a global perspective on the current state of sales education in the college curriculum
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Nova Southeastern University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 04:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpss20
A Global Perspective on the Current State of SalesEducation in the College CurriculumDawn R. Deeter-Schmelz & Karen Norman KennedyPublished online: 23 Sep 2013.
To cite this article: Dawn R. Deeter-Schmelz & Karen Norman Kennedy (2011) A Global Perspective on the Current State ofSales Education in the College Curriculum, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 31:1, 55-75
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134310104
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. XXXI, no. 1 (winter 2011), pp. 55–75.© 2011 PSE National Educational Foundation. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0885-3134 / 2011 $9.50 + 0.00. DOI 10.2753/PSS0885-3134310104
Interest in sales education has never been stronger. For the past four years, Manpower (2008, 2009) has reported that sales representatives are among the top five hardest jobs to fill in the United States; in 2006 and 2007, business executives reported that sales representative was the most difficult job to fill worldwide (Manpower 2007). In 2008 and 2009, sales representatives was the second job classification on the global findings of talent shortages behind skilled manual tradespeople (Manpower 2008, 2009). With demand for well-trained salespeople growing, colleges and university sales programs are expanding. Indeed, the University Sales Education Foundation (2009) identifies 42 university sales programs verified by the organization. Interest in university sales programs is being supported by businesses. Companies such as 3M work directly with business schools to develop future sales talent (Chang 2007; Kornik 2007). Moreover, this increased interest in sales education is global. The Global Sales Science Institute (GSSI) was founded to connect sales academics and practitioners for the purpose of integrating sales research, teaching, and practice (GSSI 2009). Anecdotal evidence suggests these numbers are increasing, although the specific number is not clear.
This interest and growth in sales education argues for a broad assessment of the specific characteristics of university-level sales education globally. What courses are being taught,
and how are these courses being delivered? How many sales programs exist, and how many schools are considering sales programs? What is the trend globally? The answers to these and other important questions could provide insight to educators seeking to develop or revise sales programs as well as business seeking to hire students from these programs. Although a few studies have explored rather specific sales education experiences such as integrating the sales, sales management, and purchasing courses (Mantel et al. 2002) and sales competitions (Loe and Chonko 2000), these studies did not provide a comprehensive assessment. The most recent assessment of sales education oc-curred two decades ago when Kellerman and Hekmat (1989) built upon the work of Johnson (1982) to provide a status report of personal selling and sales management in the mar-keting curriculum. While making an important contribution to our understanding of the evolution of sales and marketing curriculum in universities, these seminal research reports are quite dated. Both reflected the concern at the time for univer-sity courses that were more conceptual and abstract (Keller-man and Hekmat 1989) and occurred before the growth of dedicated sales programs and the advent of online education. Importantly, our current environment reflects business demand for the development of ongoing, mutually beneficial customer relationships that require salespeople who are not only skilled problem solvers but also well-schooled in modern, profes-sional selling practices that are required for the global business environment in which we now operate (Ingram, LaForge, and Leigh 2002; Luthy 2000; Weitz and Bradford 1999).
Hence, the purpose of this paper is to provide a current assessment of the state of sales education in the global busi-ness environment. Specifically, we will address the following questions:
A GlobAl PersPective on the current stAte of sAles educAtion in the colleGe curriculum
dawn r. deeter-schmelz and Karen norman Kennedy
In developing on-going customer relationships required in a global business world, twenty-first-century businesses are demanding greater numbers of well-trained, entry-level sales representatives while at the same time expecting higher levels of professionalism and skill from these salespeople. With increased focus on professional selling, we address the question: has the delivery of sales education at universities evolved in response to current demands? This research assesses the cur-rent state of sales education in domestic and international universities by surveying department chairs and sales faculty to determine what courses are being taught, what pedagogical techniques are being used, and what are the concerns facing departments in the delivery of sales education. In addition, we contrast the curriculum of schools that offer a dedicated sales program with those that have a general business or marketing program. We also focus attention on the differences and similarities of U.S. and global universities’ sales offerings. Our findings provide benchmarks for schools that are developing or enhancing their sales courses to meet the demand from businesses.
dawn r. deeter-schmelz (Ph.D., University of South Florida), O’Bleness Professor of Marketing, Ohio University, [email protected].
Karen norman Kennedy (Ph.D., University of South Florida), Associate Dean and Director of the Center for Sales Leadership, University of Alabama at Birmingham, [email protected].
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
56 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
1. What university sales courses are offered? 2. What teaching methods are used in sales courses,
and what is the perceived effectiveness of different methods?
3. What are the differences in course offerings and pedagogy between schools that have a dedicated sales program and those universities that do not?
4. Do differences exist in course offerings and pedagogy between U.S. and global schools for sales education? If so, what are those differences?
5. What are the major issues facing sales educators today?
6. What are educators’ perceptions of online sales education?
bAcKGround And methodoloGy
A more narrow approach has been adopted by most research-ers examining sales education issues. Mantel et al. (2002), for example, examined an integrative approach to sales education in which students in three class—sales, sales management, and purchasing—were immersed in a specific industry context, with the students taking on the role of one participant in the industry (seller, sales manager, or buyer). Loe and Chonko (2000) explored the National Collegiate Sales Competition as a means to develop the skills of sales students.
Other researchers took a more comprehensive approach but did not examine sales programs specifically. Marshall, Goebel, and Moncrief (2003) examined sales managers’ perceptions of the factors critical to the success of salespeople hired. Although their research did not deal with sales education directly, their findings had implications for universities offering sales courses by providing an indication of the qualities and skills employ-ers seek from students. In one of the few studies to take a global perspective, Honeycutt et al. (1999) studied business students in the United States, New Zealand, and the Philip-pines to identify those students’ perceptions and preferences about sales and marketing careers. According to the authors, students from all three countries “have perceptual problems about sales careers” (Honeycutt et al. 1999, p. 34).
Clearly, these aforementioned studies have identified in-novative classroom practices, student perceptions toward sales careers, and the skills preferred by hiring managers. Yet these studies do not provide a comprehensive assessment of what is happening currently in university sales education. Two stud-ies have provided such an assessment: Johnson (1982) and Kellerman and Hekmat (1989). Both studies provided a status report of the sales and sales management courses in university education. Unfortunately, both studies are dated and as such are not relevant to today’s university environment. A more recent undertaking by the University Sales Education Foun-dation (2009) provides timely, useful information regarding
core demographics (e.g., number of students) for a number of the leading sales program, but this study, too, is limited; it is not global in nature and does not provide sufficient insight into specific sales programs so as to be useful. In addition, this report does not examine the state of sales education beyond these top programs and as such is not broad-reaching.
What is needed, then, is a current broad-based assessment of sales education, from a global perspective. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to extend the work of Johnson (1982) and Kellerman and Hekmat (1989) as a means to examine the current state of sales education from a global perspective. The current study survey and data methodology drew from this prior work. We developed additional areas of investigation from a preliminary study involving the program directors of the member schools of the University Sales Center Alliance (USCA). As in previous studies, we asked open-ended questions gathering information on courses taught, teaching methods used, course delivery formats, and key issues faced by schools delivering sales education. Our choice of survey design, as well as our decision to measure survey responses with high values representing weak agreement and low val-ues representing strong agreement, was made in order to be consistent with Kellerman and Hekmat (1989).
data collection and samples
In the present study, data were collected via an online survey system. Potential respondents were sent an e-mail requesting voluntary participation in the study; a link to the survey was included in the e-mail text. A follow-up e-mail was sent two weeks later.
Data were collected from business schools, both domestic (United States) and global. The sampling frame was derived from four lists: (1) the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools (AACSB)-accredited colleges and schools of business, (2) Hasselback’s Marketing Faculty Directory, (3) attendees at the 2007 New Horizons in Professional Selling Conference, and (4) attendees at the 2008 GSSI Conference. The four lists were combined, with duplicates removed. University Internet sites were used to obtain individual contact information as needed. The primary target was the department chair, followed by sales/marketing faculty. Department chairs were asked to forward the survey link to the lead sales faculty member, if appropriate. One contact per university program was identified and included in the final list of potential respondents, for a total of 886 contacts. Fifteen schools were removed because e-mails were returned as undeliverable and an alternative contact could not be identified; the result was a final sample size of 853.
Two-hundred and nine usable surveys were returned, for a total response rate of 24.5 percent. The majority of respon-dents were department chairs (51.4 percent) followed by sales
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Winter 2011 57
faculty members (20.0 percent), other faculty members (15.2 percent), and sales program directors (4.3 percent). Most re-spondents represented universities located in the United States (60.7 percent) followed by Europe (7.0 percent), Canada (1.4 percent), and Australia (0.5 percent). Unfortunately, a large percentage of the sample (30.4 percent) did not report location information. As such, although a global approach was taken when developing our sampling list, it is unclear how many of the responding universities are located outside the United States. Additional sample characteristics can be seen in Table 1 and are discussed in full in the results section.
Assessment of nonresponse bias
Nonresponse bias was assessed by dividing the data into quartiles based on the date of completion of the online survey. The first quartile was composed of responses received earliest and the fourth quartile comprised the latest responses. Sub-sequently, analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were generated to compare responses from each of four quartiles on the demo-graphic variables (Armstrong and Overton 1977). Significant differences were found between the first and fourth quartiles for two demographic variables: total enrollment on campus and university location. With respect to total enrollment on campus, respondents in the fourth quartile were more likely to be from universities with smaller enrollments (F = 5.10, mean difference = 1.07, p = 0.002). Regarding university location, respondents in the fourth quartile were more likely to be from universities outside the United States (F = 3.31, mean differ-ence = 0.29, p = 0.02). This latter finding was expected, as the majority of survey links e-mailed to potential respondents outside the United States were sent after survey links e-mailed to U.S. respondents. Given that the location difference was expected, and the other difference did not reflect a pattern of bias, we determined that the data were not affected adversely by nonresponse bias.
results
sample characteristics
The characteristics of responding institutions can be seen in Ta-ble 1. For purposes of comparison, results from Kellerman and Hekmat (1989) are provided. One hundred and twenty-eight (61.2 percent) of responding institutions reported accreditation by the AACSB. Of these accredited schools, 123 (96.1 percent) were accredited at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Kellerman and Hekmat (1989) reported a lower percentage of accredited business schools (46.7 percent), with fewer schools accredited at both the undergraduate and graduate levels (81.8 percent). Our finding may reflect the growing trend toward business school accreditation (Zammuto 2008).
One hundred and twenty-nine schools reported status as public institutions (61.7 percent); this finding is similar to that reported by Kellerman and Hekmat (66.9 percent). More schools in our study reported total enrollments of less than 5,000 students (28.7 percent) followed by 5,000–9,999 students (16.7 percent) and 25,000 or more students (16.3 percent). The Kellerman and Hekmat (1989) sample was slightly weighted toward smaller schools (Table 1). This dif-ference may reflect the growth in college enrollment since the publication of the Kellerman and Hekmat (1989) study; total college enrollments have increased 23 percent since 1992 (National Center for Education Statistics 2009).
We also collected data on the number of undergraduate majors and bachelor’s degrees granted by departments in the past year. The largest number of respondents reported un-dergraduate majors of 151–250 (12.5 percent), followed by over 450 (12 percent) and 101–150 (11 percent). It is worth noting that results for number of majors were distributed somewhat evenly. Regarding degrees, the highest number of respondents reported less than 25 awarded in the past year (16.8 percent), followed closely by 101–150 (16.3 percent), 25–50 (13.4 percent), and 76–100 (11 percent).
The majority of respondents reported offering a general marketing major with no specialization or track (33.8 per-cent). Reported with equal frequency were a general business major with a marketing specialization or track (27.6 percent) and a marketing major with the opportunity for a specializa-tion or track (27.6 percent). Only 4.8 percent of respondents reported a general business major with no specialization. Similarly, 4.8 percent of respondents reported offering a sales major.
One goal of this study is to identify the number of universi-ties with sales majors or programs, and we therefore considered the offerings of those universities in comparison to other universities without such programs. As shown in Table 2, 10 universities reported offering sales majors within the college of business with an additional 37 universities reporting a sales program (minor, specialized track, or certificate) for a combined total of 47 (22.5 percent). Of these, 27 universities reported a dedicated sales lab. The most common funding source was the college/university (100 percent or partial sup-port). Eight of the 37 universities reporting a sales program were from universities located in Europe (7) and Canada (1), representing 42.1 percent of the 17 reported international respondents in our sample. Four of these eight international schools with sales programs had a dedicated sales lab.
An additional 30 universities reported that a sales program was under consideration. Demand from businesses was cited as the most common reason for consideration (10.5 percent), followed by nonmonetary support from the department (6.2 percent) and demand from students (2.7 percent). Three of these universities were located outside the United States.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
58 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Table 1Sample Characteristics
Present StudyKellerman and Hekmat
(1989)
Characteristics Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Accreditation Status Accredited by AACSB Nonaccredited Did not report
1286021
61.228.710.1
124141
1
46.753.00.3
Accredited Schools Undergraduate program Graduate program Both undergraduate and graduate
41
123
3.10.8
96.1
184
99
14.93.3
81.8Type of Schools Public Private Did not report
1295921
61.728.210.1
178862
66.932.30.8
Total Enrollment on Campus Less than 5,000 students 5,000–9,999 students 10,000–14,999 students 15,000–24,999 students 25,000 and over Did not report
603529333418
28.716.713.915.816.38.6
91704439211
34.226.316.614.77.90.3
Number of Undergraduate Majors in Department Last Year Less than 25 25–50 51–75 76–100 101–150 151–250 251–350 351–450 Over 450 Did not report
17211518232620132531
8.110.07.28.6
11.012.59.66.2
12.014.8
Number of Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded in Department Last Year Less than 25 25–50 51–75 76–100 101–150 151–250 Over 250 Did not report
3528202334161637
16.813.49.6
11.016.37.67.6
17.7Majors Offered General business major with no specialization General business major with a marketing specialization/track General marketing major with no specialization or track Marketing major with the opportunity for specialization/track Sales major Did not report
10587158102
4.827.633.827.64.81.4
course offerings
Kellerman and Hekmat (1989) reported results for three undergraduate sales courses: sales, sales management, and the
combination sales/sales management course. Our preliminary research with sales program directors of USCA-member universities revealed a wide variety of sales courses taught at schools with sales programs. In the present study, we sought
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Winter 2011 59
to identify the frequency with which these courses are offered in a much broader array of schools globally. The results can be seen in Table 3.
Not surprisingly, the 47 universities with sales programs or majors offer the widest variety of courses. The majority of schools reported offering the sales (80.9 percent) and sales management (76.6 percent) courses; substantially fewer schools with sales programs offer the combination sales/sales management course (31.9 percent). Sales program schools also reported offering advanced sales (59.6 percent), nego-tiation (46.8 percent), customer relationship management (CRM) (38.3 percent), graduate sales or sales management (38.3 percent), and purchasing (29.8 percent). Fewer schools reported offering key account management (KAM) (21.3 percent), sales forecasting (14.9 percent), and sales planning and analysis (12.8 percent). Seventeen percent of universities reported offering “other” courses as part of the sales curricu-lum; business-to-business marketing was the most frequently mentioned course in this category.
For colleges of business without sales programs, the com-bination sales/sales management course was offered most frequently (41.4 percent), followed by stand-alone sales (41.4 percent), sales management (33.3 percent), negotiation (14.2 percent), and CRM (11.1 percent). Less than 10 percent of the schools in this group offered the remaining courses, al-though all the courses were offered by at least one university. In this subsample, “other” courses were represented primarily by relationship marketing, sales promotion, and retail man-agement. Twelve universities reported that no sales courses
were offered. Given the universities in this subsample do not have sales programs, the variety of sales courses offered was somewhat surprising, even though these were courses offered at a lower frequency than those with sales programs. Perhaps most surprising was the frequency with which graduate sales or sales management courses were offered by the universities in this group (9.3 percent); although this percentage is low, it is higher than we had expected for universities without sales programs.
The European, Canadian, and Australian schools in our sample also reported a wide variety of sales course offerings. Only three of the international respondents in our sample offered no sales courses. The remaining schools offered CRM (n = 11, 57.9 percent), followed by the combination sales/sales management course and negotiation (n = 9, 47.4 percent for each course), graduate sales or sales management (n = 7, 36.8 percent), sales management (n = 6, 31.6 percent), advanced sales and KAM (n = 5, 26.3 percent for each course), purchas-ing (n = 4, 21.0 percent), sales and sales planning and analysis (n = 3, 15.8 percent for each course), and sales forecasting (n = 2, 10.5 percent).
teAchinG methods used in sAles courses
Previous research examining the sales curriculum (e.g., Johnson 1982; Kellerman and Hekmat 1989) did not report extensive data on the most common teaching methods used when teaching sales courses (see Parker, Pettijohn, and Luke
Table 2Sales Majors and Programs: Existing and Under Consideration
n Frequency Percent
Sales MajorSales Program (e.g., minor, specialized track, or certificate)Total
209 103747
4.817.722.5
Dedicated Sales Lab? 47 27 57.4
Sources of Funding?* 100 percent support from college/university Partial support from college/university 100 percent from external funding Other
47 212033
44.742.56.46.4
Considering a Sales Program? 209 30 14.4
Reasons for Consideration?* Demand from businesses Demand from students Support from college/university (nonmonetary) Support from department (nonmonetary) Funding received Other
162 22126
1325
13.67.43.78.01.23.1
* Respondents could select more than one response.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
60 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
1996 for an exception). Yet the use of role play and videotap-ing in sales courses has been recommended in the literature (e.g., Anderson et al. 2005; Luthy 2000; McDonald 2006; Parker, Pettijohn, and Luke 1996; Widmier, Loe, and Selden 2007). To determine whether instructors are following these recommendations, we explored the frequency of use and perceived effectiveness of role play and videotaping in sales courses. In addition, given the multitude of pedagogical tools available to instructors (Marshall and Michaels 2001; Parker, Pettijohn, and Luke 1996), we investigated the frequency with which other teaching methods are used in sales classes. Finally, because today’s classes can be delivered in a variety of formats (e.g., online versus face-to-face), we investigated the means by which instructors are delivering their sales courses. In the following sections we report our findings on role play, videotaping, other teaching methods, and delivery formats.
use and Perceived effectiveness of role Play
Given the importance placed on role play in the literature (e.g., Widmier, Loe, and Selden 2007), we first sought to determine the frequency with which respondents in our sample use role play in the sales courses offered at their respective universi-ties. We also surveyed respondents’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the use of role play in these courses.
As shown in Table 4, sales programs report using role play most frequently in sales (97.4 percent), advanced sales (89.3 percent), and negotiation (90.9 percent); respondents reported
using role play with moderate frequency in the combination sales/sales management class (66.7 percent), sales management (58.3 percent), and KAM (50 percent). These findings are logical, as these courses deal primarily with the development of interpersonal selling skills and as such are amenable to the use of role play. Some business schools with sales programs reported using role play in graduate sales/sales management (38.9 percent), sales planning and analysis (33.3 percent), and CRM (27.8 percent) courses. Few schools reported using role play in purchasing (14.3 percent) and sales forecasting (14.3 percent), and some schools reported the use of role play in the “other” category courses.
We next asked respondents to rate the perceived effec-tiveness of role play in these courses in comparison to other teaching techniques, where 1 = “very much more effective” and 5 = “very much less effective.” In general, respondents representing these same schools perceived role play as more effective than other teaching techniques. Mean scores for all courses ranged from 1.00 to 3.00, with most classes falling below 2.00. Role play was perceived as most effective in the sales planning and analysis course (mean = 1.00, standard deviation [SD] = 0.00) and the stand-alone sales course (mean = 1.49, SD = 0.65). Role play was seen as least effec-tive in CRM (mean = 2.20, SD = 0.84) and sales forecasting (mean = 3.00, no SD).
Respondents who did not report sales programs still use role play with some frequency. Most schools reported using role play in the sales class (92.6 percent), negotiation (82.6
Table 3Courses Offered
Sales Major or Program(n = 47)
No Sales Major or Program(n = 162)
European/Canadian/Australian Schools
(n = 19)
Course Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Sales 38 80.9 54 33.3 3 15.8Sales Management 36 76.6 47 29.0 6 31.6Combination Sales/Sales Management 15 31.9 67 41.4 9 47.4Advanced Sales 28 59.6 1 .6 5 26.3CRM 18 38.3 18 11.1 11 57.9KAM 10 21.3 2 1.2 5 26.3Negotiation 22 46.8 23 14.2 9 47.4Purchasing 14 29.8 13 8.0 4 21.0Sales Forecasting 7 14.9 6 3.7 2 10.5Sales Planning and Analysis 6 12.8 4 2.5 3 15.8Graduate Sales or Sales Management 18 38.3 15 9.3 5 26.3Othera 8 17.0 12 7.4 — —No Sales Courses Offered — — 12 7.4 3 15.8
Notes: Respondents could select multiple responses to reflect courses offered. a Business-to-business marketing was the most frequently cited “other” course.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Winter 2011 61
Tabl
e 4
Use
and
Per
ceiv
ed E
ffec
tive
ness
of R
ole
Pla
y
Sal
es M
ajo
r o
r P
rogr
amN
o S
ales
Maj
or
or
Pro
gram
Ro
le P
lay
Use
daPe
rcei
ved
Eff
ecti
vene
ssb
Ro
le P
lay
Use
dcPe
rcei
ved
Eff
ecti
vene
ssd
Co
urse
sn
Freq
uenc
yPe
rcen
tM
ean
Sta
ndar
d D
evia
tio
nn
Freq
uenc
yPe
rcen
tM
ean
Sta
ndar
d D
evia
tio
n
Sale
s38
3797
.41.
490.
6554
5092
.61.
840.
80Sa
les
Man
agem
ent
3621
58.3
1.77
0.61
4721
44.7
2.26
0.73
Com
bina
tion
Sale
s/
Sa
les
Man
agem
ent
1510
66.7
1.60
0.70
6754
80.6
2.02
0.71
Adv
ance
d Sa
les
2825
89.3
1.50
0.66
10
0.0
——
CR
M18
527
.82.
200.
8418
527
.82.
200.
45K
AM
105
50.0
1.80
0.84
21
50.0
3.00
—N
egot
iatio
n22
2090
.91.
500.
6123
1982
.62.
170.
79Pu
rcha
sing
142
14.3
1.50
0.71
133
23.1
2.25
0.50
Sale
s Fo
reca
stin
g7
114
.33.
00—
60
0.0
——
Sale
s Pl
anni
ng a
nd
A
naly
sis
62
33.3
1.00
0.00
41
25.0
3.00
—
Gra
duat
e Sa
les
or
Sa
les
Man
agem
ent
187
38.9
1.71
0.49
155
33.3
2.00
1.00
Oth
er8
337
.51.
670.
5812
433
.32.
250.
50
Not
es: a P
erce
ntag
es c
alcu
late
d by
div
idin
g fr
eque
ncy
by th
e nu
mbe
r of
res
pond
ents
wit
h sa
les
maj
ors
or p
rogr
ams
(n).
b Rat
ings
by
resp
onde
nts
wit
h sa
les
maj
ors
or p
rogr
ams
offe
ring
the
cour
se,
whe
re 1
= “
very
muc
h m
ore
effe
ctiv
e” a
nd 5
= “
very
muc
h le
ss e
ffec
tive
.” c P
erce
ntag
es c
alcu
late
d by
div
idin
g fr
eque
ncy
by th
e nu
mbe
r of
res
pond
ents
wit
h no
sal
es m
ajor
or
prog
ram
off
erin
g th
e co
urse
(n)
. d Rat
ings
by
resp
onde
nts
wit
h no
sal
es m
ajor
or
prog
ram
off
erin
g th
e co
urse
, whe
re 1
= “
very
muc
h m
ore
effe
ctiv
e” a
nd 5
= “
very
muc
h le
ss e
ffec
tive
.”
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
62 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
percent), and, to a lesser extent, sales management (44.7 per-cent). For these schools, the combination sales/sales manage-ment course (80.6 percent) was also an important class for role play. Role play was reportedly used with moderate frequency in the graduate sales or sales management (33.3 percent), CRM (27.8 percent), and purchasing (23.1 percent) classes. One of two schools offering a KAM course used role play, and one of four schools offering sales planning and analysis course did the same. With respect to the “other” category, 33.3 percent of respondents reported using role play in these courses, which included sales promotion and an MBA elective on sales and channel management.
For schools without sales programs, mean scores on the perceived effectiveness of role play ranged from 1.84 to 3.00, with role play perceived as most effective in the sales course (mean = 1.84, SD = 0.80) and least effective in the KAM and sales planning and analysis courses (mean = 3.00, no SD). Re-sults of a chi-square analysis comparing schools without sales programs to schools with sales programs revealed statistically significant differences for two courses only: sales management (p = 0.04) and negotiation (p = 0.02). In both cases, schools without sales programs were significantly less likely to perceive role play as effective than schools with sales programs.
use and Perceived effectiveness of videotaping
The use of videotaping in sales courses also warrants investiga-tion; indeed, we would expect to see similarities between the use of role play and videotaping as researchers have recom-mended videotaping role play (McDonald 2006). The results argue that although role play is used with greater frequency than videotaping, the findings are somewhat similar (Table 5). Schools with sales programs reported using videotaping most frequently in the sales course (89.5 percent), followed by advanced sales (67.9 percent), negotiation (45.5 percent), the combination sales/sales management course (40 percent), KAM (40 percent), and sales planning and analysis (33.3 per-cent). A few schools reported using videotaping when offering the graduate sales or sales management course (22.2 percent) and sales management (19.4 percent); it is interesting to note that although 58.3 percent of business schools with sales pro-grams reported using role play in the sales management course, only 19.4 percent are videotaping. Only one school reported using videotaping in CRM; likewise, one school reported taping in the “other” category. No videotaping was reported for the purchasing and sales forecasting courses.
With respect to the perceived effectiveness of videotap-ing, mean scores ranged from 1.00 to 1.50, where 1 = “very much more effective” and 5 = “very much less effective.” Videotaping was perceived to be most effective in the CRM, sales planning and analysis, and “other” courses (mean = 1.00) although in each case only one or two respondents provided
a rating; given the limited number of responses, these results must be viewed with caution. Other notable ratings include the combination sales/sales management course (mean = 1.17, SD = 0.41), negotiation (mean = 1.20, SD = 0.42), advanced sales (mean = 1.21, SD = 0.42) and sales (mean = 1.26, SD = 0.51).
Schools without sales programs report using videotaping with less frequency. With respect to frequency, the KAM course was rated highest (50 percent), although the course was offered by only two schools in the subsample. Twenty-six of the 54 schools offering the sales course reported using videotaping (48.1 percent), as did 30 of the 67 schools of-fering the combination sales/sales management course (44.8 percent). Videotaping was also used by some schools offering the negotiation class (21.7 percent), graduate sales or sales management (20 percent), sales management (17 percent), and “other” courses (16.7 percent). Notably, videotaping was not used by the schools offering advanced sales, CRM, purchasing, sales forecasting, and sales planning and analysis.
Schools without sales programs also perceived videotaping to be relatively effective, with most scores below 3.00 (i.e., “equally effective to other teaching techniques”). Mean scores for perceived effectiveness ranged from 1.58 to 3.00; the highest rating was achieved for the sales class (mean = 1.58, SD = 0.64) followed by the combination sales/sales man-agement class (mean = 2.00, SD = 0.79), graduate sales or sales management (mean = 2.00, SD = 1.00), sales manage-ment (mean = 2.11, SD = 0.78), negotiation (mean = 2.25, SD = 0.50), and KAM (mean = 3.00, no. SD). “Other” courses received a mean score of 2.50 (SD = 0.71). Results of a chi-square analysis comparing schools with sales programs to schools without such programs revealed significant differences for the negotiation course only (p = 0.02), suggesting that schools with sales programs find videotaping more effective for the negotiation course.
We next investigated results for the European, Canadian, and Australian universities in our sample; the results can be seen in Table 6. One hundred percent of universities offering sales courses are using role play; similarly, respondents reported using role play frequently in negotiation (89 percent), advanced sales (80 percent), and the combination sales/sales management course (77.8 percent). Role play is used with less frequency in the KAM (40 percent), sales management (33.3 percent), sales planning and analysis (33.3 percent), purchasing (25 percent), and graduate sales or sales management (20 percent) courses. Role play use was not reported for CRM or sales forecasting. European, Canadian, and Australian respondents indicated that role play was more effective than other teaching methods used in sales courses, with mean scores ranging from 1.00 (purchasing) to 3.00 (sales planning and analysis).
Fewer European, Canadian, and Australian respondents reported using videotaping as a teaching method, although it
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Winter 2011 63
Tabl
e 5
Use
and
Per
ceiv
ed E
ffec
tive
ness
of V
ideo
tapi
ng
Sal
es M
ajo
r o
r P
rogr
amN
o S
ales
Maj
or
or
Pro
gram
Vid
eota
ping
Use
daPe
rcei
ved
Eff
ecti
vene
ssb
Vid
eota
ping
Use
dcPe
rcei
ved
Eff
ecti
vene
ssd
Co
urse
sn
Freq
uenc
yPe
rcen
tM
ean
Sta
ndar
d D
evia
tio
nn
Freq
uenc
yPe
rcen
tM
ean
Sta
ndar
d D
evia
tio
n
Sale
s38
3489
.51.
260.
5154
2648
.11.
580.
64Sa
les
Man
agem
ent
367
19.4
1.43
0.54
478
17.0
2.11
0.78
Com
bina
tion
Sale
s/
Sa
les
Man
agem
ent
156
40.0
1.17
0.41
6730
44.8
2.00
0.79
Adv
ance
d Sa
les
2819
67.9
1.21
0.42
10
0.0
——
CR
M18
15.
51.
00—
180
0.0
——
KA
M10
440
.01.
500.
582
150
.03.
00—
Neg
otia
tion
2210
45.5
1.20
0.42
235
21.7
2.25
0.50
Purc
hasi
ng14
00.
0—
—13
00.
0—
—Sa
les
Fore
cast
ing
70
0.0
——
60
0.0
——
Sale
s Pl
anni
ng a
nd
A
naly
sis
62
33.3
1.00
0.00
40
0.0
——
Gra
duat
e Sa
les
or
Sa
les
Man
agem
ent
184
22.2
1.25
0.50
153
20.0
2.00
1.00
Oth
er8
112
.51.
00—
122
16.7
2.50
0.71
Not
es: a P
erce
ntag
es c
alcu
late
d by
div
idin
g fr
eque
ncy
by th
e nu
mbe
r of
res
pond
ents
wit
h sa
les
maj
ors
or p
rogr
ams
offe
ring
the
cour
se (
n). b R
atin
gs b
y re
spon
dent
s w
ith
sale
s m
ajor
s or
pro
gram
s of
feri
ng th
e co
urse
, whe
re 1
= “
very
muc
h m
ore
effe
ctiv
e” a
nd 5
= “
very
muc
h le
ss e
ffec
tive
.” c P
erce
ntag
es c
alcu
late
d by
div
idin
g fr
eque
ncy
by th
e nu
mbe
r of
res
pond
ents
wit
h no
sal
es m
ajor
or
prog
ram
off
erin
g th
e co
urse
(n)
. d Rat
ings
by
resp
onde
nts
wit
h no
sal
es m
ajor
or
prog
ram
off
erin
g th
e co
urse
, whe
re 1
= “
very
muc
h m
ore
effe
ctiv
e” a
nd 5
= “
very
muc
h le
ss e
ffec
tive
.”
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
64 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Tabl
e 6
Use
and
Per
ceiv
ed E
ffec
tive
ness
of R
ole
Pla
y an
d V
ideo
tapi
ng:
Eur
ope
an, C
anad
ian,
and
Aus
tral
ian
Uni
vers
itie
s
Ro
le P
lay
Use
daPe
rcei
ved
Eff
ecti
vene
ssb
Vid
eota
ping
Use
daPe
rcei
ved
Eff
ecti
vene
ssb
Co
urse
sn
Freq
uenc
yPe
rcen
tM
ean
Sta
ndar
d D
evia
tio
nn
Freq
uenc
yPe
rcen
tM
ean
Sta
ndar
d D
evia
tio
n
Sale
s3
310
0..0
1.33
0.58
33
100.
01.
000.
00Sa
les
Man
agem
ent
62
33.3
2.00
1.00
61
16.7
1.00
—C
ombi
natio
n Sa
les/
Sale
s M
anag
emen
t9
777
.82.
000.
829
333
.31.
330.
58
Adv
ance
d Sa
les
54
80.0
1.50
0.58
52
40.0
1.00
0.00
CR
M11
00.
0—
—11
00.
0—
—K
AM
52
40.0
2.00
1.41
51
20.0
3.00
—N
egot
iatio
n9
888
.91.
750.
899
555
.61.
400.
55Pu
rcha
sing
41
25.0
1.00
—4
00.
0—
—Sa
les
Fore
cast
ing
20
0.0
——
20
0.0
——
Sale
s Pl
anni
ng a
nd
A
naly
sis
31
33.3
3.00
—3
00.
0—
—
Gra
duat
e Sa
les
or
Sa
les
Man
agem
ent
51
20.0
2.00
—5
00.
0—
—
Not
es: a P
erce
ntag
es c
alcu
late
d by
div
idin
g fr
eque
ncy
by th
e nu
mbe
r of
res
pond
ents
from
Eur
opea
n, C
anad
ian,
and
Aus
tral
ian
univ
ersi
ties
off
erin
g th
e co
urse
(n)
. b Rat
ings
by
resp
onde
nts
wit
h sa
les
maj
ors
or p
rogr
ams
offe
ring
the
cour
se, w
here
1 =
“ve
ry m
uch
mor
e ef
fect
ive”
and
5 =
“ve
ry m
uch
less
eff
ecti
ve.”
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Winter 2011 65
is used by the three universities offering the sales course (100 percent). Other respondents reported using videotaping in negotiation (55.6 percent), advanced sales (40 percent), the combination sales/sales management course (33.3 percent), and sales management (16.7 percent). Videotaping was per-ceived as more effective than other teaching methods used by these respondents, with mean scores ranging from 1.00 (sales, sales management, and advanced sales) to 3.00 (KAM).
other teaching methods used in sales courses
In addition to role play and videotaping, we were interested in identifying the other teaching methods used in sales courses. Building on a list of teaching methods investigated by Parker, Pettijohn, and Luke (1996), we asked respondents to rate the frequency with which they use nine teaching methods in the sales courses offered by their colleges/universities: cases, computer simulations, guest speakers, in-class exercises, lec-ture, projects, student presentations, videos, and written sales proposals. In addition, we gave respondents the opportunity to provide data on other teaching methods used. The results can be seen in Table 7.
Clearly, instructors are utilizing a wide variety of methods when teaching sales courses. For the sake of parsimony, we focus our discussion on three courses: sales, sales manage-ment, and the combination sales/sales management course. Keeping in mind that this list does not include role play and videotaping, lecture represents the most frequently reported teaching method for those schools with sales programs of-fering these courses (94.7 percent, sales; 80.5 percent, sales management; 93.3 percent, combination sales/sales manage-ment). The use of guest speakers represents the second-most frequently mentioned teaching method (86.8 percent, sales; 80.5 percent, sales management; 86.7 percent, combination sales/sales management), followed by in-class exercises (84.2 percent, sales; 80.5 percent, sales management; 66.7 percent, combination sales/sales management). Also mentioned with relative frequency were student presentations, cases, and proj-ects. Interestingly, with the exception of the “other” category, written sales proposals and computer simulations represent the least-used teaching methods for these three courses as well as the other courses surveyed. Other methods identified in open-ended responses included job-shadowing, mystery shopping, and article reviews.
Schools without sales programs reported similar findings. Again, lecture was the most frequently reported teaching method for the sales, sales management, and the combination sales/sales management course (88.9 percent, 89.4 percent, and 79.1, respectively) followed by the use of guest speakers (83.3 percent, 72.3 percent, and 73.1 percent, respectively) and in-class exercises (83.3 percent, 65.9 percent, and 68.7 percent, respectively). Schools without sales programs also reported
using student presentations, cases, and projects with relative frequency; likewise, written sales proposals and computer simulations represented the least-used teaching methods.
A few other interesting findings warrant highlighting. Vid-eos, often provided to instructors by textbook publishers, are used most frequently in the sales course, and less frequently in other courses. Cases and in-class exercises appear to be used with frequency in the negotiation and graduate sales or sales management courses. Alternatively, computer simulations are used with greater frequency in the CRM, sales forecasting, and sales planning and analysis courses, although it is worth noting that the number of schools reporting these methods remains small. We encourage readers to review Table 7 closely, as space limitations prevent a more complete review.
formats used to deliver sales courses
Business schools are moving to online education with greater frequency (Rungtusanatham et al. 2004). Yet our preliminary research with USCA-member sales program directors revealed the perception that sales education and online education are not congruent, given the interpersonal nature of sales. As such, we sought to identify how instructors are incorporat-ing online resources in sales courses. We asked respondents to indicate whether courses were being offered in the follow-ing formats: (1) face-to-face (F2F), that is, in a traditional classroom environment; (2) Web-enhanced, that is, support of Web CT Vista or Blackboard; (3) hybrid, that is, some topics are covered F2F and some topics are delivered online; or (4) completely online. Respondents could select multiple responses if courses were offered in multiple formats. The results can be seen in Table 8.
As shown, respondents in our sample reported that most sales courses are offered via F2F delivery. Schools with sales programs reported using F2F delivery in most courses, with frequencies ranging from 93.3 percent for the combination sales/sales management course to 7.1 percent for the purchas-ing course, although some schools with purchasing courses did not report delivery format. Perhaps more interesting is the finding that few schools report using Web-enhanced and hy-brid delivery in their sales courses. In fact, the most frequently reported use of Web-enhanced delivery was associated with the sales management course; five schools with sales programs out of 36 reported using this format. Hybrid courses were taught with even less frequency, with three schools reporting this delivery method for sales management (8.3 percent) and the graduate sales or sales management course (16.7 percent). Only one school with a sales program reported teaching a course completely online; again, it was the sales management course. One possible explanation for this relationship between online delivery and sales management/graduate sales manage-ment might lie in the target audience, that is, perhaps the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
66 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Tabl
e 7
Oth
er T
each
ing
Met
hods
Use
d in
Sal
es C
lass
es
Cas
esC
om
pute
r S
imul
atio
nsG
uest
Spe
aker
sIn
-Cla
ss E
xerc
ises
Lec
ture
Co
urse
sn
Freq
uenc
yPe
rcen
tFr
eque
ncy
Perc
ent
Freq
uenc
yPe
rcen
tFr
eque
ncy
Perc
ent
Freq
uenc
yPe
rcen
t
Sale
s M
ajor
or
Prog
ram
Sa
les
3821
55.3
25.
333
86.8
3284
.236
94.7
Sa
les
man
agem
ent
3627
75.0
513
.929
80.5
2980
.529
80.5
C
ombi
natio
n sa
les/
sa
les
man
agem
ent
1510
66.7
213
.313
86.7
1066
.714
93.3
A
dvan
ced
sale
s28
1657
.14
14.3
2485
.724
85.7
2589
.3
CR
M18
1161
.18
44.4
1055
.512
66.7
1372
.2
KA
M10
660
.01
10.0
770
.06
60.0
660
.0
Neg
otia
tion
2217
77.3
29.
112
54.5
1777
.318
81.8
Pu
rcha
sing
149
64.3
17.
16
42.9
750
.09
64.3
Sa
les
fore
cast
ing
74
57.1
342
.92
28.6
571
.45
71.4
Sa
les
plan
ning
and
an
alys
is6
350
.01
16.7
350
.04
66.7
466
.7
G
radu
ate
sale
s or
sa
les
man
agem
ent
1812
66.7
316
.712
66.7
1372
.215
83.3
O
ther
85
62.5
112
.55
62.5
562
.56
75.0
No
Sale
s M
ajor
or
Prog
ram
Sa
les
5431
57.4
47.
445
83.3
4583
.348
88.9
Sa
les
man
agem
ent
4736
76.6
24.
234
72.3
3165
.942
89.4
C
ombi
natio
n sa
les/
sa
les
man
agem
ent
6741
61.2
69.
049
73.1
4668
.753
79.1
A
dvan
ced
sale
s1
110
00
0.0
110
01
100
110
0
CR
M18
1477
.82
11.1
950
.014
77.8
1583
.3
KA
M2
210
01
50.0
150
.02
100
210
0
Neg
otia
tion
2317
73.9
00.
08
34.8
1982
.619
82.6
Pu
rcha
sing
137
53.8
215
.48
61.5
753
.89
69.2
Sa
les
fore
cast
ing
62
33.3
233
.30
0.0
350
.03
50.0
Sa
les
plan
ning
and
an
alys
is4
250
.02
50.0
125
.03
75.0
250
.0
G
radu
ate
sale
s or
sa
les
man
agem
ent
1513
86.7
16.
712
80.0
1280
.014
93.3
O
ther
126
50.0
216
.78
66.7
650
.010
83.3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Winter 2011 67
Pro
ject
sS
tude
nt P
rese
ntat
ions
Vid
eos
Wri
tten
Sal
es
Pro
posa
lsO
ther
Co
urse
sn
Freq
uenc
yPe
rcen
tFr
eque
ncy
Perc
ent
Freq
uenc
yPe
rcen
tFr
eque
ncy
Perc
ent
Freq
uenc
yPe
rcen
t
Sale
s M
ajor
or
Prog
ram
Sa
les
3820
52.6
2360
.524
63.1
1539
.54
10.5
Sa
les
man
agem
ent
3622
61.1
2158
.311
30.5
616
.71
2.8
C
ombi
natio
n sa
les/
sa
les
man
agem
ent
157
46.7
1386
.76
40.0
320
.01
6.7
A
dvan
ced
sale
s28
1346
.417
60.7
1346
.49
32.1
414
.3
CR
M18
1055
.510
55.5
211
.10
0.0
15.
5
KA
M10
440
.04
40.0
330
.03
30.0
110
.0
Neg
otia
tion
2211
50.0
1359
.08
36.4
522
.71
4.5
Pu
rcha
sing
148
57.1
535
.72
14.3
214
.32
14.3
Sa
les
fore
cast
ing
75
71.4
571
.41
14.3
00.
02
28.6
Sa
les
plan
ning
and
an
alys
is6
350
.03
50.0
233
.31
16.7
333
.3
G
radu
ate
sale
s or
sa
les
man
agem
ent
189
50.0
950
.07
38.9
211
.12
11.1
O
ther
85
62.5
675
.02
25.0
112
.51
12.5
No
Sale
s M
ajor
or
Prog
ram
Sa
les
5435
64.8
4277
.827
50.0
1935
.25
9.3
Sa
les
man
agem
ent
4728
59.6
2757
.415
31.9
714
.92
4.2
C
ombi
natio
n sa
les/
sa
les
man
agem
ent
6734
50.1
4364
.225
37.3
1420
.93
4.5
A
dvan
ced
sale
s1
00.
01
100
110
00
0.0
00.
0
CR
M18
1161
.19
50.0
316
.70
0.0
00.
0
KA
M2
150
.00
0.0
00.
00
0.0
00.
0
Neg
otia
tion
236
26.1
939
.15
21.7
00.
00
0.0
Pu
rcha
sing
137
53.8
430
.82
15.4
17.
70
0.0
Sa
les
fore
cast
ing
63
50.0
00.
00
0.0
00.
00
0.0
Sa
les
plan
ning
and
an
alys
is4
125
.00
0.0
00.
01
25.0
00.
0
G
radu
ate
sale
s or
sa
les
man
agem
ent
155
33.3
853
.37
46.7
213
.31
6.7
O
ther
127
58.3
866
.74
33.3
216
.70
0.0
Not
es: R
espo
nden
ts c
ould
sel
ect m
ulti
ple
resp
onse
s to
refl
ect t
each
ing
met
hods
use
d. P
erce
ntag
es c
alcu
late
d by
div
idin
g th
e fr
eque
ncy
of te
achi
ng m
etho
d by
the
num
ber
of r
espo
nden
ts o
ffer
ing
the
cour
se (
n).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
68 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Tabl
e 8
Form
ats
Use
d to
Del
iver
Sal
es C
our
ses
Face
-to
-Fac
eW
eb-E
nhan
ced
Hyb
rid
Onl
ine
Co
urse
sn
Freq
uenc
yPe
rcen
tFr
eque
ncy
Perc
ent
Freq
uenc
yPe
rcen
tFr
eque
ncy
Perc
ent
Sale
s M
ajor
or
Prog
ram
Sa
les
3834
89.5
37.
92
5.3
00.
0
Sale
s m
anag
emen
t36
2877
.85
13.9
38.
31
2.8
C
ombi
natio
n sa
les/
sale
s m
anag
emen
t15
1493
.31
6.7
16.
70
0.0
A
dvan
ced
sale
s28
2382
.14
14.3
27.
10
0.0
C
RM
1812
66.7
316
.72
11.1
00.
0
KA
M10
770
.00
0.0
110
.00
0.0
N
egot
iatio
n22
1986
.42
9.1
14.
50
0.0
Pu
rcha
sing
141
7.1
00.
01
7.1
00.
0
Sale
s fo
reca
stin
g7
457
.10
0.0
228
.50
0.0
Sa
les
plan
ning
and
ana
lysi
s6
466
.72
33.3
116
.70
0.0
G
radu
ate
sale
s or
sal
es m
anag
emen
t18
1161
.13
16.7
316
.70
0.0
O
ther
86
75.0
225
.01
12.5
00.
0N
o Sa
les
Maj
or o
r Pr
ogra
m
Sale
s54
4685
.25
9.3
47.
41
1.9
Sa
les
man
agem
ent
4739
83.0
510
.64
8.5
00.
0
Com
bina
tion
sale
s/sa
les
man
agem
ent
6755
82.1
811
.93
4.5
00.
0
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Winter 2011 69
A
dvan
ced
sale
s1
110
0.0
00.
00
0.0
110
0.0
C
RM
1812
66.7
422
.22
11.1
211
.1
KA
M2
210
0.0
150
.00
0.0
00.
0
Neg
otia
tion
2320
87.0
14.
30
0.0
00.
0
Purc
hasi
ng13
861
.52
15.4
00.
01
7.7
Sa
les
fore
cast
ing
64
66.7
116
.70
0.0
00.
0
Sale
s pl
anni
ng a
nd a
naly
sis
43
75.0
00.
00
0.0
00.
0
Gra
duat
e sa
les
or s
ales
man
agem
ent
1513
86.7
16.
70
0.0
16.
7
Oth
er12
866
.75
41.7
00.
01
8.3
Euro
pean
/Can
adia
n/A
ustr
alia
n U
nive
rsiti
es
Sale
s3
310
0.0
00.
00
0.0
00.
0
Sale
s m
anag
emen
t6
583
.30
0.0
00.
00
0.0
C
ombi
natio
n sa
les/
sale
s m
anag
emen
t9
888
.90
0.0
00.
00
0.0
A
dvan
ced
sale
s5
480
.00
0.0
120
.01
20.0
C
RM
119
81.8
19.
12
18.2
19.
1
KA
M5
480
.01
20.0
120
.00
0.0
N
egot
iatio
n9
888
.90
0.0
111
.10
0.0
Pu
rcha
sing
43
75.0
00.
01
25.0
00.
0
Sale
s fo
reca
stin
g2
210
0.0
150
.00
0.0
00.
0
Sale
s pl
anni
ng a
nd a
naly
sis
33
100.
01
33.3
00.
00
0.0
G
radu
ate
sale
s or
sal
es m
anag
emen
t5
360
.01
20.0
120
.01
20.0
Not
es: R
espo
nden
ts c
ould
sel
ect m
ulti
ple
resp
onse
s if
cour
ses
wer
e of
fere
d in
mul
tipl
e fo
rmat
s. P
erce
ntag
es c
alcu
late
d by
div
idin
g th
e fr
eque
ncy
of fo
rmat
by
the
num
ber
of r
espo
nden
ts o
ffer
ing
the
cour
se (
n).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
70 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
target is working professionals for whom online courses are more convenient. Nevertheless, it is clear that schools with sales programs almost exclusively utilize F2F delivery of sales courses over other delivery formats.
Interestingly, more schools without sales programs reported using online options, although again F2F delivery clearly dominates the formats used. Frequencies reported for F2F delivery ranged from 100 percent for the advanced sales and KAM courses to 61.5 percent for the purchasing course. Web-enhanced delivery was used in the sales, sales management, combination sales/sales management, CRM, purchasing, and “other” courses by multiple schools (two or more); in addition, at least one school reported using Web-enhanced delivery in the KAM, negotiation, sales forecasting, and graduate sales or sales management courses. A few schools reported delivering the sales, sales management, combination sales/sales manage-ment, and CRM courses using hybrid delivery. Finally, six courses were identified as being delivered completely online by schools without sales programs: sales, advanced sales, CRM, purchasing, graduate sales or sales management, and a course in the “other” category.
Like U.S. schools with sales programs, European, Canadian, and Australian schools reported minimal activity in online education. Three courses were offered completely online: advanced sales, CRM, and graduate sales/sales management. Respondents reported offering five Web-enhanced courses: CRM, KAM, sales forecasting, sales planning and analysis, and graduate sales/sales management. One respondent each re-ported offering advanced sales, KAM, negotiation, purchasing, and graduate sales or sales management as hybrid courses, and two respondents reported teaching CRM as a hybrid course. One hundred percent of European, Canadian, and Australian schools offering sales courses reported offering them in F2F formats only. The remaining courses were offered in F2F for-mats at a high level of frequency, ranging from 60 percent for graduate sales/sales management to 88.9 percent for negotia-tion and the combination sales/sales management course.
issues fAcinG sAles educAtion
In our preliminary research, we asked sales program directors of USCA-member schools to identify the major issues facing sales education and to articulate their thoughts regarding online sales education. We used these open-ended responses to create two survey questions designed to assess respondents’ perceptions of (1) the major issues facing sales education and (2) online sales education.
major issues
Based on our preliminary research results, we developed a list of eight issues facing sales education. In addition, we provided
respondents with an open-ended “other” category. Respon-dents were asked to rank order this nine-item list based on order of importance. As shown in Table 9, the results varied somewhat, depending on the presence of a sales program.
Schools with sales program reported lack of qualified faculty (mean = 2.95, SD = 2.18) as the most important issue facing sales education, followed by difficulty in keeping class sizes small (mean = 3.74, SD = 2.14), acquiring needed technology (mean = 3.89, SD = 1.95), lack of student interest in sales education (mean = 3.95, SD = 2.63), shrinking resources (mean = 4.47, SD = 2.10), demand from business outpacing the number of students available (mean = 4.53, SD = 2.48), online education (mean = 5.72, SD = 2.10), and increasing competition from other universities (mean = 6.23, SD = 2.13). Other issues identified include funding, university support of sales education, and marketing colleagues’ lack of interest in sales education.
For schools without sales programs, lack of qualified faculty was the second-most important issue identified (mean = 3.37, SD = 2.33); the top-ranked issue was lack of student interest in sales education (mean = 3.24, SD = 2.59). This differ-ence between the two subsamples may reflect the success of sales programs in changing students’ attitudes toward sales, particularly when these programs make concerted efforts to assist students with job placement. Difficulty in keeping class sizes small ranked third (mean = 3.94, SD = 2.65), followed by shrinking resources (mean = 3.97, SD = 2.19), acquir-ing needed technology (mean = 4.10, SD = 1.83), demand from business outpacing the number of students available (mean = 4.57, SD = 2.26), online education (mean = 5.73, SD = 2.22), and increasing competition from other universi-ties (mean = 6.07, SD = 2.06). Other issues mentioned by schools without sales programs include the negative image of salespeople, faculty lack of respect for sales as a scholarly discipline, competition from other business majors, and an inability to offer the number of courses needed (lack of faculty/resources).
European, Canadian, and Australian universities also identified lack of qualified faculty as the most critical issue facing sales education (mean = 1.85, SD = 1.10), followed by lack of student interest in sales education (mean = 2.13, SD = 1.89) and business demand outpacing the number of students available (mean = 3.75, SD = 2.49). Shrinking re-sources was ranked fourth (mean = 4.70, SD = 2.00), acquiring needed technology, fifth (mean = 4.88, SD = 2.03), difficulty in keeping class sizes small, sixth (mean = 5.25, SD = 3.24), and online education, seventh (mean = 5.38, SD = 1.51). The rankings concluded with “other issues” (mean = 6.50, SD = 3.53) and increasing competition from other universi-ties (mean = 7.00, SD = 1.41). “Other issues” mentioned by this subsample include lack of interest in sales education on the part of marketing colleagues.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Winter 2011 71
online education
Finally, we asked respondents to select from a group of state-ments that reflected their perceptions of online sales education most accurately. Because the statements were not mutually ex-clusive, respondents were free to select more than one response. The results can be seen in Table 10. Few respondents agreed with the statement that sales courses can be taught online and be completely effective (4.3 percent, sales program schools; 5.4 percent, schools without sales programs; 5.3 percent Eu-ropean, Canadian, and Australian universities). Approximately 45 percent of sales program respondents agreed with the idea that basic study materials can be delivered online so that more F2F class time can be used for interactive exercises and role play; fewer schools without sales programs agreed with this statement (30.1 percent), and more European, Canadian, and Australian universities agreed with this statement (57.8 percent). Similarly, although 51.1 percent of sales program schools agreed that technology can be used to support sales courses but should not be used to deliver course material, only 31.3 percent of schools without sales programs and 26.3 percent of respondents from Europe, Canada, or Australia agreed with this statement. Finally, approximately one-third of respondents in all subsamples agreed with the statement that sales courses should not be taught online because of the per-sonal interactive nature of sales (29.8 percent, sales programs;
30.1 percent, schools without sale programs; 26.3 percent, European, Canadian, and Australian universities).
discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to provide a broad and current assessment of the specific characteristics of university-level sales education globally. Toward this end, several steps were taken. We updated research conducted over decades ago. We reported on courses offered as well as the teaching methods and formats used in delivering those courses. We as-sessed respondents’ perceptions of the major issues facing sales education and explored perceptions of online sales education. We investigated these issues by the type of school (those with sales programs versus those without) and university location (U.S. versus Europe/Canada/Australia). Our findings have implications for academics and practitioners; several of these findings warrant further discussion.
First, our findings argue that sales education is playing an increasingly important role in the marketing curriculum. Over 22 percent of our sample reported sales majors or programs (47 universities). Moreover, eight of these programs exist outside the United States, providing evidence that this movement toward focused sales education is going global. The first sales program was announced at Baylor University in 1985 (Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 1985); thus, we have
Table 9Perceptions of the Major Issues Facing Sales Education
Sales Major or Program(n = 47)
No Sales Major or Program(n = 162)
European/Canadian/ Australian Schools
(n = 19)
Issue MeanStandard Deviation Rank Mean
Standard Deviation Rank Mean
Standard Deviation Rank
Lack of qualified faculty 2.95 2.18 1 3.37 2.33 2 1.85 1.10 1Difficulty in keeping class sizes small
3.74 2.14 2 3.94 2.65 3 5.25 3.24 6
Acquiring needed technology (e.g., taping labs)
3.89 1.95 3 4.10 1.83 5 4.88 2.03 5
Lack of student interest in sales education
3.95 2.63 4 3.24 2.59 1 2.13 1.89 2
Shrinking resources 4.47 2.10 5 3.97 2.19 4 4.70 2.00 4Demand from businesses outpaces number of students available
4.53 2.48 6 4.57 2.26 6 3.75 2.49 3
Online education 5.72 2.10 7 5.73 2.22 7 5.38 1.51 7Increasing competition from other universities
6.23 2.13 8 6.07 2.06 8 7.00 1.41 9
Other 6.81 3.12 9 7.23 3.11 9 6.50 3.53 8
Note: Respondents were asked to rank order the major issues on a scale of 1 to 9, where 1 = “most important” and 9 = “least important.”
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
72 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
seen 46 sales programs added in the past 25 years. Given that 30 universities in our sample (14.4 percent) indicated that such a program was under consideration, it seems clear that sales education and dedicated sales programs are on the upswing.
Second, we were somewhat surprised by the variety of courses offered, particularly by schools without sales programs. Kellerman and Hekmat (1989) reported on three courses: sales, sales management, and the combination sales/sales management course. Yet our research uncovered more than 11 courses being offered in various combinations at universi-ties across the world, particularly those with sales programs. Courses such as advanced sales, negotiation, and CRM are offered with relative frequency at schools with sales programs, suggesting that sales students are receiving a broad-based foundation from the programs. This finding is in line with the work of Ingram, LaForge, and Leigh (2002), who note the strategic importance of capabilities such as CRM and argue that sales educators, among others, should explore these areas. Likewise, courses such as CRM and negotiation reflect Weitz and Bradford’s (1999) argument that sales has been moving toward a partnering role that includes the ability to manage relationships and conflict.
At schools without sales programs, the combination sales/sales management course appears to be more common, whereas schools with sales programs appear more likely to of-fer separate sales and sales management courses. Interestingly, European, Canadian, and Australian universities appear to emphasize courses such as CRM and negotiation over sales and sales management courses, although these findings are clearly preliminary. Universities considering the addition of a sales
program might review our findings to identify appropriate courses to include in their curriculum. Universities with sales programs might use these findings as a benchmark for their current offerings. Practitioners seeking to hire sales students from specific institutions might look to the curriculum to un-derstand the sales foundation provided at those institutions.
Our findings suggest most schools understand the im-portance of role play and videotaping as a means to allow students to apply class concepts and subsequently receive feedback. Not only are role play and videotaping being used with relative frequency, but also they are being perceived as effective or more effective than other teaching methods. It does appear that universities with sales programs are on the leading edge with respect to videotaping; this result may reflect the presence of taping labs at schools with such programs. These results represent good news for practitioners who hope to hire entry-level salespeople from university programs. Many of our universities, particularly those with sales programs, are provid-ing students with interactive educational experiences designed to hone selling skills prior to graduation. These students may be better prepared and, as such, the costs of initial on-the-job training might be reduced. Future research should explore if students with role play and videotape experience perform better in their early career stages as well as the costs of training these students when they enter their first sales jobs.
We also reported a wide variety of other teaching methods used in sales courses. Again, universities and instructors might review these findings for benchmarking purposes. Moreover, these findings might be useful to textbook publishers provid-ing supplemental materials to instructors. For example, our
Table 10Perceptions of Online Sales Education
Sales Major or Program(n = 47)
No Sales Major or Program(n = 162)
European/Canadian/Australian Schools
(n = 19)
Statement Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Sales courses can be taught online and be completely effective
2 4.3 9 5.4 1 5.3
Basic study materials can be delivered online so that more F2F class time can be used for interactive exercises and role play
21 44.7 50 30.1 11 57.8
Technology can be used to support sales courses but should not be used to deliver course material
24 51.1 52 31.3 5 26.3
Sales courses should not be taught online because of the personal interactive nature of sales
14 29.8 50 30.1 5 26.3
Did not report 1 2.1 41 25.3 0 0.0
Note: Respondents could select more than one response.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Winter 2011 73
results revealed that videos were used more frequently in the sales course relative to other courses; alternatively, instructors teaching negotiation classes appear to rely heavily on cases. Textbook publishers might focus on developing video pack-ages for sales courses and cases for negotiation courses as a means to improve the usefulness of supplemental materials to instructors.
With respect to delivery formats and online education, it is clear that F2F format still dominates the curriculum at most universities, with few respondents reporting completely on-line courses. Moreover, respondents’ perceptions suggest that most agree that sales courses should not be taught completely online. Given the pressure at many universities to increase online options as a way to compete with for-profit universities and increase enrollments (Rungtusanatham et al. 2004), sales educators may be compelled to consider this option more fully. We encourage faculty currently teaching online sales courses to share their experiences, either through case studies, conference presentations, or other forms of research. Certainly, research on online sales education could also contribute to our understand-ing of online sales training for current salespeople. Perhaps commercial sales training programs might offer guidance for the development of online classes as a means of expanding university sales education.
Interestingly, perceptions about the issues facing sales educators varied; schools with sales programs and European/Canadian/Australian universities identified lack of qualified faculty as the number one issue facing sales educators. Alterna-tively, schools without sales programs identified lack of student interest in sales as the most important issue; this issue ranked second for European, Canadian, and Australian universities, and fourth for schools with sales programs. These findings raise two important issues. First, as more universities add sales programs, the availability of qualified faculty will continue to shrink. Moreover, given the number of universities that are AACSB accredited, the need to maintain a sufficient number of academically qualified faculty is essential.
This problem certainly presents opportunities for Ph.D. students interested in sales. Yet other factors, reported in previous research, may actually discourage Ph.D. students from choosing sales as their primary discipline of interest. Schirr (2005), for example, reports the dearth of sales faculty at top business schools, noting that few of these schools offer courses in sales or sales management. Plouffe, Williams, and Wachner (2008) elaborate on this issue, suggesting that the challenges associated with publishing sales research in A-level journals result in tenure and promotion hurdles at these top universities, thereby discouraging Ph.D. students and early-career academics from focusing on the sales area. We encourage marketing and sales academics to address this issue directly, as it appears the need for sales faculty will continue to increase as the number of sales programs continues to rise (University
Sales Education Foundation 2009). As academics, we must begin developing the sales faculty of the future.
Second, we suspect that universities with sales programs have done a better job of overcoming students’ concerns about careers in sales. By helping students understand the opportu-nities and growth potential in professional selling, students’ preconceived notions of a salesperson and the selling process may be dispelled. Moreover, universities with sales programs often offer students assistance with placement and develop stronger linkages to hiring organizations. As more students get jobs and alumni networks develop, word-of-mouth spreads and more students develop an interest in sales, reinforcing positive attitudes toward selling. Further study is needed to assess current students’ perceptions of sales careers. Researchers should also gather longitudinal data to facilitate investigations of whether students who have had a formal sales education in a university setting (e.g., taken multiple sales courses; majored in sales or earned a sales certificate; participated in mock sales calls/role play) perform better in their sales careers than the students who have not had these university sales education experiences. Such information will be useful to employers as well as educators.
study limitations
Several limitations must be considered when reviewing our results. Although we took steps to develop a broad-based sampling list, it is possible that respondents with an interest in sales education were more likely to respond to our survey request. Certainly, understanding the state of sales education at schools with sales programs is a strength of our study; nev-ertheless, we also hoped to understand course offerings and activities at schools without sales programs. Likewise, although we sought to conduct a global analysis of sales education, the number of respondents from outside the United States was limited. As a consequence, we encourage follow-up studies to continually assess the state of sales education. In addition, we focused our study on respondents representing the col-lege of business. Yet some universities house sales programs in consumer science or agriculture programs. Future research should consider programs outside the college of business to enhance our understanding of sales education.
Department chairs represented the primary target for our study, followed by sales faculty. We made this choice because, in many cases, it was difficult to identify the sales faculty at a given university, particularly at those universities that do not offer sales classes routinely. To partially address this concern, we asked department chairs to forward our survey link to their sales faculty, if appropriate. Nevertheless, department chairs did represent the majority of our respondents (51.4 percent). It is possible that these department chairs did not have complete knowledge of the sales classes offered or sales
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
74 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
education in general; this possibility must be considered when reviewing our results.
The focus of this study is on university-level sales education. Yet for-profit sales education also exists in the form of con-sulting firms, professional development firms, sales trainers, and so on. The present study does not lend insight into the relative efficacy of university-level sales education versus these for-profit educational programs available outside of university boundaries. Several research questions seem obvious here. How do university programs compare to for-profit programs? What could university programs learn from for-profit programs, and vice versa? Researchers might consider these questions in future research.
In concluding their study, Kellerman and Hekmat noted, “More research regarding changing course content would be helpful, to see what schools are doing to adapt their sales/sales management course offering to the changing environment” (1989, p. 43). With the current study, we examined sales programs, course offerings, teaching methods, and delivery formats not only for the sales/sales management course but for all sales courses. We hope that academics and practitioners find our results useful to the future of sales education.
references
Anderson, Rolph E., Andrea L. Dixon, Eli Jones, Mark W. John-ston, Raymond W. LaForge, Greg W. Marshall, and John F. Tanner, Jr. (2005), “The Scholarship of Teaching in Sales Education,” Marketing Education Review, 15 (2), 1–10.
Armstrong, J. Scott, and Terry S. Overton (1977), “Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (3), 396–410.
Chang, Julia (2007), “Sales by the Schoolbook,” Sales & Market-ing Management, 159 (5), 20–25.
Global Sales Science Institute (2009), “About Global Sales Sci-ence Institute,” Toledo, OH (available at www.salesscience.org).
Honeycutt, Earl D., Jr., John B. Ford, Michael J. Swenson, and William R. Swinyard (1999), “Student Preferences for Sales Careers Around the Pacific Rim,” Industrial Marketing Management, 28 (1), 27–36.
Ingram, Thomas N., Raymond W. LaForge, and Thomas W. Leigh (2002), “Selling in the New Millenium: A Joint Agen-da,” Industrial Marketing Management, 31 (7), 559–567.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management (1985), “Selling and Sales Management in Action: Baylor University An-nounces the Establishment of the Center for Professional Selling and Sales Management,” 5 (2), 82–83.
Johnson, Eugene M. (1982), “College Instruction in Sales: A Status Report,” Collegiate News and Views, 36 (Fall), 5–9.
Kellerman, Burt J., and Firooz Hekmat (1989), “Personal Selling and Sales Management in the Marketing Curriculum: A Status Report,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Manage-ment, 9, 3 (November), 35–45.
Kornik, Joseph (2007), “The Old College Try,” Sales & Marketing Management, 159 (5), 4.
Loe, Terry W., and Lawrence B. Chonko (2000), “Promoting Sales Programs: The National Collegiate Sales Competition,” Jour-nal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 20 (1), 11–13.
Luthy, Michael R. (2000), “Preparing the Next Generation of Industrial Sales Representatives,” Industrial Marketing Man-agement, 29 (3), 235–242.
Manpower (2007), “Manpower Inc. Annual Talent Shortage Sur-vey Reveals Sales Representatives, Skilled Trades People and Technicians Top Most Wanted List Globally,” Milwaukee, WI, March 29 (available at www.manpower.com/investors/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=235798/).
——— (2008), “Manpower’s Annual 10 Hardest Jobs to Fill Survey: Engineers, Machinists and Skilled Trades Top List in U.S.,” Milwaukee, WI, April 22 (available at www.manpower.com/investors/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=305783/).
——— (2009), “2009 Talent Shortage Survey Results,” Milwau-kee, WI, May (available at www.manpower.com/research/research.cfm).
Mantel, Susan Powell, Ellen Polman Pullins, David A. Reid, and Richard E. Buehrer (2002), “A Realistic Sales Experience: Providing Feedback by Integrating Buying, Selling, and Managing Experiences,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22, 1 (Winter), 33–40.
Marshall, Greg W., and Ronald E. Michaels (2001), “Teaching Selling and Sales Management in the Next Millennium: An Agenda from the AMA Faculty Consortium,” Marketing Education Review, 11 (1), 1–4.
———, Daniel J. Goebel, and William C. Moncrief (2003), “Hiring for Success at the Buyer–Seller Interface,” Journal of Business Research, 56 (4), 247–255.
McDonald, Robert E. (2006), “Videotaped Role Play Exercises in Large Sales Management Classes,” Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 8 (Summer), 32–37.
National Center for Education Statistics (2009), “Projections of Education Statistics to 2017: Section 2, Enrollment in Degree Granting Institutions: Total Enrollment,” Alexandria, VA (available at www.nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projec-tions2017/sec2b.asp).
Parker, R. Stephen, Charles E. Pettijohn, and Robert H. Luke (1996), “Sales Representatives and Sales Professors: A Com-parative Analysis of Sales Training Perceptions, Topics and Pedagogy,” Marketing Education Review, 6 (3), 41–50.
Plouffe, Christopher R., Brian C. Williams, and Trent Wachner (2008), “Navigating Difficult Waters: Publishing Trends and Scholarship in Sales Research,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28, 1 (Winter), 79–92.
Rungtusanatham, M., Lisa M. Ellram, Sue P. Siferd, and S. Salik (2004), “Toward a Typology of Business Education in the Internet Age,” Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Educa-tion, 2 (2), 101–120.
Schirr, Gary R. (2005), “The Dearth of the Salesperson in Mar-keting Research,” in Proceedings: AMA Summer Educators’ Conference Proceedings, vol. 16, Beth A. Walker and Mark B. Houston, eds., San Francisco: American Marketing As-sociation, 161–162.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Winter 2011 75
University Sales Education Foundation (2009), “Universities with Verified Sales Programs,” Dayton, OH (available at www.saleseducationfoundation.org/html/univ-list.html).
Weitz, Barton A., and Kevin D. Bradford (1999), “Personal Selling and Sales Management: A Relationship Marketing Perspective,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (2), 214–254.
Widmier, Scott, Terry Loe, and Gary Selden (2007), “Using Role-Play Competition to Teach Selling Skills and Teamwork,” Marketing Education Review, 17 (1), 69–78.
Zammuto, Raymond F. (2008), “Accreditation and the Global-ization of Business,” Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7 (2), 256–268.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nov
a So
uthe
aste
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
27 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014