set members, i.e., boss, customers, peers, family, etc. (Walker et al., 1975). Because of their boundary-spanning roles, industrial salespeople are intrinsically customer-oriented and inclined to act in the best interest of their customers. Supporting this argument, Saxe and Weitz (1982) and Hoffman and Ingram (1991) find empirical evidence that indicates the majority of salespeople practice customer-oriented, rather than sellingoriented, behavior. Siguaw et al. (1994) find empirical evidence that demonstrates that a highly market-oriented organization reduces the contradictory demands placed on customer-oriented salespeople, thereby lowering their levels of role conflict. The authors find empirical evidence to support their hypothesis that the higher the market orientation of the firm as perceived by the salesperson, the lower is the salesperson s role conflict. Siguaw et al. (1994) propose that the firm s market orientation indicates the level of meaningful support provided to salespeople, the capability of salespeople to provide superior value to customers, and a philosophical orientation to help guide salesperson s conduct. Babin and Boles (1996) explain that customer-oriented salespeople experience greater role conflict when they are not able to execute tasks in customer-friendly ways because of a lack of (organizational) support. Babin and Boles (1996) propose that providing key resources, such as equipment and training, is critical in facilitating employees performance. Rizzo et al. (1970) argue that a sales force that lacks this support generally experiences role conflict. The reason is that customer-oriented salespeople are not able to satisfy the customers needs when they lack firm support. Thus, the salesperson s perception of the lack of supportive resources because of the firm s lower market orientation results in greater role conflict, leading to the following hypothesis: H 6 : The greater the firm s market orientation, as perceived by the salesperson, the lower is the salesperson s role conflict. Role ambiguity, as defined by Singh (1993) and others, is the result of uncertainty regarding the standards by which job performance is judged to be adequate. The salesperson is unsure not only of what should be done and how, but also which job functions are most important to the various role partners (Behrman and Perreault, 1984; Walker et al., 1972). Babin and Boles (1996) define role ambiguity as a reflection of employees uncertainty concerning appropriate actions in commonly occurring job situations. Nonis et al. (1996) concur with other researchers (Teas, 1983; Walker et al., 1977) that, as with role conflict, role ambiguity is inherent in the salesperson s job. The reason proposed by Nonis et al. (1996) is that the large role set associated with the boundary-spanning salesperson s role involves interaction with multiple role partners. This, in turn, contributes to salespersons perceptions of uncertainty about role expectations and role performance. Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Siguaw et al. (1994) propose that market-oriented firms decrease employees role ambiguity by providing clear, well-defined guidelines to salespeople to reduce uncertainties about the amount of effort they should exert on market-oriented tasks. Siguaw et al. s (1994) empirical findings support their hypothesis that the higher the market orientation of the firm, the lower is the role ambiguity for the salesperson. In theory, market-oriented firms build systems to provide effective and timely communications that permeate all levels of the organization. Thus, there is less uncertainty regarding the firm s expectations of the salesperson s role. Babin and Boles (1996) argue that if an employee perceives that important information concerning performance expectations, methods for fulfilling those expectations, and other day-to-day events relating to performance are not distributed widely, role ambiguity increases. Therefore, we hypothesize the following: H 7 : The greater the firm s market orientation, as perceived by the salesperson, the lower is the salesperson s role ambiguity. Locke (1976) defines job satisfaction as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one s job or job experiences. Siguaw et al. (1994) propose that a high market orientation can be inferred as the preferred organizational orientation from the salespersons perspectives. The authors argue that, when the salesperson perceives the firm as being attentive to customer needs and satisfaction, and aware of competitor strategies to deliver superior value and coordinate market-related activities throughout the firm, the organization is clearly striving to support the sales force and reduce the difficulties associated with a sales position (p. 113). This supportive organizational culture encourages salespeople to be more customeroriented and reduces the level of role stress, which results in greater job satisfaction for the salespeople. The empirical finding by Siguaw et al. (1994) supports this idea that the higher the market orientation of the firm, the higher the job satisfaction of the sales force. The salesperson s perception of the firm s market orientation may be derived from his/her observations of the management s attitudes and behaviors. Kirmeyer and Lin (1987) propose that employees perceptions of a supportive management team are likely to influence employee job satisfaction directly. Babin and Boles s (1996) findings indicate that employee perceptions of supervisory support are related directly and positively to job satisfaction. The authors conclude that this finding is consistent with organizational climate literature, wherein employees perceptions

7 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) of supportive management practices influence feelings of personal well being directly. According to Churchill et al. (1976) and Jaworski and Kohli (1991), supervisory behaviors (i.e., the nature and quality of the interactions that sales managers maintain with salespeople) significantly influence salesperson job satisfaction. Similarly, Churchill et al. (1976) attribute the effect of greater job satisfaction to increased communication, which is a vital characteristic of a market-oriented firm. Brown and Peterson (1993) find supporting evidence that suggests that managerial focus on supervisory behaviors (e.g., encouraging sales managers to show greater consideration, initiate greater structure, provide greater recognition of achievements, and communicate more frequently) may be effective in improving salesperson satisfaction. Thus, H 8 : The greater the firm s market orientation, as perceived by the salesperson, the greater is the salesperson s job satisfaction. Research that examines the relationship between salesperson s customer orientation and role stress is sparse. Siguaw et al. (1994) conceptualize customer orientation as antecedent to job attitudes (i.e., role conflict, role ambiguity, job satisfaction, and organization commitment). They postulate that the firm s market orientation affects the salesperson s customer orientation, which in turn affects his/her job attitudes. However, the authors find that the customer orientation of the salesperson is unrelated to his/her job attitudes. Walker et al. (1972) argue that customers expect salespeople to satisfy their unique needs. Also, customers apply pressure to achieve conformity with their expectations. It is plausible that the more customer-oriented the salespeople are, the more effort they will exert to satisfy the needs of the customer because this is congruent with their own motivation as well as the firm s expectations. As a result, they will experience less role conflict. In terms of role ambiguity, the more customer-oriented the salespeople are, the more they will perceive their main role as that of fulfilling the customers needs. Therefore, they will perceive less conflict and ambiguity with regard to their job functions and performance. Thus, H 9 : The greater the salesperson s customer orientation, the lower is the salesperson s role conflict. H 10 : The greater the salesperson s customer orientation, the lower is the salesperson s role ambiguity The salesperson customer interface In this section, we examine the impact of salesperson behavior and work attitudes on two important customer variables. Using existing theories, we link salesperson job satisfaction to customers perceived service quality and salesperson customer orientation to customers propensity to switch suppliers. These relationships have not been examined in the marketing literature heretofore. Atuahene-Gima (1995) defines service quality as the activities by the firm to enhance the intangible aspects of the organization, such as delivery, expertise, and appearance of contact personnel and the sales force. This definition underscores the salesperson s role as a service provider through his/her interactions with customers. Indeed, Bitner (1990) argues that during the service encounter, employee (salesperson) behavioral performance is the service, as customers perceive it. Several authors have hypothesized that satisfied customer contact employees are more likely to engage in behaviors that assist customers (cf. Locke and Latham, 1990; Weatherly and Tansik, 1993). Heskett et al. (1997) find a strong relationship between employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction in their service profit chain study. The Satisfaction Mirror suggests that this relationship is selfreinforcing in service settings, wherein satisfied customers contribute to employee satisfaction and vice versa. Heskett et al. (1997) explain that satisfied employees tend to be more loyal and productive, thus, providing better service quality and enhancing customer satisfaction. Schneider (1980) finds evidence that job satisfaction is a primary reason why employees deliver good service. In recent research, Hoffman and Ingram (1992) find support for the notion that overall job satisfaction is positively correlated with customer-oriented behavior, and Hartline and Ferrell s (1996) results show that employee job satisfaction increases customers perceived service quality. Thus, consistent with prior research, we posit the following: H 11 : Salesperson job satisfaction increases the customer s perception of service quality. Keaveney (1995) notes that customer switching behavior damages market share and profitability of service firms, yet this topic has remained virtually unexplored in the marketing literature. It is vital to examine the customer s switching behavior because empirical evidence has shown that the costs of acquiring new customers may exceed investments made in retaining and/or building relationships with existing ones (Berry, 1995). In addition, switching decreases loyalty and a customer once lost is hard to regain (Diehl and Gillman, 1997). The aforementioned studies examine switching behavior on the part of consumers. In contrast, we focus on customer propensity to switch in a business-tobusiness industrial context. Here, we examine whether the salesperson s customer orientation, as perceived by the customers, can influence the customer s propensity to switch suppliers. Research has shown that employee s attitudinal and behavioral responses can affect customers perceptions of the service encounter and their judgments of service quality (Bitner, 1990). Crosby et al. (1990) suggest that the sales-

8 330 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) person is essentially the company because the salesperson is the primary, if not the sole, contact point for customers. Therefore, the quality of the salesperson customer relationship is directly influenced by the salesperson. Humphreys and Williams (1996) propose that customer orientation focuses not only on what buyers receive (technical product attributes) but also on how buyers and sellers interact (interpersonal process attributes). The authors find that interpersonal process attributes of the total market offering can be significant determinants of customer satisfaction, which in turn underscore the significant effect of salespersons behavior in optimizing customer value and satisfaction. Kohli and Jaworski (1990) posit a positive relationship between the firm s market orientation and customer satisfaction, whereas Siguaw et al. (1994, p. 113) posit the following: The degree to which a firm is perceived to be market-oriented is a direct and significant factor in determining the manner in which the sales force will behave in interactions with customers. This statement suggests that the firm s market orientation influences the customer orientation of the salesperson, which ultimately determines the customer s response. Accordingly, we propose that the higher the salesperson s customer orientation, the lower the customer s propensity to switch suppliers. Stated formally, H 12 : Salesperson customer orientation reduces the customer s propensity to switch suppliers. 3. Data analysis and results 3.1. Data collection and samples We collected data to test our hypotheses by means of a survey. We chose the survey method because survey research is best adapted to obtaining personal and social facts, beliefs, and attitudes (Kerlinger, 1973). Our samples consist of a national consumer goods manufacturer s sales force and retail trade customers. The salespeople work in the consumer goods channel and are trade salespeople (see Weitz et al., 1998). Members of this sales force sell directly to grocery retail accounts and are responsible for selling, delivering, stocking, and maintaining shelf, display, and backroom stock. We obtained the permission and assistance of the manufacturer in garnering the cooperation of the sales force for this study. Two weeks before the initial mailing of the surveys, an executive of the firm sent a letter to the homes of each sales manager and salesperson notifying him/ her of the purpose and importance of the research, and that a survey was forthcoming. First, we mailed packets containing a cover letter, a copy of the survey, a Scantron scoring form, and a stamped return envelope to the home of each salesperson, which reinforced the confidentiality of the research process. Our letter explained the data collection process and assured the respondents of confidentiality. Each salesperson completed the survey in private and returned it directly to the first author. There were three mailings to encourage responses. Each time, we mailed a questionnaire and a follow-up letter to nonrespondents. Of the 544 members of the sales force, 284 salespeople returned a completed survey a 52% response rate. The salespeople provided their team numbers, which we used to match the salespeople with the appropriate sales managers. Out of 40 sales managers who were sent a questionnaire, 34 completed a survey similar to the one that their salespeople completed an 85% response rate. Again, we mailed packets containing a cover letter, a copy of the survey, a scantron scoring form, and a stamped return envelope to the home of each sales manager, and each sales manager completed the survey in private and returned it directly to the first author. The manufacturer provided a list of retail trade customers (retail store buyers) by sales territory, which we used to randomly select customers to participate in the study. On average, each salesperson calls on approximately 12 customers. We selected at least one customer for each salesperson and mailed packets containing a cover letter, a copy of the survey, a scantron scoring form, and a stamped return envelope to each customer s store. The envelopes were addressed to the store manager, and the cover letter asked the store manager to forward the survey to the person in the store with the buying authority and the most contact with salespeople. Again, we reinforced the confidentiality of the research process. Our letter explained the data collection process and assured the respondents of confidentiality. Each customer completed the survey and returned it directly to the first author. Customers were asked to identify the salesperson by name, which allowed us to match customers to salespeople. 74 of 284 customers returned a completed survey, yielding a 26% response rate. 51 of the 74 surveys returned were usable. 72 percent of the sales managers in the sample had been with the selling company for 10 or more years, 38% of the salespeople reported 15 or more years, and 22% said 5 to less than 10 years with the company. 88 percent of the customers reported being customers of the selling company for 5 to less than 10 years and 47% of the customers reported a contact frequency with the salesperson of at least once a week. After obtaining data from these three sources (sales managers, salespeople, and retail trade customers), we formed 51 triads. Each triad consisted of a sales manager matched with the appropriate salesperson matched with at least one of the salesperson s customers. With this study design, we are able to focus on the dynamics that make up individual transactions (Churchill et al., 1985). Again, the need for studying the interactions between sales managers and salespeople, and between salespeople and customers, has been emphasized in the literature (cf. Cronin, 1994). The

9 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) Table 1 Definitions of the variables in the model Variable Definition Market orientation The organizational culture that most effectively and efficiently creates necessary behaviors for the creation of superior value for buyers and, thus, continuous superior performance for the business (cf. Narver and Slater, 1990). Customer orientation Role conflict Role ambiguity Job satisfaction Organizational commitment Service quality Propensity to switch suppliers The degree to which salespeople engage in customer-oriented selling by trying to help their customers make purchase decisions that will satisfy customer needs (cf. Saxe and Weitz, 1982). The degree of incongruent expectations related to one s role performance (cf. Rizzo et al., 1970). The lack of clarity of role expectations and the degree of uncertainty related to one s role performance (cf. Rizzo et al., 1970). Feeling or affective responses toward components of the work situation (cf. Smith et al., 1969). The strength of an individual s identification with and involvement in an organization (cf. Mowday et al., 1979). Customer perceptions of service (cf. Leonard et al., 1990). An unfavorable behavioral intention stemming from customers perceiving service performance to be inferior (cf. Zeithaml et al., 1996). See also Keaveney (1995). results that we report in this paper are based upon examining these 51 triads Operationalizations of the variables Table 1 contains the definitions of each variable in the model. The operationalization of each construct consisted of multi-item scales based on scales typically used in the literature. When necessary, we calculated a score for a construct by averaging, without weighting, the scores obtained for each scale. Previous researchers calculate scores in this manner (cf. Mowday et al., 1979; Rizzo et al., 1970; Saxe and Weitz, 1982; Siguaw et al., 1994). They also find that averaging across items can capture the domains of each construct better than each individual item (cf. Brown and Peterson, 1993; Hartline and Ferrell, 1996). A discussion of each construct follows. To measure market orientation, we adapted Narver and Slater s (1990) scale, which measures the firm s orientation toward the customer, its competitors, and its interfunctional coordination. Their scale contains 15 Likert items geared more toward top managers of firms. Prefacing the scale is the question, To what extent does your business firm engage in the following practices? Each item in the scale is measured on a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 (the firm does not engage in the practice at all)to7(the firm engages in the practice to a great extent). The scale includes questions about the firm s commitment to understanding and serving customers. Our modified version of Narver and Slater s (1990) scale has 10 items and is more appropriate for lower level employees (e.g., salespeople) to answer. In other words, we eliminated questions pertaining to what only top managers could answer (e.g., Top managers discuss competitor s strategies and Functional integration is a part of strategy making ). The measure of customer orientation was taken from Saxe and Weitz s (1982) Sales Orientation Customer Orientation Scale (SOCO Scale). This scale measures the degree to which a salesperson engages in customer-oriented selling (i.e., the degree to which salespeople practice the marketing concept by trying to help their customers make purchase decisions that satisfy customer needs). The SOCO Scale consists of 24 items related to specific actions a salesperson might take when interacting with buyers. Items are scored on a nine-point scale ranging from true for none of my customers NEVER to true for all my customers ALWAYS. We measured role conflict and role ambiguity using the role perception scales developed by Rizzo et al. (1970). [The Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (RHL) scales are widely used in personal selling research. Although some sales researchers have criticized the RHL scales on the basis of face validity, the consensus is that the scales are appropriate for studies where the interest is in global or general role conflict and role ambiguity (McGee et al., 1989; Netemeyer et al., 1990; Shepherd and Fine, 1994). This criterion is applicable to the present study]. Collectively, role conflict and role ambiguity represent the two key elements in a sales representative s role stress (Behrman and Perreault, 1984). The role conflict scale consists of seven items and the role ambiguity scale contains six items. For each scale, participants responded to a series of statements about job activities using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very false) to7(very true). We used the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss et al., 1967) to measure job satisfaction. Each item in this scale is measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). The MSQ has an extensive history of psychometric analysis. The measure of organizational commitment was taken from Mowday et al. (1979) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). The scale contains 15 Likert items scored on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree). For the customer data, we asked an overall service quality question measured on a scale of 1 to 9 (1 = low, 9=high). Propensity to switch was also measured on a ninepoint scale (1 = low, 9=high). This scale was adapted from the behavioral consequences of service quality scale (Zeithaml et al., 1996). Customers were asked an overall question ( To what extent would you switch to another manufacturer if you experienced a problem with service? ) and three specific questions ( To what extent would you do more business with the company in the next few years?

10 332 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) Table 2 Means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations Measures Mean S.D. MMO MCO MOC SMO SCO RC RA JS OC CSQ CPTS Mgr. market orientation (MMO) (.93) Mgr. customer orientation (MCO) (.79) Mgr. organizational commitment (MOC) a.250 (.77) S/P market orientation (SMO) (.90) S/P customer orientation (SCO) b.000 (.74) S/P role conflict (RC) b b.367 a (.74) S/P role ambiguity (RA) a a (.69) S/P job satisfaction (JS) a a.581 a (.90) S/P organizational commitment (SOC) a a.383 a.757 a (.86) Customer service quality (CSQ) (n/a) Customer propensity to switch supplier (CPTS) b (.71) Coefficient a values are reported along the diagonal. P <.01. b P <.05. Do less business with the company in the next few years? and Consider the [selling] company as the preferred supplier? ). 4. The structural model Consistent with accepted scale-development procedures for assessing reliability and validity, we analyzed the measurement scales with a principal component factor analysis (Churchill, 1979; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). The coefficient a values were near or above.70. The descriptive statistics of each construct appear in Table 2. We began our analysis with a path analytic approach using structural equations modeling (SEM) to test the relationships in Fig. 1. We ran the theoretical model (Fig. 1) with just the appropriate structural parameters free to estimate. This procedure provided a simultaneous test of the interrelationships among the variables in our model in a statistically efficient manner (cf. Hair et al., 1992). Fig. 2. Firm market orientation and salesperson customer orientation: interpersonal and intrapersonal influences on customer service and retention.

11 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) The theoretical model, with the appropriate structural parameters free to estimate, yielded the following fit statistics. The chi-square statistic was small (c 2 = 51.1, df =37, P=.06). The relative chi-square (c 2 /df) equals 1.38 a ratio in the range of 1 2 is indicative of an acceptable fit between the theoretical model and the sample data (Carmines and McIver, 1981, p. 80). The goodness-of-fit statistics were GFI=.85, IFI=.90, CFI=.89, and TLI=.84. The RMSEA, which is a measure of the residuals, equaled.09. The PRATIO (the parsimony ratio)=.67. The Akaike information criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1973, 1987) is 109.1, and the Browne-Cudeck criterion (BCC; Browne-Cudeck, 1989) is On balance, these fit indices suggest an acceptable model. Therefore, we did not reject the model and continued with the analysis (see Fig. 2). Next, we discuss the path coefficients. Table 3 depicts the results discussed in Section 5. Table 3 Maximum likelihood estimates of structural parameters and model fit statistics Hypotheses Hypothesized paths Standardized coefficients t-values Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 6 Hypothesis 7 Hypothesis 8 Hypothesis 9 Hypothesis 10 Hypothesis 11 Hypothesis 12 Sales manager s customer orientation! (+) salesperson s customer orientation Sales manager s organizational commitment! (+) salesperson s customer orientation Sales manager s perception of market orientation! (+) salesperson s perception of market orientation Salesperson s perception of market orientation! (+) organization commitment Salesperson s perception of market orientation! (+) customer orientation Salesperson s perception of market orientation! ( ) role conflict Salesperson s perception of market orientation! ( ) role ambiguity Salesperson s perception of market orientation! (+) job satisfaction Salesperson s customer orientation! ( ) role conflict Salesperson s customer orientation! ( ) role ambiguity Salesperson job satisfaction! (+) customer s perception of service quality Salesperson customer orientation! ( ) customer s propensity to switch suppliers n/s n/s n/s n/s c 2 = 51.1 ( P=.06), goodness-of-fit index=.85, incremental fit index=.90, Tucker Lewis index=.84, root mean square error approximation=.09. Hypothesis 2 is significant at.10; Hypothesis 4 at.01; Hypothesis 6 at.05; Hypotheses 7 9 at.01; Hypothesis 10 at.10; and Hypothesis 12 at Sales manager salesperson interface In Hypothesis 1, we predicted that the sales manager s customer orientation would positively affect the salesperson s customer orientation. This path is not significant (t = 0.78); Hypothesis 1 is not supported. Hypothesis 2 predicts that the sales manager s organizational commitment positively influences the salesperson s customer orientation. This path is significant (b=.26, t = 1.6, P <.10); Hypothesis 2 is supported. Hypothesis 3 suggests that the sales manager s perception of the firm s market orientation positively influences the salesperson s perception of the firm s market orientation. This path is not significant (t = 0.13). We do not accept Hypothesis 3. Regarding the interface between the sales manager and salesperson, the results of Hypothesis 2 suggest that the sales manager can significantly influence the orientation of the salesperson s attitude and behavior toward the customer through the sales manager s commitment to the sales organization. This finding is consistent with the leadership theories cited earlier in the paper Salesperson role interface Hypotheses 4 10 address the intrapersonal relationships among the salesperson constructs. Specifically, we looked at the separate influences of the orientation of the firm and the salesperson s individual orientation toward the customer (i.e., a customer orientation) on salesperson job attitudes. Hypothesis 4 predicts that the firm s market orientation, as perceived by the salesperson, would increase the salesperson s organizational commitment. This path is significant (b=.54, t =4.5, P <.01); Hypothesis 4 is supported. In Hypothesis 5, we predicted that the firm s market orientation, as perceived by the salesperson, would increase the salesperson s customer orientation. This path is not significant (t = 0.03); Hypothesis 5 is not accepted. Hypothesis 6 suggests that the salesperson s perception of the firm s market orientation lowers the salesperson s role conflict; Hypothesis 6 is supported (b =.37, t = 2.7, P <.05). Hypothesis 7 predicts that the salesperson s perception of the firm s market orientation lowers the salesperson s role ambiguity; Hypothesis 7 is supported (b =.60, t = 5.3, P <.01). Hypothesis 8 suggests that the salesperson s perception of the firm s market orientation increases the salesperson s job satisfaction; Hypothesis 8 is supported (b=.56, t = 4.8, P <.01). Hypothesis 9 predicts that the salesperson s customer orientation would reduce the salesperson s role conflict; Hypothesis 9 is supported (b =.37, t = 3.0, P <.01). Hypothesis 10 suggests that the salesperson s customer orientation would also reduce the salesperson s role ambiguity. This hypothesis is supported (b =.14, t = 1.30, P <.10). In sum, the results suggest that the perceived market orientation of the firm does not affect the salesperson s customer orientation; however, it does serve an important

12 334 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) role: it raises the salesperson s organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and reduces perceived ambiguous and conflictual demands associated with the sales job. These results support previous conclusions that a firm s market orientation has positive effects on salesperson job attitudes (cf. Siguaw et al., 1994; Menguc, 1996). Also, in addition to the firm s market orientation, the salesperson s customer orientation lowers perceived conflictual and ambiguous demands from role partners Salesperson customer interface Finally, based on our literature review, we present the hypotheses concerning the interaction between the salesperson and the customer. In Hypothesis 11, we predict that salesperson job satisfaction increases customer-perceived service quality. The coefficient is in the right direction; however, this hypothesis is not supported (b=.10, t=.73); Hypothesis 11 is not supported. Hypothesis 12 predicts that the salesperson s customer orientation would reduce the customer s propensity to switch suppliers; Hypothesis 12 is supported (b =.29, t = 2.1, P <.05). The results from Hypothesis 11 suggest that the salesperson s job satisfaction does not affect the customer s perception of service quality. This finding differs from Heskett et al. s (1997) conceptualization of the service profit chain and from Hartline and Ferrell s (1996) results. However, note that Hartline and Ferrell (1996) analyze the relationship between customer contact employees job satisfaction and hotel guests perceptions of service quality. In our study, the customers are supermarket store managers. Perhaps in a direct selling situation (i.e., selling to and serving consumers), the contact employee s job satisfaction is a more important determinant of customers perceived service quality; in a business-to-business context, the customer s perception of service quality is influenced by a more varied and complex set of factors than that of a consumer context. The results from Hypothesis 12 suggest that the salesperson s customer orientation plays an important role in retaining customers. Taken together, Hypotheses 2, 5, and 12 highlight the importance of the sales manager s organizational commitment on the salesperson s orientation toward serving customers (i.e., customer orientation) and, more than the firm s market orientation, the sales manager s commitment to the selling organization significantly influences the salesperson s customer orientation, which ultimately affects customer loyalty. Next, we discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of this study. 5. Implications The current study addresses the call for more empirical research concerning the effects of market orientation (cf. Han et al., 1998; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Siguaw et al., 1998; Slater and Narver, 1997). In particular, we sought to add to the conceptual and empirical research on market orientation s influence on salespersons customer orientation and job attitudes and customers perceptions of service and loyalty. It is our contention that, since salespeople are the eyes and ears of the company, researching salespersons perceptions of the firm s strategic in this case, market-orientation is critical to improving customer service and retention. We formed triads of sales managers, salespeople, and customers from survey data. This allowed us to examine three critical interfaces in buyer seller relationships: the sales manager salesperson, the salesperson role, and the salesperson customer interfaces. Borrowing from market orientation, social exchange, leadership, and reference group theories (Adams, 1965; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990; Schriesheim, 1978), we posited that the firm s market orientation and the sales managers customer orientation influence salespersons attitudes and behaviors toward the customer and ultimately customers perceptions of service and propensity to switch suppliers. Our results inform the issue concerning sales manager and company influences on the work attitudes and behavior of salespeople. The results indicate that the salespersons perceptions of the firm s market orientation do serve an important role by raising the salesperson s organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and reducing perceived ambiguous and conflictual demands associated with the sales job. These results support previous conclusions that a firm s market orientation has positive effects on salesperson job attitudes (cf. Siguaw et al., 1994; Menguc, 1996). Thus, it appears that the nurturing, supportive environment of a firm that focuses on the customer (cf. Hartline and Ferrell, 1996; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Siguaw et al., 1994; Menguc, 1996) does influence salespersons perceptions of their work but not salesperson customer orientation. As well, the sales manager s customer orientation does not influence salesperson customer orientation. Instead, the sales manager s organizational commitment seems to influence the salesperson s customer orientation positively. More importantly, the salesperson s customer orientation lowers perceived conflictual and ambiguous demands from role partners and reduces the customer s propensity to switch suppliers. This finding is a point of departure from Siguaw et al. s (1994) suggestion that salesperson customer orientation does not relate to salesperson job attitudes. It is interesting that we did not find that the sales manager s perception of the firm s market orientation significantly influences the salesperson s perception of the same. This implies that salespeople perceive the actions of the firm separately from the actions of the sales manager. In other words, to the salesperson the sales manager represents a part of the firm and its strategic intentions, but the firm and its sales managers are distinct entities both are important; both influence salesperson perceptions but with very different results.

13 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) One overarching theme of this research is, if salespeople perceive their firm to be highly market-oriented, then they infer that the firm supports their efforts to meet customer needs by giving clear guidance and direction. This in turn reduces perceptions of ambiguous and incompatible demands and increases job satisfaction and commitment to the organization. The firm s market orientation does not influence the salesperson s customer orientation, but the sales manager s organizational commitment does affect the salesperson s customer orientation. These findings underscore the importance of having sales managers on the front line who are committed to the organization s goals of serving and satisfying customers. In terms of theoretical contributions, we have added to the existing literature in several important ways. (1) We expanded and tested some limits of market orientation s influence on salesperson perceptions and behavior. (2) We found support for sales manager organizational commitment being theoretically linked to salesperson customer orientation. (3) We also found that a strong salesperson s customer orientation tends to reduce the buyers switching behavior in a business-to-business context. (4) Some research has suggested that salesperson role conflict and ambiguity are inherent parts of the sales job with which salespeople must cope (see Babakus et al., 1996; Sager, 1994; Singh, 1993). However, our research suggests that the combination of a market orientation, which provides clear and consistent direction for the sales force, as well as management s commitment to the organization s goals of serving customers are related to lower levels of salespersons role conflict and ambiguity. This last finding is supported by Berry (1995, p. 62): A customer service strategy is a mission... A mission is galvanizing; it is a goal, a direction, a calling. It binds people in an organization together in a common purpose. A true mission focuses people s efforts. Finally, a large body of evidence supports the notion that satisfied employees usually work more effectively than frustrated ones and therefore job satisfaction influences customer responses (cf. Gross and Etzioni, 1985; Ostroff, 1992). However, our data did not show support for the hypothesis that salesperson job satisfaction leads to customers perceived service quality. Again, this finding differs from Heskett et al. s (1997) conceptualization of the service profit chain and from Hartline and Ferrell s (1996) results. There are a few plausible explanations for this result. The result, of course, could be due to a small sample size, which masked the true effect. Another explanation for the lack of a positive relationship between salespersons job satisfaction and customers perceived service quality is that some salespeople may achieve job satisfaction by limiting the demands placed upon them to provide extraordinary customer service. In other words, perhaps salespeople can be satisfied with such job-related factors as pay, co-workers, and supervision, but they develop defense mechanisms for avoiding and/or minimizing the demands placed upon them by customers. A third plausible explanation for this particular finding is that most of the studies in this research area test the impact of employee satisfaction on consumers perceptions, not industrial customers perceptions. We suggested that perhaps in a direct selling situation (i.e., selling to and serving consumers), the contact employee s job satisfaction is a more important determinant of customers perceived service quality than in a business-to-business context. Future research should investigate the relationship between salesperson work attitudes and customers perceptions of service quality. An examination of whether selling context moderates the employee job satisfaction customer-perceived service quality relationship is warranted. A more refined analysis of job satisfaction and customer-perceived service quality would provide useful insight into the relationship. From a managerial perspective, the results of our study, first of all, highlight the importance of a firm s market orientation on salesperson job attitudes. Firms can help salespeople reduce role conflict and ambiguity and increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment by demonstrating a commitment to customers, generating market information, disseminating the information to the sales force, and creating a cooperative spirit among departments in the selling organization (i.e., creating a market orientation). Second, this research illustrates the importance of sales managers recognizing the impact of their organizational commitment on salespersons attitudes toward customers. Salespeople seem to be able to sense the sales manager s commitment to the organization, which can affect the salesperson s behavior toward customers and, ultimately, customer retention. Thus, sales managers must lead by example, being careful to show their commitment to the market-oriented organization s goals and values. In a market-oriented firm, sales managers should emphasize the importance of keeping customer satisfaction at the core of all sales and service initiatives. Third, while conveying market information to the sales force, the challenge is for managers to provide the climate with the right amount of emphasis on the long-term horizon while attaining necessary, short-term goals. A salesperson s customer orientation can go a long way toward retaining customers, but the organization s front line leadership sales managers must do more than communicate the firm s goals of creating customer value. They must create an environment that nurtures and facilitates the process of satisfying customers, and demonstrate a commitment to the organization and its customers. Top managers can help sales managers foster the nurturing environment that is mandatory in today s fast-paced, rapidly changing, highly competitive business world. Finally, the results of our study point to the importance of proper staffing. Because the employee customer interface is the most important determinant of customers responses

14 336 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) (cf. Hartline and Ferrell, 1996), market-oriented firms must seek to hire customer-oriented salespeople. By recruiting customer-oriented salespeople, firms can ensure that customers needs are satisfied and interactions are mutually rewarding between salespersons and customers. Such highquality salesperson customer relationships help to reduce customers propensities to switch suppliers. More research is needed to help firms identify customer-oriented salespeople. With regard to the limitations of our study, the primary limitation concerns the issue of external validity, particularly generalizability, which stems from the use of a sales force from a single company at a single time. This may have led to sampling artifacts and ignored the potential temporal dynamics of the relationships. Therefore, generalizations beyond the specific context of this research (i.e., businessto-business salespeople employed at a particular firm) must be guarded. We acknowledge this limitation but believe that the selected research design cross-sectional, survey methodology was appropriate in this instance. Our use of sales managers and salespeople from a single company at a single point in time gave us a richer, deeper understanding of the sales force s perceptions of the firm s market orientation, its influence on salespeople s job attitudes, and customers perceptions of service and loyalty. It is important to note that the unit of analysis was at the individual level, not the organizational level. Surveys are appropriate in this type of attitudinal research (Kerlinger, 1973). Obviously, more studies using samples drawn from various industries are needed. For future research, we suggest testing for convergent findings using multiple methodologies across different sales settings. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Judy Siguaw, PhD, Cornell and Steve Brown, PhD, University of Houston for their Appendix A. Factor analysis Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Sales managers perceptions of the firm s market orientation MgMrk MgMrk MgMrk MgMrk MgMrk MgMrk MgMrk MgMrk MgMrk MgMrk Sales managers customer orientation MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust MgCust Sales managers organizational commitment MgOrgCm MgOrgCm MgOrgCm

15 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) Appendix A (continued) Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Sales managers organizational commitment MgOrgCm MgOrgCm MgOrgCm MgOrgCm MgOrgCm MgOrgCm MgOrgCm MgOrgCm MgOrgCm MgOrgCm MgOrgCm MgOrgCm Salespersons perceptions of the firm s market orientation Mrk Mrk Mrk Mrk Mrk Mrk Mrk Mrk Mrk Mrk Salespersons customer orientation Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Cust Salespersons role conflict Rcon Rcon Rcon Rcon Rcon Rcon Rcon Salespersons role ambiguity Ramb Ramb Ramb Ramb (continued on next page)

16 338 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) Appendix A (continued) Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Salespersons role ambiguity Ramb Ramb Salespersons job satisfaction JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat JobSat Salespersons organizational commitment OrgCom OrgCom OrgCom OrgCom OrgCom OrgCom OrgCom OrgCom OrgCom OrgCom OrgCom OrgCom OrgCom OrgCom OrgCom Customers propensity to switch PTS PTS PTS helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Thanks also to Sean Peng and Eva Maddox for their contributions. References Adams J. Inequity in Social Exchange. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 1965;2: Ahmed I, Parasuraman A. Environmental and positional antecedents of management commitment to service quality: a conceptual framework. In: Swartz TA, Bowen DE, Brown SW, editors. Advances in services marketing and management, vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; p Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Csaki F, editors. Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on information theory. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado; p Akaike H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 1987;52: Apasu Y, Ichikawa S, Graham J. Corporate culture and sales force management in Japan and America. J Pers Sell Sales Manage 1987;7(November): Atuahene-Gima K. An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation on new product performance: a contingency approach. J Prod Innov Manag 1995;12(September): Babakus E, Cravens DW, Johnston M, Moncrief WC. Examining the role of organizational variables in the salesperson job satisfaction model. J Pers Sell Sales Manage 1996;16(Summer):33 46.

17 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) Babin BJ, Boles JS. The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction. J Retail 1996;72(Spring): Beatty SE. An exploratory study of organizational values with a focus on people orientation. J Retail 1988;64(Winter): Behrman DN, Perrault Jr WD. A role stress model of the performance and satisfaction of industrial salespersons. J Mark 1984;48(Fall):9 21. Berry LL. On great service. New York: Free Press; Bitner MJ. Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. J Mark 1990;54(April): Brown SP, Peterson RA. Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects. J Mark Res 1993;30(February): Browne MW, Cudeck R. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behav Res 1989;24: Burke MJ, Borucki CC, Hurley AE. Reconceptualizing psychological climate in a retail service environment: a multiple-stakeholder perspective. J Appl Psychol 1992;77(October): Carmines EG, McIver JP. Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In: Bohrnstedt GW, Borgatta EF, editors. Social measurement: current issues. Beverly Hills: Sage; p Caruana AB, Ramaseshan B, Ewing MT. The link between market orientation and performance in the Australian public sector. Asian J Mark 1997;6(December): Case J. Corp Cult 1996;18(November): Churchill GA. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 1979;16(February): Churchill GA, Ford NM, Walker OC. Organizational climate and job satisfaction in the salesforce. J Mark Res 1976;13(November): Churchill GA, Ford NM, Steven WH, Walker OC. The determinants of salesperson performance: a meta analysis. J Mark Res 1985;22(May): Churchill GA, Ford NM, Walker OC. Sales force management. 4th ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin; Cronin JJ. Analysis of the buyer seller dyad: the social relations model. J Pers Sell Sales Manage 1994;14(Summer): Crosby LA, Evans KR, Cowles D. Relationship quality in services selling: an interpersonal influence perspectives. J Mark 1990;54(July): Deschpande R, Farley JU, Webster Jr FE. Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis. J Mark 1993;57(January): Deshpande R, Webster Jr FE. Organizational culture and marketing: defining the research agenda. J Mark 1989;53(January):3 15. Diehl K, Gillman R. Why your customers switch. Public Util Fortn 1997; 135(April): George WR. Internal marketing and organizational behavior: a partnership in developing customer conscious employees at every level. J Bus Res 1990;20(January): Gerbing DW, Anderson JC. An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. J Mark Res 1988; 25(May): Gronroos C. Strategic management and marketing in the service sector. Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series, Report No Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute; Gronroos C. Relationship approach to marketing in service contexts: the marketing and organizational behavior interface. J Bus Res 1990; 20(January):3 11. Gross E, Etzioni A. Organizations in society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; Guthrie ER. The psychology of learning. New York: Harper and Row; Hair Jr JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. New York: Macmillan; Han JK, Kim N, Srivastava RK. Market orientation and organizational performance: is innovation a missing link? J Mark 1998;62(October): Hartline MD, Ferrell OC. The management of customer contact service employees: an empirical investigation. J Mark 1996;60(October): Heskett JL, Sasser WE, Schlesinger LA. The service profit chain. NY: Free Press; Hoffman KD, Ingram TN. Creating customer-oriented employees: the case in home health care. J Health Care Mark 1991;11(June): Hoffman KD, Ingram TN. Service provider job satisfaction and customeroriented performance. J Serv Mark 1992;6(2): Humphreys MA, Williams MR. Exploring the relative effects of salesperson interpersonal process attributes and technical product attributes on customer satisfaction. J Pers Sell Sales Manage 1996;16(Summer): Jaworski BJ, Kohli AK. Supervisor feedback: alternative types and their impact on salespeople s performance and satisfaction. J Mark Res 1991;28(May): Jaworski BJ, Kohli AK. Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. J Mark 1993;57(July): Jones E, Kantak DM, Futrell CM, Johnston MW. Leader behavior, work attitudes, and turnover of salespeople: an integrative study. J Pers Sell Sales Manage 1996;16(Spring): Keaveney SM. Customer switching behavior in service industries: an exploratory study. J Mark 1995;59(April): Kelley SW. Developing customer orientation among service employees. J Acad Mark Sci 1992;20(Winter): Kerlinger FN. Foundations of behavioral research. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; Kirmeyer SL, Lin T-R. Social support: its relationship to observed communication with peers and superiors. Acad Manage J 1987;30(1): Kohli AK, Jaworski BJ. Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. J Mark 1990;54(April):1 18. Kolb JA. Leader behaviors affecting team performance: similarities and differences between leader/member assessment. J Bus Commun 1995; 32(July): Kotler P. Marketing management. 9th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Leonard LB, Valarie AZ, Parasuraman A. Five imperatives for improving service quality. Sloan Manage Rev Summer 1990;31(4): Levitt T. The marketing mode. New York: McGraw-Hill; Locke EA. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In: Dunnette M, editor. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally; p Locke EA, Latham GP. A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; McGee GW, Ferguson Jr CE, Seers A. Role conflict and role ambiguity: do the scales measure these two constructs? J Appl Psychol 1989;74 (1989): Menguc B. The influence of market orientation of the firm on sales force behavior and attitudes: further empirical results. Int J Res Mark 1996; 13(July): Michaels RE, Day RL. Measuring customer orientation of salespeople: a replication with industrial buyers. J Mark Res 1985;22(November): Mohr-Jackson I. Comparing total quality with market orientation: an indepth interview approach. In: Varadarajan R, Jaworski B, editors. AMA winter educators conference proceedings. Chicago: American Marketing Association; p Mowday RT, Steers RM, Porter LW. The measurement of organizational commitment. J Vocat Behav 1979;14: Narver JC, Slater SF. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. J Mark 1990;54(October): Netemeyer RG, Johnston M, Burton S. Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equations framework. J Appl Psychol 1990; 75(April): Nonis SA, Sager JK, Kumar K. Salespeople s use of upward influence tactics (UITs) in coping with role stress. J Acad Mark Sci 1996;24 (Winter): Ostroff C. The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and per-

18 340 E. Jones et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) formance: an organizational level analysis. J Appl Psychol 1992; Palich LE, Hom PW. The impact of leader power and behavior on leadership perceptions: a LISTREL test of an expanded categorization theory of leadership model. Group Organ Manage 1992;17(September): Parasuraman A. Customer oriented corporate cultures are crucial to services marketing success. J Serv Mark 1987;1(Summer): Richmond VP, Wagner JP, McCroskey JC. The impact of perceptions of leadership style, use of power, and conflict management style on organizational outcomes. Commun Q 1993;31(Winter): Rizzo JR, House RJ, Lirtzman SI. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Adm Sci Q 1970;15(June): Ruekert RW. Developing a market orientation: an organizational strategy perspective. Int J Res Mark 1992;9(August): Sager JK. A structural model depicting salespeople s job stress. J Acad Mark Sci 1994;22(January): Saxe R, Weitz BA. The SOCO scale: a measure of the customer orientation of salespeople. J Mark Res 1982;19(August): Schneider B. The service organization: climate is crucial. Organ Dyn 1980;9(Autumn): Schriesheim CA. Development, validation, and application of new leadership behavior and expectancy research instruments. Doctoral dissertation, College of Administrative Science, Ohio State University; Shamir B. Between service and servility: role conflict in subordinate service roles. Hum Relat 1980;33(October): Shamir B, Zakay E, Breinin E, Popper M. Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: subordinates attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors appraisals of leader performance. Acad Manage J 1998; 41(August): Shepherd CD, Fine LM. Role conflict and role ambiguity reconsidered. J Pers Sell Sales Manage 1994;14: Siguaw JA, Brown G, Widing II RE. The influence of the market orientation of the firm on sales force behavior and attitudes. J Mark Res 1994; 31(February): Siguaw JA, Simpson PM, Baker TL. Effects of supplier market orientation on distributor market orientation and the channel relationship: the distributor perspective. J Mark 1998;62(July): Singh J. Boundary role ambiguity: facets, determinants, and impacts. J Mark 1993;57(April):11 3. Slater SF, Narver JC. Market orientation, customer value, and superior performance. Bus Horiz 1994;37(March April):22 8. Slater SF, Narver JC. Deloping a customer value-based theory of the firm. J Acad Mark Sci 1997;25(Spring): Smith PC, Kendall LM, Hulin CL. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: a strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally; Teas RK. Supervisory behavior, role stress, and the job satisfaction of industrial salespeople. J Mark Res 1983;20(February): Thorndike EL. The fundamentals of learning. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University; Walker Jr OC, Churchill Jr GA, Ford NM. Reactions to role conflict: the case of the industrial salesman. J Bus Adm 1972;3(Spring): Walker Jr OC, Churchill Jr GA, Ford NM. Organizational determinants of the industrial salesmen s role conflict and ambiguity. J Mark 1975;39 (January):32 9. Walker Jr OC, Churchill Jr GA, Ford NM. Motivation and performance in industrial selling: present knowledge and needed research. J Mark Res 1977;14(May): Weatherly KA, Tansik DA. Managing multiple demands: a role theory examination of the behaviors of customer contact service workers. In: Swartz TA, Bowen DE, Brown SW, editors. Advances in services marketing and management, vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; p Webster Jr FE. Comment by Frederick E. Webster Jr. J Mark 1988a; 52(October):48a 51a. Webster Jr FE. The rediscovery of the marketing concept. Bus Horiz 1988b; 31(May June):29b 39b. Webster C. A note on cultural consistency within the service firm: the effects of employee position on attitudes toward marketing culture. J Acad Mark Sci 1991;19(Fall): Weiss DJ, Dawis RV, England GW, Lofquist LH. Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, vol. 12. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota; p Weitz B, Castleberry S, Tanner J. Selling: building partnerships. New York: McGraw-Hill; Williams MR, Attaway JS. Exploring salespersons customer orientation as a mediator of organizational culture s influence on buyer seller relationships. J Pers Sell Sales Manage 1996;16(Fall): Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, Parasuraman A. A communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality. J Mark 1988;52(April): Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, Parasuraman A. The behavioral consequences of service quality. J Mark 1996;60(April):31 46.