This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 10 October 2014, At: 16:44Publisher: 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

An Agenda for Selling and Sales Management Research:Using the Financial Industry’s Forward Thinkers forInsightBruce Robertson, Andrea L. Dixon & David CurryPublished online: 23 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Bruce Robertson, Andrea L. Dixon & David Curry (2006) An Agenda for Selling and Sales ManagementResearch: Using the Financial Industry’s Forward Thinkers for Insight, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 26:3,293-303

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134260304

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. XXVI, no. 3 (summer 2006), pp. 293–303.© 2006 PSE National Educational Foundation. All rights reserved.

ISSN 0885-3134 / 2006 $9.50 + 0.00.

Sales and marketing executives and researchers recognize thatrapidly changing business environments are affecting the sell-ing function. Consequently, academia’s research agenda mustreflect such changes. Leigh and Marshall (2001) use industrybest practices as a foundation for suggesting an academic re-search agenda. Creative brainstorming approaches can iden-tify “out of the box” topics for seeding future research (Kerrand Tindale 2004). Marshall and Michaels (2001) report theresults of such an effort at the American Marketing Associa-tion (AMA) Faculty Consortium.

These approaches are extremely fruitful. However, onechallenge identified by Marshall and Michaels (2001) is thatgaining cooperation from practitioners—and access to pri-

mary data—is increasingly difficult. A potentially rich ap-proach for setting a research agenda—one having the poten-tial to overcome such difficulties—is to tap the knowledge ofsales leaders in industry.

This research reports the results of a major study involvingmore than 500 leaders and sales professionals in the financialservices industry. Our research sought out thought leadersperceived as “forward thinkers,” or with a reputation for cre-ating or identifying opportunities in a changing environment.The purpose of this paper is to add an important perspectiveto the already published academic research agendas. Taken inconjunction with the industry benchmarks identified by Leighand Marshall (2001) and the creative ideas from the AMAFaculty Consortium (Marshall and Michaels 2001), this re-search identifies topics that practitioners view as importantresearch areas. By using an integrated perspective sensitive tothe different approaches practitioners and academics take to-ward research, we can develop strategies for creating win-winresearch collaborations.

AGENDA SETTING: ACADEMIC RESEARCHAGENDAS FOR SELLING

AND SALES MANAGEMENT

In July 1999, a panel of 94 academicians, 12 corporate repre-sentatives, two consultants, and two representatives of theDirect Selling Education Foundation participated in the AMAFaculty Consortium on Selling and Sales Management. These110 participants collaborated to identify a list of 66 researchpriorities for the sales function (Marshall and Michaels 2001).Marshall and Michaels indicated that academia’s research

RESEARCH NOTE

AN AGENDA FOR SELLING AND SALES MANAGEMENT RESEARCH:USING THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY’S FORWARD THINKERS FOR INSIGHT

Bruce Robertson, Andrea L. Dixon, and David Curry

Understanding the similarities and differences between the research priorities of academics and those of practitioners maycreate opportunities for mutually beneficial collaboration. We used a three-phase process to tap industry forward thinkersto identify 40 research topics of import to practitioners in the financial services industry. These topics were refined andvalidated, leaving 15 areas where research needs are a top priority. We mapped these areas against two published academicresearch agendas to identify areas of convergence and divergence. Our findings suggest that more than half of academicresearch falls into areas deemed important by practitioners in this industry. We pinpoint four areas particularly vital topractitioners where little academic research exists. We discuss tailored approaches for developing collaborative research forhigh-convergence areas versus for low-convergence areas.

Bruce Robertson (Ph.D., University of Cincinnati), Assistant Pro-fessor of Marketing, San Francisco State University, robertbc@sfsu.edu.

Andrea L. Dixon (Ph.D., Indiana University), Associate Professorof Marketing, University of Cincinnati, andrea.dixon@uc.edu.

David Curry (Ph.D., University of California at Berkeley), Profes-sor of Marketing, University of Cincinnati, david.curry@uc.edu.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the analytical support providedby Jeff Camm, the financial support provided by the GAMA Foun-dation, and the GAMA Foundation Task Force: Richard McCloskey(Chair), Paul Shevlin, Tom Ungashick, Tim Murray, Mike White,Charlie Smith, Kathryn Kellam, Candice Azoury, and Carol Walsh.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:44

10

Oct

ober

201

4

294 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

agenda has changed dramatically since the 1992 AMA FacultyConsortium. Citing quantum changes in the sales function suchas technology, firm structure, buyer–seller relationships, andselling process, the authors suggested the “next decade will bean exciting time for researchers in the sales area” (Marshall andMichaels 2001, p. 16).

In another important agenda-setting paper, Leigh andMarshall (2001) tied best practices outlined in a Chally Groupreport to the academic literature (Chally Group 1998). Us-ing eight best-practices areas, Leigh and Marshall (2001) iden-tified 74 research questions dealing with the strategic natureof the sales function either under investigation by academi-cians or deemed appropriate for future research. Thus, Leighand Marshall (2001) focused on what practitioners are cur-rently doing (best practices) to propose an academic researchagenda. Marshall and Michaels (2001) proposed an academicresearch agenda based on input from 110 academic confer-ence participants, while Leigh and Marshall (2001) framedtheir recommended academic research agenda in the contextof current best practices. Although they provide critical in-sights from an academic perspective, neither of the foregoingstudies thoroughly explores the research priorities of practi-tioners. Collaboration and ease of data collection are likely toincrease when priorities of academe are consistent with thoseof practice. Practitioners best equipped to discuss researchpriorities are likely those most knowledgeable about the fu-ture—that is, people with a reputation for visionary perspec-tive (cf. Von Hipple 1988). Our research method tapped intoprofessional social networks in the financial services industryto identify such individuals.

METHODOLOGY

Industry trade associations, foundations, and consultants area major source of new practices and knowledge for practitio-ners (Rackham and DeVincentes 1999). We approached theresearch foundation of an international financial services as-sociation and proposed developing a research agenda for is-sues of future importance to the industry. Although labeledas a single industry, “financial services” is an agglomerationof many diverse fields that depend heavily on the sales func-tion. The industry comprises financial planners and advisors,insurance carriers, insurance agents and brokers, financialinvestment firms, and securities and commodities firms. Theindustry generates $1.6 trillion in revenue and employs morethan 300,000 sales personnel (U.S. Census Bureau 2004, U.S.Department of Labor 2004). Personal selling is a critical suc-cess factor in this industry—characterized by high levels ofheterogeneity (Zoltners, Sinha, and Zoltners 2001), includ-ing market heterogeneity (from business-to-business [B2B]multiyear multimillion dollar contracts with large corpora-

tions to business-to-consumer [B2C] one-on-one selling inthe home), product heterogeneity (Gramm-Leach Bliley Actof 1999 reduced restrictions on the type of products firmsoffer in this industry), and sales force heterogeneity (e.g., in-dependent sales representatives, sales teams with specialists).Thus, sales managers in this industry are likely to encounter avariety of selling contexts. The association’s foundation de-velops primary research to provide field sales managementexpertise to field and home office sales management profes-sionals through journal articles, seminars, computer-mediatedtools (Web and CD-ROM), self-assessment tools, teleconfer-ences, and other distribution vehicles.

Our research used (1) depth interviews with forward think-ing individuals (idea generation), (2) focus groups (idea re-finement), and (3) a survey (idea validation).

Idea Generation: Depth Interviews

Since the industry is larger than the number of associationmember firms, we followed Wasserman and Faust’s (1994)recommendation to use a snowball referral technique to iden-tify forward thinkers operating both inside and outside theboundaries of the association. Through this process, we iden-tified and interviewed 100 field sales professionals and homeoffice sales executives known by their peers to be forwardthinkers: chief marketing officers (CMOs)/senior executives,field sales leaders, and award-winning sales managers. At theend of the interview, we asked each respondent to identifyother forward thinkers. Data collection was closed at 100 com-pleted interviews because few new researchable topics werebeing identified late in the interview process. The tape-recorded interviews were transcribed. Two authors workedindependently to content analyze the transcripts into broadresearch areas. Disagreements in categorization were resolvedthrough negotiation, which resulted in 40 themes such as“building a brand identity and public awareness for the localfield organization” or “buying habits of customers.”

Idea Refinement: Focus Groups

Prioritizing a list of 40 research themes using a survey instru-ment would be a cognitively complex task. Instead, we used aseries of four focus groups comprising award-winning salesmanagers, sales leaders under age 35, directors/vice presidentsof training and development, and CMOs. Twenty-eight prac-titioners (who had not participated in the idea generationphase) individually reviewed the list of 40 research themes.Each identified unclear themes, awkward language, and thensuggested improvements. Next, participants completed a card-sorting task with a deck of 40 cards (one theme per card).Each person was asked to discard 20 cards into two piles la-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:44

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 2006 295

beled “overresearched” or “just not important for additionalresearch.” Next, working individually, participants sorted theremaining 20 issues into four equal piles in order of priority(first, second, third, fourth). Focusing on each participant’shigh-priority themes (pile one), discussion concentrated on“why each was important” and “how research might addressthe issue.” Each focus group yielded two outputs: (1) clearlyexpressed research themes and (2) a priority ranking of thethemes based on mean rankings across 28 participants. Usingquantitative and qualitative feedback, we identified 15 re-searchable issues (Table 1). These issues are expressed in thelanguage of practitioners.

Idea Validation: Survey Research

The goal of the third phase of the research was to identify thepriorities of the research themes for a research agenda. Fol-lowing several pretests, a survey was mailed to three separategroups to increase the generalizability of the research: 500contributors to the association’s foundation, 650 members ofthe association who had not contributed to the foundation,and 1,000 industry professionals who are not members of theassociation. All three groups include both home office andfield office sales leaders (e.g., titles of respondents includechief executive officer [CEO], chief sales officer [CSO], CMO,vice president training, vice president marketing, vice presi-dent chief agency officer, regional vice president, branch salesleader, general agency leader, general manager, district man-ager, and sales manager). Each group received two mailingsas well as a reminder postcard to improve response rates. So-cial network theory indicates that difficult-to-reach individualsmay possess unique information and perspectives; therefore,we sent a third mailing to individuals who are not membersof the association. These efforts yielded 480 responses (22percent response): 150 foundation contributors (30 percentresponse), 154 association members (24 percent response),131 nonmembers (13 percent response), and 45 faxed re-sponses that could not be assigned to a subsample.

The research instrument consisted of an eight-page book-let including a cover page and a letter of introduction explain-ing the purpose of the research. The next two pages coveredthe 15 research issues; each issue was listed with three bullet-point descriptors drawn from the focus group discussions.Because people are more likely to collaborate on research thatfits their personal priorities, each respondent’s personalprioritizations of these issues were acquired using a forced-choice, six-point scale (0 = low priority; 5 = high priority).The remaining three pages of the survey instrument were usedby the sponsoring organization to gather perceptions aboutthe association and its activities, to collect demographic in-formation, and to allow respondents space for commentary.

We used mean ratings and set cover analysis (matrix-basedoptimization; see Downs and Camm 1996) to identify theresearch priorities. (Due to space considerations, the set coveranalysis is not covered in this paper but is available from theauthors upon request.)

RESULTS

To leverage the findings from the practitioner survey, we cal-culated mean priority ratings for each of the 15 priority re-search areas. All ratings were significantly higher than the scalemidpoint (2.5), indicating that the 15 research issues are per-sonal priorities for practitioners (average ratings ranged from3.7 to 4.3). Because research cooperation can be gained eitherfrom home office executives or field sales leaders, we exam-ined the priorities for these two subgroups. The mean ratingsfor each priority were used to order the priorities for eachgroup and then a rank correlation analysis compared the rela-tive priority of each group (Table 2). This generated two indi-ces, τ and ρ, which indicate the degree of agreement betweenthe two rankings. A value of 1 indicates complete agreement,and a value of –1 indicates complete disagreement. For thecomparison between home office and field managers, τ was0.402 and ρ was 0.554, suggesting there was only mild agree-ment between these two groups’ perception of the relativepriority of the research issues. For example, while both homeoffice executives and field leaders perceived “Bringing newsales representatives on board through assimilation and train-ing” as the highest priority issue, “Systematizing the field salesorganization’s recruiting and selection process” was the second-highest priority for home office executives but it was the elev-enth highest priority for field sales leaders. Research that relatesto systematizing the recruiting and selection process wasviewed quite differently by these two groups. Home officerespondents’ gave this issue much higher priority than didfield sales professionals. (Subgroup analyses are available uponrequest.)

Based on additional subgroup analyses, there appeared tobe differences in the perceived priority of the research issuesrelated to the primary target market for the sales organiza-tion. Survey respondents classified their primary target mar-ket as either businesses (B2B), affluent consumer households(B2C), or middle-income consumer households (B2C). Ofthe 358 respondents reporting one of these target markets,the majority target middle-income consumer households (n =215). The research priorities for the middle-income marketare significantly different from those of the business or afflu-ent market. “Bringing new sales representatives on board” wasthe highest priority for businesses targeting the middle-marketcustomer and was the lowest priority for businesses targetingeither B2B or affluent customers. Conversely, “marketing and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:44

10

Oct

ober

201

4

296 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Table 1Correspondence Between 15 Practitioner Research Priorities and Research Topics from

Academic Research Agendas (15 Practitioner Priorities Listed in Order of Mean Importance Ratings)

1. Marketing and Positioning the Field Sales Organization (mean = 4.32; standard deviation = 1.00)1.1 What is the domain of the sales force? How does a firm manage the sharing of the selling function with other units in the organiza-

tion? Who in the firm is the salesperson? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)1.2 Given the new selling models being used today, do current customer segmentation schemes still work? How about segmenting by

type of transaction? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)1.3 How do different units within the organization ensure that their efforts to develop customer relationships are complementary?

(Marshall and Michaels 2001)1.4 Link between market orientation by firm and customer orientation by salesperson; role of selling function under market orientation

(market intelligence philosophy). (Leigh and Marshall 2001)1.5 Should market orientation be conceptually framed to include selling roles other than marketing intelligence, in particular, managing

customer transactions and relationships? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)1.6 What is the role of the selling function (if any) in the strategic customer relationship management (CRM) process? (Leigh and

Marshall 2001)1.7 How does the firm’s organizational structure enable financial gains of customer orientation/target marketing? (Leigh and Marshall

2001)1.8 Information and integration: What is the role of the sales force? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)1.9 Strategy/coordination for managing hybrid marketing channels and cross-functional exchanges. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)

2. Creating and Communicating the Field Sales Organization’s Vision and Culture (mean = 4.30; standard deviation = 1.01)2.1 How does the organization ensure that the culture and behavior of the selling function is consistent with the requirements of the

market orientation/intended marketing strategy? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)2.2 Fitting the sales program (e.g., customer relationship models) to the organization’s goals. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)2.3 What type of culture is necessary to support the CRM business process? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)2.4 Critical role of organizational culture research relevant to the selling function. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)2.5 The dynamics of developing a shared culture within cross-functional teams. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)2.6 Development of performance-based culture using on-the-job experience, mentoring, rotational assignments, setting high standards,

and peer pressure. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)3. Coping with Compliance and Legal Issues (mean = 4.25; standard deviation = 1.03)

3.1 Exercise caution in using vignettes in ethics studies; subjects cannot make the transition between judgment formulation and actualbehavior. (Marshall and Michaels 2001)

3.2 How does the organization ensure that the culture and behavior of the selling function are consistent with the requirements of themarket orientation/intended marketing strategy? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)

4. Bringing New Sales Representatives on Board Through Assimilation and Training (mean = 4.24; standard deviation = 1.38)4.1 How are sales representatives socialized into an organization? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)4.2 Decentralizing the recruiting process to the local sales manager. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)4.3 Importance of sales manager’s role and competency in recruiting and delivery of training. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)4.4 Ensure training is a continuous process; provide easy access to learning resources for reps. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)4.5 Systematically developing learning capabilities/leadership skills among senior sales reps. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)4.6 Developing/managing recruiting and training: multiple channels, range of sales/service jobs. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)4.7 Developing sales professionals toward various sales levels. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)

5. Managing the Whole Person to Help Employees Maintain Life/Work Balance (mean = 4.24; standard deviation = 0.93)None

6. Retaining Top Performing Sales Associates (mean = 4.13; standard deviation = 1.19)6.1 Why do sales representatives leave? (Need ethnographic methods to approach this question.) (Marshall and Michaels 2001)6.2 Retaining senior sales representatives. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)

7. Leveraging Field Sales Leader Time and Delegating Effectively (mean = 4.11; standard deviation = 1.04)7.1 Increased importance of sales manager’s role and competency in recruiting and delivery of training. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)

8. Building a Leadership Team and Succession Planning in the Field Sales Organization (mean = 4.11; standard deviation = 1.20)8.1 How has the role of sales manager changed in recent years? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)8.2 Importance of sales manager’s role and competency in recruiting and delivery of training. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)

9. Systematizing the Field Sales Organization’s Recruiting and Selection Process (mean = 3.98; standard deviation = 1.21)9.1 Sales rep candidate profile based on competencies (not on a job-based model). (Leigh and Marshall 2001)9.2 Recruiting and selection criteria for range of channels and selling roles to fit customer requirements. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)9.3 Requirements: selling/servicing roles in multichannel multicustomer relationship strategy. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)9.4 Decentralizing the recruiting process to the local sales manager. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)9.5 Importance of sales manager’s role and competency in recruiting and delivery of training. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)9.6 Developing/managing recruiting and training: multiple channels, range of sales/service jobs. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)

10. Managing Different Stages of Sales Representatives’ Careers (mean = 3.94; standard deviation = 1.23)None

(continues)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:44

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 2006 297

11. Managing a Complex, Technical Field Sales Organization and Personally Touching Employees’ Lives (mean = 3.89; standard deviation = 1.23)11.1 Differences/challenges in implementing technology to support global versus domestic-only selling efforts. (Marshall and Michaels

2001)11.2 To what degree has Internet usage actually penetrated sales force? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)11.3 How does the use of the Internet affect the effectiveness of the sales force? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)11.4 How has sales force automation improved (or hindered) the effectiveness of the sales force? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)11.5 How do changing technologies affect the sales process? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)11.6 How do information technology (IT) investments enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of sales personnel? (Leigh and Marshall

2001)11.7 How do firms realize IT benefits (e.g., Internet) in light of their sales/marketing strategy? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)11.8 Information and integration (what collected? how processed? how is knowledge managed? who has access to it?). What is the role of

the sales force? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)12. Building Productive Sales Teams (mean = 3.89; standard deviation = 1.16)

12.1 How do selling teams operate more efficiently in the transactional, consultative, relationship-selling paradigm (TCR) environment?(Marshall and Michaels 2001)

12.2 How effective are selling teams? What are the roles of individuals in an optimal team selling situation? How are the roles managed?How are effective teams compensated? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)

12.3 Decomposition of overall selling process: benefit from specialization and division of labor. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)12.4 Account management systems (global, strategic, national): products, roles, tasks, processes, resources, performance metrics. (Leigh

and Marshall 2001)12.5 Team selling issues, rather than “lone ranger” or entrepreneurial skills. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)

13. Building Field Sales Organization Structure and Operational Management Systems (budgeting, planning, goal setting, and accountability)(mean = 3.84; standard deviation = 1.15)13.1 How has the selling function become blurred with marketing and logistics? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)13.2 With the proliferation of new sales channels, how does a firm coordinate the selling effort? What are the implications for the sizes of

sales forces? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)13.3 What are the organizational contingencies and factors that affect sales force configuration? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)13.4 Quality of interfunctional linkages: marketing, sales, other functions affecting customer. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)13.5 Building adaptive and responsive marketing and sales organization structures. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)13.6 Coordinating centralized, specialized sales and service functions. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)

14. Growing the Field Sales Organization Through Multiple Business Relationships, Alliances, and Partnerships (mean = 3.75;standard deviation = 1.16)14.1 What is the role of manufacturer’s representatives in today’s complex and indirect channels? How does a firm create harmony in

complex channel systems? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)14.2 What interfunctional relationships have sales forces developed as a result of the supply chain? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)14.3 What core competencies must be handled by firm/which processes should be outsourced? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)14.4 Can partnering and technology investments increase free information exchange/enable accessibility? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)14.5 Processes are involved in building partnerships with core customers? Creating win-win? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)

15. Leveraging Sales Force Automation, Technology, and CRM in the Field Sales Organization (mean = 3.69; standard deviation = 1.11)15.1 Differences/challenges in implementing technology to support global versus domestic-only selling efforts? (Marshall and Michaels

2001)15.2 To what degree has Internet usage actually penetrated the sales force? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)15.3 How does the use of the Internet impact the effectiveness of the sales force? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)15.4 How has sales force automation improved (or hindered) the effectiveness of the sales force? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)15.5 What is the strategic role of the salesperson in gathering market intelligence? Is this currently done? Do some firms utilize informa-

tion more effectively than others? Do reward systems provide for this activity? How is this information used, and by whom?(Marshall and Michaels 2001)

15.6 How do changing technologies affect the sales process? (Marshall and Michaels 2001)15.7 What is the role of the selling function (if any) in the strategic CRM process? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)15.8 Segmenting customer by purchasing preference: transactional, relationship, solution, sole supplier. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)15.9 Organizational effectiveness of multi- and cross-channel systems in integrated customer relationship strategy. (Leigh and Marshall

2001)15.10 How to segment for the effective use of hybrid marketing systems. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)15.11 Can partnering and technology investments increase free information exchange/enable accessibility? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)15.12 What type of culture is necessary to support the CRM business process? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)15.13 How do IT investments enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of sales personnel? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)15.14 How do firms realize IT benefits (e.g., Internet) in light of their sales/marketing strategy? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)15.15 Rate of return on IT investments for enhancing the sales function. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)15.16 Descriptive/normative research: How do firms develop CRM strategies and integrated IT models? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)15.17 Information and integration (what collected? how processed? how is knowledge managed? who has access to it?). What is the role

of the sales force? (Leigh and Marshall 2001)15.18 Strategy/coordination for managing hybrid marketing channels and cross-functional exchanges. (Leigh and Marshall 2001)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:44

10

Oct

ober

201

4

298 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

positioning the field sales organization” was a higher priorityfor businesses targeting the B2B market or affluent custom-ers than it was for businesses serving the middle market.

Relationship of 15 Priority Areas toAcademic Research

Using the 15 priority areas as category headings, we mappedthe academic research questions into the practitioner priori-ties to examine correspondence (see Table 1). Three research-ers independently compared the 15 practitioner priorities tothe 140 academic research topics identified in Marshall andMichaels (2001) and Leigh and Marshall (2001). We foundthat 77 of the academic research topics clearly map onto the15 practitioner research priorities (where two or more research-ers nominated the topic as overlapping). The median num-ber of academic research topics corresponding to a givenpractitioner priority was five. Nine of the practitioner agendaitems overlapped with five or more academic topics. Six of

the practitioner agenda items overlapped with two or feweracademic research topics. This suggests there may be differ-ent levels of agreement between the academic research agendaand the research priorities of financial services practitioners.

DISCUSSION

High impact research examines issues considered to be veryimportant by both academics and practitioners. Research onissues considered to be important to academics is more likelyto receive attention in peer-reviewed academic journals. Re-search on issues considered to be important by practitioners ismore likely to be adopted by professionals seeking a competi-tive advantage. While the study by Marshall and Michaels(2001) touches these perspectives, their research focuses largelyon gaps in academic streams of research. Leigh and Marshall(2001) capture the practitioner perspective, but their primarycontribution is to highlight areas of convergence and gaps be-tween academic research and practitioner best practices. They

Table 2Priority Rankings by Field/Home Office and by Primary Target Market

Field Home Business Affluent MiddleResearch Issue Office Office* Market Market Market*

1. Bringing new sales representatives on board throughassimilation and training 1 1 15 15 1

2. Marketing and positioning the field sales organization 5 3 1 2 143. Coping with legal and ethical issues 6 6 5 3 44. Building the field sales organization’s structure and

operational management systems (budgeting, planning,goal setting, and accountability) 13 8 10 10 12

5. Building a leadership team and succession planning inthe field sales organization 7 4 7 5 7

6. Managing a complex, technical field sales organization,and personally touching employees’ lives 10 13 14 11 10

7. Creating and communicating the field salesorganization’s vision and culture 2 5 3 1 3

8. Managing the “whole person” to help employeesmaintain life/work balance 4 12 4 7 2

9. Growing the field sales organization through multiplebusiness relationships, alliances, and partnerships 14 14 6 13 15

10. Managing different stages of sales representatives’ careers 9 9 13 9 911. Systematizing the field sales organization’s recruiting and

selection process 11 2 12 12 612. Leveraging field sales leader time and delegating effectively 8 10 2 4 813. Building productive sales teams 12 15 9 8 1114. Retaining top performing sales associates 3 7 8 6 515. Leveraging sales force automation, technology, and

CRM in the field sales organization 15 11 11 14 13N = 318 N = 59 N = 66 N = 77 N = 215

* Rank order is significantly different (p < 0.05).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:44

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 2006 299

do not explicitly identify the most pressing emerging prob-lems managers face, nor do they address practitioners’ percep-tions of how thoroughly these issues have been researched.

The present study, in turn, focuses largely on practitionerimpressions of major issues (some of which have actually beenwell researched by academics). The three-stage developmentprocess addresses many of the limitations associated with re-search based on expert judgments (Day and Wensley 1988).The explicit search for industry practitioners with a reputa-tion for forward thinking and the snowball sampling tech-nique minimized the backward-looking bias of managementjudgment and increased the likelihood of including the ap-propriate expert in the research. The large-scale validationstudy allows us to generalize these findings within the finan-cial services industry. By uniting the work of Marshall andhis colleagues with the present study, we present research areasthat deeply interest practitioners and show that, although theseissues are expressed differently, there are opportunities for win-win collaborations. Given that industry cooperation is in-creasingly difficult for academic researchers to obtain, ourresearch helps to build a bridge between published academicresearch agendas and research priorities among practitionersin the financial services area. Our work is guided by the as-sumption that greater understanding of the practitioner per-spective will allow academicians to position their research formutual benefit.

Why Priorities Differ

A fundamental difference between academic and industryresearch is point of view. As we work together to make senseof the rapidly changing business environment, each groupapproaches problems from different perspectives. The differ-ences between these two perspectives can be illustrated usingthe agendas discussed in this paper. First, as academicians, weare rewarded for the accuracy of our observations, which areexpected to stand the test of time. For academicians, researchis the output of the business. Practitioners, on the other hand,are rewarded for making good decisions that generate addi-tional profits, sales, share, and operating margin. The outputof research is simply one input to the business, among many.We found two broad areas in the research agenda proposedby Marshall and Michaels (2001) that do not correspond withthe practitioner agenda—methodological issues and specificconceptual areas (i.e., cognitive structures, social learningtheory, cohort learning, and defining the sales field). Thissuggests that potential financial services industry partners arenot likely to be interested in methodological issues unless theyare convinced the methodology will affect the usability of theresult.

Second, practitioners in this study used a much broaderbrush to define their research questions. The 15 research pri-

orities are framed as problems needing solutions, rather thanas questions appropriate for rigorous scientific inquiry. Thisis consistent with the previous work showing practitionersexpect pragmatic, logical research; whereas academics expecttheory-driven, data-supported research appropriate for pub-lication in peer-reviewed journals (Buckley et al. 1998). AsTable 1 indicates, there are several areas where the academicand the practitioner agendas overlap. This suggests that set-ting an appropriate context for mutually beneficial researchmight be an important consideration. For example, an aca-demic researcher seeking access to a financial service organiza-tion’s sales force in order to study the impact of Internet usageon sales force effectiveness (15.3) may find the organizationmore receptive if the proposal is framed in the context ofleveraging technology for the field sales organization.

Finally, practitioners are more interested in solutions toproblems than in understanding the conditions creating theproblem. For example, everyone is aware that the role of thesalesperson is changing (Rackham and DeVincentis 1999).The academic research agenda focuses on defining emergingsales roles and mapping their impact on existing sales para-digms. Financial service practitioners focus on identifying anddeveloping the people needed to fill these changing roles.Therefore, the industry research agenda deals with the chang-ing role of the salesperson, but sees it through the lens ofrecruiting, selection, assimilation, coaching, training, anddevelopment.

The point of this discourse is to suggest a way to fosteracademic/financial services industry partnerships in address-ing issues of mutual interest. Industry professionals need thekind of research possible in academia given our “disinterestedobserver” status and our longer-term perspective. We need tounderstand that the relevance of our research will be filteredthrough the practitioner’s natural shorter-term, people-oriented perspective. To the extent that managers and aca-demics can understand these fundamentally different pointsof view and embrace the resulting differences, research in thisarea will become more productive for all parties.

Gaining Cooperation from Industry Partners

The survey confirmed that all 15 practitioner research areas area priority, indicating that academicians able to frame their re-search within the context of one of these areas are likely toreceive positive responses from financial services industry prac-titioners, suggesting the possibility of collaborative research(Table 1). About half of the academic research topics could bemapped onto the 15 practitioner priorities. This suggests thatabout half of our research falls within the context of what prac-titioners in the financial services industry deem important innine key areas: marketing and positioning the field sales orga-nization (1); creating and communicating the field sales

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:44

10

Oct

ober

201

4

300 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

organization’s vision and culture (2); bringing new sales repre-sentatives on board through assimilation and training (4); sys-tematizing the field sales organization’s recruiting and selectionprocess (9); managing a complex technical field sales organiza-tion and personally touching employees’ lives (11); buildingproductive sales teams (12); building the field sales organization’sstructure and operational management systems (13); growingthe field sales organization through multiple business relation-ships, alliances, and partnerships (14); and leveraging sales forceautomation, technology, and customer relationship manage-ment (CRM) in the field sales organization (15).

When Academic and PractitionerPriorities Overlap

In these areas, academic researchers may be able to bring valueto a potential partnership in the financial services industrythrough an extensive review of the literature. Practitionersvalue research as a means to generate solutions to their prob-lems. While discussing a research partnership in these areas,we may be able to draw on existing research for some of theanswers to the broader research priority. In addition to dem-onstrating the practical value of academic research, this ap-proach positions the academic partner as an expert with accessto information not readily accessible to the field. In this con-text, a collaborative research project might be framed as anattempt to gain a step on the competition. In exchange forproject resources, the industry partner may have exclusive useof the findings for a period of time. Given the length of timeit takes to write up an academic research project and to take itthrough the peer-review process, delaying the publication ofthe results for several months is not a major burden on theacademic partner.

Although the focus of this research is to provide insight onhow current academic research questions map onto the prac-titioner priorities in the financial services industry, it is diffi-cult not to identify new questions in light of these findings.

When Academic and Practitioner PrioritiesDo Not Overlap

Our academic research agendas are silent in several areas ofkeen interest to practitioners in the financial services indus-try. Four of the practitioner research priorities correspondedwith two or fewer academic research topics: coping with com-pliance and legal issues (3), retaining top performing salesassociates (6), leveraging field sales leader time and delegat-ing effectively (7), and building a leadership team and suc-cession planning in the field sales organization (8). Two ofthe priorities had no correspondence at all with academic agen-das: managing the whole person to help employees maintainlife/work balance (5) and managing different stages of sales

representatives’ careers (10). The issue of life/work balance isnot unique to the sales function; however, in the 1970s, nei-ther were the issues of role ambiguity, conflict, and stress. Yetacademicians recognized boundary spanners are more likelyto experience role stress. The same argument can be madetoday for the importance of life/work balance issues amongboundary spanners. Given today’s ability to be connected 24/7,those operating in the sales function are even more likely tograpple with life/work balance issues. Customers expect agreater degree of access and responsiveness than ever (e.g., aGoldman Sachs memo shared with one of the authors notesthat sales associates are to return all calls within a two-hourperiod). Scholars interested in this area are likely to find in-dustry partners willing to cooperate on such research.

Lack of interest among scholars on the issue of career stageslikely reflects our belief that the “big work” in this area wasdone by Cron and his colleagues (Cron 1984; Cron andSlocum 1986; Cron, Dubinsky, and Michaels 1988). Yet muchof that research was conducted when career paths were verydifferent. In the 1980s, a typical career path involved fewerthan six organizations on one’s resume and a somewhat logi-cal career progression. Today, those managing the sales func-tion work with sales rookies new to the role and new tobusiness (college graduates) as well as career-changers having20 years of business experience. With tightening labor mar-kets due to an aging population and peoples’ need to worklonger than age 65, practitioners need assistance from aca-deme in making sense of this new world. Old areas of inquirymust be reopened when earlier work does not generalize to anew environment.

Practitioners desire research that can guide them in direct-ing their time and attention. What aspects of leading andmanaging a sales organization must be handled by the fieldleader? What activities can the field sales leader delegate toothers in the sales organization? How might research directfield sales leaders in building their leadership teams and plan-ning for their own successors? Our work in teaming prima-rily focuses on sales teams; yet industry requires insight andknowledge about effectively building sales leadership teamsas well.

It is interesting that the research topics raised by practitio-ners deal with ethics and the aftermath of corporate dishon-esty. Legal and ethical principles were on the financial servicesindustry agenda, though this research was conducted beforethe Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002. Neither of the academicagendas reviewed earlier addresses ethics.

Finally, our work in the area of sales force retention doesnot address practitioner needs in the financial services indus-try. Academic research focuses on retention across the entirefield sales organization. Practitioners, on the other hand, fo-cus on retaining their top performing sales associates. Topsales executives subscribe to the notion of “healthy turnover”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:44

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 2006 301

where they replace lower-performing members of the salesorganization with associates having a positive impact on theorganization’s performance. Scholars can influence both aca-demic knowledge and industry practice with research focus-ing on this priority.

In these areas, where few streams of current academic re-search overlap with practitioner research priorities, it may bepossible to develop high-impact research projects by reexam-ining prior research in light of changed environmental cir-cumstances in the financial services industry or by engagingin interdisciplinary research. Continued practitioner interestin areas that once were, but no longer are, priority researchareas for academics may be a signal that the environment haschanged sufficiently to warrant a reinvestigation. Certainly,environmental changes are not unique to the financial ser-vices industry. Hence, reinvestigation may be warranted inother industries. Similarly, the fact that marketing professionalsperceive as high-priority issues those that have been researchedin related disciplines, such as management or finance, maysignal an opportunity for collaborative research to addressunique concerns of the marketing profession.

The Role of Management/Market Context

While all of the research priorities were perceived as importantby financial industry practitioners, Table 2 indicates that therelative importance of these priorities was significantly differ-ent for home office (e.g., CMO, vice president, regional vicepresident) than for field leaders (e.g., general agency leader,CEO, general manager). In a similar vein, the rank order ofresearch priorities for sales leaders in organizations reportingmiddle-income customers (B2C) as their primary target mar-ket was significantly different than the order of research priori-ties for sales leaders in reporting either business customers (B2B)or affluent customers (B2C) as their primary target market.

Although this research is based in the financial servicesarea, it is not unreasonable to expect that various manage-ment/market contexts would yield different research priori-ties regardless of industry.

Home Office Versus Field Office

Because research cooperation is needed from home office ex-ecutives or field sales leaders, it may be helpful to understandthe differences in the research priorities for these groups (Table2, columns 2 and 3). For example, home office executives arelikely to perceive research related to systematizing the recruit-ing and selection process as a higher priority (2) than fieldleaders (11). Perhaps this is an area where the field leaderlooks to the home office for systems support (such as screen-ing tests, best practices from other units, technology support).While the issue is a priority for all, the field leader looks to

the home office for leadership in the systems developmentarea, preferring to focus on meeting the recruitment targetsneeded to support the field operation. This suggests homeoffice personnel may be most receptive to research on thistopic. Similarly, building the field sales organization’s struc-ture and operational systems appears to be a higher priorityfor home office (8) versus field leaders (13). Again, with re-sponsibility for maximizing performance in a number of sub-units, the home office manager has a vested interest indeveloping replicable approaches to these areas, whereas thefield leader is looking for specific recommendations from thehome office.

On the other hand, field leaders are more likely to rankresearch around work/life balance as a higher priority (4) thanhome office leaders (12). In addition to replacing low-performing salespeople, the field leader can improve the localorganization’s performance by retaining top producers. In thisindustry, it is not unusual for a single “superstar” producer toaccount for a large percentage of the field organization’s grossrevenue and net profit. The departure of one of these indi-viduals can have an immediate negative impact on the localorganization’s bottom line. Given the high-pressure nature ofthe sales profession, it is not surprising that field leaders seelife/work balance issues as a higher priority as they maximizethe long-term production of their top producers.

In many instances, conducting industry research requiresboth home office and field cooperation. Understanding dif-ferences in the relative research priorities of these two groupsmay help academic researchers identify the most sympatheticpartner for the initial approaches.

Middle Market Versus Business/Affluent Markets

Likewise, understanding differences in priorities based onmarket context (Table 2, columns 4, 5, and 6) may increasepractitioner receptiveness to collaboration. For example, ifscholars are interested in research concerning the assimila-tion and training of new sales representatives, they are likelyto gain cooperation from financial services organizations tar-geting middle-market customers. Organizations targeting themiddle market ranked this issue as the highest priority (1),while organizations targeting either the business market orthe affluent market ranked this issue as the lowest priority(15). This difference may be driven by the need for largernumbers of sales professionals in B2C organizations (makingnew representatives a constant part of the landscape). Or, itmay be that B2B sales organizations and those targeting af-fluent customers hire sales associates already possessing a de-gree of knowledge of the organization, its markets, and thesales process. In a similar vein, middle-market organizationsranked systematizing recruiting and selection as a higher re-search priority (6) than either business market or affluent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:44

10

Oct

ober

201

4

302 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

market organizations (12). Future research might examine howB2C and B2B processes for recruiting, assimilating, and train-ing new sales associates differ.

Another striking difference in relative research priority isin the area of marketing the local field sales organization.Organizations targeting either the business or the affluentmarket saw this as a very high (1 or 2) priority, whereas middle-market organizations ranked that research priority much lower(14). Perhaps this is because organizations targeting middle-market customers provide a more limited product offering toa large number of smaller accounts in order to be successful.Many of these organizations function under the brand iden-tity of a national organization and rely on the umbrella brandto differentiate the local organization. For organizations tar-geting businesses or wealthy individuals, national brandingmay be less useful. For these organizations, the brand identityneeds to be created at the local level.

Finally, organizations targeting business and affluent cus-tomers prioritized leveraging the field leader’s time and timemanagement (2 and 4 priority) more highly than did middlemarket organizations (8 priority). It may be that, because themiddle-market organization succeeds by recruiting larger num-bers of sales representatives and accepts a healthy level of turn-over among the low producers, the middle-market organizationtends to have more people. This would allow the field leader tomake efficient use of middle managers such as sales managersor full-time trainers. In organizations targeting business andaffluent customers, who recruit fewer numbers of more experi-enced sales representatives, the field leader may have to devotemore time to personally managing top performers in additionto creating a market identity for the firm.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

No research is without limitations. Gaining understandingfrom forward thinkers is critical but, in the present case, comesat the expense of a single-industry focus. This limits thegeneralizability of these results. As Keck, Leigh, and Lollar(1995) pointed out in their study of multiline insurance agen-cies, results are likely to generalize to sales contexts that sharetask requirements such as multilevel sales organizations andmanufacturing agent contexts. In the absence of empiricalstudies demonstrating the relevance of success factors in thefinancial services industry, we have identified differences inthe research priorities of home office versus field profession-als and of businesses targeting middle-market customers ver-sus B2B or affluent customers to help other researchersdetermine the relevance of this work to their particular in-dustry setting.

A practitioner’s decision to collaborate on research is drivenby multiple factors, one of which is the topic of inquiry. Con-

cerns over confidentiality and the time required for complet-ing a survey, among other factors, also constrain executives’willingness to participate in research studies. This researchdoes not presume to offer a prescription for obtaining indus-try participation in joint research projects. Rather, this studyprovides topics that may prove interesting for academe/prac-titioner collaboration in the financial services industry.

However, this research fails to account for other factorsthat drive the collaboration decision. Future research shouldexamine the impact of the visibility of the researchers makingthe request, time commitment associated with the researchprotocol (including the length of the survey), sampling is-sues, incentives, and previous experience with academic re-search partnerships (including possible negative ramificationsof the time lag between data collection and reporting of re-sults for academic research).

REFERENCES

Buckley, M. Ronald, Gerald R. Ferris, H. John Bernadin, andMichael G. Harvey (1998), “The Disconnect Between theScience and Practice of Management,” Business Horizons,41, 2 (March–April), 31–38.

Chally Group (1998), The Customer-Selected World Class SalesExcellence Research Report, Dayton, OH: HR Chally Group.

Cron, William (1984), “Industrial Salesperson Development: ACareer Stages Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 48 (Fall),41–52.

———, and John W. Slocum, Jr. (1986), “The Influence ofCareer Stages on Salespeople’s Job Attitude, Work Percep-tions, and Performance,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23(May), 119–129.

———, Alan Dubinsky, and Ronald Michaels (1988), “TheInfluences of Career Stages on Components of Salespeople’sMotivation,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (January), 78–92.

Day, George S., and Robin Wensley (1988), “Assessing Advan-tage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superior-ity,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (2), 1–20.

Downs, B.T., and J.D. Camm (1996), “An Exact Algorithm forthe Maximal Covering Problem,” Naval Research Logistics,43 (3), 435–461.

Keck, Kay L., Thomas W. Leigh, and James G. Lollar (1995),“Critical Success Factors in Captive, Multi-Line Insurance,”Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 15, 1 (Win-ter), 17–34.

Kerr, Norbert L., and R. Scott Tindale (2004), “Group Perfor-mance and Decision Making,” Annual Review of Psychology,55 (1), 623–655.

Leigh, Thomas W., and Greg W. Marshall (2001), “ResearchPriorities in Sales Strategy and Performance,” Journal ofPersonal Selling & Sales Management, 21, 2 (Spring), 83–93.

Marshall, Greg W., and Ronald E. Michaels (2001), “Research inSelling and Sales Management in the Next Millennium: AnAgenda from the AMA Faculty Consortium,” Journal of Per-sonal Selling & Sales Management, 21, 1 (Winter), 15–18.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:44

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 2006 303

Rackham, Neil, and John DeVincentis (1999), Rethinking theSales Force: Redefining Selling to Create and Capture Cus-tomer Value, New York: McGraw-Hill.

U.S. Census Bureau (2004), “2002 Economic Census: IndustrySeries,” Washington, DC (available at www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/INDSUMM.HTM).

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004),“2004 National Occupational Employment and Wage Es-timates: Sales and Related Occupations,” Washington, DC(available at www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_41Sa.htm).

Von Hipple, Eric (1988), The Sources of Innovation, New York:Oxford University Press.

Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust (1994), Social NetworkAnalysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Zoltners, Andris A., Prabhakant Sinha, and Greggor A. Zoltners(2001), The Complete Guide to Accelerating Sales Force Per-formance: How to Get More Sales from Your Sales Force, NewYork: AMACOM.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:44

10

Oct

ober

201

4