0019-8501/98/$19.00PII S0019-8501(97)00002-3

Industrial Marketing Management

27

, 31–40 (1998)© 1998 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

The Salesperson’s Operating Freedom

A Matter of Perception

Susan K. DelVecchio

This study compared the perceptions of the salesperson tothose of his or her respective manager. In this paired compari-son of matched responses, findings indicate that salespeople’sevaluations of the degree of latitude they have over the salescall are significantly different from those of their managers.Salespeople perceive they are given more latitude than theirmanagers are giving. When managers have the opportunity tointeract with fewer subordinates—or interact with those subor-dinates over longer periods of time—these perceptual differ-ences occur less frequently. © 1998 Elsevier Science Inc.

INTRODUCTION

The operating freedom of the industrial field salesper-son has long been an issue of concern. Salespeopleshould clearly understand the parameters within whichthey have operating freedom. Sales managers certainly

have a vested interest in establishing and clarifying thisunderstanding. Too many times, however, managers andsalespeople alike may be relying on an assumption ratherthan an understanding. The degree of operating freedomas seen by salespeople may not agree with that of theirmanagers.

Compare, for example, these two perspectives. Indus-trial salespeople are out in the field, interacting with cus-tomers and typically have daily contact with more peopleoutside their firm than in. They believe they have the op-erating latitude and freedom to respond to these custom-ers. Managers have coached and advised them on the useof various basic selling skills, such as the effective use ofbenefits or open-ended questions. Managers believe thatsalespeople are executing the sales tasks with these guide-lines in mind.

Salespeople believe they have complete operating lati-tude over the sales call. Their sales managers believethey are operating within the guidelines. Whose percep-tion is accurate? Given the physical and psychologicaldistance the field salesperson and manager must contendwith—are we wise to assume these perceptions are the

Address correspondence to Susan K. DelVecchio, Ph.D., Department ofBusiness Administration, College of Business and Economics, North CarolinaA&T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411.

32

same? The purpose of this study is to explore this as-sumption.

BACKGROUND

A few studies have compared salesperson and managerperceptions of managerial control, but on an aggregatedlevel [1, 2]. The average for all of the salespeople in thesample was compared to that of all of the managers.Comparing these average perceptions is not the same ascomparing each salesperson’s viewpoint with that of hisor her respective manager. Stronger evidence of percep-tual differences would be based on a comparison at thedyad level (i.e., comparing the paired individual responsesof the salesperson with those of his or her respectivemanager). In sales management studies that comparedaggregated perceptions of control, results indicate salesmanagers’ perceptions were higher than those of the sub-ordinates [1, 3]. Because these findings relied on aggre-gated rather than matched responses, we cannot be surethat this pattern will be repeated. This study, therefore,matched the salesperson and manager responses and con-ducted analysis at the dyad level (i.e., comparing sales-person-manager paired responses.

This type of comparison is worthwhile because per-ceptual differences have been repeatedly linked to job-related outcomes. Salesperson-manager differences arenegatively related to performance, role clarity, and satis-faction [4–7]. These studies compared salespeople andtheir managers in terms of perceived trust levels, percep-tions of the salesperson’s performance, and each mem-ber’s problem-solving styles. If these same perceptualdifferences exist at the dyad level, uncovering and con-firming their existence is worthwhile.

Specifically, this investigation tested the following hy-potheses.

H1

: Industrial field salespeople and their managers do notevaluate the amount of latitude over sales-call-relatedtasks similarly.

H2

: This lack of similarity in salesperson and manager per-ceived latitude is higher when the sales manager is as-signed more sales subordinates.

H3

: This lack of similarity in salesperson and manager per-ceived latitude is higher when the manager is inexperi-enced.

H4

: This lack of similarity in salesperson and manager per-ceived latitude is higher when the salesperson is newlyassigned to the manager.

Salesperson and manager perceptions are not the same,and these differences may be explained by span of con-trol, managerial tenure, and duration of the dyad.

These factors (span, experience, and time) are objec-tive measures rather than measures that are influenced byperception and subjectivity. Because of their objectivenature, these three factors may offer both methodologicaland practical advantages over subjective measures. Stud-ies that explore perceptual differences have been criti-cized for overreliance on subjective measures [8, 9].Common method variance would inflate the relationships,since perceived measures are frequently used to explaindifferences in perception. Stronger evidence of a causalrelationship may be found by using objective measures topredict subjective ones. From a managerial viewpoint theuse of more objective factors may be preferable. It maybe faster and easier to manipulate these factors—ratherthan attempt to change perceptions. Therefore, these threepossible causal factors (e.g., span, managerial experience,and dyad duration) will be tested.

The span of control has been found to be a significantfactor in the clarification of salespeople role expectations[10]. Similar to Chonko’s [10] conclusions, studies outsidethe sales management area have found the investment ofa manager’s time and effort in clarifying communica-

SUSAN K. DELVECCHIO (Ph.D. Virginia Tech) has more than 10 years sales and marketing management experience with

major consumer package goods manufacturers.

Comparing salesperson and

manager perceptions.

33

tions with each subordinate does result in a reduction ofmanager-subordinate discrepant expectations [11]. If salesmanagers have fewer salespeople with whom they mustcommunicate, it is more likely they will have the time toinvest the effort in clarifying expectations. Therefore,one would expect that the smaller the span of control, thesmaller the differences between manager perceived lati-tude and salesperson.

The effect of managerial experience, however, is notas clear. Results from previous studies are mixed. Turbanand Jones [12] found a positive correlation between su-pervisor tenure and the total perceived similarity of sub-ordinate and superior. This positive relationship has intu-itive appeal. Over time, one would expect that salesmanagers improve their skills. This experienced salesmanager can better clarify the degree of latitude allowed,thus reducing perceptual differences. This intuitively ap-pealing explanation, however, has not been fully sup-ported. Supervisory tenure was not related to the similar-ity of problem-solving styles [5] nor to similarity ofperceived instrumentalities [12]. Whereas the managermay have experience, it may not be experience supervis-ing a particular subordinate. This experience with eachsubordinate differs—and different working relationshipsevolve [13–17]. The longer the salesperson-manager dyadhas existed, the higher the salesperson’s perceptions ofautonomy [18]. During the exploration stage of careerdevelopment, salespeople tended to describe their super-visor as less open and felt they had less decision-makingpower [19]. These studies indicated the salesperson’s per-ceptions are affected by the duration of the dyad. How-ever, some research suggests these perceptions may notbe shared by their managers. The length of the subordi-nate-superior relationship was inversely related to certainmanager behaviors such as verbal communications [20].This implies that over time, the subordinate-superior re-lationship may be based less on communications andmore on assumptions. These assumptions may not be simi-lar and perceptions diverge [21]. Differences in salesperson-manager perceptions may be affected by how long that

salesperson has been reporting to his or her respectivemanager.

METHOD

Manufacturing firms headquartered in the southeasternUnited States (with a national field sales force) providednames and addresses for salespeople and the managers towhom each reported. Responses were sent directly to theuniversity researcher. Salesperson survey forms were nu-merically coded. Sales manager survey forms asked man-agers to respond to questionnaire items as they related tothe salesperson named on the customized form. The nu-merical codes of the salesperson responses were used tomatch those received from sales managers. Thus, a com-plete response was defined as one in which usable re-sponses were received from both the salesperson and themanager.

The salesperson form asked respondents to evaluatethe degree of latitude or flexibility their manager givesthem in making changes in six listed activities. The salesmanager form asked for the same evaluations as they re-lated to the specific salesperson named on the question-naire. The listed activities included those relevant to thesales call, such as the approach method used, the selec-tion of persuasive tactics, the selection of the presenta-tion format, or techniques for meeting objections or clos-ing the sale. Information concerning the span of control(i.e., the number of field salespeople reporting to him or her)and managerial experience was reported by each sales man-ager. The salesperson’s form requested information concern-ing the duration of this particular salesperson-manager dyad.

Paired

t

-tests explored the magnitude of salesperson-manager perceptual differences. These paired

t

-tests wereconducted on the entire sample as well as subgroups. Thesubgroups consisted of three levels of span of control,managerial experience, and dyadic duration. Each of thethree levels were of approximately equal size. The paired

t

-test on subgroups examined the extent to which percep-

Explaining salesperson and manager

perceptual differences.

34

tual differences did or did not exist. ANOVA was used tocompare the differences across levels.

RESULTS

Surveys were sent to 297 salesperson-manager dyads,and completed usable responses were received from 155.Although this 52% response rate was above average forthis type of study, analysis was conducted to explore thepossibility of nonresponse bias. Matched responses (fromboth dyad members) were compared to unmatched re-sponses. This analysis found no significant differencesbetween matched and unmatched responses.

1

Participating firms included a diverse set of 52 manu-facturers. These firms were engaged in different stages ofthe production of food & tobacco products (13% of thesample), furniture (10%), textiles (13%), apparel (8%),industrial equipment (25%), industrial supplies (15%),and building supplies (15%). Further, these manufactur-ers included both small (38%), medium (31%), and large(31%) firms. See Table 1 for the frequency of type ofmanufacturer and size in annual revenues. Given this di-versity of firms, it was surprising to find a consistent andsignificant difference in salesperson and manager per-ceptions.

When the salespeople’s responses were matched withthose of their manager, this study found that salespeopleperceived they were granted

more

latitude over sales-call-related tasks than their managers perceived theywere granting (see Table 2: paired

t

-test for latitude scaleitems). The

P

-values are sufficiently high to allay con-cerns about the repetitive nature of this tests. The six lati-tude items exhibited strong internal reliability, since theaverage pairwise correlation (i.e., coefficient alpha) forthese items was 0.90 for salesperson responses, 0.92 forsales manager responses, and 0.88 for the difference scores.In short, the six items seem to be measuring the sameconcept. Those measures indicate salespeople and theirmanagers do not agree, and the first hypotheses is sup-

ported. Salespeople in this representative cross-section ofmanufacturing firms perceive they are granted more lati-tude over sales-call-related tasks than their sales manag-ers perceive they were granting.

This analysis method explores the dyad—rather thancomparing a group of salespeople with a group of man-agers. As such, it differs from the analyses typically con-ducted in sales management studies. Typically studiescombine the responses from all of the salesperson re-spondents and compare the averages to those responsesfrom all of the managers responding. For example Evanset al. [3] (1995) compared the aggregated perceptions of81 salespeople to 27 managers, Quigley and Bingham [2]compared 197 salespeople to 140 managers, and Leighand Futrell [1] compared 49 regional sales managers to36 district sales managers. Using the same analysis methodas these previous studies, results in this study would notshow perceptual differences. When this data set was ana-lyzed in aggregate, rather than matching the responses ofthe salesperson with his or her respective manager, noperceptual differences were uncovered (see Table 3). Analy-ses that ignore the dyad and aggregate all responses wouldconclude that the manager and salesperson

do not

differ.Analyses based on the matched paired responses clearlyshow the perceptual differences

do

exist. Now that this

1

Unmatched responses were received from 40 sales managers and 41salespeople. Because of the difference in the sample size, a Welch’s

t

-test wasused to compare the matched (

n

5

155) to unmatched responses.

Different firms with similar problems.

TABLE 1Participating Firms: Manufacturing Category and Size

Annual Revenues

Category of Mfgr

Less than$50

Million

Between$50 and

$200Million

Over $200Million Total

Food, pharmaceuticals, and tobacco products 2 3 2 7

Furniture 2 2 1 5Textile 2 2 3 7Apparel 1 1 2 4Industrial equipment 7 3 3 13Industrial supplies 3 2 3 8Building materials 3 3 2 8

Total 20 16 16 52

35

focus on the dyad shows significant differences, subse-quent analysis exploring the causes of those differencesis warranted.

For each of these causal factors, the sample was di-vided into three approximately equal-sized groups.

2

Eachgroup represented either a high, medium, or low level ofthe causal factor. The paired

t

-tests were conducted foreach of these levels, and results indicate whether the SM-SP differences were significant. The analysis of variancecompared the average differences across all three levelsfor each possible causal factor. Thus, the paired

t

-testprovided information regarding the degree of perceptualdifference and ANOVA results provided informationabout the pattern of average dyadic differences.

A comparison of the average perceptual differences

3

indicates salespeople and managers will experience morecongruence when the span of control is low (see Figure1). The paired

t

-test conducted on each of the three groupsshowed that no significant differences exist when the salesmanager is responsible for four or fewer salespeople.Within the medium span of control group, however,salesperson and manager differences are large. Reflect-ing the results of the paired

t

-tests, the analysis of vari-ance indicates that the span of control is related to theamount of SP-SM difference. Over 5% of the variance insalesperson-manager perceptual differences can be ex-plained by the span of control. This explanation, however,is slightly counterintuitive. One would expect (as re-flected in the second hypothesis) that a sales manager re-

sponsible for many salespeople would have a higher inci-dence of perceptual differences. This is not the case, sincethe average perceptual difference of this group is

less

than that of the medium span group.The paired

t

-test found significant differences for oneof the three levels of managerial experience. Perceptualdiscrepancies between the sales manager and his subordi-nate are high for the inexperienced manager. The paired

t

-tests conducted on the high and moderate manager ex-perience group showed no significant differences. Theaverage of the low experience level was significant (

P

-valueof .001). Whereas the average perceptual difference forinexperienced managers was significant, there does notseem to be a consistent linear pattern between managerexperience and perceptual discrepancies (see Figure 2).The ANOVA results indicate these differences are not di-rectly related to managerial experience. The variability ofperceptual differences is not related to the overall experi-ence level of the manager. The F-statistic was not signifi-cant (

P

-value of .1511), and experience level explainedonly 2.5% of the variability. Thus, the third hypothesiswas not fully supported.

Time, however, is a factor. The amount of time thesalesperson has been reporting to the same manager doeshave a bearing on the congruence of their perceptions.Salespeople’s perceived latitude was on average 6.53 pointshigher than that of their managers in the moderate dura-tion group and 3.306 points higher in the short durationgroup. Both of these differences are significant (at

P

-levelsof .0049 and .001, respectively) (see Figure 3). Results ofANOVA indicate that the variability in these perceptualdifference scores is related to the amount of time thesalesperson-manager relationship has existed. The univari-ate F-statistic was 4.39 (with an associated

P

-value of.0140). Dyadic duration explained 5.5% of the variability

2

The

n

-sizes for the high, medium, and low levels of span of control were52, 55, and 48 respectively; managerial experience were 56, 51, and 48respectively; dyad duration were 57, 49, 49 respectively.

3

Differences were computed by (1) adding the salesperson’s response to thesix latitude questionnaire items, (2) adding the managers response to the sixlatitude items, and (3) deducting the manager’s summed score from that of hisor her salesperson.

TABLE 2Comparison of Salesperson and Manager Aggregated Responses

Salesperson

n

5

196Sales Manager

n

5

195

P

-Value(two-tailed)Latitude Scale Item Avg. SD Avg. SD Welch’s

t

-statistic

Precall planning 6.3622 1.070 5.872 1.103 1.0629 0.2891Approach method 6.2806 0.9702 5.713 1.135 1.1831 0.2382Persuasive tactics 6.0306 1.236 5.636 1.077 0.8538 0.3943Presentation format 6.2041 1.062 5.7077 1.094 1.0647 0.2884Method of addressing objections 5.9949 1.246 5.5744 1.174 0.8320 0.4065Technique for closing the sale 6.2296 1.054 5.7692 1.136 0.9609 0.3378

36

in SP-SM difference scores. Salesperson-manager dyadsthat have been in existence 3 years or less are more likelyto experience a higher level of differences.

DISCUSSION

The most impressive finding of this study is that sales-people tend to perceive they are granted a

higher

degreeof latitude over sales-call-related tasks than their manag-ers may have intended. This imbalance held true regard-

less of which part of the sales call was being measured.From the approach to the close, salespeople see the salescall as an area over which they have operating freedom.By itself, this does not seem an issue of concern—andsome may argue, a preferable situation. Unfortunately,this study shows that the level of freedom may not be inagreement with managerial perceptions. Salespeople inthis sample believe they are granted

more

latitude thantheir managers allowed. In today’s marketing environ-ment of crucial key accounts and the strategic importanceof relationship marketing, every interaction with the cus-tomer is important. The goals and objectives of the salesmanager are affected by every customer interaction. As aresult, sales managers attempt to guide, coach, or directtheir salespeople to engage in specific sales behaviorsaimed at improving customer relations. Sales managersmay believe they have clarified the expected sales tech-niques and behaviors to be used on sales calls. Results ofthis study imply these beliefs are not the same as those oftheir subordinates and that the managers’ intentions con-cerning customer interactions may not be realized.

The direction of the perceptual differences is not thesame as found in previous sales management studies. Inthis comparison of paired responses, sales managers’ per-ceived level of latitude granted was

less

than that of theirsubordinates. Prior studies (which compared sales man-

TABLE 3Paired

t

-test for Latitude Scale Items*

Questionnaire Item:Evaluate degree of latitudeover the following activities

SalesPerson

SalesMgr.

Mean Mean

t

-stat

†

P

-Value

Precall planning 6.37 5.89 4.696 0.0001Approach method 6.24 5.72 4.963 0.0001Persuasive tactics 6.03 5.65 3.196 0.0017Presentation format 6.23 5.71 4.836 0.0001Method of addressing objections 5.98 5.63 2.627 0.0095Techniques for closing the sale 6.20 5.81 3.29 0.0012

*

1

5

no latitude and 7

5

complete latitude.

†

The paired

t

-tests the degree to which the mean difference in salespersonand manager perceptions are significantly different from zero.

FIGURE 1. Span of control. Average perceptual difference by span of control. Paired t-test: significant SP-SMdifferences exist at the medium span of control level, t-statistic 5.609 with P-value of .0001. ANOVA: F-statistic4.68; P-value .0107; r2 5 0.058; Scheffe comparison: medium . small.

37

ager perceptions with those of their subordinates) con-cluded that the managers’ perceptions of control were

higher

than those of the subordinates [1, 3]. Among the manyimportant differences between these previous studies andthis one is the level of data analysis. When sales manag-ers’ responses are matched and compared to those peoplereporting to them, a different image emerges. At the veryleast, these results should point to the problems associ-ated with aggregating individual responses and applyingthese results to the salesperson-manager dyad. If the re-search objective is to study differences in salesperson-manager viewpoints, then this salesperson-manager rela-tionship should be considered. In addition to these re-search issues, the findings here carry some importantpractical implications.

These results are rather disconcerting to any sales man-ager. Certainly every sales manager understands that acertain amount of latitude and freedom is inherent in anyfield sales setting. These results indicate that sales man-

agers, despite this knowledge, underestimate the amount oflatitude taken by their respective salespeople. Alterna-tively, salespeople may be overestimating the latitude in-tended. Salespeople are assuming they have more freedomover selling strategies than the manager intended. Whetherthe salespersons’ perceptions are inflated or the managers’deflated, it is clear that misunderstandings about the amountof sales-call-related latitude are significant.

These misunderstandings, or differences in perception,are problematic especially in today’s selling environment.Salespeople who erroneously believe they have more lat-itude than the manager intended may be engaged in teamselling. As a team leader, these perceptual discrepanciesaffect the performance of the team. In addition to teamselling, today’s selling environment is affected by thegrowth of key accounts. The lack of agreement betweenmanager and salesperson can affect these customer interac-tions. For example, if salespeople believe they have less lat-itude than the managers intended, the salespeople may not

FIGURE 2. Managerial experience. Average perceptual difference by managerial experience level. Paired t-test: sig-nificant SP-SM differences exist at the low experience level; t-statistic 5.417 with a P-value of .001. ANOVA: F-sta-tistic 1.91; P-value of .1511; r2 5 0.025.

Causes of salesperson-manager perceptual

differences: span, experience, and time.

38

respond effectively to customers. Thus, these interactionscan be far more time-consuming and less productive. Be-cause of these problems, managers should seek ways toreduce the level of perceptual differences. These misun-derstandings may be reduced through the development ofstable working relationships.

Discrepancies in perceived latitude may be reducedwhen sales managers have fewer subordinates or thosesubordinates are assigned to them for a longer period oftime. The span of managerial control can be structured soas to facilitate or inhibit successful outcomes [22]. Oneof the successes can be a lack of discrepancies in sales-person latitude over sales calls. Over time, these sales-person-manager relationships develop. Lagace [6] foundthat salesperson-manager trust levels increase with the

duration of the dyad. Results of this study suggest thatthe dyadic trust may be based on shared perceptions.

The diversity of the sample provided an impressivetest of the salesperson-manager perceptual differences.Unfortunately, this diversity introduced a myriad of pos-sible background factors. Due to the limitations of thisstudy, not all background factors could be explored. Twofindings of this study do suggest background factors wor-thy of future study. First, managerial tenure seems tohave little bearing on the SP-SM differences. Leadershipstudies support these findings and contend it is the spe-cific task-related experience or expertise which is signifi-cant [23]. Additional studies that measure the quality ofexperience rather than the length of time may furtherclarify this issue. Second, whereas span of control is re-

FIGURE 3. Dyad duration. Average perceptual difference by duration of the SM–SP dyad. Paired t-test: signifi-cant SP-SM differences exist in short and moderate duration; t-statistic for short: 2.951 with P-value of .0049;t-statistic for moderate: 4.644 with P-value of .001. ANOVA: F-statistic 4.39; P-value .0140; r2 5 0.055; Scheffecomparison: moderate . high.

Results based on aggregated responses

differ from those based on paired responses.

39

lated to perceptual differences, it was not a linear rela-tionship. Perceptual differences were not significant whenthe salesperson-to-manager ratio was high. In situationswhere managerial control is high, firms may be usingtechnology as a managerial support tool [24–26]. Thissuggests a second background factor worthy of future re-search may be the interactive effect of technology andmanagerial span.

SUMMARY

Any field sales manager knows that he or she can notmonitor every sales call and that some degree of operat-ing latitude must be allowed to the salesperson. Unfortu-nately, the sales manager may be assuming that the sales-person knows and understands just how much latitude ispermitted. This study tested this assumption by compar-ing salespeople’s evaluations to those of their managers. Inthis cross-section of manufacturing firms, the findings in-dicate that significant differences in salesperson-managerperceptions occur. These occurrences exist at each dyadlevel. When the salespeople responses were matched withthose of their respective managers this study found thatsalespeople consistently perceive they are given

more

lati-tude over sales-call-related tasks than their respectivemanagers intended.

From a statistical viewpoint, this finding is intriguing.If perceptual differences were influenced by many differ-ent factors (as one might expect), then it is reasonable toexpect that some salespeople would believe they are given

less

latitude than their managers intended, and otherswould believe they are given more. Over a combinationof many situations, individuals, and employers, then thedistribution of perceptual differences should be random.No such random pattern existed in this study of 155salesperson-manager dyads. A significant number of per-ceived differences show that the salesperson perceiveshigher levels of latitude.

From a managerial viewpoint, these differences are dis-turbing. Because the industrial salesperson is engaged incomplex problem-solving, is interacting with a diverseset of customers and is not in face-to-face frequent contact

with his manager, the manager must give the salesperson adegree of latitude. Any manager sets down guidelinesand within those guidelines allows latitude. It is that degreeof latitude and understanding of guidelines that is calledinto question. If the salesperson and manager’s perceivedlevel of latitude are not the same, a manager may havereason to doubt the guidelines are being observed.

Rather than assume, managers should periodically clar-ify and discuss just how much freedom salespeople havein executing their sales-call-related tasks. If sales manag-ers invested resources in developing the use of specificselling behaviors, they should not assume those behaviorshave been implemented. Managers could clarify expectedlevels of freedom (or specify the use of various sales-calltechniques) during objective setting sessions with sales-people. Managers can discuss this topic during perfor-mance review sessions. Additional opportunities forthese discussions and clarifications may occur during theperiod after a sales training module or seminar. Typi-cally, the change in sales behaviors after a training ses-sion will diminish over time. Results of this study imply,managers may not be aware of just how much diminish-ment has occurred. Therefore, managers may want to asksalespeople about the degree to which they are using thetechniques from training based on “principled negotia-tion” or “relationship marketing.”

In addition to these periodic reviews, this study sug-gests perceptual differences may be affected by span ofcontrol and the duration of the salesperson-manager rela-tionship. Salespeople and managers tended to have fewerperceptual differences when the manager supervised fewerpeople or when the salesperson had been reporting to themanager for longer periods of time.

REFERENCES

1. Leigh, James H., and Futrell, Charles M., From the Trenches to the Com-mand Post: Perceptual and Attitudinal Differences among Levels in theMarketing Management Hierarchy.

Journal of Business Research

13,511–536 (1985).

2. Quigley, Charles J., Jr., and Bingham, Frank G., Jr., Salesforce ControlTechniques: A Comparison of Sales Managers and Salespeople Percep-tion. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 3, 46–59 (1995).

Decreasing these perceptual differences.

40

3. Evans, Kenneth R., Gremler, Dwayne D., Schlacter, John L., and Wolfe,William G., The Impact of Salesperson Socialization on OrganizationalCommitment, Satisfaction, and Performance in a Professional Service Orga-nization. Journal of Professional Services Marketing 11, 139–156 (1995).

4. Chonko, Lawrence B., Howell, Roy D., and Bellenger, Danny N., Congru-ence in Sales Force Evaluations: Relation to Sales Force Perceptions ofConflict and Ambiguity. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Manage-ment 6, 35–48 (1986).

5. Goldsmith, Ronald E., McNeilly, Kevin M., and Russ, Frederick A., Simi-larity of Sales Representatives, and Supervisors Problem-Solving Stylesand the Satisfaction-Performance Relationship. Psychological Reports 64,827–832 (1989).

6. Lagace, Rosemary R., An Exploratory Study of Reciprocal Trust betweensales managers and salespersons. Journal of Personal Selling and SalesManagement 11, 49–58 (1991).

7. Weeks, William A., Chonko, Lawrence B., and Kahle, Lynn R., Perfor-mance Congruence and Value Congruence Impact on Sales Force AnnualSales. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 17, 345–351 (1989).

8. Johns, Gary, Difference Score Measures of Organizational Behavior Vari-ables: A Critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 27,443–463 (1981).

9. Peter, Paul J., Churchill, Gilbert A. Jr., and Brown, Tom J., Caution in theUse of Difference Scores in Consumer Research. Journal of ConsumerResearch 19, 655–662 (1993).

10. Chonko, Lawrence B., The Relationship of Span of Control to Sales Rep-resentatives’ Experienced Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity. Academy ofManagement Journal 25, 452–456 (1982).

11. Tsui, Anne S., Ashford, Susan J., St. Clair, Lynda, and Xin, Katherine R.,Dealing with Discrepant Expectations: Response Strategies and ManagerialEffectiveness. Academy of Management Journal 38, 1515–1543 (1995).

12. Turban, Daniel B., and Jones, Allan P., Supervisor-Subordinate Similarity:Types, Effects, and Mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology 73, 228–234 (1988).

13. Graen, George B., Role Making Processes within Complex Organizationsin Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, M. D. Dunette,ed., Rand-McNally, Chicago, 1976.

14. Graen, George B., and Cashman, James, A Role-Making Model of Leader-ship in Formal Organizations: A Developmental Approach, in Leadership

Frontiers, J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson, eds., Kent State University Press,Kent, OH, 1975.

15. Graen, George B., Schiemann, William, Leader-Member agreement: AVertical Dyad Linkage Approach. Journal of Applied Psychology 63, 206–212 (1978).

16. Graen, George B., Liden, Robert, and Hoel, William, Role of Leadershipin the Employee Withdrawal Process, Journal of Applied Psychology 67,868–872 (1982).

17. Graen, George B., Novak, Michael, and Sommerkamp, Patricia, TheEffects of Leader-Member Exchange and Job Design on Productivity andSatisfaction: Testing a Dual Attachment Model. Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance 30, 109–131 (1982).

18. Strutton, David, Toma, Al, and Pelton, Lou E., Relationship between Psy-chological Climate and Trust between Salespersons and Their Managers inSales Organizations. Psychological Reports 72, 931–939 (1993).

19. Cron, William L., and Slocum, John W., Jr., The Influence of CareerStages on Salespeople’s Job Attitudes, Work Perceptions, and Perfor-mance. Journal of Marketing Research 23, 119–129 (1986).

20. Lindholm, Jeanne, The Manager’s Role in Developing Subordinates:Interaction Patterns at Work. Journal of Career Development 16, 173–183(1990).

21. Mossholder, Kevin W., Bedeian, Arthur G., Neibuhr, Robert E., andWesolowski, Mark A., Dyadic Duration and the Performance-SatisfactionRelationship: A Contextual Perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psy-chology 24, 1251–1269 (1994).

22. Babakus, Emin, Cravens, David W., Grant, Ken, Ingram, Thomas, N., andLaForge, Raymond W., Removing Salesforce Performance Hurdles. Jour-nal of Business & Industrial Marketing 9, 19–29 (1994).

23. Lord, Robert G., and Hall, Rosalie J., Contemporary Views of Leadershipand Individual Differences. Leadership Quarterly 3, 137–157 (1992).

24. Falvey, Jack, On Guard. Sales and Marketing Management 146, 41 (January1994).

25. Seideman, Tony, Who Needs Managers? Sales & Marketing Management146, 14–17 (June 1994).

26. Bartlett, Christopher A., and Ghoshal, Sumantra, Changing the Role ofTop Management: Beyond Systems to People. Harvard Business Review73, 132–142 (1995).