Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.1, November 2016

ISSN 2189-9592

SOCO’s Impact on Individual Sales Performance:
The Mediating Role of Cross-functional Integration
Eunji Seo

Fukuyama-heisei University, Japan
Japan Academy of Business Administration E-mail:eunji0109@heisei-u.ac.jp

Abstract
The effects of sales orientation (SO) and customer orientation (CO) on individual
performance and the mediating effects of cross-functional integration are examined in thisresearch. The assumption, two types of selling motivation (SOCO) differentially influence
individual performance, is modified by evaluating the mediating role of cross-functional
integration based upon the rationale is that SO emphasizes self-interest whereas CO involves
knowledge sharing and internal communication. Hypotheses are tested with structural equation
modeling using survey data from 236 salespeople in a Japanese industrial company and it isfound that SO directly influenced individual performance but cross-functional integration
completely mediated the relationship between CO and individual performance. Based on theseresults, the importance of SOCO both in order to increase upper performance is emphasized anda new perspective on the cross-functional integration of salespeople is provided.

Keywords
sales orientation, customer orientation, salespeople, Japanese industrial company, integration,individual performance(1) Introduction

importance of formulating diverse sales

In the context of increased domestic andinternational

marketcompetition,

strategy and managing the behavior ofthesalespeople has been the focus of considerable
60

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.1, November 2016academic attention and research interest(Franke

and

Park,

2006).

ISSN 2189-9592

In addition, the academic literature

Althoughexamining SOCO has revealed that thissatisfaction with and maintenance of long-

phenomenon

term relationships with customers are critical,

performance, but it has ignored the possibility

firms also pursuit short-term interests eventhat the observed effect is the result of

though in business-to-business transactions.

intervening

Therefore, salespeople should adapt diverse

personality-performance perspective, whichsales strategy with exclusive psychologicalprovide a framework for how personality

orientations.

affects

This study tests that how salesperson-

enhances

individual

variables.

behavior

psychologicalAccording

sales

to

a

at

work,

a

specificstateaffects

individuallevel sales orientation (SO) and customer

performance through proactive processes

orientation (CO) affect the performance of(Goad and Jaramillo, 2014). As a sales-related

those salespeople by evaluating mediating

concept,

effect of cross-functional integration behavior.

performance through the activation of a

SO is the degree to which salespeople

particularprioritize their own needs and/or the needs ofdevelopment, such as integration with otherthe firm over those of their customers byknowledgeable members. The integration of

attempting to sell as much as possible.

salespeople with a variety of functional

Conversely, CO means that the degree tomembers

which salespeople try to help customers makeinformation and activating organizationalpurchase decisions to satisfy the needs of thelearning, which may affect the effectivenesslatter and the extent to which they enjoy

and ability of a salesperson (Rouzes et al.,doing so (Saxe and Weitz, 1982; Brown et al.,2005). This behavior of salespeople may

1997). Most

researches on

behavior

salespeople

SOCO

may

stage

is

of

criticalindividualorganizational

forsellingreasonably

haveusually

individual performance. In particular, CO

discussed SO as being inversely related to CO

may prompt the delivery of high customer(e.g., Saxe and Weitz, 1982). However, SOCO

value by increasing internal dissemination ofis not exactly inversed concepts because theirmarket-related information and enhancing

effects

unseparated

coordination with other functional members.

empirical

By examining the effects of SOCO on

research has reported a positive or a non-individual performance and investigating theinfluential relationship between SO andmediating role of integration, it may be

performance (e.g., Boles et al., 2001; Wachnel

possible to identify the real effects of SOCOet al., 2009) and has argued for additional

which clarify their implications for sales

research to test this relationship further bymanagers.

to(Schwepker,

performance2003).

Relatedexpectedexchanging

the

of

be

affecttoinfluence

addressing whether both components of

The remainder of this paper is organized

SOCO have a positive impact on performanceas follows. First, I discuss the extant(Wachnel et al., 2009; Goad and Jaramillo,

literature on the sales behavior of salespeople2014).

and their integration with other functional
61

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.1, November 2016

ISSN 2189-9592

members. Then it is developed related

research is based on the view that SOCO arehypotheses. Next, I present the methods useddistinct rather than opposite constructs andin our empirical research and discuss thethat they should be assessed with separate

results. Then the theoretical and managerial

measures (Guenzi et al., 2011). Specifically,

implications of findings are presented. Finally,

the antecedents and benefits of CO, such as

it is discussed the limitations of this study

job satisfaction, commitment, organizational

and implications for future research.

citizenship, and the behavior of members,
have been outlined (Cross et al., 2007).

(2) Conceptual background

Despite

1. Sales motivation of salespeople

attempted tonumerous

studieshave

identify and explore the

Research regarding the sales motivation

relationship between performance and salesof salespeople has developed the SOCO

motivation, no consensus has developed in

criterion to estimate the degree to which tasks

this regard (Goad and Jaramillo., 2014).

are effectively accomplished by salespeople.

Indeed, few researchers have focused on SO

The degree of SOCO is important for

as a significant contributor to performanceorganizations because it influences the job-because they have assumed that SO is

related attitudes and goals of salespeople

negatively related to organizational outcomes(Schwepker, 2003; Jaramillo et al., 2007).

under the rationale that the use of a primarily

The

SOCO

scale

incorporates

twosales-oriented sales strategy involves lesssubscales: SO (sales-oriented selling) and CO

concern for customers’ interests (e.g., Guenzi(customer-oriented selling). The SOCO scale

et al., 2009). However, the impact of SO on

addresses the following characteristics of asalescustomer-oriented sales process: the desire to(Schwepker, 2003).

help customers make satisfactory purchaseIn

performance
addition,

remains

only

a

few

uncertain
potential

decisions, helping customers assess theirmoderating factors, such as differences inneeds, offering products that will satisfy

performance measurements (subjective ormanipulative tactics, and avoiding the use ofobjective) (Jaramillo et al., 2007) and the levelhigh-pressure selling (Saxe and Weitz, 1982).

of skill of salespeople (Wachner et al., 2009),

Based on these assumptions, one line ofhave been examined with regard to theresearch on SOCO has proceeded from therelationshipnotion that both types of sales effectivenessperformance. These studies have shown that

can

one

various external and individual factors can2007).

affect the relationship between SOCO andDrawing on the stance that SO should be

performance, but the impact of internal

limited to encourage CO, several studies havefactors, such as integration with otherexamined the more effective aspects of thefunctional members of the organization, has

SOCO approach and the antecedents of the

not been well studied.

beinvestigatedmeasurement(Pettijohn

using
et

only
al.,

between

SOCO

and

sales

CO approach in particular (Widmier, 2002).
On the other hand, another line of

2. Cross-functional integration of salespeople
62

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.1, November 2016

ISSN 2189-9592

In general, the sale of products and services

and sales (Le Meunier-FitzHugh et al., 2007).

is not the exclusive province of marketing or

Research in these areas has suggested

sales but also involves multiple functionalthat

integration

members (Le Meunier-FitzHugh and Piercy,

performance on both individual and group2007). Cross-functional integration, a structurelevels. For example, Kahn and Mentzer

that maximizes a firm’s effectiveness, has been

(1998)

addressed by three approaches within the

different functional members has a positive

relevant

showed

that

vital

to

integrationinfluencecomposite

perspectives

department success, overall firm performance,(Kahn and Mentzer, 1998). According to Kahn

and NPD because information exchange that

(1996), interaction includes physical activities,

is intrinsic to integration allows members tosuch as meetings, e-mails, telephone calls, andreducecross-functional training, whereas collaborationdifferent types of performance. Similarly, Le

involves intangible elements, such as mutual

Meunier-FitzHughunderstanding,empirically determined that collaboration

andcommonvision,anduncertainty,

in

among

interaction,

collaboration,

performanceoverallthe

literature:onisthereby
and

terms

of

facilitating

Piercy(2007)

between sales and marketing is positively

information sharing or building.

associated with business performance. At theSome empirical research has shown thatsuccessful

individual level, Chimhanzi and Morgan

performance that promotes market satisfaction(2005) found that informal interaction in theand identifies the behavior that is most

dyadic relationship between marketing andimportant for new product development (NPD)

human resources increases familiarity but(Kahn and Mentzer, 1998; Kahn, 2001).

reduces

However, since interaction and collaboration are

mutual understanding of others’ personality

closely parallel, the composite perspective has

traits and preferences. Moreover, Guenzi andbeen accepted, according to the goals ofTroilo (2006) showed that salespeople canintegration,

for discussing cross-functional

foster marketing capability (e.g., marketing

integration (Song & Montoya-Weiss, 2001;

sense, understanding market trends, andRouzieresearch,customer

relations)salesperson’s integration with other functional

relevanceofmembers is focused, using “integration” to refermarketing.

collaboration

et

is

al.,

a

feature2005).

In

of

this

competitiveness

by

their

by

promptingincreasing

interactions

the
with

to the extent of information exchange and(3) Model and hypotheses

personal interaction. Integration is an internal
option available to salespeople and that it

The conceptual model, which illustrates

creates value for customers. The important

the relationship between constructs, is shown

functions of integration are discussed inin Figure 1. Although extant researchterms of the cross-functional relationships

suggests that SO by itself negatively affects

related to marketing, such as those involving

customer loyalty and job satisfaction as it

R&D (Kahn and Mentzer, 1998), humanprioritizes short-term interests over customer

resources (Chimhanzi and Morgan, 2005),

satisfaction (Boles et al., 2001; Schwepker,
63

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.1, November 2016

H1. Sales orientation positively affects

2003), SO is often the most effective sales
strategyforimproving

ISSN 2189-9592

individual

individual sales performance.

performance. Wachnel et al. (2009) reported

CO is considered as a long-term sales

that SO directly increased individual sales

approach. Various studies have shown that

performance in B-to-B market settings andCO improves individual performance byfound that this tendency was stronger when

encouraging

salespeople were less skilled at selling.

increasing long-term customer satisfaction

Moreover, SO develops certain types ofand avoiding behaviors that may lead tocustomer relationships. Boles et al. (2001)

customer dissatisfaction (Franke and Park,

accurately observed that SO was not harmful

2006; Boles et al., 2001; Arndt and Karande,

for relationships with customers in in-store

2012). Franke and Park (2006) argued that aretail settings because customers expect

customer-oriented

salespeople to engage in selling-oriented

process of satisfying customers’ needs to be

behavior to some degree. Similarly, according

intrinsically pleasing. Cross et al. (2007) also

to Singh and Koshy (2011), SO is positively

showed a positive effect of CO on performance.

associated with the development of customer

Their rationale was that a salesperson isrelationships in the short- or medium-term.

often

On the other hand, Schwepker (2003) argued

organization to interact with the customer,that salespeople are more likely to utilize SO

and the individual salesperson’s focus on

in an effort to meet relevant demands andsatisfying customer needs is therefore agoals when management employs outcome-crucialbased

financialsalespeople who have a high-CO approach

performance) to evaluate their performance.

tend to build stronger customer relationships

Harries et al. (2005) found that performance(Bole et al., 2001). Such relationships lead toorientationSO,

more frequent repeat sales, more word-of-suggesting that highly performance-oriented

mouth referrals, and overall, a more desirable

salespeople are focused on short-term rather

image for the selling firm.

measurements

positively(e.g.,

influenced

behave in a way to maximize their extrinsic
This

may

imply

that

only

subject

tosalesperson

focus

finds

representativeofinquiry.

of

on

the

the

Moreover,H2. Customer orientation positively

than long-term success, and that they, in turn,rewards.

thesalespeople

affects individual sales performance.

when

Improved information flow and flexibility

salespeople adopt a stronger sales-orientedof responses by team members can allow

approach, they increase their attention to theresources to be quickly and easily disengaged

act of selling itself and place the highest

from unproductive uses and applied to newpriority on finding effective methods foropportunities (Ford and Randolph, 1992). By

increasing performance. These discussions

transmitting information and interacting

show that SO is influential in increasing sales

with members who work in complementary

performance. Building on the aforementionedfunctions, salespeople are more likely totheoretical and empirical foundations, firstincrease

hypothesis is as follows:

effectively control their schedules. Moreover,
64

their

productknowledge

andJournal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.1, November 2016

ISSN 2189-9592

H1

SO

H4

P

CI
H3

H5

CO

H2
Figure 1. Conceptual model and hypothesized relationships
Note: SO=sales orientation, CO=customer orientation
CI=cross-functional integration, P= salespersons’ performancea network can supplement an individual’s

perspective that holds that “people choose

ability to respond well to new challenges

after assessing the probable gains and losses

when that individual knows from whom toin well-being from a set of alternative actions”

seek information or expertise (Cross and(Knoke, 1990, p. 31). When knowledge

Cumming, 2004). In this regard, salespeople

sharing with other functional members is not

who are more aware of other functionalpart of a formal job description, it is difficult

members’ expertise are likely to contact the

to

right

because they engage primarily in efforts topeople

at

the

right

time

when

information and technical support is required

positively

affects

cross-functional integration.

integrationindividual

salespeople

H4. Sales orientation negatively affects

the following hypothesis is developed:
Cross-functional

self-interested

achieve rewards.

for their tasks. Based on these considerations,H3.

motivate

Customers in B-to-B contexts require asales

full array of services, including help withperformance.

problem-solving processes and efforts toThis research proposes that SO is

increase the productivity of their sales force

negatively related to integration with other(Leigh and Marshall, 2001). Therefore, thefunctional members. Because SO emphasizes

role of salespeople is increasingly associatedthat a salesperson’s self-interest over that ofwith account management and solution

customers, it is stimulated by the generaldevelopment. For example, Storbacka et al.

output evaluation systems of organizations(2009, p. 982) argued that “for salespeople to(Sujan et al., 1994). Auh and Menguc (2013)

succeed in a servitised sales process theyreported that a reward practice that links pay

require knowledge held not just by marketing

increases to performance is negatively related

but also by operations and finance, resulting

toinknowledge-sharing

relationshipinvolves

behaviors.
aThis

self-interested
65

the

need

for

greater

communication.”

This

means

internal
that,

for

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.1, November 2016

salespeople

whoemphasize

ISSN 2189-9592

customerindividual performance was measured using

satisfaction, integration with other functional

two items developed by Churchill, Ford,

members is especially important to theirHartley, and Walker (1985) to emphasize theability to perform their fundamental role;view of performance in the sales role. All

thus, CO is likely to motivate salespeople toitems measured self-reported performanceinteract or collaborate with other functional

relative to other salespeople.

members.

H5. Customer orientation positively

2. Results

affects cross-functional integration.

2.1 Measurement model
The validity and dimensionality of our(4) Research methodology

reflective

constructs

areassessedby

1. Sample and measureperforming a confirmatory factor analysis

This study was conducted in a company(CFA). CFA model addressed SO (three items,

whose sales of individual services and

α= .706), CO (four items, α= .732), integration

products involved real state and auto and(four items, α= .835), and performance (twofinancial insurance. I chose this special

items,

company

areacceptable fit with the data, with a χ2 value ofmotivated to accept SOCO approaches, and135.609 (df = 59, p< .001), a comparative fit

they are generally integrated with otherindex (CFI) of .941, an adjusted goodness-of-fit

functional382

index (AGFI) of .872, and a root mean square

questionnaires were distributed, and 236

error of approximation (RMSEA) of .074. Thesesalespeople,

managers,

data imply that the fit of the model was good.

responded, reflecting a response rate of

Item loadings are presented in Table 1. One

61.78%.

SOCO,

item related to cross-functional integration had

integration, and individual performance werea low loading, <.5 is founded, it is accepted

adapted from previous research for this study.

because it is necessary to directly estimate how

Likert scales, ranging from one to indicate

salespeople perceive the possibility as to“not at all” to five to indicate “a lot,” were used.

integrate with other functional members.

Based on Wachner et al. (2009), SO was

Moreover, the overall composite reliability andmeasured with a three-item index, as shown

average variance extracted (AVE) were strong

in Table 1. It is modified these measures fromfor all latent variables, as shown in Table 2.

those used by Wachner et al. (2009) to reflect

Because the square root of the AVE for eachthe short-term transactional emphasis on

construct was greater than the correlation

superior financial performance of SO. It is

betweenmodified instruments drawn from those usedmeasurement model, all model constructs

by Thakor and Joshi (2005) to measure CO. In

exhibited discriminant validity with respect toaddition, integration with other functional

the standard.

becauseits

members.
including

Scalesforsalespeople

In
sales

total,

measuringmembers, which was referenced by Kahn andMentzer(1998),

isincluded.

α=.912).

any

The

pair

of

model

showedconstructs

in

an

the

In addition, a Harman’s one-factor tests

Finally,

performed on the four conceptually crucial
66

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.1, November 2016

ISSN 2189-9592

variables in our research model: SO, CO, cross-covariance explained by one factor was 28.62%.

functional

individualThis suggests that our data sample was mostperformance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &likely not contaminated by common method bias.

Pdsakoff, 2003). Results from this test showed

2.2. Structural model

integration,andTo test hypotheses related to the structu-

that four factors were present and that the most

Table 1. Variables and measures
Model
Scale items

Estimate*

SO1 when a company appraises salespeople, only financial performance has to be.474

Sales orientationconsidered.
SO2 I try to focus attention on the degree of sales performance compared with.828

others
SO3 high sales performance is more important than how to accomplish it.657

Customer orientation
CO1 It is important to fully understand the customer's needs.573

CO2 I try to determine how I can satisfy customers.794

CO3 I try to determine how I can best help the customer solve his/her problem.674

CO4 I spend much of my time listening to the customer talk about his/her firm's

.557

needs
Cross-functional integration
CL1 the integration between sales and other functions is possible.351

CL2 critical information is shared between colleagues with different functions

.901

CL3

.859

I am actively gathering information from colleagues with different

functions
CL4 I frequently exchanges information with other functional members.922

Individual Performance
P1 the degree to which the salesperson commits to the target sales figure.943

P2 the sales figures are achieved.889

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations
Composite

AVE

1

2

3

4

reliability
1.Sales orientation

0.74

0.50

1

2.Customer orientation

0.86

0.61

-.009

1

3.Cross-functional integration

0.88

0.67

.034

.245**

1

4.Individual performance

0.92

0.84

.285**.074.322**

67

1

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.1, November 2016

ISSN 2189-9592

Table 3. Structural model estimates
Path Estimate(t-value)

Structural paths
Sales orientation→ Cross-functional integration

0.13(1.20)

Customer orientation→ Cross-functional integration

0.67(3.37)***

Cross-functional integration → Individual performance0.28(4.08)***

Sales orientation

0.63(5.11)***→ Individual performance

Customer orientation→ Individual performance0.05(0.30)*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; and ***p < 0.001

ral model, AMOS is used to examine model;

the sales motivation of salespeople has

d.f. = 59,

underscored the positive effects of CO andp < 0.001; CFI = 0.941; TLI = 0.923; andneglected the impact of SO. It is also studied

RMSEA = 0.074) were good. In terms of thethe direct and mediating effects of integration

effects of direct paths, four of the six

with other functional members on individual

relationships directly supported three of ourperformance. These findings contribute tohypotheses as shown in Table 3. Specifically,

existing knowledge about sales organization.

H1, which addresses the direct effect of SO on

First, this research clarified how and why

individual performance, was supported. The

SOCO affects individual performance byparameter estimate for the path was 0.627 (tshowing that cross-functional integration= 5.112). H5, which also addresses the direct

mediates the effects of CO on individual

effect of CO on cross-functional integration,

performance. A significant result is that SO

was supported, and the parameter estimate

directly increases sales performance, but thatfor the path was 0.670 (t = 3.365). In addition,

CO indirectly increases it by prompting

H3, which deals with the direct effect of cross-interaction and activities with individuals

functionalwith different areas of exert knowledge.

the fits of the models (χ2 = 135.609,

integration

performance,

was

on

supported,individual
and

the

This finding underscores the differences

parameter estimate for the path was 0.284 (tbetween the two components of SOCO,=4.082). The other two structural parameters

although previous research has reported thatwere non-significant; therefore, H2 and H4

both positively influence performance (e.g.,

were not supported in our model.

Bole et al., 2001).
In terms of function, the relevant(5) Discussion

literature has shown that CO stimulate

1. Theoretical and managerial implications

innovativenessandinformation

sharing

This research investigated the impact of(Lukas and Ferrell, 2000). For example,

SOCO on the individual performance ofLukas and Ferrell (2000) empirically showedsalespeople because most extant research onthat CO increases the introduction of new-to68

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.1, November 2016

ISSN 2189-9592

the-world products and reduces the number

been conducted outside the United States andof me-too products launched. Moreover, Foss

it is possible that this behavior has different

et al. (2011) reported that interaction witheffects in other countries (Guenzi et al., 2011),

customers promotes the increased internal

this research on salespeople in an industrial

communicationdelegatingcompany of Japan contributes to expanding

responsibility in the organization. Our study

the existing knowledge on SOCO and its

advances knowledge in this regard byconsequences outside the United States.

suggesting

throughthatCO

increases

theFindingsof

thisresearchhave

performance of salespeople through their

managerial implications for sales managers

innovative behavior, such as interacting withand marketing executives. They should

other functional members and improving theencourage salespeople to adopt both selling

value of their products and services byapproaches and to adapt their management

adopting a variety of perspectives.

style in terms of salesforce selection, training,

From this perspective, it is possible that

motivation, reward, and control systems

these two psychological states will lead toaccordingly (Weitz and Bradford, 1999).

different customer service and products.

AlthoughServices and products provided from CO are

strategies from hard selling to smart selling

likely be more higher quality than thosehas been asserted (Guenzi, 2011), salespeople

provided from SO, as the former involves

are still expected to attain short-term sales

efforts to achieve superior customer value

results in a competitive market. Achievementthat derive from a combination of differentof superior short-term performance requires

perspectives and areas of expertise. Thisthat the work and training curriculum of

expectation should be discussed in further

salespeople be based on sales. This may beresearch. Second, our study expands on priormore critical for salespeople who naturally

researchcross-functional

prioritize the long-term prospective customer

integration by showing that personal COover short-term compensation. At the same

stimulates this phenomenon. Internal andtime, salespeople with a high SO should also

external

rewardbe encouraged to increase their integration

procedures, top management support, andwith other functional members, such as R&D,

environmentalbeenmarketing, and manufacturing personnel.

identified as antecedents to cross-functional

For example, the use of cross-functional

integration (e.g., Rouziès et al., 2005; Guenzi

teams with common financial goals may be

and Trolo, 2006). This research advances

effective in this regard (Rouziès et al., 2005).

knowledge in this domain by suggesting that

In summary, sales managers must coach and

CO is critical for upper-tier cross-functional

support salespeople in attempts to maintainintegration on the individual level and thathigh levels of both components of SOCO andthefacilitate

regardingfacilitators,

suchuncertainty

antecedents

of

as
have

cross-functionaltheimportanceopportunities

for

of

shiftingsalespeople,

integration should be further explored.

especially those with high SO, to interact

Finally, considering that few studies havewith colleagues with different knowledge
69

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.1, November 2016

bases.

ISSN 2189-9592

Sociological

European

Perspectives.

Journal of Marketing, 47, pp. 1333-1355.
2. Limitations and future research
Examinations

additional

Thomas. G., and Brooks, Charles (2001).

negative

An Examination of the Relationships

dimension of SO and increase motivation for

between Retail Work Environments,

short-term performance will be critical.

Salesperson

Selling

Although SO has a positive effect on

Customer

Orientationindividual performance as our findings

Performance.

conditions

that

of

the

Boles, James. S., Babin, Barry. J., Brashear,

reducethe

OrientationandJobconsiderable

Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 9(3), pp. 1-13.

challenges, such as reducing customer loyalty,

Brown, Steven. P., Cron, William. L., andsuggest,italso

endangering

presentsthejobsatisfactionof

Slocum Jr, John, W. (1997). Effects ofsalespeople, and fostering low levels ofGoal-Directed Emotions on Salesperson

learning orientation (Boles et al., 2001;

Volitions, Behavior, and Performance: A

Schwepker, 2003; Harries et al., 2005); thus,

Longitudinal

this topic requires more discussion andMarketing, 61, pp. 39-50.

careful consideration. Moreover, we used

JournalStudy.

ofChimhanzi, Jacqueline, and Morgan, Robert.

individual performance as the consequence of

E.

SOCO,

Marketing/Human Resources Dyad forwhich

assessments

wasmeasured

completed

in

by

self-

terms

of

(2005).

Marketing

Explanations
Strategy

from

the

Implementationcomparison with colleagues. Future research

Effectiveness in Service Firms. Journal

should rely on objective data, which may beof Business Research, 58, pp. 787-796.

more effective for estimating individual

Churchill Jr, Gilbert. A., Ford, Neil. M.,

effectiveness because it is likely that workers

Hartley, Steven. W., and Walker Jr,

to do not have accurate information about

Orville. C. (1985). The Determinants of

their colleagues’ performance.

Salesperson

Performance:

A

Meta-

Analysis. Journal of marketing research,
References22(2), pp. 103-118.

Arndt, Aaron. D., and Karande, Kiran (2012).

Cross, Rob, and Cummings, Jonathon. N.

Is It Better for Salespeople to have the(2004). Tie and Network Correlates ofHighest Customer Orientation or a

Individual Performance in Knowledge-

Strong Fit with Their Group’s Customer

Intensive Work. Academy of Manage-

Orientation? Findings from Automobile

ment Journal, 47, pp. 928-937.

Dealerships. Journal of Retailing andCross, Mark. E., Brashear, Thomas. G.,

Consumer Services, 19, pp. 353-359.

Rigdon, Edward. E., and Bellenger,

Auh, Seigyoung., and Menguc, Bulent (2013).

Danny. N. (2007). Customer Orientation

Knowledge

Sharing

Behaviours

and Salesperson Performance. EuropeanofIndustrial Salespeople: An Integration of

Journal of Marketing, 41, pp. 821-835.

Economic, Social Psychological, andFord, Robert. C., and Randolph, W. Alan
70

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.1, November 2016

ISSN 2189-9592

Personal Selling & Sales Management,(1992).
Cross-functional Structures: A Review

31(3), pp. 269-285.

and Integration of Matrix Organization

Jaramillo, Fernando., Ladik, Daniel. M.,

and Project Management. Journal of

Marshall, Greg. W., and Mulki, Jay.

management, 18, pp. 267-294.

Prakash (2007). A Meta-Analysis of the

Foss,

Nicolai.

Pedersen,J.,

Laursen,

TorbenKeld,(2011).

andRelationship between Sales Orientation-

Linking

Customer

Orientation(SOCO)

andCustomer Interaction and Innovation:

Salesperson Job Performance. Journal ofThebusiness & Industrial marketing, 22(5),Media-ting

Role

of

New

Organizational Practices, Organization

pp. 302-310.

Science, 22(4), pp. 980-999.

Kahn, Kenneth. B. (1996). Interdepartmental

Franke, George. R., and Park, Jeong-Eun

Integration: A Definition with Implica-(2006). Salesperson Adaptive Selling

tions for Product Development Perfor-

Behavior and Customer Orientation: A

mance, Journal of Product Innovation

Meta-Analysis. Journal of Marketing

Management, 13(2), pp. 137-151.

Research, 43(4), pp. 693-702.

Kahn,

Kenneth.

B.

(2001).

MarketGoad, Emily. A., and Jaramillo, Fernando

orientation, interdepartmental integra-(2014). The Good, the Band and thetion, and product development perfor-

Effective: A Meta-Analytic Examination

mance. Journal of Product Innovationof Selling Orientation and Customer

Management, 18(5), pp. 314-323.

Orientation

on

Sales

Performance.

Kahn, Kenneth. B., and Mentzer, John. T.

Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement, 34(4), pp. 285-391.

(1998). Marketing’s integration with

Guenzi, Paolo, and Troilo, Gabriele (2006).

Marketing-Sales Integration. Industrial

Research, 42(1), pp. 53-62.
Knoke, David (1990), Organizing forCollective
Action:The
Political
Economies of Associations, in Rossi, P.H.,

Marketing management, 35(8), pp. 974-

Useem, M. and Wright, J.D. (Eds), Social

988.

Institutions and Social Change, Aldine

other departments, Journal of Business

Developing Marketing Capabilities for
Customer

Value

Creation

Through

Guenzi, Paolo, Georges, Laurent, and Pardo,
Catherine(2009).

The

Impactde Gruyter, New York, NY, pp. 27-45.

of

Le Meunier-FitzHugh, Ken, and Piercy, Nigel.

Strategic Account Managers’ Behaviors

F.

(2007).

Exploring

Collaboration

on Relational Outcomes: An Empiricalbetween Sales and Marketing. European

Study. Industrial Marketing Manage-

Journal of Marketing, 41(7/8), pp. 939-

ment, 38(3), pp. 300-311.

955.

Guenzi, Paolo, De Luca, Luigi. M., and Troilo,

Leigh, Thomas. W., and Marshall, Greg. W.

Gabriele (2011). Organizational Drivers(2001). Research Priorities in Salesof Salesperople’s Customer Orientation

Strategy and Performance. Journal ofand Selling Orientation. Journal of

Personal Selling & Sales Management,
71

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.1, November 201621(2), pp. 83-93.

ISSN 2189-9592

Song, Michael, and Montoya-Weiss, Mitzi. M.

Lukas, Bryan. A., and Ferrell, O. C. (2000).

(2001).

The

EffectofPerceived

The Effect of Market Orientation on

Technological Uncertainty on Japanese

Product Innovation. Journal of the

New Product Development. Academy of

Academy of Marketing Science, 28, pp.

Management Journal, 44(1), pp. 61-80.

239-247.

Storbacka, Kaj., Ryals, Lynette., Davies, Iain,

Pettijohn, Charles. E., Pettijohn, Linda. S.,
andTaylor,(2007).

Suvi.

(2009).

The

Changing Role of Sales: Viewing Sales as

thea Strategic, Cross-Functional Process.

Importance of Sales Skills Improve Sales

European Journal of Marketing, 43(7/8),

Performance, Customer Orientation, Job

pp. 890-906.

Satisfaction,

J.

Nenonen,

Does

Salesperson

A.

and

Perception

and

of

Organizational

Singh, Ramendra, and Koshy, Abraham.

Commitment, and Reduce Turnover?

(2011). Does Salesperson’s Customer

Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement, 27(1), pp. 75-88.

Orientation

Create

Value

in

B2B

Relationships? Empirical Evidence from
India. Industrial Marketing Manage-

Podsakoff, Philip. M., MacKenzie, Scott. B.,

ment, 40(1), pp. 78-85.

Lee, Jeong-Yeon, and Podsakoff, Nathan.
P. (2003). Common Method Biases in

Sujan, Harish., Weitz, Barton. A., and Kumar,

Behavioral Research: A Critical Review

Nirmalya. (1994). Learning Orientation,of the Literature and Recommended

Working Smart, and Effective Selling.

Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,

Journal of Marketing, 59(3), pp. 39-52.

88(5), pp. 879-903.

Thakor, Mrugank. V., and Joshi, Ashwin. W.

Rouziès, Dominique., Anderson, Erin., Kohli,(2005). Motivating Salesperson Custo-

Ajay. K., Michaels, Ronald. E., Weitz,

mer Orientation: Insights from the Job

Barton. A., and Zoltners, Andris. A.

Characteristics(2005). Sales and Marketing Integration:

Business Research, 58(5), pp. 584-592.

A Proposed Framework. Journal of

Wachner, Trent., Plouffe, Christopher. R., andPersonal Selling & Sales Management,

Grégoire, Yany. (2009). SOCO’s Impact

25(2), pp. 113-122.

on Individual Sales Performance: The

Model,

Journalof

Saxe, Robert, and Weitz, Barton. A. (1982).

Integration of Selling Skill as a Missing

The SOCO Scale: A Measure of the

Link. Industrial Marketing Management,

Customer Orientation of Salespeople.

38(1), pp. 32-44.

Journal of marketing research, 19(3), pp.

Weitz, Barton. A., and Bradford, Kevin. D.

343-351.

(1999). Personal

Selling

and

Sales

Schwepker Jr. Charles. H. (2003). Customer-

Management: A Relationship Marketing

Oriented Selling: A Review, Extension,

Perspective. Journal of the academy ofand Directions for Future Research,marketing science, 27(2), pp. 241-254.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
management, 23(2), pp. 151-171.

Widmier, Scott. (2002). The Effects ofIncentives
72

andPersonalityonJournal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.1, November 2016

Salesperson’s

Industrial

CustomerMarketing

Orientation.

ISSN 2189-9592

31(7), pp. 609-615.

Management,(Received: May 31, 2016)(Accepted: September 16, 2016)73