Intrinsic & Extrinsic Factors

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/322564740
(Re) deﬁning salesperson motivation: current status, main challenges, and

research directions
Article in Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management · January 2018

DOI: 10.1080/08853134.2017.1415761
CITATIONS READS
33 5,034
5 authors, including:
Rushana Khusainova Ad de Jong

Aston University Copenhagen Business School
3 PUBLICATIONS 39 CITATIONS 53 PUBLICATIONS 1,983 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Nick Lee John M Rudd

Warwick Business School Warwick Business School
152 PUBLICATIONS 5,435 CITATIONS 48 PUBLICATIONS 1,494 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Decision Science View project
ESRC funded Impact Project (2020-2021) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ad de Jong on 11 April 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 2018
Vol. 38, No. 1, 2–29, https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2017.1415761
(Re) defining salesperson motivation: current status, main challenges, and research directions
Rushana Khusainovaa*, Ad de Jongb, Nick Lee c
, Greg W. Marshalla,d and John M. Rudde
a
Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom, B4 7ET; bDepartment of Marketing, Copenhagen Business
School, Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg F, Denmark; cMarketing Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick,
Scarman Rd., Coventry, United Kingdom, CV4 7AL; dCrummer Graduate School of Business, Rollins College, 1000 Holt Avenue,
Campus Box 2722, Winter Park, FL 32789-4044, USA; eMarketing Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Scarman
Rd., Coventry, United Kingdom, CV4 7AL
(Received 9 August 2017; accepted 7 December 2017)
The construct of motivation is one of the central themes in selling and sales management research. Yet, to-date no review
article exists that surveys the construct (both from an extrinsic and intrinsic motivation context), critically evaluates its
current status, examines various key challenges apparent from the extant research, and suggests new research opportunities
based on a thorough review of past work. The authors explore how motivation is defined, major theories underpinning
motivation, how motivation has historically been measured, and key methodologies used over time. In addition, attention
is given to principal drivers and outcomes of salesperson motivation. A summarizing appendix of key articles in
salesperson motivation is provided.
Keywords: salesperson; motivation; review; sales management
Salesperson motivation has long been considered to be findings. As a result, it is difficult to articulate a clear and
one of the critical tasks of sales management (Doyle unambiguous set of advice for managers as to what works,
and Shapiro 1980; Jaramillo, Mulki, and Marshall when, and why. The necessity to shape clarity on sales
2005). If the interested manager was to peruse the aca- force motivation research is reinforced by well-docu-
demic literature, he or she would find a rich body of mented developments that have changed the nature of the
work on the topic but might find just as much ambigu- selling process including the use of digital and social
ity in terms of advice on how best to motivate sales- media technologies (Kuruzovich 2013; Marshall et al.
people. Indeed, sales scholars have expended 2012), emergence of big data (Erevelles, Fukawa, and
significant effort on investigating salesperson motiva- Swayne 2016), and implementation of team-based struc-
tion, creating a large and growing body of knowledge tures and groupware technology (Janson, Austin, and
regarding how salespeople can be motivated, investi- Hynes 2014; Stock 2006), among others. These develop-
gating the various forms of salesperson motivation, ments have transformed the way sales organizations func-
and exploring the effects of different forms of motivation and accordingly how salespeople can be best
tion on different forms of salesperson performance. motivated.
Research has also exposed the different managerial Review articles serve a unique purpose of helping to
interventions that can be brought to bear to positively bring clarity and order to prior literature within a
impact the different forms of salesperson motivation domain, particularly when disparate results leave
including monetary and nonmonetary rewards, job researchers unclear about potential future promising
designs, and interpersonal managerial styles and tech- approaches such as the case with salesperson motiva-
niques. Taken together, the existing body of research tion. And for a field of practice that is undergoing pro-
on salesperson motivation places it as one of the most found change at the level currently experienced by
enduringly popular topics in all of sales research (Pull- selling and sales management, we proffer that a review
ins 2001; Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1977; Williams of the extant motivation literature that is specific to
and Plouffe 2007). sales should be timely and quite useful. Hence, the pur-
Despite all this prior work, inconsistencies and ambi- pose of this article is to critically evaluate the roots and
guities remain within the domain of salesperson motiva- current status of salesperson motivation research, exam-
tion, exacerbated by a number of conflicting research ine various key challenges apparent from the extant
*Corresponding author. Email: r.khusainova@aston.ac.uk

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/rpss
Ó 2018 Pi Sigma Epsilon National Educational Foundation

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 3
research, and suggest new research opportunities based documented recent changes in the sales domain.
on a thorough review of past work. Businesses have been going through numerous changes in
the way sales organizations operate (Keszey and Biemans
2016). The beginning of this so-called revolution in sales
Roots and premises of salesperson motivation research (Marshall et al. 2012) could be dated back to the begin-
Research into salesperson motivation dates back to the ning of the century when the sales role was described as
1970s, when sales and marketing researchers first began to being in the heart of a ‘‘renaissance – a genuine rebirth
explore this important area as key driver of sales perfor- and revival’’ (Ingram, LaForge, and Leigh 2002, 552).
mance (Churchill, Ford, and Walker 1976). Of course, pre- Since then, there has been a dramatic evolution in the
dating this were hundreds of studies within the salesperson’s role in the organization toward that of a
psychological literature that explored how extrinsic rewards business/development/consultant (Keszey and Biemans
could shape behaviors, thus serving to build a strong base 2016; Narus 2015), who is heavily technology savvy
for general motivational research. In the early 1970s, the (Marshall et al. 2012), and a vital knowledge broker
idea that some activities could serve as their own intrinsic (Verbeke, Dietz, and Verwaal 2011). An array of other
reward emerged (e.g. Deci 1971), thus setting up what advances, such as new sales technologies that support and
appears to be a continuing dichotomy between extrinsic and improve the sales processes (Kuruzovich 2013) and the
intrinsic motivations. Indeed, the divergence in sales practi- emergence of big data (Erevelles, Fukawa, and Swayne
tioner-oriented work noted above can to some extent be 2016), have changed the landscape in which salespeople
traced back to this dichotomy, which remains salient in aca- operate. Further to this, the implementation of team-based
demic research. A number of reviews of motivation litera- structures (Stock 2006) and global virtual sales teams
ture have appeared in the management literature that take in (Badrinarayanan, Madhavaram, and Granot 2011) and
these differences. The most recent of these stresses that groupware technology (Janson, Austin, and Hynes 2014)
“motivation related to work remains one of the most endur- have also transformed the way sales organizations func-
ing and compelling topics in industrial/organizational (I/O) tion. Also, recent years have seen significant changes
psychology” (Kanfer, Frese, and Johnson 2017, 338). How- in the composition of many sales forces, with inside
ever, although I/O psychology does not lack for reviews of sales roles making up an increasingly higher proportion of
motivational research, sales-specific research lacks a wide- sales roles when compared with traditional field sales
ranging overview regarding the specific nature of the vari- roles (Zoltners, Sinha, and Lorimer 2013)
ous forms of motivation, and how these affect salesperson The dramatic shifts in the role of the salesperson
performance and other important job outcomes. touched on above are accompanied by a significant demo-
The lack of a prior comprehensive review of sales graphic change in the sales workforce. Specifically, as the
force motivation literature is a bit troubling as it leaves a prior generations reach retirement age and move out of
number of important questions unanswered regarding the the workforce, new salespeople are increasingly being
state of the literature and its potential contribution to the recruited from the ranks of what millennial generation,
knowledge of salesperson performance. More specifically, which is predicted to reach almost 50% of the workforce
as alluded to above, there remains little consensus on by 2020. Evidence suggests that they are motivated signif-
exactly how best to motivate salespeople, and a continu- icantly differently from early generations such as Baby
ing challenge remains; for example, regarding whether it Boomers and Generation X (Brack and Kelly 2012). Both
is best to use financial incentives, nonfinancial rewards, or academic research and practitioner publications have also
rely on job design factors to generate intrinsic motivation. suggested that millennials in sales roles are motivated and
The purpose of the present review is to integrate our exist- perform in a manner different from earlier generational
ing knowledge in sales force motivation, and thus more cohorts (Pullins et al. 2011; Schultz and Schwepker 2012)
clearly delineate the current state of the art in sales force The aforementioned changes in the sales job, and the
motivation research, identify gaps and inconsistencies in people doing it, likely necessitate some fundamental
current academic knowledge of sales force motivation, changes in sales force motivation strategies, which calls for
and present an informed agenda for future research in the a better and more detailed understanding of individual sales-
area that will both advance the body of knowledge and person motivation. However, without a strong appreciation
provide more coherent advice to practitioners. In doing of the state of the literature to date, it is difficult to provide
so, we aim to deliver for sales force motivation research any informed and coherent agenda for future research in
the currently missing “research integration and synthesis salesperson motivation. As such, it is timely to review what
[that] provides an important, and possibly even a required, we have learned about salesperson motivation and from
step in the scientific process” (Palmatier, Houston, and there begin to envision what else is to come in the field. As
Hulland 2017, 1). such, the primary purpose of this article is to provide a com-
The need to clarify knowledge on sales force motiva- prehensive literature review of the topic of salesperson moti-
tion suggested above is amplified by a variety of well- vation, from its beginnings as a unique field of study in the
4 R. Khusainova et al.
1970s, up to 2017. Within this broad charge, we have three motivation in the sales domain is clearly defendable,
key goals. First, we aim to delineate the key theoretical and as sales is well documented as a unique job set and
methodological pillars of existing work on salesperson moti- environment, as mentioned earlier.
vation. Second, we draw from our review to identify key The current review is conducted in a funneling manner
challenges and future research directions for the field of where each step feeds into the next leading to an increas-
salesperson motivation. And third, we proffer critical rec- ingly more precise focus (Stros and Lee 2015). More spe-
ommendations for the future focus of sales management cifically, an initial general literature review was
practice from this literature. Importantly, we do not attempt performed to generate an overall pool of articles on the
to review the huge body of motivation research that is not topic of salesperson motivation. Here we did not limit the
specifically sales-related (although we certainly acknowl- search to any specific subject area or journal. The search
edge that the salesperson motivation literature has been sub- was performed using the key search terms “motivation”
stantially impacted by it). Our focus in this review is on and “sales” in the abstract field of the search databases
salesperson motivation only. (ProQuest Business Collection, ABI/INFORM Collection,
The article is structured in the following way. We ini- ABI/INFORM Global and Entrepreneurship Database).
tially describe the review methodology. We then outline This resulted in 2,957 hits. After eliminating trade jour-
how motivation is defined in the literature. We present the nals, wire feeds, conference proceedings, magazines and
main theories, measurements and methodologies used in newspapers, the pool of articles came down to 560 hits.
the area of salesperson motivation. We then present a sum- Following this, we only included peer-reviewed journals,
mary of the main findings in the literature on the drivers which resulted in a pool of 507 articles. The next step was
and outcomes of salesperson motivation. Finally, we con- to filter by document type. Specifically, we only used
clude with key suggestions for future research directions. journal articles (excluding such documents as features,
reports, or case studies) resulting in a pool of 483 articles.
We then only retained articles that were written in
Review methodology English, which resulted in 478 hits. The next step was to
In undertaking the review presented in this article, key use a key journal criterion. We began with including 19
principles of a systematic review were adopted (Barc- key journals that publish sales related research as
zak 2017; Palmatier, Houston, and Hulland 2017). A described by Moncrief, Marshall, and Watkins (2000; for
systematic literature review has been recognized as a similar guidance, see also Baumgartner and Pieters 2003
highly effective and transparent method for gathering and Richards, Moncrief, and Marshall 2010). This
and analyzing a body of knowledge in a specific resulted in 135 hits. To ensure that no relevant article has
research field (Shojania et al. 2007). Applying the key remained in the excluded pool, we performed a manual
principles of the systematic review methodology can check of the relegated articles. Here, one additional rele-
substantially enhance the quality of a review by mak- vant article from the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP)
ing the ideas and assumptions behind a review more was identified and added into the main pool resulting in
explicit (Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart 2003) and by 136 entries.
minimizing error and bias (Cook, Mulrow, and Haynes The next step was to manually check all articles and
1997). Indeed, Palmatier, Houston, and Hulland (2017) eliminate those that merely had a mention of the relevant
recommend that a systematic approach is best used for key terms in the body of the full-text but did not specifi-
literature reviews, rather than a narrative approach, cally conceptualize or empirically/conceptually examine
which can lead to an overly descriptive approach that or investigate motivation per se.1 As previously
lacks critical assessment of the body of literature for explained, we concentrated on salesperson motivation
additional guidance (see also Barczak 2017). excluding such topics as customer/consumer/shopper
The focus of the present literature review is sales- motivation. Secondly, it was important to further explicate
person motivation, hence we primarily concentrate on the scope of the review. That is, motivation is a broad
sales, marketing, and management/business literature topic, and as (Ryan and Deci 2000a, 54) put it, to be moti-
in line with previous conceptual work in sales domain vated simply means “to be moved to do something” (note
(e.g., Moncrief, Marshall, and Watkins 2000). Obvi- that we will provide a more formal definition of motiva-
ously, much work has been conducted on the topic of tion shortly). Therefore, motivation is often used as an
general employee motivation in the wider I/O psychol- “umbrella term” referring loosely to a variety of behavior-
ogy domain, as summarized by Kanfer, Frese, and type variables (Kanfer, Frese, and Johnson 2017). In the
Johnson (2017). Our position is that we are “informed present review we explicitly concentrate on articles that
by” the theoretical and empirical findings from in a conceptualize/examine motivation or its types (intrinsic
wider psychology literature to enrich our understanding and extrinsic). After the exclusion of such nonrelevant
of salesperson motivation and to support the proposed articles, particularly those using “motivation” in the ver-
future research directions. But the focus here on nacular, the pool of articles came down to 57.
Again, a manual check of the citations was per- amount of effort the salesman desires to expend on each
formed to ensure that none of the relevant articles has of the activities or tasks associated with his job”. More-
been missed. This resulted in additional six articles. over, motivation is a psychological state that causes the
Hence,the finalized pool of articles contains 63 arousal, direction, and persistence of behaviors condi-
articles that are from 13 different academic journals. tioned by need satisfaction (Mitchell 1982). We anchor
The journals are the following: Journal of Personal our conceptualization on Mitchell’s (1982) definition.
Selling and Sales Management (JPSSM), Journal of Research on motivation disaggregate the construct into
Marketing (JM), Journal of Business & Industrial two distinct types: intrinsic motivation (IM) and extrinsic
Marketing (JBIM), Journal of Marketing Research motivation (EM) (e.g. Mallin and Pullins 2009; Tyagi
(JMR), Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1982; Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986).
(JAMS), Journal of Business Research (JBR), Indus- IM arises from enjoyment of an activity with absence
trial Marketing Management (IMM), European Jour- of an apparent reinforcement or reward (Teo, Lim, and
nal of Marketing (EJM), International Journal of Lai 1999; Warr, Cook, and Wall 1979; Weiner 1995). The
Research in Marketing (IJRM), Psychology and Mar- fundamental premise of IM is that human nature is active,
keting (P&M), Journal of Marketing Theory and curious, and inquisitive (White 1959). EM on the other
Practice (JMTP), JAP, and Journal of Business Ethics hand is concerned with whether an activity is performed
(JBE). Figure 1 below presents the key journals and in order to obtain a separable outcome apart from the
the number of papers published per each journal. activity itself (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1992; Ryan
After the evaluation of the selected pool of articles, and Deci 2000a; Teo, Lim, and Lai 1999). Historically,
the information from the final pool of 63 key papers salesperson motivation has been linked almost exclusively
has been structured into an appendix of this article as to pay packages and financial incentives (e.g. Oliver 1974;
a means for the reader to receive details in a clear and Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1977). It is common to refer
structured manner (e.g., Hohenberg and Homburg to this assumption as a ”conventional wisdom” of sales-
2016; Menguc et al. 2017; Shi et al. 2017; Stros and person motivation (e.g. Cravens et al. 1993; Wotruba,
Lee 2015). Following their benchmarks, the Appendix MacFie, and Colletti 1991). However, later studies have
represents the following information: study, year, jour- further demonstrated the crucial importance of IM in
nal, methodology, sample size and response rate, key influencing salesperson effort and performance.
relevant findings, theory used, and how motivation was Following the I/O psychology literature (Amabile et al.
measured. 1994), a number of studies on salesperson motivation (Miao
and Evans 2007; Miao, Lund, and Evans 2009) further dis-
aggregated EM and IM into their cognitive and affective
How motivation has been defined orientations which were found to have distinct antecedents
As a starting point, in a now classical paper (Walker, and consequences (Miao and Evans 2007; Miao, Evans, and
Churchill, and Ford 1977, 162) defined motivation as “the Zou 2007). Specifically, the cognitive orientation of IM is
25
20
20
15
10 9 9
6 6
5 4
2 2
1 1 1 1 1
0
JPSSM JM JAMS IMM JMR JBR IJRM JBIM EJM JAP JBE JMTP P&M
Figure 1. Key journals. Note: JPSSM D Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management; JM D Journal of Marketing; JAMS D
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science; IMM D Industrial Marketing Management; JMR D Journal of Marketing Research; JBR
D Journal of Business Research; IJRM D International Journal of Research in Marketing; JBIM D Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing; EJM D European Journal of Marketing; JAP D Journal of Applied Psychology; JBE D Journal of Business Ethics; JMTP D
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice; P&M D Psychology and Marketing.
labelled “challenge seeking,” whereas the affective orienta- variables, that Vroom (1964) named expectancy, instru-
tion of IM is labelled “task enjoyment.” In addition, the cog- mentality, and valence for rewards. Expectancy (effort-
nitive orientation of EM is labelled “compensation performance relationship) refers to an individual’s belief
seeking,” whereas the affective orientation of EM is labelled that applying a given amount of effort will result in per-
“recognition seeking.” Amabile et al (1994) have specifi- formance; instrumentality (performance-reward relation-
cally defined these terms as follows: Challenge seeking ship) is the individual’s belief that performing at a certain
deals with the enjoyment of solving new and complex prob- level will result in attainment of desired organizational
lems and seeking challenging tasks; task enjoyment is con- rewards; and valence (rewards-personal goals relation-
cerned with enjoying the selling job and finding it ship) is concerned with the degree to which organizational
pleasurable; compensation seeking involves how much rewards can satisfy individual’s personal goals and attrac-
money one can earn in their job; and recognition seeking is tiveness of these rewards to the individual (Robbins
concerned with receiving recognition from the others. 2009).
With a definition of motivation in hand, the following By the 1980s, expectancy theory was said to
three sections outline the main theories used, key motiva- “dominate the sales motivation literature” (Badovick
tional measures used and key methodologies employed. 1990, 123), and sparked much empirical work (e.g. Oliver
1974; Teas 1980, 1981; Teas and McElroy 1986; Tyagi
1982; Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1977). The theory has
Main theories used been described as primarily suited in situations when
To date, three major theoretical underpinnings of motiva- effort-performance and performance-reward relationships
tion have dominated sales motivation research: expec- are consciously perceived by an individual (House, Sha-
tancy theory, attribution theory, and self-determination piro, and Wahba 1974). Specifically, salespeople exert
theory (SDT). Figure 2 below illustrates their frequency effort to achieve certain level of sales (performance) that
of use within our pool of sales motivation articles. directly translates into them receiving a financial reward
(Kishore et al. 2013). Such rewards are considered to be
the most salient influencers of salesperson’s behavior
Expectancy theory (e.g., Cravens et al. 1993; John and Weitz 1989; Oliver
Historically, the prevailing theory in sales research has and Anderson 1994; Roman, Ruiz, and Munuera 2005).
been expectancy theory (Vroom 1964), which was origi- The sales area, where these effort-performance-reward
nally applied by Oliver (1974) and then by Walker, relationships are especially salient, likely provided opti-
Churchill, and Ford (1977) to create a famous model and mal conditions for using the theory.
what some might call a new paradigm for sales force man- However, despite generally fruitful results produced
agement research (Johnston and Marshall 2005). Expec- by the expectancy theory in salesperson motivation (as
tancy theory suggests that motivation is driven by three well as in the general psychology domain), most studies
Figure 2. Key theories used.

could not provide clear predictions for salesperson moti- disrupt and diminish it (Deci and Ryan 2002). This com-
vation (Evans, Margheim, and Schlatter 1982). Research bination of inner resources and social contexts results in
in psychology demonstrated “a lack of support for the motivational states through the satisfaction (or frustra-
multiplicative nature of the theory’s components” (Kan- tion) of the three basic human needs: need for compe-
fer, Frese, and Johnson 2017, 344) and suggested the use tence, need for autonomy, and need for relatedness
of individual constructs of expectancy, instrumentality, (Gagne and Deci 2005). One of the most important
and valence (Van, Eerde, and Thierry 1996). advancements brought by the SDT is that it emphasized
the importance of looking at different types of motiva-
tion (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic) instead of treating it as
Attribution theory a “unitary concept that varies primarily in amount”
(Cadwallader et al. 2010, 221).
One interesting alternative theoretical approach that has
The emergence of the SDT in sales force research
been used in salesperson motivation research is attribu-
appears to be particularly timely considering the recent
tion theory (Badovick 1990). Attribution theory, origi-
changes in the sales field. Specifically, changes in the
nated by Fritz Heider (1958), became widespread in the
dynamism of selling and the increasingly autonomous
salesperson motivation literature during 1980s and
decision-making setting where salespeople are becoming
1990s. Heider (1958) suggested that people make attri-
almost “social scientists capable of analyzing lines of
butions about themselves and other people in a manner
power and influence across blurring boundaries” (Jones
of “na€ıve psychologists.” Subsequently, Weiner (1980)
et al. 2005, 108) all have created fitting foundations for
further applied attribution theory in the area of motiva-
the development of the SDT in sales domain. Hohenberg
tion as a means to understand why individuals think they
and Homburg (2016) successfully applied the SDT to
succeeded or failed at a task. Sujan (1986, 41) was
examine the effect of financial and non-financial steering
among the first sales motivation researchers to use attri-
instruments on salesperson innovative-selling motivation
bution theory explicitly because it “appears to afford
and found a strong support for the SDT.
benefits over the expectancy value framework . . . in
understanding the motivation to work smarter.” He
argued that instead of measuring motivation indirectly
through valences, instrumentalities, and expectancies (as Combining theories
it’s done in expectancy theory), it should be conceptual- Several authors in our sample endeavored to combine two
ized as behavioral intentions. Badovick (1990) found a or more theories of motivation in an attempt to expand the
strong support for attribution theory and concluded that present knowledge on the topic (e.g., job design theory
it should be used in addition to expectancy theory when and expectancy theory, Tyagi 1985c). Hohenberg and
examining human motivation. Homburg (2016, 117) concluded that “future research
could investigate how different motivation theories, such
as SDT and expectancy theory, can be integrated to
Self-determination theory (SDT) create a more nuanced perspective on intercultural sales
force steering.” Integrating theories could in some cases
Expectancy and attribution theories were dominant in
prove challenging as different theories are based on differ-
sales research until around the turn of the century
ent assumptions, constructs, and relationships. And our
(Cadwallader et al. 2010). Drawing from a wider psy-
tradition in academia is to pit one theory against another
chology domain, Keaveney and Nelson (1993) and then
in competition for best explanatory power. However,
Pullins et al. (2000) took a different approach to mea-
Stathakopoulos (1996) in his work on sales force control
sure intrinsic motivation by using Deci and Ryan’s
systems asserted that theories do not necessarily have to
(1985a) measure of causality orientation of autonomy
be construed as competing but rather can be built on as
within the SDT framework. SDT is a macro theory of
complementary to one another.
human behavior, personality, and well-being (Ryan
1995). It was developed by Edward Deci and Richard
Ryan (Deci 1975; Deci and Ryan 1980, 1985b) and has
been successfully applied in the area of work motivation Key motivational measures used
(Gagne and Deci 2005). The basic assumption of the In keeping with the conceptual dominance of expectancy
SDT is that humans are active organisms with innate theory, many studies have empirically operationalized
tendency for growth, integration, and self-development, motivation in line with the expectancy model (e.g. Cron,
and that social environments and contexts can either Dubinsky, and Michaels 1988; Ingram, Lee, and Skinner
facilitate and promote the growth and integration or 1989; Tyagi 1985a, 1985c).
Table 1. Summary of the key motivational measures used.
Literature stream How motivation is measured Examples
Expectancy theory Multiplication of the expectancy scores (effort- (Ingram, Lee, and Skinner 1989); (Tyagi 1985a);
performance relationship), with the product of (Cron, Dubinsky, and Michaels 1988); (Ingram, Lee,
instrumentality (performance-reward relationship) and Skinner 1989); (Tyagi 1985a, 1985c).
and valence (rewards-personal goals relationship).
Attribution theory A combination of working harder (EM) and smarter (Sujan et al. 1994); (Badovick 1990); (Schmitz 2013);
(IM). (Verbeke, Belschak, and Bagozzi 2004).
Control systems Internal (IM) versus external (EM) motivations. (Anderson and Oliver 1987); (Oliver and Anderson
1994); (Jaramillo et al. 2007).
Affective and Specifically use designated scales for each of the four (Miao and Evans 2012); (Miao, Evans, and Zou 2007);
cognitive motivational orientations (originally developed by (Miao, Lund, and Evans 2009)
orientations of IM Amabile et al. 1994).
and EM
Note. IM D intrinsic motivation (IM); EM D extrinsic motivation.
A number of other publications use more direct meas- This is largely in line with the trends in a wider I/O psy-
ures of IM and EM, whereas several measures capture the chology literature (Kanfer, Frese, and Johnson 2017).
affective and cognitive orientations of IM and EM.
Table 1 below presents a summary of the key motiva-
tional measures used. Key methodologies employed
In short, although motivation is measured in various Methodological trends within the salesperson motiva-
ways, a trend is apparent nonetheless. Most IM scales tion literature are in line with those in sales research in
largely incorporate both affective (task enjoyment) and general (Asare, Yang, and Alejandro 2012; Williams
cognitive (challenge seeking) orientations of IM, whereas and Plouffe 2007). That is, the field is largely domi-
the measurement of EM in most cases essentially captures nated by quantitative methodology – specifically survey
the cognitive orientation only (compensation seeking), research. Figure 3 portrays the key methodologies used
ignoring the affective orientation (recognition seeking). within our pool of articles. Within our pool, 51 articles
50
44
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
0
Figure 3. Key methodologies.

out of 63 used some form of cross-sectional survey to be beneficial to enhancing salesperson motivation,
approach. whereas high levels of stress are detrimental to it
(Tyagi 1985a).
Salesperson motivation: drivers and outcomes An array of studies has examined the effect of sales
force control systems on salesperson motivation, and Oli-
The literature on salesperson motivation has been con-
ver and Anderson (1994) were pioneers in this field. They
cerned largely with the drivers and outcomes of motiva-
report that sales force control systems are important driv-
tion (Pullins 2001). The following two sections are
ers of salespeople’s affective and motivational states. Spe-
dedicated to the drivers and outcomes of IM and EM of
cifically, behavior-based control was found to be linked
salespeople, followed by a third section presenting a
with greater IM, whereas outcome-based control was
synergetic view of combining IM and EM of
linked with greater EM. Further to this, behavior activity
salespeople.
control was found to play a negative moderating role in
the relationship between the proportion of commission (in
Drivers of salesperson motivation total compensation) and IM.
Miao and Evans (2012) further investigated this
Studies on the drivers of salesperson motivation can be
question and found that a combination of the capability
largely grouped into (1) organizational-level variables and
and outcome-based control systems enhanced IM, but a
(2) individual-level variables. Organizational-level varia-
combination of capability and activity control can
bles include those such as job-related factors, organiza-
decrease it. Further, Hohenberg and Homburg (2016)
tional stress, and sales force control systems, whereas
used an SDT approach (Ryan and Deci 2000b) and con-
individual-level variables include demographics (e.g., age
cluded that both behavior-based and outcome-based
and gender), personal feelings, and emotions. Both sets of
steering instruments can increase salesperson’s autono-
variables have been popular topics of analysis for sales
mous (intrinsic) innovation-selling motivation and
researchers, and we begin with a discussion of organiza-
financial performance.
tional level variables.
Miao, Evans, and Zou (2007), however, found that
disaggregating IM and EM into their cognitive and
Organizational-level variables affective orientations led to more nuanced findings in
The organizational variable of job importance has pro- terms of the effect of control systems. Specifically,
duced mixed results. For instance, job importance was activity (behavior-based) control was positively related
found to be a strong predictor of both IM and EM (Tyagi to the affective orientation (recognition seeking) aspect
1985b) or only a mild predictor and only of EM (Tyagi of EM. In contrast capability (behavior-based) control
1982). Further to this, supervisory support was found to was positively related to the cognitive orientation of
have a significant impact on salesperson EM (Tyagi EM (compensation seeking). In addition, they found
1985a, 1985c) and on salesperson IM (Jaramillo and that activity control mainly affects challenge seeking
Mulki 2008; Tyagi 1982), or no impact at all (Kemp, (the cognitive orientation of IM), whereas capability
Borders, and Ricks 2013). Positive working environment control mainly affects task enjoyment (the affective ori-
(Kemp, Borders, and Ricks 2013), organizational identi- entation of IM).
fication (Tyagi 1982), and salesperson-brand relationship Research in psychology (see Kanfer, Frese, and
(Michel, Merk, and Eroglu 2015) were reported to Johnson 2017 for summary) also highlights the impor-
enhance salesperson motivation. tance of considering cognitive and affective processes
In addition, a number of studies have examined the of human motivation. Kanfer, Frese, and Johnson
effect of sales job-related factors vis-a-vis job design (2017) concluded that historically, motivational theo-
theory (Hackman and Oldham 1976). These findings ries have primarily concentrated on the cognitive side
reveal that organizational stress, emotional exhaustion, of motivation somewhat overlooking the affective moti-
and role conflict and overload negatively impact both vational processes. However, psychological research
IM and EM (Kemp, Borders, and Ricks 2013; Tyagi over the last few decades has progressed into including
1982, 1985a), with role overload having a far stronger affect and emotion into the studies on motivation,
effect on IM rather than on EM and role ambiguity which offers directions for the future theory develop-
having no significant effect on either IM or EM (Tyagi ment in the field of motivation (Kanfer, Frese, and
1985a). In line with wider research on organizational Johnson 2017). In this light, including both affective
stress (e.g. Everly and Girdano 1980; Selye 1978; and cognitive orientations when studying IM and EM of
Singh 1998), moderate levels of stress were reported salespeople seems especially sound.
Individual-level variables that IM did not impact performance (via effort) whereas
Several individual-level variables have been found to EM had a significant impact. Contrary to this, Tyagi
influence motivation. For instance, salesperson motivation (1985c) found that IM had a stronger effect on work per-
may vary significantly depending on age/career stage formance compared with EM, whereas Jaramillo and
(Cron, Dubinsky, and Michaels 1988). This can be Mulki (2008) reported that IM had a positive impact on
explained by salespeople’s differences in valence for salesperson effort but EM had a negative impact.
rewards, and whether these rewards contribute to a sense More recent studies have demonstrated a pattern that
of accomplishment and career development aimed at dif- was more in favor of IM, which is fundamentally consistent
ferent career stages. When IM and EM are disaggregated with findings on employee motivation in I/O psychology
into their affective and cognitive orientations, the findings literature. Specifically, Levin, Hansen, and Laverie (2012)
are somewhat different. Specifically, the cognitive orien- found that both IM and EM had a positive impact on the
tation of IM and EM changes throughout career stages, intention to use (sales- and marketing-related) technology.
whereas the affective dimension of IM and EM does not Miao and Evans (2007) reported that although both IM and
(Miao, Lund, and Evans 2009). Motivational perceptions EM contribute to performance, salesperson IM results in
were also found to vary significantly across certain higher levels of performance than EM. In particular, intrin-
national cultures (Dubinsky et al. 1994). Finally, Fine and sically motivated salespeople were more likely to practice
Pullins (1998) in their study of the mentor–protegee rela- adaptive selling, which led to enhanced performance (Jara-
tionship, discovered differences in motivational variables millo et al. 2007; Pettijohn, Pettijohn, and Taylor 2002;
between men and women within this relationship, a find- Roman and Iacobucci 2010). They consider failures as a
ing with a potentially fruitful implication for future learning opportunity that helps them to improve in the
research. future (Sujan 1986), which also implies an important per-
Personal feelings and emotions also have been demon- formance consequence. IM was also found to increase job
strated to play an important role in salesperson motivation satisfaction (Grant et al. 2001; Low et al. 2001), which
(Badovick 1990; Badovick, Hadaway, and Kaminski again is linked with performance.
1992; Verbeke, Belschak, and Bagozzi 2004). Badovick Sujan (1986) using attribution theory found that IM
(1990) found that feelings of self-blame after a failure to led salespeople to attribute failures to poor strategies. This
complete a quota and feelings of satisfaction in perfor- in turn motivated them to work smarter, which had a more
mance after completing a quota have different effects on important performance implication than EM. In contrast,
salesperson motivation. Verbeke, Belschak, and Bagozzi EM led salespeople to attribute failures to insufficient
(2004) reported that feelings of pride were also found to effort, which in turn motivated them to work harder.
be an important driver of motivation (Verbeke, Belschak, Building on this, more recent studies have found that in
and Bagozzi 2004). Feelings of fulfilment and enjoyment comparison to EM, intrinsically motivated salespeople are
of being instrumental to the customer (customer orienta- more willing to work both smarter and harder (Jaramillo
tion) was found to have a direct positive impact on sales- and Mulki 2008; Oliver and Anderson 1994), which in
person IM (Mallin and Pullins 2009). Finally, perceptions turn has important bottom line implications.
of fairness (perceptions of gaining or losing sales potential Research on motivation has also studied negative job
in a territory realignment context) were found to be a sig- outcomes, such as role conflict and ambiguity and burnout.
nificant predictor of salesperson motivation (Smith, Jones, IM has been found to reduce burnout, perceptions of role
and Blair 2000); and satisfaction with territory design ambiguity and role conflict (Grant et al. 2001; Keaveney
were reported to have a positive impact on salesperson IM and Nelson 1993; Low et al. 2001), and also to contribute
(Grant et al. 2001). to a lessening in the tendency to engage in problematic
behaviors (Murphy 2004). However, these findings may be
seen in a different light when IM is further disaggregated
Outcomes of salesperson motivation into its orientations. For example, challenge seeking (IM),
Interestingly, outcomes of salesperson motivation have was found to decrease salesperson role conflict, whereas
been somewhat less extensively studied than that of the task enjoyment (IM) was found to increase role ambiguity
drivers. Early research on motivation revealed highly (Miao and Evans 2007; Miao, Evans, and Zou 2007). The
inconsistent findings. Some studies report IM as a stronger two EM orientations have also been found to work in oppo-
predictor of performance outcomes, whereas other studies sition. Specifically, compensation seeking (EM) was found
argue in favor of EM. Specifically, Oliver (1974) found to decrease role conflict, whereas recognition seeking (EM)
IM to be a poor predictor of performance while extrinsic was found to increase it (Miao and Evans 2007).
motivation was effective in predicting it. The author even Finally, a number of studies have examined the rela-
suggested that IM might be dysfunctional in influencing tionship between salesperson motivation and job satisfac-
performance. These conclusions found support in a study tion. For instance, motivation for recognition (EM,
by Ingram, Lee, and Skinner (1989), who also reported affective) was found to have a direct positive effect on job
satisfaction (Tanner, Tanner, and Wakefield 2015). Miao communication technologies (e.g., Skype, WebEx), cloud-
and Evans (2014) found that the two extrinsic motiva- based customer relationship management technologies,
tional orientations have different effects on job satisfac- mapping software, and apps has opened up new opportuni-
tion depending on the proportion of new customers they ties for the sales profession. These new digital technologies
are dealing with. Specifically, the authors demonstrated have paved the way to the era of big data (France and
that compensation seeking (EM) enhanced job satisfaction Ghose 2016) where large datasets of customer information
only when salespeople were dealing with lower percen- are readily available. Salespeople can help in interpreting
tages of new customers, but recognition seeking (EM) customer information, market trends, and identifying latent
enhanced job satisfaction when salespeople were dealing customer needs. However, working with big data implies a
with higher percentages of new accounts. In tandem, com- motivational challenge, as a salesperson’s motivation is
pensation seeking (EM) led to higher levels of perfor- geared to the face-to-face encounter with the customers
mance when salespeople dealt with more new customers, with focus on interpersonal communication skills such as
but the opposite was true for challenge seeking (IM). presenting, negotiating, and listening.
Prior studies have mainly relied on the Technology
Combining the types of salesperson motivation Readiness Index (Parasuraman 2000) and the technology
This literature on the outcomes of salesperson motivation acceptance model (Venkatesh and Davis 2000) to exam-
demonstrates that IM is generally associated with higher ine the driving role of EM and IM factors to the adoption
levels of performance and other important salesperson job of traditional offline sales technologies. Compared to
outcomes than EM. However, as later studies demon- these traditional technologies, innovative digital technolo-
strate, when IM and EM are disaggregated into the cogni- gies often are more complex and integrative in nature,
tive and affective orientations, the results do not appear to requiring a broader scope and more profound intellectual
be solely in favor of IM. Moreover, in reality in most effort from the salesperson. For instance, the use of cloud-
work situations people are motivated by both intrinsic and based sales technologies (e.g. Womack 2017) and the
extrinsic motivators (Amabile 1993). Hence, examining a integration of different types of information from different
combined effect of IM and EM and their orientations types of channels and actors implies a different and more
would appear likely to produce more nuanced findings. demanding way of working that may disrupt existing sell-
A limited number of studies on this subject exist in the ing routines. As a result, salespeople often are more hesi-
sales domain, which primarily explore the effect of sales- tant to use these innovative digital technologies.
person compensation (EM) on IM. For instance, Weitz, Moreover, they may be afraid that adoption of the innova-
Sujan, and Sujan (1986) in their conceptual work proposed tive technologies will lead to the automation of important
that the use of EM (incentive compensation) has a dimin- aspects of their job activities and put their job at risk.
ishing effect on IM orientation, especially if controlling Therefore, one major challenge concerns how to effec-
rather than informational aspects of incentives are empha- tively motivate salespeople to adopt digital technologies
sized. Ingram and Bellenger (1983) found that salespeople and effectively operate in this transformative and chang-
on commission-based compensation plans (performance ing context.
contingent extrinsic rewards) valued IM such as personal Second, the introduction of team and network-based
growth significantly higher than those salespeople on structures (Stock 2006) has highlighted the importance of
straight salary (performance non-contingent reward). Pull- interpersonal dynamics as a key aspect of sales force
ins (2001) has suggested that sales researchers should more motivation strategies. This underlines the importance of
vigorously investigate the impact of IM on salesperson EM. examining the role of team dynamics and interpersonal
interactions with coworkers as drivers of salesperson
motivation. The purpose of sales teams is having sales-
Key future research directions
people work together “to create synergies among team
Based on the reviewed literature, we structure the future members with different levels of skills and experiences”
research directions into the following subcategories: (1) (Ahearne et al. 2010, 461). The use of such team-based
emerging trends and future research suggestions (digital structures implies that salespeople should be motivated to
technologies, team-based structures, salesperson ambidex- fulfil an additional role of helping and supporting col-
terity, longitudinal research, and curvilinear relationships); leagues in their sales team. Yet, both academics and prac-
(2) drivers of salesperson motivation; (3) outcomes of titioners recognize the importance of properly balancing
salesperson motivation; and (4) other important variables. salespeople’s motivation to effectively sell products and
help colleagues on the team. This presents a challenge as
many sales teams still are dominated by self-interest—
Emerging trends and future research suggestions where salespeople tend to focus on maximizing personal
First, the emergence of innovative digital technologies, utility with little room for displaying prosocial behaviors,
including social media (e.g., LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook), such as helping other colleagues in the team. More
research is needed to examine how to adequately regulate of every role in his or her total role system (Marks and
salesperson motivation in team-based settings such that it MacDermid 1996).
yields a maximal result in terms of selling products and Another important emerging theory of motivation that
helping colleagues. can be fruitful in studying salesperson motivation is
Future research could draw on the motivation, oppor- Vancouver’s (2008) dynamic process theory of self-regula-
tunity, and ability framework (MacInnis, Moorman, and tion. This theory incorporates both cognitive and affective
Jaworski 1991) to acquire more insight into salespeople’s processes by using the notion of goal systems to understand
motivation to help colleagues and sell products by consid- a person’s acting, thinking, learning, and feeling (Vancou-
ering their ability and the emerging opportunity to help ver 2008). This is particularly relevant in sales roles when
colleagues on the team. Furthermore, we recommend bor- salespeople often work toward multiple goals.
rowing insights from literatures in social identity theory, Fourth, there is a strong call for adapting longitudinal
social exchange theory, and social network theory to get techniques in sales research to “gain a more nuanced under-
better insight into the nature of salesperson motivation to standing of many of the most commonly studied phenom-
sell in team-based structures (MacInnis, Moorman, and ena in our field” (Bolander, Dugan, and Jones 2017).
Jaworski 1991; Schmitz 2013). Researcher psychologists in the area of employee motiva-
A related phenomenon is the emergence of global tion assert that it is of crucial importance to adapt a
virtual sales teams (Badrinarayanan, Madhavaram, and dynamic interactionist approach to studying motivation to
Granot 2011) and the use of groupware technology as a track how motivational variables change and develop over
communication tool in those virtual teams (Janson, time (Kanfer, Frese, and Johnson 2017). Advanced longitu-
Austin, and Hynes 2014). In a virtual context, it is dinal techniques and multi-source data (e.g., as it was done
more challenging to motivate salespeople, as managers by Fu, Richards, and Jones 2009) can assist in exploring
have less capacity to control them. Then too, in a global the cause-and-effect dynamics of salesperson motivation
virtual environment, clients may be doing business mul- over time and as such further strengthen and develop the
tiple time zones away and expect salespeople to be at theoretical framework of the domain (Bolander, Dugan,
their beck and call by virtual means during hours well and Jones 2017). Another approach is Steel and K€ onig’s
outside the “normal work day” (Marshall et al. 2012). (2006) temporal motivation theory (TMT), which is
Third, the traditional role of the salesperson is to carry grounded on the premises of expectancy theory, picoeco-
out the different steps of the selling process, such as pro- nomics, cumulative prospect theory, and need theory. TMT
specting, approaching, negotiating, and closing the sale. strives to provide “unifying insights from several theories
However, the modern salesperson’s job responsibilities of motivation” (Steel and Konig 2006, 907). Importantly
have become much broader. Many salespeople operate in a for sales research, it defines expectancy and valence in truly
multitask environments where they are engaged across dynamic terms. It also incorporates time to deadlines as a
greatly expended tasks and roles. In many modern compa- predictor for subjective utility followed by task choices
nies salespeople have to go beyond the straightforward sell- over time (Vancouver, Weinhardt, and Schmidt 2010).
ing task and also perform marketing activities (Moncrief Finally, an interesting avenue for future research is to
and Marshall 2005), combine the sale of products with the explore the possibility of curvilinear relationships (Walton
provision of high-quality customer service (Jasmand, Blaz- 1969) between motivational and outcome (e.g., task perfor-
evic, and Ruyter 2012), or balance the traditional selling mance, salesperson well-being, customer satisfaction) varia-
task with new selling approaches (der Borgh, de Jong, and bles. For instance, a number of studies have found support for
Nijssen 2015). Also, as mentioned earlier, team-based set- a presence of a U-shaped relationship between assigned goals
tings necessitate that salespeople combine additional proso- and selling effort (Fang, Palmatier, and Evans 2004), quota
cial behaviors such as helping colleagues with the gamut of levels and salesperson performance (Chowdhury 1993), and
selling responsibilities. Future research along these lines task conflict and employee creativity (De Dreu 2006). This
can make use of the literature on ambidexterity, which is raises the intriguing question: Is it possible to be too motivated
the ability to combine potentially conflicting role activities and is there a point of optimal level of motivation?
to investigate how salespeople can successfully combine
and integrate multiple roles (March 1991; Tushman and
O’Reilly 1996). Other theoretical approaches that can yield Drivers of salesperson motivation
better insights into how to effectively balance different Although sales motivation research to date has examined
roles in sales include role balance theory (Greenhaus, Col- several drivers of salesperson motivation, there appears to
lins, and Shaw 2003; Marks and MacDermid 1996) and be a scarcity of knowledge on certain types of drivers of
role theory (Katz and Kahn 1978). Role balance refers to salesperson motivation – such as monetary versus non-
the equal engagement of an individual in the performance monetary rewards.
One of the key challenges faced by sales motivation potentially fruitful avenue for research is how sales leader
researchers is the assessment of the role of EM rewards behavior can influence the four motivational orientations.
such as financial incentives on IM variables. Pullins
(2001) summarized several propositions on this topic,
most of which have not been addressed to date. Generally, Outcomes of salesperson motivation
extrinsic rewards have been found to have an undermining To date, much of the research on outcomes of salesperson
effect on IM, especially when such rewards are offered for motivation is concerned with salesperson performance,
highly interesting tasks and are contingent on perfor- for several good reasons. For example, the sales force typ-
mance (as summarised by Kanfer, Frese, and Johnson ically accounts for the largest part of the marketing budget
2017). It is known that sales compensation packages com- and marketing personnel (Cravens et al. 1993), hence
monly consist of bonuses and commissions, which are their actual performance is of crucial prominence in terms
contingent to certain performance achievements (Kishore of ROI. That is, sales organization performance has
et al. 2013), hence these could be detrimental to IM. Mal- important direct bottom-line implications (MacKenzie,
lin and Pullins (2009) found that sales force steering Podsakoff, and Ahearne 1998). However, contemporary
mechanisms (behavior activity control) negatively moder- research in other areas of the sales domain as well as in
ated the relationship between proportion of variable pay the wider marketing literature includes other types of job
and IM. Careful use of the right (combination of) incen- outcomes that are subjective or behavioral in nature.
tives as well as work environment contexts (e.g., sales Examples include salesperson innovativeness and creativ-
force steering mechanisms) which would not harm IM but ity (e.g. Bai, Lin, and Li 2016; Miao and Wang 2016),
perhaps even enhance it appears to be critical in this light. work-life balance (e.g. Badrinarayanan et al. 2015; Closs,
Indeed, the most recent meta-analysis on this subject Speier, and Meacham 2011), and work engagement (e.g.
(Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford 2014), which included Fujimoto et al. 2016; Menguc et al. 2017). Such work
40 years of research and nine previously published meta- outcomes are commonly found to have important implica-
analyses, has demonstrated that although extrinsic tions for overall organizational development, customer
rewards (incentives) can undermine IM, in truth EM and orientation, job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
IM can still co-exist. Future research could investigate and performance (e.g. Amabile 1996; Bai, Lin, and Li
how salespeople’s motivational orientations might work 2016; Miao and Wang 2016; Schaufeli et al. 2002). Future
in synergy (as proposed by Amabile 1993) by employing research could benefit by incorporating more of these
extrinsic rewards in such a way that they enhance IM. behavioral job outcomes into studies on salesperson IM
Another key question is linked to nonmonetary and EM in order to gain a richer understanding of the con-
rewards. It has long been accepted that personal recogni- sequences of salesperson motivation.
tion, defined as “periodic acknowledgement of perfor-
mance accomplishments of individual salespeople”
(Wotruba, MacFie, and Colletti 1991, 9), is one of the Other important variables
important nonmonetary rewards available to salespeople This article has emphasized that salesperson motivation
(Bellenger, Wilcox, and Ingram 1984; Chonko, Tanner research has gone from studying a global motivation con-
and Weeks 1992; Churchill, Ford, and Walker 1979). struct to looking at IM and EM and to further disaggregat-
However, the current knowledge on the effect of such ing these into the cognitive and affective motivational
nonmonetary rewards on salesperson IM and EM and per- orientations. Extant research findings suggest that these
formance is scarce. A potentially interesting research ave- motivational orientations have distinct antecedents and
nue lies in investigating the effect of nonmonetary consequences. Hence, an opportunity exists for future
rewards on IM and EM as well as the combined effect of research to further examine the four motivational orienta-
monetary incentives and nonmonetary rewards on sales- tions, incorporating their drivers and outcomes at individ-
person IM and EM and the four motivational orientations. ual and organizational levels.
Finally, several studies within the sales domain have In addition, research demonstrates the importance of
emphasized the importance of positive working environ- personality traits and personal characteristics of salespeo-
ment and supervisory support in influencing salesperson ple in the field of salesperson motivation. Chonko, Tan-
behaviors (Jaramillo and Mulki 2008; Kemp, Borders, ner and Weeks (1992) suggested that salesperson
and Ricks 2013; Tyagi 1982, 1985a, 1985b). These ideas personality traits and personal characteristics be taken
are echoed in the organizational leadership literature into consideration when motivating salespeople. Indeed,
(much of which is summarized by Bass and Stogdill business-to-business salespeople have been found to
1990), which has demonstrated that charismatic leaders choose combinations of jobs and pay contracts that suit
have highly motivated employees. However, how these their heterogeneous traits (Lo, Ghosh, and Lafontaine
influencers of motivation affect specific motivational ori- 2011). Further research on salesperson motivation could
entations has not been explored to date. Hence, a incorporate personality traits such as the “Big 5” into the
research framework (e.g. the Big Five personality traits; work on expectancy theory in sales changed the entire
He et al. 2015). field of sales force management. But that work was under-
Research also demonstrates that motivational varia- taken 30–40 years ago. We challenge today’s generation
bles could differ for males versus female salespeople (e.g. of academic sales researchers to use this article as a
Jaramillo and Mulki 2008). For instance, men and women springboard to develop the next generation of theory and
were found to have differences in the ways motivational practice in sales management, building on the history and
variables change across career stages (Cron, Dubinsky, opportunities revealed herein.
and Michaels 1988) and in the motivational variables in Motivating salespeople has always been one of the key
the mentor–protege relationship (Fine and Pullins 1998). challenges for sales leaders and, in truth, for firms as a
More recent studies in sales have also demonstrated the whole (Doyle and Shapiro 1980; Jaramillo, Mulki, and
importance of incorporating gender in sales force research Marshall 2005). Recently such challenges have been
(Rutherford, Marshall, and Park 2014). Boles et al. (2007) amplified by significant challenges to how sales organiza-
reported significant differences between male and female tions have traditionally operated (Keszey and Biemans
salespeople in the relationship between aspects of job sat- 2016). There have been dramatic shifts in the role of the
isfaction and affective organizational commitment. Ruth- salesperson, and the accompanying competencies
erford, Marshall, and Park (2014) found that there are required, due to a widening role often incorporating busi-
important gender effects in such areas of sales job as per- ness development and internal business consultancy ele-
ceived organizational support, work–family conflict, and ments (Keszey and Biemans 2016; Narus 2015) coupled
emotional exhaustion. Finally, Karkoulian, Srour, and with seemingly ever-escalating requirements for a deep
Sinan (2016) in their study on work-life balance, per- technological knowledge set (Marshall et al. 2012). Add
ceived stress, and locus of control demonstrated the to the above the fact that the race to deploy more virtual
importance of this gender perspective. Future research forms of salesperson/customer interaction and relationship
investigating this matter in the sales context could offer management – often with a cost-cutting goal as the key
fruitful insights on the topic of salesperson motivation, driver (travel is expensive) – has created challenges of
particularly since the percentage of females in business- workplace isolation for salespeople, both from their own
to-business sales roles is rising. company and their customers. This no doubt exacerbates
the boundary-spanning role challenges and impacts
motivation.
Conclusion Then too, societal changes have presented key chal-
The stated aim of our article was to critically review the lenges as well, and in particular the arrival of millennials
literature on salesperson motivation and, while presenting into the sales workforce with distinct professional work
key theoretical and methodological contributions, to also values and attitudes (Pullins et al. 2011). Indeed, recent
highlight key challenges and future research directions. research suggests that as millennials enter the workplace,
Although theory development has progressed in this area, organizations face additional and new motivational and
and has generally become more nuanced in terms of retention-based challenges as initial evidence reveals mil-
insights presented by academic research into salesperson lennials much more tuned into IM approaches versus EM
motivation, we find significant and new motivation- (Ferri-Reed 2010). Our field must understand how to max-
related challenges faced by sales organizations, sales man- imize salesperson success forward into the new horizons
agers and salespeople that are unexplored or underex- ahead. With hard work, we as sales academic researchers
plored in the literature. Without subsequent research by can build on our heritage of knowledge on salesperson
sales academics, it will be difficult to provide industry motivation to open a new era of research discourse for the
sales leaders credible advice on how to effectively moti- future of the field.
vate salespeople in light of these challenges. We assert
that effort is required post haste in theory building and
testing in salesperson motivation that can drive practical Acknowledgments
insights among the key areas identified within this article. Secondary authors are listed in alphabetical order.
One of the main challenges to sales motivation
research in particular is in “its ability to provide sales
Declaration of interest
executives with actionable guidance” (Asare, Yang, and
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Alejandro 2012, 387). Hence, it is of crucial importance
that sales motivation research remains current, to inform
and help organizations address new and emerging chal- Note
lenges. Sales leaders and managers must become aware of 1. This included a number of articles that had the words moti-
different types of motivation, as well as their potential to vate or motivation present in the full-text of the document.
work in synergy to increase important job outcomes. Early For example, in an article that states “the authors’
motivation to examine this topic is . . .” or “hedonic motiva- Industrial Sales Setting.” Journal of Business & Industrial Mar-
tion of the shoppers was . . .” the term motivation is irrele- keting 31 (2):219–31. doi:10.1108/JBIM-03-2014-0046.
vant to the current study. Barczak, Gloria. 2017. “Writing a Review Article.” Journal of
Product Innovation Management 34 (2):120–121.
doi:10.1111/jpim.12365.
ORCID Barling, Julian, Dominic Cheung, and E. Kevin Kelloway. 1996.
“Time Management and Achievement Striving Interact to
Nick Lee http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6209-0262
Predict Car Sales Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy 81 (6): 821. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.821.
Bass, Bernard M., and Ralph Melvin Stogdill. 1990. Bass &
References Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Abratt, Russell, and Michael R. Smythe. 1989. “A Survey of Managerial Applications. New York, NY: Simon and
Sales Incentive Programs.” Industrial Marketing Manage- Schuster.
ment 18 (3):209–14. doi:10.1016/0019-8501(89)90037-0. Baumgartner, Hans, and Rik Pieters. 2003. “The Structural Influ-
Ahearne, Michael, Scott B. MacKenzie, Philip M. Podsakoff, ence of Marketing Journals: A Citation Analysis of the Dis-
John E. Mathieu, and Son K. Lam. 2010. “The Role of Con- cipline and Its Subareas over Time.” Journal of Marketing
sensus in Sales Team Performance.” Journal of Marketing 67 (2):123–139. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.123.18610.
Research 47 (3):458–469. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.3.458. Becherer, Richard C., Fred W. Morgan, and Lawrence M.
Amabile, Teresa M. 1993. “Motivational Synergy: Toward New Richard. 1982. “The Job Characteristics of Industrial Sales-
Conceptualizations of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in persons: Relationship to Motivation and Satisfaction.”
the Workplace.” Human Resource Management Review 3 The Journal of Marketing 46 (4):125–135. doi:10.2307/
(3):185–201. doi:10.1016/1053-4822(93)90012-S. 1251368.
Amabile Teresa M. 1996. Creativity and Innovation in Organi- Bellenger, Danny N., James B. Wilcox, and Thomas N. Ingram.
zations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School. 1984. “An Examination of Reward Preferences for Sales
Amabile, Teresa M., Karl G. Hill, Beth A. Hennessey, and Eliza- Managers.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Manage-
beth M. Tighe. 1994. “The Work Preference Inventory: ment 4 (2):1–6.
Assessing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orienta- Beltramini, Richard F., and Kenneth R. Evans. 1988.
tions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 “Salesperson Motivation to Perform and Job Satisfaction: A
(5):950–967. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.950. Sales Contest Participant Perspective.” Journal of Personal
Anderson, Erin, and Richard L. Oliver. 1987. “Perspectives on Selling and Sales Management 8 (2):35–42.
Behavior-Based Versus Outcome-Based Salesforce Control Bolander, Willy, Riley Dugan, and Eli Jones. 2017. “Time,
Systems.” The Journal of Marketing 51 (4):76–88. Change, and Longitudinally Emergent Conditions: Under-
doi:10.2307/1251249. standing and Applying Longitudinal Growth Modeling in
Asare, Anthony K., Jing Yang, and Thomas G. Brashear Alejan- Sales Research.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Man-
dro. 2012. “The State of Research Methods in Personal Sell- agement 37 (2):153–159.
ing and Sales Management Literature.” Journal of Personal Boles, James, Ramana Madupalli, Brian Rutherford, and John
Selling and Sales Management 32 (4):473–490. Andy Wood. 2007. “The Relationship of Facets of Sales-
doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134320405. person Job Satisfaction with Affective Organizational
Badovick, Gordon J. 1990. “Emotional Reactions and Salesperson Commitment.” Journal of Business & Industrial Market-
Motivation: An Attributional Approach Following Inadequate ing 22 (5):311–3121. doi:10.1108/08858620710773440.
Sales Performance.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Brack, Jessica, and Kip Kelly. 2012. “Maximizing Millennials in
Science 18 (2):123–130. doi:10.1007/BF02726428. the Workplace.” UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School:
Badovick, Gordon J., Farrand J. Hadaway, and Peter F. Kamin- Executive Development, Charlotte, NC.
ski. 1992. “Attributions and Emotions: The Effects on Sales- Brown, Steven P, Kenneth R Evans, Murali K Mantrala, and Gou-
person Motivation after Successful Vs. Unsuccessful Quota tam Challagalla. 2005. “Adapting Motivation, Control, and
Performance.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Man- Compensation Research to a New Environment.” Journal of
agement 12 (3):1–11. Personal Selling and Sales Management 25 (2):156–167.
Badrinarayanan, Vishag, Andrea Dixon, Vicki L. West, and Gail Cadwallader, Susan, Cheryl Burke Jarvis, Mary Jo Bitner, and
M. Zank. 2015. “Professional Sales Coaching: An Integrative Amy L. Ostrom. 2010. “Frontline Employee Motivation to
Review and Research Agenda.” European Journal of Market- Participate in Service Innovation Implementation.” Journal
ing 49 (7/8):1087–1113. doi:10.1108/EJM-06-2014-0368. of the Academy of Marketing Science 38 (2):219–239.
Badrinarayanan, Vishag, Sreedhar Madhavaram, and Elad doi:10.1007/s11747-009-0151-3.
Granot. 2011. “Global Virtual Sales Teams (GVSTs): A Cerasoli, Christopher P., Jessica M. Nicklin, and Michael T.
Conceptual Framework of the Influence of Intellectual and Ford. 2014. “Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives
Social Capital on Effectiveness.” Journal of Personal Sell- Jointly Predict Performance: A 40-Year Meta-Analysis.”
ing & Sales Management 31 (3):311–324. doi:10.2753/ Psychological Bulletin 140 (4):980. doi:10.1037/a0035661.
PSS0885-3134310308. Chonko, Lawrence B., John F. Tanner Jr, and William A. Weeks.
Bai, Yuntao, Li Lin, and Peter Ping Li. 2016. “How to Enable 1992. “Selling and Sales Management in Action: Reward
Employee Creativity in a Team Context: A Cross-Level Preferences of Salespeople.” Journal of Personal Selling
Mediating Process of Transformational Leadership.” Jour- and Sales Management 12 (3):67–75.
nal of Business Research 69 (9):3240–3250. doi:10.1016/j. Chonko, Lawrence B., John F. Tanner Jr, and William A. Weeks.
jbusres.2016.02.025. 1996. “Ethics in Salesperson Decision Making: A Synthesis
Bande, Belen, Pilar Fernandez-Ferrın, Concepcion Varela-Neira, and of Research Approaches and an Extension of the Scenario
Carmen Otero-Neira. 2016. “Exploring the Relationship among Method.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Servant Leadership, Intrinsic Motivation and Performance in an 16 (1):35–52.
Chowdhury, Jhinuk. 1993. “The Motivational Impact of Sales Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 2002. Handbook of Self-
Quotas on Effort.” Journal of Marketing Research 30 Determination Research. Rochester, NY: University
(1):28. doi:10.2307/3172511. Rochester Press.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Neil M. Ford, Steven W. Hartley, and der Borgh, Michel, Ad de Jong, and Edwin J. Nijssen. 2015.
Orville C. Walker. 1985. “The Determinants of Salesperson “Alternative Mechanisms Guiding Salespersons’ Ambidex-
Performance: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Marketing trous Product Selling.” British Journal of Management 28
Research 22 (2):103–118. doi:10.2307/3151357. (2):331–353.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Neil M. Ford, and Orville C. Walker. Doyle, Stephen X., and Benson P. Shapiro 1980. “What Counts
1974. “Measuring the Job Satisfaction of Industrial Sales- Most in Motivating Young Salesforce.” Harvard Business
men.” Journal of Marketing Research 11 (3):254–260. Review, May-June 133–40.
doi:10.2307/3151140. Dubinsky, Alan J., Marvin A. Jolson, Ronald E. Michaels,
Churchill, Gilbert A., Neil M. Ford, and Orville C. Walker. Masaaki Kotabe, and Chae Un Lim. 1993. “Perceptions of
1976. Motivating the Industrial Salesforce: The Attractive- Motivational Components: Salesmen and Saleswomen
ness of Alternative Rewards. Madison, WI: Graduate School Revisited.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Manage-
of Business, University of Wisconsin-Madison. ment 13 (4):25–37.
Churchill Jr. Gilbert A., Neil M. Ford, and Orville C. Walker Jr. Dubinsky, Alan J., Masaaki Kotabe, Chae Un Lim, and Ronald
1979. “Personal Characteristics of Salespeople and the E. Michaels. 1994. “Differences in Motivational Perceptions
Attractiveness of Alternative Rewards.” Journal of Business Among Us, Japanese, and Korean Sales Personnel.” Journal
Research 7 (1):25–50. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(79)90025-0. of Business Research 30 (2):175–185. doi:10.1016/0148-
Closs, David J, Cheri Speier, and Nathan Meacham. 2011. 2963(94)90036-1.
“Sustainability to Support End-to-End Value Chains: The Dubinsky, Alan J., and Steven J. Skinner. 2002. “Going the Extra
Role of Supply Chain Management.” Journal of the Acad- Mile: Antecedents of Salespeople’s Discretionary Effort.”
emy of Marketing Science 39 (1):101–116. doi:10.1007/ Industrial Marketing Management 31 (7):589–598.
s11747-010-0207-4. doi:10.1016/S0019-8501(02)00179-7.
Cook, Deborah J., Cynthia D. Mulrow, and R. Brian Haynes. Erevelles, Sunil, Nobuyuki Fukawa, and Linda Swayne. 2016.
1997. “Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for “Big Data Consumer Analytics and the Transformation of
Clinical Decisions.” Annals of Internal Medicine 126 Marketing.” Journal of Business Research 69 (2):897–904.
(5):376–380. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010- doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.001.
00006. Evans, Kenneth R., Loren Margheim, and John L. Schlatter.
Cravens, David W., Thomas N. Ingram, Raymond W. LaForge, 1982. “A Review of Expectancy Theory Research in Sell-
and Clifford E Young. 1993. “Behavior-Based and Out- ing.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 2
come-Based Salesforce Control Systems.” The Journal of (2):33–40.
Marketing 57 (4):47–59. doi:10.2307/1252218. Everly, George S., and Daniel A. Girdano. 1980. The Stress Mess
Cron, William L., Alan J. Dubinsky, and Ronald E. Michaels. Solution: The Causes and Cures of Stress on the Job. Bowie,
1988. “The Influence of Career Stages on Components of MD: RJ Brady Co.
Salesperson Motivation.” The Journal of Marketing 52 Fang, Eric, Robert W. Palmatier, and Kenneth R. Evans. 2004.
(1):78–92. doi:10.2307/1251687. “Goal-Setting Paradoxes? Trade-Offs between Working
Davis, Fred D., Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw. 1992. Hard and Working Smart: The United States Versus China.”
“Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (2):188–
Workplace.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22 202. doi:10.1177/0092070303261413.
(14):1111–32. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x. Ferri-Reed, Jan. 2010. “The Keys to Engaging Millennials.”
De Dreu, Carsten K.W. 2006. “When Too Little or Too Much Engineering Management Review, IEEE 39 (2):42–45.
Hurts: Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship between doi:10.1109/EMR.2011.5876173.
Task Conflict and Innovation in Teams.” Journal of Man- Fine, Leslie M., and Ellen Bolman Pullins. 1998. “Peer Mentoring
agement 32 (1):83–107. doi:10.1177/0149206305277795. in the Industrial Sales Force: An Exploratory Investigation of
DeCarlo, Thomas E., R. Kenneth Teas, and James C. McElroy. Men and Women in Developmental Relationships.” Journal
1997. “Salesperson Performance Attribution Processes and of Personal Selling & Sales Management 18 (4):89–103.
the Formation of Expectancy Estimates.” Journal of Per- France, Stephen L., and Sanjoy Ghose. 2016. “An Analysis and
sonal Selling & Sales Management 17 (3):1–17. Visualization Methodology for Identifying and Testing Mar-
Deci, Edward L. 1971. “Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards ket Structure.” Marketing Science 35 (1):182–197.
on Intrinsic Motivation.” Journal of Personality and Social doi:10.1287/mksc.2015.0958.
Psychology 18 (1): 105. doi:10.1037/h0030644. Fu, Frank Q., Michael T. Elliott, Haim Mano, and Chris Gallo-
Deci, Edward L. 1975. Intrinsic Motivation. New York, NY: Ple- way. 2017. “The Role of Affective Brand Commitment on
num Press. Sales Effort.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 25
Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 1980. “The Empirical (3):257–273. doi:10.1080/10696679.2017.1311215.
Exploration of Intrinsic Motivational Processes.” Advances Fu, Frank Q., Keith A. Richards, and Eli Jones. 2009. “The Moti-
in Experimental Social Psychology 13 (2):39–80. vation Hub: Effects of Goal Setting and Self-Efficacy on
doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60130-6. Effort and New Product Sales.” Journal of Personal Selling
Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 1985a. “The General and Sales Management 29 (3):277–292. doi:10.2753/
Causality Orientations Scale: Self-Determination in Person- PSS0885-3134290305.
ality.” Journal of Research in Personality 19 (2):109–34. Fujimoto, Yuka, Ahmed Shahriar Ferdous, Tomoki Sekiguchi,
doi:10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6. and Ly-Fie Sugianto. 2016. “The Effect of Mobile Technol-
Deci, Edward L, and Richard M. Ryan. 1985b. Intrinsic Motiva- ogy Usage on Work Engagement and Emotional Exhaustion
tion and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, in Japan.” Journal of Business Research 69 (9):3315–3323.
NY: Springer. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.013.
Gagne, Marylene, and Edward L. Deci. 2005. “Self-Determina- Study.” Journal of Management Information and Decision
tion Theory and Work Motivation.” Journal of Organiza- Sciences 17 (2):135.
tional Behavior 26 (4):331–362. doi:10.1002/job.322. Jaramillo, Fernando, William B. Locander, Paul E. Spector, and
Grant, Ken, David W. Cravens, George S. Low, and William C. Eric G. Harris. 2007. “Getting the Job Done: The Moderat-
Moncrief 2001. “The Role of Satisfaction with Territory ing Role of Initiative on the Relationship between Intrinsic
Design on the Motivation, Attitudes, and Work Outcomes of Motivation and Adaptive Selling.” Journal of Personal Sell-
Salespeople.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science ing and Sales Management 27 (1):59–74. doi:10.2753/
29 (2):165–178. doi:10.1177/03079459994533. PSS0885-3134270104.
Greenhaus, Jeffrey H., Karen M. Collins, and Jason D. Shaw. Jaramillo, Fernando, and Jay Prakash Mulki. 2008. “Sales
2003. “The Relation between Work–Family Balance and Effort: The Intertwined Roles of the Leader, Customers,
Quality of Life.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 and the Salesperson.” Journal of Personal Selling and
(3):510–531. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00042-8. Sales Management 28 (1):37–51. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-
Guay, Frederic, Robert J. Vallerand, and Celine Blanchard. 3134280103.
2000. “On the Assessment of Situational Intrinsic and Jaramillo, Fernando, Jay Prakash Mulki, and Greg W. Marshall.
Extrinsic Motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale 2005. “A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Orga-
(SIMS).” Motivation and Emotion 24 (3):175–213. nizational Commitment and Salesperson Job Performance:
doi:10.1023/A:1005614228250. 25 Years of Research.” Journal of Business Research 58
Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R. Oldham. 1974. ‘The Job (6):705–714. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.004.
Diagnostic Survey: An Instrument for the Diagnosis of Jobs Jasmand, Claudia, Vera Blazevic, and Ko de Ruyter. 2012.
and the Evaluation of Job Redesign Projects.” Department “Generating Sales While Providing Service: A Study of Cus-
of Administrative Sciences, Yale University, New Haven, tomer Service Representatives’ Ambidextrous Behavior.”
CT. Journal of Marketing 76 (1):20–37. doi:10.1509/jm.10.0448.
Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R. Oldham. 1976. “Motivation John, George, and Barton Weitz. 1989. “Salesforce Compensa-
Through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory.” Organiza- tion: An Empirical Investigation of Factors Related to Use
tional Behavior and Human Performance 16 (2):250–279. of Salary Versus Incentive Compensation.” Journal of Mar-
doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7. keting Research XXVI:1–14. doi:10.2307/3172665.
Hansen, Jared M., and Michael A. Levin. 2016. “The Effect of Johnston, Mark W., and Greg W. Marshall 2005. Churchill/
Apathetic Motivation on Employees’ Intentions to Use Ford/Walker’s Sales Force Management. Boston, MA:
Social Media for Businesses.” Journal of Business Research McGraw-Hill Education.
69 (12):6058–6066. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.009. Jones, Eli, Steven P. Brown, Andris A. Zoltners, and Barton A.
Harris, Eric G., John C. Mowen, and Tom J. Brown. 2005. “Re- Weitz. 2005. “The Changing Environment of Selling and
Examining Salesperson Goal Orientations: Personality Influ- Sales Management.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
encers, Customer Orientation, and Work Satisfaction.” Jour- Management 25 (2):105–11.
nal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33 (1):19–35. Kanfer, Ruth, Michael Frese, and Russell E. Johnson. 2017.
doi:10.1177/0092070304267927. “Motivation Related to Work: A Century of Progress.” Jour-
He, Hongwei, Weiyue Wang, Weichun Zhu, and Lloyd Harris. nal of Applied Psychology 102 (3):338. doi:10.1037/
2015. “Service Workers’ Job Performance: The Roles of apl0000133.
Personality Traits, Organizational Identification, and Cus- Karkoulian, Silva, Jordan Srour, and Tala Sinan. 2016. “A Gen-
tomer Orientation.” European Journal of Marketing 49 (11/ der Perspective on Work-Life Balance, Perceived Stress,
12):1751–1776. doi:10.1108/EJM-03-2014-0132. and Locus of Control.” Journal of Business Research 69
Heider, F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. (11):4918–4923. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.053.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incorporated. Katz, Daniel, and Robert Louis Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychol-
Hohenberg, Sebastian, and Christian Homburg. 2016. ogy of Organizations (Vol. 2): New York, NY: Wiley.
“Motivating Sales Reps for Innovation Selling in Different Keaveney, Susan M., and James E. Nelson. 1993. “Coping with
Cultures.” Journal of Marketing 80 (2):101–120. Organizational Role Stress: Intrinsic Motivational Orienta-
doi:10.1509/jm.14.0398. tion, Perceived Role Benefits, and Psychological With-
House, Robert J., H. Jack Shapiro, and Mahmoud A. Wahba. drawal.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21
1974. “Expectancy Theory as a Predictor of Work Behaviour (2):113–124. doi:10.1007/BF02894422.
and Attitude: A Re-Evaluation of Empirical Evidence.” Keck, Kay L., Thomas W. Leigh, and James G. Lollar. 1995.
Decision Sciences 5 (3):481–506. doi:10.1111/j.1540- “Critical Success Factors in Captive, Multi-Line Insurance
5915.1974.tb00632.x. Agency Sales.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Man-
Ingram, Thomas N., and Danny N. Bellenger. 1983. “Personal agement 15 (1):17–33.
and Organizational Variables: Their Relative Effect on Kemp, Elyria, Aberdeen Leila Borders, and Joe M. Ricks. 2013.
Reward Valences of Industrial Salespeople.” Journal of “Sales Manager Support: Fostering Emotional Health in
Marketing Research 20 (2):198–205. doi:10.2307/3151686. Salespeople.” European Journal of Marketing 47 (3/4):635–
Ingram, Thomas N., Raymond W. LaForge, and Thomas W. 654. doi:10.1108/03090561311297508.
Leigh. 2002. “Selling in the New Millennium: A Joint Keszey, Tamara, and Wim Biemans. 2016. “Sales–Marketing
Agenda.” Industrial Marketing Management 31 (7):559– Encroachment Effects on Innovation.” Journal of Business
567. doi:10.1016/S0019-8501(02)00175-X. Research 69 (9):3698–3706. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.032.
Ingram, Thomas N., Keun S. Lee, and Steven J. Skinner. 1989. Kishore, Sunil, Raghunath Singh Rao, Om Narasimhan, and
“An Empirical Assessment of Salesperson Motivation, Com- George John. 2013. “Bonuses Versus Commissions: A Field
mitment, and Job Outcomes.” Journal of Personal Selling Study.” Journal of Marketing Research 50(3):317–333.
and Sales Management 9 (3):25–33. doi:10.1509/jmr.11.0485.
Janson, Marius, Traci Austin, and Geraldine E. Hynes. 2014. Kohli, Ajay K. 1985. “Some Unexplored Supervisory Behaviors
“Groupware Design, Implementation, and Use: A Case and Their Influence on Salespeople’s Role Clarity, Specific
Self-Esteem, Job Satisfaction, and Motivation.” Journal of Organisations: A Contextual Analysis.” Journal of Personal
Marketing Research 22 (4):424–433. Selling & Sales Management 23 (4):341–358.
Kruglanski, Arie W., Erik P. Thompson, E. Tory Higgins, M. Miao, C. Fred, and Kenneth R. Evans. 2007. “The Impact of
Atash, Antonio Pierro, James Y. Shah, and Scott Spiegel. Salesperson Motivation on Role Perceptions and Job Perfor-
2000. “To ‘Do the Right Thing’ or to ‘Just Do It’: Locomo- mance—A Cognitive and Affective Perspective.” Journal of
tion and Assessment as Distinct Self-Regulatory Personal Selling and Sales Management 27 (1):89–101.
Imperatives.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134270106.
79 (5):793. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.793. Miao, C. Fred, and Kenneth R. Evans. 2012. “Effects of Formal
Kuruzovich, Jason. 2013. “Sales Technologies, Sales Force Sales Control Systems: A Combinatory Perspective.” Inter-
Management, and Online Infomediaries.” Journal of Per- national Journal of Research in Marketing 29 (2):181–191.
sonal Selling & Sales Management 33 (2):211–224. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.09.002.
doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134330205. Miao, C. Fred, and Kenneth R. Evans. 2014. “Motivating Indus-
Levin, Michael A., Jared M. Hansen, and Debra A. Laverie. trial Salesforce with Sales Control Systems: An Interactive
2012. “Toward Understanding New Sales Employees’ Par- Perspective.” Journal of Business Research 67 (6):1233–
ticipation in Marketing-Related Technology: Motivation, 1242. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.04.007.
Voluntariness, and Past Performance.” Journal of Personal Miao, C. Fred, Kenneth R. Evans, and Shaoming Zou. 2007.
Selling & Sales Management 32 (3):379–393. doi:10.2753/ “The Role of Salesperson Motivation in Sales Control Sys-
PSS0885-3134320307. tems—Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Revisited.” Jour-
Lo, Desmond, Mrinal Ghosh, and Francine Lafontaine. 2011. nal of Business Research 60 (5):417–25. doi:10.1016/j.
“The Incentive and Selection Roles of Sales Force Compen- jbusres.2006.12.005.
sation Contracts.” Journal of Marketing Research 48 Miao, C. Fred, Donald J. Lund, and Kenneth R. Evans. 2009.
(4):781–798. doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.4.781. “Reexamining the Influence of Career Stages on Salesperson
Low, Geroge S., David W. Cravens, Ken Grant, and William C. Motivation: A Cognitive and Affective Perspective.” Jour-
Moncrief. 2001. “Antecedents and Consequences of Sales- nal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 29 (3):243–
person Burnout.” European Journal of Marketing. 35:587– 255. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134290303.
611. doi:10.1108/03090560110388123. Miao, C. Fred, and Guangping Wang. 2016. “The Differential
MacInnis, Deborah J., Christine Moorman, and Bernard J.
Effects of Functional Vis-A-Vis Relational Customer Orienta-
Jaworski. 1991. “Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ tion on Salesperson Creativity.” Journal of Business Research
Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Infor- 69 (12):6021–6030. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.05.017.
mation from Ads.” The Journal of Marketing 55 (4):32–53. Michel, Geraldine, Michaela Merk, and Sevgin Eroglu. 2015.
doi:10.2307/1251955. “Salesperson–Brand Relationship: Main Dimensions and
MacKenzie, Scott B., Philip M. Podsakoff, and Michael Impact within the Context of Private Brand Retailing.” Jour-
Ahearne. 1998. “Some Possible Antecedents and Conse- nal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 35 (4):314–
quences of In-Role and Extra-Role Salesperson Perform- 333. doi:10.1080/08853134.2015.1110937.
ance.” The Journal of Marketing 62 (3):87–98. doi:10.2307/ Mitchell, Terence R. 1982. “Motivation: New Directions for
1251745. Theory, Research, and Practice.” Academy of Management
Mallin, Michael L., and Ellen Bolman Pullins. 2009. “The Mod- Review 7 (1):80–88.
erating Effect of Control Systems on the Relationship Moncrief, William C., and Greg W. Marshall. 2005. “The Evolu-
between Commission and Salesperson Intrinsic Motivation tion of the Seven Steps of Selling.” Industrial Marketing Man-
in a Customer Oriented Environment.” Industrial Marketing agement 34 (1):13–22. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.06.001.
Management 38 (7):769–777. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman. Moncrief, William C, Greg W. Marshall, and Courtney Watkins.
2008.03.004. 2000. “Tracking Academic Research in Selling and Sales
March, James G. 1991. “Exploration and Exploitation in Organi- Management: Authors, Authorships, Academic Institutions,
zational Learning.” Organization Science 2 (1):71–87. and Journals.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Man-
doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71. agement 20 (2):99–108.
Marks, Stephen R., and Shelley M. MacDermid. 1996. “Multiple Murphy, William H. 2004. “In Pursuit of Short-Term Goals:
Roles and the Self: A Theory of Role Balance.” Journal of Anticipating the Unintended Consequences of Using Special
Marriage and the Family 58 (2):417–32. doi:10.2307/ Incentives to Motivate the Sales Force.” Journal of Business
353506. Research 57 (11):1265–1275. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)
Marshall, Greg W., William C. Moncrief, John M. Rudd, and 00447-2.
Nick Lee. 2012. “Revolution in Sales: The Impact of Social Narus, James A. 2015. “B2B Salespeople Can Survive If They
Media and Related Technology on the Selling Environ- Reimagine Their Roles.” Harvard Business Review, April 17.
ment.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 32 Oliver, Richard L. 1974. “Expectancy Theory Predictions of
(3):349–363. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134320305. Salesmen’s Performance.” Journal of Marketing Research
McCarthy, Byrne, Teresa M., Mark A. Moon, and John T. Ment- XI:243–253. doi:10.2307/3151139.
zer. 2011. “Motivating the Industrial Sales Force in the Sales Oliver, Richard L., and Erin Anderson. 1994. “An Empirical
Forecasting Process.” Industrial Marketing Management 40 Test of the Consequences of Behavior-and Outcome-Based
(1):128–38. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.06.003. Sales Control Systems.” The Journal of Marketing 58
Menguc, Bulent, Seigyoung Auh, Volkan Yeniaras, and Constan- (4):53–67. doi:10.2307/1251916.
tine S. Katsikeas. 2017. “The Role of Climate: Implications Oliver, Richard L., and Barton A. Weitz. 1991. “The Effects of
for Service Employee Engagement and Customer Service Risk Preference, Uncertainty, and Incentive Compensation
Performance.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science on Sales Person Motivation.” Marketing Science Institute,
45 (3):428–451. doi:10.1007/s11747-017-0526-9. Cambridge, MA.
Menguc, Bulent, and A. Tansu Barker. 2003. “The Performance Palmatier, Robert W., Mark B. Houston, and John Hulland.
Effects of Outcome-Based Incentive Pay Plans on Sales 2017. “Review Articles: Purpose, Process, and Structure.”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. doi:10.1007/ Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory
s11747-017-0563-4. Factor Analytic Approach.” Journal of Happiness Studies 3
Parasuraman, Ananthanarayanan. 2000. “Technology Readiness (1):71–92. doi:10.1023/A:1015630930326.
Index (Tri) a Multiple-Item Scale to Measure Readiness to Schmitz, Christian. 2013. “Group Influences of Selling Teams on
Embrace New Technologies.” Journal of Service Research 2 Industrial Salespeople’s Cross-Selling Behavior.” Journal of
(4):307–320. doi:10.1177/109467050024001. the Academy of Marketing Science 41 (1):55–72.
Pettijohn, Charles E., Linda S. Pettijohn, and Albert J. Taylor. 2002. doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0304-7.
“The Influence of Salesperson Skill, Motivation, and Training Schulman, Peter. 1999. “Applying Learned Optimism to
on the Practice of Customer Oriented Selling.” Psychology & Increase Sales Productivity.” Journal of Personal Selling &
Marketing 19 (9):743–757. doi:10.1002/mar.10033. Sales Management 19 (1):31–37.
Pink, Daniel H. 2010. Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Schultz, Roberta J., and Charles H. Schwepker. 2012. “Boomers
Motivates Us: Canongate. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Vs. Millennials: Critical Conflict Regarding Sales Culture,
Pink, Daniel H. 2012. “A Radical Prescription for Sales.” Har- Salesforce Recognition, and Supervisor Expectations.”
vard Business Review. Accessed November 1, 2017. https:// International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technol-
hbr.org/2012/07/a-radical-prescription-for-sales. ogy 2 (1):32–41.
Pullins, Ellen Bolman. 2001. “An Exploratory Investigation of Segalla, Michael, Dominique Rouzies, Madeleine Besson, and
the Relationship of Sales Force Compensation and Intrinsic Barton A. Weitz. 2006. “A Cross-National Investigation of
Motivation.” Industrial Marketing Management 30 (5):403– Incentive Sales Compensation.” International Journal of
413. doi:10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00095-4. Research in Marketing 23 (4):419–433. doi:10.1016/j.
Pullins, Ellen Bolman, Curtis P. Haugtvedt, Peter R. Dickson, ijresmar.2006.10.003.
Leslie M. Fine, and Roy J. Lewicki. 2000. “Individual Dif- Selye, Hans. 1978. The Stress of Life, Rev Ed. New York, NY:
ferences in Intrinsic Motivation and the Use of Cooperative McGraw-Hill.
Negotiation Tactics.” Journal of Business & Industrial Mar- Shi, Huanhuan, Shrihari Sridhar, Rajdeep Grewal, and Gary Lil-
keting 15 (7):466–478. doi:10.1108/08858620010351535. ien. 2017. “Sales Representative Departures and Customer
Pullins, Ellen Bolman, Michael L. Mallin, Richard E. Buehrer, Reassignment Strategies in Business-to-Business Markets.”
and Deirdre E. Jones. 2011. “How Salespeople Deal with Journal of Marketing 81 (2):25–44. doi:10.1509/jm.15.0358.
Intergenerational Relationship Selling.” Journal of Business Shojania, Kaveh G., Margaret Sampson, Mohammed T. Ansari,
& Industrial Marketing 26 (6):443–455. doi:10.1108/ Jun Ji, Steve Doucette, and David Moher. 2007. “How
08858621111156430. Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Sur-
Richards, Keith A., William C. Moncrief, and Greg W. Marshall. vival Analysis.” Annals of Internal Medicine 147 (4):224–
2010. “Tracking and Updating Academic Research in Sell- 233. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179.
ing and Sales Management: A Decade Later.” Journal of Singh, Jagdip. 1998. “Striking a Balance in Boundary-Spanning
Personal Selling & Sales Management 30 (3):253–271. Positions: An Investigation of Some Unconventional Influ-
doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134300305. ences of Role Stressors and Job Characteristics on Job Out-
Robbins, Stephen P. 2009. Organizational Behavior. London, comes of Salespeople.” The Journal of Marketing 62:69–86.
UK: Pearson Education. doi:10.2307/1251744.
Roman, Sergio, and Dawn Iacobucci. 2010. “Antecedents and Smith, Kirk, Eli Jones, and Edward Blair. 2000. “Managing
Consequences of Adaptive Selling Confidence and Behav- Salesperson Motivation in a Territory Realignment.” Jour-
ior: A Dyadic Analysis of Salespeople and Their Custom- nal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 20 (4):215–
ers.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38 26.
(3):363–382. doi:10.1007/s11747-009-0166-9. Sok, Keo Mony, Phyra Sok, and Luigi M. De Luca. 2016. “The
Roman, Sergio, Salvador Ruiz, and Jose Luis Munuera. 2005. Effect of ‘Can Do’ and ‘Reason To’ Motivations on Ser-
“The Influence of the Compensation System and Personal vice–Sales Ambidexterity.” Industrial Marketing Manage-
Variables on a Salesperson’s Effective Listening Behav- ment 55:144–55. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.09.001.
iour.” Journal of Marketing Management 21 (1–2):205–230. Spence, Janet T., Robert L. Helmreich, and Robert S. Pred. 1987.
doi:10.1362/0267257053166776. “Impatience Versus Achievement Strivings in the Type a
Rutherford, Brian N., Greg W. Marshall, and JungKun Park. Pattern: Differential Effects on Students’ Health and Aca-
2014. “The Moderating Effects of Gender and inside Versus demic Achievement.” Journal of Applied Psychology 72
Outside Sales Role in Multifaceted Job Satisfaction.” Jour- (4):522. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.4.522.
nal of Business Research 67 (9):1850–1856. doi:10.1016/j. Spence, Janet T., and Ann S. Robbins. 1992. “Workaholism:
jbusres.2013.12.004. Definition, Measurement, and Preliminary Results.” Journal
Ryan, Richard M. 1995. “Psychological Needs and the Facilita- of Personality Assessment 58 (1):160–178. doi:10.1207/
tion of Integrative Processes.” Journal of Personality 63 s15327752jpa5801_15.
(3):397–427. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00501.x. Spiro, Rosann L., and Barton A. Weitz. 1990. “Adaptive Selling:
Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2000a. “Intrinsic and Conceptualization, Measurement, and Nomological Val-
Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New idity.” Journal of Marketing Research XXVII:61–69.
Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 doi:10.2307/3172551.
(1):54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020. Stathakopoulos, Vlasis. 1996. “Sales Force Control: A Synthesis
Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2000b. “Self-Deter- of Three Theories.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
mination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motiva- Management 16 (2):1–12.
tion, Social Development, and Well-Being.” American Steel, Piers, and Cornelius J. Konig. 2006. “Integrating Theories
Psychologist 55 (1):68–78. doi:10.1037/0003- of Motivation.” Academy of Management Review 31
066X.55.1.68. (4):889–913. doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.22527462.
Schaufeli, Wilmar B., Marisa Salanova, Vicente Gonzalez- Stock, Ruth Maria. 2006. “Interorganizational Teams as Bound-
Roma, and Arnold B. Bakker. 2002. “The Measurement of ary Spanners between Supplier and Customer Companies.”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34 (4):588– Vallerand, Robert J., Luc G. Pelletier, Marc R. Blais, Nathalie
599. doi:10.1177/0092070306288765. M. Briere, Caroline Senecal, and Evelyne F. Vallieres. 1992.
Stros, Michael, and Nick Lee. 2015. “Marketing Dimensions “The Academic Motivation Scale: A Measure of Intrinsic,
in the Prescription Pharmaceutical Industry: A System- Extrinsic, and Amotivation in Education.” Educational and
atic Literature Review.” Journal of Strategic Marketing Psychological Measurement 52 (4):1003–1017.
23 (4):318–336. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2014.931878. Van Eerde, Wendelien, and Henk Thierry. 1996. “Vroom’s
Sujan, Harish. 1986. “Smarter Versus Harder: An Exploratory Expectancy Models and Work-Related Criteria: A Meta-
Attributional Analysis of Salespeople’s Motivation.” Jour- Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (5):575.
nal of Marketing Research 23 (1):41–49. doi:10.2307/ doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.575.
3151775. Vancouver, Jeffrey B. 2008. “Integrating Self-Regulation Theo-
Sujan, Harish, Barton A. Weitz, and Nirmalya Kumar. 1994. ries of Work Motivation into a Dynamic Process Theory.”
“Learning Orientation, Working Smart, and Effective Selling.” Human Resource Management Review 18 (1):1–18.
The Journal of Marketing 58:39–52. doi:10.2307/1252309. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.02.001.
Tanner, Emily C., John F. Tanner, and Kirk Wakefield. 2015. Vancouver, Jeffrey B., Justin M. Weinhardt, and Aaron M.
“Panacea or Paradox? The Moderating Role of Ethical Schmidt. 2010. “A Formal, Computational Theory of Multi-
Climate.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Manage- ple-Goal Pursuit: Integrating Goal-Choice and Goal-Striving
ment 35 (2):175–190. doi:10.1080/08853134.2015. Processes.” Journal of Applied Psychology 95 (6):985.
1010540. doi:10.1037/a0020628.
Teas, R. Kenneth. 1980. “An Empirical Test of Linkages Venkatesh, Viswanath, and Fred D. Davis. 2000. “A Theoretical
Proposed in the Walker, Churchill, and Ford Model of Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Lon-
Salesforce Motivation and Performance.” Journal of the gitudinal Field Studies.” Management Science 46 (2):186–
Academy of Marketing Science 8:58–72. doi:10.1007/ 204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
BF02721973. Verbeke, Willem, Frank Belschak, and Richard P. Bagozzi.
Teas, R. Kenneth. 1981. “An Empirical Test of Models of Sales- 2004. “The Adaptive Consequences of Pride in Personal
persons, Job Expectancy and Instrumentality Perceptions.” Selling.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32
Journal of Marketing Research 18 (2):209–226. (4):386–402. doi:10.1177/0092070304267105.
doi:10.2307/3150955. Verbeke, Willem, Bart Dietz, and Ernst Verwaal. 2011. “Drivers
Teas, R. Kenneth, and James C. McElroy. 1986. “Causal of Sales Performance: A Contemporary Meta-Analysis.
Attributions and Expectancy Estimates: A Framework for Have Salespeople Become Knowledge Brokers?” Journal of
Understanding the Dynamics of Salesforce Motivation.” the Academy of Marketing Science 39 (3):407–28.
The Journal of Marketing 50 (1):75–86. doi:10.2307/ doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0211-8.
1251280. Vroom, Victor Harold. 1964. Work and Motivation (Vol. 54):
Teo, Thompson S. H., Vivien K. G. Lim, and Raye Y. C. New York, NY: Wiley.
Lai. 1999. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Internet Walker, Orville C., Gilbert A. Churchill, and Neil M. Ford.
Usage.” Omega 27 (1):25–37. doi:10.1016/S0305-0483 1977. “Motivation and Performance in Industrial Selling:
(98)00028-0. Present Knowledge and Needed Research.” Journal of
Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. Marketing Research 14 (2):156–168. doi:10.2307/3150465.
“Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence- Walton, Richard E. 1969. Interpersonal Peacemaking: Confron-
Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic tations and Third-Party Consultation (Vol. 1). Reading,
Review.” British Journal of Management 14 (3):207–222. MA: Addison-Wesley.
doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375. Warr, Peter, John Cook, and Toby Wall. 1979. “Scales for the
Tushman, Michael L., and Charles A. O’Reilly. 1996. Measurement of Some Work Attitudes and Aspects of Psycho-
“Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and logical Well Being.” Journal of Occupational Psychology 52
Revolutionary Change.” California Management Review 38 (2):129–148. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1979.tb00448.x.
(4):8–29. doi:10.2307/41165852. Weiner, Bernard. 1980. Human Motivation. New York, NY:
Tyagi, Pradeep K. 1982. “Perceived Organizational Climate and Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
the Process of Salesperson Motivation.” Journal of Market- Weiner, Bernard. 1995. “Intrinsic Motivation.” In The Blackwell
ing Research 19 (2):240–254. doi:10.2307/3151624. Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, edited by Antony Man-
Tyagi, Pradeep K. 1985a. “The Effects on Stressful Organiza- stead and Miles Hewstone, 341. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
tional Conditions on Salesperson Work Motivation.” Jour- Weitz, Barton A., Harish Sujan, and Mita Sujan. 1986.
nal of the Academy of Marketing Science 13 (1-2):290–309. “Knowledge, Motivation, and Adaptive Behavior: A Frame-
doi:10.1007/BF02729721. work for Improving Selling Effectiveness.” The Journal of
Tyagi, Pradeep K. 1985b. “Organizational Climate, Inequities, Marketing 50 (4):174–91. doi:10.2307/1251294.
and Attractiveness of Salesperson Rewards.” Journal of Per- White, Robert W. 1959. “Motivation Reconsidered: The Con-
sonal Selling and Sales Management 5 (2):31–37. cept of Competence.” Psychological Review 66 (5):297.
Tyagi, Pradeep K. 1985c. “Relative Importance of Key Job doi:10.1037/h0040934.
Dimensions and Leadership Behaviors in Motivating Sales- Williams, Brian C., and Christopher R. Plouffe. 2007.
person Work Performance.” The Journal of Marketing 49 “Assessing the Evolution of Sales Knowledge: A 20-Year
(3):76–86. doi:10.2307/1251617. Content Analysis.” Industrial Marketing Management
Vallerand, Robert J. 1995. “Toward a Hierarchical Model of 36 (4):408–19. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.11.003.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.” Advances in Experimen- Womack, Brian. 2017. “Oracle’s Push into Cloud Gathers More
tal Social Psychology 49:271–360. Momentum on Sales Growth.” Accessed October 5, 2017.
Vallerand, Robert J. 1997. “Toward a Hierarchical Model of https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-14/ora
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.” Advances in Experimen- cle-s-push-into-cloud-gathers-more-momentum-on-sales-
tal Social Psychology 29:271–360. growth.
Wotruba, Thomas R., John S. MacFie, and Jerome A. Colletti. Zhang, Xiaomeng, and Kathryn M. Bartol. 2010. “Linking
1991. “Effective Sales Force Recognition Programs.” Indus- Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Influ-
trial Marketing Management 20 (1):9–15. doi:10.1016/0019- ence of Psychological Empowerment, Intrinsic Motivation,
8501(91)90036-F. and Creative Process Engagement.” Academy of Management
Yidong, Tu, and Lu Xinxin. 2013. “How Ethical Leadership Journal 53 (1):107–128. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.48037118.
Influence Employees’ Innovative Work Behavior: A Zoltners, Andris A., P. K. Sinha, and Sally E. Lorimer. 2013. “The
Perspective of Intrinsic Motivation.” Journal of Business Growing Power of Inside Sales.” Harvard Business Review.
Ethics 116 (2):441–455. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1455-7. https://hbr.org/2013/07/the-growing-power-of-inside-sa.
22
Appendix
Appendix summary table of key articles on salesperson motivation
Sample size and Summary on motivation

N Study Journal Methodology response rate Key relevant findings Theory measures.
1 Oliver (1974) JMR Cross-sectional 95 (96%) IM is a poor predictor of performance, whilst EM was Expectancy theory IM is measured as five
survey effective in predicting performance. intrinsic outcomes
2 Walker et al. JM Conceptual paper N/A The article has provided a now classical definition: Expectancy theory N/A
(1977) “motivation is viewed as the amount of effort the
salesman desires to expend on each of the activities or
tasks associated with his job, such as calling on potential
new accounts, planning sales presentations, and filling
out reports.”
3 Evans et al. JPSSM Literature review N/A Literature review on expectancy theory research in sales Expectancy theory N/A.
(1982) domain.
4 Tyagi (1982) JMR Cross-sectional 104 IM and EM have distinct predictors (drivers) among the Expectancy theory Developed his own in
survey organizational climate variables. Organizational climate line with Expectancy
variables produce stronger influence on IM than on EM. model
All organizational climate variables apart from
challenge and variety have a significant impact on IM
(job importance, task conflict, role overload, leadership
consideration, organizational identification and
management concern and awareness). Job challenge and
variety, job importance and role overload do not
R. Khusainova et al.
significantly impact EM. Only job importance and

organizational identification have a mild influence on
EM.
5 Becherer, JM Cross-sectional 214 (33.2–65.8 Job related factors impact on motivation and job Job design theory Job diagnostics survey
Morgan, survey depending on how satisfaction of salespeople. It appears that internal by Hackman and
and Richard many questionnaires motivation is positively related to the ways salespeople Oldham (1974)
(1982) have reached the perceive their job characteristics and psychological
salespeople) states.
6 Churchill et al. JMR Meta-analysis N/A Motivation is third most important determinant of N/A N/A
(1985) performance.
7 Tyagi (1985a) JAMS Cross-sectional 104 (63%) Organizational stress variables contribute negatively to Expectancy theory Developed his own
survey both IM and EM. Role ambiguity did not produce any
effect on IM or EM, though this could be situational.
Role conflict was shown to produce the strongest
negative impact on IM and EM. The variable role
overload had a much stronger impact on IM than on EM.
(Continued on next page)

8 Tyagi (1985c) JM Cross-sectional 111 (62%) Both job (re)design and leader’s behavior affect Job design theory Developed his own
survey salesperson IM and EM but to a different extent. and expectancy
Specifically, key job dimensions (job autonomy, variety, theory
importance, task identity, feedback and agent’s
feedback) are more effective in impacting IM whereas
leadership behavior is more effective in impacting EM.
IM is more important predictor of salesperson
performance, than EM.
9 Sujan (1986) JMR Cross-sectional 1283 (32%) Salespeople’s motivation to work smarter has more Attribution theory Developed his own (M)
survey important performance implications that motivation to
work harder. An orientation toward extrinsic rewards
leads salespeople to attribute their failures to a lack of
effort which in turn motivates them to work harder. An
orientation toward intrinsic rewards leads salespeople to
attribute failures to poor strategies which in turn
motivates them to work smarter.
10 Teas and JM Cross-sectional N/A The authors integrate expectancy and attribution theory. Expectancy theory N/A
McElroy survey and attribution
(1986) theory
11 Weitz et al. JM Cross-sectional N/A The authors propose a framework for motivation to Attribution theory N/A
(1986) survey practice adaptive selling. and theory Z
12 Beltramini and JPSSM Cross-sectional 933 (46.7%) Contests have a potential to motivate salespeople, Not specified A series of agree/
Evans (1988) survey however, to serve a motivating purpose, they should disagree items
be perceived as separate from the main compensation. adapted from
(Churchill, Ford, and
Walker 1974)
13 Cron et al. (1988) JM Cross-sectional 176 (78%) Salesperson motivation varies depending on career Expectancy theory Used thermometer like
survey stage – in line with career stages framework. scales and chances 0
to 100 on the
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
expectancy, valence
and instrumentality
14 Abratt and IMM Cross-sectional Study of 75 industrial The key salesperson motivators are satisfaction in the Not specified N/A.
Smythe (1989) survey firms in South Africa job well done and a desire for money.
15 Ingram et al. JPSSM Cross-sectional 231 (57.5%) Salesperson’s EM but not IM has a significant positive Expectancy theory Tyagi (1985c) and Kohli
(1989) survey influence on effort which in turn has a significant (1985).
positive influence on performance.

23
Appendix summary table of key articles on salesperson motivation (Continued).
24
16 Badovick (1990) JAMS Cross-sectional 146 (94%) respondents Attribution theory is proposed as an additional theory of Attribution theory Sujan’s (1986) smarter
survey who failed to make salesperson motivation. Feelings of self-blame after a and harder
their monthly quota failure of not completing a quota and feeling of
satisfaction in performance (after completing a quota)
directly influence motivation. When salesperson takes
responsibility for their performance, then feelings of
self-blame result in increased subsequent effort.
Contrary to Weiner’s Attribution theory, feelings of
performance satisfaction resulted in subsequent decrease
in effort.
17 Spiro and Weitz JMR Cross-sectional 268 (54%) Scale development. IM is a part of the developed Not specified Developed their own
(1990) survey (scale adaptive selling framework and measured as rewards (IM)
development) arising from the task itself (e.g., selling is like playing
a game).
18 Chonko et al. JPSSM Cross-sectional 249 (24.9%) Sales people report that pay rises are one of the most Not specified N/A
(1992) survey important motivators.
19 Chowdhury JMR Laboratory N/A Strong effect of self-efficacy on salesperson motivation Expectancy theory, Not measured;
(1993) experiments and effort when sales tasks begin to increase in achievement motivation is used
difficulty. However, this effect is only marginal for motivation interchangeably with
low quota levels or for easy tasks. theory and goal effort
setting theory
20 Dubinsky et al. JPSSM Cross-sectional 212 (62%) Minimal differences in male and female salespeople’s Expectancy theory Teas (1981) and Tyagi
(1993) survey perceptions of expectancies, instrumentalities, and (1985a)
valence for rewards.
21 Keaveney and JAMS Cross-sectional 305 (43.6%) Intrinsic motivational orientations decrease perceptions Causality Developed their own
Nelson (1993) survey of role conflict and role ambiguity and enhance job orientations (guided by Deci and
satisfaction. theory (SDT) Ryan 1985b)
22 Dubinsky et al. JBR Cross-sectional 218 (64.1%), 220 Dramatic difference in motivational perceptions between Expectancy theory
(1994) survey (62.9%) and 156 the U.S. salespeople and Japanese and Korean
(34.7%) salespeople.
23 Oliver and JM Cross-sectional 347 (64%) Control systems influence salespeople’s affective and Sales force control Developed their own
Anderson survey; dyadic motivational states. Specifically, behavior-based control framework (IM and EM)
(1994) data from sales is linked with greater IM, whereas outcome-based
managers and control is linked with EM.
salespeople
24 Keck, Leigh, and JPSSM In-depth interviews 92 (64.6%) Motivation to earn money, personal enjoyment of selling, Not specified N/A
Lollar (1995) and cross- motivation to earn recognition from the peers and
sectional survey willingness to work hard are among several key agency
success factors.

25 Barling, Cheung, JAP Cross-sectional 105 (87.5%) The time-management behavior varies across individual Not specified Spence, Helmreich, and
and Kelloway survey levels of motivation. Pred (1987)
(1996) (achievement
striving)
26 DeCarlo, Teas, JPSSM Cross-sectional 135 (87%) Organizational support attributions following high self- Attribution theory N/A
and McElroy survey ratings can increase salesperson motivation, whereas and expectancy
(1997) organizational support attributions following low theory
performance self-ratings can decrease it.
27 Fine and Pullins JPSSM Cross-sectional 165 (36.6%) Significant differences on motivational variables between Not specified Hackman and Oldham
(1998) survey men and women in the mentor-protege relationship. (1976)
Specifically, female proteges with female mentors
report higher motivation levels than male mentors with
female proteges.
28 Schulman (1999) JPSSM Conceptual paper N/A Based on prior research, the authors conclude that Learned N/A
optimism result in increased level of motivation. helplessness
theory
29 Smith et al. JPSSM Cross-sectional 161 (43%) for Study 1 Perceptions of fairness (perceptions of gaining or loosing Expectancy theory Combination of working
(2000) survey for study and 251 (31%) for sales potential) in territory-alignment situations affect and hard and working
1 and scenario- Study 2 motivation. Salesperson motivation increases as organizational smart measures
based managers take more actions (justice/fairness related). justice theory (Oliver and Weitz,
experiment for Motivation is an 1991 and Sujan,
study 2 important predictor Weitz and Kumar,
of performance. 1994)
30 Pullins et al. JBIM Laboratory 76 Individual differences in IM orientation (operationalized SDT Deci and Ryan’s (1985a)
(2000) experiment as causality orientation of autonomy) affect the general causality
cooperative negotiation tactics in negotiations between orientation scale
a seller and a buyer. (SDT)
31 Grant et al. JAMS Cross-sectional 148 (55%) Satisfaction with territory design enhances IM which in Not specified Anderson and Oliver
(2001) survey turn reduces role ambiguity. Also, IM increases job (1987), Oliver and
satisfaction. Anderson (1994) and

Cravens et al. (1993)
(IM)
32 Low et al. (2001) JM Cross-sectional 148 (55%) IM directly reduces burnout, role conflict, role ambiguity, Not specified Anderson and Oliver
survey and increases job satisfaction. In turn, burnout has a (1987), Oliver and
significant negative impact on job satisfaction and Anderson (1994) and
performance. Cravens et al. (1993)
(IM)
33 Pullins (2001) IMM Interviews 19 Managers think that less than half of the motivation SDT N/A
comes from incentive pay and the rest (biggest part)
comes from intrinsic rewards.

25
26
34 Dubinsky and IMM Conceptual paper N/A The authors build a proposition (among others) that Expectancy theory N/A
Skinner (2002) salesperson IM is positively related to discretionary
effort.
35 Pettijohn et al. P&M Cross-sectional 109 (50%) Interaction between salesperson motivation and skill level Not specified N/A
(2002) survey significantly related to customer orientation levels.
36 Menguc and JPSSM Cross-sectional 102 (20.7%) When extrinsic rewards (motivators) are strong, Agency theory and N/A
Barker (2003) survey salespeople may compensate for the lack of intrinsic organizational
rewards in their jobs. control theory
37 Murphy (2004) JBR Cross-sectional 827 (53%) In high motivation conditions, affective organizational Theory of planned N/A
survey commitment and relationship with supervisor lead to behavior
less tendency to engage in problematic behaviors.
38 Verbeke et al. JAMS Cross-sectional 93 (30.5%) in Study 1 Salespeople are affected by their emotions but they can Not specified Spiro and Weitz (1990)
(2004) survey (scenario and 250 (52%) in control them to their advantage. Specifically, pride was and (Sujan, Weitz and
based) Study 2 found to stimulate performance-related motivations. Kumar, 1994)
39 Brown et al. JPSSM Conceptual paper Call for integrating the research domains of salesperson N/A Goal theory and
(2005) motivation, control systems, and compensation. expectancy theory
40 Harris, Mowen, JAMS Cross-sectional 190 (84%) Learning orientation has a positive impact on customer Control theory N/A
and Brown survey orientation, whereas performance orientation has a
(2005) positive impact on selling orientation.
41 Segalla et al. IJRM Cross-sectional 652 (62%) Sales managers choose incentive pay to increase Expectancy theory, N/A
(2006) survey (scenario salesperson motivation, or salary to increase control agency control
based) and parity. theory, and
social
comparison
theory
42 Jaramillo et al. JPSSM Cross-sectional 400 (66.7%) Initiative strengthens the positive relationship between Action control Oliver and Anderson
(2007) survey IM and adaptive selling. IM has a significant effect on theory (1994) (IM and EM)
adaptive selling. Also, customer orientation mediates
the relationship between IM and adaptive selling.
43 Miao et al. JBR Cross-sectional 175 (44.2%) Activity control primarily impacts challenge seeking (the SDT Amabile et al (1994)
(2007) survey cognitive dimension of IM) and capability control
mainly affects task enjoyment (the affective dimension
of IM).
44 Miao and Evans JPSSM Cross-sectional 175 (44.2%) Cognitive and affective orientations of IM and EM have Not specified Amabile et al (1994)
(2007) survey distinct impact on role conflict and role ambiguity and
subsequently, behavioral and outcome performance.
45 Jaramillo and JPSSM Cross-sectional 344 (60%) Supportive leadership has a direct positive effect on Path goal theory Oliver and Anderson
Mulki (2008) survey IM. IM is an important driver of salesperson effort. EM and social (1994) (IM and EM)
has a negative effect of effort. Female salespeople are cognitive theory
less influenced by EM than male salespeople.
46 Miao et al. JPSSM Cross-sectional 175 (44%) Cognitive orientations of IM and EM vary depending Expectancy theory Amabile et al (1994)
(2009) survey on salesperson’s career stage, whereas affective and career stage
orientations of IM and EM do not. theory

47 Fu et al. (2009) JPSSM Longitudinal study 143 (17.9% final The study indicates the importance of motivation hub Goal-setting theory Self-reported measures
response rate) (self-set goals and self-efficacy) in influencing of self-set goals and
salesperson’s effort and new product sales. self-efficacy
48 Mallin and IMM Cross-sectional 275 Salesperson customer orientation has a direct positive Cognitive Oliver and Anderson’s
Pullins (2009) survey impact on IM through feelings of fulfilment and evaluation (1994) (IM)
enjoyment of being instrumental to the customer. theory (SDT)
Behavior activity
control negatively
moderates the
relationship between
the proportion of
commission (in total
compensation) and
IM.
49 Roman and JAMS Dyad: cross- 210 salespeople (out of IM among others mediates the relationship between a Expectancy theory Spiro and Weitz (1990)
Iacobucci sectional survey 300) and 630 salesperson’s perception of the firm’s customer (IM)
(2010) with salespeople customers orientation and salesperson’s adaptive selling behavior.
plus telephone
interviews for
customers
50 Cadwallader JAMS Cross-sectional 328 (100%) The study incorporates three levels of motivation: global, SDT Guay, Vallerand, and
et al. (2010) survey contextual, and situational (Vallerand 1995, 1997). Blanchard (2000).
Global motivation positively impact on contextual
motivation regarding technology and work. Then, the
contextual motivation for both technology and work has
a positive impact on innovation implementation.
Employee feelings and beliefs have a significant impact
on situational motivation to implement service
innovation strategies.
51 McCarthy Byrne IMM Interviews and 262 (68.6%) Motivational dimensions of sales force forecasting Developed their Developed their own
et al. (2011) cross-sectional (satisfaction, seriousness and effort) are influenced by own (theory of (for satisfaction,
survey the five environmental signals: training, feedback, industrial sales seriousness and
knowledge of how the forecast is used, forecasting force effort)
computer program, and others’ level of seriousness. forecasting)
52 Levin et al. JPSSM Quasi-experiment 194 (68.5%) IM and EM have a positive impact whereas apathetic Not specified Davis et al (1992) (IM
(2012) motivation has a negative impact on the intention to use and EM). Vallerand
sales- and marketing-related technology. et al (1992) (apathetic
motivation)

27
28

53 Miao and Evans IJRM Cross-sectional 195 salesperson-sales The combination of capability and outcome-based control Expectancy theory IM and EM scale was
(2012) survey manager dyads (16.3- systems has a positive combined effect on IM and and cognitive borrowed from
19.2%) salesperson knowledge. The combination of outcome evaluation (Miao, Evans, and
and activity based control systems decrease IM but theory (SDT) Zou 2007), though
increase role clarity. IM diminishes the negative effect EM is only a control
of role ambiguity on performance. variable
54 Kemp et al. EJM Cross-sectional 154 (51.3%) Salesperson motivation is positively related to positive Not specified Badovick et al. (1992)
(2013) survey working environments and customer-oriented selling
and negatively related to emotional exhaustion. Also, the
relationship between manager support and salesperson
motivation was not significant. However, the experience
of positive emotions mediates the relationship between
managers’ support and salesperson motivation.
55 Schmitz (2013) JAMS Cross-sectional 55 usable Level 2 and The study found that the relationship between Social norm theory Sujan et al. 1994
survey 222 usable Level 1 salesperson’s motivation and their adoption of the and reputation
data records (77%) company’s product portfolio is positively moderated by theory
a strong team group norm for cross-selling.
56 Yidong and JBE Cross-sectional 302 (75.5%) IM mediates the relationship between the perceptions of Cognitive Zhang and Bartol (2010)
Xinxin (2013) survey ethical leadership on an individual and group level and evaluation
salespeople’s innovative work behavior. theory (SDT)
57 Michel et al. JPSSM Interviews and 72 for interviews and Salesperson-brand relationship and brand affect have a Consumer–brand Spiro and Weitz (1990)
(2015) cross-sectional 297 for survey positive effect on salesperson motivation to sell. relationship
survey theory
58 Tanner et al. JPSSM Cross-sectional 339 (97%) The effect of motivation for compensation/motivation for Expectancy theory Chonko, Tanner and
(2015) survey recognition on performance was non-significant. and social Weeks (1996)
However, motivation for recognition was found to have cognition theory
a direct positive effect on satisfaction with moderating
(weakening) effect of ethical climate.
59 Bande et al. JBIM Cross-sectional 145 (96%) IM mediates the positive relationship between servant Cognitive Cravens et al. (1993)
(2016) survey leadership and salesperson adaptively and proactivity. evaluation (IM)
Outcome-based control theory (SDT)
system strengthens
the positive impact of
servant leadership on
IM.
60 Hansen and JBR Cross-sectional 210 (30%) Apathetic motivation, IM and EM are distinct variables that Expectancy theory Levin et al (2012) (IM,
Levin (2016) survey can co-exist. and SDT EM and apathetic
motivation)

61 Hohenberg and JM Cross-sectional 471 (76.7%) from across In all cultures both behavior-based and outcome-based SDT Grant et al. (2011) (IM)
Homburg survey 38 countries steering instruments can increase salesperson’s
(2016) autonomous innovation-selling motivation and the
financial performance of innovations. Individualism
strengthens the positive relationship between variable
compensation and financial innovation performance
through IM, but the power distance and uncertainty
avoidance weaken this relationship Study findings offer
a strong support for SDT.
62 Sok, Sok, and De IMM Cross-sectional 239 (44%) “Can do” and “reasons to” motivations impact salesperson Regulatory mode Spence and Robbins
Luca (2016) survey ambidexterity. theory and SDT (1992) (“Reasons to”
motivations),
Kruglanski et al
(2000) (“Can do”
motivations)
63 Fu et al. (2017) JMTP Cross-sectional 136 (68%) IM and EM positively impact affective brand commitment Theory of planned Miao, Evans and Zou
survey which in turn has a positive impact on effort. behavior and the (2007) (IM and EM)
Though the relationship motivation,
of affective brand opportunity, and
commitment and ability theory
effort is significant
only when both IM
and self-efficacy are
high.
Non-significant
relationship between
EM and effort. EM
has a positive impact
on affective brand
commitment.
Note. IM D intrinsic motivation; EM D extrinsic motivation; SDT D self-determination theory; JPSSM D Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management; JM D Journal of Marketing; JAMS D Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science; IMM D Industrial Marketing Management; JMR D Journal of Marketing Research; JBR D Journal of Business Research; IJRM D International Journal of Research in
Marketing; JBIM D Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing; EJM D European Journal of Marketing; JAP D Journal of Applied Psychology; JBE D Journal of Business Ethics; JMTP D Journal of Mar-
keting Theory and Practice; P&M D Psychology and Marketing.
29
Copyright of Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management is the property of Taylor &
Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
View publication stats

Intrinsic & Extrinsic Factors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intrinsic & Extrinsic Factors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intrinsic & Extrinsic Factors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

(Re) deﬁning salesperson motivation: current status, main challenges, and

Article in Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management · January 2018

Rushana Khusainova Ad de Jong

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nick Lee John M Rudd

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Decision Science View project

ESRC funded Impact Project (2020-2021) View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

*Corresponding author. Email: r.khusainova@aston.ac.uk

Ó 2018 Pi Sigma Epsilon National Educational Foundation

Figure 2. Key theories used.

Table 1. Summary of the key motivational measures used.

Literature stream How motivation is measured Examples

Figure 3. Key methodologies.

Sample size and Summary on motivation

significantly impact EM. Only job importance and

(Continued on next page)

(Continued on next page)

(Continued on next page)

satisfaction. Anderson (1994) and

(Continued on next page)

(Continued on next page)

(Continued on next page)

Sample size and Summary on motivation

(Continued on next page)

View publication stats

You might also like