Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Substitutes for Leadership
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.
Substitutes for Leadership
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
Organizational Commitment
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).
Substitutes for Leadership
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).
Task-Specific Self-Esteem
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:
a. positively related to performance;
b. positively related to job satisfaction.
6: Iniating structure behavior is;
a. positively related to performance;
b. positively related to job satisfaction.
Substitutes for Leadership
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:
a. positively related to performance;
b. positively related to job satisfaction;
c. negatively related to role stress.
9: Intrinsically satisfying tasks are:
a. positively related to job satisfaction;
b. positively related to organizational
commitment;
c. negatively related to role stress.
10: Task provided feedback is:
a. positively related to organizational
commitment;
b. positively related to job satisfaction;
c. negatively related to role stress.
11: Organizational formalization is:
a. positively related to job satisfaction;
b. positively related to organizational
commitment;
c. negatively related to role stress.
12: Organizational rewards not in the leader's
control are:
a. positively related to performance;
b. positively related to job satisfaction;
c. negatively related to role stress.
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.
Task-Specific Self-Esteem
The task-specific self-esteem of the salespeople
(inside and outside) will be:
13: a. positively related to performance;
b. positively related to job satisfaction;
c. negatively related to role stress.
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
Number Inside Outside State of Firms % Sales % Sales % Total %
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
Number Inside Outside State of Firms % Sales % Sales % Total %
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
Number Inside Outside State of Firms % Sales % Sales % Total %
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
Roy's Maximum Root Trace
.83743
.16257
.19412
.79
.79
.79
.6924
.6924
.6924
TABLE 8
SUBGROUP RESPONSE VARIANCE EARLY VERSUS LATE RESPONSES
86
Inside Salespeople
Test Value F-Statistic PR>F
Wilks' Criterion
Pillai's Trace
Roy's Maximum Root Trace
.86491
.13509
.15619
.77
.77
.77
.7124
.7124
.7124
Outside Salespeople
Test Value F-Statistic PR>F
Wilks' Criterion
Pillai's Trace
Roy's Maximum Root 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
Test Value F-Statistic PR>F
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
Task-Specific Self-Esteem
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
Task-Specific Self-Esteem
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
TABLE 17 (continued)
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
TABLE 17 (continued)
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.
Substitutes for Leadership
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.
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.
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
Northern Illinois University
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
Northern Illinois University
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.'.'