The Effect of Door-to-Door Salespeople's Individual Sales

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3327. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063327 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Article

The Effect of Door-to-Door Salespeople’s Individual Sales

Capabilities on Selling Behavior and Performance: The

Moderating Effect of Competitive Intensity

Ho-Taek Yi 1 and Fortune Edem Amenuvor 2,*

1 Department of Business Administration, Keimyung University, Daegu 42601, Korea; [email protected] 2 Department of New Technology Innovation and Management, Hanil University and Presbyterian

Theological Seminary, Jeonbuk 55359, Korea

* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The present study investigates the effect of salespeople’s individual sales capabilities on

selling behaviors and sales performance in door-to-door personal selling channels. The data are

gathered from 219 South Korean salespeople. The hypotheses are tested using the structural equa-

tion modeling technique. The study finds that salespeople's individual sales capabilities have a

greater impact on customer-oriented selling behavior than sales-oriented selling behavior. Similarly,

both sales-oriented and customer-oriented selling behaviors have significant positive effects on sales

performance. The study also discovers that competitive intensity moderates the relationship be-

tween customer-oriented selling behavior and sales performance, but has no significant effect on

the relationship between sales-oriented selling behavior and sales performance. The current re-

search only looks at door-to-door personal selling channels in South Korea. The implication is that

the impacts of individual selling capabilities may differ in other contexts. The current study demon-

strates that competitive intensity can reduce the impact that a “customer orientation” has on sales

performance, and thus a blend of the two orientations (SOCO) is recommended for desired perfor-

mance outcomes in the face of competition. Additionally, firms should focus on creating a culture

that builds and enriches the sales capabilities of salespeople.

Keywords: individual sales capability; customer-oriented selling behavior;

sales-oriented selling behavior; sales performance; competitive intensity

1. Introduction

Most businesses have long prioritized long-term, mutually beneficial, and sustaina-

ble customer relationships. These ties improve customer loyalty, business sustainability

[1–3], and satisfaction [4]. Increased customer loyalty and satisfaction may result in in-

creased sales and profits [5,6]. Few people would deny that firms pursuing long-term re-

lationships have advantages. The relationship between relational selling and customer

orientation by boundary-spanning salespeople is well-documented [7,8], with boundary

spanning defined as the activity, behavior, and navigation the salesperson engages in

with various customers both inside and outside his or her own company [9,10].

The sales-oriented–customer-oriented (SOCO) approach is a common mechanism for

analyzing boundary-spanners’ proclivity for relational marketing [11]. Customers are

much more likely to form long-term relationships with salespeople who employ a so-

called customer-oriented strategy [1,8]. A customer-oriented selling technique focuses on

assisting customers in making informed purchasing decisions, and may include measures

that prioritize the customer’s best interests over immediate sales and commissions. If a

quick, simple transaction can be completed, salespeople who employ a sales-oriented sell-

Citation: Yi, H.-T.; Amenuvor, F.E.

The Effect of Door-to-Door

Salespeople’s Individual Sales

Capabilities on Selling Behavior and

Performance: The Moderating Effect

of Competitive Intensity.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3327. https://

doi.org/10.3390/su14063327

Academic Editor: Fernando Almeida

Received: 7 February 2022

Accepted: 9 March 2022

Published: 11 March 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-

tral with regard to jurisdictional

claims in published maps and institu-

tional affiliations.

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Li-

censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article

distributed under the terms and con-

ditions of the Creative Commons At-

tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre-

ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3327 2 of 14

ing strategy may be less concerned with the customer’s interests. Furthermore, most sales-

people believe that a sales orientation has a temporal component as opposed to customer

orientation [12]. According to this viewpoint, a salesperson who provides better service

to their customers or has a customer-oriented mentality will most likely sell more in the

long run. This implies that salespeople do more than just sell products to customers; they

also assist customers in becoming partners in the company’s profit-making process [13].

Despite the crucial nature of salespeople’s boundary-spanning roles, there appear to

be significant gaps in the literature that require scholarly attention. For example, while the

salesperson’s strategic boundary-spanning activities necessitate specific individual capa-

bilities, previous research has not focused much on measuring these individual capabili-

ties and how they generate selling behaviors. Similarly, the nature of the selling job re-

quires that salespeople use both customer- and sales-oriented selling methods (behaviors)

to achieve their goals. In spite of this, little research has been conducted to determine how

salespeople’s SOCO behaviors are influenced by their specific sales capabilities. Addition-

ally, previous research has placed little focus on assessing how customer-oriented and

sales-oriented selling behaviors affect sales performance. Finally, while market competi-

tive intensity has been argued to affect firm performance, little attention has been paid to

how the competitive intensity of the business environment could affect the relationship

between salespeople’s sales-oriented and customer-oriented selling behaviors and sales

performance.

Accordingly, in filling these gaps, this study aims to model the effects of salespeople’s

individual sales capabilities on both sales-oriented and customer-oriented selling behav-

iors. The study also investigates how sales-oriented and customer-oriented selling behav-

iors influence sales performance. Finally, we investigate how the relationships between

salespeople’s SOCO behaviors and sales performance are influenced by competitive in-

tensity. While we acknowledge that some research has been conducted on the subject [13–

15], our study is unique in that it explores how salespeople’s individual sales capabilities

influence their sales-oriented and customer-oriented selling behaviors. Our study adds to

the growing body of knowledge by looking into the roles of sales-oriented and customer-

oriented selling behaviors in sales performance, as well as the moderating effect of com-

petitive intensity on the same relationship. While the influence of customer-oriented sell-

ing behavior on sales performance may be reduced in a competitive market, our findings

show that competitive intensity has no significant moderating effect on the effect of sales-

oriented selling behavior on sales performance. In effect, our study highlights the fact that,

regardless of competition, sales-oriented selling behavior can be applied to improve sales

performance.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Resource-Based View

Many marketing studies have used resource-based theory to explain the relationship

between a firm’s differentiated competitive advantage and marketing performance

[16,17]. According to the resource-based theory, a company’s performance is influenced

by its internal resources and capabilities, rather than external factors such as economics

or attractiveness [17–19]. The theory emphasizes the importance of resources in business.

It implies that the organization’s resources are valuable (valued), rare/unique (rare), and

inimitable (inimitable) to the point that potential competitors will be unable to obtain

them now or in the future. In comparison to competitors’ resources, the emphasis is on

acquiring irreplaceable resources or capabilities [17]. The aforementioned characteristics

set the organization apart from resources that can be easily transferred and secured to

other companies, making it difficult to replicate. Other organizations find it difficult to

obtain the same resources due to scarcity, making a truly competitive environment im-

possible. Barney [17] divides resources into physical, human, and organizational capital

based on heterogeneity and immobility. These assets provide a corporation with a long-


term competitive advantage rather than a short-term competitive advantage. It empha-

sizes the importance of human capital as one of the three resources. Traditional resources

such as natural resources, technological resources, economies of scale, and so on have his-

torically provided a competitive advantage to an organization, but according to resource-

based theory, these resources are easily imitated by competitors and transferred to other

resources. Besides, human capital can be defined as a vital component of business success

and a source of long-term competitive advantage [20]. Human capital, an intangible but

visible resource, is efficiently distributed through education as a source of corporate com-

petitiveness. In the current study, we argue that salespeople’s capabilities are difficult to

replicate, and that they are valuable resources that can help a company achieve greater

success (sales performance). The resource-based theory has been used in previous re-

search [13,21], and is adopted as the theoretical lens for this study.

2.2. Theoretical Framework

2.2.1. Salesperson’s Individual Sales Capability

A systematic study of salesforce capabilities began when the general capability

model was seriously researched in the 1990s. Spencer and Spencer [22] are two well-

known researchers in the field of salesperson capabilities who are frequently quoted.

Spencer and Spencer [22] used the capability model to categorize individual capabilities

by job type—technical/professional, sales, and interpersonal service—and then compared

the capabilities and behaviors of excellent and average performers by grouping them into

individual employees and managers. According to their findings, the competency of ex-

cellent salespeople varies depending on the length of the business cycle, complexity, com-

pany regional features, products, and customer types. Control, goal-oriented behavior,

initiative, and interpersonal skills are all factors that influence the capabilities required of

salespeople [23]. Understanding, customer orientation, confidence, relationship develop-

ment, analytical thinking, conceptual thinking, information establishment, organizational

awareness, and technical experience are all identified as important selling skills. Among

other things, this sales capability contributes significantly to performance generation and

improvement. It is the most faithful and appropriate capability for the organization’s goal

at the organizational level, and it is the capability best suited for individual duties or re-

sponsibilities at the individual level [24]. Previous research has identified a number of

specific elements that comprise a salesperson’s sales capability. Michaels and Marshall

[25], for example, recommended that salespeople understand their clients in order to plan

strategically and systematically for tactical sales operations. According to Warech [26],

key constituents of sales capability include customer partnership, relationship formation,

communication, customer and quality orientation, learning motivation, achievement ori-

entation, interpersonal skills, internal resources and network utilization, technical capa-

bilities such as management ability, and problem-solving ability. The ability of an indi-

vidual or organization to achieve good performance or gain a competitive advantage

through sales is referred to as sales capability [13,27]. It is difficult to duplicate because it

is a one-of-a-kind and intrinsic ability.

It is also more difficult to imitate because it consists of core know-how, knowledge,

and technology, and it is not the result of an individual or an organization, but rather a

natural trait. Within sales organizations, it can be argued that ensuring salespeople have

a high level of sales capability is crucial, with extant sales research arguing that, effective

and strategic sales activities can improve sales performance and, consequently, manage-

ment performance [28,29].

2.2.2. Sales-Oriented and Customer-Oriented (SOCO) Behaviors

The SOCO scale was developed by Michaels and Marshall [25] to assess the two ways

salespeople interact with customers: sales orientation (SO) and customer orientation (CO).


Customer orientation is defined as the degree to which salespeople seek to assist custom-

ers in making satisfied purchase decisions, thereby putting the marketing concept into

action, whereas sales orientation is defined as a selling technique that aims to sell as much

to customers as possible. Customer-oriented salespeople are interested in learning how to

understand consumers by paying attention to their needs and then providing the best

solutions to those problems, rather than simply making sales. Short-term gain sales-ori-

ented salespeople, on the other hand, seek to maximize their profits as soon as possible

[11,30,31]. Understanding these two concepts, however, is vital for understanding that a

high level of customer orientation does not always imply a low level of sales orientation.

People are motivated by incentives such as concern for others, as well as motives to pursue

one’s own interests and altruistic tendencies [32,33]. In this regard, customer and sales

orientations are not mutually exclusive.

3. Hypothesis Development

3.1. Individual Sales Capability of Door-to-Door Salesperson and SOCO

According to Spencer and Spencer [22], capability is an indicator of the behavior and

mentality that employees must consistently exhibit to function in a variety of job-related

scenarios. It is defined as a set of technical attitudes or indicators that can be improved

and quantified through continuous development and performance in critical areas, with

capability focusing on the specific behavioral traits of individuals in the work process [24].

Specific activities undertaken while performing work, as well as the professional

knowledge, talents, personality, and attitude of the individual, are regarded as necessary

to foster good capabilities [34]. Individual capabilities, such as knowledge and skills, in-

fluence individual behavior in the development of high-quality products and services,

which leads to improved organizational performance [35]. We contend that individual

capability within an organization influences performance through individual behaviors,

which is consistent with previous research [35]. We argue that the selling behavior of the

salesforce reveals their individual sales capability in the sales organization.

Spencer and Spencer [22] developed a rigorous criterion for the job capability re-

quired to meet organizational goals, and discovered that achievement orientation and in-

fluence are the most important sales capabilities. Michaels and Marshall [25] reckoned

that it is essential to provide training for sales personnel who must perform long-term

sales activities based on factors such as customer management capability, relationship for-

mation ability, ability to prepare for business visits, communication skills, ability to estab-

lish long-term customer relationships, and information gathering ability. Individual sales

capability is highlighted more than variables for achieving short-term sales performance

when it comes to customer management, customer relationship creation, and long-term

relationship aspects. Instead of focusing on short-term sales outcomes, the corporate side

focuses on organizational strengths to consolidate existing customer relationships. Strong

salespeople are concerned with short-term sales, but the organization is more concerned

with long-term customer relationships. Long-term relationship awareness is particularly

important for salespeople in the personal selling market, which values customer relation-

ships, as well as for sales organizations that use customer relationship indicators as per-

formance indicators to encourage salespeople’s customer-oriented selling behavior [36].

The following hypothesis is proposed based on the foregoing:

H1a. Cosmetic door-to-door salespersons’ individual sales capabilities will have a positive effect on

customer-oriented selling behavior.

H1b. Cosmetic door-to-door salespersons’ individual sales capabilities will have a positive effect on

sales-oriented selling behavior.

H2. Cosmetic door-to-door salespersons’ individual sales capabilities will have a stronger positive

effect on customer-oriented selling behavior.


3.2. SOCO and Sales Performance

Our model is based on the basic logic advocated by Saxe and Weitz [11] and others

who have contributed to the rich stream of SOCO research [37,38], that each of the per-

spective’s two constituent components—a sales orientation and a customer orientation—

should have an impact on sales performance. Actual sales volume data are used in this

study to evaluate sales performance. We used a three-month sales volume for this study

and argue that customer orientation should improve sales performance because the sales-

person considers the customer’s wants and best interests, as described in previous SOCO

discussions. Similarly, while most previous research has argued for a negative relation-

ship between sales-oriented selling behavior and sales performance, claiming that sales-

people sacrifice the customers’ primary needs and demands to satisfy their own interests

(e.g., making a quick sale, getting a commission, etc.), this research asserts the opposite.

Both selling behaviors, we believe, are important for improving performance and can oc-

cur in the same salesperson. Consequently, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H3. Customer-oriented selling behavior will have a positive effect on sales performance.

H4. Sales-oriented selling behavior will have a positive effect on sales performance.

3.3. The Moderating Role of Competitive Intensity on the Relationship between SOCO and Sales

Performance

At the organizational level, competitive intensity is influenced by competitors’ per-

ceptions of the external market environment. It is defined as a competitor’s ability to in-

fluence the actions of a focal enterprise [39]. Businesses must become more inventive in

terms of products and processes in order to succeed as the level of competition rises. When

competition is limited, firms, according to Auh and Menguc [40], can utilize their current

mechanisms to fully capitalize on the transparent predictability of their own behavior.

Firms, on the other hand, will have to adapt in the face of increased competition. Hence,

the level of competition in an organization’s external environment can have a significant

impact on how effective its process management efforts are.

Thus, organizational procedures must reflect the environment. According to Law-

rence and Lorsch [41], organizational efficiency is determined by the degree of fit between

an organization’s structure and operations and its environment. The key principle of this

contingency theory is that for an organization’s operations to be effective, they must be

appropriate for its environment [42]. In a dynamic environment, existing structures and

processes may no longer be appropriate, and organizational performance may suffer as a

result. Organizations must undergo change in order to achieve the required level of fit to

improve their performance and remain competitive [43]. Organizations that compete on

price or differentiation face volatile competitive conditions [44]. Competitive pressures

exist in a variety of strategic settings, necessitating an understanding of the competitive

environment and the selection of the most effective processes in that context.

Accordingly, we contend that, while customer- and sales-oriented selling behaviors

can positively influence sales performance, the level of competitive intensity in the corpo-

rate environment can have a significant impact on this nexus. We argue that competitive

intensity can weaken the relationship between SOCO and sales performance, and we pro-

pose the following hypotheses:

H5a. Competitive intensity will moderate the relationship between customer-oriented selling be-

havior and sales performance.

H5b. Competitive intensity will moderate the relationship between sales-oriented selling behavior

and sales performance.


3.4. Research Model

The current study investigates the impact of a salesperson’s individual sales capabil-

ities on sales-oriented and customer-oriented selling behaviors (SOCO), as well as how

SOCO affects sales performance. The study also examines how competitive intensity mod-

erates the relationship between SOCO and sales performance. Figure 1 depicts this:

Figure 1. Research model.

4. Methodology

4.1. Context of the Study

South Korea’s cosmetics market is the world’s eighth largest, with an average annual

growth rate of 16% between 2012 and 2016, more than five times the average annual

growth rate of the Korean economy of 3% during the same period [13,45]. Because of the

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) controversy and a decrease in Chinese

tourists in 2017, the cosmetics industry’s growth has slowed slightly in recent years. South

Korean cosmetics exports, on the other hand, increased to USD 5.32 billion in 2019 from

USD 4.92 billion the previous year. South Korea’s beauty and personal care market was

expected to generate approximately USD 11,500 million in revenue by 2020 [13,46]. The

rate of entry and expansion is increasing, and large brands are expanding into Asian coun-

tries, particularly China, demonstrating that this is a profitable industry.

4.2. Sampling and Data Collection

Data from South Korean cosmetics brands were used in this study. The study was

based on the responses of 219 salespeople from Amore Pacific and LG Household &

Health Care, South Korea’s two largest cosmetic manufacturers. As of 2020, the two com-

panies ranked 16th and 12th in terms of global cosmetics company sales, indicating that

the issue of sample representativeness has been addressed to some extent. Random sam-

pling was used in this study on salespeople dispatched to the regional headquarters of

two companies in Daegu-Gyeongbuk. Because commuting is free in door-to-door selling,

non-random sampling is difficult to implement; therefore, the authors used random sam-

pling because there are many door-to-door salespeople who only enlisted as salespeople

and have no actual sales. To reduce measurement errors, a measurement tool known for

its reliability in previous studies was used, and team leaders (all with PhDs in business

administration) reviewed the questionnaire in advance to reduce any ambiguity in the


measurement instruments. The questionnaire was administered twice. The first data col-

lection period was from August to December 2020, and the second was from January to

February 2021, both of which were face-to-face.

4.3. Profile of Respondents

The demographic characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 1. In terms of

their ages, 6.0% were between the ages of 30 and 39, 22.8% were between the ages of 40

and 49, 54.3% were between the ages of 50 and 59, and 16.9% were over 60. When asked

how long they had been at their current job, 6.8% said they had been there for 1–3 years,

19.2% for 3–5 years, 42.0% for 5–7 years, and 32.1% for more than 7 years. In terms of job

title, 42.9% identified as junior/senior, 42.0% as masters, and 15.1% as chief masters. In

terms of education, 32.4% completed high school, 27.8% completed university, and 39.7%

completed graduate school. In terms of prior work experience, 11.4% claimed to have

worked in an office/sales environment, 56.2% claimed to be housewives, and 33.5%

claimed to be self-employed. When asked why they chose to work at their current firm,

27.8% cited the corporate/product image, 15.5% cited the company’s corporate marketing

skills, and 56.6% cited personal recommendations.

Table 1. Description of respondents.

Classification Frequency % Classification Frequency %

Salesperson

Age

30 to 39 years old 13 6.0 Previous work

experience

Self-employment 71 32.5

40 to 49 years old 50 22.8 Housewife 123 56.2

50 to 59 years old 119 54.3 Office worker/sales worker 25 11.4

60 years and above 37 16.9 Salesperson

company selection

factors

Company/product image 61 27.8

Salesperson

working

period

1 to less than 3 years 15 6.8 Company’s marketing

capabilities 34 15.5

3 to less than 5 years 42 19.2 Friend recommendation 124 56.6

5 to less than 7 years 92 42.0

Transaction period

with the customer

(entered by the

customer)

Less than 1 year 13 5.9

Above 7 years 70 32.1 More than 1 year and less

than 2 years 19 8.7

Rank

Junior/Senior 97 42.9 More than 2 years to less

than 3 years 21 9.6

Master 92 42.0 More than 3 years to less

than 4 years 20 9.1

Chief master 33 15.1 More than 4 years to less

than 5 years 9 4.1

Education

High school 71 32.4 More than 5 years and less

than 6 years 14 6.4

University 61 27.8 More than 6 years to less

than 7 years 19 8.7

Graduate School 87 39.7 more than 7 years 104 47.5

4.4. Measurement of Variables

The current study used a quantitative approach, including structured questionnaires.

This approach is important in theory because it allows for the empirical examination of

actual statistical measurements of proposed hypotheses [47]. Individual sales capability,

customer-oriented selling behavior, sales-oriented selling behavior, sales performance,

and competitive intensity are all evaluated in the survey questionnaire. The construct

statements were rated on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly

agree, and 3 = neutral. Items for individual sales capability were adapted from Spencer

and Spencer [22], items for customer- and sales-oriented selling behaviors from Saxe and

Weitz [11], sales performance items from [48], and competitive intensity items from Ja-


worski and Kohli [49]. Specifically, competitive intensity was measured with the follow-

ing scale items adapted from Jaworski and Kohli [49]: CI1—Competition in our market is

cut-throat; CI2—There are many “promotion wars” in our market; CI3—Price competition

is a hallmark of our market; CI4—One hears of a new competitive move in our market

frequently. The scale development and purification methodologies and processes pro-

posed by DeVellis [50], specifically those for confirmatory factor analysis, were used to

purify all scale items.

4.4.1. Common Method Bias

To avoid common method bias, the data for this investigation came from two sources

[51]. Salespeople completed a questionnaire about their individual sales capability, cus-

tomer-oriented selling behavior, sales-oriented selling behavior, and competitive inten-

sity, and we evaluated sales performance using real sales data from the previous three

months from the respondents.

4.4.2. Test for Non-Response Bias

As Armstrong and Overton [52] suggested, we tested for non-response bias by com-

paring early and late responders on work experience, employment position, education,

and firm name. Second, we looked for differences in the study’s factors between the two

groups. There were no statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in either case.

4.5. Reliability and Validity Test

The loadings and their respective and matching constructs were used to assess the

measurement items’ reliability [53]. Standard estimates varied from 0.547 to 0.928, with

the majority of associated internal consistency values (Cronbach’s alpha) exceeding the

0.7 criterion, according to the findings (see Table 2). The fit indices were: χ2 =757.692, df =

357, χ2/df = 2.12, RMR = 0.030, GFI = 0.817, NFI = 0.843, IFI = 0.910, TLI = 0.897 and CFI =

0.909, in line with Anderson and Gerbing [54]. Table 2 also provides the average variance

extracted (AVE). The AVE values varied from 0.506 to 0.753. By comparing AVE values

and squared phi correlations between construct pairs, the authors were able to evaluate

discriminant validity. In every instance, the AVE values were greater than the shared

squared phi correlations between each pair of constructs. This implies discriminant valid-

ity, in keeping with Fornell and Larcker [53], which signifies that the constructs are dis-

tinct from one another. Each measure’s composite reliability likewise exceeded the 0.7

threshold for acceptable reliability [55].

Table 2. Reliability and validity analysis of variables.

Measurement Item Construct St. Estimate S.E. C.R. AVE CR Cronbach’s α

Professionalism

Individual sales

capacity

0.547 - -

0.660 0.975 0.952

Relationship building 0.850 0.172 7.531

Analytical thinking 0.811 0.213 6.372

Learning 0.928 0.243 6.571

Customer orientation 0.843 0.204 6.171

Organizational awareness 0.841 0.229 6.585

Professional competency 1 Professionalism

0.862 - - 0.753 0.930 0.919

Professional competency 2 0.874 0.083 12.339

Relationship-building

competency 1 Relationship

building

0.717 - -

0.506 0.808 0.778 Relationship-building

competency 2 0.705 0.104 9.210

Analytical thinking

competency 1

Analytical

thinking 0.797 - - 0.704 0.910 0.897


Analytical thinking

competency 2 0.879 0.096 11.954

Learning competency 1 Learning

0.742 - - 0.529 0.810 0.795

Learning competency 2 0.713 0.097 9.536

Customer orientation

competency 1 Customer

orientation

0.703 - -

0.566 0.843 0.819 Customer orientation

competency 2 0.798 0.119 10.093

Organizational awareness 1 Organizational

awareness

0.815 - -

0.629 0.873 0.858 Organizational awareness

competency 2 0.770 0.081 11.543

Customer orientation 7

Customer-

oriented sales

behavior

0.790 - -

0.644 0.960 0.958

Customer orientation 6 0.844 0.066 15.213






Sales orientation 1

Sales-oriented

sales behavior

0.824 - -

0.714 0.964 0.965

Sales orientation 2 0.880 0.064 16.033





Competitive strength 1

Competitive

strength

0.796 - -

0.611 0.934 0.918 Competitive strength 2 0.791 0.077 12.022

Competitive strength 3 0.802 0.084 12.189

Competitive strength 4 0.737 0.080 11.096

Model fit: χ2 = 757.692, d.f. = 357, RMR = 0.030, GFI = 0.817, NFI = 0.843, IFI = 0.910, TLI = 0.897, CFI

= 0.909.

4.6. Descriptive and Correlation Analysis

Table 3 displays the correlation matrix as well as descriptive statistics. As indicated

in the table, the correlation coefficients ranged from 0.106 to 0.697. At both the 0.05 and

0.01 significance levels, correlations were determined to be significant.

Table 3. Descriptive and correlation analysis.

Variable Name Mean Standard

Deviation (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Sales Capacity (1) 3.6221 0.48052 1 - - - -

Customer Orientation (2) 3.6967 0.60157 0.697 ** 1 - - -

Sales Orientation (3) 3.6461 0.64586 0.539 ** 0.366 ** 1 - -

Sales Performance (4) 15.1314 0.62355 0.425 ** 0.337 ** 0.328 ** 1 -

Competitive Strength (5) 3.7854 0.55369 0.402 ** 0.480 ** 0.151 * 0.106 1

** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

4.7. Hypothesis Test

As shown in Table 4, the structural model fit indices provided ample evidence of

good model fit (χ2 = 596.010, df = 282, χ2/df = 2.11; RMR = 0.032, GFI = 0.840, NFI = 0.859,

IFI = 0.920, TLI = 0.907, CFI = 0.919).

The researchers discovered a strong positive link between individual sales capability

and customer-oriented selling behavior after conducting structural equation modeling

analysis (β = 0.802, p < 0.01). According to the findings, individual sales capability has a


significant positive effect on sales-oriented selling behavior (β = 0.558, p < 0.01). In this

study, we used a path coefficient value difference analysis to test the hypothesis that in-

dividual sales capability has a stronger influence on customer-oriented selling behavior

than on sales-oriented selling behavior. The difference in path coefficient values between

the unconstrained and constrained models of individual sales capability, customer-ori-

ented selling, and sales-oriented selling behavior was found to be statistically significant,

with a Δχ2 value of 4.181.

There was also a significant positive relationship between customer-oriented selling

behavior and sales performance (β = 0.256, p < 0.01), as well as a significant positive rela-

tionship between sales-oriented selling behavior and sales performance (β = 0.239, p <

0.01). Table 4 summarizes these findings.

Table 4. Model fit and hypothesis test.

H Path St. Estimate S.E. t-Value Δχ2(1) Result

H1a H2

Sales capability → customer-oriented sales behavior 0.802 ** 0.23 6.491 4.181

Supported

H1b Sales capability → Sales-oriented sales behavior 0.558 ** 0.199 5.604 Supported

H3 Customer-oriented sales behavior → Sales performance 0.256 ** 0.077 3.468 - Supported

H4 Sales-oriented sales behavior → Sales performance 0.239 ** 0.071 3.269 - Supported

** p < 0.01; Model fit: χ2 = 596.010, d.f. = 282, RMR = 0.032, GFI = 0.840, NFI = 0.859, IFI = 0.920, TLI =

0.907, CFI = 0.919.

Moderation Analysis

Hypothesis 5 (a and b) were tested using AMOS in a multi-group analysis to see if

competitive intensity had a moderating effect on the relationship between SOCO and sales

performance. As shown in Table 5, multi-group analysis is one of the most widely used

methods for comparing two groups. The moderating variables are divided into two

groups, and the difference between them is calculated to ensure group homogeneity and

inter-group heterogeneity. Using multi-group analysis, the difference in χ2 between the

unconstrained and constrained models exceeded the threshold value of 3.84 in regard to

H5a. In relation to H5b, the difference in χ2 between the constrained and unconstrained

models was less than 3.84 (the threshold value). Hence, with the exception of H5b, all of

the hypotheses proposed in this study were supported.

Table 5. Results of multi-group analysis: moderating effect of competitive intensity.

H Path

St. Estimate χ2(d.f.)

Δχ2(1) Result Low

Group

High

Group

Unconstrained

Model

Constrained

Model

H5a Customer-oriented sales behavior → Sales

performance 0.237 ** 0.179 **

1175.062(564)

1185.861(565) 10.799 Supported

H5b Sales-oriented sales behavior → Sales

performance 0.232 ** 0.215 ** 1175.206(565) 0.144

Not

Supported

** p < 0.01.

5. General Discussions

5.1. Summary of Findings and General Discussions

The goal of this study was to examine how individual salespeople’s sales capability

influenced sales-oriented and customer-oriented selling behaviors (SOCO), as well as how

these behaviors predicted sales performance. The study also investigated the role of com-

petitive intensity in moderating the relationship between SOCO and sales performance.

Overall, the study discovered that individual salespeople’s sales capabilities are germane


to both sales-oriented and customer-oriented selling behaviors. This finding lends cre-

dence to the claim of [13] that salespeople’s individual sales capabilities have a significant

impact on their sales- and customer-oriented selling behaviors. This finding also supports

the claim of Michaels and Marshall [25] that individual salespeople’s SOCO behaviors are

primarily influenced by their selling capabilities. In effect, this study confirms that both

sales-oriented and customer-oriented selling behaviors require individual selling capabil-

ities.

The research further finds that both sales-oriented and customer-oriented selling be-

haviors have positive and significant effects on sales performance. This finding reinforces

the claim of Thakor and Joshi [56] that, while sales-oriented selling behavior is temporary,

it has a significant impact on sales performance. These findings further support the asser-

tion of Plouffe et al. [57] that SOCO improves sales performance. The study also discov-

ered that when competition is high, the effect of customer-oriented selling behavior on

sales performance is reduced. In other words, customer-oriented selling behavior has a

lower impact on sales performance in a highly competitive market. On the other hand,

competitive intensity had no significant moderating effect on the relationship between

sales-oriented selling behavior and sales performance. Essentially, this means that regard-

less of the level of competition, sales-oriented selling behaviors can be used to improve

sales performance. This result may be explained by the position of Yi et al. [13] that sales-

oriented selling behavior is short-term in nature, and thus competitive intensity may not

affect its effect on sales performance.

Overall, this study improves our understanding of the critical role that salespeople’s

unique sales capabilities play in sales-oriented and customer-oriented selling behaviors,

as well as how these behaviors influence sales performance. Our study finds that sales-

people’s individual sales capabilities underpin their SOCO behaviors, and their SOCO

behaviors boost sales performance. The study also discovers that competitive intensity

has a moderating effect on the relationship between customer-oriented selling behavior

and sales performance, but has no effect on the sales-oriented selling behavior and sales

performance nexus. Specifically, the authors hypothesized that high competitive intensity

would reduce the influence of SO on sales performance. Unfortunately, the results of this

study were not statistically significant (but when the competitive intensity was low (β =

0.232), SO had a greater effect on sales performance). Accordingly, the researchers’ hy-

pothesis is thought to be consistent with the empirical results, but we believe that these

results were derived due to the small sample size. Cosmetics door-to-door sales represent-

atives may also sell cosmetics through online shopping malls or SNS channels in some

cases. In other words, because salespeople can use multiple channels, the intensity of com-

petition may not always have a significant impact.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

The current study advances theory by applying resource-based theory to sales capa-

bilities and selling behaviors. In the existing literature, there are few studies that have

applied resource-based theory to sales capabilities and selling behavior. Hence, our re-

search contributes to the resource-based literature [17,19] by providing empirical evidence

for SOCO behavior using a conceptual model with high explanatory power. Furthermore,

there is a scarcity of research in the sales literature that contains and assesses the relation-

ships among the constructs in the study. Prior research examined these dimensions either

alone or in conjunction with other variables [22,24,58], emphasizing the importance of

new and fresh empirical investigation, validation, and theory development. The study’s

focus on the South Korean cosmetics industry, specifically door-to-door cosmetics sales-

people, allows us to better understand the complexities of selling in this industry. The

study adds to the small number of sales studies that have investigated how salespeople’s

capabilities can be transferred. Additionally, our study has established that because both

sales-oriented and customer-oriented selling behaviors improve sales performance, the

two can occur concurrently in the same salesperson, adding to the theory.


5.3. Practical Implications

According to the findings of this study, measuring customer and sales orientations is

important not only at the business level, but also at the individual salesperson level. We

show that having a customer-oriented ideology or a desire to be customer-oriented is in-

sufficient to produce the desired sales outcomes, and that the salesperson must have a

required blend of customer and sales orientation. Furthermore, we hypothesized, and the

data support our hypothesis, that competitive intensity is central (moderating effect) in

translating the benefits of customer-oriented selling behavior to sales performance, but it

does not necessarily change the relationship between sales-oriented selling behavior and

sales performance.

The findings of this study have important practical implications. First, the fact that

individual sales capability influences both sales-oriented and customer-oriented selling

behaviors in door-to-door salespeople implies that both selling orientations can coexist in

the same salesperson. However, further investigation reveals that salespeople’s individ-

ual sales capability has a greater impact on customer-oriented selling behavior. This im-

plies that activities aimed at better understanding the organization and its strategies are

required.

Moreover, because customer-oriented selling behavior improves sales performance,

door-to-door salespeople, as well as all salespeople in general, should adopt it. Similarly,

due to its profitability and the study’s finding that sales-oriented selling behavior im-

proves sales performance, it is necessary to induce sales by combining customer-oriented

and sales-oriented selling behaviors in the company.

Besides this, the fact that competitive intensity moderates the relationship between

customer-oriented selling behavior and sales performance, but not the relationship be-

tween sales-oriented selling behavior and sales performance, implies that competitive in-

tensity mitigates the impact of customer-oriented selling behavior on sales performance.

In other words, customer-oriented selling behavior has a lower impact on sales perfor-

mance in a competitive market, whereas competitive intensity has no effect on the impact

of sales-oriented selling behavior on sales performance. In effect, regardless of the level of

competition, sales-oriented selling behavior can be used to boost sales performance, em-

phasizing the importance of strategically blending the two behavioral orientations.

5.4. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The research offers some novel and intriguing insights into the factors that influence

multidimensional selling behavior and performance. However, there are some constraints

to the work. Because the cosmetics companies in this study sell door-to-door in South

Korea, the regional and cultural environment may have an impact on the organization’s

sales capabilities, limiting generalizability. Therefore, future research should broaden the

range of companies used across the country to increase the likelihood of generalization.

Second, the authors used a relatively small sample size of 219 respondents for this

study, implying that more research is needed to increase the generalizability of the study

results by increasing the sample size. More research is required to support and validate

the current study’s construct linkages and conclusions, as businesses’ strategic alignments

and orientations may vary depending on the context.

Moreover, while sales performance was defined in this study as the amount of sales

made by respondents over three months, three months can be a very short time to inves-

tigate the relationship between SOCO and sales performance. Accordingly, it is important

to consider whether these indicators can truly be used to predict salespeople’s long-term

performance. Hence, to improve the variables’ measurement validity, future studies will

need to look at the sales amount for more than one year.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.-T.Y. and F.E.A.; formal analysis, H.-T.Y.; funding ac-

quisition, H.-T.Y.; investigation, F.E.A.; methodology, H.-T.Y. and F.E.A.; project administration,

F.E.A.; resources, F.E.A.; software, H.-T.Y.; supervision, H.-T.Y. and F.E.A.; writing—original draft,


F.E.A.; writing—review and editing, H.-T.Y. and F.E.A. All authors have read and agreed to the

published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the

National Research Foundation of Korea (grant no. NRF-2020S1A5A8044884).

Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due

to the fact only information about the respondents were used and did not involve using parts of

humans or animals or any form of laboratory experiment.

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the

study.

Data Availability Statement: Data available on request due to ethical and privacy restrictions. The

data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are

not publicly available due to its classified nature.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Amenuvor, F.E.; Basilisco, R.; Boateng, H.; Shin, K.S.; Im, D.; Owusu-Antwi, K. Salesforce output control and customer-oriented

selling behaviours. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2022, ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-08-2021-0269.

2. Dwyer, F.R.; Schurr, P.H.; Oh, S. Developing buyer-seller relationships. J. Mark. 1987, 51, 11–27.

3. Ilyas, G.B.; Munir, A.R.; Tamsah, H.; Mustafa, H.; Yusriadi, Y. The Influence of Digital Marketing and Customer Perceived

Value Through Customer Satisfaction on Customer Loyalty. J. Leg. Ethical Regul. Issues 2021, 24, 1–14.

4. Vigneshwaran, S.R.; Mathirajan, M. A Theoretical Framework for Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty at Automobile

After Sales Service Centres. Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol. 2021, 12, 1.

5. Redjeki, F.; Fauzi, H.; Priadana, S. Implementation of Appropriate Marketing and Sales Strategies in Improving Company Per-

formance and Profits. Int. J. Sci. Soc. 2021, 3, 31–38.

6. Reinartz, W.J.; Kumar, V. Customer Lifetime Duration: An Empirical Framework for Measurement and Explanation; INSEAD: Fon-

tainebleau, France, 2000.

7. Frankwick, G.L.; Porter, S.S.; Crosby, L.A. Dynamics of relationship selling: A longitudinal examination of changes in salesper-

son-customer relationship status. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 2001, 21, 135–146.

8. Schultz, R.J.; Good, D.J. Impact of the consideration of future sales consequences and customer-oriented selling on long-term

buyer-seller relationships. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2000, 15, 200–215.

9. Habel, J.; Alavi, S.; Linsenmayer, K. From personal to online selling: How relational selling shapes salespeople’s promotion of

e-commerce channels. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 132, 373–382.

10. Singh, J. Striking a Balance in Boundary-spanning Positions: An Investigation of Some Unconventional Influences of Role Stress-

ors and Job Characteristics on Job Outcomes of Salespeople. J. Mark. 1998, 62, 69–86.

11. Saxe, R.; Weitz, B.A. The SOCO scale: A measure of the customer orientation of salespeople. J. Mark. Res. 1982, 19, 343–351.

12. Wachner, T.; Plouffe, C.R.; Grégoire, Y. SOCO’s impact on individual sales performance: The integration of selling skills as a

missing link. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2009, 38, 32–44.

13. Yi, H.T.; Cha, Y.B.; Amenuvor, F.E. Effects of Sales-Related Capabilities of Personal Selling Organizations on Individual Sales

Capability, Sales Behaviors and Sales Performance in Cosmetics Personal Selling Channels. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3937.

14. Jaramillo, F.; Ladik, D.M.; Marshall, G.W.; Mulki, J.P. A meta-analysis of the relationship between sales orientation-customer

orientation (SOCO) and salesperson job performance. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2007, 22, 302–310.

15. Yi, H.T.; Yeo, C.K.; Amenuvor, F.E.; Boateng, H. Examining the relationship between customer bonding, customer participation,

and customer satisfaction. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 62, 102598.

16. Penrose, E.; Penrose, E.T. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009.

17. Barney, J.B. The resource-based view of strategy: Origins, implications, and prospects. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 97–211.

18. Dickson, P.R. Toward a general theory of competitive rationality. J. Mark. 1992, 56, 69–83.

19. Hunt, S.D.; Morgan, R.M. The comparative advantage theory of competition. J. Mark. 1995, 59, 1–15.

20. Barney, J.B.; Wright, P.M. On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage.

Hum. Resour. Manag. 1998, 37, 31–46.

21. Sukaatmadja, I.; Yasa, N.; Rahyuda, H.; Setini, M.; Dharmanegara, I. Competitive advantage to enhance internationalization

and marketing performance woodcraft industry: A perspective of resource-based view theory. J. Proj. Manag. 2021, 6, 45–56.

22. Spencer, L.M.; Spencer, P.S.M. Competence at Work Models for Superior Performance; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA,

1993.

23. Rahman, M.S.; Hussain, B.; Hassan, H.; Synthia, I.J. Optimisation of knowledge sharing behaviour capability among sales ex-

ecutives: Application of SEM and fsQCA. VINE J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. Syst. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-06-2020-0115.

24. Rodrigues, G.P.; Martins, T.S. Sales capability and performance: Role of market orientation, personal and management capabil-

ities. Rev. Adm. Mackenzie 2020, 21, 1–29.

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Fortune%20Edem%20Amenuvor

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Richard%20Basilisco

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Henry%20Boateng

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Kwan%20Soo%20Shin

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Dohyun%20Im

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Kwasi%20Owusu-Antwi


25. Michaels, R.E.; Marshall, G.W. Perspectives on selling and sales management education. Mark. Educ. Rev. 2002, 12, 1–11.

26. Warech, M.A. Competency-based structured interviewing: At the Buckhead Beef Company. Cornell Hotel. Restaur. Adm. Q. 2002,

43, 70–77.

27. Simmons, G. Development of a Research Model to Analyze the Importance of NPD Capability and Sales Capability to Manage

Innovation and to Improve Innovation Outcomes in SMEs. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Irish Academy of Management

Conference 2017, Belfast, Ireland, 30 August–1 September 2017.

28. Anderson, E.; Oliver, R.L. Perspectives on behavior-based versus outcome-based salesforce control systems. J. Mark. 1987, 51,

76–88.

29. Cravens, D.W.; Ingram, T.N.; LaForge, R.W.; Young, C.E. Behavior-based and outcome-based salesforce control systems. J.

Mark. 1993, 57, 47–59.

30. Amenuvor, F.E.; Yi, H.T.; Boateng, H. Examining the consequences of adaptive selling behavior by door-to-door salespeople in

the Korean cosmetic industry. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2021, ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-12-2020-0846.

31. Hughes, D.E.; le Bon, J.; Rapp, A. Gaining and leveraging customer-based competitive intelligence: The pivotal role of social

capital and salesperson adaptive selling skills. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2013, 41, 91–110.

32. Shin, K.S.; Amenuvor, F.E.; Boateng, H.; Basilisco, R. Formal salesforce control mechanisms and behavioral outcomes. Mark.

Intell. Plan. 2021, 39, 924–943.

33. Bagozzi, R.P.; Bergami, M.; Marzocchi, G.L.; Morandin, G. Customer–organization relationships: Development and test of a

theory of extended identities. J. Appl. Psychol. 2012, 97, 63–76.

34. Boyatzis, R.E. The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1982.

35. Parry, S.B. The quest for competences: Competency studies can help you make HR decision, but the results are only as good as

the study. Training 1996, 33, 48–56.

36. Amenuvor, F.E.; Yi, H.T.; Boateng, H. Antecedents of adaptive selling behaviour: A study of the Korean cosmetic industry. Asia

Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2021, ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2021-0165.

37. Brown, G.; Widing, R.E.; Coulter, R.L. Customer evaluation of retail salespeople utilizing the SOCO scale: A replication, exten-

sion, and application. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1991, 19, 347–351.

38. Michaels, R.E.; Day, R.L. Measuring customer orientation of salespeople: A replication with industrial buyers. J. Mark. Res. 1985,

22, 443–446.

39. Barnett, W.P. The dynamics of competitive intensity. Adm. Sci. Q. 1997, 42, 128–160.

40. Auh, S.; Menguc, B. Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58,

1652–1661.

41. Lawrence, P.R.; Lorsch, J.W. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 1967, 12, 1–47.

42. Drazin, R.; van de Ven, A.H. Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Adm. Sci. Q. 1985, 30, 514–539.

43. Donaldson, L. The Contingency Theory of Organizations; Sage: London, UK, 2001.

44. Porter, M.E. Industry structure and competitive strategy: Keys to profitability. Financ. Anal. J. 1980, 36, 30–41.

45. Korea Health Industry Promotion Agency. 2016 Cosmetic Industry Analysis Report. 2017. Available online

https://khiss.go.kr/board/view?pageNum=6&rowCnt=10&no1=402&linkId=64102&menuId=MENU00308&schType=0&schTex

t=&boardStyle=&categoryId=&continent=&schStartChar=&schEndChar=&country= (accessed on 15 January 2022).

46. Choedon, T.; Lee, Y.C. The effect of social media marketing activities on purchase intention with brand equity and social brand

engagement: Empirical evidence from Korean cosmetic firms. Knowl. Manag. Res. 2020, 21, 141–160.

47. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and

higher acceptance. Long Range Plan. 2013, 46, 1–12.

48. Schuster, F.E.; Dunning, K.E.; Morden, D.L.; Hagan, C.M.; Baker, T.E.; McKay, I.S. Management practice, organization climate,

and performance: An exploratory study. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 1997, 33, 209–226.

49. Jaworski, B.J.; Kohli, A.K. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 53–70.

50. DeVellis, R.F. Scale Development: Theory and Applications; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003.

51. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on

how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 539–569.

52. Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 1997, 14, 396–402.

53. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statis-

tics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388.

54. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psy-

chol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411.

55. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94.

56. Thakor, M.V.; Joshi, A.W. Motivating salesperson customer orientation: Insights from the job characteristics model. J. Bus. Res.

2005, 58, 584–592.

57. Plouffe, C.R.; Hulland, J.; Wachner, T. Customer-directed selling behaviors and performance: A comparison of existing per-

spectives. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2009, 37, 422.

58. Yi, H.T.; Fortune, A.E.; Yeo, C.K. Investigating Relationship between Control Mechanisms, Trust and Channel Outcome in

Franchise System. J. Distrib. Sci. 2019, 17, 67–81.

Documents

The Effect of Door-to-Door Salespeople's Individual Sales