substitutes for leadership and their effects a

SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP AND THEIR EFFECTS

UPON INDUSTRIAL SALES PERSONNEL

by

FARRAND JIM HADAWAY, B.B.A., M.B.A., Ed.D.

A DISSERTATION

IN

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved

August, 1990

He

T3 /r/0

/ )

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge the support and

assistance of a number of individuals who contributed to

this project. During the course of the study. Dr. Roy D.

Howell, my chairman, provided the skillful guidance and

insightful comments necessary to transform my ideas into a

finished doctoral thesis. In addition, the other members

of the committee, Danny Bellenger, Van R. Wood, and Robert

Phillips, gave freely of their time in providing helpful

advice and constructive comments. Finally, a special

thanks to the many doctoral students at Texas Tech

University who provided advice, support, and encouragement

throughout the dissertation.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES viii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 1 Substitutes for Leadership 4

Individual Characteristics 6 Task Characteristics 6 Organizational Characteristics 7

Leadership Behaviors 8 Purpose of Study 10

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13 Introduction 13 Leadership 18

Background Literature 10 Leader Reward and Punishment Behaviors. . . 21

Substitutes for Leadership 2 3 Substitutes for Leadership in Study . . . . 26 Empirical Research 27 Problems with Existing Research 28

Task-Specific Self-Esteem 30 Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity 34

Empirical Research 37 Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity,

and Job Satisfaction 38 Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, and Performance 38

Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, and Commitment 39

Commitment 4 0 Organizational Commitment 42 Conceptual Approaches to

Organizational Commitment 44 Job Commitment 4 6

Sales Performance 48 Determinants of Sales Performance 49 Conceptual Issues 50

iii

Outcome-based measures 50 Behavior-based measures 51

An Alternative Approach: Self-Evaluation . 52 Job Satisfaction 53

Causal Factors in Job Satisfaction 54 Supervisory behaviors 54 Performance 55 Role conflict and role ambiguity. . . . 56 Task-specific self-esteem 57

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 59 Introduction 59 Operationalization of the Variables 59

Consideration and Initiation of Structure 59

Leader Reward and Punishment Behavior . . . 60 Substitutes for Leadership 61 Job Stress 62 Task-Specific Self-Esteem 63 Commitment 64 Performance 65 Job Satisfaction 66

Research Hypotheses 67 Leadership 68 Substitutes for Leadership 69 Task-Specific Self-Esteem 71 Role Stress 71 Performance 71

Sample and Response Rate 72 Statistical Analysis 74

IV. EMPIRICAL RESULTS 81 Introduction 81 Analysis of Demographic Variables 81 Response Variance by Groups 8 3 Reliability 90 LISREL Results 94

The Measurement Model 96 Test of the Full Model 105

Hypothesis Testing with LISREL 106 Tests of the Individual Hypotheses 113

Leadership 113 Substitutes for Leadership 116

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS • . . . . 124 Introduction 124 Summary of Findings 124

IV

Differences in the Level (amount) of Substitutes for Leadership, Leadership Behaviors, and Salespeople Outcome Variables 125

Relationships among Substitutes for Leadership, Leadership Behaviors, and Salespeople Outcome Variables . . . 126

Managerial Implications 128 Limitations 129 Suggestions for Future Research 131

REFERENCES 134

APPENDICES

A. MEASURES 151

B. FOLLOW-UP LETTER 158

C. INSTRUCTIONS 160

D. COVER LETTER 162

E. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM 164

F. QUESTIONNAIRE 166

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1 RELATIONSHIPS AMONG CONSTRUCTS 14

2 INITIAL SAMPLE BASE 73

3 REFUSAL RATE BY STATE AND SALES SOURCE 75

4 SAMPLE BASE BY STATE AND SALES SOURCE 76

5 RETURN RATE BY STATE

AND SALES SOURCE 77

6 SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS 82

7 SUBGROUP RESPONSE VARIANCE ACROSS TEXAS AND ILLINOIS 85

8 SUBGROUP RESPONSE VARIANCE EARLY VERSUS LATE RESPONSES 86

9 SUBGROUP RESPONSE VARIANCE INSIDE VERSUS OUTSIDE SALESPEOPLE 88

10 TEST OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES ACROSS CONSTRUCTS INSIDE VERSUS OUTSIDE SALESPEOPLE 89

11 SCALE RELIABILITIES 91

12 IMPROVEMENT IN SCALE RELIABILITIES . . . . 93

13 STANDARDIZED SOLUTION FOR THE ENDOGENOUS VARIABLES 101

14 STANDARDIZED SOLUTION FOR THE EXOGENOUS VARIABLES 102

15 SCALE RELIABILITIES (AFTER ITEM DELETION) 104

VI

16 COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION FOR STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS 108

17 STRUCTURAL COEFFICIENTS FOR TEST OF HYPOTHESES 110

Vll

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 MODEL OF LEADERSHIP AND SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP EFFECT UPON SALES FORCE PERSONNEL BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES 17

2 SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP 25

3 THE CAUSAL MODEL SHOWING HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS 79

4 ITEMS DELETED AFTER FACTOR ANALYSIS 98

Vlll

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

In an effort to better understand salesforce

performance, researchers and managers have studied the

salesperson, exchange interactions, and the sales process

(Behrman and Perreault 1982). The result of these studies

has supplied the sales manager with limited knowledge

regarding which supervisory behaviors are most effective

in the supervisor-subordinate interaction (Churchill,

Ford, and Walker 1976). Further, Walker, Churchill, and

Ford (1977) note that sales managers typically develop

their management style based upon their own assumptions

regarding what leads to good sales performance, what their

predecessors believed, the customs of the industry, and

the expections of their supervisors. Given the knowledge

base available, industry practices generally and

individual practices specifically may or may not be

optimal with regard to the various aspects of salesforce

management.

Only recently have marketing researchers devoted

attention to the relationship between sales supervision

and various salespersons' job-related attitudes and

behaviors. Supervisor behaviors have been found to

significantly affect job satisfaction (Teas and Horrell

1981; Kohli 1985; Churchill, Ford, and Walker 1976), role

stress (Teas 1983; Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1975), role

clarity (Teas, Wacker, and Hughes 1979; Kohli 1985), and

self-esteem (Kohli 1985). Many potentially applicable

studies have been conducted in non-selling contexts

(Podsakoff, Todor, and Skov 1982; Howell and Dorfman 1986;

Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, and Huber 1984) .

Underlying these studies is a belief that supervisory

behaviors directly affect subordinate work attitudes and

behaviors. This thinking also underlies current leadership

models, such as Fiedler's Contingency Theory of Leadership

(1967), Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership

Approach (1977), Yukl's Multiple Linkage Model (1971,

1981), and House's Path-Goal Model (1971) .

Each of these conceptual models attempts to identify

and explain the effect of various leader behaviors upon

subordinate outcomes in hierarchical organizations (Kerr

and Jermier 1978). Further, each of the models

incorporates the idea that the supervisor's leadership is

present and important to subordinate outcomes (Kerr 1977;

Kerr and Jermier 1978; Howell and Dorfman 1986; Manz and

Sims 1980). While leadership styles may vary across

situations, some form of leadership behavior is deemed

necessary to bring about desired subordinate outcomes.

Although each of these models rest upon firm

theoretical support, none of the supervisory variables

investigated have accounted for a large proportion of the

total variance in subordinate outcomes (Howell and Dorfman

1981; Podsakoff, Todor, and Skov 1982; Churchill, Ford,

and Walker 1976; Kohli 1985; Teas and Horrell 1981; Teas

1983). In these studies, a significant amount of variance

is left unexplained due to the omission of a large number

of task, individual, and organization characteristics that

may directly affect or moderate subordinate attitudes and

behaviors.

A number of potential moderators of the supervisor-

subordinate relationship have been identified: role stress

(Sims and Szilagyi 1975); job performance (Strasser,

Dailey, and Bateman 1981); task characteristics (Griffin

1980) ; professional orientation (Howell and Dorfman 1981);

task-specific self-esteem (Kohli 1985); and commitment

(Howell and Dorfman 1986) . These studies, in total, have

investigated only a limited number of the potential

moderators of leadership behaviors.

Kerr and Jermier (1978), and Kerr (1977), have

identified a number of contextual variables that may act

as "substitutes for leadership." Contextual variables are

other behavioral influences that occur simultaneously with

leadership behaviors in an organization and may themselves

affect subordinates behaviors. When these "substitutes"

are operative, subordinate behaviors are not directly

influenced by the actions or behaviors of their

supervisor. The definition and concept of "substitutes

for leadership" is further discussed in the next section.

Substitutes for Leadership

A number of organizational behavior researchers have

proposed that a variety of contextual variables may act as

"substitutes for leadership." Characteristics of the

individual (subordinate), task, or the organization can

"substitute for, neutralize" (Kerr 1977; Kerr and Jermier

1978), or "supplement" (Kerr and Slocum 1981) the formal

leader's ability to influence their subordinates' job

related behaviors. Whatever the source of these

characteristics or magnitude of their influence, they are

referred to as "substitutes for leadership."

Substitutes for leadership, as employed in this study,

are alternative mechanisms for influencing people's

performance. As such, they provide information about how

to perform as well as providing incentives to perform

which a subordinate can use instead of leadership-provided

control and direction.

Kerr and Slocum (1981) have attributed two functions

to these "substitutes." First, they prevent specific

supervisory behaviors from influencing subordinate

attitudes/behaviors. Secondly, they replace leader

behaviors by directly affecting the subordinate outcomes.

Thus hierarchial leadership is only one of many potential

influencers of subordinate attitudes/behaviors. In fact,

in certain situations, leadership may not be necessary or

may be difficult to use as an influence on subordinate

outcomes.

If substitutes for leadership are present in the

selling situation, this may explain the low explanatory

power of supervisor behavior on salesforce job-related

outcomes (Teas 1981; Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1977;

Hampton, Dubinsky, and Skinner 1986). To date, no study

in the selling context has investigated these

relationships. If the individual, task, and

organizational characteristics subsequently discussed are

descriptive of the selling task, an investigation of

substitutes for leadership may be important in this

context.

Several of these characteristics that act as

substitutes for leadership are considered in this study.

These characteristics are clarified in the following

sections.

Individual Characteristics

Although no precise definition exists for professional

orientation, Filley, House, and Kerr (1976) note that

someone possessing this quality exhibits: a commitment to

their field and work; identification with their profession

and other professionals; autonomy over decisions and work

activities; and maintenance of work standards through

collegial rather than by hierarchial controls.

Ability, experience, training, and knowledge are those

skills and talents that a subordinate brings to, or

acquires while on the job, regarding how to perform a

particular job. The better able, trained, and

knowledgeable a person is, the less he/she must rely upon

external information to perform a particular job (Howell

and Dorfman 1986) .

Task Characteristics

The internally derived rewards that a subordinate

receives from performance of a task are referred to as

intrinsically satisfying tasks. Herzberg, Mausner, and

Snyderman (1959), in their two-factor theory of motivation

identified four factors that produce intrinsically

satisfying work: achievement, recognition, responsibility

for one's own work, and advancement opportunities.

Task-provided feedback is the amount of information

provided by the task itself regarding how well the task

has been, or is being performed in accordance with formal

responsibilities (Kerr and Slocum 1981) .

Organizational Characteristics

Tosi (1975) described organizational formalization as

the existance of written, documented procedures and

policies which serve as stable, quasi-permanent directions

for subordinate actions and decisions.

Organizational rewards not under the leader's control

are those rewards that are under the control of some other

persons (Childers, Dubinsky, and Gencturk 1986). For

rewards to be effective in motivating, they must be

reinforcing or be valued by the individual who receives

them. When the desired rewards are under the control of

another person, the rewards administered by the leader

will be less effective and create an "influence vacuum"

(Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, and Huber 1984).

Little research has focused on the relative saliency

of the leadership substitutes and which leadership

behaviors more readily lend themselves to substitution.

Further, as suggested above and will be subsequently

developed, the salesforce setting may provide a useful

area in which these questions can be addressed.

The fact that substitutes may affect salesforce

behavior is of considerable importance to sales

management. First, the influence of leader substitutes may

8

account for the inconsistency of findings and the low

levels of explained variance in existing sales leadership

research (Kohli 1985; Teas 1983). If the substitute

negates, constrains, or moderates leadership behaviors,

then this will determine the degree to which leader

behaviors are effective explanatory factors in salesforce

behavior research. Also, if substitutes for leadership

are primary predictors of salesforce behaviors, efforts to

manage the substitutes themselves would seem appropriate.

Leadership Behaviors

Many contemporary leadership theories propose that

leaders employing rewards and punishment based upon

performance are more effective than those employing

noncontingent (arbitary) rewards and punishment (House

1971; Fiedler 1964, 1967; Hersey and Blanchard 1977).

Contingent reward behavior measures the relationship

between leader provided reinforcers, such as recognition,

acknowledgement, and commendations, and high levels or

improvements in performance (Podsakoff, Todor, and Skov

1982) . A number of empirical studies support the

contention that contingent rewards increases subordinate

satisfaction and performance (Cherrington, Reitz, and

Scott 1971; Keller and Szilagyi 1976; Podsakoff, Todor,

Grover, and Huber 1984). Sales managers who use

contingent rewards establish a close linkage, or

cohtingency, between performance of sales tasks and

increases in salaries, bonuses, formal recognition, etc.

Contingent punishment behavior is the relationship

between subordinate low job performance and leader

corrective behavior (Sims and Szilagyi 1975). Sales

managers who use this leader behavior show their

disapproval by reprimanding their subordinates for poor or

low levels of performance. Forms of reprimands include

withholding of salary increases, restriction of

promotional opportunities, etc. Podsakoff, Todor, Grover,

and Huber (1984) have noted that punishment behavior can

be expected to have two effects upon subordinate

behaviors. First, if subordinates wish to avoid

punishment, they will modify their behaviors to achieve

acceptable levels of performance. In this case, there is

a positive relationship between leader punitive behaviors

and subordinate performance and satisfaction. Secondly,

if punishment is provided as the only means of leader

influence or if direction is not provided by which

unsatisfactory performance can be corrected, then the

subordinate behaviors will be negatively affected.

A sales manager who demonstrates noncontingent reward

behavior provides praise and social approval to their

subordinates independent of their performance levels

(Podsakoff, Todor, and Skov 1982). Hunt and Osborn (1980)

note that noncontingent rewards tend to produce less

10

desirable subordinate performance and satisfaction levels

than do contingent administered rewards.

Some sales managers may use punitive events,

independent of performance levels, in an attempt to

control their subordinates actions. The sales manager who

uses noncontingent punishment behaviors often

indiscriminately punishes functional as well as

dysfunctional behaviors. Since this form of leader

behavior is perceived as unfair and arbitrary, there is a

negative relationship with subordinate behaviors

(Podsakoff, Todor, and Skov 1982).

Purpose of Study

One problem that characterizes most, if not all,

leadership research is differentiating leadership effects

from environmental factors that may affect subordinate

outcomes. The influence of these environmental factors may

account for the low levels of explained variance and lack

of consistency in leadership research (Kerr and Jermier

1978; Kerr 1975; Teas 1983; Howell and Dorfman 1981).

Therefore, significant relationships reported by much of

the literature between leader behavior and subordinate

outcomes may be due to shared covariance with

environmental factors.

This study investigates the relationship between

leadership behaviors, substitutes for leadership, and a

11

number of dependent variables for each of the salespeople

included in the sample. Several of the "substitutes"

proposed by Kerr and Jermier (1978) were considered in the

study including: ability, experience, training, and

knowledge; professional orientation; intrinsically

satisfying work tasks; task-provided feedback;

organizational formalization; and organizational rewards

not in the control of the leader. Further, contingent and

noncontingent reward and punishment behaviors are

investigated since they appear to have significant impact

on employee behaviors (Hunt and Schuler 1976; Podsakoff,

Todor and Skov 1982; Howell and Dorfman 1986).

The results of considerable research suggest that

task-specific self-esteem and job stress strongly affect

salespeople's job-related outcomes (Bagozzi 1978, 1980;

Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1979; Hampton, Dubinsky, and

Skinner 1986). The four dependent variables;

organizational commitment, job commitment, job

satisfaction, and performance have been suggested by

Hampton, Dubinsky, and Skinner (1986) as being important

to leadership research.

Thus, the variables to be investigated include

organizational commitment, job commitment, job

satisfaction, and sales performance, as determined by

leadership behaviors, substitutes for leadership, task-

specific self-esteem, and job stress. Specific hypotheses

12

for the relationships and interrelationships among these

variables are presented in Chapter 3.

This research is guided by three goals:

1. The first goal is to increase our understanding of

the relationship between the sales managers'

leadership behaviors and salepeople's behavioral

responses.

2. The second goal is to examine the effects of a

variety of potential substitutes for leadership on

the relationships between the sales managers'

leadership behaviors and salespeople's

organizational and job commitment, job

satisfaction, and performance.

3. The third goal of the study is to determine which

of the substitutes for leadership are more

important for the salespeople.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

In the following section an effort has been made to

provide a selective sample of the literature in an attempt

to place this study in perspective to the broad field of

which it is a part.

The literature presented will explore the key

constructs to be investigated in this study. A framework

is provided in Table 1 as a guide to the review of the

literature. The table shows the relationships between

each construct, major contributors and direction of the

findings to be reviewed in this section. The literature

presented in Table 1 is not inclusive of all the research

reviewed in this section, only a sampling of the major

studies related to each construct.

Further, a conceptual model is presented in Figure 1.

The model shows supervisory behavior and substitutes for

leadership affecting task-specific self-esteem, job stress

(role conflict and role ambiguity), performance, job

commitment, organizational commitment, and job

satisfaction. Further, task-specific self-esteem and job

13

14

TABLE 1

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG CONSTRUCTS

Relationship fa) Direction Source

LB-TSSE (b)

LB-RC (b)

LB-RA (b)

LB-PERF + Sims and Szilagyi (1975) + Reitz (1971) + Hunt and Schuler (1976) + Podsakoff, Todor,

and Skov (1982)

LB-OC (b)

LB-JC (k>)

LB-JS + Sims and Szilagyi (1975 + Reitz (1971) + Hunt and Schuler (1976) + Podsakoff, Todor,

and Skov (1982)

SFL-TSSE (^)

SFL-RC (̂ )

SFL-RA + Kerr and Jermier (1978)

SFL-PERF (̂ )

SFL-OC + Kerr and Jermier (1978) + Howell and Dorfman (1981)

Howell and Dorfman (1986)

SFL-JC ~ Howell and Dorfman (1986)

15

TABLE 1 (continued)

Relationship Direction Source

SFL-JS + Howell and Dorfman (1981) + Howell and Dorfman (1986)

TSSE-RC - Bagozzi (1978, 1980)

TSSE-RC - Hafer and McCuen (1985)

TSSE-RA - Bagozzi (1978, 1980) Hafer and McCuen (1985)

TSSE-PERF + Bagozzi (1978, 1980) + Hafer and McCuen (1985)

TSSE-OC (b)

TSSE-JC (b)

TSSE-JS + Bagozzi (1978, 1980) + Hafer and McCuen (1985)

RC-PERF - Bagozzi (1978) Dubinsky and Mattson (1979) Behrman and Perreault(1982)

RC-OC - Kornhauser (1965) Hall and Lawler (1970)

RC-jc - Hall and Lawler (1970) Kornhauser (1965)

RC-JS ~ Walker, Churchill, and Ford (1976) Behrman and Perreault(1984) Teas (1983)

RA-PERF ~ Bagozzi (1980) Behrman and Perreault

(1984)

RA-OC (̂ )

16

TABLE 1 (continued)

Relationship Direction Source

RA-OC (b)

RA-JC (b)

RA-JS - Behrman and Perreault

(1984)

PERF-OC (b)

PERF-JC (b) PERF-JS + Bagozzi (1978, 1980)

+ Behrman and Perreault (1984)

+ Hampton, Dubinsky, and Skinner (1986)

(a) Abbreviations used for each construct. LB = Leadership Behaviors SFL = Substitutes for Leadership TSSE= Task-Specific Self-Esteem RC = Role Conflict RA = Role Ambiguity PERF= Performance JC = Job Commitment OC = Organizational Commitment JS = Job Satisfaction

(b) No literature available on relationships

17

Leadership Behaviors

Contingent Rewards

Contingent Punishment

Noncontingent Rewards

Noncontingent Punishment

Consideration

Initiation of Structure

Task Specific-Self Esteem

Organizational Commitment

Performance Job Commitment


Professional Orientation

Need for Independence

Ability, Training, Experience

Intrinsically Satisfying Tasks

Task Provided Feedback

Organizational Formalization

Job Stress Role Conflict Role Ambiguity!

Job Satisfaction

FIGURE 1 MODEL OF LEADERSHIP AND SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP EFFECT UPON SALES FORCE PERSONNEL BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES

18

stress (role conflict and role ambiguity) are depicted as

effecting performance, job commitment, organizational

commitment, and job satisfaction. Lastly, performance is

shown as exerting a direct effect on the outcome variables

of organizational commitment, job commitment, and job

satisfaction.

Leadership

Despite the important role that the salesforce plays

in a industrial firm's marketing program, very little

empirical research has examined how the sales manager

effects sales performance. However, effective functioning

of the salesforce has been assumed to be dependent on the

quality of the leadership abilities of the sales manager.

The results of research in nonselling occupations suggest

that a sales manager's leadership behavior may have

various psychological and behavioral effects on salesforce

job-related outcomes (Swanson and Johnson 1975; Frost

1983; Hand and Slocum 1972; Szilagyi and Keller 1976;

Downey, Sheridan, and Slocum 1975).

Background Literature

Leadership research can be divided into various

stages, depending upon the focus of investigation. The

first emphasis was upon the leader's personality

characteristics that were assumed to be related to good

leadership. This approach perceives leadership as a

19

unidimensional personality trait and that people vary in

the amount of the traits they possess. Those people who

possess high levels of certain traits should therefore be

effective leaders (Mann 1959).

The studies investigating various personality traits

concluded that there were very small differences, if any,

between leaders and subordinates' personalities.

Therefore any differences were due to measurement errors,

selection of leaders investigated, or failure to identify

the most important personality attribute.

Due to the failures of the personality approach,

Lewin, Lipitt, and White (1939) proposed that subordinate

behaviors were affected by "leadership styles," such as

authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire. These

styles, operating singularly or in combination, create

"social climates" that enhance the achievement of

managerial objectives. Two important aspects of this

approach that are still relevant in leadership research is

the emphasis on leadership style (McGregor 1960, 1966) and

the situational approach proposed by Gouldner (1950).

The situational approach was prompted by the

recognition that leadership behavior is affected by

variations in leader-follower relations across situations

(Hemphill 1949). The main focus of research in this

approach has been to investigate the leader in different

20

work settings, as defined by different group tasks and

structure.

Concern with "leadership style" was derived from the

recognition that there were no stable and situationally

invariant personality traits that differentiate effective

from non-effective leaders (Hollander and Julien 1969).

Instead, the concern is with identification of leader

behavior patterns that differentiate effective from

noneffective leaders.

Recognition of the weaknesses in the personality,

leadership style, and situational approach has led a

number of behavioral researchers to propose that

leaderships should be viewed as a social influence process

(Graen, Dansereau, and Minami 1972; Fiedler 1964, 1967;

House 1971; House and Mitchell 1974).

Salesforce researchers have recently begun to

investigate the relationship between supervisory behavior

and salesforce work-related behaviors and attitudes.

Aspects of leadership behaviors that have been

investigated are: (1) contingent approving (Kohli 1985),

(2) initiation of structure and consideration (Teas 1983;

Teas and Horrell 1981), (3) role clarity and consideration

(Hampton, Dubinsky, and Skinner 1986; Fry, Futrell,

Parasuraman and Chmielewski 1986), and (4) closeness of

supervision (Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1975) .

21

Leader Reward and Punishment Behaviors

A number of contemporary theories of leadership

suggest that leaders who employ rewards and punishment

contingent upon performance are more effective than are

those who employ them indiscriminantly (noncontingent)

upon performance (House 1971; Hollander 1978; Scott 1977;

Hunt and Osborn 1980). Leaders who utilize contingent

reward behaviors link rewards to subordinate performance

and provide recognition, commendation, and acknowledgement

for high or improved performance. Contingent punishments

are reprimands and disapproval given to the subordinate

for low performance. Noncontingent rewards are

recognition, approval, and acknowledgements provided

independent of performance. Noncontingent punishments are

punitive events applied to the subordinate in an

indiscriminate manner, independent of performance

(Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, and Huber 1984). Sales

managers who use this style of leadership "criticize,"

"ridicule," "needle," and "ride" their subordinates in the

belief that punishment will lead to greater performance

(Kohli 1985).

Cherrington, Reitz, and Scott (1971), in their

investigation of contingent and noncontingent rewards,

found that rewarded subordinates were significantly more

satisfied with their work than were nonrewarded personnel.

Further, performance was higher when rewards were directly

22

related to performance (contingent) than when rewards were

not related (noncontingent) to performance.

Collecting data from paramedical and support personnel

at a medical center, Sims and Szilagyi (1975) found a

strong positive relationship between positive reward

behavior, job satisfaction, and performance. Contrary to

expectations, negative leader rewards were found to be

positively related to job satisfaction but negatively

related to job performance.

Utilizing a sample of financial managers, Reitz (1971)

investigated the relationship between contingent rewards

and punishments, performance, and job satisfaction. He

found a significant positive relationship between positive

rewards, satisfaction, and performance.

Only two studies have investigated the effect of these

four leadership behaviors upon performance and

satisfaction simultaneously (Hunt and Schuler 1976;

Podsakoff, Todor, and Skov 1982). Hunt and Schuler (1976)

found that: (1) contingent reward and punishment behaviors

are more highly related to performance and satisfaction

than are noncontingent rewards and punishment, (2)

contingent rewards are more positively related to

performance and satisfaction than are contingent

punishment behaviors, and (3) noncontingent rewards are

more positively related to performance and satisfaction

than are contingent punishment. Podsakoff, Todor, and Skov

23

(1982) found a positive relationship between contingent

rewards, performance, and satisfaction. Noncontingent

punishment behavior was found to be positively related to

satisfaction but not performance. Contingent punishment

and noncontingent reward behaviors were not related to

either satisfaction or performance.

Of the studies reviewed, none addresses the

relationship between contingent and noncontingent reward

and punishment behaviors and task-specific self-esteem,

substitutes for leadership, organization and job

commitment, or role conflict and ambiguity. Since it has

been recognized that rewards and punishments play a

prominent role in employee motivation and behaviors (Kerr

1975; Porter and Lawler 1968; Lowe 1979; Kazdin 1980),

these leadership behaviors should affect the magnitude and

direction of these subordinate attitudes and behaviors.


A prominent theme of most theories and models of

leadership is that hierarchial leadership is necessary to

influence employees' behaviors toward achievement of

desired organization goals (Fiedler 1964; Graen,

Dansereau, and Minami 1972; House 1971; Yukl 1971; Fiedler

and Chemers 1974). Although these theories propose that

effective leadership behavior must fit or match the

situation, none will concede that leadership behaviors may

\

24

not be relevant in some work environments. Recently, a

number of researchers in organizational behavior have

questioned whether hierachical leadership has much effect

on subordinates' job-related responses (Kerr 1977; Kerr

and Jermier 1978; Kerr and Slocum 1981).

Thus, in an attempt to account for the occasional

success and more frequent failure of leadership

predictions, Kerr (1977) and Kerr and Jermier (1978) have

proposed the concept of "substitutes for leadership."

Substitutes for leadership are characteristics of the

individual, task, and organization that can influence the

relationship between leader behaviors and subordinate

outcomes (Kerr and Jermier 1978). When these

"substitutes" are present, the causal link between leader

behavior and subordinate attitudes and behaviors will be

weak or nonexistent. The substitutes, in this case, would

be the primary influence agent, not actions or behaviors

on the part of the leader.

Kerr and Jermier (1978) have developed a taxonomy that

is useful in describing how these three sets of work

related variables affect leadership's influence upon

subordinate organizational outcomes. These

characteristics of the individual, task, and organization

that may act as "substitutes" are listed in Figure 2.

These characteristics, depending upon the work situation,

can "substitute" for, "neutralize" (Kerr 1977), or

25

Subordinate Charac ter i s t i c s

1. A b i l i t y , experience, t ra in ing , knowledge 2 . Need for independence 3 . Ind i f f erence toward organizat ional rewards

4. Pro fe s s iona l or i enta t ion

Task Characteristics

1. Unambiguous and routine tasks 2. Task-provided feedback 3. Intrinsically-satisfying tasks 4. Methodologically-invariant tasks Organizational Characteristics

1. Formalization (explicit plans, goals, and areas of responsibility)

2. Inflexibility (rigid, unbending rules and procedures) 3. Highly-specified and active advisory and staff

functions 4. Closely-knit, cohesive work groups 5. Organizational rewards not within the leader's control 6. Spatial distance between superior and subordinates

FIGURE 2 SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP

26

"supplement" (Kerr and Slocum 1981), a hierarchical

leader's ability to affect a subordinates' job-related

responses. Not only do these "substitutes" directly

affect attitutes and behaviors, but also indirectly affect

them by influencing the frequency with which the

supervisor will exhibit specific leadership behaviors.

Substitutes for Leadership in Study

Six of the 14 characteristics of the task,

organization, and subordinate characteristics identified

by Kerr and Jermier (1978) as potential "substitutes" were

chosen for inclusion in this study. These "substitutes"

include: professional orientation; ability, experience,

training, and knowledge; intrinsically-satisfying tasks;

task-provided feedback; organizational formalization; and

organizational rewards not within the leader's control.

These characteristics were selected since they have

been identified as substitutes for leader behavior (Kerr

and Jermier 1978; Kerr and Slocum 1981; Howell and Dorfman

1986; Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, and Huber 1984). Based

upon the characteristics of the sales job, as described by

Dubinsky, Howell, Ingram, and Bellenger (1986), these six

substitutes would seem to be the most significant in

constraining or delimiting the effect of the sales

manager's behaviors upon salespeoples' attitudes and

behaviors.

27

Empirical Research

Since the first investigation by Kerr and Jermier

(1978), evidence for the existence of substitutes for

leadership has begun to accumulate (Jermier and Berkes

1979; Howell and Dorfman 1981; 1986).

Kerr and Jermier (1978) investigated the relationship

between a number of potential substitutes for leadership,

instrumental and supportive leader behaviors, and two

subordinate outcomes (organizational commitment and role

ambiguity) among police officers. Intrinsically-

satisfying tasks, task routinization, and organizational

formalization were found to act as strong substitutes for

the effect of these two forms of leadership behaviors on

role ambiguity. Further, intrinsically-satisfying tasks

and task-provided feedback acted as substitutes between

these leader behaviors and organizational commitment.

In a study of hospital workers, Howell and Dorfman

(1981) found that three potential substitutes identified

by Kerr and Jermier (1978) acted as moderators. Intrinsic

task satisfaction, routinization, and task feedback did

not prevent support and instrumental leader behaviors from

affecting the subordinate's job related behaviors.

Instead, these three substitutes contributed directly to

employee commitment and job satisfaction.

In a later study, utilizing another sample of hospital

workers, Howell and Dorfman (1986) found weak support for

28

two leadership substitutes. Need for independence was

negatively related to job commitment while organization

formalization was positively related to job satisfaction

for professional health care personnel. Intrinsically-

satisfying tasks were found to be strong substitutes for

leader support behavior when predicting organizational

commitment. Organizational rewards acted as a weak

substitute for leader support behaviors when job

satisfaction was the criterion. Also, organizational

rewards was found to be a strong substitute for leader

support behaviors when predicting organizational

commitment.

Jermier and Berkes (1979) investigated "substitutes"

within a law-enforcement environment. Closely knit,

cohesive work groups prevented and replaced the leaders

ability to significantly effect subordinates' morale.

Further, instrinsically-satisfying work tasks substituted

for the formal leaders' supportive behaviors.

Problems with Existing Research

Although there is strong theoretical support for the

existance of "substitutes," research investigating this

concept has been minimal and the empirical support has

been weak (Kerr and Jermier 1978; Howell and Dorfman 1986;

Jermier and Berkes 1979). While there may be several

reasons for the conflicting results in the research to

29

date, the most obvious is the sampling frames that have

been utilized.

Each of the studies have used different samples. The

studies by Howell and Dorfman (1981 1986), Sheridan,

Vredenburgh, and Abelson (1984), Sims and Szilagyi (1975)

used hospital personnel, while Kerr and Jermier (1978)

used a sample of police officers. Podsakoff, Todor,

Grover, and Huber (1984) used a mixed sample consisting of

federal and state government, and hospital employees.

These samples all have one thing in common. They were

drawn from organizations that are characterized by a high

degree of specialized tasks, precise specification of

authority and responsibility, and a well developed

hierarchy. Kerr and Slocum (1981) argued that in these

situations formal leadership is the primary source of

control over subordinates. Therefore, one would not

expect a strong effect of substitutes for leadership in

these situations.

In a work environment that requires continual

redefinition of tasks and procedures by which the task is

to be performed, there is greater reliance upon the

subordinate's expertise than hierarchical control systems.

In this situation, substitutes for leadership should be

the primary means for controlling subordinates job-related

behaviors (Howell and Dorfman 1986).

30

This study attempts to rectify this problem by using

two samples. The first sample, consisting of outside

salespeople, was expected to produce a high correlation

between the substitutes and the criterion variables, while

decreasing the impact of the sales supervisor's leader

behaviors. The second sample consisted of inside

salespeople from the same firms. Among this group, a

strong effect of the sales supervisor's leader behavior is

expected upon the criterion variables, with a negligible

or nonexistance effect of the "substitutes."

Task-Specific Self-Esteem

Consistency theory of work motivation suggests that

work behavior is based upon the development of a self-

concept. The self-concept, and its companion notion self-

esteem, have long been recognized as being important in

explaining human behavior. An individual will adjust their

performance to fit their own positive or negative self-

evaluations. Therefore, performance should be higher for

those individuals who have high self-esteem than for those

with low self-esteem (Inkson 1978).

Researchers have studied the relationship between

self-esteem, performance, and satisfaction in an attempt

to explain, predict, and control behaviors in the work

environment (Hall 1971; Inkson 1978; Korman 1976; Somers

and Lefkowitz 1983). These studies have shown that good

31

performance leads to satisfaction for the employee.

However, some confusion and disagreement exist regarding

the role that self-esteem plays in this relationship.

Two competing theories have been proposed to explain

the relationship between situational factors, self-esteem,

and behavioral outcomes such as job satisfaction and job

performance. Self-enhancement theory proposes that self-

esteem is an enduring trait-like construct. People seek,

in a rational manner, to maintain and increase self-esteem

regardless of their current level of self-esteem (Jones

1973; Dopboye 1977; Tharenou 1979).

Contrasting this view is self-consistency theory which

proposes that work behavior is consistent with the

individual's self-image. Korman (1970; 1971; 1973),

defines self-esteem as the extent to which individuals

perceive themselves to be a competent, need-satisfying

person. If self-esteem is high and positive, then self-

enhancement behaviors will be consistent with the high

self-image. Likewise, if the self-esteem is low, behaviors

may be characterized by "failure seeking" as this would be

consistant with a low self-image.

Korman (1970, 1976), divides self-esteem into three

components. Chronic self-esteem is a relatively

persistent personality trait that occurs consistently

across various situations. Task-specific self-esteem is

the degree of self-perceived competence on a specific task

32

and reflects past experience with the task or related

tasks. Socially influenced self-esteem arises from the

perception of what is expected by others in the situation.

This means that if relevant others expect an individual to

perform well and communicate this to the individual, it is

expected that the individual's feelings of competence will

increase (Greenhaus and Badin 1974).

In general, academic researchers have focused on the

effects of each of these three sources of self-esteem

separately (see Korman 1970, for literature review).

Recent research has attempted to develop and test a

composite construct of self-esteem (Mclntire and Levine

1984; Tharenou 1979; Jacobs and Solomon 1977; Lopez and

Greenhaus 1978; Tharenou and Harker 1982). Although task-

specific self-esteem, social self-esteem, and chronic

self-esteem have been shown to be significantly related to

various behavioral outcomes, task-specific self-esteem has

been a significantly better predictor of performance and

satisfaction.

Recently, marketing researchers have concerned

themselves with investigating task-specific and

generalized self-esteem as an antecedent, moderator, and

outcome variable within the salesforce. Some of these

studies are summarized in the next paragraphs.

Bagozzi (1978, 1980) investigated the relationship

between task-specific self-esteem, as a antecedent, and

33

job performance and job satisfaction among industrial

sales personnel. Task-specific-self-esteem was

significant and positively related to both job performance

and satisfaction.

In a replication of the Bagozzi (1978) study, Hafer

and McCuen (1985), using sales data from a different

industry, found the same results. Task-specific self-

esteem was positively related to performance and job

satisfaction.

Subsequent studies by Kohli (1985) and Teas (1981),

using Bagozzi's (1978) measure of task-specific self-

esteem, have investigated the relationship between

salespeople's self-perceived abilities, role clarity, and

expectancy. In each of these studies, task-specific self-

esteem was positive and significantly related to role

clarity and expectancy. Salespeople who perceived they

were more capable, believed their efforts would translate

into better performance. Furthermore, those who had a

clear understanding as to what constituted good sales

performance rated themselves higher on job-related skills.

Although the hypothesized relationships between task-

specific self-esteem and various outcome variables have

been supported by these studies, the same cannot be said

for generalized self-esteem. Bagozzi (1978, 1980); Teas

(1981); Hafer and McCuen (1985); and Howell, Bellenger,

and Wilcox (1987) have found non-significant relationships

34

with job performance, job satisfaction, and expectancy.

The only significant relationship found in these studies

for a global measure of self-esteem was with perceived

stress (Howell, Bellenger, and Wilcox 1987). These

researchers concluded that self-esteem acted as a

moderator of the stress/stressor relationships or as an

independent antecedent of stress.

The studies to date tend to support the contention

that task-specific self-esteem is a better predictor than

generalized self-esteem of job satisfaction and

performance. The former construct best captures the

individual's feelings of competence and their relationship

to these two work-related outcomes.

To date, there has been little if any research in the

behavioral sciences investigating the relationship between

task-specific self-esteem, organizational commitment, and

job commitment. Therefore, this study was the first to

investigate these relationships in a sales environment.

Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity

Following the first national study conducted by Kahn,

Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964), empirical

research into the relationship between role stress and

organizational effectiveness has proliferated. This

interest can be attributed to the adverse effects related

to this source of stress. Role stress has been linked to

35

physical and mental health (Morris and Snyder 1979;

absenteeism (Gupta and Beehr 1979); turnover (Porter,

Steers, Mowday, and Boulian 1974); job satisfaction

(Bagozzi 1980; Behrman and Perreault 1984; Teas 1983);

performance (Behrman and Perreault 1984); and ethical

conflict (Dubinsky and Ingram 1984) .

Based upon the theoretical model developed by Kahn,

Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964), stress is

perceived as the employee's reactions to those aspects of

the work environment which provide an emotional threat.

Using this perspective, role stress is a moderating

variable between the employee's organizational position

and their personal, behavioral, and affective outcomes

(Pearce 1981). When the employee experiences high levels

of role stress, it implies there is a poor fit between the

employees' abilities and work situation. This lack of fit

occurs when excessive demands are placed upon the employee

or that the employee does not possess the characteristics

necessary to perform the task/goal assigned (Randolph and

Posner 1981).

Of the various conceptual models that have been

proposed relating role stress to job performance, the one

that has been most researched and accepted is the

activation theory of motivation (Scott 1966). This model

hypothesizes an inverted U-shaped relationship between

role stress and job performance (McLean 1979; Moss 1981).

36

In the case where the employee encounters low stress,

little emotional activation is produced, therefore adding

little to the improvement of performance. On the other

extreme, when a high level of stress is encounter, the

employee spends a higher proportion of their time in

coping behaviors. This misdirection of energy leads to

reduced time available for job-related efforts, therefore

lower job performance. Research, testing this model, has

found that a moderate amount of stress is optimal for job

performance. Moderate amounts of stress do not detract

from job-related activities, therefore lead to higher

levels of performance (Anderson 1976; Cohen 1980).

Two aspects of the salesperson's role stress that have

received considerable attention in the sales literature

have been role conflict and role ambiguity (Teas 1983;

Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1975; Behrman and Perreault

1984; Dubinsky and Ingram 1984). Role conflict is said to

exist when there are conflicting, inconsistent, or

incompatible job demands placed upon the salesperson.

This "intersender conflict" arises when the salesperson

cannot always satisfy conflicting demands that arise

between their management and customers. Role ambiguity

occurs when the salesperson lacks the necessary

information to define others job expectations, methods to

be used to fulfill known expectations, or the consequences

of role performance (Kahn, et al. 1964).

37

One of the purposes of this study was to demonstrate

that the sales manager's leadership behaviors lead to role

conflict and role ambiguity. These two sources of job

stress in turn moderate the relationship between

leadership behavior and salesforce outcomes.

Although role conflict and role ambiguity have been

linked with a number of variables (antecedents, outcomes,

and mediators), this review of the literature will

concentrate only on their role as moderators. Thus, role

conflict and role ambiguity moderates the relationship

between sales managers leadership behaviors and sales

force performance, job satisfaction, job commitment, and

organizational commitment.

Empirical Research

The results of considerable research, utilizing

House's (1971) path-goal theory, suggest that a sales

manager's leadership behavior may be related to the

salesperson's level of felt stress. This stress results

in role conflict and role ambiguity. Further, role

conflict and role ambiquity has been shown to be related

to several other job-related outcomes, including

satisfaction, organizational and job commitment, and

performance (Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1977; Hampton,

Dubinsky, and Skinner 1986; Teas 1983; Behrman and

Perreault 1984).

38

Role Conflict. Role Ambiguity, and Job Satisfaction

The results of empirical research in selling and

nonselling occupations indicate that role perceptions

affect the subordinate's job satisfaction (Churchill,

Ford, and Walker 1976; Bagozzi 1978; Teas 1983; Beehr and

Newman 1978; Behrman and Perreault 1984; Miles 1975).

These investigations have been consistent in finding an

inverse relationship between role conflict, role

ambiquity, and job satisfaction. It can be concluded that

when the sales supervisor creates role conflict and

ambiquity in the salesperson, job-related stress

increases, leading to decreased satisfaction.

Role Conflict, Role Ambiguitv. and Performance

Fiedler and Leister's (1977) multiple screen model

includes stress with the supervisor as a moderating

variable. Within the context of this model, stress

either facilatates or inhibits the subordinate's job

performance. Perceptions of the sales supervisor's

leadership behaviors often create role conflict and

ambiquity, and therefore affect sales performance.

Several researchers have investigated this

relationship among salespeople (Bagozzi 1978; Busch and

Bush 1978; Behrman and Perreault 1982, 1984; Dubinsky and

Mattson 1979). The sales and organizational behavior

39

literature is consistant in that both role conflict and

ambiguity leads to lower job performance. The salesperson

cannot perform well if they are uncertain as to what sales

tasks are most important, how much time and energy they

should expend on each task, and how they will be

evaluated. Likewise, the inability of the salesperson to

reconcile the various demands of different partners (sales

manager and customers) reduces the amount of time

available to perform constructive selling tasks.

Role Conflict. Role Ambiguity, and Commitment

Role conflict and ambiquity can be important to the

development of commitment among salesforce personnel.

Examples of this relationship abound in the research

conducted in a number of organizational settings (Donnelly

and Etzel 1977; Oliver and Brief 1977; Hall and Lawler

1970; Ivancevich and Donnelly 1970). Although these

studies did not investigate the linkage between role

conflict, ambiquity, and job commitment, they strongly

suggest that there is a negative relationship between

these two forms of job stress and organizational

commitment.

A number of researchers have attempted to explain this

negative relationship (Kornhauser 1965; Hall and Lawler

1970). First, the presence of role conflict and ambiquity

results in the increased attractiveness of

40

extraorganizational and extraoccupational alternatives,

therefore a decrease in organizational and job commitment.

Secondly, from the employee's view, a lack of role

conflict and ambiquity in the performance of their job may

be perceived as a job or organizational asset (Likert

1961). Low job stress leads to higher levels of

organizational and job commitment, whereas high levels of

job stress have the opposite effects.

Commitment

In recent years there has been increased attention to

the process of commitment in work environments. This

interest has lead to a proliferation of concepts used to

operationalize the construct (organizational commitment,

job involvement, etc.). The various theoretical

perspectives have lead to commitment being used to define

such diverse phenomena as the willingness of social actors

to give their energy and loyalty to social systems (Kanter

1968) , a cognitive state of satisfaction with social

relationships on the job, as well as loyalty to the

organization (Lee 1971), the binding of an individual to

behavioral acts (Salancik 1977), and as an affective

attachment to an organization apart from the purely

instrumental worth of the relationship (Buchanan 1974).

Due to the many conflicting views. Hall and Schneider

(1972) concluded that a global concept should be abandoned

41

for a set of concepts, each of which would focus on one or

more dimensions of commitment.

Morrow (1983), after an extensive review of the

literature, concluded that the various approaches used to

define work commitment has lead to 25 different commitment

concepts and measures. The various concepts are further

grouped according to their focus (personal values, career,

job, organization, and union).

The various definitions and measures of commitment

have led to differences between meanings, redundancy

across and among concepts, therefore operationalization of

the measures.

After reviewing the literature related to the various

concepts of work commitment. Morrow (1983) concluded that,

"In the author's view, it is more useful to dismantle

work commitment and designate (or formulate) concepts

representative of each focus area" (p. 498) .

In this study, organizational and job commitment will

be investigated. The degree to which a person identifies

with their work and the devotion and loyalty to one's

employing firm would seem to be more relevant to sales

force outcomes than value, career, and union commitment.

The next section will address conceptual,

definitional, and relevant research as they relate to

these two concepts, organizational and job commitment.

42


Although marketing researchers have only recently

investigated organizational commitment (Hunt, Chonko, and

Wood 1985; Still 1983), the last two decades have

witnessed an increased interest by other social scientists

in this construct. This stream of research has led to the

recognition that organizational commitment is an important

concept in understanding employees' work behaviors

(Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1979). All managers want

loyal and committed workers since it is believed that high

levels of commitment tend to lead to increased

organizational effectiveness (Scholl 1981; Hunt, Chonko,

and Wood 1985) ; committed employees give more of their

time, energy, talent, judgment, and ideas in the best

interest of the organization (Weiner and Vardi 1980); that

commitment is a relatively stable attribute, therefore a

more reliable linkage between employee attitudes and

organizational behaviors (Angle and Perry 1981). However

one views commitment, it is important because it can

function as both an antecedent and outcome of desired

organizational behaviors.

This interest in commitment has led to a stream of

research investigating organizational commitment and its

relationship to various antecedents and outcome variables.

Typical of the antecedents are personal characteristics

(Hrebiniak and Alutto 1972; Steers 1977; Morrow 1983;

43

Morris and Sherman 1981); job characteristics (Hackman and

Lawler 1971; Morris and Sherman 1981; Mowday, Steers, and

Porter 1979; Hunt, Chonko, and Wood 1985); investments

(Becker 1960; Kanter 1968; Alutto, Hrebiniak, and Alonzo

1973; Sheldon 1971); and work relationships (Buchanan

1974; Feldman 1977; Morris and Sherman 1981). While most

of the empirical research has focused on the antecedents

of organizational commitment, a few studies have

investigated work-related outcomes such as turnover,

satisfaction, absenteeism, and performance (Siegel and Ruh

1973; Steers 1977; Hunt, Chonko, and Wood 1985; Still

1983; Hall and Lawler 1970).

However, as with many constructs in social science

research, organizational commitment has been defined in

various ways. Scholl (1981) reports several definitions

which include: a willingness of social actors to give

energy and loyalty to the organization; an attitude or set

of behavioral intentions that direct the individual toward

long term membership and high levels of performance; and

as unwillingness on the part of the employee to leave the

organization for increases in salary, status, professional

freedom, or colleguial friendship.

The conflict between theoretical foundations and the

paucity of definitions has led Stevens, Beyer, and Trice

(1978) to suggest that the divergent points of view can be

subsumed into two conceptual approaches. These two

44

approaches, the behavioral and attitudinal schools of

thought, are reviewed in the next section.

Conceptual Approaches to Organizational Commitment

The attitudinal approach, originating in the works of

Porter and Smith (1970), represents a state in which an

individual identifies with a particular organization, its

goals, and wishes to maintain membership in order to

achieve these goals (Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1979). As

such, commitment involves an attitude, or set of

behavioral intentions, that directs the individual to act

in a manner that achieves the organization's goals and

interests. The stronger the level of commitment, the more

that the individual's behavioral intentions direct their

actions toward satisfaction of the organizations

expectations and their own personal benefit. From this

view, attitudinal commitment exists when the identity of

the individual is linked to the organization (Sheldon

1971). Proponents of this approach include Hall and Lawler

(1970), Mowday and McDade (1979), Sheldon (1971), and

Porter, et al. (1974). This approach derived from

expectancy theory since the employees' behaviors result

from the expectation that valued rewards or payments will

be provided by the organization (Scholl 1981).

The behavioral approach views commitment as a behavior

instead of an internal process. Proponents of this

45

approach confine themselves to the employee membership

decision (Becker 1960; Salancik 1977; Gouldner 1950; Hunt,

Chonko, and Wood 1985). The membership decision is

explained by the concept of exchange or reward-cost

relationship. If a favorable exchange exists from the

employee's perspective, then commitment to the

organization will be enhanced. The longer that the

relationship exists, the greater the amount of extrinsic

benefits that could be lost by leaving.

Two limitations of the behavioral approach have been

noted:

1. First, organizational commitment is based almost entirely on utilitarian considerations. Since the measures are concerned with the propensity to leave, given inducements in alternative employment, little can be predicted about related behavioral outcomes.

2. Secondly, all researchers using this approach have concerned themselves with antecedents and attitudinal outcomes. The relationship between organizational commitment and behavioral outcomes has not been empirically established. (Morris and Sherman 1981, p. 514)

Due to the limitations imposed by the behavioral

approach, this study used the attitudinal approach in

measuring organizational commitment. As such,

organizational commitment was postulated to be an

attitudinal intervening construct, mediating the effect of

the sales manager's leadership behavior and the

46

salesperson's job satisfaction, performance, and

organizational and job commitment.

Job Commitment

The literature on job involvement is limited when

compared to other forms of commitment. Most of the early

research has been conducted by psychologists who

investigated organizational antecedents (Allport 1947) and

sociologists who concerned themselves with the

socialization process leading to job involvement (Hughes

1958; Dubin 1961). Recent studies have investigated job

commitment and various job-related outcomes, such as

turnover (Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian 1974; Steers

1977) , work effort (Gechman and Wiener 1975), job

satisfaction (Rabinowitz and Hall 1977), and performance

effectiveness (Hall and Lawler 1970; Siegel and Ruh 1973;

Weiner and Vardi 1980) .

Job commitment (usually referred to as job

involvement) has been defined in a number of ways to

reflect two different concepts: (a) performance self-

esteem contingency, and (b) as a component of the self-

image .

In the former approach, job commitment is usually

defined as the degree to which an individual's job

performance will affect their self-esteem. Lodahl (1964)

defined job commitment as "a value orientation toward work

47

that is learned early in life." For French and Kahn

(1962) ego-involved performance exists when job

performance is central to the worker. Therefore, job

performance will affect the individual's self-esteem.

Similarly, Lawler (1969), used the term intrinsic

motivation to explain the relationship between job

commitment and performance. An individual is motivated to

perform well because of the subjective feelings and

rewards received for performing well on a task. Lastly,

Guion (1958) viewed job involvement as ego-involvement in

one's job.

A common thread throughout these definitions is a

belief that the job-involved person is one for whom work

is a very important part of his/her life and who is

affected by his/her work situation, the work itself, co

workers, and the company.

The latter approach to defining job commitment

emphasizes involvement as a component of the self-image

(personal identification with the job itself). Lawler and

Hall (1970) defined job involvement as "the degree to

which the job situation is central to the person and his

identity" (p. 310-311). Mauser (1969) defined job

commitment in terms of work role motivation. An

individual will be motivated to perform based upon the

degree to which the work role is related to self-

definition, self-evaluation, and success-definition.

48

Lastly, Patchen (1970) defined the job-involved individual

as one who perceived the job as leading to the attainment

of personal goals (motivations and positive feelings with

respect to the job).

This study uses the definition proposed by Lodahl and

Kejner (1965). Their definition emphasizes "the degree to

which a person is identified with their work, or the

importance of work in their total self-image" (p. 24).

This definition emphasizes the self-image and involves the

degree of daily absorption in work activity and the degree

to which the total job situation is a central part of life

(Morrow 1983).

Sales Performance

Several definitions of sales performance have appeared

in the literature. Cotham (1968) and Bagozzi (1978)

define performance in terms of the sales volume produced

by the salesperson. Katzell, Barnett, and Parker (1961)

view performance as an aggregation of quantity, quality,

profitability, product value, and turnover. Weitz (1981)

generalizes the term to represent the degree to which

solutions preferred by the salesperson are actualized

across their customer interactions.

Successful performance of the selling function

determines the economic well being of the majority of

industrial firms. However one defines performance, it is

49

of little surprise that marketing researchers have

directed their attention to one of the most important

measures of selling—sales results.

Determinants of Sales Performance

Over the last two decades, researchers have

investigated a large number of variables as determinants

of sales performance. These variables can typically be

classified into four broad groups: (1) salesperson ability

or aptitude, (2) financial compensation, (3) psychological

incentives, and (4) organizational and managerial factors

(Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1977) .

In a recent review, Churchill, Ford, Hartley, and

Walker (1985) concluded that aptitude measures account for

only 2% of the variation of sales performance, selling

skills accounted for slightly more than 7%, motivation

less than 3%, role perceptions less than 9%, personal

variables (age, sex, race, etc.) averaged across all

variables accounted for approximately 2% of the explained

variance, and organizational and environmental factors

only accounted for 1% of the variance.

The results of this study imply that these variables,

when considered singularly, are unimpressive. These

results may be accounted for by the use of single

predictors, different measures of the variables and

samples, failure to adeguately model the full set of sales

50

performance determinants, and the existance of moderator

variables that may affect the relationship between

performance and the predictors (Churchill, Ford, Hartley,

and Walker 1985).

Conceptual Issues

Techniques typically used by sales managers to

evaluate the sales force fall into two broad categories,

outcome-based and behavior-based.

Outcome-based measures. Outcome-based techniques hold

the salesperson accountable for sales results, not the

process by which the results are obtained. The

salesperson is allowed to structure their work environment

and determine which sales strategies will best achieve

sales goals (Anderson and Oliver 1987). Due to ease with

which outcome-based measures can be attributed to the

individual salesperson, sales managers and researchers

apply a measure of dollar sales, unit volume, sales

expense, etc., as an objective measure of sales

performance.

Outcome-based measures are consistant with the

conceptualization of "performance" and "effectiveness" as

discussed by Walker, Churchill, and Ford (1979).

In the marketing literature, a number of researchers

have utilized outcome-based measures in their published

reports (Behrman and Perreault 1982; Bagozzi 1980; Cotham

51

1968). In spite of their widespread use and appeal, a

number of researchers warn of the use of outcome-based

measures in marketing research and as salesforce

performance criteria (Anderson and Oliver 1987; Walker,

Churchill, and Ford 1977; Churchill, Ford, Hartley, and

Walker 1985; Behrman and Perreault 1982; Cocanougher and

Ivancevich 1978).

Behavior-based measures. Behavior-based evaluation

addresses the selling process rather than the outcome of

this process. Sales management is actively involved with

the determination of selling activities, such as product

knowledge, closing abilities, calls made, etc., that are

assumed to lead to sales performance. Management then

evaluates the salesforce on this criteria, summing each

rating into an overall performance evaluation (Anderson

and Oliver 1987).

Although this technigue is more complex and requires a

great deal of subjective evaluation, it has more intuitive

appeal than does outcome-based approaches. First, it

allows sales management the latitude of specifying which

behaviors are most important in reaching sales goals.

Secondly, it allows the sales manager to eliminate or

compensate for inequities in sales territories (Churchill,

et al. 1985; Behrman and Perreault 1982).

52

An Alternative Approach: Self-Evaluation

Due to the nature of the sales function, performance

is multi-dimensional and complex to measure. As a result,

many different measures of sales performance have been

used in sales research. These diffences have lead to non-

comparable results across studies. Single measures of

sales, typical of performance-based techniques, merely

generalize across selling behaviors, situation, and time

(Behrman and Perreault 1982). Simply looking at "dollar

of sales" generated is an inadeguate measure, given the

differences in territory sales potential, non-selling

aspects of the sales task, and variations in competitors

actions. Factors of this nature are beyond the control of

the salesperson, yet cause great variations in sales

results (Cocanougher and Ivancevich 1978).

Recognizing the problems, a number of researchers have

proposed the use of self-report measures of sales

performance (Behrman and Perreault 1982). These rating

scales address the various components of the selling

tasks. Behrman and Perreault (1982) identified five major

"aspects" of industrial sales performance: (1) meeting

sales objectives, (2) development and use of technical

knowledge, (3) sales presentation skills, (4) providing

market information, and (5) controlling sales expenses.

As a measure of sales performance self-rating scales

have certain advantages over other forms of evaluation.

53

Personal selling is ambiguous as to what criteria leads to

sales effectiveness. Therefore, it is the salespeople

themselves that best understand the job requirements, how

well each performs in relationship to other salespeople,

and what actually can be achieved in an individual's sales

territory. In addition, self-rating scales are easy to

administer and provide common measures across a variety of

selling situations.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is an important topic of

investigation for both practical and theortical reasons.

From the practical point of view, much of the concern of

sales management is based on the assumption that factors

such as supervisory style, organization, job enrichment,

and level and method of payment operate in an additive

fashion to change the salesperson's total job

satisfaction. In turn, job satisfaction is assumed to be

reflected in behaviors on the job, such as absences,

productivity, turnover, and grievances (Thompson 1971).

"Satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and other emotional

reactions are value responses" (Locke, 1970, p. 485) .

What an individual considers as beneficial to them are the

values against which they appraise their experiences. The

making of value judgments is a subjective psychological

measurement in which a value is the standard. Therefore,

54

job satisfaction is the pleasurable emotional state which

results when one appraises their job as facilitating or

achieving one's job values (Locke 1970). Job

satisfaction, from this view, is a function of the

relationship between what one wants from a job and what

the job is perceived as offering.

Causal Factors in Job Satisfaction

Since a complete summary of all relevant literature is

impossible, the discussion will only emphasize important

findings from the sales management and behavioral science

literature.

Supervisorv behaviors. The results of research in

both selling and nonselling occupations support the

proposition that the supervisor's behavior creates stress

in the subordinate, and this in turn leads to lower job

satisfaction (Teas 1983; Fry, Futrell, Parasuraman, and

Chmielewski 1986; Bedeian and Armenakis 1981) . In

addition, a number of studies have investigated the direct

effect of supervisory behavior upon subordinate job

satisfaction (Teas 1983; Howell and Dorfman 1986; Hampton,

Dubinsky, and Skinner 1986; Miles and Petty 1977).

Two non-selling studies have investigated the effect

of leader contingent and non-contingent reward and

punishment behaviors upon subordinate performance and

attitudes. Both Hunt and Schuler (1976) and Podsakoff,

55

Todor, and Skov (1982) found that there was no significant

relationship between non-contingent rewards and

satisfaction; a negative relationship between non-

contingent punishment and satisfaction with work,

supervision, and co-workers; a non-significant

relationship between contingent punishment and

satisfaction; and a positive relationship between leader

contingent reward behaviors and satisfaction with work,

supervision, and advancement opportunities.

Performance. Reviews of the literature have shown

negligible and inconsistent relationships between

performance and job satisfaction (Brayfield and Crockett

1955; Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman 1959; Vroom 1964).

Locke (1970), argued that high job satisfaction is caused

by good performance. This view flows from the premise

that "good performance in a useful task - leads to good

employee job attitudes" (Ford, 1969, p. 97). Herzberg,

Mausner, and Snyderman (1959), argued for an opposing

view. They proposed a direct effect of satisfaction upon

job performance, with satisfaction having a greater effect

than dissatisfaction.

Empirical research on the performance/satisfaction

link have been contradictory in specifying cause and

effect relations. Based upon the empirical works by

Bagozzi (1978, 1980), the propositions set forth by

Behrman and Perreault (1984) and Walker, Churchill, and

56

Ford (1977), the current view in the sales management

literature is that there is a positive influence of

performance on job satisfaction (Hampton, Dubinsky, and

Skinner 1986).

Role conflict and role ambiguitv. Kahn, et al. (1964)

were among the first behavioral scientists to suggest that

role-related stress creates dissatisfaction. Due to role

conflict, the sales person will experience negative

reactions due to incompatible demands from conflicting

role partners. Likewise, role ambiguity will be

experienced when there is insufficient information by

which the job can be adequately performed, peer

expectations are unclear, and when performance evaluation

criteria are unclear. Considerable empirical evidence

from the organizational behavior and sales management

literature suggests that employee job satisfaction is

higher when experienced role conflict and role ambiguity

are at low levels (Hrebiniak and Alutto 1972; Hampton,

Dubinsky, and Skinner 1986).

Sales force research, investigating this linkage, have

consistently found an inverse relationship between role

conflict, role ambiguity, and job satisfaction (Franke,

Behrman, and Perreault 1982; Behrman and Perreault 1984;

Hampton, Dubinsky, and Skinner 1986; Bagozzi 1978, 1980;

Teas 1983; Churchill, Ford, and Walker 1976).

57

Task-specific self-esteem. Through interaction with

the sales environment, salespeople experience a number of

successes and failures in the performance of the sales

task (Teas 1983). How well the sales interactions are

handled, to a degree, determines whether the salesperson

developes a negative or positive self-worth. Self-worth

in turn is reflected into the salesperson's perception of

how well they perform the sales task. Salespeople who

perceive themselves as more capable, believe that their

efforts will translate into good performance, and,

therefore higher satisfaction with their jobs (Kohli

1985).

Leaders who administer rewards and punishment

contingent upon performance clarify what constitutes good

and bad performance. If good performance is consistently

rewarded, this in turn will reinforce the salperson's

concept of self-worth, leading to high task-specific self-

esteem. Repeated criticisms and negative feedback, non-

contingent on performance, may lead the salesperson to

question their ability to perform, therefore lowering

task-specific self-esteem. High task-specific self-esteem

should lead to job satisfaction, while low task-specific

self-esteem should create dissatisfaction with the sales

job.

Self-esteem, and its companion concepts of chronic

self-esteem, task-specific self-esteem, and social self-

58

esteem have been extensively researched in the behavioral

sciences and marketing literature (Korman 1970, 1976;

Greenhaus and Badin 1974; Ekpo-Ufot 1976; Bagozzi 1978,

1980; Teas 1981; Kohli 1985; Hafer and McCuen 1985;

Howell, Bellenger, and Wilcox 1987). Only two of the

studies have investigated the relationship between task-

specific self-esteem and job satisfaction within the

salesforce.

Bagozzi (1978) developed and tested a scale to measure

task-specific self-esteem among salespeople. Utilizing a

sample of industrial salespeople, task-specific self-

esteem had a significant positive influence on sales

performance, but not on job satisfaction.

Hafer and McCuen (1985) replicated Bagozzi's 1978

study. Using a sample of insurance salespeople, task-

specific self-esteem was found to be positively related to

job satisfaction.

Using the same data from his 1978 study, Bagozzi

(1980) examined the relationship between a number of

antecedents, job performance, and job satisfaction using

causal modeling. Task-specific self-esteem was found to

have an indirect effect on job satisfaction through its

impact on performance.

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Introduction

The objectives of this chapter are to: (1) discuss

and operationalize the research variables selected for

investigation; (2) present the hypotheses formulated for

empirical investigation; (3) describe the sampling

procedures and response rate; (4) provide the conceptual

model; and (5) briefly explain the statistical procedures.

Operationalization of the Variables

The constructs to be investigated in the study were

derived from the theoretical and research base reviewed in

the preceding chapter. In this section each construct is

conceptually defined and measures of each is developed.

Consideration and Initiation of Structure

To assess the salesperson's perception of the

salesmanager's consideration and initiation of structure

behaviors, select items were chosen from Form XII of the

Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (Stodgill,

1963) .

59

60

Consideration, defined as the salesmanager having

regard for the comfort, well-being and contribution of his

or her followers was measured with a 5-item scale.

Initiating structure, referring to the way in which the

salesmanager defines his or her own role and lets

followers know what is expected of them, was measured

using five items from the original 10-item scales. Each

item in these two scales used a 7-point format ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

These two sub-scales have been widely deployed. A

number of review articles have reported good reliability

and validity across a wide range of studies (Korman, 1966;

Kerr and Schriesheim, 1974; and Schriesheim and Kerr,

1977) .

Leader Reward and Punishment Behavior

A scale developed by Podsakoff, Todor, and Skov (1982)

was used to measure the four leader reward and punishment

behaviors investigated in this study. A number of the

items were taken from the Contingency Questionnaire

reviewed by Johnson (1970) and Reitz (1971).

Contingent reward behavior (three items) assesses the

amount of positive reinforcement, such as recognition,

acknowledgement, and commendations, provided by the

supervisor. Contingent punishment behavior (three items)

measures the amount of punitive reinforcement, such as

61

reprimands and disapproval, that are contingent upon poor

performance. Noncontingent punishment behavior (three

items) assesses the degree to which the leader uses

punitive reinforcements that are independent of

performance levels. Lastly, noncontingent reward behavior

(three items) measures the level of rewards administered

by the leader that are independent of performance levels

(Podsakoff, Todor, and Skov 1982) . A 7-point Likert format

ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" was

employed for each item of the scales.

The two studies that have utilized these measures of

supervisor behaviors have reported coefficient alphas

ranging from as low of .76 for noncontingent punishment to

a high of .94 for contingent rewards (Podsakoff, Todor,

and Skov 1982; Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, and Huber 1984).


Leadership substitutes were assessed using six

modified subscales from the Substitutes for Leadership

Scale developed by Kerr and Jermier (1978). Select items

comprising the scales were eliminated to decrease

redundancy among the items. These six subscales measure

the following substitutes for leadership: (1) professional

orientation (three items); (2) ability, experience,

training, and knowledge (three items); (3) intrinsically

satisfying tasks (three items); (4) task-provided feedback

62

(three items); (5) organizational formalization (four

items); and (6) organizational rewards not within the

leader's control (four items). To maintain consistency

with the other scales in the study, a 7-point Likert

format was used.

Kerr and Jermier (1978) reported reliabilities for

these six subscales ranging from a low (.67) for task-

provided feedback to a high (.85) for ability, experience,

training, and knowledge.

Job Stress

Two aspects of the salespersons role stress—role

conflict and role ambiguity—were investigated. Select

items from the two scales developed by Rizzo, House, and

Lirtzman (1970) are used to measure these two constructs.

Schuler, Aldag, and Brief (1977) present a review of the

literature that have utilized these scales and concluded

that both exhibit high construct validity and other

acceptable psychometric properties.

Role conflict, defined as the degree of incongruity or

incompatibility of expectations associated with the sales

role, was measured using a 5-item scale. Role ambiguity,

refers to the lack of clarity regarding what the

salesperson is required to do in the sales function and

the subsequent performance evaluation. This construct was

measured using a 4-item scale. Each of these two scales

63

used a 7-point Likert format ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).


Bagozzi (1978) defined task-specific self-esteem as:

"particular self-attributions and self-regard with respect

to actual performance on the job (e.g., perceptions of

ability to achieve one's potential, self-confidence in

dealing with customers, and so on)" (p. 519).

This construct was operationalized using the 6-item

scale developed by Bagozzi (1978) and three additional

items that tap the salesperson's perceived abilities on

several job performance dimensions. The salespeople were

asked to rate themselves on job performance; ability to

reach guota; potential for reaching quota; potential for

reaching the top 10% of all salespeople in the company;

quality of customer relations; management of time and

expenses; and knowledge of own products, competitors

products, and customer needs (Bagozzi 1978).

Previous research using this measure has reported

coefficient alpha above .70 (Ingram 1980; Kohli 1985;

Hafer and McCuen 1985). Therefore, the internal

consistencies appear to be acceptable for basic research

(Nunnally 1967).

64

Commitment

The study employed two measures of work commitment:

organizational commitment and job commitment. Using the

attitudinal approach, organizational commitment is defined

as a state in which an individual identifies with a

particular organization, its goals, and wishes to maintain

membership to achieve these goals (Mowday, Steers, and

Porter 1979). Nine items from their 15-item scale was

used to measure these three dimensions of commitment into

an overall organizational commitment score. The scale is

constructed using 7-point Likert format, asking the

respondents to strongly disagree (scored 1) or strongly

agree (scored 7) to each statement. In a review article

on work commitment (Morrow 1983), reported that research

utilizing this scale has exhibited reliabilities ranging

from .82 to .93 and that the measure demonstrates a very

strong relationship to its conceptual definition.

For the purposes of the study, job commitment was

defined as "the degree to which a person is identified

with their work, or the importance of work in their total

self-image" (Lodahl and Kejner 1965 p. 24). In prior

research, their 6-item Likert scale has demonstrated

reliabilities ranging from .62 to .93 (Morrow 1983). Each

item is scored on a 7-point scale, from "strongly

disagree" to "strongly agree." Four of the six items were

65

selected to represent job commitment as these four seem to

represent the concept better than the original scale.

Performance

In addition to the problems previously cited regarding

outcome and behavior-based measures of sales performance,

this study imposes two additional problems or limitations

on the use of supervisory administered evaluations.

First, the study utilizes both inside and outside

salespeople to test the hypothesized relationships among

the variables. The criteria used for performance

evaluation will vary due to the specific tasks performed.

Outside salespeople are typically evaluated in

relationship to their ability to generate sales revenue

whereas inside salespeople are evaluated on sales support

activities. Secondly, a large number of industrial

distributors were asked to participate in the study.

Inequality across different sales territories, product

lines, and customers often make objective company data

biased as a measure of sales performance. Different sales

supervisors, using the same performance measure, often

will evaluate the same salesperson guite differently.

Each has different and often conflicting perceptions as to

what aspects of performance are most important. To

provide for a common performance measure among the two

types of salespeople, four items were chosen from the

66

sales performance scale developed by Behrman and Perreault

(1982) . These four items, representing technical

knowledge and information utilization, are characteristics

required of both inside and outside sales personnel for

effective performance. The three remaining dimensions of

the scale; meeting sales objectives, controlling expenses,

and making effective sales presentations were eleminated

since they only reflect outside selling activities.

The four items use a 7-point Likert format, anchored

at the high end with "extremely high" and at the low end

with "extremely low." Behrman and Perreault (1982)

reported alpha coefficients of greater than .75 for the

total item, self-report measure of performance.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction was assessed via the Job Description

Index (JDI) developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969).

The JDI is one of the most widely used measures of job

satisfaction in behavioral research (Locke, Smith,

Kendall, and Miller 1964). This measure has been shown to

be a highly reliable and valid measure of job satisfaction

across a variety of occupations (Imparato 1972; Locke

1976) . The five dimensions of satisfaction (satisfaction

with promotion, three items; satisfaction with pay, three

items; satisfaction with co-workers, four items;

satisfaction with work, four items; and satisfaction with

67

supervision, four items) are assessed using a 7-point

Likert scale with l equal to strongly disagree and 7 equal

to strongly agree. Since the study was concerned with the

salespeoples' general job satisfaction, the five subscales

of the JDI were summated into a single measure

representing global satisfaction with the job. Items used

to assess these constructs are presented in Appendix A.

Select items were eliminated from the original scales or

slightly reworded to conform to a selling situation.

Research Hvpotheses

In the previous chapter, a conceptual model was

presented that depicted the relationships among the

variables of interest in this study. First, leadership

behavior and substitutes for leadership are shown to

effect the salespersons' task-specific self-esteem, job

stress, performance, organization commitment, job

commitment, and job satisfaction. Secondly, task-

specific self-esteem and job stress are posited as

effecting performance, as well as organizational

commitment, job commitment, and job satisfaction. Lastly,

performance is shown as effecting three outcome variables:

job commitment, organizational commitment, and job

performance.

Chapter II provided the rationale for the hypotheses

to be presented in this section. Briefly, the

68

organizational behavior literature suggests that

substitutes for leadership will moderate or negate the

effect of supervisor behaviors on important outcome

behaviors for inside but not for outside industrial sales

personnel. To date, the salesforce literature has not

addressed the relationships investigated in this study.

The set of hypotheses to be investigated can be

expressed in summary form as shown in Figure 2. Each

arrow represents a linear hypothesis, with lambda (X) and

beta (/j) representing parameters to be estimated. The

expected direction of each relationship is presented in

the explanation of each hypothesis to be tested.

The first 12 hypotheses addresses differences between

inside and outside salespeople. In particular, the first

hypothesis deals with differences in the amount (level) of

substitutes for leadership, while hypotheses 2 though 12

deal with differences in the magnitude of the relationship

of leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership between

inside and outside salespeople.

1: For outside salespeople, operating in the absence

of close supervision, the level of substitutes for

leadership will be higher than for inside salespeople.

Leadership

For the inside salespeople (but not the outside), the

following relationships will be significant.

69

2: Contingent reward behavior is:

a. positively related to performance;

b. positively related to job satisfaction.

3: Contingent punishment behavior is:

a. negatively related to performance;

b. negatively related to job satisfaction.

4: Noncontingent punishment behavior is:

a. negatively related to performance;

b. negatively related to job satisfaction;

c. negatively related to task-specific self-

esteem.

5: Consideration behavior is:



6: Iniating structure behavior is;




For the outside salespeople (but not the inside), the

following relationships will be significant.

7: Professional orientation is:

a. positively related to job satisfaction;

b. positively related to role stress;

c. negatively related to organizational

commitment.

70

8: Ability, experience, training, and knowledge is:


b. positively related to job satisfaction;

c. negatively related to role stress.

9: Intrinsically satisfying tasks are:


b. positively related to organizational

commitment;


10: Task provided feedback is:

a. positively related to organizational

commitment;



11: Organizational formalization is:


b. positively related to organizational

commitment;


12: Organizational rewards not in the leader's

control are:




Overall, hypotheses 2 through 12 suggest that for

inside salespeople, leader behaviors will be the more

71

powerful predictor variables, while for outside

salespeople, substitutes for leadership will be more

effective in explaining the outcome variables listed

above.


The task-specific self-esteem of the salespeople

(inside and outside) will be:

13: a. positively related to performance;



Role Stress

The role stress of the salespeople (inside and

outside) will be;

14: a. negatively related to performance;

b. negatively related to job satisfaction;

c. negatively related to job commitment;

d. negatively related to organizational

commitment.

Performance

The job-related performance of the salespeople

(inside and outside) will be:

15: a. positively related to job satisfaction;

b. positively related to job commitment;

c. negatively related to work commitment.

72

Sample and Response Rate

A field study was conducted to investigate the

hypothesized relationships. A list of industrial

distributors from Texas and Illinois was obtained from the

Directory of Industrial Distributors. Approximately 110

sales managers were contacted by telephone. Each sales

manager was informed of the purposes of the study, the

need for their cooperation and support, and the help

needed in encouraging participation of their sales force.

Seventy-five of the sales managers volunteered to

participate in the study. These sales managers

communicated that they employed an initial sample base of

923 salespeople. These statistics are summarized in Table

2.

Two weeks after receiving his/her commitment to

participate, each sales manager was mailed a follow-up

letter restating the purposes of the study (Appendix B).

One month after the follow-up letter, all sales managers

were mailed instructions for distributing the materials to

their salespeople (Appendix C), cover letters for the

salespeople (Appendix D), performance evaluation forms

(Appendix E), guestionnaires (Appendix F), and postage-

paid return envelopes.

TABLE 2

INITIAL SAMPLE BASE

73

Number Inside Outside State of Firms % Sales % Sales % Total %

Texas 64 85.3 361 87.2 448 88.0 Illinois 11 14.7 53 12.8 61 12.0

809 87.6 114 12.4

Total 75 100.0 414 100.0 509 100.0 923 100.0

74

Eight sales managers who had expressed they had over

20 salespeople each were again contacted by telephone two

weeks after the packets of materials were mailed. As

these eight firms employed 25% of the total salespeople in

the sample, it was considered necessary to provide

additional contact to assure their support. Of these

eight firms, seven managers followed through and passed

out the research materials to their salespeople.

During the course of the data gathering, six of the

managers returned the questionnaires or telephoned and

stated they could not participate. The remaining 69 firms

accounted for a potential sample base of 729 sales people.

See Table 3 for a summary of these statistics. This

sample base is further divided by states and by inside and

outside salespeople in Table 4.

Of the 208 guestionnaires received (an overall

response rate of 28.5%), 181 (87%) were from Texas

industrial distributors, while 27 (13%) were from Illinois

distributors. Additional response data is presented in

Table 5.

statistical Analvsis

The research study theorized relationships among a

number of behavioral constructs that are unobserved or

latent (e.g., role conflict and job satisfaction). To

test for the existence of the hypothetical relationships

75

TABLE 3

REFUSAL RATE BY STATE AND SALES SOURCE


Refusals Texas 4 5.3 68 16.4 95 18.7 163 17.7 Illinois 2 2.7 11 2.7 20 3.9 31 3.3

Participating Firms 69 92.0 335 80.9 394 77.4 719 79.0

Initial Sample 75 100.0 414 100.0 509 100.0 923 100.0

76

TABLE 4

SAMPLE BASE BY STATE AND SALES SOURCE


Texas 60 87.0 293 87.5 353 89.6 646 88.6 Illinois 9 13.0 42 12.5 41 10.4 _81 11.4

Total Sample 69 100.0 335 100.0 394 100.0 729 100.0

TABLE 5

RETURN RATE BY STATE AND SALES SOURCE

77


Texas Illinois

Total Response

60 9

69

87.0 13.0

100.0

100 14

114

87.7 12.3

100.0

81 11

94

86.2 13.8

100.0

181 27

208

87.0 13.0

100.0

State Return Rate %

Texas Illinois

28.0 32.5

Total Response 28.5

78

among the set of latent constructs, a system of eguations

was estimated. Within the system of equations, each

construct is measured by multiple indicators and each

indicator measures only a single construct. Hence, the

set of indicators defining each construct are assumed to

be congeneric (Joreskog 1978; Bagozzi 1980). Further, the

system of equations allows for measurement errors since

the observable measures are imprecise measures of the

latent constructs.

A latent variable model was used to represent the

phenomenon under consideration and test the hypotheses

formulated for investigation. Goldberger (1973) has noted

three situations in which structural equations are most

appropriate as a statistical procedure: (1) when the

observed indicants contain measurement errors and when the

relationship of interest is among the true or

disattentuated variables, (2) when there is simultaneous

causation among the observed response indicants, and (3)

when there may be a number of omitted variables that may

also be explanatory of the relationships of interest.

Bagozzi (1984) fully discusses the value of latent

variable structural eguation models for the development of

marketing theory.

Figure 3 shows the causal model to be examined in this

study. In the convention of causal modeling, the model

79

i3 Z HI 3: C CO

W O O S

<c CO D

O

W

Pui M

CO

o M

w

Q W CSI M CO

O

W

M

80

consists of eight latent variables (the research variables

of interest) and a number of observable variables. Lower

case Greek letters represent parameters to be estimated,

circles indicate latent constructs, and arrows connecting

each circle represents a hypothesized causal path.

It should be noted that a number of relationships are

depicted among the latent variables that are not supported

by the literature reviewed. Further, these relationships

are not hypothesized in the statement of hypotheses. To

date, no research has been conducted in the sales

management or behavioral sciences investigating these

causal linkages.

Therefore, since they are not supported by prior

empirical research, the investigation of these

relationships was exploratory in nature. The results of

the statistical investigation of these relationships will

be reported in Chapter IV, along with the results of the

hypothesized relations.

The new computer program LISREL VII of Joreskog and

Sorbom (1989) was used to test the hypothesized

relationships in the model.

CHAPTER IV

EMPIRICAL RESULTS

Introduction

In the preceding chapter, the research design and the

statistical procedures were introduced. The purpose of

this chapter is to report the results of that analysis.

The response rates and test for nonresponse bias are first

discussed. Then the fit of the LISREL model is presented.

Lastly, the results of the test of individual hypotheses

is provided.

Analvsis of the Demographic Variables

Each salesperson was asked to provide information

regarding his/her sex, age, length of time in their

current position, education level, size of company, major

type of product sold, level of income, change in sale

quota (if any), and their sales position within the firm

(inside or outside sales). Table 6 summarizes the

frequencies of the demographic variables.

The characteristics of the sample (Table 6) implies

that:

1) the respondents were predominately male (82%).

81

82

TABLE 6

Size of Firm

SAMPLE

(number of employees) Less than 10 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 2 50 or more

Age 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or more

Sex Male Female

Income Less than $20, $20, - 39,999 $40, - 59,999 $60, - 79,999 $80, - 99,999

000

$100,000 or more

CHARACTERISTICS (n=208)

15 14 11 27 19 14

100

26 31 22 15 6

100

82 18

100

23 48 19 3 5 2

100

Marital Status Married Single

Position in Firm Outside Inside

Education Level No college degree Bachelor's degree Graduate degree

76 24

100

45 55

100

63 34 3

100

Years Worked for Firm (number of years) 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 over 20

51 19 12 10 8

100

Years in Current Position (number of years) 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 over 20

64 16 12 4 4

Major Product Sold

Electronics Hydraulics Electrical Supplies Drives and Trans

missions Pipe and Fittings Metal and Fasteners Oilfield Supplies Miscellaneous

10 18 24

10 16 6 7 9

100

Major Field of Study Business Administration 36

Liberal Arts 3 Science 3

Engineering 15 Education 2 Other (e.g. Com-munications) 41

100 100

83

2) approximately two-thirds of the respondents were

occupying positions they had held for five or less

years.

3) on the average, the respondents were fairly well

paid with 29% making in excess of $40,000 per year.

4) only 26% of the respondents were less than 30 years

of age.

5) 60% of the respondents work for companies with 50

or more employees.

6) 55% were from inside sales, while the other 45%

were outside sales representatives.

7) the respondents have a diversity of educational

backgrounds with 37% holding at least a bachelor's

degree.

8) products sold included electronics, hydraulics,

electrical supplies, drives and transmissions, pipe

and fittings, metal and fasteners, and oilfield

supplies.

Response Variance bv Groups

Due to the sampling design employed, a direct

assessment of non-response bias was not possible. Since a

list of industrial distributor salespeople does not exist,

each participating salesmanager was relied upon to pass

out the survey instrument to his/her salespeople.

84

Further, anonymity was promised to each respondent,

creating additional problems for any follow-up procedures.

When an assessment of non-response bias is not

possible, Kalton, Ceilings, and Brook (1978) have

recommended that response variance instead be

investigated. Response variance is investigated by

comparing item responses of the subgroups within the

sample.

Test of significance were performed to examine the

possibility that the respondents were not homogeneous on

two key characteristics—by state and early versus late

response. Since it had been hypothesized that the inside

and outside salespeople would be differentiated on the

research variables, the sample was further sub-divided

into these two subgroups. The research variables were

summated, then multivariate analysis of variance was

utilized for an overall test of independence.

Table 7 reports the results of differences in the

means of the research variables between the respondents

from Illinois and Texas. The lack of significant

differences indicates that response variance is not an

issue when respondents by state is considered.

Further analysis between those who returned the

questionnaires early versus late is presented in Table 8.

Again, response variance is not an issue in the study.

The lack of significant differences indicates that

85

TABLE 7

SUBGROUP RESPONSE VARIANCE ACROSS TEXAS AND ILLINOIS

Test

Wilks' Criterion

Pillai's Trace

Roy's Maximum Root Trace

Value

.81337

.18663

.22945

Inside Salespeople

F-Statistic

1.13

1.13

1.13

PR>F

.3409

.3409

.3409

Outside Salespeople

Test Value F-Statistic PR>F

Wilks' Criterion

Pillai's Trace


.83743

.16257

.19412

.79

.79

.79

.6924

.6924

.6924

TABLE 8

SUBGROUP RESPONSE VARIANCE EARLY VERSUS LATE RESPONSES

86

Inside Salespeople


Wilks' Criterion

Pillai's Trace


.86491

.13509

.15619

.77

.77

.77

.7124

.7124

.7124

Outside Salespeople


Wilks' Criterion

Pillai's Trace


.72133

.27867

.38634

1.57

1.57

1.57

.1032

.1032

.1032

87

responses from the subgroups can be combined for testing

the hypotheses in the study.

Lastly, the differences in means of the research

variables across inside and outside salespeople is

presented in Table 9. As the data shows, there is a

significant difference between responses when job

classification is considered. The study hypothesized

that there would be significant differences for these two

groups, especially when substitutes for leadership and

leadership behaviors were investigated.

These differences were further investigated to

determine where the two groups were most different in

their mean responses. The results of the t-tests across

the leadership, substitutes for leadership, and behavioral

outcome variables are displayed in Table 10.

The only variables that showed a significant

difference were three of the substitutes for leadership:

organizational rewards not in leader control; ability,

experience, training, and knowledge; and intrinsically

satisfying tasks.

Although the t-test showed there was not significant

differences on the majority of constructs investigated in

the study, these results do not significantly alter the

analysis to follow. The major emphasis of the research

was to investigate the existence of substitutes for

88

TABLE 9

SUBGROUP RESPONSE VARIANCE INSIDE VERSUS OUTSIDE SALES PEOPLE


Wilks' Criterion .74892 2.38 .001

Pillai's Trace .25108 2.38 .001

Roy's Maximum Root Trace .33525 2.38 .001

89

TABLE 10

TEST OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES ACROSS CONSTRUCTS

INSIDE VERSUS OUTSIDE SALES PEOPLE

Construct Inside Outside t-value PR>T

Contingent Punishment Contingent Rewards Noncontingent

Punishment Noncontingent Rewards Consideration Initiation of Structure Organizational Rewards

Not in Leader Control Ability, Experience,

Training, & Knowledge Professional Orientation3 Task-Provided Feedback Instrinsically Satisfy

ing Tasks Organizational

Formalization Role Conflict Role Ambiguity Job Commitment Organizational

Commitment Promotion Satisfaction Work Satisfaction Pay Satisfaction Supervisor Satisfaction Coworker Satisfaction Task-Specific Self-

Esteem

4.88 4.76

2.04 3.20 4.76 3.79

3.22

5.54 i3.84 5.45

5.37

3.81 3.77 2.82 4.53

5.18 4.07 5.69 3.94 5.49 5.43

5.47

4.89 4.66

2.08 3.10 4.61 3.72

3.98

5.83 3.92 5.22

5.73

3.56 3.96 2.93 4.61

4.97 4.04 5.79 4.29 5.30 5.39

5.55

-.1402 .5665

-.2430 .6355

1.4748 .5742

-3.9149

-1.9545 -.4029 1.4839

-3.1414

1.2058 -1.3946 -.8123 -.4850

1.4028 .1350

-.6611 -1.4754 1.0557 .2875

-.9105

.8887

.5717

.8083

.5258

.1418

.5664

.0001

.0490

.6875

.1394

.0019

.2293

.1647

.4175

.6282

.1622

.8927

.5093

.1416

.2923

.7740

.3636

90

leadership among salespeople and the effect of these

"substitutes" upon a number of select outcome variables.

Reliability

Reliability concerns the extent to which different

measures are repeatable (Nunnally 1978, p. 191). A

reliable measure is repeatable and consistent, whereas an

unreliable measure provides results that are unrepeatable

and inconsistent (Zeller and Carmines 1980). If the items

that make up each theoretical construct in the study are

homogeneous with each other, then it can be concluded that

the measures are the "true" measures of the construct

under consideration.

Reliabilities for the constructs were computed using

the ALPHA model from the SPSS reliability procedure (SPSS

1986). Peter (1979) noted that coefficient alpha "is the

most commonly accepted formula for assessing the

reliability of a measurement scale with multiple items"

(p. 8).

After appropriate reverse scoring, sum scores were

computed for each of the 24 scales. The reliabilities are

shown in Table 11 in descending order. The coefficients

reveal a considerable range for the scale reliabilities,

from a low of .2563 (intrinsically satisfying tasks) to a

high of .8876 (satisfaction). Nunnally (1967, p. 226) has

offered the following guidelines for evaluating the

91

TABLE 11

SCALE RELIABILITIES

Number of Reliability Construct/Scale Items Coefficient

Satisfaction Performance (management provided) Organizational Commitment Contingent Rewards Noncontingent Punishment Organizational Formalization Initiating Structure Task-Specific Self-Esteem Consideration Organizational Rewards Job Commitment Ability, Experience, Training,

and Knowledge Contingent Punishment Task Provided Feedback Professional Orientation Noncontingent Rewards Role Conflict Role Ambiguity Performance (self-reported) Intrinsically Satisfying Tasks

.8 2 9 3 3 4 5 9 5 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 5 4 4 3

.8876

.8875

.8062

.8049

.7904

.7878

.7840

.7837

.7403

.7141

.6717

.6534

.6496

.6313

.6294

.5448

.4918

.4267

.3999

.2563

92

magnitude of reliability coefficients. A reliability in

the range of .5 to .6 is sufficient for the early stages

of research. When conducting basic research,

reliabilities greater than .8 are unnecessary since at

that level correlations are attenuated very little by

measurement error.

Since the study was not of an applied nature, these

guidelines suggest that almost all of the scales

demonstrate satisfactory reliability, except for role

conflict, role ambiguity, self-reported performance, and

intrinsically satisfying tasks.

The inter-item analysis for each scale was computed

using coefficient alpha. This analysis implied that a

number of the scale reliabilities could be improved by

deleting items that exhibited low covariances. Table 12

reports those scales whose reliabilities could be improved

by deletion of items. It should be noted that the role

conflict, role ambiguity, and self-reported performance

scales cannot be significantly improved.

Additional investigation of the scales will be

reported later in this chapter utilizing factor analysis.

In this context, factor analysis was used to identify and

describe the number of separate factors that underlie the

data. In addition, the factor loadings for each of the

scale items was used to determine the contribution of each

item to each factor.

93

TABLE 12

IMPROVEMENT IN SCALE RELIABILITIES

Reliability Reliability before item after item

Construct/Scale deletion deletion

Noncontingent Punishment .7904 .8383 Organizational Fromalization .7878 .8182 Organizational Rewards .7141 .7778 Satisfaction with Work .6519 .6988 Contingent Punishment .6496 .7206 Task-Provided Feedback .6313 .6855 Noncontingent Rewards .5448 .6872

94

Based upon the reliabilities presented in this section

and the factor analysis to be presented in the next

section, decisions will be made on item deletion and scale

retention prior to testing the hypothesized relations.

LISREL Results

The use of structural equation modeling to test the

hypothesized relationships was presented in the preceeding

chapter. The investigation is concerned with how

substitutes for leadership affects the sales managers

leader behaviors influence on a number of sales force

related outcome variables.

Covariance structure modeling (LISREL) was chosen for

analysis of the data since the procedure allows for the

multiple relationships between the constructs as well as

the interdependencies among the variables.

As an aid to researchers in the use of structural

equation models, Anderson and Gerbing (1988) have proposed

a two-step approach. The first step involves a

confirmatory measurement, or factor analysis model to

investigate the relationship of the observed measures to

the theoretical constructs of interest. The second step

involves a confirmatory structural model to specify the

causal relations of the constructs to one another.

The analysis to follow in this section follows these

two steps in an attempt to clarify the analysis and reduce

95

interpretational confounding. Interpretational

confounding "occurs as the assignment of empirical meaning

to an unobserved variable which is other than the meaning

assigned to it by an individual a priori to estimating

unknown parameters" (Burt 1976, p.4).

Before proceeding with this two-step approach, a test

of the full LISREL model was performed. This step is

performed simply to determine whether the model can be

improved through respecification of the measures or

constructs.

The goodness-of-fit of the whole model was assessed by

three measures of the overall fit; chi-square, the

goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and the root mean square

residual RMR. These statistics are;

Jl̂ ^ = 1024, with 300 d.f.,

GFI = .81

RMR = .07 .

Overall the model does not adequately fit the data.

The chi-square statistic is extremely large in relation to

its degrees of freedom. This indicates that the variance-

covariance matrix of the observed variables produced by

the hypothesized model does not egual the variance-

covariance matrix of the observable variables.

Two additional measures of the. overall fit were also

investigated. The goodness-if-fit (GFI) index was .81. A

value of greater than .9 implies a good fit of the data.

96

In addition, the root mean square residual (RMR) was .07.

A value of less than .05 is desirable.

All three indices imply a poor fit between the data

and the theorized model. Due to this preliminary

analysis, the measurement model was investigated to

determine which respecifications are necessary.

The Measurement Model

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test for the

relations of the observed valuables to the underlying

constructs. Given an unacceptable overall fit of the

LISREL model, Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggest four

ways to respecify indicators that have not worked as

planned. These are:

1) relate the indicators to a different factor

2) delete the indicator

3) relate the indicator to multiple factors

4) use correlated measurement errors.

The first two recommendations were followed since the

desire was to create unidimensional measures, whereas the

last two do not achieve this goal.

The factor structure was investigated to determine

which items corresponded to their hypothesized constructs.

Items were deleted if their factor loadings were less than

.30, where large modification indices suggested the items

cross-loaded on other constructs, or if they exhibited

97

correlated measurement errors. The deleted items are

presented in Figure 4.

The investigation of the phi matrix showed a

correlation greater than .9 between role conflict and role

ambiguity. These two scales were combined into a single

construct to measure overall job stress. In addition, two

of the self-report measures of performance exhibited high

cross loadings and were eliminated from further analysis.

Further, these two measures of self-report performance

correlated at .68 with the 2-item management assessment of

the salespeople's performance. Since the sales managers

only provided evaluation of 132 of their salespeople, it

was decided to use the 2-item self-reported measure of

performance. In this manner, data on all 208 respondents

could be utilized in the subseguent analysis.

After deleting those items having low convergent

validity and inconsistent measurement relationships, the

reestimated measurement model was run again.

The overall fit of the revised measurement model

showed the following goodness-of-fit measures:

^2= 467, with 343 degrees of freedom

GFI = .874

RMR = .059 .

98

Noncontingent Rewards 1. Even when I perform poorly on my job, my

supervisor rarely gets upset with me.

Noncontingent Punishment 1. My supervisor is often critical of my work

even when I perform well.

Initiating Structure 1. Lets sales personnel know what is expected

of them. 2. Schedules the work to be done.

Consideration 1. Keeps to himself or herself. 2. Gives advance notice of changes.

Ability, Experience, Training, and Knowledge 1. Because of my ability, experience, training,

or job knowledge, I have the competence to act independently of my immediate supervisor in performing unusual and unexpected job duties.

Professional Orientation 1. For feedback about how well I am performing,

I rely on people in my occupational specialty, whether or not they are members of my work unit or organization.

Task Provided Feedback 1. My job is the kind where you can make a

mistake or an error and not be able to see that you've made it.

Intrinsically Satisfying Tasks 1. My job satisfaction depends to a

considerable extent on the nature of the actual tasks I perform on my job.

Organizational Formalization 1. In this organization, performance appraisals

are based on written standards.

FIGURE 4 ITEMS DELETED AFTER FACTOR ANALYSIS

99

Organizational Rewards 1. My immediate superior has little say or

influence over which of his or her subordinates receive organizational rewards,

Job Commitment 1. I am very much involved in my work.

Organizational Commitment 1. I am willing to put in a great deal of

effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful.

Task-Specific Self-Esteem 1. Management of your time and company

expenses. 2. Providing accurate and complete paperwork

related to orders and other routine reports

Self Reported Performance 1. Your overall compensation level. 2. The latest raise or bonus you received.

FIGURE 4 (continued)

100

The chi-square of 467 with 343 degrees of freedom was

obtained for the respecified measurement model. The

goodness-of-fit index (GFI) was .874 which indicates a

moderately good fit. Lastly, the root mean squared

residual (RMR) was .059. Although the data do not imply

a good fit, the respecification has improved the overall

fit as compared to the preliminary model.

The standardized solution for the measurement model is

presented in Tables 13 and 14. Each pattern coefficient

on its construct factor is significant (i.e., greater than

twice its standard error) , therefore, evidence of

convergent validity.

The revised assessment of reliabilities is shown in

Table 15. The reliabilities of the constructs are

obtained directly from the solution in which the n's are

standardized. The formula for reliability is: —-T?—-rr- .

The internal consistencies showed that the constructs

all have excellent to acceptable reliability, with the

exception of Intrinsically Satisfying Tasks. This scale

was retained and included in the balance of the analysis

since it was one of the substitutes for leadership and

considered important to the study.

In summary, the respecification of the measurement

model led to the deletion of a number of scale items due

to high cross-loadings or low inter-item correlations.

101

TABLE 13

STANDARDIZED SOLUTION FOR THE ENDOGENOUS VARIABLES

Variable

87 & 96 91 & 92 91,95 & ' RCS RAS 89 90 OCl 0C2 0C3

Variable

55 56 61 PS WS PS SS C-WS

Task-Self

97

•Specific -Esteem

.675

.700

.813

Job Commitment

.911

.387

.673

Role Stress Performance

.540

.668 .709 .643

Satisfaction

.758

.648

.666

.842

.632

Organization Commitment

.846

.662

.688

102

TABLE 14

STANDARDIZED SOLUTION FOR THE EXOGENOUS VARIABLES

Variable

28 43 66 41 42 84 82 83 80 81

Contingent Reward

.795

.793

.717

Contingent Punishment

.649

.849

.400

Noncontingent Reward

.735

.696

Noncontingent Punishment

.740

.974

Consid- Initiating Professional Organizational Variable eration Structure Orientation Rewards

101 103 107 102 104 105 36 77 8

20 30

Variable

37 38

33 75

.715

.605

.664

Ability, Training

•

•

.555

.782

.592

Experience, , Knowledge

851 527

.563

.562 .533 .838 .837

Intrinsically Satisfying Tasks

.452

.541

103

TABLE 14 (continued)

Task-Provided Organizational

Variable Feedback Formalization

34 .980 35 .511 10 .771 i 13 .768 I 22 .817 ^

1

104

TABLE 15

SCALE RELIABILITIES (AFTER ITEM DELETION)

Number of Construct/Scale Reliability Items

Satisfaction .93 18 Performance .91 4 Organizational Formalization .85 3 Contingent Rewards .84 3 Organizational Commitment .83 8 Task-Specific Self-Esteem .83 7 Organizational Rewards .83 3 Consideration .80 3 Job Commitment .80 3 Contingent Punishment .78 Noncontingent Punishsment .75 2 Task-Provided Feedback .69 2 Noncontingent Rewards .67 2 Ability, Experience, Training,

and Knowledge .66 2 Stress .64 9 Professional Orientation .63 2 Intrinsically-Satisfying Tasks .50 2

105

Secondly, due to high correlations exhibited between self-

report performance and management evaluation of

performance and then between role conflict and role

ambiguity, two composite measures of role stress and

overall performance were developed. Lastly, the internal

consistencies of the scales show that the reliabilities

were all sufficiently high to retain for further analysis.

Test of the Full Model

The measurement model was respecified in the prior

section. In this section, the full model is investigated.

An iterative process was used in which at each step the

value of X , the t-values, and the modification indices

were investigated to determine where the model could be

improved. At each step the parameter having the highest

modification index was set free. Further, the t-values

were investigated to determine which parameters were

significant. After elemination of parameters if their t-

value were less than two, the model was reestimated. The

goodness-of-fit measures for the full model are presented

below compared to the initial estimates.

Original Respecified Model Model

X^ 1024, 300 d.f. 192.76, 120 d.f GFI .81 .906 RMR .07 .049

106

The chi-square statistic is 192.76 with 120 degrees of

freedom. This value is still significant indicating a

lack of fit. The reduction from the original model is

831.24 with 180 degrees of freedom. The reduction is

statistically significant at the .01 level. The other two

goodness-of-fit measures also imply that the model has

been significantly improved. The goodness-of-fit index

(GFI) is .906. Since this value exceeds .90 it would

imply a reasonably good fit of the model. In addition,

the root mean residual (RMR) has improved to .049. A

value of less than .05 also implies a reasonably good fit.

In summary, after deleting a number of the scale items

and deleting non-significant paths, the model failed to

achieve an acceptable fit based upon the chi-sguare value.

However, when the GFI and RMR statistics were examined,

they both showed an acceptable fit between the model and

the data. In the next section, the hypotheses are tested

using the structural coefficients.

Hypotheses Testing with LISREL

Tests of the individual hyoptheses presented in the

preceeding chapter entails two specific statistics

provided by the LISREL program, the coefficient of

determination and the structural path coefficients.

The first hypothesis required a means by which to

determine the overall affect of the dependent variables.

107

substitutes for leadership and leadership behaviors, upon

the independent variables. The coefficient of

determination, R^, provides a means to assess the

proportion of the variance in these 12 dependent or

exogeneous variables that have been explained by the other

variables in the model, in the other hypothesized

relations depicted in Figure 3, each of the dependent

(exogeneous) variables was shown as having a direct

influence upon the independent (endogenous) variables.

The path coefficients may be interpreted as the direct

effect of a variable taken as a cause or a variable taken

as an effect (Dillon and Goldstein, 1984).

Due to the large number of hypotheses (14 major groups

with 47 individual) the results are presented as each

hypothesis was presented in the preceeding chapter.

Table 16 presents the coefficients of determination

necessary to test the first hypothesis. This hypothesis

stated that substitutes for leadership will be more

influential for outside salespeople than for the inside

salespeople.

The coefficient of determination, R , for the six

leadership constructs alone is greater for inside than

outside salespeople for three of the six constructs (role

stress, performance, and organizational commitment). Only

for task-specific self-esteem was R greater for outside

than for inside salespeople.

108

TABLE 16

COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION FOR STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS

CONSTRUCT


Role Stress Performance Organization

Commitment Job commitment Satisfaction

R"̂ TOTAL FULL EQUATIONS

INSIDE OUTSIDE

.336 .371

.448 > .403

.550 > .400

.417 < .583

.230 .269

.562 .598

ALL

.310

.369

.437

.422

.191

.418

R^ FOR LEADERSHIP ALONE

INSIDE

.021

.367

.473

.340

.168

.448

OUTSIDE

< .155 > .317 > .280

> .316 .165 .461

ALL

.046

.308

.374

.322

.108

.536

CONSTRUCT

R^ FOR SUBSTITUTES ALONE INSIDE OUTSIDE ALL

INCREMENTAL R^ SUBSTITUTES

INSIDE OUTSIDE ALL


Role Stress Performance Organization Commitment

Job Commitment Satisfaction

240 260 260

290 140 400

< .340 .290 .190

< .440 < .220 < .460

.274

.238

.198

.300

.141

.401

315 087 077

077 062 114

< .256 .086

> .120

> .187 > .104

.137

.264

.061

.063

.100

.083

.118

109

When the six substitutes for leadership are considered

alone, R is greater for outside salespeople for four of

the six constructs (task-specific self-esteem,

organization commitment, job commitment, and

satisfaction). The incremental R2, showing the effect of

the substitutes for leadership after leadership behaviors

are in the model, shows that three of the constructs were

greater for the outside salespeople (performance,

organizational commitment, and job commitment) while being

less for task-specific self-esteem, and egual for two

(role stress and satisfaction).

In summary, hypothesis one is supported by the

analysis. Leadership behaviors are more predictive for

inside salespeople than for outside salespeople.

Likewise, substitutes for leadership, are more predictive

for the outside salespeople than for the inside

salespeople.

The parameter estimates for the causal paths are

presented in Table 17. All path coefficients shown are

significant at the .05 level. Some of the hypotheses were

not supported by the analysis, implying that the

theoretical relationship may be more complex than the

literature suggests.

110

TABLE 17

STRUCTURAL COEFFICIENTS FOR TEST OF HYPOTHESES

PREDICTOR DEPENDENT LISREL COEFFICIENTS CONSTRUCT CONSTRUCT NOTATION ALL INSIDE OUTSIDE

CR CP NCR NCR CS IS PO OR ATEK 1ST TPF OR CR CP NCR NCR CS IS PO OR ATEK 1ST TPF OR CR CP NCR NCR CS IS PO OR ATEK 1ST TPF OR CR CP NCR NCR CS IS

TSSE TSSE TSSE TSSE TSSE TSSE TSSE TSSE TSSE TSSE TSSE TSSE RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS P P P P P P P P P P P P OC OC OC OC OC OC

.08

-.12 .13 .22 .21

13

27 -.15 .11 .06

.32 .36 .34

.14 .15

.07 -.12 -.25

35 08

24

14 07 15

-.22 -.37

-.09

-.20

-.12 .15 .10

-.28 .10

-.32

.14

.15

10

18

.24 .45

Ill


PREDICTOR CONSTRUCT

DEPENDENT LISREL CONSTRUCT NOTATION

COEFFICIENTS ALL INSIDE OUTSIDE

PO OR ATEK 1ST TPF OR CR CP NCR NCR CS IS PO OR ATEK 1ST TPF OR CR CP NCR NCR CS IS PO OR ATEK 1ST TPF OR

TSSE TSSE TSSE TSSE TSSE RS RS RS RS P P P

OC OC OC OC OC OC JC JC JC JC JC JC JC JC JC JC JC JC JS JS JS JS JS JS JS JS JS JS JS JS

RS p OC JC JS p OC JC JS OC JC JS

.36

.10

.13

.07

.34

.11

.59

.29

.21

.28

29

17

30

11

74

-.20

-.22

.61

.17

.22

.09

.31

.12

.12

.25 -.18

.10

.41

.13 -.16

10

43

11

46 36

,20

.32

.34

112


X^ 921 860 819 Degrees of

Freedom 753 753 753 Adjusted

Goodness-of-Fit Index .85 .90 .91

Root mean square residual .054 .051 .049

a Coefficients shown are significant at .05 level. Greater than two times standard error.

b Addreviations:

CR = Contingent Rewards CP = Contingent Punishments NCR = Noncontingent Rewards NCR = Noncontingent Punishment CS = Consideration IS = Iniation of Structure PO = Professional Orientation OR = Organizational Rewards ATEK = Ability, Training, Experience, and Knowledge 1ST = Intrinsically Satisfying Tasks TPF = Task-Provided Feedback OF = Organizational Formalization RS = Role Stress P = Performance TSSE = Task-Specific Self-Esteem OC = Organizational Commitment JC = Job Commitment JS = Job Satisfaction

113

Tests of the Individual Hypotheses

Leadership

Hypothesis 2 stated that for the inside salespeople,

contingent reward behavior was positively related to both

performance and job satisfaction. Both path coefficients

are significant, but in the opposite direction. Contrary

to expectations, positive leader rewards are found to be

negatively related to both performance and job

satisfaction.

The recognition, commendations, and acknowledgement

provided by their immediate supervisor may not be

sufficient rewards to overcome the negative aspects of the

job, such as low pay, work conditions, lack of promotional

opportunities, and low status, therefore low satisfaction

and performance.

The third hypothesis was not supported. Contingent

punishment behaviors was not negatively related to either

performance or to job satisfaction for inside salespeople

Unexpectedly, reprimands and disapproval on the part of

supervisors were positively related to performance. Their

perceptions, and those of their supervisor, was that their

performance was high, even though they often received

reprimands and disapproval when their performance was not

perceived as meeting standards. One possible reason for

this outcome is that people will attempt to improve their

performance so long as they are advised of what the

114

infractions are, while still not affecting job

satisfaction.

The relationships between noncontingent punishment

behavior, performance, job satisfaction, and task-

specific self-esteem (Hypothesis 4) were all non

significant. For inside salespeople, punitive events,

such as their manager critizing, ridiculing, or needling

them seems not to affect these three job-related outcomes.

Verbal abuse by their manager seems to be independent of

how they perceive their performance, level of job

satisfaction, or perception of job-related abilities.

A secondary finding for noncontingent punishment

behavior relates to the relationship between performance

for the total salesforce and the outside salespeople.

These relationships were positive and significant,

implying that higher levels of verbal abuse by management

leads to higher levels of performance. This finding was

not expected based upon the existing theory and literature

reviewed.

The fifth hypothesis relating consideration to

performance and job satisfaction for the inside

salespeople was not supported. How much the sales manager

expressed concern for their comfort, well being, and

contribution to the organization was not related to their

level of satisfaction with their job.

115

The investigation revealed two secondary relationships

for consideration behavior. First, consideration was

negatively related to task-specific self-esteem for the

total salesforce and independently for outside

salespeople. The more expressed consideration given by

the sales supervisor, the less these two groups perceived

their own ability to perform their selling tasks.

Secondly, consideration was found to be negatively related

to role stress for the inside salespeople. Higher levels

of expressed concern for their well being and comfort led

to lower levels of stress associated with the job.

Although this relationship was not hypothesized, it is

consistant with research investigating this particular

leadership behavior.

The sixth hypothesis investigated the relationship

between iniating structure, job satisfaction, and

performance for the inside salesforce. The way in which

the sales manager defines his or her own role and lets

followers know what is expected of them was not

significantly related to either job satisfaction or to

performance. This finding is inconsistent with the prior

research on initiating structure.

A reason that may explain this lack of relationships

is that the inside salespeople may have a clear idea of

their goals and the means for attaining them and do not

see much value in close supervision. Therefore, this

116

supervisor behavior is not instrumental in clarifying

either the goals or the means by which the goals can be

achieved. Since the inside salespeople may not value this

supervisory behavior, there is no relationship between

their performance or job satisfaction.

Although the hypothesized effects were not found for

the inside salespeople, a number of other relationships

were established for initiating structure. Task-specific

self-esteem was positively related for the total sample,

but not for either the inside or outside salespeople

individually. Role stress was negatively related for the

total group, inside, and outside salespeople. The more

the sales manager defines his/her subordinates roles in

job-related activities, the lower the level of felt

stress. Lastly, organizational commitment and job

commitment were positively related for the total group and

the inside salespeople, but not for the outside

salespeople. For these two groups, clarification of their

roles leads to higher commitment to the job and

organization.


The study hypothesized a number of relationships

between substitutes for leadership and outside

salespeople's behavioral outcomes. In essence, when these

"substitutes" are present, the link between leader

117

behavior and the subordinates attitudes and behaviors

should be weak or nonexistent.

The seventh hypothesis stated that the professional

orientation of the outside salespeople would be positively

related to job satisfaction and role stress, but

negatively related to organizational commitment. The path

coefficients show that there was a positive relationship

between job satisfaction and role stress, but a non

significant relationship between organizational

commitment.

Additional findings show that the level of

professional orientation was significant with task-

specific self-esteem, role stress, job commitment, and job

satisfaction for all the salespeople combined, but not for

the inside or outside salespeople singularly. Lastly,

professional orientation was positively related to

performance for the outside salespeople, but not for the

total group or the inside salespeople.

The relationships between ability, experience,

training, and knowledge, performance, job satisfaction,

and stress (Hypothesis 8) were all non-significant. For

the outside salespeople, the level of perceived ability,

based upon their level of prior experience, training, and

job-related knowledge seem not to affect these three

variables.

118

A number of other relationships were established for

this substitute for leadership even though the

hypothesized relationships were not supported for the

outside salespeople. Task-specific self-esteem was found

to be positively related for the inside, outside, and for

the combined sample. Additionally, performance was

positively related for the combined sample, but not for

the outside or inside salespeople individually.

One way of explaining these relationships is that the

better able, better trained, and more knowledgeable the

salesperson believes him/herself to be, he/she then

develops a self-worth from being able to perform the

selling tasks. Positive self-worth (task-specific self-

esteem) translates into higher performance, then into

higher job satisfaction. In the case where the firm does

not provide for this training or the job is not perceived

as being one in which the salesperson is constantly

learning new tasks, then there should be no relationship

between job-related self-worth.

The ninth hypothesis related intrinsically satisfying

tasks to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

job stress for outside salespeople. The path coefficients

show that these three relationships were all supported.

Job satisfaction and organizational commitment were

positively related while role stress was negatively

related. The internal rewards that the outside

119

salespeople receive from performing the selling tasks

leads to a high perception that their job meets their

expected job values (job satisfaction). Likewise, these

internal rewards (intrinsically satisfying tasks) also

leads to a high level of perceived job performance.

Lastly, the same internal rewards also leads to a

reduction of the level of stress associated with

performance of the selling tasks.

Additionally, intrinsically satisfying tasks was found

to be positively related to task-specific self-esteem for

the total salesforce and for the inside salespeople

individually. Also, it was negatively related to role

stress for the total salesforce and for the inside

salespeople. Performance was positively related for the

inside salespeople as well as for the combined salesforce.

Lastly, job commitment and job satisfaction was positively

related for the combined group, as well as for the inside

and outside salespeople.

Task-provided feedback was hypothesized as being

positively related to organizational commitment and job

satisfaction while being negatively related to role stress

(Hypothesis 10). These three relationships were not

supported by the data as the path coefficients were non

significant.

Although not hypothesized, task-provided feedback was

found to positively relate to performance for the outside

120

salespeople individually. Additionally, there was a

negative relationship with job commitment for the inside

salespeople and for the total group of salespeople.

None of these relationships were expected from the

literature reviewed nor from the theory underlying the

concept of "substitutes for leadership." The amount of

information provided by the task regarding how well the

job had been performed did not affect any of these job-

related outcome variables.

Of the three hypothesized relationships with

organizational formalization (Hypothesis 11), only job

satisfaction was positively related. There was a non

significant relationship between organizational commitment

and role stress.

Additional findings revealed that task-specific self-

esteem was positively related for the combined salesforce.

Organizational commitment was positively related for the

inside salespeople as well as for the combined salesforce.

Lastly, job satisfaction was positively related for the

combined salesforce and for the inside salespeople.

Due to the fact that the sample utilized was

industrial distributor salespeople, there may not be

written procedures and policies that serve as stable

directions for their work-related actions and decisions.

Given the nature of the sales tasks to be performed, it

may not be possible for a firm to develop and implement

121

precise policies that will cover sales behaviors. If

these do not exist, then it would account for the low

number of relations established.

Hypothesis 12 stated that organizational rewards not

in the leader's control would be positively related to

performance and job satisfaction, but negatively related

to role stress for the outside salespeople. All three of

these relationships were found to be non-significant.

Secondary findings showed that for the inside

salespeople, role stress and performance were negatively

related to organizational rewards. One possible

explanation for the weak or non-significant relationships

is that in these organizations there may not be any

rewards that the sales supervisor does not control.

For the outside and inside salespeople, task-specific

self-esteem was hypothesized as positively related to

performance and job satisfaction while being negatively

related to role stress (Hypothesis 13). The relationship

with performance was supported, while the relationship for

job satisfaction was supported only for the outside

salespeople, and lastly the relationship with role stress

was non-significant for both inside and outside

salespeople.

Additionally, task-specific self-esteem was positively

related to performance for the inside, outside, and total

salesforce. Organizational commitment was negatively

122

related for the outside salespeople and the salespeople as

a group, but not for the inside salespeople. Lastly, job

satisfaction was negatively related for the outside

salespeople, but not for the inside salespeople or for the

salesforce as a whole.

Those salespeople who perceive they are competent to

perform their tasks (task-specific self-esteem) have

higher levels of performance but are less satisfied with

their jobs. Although they may perceive they have job-

related abilities, these abilities do not relate well with

the level of felt role stress.

Role stress, for both inside and outside salespeople,

was hypothesized as being negatively related to job

satisfaction, performance, job commitment, and

organizational commitment. These relationships were only

partially supported by the data. Job satisfaction was

negatively related for both inside and outside

salespeople, performance was negatively related for the

inside but non-significant for the outside salespeople, a

non-significant relationship was found for job commitment

for both inside and outside salespeople, and lastly

organizational commitment was negatively related for the

outside but non-significant for the inside salespeople.

These findings strongly support the prior research on

role stress. Role stress is perceived as the emotional

123

reactions to those aspects of the work environment that

provides an emotional threat. This analysis implies that

salespeople (inside and outside) experiences a high level

of stress with their work, therefore their job performance

and satisfaction is affected in an inverse manner. In

addition, certain aspects of the work environment may not

be associated with either the job or the organization for

which they work. These outside factors may account for the

low or non-significant relationship between.role stress,

job commitment, and organizational commitment.

The last hypothesis related job performance to job

satisfaction, job commitment, and organizational

commitment for both the inside and outside salespeople.

All three of these relationships were non-significant.

How well the salespeople and their managers perceived

their performance seem not to relate to their job

satisfaction, job commitment, or organizational

commitment.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

This chapter provides a summary of the results and

conclusions of the study. The chapter includes: 1) a

summary of the empirical results, 2) a discussion of the

managerial implications of the findings, 3) a discussion

of the limitations of the study, 4) some recommendations

for future research.

Summarv of Findings

The goals of the research reported in this study were

three-fold. The first goal was to increase the

understanding of the relationship between the sales

manager's leadership behaviors and the behavioral

responses of the salespeople. The second goal was to

examine the effects of a number of substitutes for

leadership on the relationship between the sales manager's

leadership behaviors and salespeople's outcome behaviors.

Lastly, the third goal was to determine which substitutes

for leadership are the most important for salespeople.

The hypotheses investigated in the study were designed to

provide the necessary information to meet these

124

125

objectives. The discussion of the findings which relate

to each of these goals is taken in turn below.

Differences in the Level (amount) of Substitutes for Leadership. Leadership Behaviors, and Salespeople Outcome Variables

The coefficient of determination was used as a means

to assess the variance explained by these two sets of

independent variables. Substitutes for leadership were

found to explain more of the variance in task-specific

self-esteem, role stress, performance, organizational

commitment, job commitment, and satisfaction for the

outside salespeople than for the inside salespeople.

Likewise, leadership behaviors were found to explain more

of the variance in these same set of outcome variables for

the inside salespeople than for outside salespeople.

These results can be partially explained by the

definition of substitutes for leadership provided by Kerr

and Slocum (1981). Substitutes for leadership provide an

alternative means for controlling subordinates'

performance. Information provided by these "substitutes"

provide means by which tasks are performed, incentives to

perform, and how task performance is evaluated.

In this research setting, for the outside salespeople,

the sales manager has little opportunity to provide

downward influence. Due to the spatial distance between

the sales manager and outside salespeople, the sales

126

manager cannot effectively provide contingent and

noncontingent rewards and punishment nor structuring and

stroking behaviors. In this situation, the

characteristics of the salespeople, the selling task, and

the organization provide a greater influence than the

sales manager.

For the inside salespeople, due to the closeness of

supervision, leadership behaviors explained a significant

amount of the variance in role stress, performance, and

organization commitment.

Relationship among Substitutes for Leadership, Leadership Behaviors, and Salespeople Outcome Variables

LISREL was used to test for the influence of

substitutes for leadership and leadership behaviors upon a

number of independent outcome variables. Fourteen major

hypotheses were stated in order to specify the

relationships between the six substitutes for leadership,

six leadership behaviors, and the six dependent variables

of interest—role stress, performance, task-specific self-

esteem, organizational commitment, job commitment, and job

satisfaction.

Six of the major hypotheses were supported by the

data. The hypothesized relationship among contingent

reward behavior, performance, and job satisfaction was

negatively related for the inside salespeople. When the

127

sales manager provided praise and social approval for the

inside salespeople, level of felt satisfaction and

performance declined. These findings are inconsistent

with earlier research conducted by Sims and Szilagyi

(1975) and Podsakoff, et al. (1982).

The hypothesized relationship among professional

orientation, job satisfaction, and role stress for the

outside salespeople was supported by the data.

Salespeople who are committed to the sales profession and

have a great deal of autonomy over their decisions and

work activities have a higher level of general job

satisfaction but experience higher levels of role stress.

Additionally, intrinsically-satisfying tasks was found

to be positively related to job satisfaction and

organizational commitment, but negatively related to role

stress for the outside salespeople.

The hypothesized relationship between organizational

formalization, job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and role stress for the outside salespeople

was partially supported by the data. Job satisfaction was

positively related, while organizational commitment and

role stress were not significantly related.

Task-specific self-esteem was found to be positively

related to performance for both inside and outside

salespeople, positively related to job satisfaction for

128

the outside salespeople, and not related at all to role

stress for either inside or outside salespeople.

Lastly, the relationships among role stress, job

satisfaction, performance, job commitment, and

organizational commitment were partially supported by the

data. Role stress was negatively related to job

satisfaction for both inside and outside salespeople,

negatively related to performance for the inside

salespeople, and negatively related to organizational

commitment for the outside salespeople.

Managerial Implications

Few selling firms can expect to have substitutes for

leadership operating so strongly that they totally replace

the sales managers, or operating so weakly that the

salespeople totally rely upon the sales manager's

leadership behaviors. In most selling firms, substitutes

for leadership are likely to exist for some leader

behaviors but not others.

Kerr (1977) has noted that for the effective

functioning of subordinates and the organization, some

substitutes may be necessary. If these "substitutes" are

operating and provide the salesperson with needed guidance

and good feelings about their performance, then it is not

necessary for the sales manager to provide for control,

feedback, and rewards.

129

Sales managers should think of first identifying these

situations, then creating substitutes that enhance and

supplement his/her hierarchical leadership. A number of

situations exist where the sales manager may wish to

create these alternatives to his/her formal leadership.

These would include status leveling to counteract

autocratic sales supervisors, improve consistency of

performance across different selling units, improve sales

manager's leadership behaviors over time, and to make

adjustments to poor leadership skills on the part of the

sales managers (Howell, et al. 1986).

One means to aid the sales manager in this task would

be to allocate some phase of their management training

program to the identification of "substitutes."

Additional training should be provided to help the sales

manager develop those that act as enhancers and

supplements, while attempting to eliminate or reduce the

effect of true substitutes that will negate or eliminate

his/her formal authority.

Limitations

This study investigated a limited number of

substitutes for leadership and leadership behaviors in an

effort to understand the effects of these variables upon

salespeople behavioral outcomes.

130

Since the study utilized inside and outside

salespeople from industrial distributors as a means to

simulate selling positions where substitutes for

leadership and leadership behaviors were most likely to

operate, the research findings may not be generalizable to

all selling situations, salespeople, or industries.

This study suffers from the same problems that are

associated with all survey research. The measures used

were adopted from previous research and minor changes were

made to reflect the selling environment. As such, much of

the original meaning of these measures may have been lost

in the process.

In addition, a large number of substitutes for

leadership, identified by Kerr and Jermier (1978), were

excluded from the study. These "substitutes," as well as

other characteristics of the individual, task, and selling

environment may provide greater influence upon

salespeople's behavioral outcomes.

Further problems associated with the use of

questionnaire data are inherent in the study. Thus, the

study suffers from all of the problems associated with

non-response bias, sample selection, lack of precision in

measurement, misinterpretation by respondents, and cross-

sectional data.

Lastly, the study only addressed six leadership

behaviors. These were selected since the literature

131

strongly suggested that these would be most operative in

the selling environment. Contingent and non-contingent

reward and punishment behaviors refer to whether the sales

manager attaches the organizational rewards he/she has

under their control to performance dimensions of the job.

Consideration behavior reflects the extent to which the

sales manager exhibits trust, respects the salepeople's

ideas, and considers their feelings when making decisions.

Initiation of structure as a leader behavior attempts to

clarify not only what must be done in the selling task,

but how the salespeople should perform the tasks.

The leadership behaviors do not include all leadership

activities that can enhance the sales force's ability or

willingness to perform their selling tasks. Kerr and

Slocum (1981) have noted that participative leadership,

charismatic leadership, and motivational leadership are

alternative means by which a formal leader can control the

activities of their subordinates. These forms of

leadership may be important to salespeople but were not

addressed in the study.

Suggestions for Future Research

There are many opportunities for research into factors

that affect salesforce performance and important behavior

outcomes.

132

Perhaps most needed is an investigation of the effect

of additional substitutes for leadership in the sales

environment. Kerr and Jermier (1978); Kerr and Slocum

(1981); Sheridan, et al. (1984); and Podsakoff, et al.

(1984) have identified a large number of these

"substitutes" that may be more important in explaining why

sales managers' leadership behaviors are weakly correlated

with salespeople's performance and behavioral outcomes.

In addition, research should be undertaken to

determine which of the substitutes for leadership act as

neutralizers, enhancers, or substitutes for formal

leadership. In this study, the "substitutes" investigated

were all assumed to operate in the same fashion. True

substitutes for leadership might or might not be desired

by a sales organization. They provide consistency for

sales people across selling situations and stability over

time. If these can be identified, then sales managers may

wish to systematically create these substitutes as an

additional means to influence the salesforce.

As with substitutes for leadership, other forms of

leadership behaviors need to be investigated. This study

was limited in that only six leadership behaviors were

investigated. Other forms of leadership behaviors may be

more important in a selling context and have greater

potential impact on salesforce performance.

133

The current research could be extended into other

types of selling organizations and across industries.

While this study centered on industrial distributors, a

number of characteristics of the salesperson, selling

task, and the selling environment may vary sufficiently in

other selling situations to help explain the effect of

substitutes for leadership, as well as leadership

behaviors, upon the sales force.

Lastly, additional research of a longitudinal and

experimental nature should be conducted, if possible, to

determine the causal relationship between sales managers'

leadership behavior, substitutes for leadership, and

salesforce performance and behavioral outcomes. A number

of longitudinal field studies have demonstrated that

leader behaviors may cause as well as be caused by their

subordinates' performance and attitudes (Kerr and Jermier,

1978) . It may well be that substitutes for leadership, as

well as salespeople's performance and behaviors causes

changes in leadership behaviors, which in turn affects the

level of substitutes and performance. The direction of

causality therefore needs to be established.

REFERENCES

Allport, G-W. (1947), "The Psychology of Participation," Psvchological Review^ 52, 117-132.

Alutto, J.A., L.G. Hrebiniak, and R.C. Alonzo (1973), "On Operationalizing the Concept of Commitment," Social Forces, 51, 448-454.

Anderson, C. R. (1976), "Coping Behaviors as Intervening Mechanisms in the Inverted U Stress-Performance Relationship," Journal of Applied Psychology. 61, 30-34.

Anderson, Erin and Richard L. Oliver (1987), "Perspectives on Behavior-Based Versus Outcome-Based Salesforce Control Systems," Journal of Marketing. 51 (October), 76-88.

Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), "Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach," Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-23.

Angle, Harold L. and James L. Perry (1981), "An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.

Bagozzi, Richard P. (1978), "Salesforce Performance and Satisfaction as a Function of Individual Differences, Interpersonal, and Situational Factors," Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (November), 517-531.

(1980), Causal Models in Marketing. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Becker, H.S. (1960), "Notes on the Concept of Commitment," American Journal of Sociologv. 66, 32-40.

Bedeian, A.G. and A.A. Armenakis (1981), "A Path-Analytic Study of Consequences of Role Conflict and Ambiguity," Academy of Management Journal, 24 (June), 417-424.

134

135

Beehr, T.A, and J.E. Newman (1978), "Job Stress, Employee Health and Organizational Effectiveness: A Facet Analysis, Model, and Literature Review," Personnel Psychology. 31, 665-699.

Behrman, Douglas N. and William D. Perreault, Jr. (1982), "Measuring the Performance of Industrial Salespersons," Journal of Business Research, 10 (September), 355-370.

and (1984), "A Role Stress Model of the Performance and Satisfaction of Industrial Salespersons," Journal of Marketing. 48 (Fall), 9-21.

Borgatta, E.F. and R.F. Bales (1953), "Interaction of Individuals in Reconstituted Groups," Sociometry, 16, 302-320.

Brayfield, A.H. and W.H. Crockett (1955), "Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance," Psychological Bulletin, 52, 396-424.

Buchanan, Bruce (1974), "Building Organizational Commitment: The Socialization of Managers in Work Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.

Burt, R.S. (1976), "Interpretational Confounding of Unobserved Variables in Structural Eguation Models," Sociological Methods and Research, 5, 3-32.

Busch, P. and R.F. Bush (1978), "Women Contrasted to Men in the Industrial Salesforce: Job Satisfaction, Values, Role Clarity, Performance, and Propensity to Leave," Journal of Marketing Research. 15, 438-448.

Cherrington, D.J., H.J. Reitz, and W.E. Scott (1971), "Effects of Contingent and Noncontingent Rewards on the Relationship Between Satisfaction and Performance," Journal of Applied Psvchologv, 55, 531-536.

Childers, Terry L., Alan J. Dubinsky, and Esra Gencturk (1986), "On the Psychometric Properties of a Scale to Measure Leadership Substitutes," Psychological Reports, 59, 1215-1226.

136

Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr., Neil M. Ford, Steven W.Hartley, and Orville C. Walker, Jr. (1985), "The Determinants of Salesperson Performance: A Metaanalysis," Journal of Marketing Research. 22 (May), 103-118.

and Orville C. Walker, Jr. (1976) "Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction in the Sales Force," Journal of Marketing Research. 13 (November), 323-322.

Cocanougher, A. Benton and John M. Ivancevich (1978), "•BARS' Performance Rating for Sales Force Personnel," Journal of Marketing^ 39 (January), 87-95.

Cohen, S. (1980), "After-Effects of Stress on Human Performance and Social Behavior: A Review of Research and Theory," Psvchological Bulletin. 88, 82-108.

Cotham, James C. (1968), "Job Attitudes and Sales Performance of Major Appliance Sales," Journal of Marketing Research. 5 (November), 370-375.

Dillon, William R. and Matthew Goldstein (1984) , Multivariate Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons

Dodge, H. Robert (1970), Industrial Marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Donnelly, J.H. and M.J. Etzel (1977), "Retail Store Performance and Job Satisfaction: A Study of Anxiety-Stress and Propensity to Leave Among Retail Employees," Journal of Retailing, 53, 23-28.

Dopboye, R. (1977), "A Critical Review of A. Korman's Self-Consistency Theory of Work Motivation and Occupational Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 18, 108-126.

Downey, H.K., J.E. Sheridan, and J.W. Slocum (1975), "Analysis of Relationship Among Leader Behavior Subordinate Job Performance and Satisfaction: A Path-Goal Approach," Academy of Management Journal. 18 (June), 253-262.

Dubin, R. (1961), Human Relations in Administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

137

Dubinsky, Alan J., Roy D. Howell, Thomas N. Ingram, and Danny N. Bellenger (1986), "Salesforce Socialization," Journal of Marketing^ 50, 192-207.

and Thomas N. Ingram (1984), "Correlates of Salespeople's Ethical Conflict: An Exploratory Investigation," Journal of Business Ethics. 3, 343-353.

and B.E. Mattson (1979), "Consequences of Role Conflict and Ambiguity Experienced by Retail Salespeople," Journal of Retailing. 55, 70-86.

Ekpo-Ufot, A. (1976), "Self-Perceived Abilities Relevant to the Task (SPARTS): A Potential Predictor of Labor Turnover in an Industrial Work Setting," Personnel Psychology, 29, 405-416.

(1979), "Self-perceived Task-relevant Activities, Rated Job Performance, and Complaining Behavior of Junior Employees in a Government Ministry," Journal of Applied Psvchologv. 64, 429-434.

Feldman, Daniel C. (1977), "The Role of Initiation Activities in Socialization," Human Relations. 30 (no. 11), 977-990.

Fiedler, F.E. (1964), "A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. L. Berkowitz, ed. New York: Academic Press.

(1967), A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

and M.M. Chemers (1974), Leadership and Effective Management. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.

and A. Leister (1977), "Intelligence and Group Performance: A Multiple Screen Model," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 1-14.

Filley, A.C., R.J. House, and S. Kerr (1976), Managerial Process and Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.

Fleishman, E. A. and D.R. Peters (1962), "Interpersonal Values, Leadership Attitudes, and Managerial Success," Personnel Psychology. 15, 127-143.

138

Ford, R.N. (1969), Motivation Through the Work Itself. New York: American Management Association.

Franke, George R., Douglas N. Behrman, and William D-Perreault, Jr. (1982), "Salesforce Performance and Satisfaction: Contemporaneous Relationships and Selected Antecedents," in An Assessment of Marketing Thought and Practice. Bruce Walker, et al., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 233-237.

French, J. and R.A. Kahn (1962), "A Programmatic Approach to Studying the Industrial Environment and Mental Health," Journal of Social Issues. 18, 1-47.

Frost, D.E. (1983), "Role Perceptions and Behavior of the Immediate Superior: Moderating Effects on the Prediction of Leadership Effectiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31 (February), 123-142.

Fry, Louis W., Charles M. Futrell, A. Parasuraman, and Margaret A. Chmielewski (1986), "An Analysis of Alternative Causal Models of Salesperson Role Perceptions and Work-Related Attitudes," Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (May), 153-163.

Gechman, A. S. and Y. Weiner (1975), "Job Involvement and Satisfaction as Related to Mental Health and Personal Time Devoted to Work," Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 521-523.

Goldberger, A.S. (1973), "Structural Eguation Models: An Overview," in Structural Eguation Models in the Social Sciences, A.S. Goldberger and O.D. Duncan, eds. New York: Seminar Press.

Gouldner, A.W. (1950), Studies in Leadership. New York: Harper.

Graen, G., F. Dansereau, Jr., and T. Minami (1972), "Dysfunctional Leadership Styles," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 216-236.

Greenhaus, Jeffrey H. and Irwin J. Badin (1974), "Self-Esteem, Performance, and Satisfaction: Some Tests of a Theory," Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (no. 6) 722-726.

Griffin, R.W. (1980), "Relationships Among Individual, Task Design, and Leader Behavior Variables," Academy of Management Journal, 23, 665-683.

139

Guion, R. (1958), "Industrial Morale-the Problem of Terminology," Personnel Psychology. 11, 59-61.

Gupta, N. and T.A. Beehr (1979), "Job Stress and Employees' Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 23, 373-387.

Hackman, J.R. and E. E. Lawler (1971), "Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology. 55 (no. 2), 259-286.

Hafer, John and Barbara A. McCuen (1985), "Antecedents of Performance and Satisfaction in a Service Sales Force as Compared to an Industrial Sales Force," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management (Nov.), 7-17.

Hall, D.T. (1971), "A Theoretical Model of Career Subidentity Development in Organizational Settings," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance," 6, 50-76.

and E.E. Lawler (1970), "Job Characteristics and Pressures and the Organizational Integration of Professionals," Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 271-281.

and Benjamin Schneider (1972), "Correlates of Organizational Identification as a Function of Career Pattern and Organizational Type" Administrative Science Quarterly. 17, 340-350.

Hampton, Ron, Alan J. Dubinsky, and Steven J. Skinner (1986), "A Model of Sales Supervisor Leadership Behavior and Retail Salespeople's Job-Related Outcomes," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14 (Fall), 33-42.

Hand, H. and J. Slocum (1972), "A Longitudinal Study of the Effect of a Human Relations Training Program on Managerial Effectiveness," Journal of Applied Psychology. 56 (Oct.), 412-418.

Hemphill, J. K. (1949), "The Leader and His Group," Educational Research Bulletin, 28, 225-229.

Hersey, P. and K.H. Blanchard (1977), Management of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Co.

Herzberg, F., B. Mausner, and R. Snyderman (1959), The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley Publishing Co.

140

Hill, W.A. (1969), "The Validation and Extension of Fiedler's Theory of Leadership Effectiveness," Academy of Management Journal. 12, 33-47.

Hollander, Edwin P. (1978), Leadership Dynamics: A Practical Guide to Effective Relationships. New York: Free Press.

and James W. Julien (1969a), "Contemporary Trends in the Analysis of Leadership Processes," Psychological Bulletin. 71 (no. 5), 387-397.

and (1969b), "Leadership," in Handbook of Personality Theory and Research. E.F. Borgatta and W.W. Lambert, eds. Chicago: Rand McNally.

House, R.J. (1971), "A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly. 16, 321-338.

and T.R. Mitchell (1974), "Path-Goal Theory of Leadership," Journal of Contemporary Business. 3, 81-97.

Howell, Jon P. and Peter W. Dorfman (1981), "Substitutes for Leadership: Test of a Construct," Academy of Management Journal. 24, 714-728.

and (1986), "Leadership and Substitutes for Leadership Among Professional and Nonprofessional Workers," The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 22, 29-46.

Howell, Roy D., Danny N. Bellenger, and James B. Wilcox (1987) , "Self-Esteem, Role Stress, and Job Satisfaction Among Marketing Managers," Journal of Business Research, 15, 35-48.

Hrebiniak, Lawrence G. and Joseph A. Alutto (1972), "Personal and Role-Related Factors in the Development of Organizational Commitment," Administrative Science Quarterly. 17, 555-572.

Hughes, E.C. (1958), Men and Their Work. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Hunt, J.G. and R.N. Osborn (1980), "A Multiple-Influence Approach to Leadership for Managers," in Perspectives in Leadership Effectiveness. P. Hersey and J. Stinson, eds. Center for Leadership Studies, Ohio University, Athens, OH.

141

and R.S. Schuler (1976), "Leader Reward and Sanctions Behavior in a Public Utility: What Difference Does It Make?" Southern Illinois University, Working Paper.

Hunt, Shelby D., Lawrence B. Chonko, and Van Wood (1985), "Organizational Commitment and Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 49 (Winter), 112-126.

Imparato, M. (1972), "Relationship Between Porter's Need Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Job Description Index," Journal of Applied Psychology. 56, 397-405.

Ingram, Thomas N. (1980), "Personal and Organizational Characteristics: Their Effect on Reward Preferences of Industrial Salespeople," Ph.D. dissertation. Georgia State University.

Inkson, J.H. Kerr (1978), "Self-Esteem as a Moderator Between Job Performance and Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology. 63 (no. 2), 243-247.

Ivancevich, John M. and James H. Donnelly, Jr. (1970), "Leader Influence and Performance," Personnel Psychology. 23, 539-549.

Jacobs, R. and J. Solomon (1977), "Strategies for Enhancing the Prediction of Job Performance from Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology. 62, 417-427.

Jermier, J.M. and L.J. Berkes (1979), "Leader Behavior in a Police Command Bureaucracy: A Closer Look at the Quasi-Military Model," Administrative Science Quarterly. 24, 1-23.

Johnson, R.D. (1970), "An Investigation of the Ability and Motivation Variables in Task Performance," D.B.A. dissertation. Indiana University.

Jones, S. (1973), "Self and Interpersonal Evaluations: Esteem Theories Versus Consistency Theories," Psvchological Bulletin. 79, 185-199.

Joreskog, Karl G. (1978), "Structural Analysis of Covariance and Correlation Matrices," Psvchometrika. 43 (Dec), 443-447.

and Dag Sorbom (1989), LISREL VII Users' Guide. Chicago: International Educational Services.

142

Kahn, R.L., D.M. Wolfe, R.p. Quinn, J.D. Snoek, and R.A. Rosenthal (1964), Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

Kalton, Graham, Martin Ceilings, and Lindsay Brook (1978), "Experiments in Wording Opinion Questions," Applied Statistics. 27 (no. 2), 149-161.

Kanter, Rosabeth M. (1968), "Commitment and Social Organization: A Study of Commitment Mechanisms in Utopian Communities," American Sociological Review. 33, 499-517.

Katzell, Raymond A., Richard S. Barrett, and Treadway C. Parker (1961), "Job Satisfaction, Job Performance, and Situational Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology, 45 (no. 2), 65-72.

Kazdin, A.E. (1980), Behavior Modification in Applied Settings. Homewood, II: Dorsey.

Keller, R.T. and A.D. Szilagyi (1976), "Employee Reactions to Leader Reward Behavior," Academy of Management Journal. 19, 619-627.

Kerr, Steven (1975), "On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B," Academy of Management Journal. 18, 769-783.

(1977) , "Substitutes for Leadership: Some Implications for Organizational Design," Organization and Administrative Science. 8, 135-146.

and John M. Jermier (1978), "Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 2 2, 375-403.

and Chester Schriesheim, (1974), "Consideration, Initiating Structure and Organizational Criteria: An Update of Korman's 1966 Review," Personnel Psychology. 27, 555-568.

and J.W. Slocum (1981), "Controlling the Performance of People in Organizations," in Handbook of Organizational Design (Vol. 2), P.C. Nystrom and W.H. Starbuck, eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 116-134.

143

Kohli, Ajay K. (1985), "Some Unexplored Supervisory Behaviors and Their Influence on Salespeople's Role Clarity, Specific Self-Esteem, Job Satisfaction, and Motivation," Journal of Marketing Research. 22 (Nov.), 424-433.

Korman, Abraham K. (1966), "Consideration, Initiating Structure and Organizational Criteria: A Review," Personnel Psychology. 19, 349-361.

(1970), "Toward an Hypothesis of Work Behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology. 54, 31-41

(1971), Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

(1973), The Psychology of Motivation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

(1976), "Hypothesis of Work Behavior Revisited and an Extension," Academy of Management Review. 1, 1-37.

Kornhauser, A.W. (1965), Mental Health of the Industrial Worker: A Detroit Study. New York: Wiley.

Lawler, E. E., III. (1969), "Job Design and Employee Motivation," Personnel Psychology, 22, 426-435.

and D. T. Hall (1970), "Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job Involvement, Satisfaction, and Intrinsic Motivation," Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305-312.

Lee, S.M. (1971), "An Empirical Analysis of Organization Identification," Academy of Management, 14, 213-226.

Lewin, K., R. Lipitt, and R.K. White (1939), "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climate," Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299.

Likert, R. (1961), New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Locke, E.A. (1970), "Job Satisfaction and Performance: A Theoretical Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 5, 484-500.

144

(1976), "The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction," in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Marvin D. Dunnette, ed. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1293-1349.

., P.C. Smith, L.M. Kendall, and A.M. Miller (1964), "Convergent and Discriminant Validity for Areas and Methods Rating Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology. 48, 313-319.

Lodahl, T.M. (1964), "Patterns of Job Attitudes in Two Assembly Technologies," Administrative Science Quarterly. 8, 482-519.

and M. Kejner (1965), "The Definition and Measurement of Job Involvement," Journal of Applied Psychology. 49, 24-33.

Lopez, E. M. and J. H. Greenhaus (1978), "Self-Esteem, Race, and Job Satisfaction," Journal of Vocational Behavior. 13, 75-83.

Lowe, C.F. (1979), "Determinants of Human Operant Behavior," in Reinforcement and the Organization of Behavior. M.D. Zeiler and P. Harzen, eds. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Mann, R.D. (1959), "A Review of the Relationships Between Personality and Performance in Small Groups," Psychological Bulletin. 56, 241-270.

Manz, Charles C. and Henry P. Sims (1980), "Self-Management as a Substitute for Leadership: A Social Learning Theory Perspective," Academy of Management Review. 5, 361-367.

Mauser, J. G. (1969), Work Role Involvement of Industrial Supervisors. East Lansing: MSU Business Studies.

McGregor, Douglas (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

(1966), Leadership and Motivation. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

Mclntire, Sandra A. and Edward L. Levine (1984), "An Empirical Investigation of Self-Esteem as a Composite Construct," Journal of Vocational Behavior. 25, 290-303.

McLean, A.A. (1979), Work Stress. Don Mills, Ontario Addison-Wesley.

145

Miles, R.H. (1975), "An Empirical Test of Causal Inference Between Role Perceptions of Role Conflict and Ambiguity and Various Personal Outcomes," Journal of Applied Psychology. 60, 334-339.

and M.M. Petty (1977), "Leader Effectiveness in Small Bureaucracies," Academy of Management Journal, 20, 238-250.

Morris, H.H. and R.A. Snyder (1979), "A Second Look at Need for Achievement and Need for Autonomy as Moderators of Role Perception-Outcome Relationships," Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 173-178.

Morris, James H. and J. Daniel Sherman (1981), "Generalizability of an Organizational Commitment Model," Academy of Management Journal. 24, 512-526.

Morrow, Paula C. (1983), "Concept Redundancy in Organizational Research: The Case of Work Commitment," Academy of Management Journal, 8, 486-500.

Moss, L. (1981), Management Stress. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley.

Mowday, Richard T., Richard M. Steers, and Lyman W. Porter, (1979), "The Measurement of Organizational Commitment," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

and Thomas W. McDade (1979), "Liking Behavioral and Attitudinal Commitment: A Longitudinal Analysis of Job Choice and Job Attitudes," Academy of Management Proceedings, 39th Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, 84-88.

Nunnally, Jum C. (1967), Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

(1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Oliver, R.L. and A.P. Brief (1977), "Determinants and Consequences of Role Conflict and Ambiquity Among Retail Sales Managers," Journal of Retailing, 53, 47-58.

146

Patchen, M. (1965), "Some Questionnaire Measures of Employee Motivation and Morale," Institute for Social Research Monograph. 41, 1-70.

(1970), Participation. Achievement, and Involvement on the Job. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Pearce, Jon L. (1981), "Bringing Some Clarity to Role Ambiguity Research," Journal of Management Review. Vol. 6 (no. 4), 665-74.

Peter, J. P. (1979), "Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing Practices," Journal of Marketing Research. 16 (February), 6-17.

Podsakoff, Phillip M., William D- Todor, Richard A. Grover, and Vandra L. Huber (1984) , "Situational Moderators of Leader Reward and Punishment Behaviors Fact or Fiction?," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 34, 21-63.

, , and R. Skov (1982), "Effects of Leader Contingent and Noncontingent Reward and Punishment Behaviors on Subordinate Performance and Satisfaction," Academy of Management Journal, 25, 810-821.

Porter, L.W. and E.E. Lawler (1968), Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin/Dorsey.

and F. J. Smith (1970), "The Etiology of Organizational Commitment," unpublished paper. University of California, Irvine.

, R.M. Steers, R.T. Mowday, and P.V. Boulian (1974), "Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians," Journal of Applied Psychology. 59 (no. 5), 603-609.

Rabinowitz, S. and D. T. Hall (1977), "Changing Correlates of Job Involvement in Three Career Stages," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 138-144.

Randolph, W. Alan and Barry Z. Posner (1981), "Explaining Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Via Individual and Interpersonal Variables in Different Job Categories," Personnel Psychology. 34, 89-102.

147

Reitz, H.J. (1971), "Managerial Attitudes and Perceived Contingencies Between Performance and Organizational Response," in Proceedings of the 1971 National Academy of Management Meetings, R.B. Higgins, P.V. Croke, and J.F. Varga, eds. (pp. 227-228).

Rizzo, John, Robert House, and Sidney Lirtzman (1970), "Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly. 15 (June), 150-163.

Salancik, Gerald R. (1977), "Commitment and the Control of Organizational Behavior," in New Directions in Organizational Behavior. Barry M. Staw and Gerald R. Salancik, eds. Chicago: St. Clair, 1-54.

Scholl, Richard W. (1981), "Differentiating Organizational Commitment from Expectancy as a Motivating Force," Academy of Management Review. 6 (no- 4), 589-599.

Schriesheim, Chester A. and Steven Kerr (1977), "Theories and Measures of Leadership: A Critical Appraisal of Current and Future Directions," in Leadership; The Cutting Edge. J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson, eds. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Schuler, Randall S., Ramon J. Aldag, and Arthur P. Brief (1977), "Role Conflict and Ambiguity: A Scale Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 16, 111-128.

Scott, W.E., Jr. (1966), "Activation Theory and Task Design," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1, 3-30.

(1977), "Leadership: A Functional Analysis," in Leadership: The Cutting Edge, J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson, eds. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Sheldon, M.E. (1971), "Investments and Involvement as Mechanisms Producing Commitment to the Organization," Administrative Science Quarterly, 16 (no. 3), 143-150

Sheridan, John E., Donald J. Vredenburgh, and Michael A. Abelson (1984), "Contextual Model of Leadership Influence in Hospital Units," Academy of Management Journal, 27 (no. 1), 57-78.

148

Siegel, A.L. and R.A. Ruh (1973), "Job Involvement, Participation in Decision Making, Personal Background and Job Behavior," Organization Behavior and Human Performance. 9, 318-327.

Sims, H.P. and Szilagyi, A.D. (1975), "Leader Reward Behavior and Subordinate Satisfaction and Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 14, 426-438.

Smith P.C, L.M. Kendall, and C.L. Hulin (1969), The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Somers, John Mark and Joel Lefkowitz (1983), "Self-Esteem, Need Gratification, and Work Satisfaction: A Test of Competing Explanations from Consistency Theory and Self-Enhancement Theory," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 303-311.

Steers, Richard M. (1977), "Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment," Administrative Science Quarterly. 22, 46-56.

Stevens, John M. , Janice M. Beyer, and Harrison M. Trice (1978), "Assessing Personal, Role, and Organizational Predictors of Managerial Commitment," Academy of Management Journal. 21, 380-396.

Still, Leonie V. (1983), "Part-Time Versus Full-Time Salespeople: Individual Attributes, Organizational Commitment, and Work Attitudes," Journal of Retailing, 59, 55-79.

Stogdill, R. M. (1963), Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire - Form XII: An Experimental Revision, Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Strasser, S., R.C. Dailey, and T.S. Bateman (1981), "Attitudinal Moderators and Effects of Leader's Punitive Behavior," Psychological Reports. 49, 695-698.

Swanson, R.G. and D.A. Johnson (1975), "Relation Between Peer Perception of Leader Behavior and Instructor-Pilot Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (April), 198-200.

149

Szilagyi, A.D. and R.T. Keller (1976), "A Comparative Investigation of the Supervisory Behavior Description Questionnaire (SBDQ) and the Revised Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ -Form XII)," Academy of Management Journal. 19 (Dec), 642-649.

Teas, R. Kenneth (1981), "An Empirical Test of Models of Salesperson's Job Expectancy and Instrumentality Perceptions," Journal of Marketing Research. 18, 209-26.

(1983), "Supervisory Behavior, Role Stress, and the Job Satisfaction of Industrial Salespeople," Journal of Marketing Research. 20 (Feb.), 84-91.

and James F. Horrell (1981), "Salespeople Satisfaction and Performance Feedback," Industrial Marketing Management. 10, 49-57.

., John G. Wacker, and R. Eugene Hughes (1979) , "A Path Analysis of Causes and Conseguences of Salespeople's Perception of Role Clarity," Journal of Marketing Research. 16 (Aug.), 355-369.

Tharenou, Phyllis (1979), "Employee Self-Esteem: A Review of the Literature," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15, 1-29.

and Phillip Harker (1982), "Organizational Correlates of Employee Self-Esteem," Journal of Vocational Behavior. 67, 797-805.

Thompson, D.E. (1971), "Favorable Self-Perceptions, Perceived Supervisory Style, and Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology. 55, 348-352.

Tosi, Henry L. (1975), Theories of Organization. Chicago: St. Clair Press.

Tracy, Lane and T.W. Johnson (1981), "What do the Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Scales Measure?," Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 464-469.

150

Walker, Orville C., Jr., Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., and Neil M. Ford (1979), "Where Do We Go From Here? Selected Conceptual and Empirical Issues Concerning the Motivation and Performance of Industrial Salespeople," in Critical Issues in Sales Management: State-of-the Art and Future Research Needs, Gerald Albaum and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., eds. Eugene: College of Business Administration, University of Oregon.

and (1975), "Organizational Determinants of the Industrial Salesman's Role Conflict and Ambiguity," Journal of Marketing, 39 (Jan.), 32-39.

and (1977), "Motivation and Performance in Industrial Selling: Present Knowledge and Needed Research," Journal of Marketing Research. 14 (May), 156-168.

Vroom, Victor H. (1964), Work and Motivation. New York John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Weitz, Barton A. (1981), "Effectiveness in Sales Interactions: A Contingency Framework," Journal of Marketing. 45, 85-103.

Wiener, Yoash and Yoav Vardi (1980), "Relationships Between Job, Organization, and Career Commitments and Work Outcomes: An Integrative Approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 26, 81-96.

Yukl, G.A. (1971), "Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 414-440.

(1981), Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Zeller, Richard A. and Edward G. Carmines (1980), Measurement in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

APPENDIX A: MEASURES

1 5 1

152

LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS

Contingent Reward Behavior

1. My supervisor always gives me positive feedback when I perform well.

2. My supervisor gives me special recognition when my work performance is especially good.

3. My supervisor would quickly acknowledge an improvement in the quality of my work.

Contingent Punishment Behavior

1. My supervisor shows his/her displeasure when my work is below acceptable standards.

2. My supervisor lets me know about it when I perform poorly.

3. My supervisor would reprimand me if my work was below standard.

Noncontingent Reward Behavior

1. My supervisor is just as likely to praise me when I do poorly as when I do well.

2. Even when I perform poorly on my job, my supervisor rarely gets upset with me.

3. My supervisor freguently praises me even when I don't deserve it.

Noncontingent Punishment Behavior

1. My supervisor is often displeased with my work for no apparent reason.

2. My supervisor is often critical of my work even when I perform well.

3. I freguently am reprimanded by my supervisor without knowing why.

Initiating Structure

1. Decides what shall be done and how it will be done. 2. Maintains definite standards of performance. 3. Encourages the use of uniform procedures. 4. Lets sales personnel know what is expected of them. 5. Schedules the work to be done.

153

Consideration

1. Keeps to himself or herself. (R) 2. Is friendly and approachable. 3. Refuses to explain his or her actions. (R) 4. Gives advance notice of changes. 5. Is willing to make changes.

SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP

Ability, Experience, Training, and Knowledge

1. Because of my ability, experience, training or job knowledge, I have the competence to act independently of my immediate supervisor in performing my day-to-day duties.

2. Because of my ability, experience, training or job knowledge, I have the competence to act independently of my immediate supervisor in performing unusual and unexpected job duties.

3. Due to my lack of experience and training, I must depend upon my immediate supervisor to provide me with necessary data, information, and advice.(R)

Professional Orientation

1. For feedback about how well I am performing I rely on people in my occupational specialty, whether or not they are members of my work unit or organization.

2. I receive very useful information and guidance from people who share my occupational specialty, but who are not members of my employing organization.

3. My job satisfaction depends to a considerable extent on people in my occupational specialty who are not members of my employing organization.

Task-Provided Feedback

1. After I've done something on my job I can tell right away from the results I get whether I've done it correctly.

2. My job is the kind where you can make a mistake or an error and not be able to see that you've made it. (R)

3. Because of the nature of the tasks I perform, it is easy for me to see when I've done something exceptionally well.

154

Intrinsically-Satisfying Tasks

1. I get a great deal of personal satisfaction from the work I do.

2. It is hard to imagine that anyone could enjoy performing the tasks that I perform on my job. (R)

3. My job satisfaction depends to a considerable extent on the nature of the actual tasks I perform on my job.

Organizational Formalization

1. Clear, written goals and objectives exist for my ob. 2. My job responsibilities are clearly specified in

writing. 3. In this organization, performance appraisals are based

on written standards. 4. My duties, authority, and accountability are

documented in policies, procedures, and job descriptions.

Organizational Rewards Not Within The Leader's Control

1. I am dependent on my immediate supervisor for important organizational rewards. (R)

2. My immediate supervisor has little say or influence over which of his or her subordinates receive organizational rewards.

3. My chances for a pay raise depends on my immediate superior's recommendation.

4. My chances for a promotion depend on my immediate superior's recommendation.

JOB STRESS

Role Conflict

1. I seldom receive an assignment without adeguate resources and materials to complete it.

2. I work with several groups who operate quite differently.(R)

3. I often have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment. (R)

4. I seldom receive incompatible requests from two or more people. (R)

5. I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person but not accepted by others.

155

Role Ambiquity

1. I feel uncertain about how much authority I have. (R) 2. I know that I have divided my time properly. 3. I'm not sure what my responsibilities are. (R) 4. I know exactly what is expected of me.

COMMITMENT

Job Commitment

1. The major satisfaction in my life comes from my job. 2. The most important things that happen to me involve my

job. 3. I am very much involved in my work. 4. Most things in life are more important than work.


1. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful.

2. I feel very little loyalty to this organization. (R) 3. I would accept almost any type of job assignment in

order to keep working for this organization. 4. I find that my values and the organization's values

are very similar. 5. I could just as well be working for a different

organization as long as the type of work was similar. (R)

6. There's not too much to be gained by sticking with this organization indefinitely. (R)

7. Often, I find it difficult to agree with this organization's policies on important matters relating to its employees. (R)

8. I really care about the fate of this organization. 9. Deciding to work for this organization was a definite

mistake on my part. (R)

SATISFACTION

Promotion Satisfaction

1. I do not like the basis on which my organization promotes people. (R)

2. If I do a good job I'm likely to get promoted. 3. I am satisfied with my rate of advancement.

156

Work Itself Satisfaction

1. My job is interesting. 2. I feel good about the amount of responsibility in my

job. 3. I would rather be doing another job. (R) 4. I get little sense of accomplishment from doing my

job. (R)

Pay Satisfaction

1. My organization pays better than competitors. 2. I am underpaid for what I do. (R) 3. My pay is adequate, considering the responsibilities

I have.

Supervision Satisfaction

1. The managers I work for back me up. 2. The managers I work for are "top notch." 3. My superiors don't listen to me. (R) 4. My management doesn't treat me fairly. (R)

Co-worker Satisfaction

1. The people I work with do not give me enough support. (R)

2. When I ask people to do things, the job gets done. 3. I enjoy working with the people here. 4. I work with responsible people.

TASK-SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM

1. The guality of your relationship with your firm's customers.

2. Management of your time and company expenses. 3. Knowing the design and specification of company

products. 4. Knowing the application and functions of company

products. 5. Being able to identify causes of company product

failures. 6. Providing accurate and complete paperwork related to

orders and other routine reports. 7. Controlling costs in other areas of the company (order

processing, delivery, etc.) when taking sale orders.

8. Listening attentively to identify and understand the real concerns of your customers.

157

9. Working out solutions to a customer's guestions or objections.

SELF-REPORT PERFORMANCE

1. Making sales of those products with the highest profit margins.

2. Generating sales of new company products. 3. Your overall compensation level. 4. The latest raise or bonus you received.

APPENDIX B: FOLLOW-UP LETTER

158

159

August 30, 1988

Dear

We wish to thank you for volunteering to help us in surveying your inside and outside salespeople. As a group, industrial salespeople have received very little research attention. One result of this is that we have very little knowledge regarding how industrial salespeople view their jobs or the factors that may affect their performance and job satisfaction.

Based upon our initial telephone contacts with managers, such as yourself, we have obtained a respresentative sample of Texas industrial distributors who have volunteered for the study. A number of managers have provided us with suggestions that have proved useful in constructing the research questionnaire.

In approximately four weeks you will receive a packet containing the approximate number of questionnaires and instructions for your salespeople. A note from you requesting their cooperation will assure a higher rate of participation.

Again, thank you for vounteering to be part of the study. A copy of the summary report will be made available to you for participating.

Sincerely yours.

Roy D. Howell Professor of Marketing Texas Tech University

Farrand J. Hadaway Assistant Professor of Marketing

Northern Illinois University

/mmg

APPENDIX C: INSTRUCTIONS

1 6 0

161

November 30, 1988

Dear Sales/Branch Manager:

We appreciate your volunteering to distribute our questionnaire to your inside and outside salespeople. Questionnaires, cover letters, and return envelopes have been provided for the number of salespeople employed by your firm. If we sent too many, just discard the rest. If there are not enough guestionnaires, pass out what is provided until the supply is exhausted.

One part of the questionnaire asks your salespeople to provide a self-report measure of their sales related performance. As some salespeople tend to over or under estimate their actual performance, we are also asking that you provide a management interpretation of that performance. An evaluation form has been provided for this purpose.

As noted in the instructions at the top of the evaluation form, please record your interpretation of each person's performance prior to handing out the guestionnaires, cover letters, and return envelopes. This information will serve as an objective measure of their performance. After you have handed out the guestionnaires, return the completed Sales Personnel Evaluation Form in the stamped return envelope provided.

The code numbers on the guestionnaires and evaluation form are only for classification purposes and will not be used to identify any individual and/or participating firm.

Thank you for cooperating in the study. When we complete the data analysis, a copy of the summary report will be provided to you for your participation.

Sincerely yours.

Roy D. Howell Farrand J. Hadaway Professor of Marketing Assistant Professor of Texas Tech University Marketing


APPENDIX D: COVER LETTER

162

163

November 22, 1988

Dear Sales Professional:

We are conducting a study of industrial distributor sales people. As a group, industrial salespeople have received very little attention by marketing researchers. A result of this is that we know very little about your sales activities or the factors that may affect your performance and satisfaction. To gain some knowledge of these important factors, both inside and outside salespeople are being surveyed from select industrial firms within the state of Texas.

The purpose of the study has been explained to your management and they agree that the study will provide us with valuable information about your sales activities. Your response is of great importance to our success in learning about the industrial sales environment.

Within the next two weeks, please take time from your busy schedule and ehlp us by filling out this questionnaire and return it in the postage-paid return envelope.

Although there is a code number on the upper right hand corner of the questionnaire, your response will remain totally anonymous. The code number is only used to allow us to classify respondents and ensure a representative sample. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Sincerely yours.

Roy D. Howell Professor of Marketing Texas Tech University

Farrand J. Hadaway Assistant Professor of of Marketing


APPENDIX E: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM

.64

165

Firm _ Branch

INDUSTRIAL SALES PERSONNEL EVALUATION FORM

This part of the study asks that each manager provide information on their employee's performance. This evaluation applies to both inside and outside sales people. Each questionnaire has a code number in the upper right hand corner. Please assign a questionnaire to each of your sales people and keep track of each person associated with each number. Then provide your evaluation of the sales people on the following two measures.

A. For each of your sales people, how would you evaluate this person's overall performance compared to others in a like position within your firm or industry? The categories are:

(1) below 25% (2) better than (3) better than

25% 50%

(4) (5) (6) (7)

better better better better

than than than than

60% 70% 80% 90%

B. How valuable is this individual to the overall operation and success of your firm? The categories are

(1) Extremely Low (2) Low (3) Slight Below Average

(4) Average (5) Slight Above Average (6) High (7) Extremely High

Using the above two measures (A and B ) , circle the number that best represent your evaluation of each employee.

Questionnaire A. B.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

Questionnaire A. B.

1 2 3 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7

Questionnaire A. B,

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

Questionnaire A, B,

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

Questionnaire A. B.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

APPENDIX F : QUESTIONNAIRE

166

167 SU.^V:T or '.MCJJSTPI*.: :*_:"= °Z^SOH:II\.

P i ^ « 5 c r x p r e s ^ your i g r e t . ^ r i " . or <313a<;rccic- i ' . w i t h e a c h c' tr.f < o l l o > i l f i ^ s t i ' t a t n t s C i r c l e ^^t n u . S r - •" i •> b t s : . " c p r c j c n : ? y o u r o p i n i o n Tnc c 4 t r g o r l e 5 » r c

111 S; ron<jl Y C l 3 « 9 r t e 121 D l 5 « g r c c

n i SI I g h O y D l 3 » c r e c ( 4 | H e l t h e r D I s a j r c c or X g r c e

1̂ 1 SI I g h t l r X g r c t n i S t r o n ^ l T A>;-

i •. r o n -; 1 j C: 5*(}ree

: ! *c '!rpcnd--it on =y l o i e d l i t e s u p e r i o r for l a p o r t i n t or'jin 114 51 on» 1 r e w s r <J J

2 ^.f i » « e < J i i t e j u p e r l o r h i j l i t t l e » » y o r I n f l u e n c e o v e r w M c h o f M J o r h e r s u b o r d i n « l e s r e c e i v e o r 9 » n l i » l i o n i l r e x i r d s . .

3 My dutlej. »uthorlty. »nd »ccountibl1Uy ire documented In policies, procedures, »nd 50b descriptions . .

<. I enjoy worV.lns with the people here . . . . . .

i. The people 1 work, with do Qfl^ give me enough support

6. Cle*r. written 90»ls ind objectives exist (or ay Job . . . .

1 The Binaqers 1 worlc. for b»cV. Be up . . . .

S. Hy p«y Is adequtCe. considering the responsibilities I have

9. My organiiatlon pays better than coapetltors .

10. My Job Is Interesting

11 . i aa w i l l i n g to p u t in a g r e a t d e a l o( e/(ort b e y o n d that n o r a a l l y e x p e c t e d in o r d e r to h e l p t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n b e s u c c e s s f u l

12. I do not liy.e the basis on which By organliation pro»otes people

1}. My chances for a pay raise depend on ay lB*ediate superior's lecoamenda-

tlon

K . I know that I have divided »y tl»e properly . . .

is. My Job responsibilities are clearly specified in writing

16. I find that ay values and the organization's values are very slallar .

n . There's not too ouch to •»e gained by sticking with this organization indefi

nitely

le. Often. I find It difficult to agree with this organization's policies on

laportant aitters relating to its employees

19. !'• not s u r e w h a t ay r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are

20. I feel very little loyalty to this organization

21 My s u p e r v i s o r a l w a y s g i v e s «e p o s i t i v e f e e d b a c k w h e n 1 p e r f o r a well

22 1 often have to buck a rule or policy In order to carry out an assign

ment

23 My chances for a pro»otlon depend on ay lanedlatc superior's recoaaenda-t ion . .

2< I T this organization, perforaance appraisals are based on written standards.

2S My supe.'iors don't lister, to ae . . . .

: •. !J .".a.-i ic laa-};-.: ;-a; i.-yofic couli f")oy Pf.'Ioraln^ ".he tasV.s that ; p': .'cr: 0- ey job

zr'.fiie of ;^- natj.-t of the ta^Vs i pe.-fc,'» \\ 1$ easy tor =e to see when \ ' •. r iir,r so--' h; r.̂ f c - p t : o n a l l y well

A f t r r : ' . e ior.e s o = - : ' : - - ; c- « y ) o b ! C i n t e l l r : v n t a w a y f r o e t h e r e s j l t s I •jet w h c t h r : I ' v e do.-.f :; c o r r e c t l y

U\ I3)_J

2

1 2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1 2

1 2

1 :

1 2

1 2

1 2

: 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

: 2

1 2

1 2

S t r o r. 7 '̂ 9 r ? ?

S 6

i 6

'. 6

S 6

S 6

S 6

6

S 6

6

S 6

S 6

S ft

i 6

S 6

i 6

i 6

i 6

•> 6

^ 6

V 6

' 6

^ 6

-'• 1 receive very useful Snfornailon and guidance froo people -ho s^are =r O C C J -pational specialty, bu; who are not aeabers of ny enplcylng o.-'jan 1 :a t 1 on

50 Due to oy lacl-. of erperience and training. I depend upon =/ i=zediate supervisor 10 r"0'-'-<ie ne with necessary datA Inforaation. ar-d aiv:ce

168 St-ongly itron^!/ Disagree A^.-ee

IU_!2! l3L.L<)_!M_j6J__ni

1 2 3 i S fc :

1 :- 3 4 '. », 1

31 Secausc of r.y ability, experience. tralnlnQ, or )ob '.'.nowl - i^e. I have the coc-petence to act independently of ny laiediate supervisor in perJorolng ay day-to-day duties . .

32. .".y supervisor is often critical of oy work even when I perfora well

33. Cven when I perforc poorly on ay Job. r.y supervisor rarely gets upset with =e . . . .

34 My supervisor would reprloand «e if ny work was below standard

3S. My supervisor shows his.'her displeasure when ay work Is below acceptable standards

36. My supervisor would quickly dcknowledge an laproveaent In the quality of my work .

37. I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person but not accepted by others

38. I work with responsible people

39. When I ask people to do things, the Job gets done

40. Hy Banageeent doesn't treat ae fairly

41. The aanagers I work for are 'top notch"

42. ! aa underpaid for what I do

43. I get little sense of accoaplishment froa doing ny Job

44. I feel good about the aoount of responsibility in ay Job

45. I an satisfied with ay rate of advanceaent

46. Deciding to work for this organization was a definite aistake on ay part

il. I really care about the fate of this organization . . . . . . . .

48. The aost iaportant things that happen to ae Involve ay Job

49. Most things in life are aore Iaportant than work

50. I could Just as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of work was siailar

51. 1 aa very auch Involved In ay work . . . .

52. If I do a good Job. I'a likely to get proaoted

53. I would rather be doing another job . . . .

54. The aajor satisfaction in ay life cones froa ay Job

55 I >J>ow exactly what Is e.rpected of ae

iS I would accept alaost any type of Job asslgnaent in order to keep working for this organization . . .

S7 ! fee! uncertain about how such authority I have .

V> I seldos receive incoapatible requests fron two or aore people

^9 .".y supe.-visor 7ives ae special recognition when =y work perforaance is especially 70od

iO -y )o: satisfaction depends to a considerable er.te.-.t on the nature of the iCt-al tas'c.s I perfore on ay job

S 6 1

i 6 •)

5 6 1

5 6 7

S 6 7

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

b

6

6

6

6

6

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

6

6

6

6

6

5 6 7

5 6 7

5 6 -

5 6 7

5 6 1

169

6;

I get a great dca! cf persor.al satisfaction f ros the wor

"v job IS the Kind where you can anV.e i =l3tal'.e or an er :ee that you've =aiie It

I do

;.- ^--.C. no; be able to

(V

"̂.y jot" sa •. 1 sf .>cl icn depends to a considrrablc c t ^ n t on people In =y occupi-tional specially who are not r^cabcrs of ay enploying organ;rat:on

For feedbacV. about how well ! aa perforsing. I rely on people in ay occupational specialty, whether or not they are aeabers of m, wor^ unit or organization

Because of ay ability, experience, training, or )ob knowledge. 1 have the coa-petcnce to act independently of oy iooedlatc supervisor in pcrforaing unusual and une.rpecied )ob duties . .

6^ I frequently aa repriaanded by ay supervisor without knowing why

67 My supervisor is often displeased with ay work for no apparent reason . . .

6f My supervisor frequently praises ae even when I don't deserve It .

69 My supervisor is Just as likely to praise ae when I do poorly as when I do well . . . . . .

70. My supervisor lets ae know about it when 1 perfora poorly

S;rongl y Dl sa-jree

1 2 :• <

Si ron-;! y - - r e e

! ' . ; '.'<) ''}

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

h '•

h 7

6 7

71. I seldoa receive an asslgnaent without adequate resources and aaterlals to cooplete it

72. I work with several groups who operate quite differently

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Using the scale provided, indicate where yovi stand on the characteristic coapared to other eaployees of your fira. Circle the nuaber that best represents your opinion. The categories are:

(U Lttreaely Low 121 Low

13) Slightly Below Average (4) Average

(51 Slightly Above Average (61 High

(71 Crtreaely High

1. The quality of your relationship with your flra's custoaers

2. Manageaent of your tiae and coopany expenses

3. Making sales of those products with the highest profit aarglns . . . .

4. Generating sales of new coapany products

5. r.nowlng the design and specification of coapany products . .

'. r.ncwing the applications and functions of coapany products

" Being able to Identify causes of coapany product failures

S. Providing accurate and coaplete paperwork related to orders and other routine reports

9. Controlling costs In other areas of the coapany (order processing, delivery, etc.l when taking sales orders . . . . . . . .

10 Listening attentively to identify and understand the real concerns of your custoaers

E.rtreaely Low

C.rt reaely High

lU 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

121 2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1?) 3

3

3

3

3

J

3

(41 (• 4

4

4

4

4

4

4

> l 1 ^ 1 > 6

> 6

S 6

i 6

b 6

5 6

!• 6

|T| 7

1

7

1

7

1

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 1

1 2 3 4 5

KorVing out solutions to a cus'oacr's questions or objections

Your overall coap-nsation level

•"•-- la'.est raise or bon'js you received

1 2 3 < *• 5 1

1 2 3 4 ^ 6 '

1 2 3 4 V «• •

170

I ! I - - - O ' O r t j s . - i ' n } !

.z :r T ' . r A • ' . - J • ••,•-.;

i - , ' M - A ' -

' f : ; c - -J o A •. •; i ;• r.' o 1 : ' »t-1 c

i ' T : : ' : r 5 w h j ; i h a l i l>f tfo-,f »nd h o w ; t - ; M ( • o n

- f l u s c : . l o r ^ p l a i r h i s o.- h e r . ^ c i i o n i

•* J'. n'. » 1 r-.s d e f i n i t e s ' . j n i j r d i o f pe r f or r;iric e I 7 )

t ir-.:cur*7es the uje of \j.-.;fcrn procedures

7. Civtj *dvi.-\cc notice o( ch»n7ej

^ I» willing to o»Vf ch«r.';e5

? L t n jJleJ personnel V.nc— wh»t Ij e-recled o'. ihe» . . .

IP. Sched'jlci the worV. le be done

; : : ; V

1 2 3 < *>

I J 3 < i

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 < i

IK THIS StCTIOH WOULD YOU P L O S C CIVE US SOKE BACKCROUITO IHFORKATIOH

; Vi'hil is your current Job title? (Be «» specific as posslblcl

2 I-. wh*t Industry Is jour flrr? I:.? . Irinspor t» I Ion. olll

3. How lon7. in years. h»ve you beer, enployed by your current flra?

4. How long have you h e H your current Job title with your current flrji?

S Vo- B»ny employees (Including y o u r s e l d arc there In your current fira?

less than 10 10-19

:o-4? iO-99

100-249 250 or •01 e

6. Fltije Indicate, by p e r c e n U g e , the incre»se In total Incoae you received this ye«r.

7. ?lt»se Indicate, by percentage, the level of sales quota you achieved last year. _

8. Kow aany years of foraal education (e.'.cluding kindergartenl have you had?

9. Tf you attended college, what:

••1 degree (si did you receive?

'.bl » ) o r (si did you take?

10

; i

1 2 .

Vs>.ich of the fol lowing best descr ibes your total coapensat lon froa your eaployer last year?

l «« i lh»n S20.000 S20.000 - S39.9S9

S40.000 - S59.999 $60,000 - S79.999

SBO.OOO S99.999 $100,000 or tore

•"•̂ .it is your: 111 A^e? (bl Se-' Icl Marital Status?

-T-' •io you spend (he .ajorlty of your tl«e on the Job? (Circle one)

III Inside sales ( H outside tales

-r- closely do you feel you »re supervised^ IChect-. onel

Very closely sjpervlsed Closely supervised Xveri-je suprrvision

Little supervision Very little supervision

:-r> -:ten do you have centJCt with your Iciediite rirervlsor'' ICIrcle one for each citesery •

SeveraI Ti»es

Per Day _ P»11y

re : s T r « ! c o n t * c t 1 2

TT". rp---.f 1 :

.-! : 1 1 2

E v e r y 0 t h

Pay

>

3

. 3

er .^'f^'l.r.

4

4

I

Le V,'

SS T h i n

e e V.! y

5

5

5

years

TH/k.si 1CMJ rOR YOUP. C C O F : = ITIO.'.'

substitutes for leadership and their effects a

Documents