Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 1121–1130

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

How salespeople facilitate buyers' resource availability to enhanceseller outcomes

Annie Liqin Zhang 1, Roger Baxter 1, Mark S. Glynn ⁎Faculty of Business and Law, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 9 9219999; fax: +E-mail addresses: annie_liqin_zhang@126.com (A.L.

(R. Baxter), mark.glynn@aut.ac.nz (M.S. Glynn).1 Tel.: +64 9 9219999.

0019-8501/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Allhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.07.004

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 30 November 2012Received in revised form 28 June 2013Accepted 1 July 2013Available online 23 July 2013

Keywords:InteractionRelationship performanceResource availabilitySalesperson activities

Positive outcomes for buyers and sellers occur when the partners readily make their resources availableand integrate those resources in a beneficial relationship. This research investigates how salespeople facilitate theuse of these buyer resources. Taking the seller's perspective, this study examines the effect that the salesperson'sinteraction activities, and the availability of buyer resources, have on relationship outcomes.Using interviews with managers and a literature review, the study develops and tests a conceptual model andmeasures for three constructs: the salesperson's focus on interaction; availability of buyer's resources; andrelationship financial performance. The salesperson's interaction focus influences the availability of buyerresources, which also influences the financial performance of the relationship. This research shows the importanceof salespeople being cognizant of many resources in the buyer–seller relationship including those of the buyer.The findings are useful for managers in managing buyer–seller relationships and in training salespeople to focuson what resources customers can offer sellers.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Understanding the role of salespeople in building business-tobusiness relationships and appreciating the effect of these relation-ships on firm performance are important concerns for managers.Positive performance outcomes in a business-to-business buyer–sellerrelationship occur for both partners in a trusting and communicativeenvironment. In such environments, supplier–buyer interaction isvital in enhancing performance through value creation (Grönroos,2011). Salespeople, as importantmarket actors, can contribute substan-tially to firm performance by focusing on relationship building throughinteraction (Geiger & Finch, 2009) and with less emphasis on tran-sactional selling (Jones, Brown, Zoltners, & Weitz, 2005). However,relationship building is just one of the many roles performed by sales-people (Wotruba, 1996) and often requires a different mindset fromthe traditional notion of a salesperson (Davies, Ryals, & Holt, 2010).

The extant literature on salespeople as boundary spanners doesnot fully reflect the contemporary function of salespeople in valuecreation (Franke & Park, 2006). The sales function is moving awayfrom this independent role towards amore cross-functional disposition(Storbacka, Polsa, & Sääkjärvi, 2011). Customer interaction by salespeo-ple can not only build better relationships and enhance performance,but also allow salespeople to better mobilize resources that existoutside the firm. Baraldi, Gressetvold, and Harrison (2012) show that

64 9 9219629.Zhang), roger.baxter@aut.ac.nz

rights reserved.

it is how firms use such resources which can facilitate the availabilityand hence the integration of resources between relationship partners.

The study described in this paper therefore investigates howsalespeople focus on interaction that will facilitate the use of buyers'resources in value creation, and examines two questions that theextant literature does not appear to clearly answer. The first researchquestion is to what extent does this focus by salespeople on relevantrelationship interaction with the buyer aid financial performance forthe seller. Therefore, the second research question concerns whatsalespersons' relationship-building activities are relevant in accessingbuyer resources. Aligned to this question is does the availability ofthe buyer's resources directly affect a firm's financial performance,the third research question.

In order to answer these questions, the study examines thesalesperson's level of relationship integration focus (Gadde, Hjelmgren,& Skarp, 2012; Zhang, Baxter, &Glynn, 2011) and develops suitablemea-sures specific to this study for its other two constructs, which are firstlythe availability of buyer's resources and secondly the relationship finan-cial performance. The study assesses the three main constructs and therelationships between them, as expressed in a proposed conceptualmodel. This conceptual model is underpinned by the IMP's (IndustrialMarketing and Purchasing) interaction model (Håkansson & Snehota,2000). The conceptual framework presented is based on the IMPARA concepts (actor bonds, resource ties, and activity links), and onthe sales literature.

As Lenney and Easton (2009) point out, the ARA model not onlylinks these concepts together, but also illustrates the mechanismsbehind such relationships, which can be applied to different levelsboth within and between firms. Salespeople as actors through theirselling activities, use both firm and customer resources to enhance

1122 A.L. Zhang et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 1121–1130

the performance of the firm. The conceptual framework applies theARA model at the boundary spanning level of the firm. Salespeopleare important resource ties and through their sales activities link tocustomers and their resources and by building relationship and conti-nuity (actor bonds). Thus, the role of the salesperson develops be-yond order taking and has become a more strategic focus (Storbacka,Ryals, Davies, & Nenonen, 2009) in the business-to-business relation-ship. The study described in this paper takes the position of the sales-person as an individual actor with a “performative” role (Araujo,Kjellberg, & Spencer, 2008) in shaping markets and relationshipsthrough interaction between buyer and seller. As actors, salespeoplehave control over some resources and influence other actors both out-side and within the organization. Thus salespeople as actors are impor-tant boundary spanners, who facilitate buyer–seller relationships andexchanges and as market shapers.

The study contributes to the literature by demonstrating firstly the ef-fect on relationship performance of a salesperson's focus on activities thatfacilitate interaction and hence the exchange of resources (Waluszewski,Hadjikhani, & Baraldi, 2009). Successful combinations of resources of bothsupplier and customer are important in value creation (Cantù, Corsaro,& Snehota, 2012). Secondly, the study shows the particular importanceof the salesperson's focus on relationship activities in indirectly affectingthe performance outcome by facilitating the availability of a buyer'sresources to the seller. Availability of a buyer's resources and their use isan important contributing construct in the creation of value in a buyer–seller relationship (Turnbull, Ford, & Cunningham, 1996).

This paper proceeds as follows. First, the conceptual framework ofthe study and relevant literature are presented: this section of thepaper describes the conceptual development of the study, includingthe overall structure of the model that the study tests and each ofits three main constructs. Second, from this discussion the hypothesesare developed followed by a description of the method for modeltesting, including measure development, data collection, data analysisand findings. The paper finishes with a discussion of the findingsand the managerial implications.

2. Literature review

2.1. Conceptual model

The conceptual model was developed from some preliminary in-terviews and a literature search. Buyer's resources are an importantpart of the overall resources for value creation in a relationship. Thebuyer and the seller each require access to the other's technologiesin order to optimally deal with their problems and opportunities(Ford, 2011). However, the existing literature has not specificallyinvestigated the role of the salesperson in accessing buyer's resourcesand their effect on the relationship's financial performance for theseller. This study therefore focuses on examining the influence of sales-people on this issue because theywork closelywith customers and con-dition the way the relationships are developed (Guesalaga & Johnson,2010). In support of this investigation, Grönroos (2011) argues thatboundary personnel play a critical role in making use of the interactionplatform for relationship value co-creation. Sales researchers have tra-ditionally investigated selling skills from a transactional proficiencyperspective (Rentz, Shepherd, Tashchian, Dabholkar, & Ladd, 2002).Research is also needed to explore the role of the sales force in co-creating value with customers (Avlonitis & Panagopoulos, 2010). Thisvalue co-creation is associated with inter-firm resource integrationand thus is associated with gaining access to, and making use of, thebuyer's resources. As one of our interviewees, an ICT system provider,noted, “the more time you can spend inside a customer organization,getting to know them, the more you may recognize things or issuesthat they have, where you have capability that could solve and delivervalue there …”.

The buyer–seller relationship gives a firm access to a resourcecollection with an increased variety and variability, which potentiallycan lead to innovations (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995), and to highrelationship performance. Evidence from research shows that a higherlevel of resource availability to the relationship is likely to be associatedwith better relationship outcomes for the firms in the relationship. Forexample, Tuli, Kohli, and Bharadwaj (2007) find that when suppliersallocate employees to relationships who have specific expertise in thecustomers' needs, they are likely to be able to identify accurately theircustomers' recognized, unrecognized, and future requirements. Thesolution co-creation process is thereby likely to be efficient and effectivethrough this allocation of superior human resource. Similarly, whencustomers invest resources in the relationship, the outcomes of therelationship are likely to improve. Humphreys, Li, and Chan (2004)show in their supply chain study that the buyer's relationship-specificinvestments, such as providing the supplier with equipment or toolsfor process improvement or providing the supplier with capital fornew investments at their facilities, are associated with supplier perfor-mance improvementmeasured from the buyer's viewpoint, buyer com-petitive advantage, and buyer–supplier relationship improvement.In the words of one of our interviewees, a recruitment and consultantcompany executive, “Then once you start to know your business quitewell and your clients … you can look at ways in which you can addvalue to that relationship.”

Thus, based on the literature discussed above and the study's inter-views, the research model for this study is as in Fig. 1. The model pro-poses that the level at which the salesperson focuses on relationship-building activities relevant to building resource availability and exchangehas a positive effect on relationship performance for the seller, bothdirectly and also indirectly through the effect that the salesperson hason availability of the buyer's resources to the seller. Fig. 1 also showsthe dimensions of the scale for the construct named the “salesperson'scustomer interaction focus”.

We next describe themodel's threemain constructs: the salesperson'scustomer interaction focus; the seller's perception of relationshipperformance; and the availability of the buyer's resources to the sellerthrough the relationship.

2.1.1. Salesperson's focus on interactionWe define the salesperson's interaction focus as the level at which

the salesperson engages in activities that promote interaction in a re-lationship and that favor the exchange and integration of resources,thereby aiding the creation of value (Hammervoll, 2012). We utilizea set of dimensions, which are the set of activities a salesperson willwork on if they have a focus on interaction and on integration ofresources. This “focus” is an indication of the individual's allocationof their attentional resources to a relationship. “All purpose-directedbehavior – acting – requires some framing of the situations by theactor” (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995, page 194). It is therefore of interestto identify relevant frames within which salespeople can successfullywork, which our study helps to do by utilizing a set of dimensions of asalesperson's focus on interaction and demonstrating a performanceoutcome.

The dimensions of the salesperson's focus on interaction usedin the study appear in Fig. 1: learning about the seller's (their ownfirm's) resources; learning about the buyer; customer contact; service;adaptive selling activities; and coordination (Zhang et al., 2011). Inthe following paragraphs, we provide brief domain descriptions of thesix dimensions, the measures for which appear in Table 5. Many ofthese dimensions address the intra-organizational aspects of selling(Madhavaram & McDonald, 2010) and capture both the long term andshort term aspects of the sales–customer interface. In different sellingcontexts, these long-term and short-term aims could have both positiveor negative outcomes.

The salesperson's activity “learning about the seller's resources” isthe level of effort the salesperson devotes to improving knowledge

RelationshipPerformance

For Seller

Availability of theBuyer’s Resources

Salesperson’sCustomer

Interaction Focus

Coordination

Learning aboutSeller’s Resources

Learning about theBuyer

Customer Contact

Service

H3

H2

H1

Adaptive Selling

Fig. 1. Conceptual model: the effects of the salesperson's interaction on buyer resources and relationship performance.

1123A.L. Zhang et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 1121–1130

about their own firm's resources for co-creating value with the buyer.The activity “learning about the buyer” refers to the effort the salesper-son devotes to improving knowledge of the buyer's business. “Customercontact” is the effort the salespersondevotes tomaintaining the customerrelationship through regular contact. “Service activity” refers to the effortof the salesperson in developing the relationship with the customerthrough providing service.

“Adaptive selling” is the level of effort the salesperson devotes toengaging the customer in co-creation related communication. Investiga-tion shows that selling intensity reflects the effort applied to identifyingbusiness opportunities in the relationship, clarifying customer's require-ments, identifying solutions, and adaptive sales presentations. Thisdimension includes, but goes beyond, “solution selling” (Adamson,Dixon, & Toman, 2012). The salesperson's “coordination” is defined asthe level of effort the salesperson devotes to aligning relevant parties'activities that are interdependent for value co-creation. These six dimen-sions of customer interaction focus thus encompass many of the aspectsof sales interaction including learning aspects of the seller and the buyerand customer contact and tend to bemore long term in their orientationas well as the bilateral aspects such as selling, service and coordination,which are more immediate in their application.

2.1.2. Availability of buyer's resourcesThe construct “availability of the buyer's resources to the seller”

has a set of measures that comprise the outcomes that a supplierwould expect from a relationship in which the buyer makes itsresources easily available to the seller. This study identifies categoriesof resources that can be available from the buyer. The scale for resourceavailability retainsfivemeasures of these resources for the relationshipsthat the qualitative phase of the study identified.

Two of the retained measures of salesperson's assessment ofbuyer's resource availability represent the human resource category:“Expertise that is useful for developing business with your company”and “Innovative ideas that are useful for developing business withyour company”. One of the retained measures represents the financialand physical resource category: “Investments that are needed specificallyfor doing business with your company, e.g., staff training, or adaptations

in their systems or procedures”. Two of the retained measures ofsalesperson's assessment of buyer's resource availability represent theorganizational resource category: “Joint work with your companyon issues such as product development, cost-cutting, long-rangeplans, or staff training” and “Future developmental plans that maylead to future selling opportunities for your company.”

2.1.3. Relationship performanceThe relationship performance construct assesses the financial

performance of the relationship from the seller's perspective. The mea-sures used in the quantitative phase of the study for this construct arecommon performance measures that managers would expect to resultfrom a high-performing relationship, as shown in Table 5. We notethese as follows, with small quotes from this study's interviewees forqualitative support of their relevance. The first item asks aboutmeetingsales targets and objectives, based on the need to “map outwhat we ex-pect going forward” in thewords of an interviewee. The second is about“share of this customer's business”, or in an interviewee's words: “Weobviously look at what percentage did they buy from us compared toother suppliers, what share of business do we have?”. The third itemasks about making sales for multiple product or service divisions, asexpressed in an interview: “it's also cross-selling and in different ser-vices”. The fourth asks about margins (Interviewee quote: “Any foolcan go out and sell products at 10% margin or 5% margin; well what'sthe point?”). Thesemeasures are all outcomes of a relationship that per-forms at a high level financially and their wording is the same as, oradapted from, measures in the literature (Workman, Homburg, &Jensen, 2003).

2.2. Hypothesis development

Three hypotheses describe the paths between the three main con-structs. The first hypothesis expresses the effect that the salesperson'sfocus has on relationship performance for the seller. This hypothesisexpresses the direct effect on the relationship performance, fromthe seller's perspective, of the salesperson's focus on interactive

1124 A.L. Zhang et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 1121–1130

relationship-building activities which promote resource exchangebetween the buyer and seller:

H1. The greater the salesperson's focus on relationship interaction,the higher the level of relationship financial performance.

H2 and H3 express the indirect effect of salesperson's focus on per-formance, by way of the availability of buyer's resources. We first dealwith the H2 path, which expresses the effect that salesperson's focushas on availability of buyer's resources. Sophisticated knowledge ofboth the buyer's and seller's businesses is extremely important forthe salesperson to identify value creation opportunities for the firm(Weitz & Bradford, 1999). The salesperson coordinates the relevantcustomer resources including customization, integration and resourcedeployment (Tuli et al., 2007) and thereby facilitates the availabilityof the buyer's resources. The salesperson's part in this process of aidingthe availability of the buyer's resources is expressed by a freightcompany executive, one of our interviewees: “The role of that individualsalesperson who manages that account is to build the relationship tothat stage so that customer is that happywith us that they are preparedto invest.” This hypothesis is stated as:

H2. The greater the salesperson's focus on relationship interaction,the greater the availability of the buyer's resources to the seller.

Researchers of the IMP group point out that firms overcome limita-tions in their own resources through relationships (Håkansson &Snehota, 1995). Relationships enable a firm to potentially gain access toothers' resources, such as their technologies, knowledge or material re-sources that are important for firm value generation (Ford, 2011).Actors in relationships carry out exchange activities to make use oftheir firms' resources so that the potential services inherent in the re-sources accessed are released and realized, and value is thus created(Håkansson& Snehota, 1995). Our study utilizes this framework to inves-tigate the salesperson at the level of the individual actor, who carries outrelationship activities to facilitate the integration of the relevant resourcesof the two firms, in particular by aiding the availability of the buyer's re-sources, in order to realize the potential relationship value for the seller.

The third hypothesis expresses the effect that this availability ofbuyer's resources has on the financial performance of the relationship:

H3. The greater the availability of the buyer's resources, the higherthe level of relationship financial performance.

Table 1Respondents' positions in their firm.

Job titles Numbers Percentage

Sales manager or account manageror business development manager

91 53.2

General manager, director,chief executive or business division manager

47 27.5

Sales representative, sales consultant or consultant 10 5.8Product specialist, product manager,chief technical officer, or operational manager

12 7.0

Brand manager, marketing manager,or commercial manager

5 2.9

Sales support or information center manager oroffice manager or sales and marketing officer orsales administrator

6 3.5

Total 171 100Positions not given 4

3. Testing the model

3.1. Method

The initial model development phase of the study used an iterativeapproach, tacking between the literature and a set of preliminary inter-views, which were based on an interview protocol with open-endedquestions. The interviews were with senior company executives insales-related positions to develop the conceptual model and the scaleitems to measure the two new constructs, namely the seller's per-ception of relationship performance and the availability of the buyer'sresources. Interview data transcribed from audio recordings wereanalyzed using Nvivo software.

In the secondphase of the study, based on empirical data collected in asurvey, managers in responsible sales positions answered questions on 1to 7 scales with anchor points as shown in Table 5. The sample framecomprised both salespeople andmanagers involved in sales. The achievedsample comprised a broad mix of firms involved in manufacturing, ser-vice and agriculture industries across a range of firm sizes. The medianlength of the customer/salesperson relationshipwas 8 years, and respon-dents had amedian of 6 year experiencewith the seller. Detail of respon-dents appears in Table 1 (position in company) and Table 2 (yearsof experience both with the firm and with the product) below.

The respondents were from bothmanufacturing and service compa-nies in order to provide generalizability. Their companies hadmore than10 employees and were registered with a commercial multinationaldatabase. Table 3 provides information on the length of relationshipsbetween the respondent and the firm onwhich they report. Themedianlength of the customer/salesperson relationship was 8 years. Table 4shows the sizes of both buyer and seller firms.

After assessing suitability in terms of normality and outliers,we analyzed data using SPSS for correlations and exploratory factoranalysis and using AMOS structural equation modeling softwarefor confirmatory factor analysis and structural model testing. Thenumber of responses to the survey was 171 after excluding incompletequestionnaires, for a 10.2% response rate. Responses came from both amail-out and an online data collection on SurveyMonkey. Differencesbetween the demographics of mail-out and online samples were notsignificant in t-tests, suggesting no systematic differences in relation-ships constituting the two sub-samples. The early one-third and thelate one-third of responses did not show significant differences int-tests, suggesting no response bias (Armstrong & Overton, 1977).Application of Harman's single factor test (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,& Podsakoff, 2003) in exploratory factor analysis found no evidence ofcommon method bias.

3.2. Measure development

The measures for the six salesperson's activities that the studyused as dimensions of level of salesperson's interaction focus aredescribed earlier. Items were then pre-tested twice, with experts,for face validity and for wording. We altered some items after eachpre-test, based on the feedback from the experts, and deleted questionsthat insufficient experts favored. The study specifies all indicators asreflective because, as noted in the hypothesis development sectionabove, they are outcomes of each of the relevant constructs.

3.3. Analysis

A first step in the analysis was to fit the data to the measurementmodel incorporating all eight constructs: the six dimensions ofsalesperson's interaction focus; the availability of buyer's resourceconstruct; and the performance outcome construct. The model fit sta-tistics for the measurement model are χ2/df = 1.66, CFI 0.91, RMSEA0.062 and TLI 0.90. Each of the eight constructs shows good psycho-metric scale properties, with loadings on each construct shown inTable 5. The construct reliability ranges from 0.76 to 0.90, as shownin Table 6, together with some descriptive statistics for reference.Unidimensionality is shown in Table 5; each item correctly loads onthe appropriate construct. The standardized factor loading for eachitem is over 0.5 for the relevant construct and is significant. Table 7below shows that the average variance extracted (AVE) for each

Table 2Respondents' experience.

Years of sales experience in the seller firm Numbers of responses Percentages Years of experience with the product Numbers of responses Percentages

≤1 year 16 9.2 ≤1 year 3 1.71 b year ≤ 2 18 10.4 1 b year ≤ 2 11 6.42 b year ≤ 5 45 26.0 2 b year ≤ 5 33 19.15 b year ≤ 10 53 30.6 5 b year ≤ 10 43 24.910 b year ≤ 15 13 7.5 10 b year ≤ 15 17 9.815 b year ≤ 20 8 4.6 15 b year ≤ 20 29 16.8N20 years 20 11.6 N20 years 37 21.4Total 173 100.0 Total 173 100.0Missing 2 Missing 2Median 6 years Median 10 years

1125A.L. Zhang et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 1121–1130

construct is above 0.5 and that discriminant validity is demonstrated,as the AVE is greater than the squared correlation between eachconstruct pairing.

Next, the data was fitted to the structural model outlined in Fig. 1using AMOS 16 and the maximum likelihood criterion. The fit indicesshow an acceptable fit between the model and data. For the proposedstructural model, the χ2/df is 1.66, CFI is 0.91, and RMSEA is .062, TLIis 0.90, and parsimony normed fit index (PNFI) is 0.73. The R2 resultsshow that 51% of the variance in “performance” is explained by thecombined effect of “buyer's resources” and salesperson's “interactionfocus”, and 29% of the variance in “buyer's resources” is explained bysalesperson's “interaction focus”. The results suggest that the sales-person plays a significant role in gaining access to and making useof buyer's resources for co-creation. Furthermore, this access enablesthe selling firm to realize the relationship value in terms of the effecton financial performance.

For H1 the modeled pathway from the salesperson's level of inter-action focus has a significant and positive impact on financial perfor-mance. The path coefficient is 0.45 and is significant at p b .001 level.As expressed in H2, the salesperson's interaction focus also has signifi-cant and positive effect (0.54) on the availability of the buyer's re-sources. Turning to H3, these buyer resources have a positive effect onfinancial performances. The H3 path coefficient is 0.36 and is significantat the p b .001 level. Thus not only does the structuralmodelfit the datawell, but the analysis supports all three hypotheses.

Mediation is an important aspect of the model in Fig. 1. The studytherefore estimates three structural models to test for mediation usingthe Baron and Kenny (1986) (B&K) steps. The relevant statistics are inTable 8. For the B&K step 1, the first model has only the unmediatedpath shown as H1 in Fig. 1. The H1 path in the unmediated model isnon-zero and significant, meeting the B&K step one requirements. Thesecond model has only the H2 path from interaction focus to resourceavailability. This path is non-zero and significant at p b 0.001, meetingthe B&K step two requirements. The third structural model includesavailability of buyer resources as mediator as in Fig. 1. Fit statistics forthis mediated model are good, as in Table 7, and the squared multiplecorrelation for relationship performance for the seller is 0.51, so it

Table 3Length of relationships with customer.

Years of respondent–customerrelationship

Numbers of responses Valid percentages

≤1 year 26 15.01 b year ≤ 2 24 13.92 b year ≤ 5 60 34.75 b year ≤ 10 37 21.410 b year ≤ 15 12 6.915 b year ≤ 20 8 4.6N20 years 6 3.5Total 173 100.0Missing 2Median 4 years

explains the relationship performance outcome better than the un-mediated model. The paths are all significant in the mediated modelat p b 0.001, and the standardized regression coefficient for the pathfrom interaction focus to performance is lower in the mediated modelat 0.45 than in the unmediated model at 0.65. The model thereforemeets the requirements of B&K steps three and four for partialmediation.

4. Discussion

In business-to-business relationships, value is co-created throughthe integration of both firms' resources (Vargo & Lusch, 2011).Therefore, gaining the buyer's willingness to make resources availableto the relationship is very important for realizing the potential valueof the relationship for both firms. This research thus supports ourproposed model in which salespeople directly affect a relationship'sfinancial performance outcomes by their focus on relationship-building activities that facilitate resource exchange and answersresearch question one. This focus by salespeople on relevant relation-ship building further aids financial performance indirectly by facilitat-ing the availability of the buyer's resources to the seller, addressingresearch question two. The results show that the interaction focushas a larger effect on the availability of buyer resources than onperformance per se. However this does not mean that salespeopleare neglecting performance, for the provision of resources by custom-er indirectly (answering the third research question) assists per-formance as shown in the mediated model. The study thus supportsthe importance of relational processes to relationship success (Tuliet al., 2007).

We conceptualize, operationalize and demonstrate the critical im-portance of the availability of a buyer's resources in determining theoutcome of the relationship for the seller, and how the salespersonhelps with transforming the potential value of the buyer's resourcesinto relationship performance for the seller. The model fits the datawell and the results indicate that 51% of variance in the relationshipperformance for the seller is explained by the salesperson's interactionfocus and the availability of the buyer's resources. That the salespersons'

Years of seller–customerfirm relationship

Numbers of responses Valid percentages

≤1 year 3 2.71 b year ≤ 2 6 3.52 b year ≤ 5 52 30.45 b year ≤ 10 50 29.210 b year ≤ 15 24 14.015 b year ≤ 20 11 6.4N20 years 20 11.7Total 171 100.0Missing 4Median 8 years

Table 4Firm employee numbers.

Customer's employee number Numbers of responses Valid percentages Seller's employee number Numbers of responses Valid percentages

20 or less 44 25.7 20 or less 63 36.221 to 50 31 18.1 21 to 50 42 24.151 to 100 22 12.9 51 to 100 20 11.5101 to 250 24 14.0 101 to 250 16 9.2Above 250 50 29.2 Above 250 33 19.0Total 171 100.0 Total 174 100.0Missing 4 Missing 1Total 171 100Missing 4

1126 A.L. Zhang et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 1121–1130

interaction focus to performance pathway is a strong result indicatesthat a range of activities including learning and coordination deter-mines performance. However, the results show that because of thiscustomer interaction focus buyers are more inclined to share resourcessuch as knowledge, which is explained with 29% of variance in theavailability of the buyer's resources, a significant result together withthe pathway from availability of buyer resources to performance. Firmsneed to be aware that the customer resource transfer also producesadditional effects on performance.

Table 5Questionnaire items and factor loadings.

Construct

Salesperson's customer interaction focus:How much effort have you devoted to the following activities for your chosen customer com(1 — very little amount to 7 — very large amount)

Learning about the seller's resourcesImproving your understanding of your company's products/services for serving this cuImproving your understanding of your company's capabilities/resources for serving thiKeeping abreast of the developments in the industry in which your company operates

Learning about the buyerUnderstanding this customer's business, such as their goals and objectivesUnderstanding this customer's long-term needsUnderstanding how value is created for this customer through the use of your compan

Customer contactBuilding strong relationships with multiple individuals within this customer's companKeeping in regular business contact with multiple individuals within this customer's coSocializing with your main contacts within this customer's organization

ServiceProviding prompt service in response to this customer's requestsSupplying information to this customer in a timely mannerBuilding strong working relationships with other people in your company for serving t

Adaptive sellingIdentifying new business opportunities through thinking about how things can be impClarifying this customer's real requirements through correct questioningTrying to find out which kinds of products/services would be most helpful to this custoGenerating creative solutions for this customerPlanning on how to approach the selling situation when new business opportunities arClarifying the benefit of your offering for this customer

CoordinationDiscussing selling strategies for this customer with people from various departments inPlanning the objectives to be reached with this customerMaking sure that the objectives are shared among the relevant individuals within yourand the relevant third party companiesMaking sure that the arrangements as per the objectives between the relevant parties

The availability of the buyer's resources:To what extent has your chosen customer provided your company the following? (1 — notExpertise that is useful for developing business with your companyInnovative ideas that are useful for developing business with your companyInvestments that are needed specifically for doing business with your company, e.g., stJoint work with your company on issues such as product development, cost-cutting, loFuture developmental plans that may lead to future selling opportunities for your com

Financial performance for the seller:How well does the relationship with the chosen customer provide the following outcomes fgets from other customer relationships? (1 — very poor to 7 — excellent)Meeting sales targets and objectivesImproving your company's share of this customer's businessMaking sales to them from multiple product or service divisionsMaking high margins

Turning to the pathways within the structural model, we notethat the pathway from salesperson's interaction focus to availabilityof buyer resources is larger in magnitude (0.54) than the pathwayfrom interaction focus to performance (0.45). This result not onlyunderscores the need for firms to consider buyer resources when eval-uating performance but also shows how important buyer resources arein performance outcomes. Furthermore, the mediation results indicatethat the availability of buyer resources is an important mediating vari-able between sales interaction and performance. The mediation results

Standardized loadings

pared to other customers?

stomer .86s customer .82for serving this customer .59

.82

.87y's offering .74

y .86mpany .78

.49

.86

.81his customer .66

roved in the relationship .81.78

mer .77.73

e identified .73.74

your company .66.83

company, this customer's company, .86

are carried out .67

at all to 7 — a very large amount).79.82

aff training, or adaptations in their systems or procedures .73ng-range plans, or staff training .73pany .69

or your company, compared to the outcomes your company

.75

.92

.71

.51

Table 6Descriptive and reliability statistics.

Construct Construct reliability AVE Mean Std. deviation

1. Learning about seller .81 .58 3.99 0.862. Learning about buyer .85 .66 4.42 0.843. Customer contact .76 .53 3.49 0.794. Service .82 .61 4.54 0.685. Selling .89 .58 4.09 0.786. Coordination .84 .58 3.63 0.887. Buyer's resources .90 .57 2.91 0.998. Financial performance .85 .55 3.46 0.80

1127A.L. Zhang et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 1121–1130

also show that inclusion of availability of buyer resources resultsin a better fitting structural model as well as explaining much more ofthe variance in financial performance.

This study indicates that firms need to motivate their salespeopleto foster an appropriate cultural environment for knowledge sharingamong the selling team and with customers. In addition, salespeopleneed to be aware of the things that they know will be of value forother actors in their firm, especially because salespeople's relationshiplearning is relationship-specific and context-specific (Turley & Geiger,2006). However, according to the literature, informal “hall talk”, in-formal meetings (Evans & Schlacter, 1985; Moss, 1979), socializing(Bennett, 2001), and coaching (Nonaka, 1994) are appropriate forfacilitating learning. Thus, firms need to foster a cultural environmentof learning, as this will influence employees' learning behaviors (Baker& Sinkula, 1999).

4.1. Theoretical implications

The study is a quantitative confirmation of aspects of the IMPinteraction approach (Håkansson, 1982) in that it clearly shows theimportance of the availability of one partner's resources to the suc-cess of the other in a business-to-business buyer–seller relationship(Waluszewski & Håkansson, 2007). The study supports the impor-tance of the part that salespeople as actors play in customer resourceintegration and hence value creation (Haas, Snehota, & Corsaro,2012). As Cantù et al. (2012) note, relationship actors “are critical inresource combining”. In showing the importance of the salespersonin these processes, the study also illustrates the IMP contentionof the importance of resource combination processes that take placein interactions between buyers and sellers which are social andknowledge-empowered (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2007). The studyshows, in the mediation effect of availability of buyers' resources,that customer resource accessibility affects relationship outcomes.The activities of actors, including the buyer, strongly influence theseprocesses. Further, the study contributes by investigating individualboundary personnel as actors rather than firms as actors. The activitiesof buyer–seller relationship actors at this level of the actor as an in-dividual person are under-researched, particularly from a quantitativeperspective. These salesperson's activities are important, because they

Table 7Discriminant and convergent validity: all constructs.

Learning about seller Learning about buyer Customer contact Service

Learning S .58 .29 .30 .42Learning B .54 .66 .35 .35Contact .55 .59 .53 .36Service .65 .59 .60 .61Selling .64 .70 .69 .73Coor .46 .45 .55 .44ABR .36 .39 .44 .34FP .55 .53 .47 .46

Note: Values below the diagonal are bivariate correlations between the constructs, diagonalare squared correlations.

identify ways in which salespeople, as actors, firstly shape the structureof themarket and influence the boundaries betweenfirms and secondlyare shaped by the market and changes in boundaries (Geiger & Finch,2009). Salespeople calculate what “counts” as a beneficial resource inexchanges between firms in the market and they need to know thevalue of resources both in isolation and in combination with otherresources in order to do so. They achieve this level of knowledge ofresources available in their own firm, in their customer, and elsewherein the market, through the kinds of activities we identify in this study,thus contributing to value creation and financial outcomes.

This study expands extant knowledge of the strategic skills neededfor relationship building and value creation; previously sales researchhad identified the transaction requirements such as interpersonal, tech-nical knowledge and selling (Wotruba, 1996). Our study shows thatlearning about the customer, the selling organization, customer contact,service and coordination are important dimensions in addition to sell-ing activity and revenue generation. The perspective (confirmed bythe mediation testing) shows the salesperson to be more focused onthe buyer and their organization than just being solely relationship,product or solution based in their focus. The model showed a good fitof these six dimensions to the data, thus providing encouragement forresearch into the detailed processes bywhich salespeople use the identi-fied activities to aid performance outcomes, both directly and indirectlythrough the facilitation of resource availability.

4.2. Managerial implications

Our results suggest that, apart frommaintaining a good relationshipwith customers, seller firms should also encourage their salespeople toexamine the usefulness of their customers' resources and think strategi-cally how the salesperson can combine and use the resources differentlyto create value. This strategic thinking goes beyondmeeting customers'recognized needs. It requires learning about both firms' strategies,resources and capabilities, long-term goals and objectives, and valuecreation mechanisms. According to our interviewees, salespeople needto be able to “think outside of the square especially when it comesto … seeing opportunities”. They say that “You can really observe thoseopportunities during your visit. You can listen to your customers, yeah.And you can really think deeply what we can do.”

Firms can help their salespeople to develop their competence inadaptive selling, at levels of sophistication that go beyond solutionselling, and in learning about their own company through thoroughtraining. They can provide different scenarios for salespeople to practicehow to approach the customer and how to gain the knowledge of cus-tomers that will enable them to be able to offer ideas to the customerfor developing competitive advantage of dealing with changing marketconditions before the customer even knows they need those ideas(Flint, Woodruff, & Gardial, 2002). Given that “value is phenomenologicalin as far as it depends on social and cognitive processes in producing andperceiving the value” (Haas et al., 2012, Fig. 1, page 99), firms can alsoprovide training in developing a database that will record the differing

Selling Coordination Availability of buyer resources Financial performance

0.41 .21 .13 .30.49 .20 .15 .28.48 .30 .19 .22.53 .19 .12 .21.58 .46 .21 .34.68 .58 .31 .22.46 .56 .57 .37.58 .47 .61 .55

elements (in bold) are the AVEs of the relevant construct, and values above the diagonal

Table 8Mediation testing.

Paths/statistics Regressing “performance”on interaction focus(Baron & Kenny's step 1)

Regressing “buyer's resources”on interaction focus(Baron & Kenny's step 2)

Regressing “performance”on “buyer's resources” and interaction focus(Baron & Kenny's steps 3 & 4)

Interaction focus ➔ “performance” .65⁎⁎⁎ – .45⁎⁎⁎

Interaction focus ➔ “buyer's resources” – .54⁎⁎⁎ .54⁎⁎⁎

“Buyer's resources” ➔ “performance” – – .36⁎⁎⁎

χ2 507.53 547.75 705.23Df 292 317 425χ2/df 1.738 1.728 1.659GFI .824 .813 .799NFI .820 .815 .796TLI .904 .902 .898CFI .914 .911 .907RMSEA .065 .065 .062R2 .42 .29 .51

⁎⁎⁎ Significant at p b .001 level.

1128 A.L. Zhang et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 1121–1130

value of the offering for different types of customers.While keeping sales-people updated about thedevelopments in the relevantfields through thesales meeting has been the traditional way, firms should place emphasison what could be achieved with this customer, not just on what theyare selling. The learning about the firm and its customer processes,as well as the coordination and service, will enhance the chances forco-creation with the firm's customers and indirectly boost performancein addition to the selling activity. Reward systems should include clearrecognition of the successes of salespeople in these activities that producepositive outcomes for their firm in the longer term.

The issue of different values placed on resources by different peo-ple also applies internally within the firm. Salespeople therefore needto realize, and be able to deal with, the need to record informationso that it is accessible to, and able to be interpreted by, multiple actorswithin their organization. They need to discuss information aboutresources with such other actors within their firm. Training and rewardsystems should also recognize these issues of information dissemina-tion and use internally to their firm.

Firms can also develop systems to help their salespeople withachieving effective and efficient communication within their firm.Appropriate organizational structure and performance evaluationsystems, and regular meetings will help salespeople to obtain internalresources needed for co-creation efficiently. Firms should recognizethat the customer interaction with the selling firm is an importantcontributor to performance; as much as the salesperson's interaction.Furthermore the research emphasizes collaboration and interactivenature of the selling process as well as a more strategic perspectiveon the selling process compared to previous research (Wotruba,1996).

This research also suggests that selling firms should be cognizantof the resource sharing potential of the customer, particularly whenresource rich customers offer complementary clusters of resourcesthat have strategic value for the selling firm in the longer term. Thiscustomer and firm knowledge as well as customer contact are vital incapturing the value (relational rents) and enhancing the performanceof the seller (Dyer & Singh, 1998). Thus firms should encourage sales-people to be proactive but at the same time utilize the resource potentialof the relationship (Hammervoll, 2012).

4.3. Limitations and future research

The study's data gives some basis for generalization of both the anal-ysis and themodel for the following reasons: it captures the perspectiveof professional salespeople or sales-involved managers across manyindustries, the offerings of the seller firms range from pure product to

pure service, there is a range of years of sales experience, and the lengthof relationshipswith the customer range from less than one year to over20 years. It is important to note that the respondents are evaluatingactivities from a relationship perspective rather than their own perfor-mance per se.

The model measures dyadic relationships. In reality, because firmswork in networks and draw resources from them for value co-creationfor all the network actors, the number of actors involved in co-creationthrough networks may influence the role a salesperson plays in gainingthe availability of the buyer's resources and the outcome of the relation-ship for the seller. Investigation of the salespeople's interaction focusin broader networks including other salespeople is therefore a topicfor future study. The situation where the relative importance of the sixdimensions of customer interaction as found in this study changes isalso appropriate as a topic for further research.

There are several potential moderators of the relationships in themodel, which need further investigation. These moderators includethe importance of the purchase; the financial commitment involvedfor the buyer; the complexity of the offer; and the amount of serviceprovided by the supplier.

Future research can also investigate what organizational mecha-nisms would influence the salesperson's interaction focus. Researchersnote that previous theories do not recognize the importance of theorganization's capabilities for managing customer relationships and ofthe resources available through the relationship in the increasinglydynamic market environment (Storbacka & Nenonen, 2009). As theselling process or the solution co-creation process is very likely toneed the involvement of people from different functional departmentsin the selling organization, it is important to find out, at the organiza-tional level, how firms can best manage the intra-firm and inter-firmcoordination processes effectively and efficiently. A lack of such man-agement and hence a lack of effective integration of resources canhave negative effects on firm performance (Ellegaard & Koch, 2012).Using a “core selling team” (Arnett & Badrinarayanan, 2005) or “salesunit” (Menguc & Barker, 2005) as the analysis unit may be useful forobtaining insights. Another avenue of research can explore the salesteam and their roles in how they best utilize customer resources aswell as senior level managers.

Another future research areawill be to explore how firms effectivelymanage customer relationship knowledge that is obtained as the resultof inter-firm resource integration, such as how they obtain knowledgefrom their salespeople and help their salespeople to develop knowledgeand competence in the following: in identifying resource integration orco-creation opportunities; in disseminating and integrating this infor-mation within their firm as well as outside it; and in recognizing and

1129A.L. Zhang et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 1121–1130

dealing with political processes internal to their firm, such as those thatresult from conflicting demands between functions such as sales andoperations. Furthermore, within this customer interaction, salespeoplemay or may not be aware of their role within the customer firm.Research in the future could investigate how salespeople shape thefirm processes and decision making within the customer firm.

This study shows that understanding how value is created in thecustomer's use situation can be used for identifying selling opportunitiesin other relationships. This knowledge is transferrable and can lead topositive “spillover” value of this knowledge obtained through a specificrelationship with a customer (Madhok & Tallman, 1998; Mayer, 2006)for the seller firm. Thus, it will be important to research what types ofmechanisms may help firms to manage their knowledge acquired fromand about customers and to make good use of that knowledge.

5. Conclusions

This paper presents a comprehensive conceptual framework onhow salespeople facilitate the availability of buyer resources and howthis availability affects the financial performance of the relationship.Within this framework three hypotheses are postulated and tested byapplying structural equation modeling to survey data. This study inves-tigates three distinctive contributions. The first contribution is how thesalesperson's interaction focus influences the availability of buyer re-sources and financial performance; second, we devise a construct thatallows the availability of buyer resources to be measured; and third,we demonstrate the impact of the availability of buyer resources onfinancial performance. The availability of buyer resources is an impor-tant mediating variable between the salesperson's interaction focusand financial performance. This research shows the importance of thesalesperson being cognizant of a range of resources including those ofthe customer. The findings are a useful guide for managers in howto manage buyer seller relationships and in developing salespeople tobetter focus on what resources customers can offer sellers.

References

Adamson, B., Dixon, M., & Toman, N. (2012). The end of solution sales. HarvardBusiness Review, 90(7/8), 60–68.

Araujo, L., Kjellberg, H., & Spencer, R. (2008). Market practices and forms: Introductionto the special issue. Marketing Theory, 8(1), 5–14.

Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.Journal of Marketing Research, XIV, 396–402.

Arnett, D. B., & Badrinarayanan, V. (2005). Enhancing customer-needs-driven CRMstrategies: Core selling teams, knowledge management competence, and relationshipmarketing competence. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25(4), 329–343.

Avlonitis, G. J., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2010). Selling and salesmanagement: An introductionto the special section and recommendations on advancing the sales research agenda.Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1045–1048.

Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientationand learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, 27(4), 411–427.

Baraldi, E., Gressetvold, E., & Harrison, D. (2012). Resource interaction in inter-organizational networks: Foundations, comparison, and a research agenda.Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 266–276.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Bennett, R. (2001). “Ba” as a determinant of salesforce effectiveness: An empiricalassessment of the applicability of the Nonaka–Takeuchi model to the managementof the selling function. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19(3), 188–199.

Cantù, C., Corsaro, D., & Snehota, I. (2012). Roles of actors in combining resources intocomplex solutions. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 139–150.

Davies, I. A., Ryals, L. J., & Holt, S. (2010). Relationship management: A sales role, or a stateof mind?: An investigation of functions and attitudes across a business-to-businesssales force. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1049–1062.

Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources ofinterorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4),660–679.

Ellegaard, C., & Koch, C. (2012). The effects of low internal integration betweenpurchasing and operations on suppliers' resource mobilization. Journal of Purchasingand Supply Management, 18(3), 148–158.

Evans, K. R., & Schlacter, J. L. (1985). The role of sales managers and salespeople ina marketing information system. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,5(2), 49–58.

Flint, D. J., Woodruff, R. B., & Gardial, S. F. (2002). Exploring the phenomenon of customers'desired value change in a business-to-business context. Journal of Marketing, 66(4),102–117.

Ford, D. (2011). IMP and service-dominant logic: Divergence, convergence and devel-opment. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 231–239.

Franke, G. R., & Park, J. -E. (2006). Salesperson adaptive selling behavior and customerorientation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 693–702.

Gadde, L. -E., Hjelmgren, D., & Skarp, F. (2012). Interactive resource developmentin new business relationships. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 210–217.

Geiger, S., & Finch, J. (2009). Industrial sales people as market actors. Industrial MarketingManagement, 38(6), 608–617.

Grönroos, C. (2011). A service perspective on business relationships: The value creation,interaction andmarketing interface. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 240–247.

Guesalaga, R., & Johnson, W. (2010). What's next in key account managementresearch? Building the bridge between the academic literature and the practitioners'priorities. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1063–1068.

Haas, A., Snehota, I., & Corsaro, D. (2012). Creating value in business relationships:The role of sales. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1), 94–105.

Håkansson, H. (Ed.). (1982). International marketing and purchasing of industrial goods:An interaction approach. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in business networks.London: Routledge.

Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2000). The IMP perspective: Assets and liabilities of businessrelationships. In J. N. Sheth, & A. Partvatiyar (Eds.),Handbook of relationship marketing(pp. 69–94). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (2007). Interaction: The only means to create use. InH. Håkansson, & A. Waluszewski (Eds.), Knowledge and innovation in business andindustry: The importance of using others (pp. 147–167). London: Routledge.

Hammervoll, T. (2012). Managing interaction for learning and value creation inexchange relationships. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 128–136.

Humphreys, P. K., Li, W. L., & Chan, L. Y. (2004). The impact of supplier developmenton buyer–supplier performance. Omega, 32(2), 131–143.

Jones, E., Brown, S. P., Zoltners, A. A., & Weitz, B. A. (2005). The changing environmentof selling and sales management. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,25(2), 105–111.

Lenney, P., & Easton, G. (2009). Actors, resources, activities and commitments. IndustrialMarketing Management, 38(5), 553–561.

Madhavaram, S., & McDonald, R. E. (2010). Knowledge-based sales managementstrategy and the grafting metaphor: Implications for theory and practice. IndustrialMarketing Management, 39(7), 1078–1087.

Madhok, A., & Tallman, S. B. (1998). Resources, transactions and rents: Managing valuethrough interfirm collaborative relationships. Organization Science, 9(3), 326–339.

Mayer, K. J. (2006). Spillovers and governance: An analysis of knowledge andreputational spillovers in information technology. Academy of Management Journal,19(1), 69–84.

Menguc, B., & Barker, T. (2005). Re-examining field sales unit performance: Insightsfrom the resource-based view and dynamic capabilities perspective. EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 39(7/8), 885–909.

Moss, C. (1979). Industrial salesmen as a source of marketing intelligence. EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 13(3), 94–102.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organi-zation Science, 5(1), 14–38.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. -Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common methodbiases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommendedremedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Rentz, J. O., Shepherd, C. D., Tashchian, A., Dabholkar, P. A., & Ladd, R. T. (2002). A measureof selling skill: Scale development and validation. Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement, 22(1), 13–21.

Storbacka, K., & Nenonen, S. (2009). Customer relationships and the heterogeneity of firmperformance. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 24(5/6), 360–372.

Storbacka, K., Polsa, P., & Sääkjärvi, M. (2011). Management practices in solution sales-amultilevel and cross-functional framework. Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement, 31(1), 35–54.

Storbacka, K., Ryals, L., Davies, I. A., & Nenonen, S. (2009). The changing role of sales:Viewing sales as a strategic, cross-functional process. European Journal of Marketing,43(7/8), 890–906.

Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking customer solutions:From product bundles to relational processes. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 1–17.

Turley, D., & Geiger, S. (2006). Exploring salesperson learning in the client relationshipnexus. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5/6), 662–681.

Turnbull, P., Ford, D., & Cunningham, M. (1996). Interaction, relationships andnetworks in business markets: An evolving perspective. The Journal of Businessand Industrial Marketing, 11(3/4), 44–62.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It's all B2B…and beyond: Toward a systems perspectiveof the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 181–187.

Waluszewski, A., Hadjikhani, A., & Baraldi, E. (2009). An interactive perspective onbusiness in practice and business in theory. Industrial Marketing Management,38(6), 565–569.

Waluszewski, A., & Håkansson, H. (2007). Economic use of knowledge. In H.Håkansson, & A. Waluszewski (Eds.), Knowledge and innovation in business andindustry: The importance of using others (pp. 1–26). London: Routledge.

Weitz, B. A., & Bradford, K. D. (1999). Personal selling and sales management: A relationshipmarketing perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 241–254.

Management, the Journal of Business Research, and other international journals.

1130 A.L. Zhang et al. / Industrial Marketing M

Workman, J. P., Jr., Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2003). Intraorganizational determinants ofkey account management effectiveness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,31(1), 3–21.

Wotruba, T. R. (1996). The transformation of industrial selling: Causes and consequences.Industrial Marketing Management, 25(5), 327–338.

Zhang, A., Baxter, R., & Glynn, M. S. (2011). How do salespeople help make buyer'sresources available? Presented at the meeting of the 27th IMP Conference, Glasgow,Scotland (Retrieved from http://www.impgroup.org/uploads/papers/7687.pdf).

Annie Liqin Zhang obtained her PhD in Marketing from the Auckland Universityof Technology (AUT) and has also taught marketing at AUT. Her research interestsinclude sales management and the processes of realization of business relationship value,especially the salesperson's role in this process.

Roger Baxter is a Senior Lecturer at the Auckland University of Technology, where heteaches marketing at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Roger's researchinterests are in business relationships, the development and use of resources in them,and the value that is created in them. He investigates how buyers and sellers can bestmanage relationships to mutual benefit. He has published in Industrial Marketing

anagement 42 (2013) 1121–1130

Mark S. Glynn is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Business and Law at theAuckland University of Technology. He has a PhD in Marketing from the Universityof Auckland. His research areas are branding, business-to-business marketing, andretail channels. Mark's research has been published in the European Journal of Marketing,Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Business &Industrial Marketing as well as Marketing Theory.