SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP AND THEIR EFFECTS UPON INDUSTRIAL SALES PERSONNEL by FARRAND JIM HADAWAY, B.B.A., M.B.A., Ed.D. A DISSERTATION IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved August, 1990
178
Embed
SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP AND THEIR EFFECTS A ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP AND THEIR EFFECTS
UPON INDUSTRIAL SALES PERSONNEL
by
FARRAND JIM HADAWAY, B.B.A., M.B.A., Ed.D.
A DISSERTATION
IN
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
August, 1990
He
T3 /r/0
/ )
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the support and
assistance of a number of individuals who contributed to
this project. During the course of the study. Dr. Roy D.
Howell, my chairman, provided the skillful guidance and
insightful comments necessary to transform my ideas into a
finished doctoral thesis. In addition, the other members
of the committee, Danny Bellenger, Van R. Wood, and Robert
Phillips, gave freely of their time in providing helpful
advice and constructive comments. Finally, a special
thanks to the many doctoral students at Texas Tech
University who provided advice, support, and encouragement
throughout the dissertation.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES viii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 1 Substitutes for Leadership 4
1. Formalization (explicit plans, goals, and areas of responsibility)
2. Inflexibility (rigid, unbending rules and procedures) 3. Highly-specified and active advisory and staff
functions 4. Closely-knit, cohesive work groups 5. Organizational rewards not within the leader's control 6. Spatial distance between superior and subordinates
FIGURE 2 SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP
26
"supplement" (Kerr and Slocum 1981), a hierarchical
leader's ability to affect a subordinates' job-related
responses. Not only do these "substitutes" directly
affect attitutes and behaviors, but also indirectly affect
them by influencing the frequency with which the
supervisor will exhibit specific leadership behaviors.
Substitutes for Leadership in Study
Six of the 14 characteristics of the task,
organization, and subordinate characteristics identified
by Kerr and Jermier (1978) as potential "substitutes" were
chosen for inclusion in this study. These "substitutes"
include: professional orientation; ability, experience,
training, and knowledge; intrinsically-satisfying tasks;
task-provided feedback; organizational formalization; and
organizational rewards not within the leader's control.
These characteristics were selected since they have
been identified as substitutes for leader behavior (Kerr
and Jermier 1978; Kerr and Slocum 1981; Howell and Dorfman
1986; Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, and Huber 1984). Based
upon the characteristics of the sales job, as described by
Dubinsky, Howell, Ingram, and Bellenger (1986), these six
substitutes would seem to be the most significant in
constraining or delimiting the effect of the sales
manager's behaviors upon salespeoples' attitudes and
behaviors.
27
Empirical Research
Since the first investigation by Kerr and Jermier
(1978), evidence for the existence of substitutes for
leadership has begun to accumulate (Jermier and Berkes
1979; Howell and Dorfman 1981; 1986).
Kerr and Jermier (1978) investigated the relationship
between a number of potential substitutes for leadership,
instrumental and supportive leader behaviors, and two
subordinate outcomes (organizational commitment and role
ambiguity) among police officers. Intrinsically-
satisfying tasks, task routinization, and organizational
formalization were found to act as strong substitutes for
the effect of these two forms of leadership behaviors on
role ambiguity. Further, intrinsically-satisfying tasks
and task-provided feedback acted as substitutes between
these leader behaviors and organizational commitment.
In a study of hospital workers, Howell and Dorfman
(1981) found that three potential substitutes identified
by Kerr and Jermier (1978) acted as moderators. Intrinsic
task satisfaction, routinization, and task feedback did
not prevent support and instrumental leader behaviors from
affecting the subordinate's job related behaviors.
Instead, these three substitutes contributed directly to
employee commitment and job satisfaction.
In a later study, utilizing another sample of hospital
workers, Howell and Dorfman (1986) found weak support for
28
two leadership substitutes. Need for independence was
negatively related to job commitment while organization
formalization was positively related to job satisfaction
for professional health care personnel. Intrinsically-
satisfying tasks were found to be strong substitutes for
leader support behavior when predicting organizational
commitment. Organizational rewards acted as a weak
substitute for leader support behaviors when job
satisfaction was the criterion. Also, organizational
rewards was found to be a strong substitute for leader
support behaviors when predicting organizational
commitment.
Jermier and Berkes (1979) investigated "substitutes"
within a law-enforcement environment. Closely knit,
cohesive work groups prevented and replaced the leaders
ability to significantly effect subordinates' morale.
Further, instrinsically-satisfying work tasks substituted
for the formal leaders' supportive behaviors.
Problems with Existing Research
Although there is strong theoretical support for the
existance of "substitutes," research investigating this
concept has been minimal and the empirical support has
been weak (Kerr and Jermier 1978; Howell and Dorfman 1986;
Jermier and Berkes 1979). While there may be several
reasons for the conflicting results in the research to
29
date, the most obvious is the sampling frames that have
been utilized.
Each of the studies have used different samples. The
studies by Howell and Dorfman (1981 1986), Sheridan,
Vredenburgh, and Abelson (1984), Sims and Szilagyi (1975)
used hospital personnel, while Kerr and Jermier (1978)
used a sample of police officers. Podsakoff, Todor,
Grover, and Huber (1984) used a mixed sample consisting of
federal and state government, and hospital employees.
These samples all have one thing in common. They were
drawn from organizations that are characterized by a high
degree of specialized tasks, precise specification of
authority and responsibility, and a well developed
hierarchy. Kerr and Slocum (1981) argued that in these
situations formal leadership is the primary source of
control over subordinates. Therefore, one would not
expect a strong effect of substitutes for leadership in
these situations.
In a work environment that requires continual
redefinition of tasks and procedures by which the task is
to be performed, there is greater reliance upon the
subordinate's expertise than hierarchical control systems.
In this situation, substitutes for leadership should be
the primary means for controlling subordinates job-related
behaviors (Howell and Dorfman 1986).
30
This study attempts to rectify this problem by using
two samples. The first sample, consisting of outside
salespeople, was expected to produce a high correlation
between the substitutes and the criterion variables, while
decreasing the impact of the sales supervisor's leader
behaviors. The second sample consisted of inside
salespeople from the same firms. Among this group, a
strong effect of the sales supervisor's leader behavior is
expected upon the criterion variables, with a negligible
or nonexistance effect of the "substitutes."
Task-Specific Self-Esteem
Consistency theory of work motivation suggests that
work behavior is based upon the development of a self-
concept. The self-concept, and its companion notion self-
esteem, have long been recognized as being important in
explaining human behavior. An individual will adjust their
performance to fit their own positive or negative self-
evaluations. Therefore, performance should be higher for
those individuals who have high self-esteem than for those
with low self-esteem (Inkson 1978).
Researchers have studied the relationship between
self-esteem, performance, and satisfaction in an attempt
to explain, predict, and control behaviors in the work
Chonko, and Wood 1985). The membership decision is
explained by the concept of exchange or reward-cost
relationship. If a favorable exchange exists from the
employee's perspective, then commitment to the
organization will be enhanced. The longer that the
relationship exists, the greater the amount of extrinsic
benefits that could be lost by leaving.
Two limitations of the behavioral approach have been
noted:
1. First, organizational commitment is based almost entirely on utilitarian considerations. Since the measures are concerned with the propensity to leave, given inducements in alternative employment, little can be predicted about related behavioral outcomes.
2. Secondly, all researchers using this approach have concerned themselves with antecedents and attitudinal outcomes. The relationship between organizational commitment and behavioral outcomes has not been empirically established. (Morris and Sherman 1981, p. 514)
Due to the limitations imposed by the behavioral
approach, this study used the attitudinal approach in
measuring organizational commitment. As such,
organizational commitment was postulated to be an
attitudinal intervening construct, mediating the effect of
the sales manager's leadership behavior and the
46
salesperson's job satisfaction, performance, and
organizational and job commitment.
Job Commitment
The literature on job involvement is limited when
compared to other forms of commitment. Most of the early
research has been conducted by psychologists who
investigated organizational antecedents (Allport 1947) and
sociologists who concerned themselves with the
socialization process leading to job involvement (Hughes
1958; Dubin 1961). Recent studies have investigated job
commitment and various job-related outcomes, such as
turnover (Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian 1974; Steers
1977) , work effort (Gechman and Wiener 1975), job
satisfaction (Rabinowitz and Hall 1977), and performance
effectiveness (Hall and Lawler 1970; Siegel and Ruh 1973;
Weiner and Vardi 1980) .
Job commitment (usually referred to as job
involvement) has been defined in a number of ways to
reflect two different concepts: (a) performance self-
esteem contingency, and (b) as a component of the self-
image .
In the former approach, job commitment is usually
defined as the degree to which an individual's job
performance will affect their self-esteem. Lodahl (1964)
defined job commitment as "a value orientation toward work
47
that is learned early in life." For French and Kahn
(1962) ego-involved performance exists when job
performance is central to the worker. Therefore, job
performance will affect the individual's self-esteem.
Similarly, Lawler (1969), used the term intrinsic
motivation to explain the relationship between job
commitment and performance. An individual is motivated to
perform well because of the subjective feelings and
rewards received for performing well on a task. Lastly,
Guion (1958) viewed job involvement as ego-involvement in
one's job.
A common thread throughout these definitions is a
belief that the job-involved person is one for whom work
is a very important part of his/her life and who is
affected by his/her work situation, the work itself, co
workers, and the company.
The latter approach to defining job commitment
emphasizes involvement as a component of the self-image
(personal identification with the job itself). Lawler and
Hall (1970) defined job involvement as "the degree to
which the job situation is central to the person and his
identity" (p. 310-311). Mauser (1969) defined job
commitment in terms of work role motivation. An
individual will be motivated to perform based upon the
degree to which the work role is related to self-
definition, self-evaluation, and success-definition.
48
Lastly, Patchen (1970) defined the job-involved individual
as one who perceived the job as leading to the attainment
of personal goals (motivations and positive feelings with
respect to the job).
This study uses the definition proposed by Lodahl and
Kejner (1965). Their definition emphasizes "the degree to
which a person is identified with their work, or the
importance of work in their total self-image" (p. 24).
This definition emphasizes the self-image and involves the
degree of daily absorption in work activity and the degree
to which the total job situation is a central part of life
(Morrow 1983).
Sales Performance
Several definitions of sales performance have appeared
in the literature. Cotham (1968) and Bagozzi (1978)
define performance in terms of the sales volume produced
by the salesperson. Katzell, Barnett, and Parker (1961)
view performance as an aggregation of quantity, quality,
profitability, product value, and turnover. Weitz (1981)
generalizes the term to represent the degree to which
solutions preferred by the salesperson are actualized
across their customer interactions.
Successful performance of the selling function
determines the economic well being of the majority of
industrial firms. However one defines performance, it is
49
of little surprise that marketing researchers have
directed their attention to one of the most important
measures of selling—sales results.
Determinants of Sales Performance
Over the last two decades, researchers have
investigated a large number of variables as determinants
of sales performance. These variables can typically be
classified into four broad groups: (1) salesperson ability
or aptitude, (2) financial compensation, (3) psychological
incentives, and (4) organizational and managerial factors
(Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1977) .
In a recent review, Churchill, Ford, Hartley, and
Walker (1985) concluded that aptitude measures account for
only 2% of the variation of sales performance, selling
skills accounted for slightly more than 7%, motivation
less than 3%, role perceptions less than 9%, personal
variables (age, sex, race, etc.) averaged across all
variables accounted for approximately 2% of the explained
variance, and organizational and environmental factors
only accounted for 1% of the variance.
The results of this study imply that these variables,
when considered singularly, are unimpressive. These
results may be accounted for by the use of single
predictors, different measures of the variables and
samples, failure to adeguately model the full set of sales
50
performance determinants, and the existance of moderator
variables that may affect the relationship between
performance and the predictors (Churchill, Ford, Hartley,
and Walker 1985).
Conceptual Issues
Techniques typically used by sales managers to
evaluate the sales force fall into two broad categories,
outcome-based and behavior-based.
Outcome-based measures. Outcome-based techniques hold
the salesperson accountable for sales results, not the
process by which the results are obtained. The
salesperson is allowed to structure their work environment
and determine which sales strategies will best achieve
sales goals (Anderson and Oliver 1987). Due to ease with
which outcome-based measures can be attributed to the
individual salesperson, sales managers and researchers
apply a measure of dollar sales, unit volume, sales
expense, etc., as an objective measure of sales
performance.
Outcome-based measures are consistant with the
conceptualization of "performance" and "effectiveness" as
discussed by Walker, Churchill, and Ford (1979).
In the marketing literature, a number of researchers
have utilized outcome-based measures in their published
reports (Behrman and Perreault 1982; Bagozzi 1980; Cotham
51
1968). In spite of their widespread use and appeal, a
number of researchers warn of the use of outcome-based
measures in marketing research and as salesforce
performance criteria (Anderson and Oliver 1987; Walker,
Churchill, and Ford 1977; Churchill, Ford, Hartley, and
Walker 1985; Behrman and Perreault 1982; Cocanougher and
and Knowledge Contingent Punishment Task Provided Feedback Professional Orientation Noncontingent Rewards Role Conflict Role Ambiguity Performance (self-reported) Intrinsically Satisfying Tasks
.8 2 9 3 3 4 5 9 5 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 5 4 4 3
.8876
.8875
.8062
.8049
.7904
.7878
.7840
.7837
.7403
.7141
.6717
.6534
.6496
.6313
.6294
.5448
.4918
.4267
.3999
.2563
92
magnitude of reliability coefficients. A reliability in
the range of .5 to .6 is sufficient for the early stages
of research. When conducting basic research,
reliabilities greater than .8 are unnecessary since at
that level correlations are attenuated very little by
measurement error.
Since the study was not of an applied nature, these
guidelines suggest that almost all of the scales
demonstrate satisfactory reliability, except for role
conflict, role ambiguity, self-reported performance, and
intrinsically satisfying tasks.
The inter-item analysis for each scale was computed
using coefficient alpha. This analysis implied that a
number of the scale reliabilities could be improved by
deleting items that exhibited low covariances. Table 12
reports those scales whose reliabilities could be improved
by deletion of items. It should be noted that the role
conflict, role ambiguity, and self-reported performance
scales cannot be significantly improved.
Additional investigation of the scales will be
reported later in this chapter utilizing factor analysis.
In this context, factor analysis was used to identify and
describe the number of separate factors that underlie the
data. In addition, the factor loadings for each of the
scale items was used to determine the contribution of each
esteem) translates into higher performance, then into
higher job satisfaction. In the case where the firm does
not provide for this training or the job is not perceived
as being one in which the salesperson is constantly
learning new tasks, then there should be no relationship
between job-related self-worth.
The ninth hypothesis related intrinsically satisfying
tasks to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
job stress for outside salespeople. The path coefficients
show that these three relationships were all supported.
Job satisfaction and organizational commitment were
positively related while role stress was negatively
related. The internal rewards that the outside
119
salespeople receive from performing the selling tasks
leads to a high perception that their job meets their
expected job values (job satisfaction). Likewise, these
internal rewards (intrinsically satisfying tasks) also
leads to a high level of perceived job performance.
Lastly, the same internal rewards also leads to a
reduction of the level of stress associated with
performance of the selling tasks.
Additionally, intrinsically satisfying tasks was found
to be positively related to task-specific self-esteem for
the total salesforce and for the inside salespeople
individually. Also, it was negatively related to role
stress for the total salesforce and for the inside
salespeople. Performance was positively related for the
inside salespeople as well as for the combined salesforce.
Lastly, job commitment and job satisfaction was positively
related for the combined group, as well as for the inside
and outside salespeople.
Task-provided feedback was hypothesized as being
positively related to organizational commitment and job
satisfaction while being negatively related to role stress
(Hypothesis 10). These three relationships were not
supported by the data as the path coefficients were non
significant.
Although not hypothesized, task-provided feedback was
found to positively relate to performance for the outside
120
salespeople individually. Additionally, there was a
negative relationship with job commitment for the inside
salespeople and for the total group of salespeople.
None of these relationships were expected from the
literature reviewed nor from the theory underlying the
concept of "substitutes for leadership." The amount of
information provided by the task regarding how well the
job had been performed did not affect any of these job-
related outcome variables.
Of the three hypothesized relationships with
organizational formalization (Hypothesis 11), only job
satisfaction was positively related. There was a non
significant relationship between organizational commitment
and role stress.
Additional findings revealed that task-specific self-
esteem was positively related for the combined salesforce.
Organizational commitment was positively related for the
inside salespeople as well as for the combined salesforce.
Lastly, job satisfaction was positively related for the
combined salesforce and for the inside salespeople.
Due to the fact that the sample utilized was
industrial distributor salespeople, there may not be
written procedures and policies that serve as stable
directions for their work-related actions and decisions.
Given the nature of the sales tasks to be performed, it
may not be possible for a firm to develop and implement
121
precise policies that will cover sales behaviors. If
these do not exist, then it would account for the low
number of relations established.
Hypothesis 12 stated that organizational rewards not
in the leader's control would be positively related to
performance and job satisfaction, but negatively related
to role stress for the outside salespeople. All three of
these relationships were found to be non-significant.
Secondary findings showed that for the inside
salespeople, role stress and performance were negatively
related to organizational rewards. One possible
explanation for the weak or non-significant relationships
is that in these organizations there may not be any
rewards that the sales supervisor does not control.
For the outside and inside salespeople, task-specific
self-esteem was hypothesized as positively related to
performance and job satisfaction while being negatively
related to role stress (Hypothesis 13). The relationship
with performance was supported, while the relationship for
job satisfaction was supported only for the outside
salespeople, and lastly the relationship with role stress
was non-significant for both inside and outside
salespeople.
Additionally, task-specific self-esteem was positively
related to performance for the inside, outside, and total
salesforce. Organizational commitment was negatively
122
related for the outside salespeople and the salespeople as
a group, but not for the inside salespeople. Lastly, job
satisfaction was negatively related for the outside
salespeople, but not for the inside salespeople or for the
salesforce as a whole.
Those salespeople who perceive they are competent to
perform their tasks (task-specific self-esteem) have
higher levels of performance but are less satisfied with
their jobs. Although they may perceive they have job-
related abilities, these abilities do not relate well with
the level of felt role stress.
Role stress, for both inside and outside salespeople,
was hypothesized as being negatively related to job
satisfaction, performance, job commitment, and
organizational commitment. These relationships were only
partially supported by the data. Job satisfaction was
negatively related for both inside and outside
salespeople, performance was negatively related for the
inside but non-significant for the outside salespeople, a
non-significant relationship was found for job commitment
for both inside and outside salespeople, and lastly
organizational commitment was negatively related for the
outside but non-significant for the inside salespeople.
These findings strongly support the prior research on
role stress. Role stress is perceived as the emotional
123
reactions to those aspects of the work environment that
provides an emotional threat. This analysis implies that
salespeople (inside and outside) experiences a high level
of stress with their work, therefore their job performance
and satisfaction is affected in an inverse manner. In
addition, certain aspects of the work environment may not
be associated with either the job or the organization for
which they work. These outside factors may account for the
low or non-significant relationship between.role stress,
job commitment, and organizational commitment.
The last hypothesis related job performance to job
satisfaction, job commitment, and organizational
commitment for both the inside and outside salespeople.
All three of these relationships were non-significant.
How well the salespeople and their managers perceived
their performance seem not to relate to their job
satisfaction, job commitment, or organizational
commitment.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
This chapter provides a summary of the results and
conclusions of the study. The chapter includes: 1) a
summary of the empirical results, 2) a discussion of the
managerial implications of the findings, 3) a discussion
of the limitations of the study, 4) some recommendations
for future research.
Summarv of Findings
The goals of the research reported in this study were
three-fold. The first goal was to increase the
understanding of the relationship between the sales
manager's leadership behaviors and the behavioral
responses of the salespeople. The second goal was to
examine the effects of a number of substitutes for
leadership on the relationship between the sales manager's
leadership behaviors and salespeople's outcome behaviors.
Lastly, the third goal was to determine which substitutes
for leadership are the most important for salespeople.
The hypotheses investigated in the study were designed to
provide the necessary information to meet these
124
125
objectives. The discussion of the findings which relate
to each of these goals is taken in turn below.
Differences in the Level (amount) of Substitutes for Leadership. Leadership Behaviors, and Salespeople Outcome Variables
The coefficient of determination was used as a means
to assess the variance explained by these two sets of
independent variables. Substitutes for leadership were
found to explain more of the variance in task-specific
self-esteem, role stress, performance, organizational
commitment, job commitment, and satisfaction for the
outside salespeople than for the inside salespeople.
Likewise, leadership behaviors were found to explain more
of the variance in these same set of outcome variables for
the inside salespeople than for outside salespeople.
These results can be partially explained by the
definition of substitutes for leadership provided by Kerr
and Slocum (1981). Substitutes for leadership provide an
alternative means for controlling subordinates'
performance. Information provided by these "substitutes"
provide means by which tasks are performed, incentives to
perform, and how task performance is evaluated.
In this research setting, for the outside salespeople,
the sales manager has little opportunity to provide
downward influence. Due to the spatial distance between
the sales manager and outside salespeople, the sales
126
manager cannot effectively provide contingent and
noncontingent rewards and punishment nor structuring and
stroking behaviors. In this situation, the
characteristics of the salespeople, the selling task, and
the organization provide a greater influence than the
sales manager.
For the inside salespeople, due to the closeness of
supervision, leadership behaviors explained a significant
amount of the variance in role stress, performance, and
organization commitment.
Relationship among Substitutes for Leadership, Leadership Behaviors, and Salespeople Outcome Variables
LISREL was used to test for the influence of
substitutes for leadership and leadership behaviors upon a
number of independent outcome variables. Fourteen major
hypotheses were stated in order to specify the
relationships between the six substitutes for leadership,
six leadership behaviors, and the six dependent variables
of interest—role stress, performance, task-specific self-
esteem, organizational commitment, job commitment, and job
satisfaction.
Six of the major hypotheses were supported by the
data. The hypothesized relationship among contingent
reward behavior, performance, and job satisfaction was
negatively related for the inside salespeople. When the
127
sales manager provided praise and social approval for the
inside salespeople, level of felt satisfaction and
performance declined. These findings are inconsistent
with earlier research conducted by Sims and Szilagyi
(1975) and Podsakoff, et al. (1982).
The hypothesized relationship among professional
orientation, job satisfaction, and role stress for the
outside salespeople was supported by the data.
Salespeople who are committed to the sales profession and
have a great deal of autonomy over their decisions and
work activities have a higher level of general job
satisfaction but experience higher levels of role stress.
Additionally, intrinsically-satisfying tasks was found
to be positively related to job satisfaction and
organizational commitment, but negatively related to role
stress for the outside salespeople.
The hypothesized relationship between organizational
formalization, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and role stress for the outside salespeople
was partially supported by the data. Job satisfaction was
positively related, while organizational commitment and
role stress were not significantly related.
Task-specific self-esteem was found to be positively
related to performance for both inside and outside
salespeople, positively related to job satisfaction for
128
the outside salespeople, and not related at all to role
stress for either inside or outside salespeople.
Lastly, the relationships among role stress, job
satisfaction, performance, job commitment, and
organizational commitment were partially supported by the
data. Role stress was negatively related to job
satisfaction for both inside and outside salespeople,
negatively related to performance for the inside
salespeople, and negatively related to organizational
commitment for the outside salespeople.
Managerial Implications
Few selling firms can expect to have substitutes for
leadership operating so strongly that they totally replace
the sales managers, or operating so weakly that the
salespeople totally rely upon the sales manager's
leadership behaviors. In most selling firms, substitutes
for leadership are likely to exist for some leader
behaviors but not others.
Kerr (1977) has noted that for the effective
functioning of subordinates and the organization, some
substitutes may be necessary. If these "substitutes" are
operating and provide the salesperson with needed guidance
and good feelings about their performance, then it is not
necessary for the sales manager to provide for control,
feedback, and rewards.
129
Sales managers should think of first identifying these
situations, then creating substitutes that enhance and
supplement his/her hierarchical leadership. A number of
situations exist where the sales manager may wish to
create these alternatives to his/her formal leadership.
These would include status leveling to counteract
autocratic sales supervisors, improve consistency of
performance across different selling units, improve sales
manager's leadership behaviors over time, and to make
adjustments to poor leadership skills on the part of the
sales managers (Howell, et al. 1986).
One means to aid the sales manager in this task would
be to allocate some phase of their management training
program to the identification of "substitutes."
Additional training should be provided to help the sales
manager develop those that act as enhancers and
supplements, while attempting to eliminate or reduce the
effect of true substitutes that will negate or eliminate
his/her formal authority.
Limitations
This study investigated a limited number of
substitutes for leadership and leadership behaviors in an
effort to understand the effects of these variables upon
salespeople behavioral outcomes.
130
Since the study utilized inside and outside
salespeople from industrial distributors as a means to
simulate selling positions where substitutes for
leadership and leadership behaviors were most likely to
operate, the research findings may not be generalizable to
all selling situations, salespeople, or industries.
This study suffers from the same problems that are
associated with all survey research. The measures used
were adopted from previous research and minor changes were
made to reflect the selling environment. As such, much of
the original meaning of these measures may have been lost
in the process.
In addition, a large number of substitutes for
leadership, identified by Kerr and Jermier (1978), were
excluded from the study. These "substitutes," as well as
other characteristics of the individual, task, and selling
environment may provide greater influence upon
salespeople's behavioral outcomes.
Further problems associated with the use of
questionnaire data are inherent in the study. Thus, the
study suffers from all of the problems associated with
non-response bias, sample selection, lack of precision in
measurement, misinterpretation by respondents, and cross-
sectional data.
Lastly, the study only addressed six leadership
behaviors. These were selected since the literature
131
strongly suggested that these would be most operative in
the selling environment. Contingent and non-contingent
reward and punishment behaviors refer to whether the sales
manager attaches the organizational rewards he/she has
under their control to performance dimensions of the job.
Consideration behavior reflects the extent to which the
sales manager exhibits trust, respects the salepeople's
ideas, and considers their feelings when making decisions.
Initiation of structure as a leader behavior attempts to
clarify not only what must be done in the selling task,
but how the salespeople should perform the tasks.
The leadership behaviors do not include all leadership
activities that can enhance the sales force's ability or
willingness to perform their selling tasks. Kerr and
Slocum (1981) have noted that participative leadership,
charismatic leadership, and motivational leadership are
alternative means by which a formal leader can control the
activities of their subordinates. These forms of
leadership may be important to salespeople but were not
addressed in the study.
Suggestions for Future Research
There are many opportunities for research into factors
that affect salesforce performance and important behavior
outcomes.
132
Perhaps most needed is an investigation of the effect
of additional substitutes for leadership in the sales
environment. Kerr and Jermier (1978); Kerr and Slocum
(1981); Sheridan, et al. (1984); and Podsakoff, et al.
(1984) have identified a large number of these
"substitutes" that may be more important in explaining why
sales managers' leadership behaviors are weakly correlated
with salespeople's performance and behavioral outcomes.
In addition, research should be undertaken to
determine which of the substitutes for leadership act as
neutralizers, enhancers, or substitutes for formal
leadership. In this study, the "substitutes" investigated
were all assumed to operate in the same fashion. True
substitutes for leadership might or might not be desired
by a sales organization. They provide consistency for
sales people across selling situations and stability over
time. If these can be identified, then sales managers may
wish to systematically create these substitutes as an
additional means to influence the salesforce.
As with substitutes for leadership, other forms of
leadership behaviors need to be investigated. This study
was limited in that only six leadership behaviors were
investigated. Other forms of leadership behaviors may be
more important in a selling context and have greater
potential impact on salesforce performance.
133
The current research could be extended into other
types of selling organizations and across industries.
While this study centered on industrial distributors, a
number of characteristics of the salesperson, selling
task, and the selling environment may vary sufficiently in
other selling situations to help explain the effect of
substitutes for leadership, as well as leadership
behaviors, upon the sales force.
Lastly, additional research of a longitudinal and
experimental nature should be conducted, if possible, to
determine the causal relationship between sales managers'
leadership behavior, substitutes for leadership, and
salesforce performance and behavioral outcomes. A number
of longitudinal field studies have demonstrated that
leader behaviors may cause as well as be caused by their
subordinates' performance and attitudes (Kerr and Jermier,
1978) . It may well be that substitutes for leadership, as
well as salespeople's performance and behaviors causes
changes in leadership behaviors, which in turn affects the
level of substitutes and performance. The direction of
causality therefore needs to be established.
REFERENCES
Allport, G-W. (1947), "The Psychology of Participation," Psvchological Review^ 52, 117-132.
Alutto, J.A., L.G. Hrebiniak, and R.C. Alonzo (1973), "On Operationalizing the Concept of Commitment," Social Forces, 51, 448-454.
Anderson, C. R. (1976), "Coping Behaviors as Intervening Mechanisms in the Inverted U Stress-Performance Relationship," Journal of Applied Psychology. 61, 30-34.
Anderson, Erin and Richard L. Oliver (1987), "Perspectives on Behavior-Based Versus Outcome-Based Salesforce Control Systems," Journal of Marketing. 51 (October), 76-88.
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), "Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach," Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-23.
Angle, Harold L. and James L. Perry (1981), "An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1978), "Salesforce Performance and Satisfaction as a Function of Individual Differences, Interpersonal, and Situational Factors," Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (November), 517-531.
(1980), Causal Models in Marketing. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Becker, H.S. (1960), "Notes on the Concept of Commitment," American Journal of Sociologv. 66, 32-40.
Bedeian, A.G. and A.A. Armenakis (1981), "A Path-Analytic Study of Consequences of Role Conflict and Ambiguity," Academy of Management Journal, 24 (June), 417-424.
134
135
Beehr, T.A, and J.E. Newman (1978), "Job Stress, Employee Health and Organizational Effectiveness: A Facet Analysis, Model, and Literature Review," Personnel Psychology. 31, 665-699.
Behrman, Douglas N. and William D. Perreault, Jr. (1982), "Measuring the Performance of Industrial Salespersons," Journal of Business Research, 10 (September), 355-370.
and (1984), "A Role Stress Model of the Performance and Satisfaction of Industrial Salespersons," Journal of Marketing. 48 (Fall), 9-21.
Borgatta, E.F. and R.F. Bales (1953), "Interaction of Individuals in Reconstituted Groups," Sociometry, 16, 302-320.
Brayfield, A.H. and W.H. Crockett (1955), "Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance," Psychological Bulletin, 52, 396-424.
Buchanan, Bruce (1974), "Building Organizational Commitment: The Socialization of Managers in Work Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.
Burt, R.S. (1976), "Interpretational Confounding of Unobserved Variables in Structural Eguation Models," Sociological Methods and Research, 5, 3-32.
Busch, P. and R.F. Bush (1978), "Women Contrasted to Men in the Industrial Salesforce: Job Satisfaction, Values, Role Clarity, Performance, and Propensity to Leave," Journal of Marketing Research. 15, 438-448.
Cherrington, D.J., H.J. Reitz, and W.E. Scott (1971), "Effects of Contingent and Noncontingent Rewards on the Relationship Between Satisfaction and Performance," Journal of Applied Psvchologv, 55, 531-536.
Childers, Terry L., Alan J. Dubinsky, and Esra Gencturk (1986), "On the Psychometric Properties of a Scale to Measure Leadership Substitutes," Psychological Reports, 59, 1215-1226.
136
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr., Neil M. Ford, Steven W.Hartley, and Orville C. Walker, Jr. (1985), "The Determinants of Salesperson Performance: A Metaanalysis," Journal of Marketing Research. 22 (May), 103-118.
and Orville C. Walker, Jr. (1976) "Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction in the Sales Force," Journal of Marketing Research. 13 (November), 323-322.
Cocanougher, A. Benton and John M. Ivancevich (1978), "•BARS' Performance Rating for Sales Force Personnel," Journal of Marketing^ 39 (January), 87-95.
Cohen, S. (1980), "After-Effects of Stress on Human Performance and Social Behavior: A Review of Research and Theory," Psvchological Bulletin. 88, 82-108.
Cotham, James C. (1968), "Job Attitudes and Sales Performance of Major Appliance Sales," Journal of Marketing Research. 5 (November), 370-375.
Dillon, William R. and Matthew Goldstein (1984) , Multivariate Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons
Dodge, H. Robert (1970), Industrial Marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Donnelly, J.H. and M.J. Etzel (1977), "Retail Store Performance and Job Satisfaction: A Study of Anxiety-Stress and Propensity to Leave Among Retail Employees," Journal of Retailing, 53, 23-28.
Dopboye, R. (1977), "A Critical Review of A. Korman's Self-Consistency Theory of Work Motivation and Occupational Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 18, 108-126.
Downey, H.K., J.E. Sheridan, and J.W. Slocum (1975), "Analysis of Relationship Among Leader Behavior Subordinate Job Performance and Satisfaction: A Path-Goal Approach," Academy of Management Journal. 18 (June), 253-262.
Dubin, R. (1961), Human Relations in Administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
137
Dubinsky, Alan J., Roy D. Howell, Thomas N. Ingram, and Danny N. Bellenger (1986), "Salesforce Socialization," Journal of Marketing^ 50, 192-207.
and Thomas N. Ingram (1984), "Correlates of Salespeople's Ethical Conflict: An Exploratory Investigation," Journal of Business Ethics. 3, 343-353.
and B.E. Mattson (1979), "Consequences of Role Conflict and Ambiguity Experienced by Retail Salespeople," Journal of Retailing. 55, 70-86.
Ekpo-Ufot, A. (1976), "Self-Perceived Abilities Relevant to the Task (SPARTS): A Potential Predictor of Labor Turnover in an Industrial Work Setting," Personnel Psychology, 29, 405-416.
(1979), "Self-perceived Task-relevant Activities, Rated Job Performance, and Complaining Behavior of Junior Employees in a Government Ministry," Journal of Applied Psvchologv. 64, 429-434.
Feldman, Daniel C. (1977), "The Role of Initiation Activities in Socialization," Human Relations. 30 (no. 11), 977-990.
Fiedler, F.E. (1964), "A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. L. Berkowitz, ed. New York: Academic Press.
(1967), A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
and M.M. Chemers (1974), Leadership and Effective Management. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.
and A. Leister (1977), "Intelligence and Group Performance: A Multiple Screen Model," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 1-14.
Filley, A.C., R.J. House, and S. Kerr (1976), Managerial Process and Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.
Fleishman, E. A. and D.R. Peters (1962), "Interpersonal Values, Leadership Attitudes, and Managerial Success," Personnel Psychology. 15, 127-143.
138
Ford, R.N. (1969), Motivation Through the Work Itself. New York: American Management Association.
Franke, George R., Douglas N. Behrman, and William D-Perreault, Jr. (1982), "Salesforce Performance and Satisfaction: Contemporaneous Relationships and Selected Antecedents," in An Assessment of Marketing Thought and Practice. Bruce Walker, et al., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 233-237.
French, J. and R.A. Kahn (1962), "A Programmatic Approach to Studying the Industrial Environment and Mental Health," Journal of Social Issues. 18, 1-47.
Frost, D.E. (1983), "Role Perceptions and Behavior of the Immediate Superior: Moderating Effects on the Prediction of Leadership Effectiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31 (February), 123-142.
Fry, Louis W., Charles M. Futrell, A. Parasuraman, and Margaret A. Chmielewski (1986), "An Analysis of Alternative Causal Models of Salesperson Role Perceptions and Work-Related Attitudes," Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (May), 153-163.
Gechman, A. S. and Y. Weiner (1975), "Job Involvement and Satisfaction as Related to Mental Health and Personal Time Devoted to Work," Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 521-523.
Goldberger, A.S. (1973), "Structural Eguation Models: An Overview," in Structural Eguation Models in the Social Sciences, A.S. Goldberger and O.D. Duncan, eds. New York: Seminar Press.
Gouldner, A.W. (1950), Studies in Leadership. New York: Harper.
Graen, G., F. Dansereau, Jr., and T. Minami (1972), "Dysfunctional Leadership Styles," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 216-236.
Greenhaus, Jeffrey H. and Irwin J. Badin (1974), "Self-Esteem, Performance, and Satisfaction: Some Tests of a Theory," Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (no. 6) 722-726.
Griffin, R.W. (1980), "Relationships Among Individual, Task Design, and Leader Behavior Variables," Academy of Management Journal, 23, 665-683.
139
Guion, R. (1958), "Industrial Morale-the Problem of Terminology," Personnel Psychology. 11, 59-61.
Gupta, N. and T.A. Beehr (1979), "Job Stress and Employees' Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 23, 373-387.
Hackman, J.R. and E. E. Lawler (1971), "Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology. 55 (no. 2), 259-286.
Hafer, John and Barbara A. McCuen (1985), "Antecedents of Performance and Satisfaction in a Service Sales Force as Compared to an Industrial Sales Force," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management (Nov.), 7-17.
Hall, D.T. (1971), "A Theoretical Model of Career Subidentity Development in Organizational Settings," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance," 6, 50-76.
and E.E. Lawler (1970), "Job Characteristics and Pressures and the Organizational Integration of Professionals," Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 271-281.
and Benjamin Schneider (1972), "Correlates of Organizational Identification as a Function of Career Pattern and Organizational Type" Administrative Science Quarterly. 17, 340-350.
Hampton, Ron, Alan J. Dubinsky, and Steven J. Skinner (1986), "A Model of Sales Supervisor Leadership Behavior and Retail Salespeople's Job-Related Outcomes," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14 (Fall), 33-42.
Hand, H. and J. Slocum (1972), "A Longitudinal Study of the Effect of a Human Relations Training Program on Managerial Effectiveness," Journal of Applied Psychology. 56 (Oct.), 412-418.
Hemphill, J. K. (1949), "The Leader and His Group," Educational Research Bulletin, 28, 225-229.
Hersey, P. and K.H. Blanchard (1977), Management of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Co.
Herzberg, F., B. Mausner, and R. Snyderman (1959), The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley Publishing Co.
140
Hill, W.A. (1969), "The Validation and Extension of Fiedler's Theory of Leadership Effectiveness," Academy of Management Journal. 12, 33-47.
Hollander, Edwin P. (1978), Leadership Dynamics: A Practical Guide to Effective Relationships. New York: Free Press.
and James W. Julien (1969a), "Contemporary Trends in the Analysis of Leadership Processes," Psychological Bulletin. 71 (no. 5), 387-397.
and (1969b), "Leadership," in Handbook of Personality Theory and Research. E.F. Borgatta and W.W. Lambert, eds. Chicago: Rand McNally.
House, R.J. (1971), "A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly. 16, 321-338.
and T.R. Mitchell (1974), "Path-Goal Theory of Leadership," Journal of Contemporary Business. 3, 81-97.
Howell, Jon P. and Peter W. Dorfman (1981), "Substitutes for Leadership: Test of a Construct," Academy of Management Journal. 24, 714-728.
and (1986), "Leadership and Substitutes for Leadership Among Professional and Nonprofessional Workers," The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 22, 29-46.
Howell, Roy D., Danny N. Bellenger, and James B. Wilcox (1987) , "Self-Esteem, Role Stress, and Job Satisfaction Among Marketing Managers," Journal of Business Research, 15, 35-48.
Hrebiniak, Lawrence G. and Joseph A. Alutto (1972), "Personal and Role-Related Factors in the Development of Organizational Commitment," Administrative Science Quarterly. 17, 555-572.
Hughes, E.C. (1958), Men and Their Work. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Hunt, J.G. and R.N. Osborn (1980), "A Multiple-Influence Approach to Leadership for Managers," in Perspectives in Leadership Effectiveness. P. Hersey and J. Stinson, eds. Center for Leadership Studies, Ohio University, Athens, OH.
141
and R.S. Schuler (1976), "Leader Reward and Sanctions Behavior in a Public Utility: What Difference Does It Make?" Southern Illinois University, Working Paper.
Hunt, Shelby D., Lawrence B. Chonko, and Van Wood (1985), "Organizational Commitment and Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 49 (Winter), 112-126.
Imparato, M. (1972), "Relationship Between Porter's Need Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Job Description Index," Journal of Applied Psychology. 56, 397-405.
Ingram, Thomas N. (1980), "Personal and Organizational Characteristics: Their Effect on Reward Preferences of Industrial Salespeople," Ph.D. dissertation. Georgia State University.
Inkson, J.H. Kerr (1978), "Self-Esteem as a Moderator Between Job Performance and Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology. 63 (no. 2), 243-247.
Ivancevich, John M. and James H. Donnelly, Jr. (1970), "Leader Influence and Performance," Personnel Psychology. 23, 539-549.
Jacobs, R. and J. Solomon (1977), "Strategies for Enhancing the Prediction of Job Performance from Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology. 62, 417-427.
Jermier, J.M. and L.J. Berkes (1979), "Leader Behavior in a Police Command Bureaucracy: A Closer Look at the Quasi-Military Model," Administrative Science Quarterly. 24, 1-23.
Johnson, R.D. (1970), "An Investigation of the Ability and Motivation Variables in Task Performance," D.B.A. dissertation. Indiana University.
Jones, S. (1973), "Self and Interpersonal Evaluations: Esteem Theories Versus Consistency Theories," Psvchological Bulletin. 79, 185-199.
Joreskog, Karl G. (1978), "Structural Analysis of Covariance and Correlation Matrices," Psvchometrika. 43 (Dec), 443-447.
and Dag Sorbom (1989), LISREL VII Users' Guide. Chicago: International Educational Services.
142
Kahn, R.L., D.M. Wolfe, R.p. Quinn, J.D. Snoek, and R.A. Rosenthal (1964), Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Kalton, Graham, Martin Ceilings, and Lindsay Brook (1978), "Experiments in Wording Opinion Questions," Applied Statistics. 27 (no. 2), 149-161.
Kanter, Rosabeth M. (1968), "Commitment and Social Organization: A Study of Commitment Mechanisms in Utopian Communities," American Sociological Review. 33, 499-517.
Katzell, Raymond A., Richard S. Barrett, and Treadway C. Parker (1961), "Job Satisfaction, Job Performance, and Situational Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology, 45 (no. 2), 65-72.
Keller, R.T. and A.D. Szilagyi (1976), "Employee Reactions to Leader Reward Behavior," Academy of Management Journal. 19, 619-627.
Kerr, Steven (1975), "On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B," Academy of Management Journal. 18, 769-783.
(1977) , "Substitutes for Leadership: Some Implications for Organizational Design," Organization and Administrative Science. 8, 135-146.
and John M. Jermier (1978), "Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 2 2, 375-403.
and Chester Schriesheim, (1974), "Consideration, Initiating Structure and Organizational Criteria: An Update of Korman's 1966 Review," Personnel Psychology. 27, 555-568.
and J.W. Slocum (1981), "Controlling the Performance of People in Organizations," in Handbook of Organizational Design (Vol. 2), P.C. Nystrom and W.H. Starbuck, eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 116-134.
143
Kohli, Ajay K. (1985), "Some Unexplored Supervisory Behaviors and Their Influence on Salespeople's Role Clarity, Specific Self-Esteem, Job Satisfaction, and Motivation," Journal of Marketing Research. 22 (Nov.), 424-433.
Korman, Abraham K. (1966), "Consideration, Initiating Structure and Organizational Criteria: A Review," Personnel Psychology. 19, 349-361.
(1970), "Toward an Hypothesis of Work Behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology. 54, 31-41
(1971), Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
(1973), The Psychology of Motivation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
(1976), "Hypothesis of Work Behavior Revisited and an Extension," Academy of Management Review. 1, 1-37.
Kornhauser, A.W. (1965), Mental Health of the Industrial Worker: A Detroit Study. New York: Wiley.
Lawler, E. E., III. (1969), "Job Design and Employee Motivation," Personnel Psychology, 22, 426-435.
and D. T. Hall (1970), "Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job Involvement, Satisfaction, and Intrinsic Motivation," Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305-312.
Lee, S.M. (1971), "An Empirical Analysis of Organization Identification," Academy of Management, 14, 213-226.
Lewin, K., R. Lipitt, and R.K. White (1939), "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climate," Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299.
Likert, R. (1961), New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Locke, E.A. (1970), "Job Satisfaction and Performance: A Theoretical Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 5, 484-500.
144
(1976), "The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction," in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Marvin D. Dunnette, ed. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1293-1349.
., P.C. Smith, L.M. Kendall, and A.M. Miller (1964), "Convergent and Discriminant Validity for Areas and Methods Rating Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology. 48, 313-319.
Lodahl, T.M. (1964), "Patterns of Job Attitudes in Two Assembly Technologies," Administrative Science Quarterly. 8, 482-519.
and M. Kejner (1965), "The Definition and Measurement of Job Involvement," Journal of Applied Psychology. 49, 24-33.
Lopez, E. M. and J. H. Greenhaus (1978), "Self-Esteem, Race, and Job Satisfaction," Journal of Vocational Behavior. 13, 75-83.
Lowe, C.F. (1979), "Determinants of Human Operant Behavior," in Reinforcement and the Organization of Behavior. M.D. Zeiler and P. Harzen, eds. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Mann, R.D. (1959), "A Review of the Relationships Between Personality and Performance in Small Groups," Psychological Bulletin. 56, 241-270.
Manz, Charles C. and Henry P. Sims (1980), "Self-Management as a Substitute for Leadership: A Social Learning Theory Perspective," Academy of Management Review. 5, 361-367.
Mauser, J. G. (1969), Work Role Involvement of Industrial Supervisors. East Lansing: MSU Business Studies.
McGregor, Douglas (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
(1966), Leadership and Motivation. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Mclntire, Sandra A. and Edward L. Levine (1984), "An Empirical Investigation of Self-Esteem as a Composite Construct," Journal of Vocational Behavior. 25, 290-303.
McLean, A.A. (1979), Work Stress. Don Mills, Ontario Addison-Wesley.
145
Miles, R.H. (1975), "An Empirical Test of Causal Inference Between Role Perceptions of Role Conflict and Ambiguity and Various Personal Outcomes," Journal of Applied Psychology. 60, 334-339.
and M.M. Petty (1977), "Leader Effectiveness in Small Bureaucracies," Academy of Management Journal, 20, 238-250.
Morris, H.H. and R.A. Snyder (1979), "A Second Look at Need for Achievement and Need for Autonomy as Moderators of Role Perception-Outcome Relationships," Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 173-178.
Morris, James H. and J. Daniel Sherman (1981), "Generalizability of an Organizational Commitment Model," Academy of Management Journal. 24, 512-526.
Morrow, Paula C. (1983), "Concept Redundancy in Organizational Research: The Case of Work Commitment," Academy of Management Journal, 8, 486-500.
Moss, L. (1981), Management Stress. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley.
Mowday, Richard T., Richard M. Steers, and Lyman W. Porter, (1979), "The Measurement of Organizational Commitment," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
and Thomas W. McDade (1979), "Liking Behavioral and Attitudinal Commitment: A Longitudinal Analysis of Job Choice and Job Attitudes," Academy of Management Proceedings, 39th Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, 84-88.
Nunnally, Jum C. (1967), Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
(1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Oliver, R.L. and A.P. Brief (1977), "Determinants and Consequences of Role Conflict and Ambiquity Among Retail Sales Managers," Journal of Retailing, 53, 47-58.
146
Patchen, M. (1965), "Some Questionnaire Measures of Employee Motivation and Morale," Institute for Social Research Monograph. 41, 1-70.
(1970), Participation. Achievement, and Involvement on the Job. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pearce, Jon L. (1981), "Bringing Some Clarity to Role Ambiguity Research," Journal of Management Review. Vol. 6 (no. 4), 665-74.
Peter, J. P. (1979), "Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing Practices," Journal of Marketing Research. 16 (February), 6-17.
Podsakoff, Phillip M., William D- Todor, Richard A. Grover, and Vandra L. Huber (1984) , "Situational Moderators of Leader Reward and Punishment Behaviors Fact or Fiction?," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 34, 21-63.
, , and R. Skov (1982), "Effects of Leader Contingent and Noncontingent Reward and Punishment Behaviors on Subordinate Performance and Satisfaction," Academy of Management Journal, 25, 810-821.
Porter, L.W. and E.E. Lawler (1968), Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin/Dorsey.
and F. J. Smith (1970), "The Etiology of Organizational Commitment," unpublished paper. University of California, Irvine.
, R.M. Steers, R.T. Mowday, and P.V. Boulian (1974), "Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians," Journal of Applied Psychology. 59 (no. 5), 603-609.
Rabinowitz, S. and D. T. Hall (1977), "Changing Correlates of Job Involvement in Three Career Stages," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 138-144.
Randolph, W. Alan and Barry Z. Posner (1981), "Explaining Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Via Individual and Interpersonal Variables in Different Job Categories," Personnel Psychology. 34, 89-102.
147
Reitz, H.J. (1971), "Managerial Attitudes and Perceived Contingencies Between Performance and Organizational Response," in Proceedings of the 1971 National Academy of Management Meetings, R.B. Higgins, P.V. Croke, and J.F. Varga, eds. (pp. 227-228).
Rizzo, John, Robert House, and Sidney Lirtzman (1970), "Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly. 15 (June), 150-163.
Salancik, Gerald R. (1977), "Commitment and the Control of Organizational Behavior," in New Directions in Organizational Behavior. Barry M. Staw and Gerald R. Salancik, eds. Chicago: St. Clair, 1-54.
Scholl, Richard W. (1981), "Differentiating Organizational Commitment from Expectancy as a Motivating Force," Academy of Management Review. 6 (no- 4), 589-599.
Schriesheim, Chester A. and Steven Kerr (1977), "Theories and Measures of Leadership: A Critical Appraisal of Current and Future Directions," in Leadership; The Cutting Edge. J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson, eds. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Schuler, Randall S., Ramon J. Aldag, and Arthur P. Brief (1977), "Role Conflict and Ambiguity: A Scale Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 16, 111-128.
Scott, W.E., Jr. (1966), "Activation Theory and Task Design," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1, 3-30.
(1977), "Leadership: A Functional Analysis," in Leadership: The Cutting Edge, J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson, eds. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Sheldon, M.E. (1971), "Investments and Involvement as Mechanisms Producing Commitment to the Organization," Administrative Science Quarterly, 16 (no. 3), 143-150
Sheridan, John E., Donald J. Vredenburgh, and Michael A. Abelson (1984), "Contextual Model of Leadership Influence in Hospital Units," Academy of Management Journal, 27 (no. 1), 57-78.
148
Siegel, A.L. and R.A. Ruh (1973), "Job Involvement, Participation in Decision Making, Personal Background and Job Behavior," Organization Behavior and Human Performance. 9, 318-327.
Sims, H.P. and Szilagyi, A.D. (1975), "Leader Reward Behavior and Subordinate Satisfaction and Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 14, 426-438.
Smith P.C, L.M. Kendall, and C.L. Hulin (1969), The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Somers, John Mark and Joel Lefkowitz (1983), "Self-Esteem, Need Gratification, and Work Satisfaction: A Test of Competing Explanations from Consistency Theory and Self-Enhancement Theory," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 303-311.
Steers, Richard M. (1977), "Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment," Administrative Science Quarterly. 22, 46-56.
Stevens, John M. , Janice M. Beyer, and Harrison M. Trice (1978), "Assessing Personal, Role, and Organizational Predictors of Managerial Commitment," Academy of Management Journal. 21, 380-396.
Still, Leonie V. (1983), "Part-Time Versus Full-Time Salespeople: Individual Attributes, Organizational Commitment, and Work Attitudes," Journal of Retailing, 59, 55-79.
Stogdill, R. M. (1963), Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire - Form XII: An Experimental Revision, Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Strasser, S., R.C. Dailey, and T.S. Bateman (1981), "Attitudinal Moderators and Effects of Leader's Punitive Behavior," Psychological Reports. 49, 695-698.
Swanson, R.G. and D.A. Johnson (1975), "Relation Between Peer Perception of Leader Behavior and Instructor-Pilot Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (April), 198-200.
149
Szilagyi, A.D. and R.T. Keller (1976), "A Comparative Investigation of the Supervisory Behavior Description Questionnaire (SBDQ) and the Revised Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ -Form XII)," Academy of Management Journal. 19 (Dec), 642-649.
Teas, R. Kenneth (1981), "An Empirical Test of Models of Salesperson's Job Expectancy and Instrumentality Perceptions," Journal of Marketing Research. 18, 209-26.
(1983), "Supervisory Behavior, Role Stress, and the Job Satisfaction of Industrial Salespeople," Journal of Marketing Research. 20 (Feb.), 84-91.
and James F. Horrell (1981), "Salespeople Satisfaction and Performance Feedback," Industrial Marketing Management. 10, 49-57.
., John G. Wacker, and R. Eugene Hughes (1979) , "A Path Analysis of Causes and Conseguences of Salespeople's Perception of Role Clarity," Journal of Marketing Research. 16 (Aug.), 355-369.
Tharenou, Phyllis (1979), "Employee Self-Esteem: A Review of the Literature," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15, 1-29.
and Phillip Harker (1982), "Organizational Correlates of Employee Self-Esteem," Journal of Vocational Behavior. 67, 797-805.
Thompson, D.E. (1971), "Favorable Self-Perceptions, Perceived Supervisory Style, and Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology. 55, 348-352.
Tosi, Henry L. (1975), Theories of Organization. Chicago: St. Clair Press.
Tracy, Lane and T.W. Johnson (1981), "What do the Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Scales Measure?," Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 464-469.
150
Walker, Orville C., Jr., Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., and Neil M. Ford (1979), "Where Do We Go From Here? Selected Conceptual and Empirical Issues Concerning the Motivation and Performance of Industrial Salespeople," in Critical Issues in Sales Management: State-of-the Art and Future Research Needs, Gerald Albaum and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., eds. Eugene: College of Business Administration, University of Oregon.
and (1975), "Organizational Determinants of the Industrial Salesman's Role Conflict and Ambiguity," Journal of Marketing, 39 (Jan.), 32-39.
and (1977), "Motivation and Performance in Industrial Selling: Present Knowledge and Needed Research," Journal of Marketing Research. 14 (May), 156-168.
Vroom, Victor H. (1964), Work and Motivation. New York John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Weitz, Barton A. (1981), "Effectiveness in Sales Interactions: A Contingency Framework," Journal of Marketing. 45, 85-103.
Wiener, Yoash and Yoav Vardi (1980), "Relationships Between Job, Organization, and Career Commitments and Work Outcomes: An Integrative Approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 26, 81-96.
Yukl, G.A. (1971), "Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 414-440.
(1981), Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Zeller, Richard A. and Edward G. Carmines (1980), Measurement in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
APPENDIX A: MEASURES
1 5 1
152
LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS
Contingent Reward Behavior
1. My supervisor always gives me positive feedback when I perform well.
2. My supervisor gives me special recognition when my work performance is especially good.
3. My supervisor would quickly acknowledge an improvement in the quality of my work.
Contingent Punishment Behavior
1. My supervisor shows his/her displeasure when my work is below acceptable standards.
2. My supervisor lets me know about it when I perform poorly.
3. My supervisor would reprimand me if my work was below standard.
Noncontingent Reward Behavior
1. My supervisor is just as likely to praise me when I do poorly as when I do well.
2. Even when I perform poorly on my job, my supervisor rarely gets upset with me.
3. My supervisor freguently praises me even when I don't deserve it.
Noncontingent Punishment Behavior
1. My supervisor is often displeased with my work for no apparent reason.
2. My supervisor is often critical of my work even when I perform well.
3. I freguently am reprimanded by my supervisor without knowing why.
Initiating Structure
1. Decides what shall be done and how it will be done. 2. Maintains definite standards of performance. 3. Encourages the use of uniform procedures. 4. Lets sales personnel know what is expected of them. 5. Schedules the work to be done.
153
Consideration
1. Keeps to himself or herself. (R) 2. Is friendly and approachable. 3. Refuses to explain his or her actions. (R) 4. Gives advance notice of changes. 5. Is willing to make changes.
SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP
Ability, Experience, Training, and Knowledge
1. Because of my ability, experience, training or job knowledge, I have the competence to act independently of my immediate supervisor in performing my day-to-day duties.
2. Because of my ability, experience, training or job knowledge, I have the competence to act independently of my immediate supervisor in performing unusual and unexpected job duties.
3. Due to my lack of experience and training, I must depend upon my immediate supervisor to provide me with necessary data, information, and advice.(R)
Professional Orientation
1. For feedback about how well I am performing I rely on people in my occupational specialty, whether or not they are members of my work unit or organization.
2. I receive very useful information and guidance from people who share my occupational specialty, but who are not members of my employing organization.
3. My job satisfaction depends to a considerable extent on people in my occupational specialty who are not members of my employing organization.
Task-Provided Feedback
1. After I've done something on my job I can tell right away from the results I get whether I've done it correctly.
2. My job is the kind where you can make a mistake or an error and not be able to see that you've made it. (R)
3. Because of the nature of the tasks I perform, it is easy for me to see when I've done something exceptionally well.
154
Intrinsically-Satisfying Tasks
1. I get a great deal of personal satisfaction from the work I do.
2. It is hard to imagine that anyone could enjoy performing the tasks that I perform on my job. (R)
3. My job satisfaction depends to a considerable extent on the nature of the actual tasks I perform on my job.
Organizational Formalization
1. Clear, written goals and objectives exist for my ob. 2. My job responsibilities are clearly specified in
writing. 3. In this organization, performance appraisals are based
on written standards. 4. My duties, authority, and accountability are
documented in policies, procedures, and job descriptions.
Organizational Rewards Not Within The Leader's Control
1. I am dependent on my immediate supervisor for important organizational rewards. (R)
2. My immediate supervisor has little say or influence over which of his or her subordinates receive organizational rewards.
3. My chances for a pay raise depends on my immediate superior's recommendation.
4. My chances for a promotion depend on my immediate superior's recommendation.
JOB STRESS
Role Conflict
1. I seldom receive an assignment without adeguate resources and materials to complete it.
2. I work with several groups who operate quite differently.(R)
3. I often have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment. (R)
4. I seldom receive incompatible requests from two or more people. (R)
5. I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person but not accepted by others.
155
Role Ambiquity
1. I feel uncertain about how much authority I have. (R) 2. I know that I have divided my time properly. 3. I'm not sure what my responsibilities are. (R) 4. I know exactly what is expected of me.
COMMITMENT
Job Commitment
1. The major satisfaction in my life comes from my job. 2. The most important things that happen to me involve my
job. 3. I am very much involved in my work. 4. Most things in life are more important than work.
Organizational Commitment
1. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful.
2. I feel very little loyalty to this organization. (R) 3. I would accept almost any type of job assignment in
order to keep working for this organization. 4. I find that my values and the organization's values
are very similar. 5. I could just as well be working for a different
organization as long as the type of work was similar. (R)
6. There's not too much to be gained by sticking with this organization indefinitely. (R)
7. Often, I find it difficult to agree with this organization's policies on important matters relating to its employees. (R)
8. I really care about the fate of this organization. 9. Deciding to work for this organization was a definite
mistake on my part. (R)
SATISFACTION
Promotion Satisfaction
1. I do not like the basis on which my organization promotes people. (R)
2. If I do a good job I'm likely to get promoted. 3. I am satisfied with my rate of advancement.
156
Work Itself Satisfaction
1. My job is interesting. 2. I feel good about the amount of responsibility in my
job. 3. I would rather be doing another job. (R) 4. I get little sense of accomplishment from doing my
job. (R)
Pay Satisfaction
1. My organization pays better than competitors. 2. I am underpaid for what I do. (R) 3. My pay is adequate, considering the responsibilities
I have.
Supervision Satisfaction
1. The managers I work for back me up. 2. The managers I work for are "top notch." 3. My superiors don't listen to me. (R) 4. My management doesn't treat me fairly. (R)
Co-worker Satisfaction
1. The people I work with do not give me enough support. (R)
2. When I ask people to do things, the job gets done. 3. I enjoy working with the people here. 4. I work with responsible people.
TASK-SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM
1. The guality of your relationship with your firm's customers.
2. Management of your time and company expenses. 3. Knowing the design and specification of company
products. 4. Knowing the application and functions of company
products. 5. Being able to identify causes of company product
failures. 6. Providing accurate and complete paperwork related to
orders and other routine reports. 7. Controlling costs in other areas of the company (order
processing, delivery, etc.) when taking sale orders.
8. Listening attentively to identify and understand the real concerns of your customers.
157
9. Working out solutions to a customer's guestions or objections.
SELF-REPORT PERFORMANCE
1. Making sales of those products with the highest profit margins.
2. Generating sales of new company products. 3. Your overall compensation level. 4. The latest raise or bonus you received.
APPENDIX B: FOLLOW-UP LETTER
158
159
August 30, 1988
Dear
We wish to thank you for volunteering to help us in surveying your inside and outside salespeople. As a group, industrial salespeople have received very little research attention. One result of this is that we have very little knowledge regarding how industrial salespeople view their jobs or the factors that may affect their performance and job satisfaction.
Based upon our initial telephone contacts with managers, such as yourself, we have obtained a respresentative sample of Texas industrial distributors who have volunteered for the study. A number of managers have provided us with suggestions that have proved useful in constructing the research questionnaire.
In approximately four weeks you will receive a packet containing the approximate number of questionnaires and instructions for your salespeople. A note from you requesting their cooperation will assure a higher rate of participation.
Again, thank you for vounteering to be part of the study. A copy of the summary report will be made available to you for participating.
Sincerely yours.
Roy D. Howell Professor of Marketing Texas Tech University
Farrand J. Hadaway Assistant Professor of Marketing
Northern Illinois University
/mmg
APPENDIX C: INSTRUCTIONS
1 6 0
161
November 30, 1988
Dear Sales/Branch Manager:
We appreciate your volunteering to distribute our questionnaire to your inside and outside salespeople. Questionnaires, cover letters, and return envelopes have been provided for the number of salespeople employed by your firm. If we sent too many, just discard the rest. If there are not enough guestionnaires, pass out what is provided until the supply is exhausted.
One part of the questionnaire asks your salespeople to provide a self-report measure of their sales related performance. As some salespeople tend to over or under estimate their actual performance, we are also asking that you provide a management interpretation of that performance. An evaluation form has been provided for this purpose.
As noted in the instructions at the top of the evaluation form, please record your interpretation of each person's performance prior to handing out the guestionnaires, cover letters, and return envelopes. This information will serve as an objective measure of their performance. After you have handed out the guestionnaires, return the completed Sales Personnel Evaluation Form in the stamped return envelope provided.
The code numbers on the guestionnaires and evaluation form are only for classification purposes and will not be used to identify any individual and/or participating firm.
Thank you for cooperating in the study. When we complete the data analysis, a copy of the summary report will be provided to you for your participation.
Sincerely yours.
Roy D. Howell Farrand J. Hadaway Professor of Marketing Assistant Professor of Texas Tech University Marketing
Northern Illinois University
APPENDIX D: COVER LETTER
162
163
November 22, 1988
Dear Sales Professional:
We are conducting a study of industrial distributor sales people. As a group, industrial salespeople have received very little attention by marketing researchers. A result of this is that we know very little about your sales activities or the factors that may affect your performance and satisfaction. To gain some knowledge of these important factors, both inside and outside salespeople are being surveyed from select industrial firms within the state of Texas.
The purpose of the study has been explained to your management and they agree that the study will provide us with valuable information about your sales activities. Your response is of great importance to our success in learning about the industrial sales environment.
Within the next two weeks, please take time from your busy schedule and ehlp us by filling out this questionnaire and return it in the postage-paid return envelope.
Although there is a code number on the upper right hand corner of the questionnaire, your response will remain totally anonymous. The code number is only used to allow us to classify respondents and ensure a representative sample. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
Sincerely yours.
Roy D. Howell Professor of Marketing Texas Tech University
Farrand J. Hadaway Assistant Professor of of Marketing
Northern Illinois University
APPENDIX E: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM
.64
165
Firm _ Branch
INDUSTRIAL SALES PERSONNEL EVALUATION FORM
This part of the study asks that each manager provide information on their employee's performance. This evaluation applies to both inside and outside sales people. Each questionnaire has a code number in the upper right hand corner. Please assign a questionnaire to each of your sales people and keep track of each person associated with each number. Then provide your evaluation of the sales people on the following two measures.
A. For each of your sales people, how would you evaluate this person's overall performance compared to others in a like position within your firm or industry? The categories are:
(1) below 25% (2) better than (3) better than
25% 50%
(4) (5) (6) (7)
better better better better
than than than than
60% 70% 80% 90%
B. How valuable is this individual to the overall operation and success of your firm? The categories are
(1) Extremely Low (2) Low (3) Slight Below Average
(4) Average (5) Slight Above Average (6) High (7) Extremely High
Using the above two measures (A and B ) , circle the number that best represent your evaluation of each employee.
Questionnaire A. B.
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
Questionnaire A. B.
1 2 3 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7
Questionnaire A. B,
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
Questionnaire A, B,
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
Questionnaire A. B.
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
APPENDIX F : QUESTIONNAIRE
166
167 SU.^V:T or '.MCJJSTPI*.: :*_:"= °Z^SOH:II\.
P i ^ « 5 c r x p r e s ^ your i g r e t . ^ r i " . or <313a<;rccic- i ' . w i t h e a c h c' tr.f < o l l o > i l f i ^ s t i ' t a t n t s C i r c l e ^^t n u . S r - •" i •> b t s : . " c p r c j c n : ? y o u r o p i n i o n Tnc c 4 t r g o r l e 5 » r c
111 S; ron<jl Y C l 3 « 9 r t e 121 D l 5 « g r c c
n i SI I g h O y D l 3 » c r e c ( 4 | H e l t h e r D I s a j r c c or X g r c e
1̂ 1 SI I g h t l r X g r c t n i S t r o n ^ l T A>;-
i •. r o n -; 1 j C: 5*(}ree
: ! *c '!rpcnd--it on =y l o i e d l i t e s u p e r i o r for l a p o r t i n t or'jin 114 51 on» 1 r e w s r <J J
2 ^.f i » « e < J i i t e j u p e r l o r h i j l i t t l e » » y o r I n f l u e n c e o v e r w M c h o f M J o r h e r s u b o r d i n « l e s r e c e i v e o r 9 » n l i » l i o n i l r e x i r d s . .
3 My dutlej. »uthorlty. »nd »ccountibl1Uy ire documented In policies, procedures, »nd 50b descriptions . .
<. I enjoy worV.lns with the people here . . . . . .
i. The people 1 work, with do Qfl^ give me enough support
6. Cle*r. written 90»ls ind objectives exist (or ay Job . . . .
1 The Binaqers 1 worlc. for b»cV. Be up . . . .
S. Hy p«y Is adequtCe. considering the responsibilities I have
9. My organiiatlon pays better than coapetltors .
10. My Job Is Interesting
11 . i aa w i l l i n g to p u t in a g r e a t d e a l o( e/(ort b e y o n d that n o r a a l l y e x p e c t e d in o r d e r to h e l p t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n b e s u c c e s s f u l
12. I do not liy.e the basis on which By organliation pro»otes people
1}. My chances for a pay raise depend on ay lB*ediate superior's lecoamenda-
tlon
K . I know that I have divided »y tl»e properly . . .
is. My Job responsibilities are clearly specified in writing
16. I find that ay values and the organization's values are very slallar .
n . There's not too ouch to •»e gained by sticking with this organization indefi
nitely
le. Often. I find It difficult to agree with this organization's policies on
laportant aitters relating to its employees
19. !'• not s u r e w h a t ay r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are
20. I feel very little loyalty to this organization
21 My s u p e r v i s o r a l w a y s g i v e s «e p o s i t i v e f e e d b a c k w h e n 1 p e r f o r a well
22 1 often have to buck a rule or policy In order to carry out an assign
ment
23 My chances for a pro»otlon depend on ay lanedlatc superior's recoaaenda-t ion . .
2< I T this organization, perforaance appraisals are based on written standards.
2S My supe.'iors don't lister, to ae . . . .
: •. !J .".a.-i ic laa-};-.: ;-a; i.-yofic couli f")oy Pf.'Ioraln^ ".he tasV.s that ; p': .'cr: 0- ey job
zr'.fiie of ;^- natj.-t of the ta^Vs i pe.-fc,'» \\ 1$ easy tor =e to see when \ ' •. r iir,r so--' h; r.̂ f c - p t : o n a l l y well
A f t r r : ' . e ior.e s o = - : ' : - - ; c- « y ) o b ! C i n t e l l r : v n t a w a y f r o e t h e r e s j l t s I •jet w h c t h r : I ' v e do.-.f :; c o r r e c t l y
U\ I3)_J
2
1 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 2
1 2
1 :
1 2
1 2
1 2
: 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
: 2
1 2
1 2
S t r o r. 7 '̂ 9 r ? ?
S 6
i 6
'. 6
S 6
S 6
S 6
6
S 6
6
S 6
S 6
S ft
i 6
S 6
i 6
i 6
i 6
•> 6
^ 6
V 6
' 6
^ 6
-'• 1 receive very useful Snfornailon and guidance froo people -ho s^are =r O C C J -pational specialty, bu; who are not aeabers of ny enplcylng o.-'jan 1 :a t 1 on
50 Due to oy lacl-. of erperience and training. I depend upon =/ i=zediate supervisor 10 r"0'-'-<ie ne with necessary datA Inforaation. ar-d aiv:ce
168 St-ongly itron^!/ Disagree A^.-ee
IU_!2! l3L.L<)_!M_j6J__ni
1 2 3 i S fc :
1 :- 3 4 '. », 1
31 Secausc of r.y ability, experience. tralnlnQ, or )ob '.'.nowl - i^e. I have the coc-petence to act independently of ny laiediate supervisor in perJorolng ay day-to-day duties . .
32. .".y supervisor is often critical of oy work even when I perfora well
33. Cven when I perforc poorly on ay Job. r.y supervisor rarely gets upset with =e . . . .
34 My supervisor would reprloand «e if ny work was below standard
3S. My supervisor shows his.'her displeasure when ay work Is below acceptable standards
36. My supervisor would quickly dcknowledge an laproveaent In the quality of my work .
37. I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person but not accepted by others
38. I work with responsible people
39. When I ask people to do things, the Job gets done
40. Hy Banageeent doesn't treat ae fairly
41. The aanagers I work for are 'top notch"
42. ! aa underpaid for what I do
43. I get little sense of accoaplishment froa doing ny Job
44. I feel good about the aoount of responsibility in ay Job
45. I an satisfied with ay rate of advanceaent
46. Deciding to work for this organization was a definite aistake on ay part
il. I really care about the fate of this organization . . . . . . . .
48. The aost iaportant things that happen to ae Involve ay Job
49. Most things in life are aore Iaportant than work
50. I could Just as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of work was siailar
51. 1 aa very auch Involved In ay work . . . .
52. If I do a good Job. I'a likely to get proaoted
53. I would rather be doing another job . . . .
54. The aajor satisfaction in ay life cones froa ay Job
55 I >J>ow exactly what Is e.rpected of ae
iS I would accept alaost any type of Job asslgnaent in order to keep working for this organization . . .
S7 ! fee! uncertain about how such authority I have .
V> I seldos receive incoapatible requests fron two or aore people
^9 .".y supe.-visor 7ives ae special recognition when =y work perforaance is especially 70od
iO -y )o: satisfaction depends to a considerable er.te.-.t on the nature of the iCt-al tas'c.s I perfore on ay job
S 6 1
i 6 •)
5 6 1
5 6 7
S 6 7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
b
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
5 6 7
5 6 7
5 6 -
5 6 7
5 6 1
169
6;
I get a great dca! cf persor.al satisfaction f ros the wor
"v job IS the Kind where you can anV.e i =l3tal'.e or an er :ee that you've =aiie It
I do
;.- ^--.C. no; be able to
(V
"̂.y jot" sa •. 1 sf .>cl icn depends to a considrrablc c t ^ n t on people In =y occupi-tional specially who are not r^cabcrs of ay enploying organ;rat:on
For feedbacV. about how well ! aa perforsing. I rely on people in ay occupational specialty, whether or not they are aeabers of m, wor^ unit or organization
Because of ay ability, experience, training, or )ob knowledge. 1 have the coa-petcnce to act independently of oy iooedlatc supervisor in pcrforaing unusual and une.rpecied )ob duties . .
6^ I frequently aa repriaanded by ay supervisor without knowing why
67 My supervisor is often displeased with ay work for no apparent reason . . .
6f My supervisor frequently praises ae even when I don't deserve It .
69 My supervisor is Just as likely to praise ae when I do poorly as when I do well . . . . . .
70. My supervisor lets ae know about it when 1 perfora poorly
S;rongl y Dl sa-jree
1 2 :• <
Si ron-;! y - - r e e
! ' . ; '.'<) ''}
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
h '•
h 7
6 7
71. I seldoa receive an asslgnaent without adequate resources and aaterlals to cooplete it
72. I work with several groups who operate quite differently
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Using the scale provided, indicate where yovi stand on the characteristic coapared to other eaployees of your fira. Circle the nuaber that best represents your opinion. The categories are:
(U Lttreaely Low 121 Low
13) Slightly Below Average (4) Average
(51 Slightly Above Average (61 High
(71 Crtreaely High
1. The quality of your relationship with your flra's custoaers
2. Manageaent of your tiae and coopany expenses
3. Making sales of those products with the highest profit aarglns . . . .
4. Generating sales of new coapany products
5. r.nowlng the design and specification of coapany products . .
'. r.ncwing the applications and functions of coapany products
" Being able to Identify causes of coapany product failures
S. Providing accurate and coaplete paperwork related to orders and other routine reports
9. Controlling costs In other areas of the coapany (order processing, delivery, etc.l when taking sales orders . . . . . . . .
10 Listening attentively to identify and understand the real concerns of your custoaers
E.rtreaely Low
C.rt reaely High
lU 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
121 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1?) 3
3
3
3
3
J
3
(41 (• 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
> l 1 ^ 1 > 6
> 6
S 6
i 6
b 6
5 6
!• 6
|T| 7
1
7
1
7
1
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1
1 2 3 4 5
KorVing out solutions to a cus'oacr's questions or objections
Your overall coap-nsation level
•"•-- la'.est raise or bon'js you received
1 2 3 < *• 5 1
1 2 3 4 ^ 6 '
1 2 3 4 V «• •
170
I ! I - - - O ' O r t j s . - i ' n } !
.z :r T ' . r A • ' . - J • ••,•-.;
i - , ' M - A ' -
' f : ; c - -J o A •. •; i ;• r.' o 1 : ' »t-1 c
i ' T : : ' : r 5 w h j ; i h a l i l>f tfo-,f »nd h o w ; t - ; M ( • o n
- f l u s c : . l o r ^ p l a i r h i s o.- h e r . ^ c i i o n i
•* J'. n'. » 1 r-.s d e f i n i t e s ' . j n i j r d i o f pe r f or r;iric e I 7 )
t ir-.:cur*7es the uje of \j.-.;fcrn procedures
7. Civtj *dvi.-\cc notice o( ch»n7ej
^ I» willing to o»Vf ch«r.';e5
? L t n jJleJ personnel V.nc— wh»t Ij e-recled o'. ihe» . . .
IP. Sched'jlci the worV. le be done
; : : ; V
1 2 3 < *>
I J 3 < i
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 < i
IK THIS StCTIOH WOULD YOU P L O S C CIVE US SOKE BACKCROUITO IHFORKATIOH
; Vi'hil is your current Job title? (Be «» specific as posslblcl
2 I-. wh*t Industry Is jour flrr? I:.? . Irinspor t» I Ion. olll
3. How lon7. in years. h»ve you beer, enployed by your current flra?
4. How long have you h e H your current Job title with your current flrji?
S Vo- B»ny employees (Including y o u r s e l d arc there In your current fira?
less than 10 10-19
:o-4? iO-99
100-249 250 or •01 e
6. Fltije Indicate, by p e r c e n U g e , the incre»se In total Incoae you received this ye«r.
7. ?lt»se Indicate, by percentage, the level of sales quota you achieved last year. _
8. Kow aany years of foraal education (e.'.cluding kindergartenl have you had?
9. Tf you attended college, what:
••1 degree (si did you receive?
'.bl » ) o r (si did you take?
10
; i
1 2 .
Vs>.ich of the fol lowing best descr ibes your total coapensat lon froa your eaployer last year?