An Empirical Test of Models of Salespersons, Job ... · positively to the salesperson's self-esteem, self-per- ceived ability, and job tenure and is related negatively to the salesperson's

An Empirical Test of Models of Salespersons, Job Expectancy and Instrumentality PerceptionsAuthor(s): R. Kenneth TeasSource: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 2 (May, 1981), pp. 209-226Published by: American Marketing AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3150955Accessed: 03/03/2010 14:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Marketing Research.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3150955?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama

R. KENNETH TEAS*

The author reports the results of a study of the motivational implications of the industrial salesperson's personal characteristics and his or her perceptions of the job, the company's organization, and selling constraints. Predictor

equations for the salesperson's expectancy and instrumentality estimates are tested empirically. The results indicate the salesperson's personal characteristics and his or her perceptions of supervisory style, organizational communication, job significance and autonomy, job variety and completeness, job complexity, and selling constraints are potentially important predictors of salesforce

motivation.

An Empirical Test of Models of Salespersons' Job Expectancy and Instrumentality

Perceptions

Walker, Churchill, and Ford (1977) outline a model of the motivation and performance of industrial salespersons. The motivation component of the model, which is based on the expectancy theory of motivation developed by Vroom (1964) and others (Lewin 1938; Tolman 1932), has considerable empirical support with respect to the motivation of nonselling employees (Campbell et al. 1970; Lawler 1968; Nebeker and Mitchell 1974; Porter and Lawler 1968; Schuster, Clark, and Rogers 1971). In addition, results of research by Oliver (1974) indicate the expectancy model is applicable to sales personnel.

Several modifications of the original expectancy model have been proposed in recent years; consequently, the literature reflects confusion about the definitions of terms and the mathematical properties of the model. The following equation, which was specified in the Walker et al. (1977) model of salesforce motivation and performance, was utilized in the study reported here.

*R. Kenneth Teas is Associate Professor of Marketing, Iowa State University.

The author expresses appreciation to Martin Zober and Lynn Loudenback of Iowa State University and to three anonymous reviewers whose comments resulted in substantial improvements in the article.

(1) n m\

M,= Ex IX XVk) J= k=1

Walker et al. (1977) defmed the components of the equation as:

M, = motivation: ". . a salesman's motivation to expend effort on any task (i)."

E, = expectancy: ". . the salesman's estimate of the probability that expending a given amount of effort on task (i) will lead to an improved level of performance on some performance dimension (j)."

I,k = instrumentality: ".. the salesman's estimate of the probability that achieving an improved level of performance on performance dimension (j) will lead to increased attainment of a particular reward (k)."

Vk = valence for rewards: "... the salesman's perceptions of the desirability of receiving increased amounts of each of a variety of rewards he might attain as a result of improved performance."

Walker et al. (1977) hypothesized the magnitude of the salesperson's expectancy estimates is related positively to the salesperson's self-esteem, self-perceived ability, and job tenure and is related negatively to the salesperson's perceived environmental constraints. The magnitude of the salesperson's instrumentality estimates was hypothesized to be a function

209

Journal of Marketing Research Vol. XVIII (May 1981), 209-26

III

I I

JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 1981

of the degree to which the salesperson is compensated by commissions on sales, the degree to which the salesperson feels he or she has internal control over the events of his or her life, and the salesperson's intellectual ability.

In addition to the Walker et al. (1977) propositions, the theoretical and empirical literature on employee motivation indicates several task and organizational variables may be important predictors of the motivation variables. A study was undertaken to test an expanded version of the Walker et al. (1977) model by examining the relationships between (1) the salesperson's individual characteristics and his or her perceptions of task, organizational, and environmental variables and (2) his or her perceptions of job-related expectancies and instrumentalities. All of the Walker et al. (1977) propositions about the prediction of the magnitude of the salesperson's expectancy estimates were tested. In addition, the proposition about the relationship between the salesperson's feelings of internal control and the magnitude of his or her instrumentality estimates was tested. However, all of the salespersons surveyed in the study were compensated via similar salary/commission compensation plans and no measures of intellectual ability were obtained. Consequently, the instrumentality propositions concerning these potential predictor variables were not tested. The omission of the "method of compensation" variable from the instrumentality model should not seriously affect the results. Because salespersons with similar salary/commission compensation plans were surveyed, this variable can be assumed to be held constant. However, the omission of the "intelligence" variable is a limitation of the study which may result in model specification error.

MODELS OF MOTIVA TIONA L ANTECEDENTS

Individual Characteristics

Four variables that have been linked theoretically and empirically to employee motivation are the employee's beliefs about locus of control, self-esteem, self-perceived ability, and tenure in the selling job.

The concept of locus of control is related to the degree to which the individual believes the events in his or her life are internally controlled (e.g., person- ally controlled) or externally controlled by forces over which he or she has no control (Rotter 1966). Lawler (1970) hypothesized internal-control-oriented employees will perceive stronger performance/outcome relationships (instrumentalities) than external-control- oriented employees. Empirical evidence supports Lawler's hypothesis (Broedling 1975; Lied and Prit- chard 1976; Sims, Szilagyi, and McKemey 1976). Furthermore, the results of research by Sims et al. (1976) and Lied and Pritchard (1976) indicate internal- control-oriented individuals may have higher expectancy estimates than exteral-control-oriented indi-

viduals. Perhaps internals believe they have greater control over their jobs and, consequently, believe they have more control over effort/performance relationships. The hypotheses examined in the study follow.

H,: The degree to which the salesperson is internal control oriented is related positively to the magnitude of the salesperson's (1) instrumentality estimates and (2) expectancy estimates.

On the basis of research by Lawler (1970) and Korman (1971), Walker et al. (1977) hypothesized the magnitude of the industrial salesperson's expectancy estimates will be related positively to the salesperson's self-esteem and self-perceived ability to perform job tasks. Research on nonselling personnel supports the hypotheses (Lawler and Hall 1970; Sims et al. 1976).

The self-esteem and self-perceived ability frame- work used in this study is based on research by Bagozzi (1978) in which self-esteem was dichotomized into generalized self-esteem and specific self-esteem. Generalized self-esteem was defined by Bagozzi (1978) as:

. global self-attributions of overall competence with everyday life situations and broad feelings of personal regard for the self.

Specific self-esteem was defined by Bagozzi (1978) as:

. .. particular self-attributions and self-regard with respect to actual performance on the job (e.g., perception of ability to achieve one's potential, self confidence in dealing with customers, and so on).

Generalized self-esteem and specific self-esteem therefore correspond to the Walker et al. (1977) concepts of self-esteem and self-perceived ability, respectively. The hypotheses are:

H2: The salesperson's perception of generalized self- esteem is related positively to the magnitude of the salesperson's expectancy estimates.

H3: The salesperson's perception of specific self-esteem is related positively to the magnitude of the salesperson's expectancy estimates.

A fourth individual characteristic variable, experience, was included in the study to test the Walker et al. (1977) hypothesis that the salesperson's job tenure is related positively to the magnitude of his or her expectancy estimates. The hypothesis is:

H4: The salesperson's experience on the job is related positively to the magnitude of his or her expectancy estimates.

Organizational Factors

Empirical evidence indicates the degree to which the supervisor initiates structure and provides consideration may be related to the employee's instrumentality perceptions. Initiation of structure refers to the degree to which the leader structures and defines

210

SALESPERSONS' JOB EXPECTANCY AND INSTRUMENTALITY PERCEPTIONS

his or her role and the role of subordinates in job-related activities such as specifying procedures and assign- ing tasks (Gibson, Ivancevich, and Donnelly 1973). Initiation of structure therefore involves activities that tend to be directive and task oriented. Consideration refers to the degree to which the leader develops a work climate of psychological support, mutual trust and respect, helpfulness, and friendliness (Gibson et al. 1973) and therefore is employee oriented. Evans (1970) found the leader's consideration and initiation of structure to be related positively to public utility workers' perceptions of path/goal instrumentalities. In research on personnel of a medical center, Sims et al. (1976) found formalization to be related positively to the employee's expectancy 1 beliefs. Sims et al. defined expectancy 1 as ". . . the individual's perceived probability between effort and performance (an action-outcome contingency)." Expectancy 1 therefore corresponds to the expectancy component of the motivation model used here. Sims et al. defined formalization as ". . . the degree to which standard practices, policies, and position responsibilities are formalized explicitly." This definition overlaps most definitions of initiation of structure. In research on management personnel, James et al. (1977) found leadership facilitation and support to be related positively to the employee's instrumentality and expectancy estimates.

In addition to the empirical evidence linking supervisory behavior to employee motivation, these variables were selected because of their wide acceptance and usage as descriptions of leadership styles, and because reliable measures of the variables have been developed. In addition, evidence of discriminant validity between these supervisory variables and other variables in the model was desired. Available measures of consideration and initiation of structure had this evidence of discriminant validity. The hypotheses are:

Hs: The degree to which the salesperson perceives that his or her supervisor provides consideration is related positively to the magnitude of the salesperson's (1) instrumentality estimates and (2) expectancy estimates.

H6: The degree to which the salesperson perceives that his or her supervisor initiates structure is related positively to the magnitude of the salesperson's (1) instrumentality estimates and (2) expectancy estimates.

Lawler (1969) hypothesized that jobs which provide feedback to the employee and allow him or her to participate in decision making processes will tend to be intrinsically motivating because these communication factors will indicate to the employee that good performance will lead to feelings of higher order need fulfillment. This hypothesis suggests the effect on motivation would be the result of an effect on the employee's instrumentality perceptions. Empirical evidence supports Lawler's hypothesis (Arnold 1976;

Hackman and Oldham 1976; Lowin 1968; Sims et al. 1976; Vroom 1964; Wood 1973). In addition, research by Sims et al. (1976) indicates performance feedback and the adequacy of overall communication are related positively to the employee's expectancy 1 (effort/performance linkage) perceptions.

In the study reported here, hypotheses were tested concerning the motivation implications of providing performance feedback to the salesperson and allowing him or her to participate in decision making. Organiza- tionalfeedback was defined as performance information provided to the salesperson that is organizationally mediated. Participation was defined as the degree to which the salesperson is able to influence organizational decisions about the job. The hypotheses are:

H7: The degree to which the salesperson perceives that he or she receives performance feedback from the organization is related positively to the magnitude of the salesperson's (1) instrumentality estimates and (2) expectancy estimates.

H8: The degree to which the salesperson perceives that he or she is allowed to participate in organizational decisions affecting the job is related positively to the magnitude of the salesperson's (1) instrumentality estimates and (2) expectancy estimates.

Task Characteristics

Considerable research has been focused on task characteristics that may be related to job satisfaction, motivation, and performance. For example, results of research by Hackman and Lawler (1971) and by Hackman and Oldham (1976) indicate nonselling employees will be intrinsically motivated if they perceive their jobs to be characterized by high skill variety, task significance, task identity, autonomy, and feedback. Sims et al. (1976) found employees' expectancy 1 (effort/performance linkage) perceptions to be related negatively to their perceptions of job pressure and the degree to which the job requires the employee to deal with others to complete task requirements, and to be related positively to employees' perceptions of task identity. In research on managerial employees, James et al. (1977) found employees' perceptions of job variety, autonomy, importance, and challenge to be related positively to their expectancy estimates.

The job perceptions examined in the present study were the five core job dimensions identified and defined by Hackman and Oldham (1974).

1. Skill variety. "The degree to which a job requires a variety of different activities in carrying out the work, which involves the use of a number of different skills and talents of the person."

2. Task identity. "The degree to which the job requires completion of a 'whole' and identifiable piece of work; that is, doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome."

3. Task significance. "The degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the lives or work of

211


other people, whether in the immediate organization or in the external environment."

4. Autonomy. "The degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out."

5. Feedback. "The degree to which carrying out the work activities required by the job results in the individual obtaining direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance."

The formal hypotheses are:

H9: The degree to which the salesperson rates the job high on the core dimensions (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) is related positively to the magnitude of the salesperson's (1) instrumentality estimates and (2) expectancy estimates.

Environmental Constraints

Walker, Churchill, and Ford (1977) hypothesize that the salesperson's perceptions of environmental constraints will be related negatively to the magnitude of his or her expectancy estimates. They suggest important aspects of this environment are economic conditions, strength of competition, sales territory potential, and restrictions of product availability. A hypothesis examined in this study, therefore, is:

H,,: The salesperson's perceptions of environmental constraints concerning economic conditions, strength of competition, sales territory potential, and restrictions of product availability are related negatively to the salesperson's expectancy estimates.

Interaction Effects Several researchers have proposed congruency

models which posit that employee satisfaction and performance are dependent on the degree of congruency among organizational, task, and individual factors (Dunham 1977; Lawler 1971; Morse and Lorsh 1970; Pierce, Dunham, and Blackburn 1979; Porter, Lawler, and Hackman 1975). For example, Porter et al. (1975) hypothesized the highest performance and satisfaction levels will be produced in congruent situations. These situations are characterized by a com- bination of (1) organic organizational design, i.e., an organization characterized by low centralization, stratification, and formalization, (2) complex tasks, and (3) high growth need individuals; or by a combina- tion of (1) mechanistic organizational design, i.e., an organization characterized by high centralization, stratification, and formali7ation, (2) simple tasks, and (3) low growth need individuals. Pierce et al. (1979) proposed a similar model except they hypothesized both high and low growth need individuals would react favorably to organic organizations and complex tasks, and the highest satisfaction would be among high growth need individuals.

Because of the preceding theories, the issue of interaction effects among the predictor variables was explored. This portion of the research, however, should be regarded as exploratory, and is included only as a guide for future research. On the basis of the Porter et al. (1975) and the Pierce et al. (1979) models, the most meaningful interaction terms in the study are the two-way interactions among initiation of structure, participation, and task complexity. The exploratory hypothesis is:

H,1: The initiation of structure / task complexity, participation/task complexity, and initiation of structure/participation interaction terms will significantly increase the explained variance in the salesperson's expectancy and instrumentality estimates beyond that explained by the main effects of the variables examined in the study.

METHOD

Data

The data used to test the hypotheses were obtained in 1979 from group interviews during sales meetings of the industrial sales personnel of three midwestern corporations. The 171 salespersons who participated in the study represented 74% of the salespeople of the three firms (44 of 59, 55 of 82, and 72 of 90 salespersons for the three firms, respectively). All three companies used similar salary/commission compensation systems. The average respondent was 36 years of age and had 6.5 years tenure with the company.

The Measurement

The questionnaire instructions, items, scaling procedures, and refinement procedures are sum- marized in Appendix Tables 1-6.

As suggested by Walker et al. (1977), the average magnitude of the salesperson's instrumentality estimates was used to measure the instrumentality variable. The specific second level outcomes (i.e., results of good performance) were obtained from previous motivation research (Galbraith and Cummings 1967; Hackman and Porter 1968; James et al. 1977; Pritchard, DeLeo, and Von Bergen 1976; Pritchard and Sanders 1973; Sheridan, Slocum, and Byung 1975) and from preliminary interviews with salespeople. The final outcome list contained 31 items which were oriented toward higher order needs, such as a sense of achievement, as well as toward lower order needs, such as income security. In addition, items were included for the traditional categories of job outcomes such as pay, promotion, supervision, interpersonal relations, the job itself, and working conditions. There is some question of whether instrumentality estimates should be measured as probabilities or correlations (Mitchell 1974). However, because Walker et al. (1977) defined instrumentality in terms of probability estimates, and

212


because preliminary interviews with salespersons indicated that a question asking the salesperson to provide correlation estimates was confusing, instrumentalities were measured as probability estimates via a five-point scale ranging from 1 = no chance to 5 = certain to occur.

Two measures of expectancy estimates were used. One measure was the Sims et al. (1976) expectancy I scale. Factor analysis by Sims et al. (1976) indicated factor stability across different occupational groups and indicated the scale is independent of the subject's instrumentality perceptions. The second measure of expectancy consisted of probability estimates concerning the productivity of a 10% increase in selling efforts, a 10% increase in time devoted to obtaining new accounts, and a 10% increase in time devoted to selling activities.

The salesperson's job experience was measured by the question: "How many years have you been a salesman for your current employer?" Locus of control was measured by an abbreviated form of Rotter's (1966) Internal-External Locus of Control Scale. The scale, designed by Valecha (1975) and composed of 11 items from the original Rotter (1966) instrument, has been shown to have high convergent validity. The numerical coding scheme results in higher scores being associated with greater external control orientation. Generalized self-esteem was assessed by the self-esteem measure in the Jackson Personality Inventory (Jackson 1976). The widely used scale has been shown to be a valid and reliable measure (Jackson 1976). Specific self-esteem was measured by a summated scale developed by Bagozzi (1978). The items were designed to ask salespersons to provide ratings of themselves in relation to other salespersons in their company in terms of sales performance, ability to reach quotas, potential to reach the top 10% of the company salesforce, relationships with customers, time and expense management, and product knowledge.

The House and Dessler (1974) Instrumental Leader- ship Scale was used to measure the salesperson's perceptions of the supervisor's initiation of structure. The scale is different from other initiation of structure scales in that it does not contain items on punitive leader behavior which might tend to reduce the discriminant validity between the initiation of structure and instrumentality measures. The House and Dessler (1974) Supportive Leadership Scale was used to measure consideration. The scale is similar to the widely used Fleishman (1957) and Stogdill (1963) measures of consideration except that it does not include participation in the domain of the consideration variable (House and Dessler 1974). The scale therefore can be expected to demonstrate higher discriminant validity with respect to the participation variable examined in this study. The scales have been shown to be valid and reliable measures for nonselling employees (House and Dessler 1974).

A modified version of the Hackman and Oldham (1974) Feedback From Agents scale was used to measure organizational feedback. Preliminary interviews with salespersons indicated the domain of organizational feedback included feedback from the salesperson's immediate supervisor, company management other than the salesperson's immediate supervisor, and other salespersons. Consequently, items were included in the feedback scale that per- tained to these feedback sources. Aparticipation scale designed by Hackman and Oldham (1974) was used to measure the salesperson's perceptions of the degree to which he or she is allowed to participate in organizational decisions. The original Hackman and Oldham scales have demonstrated high validity and reliability among nonselling employees (Hackman and Oldham 1974).

The five core task variables (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback from the job itself) of the Hackman and Oldham (1974) Job Diagnostic Survey instrument were used to measure the salesperson's perceptions of the core task variables. The only modification of the measures consisted of slight changes in wording based on the results of pretests among salespersons. In addition, one of the items from the feedback measure was eliminated because several salespersons in the pretest indicated two of the feedback items were excessively redundant. The scales have been shown to have high validity and reliability for nonselling occupations (Hackman and Oldham 1974).

The salesperson's perceptions of environmental constraints were measured by a series of items concerning the salesperson's perceptions of the company's product quality, price competitiveness, and advertising effectiveness and perceptions of the sales territory potential, the likelihood of product shortages, and the general economic conditions. Walker et al. (1977) suggested these factors are the key elements of the domain of the environmental constraint variable.

Measurement Refinement The two expectancy measures were highly correlated

(r > .80); consequently, they were combined by summation to form one expectancy measure. Item analysis procedures in which the individual items were correlated with the total construct score resulted in a seven-item scale.

The results of research on motivation suggest that motivation has intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions (Deci 1971, 1972; James et al. 1977; Lawler and Suttle 1973). In addition, studies that have separated second level outcomes into intrinsic (self or task mediated) and extrinsic (externally mediated) dimensions have indicated that models using intrinsic second level outcomes are more strongly related to job satisfaction and performance than models using extrinsic second level outcomes (Ewen et al. 1966; Graen 1969; Mitchell

213


and Albright 1972; Wernimont 1966). Because of this evidence of the multidimensional nature of the instrumentality construct, factor analysis was performed on the instrumentality items. This portion of the research, however, should be considered exploratory and caution is necessary in interpreting the factors. The reason for caution is that factor analysis performed on a group of items in the early stages of scale development tends to produce an excessive number of dimensions because of the inclusion of items that do not have a "common core" (Churchill 1979).

The factor analysis, in which varimax rotation procedures were used, resulted in five factors with eigenvalues greater than one. An eigenvalue of one was used as a cutoff point because no a priori hypotheses about the expected number of factors could be developed on the basis of the theoretical or empirical literature. The first factor accounted for 40.0% of the total variance and the second, third, fourth, and fifth factors accounted for 14.5%, 11.9%, 7.8%, and 7.4% of the total variance, respectively. These five factors accounted for more than 80% of the total variance and were relatively easy to interpret. Proce- dures for interpreting the factors and for retaining items for summated scales to represent the instrumentality dimensions consisted of retaining only those items which had a loading of at least .40 on one factor and low loadings on all other factors. The resulting instrumentality variables were named self-fulfillment, company relationships, customer relationships, direct performance recognition, and job status and were formed via unweighted summation of the items selected for each factor. The instrumentality variables were formed in this manner, rather than by use of factor scores, because unweighted summation corresponds more closely to the a priori hypotheses which specify the prediction of average instrumentalities. A sixth instrumentality variable, global instrumentality, was formed by summing the scores of the five instrumentality component scores.

Unmodified versions of the Jackson (1976) General- ized Self-Esteem and the Valecha (1975) Internal/Ex- ternal Orientation scales were used to measure generalized self-esteem and internal/external control orientation. Consequently, only alpha coefficients were calculated for these variables. The Bagozzi (1978) Specific Self-Esteem measure is a new scale, however, and therefore item analysis was used to purify the scale. The procedure, which consisted of correlating each individual item score with the summated self-esteem score, resulted in the elimination of one item.

Although the measures for the task and organizational variables were developed in previous research and have been shown to have considerable validity and reliability, many of the scale items were modified and new items were added. In addition, the items for the constraint variable were developed from the Walker et al. (1977) discussion of performance con-

straints. Consequently the a priori specification of these measures was tested by factor analyzing, using varimax rotation, the initial items comprising the variables.

The results offer strong support for the a priori specified explanatory variables-consideration, initiation of structure, participation, feedback from the company, and constraints. These five variables were retained as specified except for the dropping of some of the items because of low factor loadings. The remaining variables were redefined on the basis of the factor analysis. The revised variables were named and defined as follows.

1. Task significance and autonomy. The degree to which the salesperson perceives the job to affect many people, to be significant, and to provide independence from supervision.

2. Task variety and completeness. The degree to which the salesperson perceives the job to require a variety of skills and talents, to require the salesperson to be involved in the entire selling process, and to provide direct performance feedback.

3. Task complexity. The degree to which the job requires the salesperson to use a number of complex or sophisticated skills.

Because the revised variables consisted primarily of the core task items, the original hypotheses about the core task variables were retained.

The internal consistency of all the variables except global instrumentality, experience, and job complexity was analyzed by calculating alpha coefficients. Be- cause the global instrumentality measure consisted of the summation of the separate construct scores, procedures outlined by Nunnally (1967) for testing reliability of linear combinations were used to examine the reliability of the global instrumentality variable. No assessment of the reliability of the job complexity variable could be made because it consisted of only one item. Calculating alpha coefficients after factor analysis tends to bias upwardly the estimates of the reliability coefficients because the same data are used in both procedures. However, as the reliability coefficients (Appendix Table 6) range between .50 and .98, the variables were considered to be appropriate for further analysis.

ANAL YSIS METHOD

Least squares multiple regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. The issue of possible interaction effects was examined by creating interaction terms consisting of the cross-products of selected predictor variables, and using hierarchical multiple regression analysis to determine whether the set of interaction terms significantly increased the explained variance of the dependent variable beyond that explained by the original set of predictor variables.

The expectancy equations are:

214


12

(2) E = p + P,, i= I

12 15

(3) E=B+ t B+ X + ^ X, i=l j=13

where E = expectancy estimate, X1 = generalized self-esteen, X2 = specific self-esteem, X3 = experience, X4 = constraints, X5 = internal/external orientation, X6 = consideration, X7 = initiation of structure, X8 = participation, X9 = company feedback, XAo = task significance/autonomy, XA1 = task variety/completeness, X12 = task complexity, X13 = X7 x X8 interaction, X,4 = X7 x X12 interaction, and X15 = A X X,2 interaction.

The instrumentality equations are: 12

(4) I= 0, + , ,x, =5

12 15

(5) I=po + p,, + p,X i5 y= 15

where I = instrumentality estimate and X5 through X13 are as defined before.

The appropriate test of statistical significance of the contribution of the interaction terms in explaining the variance of the dependent variable is the following F-test.

(6) F (R-R -K (1 -R2) * (N- K, - 1)

where R 2 and R2 are the coefficients of determination for the regression equations with the larger and smaller

Table 1 COEFFICIENTS OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION (R2)

BETWEEN EACH INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X,) AND THE REMAINING VARIABLES IN THE INDEPENDENT

VARIABLE SET

Expectancy Instrumentality predictor predictor variables variables

Variable R 2 R2

Internal/external orientation .179 .137 Generalized self-esteem .294 Job specific self-esteem .483 Experience .240 Constraints .400 Consideration .440 .367 Initiation of structure .323 .244 Participation .361 .307 Company feedback .433 .376 Task significance and autonomy .451 .324 Task variety and completeness .256 .153 Task complexity .272 .145

number of predictor variables, respectively, N equals the number of observations, and KI and K2 equal the degrees of freedom for the larger and smaller equations, respectively.

When hierarchical multiple regression analysis is used the statistical significance of the partial regression coefficients is tested at the hierarchical level that the variables enter the equation (Cohen and Cohen 1975, p. 121). In addition, these statistical tests should be made only if the hierarchical F-test is statistically significant because the F-test is the best indicator of the significance of the incremental effect on the dependent variable of the group of variables added at the hierarchical level examined. Even when the hierarchical F-test is statistically insignificant, variables added to the equation often reduce the power of the statistical tests of higher priority variables by increasing the partial regression coefficient standard errors and reducing the error degrees of freedom (Cohen and Cohen 1975, p. 161).

RESULTS

Multicollinearity Procedures recommended by Johnston (1972) and

Farrar and Glauber (1967) were used to examine the level of multicollinearity among the predictor variables by regressing each explanatory variable on the remaining explanatory variables specified in the models. The results of these procedures, presented in Table 1, indicate some multicollinearity is present. Green and Tull (1978, p. 335) recommend cross-validation as the ". .. safest procedure for coping with a variety of problems in multiple regression, including multicollinearity . . .." The following cross-validation procedures were used in this study.

1. As recommended by Green and Tull (1978), a holdout random sample of 30% of the observations was set aside.

2. Regression analysis was applied to equations 2 and 4 with the remaining 70% of the observations. This procedure was used to examine the stability of the partial regression coefficients. Severe instability is indicative of multicollinearity problems. The cross- product terms, which were included in the study for exploratory purposes, were excluded from this analysis because they are inherently multicollinear with their component part variables and therefore they inflate the instability of the partial regression coefficients.

3. The regression coefficients computed in step 2 were used to estimate the respective dependent variables for the holdout sample. The simple coefficients of determination between the actual and predicted values of the dependent variables were compared with the respective coefficients of determination obtained in the original estimates to determine the degree of shrinkage of explained variance.

215


Table 2 EXPECTANCY MODEL ESTIMATE

Equation 2

Explanatory variables

El global self-esteem E2 specific self-esteem EX experience CR constraints IE internal/external orientation CN consideration IS initiation of structure PA participation CF feedback TS task autonomy/significance TV task variety/completeness TC task complexity I1 IS x PA 12 IS x TC 13 PA x TC

Standardized partial

regression coefficients

(B) -0.081

0.265 0.037

-0.323 -0.006

0.030 0.029 0.184 0.068 0.008 0.123 0.132

t

-1.221 2.986c 0.584

-4.089C -0.100

0.386 0.430 2.632C 0.850 0.100 1.907b 2.024b

Standardized partial

regression coefficients

(B) -0.081

0.330 0.073

-0.256 -0.041

0.026 0.818 1.682 0.045 0.051 0.170 1.006

-1.110 -0.297 -0.843

Cumulative R2 0.50767 0.52609 F-value 13.577' 11.471' Degrees of freedom 12/158 15/155

Incremental R2 0.01842 F-value 2.000 Degrees of freedom 3/155

ap < .10 for a one-tail t-test. bp < .05 for a one-tail t-test. 'c < .01 for a one-tail t-test. dp < .10 for a two-tail t-test. 'P < .05 for a two-tail t-test.

f P < .01 for a two-tail t-test. gP < .10 for an F-test. hp < .05 for an F-test. 'P < .01 for an F-test.

The results of these procedures indicate stability for the estimates with the exception of the internal/external orientation (IE) variable.

Expectancy Estimate

Table 2 reports the results of the expectancy estimate which explain approximately 50% of the variance of the expectancy variable. The results of the hierarchical F-test indicate the interaction terms did not contribute significantly to the explained variance of the expectancy variable. Consequently, it is appropriate to interpret the coefficients estimated in equation 2. The findings indicate specific self-esteem, participation, task variety and completeness, and task complexity are related positively to the salesperson's expectancy estimates, and that the salesperson's perceptions of

'To examine the potential effects of this instability, regression equations which excluded the (IE) variable were estimated. These estimates did not alter the statistical significance of the remaining predictor variables. The inclusion of (IE) in the models therefore did not change the results with respect to the remaining variables. However, because of the instability, caution is necessary in interpreting the results with respect to (IE).

selling constraints are related negatively to his or her expectancy estimates. Caution is warranted, however, about specific self-esteem. As measured in this study, specific self-esteem can be expected to be related strongly to the salesperson's performance the previous year. For example, several of the items used in the scale pertain to relatively short-term performance criteria. Consequently, the measure can be assumed to be a partial function of prior performance. Because prior performance can be assumed to be a function of motivation, some question remains about the precise causal direction between self-esteem and expectancy. In future studies, alternative operational definitions of specific self-esteem should be examined. One such operationalization might be based on the degree to which the salesperson perceives that his or her unique talents and abilities are congruent with the selling job requirements.

Contrary to the a priori expectations, global self-esteem, job experience, internal/external orientation, consideration, initiation of structure, performance feedback, and job significance and autonomy are not found to be statistically significant predictors of the expectancy variable.

Equation 3

t

-1.185 3.546c 1.107

-3.019c -0.606

0.335 1.960b 2.252b 0.565 0.664 2.476c 1.985b

-1.852d -0.681 -2.288e

216

I

i j


Instrumentality Estimates

As Table 3 indicates, the estimate of the global instrumentality predictor equation explains approximately 49% of the variance of the dependent variable. The coefficients of determination of the other instrumentality equations, reported in Table 4, indicate the percentage of explained variation is greatly affected by the instrumentality component selected as the dependent variable. Furthermore, the hierarchical analysis of the global instrumentality model indicates the interaction terms significantly increase the coefficient of determination of the global instrumentality equation.

The internal/external orientation variable is a significant predictor variable; consequently, the results support the Walker et al. (1977) hypothesized relationship between the salesperson's internal/external orientation and his or her instrumentality estimates.

Consideration is found to be related positively to the salesperson's global instrumentality estimate. The results for the instrumentality components indicate salespersons who have considerate supervisors are more likely to believe that good performance will result in direct performance rewards such as increased pay, increased opportunity for influencing the supervisor's decisions, and performance recognition from the supervisor and company management.

Contrary to the a priori expectations, initiation of structure is not a significant predictor variable in the global instrumentality equation. Examination of the

estimates of the instrumentality components indicates this insignificant result may be due to the fact that initiation of structure has both positive and negative motivational consequences. First, the results indicate initiation of structure is related negatively to self-fulfillment instrumentality. Because the variable was hypothesized to be related positively to the salesperson's instrumentality estimates, it is a statistically insignificant predictor variable. However, the strong negative relationship suggests future studies should address the issue of possible mixed effects of the initiation of structure on salesforce motivation. For example, the supervisor's initiation of structure may cause the salesperson to feel that he or she is not in total control of the job or is not uniquely responsible for performance results. Consequently, the salesperson may feel that good performance would not tend to produce feelings of self-fulfillment, but rather feelings that he or she could follow instructions. Second, initiation of structure is found to be related positively to company and customer relationships instrumentalities. One possible explanation for this result may be the effect of the supervisor's initiation of structure on the salesperson's role perceptions. Because the salesperson functions as an interorganiza- tional boundary spanner, he or she is particularly vulnerable to problems of role ambiguity and role conflict (Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1975). The salesperson may perceive these problems as potentially detrimental to customer and company relationships because he or she may be forced to make behavioral

Table 3 GLOBAL INSTRUMENTALITY ESTIMATE

Explanatory Equation 4 Equation 5

variables B t B t

IE internal/external orientation 0.088 1.391a 0.096 1.488a CN consideration 0.243 3.187c 0.269 3.557C IS initiation of structure 0.069 1.018 -0.129 0.322 PA participation 0.363 5.147c 1.578 2.598c CF feedback -0.015 -0.195 -0.003 -0.045 TS task autonomy/significance 0.010 1.399a 0.101 1.425a TV task variety/completeness 0.188 2.945c 0.216 3.351c TC task complexity 0.255 3.924c -0.061 -0.122 I IS x PA -0.768 -1.392 12 IS x TC 1.031 2.400e 13 PA x TC -0.901 -2.758f

Cumulative R2 0.44158 0.48865 F-value 16.013' 13.813' Degrees of freedom 8/162 11/159 Incremental R2 0.04707 F-value 4.879' Degrees of freedom 3/159

"P < .10 for a one-tail t-test. bp < .05 for a one-tail t-test. cp < .01 for a one-tail t-test. dp < .10 for a two-tail t-test. ep < .05 for a two-tail t-test.

fP < .01 for a two-tail t-test. gP < .10 for an F-test. hp < .05 for an F-test. 'P < .01 for an F-test.

217


Table 4 INSTRUMENTALITY ESTIMATES

Self-fulfillment Company relationships Customer relationships Performance recognition Job status

Equation 4 Equation 5 Equation 4 Equation 5 Equation 4 Equation 5 Equation 4 Equation 5 Equation 4 Equation 5 Explanatory B B B B B B B B B B

variables (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) 0.040 0.103

(0.531) (1.295) 0.000 0.034

(0.000) (0.375) -0.308 -0.395

(-3.788) (-0.825) 0.007 1.405

(0.084) (1.925)b 0.057 0.061

(0.635) (0.701) 0.376 0.376

(4.374)' (4.402)C 0.152 0.209

(1.977)b (2.698)c -0.019 -1.259

(-0.249) (-2.104)b -1.557

(-2.349)f 1.536

(2.974)f -0.243

(-0.579)

0.088 0.150 (1.394)' (2.294)c 0.041 -0.006 0.539 (-0.084) 0.098 1.451

(1.452)' (3.697)' 0.475 2.968

(6.709)' (4.958)' -0.234 -0.206

(-3.132)' (-2.898)C 0.118 0.184

(1.651)b (2.633)' 0.126 0.187

(1.974)b (2.941)' 0.421 2.024

(6.464)C (4.123)C -0.646

(-1.526) -1.447

(-4.201)C -1.807

(-3.323)c

0.036 (0.493) 0.040

(0.456) 0.275

(3.560)c -0.075

(-0.925) -0.141 (- 1.660)

0.251 (3.063)' 0.271

(3.707)c -0.080

(-1.071)

0.045 (0.571) 0.043

(0.473) 0.268

(0.562) -0.071

(-0.095) -0.143

(-1.662) 0.249

(2.933)' 0.276

(3.573)c -0.296

(-0.498) -0.130

(-0.197) 0.126

(0.245) 0.144

(0.346)

0.075 (1.110) 0.453

(5.538)C -0.097

(-1.341) 0.058

(0.761) -0.103

(-1.291) 0.150

(1.956)b 0.246

(3.848)C 0.080

(1.145)

0.047 (0.665) 0.463

(5.710)c -0.217

(-0.508) 1.019

(1.565)a -0.087

(-1.126) 0.157

(2.058)b 0.269

(3.879)b 0.625

(1.171) -0.148

(-0.249) 0.355

(0.770) -1.244

(-3.321)f

0.063 0.027 (0.944) (0.387) 0.049 0.067

(0.616) (0.844) 0.045 -0.270

(0.638) (-0.646) 0.384 1.082

(5.171)' (1.696)b 0.174 0.186

(2.220)b (2.461)c 0.006 0.004

(0.077) (0.045) 0.023 0.022

(0.345) (0.319) 0.353 0.659

(5.181)' (1.259) 0.048

(0.084) 0.508

(1.125) -1.102

(-3.001)r

Cumulative R2 0.19280 0.26102 .43740 .50308 0.26804 0.26948 0.35642 0.41212 0.38310 0.43525 F-value 4.836' 5.105' 15.744' 14.634' 7.415' 5.332' 11.215' 10.133' 12.575' 11.140' Degrees of

freedom 8/162 11/159 8/162 11.159 8.162 11/159 8/162 11/159 8/162 11/159 Incremental

R2 0.06822 0.06568 0.00144 0.0557 0.05215 F-value 4.893' 7.005' 0.104 5.022' 4.894' Degrees of

freedom 3/159 3/159 3/159 3/159 3/159 'P < .01 for a two-tail t-test. Bp < .10 for an F-test. hp < .05 for an F-test. 'P < .01 for an F-test.

choices that could damage these relationships. Vari- ables which have been found to be related negatively to nonselling employees' perceptions of role conflict and role ambiguity are structure-oriented variables such as "formalized leadership practices" (House and Rizzo 1972) and the degree to which supervisors emphasize production, provide standards, and provide structure (Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman 1970). Perhaps the supervisor's initiation of structure is related simi- larly to the salesperson's role perceptions.

Participation is found to be related positively to the salesperson's global, self-fulfillment, company relationships, direct performance recognition, and job status instrumentality estimates. These findings indicate that when salespersons are allowed to participate in decisions they perceive that a potential is created for higher order need fulfillment, improved company relationships, increased performance recognition, and increased job status, and that good performance makes possible the realization of this potential.

Company feedback is not a statistically significant predictor of the salesperson's global instrumentality perceptions. One potential cause of this lack of signifi-

cance is indicated by the result of the analysis of the instrumentality components. First, although the one-tail test indicates the feedback variable is not a statistically significant predictor of customer relationships instrumentality, the results indicate there may be a negative relationship between the variables. Second the feedback variable is found to be related positively to job status instrumentality. A possible explanation for these findings is that performance feedback can be both positive and negative. For example, comparatively poor performers, who tend to receive comparatively more negative feedback, may perceive better performance as resulting in poorer customer relationships because they may believe increased sales can be achieved only by using high-pressure selling tactics. The positive relationship between feedback and job status instrumentality may be indicating that feedback, both positive and negative, conveys a message that sales performance is monitored and is important. Consequently, the salesperson can be expected to perceive that job status will improve if he or she exceeds performance expectations.

The salesperson's perceptions of task significance

218

IE

CN

IS

PA

CF

TS

TV

TC

IS x PA

IS x TC

PA x TC

'P < .10 for a one-tail t-test. bp < .05 for a one-tail t-test. 'P < .01 for a one-tail t-test. dp < .10 for a two-tail t-test. ep < .05 for a two tail t-test.


and autonomy are significantly positively related to his or her global, self-fulfillment, customer relationships, and direct performance recognition instrumentality estimates. These findings suggest salespersons who perceive their jobs to be important and who perceive they have independence and freedom believe job performance is intrinsically rewarding. In addition, these same salespersons, because they perceive they are performing important functions for their customers and believe they have control over the way these functions are performed, apparently feel good performance will lead to direct rewards from the company as well as to good customer relationships.

Perceived task variety and completeness is significantly positively related to the global instrumentality variable. In addition, task variety and completeness is found to be related positively to self-fulfillment, company relationships, customer relationships, and direct performance recognition instrumentalities. Apparently the salespersons who believe their jobs require a variety of skills and allow the salesperson to be involved in the entire selling job are more likely to believe good job performance will result in feelings of self-fulfillment. In addition, the salespersons who perceive that their jobs have these characteristics believe good selling performance is compatible with good company and customer relations and is more likely to result in direct performance recognition by the company. These fmidings may be indicating that salespersons who perceive their jobs as being characterized by variety and completeness feel they have greater ability to ensure that the methods used in achieving increased sales are compatible with customer expectations and feel that they are more identifiable as an important cause of increased sales.

The results suggest the degree to which the salesperson perceives his or her job to be characterized by task complexity is related positively to his or her global instrumentality estimates. The analysis of the instrumentality components indicates this result is due primarily to significant relationships between the task complexity variable and the company relationships and job status instrumentality variables. Perhaps some of the task complexity involves the coordination of multiple departments in the producer's organization, and effective coordination of these departments results in improved company relationships. In addition, the salespersons surveyed apparently believed that good performance on a complex job tends to result in increased job status.

The statistical significance of the hierarchical F-test for the interaction terms indicates future research is warranted in this area. On the basis of the signs of the interaction terms, the following propositions can be offered as possible hypotheses for testing in future research.

1. The significant initiation of structure/task complexity interaction term suggests the degree of task

complexity may moderate the effect of initiation of structure. The positive sign suggests that as perceived task complexity increases, structure provided by the sales supervisor has an increasingly positive effect on the salesperson's instrumentality perceptions.

2. The negative sign on the significant participation/task complexity interaction term indicates increased perceived task complexity reduces the positive effect of participation on the salesperson's instrumentality perceptions.

CONCL USIONS A ND IMPLICA TIONS

The managerial and research implications of this preliminary study must be examined with caution. First, the organizational, task, and constraint variables consist of measures of the salesperson's subjective beliefs. These subjective beliefs may differ from objective reality; consequently, managerial efforts to change these factors may not result in changes in the salesperson's beliefs. The managerial implications of the findings therefore are limited to the degree that the linkage between objective reality and subjective beliefs is uncertain. Second, only a limited sample of industrial salespersons was examined and some of the findings may be unique to the sample. Third, some of the explanatory variables were redefined and the dimensions of the instrumentality variable were examined via factor analysis. The results of these procedures may be unique to the sample. Although tempered by these limitations, the findings suggest several managerial and research implications that deserve attention in future studies.

The salesperson's job specific self-esteem and internal control orientation are found to be related positively to the salesperson's expectancy and instrumentality perceptions, respectively. Management efforts to increase the salesperson's self-perceived ability through such activities as sales training programs and their efforts to recruit internal-control-oriented individuals are justified by these results.

Supervisory styles characterized by consideration can be expected to be related positively to the salesperson's beliefs that good performance will be reward- ed. However, the initiation of structure may have a mixed relationship with the salesperson's perceptions of performance reward linkages. The salesperson's perceptions of the supervisor's initiation of structure are related negatively to his or her self-fulfillment instrumentality estimates and related positively to his or her customer relationships instrumentality estimates. The motivational impact of initiation of structure therefore may be contingent on other factors such as the salesperson's valences for alternative rewards.

Allowing the salesperson to participate in decision making appears to have strong motivational potential. Participation is likely to have a positive relationship with the salesperson's belief that increased effort will result in improved performance and that performance

219


will result in improved company relationships, increased direct recognition of performance, and enhanced job status. Caution is necessary in interpreting the results pertaining to the motivational implications of performance feedback. However, the conclusion can be made that the relationship is probably a compli- cated one. In addition, the findings indicate the type of feedback needs to be examined as well as the quantity because of the likelihood that the motivational implications of positive and negative performance feedback are different.

Sales managers may be able to increase the salesperson's motivation through efforts directed toward increasing the salesperson's beliefs that his or her job is significant and by providing the salesperson with autonomy. These factors appear to have this motivational potential because of a relationship with the salesperson's perceptions of self-fulfillment, company relationships, customer relationships, and performance recognition instrumentalities. Designing the salesperson's job so that it requires a variety of activities and allows him or her to be involved in the total marketing function of serving customers appears to have strong motivational potential. This form of job enrichment can be expected to increase the salesperson's beliefs that he or she can increase productivity by increasing effort. In addition, salespersons who perceive their jobs to be characterized by variety and completeness can be expected to believe that improved performance will result in enhanced feelings of self-fulfillment, better company and customer relations, and greater performance recognition.

Caution is necessary in interpreting the results with respect to task complexity because the variable was measured with only one item and consequently has questionable measurement reliability. However, evidence is found that enriching the salesperson's job so that he or she can use several sophisticated skills can increase motivation via an impact on both expectancy and instrumentality perceptions.

Salespersons' perceptions of constraints appear to be an important motivational factor via a relationship with expectancy perceptions. Clearly, sales managers cannot remove many perceived selling constraints. However, in certain instances the salespersons are

unaware of company activities that are designed to reduce selling constraints-for example, lobbying, marketing research, sales promotion, and advertising. Keeping the salesforce informed of these activities may have important motivational implications. In addition, providing salespersons with accurate information about potential selling constraints can be expected to reduce the likelihood of salespersons mistakenly perceiving constraints that do not exist.

The exploratory examination of possible interaction effects among the variables indicates some future research should be focused on this issue. The results of the estimate indicate the motivational impact of the initiation of structure may be greater if the salesperson perceives his or her job to be characterized by complexity. On the other hand, the results indicate the positive effect of salesforce participation on the salesperson's instrumentality perceptions may be re- duced if the salesperson perceives the job to be complex.

The results of the study suggest several areas for future research. First, the motivational effects of feedback need to be studied in terms of both positive and negative feedback. Second, additional research is needed to examine the stability of the factor structures found for the explanatory variables and for the instrumentality components. Third, tests of the valence-for-reward component of the Walker et al. (1977) model are needed. The findings would allow a more thorough interpretation of this and future studies of salespersons' expectancy and instrumentality perceptions. Fourth, only the magnitude of the salesperson's expectancy and instrumentality estimates was examined in this study. The accuracy of these estimates can be expected to have important motivational and behavioral consequences. Therefore, the Walker et al. (1977) hypotheses about the accuracy of the salesperson's expectancy and instrumentality estimates should be tested in future studies. Fifth, this study should not be considered to be a test of the Porter et al. (1975) or the Pierce et al. (1979) congruence models. The fact that some significant interaction terms were found, however, indicates these models deserve attention in future studies examining salespersons' affective responses to their jobs.

220


APPENDIX MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES

Appendix Table 1 EXPECTANCY MEASURES

A. Modified Sims et al. (1976) scale: Using the scale provided, indicate the degree to which the following statements describe conditions that exist for you in your job.a 1. Doing things as well as I am capable results in high sales volume. 2. Doing things as well as I am capable results in completing my work on time. 3. Putting forth as much energy as possible would result in high sales volume. 4. Putting forth as much energy as possible would result in completing my work on time.

B. Performance Probability Scale: Using the scale provided, answer the following questions.b 1. What is the likelihood that increasing your selling efforts by 10% would result in increasing your sales by 10%? 2. What is the likelihood that increasing the time you spend trying to obtain new accounts by 10% would result in increasing the

number of new accounts you obtain by 10%? 3. What is the likelihood that increasing the time you spend on selling activities by 10% would result in increasing your sales by

10%?

'Scaling procedure: A 5-point scale ranging from "very true" (coded 5) to "very false" (coded 1). bScaling procedure: A 5-point scale-l = no chance, 2 = low probability, 3 = 50-50 chance, 4 = high probability, 5 = certain to

occur.

Appendix Table 2 INSTRUMENTALITY MEASURESa

Below is a list of potential results of good performance on your job (for example, exceeding your sales quota by 10%). Using the scale provided, indicate the likelihood (probability) that good job performance would lead to the following results for you.b

A. Self-fulfillment (eigenvalue = 7.90323; percent of variance explained = 40.0%) 1. Increased feeling of self-esteem (.660) 2. Increased sense of accomplishment (.851) 3. Increased sense of achievement (.830) 4. A feeling that I am making good use of my skills and abilities (.708) 5. A feeling of self-fulfillment (.655)

B. Company relationships (eigenvalue = 2.86727; percent of variance explained = 14.5%) 1. Increased opportunity to develop close friendships with other employees in this company (.748) 2. A better working relationship with my supervisor (.669) 3. A better working relationship with other salesmen (.706) 4. Being involved in training other salesmen (.623) 5. Increased independence from supervision (.562)

C. Customer relationships (eigenvalue = 2.35147; percent of variance explained = 11.9%) 1. Fewer complaints from my customers (.644) 2. Receiving recognition for good performance from my customers (.743) 3. Increased opportunity to develop close friendships with my customers (.606) 4. Better working relationships with my customers (.818)

D. Direct performance recognition (eigenvalue = 1.53269; percent of variance explained = 7.8%) 1. Increased pay (.688) 2. Increased opportunity for influencing my supervisor's decisions (.667) 3. Obtaining a job offer from a customer (.434) 4. Receiving recognition for good performance from my supervisor (.670)

E. Job status (eigenvalue = 1.46802; percent of variance explained = 7.4%) 1. Increased personal prestige (.593) 2. Increased job security (.511) 3. Increased responsibility in my job (.782) 4. More authority in my job (.637)

aThe categories of instrumentality items were obtained via factor analysis of 31 items. The criterion for item selection was a high factor loading (greater than .40) on only one factor. The factor loadings are in parentheses. The following items failed to meet the item selection criterion.

1. More respect from other salesmen in this company. 2. Promotion to a management position. 3. Increased opportunity for independent thought and action. 4. Increased opportunity for personal growth and development. 5. Transfer to a better territory. 6. Working fewer hours. 7. Giving better service to my customers. 8. Transfer to a territory with better potential. 9. Receiving recognition for good performance from company management. bScaling procedure: A 5-point scale-1 = no chance, 2 = low probability, 3 = 50-50 chance, 4 = high probability, 5 = certain to

occur.

221


Appendix Table 3 THE ORGANIZATION, TASK, AND CONSTRAINT VARIABLES-THE A PRIORI PREDICTOR VARIABLESa

Item Items comprising the numberb a priori variables

Consideration 1 My supervisor gives advance notice of changesc 2 My supervisor is friendly and approachable" 3 My supervisor helps make my job more pleasant" 4 My supervisor does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the salesforce" 5 My supervisor treats all the salesmen he supervises as his equal" 6 My supervisor looks out for the personal welfare of group membersc

Initiation of structure 7 My supervisor decides what shall be done and how it shall be donec 8 My supervisor explains the way tasks should be carried out" 9 My supervisor schedules the work to be done by the salesmen"

10 My supervisor asks that the salesmen follow standard rules and regulationsc 11 My supervisor maintains definite standards of performance"

Participation 12 When faced with a problems, my supervisor consults with his subordinatesc 13 Before making decisions, my supervisor gives serious consideration to what his subordinates have to sayc 14 Before taking action, my supervisor gives serious consideration to what his subordinates sayc 15 My supervisor asks his subordinates for their suggestions concerning how to carry out job assignmentsC 16 My supervisor asks his subordinates for their suggestions on what job assignments should be madec

Feedback from company 17 The supervisors of this job almost never give me any feedback about how well I am doing in my workd 18 Supervisors often let me know how well they think I am performing the jobc 19 To what extent do managers or other salesmen let you know how well you are doing on your job?e

Variety 20 My job requires me to use a number of complex or sophisticated skillsc 21 My job is simple and repetitived 22 How much variety is there in your selling job? That is, to what extent does your job require you to do many different

things using a variety of skills and talents?e Identification

23 My job is designed so that I do only a part of the job of providing my customers with the products and (or) services produced by my company-I am not involved in all of the decisions and activities associated with serving my customersd

24 To what extent does your job involve doing a "whole and identifiable piece of work?" That is, does your selling job represent a complete piece of work that has an obvious beginning and end or is it only a small part of the overall selling job that is finished by other people?'

Significance 25 My job is one where a lot of other people can be affected by how well my work gets donec 26 My job itself is not very significant or important in the broader scheme of things 27 In general, how significant or important is your job? That is, are the results of your work likely to significantly affect

the lives or well being of other people?' A utonomy

28 My job denies me any chance to use personal initiative or discretion in carrying out the workd 29 My job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in my workc 30 How much autonomy is there in your job? That is, to what extent does your job permit a person to decide on his own

how to go about doing the work?e Feedback from job

31 Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances for me to figure out how well I am doing" 32 To what extent does doing the job itself provide you with information about your work performance? That is, does the

actual work itself provide clues about how well you are doing-aside from any "feedback" other salesmen or supervisors may provide?e

Constraints 33 Currently, the economic conditions in this country are very favorable in that there is strong demand for the products

I selld When compared to other companies with which my company competes, my company .

34 - is below average in size of sales volumec 35 - is above average in product qualityd 36 - prices its products too highc 37 - is below average in advertising effectiveness" 38 - There is a good chance that my company will not be able to fill all the orders I obtainc

aThe factor analysis of these scales is reported in Appendix Table 4. bThe items were not grouped on the' questionnaire by construct category. CScaling procedure: A 5-point scale ranging from "very true" (coded 5) to "very false" (coded 1). dScaling procedure: A 5-point scale ranging from "very true" (coded 1) to "very false" (coded 5). 'Scaling procedure: A 7-point scale ranging from "a minimum amount" (coded 1) to "a maximum amount" (coded 7).

222


Appendix Table 4 RESULTS OF THE FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE ORGANIZATION, TASK, AND CONSTRAINT VARIABLES

223

Revised variablesa andfactor loadingsb Task Task

significance Feedback Initiation variety A priori Item and from of and Task variables No.b Consideration autonomy Participation company structure Constraints completeness complexity

Consideration 1 .462--- 2 .787 --- 3 .832 -- - 4 .682 --- - 5 .695-- - 6 .744 --

Initiation of 7 - .751- structure 8 .626

9 - _

10 .-- .461- 11

Participation 12 --- - 13 .664 14 .816 15 .741 - - 16 .653--

Feedback from 17 .712 company 18 -.673

19 - .797 - -

Variety 20 - - .844 21 .702-- - 22 --.465

Identification 23 --- - 24 - -.764

Significance 25 -.410--- 26 .675- -- 27 .463- --

Autonomy 28 .621-- - 29 .646- -- 30

Feedback from 31 --- -

job 32 - -.575

Constraints 33 - - .540 34 35 36 37 38

.424

.601

"Items were selected for the revised variables on the basis of the following selection criteria. 1. High factor loading on only one factor (greater than .40). 2. High factor loading on a factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0.

bSee Appendix Table 3 for the items corresponding to the item number.


Appendix Table 5 THE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS VARIABLES

A. Experience: How many years have you been a salesperson for your current employer? B. Specific self-esteem: Adapted from Bagozzi's (1978) Specific Self Esteem Measure: Using the scale provided, indicate where you

stand compared to the other salesmen in your company. If you think you are low on the characteristic, you would circle the numeral 1; if you think you are a little less than average you would circle the numeral 3, and so on." 1. Your sales performance 2. Your ability to reach quota 3. Your potential for reaching the top 10% of all salespeople in the company 4. The quality of your relationships with your customers 5. Your management of time and expensesb 6. Your knowledge of your own products, competitor products and customer needs

C. The Generalized Self-Esteem and Internal/External Orientation measures are described fully in other publications (Jackson 1976; Valicha 1975) and consequently are not reproduced in this appendix.

"Scaling procedure: A 7-point scale with endpoint descriptors "low" and "high." bItem analysis resulted in dropping this item from the measure.

Appendix Table 6 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF THE MEASURES

Variable

Internal/external orientation Generalized self-esteem Specific self-esteem Consideration Initiation of structure Participation Company feedback Task significance and autonomy Task variety and completeness Constraints Expectancy Global instrumentality Self-fulfillment instrumentality Company relationships instrumentality Customer relationships instrumentality Direct performance recognition instrumentality Job status instrumentality

Reliability coefficient

.700

.722

.517

.837

.513

.822

.838

.856

.501

.623

.792

.912

.988

.893

.590

.666

.619

REFERENCES

Arnold, Hugh J. (1976), "Effects of Performance Feedback and Extrinsic Reward Upon High Intrinsic Motivation," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17 (December), 275-88.

Bagozzi, Richard P. (1978), "Salesforce Performance and Satisfaction as a Function of Individual Difference, In- terpersonal, and Situational Factors," Journal of Market- ing Research, 15 (November), 517-31.

Broedling, L. A. (1975), "Relationships of Internal-External Control to Work Motivation and Performance in an Expectancy Model," Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (February), 65-70.

Campbell, J. P., M. D. Dunnette, E. E. Lawler, and K. E. Weick, Jr. (1970), Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979), "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs," Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73.

Cohen, Jacob and Patricia Cohen (1975), Applied Multiple Regression/ Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Deci, Edward L. (1971), "Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18 (April), 105-15.

(1972), "Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Rein- forcement, and Inequity," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22 (April), 113-20.

Dunham, Randall B. (1977), "Reactions to Job Characteris- tics: Moderating Effects of the Organization," Academy of Management Journal, 20 (March), 42-65.

Evans, M. G. (1970), "The Effects of Supervisory Behavior on the Path-Goal Relationship," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5 (May), 277-98.

Ewen, Robert B., Patricia C. Smith, Charles L. Hulin, and Edwin A. Locke (1966), "An Empirical Test of the Herzberg Two-Factor Theory," Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 50 (December), 544-50.

Farrar, Donald E. and Robert R. Glauber (1967), "Multicol- linearity in Regression Analysis: The Problem Revisited," The Review of Economics and Statistics, 49 (February), 92-107.

Fleishman, E. A. (1957), "A Leader Behavior Description for Industry," in R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons, eds., Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Co- lumbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

Galbraith, Jay and L. L. Cummings (1967), "An Empirical Investigation of the Motivational Determinants of Task Performance: Interactive Effects Between Instrumentali- ty-Valence and Motivation-Ability," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2 (March), 237-57.

Gibson, James L., John M. Ivancevich, and James H. Donnelly, Jr. (1973), Organizations, Structure, Processes, Behavior. Dallas, Texas: Business Publications Inc.

Graen, George (1969), "Instrumentality Theory of Work Motivation: Some Experimental Results and Suggested Modifications," Journal of Applied Psychology Mono- graph, 53 (April), 1-25.

Green, Paul E. and Donald S. Tull (1978), Research for Marketing Decisions, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Hackman, Richard J. and Edward E. Lawler, III (1971), "Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics," Journal

224


of Applied Psychology, 55 (June), 259-86. and Greg R. Oldham (1974), "The Job Diagnostic

Survey: An Instrument for the Diagnosis of Jobs and the Evaluation of Job Design Projects," Technical Report Number 4, Department of Administrative Sciences, Yale University.

and (1976), "Motivation Through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16 (August), 250-9.

and Lyman W. Porter (1968), "Expectancy Theory Predictions of Work Effectiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 60 (May), 417-26.

House, Robert J. (1971), "A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly, 16 (September), 321-38.

and Gary Dessler (1974), "The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: Some Post Hoc and A Priori Tests," in James G. Hunt and Lars L. Larson, eds., Contingency Approaches to Leadership. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

and John R. Rizzo (1972), "Role Conflict and Ambi- guity as Critical Variables in a Model of Organizational Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor- mance, 7 (June), 467-505.

Jackson, Douglas N. (1976), Jackson Personality Inventory Manual. Goshen, New York: Research Psychologists Press Inc.

James, Lawrence R., Alan Hartman, Michael W. Stebbins, and Allan P. Jones (1977), "Relationships Between Psy- chological Climate and a VIE Model for Work Motiva- tion," Personnel Psychology, 30 (Autumn), 229-54.

Johnston, J. (1972), Econometric Methods, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Korman, Abraham K. (1971), "Expectancies as Determi- nants of Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, 55 (June), 218-22.

Lawler, Edward E., III (1968), "A Correlational-Causal Analysis of the Relationship Between Expectancy Atti- tudes and Job Performance," Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 52 (December), 462-8.

(1969), "Job Design and Employee Motivation," Personnel Psychology, 22 (Winter), 426-35.

(1970), "Job Attitudes and Employee Motivation: Theory, Research, and Practice," Personnel Psychology, 23 (Summer), 223-37.

(1971), Motivation in Work Organizations. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole.

and Douglas T. Hall (1970), "Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job Involvement, Satisfaction, and Intrinsic Motivation," Journal of Applied Psychology, 54 (August), 305-12.

and J. Lloyd Suttle (1973), "Expectancy Theory and Job Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9 (June), 482-503.

Lewin, Kurt (1938), The Conceptual Representation and the Measurement of Psychological Forces. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.

Lied, Terry R. and Robert D. Pritchard (1976), "Relation- ships Between Personality Variables and Components of the Expectancy-Valence Model," Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 61 (August), 463-7.

Lowin, A. (1968), "Participative Decision Making: A Model, Literature Critique, and Prescription for Research," Or- ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3 (Febru-

ary), 68-106. Mitchell, Terence R. (1974), "Expectancy Models of Job

Satisfaction, Occupational Preference and Effort, a Theo- retical, Methodological, and Empirical Appraisal," Psy- chological Bulletin, 81 (December), 1053-77.

and Donald W. Albright (1972), "Expectancy Theory Predictions of the Satisfaction, Effort, Performance, and Retention of Naval Aviation Officers," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8 (August), 1-20.

Morse, J. and J. Lorsh(1970), "Beyond Theory Y," Harvard Business Review, 49 (May-June), 61-8.

Nebeker, D. M. andT. R. Mitchell (1974), "Leader Behavior: An Expectancy Theory Approach," Organizational Be- havior and Human Performance, 11 (June), 355-67.

Nemiroff, P. M. and D. L. Ford, Jr. (1976), "Task Effec- tiveness and Human Fulfillment in Organizations: A Review and Development of a Conceptual Contingency Model," Academy of Management Review, (October), 69-82.

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

Oliver, R. L. (1974), "Expectancy Theory Predictions of Salesmen's Performance," Journal of Marketing Re- search, 11 (August), 243-53.

Pierce, Jon J., Randall B. Dunham, and Richard S. Blackburn (1979), "Social Systems Structure, Job Design, and Growth Need Strength: A Test of a Congruency Model," Academy of Management Journal, 22 (June), 223-40.

Porter, L. W. and E. E. Lawler, III (1968), Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press.

, and Richard J. Hackman (1975), Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Com- pany.

Pritchard, Robert D. and Mark S. Sanders (1973), "The Influence of Valence, Instrumentality, and Expectancy on Effort and Performance," Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 57 (February), 55-60.

, Philip J. DeLeo, and Clarence W. Von Bergan, Jr. (1976), "A Field Experimental Test of Expectancy- Valence Incentive Motivational Techniques," Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Performance, 15 (June), 355-406.

Rizzo, John R., Robert J. House, and Sidney J. Lirtzman (1970), "Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organi- zations," Administrative Science Quarterly, 15 (June), 150-63.

Rotter, Julian B. (1966), "Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement," Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80.

Schuster, J. R., B. Clark, and M. Rogers (1971), "Testing Portions of the Porter and Lawler Model Regarding the Motivational Role of Pay," Journal of Applied Psychology, 55 (June), 187-95.

Sheridan, John E., John W. Slocum, Jr., and Byung Min. (1975), "Motivational Determinants of Job Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (June), 119-21.

Sims, Henry P., Jr., Andrew D. Szilagyi, and Dale R. McKemey (1976), "Antecedents of Work Related Expec- tancies," Academy of Management Journal, 19 (De- cember), 547-59.

Stogdill, R. M. (1963), Manual for Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire Form XII. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

225


Tolman, Edward C. (1932), Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men. New York: Century.

Valecha, G. K. (1975), "Abbreviated 11-Item Rotter IE Scale," in Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes, John P. Robinson and Phillip R. Shaver, eds. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research.

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

Walker, Orville C., Jr., Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., and Neil M. Ford (1975), "Organizational Determinants of the Industrial Salesman's Role Conflict and Ambiguity,"

Journal of Marketing, 39 (January), 32-9. , and (1977), "Motivation and Perfor-

mance in Industrial Selling: Present Knowledge and Need- ed Research," Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (May), 156-68.

Wernimont, Paul F. (1966), "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors in Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology, 50 (February), 41-50.

Wood, M. T. (1973) "Power Relationships and Group Decision Making In Organizations," Psychological Bulle- tin, 79 (May), 280-93.

Are You Up-To-Date on Whars Being Written?

MARKETING DOCTORAL DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS, 1979 John K. Ryans, Jr., compiler Bibliography Series-142 pp.

$10.00/AMA members $15.00/nonmembers The latest edition of this popular favorite, this book presents information on 70 marketing dissertation topics and contains an advisor listing as well as a subject index. An excellent reference tool, this book will be used by all those interested in the latest research being done by marketing scholars.

MARKETING DOCTORAL DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS, 1978 Edward W. Cundiff, compiler Bibliography Series-- 133 pp.

$9.00/AMA members $14.00/nonmembers A continuation of the series making available a summary of doctoral research in marketing, this volume contains 70 abstracts of dissertations completed during the calendar year 1978. These dissertations were supervised by 60 professors at 39 universities. Because the abstracted dissertations illustrate the frontiers of marketing knowledge, this book is used by marketing scholars as a source of research ideas and a record of previous doctoral research, and by doctoral students and their advisors.

To order contact: Order Department, American Marketing Association, 222 S. Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL 60606, (312) 648-0536. 1

(Prepayment is required on all orders for less than $10.00. A $2.00 AMERICAN handling charge will be added for billing.) MARKETING

A$OCIATION

226

Documents

An Empirical Test of Models of Salespersons, Job ... · positively to the salesperson's self-esteem, self-per- ceived ability, and job tenure and is related negatively to the salesperson's