a socialization illustration

Applying interactional psychology to salesforce management: a socialization illustration D. Todd Donavan Xiang Fang Neeli Bendapudi and Surendra N. Singh The authors D. Todd Donavan is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Xiang Fang is an Assistant Professor at Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Neeli Bendapudi is Associate Professor of Marketing at Fisher College of Business, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Surendra N. Singh is Professor of Marketing in at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Keywords Psychology, Sales force, Socialization, Sales management

Abstract Modern interactionism asserts that both the P (person) and the E (environment or situation) should be considered simultaneously in predicting attitudes and behaviors. In this paper, we apply the interactionist view to salesforce research. Specifically, we use salesforce socialization as an example to illustrate how interactionist concepts from psychology can be effectively applied in salesforce research. The role of qualitative research in this context is explored.

Electronic access The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-2752.htm

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal Volume 7 · Number 2 · 2004 · pp. 139-152 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 1352-2752 DOI 10.1108/13522750410530048

Introduction Are person variables (e.g. individual values, motives, abilities, personality dispositions, and personal attributes) a better determiner of how a salesperson performs in his or her job than situational characteristics (e.g. work group, technology, organizational structure and environment)? Some have argued in favor of situational variables, “. . . from a manager’s point of view, whom one recruits is important, but probably not as important as what one does with the recruits and to them after they have been hired” (Churchill et al., 1985, p. 111). Others contend that person variables are equally relevant, “. . . who one recruits” may have more impact than “what one does with the recruits after they are hired” (Dubinsky et al., 1986, pp. 201-2). The person-situation debate is an ancient one and in its most generic form it relates to the nature versus nurture question and goes back over 2000 years (Mitchell and James, 1989). More recently, both psychologists and organization behaviorists have grappled with this question and the general consensus in both disciplines seems to be an interactionist compromise, which asserts that the predictive power of our models should increase provided they consider both the P (person) and E (environment or situation) simultaneously (Caldwell and O’Reilly, 1990). Mischel’s (1977a, p. 246) argued that the “. . . complex human behavior tends to be influenced by many determinants and reflects the almost inseparable and continuous interaction of a host of variables both in the person and in the situation”. In this paper we argue that behavior of a salesforce is no exception, and that to gain a fuller understanding of salespeople’s behavior, there is no alternative but to follow the interactionist model and systematically include both person and situation variables. We begin this paper with a brief statement of why an interactionist perspective in salesforce studies is desirable. Next, a description of the salient features of the modern interactionism is presented. This is followed by an illustration of how interactionism can be applied to the sales research and the role qualitative research is expected to play in this process. The authors gratefully acknowledge the insightful comments from Gilbert A. Churchill Jr, Alan Dubinsky and Jagdip Singh on an earlier draft of this paper. The authors’ names are in random order; all have contributed equally to this paper.

139

Applying interactional psychology to salesforce management

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal

D. Todd Donavan, Xiang Fang, Neeli Bendapudi and Surendra N. Singh

Volume 7 · Number 2 · 2004 · 139-152

Need for an interactionist perspective In salesforce research, there are several studies where both person and situation variables are systematically used to explain variance in outcome variables (e.g. Bagozzi, 1978, 1980; Brown et al., 1998; Sujan et al., 1994; Weitz et al., 1986). However, a large number of studies spanning a gamut of topics have seemingly taken a rather ad hoc approach to independent variable selection, with many placing an excessive emphasis on the situation side of the equation (i.e. emphasizing group, structure, environment, and technology). Consider the studies of salesforce turnover. While salesforce turnover continues to be a substantial and costly problem for the industry, the number of turnover studies in sales is woefully small. Lucas et al. (1987) in their comprehensive review uncovered only six empirical studies dealing with salesforce turnover. Since then, a few more studies have appeared on this topic (e.g. Jolson et al., 1987; MacKenzie et al., 1998; Wotruba and Tyagi, 1991). However, as a rule, these studies have included only a limited number of person variables in their turnover models. For example, out of 21 variables, identified in Cotton and Tuttle’s (1986) meta-analysis as strong to moderate turnover of correlates (based on the reliability and stability of their correlations with turnover), some have not been included in any sales turnover study (e.g. biographical information) while others have been included in no more than one study (e.g. inclusion of the role clarity, met expectations, and gender in Jolson et al. (1987) and met expectations in Wotruba and Tyagi (1991)). Not surprisingly, results of these studies are often inconsistent. To wit, in discussing the literature on the relationship between turnover and tenure, Lucas et al. (1987) observed that the role of tenure in the turnover process was unclear with their tally showing seven instances of no relationship and five instances showing a negative relationship between tenure and turnover. Similarly, the relationship between turnover and education too was not clear with five studies showing a positive relationship, five no relationship, and one a negative relationship. From an interactionist viewpoint, none of the person or situation variables may be consistently related to turnover in isolation as their effects may be confounded with other variables. For example, tenure could be correlated to and interact with an employee’s career stages and organizational commitment. Similarly, the effect of education on turnover may be moderated by the employment conditions prevailing at the time of study as well as the performance of the individual. Even for those

variables, such as age, that do show a consistent (negative) relationship with turnover, an interactionist characterization is needed because such variables tend to be related to other personal and situational variables (Jolson et al., 1987). Unfortunately, turnover is not the only area suffering from this ad hocism in variable selection. Witness what Cron et al. (1988, p. 79), based on their extensive literature review, have to say about the research on salesforce motivation: This summary of previous research reveals first, the preponderance of motivational relationships examined are with task and organizational characteristics. This emphasis is somewhat surprising given that one of the primary tasks of field sales managers is to recognize the individualized needs, wants and desires of salespeople (Hughes and Singler, 1983). Second, research on individual characteristics lack the systematic and holistic orientation (Bagozzi, 1984) of research on task and organizational characteristics.

As the above quotation implies, there is a preponderance of situational variables and a surprising lack of person variables in explaining salesforce motivation. By failing to include person variables, researchers are also failing to consider the effect that people have on situations[1].

Salient features of modern interactionism We have already alluded to the first two features of interactionism. Behavior is a function of dynamic interaction between the person and the situation and both P and E influence each other. The third and fourth features refer to the conceptualization of individual and situational characteristics respectively. The person side of the equation includes personal attributes (e.g. age) as well as various psychological characteristics such as needs, values, attitudes, and personalities. The situation aspects include the psychological meaning and behavior potential of situations for the individual. Based on theories in social learning and cognition, Mischel (1973) has created five categories of psychological person variables. The first variable, construction competencies, refers to what subjects know and can do. These competencies are related to mental ability, maturity, competence, ego development, socialintellectual achievements, and skills. The second person variable (encoding strategies and personal construct) relates to how an individual categorizes events and himself. This variable has an impact on the kind of information an individual attends to and the characteristic ways in which (s)he processes it. Expectancies (expected outcomes)

140




Volume 7 · Number 2 · 2004 · 139-152

associated with actions in particular situations are the third person variable. The values of the expected outcomes are the fourth person variables. Finally, the fifth person variable is self-regulatory systems and plans which concerns how people set performance goals for themselves and react with self-criticism or praise/satisfaction in accordance with how they achieve these goals. Some commonly used person variables in sales research are age, gender, education, job tenure, marital status, family size, generalized and taskspecific self-esteem, other-directedness, verbal intelligence, aptitude, vocational maturity, achievement motivation, and self-perceived performance. Many of these can be categorized using Mischel’s scheme. For example, generalized self-esteem and other-directedness fall under the “encoding strategies and personal construct”. Similarly, verbal intelligence, aptitude, and vocational maturity relate to construction competencies whereas achievement motivation and self-perceived performance could be grouped under self-regulatory systems and plans. Generally speaking, there are at least two ways to characterize a situation. A situation can be viewed in light of its physical characteristics “that are in some way coercive, facilitative, or constraining on the individual, his or her performance, or some other physical events related to the individual” (Bagozzi, 1978, p. 522). Alternatively, a situation can be viewed in terms of perceived (psychological) environment (Pervin, 1968). The most common way to characterize situations in sales (and organization behavior) literature is the former and often situations are viewed as task characteristics[2]. However, many sales studies have also measured perceived situations by measuring organizational climate or perceived work environment (Brown et al., 1998; Cron and Slocum, 1986).

The three critical issues in the P-E fit research are: which person variables; which environmental variables; and which process variables are of importance to explain the phenomenon under investigation (Osipow, 1987). One possibility is to follow an atheoretical approach and simply develop a laundry list of all person and environmental variables that may conceivably have an effect on the phenomenon being investigated. A preferable approach would be to select variables based on the theory or model as Kenrick and Dantchick (1983, p. 300) suggest, “. . . the choice of which variables to attend to an empirical program of research must necessarily follow rather than precede theoretical development”. Similar sentiments are also expressed by Holland (1987) who prescribes a “general formula for successful new research” on P-E fit. Holland suggests starting with a theoretical framework, and since no theoretical framework is comprehensive enough, he suggests identification of major (most potent) personal and environmental variables also. He further recommends looking outside ones subdiscipline to the related disciplines for ideas in planning these studies. This “. . . will remind investigators what to worry about, what has been left out, and what has been accomplished” (Holland, 1987, p. 339). When one is using a theoretical framework or model, the selection of P-E variables to a large extent, depends on the chosen theory or the model (Pervin, 1987). For example, if one were to use Moos’s (1987) formulations of P-E fit, then the environmental variables relating to four important domains physical factors, organizational structure and policies, suprapersonal factors, and social climate must be considered. While using a theoretical model can help in selection of P and E variables, it does not solve the problem completely because it is highly unlikely that a theory would be comprehensive enough to include all relevant P-E variables. Then how does one select other potent P-E variables which are not part of a theoretical structure? Osipow (1987) argues that the identification of P-E variables is a difficult iterative process that probably begins with the environment and then moves on to the individual. Selection of person variables beyond those specified in the given theoretical model is less difficult. Both Bem (1983) and Kenrick and Dantchick (1983), for instance, suggest that those person variables be included that are genotypically rooted in our biology as much as possible (e.g. sense of well-being, self-awareness), and those be excluded that are culturally hybrid, e.g. masculinity, honesty. But how does one go about selecting the environmental variables?

Applying interactionist ideas to salesforce research One way to apply interactionist ideas to salesforce research would be to follow the guidelines from the person-environment or P-E research paradigm which is firmly grounded in the interactionist thought (Muchinsky and Monahan, 1987). In P-E fit concept, the basic goal is to produce a good fit or congruence between the individual and his or her work environment, so that individual employees could fulfill their career and personal goals while employers may retain loyal and committed employees to fulfill the current and potential job demands (Caplan, 1987a).

141




Volume 7 · Number 2 · 2004 · 139-152

One way to tap into additional environmental variables is to understand the company’s organizational culture at all three levels at which it manifests itself: observable artifacts; values; and basic underlying assumptions (Schein, 1990). Observable artifacts includes everything from a company’s mission statement to its dress code. Values include both espoused (what managers say the values are) as well as enacted values (what employees perceive the values to be), underlying assumptions “determine perceptions through processes, feelings and behavior” (Schein, 1990, p. 112). This is where qualitative research can make its biggest contribution, for culture cannot adequately be measured by survey research alone. Schein (1990) recommends four additional qualitative methods for this purpose: analytical descriptive, e.g. measuring and analyzing organizational stories, rituals; ethnography; historical approach, i.e. analyzing an organization’s history; and clinical descriptive, where outside consultants observe, record, and analyze the organizational phenomenon. Such qualitative approaches are likely to reveal significant situational variables that may be relevant for socialization process.

A brief account of socialization research Much of socialization research can be grouped into two classes based on its focus: socialization stages or socialization process. The stage models (e.g. Buchanan, 1974; Dubinsky et al., 1986; Feldman, 1976; Porter et al., 1975; Schein, 1983; Van Maanen, 1976) focus on the stages that the newcomers go through on their way to becoming insiders. Organizational socialization begins with the “anticipatory socialization”, where the newcomers anticipate about their experiences in the organization they are about to join. Encounter stage begins when the newcomers join the organization. Experiences at this point are critical in forming the individual’s long-term orientation to the organization. The socialization process ends when the newcomer becomes an insider. Louis (1980) contends that there are two aspects of socialization: role related learning (involving knowledge base, strategy, and mission) and learning or organizational culture. Whereas both newcomers and organizations understand the need for role learning, it is not so for learning the organizational culture. During the socialization, newcomers do learn about the organization’s cultural norms, values, and beliefs, yet, little is known about the processes by which such learning takes place. To compound the difficulty, not only does the organizational climate vary from organization to organization, in most large and complex organizations, sub-units too may have different sub-cultures (Weitz et al., 1986). Furthermore, since organizational norms and values are “collectively shared and interactively emergent they are enacted rather than spoken” (Louis, 1980, p. 232), there is no one simple and effective method of communicating these values to the newcomers. Still, it is pivotal for newcomers to learn organizational norms. For example, in the sales literature, it has been shown that the intrinsic reward orientations and certain types of organizational cultures are related (Sujan, 1986; Tyagi, 1982). Therefore, it is pivotal to use qualitative tools to discover, catalog and understand organizational culture and subcultures and communicate it to the newcomers via various socialization devices. Whereas the stage models focus on the stages that newcomers go through on their way to becoming insiders, the process models “attempt to account for the “hows and whys” of the changes that newcomers experience in their progression from one stage to another” (Reichers, 1987, p. 280). One of the critical flaws in the stage orientation is that it focuses on the “changing to” process of entering new situations and ignores “changing from” process of unlearning the old situations. In reality, entering into an organization

Interactionist view of salesforce socialization: an illustration Socialization is defined as “the process by which an individual acquires the social knowledge and skills necessary to assume an organizational role” (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979, p. 211). There are two primary reasons why we selected salesforce socialization for an illustration: (1) Socialization and adjustment to work have been shown to affect such long-range outcomes as commitment, satisfaction, and performance (Reichers, 1987). Successful socialization should translate into lower turnover rates which in turn means lower recruitment and training costs. These costs are substantial given that the bulk of turnover among salesforce occurs within the first two years of hiring and that for at least some top firms, the training investment for an industrial salesperson is over $75,000 (Lupton et al., 1999). (2) Socialization is a significant but sparsely researched topic in sales management. (We were able to find only three studies (Dubinsky et al., 1986; Grant and Bush, 1996; Kennedy and Lawton, 1992) dealing with salesforce socialization.) Therefore, there are numerous unanswered questions about salesforce socialization, many of which may be answered based on our illustration.

142




Volume 7 · Number 2 · 2004 · 139-152

involves both learning of new roles/realities and letting go of old ones (Louis, 1980). Schein (1971), Louis (1980) and Reichers (1987) have provided process-oriented explanations of socialization. Schein, for example, argues that newcomers, when first entering an organization go through a destructive or unfreezing phase due to reality shock and upending experiences (embarrassment, failure). In this phase, the organization attempts to detach the individual from his/her former values which are not worthwhile from the organization’s viewpoint. Newcomers change aspects of their social selves to conform to the norms of the new settings. These changed aspects are refrozen through organizational reinforcement or other cues indicating acceptance. Louis (1980), on the other hand, contends that surprise, contrast, and change are key normal components of entry experience. Newcomers become socialized by making sense of these entry experiences through access to explanatory information provided by the organization. While both Louis’s and Schein’s models are excellent process-oriented models, none explicitly specifies which person variables, interacting with which situation variables will produce what socialization results. Reichers (1987), though, is more explicit in this regard and we have selected his model for our illustration.

ambiguity, and need for affiliation. People with high field dependence rely upon the context in which the behavior occurs. They are motivated to initiate interactions and they have the interpersonal skills to do so. Thus, people with high field dependence will be expected to be more proactive in approaching significant others in the workplace to secure information about the workplace in general and their (recruits’) role in it in particular. A second individual difference variable is tolerance for ambiguity (Budner, 1962). An individual with low tolerance for ambiguity would be prone to jump to premature, inaccurate conclusions in a novel, complex and seemingly contradictory situation such as many entry level situations. Thus, intolerance for ambiguity inhibits the socialization process. Need for affiliation (McClelland, 1961) or relatedness needs (Alderfer, 1969) is the third individual difference variable. Newcomers with high unmet relatedness needs would tend to seek out interactions at work which help accelerate the socialization process. Reichers (1987) argues that even most proactive newcomers may be inhibited in their attempts at interactions by an unresponsive work setting. Hence, their (incumbents) proaction is equally important in socialization. The same individual difference variables which determine the proaction tendencies of newcomers will also be relevant variables for gauging the insiders’ proaction aptitude. Certain other aspects of the setting which may enhance interactions are interdependent task technology, orientation programs, and training programs. For instance, if the technological requirements of the job demand that a newcomer and an insider interact, the socialization rate should increase. High interaction frequency means quicker establishment of situational identity, adjustment to work group’s norms and values and so on. This should in turn hasten the socialization process in general and influence satisfaction, commitment, and other socialization outcome variables. Encounter phase of socialization is considered complete when “anxiety resulting from a lack of situational identity is reduced”, and when “the meanings that newcomers attach to aspects of organizational life are similar to the meanings that insiders express” (Reichers, 1987, p. 286).

Reichers’s model of socialization Reichers contends that newcomer socialization process involves symbolic interactions: “The process of verbal and social interaction through which meaning and identity arise . . . and through which newcomers come to understand organizational realities and establish situational identities” (Reichers, 1987, p. 278). When symbolic interactions occur more frequently, the rate of socialization increases. Proaction is the key to symbolic interaction. Individuals differ in their degree of proaction, i.e. in asking questions, stopping by other people’s offices or work areas to talk, initiating social opportunities such as lunch engagements, asking for feedback, and participating in discretionary social activities (Reichers, 1987, p. 281). Socialization rate is highest when both newcomer and insider proaction is high; it is slowest when newcomer and insider proaction is low, and moderate when newcomer proaction is high (low) and insider proaction is low (high). The levels of proaction depend on various individual and situational factors. Reichers’s model is shown in Figure 1. The individual difference variables affecting proaction are field dependence, tolerance for

Identifying additional promising personsituation variables not in the selected models The Reicher’s theoretical model discussed above identifies several person variables (e.g. field dependence, tolerance for ambiguity, and need for affiliation) and situation variables (e.g.

143




Volume 7 · Number 2 · 2004 · 139-152

Figure 1 Reichers’s interactionist model of newcomer socialization

interdependent task technology, orientation programs, and training programs). Obviously, these are not the only variables affecting socialization. In order to identify other powerful variables, we primarily concentrated on the work done in the socialization area itself, but going beyond the Reichers’s (1987) model which we used as our initial theoretical base.

(1) custodianship, where status quo role is adopted; (2) content innovation, where status-quo mission of the role is adopted, but the strategy for implementing the role is changed by the newcomer; and (3) role innovation, the newcomer changes the basic mission or end accomplished by the role[3].

Additional situational variables On the situational side, we identified one potential variable in the structure of the socialization setting (Hartline and Ferrel, 1993; Van Maanen and Schein, 1979). Van Maanen and Schein (1979) and Jones (1986), have considered the effect of six socialization tactics (individual vs collective; serial vs disjunctive; formal vs informal; sequential vs random; fixed vs variable; and investiture vs divestiture) on the role orientation the manner in which individuals perform their roles and adjust to task requirements (Jones, 1986). For each tactic, they describe the prototypical cases and hypothesize three types of recruit response effects:

All six tactics are summarized in the Appendix. Jones has grouped individual, informal, random, variable, disjunctive, and divestiture as individualized socialization tactics which are expected to produce innovative role orientations. Collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial, and investiture on the other hand are characterized as institutionalized socialization tactics which are likely to produce custodial role orientations.

Additional person variables On the person side, from the literature we identified the following potential variables: self

144




Volume 7 · Number 2 · 2004 · 139-152

efficacy, uncertainty orientation, propensity to become committed, and gender as relevant in salesforce socialization. Self-efficacy From Jones (1986) we selected self-efficacy as a variable affecting socialization. Jones defined selfefficacy “in terms of people’s expectations that they can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcome”, and contended that since the “self-efficacy influences people’s expectations about their abilities to perform successfully in new situations” (Jones, 1986, pp. 267-8), it has a direct impact on the initial socialization. Uncertainty orientation Uncertainty orientation is an individual difference variable that we chose from Sorrentino et al.”s (1988) hot-to-cold model of personality development. Since this variable affects the way one adapts to new situations, it should have a significant effect on the socialization process. Uncertainty-oriented individuals are those who have been rewarded for autonomous exploratory behavior and as a result have developed schemes (for various situations) which permit resolution of uncertainty about self and environment. When placed in uncertain situations, they are “affectively charged to resolve this uncertainty”. The opposite is true for certainty-oriented persons who have not been not rewarded for autonomous, exploratory behavior but might have even been punished for it. Thus, these people tend to develop schemes for safe and familiar situations avoiding uncertainty. Such individuals are “charged by situations involving certainty about self and the environment”. Propensity to become committed Most models of socialization (including stage models) recognize the importance of what individuals bring with them into an organizational setting. For example, Porter et al. (1975), Feldman (1976), and Dubinsky et al. (1986) all place heavy emphasis on the anticipatory socialization (e.g. forming expectations about jobs, transmitting, receiving and evaluating information with prospective employees, and making decisions about employment). The ways in which individuals differ in their anticipatory socialization can therefore be an important moderator to socialization influences. Our literature search uncovered one individual difference variable that encompasses anticipatory socialization. This variable is called propensity to become committed (henceforth referred to as PTBC). PTBC is “conceptualized as a constellation of personal characteristics,

expectations about the job, and job choice experiences” (Mowday and Lee, 1986, p. 193). Mowday and Lee (1986), in a longitudinal study found that the newcomers differed in PTBC which affected their initial (first day) commitment, which in turn affected subsequent commitment. The initial commitment was positively related to subsequent organizational commitment indicating that those who entered with higher commitment tended to remain higher in commitment at a later time relative to others. Moreover, commitment was significantly (negatively) related to turnover. Bio-data characteristics Sager (1991) emphasizes the importance of biodata characteristics in recruitment and retention of committed salespeople. Past studies in sales have identified several personal factors such as age, gender, height, weight, race, appearance, education, marital status, number of dependents, and club membership (Churchill et al., 1985). of these variables, gender appears to be potentially a significant variable. As Dubinsky et al. (1986) observed, gender plays an important role in initiation to a group. Studies such as Swan et al. (1978) and Busch and Bush (1978) have demonstrated that saleswomen have lower role clarity, are more dissatisfied with the supervision and receive less valuable performance feedback from their supervisors (Fraker, 1984). Busch and Bush (1978) contend that reasons for this may be a lack of interaction between salesmen and saleswomen[4]. Note that while we have relied on the extant literature to identify additional person and situational variables, a practicing manager would very well supplement/supplant these based on his/her qualitative observations. Developing (interactionist) predictions using additional variables So far we have chosen model of socialization and identified one additional situational variable structure of the socialization setting and four additional person variables self-efficacy, uncertainty orientation, propensity to become committed, and gender as relevant in socialization. By incorporating these variables in the Reichers’s model, we can develop some predictions based on the interaction of these variables with those that already exist in the model. Organizations can improve the effectiveness of socialization process by tailoring the socialization devices to the individual variations. For instance, newcomers with low self-efficacy and uncertainty orientation would experience a high degree of ambiguity and surprise and would be less equipped to deal with it based on their personal characteristics. Such newcomers should not be

145




Volume 7 · Number 2 · 2004 · 139-152

subjected to individualized socialization devices such as random, variable, disjunctive and divestitural. Perhaps, it would be best to use institutional socialization devices such as collective and serial training to reduce ambiguity and facilitate sense making. Newcomers with high levels of self-efficacy would have developed the knowledge and strategies to deal with uncertain situations. They are likely to take a more proactive stance towards their role performance to demonstrate their abilities. Such individuals will develop their own definitions of situations and they will be less influenced by socialization tactics used by the organization. For example, institutional socialization devices (e.g. collective, formal etc.) are less likely to result in custodial role orientations for the high self-efficacy newcomers than for the low self-efficacy ones (Jones, 1986). Using the same logic, it is expected that the individuals with uncertainty orientation will be least affected by the institutionalized socialization tactics. In contrast, those with certainty orientation should be highly affected by such devices and are likely to develop custodial role orientation. The newcomers with high PTBC can be subjected to either institutional or individual socialization devices based on their level of selfefficacy and certainty orientation. The critical question is, which socialization tactics should be used on those with low PTBC? Jones (1986) initially proposed that collective and formal training may reduce anxiety and increase commitment among such individuals. However, he later reasoned that such devices may also increase the psychological distance between the newcomer and the insiders and, therefore, may result in lower commitment. Allen and Meyer (1990) found that indeed collective and formal devices were slightly negatively correlated with the organizational commitment. They also found that investiture was significantly (and positively) related to the organizational commitment. Other socialization devices did not influence commitment though. Thus, for low PTBC newcomers, investiture appears to be a suitable socialization device. Other devices (e.g. fixed, sequential, etc.), which did not affect commitment could also be used based on a newcomer’s selfefficacy/uncertainty orientation. “Gender” is our last moderator variable. It is amazing that it has not been considered in any of the socialization models explicitly, yet it is a variable that has a profound effect on socialization. As an example, Gable and Reed (1987) identify one reason why women don’t move rapidly into the selling profession is the lack of organizational

power sharing because the mentoring system in business has typically excluded women from this process. For example, only 8 percent of women, in a 1984 survey of the electronics industry, found mentors to guide them. One study by the Catalyst, a New York women’s research and advocacy group, found that women lack access to careerboosting mentors and networks making it hard for women to gain access to power sharing mechanism. A second reason is tokenism (i.e. the fact that many institutions have a very small number of women in professional jobs). This tokenism puts tremendous burden on the tokens, reducing their effectiveness, and hence upward movement (Somers et al., 1981; cf Gable and Reed, 1987). Female salespersons are less satisfied with the closeness of supervision and with their co-workers (Swan et al., 1978). One saleswoman mentioned that older salesmen often resented saleswomen (Skolnik, 1985; cf Gable and Reed, 1987). Many male sales managers simply don’t feel comfortable in criticizing saleswomen (Fraker, 1984) leaving saleswomen without valuable performance feedback. Because of these factors, successful socialization of saleswomen is especially difficult. Female newcomers, no matter how proactive, may be spurned by insiders reducing the interaction frequency and retarding the socialization process. Thus, a newcomer female salesperson in a predominantly male salesforce needs to be socialized with different devices than a male salesperson. For instance, using informal socialization may help her become part of the work group and increase her interaction with the insiders. A sequential training scheme where the learning stages are known, could be used to reduce anxiety. With the serial socialization, the trainee will receive valuable insights from an insider mentor and this could help her in networking and bringing down communications barriers. To promote positive social experiences investiture should be used. Of course, gender is only one of a constellation of personal variables. Other personal variables should also be considered in selecting socialization devices for saleswomen (as well as men). For example, if a new saleswoman happens to have a low perceived job-related self-confidence, then socialization devices should be chosen with this in mind. Finally, the choice of socialization device will also depend on the nature of role orientation the organization wishes to promote. To illustrate, it may be argued that for those sales roles that are routine and require little challenge (e.g. order taking sales jobs), custodianship may be the most desirable role orientation. More challenging sales jobs (e.g. missionary selling or manufacturers”

146




Volume 7 · Number 2 · 2004 · 139-152

agents), on the other hand, may require tactics suitable to induce content innovation and role innovation respectively. Alternately, in situations where role innovation may be undesirable (such as when a manufacturer’s agent begins to emphasize only high margin product items from the product line at the expense of low margin products that may be essential for the long-term success of the product line), it would be prudent to avoid those socialization tactics that lead to such role innovations[5].

importantly, socialization will also differ from one type of sales job to another type due to differences in situational variables. Moreover, to the extent the overall organizational culture differs from the marketing and sales subcultures, the socialization too will be different (even though the fundamental processes of change, surprise, and sense making remain the same). Of course, in answering this question, one must view the interaction of individual and organizational variables in light of individual self-selection and organizational people processing devices. Indeed, Schneider (1983a, p. 21) goes a step further and argues that for the sake of generalizability, we must “entertain the idea that different organizations and/or roles will, themselves, have different kinds of people processing devices as a function of the kind of people who occupy those organizations and/or roles”. This view implies that the differences in the socialization between sales people and other employees in general are not only due to the individual differences in newcomers selected for these roles but also due to the differences in the people processing devices used in sales versus the organizational units at large. These devices, in turn, are a function of the insiders occupying various roles within each subunit that is a function of the different subcultures, within those units. A third question which Dubinsky et al. (1986) pose is: Does the way a person views the sales job in relation to his/her total career pattern affect the socialization process? Again the answer is, yes. If a newcomer views his/her sales job as temporary, (s)he should have lower PTBC, perhaps lower task specific self-esteem (and hence lower self-efficacy) which would inhibit socialization, especially if socialization devices suitable for these conditions are not used. A fourth question is, do length and type of sales training affect initiation to the task and the resolution of conflicting demands at work? We have already discussed the effect of specific organizational socialization devices earlier. At this point, we would like to summarize Louis’s (1980) general conclusions on this issue. She observes that those socialization devices that facilitate sense making and hence help learn organizational culture and setting specific interpretation scheme would be more potent. Specific, relevant, and timely information provided “in-response” to newcomer needs will be more effective than the general information provided to the entire batch of newcomers “in-advance”. Information coming from “old timers” on an informal basis will be more helpful. Additionally, those organizations that encourage “sink or swim”, learn-on-yourown, and discourage information sharing should

Implications of socialization illustration for sales management What have we gained by taking an interactionist view of salesforce socialization and by incorporating additional person-situation variables in an existing model? The best way to gauge the worth of our effort is to ask if we have answered some critical unanswered questions about salesforce socialization. By making an effort to synthesize an existing interactionist model with some additional person-situation variables, we have indeed answered a number of unanswered questions about salesforce socialization as raised in an empirical socialization study in sales (Dubinsky et al., 1986). Consider first the question of how much time is required for assimilation into a sales job? The answer is, there is no one fixed time period for socialization. It will vary based on individual and insider proactiveness (which in turn depend on such characteristics as field dependence, tolerance for ambiguity, and need for affiliation), other personal characteristics such as gender of the newcomer, prior sales experience etc., and situational factors (e.g. nature of the insiders, type of training devices used and so on). For example, other things being equal, a newcomer fresh from college would require a longer socialization period compared to the one who has had sales experience in the same industry. The latter is likely to face fewer job related surprises compared to the former. Thus, it is obvious that the socialization time will vary from recruit to recruit. (One will know that the encounter stage of socialization is over when anxiety among the newcomers due to lack of situational identity is reduced and when the newcomers and insiders attach the same meanings to various aspects of organizational life.) Consider the second question raised by Dubinsky et al. (1986), is socialization into selling occupation different from socialization into an organization? If so, how? The answer is again “yes” because the nature of the change and surprises experienced will be different in sales jobs compared to other jobs in the organization leading to differences in the socialization. More

147




Volume 7 · Number 2 · 2004 · 139-152

have high newcomer turnover compared to those that encourage informal contacts and information sharing through buddy-systems where insiders train and serve as guides to newcomers. In this context, it is important to recognize that in our interactionist construction, socialization devices should not always be considered as given, rather socialization device should be tailored to the specific needs of the individual within the constraints of organizational resources and goals. As mentioned above, in some sales organizations, socialization of female salespersons may require different socialization means than the ones used for the male salespersons. In other words, both P and E influence each other. Finally, Dubinsky et al.’s (1986) last question of how can congruence (between individual and organization) be measured more effectively is a broad question that can be answered with reference to Schneider (1983b), who argues that the organizations can be typed just as individuals can by typed (Holland, 1973) and that certain types of organizations would be more suitable for certain types of individuals. Holland groups occupations into six major categories: intellectual, artistic, social, enterprising, conventional, and realistic. Schneider (1983b) argues that these labels could also be used to categorize the goals of organizations. For instance, YMCAs and mental hospitals have social goals; insurance companies and stock brokerages have enterprising goals; and orchestras and theaters have artistic goals. Schneider (1987) proposes that through recruitment and selection procedures organizations end up selecting people who share many common personal characteristics although they may not share common competencies. “In other words, accountants in YMCAs should share many personal attributes with YMCA social workers, while they share only some very specific competencies with accountants in banks” (Schneider, 1987, p. 444). This means that one way to anticipate the P-E fit is to correlate the type of organization with the aptitude profile of the individual. Not all sales jobs are alike though. An individual, even though interested in selling as a profession, may feel more at ease in retail selling than in missionary selling. The task of marketing research is to come up with measurement tools that can adequately represent the dynamic organizational and individual profiles for a suitable match between the two on an ongoing basis. While sales literature is replete with methods for developing individual sales person profile, little is available on profiling the organization. Quantitative tools, such as, Caldwell and O’Reilly’s (1990) and O’Reilly et al.’s (1991) profile matching process to assess person-job fits

can be useful in measuring P-E fit in sales situations too. However, equally important are qualitative methods. Various qualitative methods have their own strengths and weaknesses that a sales manager needs to keep in mind, though. Schein (1990, pp. 110-11) offers a cogent treatment of these. Analytical descriptive, for instance, when aggregated provides a sound surrogate for an organization’s culture, but “it fractionates a concept whose primary theoretical utility is in drawing attention to the holistic aspect of group and organizational phenomenon” (Schein, 1990). Ethnography requires studying a large number of cases in-depth to get a sense of organizational culture, and therefore, tends to be time consuming and expensive. Historical methods also suffer from the same weaknesses, but Schein contends that these are offset by the rich insights gained by the historical and longitudinal analyses. Clinical descriptive, by bringing the perspectives of the top management “where elements of the culture are created and changed by founders, leaders and top managers”, supplements and balances the data obtained from the other methods; however, it lacks the breath of ethnography. Thus, using a combination of qualitative methods seems most appropriate. Role of qualitative research Our discussion of socialization thus far has assumed a nomothetic orientation – an orientation in search of generalizations. However socialization process is idiographic; it pertains to the individual case (Allport, 1962). This creates the possibility of what Lincoln and Guba (1985, pp. 116-17) characterize as entrapment in the nomotheticidiographic dilemma: The essential dilemma is simply this: Generalizations are nomothetic in nature, that is lawlike, but in order to use them – for purposes of prediction or control, say – the generalizations must be applied to particulars. And it is precisely at that point that their probabilistic, relative nature comes into sharpest focus . . . Generalizations . . . are always inductively underdetermined, and they are always temporally and contextually relative.

A sales manager is concerned about socializing individual sales persons, which means that he/she need to find out about the specific socialization needs of the individuals and design interventions for a satisfactory socialization outcome. In this process, while a manager ought to be guided by the nomothetic rules, his/her focus, nonetheless, remains on the individual needs. It is here that the qualitative techniques such as interviewing and observation can play a pivotal role. Numerous methods of interviewing, for instance, are available for this purpose, including structured and non-

148




Volume 7 · Number 2 · 2004 · 139-152

structured interviews, rapport interviews, asymmetrical-trust interviews, depth interview and phenomenal interviews (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Unlike interviews, which allow gathering information about past, present and future, observations are squarely focused on here and now experience. Observations are a great tool to discover motives, beliefs, interests and so on. Note that our suggestion to use qualitative techniques should not be constructed a recommendation to avoid quantitative tools. The dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative methods is an oversimplified one (Morgan and Smircich, 1980); we, like Runyan (1983), therefore, believe in using both methods.

transactional theory and Hersey and Blanchard’s (1982) situationist theory could provide better conceptualization and prediction of leadership behavior if they include relevant data on the attributes of the leader. While adopting and explicit interactionist perspective would be both theoretically and practically rewarding, it would not be without problems. Human behavior is dynamic and a result of both person and situation. To study such dynamic behavior (with a view to achieve good P-E fit), we need dynamic models and transactional view of interactions. Currently, we do not have such models available in sales. However, work done in other areas may begin to lead us to such models. One promising model of dynamic interaction is proposed by Vondracek et al. (1986). This model uses the concept of contextual affordance which holds that environments afford or furnish something to the individual so long as the individual can perceive “it” as such (Vondracek, 1987). Vondracek (1987) points out that these affordances are ecologically real and not mere mental representations of the environment. They are a fact of environment as well as behavior. Given the changing nature of both P and E over time, obtaining a long-term P-E fit on the variables of interest would require monitoring and initiating adjustments in P or E or both. Such monitoring, in addition to quantitative tools, will also as well as requires qualitative measures. In-depth interviews, observations, analytical descriptives, ethnography, historical approach, and clinical descriptives are particularly well suited in this regard.

Conclusion In this paper, we have presented the promises of an interactionist view of sales management. We specifically explored the issues concerning salesforce socialization through an interactionist perspective. Even this limited exercise resulted in valuable insights and answered some previously unanswered questions on salesforce socialization. We believe that an interactionist perspective can be equally rewarding in studying other dimensions in sales research such as turnover, commitment, and leadership. For instance, recent sales research in leadership has focused on the characteristics of individual salespeople and individual supervisory behavior (Challagalla and Shervani, 1996; Kohli, 1989; Kohli et al., 1998). This research stream can become very powerful if we include situational variables along with personal attributes of the leader and his/her subordinates. This will enable us to hypothesize what type of sales supervisory behavior is desirable under what situations and with which types of salespeople. Schneider’s (1983a) suggestions for interactionist research in leadership are particularly insightful. He feels that from an interactionist perspective, vertical dyadic linkage theory (VDL) (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen and Cashman, 1975) can provide a very useful conceptualization of leadership. The VDL explains leadership in dyadic terms in terms of pair relationships between leaders and each of their subordinates. The data used for analysis are actual dyadic interaction patterns. Schneider suggests that if this framework could “illuminate the personal attributes of leaders and the various attributes of situations that converge to be reflected in particular leader-subordinate interaction patterns, we would have the opportunity to conduct true interactionist research on leadership” (Schneider, 1983a, p. 24). He also maintains that theories such as Hollander’s (1976)

Notes

149

1 There is considerable evidence that people do influence situations by being an intentional agent in the situation (Kohn and Schooler, 1978; Miner, 1987) and by actively selecting and shaping situations (Allport, 1961). Moreover, an individual may influence a situation by directly changing it. Kohn and Schooler (1978), for example, have shown that over time individuals influenced their jobs more than their jobs influenced them. For instance, employees with higher intellectual flexibility managed to increase the complexity of their work over time. Miner (1987) found that, unique abilities of a new entrant were later formalized and incorporated into job descriptions for later hires. 2 Examples of situational variables in sales research include: territorial potential, workload, task autonomy, influence over standards, pay, nature of the compensation plan, promotion and recognition opportunities, variety, autonomy, task identity, and feedback. 3 Different socialization tactics provide/withhold information in particular ways that make the newcomers respond to their roles differently and in predictable ways (Jones, 1986, p. 263). Whereas both Van Maanen and




Volume 7 · Number 2 · 2004 · 139-152

Schein (1979) and Jones (1986) hypothesize about the impact of socialization tactics on role outcomes, two of Jones” hypotheses concerning fixed vs variable and investiture vs divestiture dimensions are opposite of what Van Mannen and Schein hypothesize. Since Jones tested his hypotheses and found empirical support for them, we shall use his predictions here. 4 While we are not including race, handicap, or sexual orientation etc. due to space limitation, these may affect socialization in the same way as does gender by tending to exclude individuals with these characteristics from informal socialization channels. 5 Notice that the above discussion of socialization has focused on role orientation (and tangentially on organizational commitment) as outcome variables. Yet, there are other important outcome variables, e.g. role ambiguity, role conflict, job satisfaction, intention to quit, etc. The reasons we did not look at each of these individually are: because we wanted to keep our illustration focused and manageable; and it was expected that institutionalized and individualized tactics should be related to other outcome variables in a predictable manner. Jones (1986) for instance, hypothesized and found moderate empirical support for the assertion that the institutionalized socialization tactics will be negatively related to role conflict, role ambiguity, and intention to quit, and positively related to job satisfaction and commitment.

References Alderfer, C.P. (1969), “An empirical test of a new theory of human needs”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 4, pp. 142-75. Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “Organizational socialization tactics: a longitudinal analysis of links to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 847-58. Allport, G.W. (1961), Pattern and Growth in Personality, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY. Allport, G.W. (1962), “The general and unique in psychological science”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 30, pp. 405-22. Bagozzi, R.P. (1978), “Salesforce performance and satisfaction as a function of individual difference, interpersonal, and situational factors”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, pp. 517-31. Bagozzi, R.P. (1980), “Performance and satisfaction in an industrial sales force: an examination of their antecedents and simultaneity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44, pp. 65-77. Bagozzi, R.P. (1984), “A prospectus for theory construction in marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48, Winter, pp. 11-29. Bem, D.J. (1983), “Constructing a theory of triple typology: some (second) thoughts on nomothetic and idographic approaches to personality”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 51, pp. 566-77. Brown, S.P., Cron, W.L. and Slocum, J.W. Jr (1998), “Effects of trait competitiveness and perceived intraorganizational competition on salesperson goal setting and performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 88-98. Buchanan, B. (1974), “Building organizational commitment – the socialization of managers in work organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 533-46.

Budner, S. (1962), “Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 30, pp. 29-50. Busch, P. and Bush, R.F. (1978), “Women contrasted to men in the industrial salesforce: job satisfaction, values, role clarity, performance, and propensity to leave”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, pp. 438-48. Caldwell, D.F. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1990), “Measuring person-job fit using a profile comparison process”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 648-57. Caplan, R.D. (1987a), “Person-environment fit theory and organizations: commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 248-67. Challagalla, G.N. and Shervani, T.A. (1996), “Dimensions and types of supervisory control: effects on salesperson performance and satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 89-105. Churchill, G.A., Ford, N.M., Hartley, S.W. and Walker, O.C. Jr (1985), “The determinant of salesperson performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22, pp. 103-18. Cotton, J.L. and Tuttle, J.M. (1986), “Employee turnover: a metaanalysis and review with implications for research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 55-70. Cron, W.L. and Slocum, J.W. Jr (1986), “The influence of career stages on salespeople’s job attitudes, work perceptions and performance”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, pp. 119-29. Cron, W.L., Dubinsky, A.J. and Michaels, R.E. (1988), “The influence of career stages on components of salesperson motivation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 78-92. Dansereau, F. Jr, Graen, G. and Haga, W.J. (1975), “A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: a longitudinal investigation of the role of marketing process”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 13, pp. 46-78. Dubinsky, A.J., Howell, R.D., Ingram, T.N. and Bellenger, D.N. (1986), “Salesforce socialization”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, pp. 192-207. Feldman, D.C. (1976), “A contingency theory of socialization”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 433-52. Fraker, S. (1984), “Why women aren’t getting to the top”, Fortune, April, pp. 40-5. Gable, M. and Reed, B.J. (1987), “The current status of women in professional selling”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 7, pp. 33-9. Graen, G. and Cashman, J.F. (1975), “A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: a developmental approach”, in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L. (Eds), Leadership Frontiers, Kent State University Press, Kent, OH. Grant, E.S. and Bush, A.J. (1996), “Salesforce socialization tactics: building organizational value congruence”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 16, pp. 17-32. Hartline, M.D. and Ferrel, O.C. (1993), “Service quality implementation: the effect of organizational socialization and managerial actions on customer-contact employee behaviors”, Marketing Science Technical Working Papers, pp. 93-122. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1982), Management of Organizational Behavior, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Holland, J.L. (1973), Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Careers, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Holland, J.L. (1987), “Some speculation about the investigation of person-environment transactions”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 337-40.

150




Volume 7 · Number 2 · 2004 · 139-152

Hollander, E.P. (1976), Leadership Dynamics: A Practical Guide to Effective Relationships, Free Press, New York, NY. Hughes, G.D. and Singler, C.H. (1983), Strategic Sales Management, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Jolson, M.A., Dubinsky, A.J. and Anderson, R.E. (1987), “Correlates and determinates of salesforce tenure: an exploratory study”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 7, pp. 9-27. Jones, G.R. (1986), “Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers” adjustments to organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 262-79. Kennedy, E.J. and Lawton, L. (1992), “Men and women in industrial sales: satisfaction and outcomes”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 21, pp. 5-14. Kenrick, D.T. and Dantchick, A. (1983), “Interactionism, idiographics, and the social psychological invasion of personality”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 51, pp. 286-307. Kohli, A.K. (1989), “Effects of supervisory behavior: the role of individual differences among salespeople”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, pp. 40-50. Kohli, A.K., Shervani, T.A. and Challagalla, G.N. (1998), “Learning and performance orientation of salespeople: the role of supervisors”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35, pp. 263-74. Kohn, M.L. and Schooler, C. (1978), “The reciprocal effects of the substantive complexity of work and intellectual flexibility: a longitudinal assessment”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 84, pp. 24-52. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Louis, M.R. (1980), “Surprise and sense making, what newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25, pp. 226-51. Lucas, G.H. Jr, Parasuraman, A., Davis, R.A. and Enis, B.M. (1987), “An empirical study of salesforce turnover”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, pp. 34-59. Lupton, R.A., Weiss, J.E. and Peterson, R.T. (1999), “Sales training evaluation model (STEM): a conceptual framework”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 28, pp. 73-86. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Ahearne, M. (1998), “Some possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 87-98. McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ. Miner, A.S. (1987), “Idiosyncratic jobs in formal organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 327-51. Mischel, W. (1973), “Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality”, Psychological Review, Vol. 80, pp. 252-3. Mischel, W. (1977a), “On the future of personality measurement”, American Psychologist, Vol. 32, pp. 246-54. Mitchell, T.R. and James, L.R. (1989), “Conclusions and future directions”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 401-7. Mowday, R.T. and Lee, T.W. (1986), “The influence of propensity to become committed to the development of commitment and prediction of turnover during organizational entry”, in Pearce, J.A. II and Robinson, R.B. Jr (Eds), Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings: 46th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, pp. 193-7. Moos, R.H. (1987), “Person-environment congruence in work, school and health care settings”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 231-47.

Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980), “The case for qualitative research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 491-500. Muchinsky, P.M. and Monahan, C.J. (1987), “What is personenvironment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 268-77. O’Reilly, C.A. III, Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), “People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 487-516. Osipow, S.H. (1987), “Applying person-environment theory to vocational behavior”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 333-6. Pervin, L.A. (1968), “Performance and satisfaction as a function of individual-environment fit”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 69, pp. 56-68. Pervin, L.A. (1987), “P-E congruence in light of person-situation controversy”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 222-30. Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E. III and Hackman, J.R. (1975), Behavior in Organizations, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Reichers, A.E. (1987), “An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 278-87. Runyan, W.M. (1983), “Idiographic goals and methods in the study of lives”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 51, pp. 413-37. Sager, J.K. (1991), “Recruiting and retaining committed salespeople”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 20, pp. 99-103. Schein, E.H. (1971), “Organizational socialization and the profession of management”, in Kolb, D., Rugin, I. and McIntyre, J. (Eds), Organizational Psychology: A Book of Readings, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 9-23. Schein, E.H. (1983), “The individual, the organization, and the career: a conceptual scheme”, in Hackman, J., Lawler, E. and Porter, L. (Eds), Perspectives on Behavior in Organizations, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 178-90. Schein, E.H. (1990), “Organizational culture”, American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 109-19. Schneider, B. (1983a), “Interactional psychology and organizational behavior”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-31. Schneider, B. (1983b), “An interactionist perspective on organizational effectiveness”, in Cameron, K.S. and Whetten, D.S. (Eds), Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 27-54. Schneider, B. (1987), “The people make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 437-53. Skolnik, R. (1985), “A woman’s place is on the sales force”, Sales and Marketing Management, April 1, pp. 34-7. Somers, P., Poulton-Callahan, C. and Bartlett, R. (1981), “Women in the workforce: a structural approach to equality”, Personnel Administrator, Vol. 26, October, pp. 61-4. Sorrentino, R.M., Bobocel, D.R., Gitta, M.Z. and Olson, J.M. (1988), “Uncertainty orientation and persuasion: individual differences in the effects of personal relevance on social judgments”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 357-71. Sujan, H. (1986), “Smarter versus harder: an exploratory attributional analysis of salespeople’s Motivation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, pp. 41-9. Sujan, H., Weitz, B.A. and Kumar, N. (1994), “Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 39-52.

151




Volume 7 · Number 2 · 2004 · 139-152

Swan, J.E., Futrell, C.M. and Todd, J.T. (1978), “Same jobdifferent views: women and men in industrial sales”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42, pp. 92-8. Tyagi, P. (1982), “Perceived organizational climate and the process of salesperson motivation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 240-54. Van Maanen, J. (1976), “Breaking in: socialization to work”, in Dubin, R. (Ed.), The Handbook of Work, Organization, and Society, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 67-130. Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E.H. (1979), “Toward a theory of organizational socialization”, in Staw, B.M. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 209-64. Vondracek, F.W. (1987), “Comments focused on Pervin’s paper”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 341-6. Vondracek, F.W., Lerner, R.M. and Schulenberg, J.E. (1986), Career Development: A Life-Span Development Approach, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Weitz, B.A., Sujan, H. and Sujan, M. (1986), “Knowledge, motivation and adaptive behavior: a framework for improving selling effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, pp. 174-91. Wotruba, T.R. and Tyagi, P.K. (1991), “Met expectations and turnover in direct selling”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, pp. 36-45.

informal socialization when used in association with individualized tactic provides newcomers with great flexibility in making innovative and individualized responses and results in innovative role responses. In sequential socialization, explicit information about sequence of activities/experiences is provided whereas in random socialization, sequence of learning process is unknown. Fixed socialization gives the exact timetable when each stage of socialization process will be completed. Variable socialization tactics provide no such information. Jones argues that random and variable tactics create uncertainty, which encourages innovative responses particularly in organizations in which newcomers” ability to effectively deal with such situations is rewarded. Fixed and sequential tactics, in contrast, lead to custodial responses because “individuals will have no desire to rock the boat if they can clearly see the pathway to their future status from the beginning” (Jones, 1986, p. 263). In serial socialization experienced organization members are available as role models. They provide relevant interpretation needed to make sense out of surprises. This leads to an acceptance of organization’s line of thinking and thus custodial role orientation. Disjunctive tactics require that newcomers develop their own interpretation of the situations because no experienced organization members are available to help them in this task. This leads to active, innovative role orientations. Finally, investiture versus divestiture relate to the social or interpersonal aspects of socialization process. In investiture socialization, newcomers receive a lot of social support from experienced organizational members, whereas in divestiture they don’t; rather insiders disconfirm newcomers” expectations about themselves through negative social experiences. Jones argues that divestiture may encourage newcomers to question the interpretations of the situations offered by incumbents, come up with innovative orientations to roles, and excel in their roles. Investiture, in contrast, by confirming the newcomers” sense of their own competency at an early stage, may lead them to believe in self-fulfilling prophecies of their own self-worth resulting in custodial orientation. Please note that the six socialization tactics in this Appendix are sourced from Jones (1986).

Appendix. Six socialization tactics “Collective” socialization is characterized by a common learning experience offering standardized responses to situations. Interaction among newcomers reinforces the definition of the situation offered by the socialization agents and leads to custodial role orientations i.e. a passive acceptance of the role as defined by the organization. “Individual” socialization is characterized by the unique learning experience, an opportunity to develop differentiated responses and to adopt innovative orientations toward roles. In “formal” socialization newcomers are segregated from other organizational members while learning the responsibilities of their role. With “informal” socialization, newcomers become part of work groups and learning is on the job. Formal socialization (especially when coupled with the collective one) results in increased propensity of newcomers to accept definitions of situations offered by the socialization agents which increases the degree to which newcomers will share common norms, values and attitudes, and will develop custodial orientations. In contrast,

152