The determinants of relationship manager performance: Customer, peer and self perceptions

Martin Christopher, Cranfield University - School of Management Ufa Jiittner, Cranfield University - School of Management

Roger Palmer, Cranfield University - School of Management'

Abstract

This paper proposes an empirical stud) aimed at investigating the behaviours and processes involved in achieving effectiveness as a relationship manager in business relationships with strategic customers. Effectiveness of relationship managers is analysed from multiple perspectives, ie those of the customer, the perspectives of team members from related business functions as well as the self-perception of the relationship manager. The research perspective is based on a stakeholder approach to managerial effectiveness, with a theoretical foundation based on role theory. Propositions are developed and the research design is outlined.

Introduction

There is some consensus in the literature that the role of the salesperson in long-term, co-operative business relationships is changing toward that of being a relationship manager rather than a seller (e.g. Ford 1980; O'Neal 1989; Crosby et al. 1990; Webster 1992; Biong and Seines 1996; Wotruba 1996; Piercy et al. 1997 and 1998). The overriding theme of this transition is a new emphasis on managerial competences (eg Millman 1996) and the individuals' capability to function as a team member (e.g. Hiercv et al. 1998), although different job titles (like relationship manager, key account manager, client manager) currently coexist Despite the recent growth in lilciatinc surrounding the importance ol relationship manager-, loi developing and mumumiinjj enduring relationships (e.g Seabnght et al 1992, Biong and Seines 1990. Done) and Cannon 1997) or the skills involved in the new role (e.g. McDonald et al. 1990), there is a void of theoretically developed and tested normative research on the determinants of relationship manager performance. There is little doubt that research progress in this area has been hindered by the same conceptual and methodological problems of measuring traditional salesperson performance (see Behrman and Perreault 1982 for an overview). In other words, the weaknesses related to a unidimensional focus on quantitative performance measures or to the evaluation by either the superior, the customer or self-reports also apply when defining relationship manager performance. This paper proposes an empirical study aimed at investigating the behaviours and processes involved in achieving effectiveness as a relationship manager. The research perspective integrates multiple perspectives, ie those of the customer, the self- perception of the relationship manager as well as the perspectives of team members from related business functions. It is based on a stakeholder approach to managerial effectiveness (see e.g. Tsui 1984; 1994), with a theoretical foundation based on role theory (Katz and Kahn 1978). Hypotheses are developed and the research design is outlined.

Marketing & I ugiMics Uioup ( unticUI. HcJlon.1 VIK4 ' u \| i .,-ji.n,,i lei +44 1234 751 122. |-J\ "44 I 2 M 7S | X()(,

e-mail VI (.if. hiisiophenu ( unl'ielil jv. I K

in IVlcLoughlin, Damien. and C . Koran (eds.). Proceeding* of The 15"' Annual IMP (.'(ni/crfiicc.University College, Dublin 1999

Hagi- I 01 12

The Changing Role of the Salesperson

It is almost two decades since David Ford first promulgated in 1980 a clear role for a 'relationship manager1 in managing long-term business-to-business relationships, ie someone who takes responsibility for the successful development of the relationship. He elaborated that it should be a position "with sufficient status to co-ordinate all aspects of the company's relationships with major clients at the operational level" (Ford 1980, p. 351). Since then, academic research which has enhanced our understanding of the role of individuals in long-term business relationships appears to be grouped in the following two areas: First, in identifying the impact individuals have on facilitating or impeding interorganisational exchange. A body of empirical studies found for example that the role of the salesperson is crucial in developing trust between organisations (Doney and Cannon 1997), that attachment of individuals decreases the likelihood of the buying company to switch to a competitive supplier (Seabright et al. 1992) or that the salesperson has substantial influence on the buyer's motivation to continue the relationship (Biong and Seines 1996). The findings suggest that salespeople have a major impact on organisational outcomes and therefore an important organisational role to play and the authors emphasise the consequences for recruiting, motivating and setting objectives for the salesforce. The main limitation of the studies however, is that they focus on traditional salesforce and do not consider the restructuring taking place in many sales organisations today. Therefore, they provide empirical support for the need of a relationship manager role but do not investigate existing attempts to implement the concept.

The second area of interest has concentrated on these new sales organisations and the changing roles and behaviours of the customer-interfacing employees within them. Often referred to as "key account management initiatives", the approach is adopted by selling companies to build a portfolio of customers with strategic importance by dedicating specific resources to individual accounts and by tayloring the relationship development activities (e.g. Wilson 1993; Millman and Wilson 1995; 1996; McDonald, Millman and Rogers 1997). Here, the buyer-seller interface becomes a complex network of multiple relationships between individuals from different hierarchical layers, business functions and/or roles within both companies. The respective literature takes a strong interest in understanding the role of the key account manager who has the prime responsibility for managing the complex customer interface. It is emphasised thai the role is distinctly different from the traditional sales role and can usuall) not be fulfilled by employees with a selling background. Instead, each key account is treated as a business and the key account manager assumes responsibility for business development All attempts to describe and classify the roles and behav lours of kev account managers emphasise that they are held responsible for a wider array ol activities than salespeople in predominantly three areas (see Holt 1998 tor a literature rev lew j

Management and leadershipKey account managers often head a team of customer-interfacing employees from a variety of business functions. They have to be able to manage the account team, ie to direct work to the team members, evaluate the quality of their work, use authority to ensure tasks are completed and motivate them to co-ordinate all efforts towards maximising the total customer value. McDonald et al. (1996, p. 64) stated that key account managers have to have credibility from "the boardroom to the postroom" in order to promote the key account management concept internally and to harness all of their company's resources to the customer. From the customer's viewpoint, it is in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings of The 75"' Annual IMP Conference,

University College, Dublin 1999Page 2 ot 1 2

important that the key account manager has the authority to sign off important decisions and has the prime responsibility for all exchanges in that relationship.

Business managementAs noted above, key account managers dedicated to strategic customers arc full) responsible for the short-term financial results as \\cll a.-, long-icim biMiicvs development of the account They have to adopt a strategic approach u> account management and create and maintain a strategic and operational plan ba->cd on a thorough understanding of the customer's markets, business objectives and strategies In addition, business management in a relationship context implies that the account manager takes responsibility for profit growth for both parties, weighs the costs and benefits of various value-adding activities in a way that builds the relationship and is accountable internally as well as to the customer company for the successful implementation of offerings to time-scale and budget.

Teambuilding and interpersonal skillsIn contrast to some of the "lone wolf characteristics of the salesperson of the past (Piercy et al. 1997, p. 66), key account managers act in a complex social network and must be a "master of what is sometimes referred to as soft skills" (McDonald et al. 1996, p. 66). Soft skills comprise among others communication, negotiation, conflict- handling and teambuilding skills in the interpersonal relationships with key contact persons internally as well as in the customer company. The skills are essential because key account managers have to co-ordinate their own work with these people, handle problems jointly and "touch base" for example with team members before initiating actions that might effect them. Some studies (e.g McDonald el al 1996, VVoiruba !^%) have additionally stressed the ability to maintain personal relationships at a professional level.

These descriptions emphasise that key account managers have to displas skills traditionally only required for general managers (Blancero et al. 1996). The behavioural demands increase because they are defined from the wider social environment the key account manager is placed in. As a consequence, the demands increase while the ability to predefine the expected role behaviours might dwindle.

Overall, the key account manager is an organisational role which considers the specific situation of a relationship approach to sales and customer management and is therefore consistent with the relationship manager role. A major limitation of most studies however, is that they have a conceptual, normative foundation and little empirical support. More specifically, the prescribed behaviours have generally not been related to any performance measure and therefore remain, despite the strong logical arguments, arbitrary.

To conclude, although the idea of the relationship manager has materialised in the last two decades, little further directions have been given for performance assessment based on the relationship manager's essential behaviours and roles. The evaluation of relationship manager performance remains a central issue to be addressed in relationship-oriented sales organisations.

Salesforce Performance and Managerial Effectiveness Evaluation

i/i McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.). Proceedings of The 15th Annual IMP Conference,University College, Dublin 1999

Page 3 of 12

The intensifying complexity of a relationship manager's managerial work strongly suggests that the identification of reliable performance predictors has to refer not only to the sales literature but also to the literature on managerial effectiveness evaluations.

Salesforce PerformanceAlthough salesperson performance has always been regarded as a highly significant issue for sales management and research, the large number of studies conducted have made only a limited contribution to identifying reliable performance predictors (Churchill et al 1985). Two methodological and conceptual problems in particular, seem to have caused this shortfall: first, the problem of identifying who should evaluate salesperson performance and secondly, the problem of defining the right evaluative criteria.

The most widely used approaches to evaluate salespeople performance arc sales manager evaluations, customer or self-reports. Behrman and Herreault (1982) rumexei. have persuasively pointed out the weaknesses related to either approach. One concern with sales manager evaluations is that salespersons operate across organisational boundaries and therefore, much of their effort may be beyond the \ie\s of the company. The manager may have little firsthand knowledge about what the salesperson does to represent the company, other than what shows up in summary reports. We would argue that this problem is amplified when measuring the performance of relationship managers because their own locus of control is enlarged, and, as a consequence, the ability of the superior to oversee all activities is likely to dwindle. The major limitation with customers as the main source of information is that a range of evaluative criteria relevant to the employing company may not be considered by customers. When measuring relationship manager performance however, the closer bonds in the relationship between both companies could alleviate the problem. Closer bonds and blurring company boundaries may prompt the customer to expand his focus and evaluate not only the final offer but also the underlying processes which were formerly disguised. Self-evaluations as a third alternative are probably most widely used because they are easy to administer. In addition, the salesperson best knows the details of the job requirements and how well she or he performs. The main concern of course, is that people may tend to be overly generous when rating their own performance, a problem that will equally apply to our specific objecti\e of measuring relationship manaiiei performance

Looking at the second problem of defining the niiht e\aluaii\e ciilena muJi I'j-^aiJi effort has focused on the relationship between outcome and behaviour-based performance indicators (see for example Anderson and Oliver 1987 or Oli\er and Anderson 1994 for overviews). Whilst outcome performance is made up of the results attributable to the salesperson, such as the traditional measures of sales or market share, behaviour performance is concerned with the various skills and activities that are important to fulfilling the responsibilities of the sales job. The distinction is critical because a salesperson's behaviours are much more controllable than the results produced by those efforts (Churchill et al. 1985, p. 116). Empirical studies have shown that both performance measures are associated which means that salespeople who perform essential sales activities well, also achieve high sales outcomes (e.g. Cravens et al. 1993; Piercy et al. 1998). A problem related specifically to the behaviour performance dimension is to identify the behaviours with the greatest relative ability to explain variations in sales performance. The results of a meta-analysis of 116 studies conducted by Churchill et al. (1985) suggested that the requirements are unique to the situation and job and cannot be generalised. Consistent with this view of no universallyi/i McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.). Proceedings oj The 15"' .Inniiul IMP ( onjcrc/uc.

I niversit> College. Dublin 1999I'.ijii 4 u! 12

effective selling behaviours, Weitz et al (1980) and Spiro and Weit/ (1990) have introduced the concept of adaptive selling fhe concept emphasises the need to adapt the behaviours during or across customer interactions to the specific beliefs and requirements of each customer. Empirical findings have given partial support to the proposition that salespeople who are able to adapt effectively to specific customer needs achieve higher sales performance (Weitz et al. 1986 and Spiro and Weitz 1990).

Managerial EffectivenessIn measuring managerial effectiveness, a shift from person to process predictors was strongly advocated by Campbell et al. as early as 1970. A lot of research has since than focused on defining the behaviours in which managers engage and cataloguing those behaviours into a series of underlying dimensions or roles (e.g. Mintzberg 1973). Empirical tests of these behavioural prescriptions have found that different roles seemed to be more or less important for different managers at different levels in the organisation (Morse and Wagner 1978) and for different jobs (Stewart 1982). Similarly to the observations in sales performance research, it has also been suggested that a process more fundamental than role fulfillment may underlie managerial effectiveness. This process includes the manager's ability to determine the relative importance of specific roles in a given situation. An important extension to the sales literature however, is that researchers considered the manager's need to perceive the needs and beliefs of ililU'i'ciii stakeholder groups inside and outside the organisation and to adjust peisonal approaches accordingly (Tsui 1984, 1990). Effectiveness, in this view, is defined by how well a focal manager is able to identity and meet the role-related expectations of his relevant stakeholders in the social structure.

To conclude, we have decided to adopt a stakeholder perspective of effectiveness when assessing relationship manager performance because of its following two characteristics: First, the perspective stresses the unique adaptive capability underlying customer relationship management and does not assume a set of universally effective skills and behaviours. Second, by involving multiple performance raters, it considers the wider organisational context of the new managerial role and, at the same time, avoids the methodological pitfalls of single rater approaches to traditional salesforce performance measurement. The theoretical argumentation for this research perspective is based on role theory.

Theoretical Foundation

According to role theory (Katz and Kahn 1978), each focal position in the organisational structure is presented with a set of role expectations These expectations are prescribed by multiple role senders and may consist of desirable behav lours, norms, attitudes, values or other standards of work conduct. A focal person is thought to act in relation and in response to these expectations. Effectiveness is a result of the extent to which the focal person's role behaviours are congruent with the role sender's expectations. Each role set is comprised of multiple role senders whose expectations may diverge from each other. The focal person mav or mav not be able to meet the multiple sets of expectations. Thus, any focal person may have the reputation tor being effective with some role senders but not with others.

In a relationship manager's role set, there are at least three primary groups of role senders. They are the superiors, the customers and the other members in the customer- interfacing team. These team members typically represent different functions in the organisation. Within the hierarchical structure, they can be either peers or subordinates in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings of The 15"' Annual IMP Conference,

University College, Dublin 1999Page Sot 12

to the focal relationship manager. Each category of role senders may be considered as a stakeholder group with whom the focal manager has some level of interdependence due to authority structure, workflow or resource exchange relationships. These stakeholder groups form a social network of interactions characterised by expectations, demands, responses, evaluations, influences and counterinfluences. The effectiveness of a focal relationship manager depends on the nature of expectations and the influence relationships among the stakeholder groups. The expectations of superiors, customers and team members are grounded in their self-interests. Stakeholders, there tore, set behavioural expectations for the focal relationship manager which contribute to the fulfillment of their own interests and desires Self-interest.-, are comprised of each individual's own work objectives, role requirements as \\ell as personal goals such as career aspirations. To the extent that the self-interests among the stakeholders differ, the expectations sent to the focal relationship manager will also diverge.

From this perspective, effectiveness is as much a political as a scientific construct (Kanter 1977). The tasks of the relationship manager have to be seen in relation to the role responsibilities and in relation to the network of relationships in her or his social environment.

Research Model and Propositions

Following our research perspective, we can differentiate between research propositions relating to the relationship manager behaviours and performance determinants. Since behaviour and outcome-based performance were found to be associated for salespeople, we assume however that any progress on identifying the behaviours will at the same time improve our understanding of the performance drivers.

Relationship manager role behaviours from a stakeholder perspective A starting point of our study is to test empirically the conventional wisdom that the role of the relationship manager covers a wider array of behavioural responsibilities than the salesperson's role of the past. As discussed earlier, existing studies have only looked at salespeople in established buyer-seller relationships (e.g. Biong and Seines 1996), compared high with low effectiveness sales units on some behavioural, relationship- related issues (Piercy et al. 1997), investigated key account manager behaviours but used very small samples (e.g. McDonald et al. 1996) or have a normative, conceptual foundation without any empirical support. We hence argue that further empirical support is needed to prove the assumption that relationship managers are presented with extended behavioural expectations. In addition, our stakeholder perspective allows us to analyse different sets of expectations from the relationship manager's relevant social environment. We propose the following:

PI Stakeholders' expectations of role behaviours for relationship managers will comprise leadership skills, business management skills and team working/ interpersonal skills in addition to traditional selling skills and product knowledge.

As outlined above, we expect that the expectations of role behaviours for relationship managers will diverge between stakeholders because they are grounded in self-interests. While some theorists have argued that goal meongruence is primarily due to mdmdual differences (e.g. Williamson 1975), we agree with those who argue that it is also an outcome of differentiation (Lawrence and L.orsch 1969) and functional specialisation (March and Simon 1958). In addition, Tsui (1990) has reasoned that indix iduals \sith similar background and values or who are exposed to similar influences, \\ould hold in McLoughlin, Damien. and C . Horan (eds.). Proceedings of The 15"' Annual IMP r«///t'/v// t v.

I 'Diversity College, Dublin 1999Page ft »!' 12

similar definitions for organisational positions. Individuals \\ith similar backgroundtend to choose one another for interaction, further contributing to similarity in thedefinition of situations. Heterogeneity in stakeholder background, including theirfunctional specialisation, therefore, will tend to be associated with divergence inexpectations.This suggests the following:

P2 Stakeholders' expectations of role behaviours will diverge more between the stakeholder groups than among members of the same group.

Effectiveness, from a stakeholder perspective, is based on the extent to which the focal relationship manager meets the unique expectations of the specific stakeholder group. Therefore, the behaviours instrumental for gaining high performance ratings from one stakeholder group may not be useful for scoring favourable from another This suggests that the behaviour performance models will be different for different stakeholder groups. Although anecdotal evidence suggests, tor example, that customers mu\ emphasise the business management-related role \\hile team members ma\ place importance on the interpersonal skills, we will explore these specific differences from the data and hence formulate our proposition at a general level.

P3 The role behaviours associated with high performance ratings will \ary b\ stakeholder group.

Relationship manager performance from a stakeholder perspectiveFigure 1 provides a summary view of our model on the determinants of relationshipmanager performance from a stakeholder perspective.

In the model, relationship manager performance is divided into the perceived performance from all stakeholder groups and outcome performance, measured via a composite quantitative performance rate. In a study of 278 middle managers, Tsui (1984) found that those managers who received high performance ratings from most stakeholder groups have also received higher formal performance appraisal ratings, larger salary increases and more promotions than managers who gained high ratings from one or none of the groups. Therefore, there are positive outcomes for the manager who is judged to be effective The positive judgment seems to facilitate co-operation and responsiveness from the stakeholders. They will be more likely to provide the requested resources and support to the manager. For relationship managers, co-operative working relationships can be seen as pivotal for their own role fulfillment. The competencies required to deliver high value offerings to strategic customers go beyond the abilitites of a single person and make co-operation inevitable Whether this applies to information required from the customer (e.g. product use mlormation: joint planning), joint activities with team members or resource demands from superiors, the relationship manager's own job performance is directly linked to the customer value he or she is able to create by mobilising his social environment. We summarise the argumentation in the following proposition:

in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings of The 15"' Annual IMP Conference,University College, Dublin 1999

Page 7 of] 2

Internal Support

Internal Training

Performance Ratings from Stakeholder droll ps

tTeam Dynamics

ConnectednessConflictCommunication

Senior Management Commitment to Customer RS

OuuntituliNc Perlormance Ratings

Figure 1: Research Model

P4 Performance on quantitative measures will be higher for relationship managers who receive high performance ratings from all their stakeholder groups than tho>e with high performance ratings from only one none of the stakeholder groups

The team dynamics are an important dimension of the organisational context loi managing relationships with strategic customers From our own perspective, the quality of communication, the level of connectedness and the degree of conflict in customer- interfacing teams are related to the relationship manager's perceived performance for two reasons: First, the team dynamics will have a direct impact on the performance ratings from the team members who represent one stakeholder group. Especially when the relationship manager is heading a customer-interfacing team, he or she is likely to be held responsible for the team dynamics which in turn, facilitate or impede co­ operation with team members. Secondly, good team dynamics are likely to leverage the total customer value which in turn, has a positive impact on the customer's and superior's performance perceptions as well as the relationship manager's self-perceived performance. This suggests the following:

P5 The more frequent the communication, the higher the level of connectedness, and the lower the conflict in the customer-interfacing teams, the higher the stakeholders' performance ratings for the relationship manager.

Our model suggests the senior management's commitment to ciisiomei relationship management as an antecedent of the team dynamics Senioi management ean pla\ a fundamental role in internal implementation processes by dealing a ->uppom\e eoiiiexi for the employees The impact of the senior management commitment IN likeh to IK particularly high in situations where the implementation process is based on interfunctional coordination, like tor example in quality management Here, >e\eia! studies have found a positive impact of senior management quality leadership on cross- functional involvement in improvement efforts (Oakland 1992), employee empowerment (Hartline and Ferrell 1996) and, more specifically, on interdepartmental

in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.). Proceedings of The 15"' Annual IMP Conference,University College, Dublin 1999

Page 8 of!2

dynamics between marketing and quality (Morgan and Piercy 1998). Because the members in our customer-interfacing teams represent different business functions, we adopt the argument and findings from the literature and suggest the following:

P6 The stronger the senior management's commitment to customer relationship management, the more frequent the communication, the higher the level of connectedness, and the lower the conflict in the customer-interfacing teams.

The last three propositions refer to the relationship between the management process of relationship managers and their performance, hmpincal evidence hum previous studies in a salesforce context have shown a positive link between role clarity and performance (e.g. Behrman and Perreault 1984; Jaworski and Kohli 1991). Salespeople who are clear about how they are expected to approach the selling job are more likely to act in accordance with these expectations. Empirical studies by Smgh (1993) and Smgh and Rhoads (1991) have developed and applied a multidimensional role ambiguity construct. Here, multiple sources of a person's role ambiguity (e.g. company, co- workers and customer) are differentiated. The concept is relevant to our own approach because we expect that a relationship manager who is certain about the role expectations of a specific stakeholder group is more likely to meet these expectations and, as a consequence, receive higher performance ratings. To summarise, we propose the following:

P7 The higher the relationship manager's role ambiguity, the lower his/her stakeholders' performance ratings.

Finally, the study of relationships between management factors and role ambiguity has generally been rewarding because a range of task-related (e.g. autonomy, feedback) and supervisory-related (e.g. consideration, initiation) variables have been found to affect role ambiguity significantly (e.g. Singh 1993). Exploring these relationships is important because they provide directions on how to design work environments so as to influence the level of ambiguity individuals perceive in their role, thereby reducing the negative performance effect. We would expect that individuals in the position of the relationship manager could displa\ relatively high levels of role ambigiut\ because die role combines the follow ing characteristics it's a rathei ne\\ role to maii\ companies which are still experimenting with role profile definitions, recruitment and training processes; there are no readily compatible training and education schemes or career paths and, finally, it's at the same time a boundary and a managerial role. We suggest that the more a company is committed to the relationship manager role and the more they put them in a position both formally and informally to execute influence and authority, the lower the role ambiguity. One way of measuring the company's commitment is via the relationship manager's perception of the internal support provided. A related variable suggested to lower the role ambiguity is the relationship manager's satisfaction with the internal training and development. We summarise our argument in our last two propositions:

P8 The higher the relationship manager's perception of internal support provided by the company, the lower his/her role ambiguity

P9 The more satisfied the relationship manager is with the internal training provided by the company, the lower his/her role ambiguity

in McLoughlin. Damien. and C Horan (tds.). Pnn-ccilin^ of Tin- I ?'' lninnit I Ml' ( on/cn'iu rI niversit) College. Dublin 1999

Page 9 ul 12

QUO

The study

The propositions will be tested on a sample of socalled "client managers" in an international, multi-divisional organisation. The company met the following requirements of our study:

a) They have a relationship strategy aimed at developing and maintaining long-term co-operative relationships with a selected group of strategic customers. The group comprises the top 400 of the company's customers with £ 5 million plus annual revenue and a growth rate at 50% over market rate.

b) They are able to identify at least 80 client managers who work on potentially long- term, co-operative relationships and who are willing to participate in the study.

c) They are able to identify two internal business functions dedicated to work alongside the client managers in customer-interfacing teams.

d) They are able to provide us with a composite quantitative performance rate for each of the client managers, integrating several relevant, but di.->similai meu-unvs like salary and business volume.

e) The client managers' superiors agreed to distribute a set of questionnaires to the client manager and selected individuals from the stakeholders groups For each client manager, the following seven respondents will receive a questionnaire: the client manager him/herself (1); one team member with whom the client manager works best and one member with whom she/he works least well from within each of the two dedicated business functions (4); one customer contact person from a most satisfactory and one from a most challenging customer relationship (2).

The primary research instrument of the study is a mail survey and is currently being undertaken by the authors.

Summary

This paper has developed the conceptual and theoretical foundation, research model and propositions of an empirical study aimed at identifying the performance determinants of relationship managers. The findings of the study can support companies' recruitment, training, management and control of relationship managers In addition. the\ can provide important guidelines for implementing effective sales organisations in a relationship context. Finally, enhancing our understanding of the relationship manager role is significant because they are a major component of the firm's marketing strategy (Jackson 1994) and, given that marketing strategies are an essential dimension of the firm's market-orientation (see Cravens 1998), of its business philosophy.

References

Anderson, E. and Oliver, R. (1987), Perspectives on behavior-based versus outcome- based salesforce control systems, Journal of Marketing, vo!51, no 4: p 76-88.

Behrman, D. and Perreault, W (1982), Measuring the performance of industrial salespersons, Journal of Business Research, vollO, September: p355-370.

in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings of The 75"' Annual IMP Conference,University College, Dublin 1999

Page 10 ot 12

Biong, H. and Seines, F., The Strategic Role of the Salesperson in Established Buyer- Seller Relationships, Marketing Science Institute, Working Paper, Report No 96- 1 18, December 1996.

Blancero, D., Johnson, S. and Lakshman, C' (1996). Psychological contiacu and fairness: The effect of violations on customer service behavior. Journal of Market- Focused Management, vol 1: p 49-63.

Campbell, J., Dunnette, M., Lawler, h. and Weick, K. (1970), Managerial behavior. performance and effectiveness , New York: McUravv-Hill.

Churchill, G. Ford, N., Hartley, S. and Walker, O. (1985), The determinants of salesperson performance: A meta-analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, vol 22, May:pl03-118.

Cravens, D. (1998), Examining the impact of market-based strategy paradigms on marketing strategy, Journal of Strategic Marketing, vol.6, no 3: pi 97-208.

Cravens, D., Ingram, T., LaForge, R. and Young, C. (1993), Behavior-based and outcome-based salesforce control systems, Journal of Marketing, vo!57, October: p47-59.

C'rosby, L., Kenneth, R. and Cowles, D. (1990), Relationship Quality in Sen ices Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective:, Journal u/ Marketing, \ol54, Ju]\: p 68-81.

Doney, P and Cannon, J (1997), An Examination of the Nature o! I rust in Bu\er- Seller Relationships, Journal of Marketing, \ol61. April p35-5l

Ford, D. (1980), The development of buyer-seller relationships in industrial markets. European Journal of Marketing, vol 14, no 5 6. p 339-353.

Hartline, M. and Ferrell, O. (1996), The management of customer-contact service employees: An empirical investigation, Journal oj'Marketing, vo!60, October: p 52- 70.

Holt, S. (1998), The impact of the supplier's boundary roles on customer-perceived value in long-term business-to-business buyer seller relationships, unpublished doctoral review paper, Cranfield School of Management.

Jackson, B. (1985), Winning and keeping industrial customers, Le.xington, KY Lexington Books.

Jaworski, B. and Kohli, A. (1981), Supervisory feedback: Alternative types and their impact on salespeople's performance and satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, vo!28, no2: pi90-201

Kanter, R. (1977), Men and \\-oinen oj the corporation, Nc\\ York BaMc Book:-.

Katz, E. and Kahn, R.I.. (1978), The social ps\-cholog] ol organiiation (2nd ed) Ne\\ York: Wiley.

in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.). Proceedings of The 15"' Annual IMP Conference,University College, Dublin 1999

Page II of12

Lawrence, P and Lorsch, J. (1969), Organization and environment, Homewood, IL: Irwin.

March, J. and Simon, H. (1958), Organizations. New York: Wiley.

McDonald, M., Millman, T. and Rogers, B. (1996), Key Account Management Learning from Supplier and Customer Perspectives. Research Report Cranfleld University, School of Management.

Millman, T. (1996), Global Key Account Management and Systems Selling, International Business Review , vo!6, p 63 1 -645

Millman, T. and Wilson, K. (1995), From ke> account selling to ke> account management, Journal of Marketing Practu c -lp/>lieil Marketing Sc/c/ni, \ol I. no I:p9-21.

Millman, T. and Wilson, K. (1996), Developing key account management competences, Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, vol.2, no 2:p 7-22.

Mintzberg, H. (1973), 7776- nature of managerial work. New York: Harper and Row.

Morgan, N. and Piercy, N. (1998), Interactions between marketing and quality at the SBU level: Influences and outcomes, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol26, no3:p 190-208.

Morse, J. and Wagner, F (1978), Measuring the process of managerial effectiveness, Academy of Management Journal, vo!21: p23-53.

Oakland, J. (1992), Total Quality Management, 2ed. Oxford, UK: Heinemann.

Oliver, R. and Anderson, E. (1994), An empirical test of the consequences of behavior and outcome-based sales control systems. Journal o/ Marketing, \ol58. October: p 53-67.

O'Neal, C'. (1989), JII Procurement and Relationship Marketing, in: Industrial Marketing Management, vol 18, p 55-67

Piercy, N., Cravens, D. and Morgan, N. (1997), Sources ol l.Hccti\ encv^ in the Business-to-Business Sales Organisation, Journal of Marketing Practice Ipp/icd Marketing Science, vol 3, no 1: p 43-69.

Piercy, N., Cravens, D. and Morgan, N. (1998), Salesforce performance and behaviour- based management processes in business-to-business sales organizations, European Journal of Marketing, vol 32, no 1/2: p 79-100.

Seabright, M., Levinthal, D., Fichman, M. (1992), Role of Attachments in the Dissolution of Interorganizational Relationships, Academv of Management Journal, vo!35, nol: p 122-160.

Singh, J. (1993), Boundary role ambiguity: Facets, determinants, and impacts, Journal of Marketing, vol 57, no2: pi 1-31.

in McLuughlin, Damien. and ( . Horan (eds.). />rwriv<////»s of Tin 1 5"' (nniuil IMP ( inifcrciu<.'.I niversit) C olle^t. Dublin 19 l>9

I'.ilir 12 ol 12

Singh, J. and Rhoads, G. (1991), Boundary role ambiguity in marketing-oriented positions: A multidimensional, multifaeeted operationalisaiion. Journal <>/ Marketing Research, vo!28, August' p 32X-33S

Spiro, R. and Weitz, B. (1990), Adaptive selling: Conceptualisation, measurement, and nomological validity, Journal oj Marketing Research, vol 27, February: p 61-09.

Stewart, R. (1982), A model for understanding managerial jobs and behavior, Academy of Management Review, vol 7: p7-13.

Tsui, A. (1984), A role set analysis of managerial reputation, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, vo!36: pp 64-96.

Tsui, A. (1990), A multiple constituency odel of effectiveness: An empirical examination at the human resource subunit level, Administrative Science Quarterly, vo!35:p 458-483.

Tsui, A. (1994), Reputational effectiveness: Toward a mutual responsiveness framework, Research in Organizational Behavior, Staw, B. and Cummings, L. (eds.), vol 16: p 257-307, Greenwich, CT

Webster, F (1992), The Changing Role of Marketing in the ( orporution. Journal <>/ Marketing, vol 56, October: p 1-17.

Weitz, B., Sujan, H. and Sujan, M. (1986), Knowledge, motivation and adaptive behavior: A framework for improving selling effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, vo!50, October: p 174-191.

Williamson, O. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications, New York: Free Press.

Wilson, K. (1993), Managing the industrial salesforce of the 1990's, Journal of Marketing Management, vo!9, no 2: p 123-139.

Wotruba, T. (1996), The Transformation of Industrial Selling: Causes and Consequences, Industrial Marketing Management, vo!25, no 5: p 327-338.

in McLoughlin, Damien. and C. Horan (eds.), Proceedings of The 15th Annual IMP Conference,University College, Dublin 1999

Page 13 oil 2