Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.

Institute for Market-Oriented Management

University of Mannheim P.O. Box 10 34 62 68131 Mannheim

Germany

Series: Scientific Working Papers

No.: W 138e

Mannheim

February 2011

Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Christian Homburg is Chair of the Business Administration and Marketing I department at the University of Mannheim, Scientific Director of the Institute for Market-Oriented Management (IMU) at the University of Mannheim, and Head of Advisory Board of the consulting firm Homburg & Partner. Prof. Dr. Jan Wieseke is Chair of the Marketing department at the Ruhr-University of Bochum. Prof. Bryan A. Lukas, Ph.D. is Head of the Department of Management and Marketing at the University of Melbourne and visiting lecturer at the University of Mannheim. Sven Mikolon is research and teaching assistant at the Marketing department at the Ruhr-University of Bochum.

Institute for Market-Oriented Management

Homburg, Ch. / Wieseke, J. / Lukas, B. / Mikolon, S.

When Salespeople Harbor Negative Stereotypes of their Corporate

Headquarters:

How Harmful is it and How can it be Avoided

The Ins

The Inst

consider

and acad

Marketin

level. Th

Prof. Dr

The IMU

Ma

The

bus

resu

orie

Scie

The

orie

seri

nen

Mar

NE

The

tailo

of c

Res

thus

Ser

In a

ing

man

If you reOriented621/ 181

stitute for

titute for M

rs itself to be

demic standa

ng at the Un

he Academic

r. H. H. Bau

U offers the f

anagement K

e IMU publi

iness practic

ults are effic

ented researc

entific Work

e scientific st

ented manag

ies of scienti

nt journals an

rketing Asso

EW: Marketi

ese new wor

ored to resea

current studi

search or the

s, bridging th

ries Publicat

addition to pu

house, issue

nagement.

equire additiod Managem1-1755) or vi

r Market-O

The Ins

Market-Orien

e a forum fo

ard is guaran

niversity of M

c Directors of

uer, Prof. Dr

following ser

Know-How W

ishes papers

ce are presen

iently comm

ch and coope

king Papers

tudies condu

ement. On th

ific working

nd are hono

ociation).

ing Exzellenz

rking papers

archers and p

ies published

e Journal of

heory and pr

tion

ublishing sci

es a series fea

onal informament, Univer

isit our webs

Oriented M

stitute for

nted Manag

or dialogue b

nteed by the

Mannheim, w

f the IMU ar

r. Dr. h.c. m

rvices and ex

Working Pa

geared towa

nted here in

municated. In

ration projec

s

ucted by the

his basis, pr

papers. Tod

red with aw

z Working P

s provide pr

practitioners

d in renown

the Academy

actice.

ientific work

aturing exem

ation or have rsity of Mansite at: www.

Manageme

Market-O

gement (IMU

between scien

e close netw

which are hig

re

mult. Ch. Hom

xpertise:

apers

ards manage

n a compact

n many cases

cts involving

IMU analyz

ractice-orient

day, many of

wards at inter

Papers (in G

ractical insig

interested in

ned academic

y of Marketi

king papers, t

mplary scienti

any questionnheim, L5, .imu-mannh

nt

riented M

U) at the Uni

ntific theory

working of th

ghly renowne

mburg und P

ers in compa

and concise

s, these publi

g a large num

ze new trend

ted findings

f our publicat

rnational con

German only

ghts into rec

n marketing a

c journals su

ing Science f

the IMU, in c

ific findings

ns, please co1, 68131 Ma

heim.com.

anagemen

iversity of M

and practice

he IMU with

ed on a natio

Prof. Dr. S.

anies. Subjec

e manner, an

ications are b

mber of globa

ds that have a

are derived

tions have b

nferences (e

y)

cent research

and sales. Ou

uch as the J

focus on resu

cooperation w

from the fie

ontact the Insannheim, Ge

nt

Mannheim (G

e. The high

h the three C

onal and inte

Kuester.

cts highly re

nd scientific

based on app

al companies

an impact on

and publish

een printed i

.g., by the A

h findings.

ur German su

Journal of M

ults and imp

with Gabler

ld of market

stitute for Mermany (pho

Germany)

scientific

Chairs of

ernational

elevant to

research

plication-

.

n market-

ed in our

in promi-

American

They are

ummaries

Marketing

plications,

publish-

-oriented

Market- one: +49

The Ins

The wor

AUDI AGPeter SchBASF SEHans W. Dr. Ralf Bremer LDr. StephBSH GmMatthias Carl ZeisAxel JaegCognis DDr. JürgeContinenDr. HartmCoty GmBernd BeDeutscheRainer NDeutscheErnst RauDeutscheThomas KDeutscheDr. ChrisDürr AGRalf W. DE.On RuDr. BernhEvoBus GMichael GEvonik DDr. VolkeFiege StiDr. StefanFocus MFrank-MiFreudenbDr. MohsFuchs PeStefan FuStephan HeidelbeAndreas KHeidelbeMarcel KHeraeus Jan RinneIBM DeuVeronika

stitute for

rk of the IMUG, hwarzenbauer E, Reiners Bethke Landesbank,han-Andreas K

mbH, Ginthum ss AG, ger

Deutschland Gen Scherer ntal AG, mut Wöhler mbH eetz e Bank AG, eske e Messe AG, ue e Post AG, Kipp e Telekom AGstian Illek G, Dieter uhrgasAG, hard ReutersbGmbH, Göpfarth Degussa Gmber Grunwald iftung & Co. n Kurrle

Magazin Verlaichael Müller berg & Co. Ksen Sohi etrolub AG, uchs M. Heck

ergCement AKern erger Druckm

Kießling Holding Gm

ert utschland Gma Teufel

r Market-O

U is supporte

Kaulvers

GmbH & Co.

G,

berg

bH,

KG,

ag,

KG,

G,

maschinen AG

mbH,

mbH,

Oriented M

ed by a group

. KG,

G,

Manageme

p of partner

KChKMPrKMLRoMMNn.PfJüDThPrWDHRURJüRDRCaRHSaUThSALuPrFHTRDUMVDVBezeD

nt

rs comprisingKabel BW,

hristoph NiedKnauf Gips KGManfred Grund

rof. Dr. Dr. hKörber PaperLMartin Weicken

’Oréal Deutsolf Sigmund

MVV Energie Matthias Brück

estlé Deutschn. fizer Pharmaürgen Braun r. Volker Pfahomas Pflugrocter & Gam

Willi Schwerdtr. Jürgen Ra

Hans Riedel Robert Bosch

we Raschke Roche Diagnosürgen Redman

Roche Pharmar. Hagen Pfun

Rudolf Wild Garsten Kaisig

R+V Lebensveeinz-Jürgen Kaint-Gobain Bdo H. Brandthomas SattelAP Deutschlauka Mucic rof. Dr. DieteH LudwigshafRUMPF Gmr. Mathias Kanited Interne

Matthias EhrlicDMA e.V., r. Hannes Hesoith AG, ertram StaudeetVisions AGr. h.c. Holger

g:

der. G,

dke h.c. Richard KLink GmbH,nmeier

schland Gmb

AG, kmann hland AG,

a GmbH,

ahlert

mble GmbH, le

autert

GmbH,

stics Deutschnn a AG, ndner GmbH & Co.

ersicherung AKallerhoff Building Dist

lberger and AG & Co

er Thomaschefen

mbH & Co. KGammüller et Media AG,ch

sse

enmaier , Reichardt

Köhler

H,

hland GmbH,

KG,

AG,

tribution Dtld

o. KG

ewski

G,

,

d. GmbH,

The Ins

W136e HoSa

W132e KuPe

W130e HoAf

W129e KuW128e Ho

ImW127e LuW125e Ho

auW123e HoW121e Ba

AsW120e Ba

SyW119e KuW117e Ba

ReW116e W

in W105e Ho

reW104e Ho

towW102e HoW101e HoW094e Ba

liteW091e Ho

of W084e Ho

MW083e Ho

MW080e Ho

PoW079e Ho

beW070e Ba

of W068e Ho

BuW057e BaW055e Ho

SiW053e

HoW036e Ho

anW035e Kr

InW030e Ho

FiW029e Ho

anW021e Ho

Cu

stitute for

omburg, Ch. / alesperson Cusuester, S. / Rilliersonality Traitsomburg, Ch. / Fffects Customeruester, S. / Heßomburg, Ch. / F

mpact in Specificuo, X. / Homburomburg, Ch. / Wutomation adoptomburg, Ch. / Wauer, H. H. / Fasymmetric and Dauer, H. H. / Faystems, 2008 uester, S. / Hesauer, H. H. / Doelevance, Globa

Wieseke, J. / UllrService Organi

omburg, Ch. / evival activities, omburg, Ch. / wards Customeomburg, Ch. / Jomburg, Ch. / Lauer, H. H. / Reerature, 2005 omburg, Ch. / Bf the Role of Inteomburg, Ch. / arkets: A Crossomburg, Ch. / echanistic and tomburg, Ch. / Bost-Merger Perfomburg, Ch. / etween Customeauer, H. H. / Mäf Brand Portfolioomburg, Ch. / Susiness Contextauer, H. H. / Haomburg, Ch. / milarity in Mark

omburg, Ch. / Womburg, Ch. / Pnd Performancerohmer, H. / Hoternational Empomburg, Ch. / ndings in a Busomburg, Ch. / Gnd Loyalty. An Eomburg, Ch. / Wustomer-focuse

For more w

r Market-O

Müller, M. / Kstomer Orientationg, T.: Manage

s, 2010 Fürst, A. / Priggers and Business

ß, S. / Stier M.: HFürst, A. / Koschc Complaint Siturg, Ch. / WiesekWieseke, J. / Ktion with a quad

Wieseke, J. / Hoalk, T. / HammerDynamic Effectsalk, T. / Schepe

s, S. / Young, Jonnevert, T. / Halness and Archrich, J. / Christ, izations, 2008 Hoyer, W. / Sto2006 Fürst, A.: See

er, 2006 ensen, O.: The

Luo, X.: Neglecteeichardt, T. / Sc

Bucerius, M.: Is ernal and ExternKuester, S. /

s-Cultural CompFürst, A.: Ho

the Organic AppBucerius, M.: A formance, 2004Koschate, N. / er Satisfaction aäder, R. / Valtino ConsolidationsStock, R.: The Lt. A dyadic Ana

ammerschmidt, MFaßnacht, M. /

keting Channels

Workman, J. P. /Pflesser, Ch.: Ae Outcomes., 20omburg, Ch. / Wpirical EvidenceGiering, A. / M

siness-to-BusineGiering, A.: PerEmpirical AnalysWorkman, J. P.ed Organizations

working pap

Oriented M

Klarmann, M.: Won in Sales Enc

ers’ Marketing A

e, J.-K.: A Custs Relationships,How to Design Ihate, N.: On theuations, 2009 ke, J.: Customeruehnl, Ch.: If o

dratic dataset, 2oyer, W. D.: Socrschmidt, M. / Ss, 2008 rs, J. J. L. / Ha

. / Hinkel, J.: BrHammerschmidthitecture on BraO. / van Dick, R

ock-Homburg, R

No Evil, Hear

Thought Worlded Outcomes ofchüle, A.: User

Speed of Integnal RelatednessBeutin, N. / M

parison, 2005 w Organizationproach, 2005 Marketing Pers

Hoyer, W. D.:

and Willingness, A.: The Effects, 2007 Link between Salysis, 2003 M. / Staat, M.: A/ Schneider, J.:, 2002

/ Jensen, O.: A CA Multiple Layer000 Workman, J.P.., 2000

Menon, A.: Relaess Context, 199sonal Charactesis, 1999 / Jensen, O.: Fs, 1998

pers, please v

Manageme

When should tcounters, 2010Alliance Formati

tomer Perspecti 2009 nternational Loy

e Importance of

r Satisfaction, Ane Steps out of009

cial Identity and Schepers, J. J. L

mmerschmidt, M

rands as Meanst, M.: Making B

and Efficiency, 2R.: Organization

R.: How to get

No Evil, Speak

s of Marketing af Customer SatiRequirements

gration really a Ss, 2006

Menon, A.: Dete

nal Complaint

spective on Me

Do Satisfied Cs to Pay, 2004 s of Brand Ren

alespeople's Jo

Analyzing Produ: Opposites Att

Configurational r Model of Mar

: Should Marke

ationship Chara99

eristics as Mode

Fundamental C

visit our we

nt

the customer re

on Behavior: Th

ve on Product E

yalty Programs,f Complaint Han

Analyst Stock Ref the Phalanx. A

the Service ProL.: New Insights

M.: Exploring C

s of Self-expressBrand Managem2008 nal Identification

lost customers

k No Evil: A St

and Sales: Whicisfaction, 2006for Location Ba

Success Factor

erminants of C

Handling Drive

ergers and Acqu

Customers Real

aming on Brand

b Satisfaction a

uct Efficiency. Aract, but Simila

Perspective onket-Oriented Or

eting Be Cross-

acteristics as M

erators of the R

hanges in Mark

ebsite at: ww

eally be King?

he Role of Exte

Eliminations: Ho

, 2009 ndling Design: A

ecommendationAnalyzing leade

ofit Chain, 2008 s in the Quality-

Cross Channel D

sion: A Cross-cment Accountab

n as a Determin

s back? Insights

tudy of Defensi

ch Differences M

ased Services.

r of Mergers an

ustomer Benef

es Customer L

uisitions: How M

ly Pay More? A

d Equity: An An

and Customer S

A Customer-Oriearity Works. A

n Key Account Mrganizational C

-Funktional? Co

Moderators of th

elationship Betw

keting Organiza

ww.imu-man

On the optim

ernal Factors an

ow the Remova

A Multi-Level An

ns, and Firm Valers’ influence o

-Satisfaction Lin

Dissynergies in

ultural Comparile – The Influen

nant of Custome

s into customer

ive Organizatio

Make a Differen

An analysis on

nd Acquisitions?

fits in Business

Loyalty: An Ana

Marketing Integr

A Study of the

nalysis of the Co

Satisfaction in a

ented ApproachStudy of Intero

Management. 20ulture. Measure

onceptual Deve

he Satisfaction-

ween Custome

ation. The Move

nnheim.com

mum Level of

nd Managers’

al of Products

nalysis of the

lue, 2009 n sales force

nk. Identifying

Multichannel

son, 2008 nce of Brand

er Orientation

r relationship

onal Behavior

nce?, 2006

n the basis of

? An Analysis

s-to-Business

alysis of the

ration Affects

Relationship

onsequences

Business-to-

, 2002 organizational

002 ement Issues

elopment and

-Loyalty Link.

r Satisfaction

ement toward

m

HomburWhen S

This st

when t

ters. H

examin

manag

negativ

market

adhere

mance

through

the sale

rg / Wiesekealespeople

tudy exam

their sales

How such

ned. The s

ers, sales

ve headqu

ting-related

ence to co

. Findings

h manager

es unit leve

e / Lukas / MHarbor Neg

mines the

speople de

stereotype

study draw

speople, c

uarters ste

d performa

rporate str

also show

rial action,

el.

Mikolon gative Stereo

ABperforman

evelop neg

es can be

ws on ma

ustomers,

ereotypes

ance acros

rategy, the

w that nega

but more

otypes of th

BSTRACnce implica

gative stere

e remedied

atched dat

and com

among sa

ss a range

eir custome

ative headq

so at the

heir Corpora

CT ations tha

eotypes of

d through

ta from fo

mpany repo

alespeople

of outcom

er orientat

quarters st

corporate

ate Headqua

at organiza

f their cor

manager

our differen

orts. Findi

e are asso

mes, includ

tion, and t

tereotypes

e managem

arters

ations may

rporate hea

ial action

nt sources

ngs indica

ociated wit

ding salesp

their sales

can be re

ment level

y suffer

adquar-

is also

s: sales

ate that

th poor

people’s

perfor-

emedied

than at

HomburWhen S

1 Intr

2 The

3 Hyp3.1

3.2

3.3

4 Met4.14.24.3

5 Res

6 Dis6.16.2

7 Con


roduction

eoretical b

potheses . Conseq

3.1.1

3.1.2

3.1.3

2 ManageStereoty3.2.1

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.4

3.2.5

3 Control

thodology Collectio

2 Measure3 Analytic

sults ........

cussion .. Theoret

2 Manage

nclusion ..


................

backgroun

................uences of Salespeop

Salespeop

Salespeop

erial Influypes .........Organizati

Employee

Charismat

Corporate

Sales Unit

Variables

y ...............on of Multies ............

cal Approac

................

................tical Implicerial implica

................


CO

................

nd and fra

................Salespeop

ple’s Adher

ple’s Custo

ple’s Annua

ences on................onal Supp

Orientatio

tic Leaders

Bureaucra

t Managem

................

................level Data ................ch ............

................

................ations ......ations ......

................

otypes of th

ONTENT

................

mework ..

................ple’s Negarence to C

omer Orien

al Sales ...

n Salesp................

port ...........

on .............

ship ..........

acy ...........

ment’s Ster

................

................from Four................................

................

................

................

................

................

heir Corpora

TS

................

................

................ative Headqorporate S

ntation ......

................

eople’s N................................

................

................

................

reotypes ...

................

................r Sources .................................

................

................

................

................

................

ate Headqua

................

................

................quarters S

Strategy ....

................

................

Negative ................................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

arters

................

................

................tereotypes................

................

................

Headquar................................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................s ...............................

................

................

rters ................................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

... 1

... 4

... 6

... 7

... 8

... 9

. 10

. 11

. 11

. 12

. 13

. 14

. 14

. 16

. 18

. 18

. 19

. 23

. 24

. 27

. 27

. 28

. 30

HomburWhen S

“In our

too com

has bee

also ma

General

“It is tru

represen

perks th

with. A

organiza

Executiv

1 Int

Stereoty

certain

types in

2008). T

Cuddy,

social p

Bargh 1

conclud

scapego

behalf o

types. P

hence, f

1987).

For sale

reason i

differen


local sales

mfortable in

n worrying

akes strategy

l Manager o

ue that we s

ntatives at t

han in our c

Anyway, I d

ations I kno

ve Director

troductio

ypes can be

groups (Kr

nvolve judgm

The effects

Fiske, and

psychology

1997; Devi

de that stere

oating, judgm

of the targe

Physical sep

further prec

espeople, a p

is that peop

nt from peo


organizatio

their fancy

me for som

y implemen

of a Large P

sometimes h

the coalface

company’s

do not perce

ow.”

r of an Inter

on

e defined as

rueger et al

ments of ho

of stereoty

Glick 2007

(e.g., Barg

ine 1989; C

eotypes resu

mentalism,

et group. P

paration of

conditions t

potential ste

le working

ople workin


on, our sale

y offices and

me time bec

ntation in the

Pharmaceu

have negati

e. That we

welfare is

eive this to

rnational Ba

s over-gene

. 2008; for

ow typical c

yping can va

7). For insta

gh et al. 19

Cuddy, Fisk

ult in discrim

lack of sup

erceived di

social grou

the develop

ereotype tar

in corporat

ng in a sal

otypes of th

espeople be

d have no cl

cause it doe

e field fairly

tical Compa

ive beliefs t

are seen to

just one of

be a major

ank

eralized, illo

a review s

certain perso

ary, but the

ance, a num

996; Caprar

ke, and Gli

mination ag

pport for the

ifferences a

ups entrench

pment of ste

rget can be

te headquart

les force. H

heir Corpora

elieve that o

lue about w

es not go un

y difficult.”

any.

towards our

o be more i

f those thin

r problem.

ogical, or ri

see Hilton a

onality trait

ey tend to b

mber of emp

iello, Cudd

ick 2007; H

gainst target

e target grou

among socia

hes percept

ereotypes (e

found in co

ters are ofte

Hence, from

ate Headqua

our headqua

what custom

nnoticed by

”

r headquarte

interested in

ngs we exec

Such belief

igid beliefs

and von Hip

s are of a gr

be negative

pirical studi

dy, and Fisk

Heilmann a

ted groups,

up, and lack

al groups p

ions of gro

e.g., Fiske

orporate hea

en perceived

m a salespe

arters

arters perso

mers are sayi

y our custom

ers among o

n our headq

cutives have

fs crop up

s about mem

ppel 1996).

roup (Krueg

in most cas

es in sociol

ke 2009; C

and Okimot

e.g., in the

k of perform

precondition

oup differen

1998; Turn

adquarters. T

d to be disti

erson’s pers

1

onnel are

ing. This

mers and

our sales

quarters’

e to live

in many

mbers of

. Stereo-

ger et al.

ses (e.g.,

logy and

Chen and

to 2008)

form of

mance on

n stereo-

nces and,

ner et al.

The first

inctively

spective,

HomburWhen S

people

those m

factor is

than oth

close to

example

Whethe

a firm i

some no

disciplin

racism

consum

concept

marketi

relation

This stu

In a fir

stereoty

marketi

corpora

attempt

what ex

problem

this end

the sale

from wi

are mor

To gain

drew d

potentia

we drew

respons


in corporat

mentioned in

s that a sale

her business

o their custo

es of firms w

er the stereo

is an open q

otable impl

ne, stereoty

(e.g., Oulle

mer animosit

t of stereo

ng literatur

nship of fron

udy introduc

rst step, we

ypes of the

ng-related p

ate strategy,

to answer

xtent do neg

m for the firm

d, we addres

es unit level

ithin the ste

re important

n a broad an

data from s

al corporate

w data from

es from 10


te headquar

n the quota

es force is o

s functions.

omers. Firm

with a sales

otyping of c

question. T

lications, as

ype-related

et 2007), c

ty (e.g., Kl

typing has

re and, hen

nt-line, custo

ces the conc

e analyze th

eir corporat

performanc

, their custo

the fundam

gative head

m? In a sec

ss whether

l. More spe

ereotyping s

t NHS reme

nd empirica

salespeople

e manageme

m sales mana

009 salespeo


rters lend th

ations at th

often separa

The separa

ms operating

s force mark

corporate he

he sociolog

s outlined i

phenomena

consumer e

ein et al. 1

not been

nce, has no

omer-facing

cept of stere

he manager

te headquar

e outcomes

omer orient

mental quest

dquarters ste

ond step, w

NHS can b

ecifically, w

sales force

edies.

ally robust u

, customer

ent and sale

agers and sa

ople, 472 s

otypes of th

hemselves

e beginning

ated from c

ation is norm

g with a dea

kedly separa

eadquarters

gy and socia

in the introd

a have bee

ethnocentris

998). Beyo

examined

ot been ap

g employee

eotyping to

rial relevan

rters by lin

s in organiza

tation, and

tion underly

ereotypes (N

we analyze h

e managed

we examine

or, instead,

understandi

rs, and sale

es unit mana

alespeople.

sales manag

heir Corpora

to particula

g of this pa

corporate he

mally due to

aler or bran

ated from th

by salespeo

al psycholo

ductory par

en addresse

m (e.g., Sh

ond these c

from a m

plied to th

s with their

the literatu

nce of sales

nking these

ations, such

their sales

ying the quo

NHS) in a

how these st

more effec

whether m

from the ta

ng of the p

es perform

agement rem

Overall, ou

gers, 499 c

ate Headqua

ar social co

aper. The s

eadquarters

o the need fo

nch structure

heir headqu

ople bears a

ogy literatur

ragraph. W

d in fields

himp and S

onsumer be

managerial

he circumst

r corporate m

ure on sales

speople’s d

e negative

h as salespe

performanc

otations hea

firm’s sale

tereotypes c

ctively at th

management

argeted corp

otential out

mance recor

medies for

ur analysis i

ustomers, a

arters

omparisons

second cont

to a greate

for salespeop

e are organi

arters.

any implicat

re, at least,

ithin the m

such as co

Sharma 198

ehavior stud

perspective

tances defin

managemen

force mana

developing

stereotypes

eople’s adhe

ce. In doing

ading this p

s force con

can be reme

e corporate

actions ori

porate head

tcomes of N

rds. To un

salespeople

s based on

and second

2

such as

tributing

er degree

ple to be

izational

tions for

point to

marketing

onsumer

87), and

dies, the

e in the

ning the

nt.

agement.

negative

s to key

erence to

g so, we

paper: to

nstitute a

edied. To

level or

iginating

dquarters

NHS, we

derstand

e’s NHS,

matched

ary firm

HomburWhen S

data on

Given th

of this

importa

related

salespeo

both the

these tw

In the

stereoty

about so

show ho

manage


salespeople

he absence

study is to

ance of inc

performanc

ople’s NHS

e sales unit

wo managem

next sectio

yping. Then

ome likely o

ow we teste

erial implica


e’s performa

of stereotyp

o introduce

cluding ster

ce. For prac

S can be avo

t and corpo

ment levels.

on, we prov

n we develo

outcomes o

ed the hypot

ations of our


ance.

pe research

marketing

reotype phe

ctitioners, it

oided—and

orate level,

vide an ov

op a conce

f, and reme

theses. Afte

r findings.

otypes of th

h in the sale

researcher

enomena in

t is importan

d why it sho

and how th

verview of

eptual fram

edies for, NH

er reporting

heir Corpora

s managem

rs interested

n prediction

nt to under

ould be avo

he effects o

the theorie

mework con

HS held by

the results,

ate Headqua

ment literatur

d in sales m

ns and exp

stand how t

oided—by m

of these acti

es underlyi

sisting of s

salespeople

, we discuss

arters

re, one cont

managemen

planations o

the develop

managerial a

ions differ

ing the con

specific hyp

e. Subseque

s the theoret

3

tribution

nt to the

of sales-

pment of

action at

between

ncept of

potheses

ently, we

tical and

HomburWhen S

2 Th

The bas

typos (i

beliefs

endorse

provide

The co

complex

often d

categori

Corneill

ton et a

individu

applied

conduct

engage

sum, th

stereoty

behavio

The soc

1987) p

people’

approac

(referred

reasons

benefits

from pe

in-group

1979; T

The pre

underpi

reasons


heoretica

sic meaning

mpression,

about mem

ed and accep

d by the cog

gnitive app

xity, people

do this unc

ization pro

le and Judd

al. 1998). T

ual category

to all mem

ted in the co

in stereotyp

he cognitiv

ypes’ forma

or when they

cial identity

provides a

s group me

ch is that a

d to as in-g

of self-enh

s, then mem

erceived gro

p; that is, t

Turner et al.

esent study

nning of o

. First, the


al backgr

g of the term

imprint). S

mbers of cer

pted as bein

gnitive appr

proach mai

e often cate

consciously

ocess involv

d 1999; Que

These exagg

y members

mbers of the

ognitive trad

ping (e.g., B

e approach

ation, how

y are activat

y approach (

motivation

emberships

a person’s s

group) that i

hancement,

mbers of the

oup differen

the member

1987).

y concentra

ur study w

social ident


round an

m stereotyp

Stereotypes

rtain group

ng true. The

roach and s

intains that

egorize eac

(e.g., Barg

ves the ex

eller et al. 2

gerations ca

actually are

e category

dition of soc

Bargh and C

h discusses

they are s

ted (Akram

(Hogg and

nal explana

(Akrami 2

sense of id

is superior t

if the in-gr

e in-group w

nces—to the

rs of the in

ates on org

we rely on

tity approac

otypes of th

nd framew

e originates

are describ

ps (Hilton a

oretical exp

ocial identi

t, to make

ch other as

gh and Ch

xaggeration

2006) and w

an lead to a

e because th

(e.g., Park

cial psycho

Chartrand 1

stereotype

stored in m

mi 2005).

Abrams 19

ation for w

2005). The

entity is a

to other soc

roup and ou

will seek to

e out-group

n-group dev

ganizational

the social i

ch focuses o

heir Corpora

work

s from the G

bed as over-

and von Hi

planations fo

ty approach

sense of

members o

hartrand 19

of betwee

within-categ

a distortion

he over-gen

et al. 1990

logy shows

1999; Bargh

es as perce

memory, ho

988; Tajfel a

why stereoty

central assu

function of

ial groups (

ut-groups tu

o attribute n

ps, or attribu

velop stereo

l groups. T

identity app

on people’s

ate Headqua

Greek stere

-generalized

ippel 1996)

for why stere

h in the exta

the world

of a social

999; Bargh

en-category

gory similar

of what th

neralized cat

0). Most im

s that people

h et al. 1996

eptual proce

ow they sh

and Turner

ypes emerg

umption of

f belonging

(referred to

urn out to of

negative ass

ute positive

otypes (e.g.,

Therefore,

proach. Th

s group mem

arters

eos (solid, fi

d, illogical,

). These be

eotypes dev

ant literature

and reduc

category, a

et al. 199

y difference

rities (e.g.,

he character

tegory stere

mportantly,

e can uncon

6; Devine 1

esses and

ape judgme

1979; Turn

ge and foc

f the social

g to a socia

as out-grou

ffer similar

sociations—

e association

, Tajfel and

for the the

is is based

mberships a

4

firm) and

or rigid

liefs are

velop are

e.

ce social

and they

96). The

es (e.g.,

Livings-

ristics of

eotype is

research

nsciously

1989). In

explores

ent, and

ner et al.

cuses on

identity

al group

ups). For

r identity

—derived

ns to the

d Turner

eoretical

d on two

as major

HomburWhen S

source o

identity

research

Within

role. In

corpora

the sale

as a sep

usually

headqua

salespeo

custome


of intergrou

y approach

h (e.g., Ashf

the social i

n the conte

ate-level ma

s unit mana

parate socia

physically

arters are la

ople is wit

er interactio


up stereotyp

for group b

forth and M

identity app

ext of the p

anagers, con

agers, const

l group is a

separated fr

argely diffe

th customer

on.


ping (Akram

behavior in

Mael 1989; E

proach the d

present stu

nstitute the

titute the in-

appropriate

from the sale

erent from

rs, whereas

otypes of th

mi 2005). Se

n organizati

Ellemers, de

distinction b

udy, membe

out-group;

-group. Con

for two rea

es force. Se

those in th

s headquart

heir Corpora

econd, the e

ions has be

e Gilder and

between in

ers of corp

and membe

nsidering co

asons: First,

econd, the k

he sales for

ters membe

ate Headqua

explanatory

een demons

d Haslam 20

- and out-g

porate head

ers of the s

orporate hea

as mention

kinds of acti

rce—the typ

ers typicall

arters

power of th

strated by p

004).

group play a

dquarters, in

sales unit, in

adquarters m

ned before,

ivities carrie

pical intera

ly have mu

5

he social

previous

a crucial

ncluding

ncluding

members

they are

ed out at

action of

uch less

HomburWhen S

3 Hy

Our con

salespeo

manage

sales un

allows u

minimiz

concept

consequ

concept

Note: Somresults re

A serie

consequ

employe

CoO

CoE

Corp

CoCh

SalCha

SalE

Sales

SalOr

SNe


ypothese

nceptual fra

ople’s nega

ement facto

nit factors.

us to more c

zed by man

tual framew

uences of N

tual framew

me constructs emain stable ir

s of hypoth

uences of s

ee, custom

orporate Managementrganizational Support

orporate ManagementEmployee Orientation1

porate ManagemEffects

CorporateBureaucracy1

orporate Managementharismatic Leadership

les Unit Managementarismatic Leadership1

les Unit Managementmployee Orientation1

s Unit ManagemEffects

les Unit Managementrganizational Support

Sales Unit Manager’s egative Stereotypes1,


es

amework is

ative headq

rs that may

The inclusi

comprehens

nagerial ac

work addre

NHS among

work to optim

were measurrrespective of

FIGURE

heses under

salespeople’

er, and fin

Contro• Co

He• Pe

Co• Pe

of • Pe

of

t’st1

t’s1

ment

t’sp1

t’s1,2

t’s

ment

t’s1

2


depicted in

quarters ster

y affect NH

ion of both

sively analy

ction at dif

sses potent

salespeopl

mize its spe

red from moref the measurem

1 Conceptu

rpin the co

’s NHS are

nancial perf

N

ol Variables:ontact Frequency with Ceadquarters1

ersonalization of Contacorporate Headquarters1

erceived External ImageCompany1

erceived Uniformity Corporate Headquarter

otypes of th

n Figure 1. T

reotypes. T

HS among

a corporat

yze how neg

fferent orga

tially impor

e. A numbe

ecification.

than one datament level.

ual Framew

onceptual fr

e motivated

formance a

SalespeopleNegative Headq

Stereotypes (N

Corporate

ct with

e

rs Members1

Cont• S• S• S

R• S

b

heir Corpora

The central

To the left

salespeople

e and sales

gative stere

anizational

rtant emplo

er of contro

a source. Whe

work and Da

ramework.

d by the fo

ssociated w

e’s quarter NHS)1

trol Variables:Salespeople’s Job SatisSalespeople’s EmpathySales Unit Management’Rewards1,2

Sales Unit Management’by-Exceptions1,2

ate Headqua

construct in

of this con

e, grouped

s unit persp

eotypes in o

levels. The

oyee, custo

ol variables

en this is indic

ata Sources

Our hypoth

ollowing qu

with its sal

Sat

Em

S

Cu

F

Sale

Dat1 n =2 n =3 n =

4 n =

sfaction1’

1

’s Contingent

’s Management-

arters

n this frame

nstruct, we

into corpo

ective in th

organization

e right par

omer, and f

are include

cated in the fig

heses regard

uestion: Is

espeople h

alespeople’s Adherento Corporate Strategy

mployee Outcom

Salespeople’s CustomOrientation3

ustomer Outcom

inancial Outcom

espeople’s Annual Sa

ta Sources:= 1009 salespeople= 472 sales manager= 499 customers

(matched to 206 sa= objective data from

database

6

ework is

present

rate and

his study

ns can be

rt of the

financial

ed in our

gure, then

ding the

a firm’s

arboring

ncey1

mes

mer

mes

mes

ales4

rs

alespeople)m company

HomburWhen S

negative

salespeo

targets

outset o

Our hyp

the foll

stereoty

originat

out-grou

in our

leadersh

because

importa

now tur

3.1 C

Two of

a plausi

the perf

social c

When p

people’

part of a

social g

member

act on b

they sho

Social c

organiza

specific

their ow

blue-col


e stereotypi

ople be incl

if they harb

of this paper

potheses reg

lowing que

ypical view

ting from w

up itself (he

conceptual

hip, corpora

e they emerg

ant factors f

rn to our hyp

Consequen

the main in

ible explana

formance o

omparisons

people categ

s self-conce

an individua

group (or gr

rship” (Tajf

behalf of th

ow behavior

comparison

ational grou

cally, for re

wn in-group

llar worker


ical views o

lined to adh

bor the ster

r?

garding the

estion: Wh

ws of corp

within the st

ere the corp

l framewor

ate bureauc

ged from th

for stereoty

potheses.

nces of Sa

ntrapsycholo

ation for bo

of salespeop

s (Ellemers,

gorize thems

epts, resulti

al’s self-con

roups) toge

fel 1978, p.

ose groups

rs supportin

refers to th

up) is invest

easons of s

p from othe

s vs. white-


of their corp

here to corp

reotypical b

e manageria

hich manag

orate head

tereotyping

porate headq

rk—organiz

cracy, and s

he extant lit

ype manage

alespeople

ogical proce

oth, why sal

ple adverse

de Gilder a

selves in ter

ing in a soc

ncept which

ther with th

. 63). Once

comprising

ng their grou

he process b

ted with me

self-enhance

r relevant c

-collar work

otypes of th

porate headq

porate strate

beliefs refer

al influences

gement fac

dquarters am

in-group (h

quarters)? T

zational sup

sales unit m

terature that

ement. Buil

e’s Negati

esses under

lespeople ca

ely. These

and Haslam

rms of a gro

cial identity

h derives fro

he value an

e a social id

g their ident

ups.

by which a

eaning (Elle

ement, grou

comparison

kers). This

heir Corpora

quarters? Fo

egy, be cust

red to in th

s on salespe

ctors are a

mong sales

here the sal

The five ma

pport, empl

manager’s o

t we review

ding on the

ve Headq

rlying the so

an develop

processes a

m 2004; Tajf

oup, this gro

y. Social id

om his know

nd emotiona

dentity is fo

tities (e.g.,

social categ

emers, de G

up member

groups thro

comparison

ate Headqua

or example,

tomer orien

he two quot

eople’s NH

associated w

speople—m

les force) o

anagement f

loyee orien

own stereoty

wed for this

e social ide

uarters St

ocial identit

NHS and w

are: social

fel and Turn

oup become

dentity can

wledge of h

al significan

ormed, grou

Ashforth an

gorization (

Gilder and H

rs try to fav

ough social

n process, i

arters

, to what ex

nted, and m

tations state

HS are motiv

with less

management

or from the

factors we f

ntation, cha

ypes—were

study as po

entity appro

tereotypes

ty approach

why NHS ca

categorizat

ner 1979).

es incorpora

be defined

his members

nce attached

up members

nd Mael 19

(e.g., in term

Haslam 2004

vorably dis

l compariso

in turn, is b

7

xtent will

eet sales

ed at the

vated by

negative

t factors

targeted

focus on

arismatic

e chosen

otentially

oach, we

s

h provide

an affect

tion and

ated into

as “that

ship of a

d to that

s tend to

89), i.e.,

ms of an

4). More

stinguish

ons (e.g.,

biased in

HomburWhen S

favor of

been sh

social i

stereoty

Furtherm

of a gro

actual b

1989).

tendenc

Given t

behavio

NHS-in

their lev

3.1.1

The ad

salespeo

(Tyler a

perform

1989).

Howeve

Consequ

only a s

Blader

related

headqua

that are

adheren

Accordi

salespeo

beliefs t

likely t

automat


f the in-gro

hown to acco

identity the

yping and di

more, resea

oup can lead

behavior ag

Research f

cies (e.g., Cu

the potenti

oral outcom

nduced perfo

vel of custom

Salespeo

dherence of

ople to foll

and Blader

mance becau

er, salespeo

uently, prev

small portio

2005). Give

research, it

arters subtly

handed do

nce can be e

ing to the

ople’s ident

that membe

o make sal

tion system


oup in order

ount for ste

eory, self-e

iscriminator

arch in socia

d to a higher

gainst that g

further sho

uddy et al. 2

al impact

mes of stere

ormance ou

mer orienta

ople’s Adhe

f salespeop

low the pro

2005). Emp

use it is fu

ople have a

vious resea

on of strateg

en the impa

is likely th

y reject, or

own by corp

explained w

e social co

tities from

ers of corpo

lespeople r

ms) and se


r to provide

ereotypes (e

enhancemen

ry behavior

al psycholo

r level of ne

group (e.g.,

ows that st

2007).

of stereoty

eotypes in a

utcomes—na

ation as perc

erence to C

le to corpo

ocedures an

ployees’ str

undamental

a high degre

arch has fou

gy adheren

act of stere

hat salespeo

even blatan

porate head

ith social id

omparison

their corpo

orate headqu

reluctant to

elling-behav

otypes of th

e the in-grou

e.g., Tajfel a

nt is the k

against out

gy confirm

egative judg

, Bargh et

tereotypes e

ypes on ind

a sales con

amely: sale

ceived by cu

Corporate S

orate strate

nd guideline

rategy adhe

for organiz

ee of freed

und that co

ce behavior

otypes on b

ople holding

ntly boycott

dquarters. Th

dentity theor

assumption

orate headqu

uarters are a

comply w

vior strateg

heir Corpora

up with a p

and Turner

key motiva

t-groups.

s that a hig

gments, beh

al. 1996; C

elicit emot

dividuals’ b

ntext. We e

speople’s a

ustomers, an

Strategy

egy can be

es establish

rence is an

zations to

om in their

ommand an

r among sa

behavior, as

g strong neg

t, sales strat

his link bet

ry.

n, NHS fo

uarters. As

an inferior o

with sales st

gies (e.g.,

ate Headqua

positive soc

1986). Ther

ational reas

h level of n

havioral inte

Chen and B

tions which

behavior, w

explain next

dherence to

nd their ann

e defined a

hed by corp

important

function ef

r strategy a

nd control d

les employe

s suggested

gative stere

tegy sugges

tween stereo

orm to pos

a result, N

out-group. T

trategies (e

prescribed

arters

cial identity

refore, acco

son for in

negative ste

entions and

Bargh 1997;

h shape be

we expect

t, three like

o corporate

nual sales le

as the tend

porate head

aspect of em

ffectively (O

adherence b

devices can

ees (e.g., T

d by social

otypes of c

tions and d

otypes and

sitively dis

NHS will co

Therefore, N

e.g., new sa

customer-

8

and has

ording to

tergroup

reotypes

negative

; Devine

ehavioral

negative

ely such

strategy,

evels.

dency of

dquarters

mployee

O’Reilly

behavior.

n explain

Tyler and

identity-

corporate

directives

strategy

stinguish

onsist of

NHS are

alesforce

-greeting

HomburWhen S

behavio

H1: Th

w

3.1.2

Salespe

orientat

and Hoy

for a n

salespeo

Researc

custome

tion Acc

content

genuine

believe

strong a

themsel

i.e., the

Wieseke

tion’s re

custome

Applied

predicts

salespeo

predicti

(1992)

satisfact

Hoyer

employe

satisfact

organiza

Howeve


or) decreed b

he more neg

ill adhere to

Salespeo

ople’s beha

tion. Buildin

yer 2009), w

number of r

ople’s custo

ch on the

er value is c

cording to H

with, and

ely excite c

that they a

ability to p

lves with th

y are more

e and Hoye

esources an

er problems

d to the res

s that salesp

ople are s

on is consi

and Homb

tion and th

(2009) find

ee-custome

tion to be r

ations.

er, accordin


by corporat

gative sales

o corporate

ople’s Custo

avioral focu

ng on the s

which is an

reasons tha

omer orienta

service-pro

created by

Heskett, Sas

enthusiastic

customers. S

are making

provide me

heir organiz

inclined to

er 2009). As

nd, therefor

s.

search conte

people will

atisfied, lo

istent with

burg and S

heir custom

d a positiv

r orientatio

related posi

ng to the so


te headquart

speople’s he

e strategy.

omer Orien

us on creat

social ident

n extension

at salespeop

ation.

ofit chain (

satisfied an

sser, and Sc

c about, th

Satisfied em

g a contribu

emorable ex

ation becom

o conform t

s a result th

re, can com

ext of this

l be custom

oyal, and i

a large stre

tock (2004

mer-oriented

ve relationsh

n. Puffer (1

itively to p

ocial compa

otypes of th

ters. Theref

eadquarters

ntation

ting custom

tity based s

of the conv

ple’s NHS

(Heskett, Sa

nd loyal emp

chlesinger (

eir organiza

mployees h

ution to som

xperiences

me prototyp

to organizat

hey are able

mprehensivel

study, the

mer oriented

identify the

eam of rese

4) show a

d behavior.

hip betwee

1987) and S

pro-social be

arison princ

heir Corpora

fore, we hyp

s stereotype

mer value d

service- pro

ventional se

are likely

asser, and

ployees wh

(1997), loya

ation and, t

have a passi

mething me

for custom

pical represe

tional norm

e and willin

ly respond

social ident

d and, thus

emselves w

earch. For i

positive lin

. Furthermo

en employe

Smith, Organ

ehaviors, in

iple of soci

ate Headqua

pothesize:

es are, the l

efines their

ofit chain (H

ervice-profi

to have a

Schlesinger

ho identify w

al employee

therefore, a

ion for thei

eaningful. H

mers. Emplo

entatives of

ms and pecu

ng to fully u

to custome

tity based s

, create cus

with their

nstance, Ho

nk between

ore, Homb

ee-company

n, and Near

ncluding he

ial identity

arters

less the sale

r level of c

Homburg, W

it chain, we

negative e

r 1997) sho

with their o

es are those

are in a po

ir organizat

Hence, they

oyees who

f their organ

uliarities (H

utilize the o

er wishes an

service-prof

stomer valu

organizatio

offman and

n employee

burg, Wiese

y identificat

r (1983) sho

elping behav

theory, sale

9

espeople

customer

Wieseke

e suggest

effect on

ows that

organiza-

who are

sition to

tion and

y have a

identify

nization,

Homburg,

organiza-

nd solve

fit chain

ue if the

on. This

d Ingram

es’ work

eke, and

tion and

ow work

viors, in

espeople

HomburWhen S

who har

for reas

intentio

headqua

Fiske, a

be very

H2: Th

w

3.1.3

Besides

also be

salespeo

Social i

transmit

group.

stereoty

other, i

custome

son for

informa

2002) a

transmi

general

purchas

In addit

2009; Z

the core

tasks su

group m

headqua

hypothe

H3: Th


rbor NHS a

sons of self

ns and act

arters of th

and Glick 2

customer-o

he more neg

ill be perce

Salespeo

s the impact

e detriment

ople are abl

identity rese

t, their ster

For examp

ypes on to t

it is possib

ers, for exam

advice and

ation than on

and in the m

ssion of NH

perception

se from an o

tion, harbor

Zyphur et al

e job tasks (

uch as sellin

members h

arters amon

esize:

he more ne


are not likel

f-enhancem

tual behavi

he organizat

007). Henc

oriented. Th

gative sales

ived to be c

ople’s Annu

t on import

tal to finan

le to achieve

earch shows

reotypes to

ple, Stephan

their pupils.

ble that sal

mple, durin

d an opinion

n positive in

making of d

HS by a sa

n of the sa

organization

ing NHS ca

l. 2007). W

(e.g., Engle

ng. Further,

arboring st

ng stereoty

egative sale


ly to be pro

ment negativ

ior associat

tion) (e.g.,

ce, it is unli

herefore, we

speople’s he

customer or

ual Sales

tant employ

ncial outco

e. There are

s that in-gro

non-group

n and Step

. Because s

lespeople w

ng a sales co

n. Because

nformation

decisions (H

alesperson

lesperson’s

n portrayed

an absorb co

When cogniti

and Lord 1

the sharing

tereotypes,

yping salesp

espeople’s s

otypes of th

ductive, loy

ve stereotyp

ted with th

Bargh et a

kely that sa

e put forwar

eadquarters

riented by cu

yee and cus

omes such

e several rea

oup membe

members w

phan (1984

alespeople

with NHS

onversation

customers o

in the form

Herr, Karde

may have

organizati

so negative

ognitive cap

ive capaciti

997), espec

g and reinfo

such as di

people, mig

stereotypes

heir Corpora

yal, and sati

pes tend to

he stereotyp

al. 1996; C

alespeople w

rd the follow

s stereotype

ustomers.

tomer outco

as the sal

asons for thi

ers often com

who are no

4) show th

and custom

may transm

n, where the

often put a

mation of ev

es, and Kim

a negative

on and, thu

ely by an em

pacity (e.g.,

ies are taxe

cially in the

orcing of N

iscussing re

ght distract

are, the le

ate Headqua

isfied. Rath

result in n

pe target (

Chen and B

with NHS w

wing hypoth

es are, the l

omes, sales

les revenue

is possibilit

mmunicate,

ot part of th

at educator

mers directly

mit these s

e customer

greater we

aluative jud

m 1991), it

effect on

us, on how

mployee.

, Kearney, G

ed, fewer ca

case of cog

NHS that is c

ecent “mish

t from selli

ess sales th

arters

her, as noted

negative be

(here the c

argh 1997;

will be perc

hesis:

less the sale

speople’s N

e that stere

ty.

, and as a re

he stereotyp

rs often pa

y interact w

stereotypes

consults a s

ighting on

dgments (Ah

is possible

a customer

w desirable

Gebert, and

apacities rem

gnitively dem

common am

haps” by c

ing. Theref

he salespeo

10

d earlier,

ehavioral

corporate

Cuddy,

ceived to

espeople

NHS may

eotyping

esult can

ped out-

ass their

with each

to their

salesper-

negative

hluwalia

that the

r’s more

it is to

Voelpel

main for

manding

mong in-

corporate

fore, we

ople will

HomburWhen S

ge

3.2 Mty

We firs

headqua

charism

ment to

manage

3.2.1

As perc

beliefs a

contribu

the sale

of work

commit

250).

Previou

benefici

“remain

Rhoade

support

tendenc

aided th

their org

research

organiza

stereoty

even fe

while re

feeling

In addit

because


enerate.

Managerialypes

st concentr

arters level

matic leaders

o either corp

er’s own ster

Organizat

ceived by e

about the ex

utions” (Eis

es context: “

k experienc

tment and a

us research h

ial employe

n loyal wh

s and Eise

and what G

cy of “recipi

hem” (Eder

ganization a

h context, th

ational sup

ypes of thei

el obligated

educing ne

supported b

tion, perceiv

e it may tr


l Influenc

rate on man

and sales

ship. Then

porate head

reotypes, re

tional Supp

employees,

xtent to whi

senberger et

“Salesperso

ces by con

assistance to

has found p

ee outcome

en they fe

enberger (20

Gouldner (

ients of fav

and Eisenb

also strengt

hese findin

port from c

ir headquart

d to increas

gative outp

by corporate

ved organiz

igger decat


es on Sa

nagerial fa

unit level:

we turn to

dquarters or

espectively.

port

organizatio

ich the orga

t al. 1986, p

on perceptio

nsidering h

o the individ

erceived or

s. For insta

el that the

002) identi

1960) calls

vourable trea

erger 2008,

thens emplo

ngs point to

corporate m

ters (see Ed

se their pos

puts (e.g., s

e manageme

zational sup

tegorization

otypes of th

alespeople

actors that

: organizati

managerial

the sales u

onal suppor

anization car

p. 501). Pier

ons of organ

ow the sal

dual in perf

rganizationa

ance, Tyler

eir organiza

ify positive

the “norm

atment to h

, p. 56). Thi

oyee-organi

the possibi

managemen

der and Eis

itive output

stereotypes

ent.

pport can he

n processes

heir Corpora

e’s Negat

can be dep

ional suppo

l factors tha

unit: corpor

rt can be d

res about th

rcy et al. (2

nizational s

lesperson f

forming his

al support to

(1999, p. 2

ations […]

e links betw

of reciproc

help and to a

is reciproca

ization relat

ility that sa

nt are likely

senberger 2

ts (e.g., pos

and harmf

elp to blur t

. As a con

ate Headqua

ive Headq

ployed at

ort, employ

at are speci

ate bureauc

defined as e

heir well-be

006) specif

support capt

feels about

or her job

o be an impo

235) conclu

value and

ween percei

city”. This

avoid harmi

l trade betw

tionships. W

alespeople w

y to avoid

2008). Indee

sitive attitud

ful behavior

the salience

nsequence o

arters

quarters S

both the c

yee orientati

ific in their

cracy and sa

employees’

ing and valu

fy this defin

ture several

the organi

responsibili

ortant antec

udes that em

d appreciate

ived organi

norm descr

ing those w

ween employ

When applie

with high p

expressing

ed, employ

des and beh

r), in excha

e of group i

out-groups

11

Stereo-

corporate

ion, and

deploy-

ales unit

“global

ues their

nition for

l aspects

ization’s

ities” (p.

cedent of

mployees

e them”.

izational

ribes the

who have

yees and

ed to our

erceived

harmful

ees may

haviors),

ange for

dentities

may be

HomburWhen S

judged m

Turning

organiza

boundar

headqua

them” f

unit to b

hand, a

actively

corpora

reduce t

perceive

of the c

categori

arises. T

H4: Th

m

un

3.2.2

In both

importa

Luo, an

resource

(Grinste

posit em

Althoug

de-centr

delegati

2002).

motivat

research

these no


more favora

g to the sale

ational sup

ries or diff

arters. Spec

feelings held

be supportin

also to be t

y supports

ate level sho

the propens

e their sales

corporation,

ize more st

Therefore, w

he likelihoo

ore the sal

nit managem

Employee

h the marke

ant dimensio

nd Shi 200

es, putting

ein 2008, p.

mployee orie

gh employe

ralized dec

ion of respo

These com

tion, and or

h (e.g., Fritz

otions.


ably and acc

es unit mana

pport on sa

ferences be

cifically, fo

d by salesp

ng them in a

their advoc

salespeople

ould neutra

sity for NHS

s unit to car

, which ma

trongly in t

we hypothes

od that sale

lespeople ar

ment.

e Orientatio

eting and m

on of manag

02). Emplo

g employee

119). As a

entation to b

e orientatio

cision-makin

onsibility (F

mponents ar

rganizationa

z 1996; Har


curately (se

agement lev

alespeople’

etween sale

llowing the

people may

achieving c

cate at hea

e in their

alize percei

S among sa

re for them

ay further re

terms of th

size:

espeople ste

re supporte

on

managemen

gerial behav

oyee orient

es’ well-be

second imp

be inversely

on is related

ng process

Fritz 1996;

re thought

al commitm

rris and Ogb

otypes of th

ee Anastasio

vel, we reas

s NHS is

espeople in

e logic of s

be weakene

orporate ob

dquarters. T

job execut

ved differe

lespeople. I

, the more t

educe “us v

he whole or

ereotype the

ed by their

nt literature

viour (e.g.,

tation relate

eing and

portant man

y related to

d to organiza

ses, investm

Harris and

to increas

ment (Fritz

bonna 2001

heir Corpora

o et al. 1997

son that the

essentially

the sales

social identi

ed if sales e

bjectives on

Thus, the p

tion and su

ences betwe

In addition,

the sales em

vs. them” n

rganization

eir headqua

(a) corpora

, employee

Baker and

es to “firm

satisfaction

nagement fa

NHS that s

ational supp

ments in e

Ogbonna 2

se organiza

1996; Ruek

; Pfeffer and

ate Headqua

7).

e effect of s

y one that

unit and p

ity approac

employees

the one han

perception

upports the

een the two

the more th

mployees ar

notions. Sal

so that on

arters negat

ate manage

e orientation

Sinkula 199

ms’ internal

n before o

actor to com

alespeople m

port, it is un

employees’

2001; Piercy

ational mem

kert 1992).

d Veiga 199

arters

ales unit m

bridges p

people in c

ch, negative

perceive th

nd and, on t

that the sa

eir interests

o groups an

hat sales em

re likely to

lespeople th

ne holistic i

tively decre

ement and (

n is consid

99; Fritz 19

l focus on

other stake

mbat stereoty

may harbor

nique in its f

developme

y, Harris, a

mbers’ sati

Previous e

99) largely

12

managers’

erceived

corporate

e “us vs.

heir sales

the other

ales unit

s at the

nd, thus,

mployees

feel part

hen self-

in-group

eases the

(b) sales

dered an

996; Liu,

n human

holders”

ypes, we

r.

focus on

ent, and

and Lane

sfaction,

empirical

supports

HomburWhen S

Again o

approac

strength

same go

in term

negative

At the

manage

headqua

corpora

can lead

H5: Th

m

ag

3.2.3

It is w

individu

an attra

behavio

previou

Shamir,

influenc

the lead

collectiv

with, an

charism

Kelman

With re

headqua

approac

their ab

charism


our reasoni

ch. More sp

hen employ

oals as they

ms of their

e stereotype

sales unit

ement can

arters, thus

ate managem

d to a decrea

he likelihoo

ore employ

gement and

Charisma

widely acce

uals who po

ctive vision

ors (Conger

us research

, House, a

ce on follow

der, low role

ve vision fo

nd internali

matic leaders

n 1958).

espect to p

arters—a ro

ch—such fe

bility to inf

matic leaders


ng can be

pecifically,

yees’ belief

y do. This, i

organizatio

es of their c

level, too,

help to br

reducing th

ment level,

ase in headq

od that sale

yee orientat

d (b) sales un

atic Leader

epted in be

ossess high

n for the org

r and Kanu

on charism

nd Arthur

wers’ attitud

e conflict an

for the orga

ize charism

s as possess

potential “u

oot cause fo

eelings are m

fluence foll

s are likely


based on t

we argue

fs that mem

in turn, shou

on (not jus

orporate he

a high lev

ridge the p

he propensit

we suggest

quarters ster

espeople ste

tion the sal

nit managem

rship

ehavioral m

sensitivity

ganization,

ungo 1998;

matic leade

1993) has

des and beh

nd ambigui

anization. F

matic leaders

sing inspirat

us vs. them

or the devel

more likely

owers’ beli

to promote

otypes of th

the categori

that a hig

mbers of th

uld lead sal

st in terms

eadquarters.

vel of empl

perceived g

ty for NHS

t that sales

reotypes. In

ereotype the

lespeople ex

ment.

models of

to the env

and inspire

Conger, K

ership (e.g.

s found tha

havior, rang

ity to perfor

ollowers ar

s’ mission

tional quali

m” feelings

lopment of

to be dispe

iefs, attitud

a collectiv

heir Corpora

ization assu

gh level of

eir corpora

lespeople to

of salespe

oyee orient

gap betwee

among sale

unit manag

n summary,

eir headqua

xperience f

leadership

ironment an

subordinat

Kanungo, an

., Conger,

at charisma

ging from h

rmance imp

re more lik

and directiv

ities (Conge

s of emplo

f stereotypes

ersed by hig

des and beh

e organizat

ate Headqua

umption of

f employee

ate headqua

o self-catego

eople) and,

tation displ

en salespeo

espeople. H

gement’s em

we propose

arters negat

from their (

that chari

nd follower

tes to follow

nd Menon 2

Kanungo,

atic leaders

heightened

provement,

ely to be a

ves because

er and Kanu

oyees towar

s as implied

ghly charism

havior. In o

ional sense

arters

f the social

orientation

arters adher

orize more

therefore,

layed by sa

ople and c

Hence, simil

mployee ori

e:

tively decre

(a) corpora

smatic lead

rs’ needs, a

w their attitu

2000). Emp

and Meno

s have a p

motivation,

and inspirat

attracted to,

e they rega

ungo 1998;

rds their c

d by social

matic leader

other words

of belongin

13

identity

n should

re to the

strongly

prevent

ales unit

corporate

ar to the

ientation

eases the

ate man-

ders are

articulate

udes and

pirically,

on 2000;

profound

, trust in

tion of a

comply

ard these

see also

corporate

identity

rs due to

s, highly

ng while

HomburWhen S

boundar

or empi

leaders

relation

H6: Th

m

(b

We now

manage

potentia

3.2.4

Althoug

Dugger

harm of

organiza

bureauc

not deal

Corpora

leadersh

distance

self-cate

which a

hence, s

Miller e

H7: Th

le

3.2.5

The exp

people’

have be

attitude


ries betwee

irical eviden

at the corp

nship:

he likelihoo

ore the sal

b) sales unit

w turn to th

ement or sa

al stereotype

Corporate

gh some co

1980), bot

f corporate

ational bure

cracy as the

l with the is

ate bureaucr

hip and emp

e raises the

egorize in t

are seen as

so is interg

et al. 1985).

he likelihoo

ess bureaucr

Sales Un

planation f

s stereotype

een found fo

s has been


n the intern

nce to sugg

porate or sa

od that sale

lespeople ar

t manageme

he headqua

ales unit m

es, respectiv

e Bureaucr

orporate bu

th managem

bureaucrac

eaucracy as

eir primary

ssues that m

racy impose

mployee grou

likelihood

terms of the

being dista

group stereo

Therefore,

od that sale

ratic the sal

nit Manage

for the pos

es can be a

for importan

found for


nal groups b

gest that the

ales unit m

espeople ste

re led char

ent.

arters stereo

management

vely.

racy

ureaucracy

ment and m

y. For insta

s the bigges

complaint.

matter, and m

ed on emplo

ups. Accord

of intergrou

eir own grou

ant. In turn

otyping (e.g

we propose

espeople ste

lespeople’s

ement’s S

itive influe

dopted from

nt marketin

market ori

otypes of th

become les

ese charism

management

ereotype the

rismatically

otype remed

t: corporate

may be ne

marketing re

ance, Leona

st boost to p

Piercy (19

may actually

oyees symb

ding to the

up stereotyp

up than it is

n, social co

g., Bettenco

e:

ereotype the

corporate m

Stereotype

ence of sal

m existing r

g construct

ientation (J

heir Corpora

s salient. W

ma effects di

t level. Hen

eir headqua

y by their (a

dies that ar

e bureaucra

ecessary for

esearchers h

ard (2000) n

productivity

94) states t

y make thin

bolizes a lar

social iden

pes because

s for them t

mparison p

ourt et al. 19

eir headqua

managemen

es

es unit ma

research on

ts. For exam

ones, Bush

ate Headqua

We are not a

iffer marked

nce we pro

arters negat

a) corporat

re specific

acy and sa

r steering o

have highli

notes that e

y, and too m

that bureauc

gs worse.”

rge distance

ntity approa

e it is easie

to try and in

processes ar

992; Brewe

arters negat

nt is.

anagers’ ste

n “trickle-do

mple, trickle

h, and Daci

arters

aware of the

dly if facili

opose the fo

tively decre

te managem

to either c

ales unit m

organization

ighted the p

employees r

much organi

cracy “usua

e between c

ach, such p

r for salesp

nclude othe

re more lik

er and Mill

tively decre

ereotypes o

own” effect

e down of m

in 2003) an

14

eoretical

itated by

ollowing

eases the

ment and

corporate

manager’s

ns (e.g.,

potential

rank less

izational

ally does

corporate

erceived

people to

er groups

kely and,

er 1984;

eases the

on sales-

s, which

manager

nd brand

HomburWhen S

adoption

Theoret

planned

Terry a

significa

1986) is

down o

significa

subjecti

intentio

From a

social c

process

distingu

conceiv

stereoty

1994). F

Christ a

manage

headqua

H8a: Th

m

qu

The rela

charism

unit ma

should b

An exp

already,

and insp

Conger,

of them


n (Wieseke

tically, trick

d behavior t

and Hogg 1

ant others (

s centered o

of attitudes

ant others w

ive norms h

ns (e.g., Ajz

social iden

comparative

, which is

uish the in-g

ved to cont

ypes can act

For in-grou

and van Dic

ers’ stereoty

arters views

he likelihoo

ore their sa

uarters.

ationship pr

matic leaders

anagers’ he

be significa

planation of

, charismati

pire subord

, Kanungo,

m”, who stan


, Homburg,

kle-down e

theory. Bot

996). Socia

(Luthans an

on the conce

s. A subjec

will welcom

have been

zen and Ma

ntity theore

e informatio

fundamen

group from

tain (biased

t as social n

up members

ck 2009). Th

ypes of corp

s. This trick

od that sale

ales unit ma

roposed in H

ship ability

eadquarters

antly stronge

f this mode

ic leaders a

dinates to fo

and Menon

nds for wha


, and Lee 20

effects have

th theories

al learning

nd Kreitner

ept of “subj

ctive norm

me or rejec

found to d

adden 1986)

etical persp

on (Terry an

ntal to soci

other releva

d) social c

norms for in

, in turn, th

hus, we pre

porate head

kle-down eff

espeople ste

anagers har

H8a howev

highlighted

stereotype

er if the sale

erator effec

are those wh

ollow their a

n 2000). Th

at group me

otypes of th

008).

e been exp

can be link

theory sug

1985). Plan

jective norm

represents

ct a given a

directly rela

).

ective, peo

nd Hogg 19

ial identity

ant compari

comparative

-group mem

heir leaders

edict that sa

dquarters as

fect leads to

ereotype the

rbor negati

ver, is likely

d in H6. Sp

s on simila

es unit man

ct is provid

ho articulate

attitudes an

is might cau

mbers have

heir Corpora

plained wit

ked to the

gests that i

nned behavi

m”, which i

an individ

attitude or b

ate to indiv

ple constru

996). Accor

theory, st

ison groups

e informatio

mbers (see a

can act as s

lespeople u

s a subjectiv

o the follow

eir headqua

ve stereotyp

y to be cont

ecifically, t

ar stereotyp

agers are ve

ded by soc

e an attract

nd behavior

use followe

e in commo

ate Headqua

th social le

social iden

individuals

ior theory (

is also impo

dual’s perc

behavior (A

idual attitu

uct a social

rding to the

tereotypes

. Therefore

on. It follo

also Oakes,

significant

utilize their

ve norm in

wing hypothe

arters nega

pical views

ingent on s

the trickle-d

pes held by

ery charism

cial identity

ive vision f

s (Conger a

ers to percei

on and what

arters

earning the

ntity approa

learn by ob

(Ajzen and

ortant for th

ception of

Ajzen 1985

udes and be

norm from

e social com

serve to fa

, stereotype

ows that ou

Haslam and

others (e.g.

evaluations

forming th

esis:

tively incre

of corpora

ales unit m

down effect

y their sale

matic.

y theory. A

for the orga

and Kanung

ive a leader

t distinguish

15

eory and

ch (e.g.,

bserving

Madden

he trickle

whether

). These

ehavioral

m shared

mparison

avorably

es can be

ut-group

d Turner

, Ulrich,

s of sales

heir own

eases the

ate head-

anagers’

t of sales

espeople

As noted

anization

go 1998;

r as “one

hes them

HomburWhen S

from oth

result, a

social id

ratings o

Dick 20

the lead

H8b: Th

manage

by their

3.3 C

We co

headqua

custome

research

Regardi

custome

salespeo

(e.g, M

salespeo

al. 2002

controll

manifes

2001; M

In addit

perceive

member

A class

Allport

about th

1997), P

reduces


her groups

a charismati

dentity-relat

of leader en

009) This su

der displays

he positive

ers and thei

r sales unit m

Control Var

ontrolled fo

arters stere

er orientati

h related to

ing both- th

er orientatio

ople’s job s

acKenzie, P

ople’s overa

2), we con

led for cont

stations of

Morhart; Her

tion to the

ed external

rs on NHS.

ical variabl

(1954), mo

he effects o

Pettigrew an

the develo


(Ulrich, Ch

ic leader ca

ted research

ndorsement

uggests that

high levels

relationship

ir salespeop

managers.

riables

or several

otypes and

ion and sal

stereotypes

he overall

on and thei

atisfaction b

Podsakoff a

all performa

ntrolled for

tingent rew

the transac

rzog; Tomc

aforementio

l image of

This is mot

le in stereot

ore than 50

of intergrou

nd Tropp (2

opment of n


hrist and van

an become a

h has shown

(e.g., Plato

t followers

s of charism

p between

ple strength

factors th

d the perfor

les perform

s in social p

performanc

r adherence

because it h

and Ahearn

ance have a

salespeopl

ard and ma

ctional lead

czak 2009).

oned variab

f the compa

tivated by th

type resear

00 studies h

up contact

2006) find in

negative ste

otypes of th

n Dick 2009

a prototpyp

n that leade

w and van K

are more li

matic leaders

the negativ

ens the mor

hat potenti

rmance var

mance). Ou

sychology a

ce variables

e to corpora

has been sho

ne 1998). F

also been sh

le’s empath

anagement-b

ership style

bles, we con

any and pe

he followin

ch is interg

have dealt w

on stereoty

n their meta

ereotypes. I

heir Corpora

9; van Knip

pical part of

er prototypic

Knippenber

ikely to ado

ship. More f

ve headquar

re the salesp

ially influe

riables (adh

ur factor se

and previou

s (salespeop

ate strategy

own to be in

urthermore

hown to be

hy (e.g., Bu

by-exceptio

e (e.g., Ma

ntrolled for

erceived un

g reasons.

group conta

with this v

ypes (e.g., H

a-analysis th

n accordan

ate Headqua

penberg and

f the group

cality is sign

rg 2001; Ulr

opt their lea

formally:

rters stereo

people are

ence salesp

herence to

election is

us research i

ple’s sales

y) and NHS

nfluential b

, because tr

of importa

ush et al.

ons leader b

acKenzie, P

r effects of

niformity o

act. Since th

variable. Wh

Hopkins, R

hat intergrou

nce with pre

arters

d Hogg 200

they lead. P

nificantly re

rich, Christ

ader’s stereo

otypes of sa

led charism

people’s c

corporate

based on

in marketing

performanc

S, we contro

by previous

rait anteced

ance (e.g., B

2001). Fin

behaviors as

Podsakoff a

intergroup

of the head

he seminal

hile there i

Reicher, and

up contact t

evious resea

16

03). As a

Previous

elated to

and van

otypes if

ales unit

matically

corporate

strategy,

existing

g.

ce, their

olled for

research

dents for

Brown et

ally, we

s typical

and Rich

contact,

dquarters

work of

s debate

d Levine

typically

arch, we

HomburWhen S

included

and Vo

between

We also

“constru

Gruen 2

refers to

when e

believe

relevant

induce

them fro

We also

refered

perceive

Social

deperso

to be a

research

stereoty

(e.g., Cr

In order

and wit

findings


d both cont

oci 2007) a

n salespeopl

o controlled

ued externa

2005; Berg

o a person’s

mployees p

that the att

t others), em

employees

om develop

o controlled

to as “ent

ed as being

psychology

onalization o

determinan

h has show

ype of an ou

rawford, Sh

r to test the

thout inclus

s that we pr


tact frequen

and persona

le and corpo

d for perce

al image” o

gami and B

s beliefs abo

perceive th

tributes tha

mployee ide

to recatego

ping negativ

d for any p

titativity”. E

g a coheren

y theorists

of out-group

nt of prejudi

wn that the

ut-group an

herman, and

e robustness

ion of the c

resent below


ncy (e.g., V

alization of

orate headq

eived extern

or “organiz

agozzi 200

out outsider

e external

at distinguis

entification

orize their p

ve stereotype

perceived un

Entitativity

nt social un

s have arg

p members;

ice formatio

perception

nd the trans

d Hamilton 2

s of our con

control vari

w are stable

otypes of th

Van de Ven

f contact (e

quarters as c

nal image o

zational pre

00; Smidts,

rs’ perceptio

image of a

sh the comp

with the co

perceptions

es of aspect

niformity o

is the deg

it (Spencer

gued that

; a process i

on (e.g., De

n of high u

sfer of that

2002).

nceptual fram

iables. The

irrespective

heir Corpora

n and Ferry

e.g., Turner

control varia

of a compa

estige” (e.g.

Pruyn, and

ons of the c

a company

pany are po

ompany is st

s of group

ts or membe

of corporate

gree to wh

r-Rodgers, H

this varia

involving st

evine 1995)

uniformity

stereotype

mework, w

results of t

e of the incl

ate Headqua

1980; Von

r, Voci, an

ables.

any—someti

., Ahearne,

d Van Riel

company. It

as attractiv

ositive and

trengthened

boundaries

ers of their

e headquart

hich membe

Hamilton an

able leads

tereotypes w

). Previous

involves th

across all o

we conducted

these analys

lusion of the

arters

nofakou, He

nd Hewston

imes referr

Bhattachar

2001). Th

t is conceiva

ve (i.e., em

socially va

d. This, in tu

and theref

organizatio

ters membe

ers of a gr

nd Sherman

to a pro

which is co

empirical p

he abstracti

out-group m

d our analy

ses showed

ese variable

17

ewstone,

ne 2007)

ed to as

rya, and

is factor

able that

mployees

alued by

urn, may

fore stop

n.

ers—also

roup are

n 2007).

ocess of

nsidered

prejudice

ion of a

members

yses with

d that the

es.

HomburWhen S

4 Me

4.1 C

We test

structur

distinct

separati

agency

structur

characte

ployees

A major

manage

data in

question

legal pu

for obta

dents. C

indicate

contribu

in the sa

While s

sample

differen

that cou

Data fo

random

sample

1 Seven ty

city, cent

including

on the rel


ethodolo

Collection

ted our con

re. This res

operative s

ion between

corporation

re are also

eristic that

’ headquart

r challenge

ers’ stereoty

our conte

ns about ste

unishment i

aining acces

Corporate m

ed that they

utor to the t

ame firms o

selecting th

as balanced

nt geographi

uld bias our

or the study

m interviews

and mana

ypes of store

tral; large-size

g store location

lationships we


ogy

of Multilev

nceptual mo

search conte

sales unit s

n operative

ns). As oper

o character

is especial

ters stereoty

for us in th

ypes becaus

xt are sens

ereotypes m

in some cas

ss to stereo

management

placed a h

trust that we

on different

he travel ag

d as possibl

ic locations

results.1

y were coll

was condu

agers from

locations eme

ed city, suburb

n (operational

e examined, an


vel Data fr

del with da

ext is suita

structure (th

sales units

rative sales

rized by

lly conduci

ypes.

his study wa

e of the hig

sitive becau

may reveal co

ses (see Ak

otype data w

t, the salesp

high level of

e received w

constructs o

gencies for

le. A key is

s in order to

lected in tw

ucted with s

their corp

erged in the sa

b; medium-siz

lized as dumm

nd thus this va

otypes of th

rom Four

ata from tra

able for our

he individu

and corpor

units, agenc

close emp

ive to testi

as to obtain

ghly sensitiv

use, from

ompany vie

krami 2005)

was for us

people, and

f trust in ou

was that we

one year be

our study,

ssue was th

o control fo

wo stages.

salespeople

porate head

ample of trave

zed city; smal

my variables)

ariable was dr

heir Corpora

Sources

avel agencie

r study bec

al travel ag

ate centers

cies embed

ployee-custo

ing potenti

n access to d

ve nature of

the respond

ews that cou

). Against th

to gain the

the sales m

ur university

e already ha

efore the ste

we took a

he inclusion

or possible h

First, a qu

from the tr

dquarters. T

el agencies: la

ll-sized city; a

as a covariate

ropped from fu

ate Headqua

es in a dece

cause it is

gencies) and

(the headqu

ed in a dece

omer intera

al custome

data on sale

f this pheno

dents’ pers

uld be subje

his backgro

e trust of ou

managers w

y research t

ad conducted

reotype stud

number of

of travel a

headquarter

ualitative st

ravel agenci

The aim o

arge-sized city

airport; and sh

e did not exert

further analyse

arters

entralized c

characteriz

d an organi

uarters of th

entralized c

actions—a

er reactions

espeople’s a

omenon. Ste

spective, an

ect to fines a

ound, a prer

ur potential

who we surv

team. An im

d a research

dy took pla

f steps to m

agencies fro

rs-proximity

tudy with i

ies containe

of interview

y, first-class; la

hopping mall.

t any significa

es.

18

corporate

zed by a

izational

he travel

corporate

context

to em-

and sales

ereotype

nswering

and even

requisite

respon-

veyed all

mportant

h project

ce.

make the

om many

y effects

in-depth,

ed in our

wing the

arge-sized

However,

ant impact

HomburWhen S

salespeo

regards

beliefs

over-ge

understa

informe

In the n

quantita

custome

people,

collecte

collecte

perceive

perform

Data fro

number

to the r

salespeo

agencie

for 206

be seen

4.2 M

Append

included

develop

and Dar

Lepore

2007; V

We firs

associat

corpora


ople was to

to their hea

reflected ac

neralized a

anding of

ed our meas

next data col

ative study

ers, sales m

customers

ed from sale

ed from sal

ed custome

mance came

om the sales

rs. With resp

respective

ople (respon

s (with one

salespeople

in Figure 1

Measures

dix A provi

d. To meas

pment appro

rden 1995;

and Brown

Vorauer, Ma

st conducte

tion techniq

ate headquar


o identify

adquarters.

ctual circum

and, hence

how negat

ure of stere

llection stag

is that it is

managers, a

, and sales

es managers

espeople, a

er orientati

from comp

speople, cus

pect to the

employee’s

nse rate: 30

e manager p

e; response

.

ides a comp

sure the key

oach, which

Gardner 1

n 1997; McC

ain, and O'C

ed in-depth

que to gen

rters in the t


some of th

The manag

mstances in

, stereotyp

tive stereot

eotypes.

ge, quantita

s based on

and a comp

s managers

s. Data on sa

as were all

on were g

pany databan

stomers, and

employee-c

s code num

0.1 %), 472

per travel ag

rate: 41.4 %

plete list o

y construct

h is consiste

994; Katz a

Conahay, H

Connell 199

h interview

nerate a lis

travel indus

otypes of th

he typical n

gers were in

n the corpor

pical. Overa

types manif

ative data w

data from

pany databa

s). Data on

alespeople’

other pred

gathered fro

nks.

d sales man

customer dy

mber. The f

sales mana

gency), and

%). The data

f scales tha

in our stud

ent with exi

and Hass 1

Hardee, and

8; Wittenbr

ws with 15

st of chara

stry (most a

heir Corpora

negative be

nterviewed t

rate headqu

all, this fir

fest themse

were collecte

four differ

ank) and th

n sales unit

s stereotype

dictor and c

om custom

nagers were

yads, intervi

final match

agers (respo

499 custom

a sources fo

at we used.

dy, NHS, w

sting work

1988; Lee,

Batts 1981

rink, Judd, a

travel age

cteristics th

associated ch

ate Headqua

eliefs that t

to then esta

uarters or w

rst stage h

elves in an

ed. An impo

rent data so

hree respon

t managers

es and strate

control vari

ers. Data o

matched w

iewers alloc

hed sample

nse rate: 44

mers (collec

or each mea

. The scale

we conducte

in this area

Sandfield a

1; Turner, V

and Park 19

ents using

hat are mo

haracteristic

arters

they harbor

ablish wheth

were exagge

helped deep

n organizat

ortant featur

ources (sale

ndent levels

s’ stereotyp

egy adheren

iable data.

on employ

with the help

cated the cu

consisted

4.5 %) in 47

cted by inter

asured const

es’ sources

ed a two-st

a (e.g., Babi

and Dhaliw

Voci, and H

97;).

a projectiv

ost associat

cs, or MAC

19

red with

her these

erated or

pen our

tion and

re of our

espeople,

s (sales-

pes were

nce were

Data on

ee sales

p of code

ustomers

of 1009

72 travel

rviewers

truct can

are also

tep scale

in, Boles

al 2007;

Hewstone

ve word

ted with

Cs). Then

HomburWhen S

a sampl

MACs i

stateme

corpora

Gardner

polarity

conduct

ters ster

scale ar

We firs

scales w

data, we

than .30

validity

results i

CFI =

manage

Table 1

correlat

extracte

operatio

thus me

Nunnall

We asse

Larcker

extracte

fulfill th

To cont

The con

absence


le of 25 tra

identified in

nt describin

ate headqua

r 1994; Lee

y on the sc

ted a one-sa

reotype (e.g

e the MACs

st conducte

with more th

e ran separa

0 were exc

y of our con

indicate acc

.916; sales

er-level cons

1 displays t

tions of the

ed for all sc

onalizations

eeting or e

ly and Bern

essed the di

r (1981), w

ed exceeds

his requirem

trol for mul

ntrol variab

e of serious


avel agents

n the in-dep

ng the cor

arters stereo

e, Sandfield,

cale used t

ample t-test

g., Gardner 1

s that we fo

d explorato

han one item

ate factor an

cluded from

nstructs, con

ceptable fit

s-manager-le

structs: IFI

the psychom

e scales. C

cales indicat

s. No coeffic

exceeding t

nstein (1994

scriminant

which is th

the square

ment.

lticollineari

bles and the

multicollin


s was asked

pth interview

rporate head

otypes, we

, and Dhaliw

to operatio

t to determi

1994; Lee, S

ound to repr

ory factor a

m, using pr

nalyses for

m further a

nfirmatory f

statistics (s

evel constr

= .922; TLI

metric prop

Cronbach’s

te sufficien

cient alpha

the recomm

4).

validity of t

at discrimi

ed correlatio

ity, we insp

e anteceden

earity probl

otypes of th

d to compl

ws. The MA

dquarters. I

applied a

wal 2007;).

nalize the

ine those M

Sandfield an

resent corpo

analyses to

omax rotati

each data le

analyses. T

factor analy

salespeople-

ructs: IFI =

I = .907; CF

erties of ou

alpha, com

nt reliability

values and

mended thre

the scales u

nant validi

ons betwee

pected the v

nts yield va

lems (see K

heir Corpora

ete a quest

ACs were o

In order to

a stereotype

According

MACs wo

MACs that re

nd Dhaliwa

orate headqu

evaluate th

ion. Due to

evel. All ite

o further a

yses were fo

-level const

= .922; TL

FI = .922).

ur final sca

mposite reli

y and conve

composite

esholds by

using the cri

ity is suppo

en all pairs

variance inf

alues betwe

Kleinbaum e

ate Headqua

tionnaire co

perationaliz

o identify w

e differenti

to this tech

ould reflect

epresent a c

al 2007). Th

uarters stere

he factor s

the multile

ems with cr

assess meas

or each data

tructs: IFI =

I = .907; C

ales, and Ta

iability, and

ergent valid

reliabilities

Bagozzi a

terion propo

orted if the

of constru

flation facto

en 1.0 and

t al. 1988).

arters

ontaining al

zed in the fo

which MAC

ial techniqu

hnique, a sig

t a stereoty

corporate he

he items in o

eotypes.

tructure for

evel structur

ross loading

sure reliabi

a level. Ove

= .916; TLI

CFI = .922

able 2 prov

d average

ity of our c

s are lower t

and Yi (19

osed by For

e average

ucts. All co

ors of the v

2.9, indica

20

ll of the

form of a

Cs were

ue (e.g.,

gnificant

ype. We

eadquar-

our NHS

r all the

re of our

gs higher

ility and

erall, the

I = .908;

2; sales-

vides the

variance

construct

than .65,

988) and

rnell and

variance

onstructs

variables.

ating the

HomburWhen S

Variable

1. Sale2. Sale to C3. Sale Orie4. Sale5. Corp Org6. Corp Emp7. Corp Cha8. Corp9. Sale Org10. Sale Emp11. Sale 12. Sale Cha13. Con Corp14. Pers with15. Perc of C16. Perc Corp Mem17. Sale Sati18. Sale19. Sale Con20. Sale Man

1 Sales pe2 Constru

cannot bCR: compAVE: ave


es

espeople’s NHespeople’s Corporate Stratespeople’s entation espeople’s Anporate Ma

ganizational Suporate Maployee Orientaporate Ma

arismatic Leadporate Bureaues Unit Maganizational Sues Unit Maployee Orientaes Unit Negative Ste

es Unit Maarismatic Leadntact Frequeporate Headqusonalization h Corporate Hceived Exter

Company ceived Unifporate Hmbers espeople’s Jobisfaction espeople’s Emes Unit Mantingent Rewaes Unit Management by Eerformance wauct measured tbe computed. posite reliabilerage variance


HS Adherence

tegy Customer

nnual Sales anagement’s upport anagement’s ation anagement’s dership ucracy anagement’s upport anagement’s ation

Manager’s reotypes anagement’s dership ency with uarters of Contact

Headquarters rnal Image

formity of Headquarters

b

mpathy anagement’s ards anagement’s Exceptions as measured wthrough one i

lity e extracted

Tab


Mean

3.83

5.69

6.50

570,027

4.38

4.06

4.61

3.97

5.64

4.99

4.09

5.04

3.05

1.90

5.26

3.83

5.81

5.13

5.93

5.39

with annual satem. Coefficie

ble 1 Psycho

otypes of th

SD

.7

.8

.6

180,

1.2

1.0

.9

1.2

1.1

1.4

.8

1.4

1.7

1.4

1.1

1.0

1.1

.9

.8

1.0

ales per emploent alpha, com

ometric prop

heir Corpora

D

9

3

0

601

21

06

9

25

14

40

3

41

72

47

18

01

13

2

2

05

oyee (in thousamposite reliab

perties of sc

ate Headqua

α

.78

.72

.92

-2

.88

.84

.90

.85

.91

.93

.75

.95

-2

.71

.93

.86

.80

.84

.85

.80

ands). bility, and ave

cales

arters

CR

.78

.73

.92

-2

.88

.85

.91

.86

.91

.93

.77

.95

-2

.73

.93

.87

.83

.85

.87

.82

erage variance

21

AVE

.38

.41

.70

-2

.65

.59

.58

.61

.71

.76

.37

.74

-2

.48

.78

.63

.63

.65

.57

.53

e extracted

HomburWhen S

Variables1. Sales2. Sales to Co3. Sales Orien4. Sales5. Corp Orga6. Corp Empl7. Corp Char8. Corp9. Sales Orga10. Sales Empl11. Sales Nega12. Sales Char13. Cont Corp14. Perso w. Co15. Perce of Co16. Perce Corp Mem17. Sales Satis18. Sales19. Sales Cont20. Sales

Manations

Notes: Cororientation


speople’s NHS speople’s Adhereorporate Strategyspeople’s Customntation speople’s Annualporate Managemeanizational Suppoporate Managemeloyee Orientation

porate Managemeismatic Leadersh

porate Bureaucracs Unit Managemeanizational Suppos Unit Managemeloyee Orientations Unit Manager’s ative Stereotypess Unit Managemeismatic Leadershact Frequency wi

porate Headquarteonalization of Conorporate Headqueived External Imompany eived Uniformity

porate Headquartembers speople’s Job faction people’s Empath

s Unit Managemeingent Rewardss Unit Managemeagement by Exce

rrelations betwn which is based


1

nce -.40**

mer -.21**

Sales -.09**nt’s

ort -.49**

nt’s n -.44**

nt’s hip -.48**

cy .44** ent’s ort -.19**

ent’s n -.20**

.13**

ent’s hip -.20**

ith ers -.16**

ntact uarters -.07*

mage -.33**

y of ers -.20**

-.24**

hy -.19**ent’s .05

ent’s ep- .05

een constructs d on the custom


2 3

.22**

.16** .04

.36** .05

.29** .07

.40** .10*

-.16** -.02

.20** .03

.13** -.03

-.02 -.05

.14** -.01

.18** .04

.06 -.08

.35** .04

.16** .01

.14** .08

.33** .11*

.01 .11*

-.01 -.06

at different levmer level. Two-t

Table 2 Co

otypes of th

4 5

.09**

.06 .55**

.12** .61**

.02 -.37**

.08* .37**

.07* .31**

-.03 -.07*

.08* .30**

.09** .21**

.08* .10**

.15** .48**

.07* .35**

.02 .25**

.05 .17**

.03 -.01

-.03 -.02

vels of analysis tailed significanorrelations o

heir Corpora

6 7

.52**

-.34** -.37**

.25** .30**

.26** .24**

-.04 -.04

.23** .27**

.15** .16**

.11** .07*

.35** .59**

.27** .31**

.15** .20**

.11** .16**

-.01 .01

-.02 -.01

are based on thnce tests. of variables

ate Headqua

8 9

*

-.21**

-.24** .65**

.10** -.05

-.21** .51**

-.07* .07*

.02 .03

-.22** .22**

-.14** .18**

-.28** .44**

-.05 .19**

-.02 .05

-.03 -.01

he salespeople l

s

arters

10 11

*

.04

* .69** -.01

.09** -.02

.03 .02

* .24** -.01

* .16** -.02

* .39** -.05

* .10** -.03

.06 .07*

.01 .12*

level, except fo

22

12 13

1

2 .12**

2 .06 .28*

1 .22** .14*

2 .15** .14*

5 .35** .01

3 .14** .09*

* .08* -.0

* .04 -.0

or customer

3 14 1

**

** .02

** .04 .24

1 -.01 .15

** .05 .17

1 -.01 .0

6 -.04 -.0

5

4*

5*

7*

01

0

HomburWhen S

On the

and Ov

respond

the two

followin

chance

intervie

number

telephon

did not

the non

issue in

4.3 A

As alre

Custom

into acc

Muthén


salespeople

verton’s (1

ders were de

samples. In

ng approach

to particip

ws. To take

r. We then

ne. Regardi

find any si

n-responden

our data.

Analytical A

eady noted

mers, salespe

count (see R

n and Muthé


e and sales m

977) time-

etected on a

n order to t

h. All visitin

pate in a l

e part in th

collected ad

ing the scale

ignificant d

t sample. T

Approach

d, the data

eople, and s

Raudenbush

én 2006) as


manager lev

-trend extra

any of the c

test for non

ng custome

ottery whic

e lottery, cu

dditional da

e mean of th

differences b

These result

a structure

sales unit m

h and Bryk

this program

otypes of th

vel, non-res

apolation. N

onstructs of

-response b

ers during th

ch was ind

ustomers ha

ata from 75

he customer

between the

ts provide e

underpinn

managers. In

2002), we e

m permits th

heir Corpora

sponse bias

No differen

f interest or

bias in the c

he days of t

dependent f

ad to provid

5 non-respo

r construct i

e responden

evidence th

ning our st

n order to pr

employed th

he analysis

ate Headqua

was assesse

nces betwe

r demograph

customer sa

the interview

from the p

de their add

ondents by

included in

nts in our o

at non-resp

tudy comp

roperly take

he Mplus so

of multilev

arters

ed using Ar

een early a

hic variable

ample, we c

ws were off

participation

dress and te

contacting

our framew

original sam

ponse bias i

prises three

e this data s

oftware (Ve

vel datasets.

23

rmstrong

and late

es within

hose the

fered the

n in the

elephone

them by

work, we

mple and

is not an

e levels:

structure

ersion 6;

HomburWhen S

5 Re

The res

on the

predict

(H1), cu

negative

salespeo

orientat

.05). He

The ne

headqua

sales un

support

(H6a an

ters are

(b = -.1

charism

manage

howeve

H6b we

Our last

level or

related

predicte

corpora

and sale

charism

ly and p

confirm

negative

relation

leadersh


esults

ults of our

outcomes o

a negative

ustomer ori

e stereotyp

ople’s adhe

tion (b = -.1

ence, the da

ext three h

arters are re

nit level. Sp

(H4a and

nd H6b). Re

related sign

151, SE = .

matic leader

ement’s org

er, were insi

ere not supp

t two hypot

r sales unit

positively

ed to be re

ate headquar

espeople’s s

matic leaders

positively w

m that salesp

e stereotype

nship is mod

hip (b = .05


hypothesis

of salespeop

effect of su

ientation (H

pes of corp

erence to c

128, SE = .

ata support H

hypotheses

elated to th

pecifically,

H4b), emp

esults show

nificantly a

029, p < .0

rship (b =

ganizational

ignificant. H

ported.

theses conc

t manageme

to corpor

elated posi

rters (H8a),

stereotypes

ship (H8b).

with corpora

people’s NH

es of corpo

derated sign

51, SE = .0


tests are pr

ple’s negat

uch stereoty

H2), and an

porate head

orporate st

039, p < .0

H1, H2, and

focus on

he same ma

NHS are p

ployee orien

w that salesp

and inversel

01), employ

-.132, SE

l support,

Hence, H4a

entrate on f

ent level. S

ate bureau

itively to s

, with the re

expected to

Our results

ate bureaucr

HS are relate

rate headqu

nificantly an

024, p < .05

otypes of th

resented in

tive stereoty

ypes on sale

nnual sales

dquarters is

trategy (b =

01), and ann

d H3.

how salesp

anagerial ac

predicted to

ntation (H5

people’s neg

ly to corpor

yee orientat

= .033, p

employee

a, H5a, and

factors parti

Specifically

ucracy (H7)

sales unit m

elationship

o be modera

s show that

racy (b = .1

ed significan

uarters (b =

nd positively

5; high char

heir Corpora

Table 3. O

ypes toward

espeople’s a

(H3). Resu

related si

= -.372, SE

nual sales (b

people’s st

ction execu

o be related

5a and H5b

gative stere

rate manage

tion (b = -.

< .01). Th

orientation,

d H6a were

icular to eit

, salespeop

). These n

managers’

between sa

ated positive

salespeople

175, SE = .

ntly and pos

= -.054, SE

y by sales u

risma: b =

ate Headqua

ur first thre

ds corporat

adherence to

ults indicate

gnificantly

E = .034, p

b = -26,062

tereotypes

uted at both

d inversely

b), and cha

eotypes of c

ement’s org

114, SE =

he coeffici

, and char

supported,

ther the corp

ple’s NHS a

negative ste

negative st

ales unit ma

ely by sales

e’s NHS are

022, p < .0

sitively to s

= .021, p <

unit manage

.116, SE =

arters

ee hypothes

te headquar

o corporate

e that sales

and negat

p < .01), c

2, SE = 11,8

of their c

h the corpo

with organi

arismatic le

corporate he

ganizational

.029, p < .

ients for sa

rismatic lea

but H4b, H

porate man

are predicte

ereotypes a

tereotypes

anagers’ ste

unit manag

e related sig

01). Our res

sales unit m

< .01), and

ements’ cha

.068, p <

24

ses focus

rters and

strategy

people’s

tively to

customer

814, p <

corporate

orate and

izational

adership

eadquar-

l support

01), and

ales unit

adership,

H5b, and

agement

ed to be

are also

of their

reotypes

gements’

nificant-

ults also

anagers’

that this

arismatic

.05; low

HomburWhen S

charism


ma: b = .006,


, SE = .070,


, n.s.). Henc

otypes of th

ce, the data

heir Corpora

support H7

ate Headqua

7, H8a, and

arters

H8b.

25

HomburWhen S

Depende

Salespeopl

CorporateCorporate Support Corporate Corporate LeadershipCorporate

Sales UnitSales UnSupport Sales Unit Sales ULeadershipSales Unit Sales UnitManageme

Control VContact FrPersonalizHeadquartPerceived Perceived HeadquartSalespeoplSalespeoplSales UnExceptionSales Unit

* p < .05hypothesi


ent Variable

le’s NHS

e Management EManagement

Management’s EManagemen

p Bureaucracy

t Effects nit Managemen

Management’s EUnit Managemp Manager’s Nega

t Manager’s Sterent’s Charismatic

Variables requency with Coation of Contaers External Image o

Uniformity ers Members le’s Job Satisfactile’s Empathy it Management

Management’s C

5; ** p < .01; Nized relationshi


Effects t’s Organizati

Employee Orientant’s Charism

nt’s Organizati

Employee Orientament’s Charism

ative Stereotypesreotypes x Sales c Leadership

orporate Headquaact with Corpo

of Company of Corpo

ion

’s Management

Contingent Rewar

Notes: Significips.

T


Sa

UnstandaCoeffic

(Standard

ional -.151(.0

ation -.114(.0matic -.132(.0

.175(.02

ional .049(.0

ation -.009(.matic .007(.0

.054(.02Unit .051(.0

arters -.033(.orate -.016(.

-.023(.orate .011(.0

-.072(.0.070(.02

by .019(.0

rd .035(.0

cance is based

Table 3 Esti

otypes of th

alespeople’s N

ardized cient

d Errors)

StanCo

029)** -

029)** -

033)** -

22)**

034)

036)

030)

21)**

024)*

023)

021)

029)

024)

024)** -21)** -023)

023)

on one-tailed t

imated path

heir Corpora

NHS S

ndardized oefficient

U

(St

-

-.19**

-.15**

-.17**

.22**

.06

-.01

.01

.07**

.06*

-.04

-.02

-.03

.01

-.09** -.09**

.02

.04

tests. We tested

h coefficient

ate Headqua

Salespeople’s Corporate

Unstandardized Coefficient

tandard Errors)

-.372(.034)**

-.010(.029) .215(.026)**

.006(.031)

.012(.028)

d the model wi

ts

arters

Adherence te Strategy

StandardizedCoefficient

-.36**

-.01 .26** .01

.01

ith, and withou

26

o SalespO

d UnstandarCoefficie

(Standard E

-.128(.039

.050(.03

.048(.03-.065(.03

.093(.034

ut, the inclusion

people’s CustoOrientation

rdized ent

Errors)

StandCoeff

9)** -.1

36) .37) .37)* -.

4)** .1

n of our contro

o

daffi

14

000

2

ol

HomburWhen S

6 Dis

Our res

research

determi

first stu

perspec

quences

such ste

marketi

6.1 T

Our res

firm per

we find

reluctan

custome

These f

persona

This hig

used in

percepti

ranging

further u

Against

stereoty

corpora

the mar

conside

negative

marketi

Regardi


scussion

search objec

h in market

ne its susce

udy (1) to

tive; (2) em

s of headqu

ereotypes ca

ng context.

heoretica

sults show t

rformance a

d that salesp

nt to adhere

er-oriented,

findings pr

ality, social,

gh relevanc

this study c

ions, and ob

from strat

underlines t

t this back

yping in dif

ate headquar

rketing inte

ring stereot

e stereotyp

ng vs. R&D

ing manage


n

ctives were

ing, analyz

eptibility to

conceptual

mpirically

uarters stere

an be reduce

l Implicati

that NHS h

across three

people who

e to a firm

and (3) dis

rovide evid

, and cogni

ce is underl

come from t

bjective dat

tegy adhere

the relevanc

kground, w

fferent cont

rters hold n

erface with

types since

pes of mem

D).

rial remedie


e to introdu

e the releva

managerial

lize headqu

examine p

eotypes am

ed by mana

ons

held by sale

e key outcom

o have deve

m’s sales st

splay poorer

dence that

itive psycho

ined by the

three differe

ta. The conc

ence to cus

ce of the ste

we suggest

texts in the

negative ste

other func

it is entirel

mbers of a

es for negat

otypes of th

uce the con

ance of the

l influence.

uarters ster

potential em

mong salesp

agerial actio

espeople can

mes conside

eloped NHS

trategy, (2)

r sales perfo

the concep

ology, is hi

e fact that t

ent sources

ceptual brea

tomer orien

ereotype con

that sales

e future. Fo

ereotypes of

ctional units

ly possible

another fun

tive stereoty

heir Corpora

cept of ster

concept for

To the bes

reotypes fro

mployee, cu

eople; and

on at the cor

n have sev

ered relevan

S of their c

) are percei

ormance.

pt of stereo

ighly releva

the data for

: salespeopl

adth of thes

ntation to o

nstruct for s

manageme

or example

f salespeop

s in an org

that membe

nctional un

ypes, we co

ate Headqua

reotypes to

r sales forc

st of our kn

om a mark

ustomer, an

(3) empiri

rporate and

ere negativ

nt for salesp

corporate h

ived by cu

otypes, typ

ant for the

r the three d

le’s self ass

se three per

objective sa

sales manag

ent researc

, it is poss

ple. Addition

ganization w

ers of one f

it (e.g., m

onclude that

arters

sales man

e managem

owledge, th

keting man

nd financia

cally exam

sales unit l

ve conseque

people. Spec

headquarters

ustomers to

ically grou

field of ma

dependent v

sessments, c

rformance e

ales perform

gement.

ch should

sible that p

nally, resea

would bene

functional u

marketing vs

t the corpor

27

nagement

ment, and

his is the

agement

l conse-

mine how

evel in a

ences for

cifically,

s (1) are

be less

unded in

arketing.

variables

customer

effects—

mance—

consider

eople in

arch into

efit from

unit have

s. sales;

rate level

HomburWhen S

is more

for our

distinct

levels o

support

we did

possibil

may be

corpora

force).

Another

salespeo

study (s

significa

processe

from th

Althoug

zation,

that in m

that bur

Furtherm

potentia

wish to

and Ferr

6.2 M

A key i

NHS ve

mance

manage

semanti

psychol


important

hypotheses

difference

of their ex

, employee-

not find th

lity arises th

more effec

ate headqua

r noteworth

ople’s stere

see the stand

ant extent

es. That suc

he field ma

gh the conc

has attracte

more recent

reaucracy sh

more, futur

ally importa

examine h

rell 1996).

Managerial

implication

ery seriousl

outcomes,

ers that this

ic differenti

logy can ser


than the sal

s at the cor

in the impo

ecution. Sp

-oriented be

he same evi

hat managem

ctive when t

arters) rathe

hy finding

otypes than

dardized co

when hea

ch bureaucr

ay explain

ept of burea

ed a lot of r

t research th

hould remai

re research

ant attitudin

ow stereoty

l implicatio

for manage

ly. Our find

including s

s phenomen

ial scale th

rve as an ea


les unit lev

rporate leve

ortance of th

pecifically,

ehavior, and

idence at th

ment action

they origina

er than from

is that pe

n any of the

oefficients in

adquarters

ratic proced

salespeopl

aucracy, inc

research int

here is less

in an import

h should e

nal respons

ypes are rel

ons

ement pract

ding that N

subjective a

non should

hat we deve

asy-to-use m

otypes of th

el. We base

el than at t

he same NH

while we

d charismat

he sales uni

ns to comba

ate from wit

m within th

erceived bu

e manageria

n Table 3).

strongly fo

dures often

le’s tendenc

cluding its

terest in the

emphasis p

tant concep

explore the

ses of sales

ated to role

tice is that

NHS in the

and objectiv

d not be n

eloped on

monitoring to

heir Corpora

e this conclu

the sales un

HS remedie

found that

tic leadersh

it level for

at negative

thin the targ

he stereoty

ureaucracy

al anteceden

Apparently

ormalize an

inhibit the

cy to deve

component

e 1980s (e.

laced on thi

t in marketi

e relationsh

speople. Fo

e ambiguity

managers s

sales force

ve salespeo

eglected an

the basis o

ool.

ate Headqua

usion on fin

nit level. F

s depending

t corporate-

hip explain

the same f

stereotypes

geted out-gr

yping in-gro

is more s

nts that were

y salespeopl

nd standard

implement

elop headqu

s, formaliza

g., Deshpan

is concept.

ing and sale

hip between

or instance,

y or role con

should take

are related

ople perform

nd should b

of previous

arters

nding more

urther, we

g on the ma

-level man

salespeople

factors. Ove

in a firm’s

roup itself (

oup (here t

strongly re

e considere

e develop N

dize organi

ation of go

uarters ster

ation and st

nde 1982),

Our analysi

es studies.

n NHS an

, researcher

nflict (e.g.,

their salesp

d to various

mance, clea

be monitor

research i

28

e support

found a

anagerial

agement

e’s NHS,

erall, the

s context

(here the

the sales

elated to

ed in this

NHS to a

izational

od ideas

reotypes.

tandardi-

we note

is shows

nd other

rs might

Hartline

people’s

s perfor-

arly tells

red. The

in social

HomburWhen S

Other im

headqua

more ef

results a

of organ

influenc

manage

benefits

such as

Our find

stereoty

leadersh

One im

by sale

manage

to mana

may be

if their l


mportant im

arters stereo

ffective if i

also tell ma

nizational r

ce on stereo

ers should b

s of bureauc

an increase

ding of a po

ypes—and t

hip displaye

mplication is

s managers

ers to salesp

agers of sal

extremely h

level of NH


mplications

otypes. One

mplemente

anagers that

rules, regula

otypes may

be careful

cracy are of

ed chance of

ositive relat

the strength

ed by the sa

s that the su

s because o

people. The

es units wh

helpful in th

HS is high.


for manage

e implicatio

d at the cor

t they shoul

ations, and

emerge from

about an e

ften fairly s

f NHS in sa

tionship bet

hening of th

ales manage

uperiors of

of the pote

second imp

ho have a hi

he sales uni

otypes of th

ers relate to

on is that m

rporate leve

ld not forge

formalities

m corporate

scalation o

straight forw

ales units.

tween sales

he relations

rs—also pro

sales manag

ential trickle

plication is t

ighly charis

ts if their le

heir Corpora

o the remed

managers ca

el rather th

et the negati

s. Specifica

e bureaucra

f bureaucra

ward, but th

s managers’

ship subject

ovides impo

gers should

e-down eff

that special

smatic lead

evel of NHS

ate Headqua

dies for sale

an expect N

an at the sa

ive perform

ally, we find

acy. We sug

acy in their

here are neg

’ stereotype

t to the deg

ortant mana

d attempt to

fect of ster

l considerati

ership style

S is low, but

arters

espeople’s

NHS remedi

ales unit le

mance conse

d that the s

ggest, theref

r organizati

gative conse

es and sales

gree of cha

agerial impl

o remedy N

eotypes fro

ion should b

e. These ind

t extremely

29

negative

ies to be

vel. Our

equences

strongest

fore, that

ion. The

equences

people’s

arismatic

ications.

NHS held

om sales

be given

dividuals

harmful

HomburWhen S

7 Co

This stu

around

develop

understa

firm. Th

perform

factors

academ


onclusion

udy was des

the perform

p negative

anding how

he overarch

mance outco

at the corpo

mics and prac


n

signed to op

mance impl

stereotypes

w such stere

hing finding

omes at the

orate and sa

ctitioners to


pen a new s

lications th

of corpora

eotypes can

g of this stu

customer in

ales unit lev

o consider m

otypes of th

stream of re

at organiza

ate headqu

n be minim

udy is that N

nterface and

vel. We hop

more careful

heir Corpora

esearch in th

ations may

arters. Part

mized at var

NHS among

d can be re

pe that our

lly headqua

ate Headqua

he sales ma

suffer whe

ticular atten

rious manag

g salespeopl

educed by d

study findi

arters stereot

arters

anagement l

en their sale

ntion was g

gerial level

le are linke

different ma

ings will en

types in the

30

literature

espeople

given to

ls of the

ed to key

anagerial

ncourage

e future.

HomburWhen S

I.&II. Salsalespeopldifferentia

1.

2.

3. 4. 5. 6.

III. Salespdisagree” t

1. 2. 3.

4.

IV. Salesp“totally ag

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

V. Salespe1.

VI. & VII(1986); “to

1. 2. 3. 4.

VIII. & IXdisagree” t

1. 2. 3.

4.

X. & XI. C(1998); “to

1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.


lespeople’s [Sale) Wittenbrinkal scale

The people i(7) not at allThe people iconcerned wThe people iCompared toCompared toOur corpora

people’s Adherto “totally agre

I adhere to thI try my bestTo be able tostay well infMy main aim

people’s Custogree” on a seven

The travel agThe travel agWhen sellingThe travel agThe travel ag

eople’s Sales PAnnual Sale

I. Corporate [Sotally disagree”

Help is availCorporate [sCorporate [sCorporate [s

X.Corporate [Sto “totally agre

The travel agCorporate [sMuch is donagents. Travel agent

Corporate [Salotally disagree”

Corporate [SCorporate [SCorporate [Sfor the futurCorporate [SCorporate [Sizational objCorporate [Stance of whaCorporate [Sexternal pubCorporate [S


Appendi

ales Unit] Manak, Judd, and Park

in corporate heal. in corporate hea

with their own inin corporate heao salespeople ano here, the workte headquarters

rence to Corpoe” on a seven-phe strategic guit to sell our coro optimally impformed. m is to sell our

mer Orientation-point scale gent tried to figgent had my beg me products, gent recommengent tried to fin

Performance (des per salesperso

Sales Unit] Ma” to “totally agrlable from corpsales unit] manasales unit] manasales unit] mana

Sales Unit] Mae” on a seven-pgents’ interests sales unit] manane by corporate

t work satisfact

les Unit] Mana” to “totally agrSales unit] manSales unit] manSales unit] mane. Sales unit] manSales unit] manjectives. Sales unit] manat they are doinSales unit] manblic. Sales unit] man


ix: Scale Ite

ager’s Stereotyk (1997); Turne

adquarters know

adquarters are pnterest. adquarters earnnd sales managking conditionss… (1) is worth

orate Strategy point scale idelines of our crporate brands wplement the stra

corporate brand

on (data source

gure out what mest interest in m

my needs werended products ond out which kin

data source: firmon

anagement’s Oree” on a seven-porate [sales uniagement is williagement cares vagement is prou

anagement’s Epoint scale

are at the centragement does ev[sales unit] ma

tion is a major g

agement’s Charee” on a seven-agement has a vagement providagement regula

agement is comagement recogn

agement is ableng. [dropped froagement is com

agement is com

otypes of th

ems for Con

ypes of Corporer, Voci, and H

w what is really

primarily… (1)

n… (1) too littlegers, the people s in corporate heh more than it co

(data source: sa

corporation. whenever it is pategic guideline

ds.

e: customers) Th

my needs were.mind. e very importanor services that wnd of products

m records) Schn

rganizational S-point scale it] managementing to help me wvery much abouud of my achiev

mployee Orien

re of corporate verything for th

anagement for th

goal of our corp

arismatic Lead-point scale vision that it trides inspiring strarly creates new

mprised of entrenizes new oppo

e to motivate thom further analymprised of indiv

mprised of peop

heir Corpora

nstruct Mea

rate Headquarewstone (2007)

y involved with

concerned with

e (7) too much.in corporate heeadquarters areosts (7) costs m

alespeople) Ajz

possible. es of my corpor

homas, Soutar,

nt to the travel awere best suitedor services wou

neider et al. (20

Support (data

t when I have awhen I need a sut my opinion avements as an e

ntation (data so

[sales unit] manhe well-being ohe personal and

porate [sales un

dership (data so

ies to achieve wrategic and orga

w ideas to make

epreneurial peoportunities in the

he travel agents yses] viduals who rep

le one can be p

ate Headqua

asurement

rters (data sour); Gardner (199

h running a trave

h the interest of

eadquarters wor… (1) less plea

more than it is w

zen and Madden

rate headquarter

and Ryan (200

agent. d to solving myuld be most help

005)

source: salespe

a problem. special favor. as an employee.mployee.

ource: salespeop

nagement’s conf the travel age

d professional d

nit] managemen

ource: salespeop

with creative ideanizational goalthe travel agen

ple who readilymarket that hel

by articulating

present the comp

proud of.

arters

ce: sales manag94) seven-point

el agency… (1)

f the travel agen

rk… (1) more (asant (7) more p

worth.

n (1986); “total

rs, I make majo

01); “totally disa

y problems. pful to me.

ople) Eisenberg

ple) Fritz (1996

nsiderations. ents. development of

nt.

ple) Conger and

eas. ls.

ncies [travel age

y seize opportunlp us achieve ou

effectively the

pany convincin

31

gers and sementic

) very well

ncies (7)

7) less. pleasant.

lly

or efforts to

agree” to

ger et al.

6); “totally

the travel

d Kanungo

ency] ready

nities. ur organ-

impor-

ngly to the

HomburWhen S

XII. Corp1. 2. 3. 4.

XIII. Condisagree” t

1. 2.

XIV. Pers(2007); “to

1. 2. 3. 4.

XV. Perce(2005); “to

1. 2. 3. 4.

XVI. Unifto “totally

1. 2. 3. 4.

XVII. Salagree” on

1. 2. 3.

XVIII. Saon a seven

1. 2. 3.

XIX. Saledisagree” t

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

XX. Sales“totally di

1. 2. 3. 4.


porate BureaucWorking forCorporate mIn my daily When I have

ntact Frequencto “totally agre

I stay in reguThe Intranet[dropped fro

sonalization ofotally disagree”

I have friendI personally I have persoI know our c

eived Externalotally disagree”

Our corporaThe public aOther peopleOthers like t

formity of Coragree” on a sev

The memberThe memberThe member

Generally, th

lespeople Job Sa seven-point s

Generally spI am generalI frequently

alespeople Empn-point scale

I always senI realize whaIt is easy for

es Unit Manageto “totally agre

I clarify rewI assist my sI reward myI recognize mI continuous

s Unit Managemsagree” to “tota

I focus on mI ‘put out firI track my saI concentrate


cracy (data sour [Company X]

management haswork, I experiee a good idea, it

cy with Corpore” on a seven-pular contact witt is the only chaom further analy

f Contact with” to “totally agrds in corporate hknow some colnally seen our c

corporate headq

l Image of Co” to “totally agrtion has a very

appearance of oe like our corpothe advertising

rporate Headqven-point scale rs of corporate hrs of corporate hrs of corporate hhe performance

Satisfaction (dscale peaking, I am vlly satisfied witthink of quittin

pathy (data sou

nse exactly whaat customer’s mr me to take the

ement’s Contine” on a seven-p

wards. sales reps basedy sales reps’ achmy sales reps’ asly reward my s

ment’s Managally agree” on a

my sales reps’ mres’. ales reps’ mistae on my sales re


Appe

urce: salespeoplis fairly difficu

s imposed too mence a high degrt is difficult to r

rate Headquarpoint scale th corporate heaannel through wyses]

h Corporate Hree” on a seven-headquarters. [dlleagues in corpcorporate headqquarters very we

mpany (data sree” on a seven-good image in

our corporation orate image in pof our corporat

uarters Memb

headquarters arheadquarters shheadquarters co

e of our headqua

data source: sale

ery satisfied with the kind of wng this job (Rev

urce: salespeopl

t customers wamean even when

customer’s per

ngent Reward point scale

d on their effort.hievements. achievements.sales reps’ achie

gement-by-excea seven-point sc

mistakes.

akes. eps’ failures.

otypes of th

endix conti

e) “totally disagult because of exmany standards ree of bureaucrrealize it becau

rters (data sour

adquarters. which I have con

Headquarters (-point scale dropped from fporate headquarquarters and I kell.

source: salespeo-point scale public. is very good.

public. tion.

bers (data sourc

re very similar. hare many charaope very well warters members

espeople) Hack

ith this job. work I do in thisverse coded).

le) Barrett-Lenn

ant. n they have diffrspective.

(data source: sa

.

evements.

eptions (data socale

heir Corpora

inued

gree” to “totallyxisting regulatithat impede my

ratic impedimense of bureaucra

rce: salespeople

ntact with corpo

(data source: sa

further analysesrters.

know it from wi

ople); adapted

ce: salespeople)

acteristics.

with each other. s is fairly simila

kman and Oldh

s job.

nard (1978, 198

ficulty in saying

ales manager) A

ource: sales man

ate Headqua

y agree” on a seons. y work. nts at the corporatic corporate ob

e) Van de Ven

orate headquart

alespeople) Tur

s]

ithin.

from Ahearne,

) Park and Judd

ar.

ham (1975); “to

81); “totally dis

g it.

Avolio, Bass, an

nager) Avolio,

arters

even-point scal

rate level. bstacles.

and Ferry (198

ters. (reverse co

rner, Voci, and

Bhattacharya,

d (1990); “totally

otally disagree”

agree” to “total

nd Jung (1999)

Bass, and Jung

32

e

80); “totally

oded)

d Hewstone

and Gruen

y disagree”

” to “totally

lly agree”

; “totally

g (1999);

HomburWhen S

AhearneCJ

AhluwaJ

Ajzen, IB

__________

&4

AkramiAt

Allport,

AnastasR&2

ArmstroJ

AshfortM

Avolio, mn

Babin, EM

Bagozzit

Baker, WLk

Bargh,


e, M. J., BhCustomer-CJournal of A

alia, R. (200Journal of C

I. (1985). FrBeckmann Springer. _ & Madden& Perceived453-72.

, N. (2005)Acta Univetations from

, G. W. (195

sio, P. A., Recategoriz& S. A. Ha256). Oxfor

ong, J. S., &Journal of M

th, B. F., & Managemen

B. J., Bassmational annaire. Journ

B. J., BoleEmotions, aMarketing S

i, R. P., & Ythe Academ

W. E., & SiLearning Oketing Scien

J. A., & C


hattacharyaCompany IdApplied Psy

02). How PConsumer R

rom Intentio(Eds.), Acti

n, T. J. (198d Behaviora

. Prejudice:ersitatis Upsm the Facult

54). The Na

Bachman, zation & Coaslam (Eds.)rd: England

& Overton,Marketing R

Mael, F. (1nt Review, 1

s, B. M., & nd Transactnal of Occup

es, J. B., &and Their IScience, 23(

Yi, Y. (198my of Marke

inkula, J. MOrientation o

nce, 27(4), 4

Chartrand, T


REFa, C. B., & dentificationychology, 90

Prevalent IsResearch, 2

ons to Actioion Control:

86). Predictial Control. J

: The Interpsaliensis. Dty of Social

ature of Prej

B., Gaertnommon Ingr), The Socia

d: Blackwell

, T. S. (197Research, 1

1989). Socia14(1), 20-39

Jung, D. I. tional Leadpational an

& Darden, Impact on I(2), 94-105

8). On the Eeting Science

M. (1999). Thon Organiza411-28.

T. L. (1999

otypes of th

FERENCGruen, T. n: Expandi0(3), 574–8

s the Negat9(2), 270-7

ons: A Theo: From Cog

ion of Goal Journal of E

play of Persigital CompSciences 5,

judice. Rea

ner, S., & roup Identit

al Psychologl.

77). Estima4(3), 396-4

al Identity T9.

(1999). Redership Usinnd Organiza

W. R. (19Information.

Evaluation oe, 16(1), 74

he Synergisational Perfo

9). The unb

heir Corpora

CES (2005). An

ing the Rol5.

tivity Effect9.

ory of Planngnition to Be

Directed BExperimenta

sonality, Coprehensive S, Uppsala.

ding, MA: A

Dovidio, ty. In R. Spgy of Stereo

ating Nonre402.

Theory and

-examiningng the Mul

ational Psyc

95). Salespn Processin

of Structura4-97.

stic Effect oormance. Jo

bearable aut

ate Headqua

ntecedents &le of Relat

t in Consum

ned Behavioehavior (pp

Behavior: Atal Social Ps

ognition, & Summaries

Addison-W

J. F. (199pears, P. J. otyping & G

esponse Bia

d the Organi

g the Compoltifactor Le

chology, 72(

person Sterng. Journal

al Equation

f Market Orournal of the

tomaticity o

arters

& Consequetionship Ma

mer Enviro

or. In J. Kuhp. 11-39). Be

ttitudes, Intesychology, 2

Social Psycof Uppsala

Wesley.

97). CategoOakes, N. E

Group Life (

as in Mail S

ization. Aca

onents of Teadership Q(4), 441-462

eotypes, Coof the Aca

Models. Jo

rientation ae Academy

of being. A

33

ences of arketing.

onments?

hl & J. erlin:

entions, 22(5),

chology. a Disser-

orization, Ellemers (pp. 236-

Surveys.

ademy of

Transfor-Question-2.

onsumer ademy of

ournal of

and of Mar-

American

HomburWhen S

P__________

oc

Barrett-J

BergamGJ

BettencRJ

Brewer,oc

Brown, Si

Bush, VBJ

CaprarieSP

Chen, MSm

Conger,O

———J

Corneillz


Psychologis_ , Chen, Mof Trait Concial Psycho

-Lennard, GJournal of C

mi, M., & BGroup SelfJournal of S

ourt, B. A.Reduction oJournal of E

, M. B., & Mon Desegrechology of D

T.J., MowService Woings. Journa

V.D., RoseBuyer-SelleJournal of t

ello, P. A., StereotypesProcesses a

M., & BargSelf-Fulfillimental Soci

, J. A., & KOaks, CA:

, ——— &Journal of O

le, O., and Jzation of M


st, 54(7), 46

M., & Burronstruct & S

ology, 71(2)

G. T. (198Counseling

Bagozzi, Rf-Esteem as Social Psyc

, Brewer, Mof IntergrouExperimenta

Miller, N. (1gation. In NDesegregat

wen J.C., Doorkers: Persal of Marke

, G.M., Gier Relationsthe Academy

Cuddy, A. s and Emotand Intergro

gh, J. A. (1ing Conseqial Psycholo

Kanungo, R. Sage Public

& Menon, Organizatio

Judd, C. M.Multifaceted


62-479.

ows, L. (199Stereotype A, 230-244.

1). The EmPsychology

R. P. (2000)Distinct A

chology, 39(

M. B., Croaup Bias: Thal Social Ps

1984). BeyoN. Miller, &tion (pp. 28

onavan D.Tsonality Traeting Resear

ilbert, F., Iships: The y of Market

J. C., & Ftions: A Caoup Relation

1997). Nonquences of Aogy, 33(5),

N. (1998). cations.

S. T. (200onal Behavi

. (1999). AcStimuli. Jo

otypes of th

96). AutomActivation o

mpathy Cyy, 28(2), 91

). Self-Catespects of S(4), 555–77

ak, M. R., &he Role of Rsychology, 2

ond the Con& M. B. Bre1-301). Orla

T., Licata J.ait Effects orch, 39(1): 1

Ingram, T.NRole of In

ting Science

Fiske, S. T. ausal Test ons, 12(2), 1

nconscious Automatic S541-560.

Charismati

00). Charismior, 21(7), 7

ccentuation ournal of P

heir Corpora

maticity of Son Action. J

ycle: Refine-100.

egorization,ocial Identi.

& Miller, NReward Str28(4), 301-

ntact Hypotewer (Eds.)ando: Acad

W. (2002).on Self- and110-119.

N. (2001). ntercultural e, 29(4), 39

(2009). Soof the Stere47-155.

Behavioral Stereotype A

ic Leadersh

matic Lead747–67.

and Sensitiersonality a

ate Headqua

Social BehavJournal of P

ement of a

, Affective ity in the O

N. (1992). Cructure and 19.

hesis: Theo, Groups in

demic Press.

The Custod Superviso

Managing Communic

1-404.

ocial Structueotype Con

ConfirmatActivation.

hip in Organ

dership and

ization Effeand Social P

arters

vior: DirectPersonality

a Nuclear C

CommitmOrganization

CooperationSocial Orie

oretical Persn Contact: T.

omer Orientor Performan

Culturally cation Com

ure Shapes ntent Model

ion ProcessJournal of

nizations. T

d Follower

ects in the CPsychology

34

t Effects and So-

Concept.

ent, and n. British

n and the entation.

spectives The Psy-

tation of nce Rat-

Diverse mpetence.

Cultural l. Group

ses: The f Experi-

Thousand

Effects.

Categori-y, 77(5),

HomburWhen S

9

CrawforFS

Cuddy, A

DeshpanM

Devine,n

__________

P

DuggerJ

Eder, P.I

Eisenbe

EllemerWo

Engle, EE

Fiske, SL

Fritz, WE

Fornell,b

Gardner(L

GouldneS


927-941.

rd, M. T., SFormation, Social Psyc

A. J.C., FisAffect and S

nde, R. (198Marketing,

, P. G. (198nents. Journ_ 1995. PrejPsychology

, W. M. (19Journal of E

., & EisenbeInfluence o

erger, R., HuSupport. Jo

rs N., de GWork: A Soof Managem

E. M., & LExchange. A

S. T. (1998)L. Gardner

W. (1996). European J

, C., & Larcble Variable

r, R. C. (1(Eds.), The Lawrence E

er, A. W. Sociologica


Sherman, S. and the Int

chology, 83(

ske, S. T., &Stereotypes

82). The Or46(4), 91-1

9). Stereotynal of Perso

judice and Oy (pp. 467-5

980). CorpoEconomic Is

erger, R. (2f Coworker

untington, Rournal of Ap

Gilder, D., &ocial Identitment Review

Lord, R. G. Academy of

). Stereotypi(Eds.), Han

Market OJournal of M

cker, D. F. (es & Measu

994). SterePsychology

Erlbaum.

(1960). Thal Review, 2


J. &, Hamiterchangeab(5), 1076-94

& Glick, P. s. Journal of

rganizationa101.

ypes and Preonality and

Outgroup Pe24). New Y

rate BureauIssues, 14(2)

008). Percer Withdrawa

R., Hutchisopplied Psych

& Haslam, ty Perspecti

w, 29(3): 45

(1997). Imf Manageme

ing, Prejudindbook of S

Orientation Marketing, 3

(1981). Evaurement Err

eotypes as y of Prejud

he Norm o25(2), 161-7

otypes of th

ilton, D. L. bility of Gro4.

(2007). Thf Personalit

al Context o

ejudice: TheSocial Psyc

erception. IYork: McGr

ucracy: The ), 399-410.

eived Organal Behavior

on, S., & Shology, 71(3

S. A. (2004ive on Lead9-478.

mplicit Theoent Journal,

ice, and DisSocial Psych

and Corpo30(8), 59-74

aluating Struror. Journal

Consensualdice: The On

f Reciproci78.

heir Corpora

(2002). Peroup Membe

he BIAS Maty and Socia

of Market R

eir Automatchology, 56

n A. Tesserraw-Hill.

Incidence o

nizational Sur. Journal of

owa, D. (193), 500-507

4). Motivatidership and

ories, Self-S, 40(4), 988

scriminationhology (pp.

rate Succe4.

uctural Equl of Marketi

l Beliefs. Inntario Symp

ity: A Prel

ate Headqua

rceived Entiers. Journal

ap: Behavioal Psycholo

Research Us

tic and Con(1), 5-18.

r (Ed.), Adva

of the Burea

upport: Redf Manageme

986). Percei7.

ing IndividGroup Perf

Schemas, an8-1010.

n. In S.T. G357-411). G

ss: Finding

uation Modeng Researc

n M.P. Zanposium (pp.

liminary St

arters

itativity, Stel of Persona

ors From Inogy, 92(4), 6

e. Journal o

ntrolled Com

anced Socia

aucratic Pro

ducing the Nent, 34(1), 5

ived Organi

duals and Gformance. A

nd Leader-

Gilbert, S.F. Gardner, Bo

gs From G

els with Unoh, 18(1), 39

nna, & J.M.1-31). New

tatement. A

35

ereotype ality and

tergroup 631-648.

of

mpo-

al

ocess.

Negative 55-68.

izational

Groups at Academy

Member

Fiske & oston.

Germany.

observa-9–50.

M. Olson w Jersey:

American

HomburWhen S

GrinsteiO

HackmaJ

HarastyPt

Harris, LO

HartlineE

HeilmanE

Herr, PI

HeskettY

HeskettEP

Hilton, 2

HoffmaO

Hogg, MR

HomburJ

HomburCo

Hopkina

James, L


in, A. (2008Orientation

an, J. R., &Journal of A

y, A. S. (199Patterns Abtin 23, 270-

L. C., & OgOrientation157-66.

e, M. D., FeEmployees

n, M. E., &Employmen

. M., KardeInformationConsumer R

t, J. L., SassYork: The F

t, J. L., SassEmployees Press.

J. L., & von237-71.

an, K. D., &Oriented Pe

M. & AbraRelations &

rg, C., WiesJournal of M

rg, C., & StCustomer Oof the Acad

s, N., Reichand the ‘Ne

L. R., Mula


8). The Relans: A Meta-A

& Oldham,Applied Psy

97). The Intbout In-Gro-284.

gbonna, E. (n, and Organ

errell, O.C. (: An Empiri

& Okimotont Decisions

es, F., & Kin on PersuResearch, 1

ser Jr., W. EFree Press.

ser Jr., W. ELike Custo

n Hippel, W

& Ingram, Terformance.

ams, D. (19& Group Pro

seke, J., & HMarketing,

tock, R. M. Orientation idemy of Mar

her, S., & Lew Racism.

aik, S. A., &


ationships BAnalysis. Eu

, G. R. (19ychology, 60

terpersonal Noups and Ou

(2001). Stranizational P

(1996). Theical Investig

o, T. G. (2s. Journal o

im, J. (199asion: An 7(4), 454-5

E., & Schle

E., & Schleomers and

W. (1996). St

T. N. (1992. Journal of

988). Socialocesses. Lo

Hoyer, W. (73(2), 38-5

(2004). Thein a Businerketing Scie

Levine, M. . British Jou

& Brett, J. M

otypes of th

Between Mauropean Jo

975). Deve0(2), 159–1

Nature of Sut-Groups. P

ategic Humaerformance

e Managemegation. Jou

2008). Mothof Applied P

1). Effects Accessibili

58.

esinger, L. A

esinger, L. ACustomers

tereotypes.

2). Service f Services M

l Identificatndon: Rout

(2009). Soc54.

e Link Betwss-to-Busin

ence, 32(2),

(1997). Onurnal of Soc

M. (2006).

heir Corpora

arket Orienturnal of Ma

elopment of70.

Social StereoPersonality

an Resourcee. Journal of

ent of Custournal of Mar

herhood: APsychology,

of Word-ofity-Diagnos

A. (1997). T

A. (2003). s Like Emp

Annual Rev

Provider JoMarketing, 6

tions: A Socledge.

ial Identity

ween Salespness Context

144-58.

n the Parallcial Psychol

A Tale of

ate Headqua

tation and Aarketing, 42

f the Job D

otypes: Diffy and Social

e Managemf Business R

omer-Contarketing, 60(

A Potential 93(1), 189-

f-Mouth ansticity Persp

The Service

The Value Pployees. Ne

view of Psyc

ob Satisfact6(2), 68-78.

cial Psycho

and the Ser

people’s Jobt: A Dyadic

lels Betweelogy, 36, 30

Two Metho

arters

Alternative S2(1), 115-34

Diagnostic

ferential Dil Psycholog

ment, MarketResearch, 5

act Service (4), 52-70.

Source of -198.

d Product-Apective. Jou

e Profit Cha

Profit Chaiew York: T

chology, 47

tion and Cu

ology of Int

rvice–Profit

b Satisfactioc Analysis. J

en Social C05–29.

ods. Organi

36

Strategic 4.

Survey.

scussion gy Bulle-

t 1(2),

Bias in

Attribute urnal of

ain. New

in: Treat The Free

7(1),

ustomer-

tergroup

t Chain.

on and Journal

Cognition

izational

HomburWhen S

R

Jones, EOts

Katz, I.,tS

KearneyTJ

KelmanA

Klein, JP6

KleinbaA

Kruegeri

Lee, N.tk

LeonardM

Lepore,J

Liu, S. n

LivingsIo

LuthansO

MacKena


Research M

E., Bush, P.Orientationtention in Bsearch, 56(4

, & Hass, Rtional and PSocial Psyc

y, E., GeberThe ImportJournal, 52

n, H. C. (19Attitude Ch

J. G., EttensPurchase: A62(1), 89-10

aum, D. G.,Analysis an

r, J. I., Hallin the Repr11(3), 401-

, Sandfieldtypes Amonketing Man

d, B. (2000)Magazine, N

L., & BrowJournal of P

S., Luo, X.neurship, aStudy. Inter

ton, K. R.,Induced by ory, and Co

s, F., & KreOperational

nzie, S. B.,and Conseq


Methods, 9(2

., & Dacin, n: InterpersoBusiness-to4), 323-41.

R. G. (1988)Priming Stuchology 55(6

rt, D., & Votance of Te

2(3), 581-59

958). Comphange. Journ

son, R. & MAn Empirica00.

, Kupper, Lnd Other Mu

, J., Villanoresentation -414.

d, A., & Dhngst UK Stagement, 23

). Worker PNovember 2

wn, R. (1997Personality

, & Shi, Y.and Learninrnational Jo

, Andrews, Category L

ognition, 24

eitner, R. (19l and Social

Podsakoffquences of


2), 233-244.

P. (2003). onal and Int-Business B

. Racial Amudies of Dua6), 893-905

oelpel, S. Ceam Memb98.

pliance, Idenal of Confl

Morris, M. Dal Test in th

L. L., Mulleultivariate M

o, P., & Jonof Gender

haliwal, B. tudents & T3(7), 723-74

roductivity 2000, 34.

7). Category & Social P

. (2002). Inng Orientaournal of Re

J. K., & Learning. Jo4(3): 732-75

985). Organl Learning A

f, P. M., & In-Role an

otypes of th

.

Firm Marktrapersonal Buyer-Selle

mbivalence aal Cognitive5.

C. (2009). Wers’ Need

entification,flict Resolut

D. (1998). The People’s

er, K. E., &Methods. Pa

es, M. (200Stereotypes

(2007). AnTheir Implic44.

May Be Ta

y and SterePsychology,

ntegrating Cation in Oresearch in M

Harnard, Sournal of Ex53.

nizational BApproach. G

Ahearne, Mnd Extra-Ro

heir Corpora

ket OrientatInfluences

er Relations

and Americe Structures

When and Hfor Cogniti

, and Internion, 2(1), 5

The AnimoRepublic o

& Nizam, Aacific Grove

08). Attributs. Group Pr

n Empirical cations for

angled in Co

otype Activ72(2), 275-

Customer OrrganizationsMarketing 1

S. (1998). CExperimenta

Behavior MoGlenview, I

M. J. (1998ole Salespe

ate Headqua

ion and Salon Custom

ships. Journ

can Value C. Journal of

How Diversiion. Academ

nalization: T1–60.

sity Model f China. Jou

A. (1998). Ae, CA: Duxb

tion and Catrocesses In

Study of SRecruitmen

orporate Bu

vation: Is Pr-87.

rientation, Cs-In-Transit19(4), 367-8

Categorical l Psycholog

odification aL: Scott Fo

8). Some Poerson Perfor

arters

lesperson Cmer Service nal of Busin

Conflict: Corf Personality

ity Benefitsmy of Man

Three Proc

of Foreign urnal of Ma

Applied Regbury Press.

tegorizationtergroup R

Salespersonnt. Journal

ureaucracy.

rejudice Ine

Corporate Eion: An E

82.

Perceptiongy: Learning

and Beyondresman.

ossible Antermance. Jo

37

Customer and Re-

ness Re-

rrela-ty and

s Teams: agement

cesses of

Product arketing,

gression

n Effects elations,

n Stereo-of Mar-

HR

vitable?

Entrepre-Empirical

n Effects g, Mem-

d: An

ecedents urnal of

HomburWhen S

M__________

McConaD

Miller, S

MorhartE

Muthén&

NunnallM

Oakes, B

O’Reillyi

Ouellet,PM

Park, BJ

PettigreJ

Pfeffer, o

Piercy, A

__________

E__________

CMo


Marketing, _, __________ Salesperson134.

ahay, J.B., HDepends on563-79.

N., BrewerSettings: A

t, F.M., HerEmployees

n, L. K., & M& Muthén,

ly, J. C., &McGraw-H

P.J., HaslamBasil Black

y, C. (1989in Organiza

, J. (2007)Purchase: AMarketing 7

B., & Judd,Journal of P

ew, T. F., &Journal of P

J., & Veigof Managem

N. F. (1994Administrat_, Harris, Expectation_, Cravens, CitizenshipManagemenof Marketin


62(3), 87-9

& Rich, G.n Performan

Hardee, B. n Who is As

r, M. B., &Laboratory

rzog, W., &into Br& C

Muthén, B. available at

& BernsteiHill.

m, S.A., &kwell.

9). Corporatations. Calif

. ConsumeAn Empiric71(1), 113-1

, C. M. (1Personality

Tropp, L. RPersonality

ga, J. F. (19ment Execut

4). The Realtive Neatne

L.C., & Lns. Journal

D. W., Lanp Behaviors nt Control ang Science,


98.

A. (1998).nce. Journa

B., & Battssking & Wh

& Edwards, y Analogue.

& Tomczak TChampions.

O. (2006). Mt: http://ww

in, I. H. (

& Turner, J.C

tions, Cultufornia Mana

r Racism acal Test in 128.

990). Meas and Social

R. (2006). A and Social

999). Puttingtives, 13(2)

l Strategic Iess. Manage

Lane, N. (2of Business

ne, N., & Voand Salespe

and Perceiv34(2), 244-

otypes of th

Transformal of the Ac

, V. (1981).hat is Asked

K. (1985). Journal of

T. (2009). BJournal of M

Mplus Userww.statmode

1994). Psy

C. (1994).

ure and Comagement Re

and Its Effthe United

sures and Ml Psychology

A Meta-Anal Psychology

g People Fi, 37-48.

Issues versuement Decis

2002). Mars Research,

orhies, D. Werson In-Roed Organiza62.

heir Corpora

mational andcademy of M

. Has Racismd. Journal o

Cooperativf Social Issu

Brand-SpeciMarketing,

r’s Guide. 4el.com.

chometric

Stereotypin

mmitment: Meview, 31(4)

fects on Dod States, Ca

Models of y, 59(2), 17

alytic Test oy, 90(5), 75

irst For Org

us Organizatsion, 32(4),

rket Orient55(4), 261-

W. (2006). Dole Behavioational Supp

ate Headqua

d TransactioMarketing S

m Declinedof Conflict R

ve Interactioues, 41(3), 6

ific Leaders73(5), 122-

4th ed., Los

Theory, 3r

ng and Soci

Motivation ), 9–25.

omestic Cranada, and

Perceived 73-82.

of Intergrou51-83.

ganizational

tional Burea5-8.

tation adn -73.

Driving Orgr Performanport. Journa

arters

onal LeaderScience, 29(

d in AmericaResolution,

on in Deseg63-81.

ship: Turnin-142.

s Angeles: M

rd ed., New

ial Reality.

and Social

ross-Ethnic France. Jo

Group Var

up Contact T

l Success. A

aucracy and

Retail Ope

ganizational nce: The Roal of the Ac

38

ship and (2), 115-

a? It 25(4),

gregated

ng

Muthén

w York:

Oxford:

Control

Product urnal of

riability.

Theory.

Academy

d

eratives’

ole of cademy

HomburWhen S

Platow, Eg

Puffer, a

Quellera9

RasbashDM

RaudenA

RhoadeL

RuekertP

Schneid

J

Shamir,L

Shimp, t

Smidts, CA

Smith, N

SpencerEi

StephanNt


M. J., & vaEndorsemengroup Fairn

S. M. (198among Com

, S., Schell,and Within91(3), 406-4

h, J., BrownDraper, D.,Multilevel M

nbush, S.W.Analysis Me

s, L., & EiLiterature. J

t, R. W. (Perspective

der, B., Ehrhstanding OrJournal, 48

, B., HouseLeadership

T, A., & Sthe CETSC

A., PruynCommunicaAcademy of

C. A., OrgNature and

r-Rodgers, Entitativity ity and Soci

n, W. G., &N. Miller &tion. Orland


an Knippenbnt: The effe

ness. Person

87). Prosocimmission Sa

, T., & Winn-Category 422.

ne, W., Go, Langford, Modeling In

, Bryk, A. Methods. Tho

senberger, Journal of A

(1992). Dee. Internatio

hart, M. G.,rganization-

8(6), 1017-3

e, R. J., & A: A Self-Co

harma, S. (ALE. Journ

n, Ad T. Hation and Pf Manageme

gan, D., & Antecedent

J., Hamiltoin Stereoty

ial Psycholo

& Stephan, C& M.B. Bredo: Academ


berg, D. (20ects of Leadnality and S

ial Behavioalespeople.

nter, M. (20Assimilatio

oldstein, H.I., & Lewi

nstitute of E

S. (2002). Housand Oak

R. (2002).Applied Psy

veloping aonal Journa

Mayer, D. -Customer L

32.

Arthur, M. oncept Based

(1987). Connal of Mark

H., & Van Perceived Eent Journal

Near, J. Pts. Journal

on, D. L., ypes of Sociogy, 92(3),

C. W. (1984ewer (Eds.),

mic Press, 22

otypes of th

001). A Socder Ingroup Social Psych

or, NoncomJournal of A

006). A Novon. Journal

, Yang, M.is, T. (2000Education, U

Hierarchicas, CA: Sage

Perceived Oychology, 87

a Market Ol of Researc

M., Saltz, JLinks in Ser

B. (1993). d Theory. O

nsumer Ethnketing Resea

Riel, C. BExternal Prl, 44(5), 105

. (1983). “of Applied P

& Shermial Categori369-388.

4). The Role, Groups in29-257.

heir Corpora

cial IdentityPrototypica

hology Bulle

mpliant BehApplied Psy

vel View ofl of Person

., Plewis, I0). A User’sUniversity o

al Linear Me Publicatio

Organizatio7(4), 698-71

Orientation:ch in Marke

J. L., & Nilervice Settin

The MotivOrganization

nocentrism:arch, 24(3),

B. M. (200restige on 51–62.

“OrganizatioPsychology

man, S. J. (es and Task

e of Ignorann Contact: T

ate Headqua

y Analysis oality and Dietin, 27(11)

avior, and ychology, 7

f Between-Cnality and

., Healy, Ms Guide to of London.

Models: Appons.

onal Suppor14.

An Organeting, 9(3), 2

es-Jolly, K. ngs. Academ

vational Effen Science, 4

Constructi280-289.

1). The ImOrganizati

onal Citizeny, 68(4), 653

(2007). Thk Groups. Jo

nce in InterThe Psycho

arters

of Leadershistributive In

), 1508-1519

Work Perfo2(4), 615-2

Categories Social Psy

M., WoodhoMLwiN. Ce

plications a

rt: A Review

nizational 225-45.

(2005). “Umy of Manag

fects of Cha4(4), 577-94

ion & Valid

mpact of Emonal Identi

nship Beha3-63.

he Central Journal of P

rgroup Relalogy of Des

39

ip nter-9.

formance 1.

Contrast chology,

ouse, G., entre for

and Data

w of the

Strategy

Under-gement

arismatic 4.

dation of

mployee ification.

avior: Its

Role of Personal-

ations. In segrega-

HomburWhen S

Tajfel, Hi

Tajfel, HA4

——— WN

Terry, DR9

ThomasOa

Turner, v

Turner, Pa

Tyler, TB

——— A4

Ullrich,L9

Van KnEh

Van de W

VonofakPM

VorauerV


H. (1978). Dintergroup

H., & TurneAustin, & S47). Monter

& ——— Worchel, &Nelson-Hal

D. J., & HogRole for Gr93.

s, R. W., SoOrientationand Sales M

J. C., Hoggvering the SSons Ltd.

R. N., VocPrejudice Vand Intergro

T. R. (1999Behavior, 2

& Blader, Antecedent48 (6), 1143

J., Christ, OLeaders Ar94 (1), 235-

nippenberg,Effectivenehavior (pp.

Ven, A. H.Wiley.

kou, C., HePredictor ofMen. Journ

r, J. D., MaiViewed By Stereotypes


Differentiatrelations. L

er, J. C. (19S.Worchel (rey, CA: Br

(1986). The& W. G. Ausll.

gg, M. A. (1roup Identif

outar, G. N.,n (S.O.C.O.)Managemen

g, M. A., OSocial Grou

i, A., & HewVia Direct anoup Anxiety

). Why Peo21, 201–46.

S. L. (2005)ts of Rule F3-58.

O., & van De Endorsed -344.

, D., & Hess. In R.M.

245-297). A

., & Ferry, D

ewstone, M.f Meta-Attit

nal of Perso

in, K. J., & Members Os. Journal of


tion betweeLondon: Aca

79). An Inte(Eds.), The Srooks-Cole,

e Social Idestin (Eds.), P

1996). Groufication. Per

, & R., M. M) Scale: A Pnt, 21(1), 63

Oakes, P. J.,up – A Self

wstone, M. nd Extendedy. Journal o

ople Cooper

). Can BusiFollowing in

Dick, R. (20Whether T

ogg, M. A. Kramer, &Amsterdam

D. (1980). M

, & Voci, Atudinal Stre

onality and S

O’Connell,Of Lower Sf Personali

otypes of th

en social grademic Pres

egrative ThSocial Psyc 33-47.

entity TheorPsychology

up Norms &rsonality an

M. (2001). TProposed Sh-69.

Reicher, Sf-Categoriza

(2007). Red Contact: Tof Personali

rate with O

inesses Effen Work Set

009). SubstitThey Are Fa

A. (2003). A& B.M. Staw

m: Elsevier.

Measuring

A. (2007). Cength and ASocial Psyc

, G. B. (199tatus Groupty and Socia

heir Corpora

roups. Studiss.

heory of Intechology of In

ry of Inter-Gy of Intergro

& the Attitudnd Social Ps

The Selling hort Form. J

S. D. & Wetation Theor

ducing ExpThe Mediatity and Soci

Organization

ectively Regttings. Acad

tutes for Proair or Not. J

A Social Iw (Eds.), R

and Assess

Contact WithAccessibility

hology, 92(

98). How Dops? Contental Psycholo

ate Headqua

ies in the so

ergroup Conntergroup R

Group Behavoup Relation

de-Behaviousychology B

OrientationJournal of P

therell, M. ry. Worches

plicit and Imting Role ofial Psycholo

ns. Research

gulate Empldemy of Ma

ocedural FaJournal of A

Identity Moesearch in

ing Organiz

h Out-Groupy of Attitude(5), 804-20.

o Individuat and Implicogy, 75(4), 9

arters

ocial psych

nflict. In WRelations (pp

vior. In S. ns (7-24). C

ur RelationsBulletin, 22(

n-CustomerPersonal Sel

S. (1987). Rster, UK: B

mplicit Outgf Self-Discloogy, 93(3),

h in Organi

loyee Conduanagement J

airness: ProtApplied Psy

odel of LeOrganizatio

zations. Ne

p Friends aes Toward G

ls Expect Tcations of M917-37.

40

ology of

. G. p. 33-

Chicago:

ship: A (8), 776-

r lling

Redisco-Billing &

group osure 369-88.

izational

uct? The Journal,

totypical chology,

adership onal Be-

ew York:

s a Gay

To Be Meta-

HomburWhen S

WiesekeTS

WittenbLS

Zyphur,PH


e, J., HombThrough SaScience, 36

brink, B., JuLevel and itSocial Psyc

, M. J., WaPerformancHuman Perf


burg, C. & Lalespeople: (2), 278-91

udd, C. M. &ts Relations

chology, 72(

arren, C. R.ce in High-Frformance, 2


Lee, N. (200A Multileve.

&, Park B. (ship with Qu(2), 262-74.

, Landis, RFidelity Sim20(2), 103-

otypes of th

08). Understel Framewo

(1997). Eviduestionaire .

R. S. &, Thomulations: A118.

heir Corpora

tanding the ork. Journal

dence for RMeasures. J

oresen, C. JAn Extensio

ate Headqua

Adoption ol of the Acad

Racial PrejudJournal of P

J. (2007). Son of Ego-D

arters

of New Brandemy of Ma

dice at the ImPersonality

Self-RegulaDepletion R

41

nds arketing

mplicit y and

ation and Research.

Institute for Market-Oriented Management · Ernst Rau Deutsche Thomas K Deutsche Dr. Chris Dürr AG Ralf W. D E.On Ru Dr. Bernh EvoBus G Michael G Evonik D Dr. Volke Fiege Sti Dr.

Documents