AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTION AND ROLE OF THE FIELD SALES MANAGER Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Rodney Earl Evans 1966 T 0-169 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII L ’ P P 4 R Y 0474 9795 ‘ M s1: gm Sta“ . ' Univmty This is to certify that the 3;"- r? thesis entitled AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTION AND ROLE OF THE FIELD SALES MANAGER presented by Rodney Earl Evans has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Business Administration I M ./ , \\ 3101' Pro CSSOI‘ Date_lio_v_emb_e1; °° "‘“ 1100 A 16 1 e: 7‘ ‘v .1" k; , ; M at! t... 13"?! ‘d um “" ABSTRACT AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTION AND ROLE OF THE FIELD SALES MANAGER by Rodney Earl Evans This study focused on the field sales manager - the man to whom field salesmen report. The major reason for its under- taking is derived primarily from the growing consumer orienta— tion advocated by marketers. By virtue of his hierarchical position the field sales manager appeared to be in a key posi— tion not only to communicate information about the market to management but also to serve as an integrator and implementer of marketing strategies. But little is known about the field sales manager. Consequently the study had four major objec- tives. 1. To define the nature of the field sales manager's job. 2. To define the "ideal" field sales manager's job. 3. To examine the extent of agreement about the field sales manager's job among the field sales manager, his superior, and his subordinates. FHA \\s Rodney Earl Evans 4. To examine the relationship between the field sales manager's authority and his responsibility in his job performance. A mail questionnaire designed (l) to ascertain the rela- tive importance of field sales manager‘s current activities, (2) the normative aspects of his job role, and (3) his author— ity and responsibility was develOped. In order to determine current activities, respondents were asked to rank various groups of activities in order of their importance. In other sections, scaling devices were employed. In the questionnaire the items contained in each of the four major sections were complementary, i.e., the same basic activity was considered by each respondent in four different contexts. Consequently conclusions are based not on responses to a single section but on the composite of the responses to the four sections. Two distinct samples were drawn. Extensive sample com~ panies represented many industries and were asked to provide the name and address of one of their field sales managers, his superior, his most productive salesman, and his least productive salesman. The intensive sample consisted of two companies in the same corporation. The entire field sales structure of both was included in the study. These companies. Rodney Earl Evans in addition to superiors and most and least productive sales- men, also provided a measure of their field sales managers' productivity. The data indicated that the field sales manager is pri- marily engaged in selling and personnel activities both of which were day-to-day Operations oriented in the questionnaire. The making of sales calls with salesmen appeared to be the most time consuming of any activity. The activities which could be interpreted as planning-oriented or as integrating the marketing effort of the firm were consistently ranked low in time expenditure. The low productivity salesman's perception of his superior's job seemed consistently less clear than that of any other role definer. Similarly the low productivity field sales managers, displayed less agreement with their role de- finers than did their high productivity counterparts. Specifw ically the low productivity field sales managers had both less current time commitment and less positive expectations for the “ideal" field sales manager to engage in planning activities. Their responses also suggested a somewhat nar- rower perspective of their job than did the high productivity group. For example, low productivity versus high productivity Rodney Earl Evans field sales managers: I. commit less time to sales forecasting. 2. commit less time to digesting information from management. 3. has a less positive expectation that sales quotas should be set. 4. commits more time to sales meetings and less to the revision of specifications for the sales job. The data also indicated the field sales managers them- selves expected to identify with management. But role definer expectations were not as clear and indicated that the field sales manager may be considered neither a salesman nor a man- ager. In general the study seems to support role theory in suggesting that productivity and role consensus are positively related as well as showing that the field sales manager‘s position close to the market has not been extensively utilized to implement a market orientation. AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTION AND ROLE OF THE FIELD SALES MANAGER by Rodney Earl Evans A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Marketing and Transportation Administration 1966 ' - y e/ '2 :3, i // I ,' '/ I / ' 1' C0pyright by RODNEY EARL EVANS 1967 Q» is \‘5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS No doctoral dissertation is the result of the efforts of a single individual. And while it is impossible to acknow- ledge all those who have contributed to this one, I want to makespecial mention of some. To the many sales executives and salesmen Who responded to repeated requests for their time, I extend my thanks. Their confidence reflects an awareness that for the business and the academic communities to mutually assist one another requires more than lip service. Two anonymous companies provided financial assistance as well as Opening their field sales organizations to study. Without this assistance the study could not have taken its present form. The Continuing Education Service of Michigan State Uni- versity directed by Professor Armand L. Hunter provided funds which insured completion of the study. My colleagues will undoubtedly find that I have borrowed their thoughts and viewpoints. Their willingness to act as a sounding board as well as a source of great encouragement in- sures that their future students will receive an education second to none. ii Professors Donald A. Taylor and W. Lloyd Warner served as members of the dissertation committee. Their response to an extreme time constraint solved what might otherwise have delayed its completion. To Professor William J. E. Crissy who served both as chairman of my guidance committee and of the thesis committee I owe a debt not likely to be fully repaid. Finally my wife Lynn and my family gave constant assist- ance and encouragement throughout the entire graduate study. They had to work harder than I. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . The Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . overView I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY. . . Questionnaire Construction . . . . Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire Administration . . . Statistical Techniques . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . IV. THE FIELD SALES MANAGER'S JOB. . . . Extensive Sample . . . . . . . . . Intensive Sample . . . . . . . . . Extensive and Intensive Comparison on Current Activities. . . . . . V. ROLE ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . Extensive Sample . . . . . . . . . Intensive Sample . . . . . . . . . VI. AUTHORITY - RESPONSIBILITY ANALYSIS. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . iv PAGE ii' 12 13 15 24 25 3O 33 38 41 44 44 62 79 87 87 94 119 141 141 CHAPTER PAGE Extensive Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Intensive Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 General Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Implications of the Study. . . . . . . . . . 176 Areas For Further Research . . . . . . . . . 181 Concluding Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 F . 228 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 ~mw'* .Iru 3.3—... ‘ LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Mailing and Return Information for Extensive Sample Questionnaires . . . . . . 35 2 Mailing and Return Information for Intensive Sample Questionnaires . . . . . . 36 3 Identity and Source of Data Groupings. . . . . 37 4 Distribution of Activities by Section . in Questionnaire Part A . . . . . . . . . . 45 5 Mean Percentage of Time Spent on Each Activity Group by Field Sales Managers. . . 46 6 Modal Rankings of Marketing Activities by Extensive Sample Field Sales Managers . . . 48 7 Modal Rankings of Selling Activities by Extensive Sample Field Sales Managers . . . 50 8 Modal Rankings of Financial Activities by Extensive Sample Field Sales Managers . . . 53 9 Modal Rankings of Personnel Activities by Extensive Sample Field Sales Managers . . . 54 10 Modal Rankings of Administrative Activities by Extensive Sample Field Sales Managers. . 57 11 The Field Sales Manager's Job - Extensive Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 12 Mean Percentage of Time Spent on Each Activity Group as Perceived by Role Definers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 13 Modal Rankings of Marketing Activities by High and Low Productivity Field Sales Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 14 Modal Rankings of Selling Activities by High and Low Productivity Field Sales Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 vi TABLE 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PAGE Modal Rankings of Financial Activities by High and Low Productivity Field Sales Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Modal Rankings of Personnel Activities by High and Low Productivity Field Sales Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Modal Rankings of Administrative Activities by High and Low Productivity Field Sales Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Comparison of Modal Rankings by Extensive and Intensive Sample Field Sales Managers . 81 Comparison of Percentage of Total Time Spent on Activity Groups by Extensive and Intensive Sample Field Sales Managers . 85 Division of Role Definition Items by Activity Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9O Differences between the Expectations of Field Sales Managers and Their Role Definers on Marketing Activities. . . . . . 99 Differences between the Expectations of Field Sales Managers and Their Role Definers on Selling Activities. . . . . . . 102 Differences between the Expectations of Field Sales Managers and Their Role Definers on Personnel Activities. . . . . . 109 The “Ideal" Field Sales Manager's Job as Reflected in the Responses of the Extensive Sample Field Sales Managers . 111 Summary of Extensive Sample Responses to Organizational Position Items . . . . . . . 113 Summary of Extensive Sample Responses to Positional Behavior Items . . . . . . . . . 116 vii TABLE 27 Summary of Differences between Extensive Sample Field Sales Managers and Each of Their Role Definer Groups. . . . . . . . 28 Responses to Marketing Items by Intensive Sample Field Sales Managers . . . . . . . . 29 Responses to Personnel Items by Intensive Sample Field Sales Managers . 30 The High Productivity Field Sales Manager's Perception of His "Ideal" Job 31 The Low Productivity Field Sales Manager's Perception of His "Ideal" Job . . . . . . 32 Summary of Intensive Sample Field Sales Manager Responses to Organizational Position Items. . 33 Summary of Intensive Sample Field Sales Manager Responses to Positional Behavior Items. 34 Summary of Differences between Intensive Sample Field Sales Managers and Their Role Definer Groups . . . . . . . . 35 Mean Responses of Extensive Sample Incumbents and Role Definers on the Field Sales Manager's Marketing Responsibility and Authority. . . . . . . 36 Mean Responses of Extensive Sample Incumbents and Role Definers on the Field Sales Manager's Personnel Responsibility and Authority. . . . . . . 37 Mean Responses of High Productivity and Low Productivity and Low Productivity Field Sales Managers to the Marketing Responsibility and Authority Items. . . . 38 Mean Responses of High Productivity and Low Productivity Field Sales Managers viii O C O O C O O O O O O O O 0 PAGE 119 121 126 129 129 130 133 136 145 147 154 TABLE PAGE to the Personnel Responsibility and Authority Items . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 39 Ranked Mean Responsibility Responses of Extensive and Intensive Sample Field Sales Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . 162 40 Job Titles of Field Sales Managers . . . . . . 199 41 Job Titles of Field Salesmen . . . . . . . . . 200 42 Job Titles of Field Sales ManagerS'Superiors . 202 43 Median Comparisons of Extensive Sample Rankings of Marketing Activities. . . . . . 204 44 Median Comparisons of Extensive Sample Rankings of Selling Activities. . . . . . . 205 45 Median Comparisons of Extensive Sample Rankings of Financial Activities. . . . . . 206 46 Median Comparisons of Extensive Sample Rankings of Personnel Activities. . . . . . 207 47 Median Comparisons of Extensive Sample Rankings of Administrative Activities . . . 208 48 Median Rankings of Marketing Activities by High Productivity Field Sales Managers and Their Role Definers. . . . . . 209 49 Median Rankings of Selling Activities by High Productivity Field Sales Managers and Their Role Definers. . . . . . 210 50 Median Rankings of Financial Activities by High Productivity Field Sales Managers and Their Role Definers. . . . . . 211 51 Median Rankings of Personnel Activities by High Productivity Field Sales Managers and Their Role Definers. . . . . . 212 ix TABLE PACE 52 Median Rankings of Administrative Activities by High Productivity Field Sales Managers and Their Role Definers. . . . . . 213 53 Median Rankings of Marketing Activities by Low Productivity Field Sales Managers and Their Role Definers. . . . . . 214 54 Median Rankings of Selling Activities by Low Productivity Field Sales Managers and Their Role Definers. . . . . . 215 55 Median Rankings of Financial Activities by Low Productivity Field Sales Managers and Their Role Definers. . . . . . 216 56 Median Rankings of Personnel Activities by Low Productivity Field Sales Managers and Their Role Definers. . . . . . 217 57 Median Rankings of Administrative Activities by Low Productivity Field Sales Managers and Their Role Definers. . . . . . 218 58 Mean Intensive Sample Role Definer Expectations — High Productivity Field Sales Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . 220 59 Mean Intensive Sample Role Definer Expectations - Low Productivity Field Sales Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . 224 60 Mean Responsibility and Authority Responses of Role Definers of High Productivity Field Sales Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . 229 61 Mean Responsibility and Authority Responses of Role Definers of Low Productivity Field Sales Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . 232 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Because the ultimate success or failure of a firm's mar— keting effort rests with its field sales force, the main task of sales management, is to increase the effectiveness of the field salesman. This dissertation is specifically concerned with that segment of sales management which is directly con- nected with the field salesmen - the field sales manager. The main purposes of the study are four: 1. To define the nature of the field sales manager*s job. 2. To define the "ideal” field sales manager's job. 3. To examine the extent of agreement about the field sales manager's job among the field sales manager, his superior, and his subordinates. 4. To examine the relationship between the field sales manager's authority and his responsibility in his job performance. The past two decades have brought remarkable change to the economic and business system in this country. Much of the change is a reflection of technological and scientific advances. For example, we often hear references to the shrinking world in terms of the time required to travel from One place to another; a result of advances in tranSportation. l 2 But change is not restricted to the technological and sci— entific side of business. Markets are also changing. The consumer's discretionary income is rising rapidly. As noted by Katona and others, this puts a greater burden on the market because choice behavior is an increasingly potent force.1 Consumer credit, at least up until recent months, has been increasing in availability at an increasing rate. Per capita diSposable personal income (in 1964 dollars) was 1.7 times the 1940 level; and 1.3 times the 1950 level.2 At the same time, the income required for mere subsistence is de- creasing. A common promotion of the consumer grocery industry relates, for example, a four point drop in the percentage of income required for food purchases over the past ten years. These macro figures do not reveal the nature of the bundles of goods and services required for subsistence. It may be assumed that changes have also occurred in the preferences which, in turn, have dictated the content of the bundle. It is reasonable to assume that these changes add to the quality and diversity of what is sought. In these decades, many new products have arrived on the lSee George Katona, The Powerful Consumer (New York: McGraw—Hill, 1960). 2United States Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1965), p. 331. 3 market. Faced with credit and income increases the consumer now has a greater number of alternative choices available. For instance, business executives state that business revenues of today are. in large measure, derived from products less than twenty years old. The market has, in fact, become the key factor in the success of the business enterprise. But changes are not restricted to markets either. Mar- keting as a process has also undergone change. As a seeming consequence of market changes, the marketing concept has be- come a way of business life. Firms have discovered that they all cannot sell to the same customers -- that the individual is not in the market of all producers. The marketer must now be selective in choosing the market for his products. And he must establish his strategies and tactics commensurate With the markets he has selected. Alderson calls the result of this selectivity "differ- ential advantage.” Moreover, he suggests that the establish- ment of this differential advantage is essential to the sur» vival of the enterprise.3 This increased selectivity is a requirement for the marketer; adding considerable impetus to the need to create individuality among customers. Changes (progress) in technology and markets have made 3Wroe Alderson. Marketing_Behavior agd Executive Actigg (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1957), pp. 101 ff. 4 the market the single most important factor in the success of a business enterprise. And since the marketing process is the vehicle joining the market with the enterprise, the effective performance of the marketing process would seem to be the key factor in business success. Selling as a personal force in marketing represents one of the most significant methods of demand creation thus far developed. Its importance, using any relevant measure, easily parallels its more touted complement - advertising. Using expenditures as one measure, the following comparison can be made. The 1964 estimated advertising expenditures approached 4 fourteen billion dollars. Following United States Bureau of Census employment and income figures for the same year, ex- penditures for salaries and other income for sales peOple were nearly thirteen billion dollars.5 Add to this total the supervisory, training and supportive activity costs Which may be estimated at 25 per cent of the total,6 the total esti— mated expenditure on personal selling approaches 16.25 billion dollars. Others have estimated these eXpenditures at up to 4§tatistigal Abstracgngj the United States,_gp.ci£ p. 848. 0i 5Ibid., p. 231. 6See Harry R. Tosdal, Selling in Our Economy (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin. 1957), p. 31 for a number of estimates of the cost of personal selling. The one used here is probably one of the most conservative available. fifty billion dollars.7 The accuracy of these estimates is not a critical issue. In fact, inaccuracy is admitted. Yet these inaccuracies do not negate the implications which can be drawn: (1) personal selling holds a major position in the marketing process and (2) its costs are significant. More than this, the cost of making each individual sales call can be expected to rise. As products become more complex and as the customer becomes more selective, the time, training, and expense requirements associated with each call can be expected to rise. This additional factor makes scrutiny of personal selling even more important. Because of his need to be selective and also to Optimize the returns from sales cost, an efficiency conflict for the individual marketer may be appearing. And the effectiveness of his field sales force may determine the outcome Of the conflict. It is apparent that (l) the importance Of personal selling is growing at least in terms of the dollar outlay for its costs and (2) the market and individual consumers in it are becoming more discerning, and more powerful, and therefore need to be accorded more individuality. Ihe_Prob1em The very nature of field sales management creates a 7H. W. Hepner,_Modern_Adyertising (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1956). p. 18. , 6 problem. As firms Operationalize the marketing concept to a greater extent, the effectiveness of all phases of corporate activity will rely to a greater extent on carefully laid plans which are based on Specific objectives or goals. As this goal- orientation increases in importance, there will be an increas~ ing need for all members Of the organization to be aware of these needs and to plan and execute their individual activities in terms of these goals or Objectives. This need dictates, therefore, that the corporate goals be communicated to all members Of the organization. Because the satisfying of these goals depends on the sales force, it is apparent that the ef- fectiveness of the sales force directly affects the degree to which corporate goals are realized. The field level sales manager occupies a pivotal posi— tion in this satisfaction process. He Obtains this position solely on the basis Of his hierarchical position, i.e., he is the first level member of marketing management and is nearest to the market. Salesmen report to him. Despite his key marketing position in the firm, the field level sales manager has received little attention in either the literature of marketing or sales management. In fact, a search of the literature reveals only three works Which are devoted solely to the field level sales manager, and only one Of these works is a result of research in the field.8 Robert T. Davis investigated this position in his doc- toral research, and this research report has subsequently been published by the Division of Research of the Harvard Business School. He determined that there is considerable evidence that a large number of field sales managers "are the forgotten men of selling.”9 Davis suggested that the importance of field sales managers is derived fundamentally from the structure of the selling organization. One Of the key functions performed by the field salesman is coming face to face with his prospeca tive customer. To do this will mean that he is often, if not continuously, physically separated from the home office.10 Moreover, he Often does not have the Opportunity to interact on a continuing basis with other field salesmen for his 8Robert T. Davis, Performance and DeveIOpment of Field Sales Managers (Boston: Harvard University, 1957). National Industrial Conference Board, Field Sales Management, ExPeri- ences in Marketing Management, NO. 1, New York, 1962. Albert Newgarden (ed.). ‘The Field Sales Manager (New York: Ameriu can Management Association, 1960). The latter two are the result of symposia sponsored by the publishing organization. Only the Davis work is the result of research. 9Davis, ibid., p. 3. This way of describing the field sales manager has also been used by Velma Adams in Dunis Review and Modern Industry. See "The Forgotten Field Sales Manager," March, 1965, pp. 45-46. 10Eighty per cent of the respondent field sales managers in the extensive part of this study are located outside the home office of their company- 8 company. Davis reported that many of the executives with whom he spoke indicated that, as a result of this separation, the emotional ups and downs were more serious for field sales- men than for other employees.11 In addition it is clear that since the field salesman must satisfy corporate goals on a continuing basis and since this separation can effectively remove him from these goals, this separation may impede corpo- rate goal satisfaction. The nature of the salesman's job contributes to the im- portance of the field level sales managers. Davis believes that the large number of intangible factors which influence a potential customer dictates that the field sales manager pro- vide standards for his men, that he serve as a "pace-setter" and develop positive attitudes. While this is a key factor, there are a number of other considerations which also con- tribute to this importance. The job of the field salesman is to create an on-going relationship between his customer and his company. Often, the first sale is, at best, a break-even proposition, for profits and satisfaction for both buyer and seller are a re- sult of repeat sales. Consequently the salesman is compared with other kinds Of workers may be unable to see the fruit of his activity for some time after he has performed it. 11Davis, gpgcit., p. 3-4. v\. H. .u s .hb 9 Thus, the field sales manager must create an atmosphere that will encourage salesmen to view the long run as the best measure of their efforts. Further, as the selling job becomes more complex, ag- gressive administrative and technical support for the sales- man grows more important. In other words the field sales manager will be more important to the successful culmination Of each sale in that he will provide more assistance with greater regularity. Finally by virtue of his hierarchical position, and ale lied with the changing selling job and the increased need for managerial support, the field sales manager is probably the key communication link in three distinct, but interrelated, ways. First, if we accept the necessity of greater corporate responsiveness to market conditions, then we also accept the need for a position that is sensitive on the one hand to com- petitive conditions and the market and, on the other, to cor~ porate goals and objectives. This implies, in part, that in- formation must flow from the market to corporate management. Because he is constantly eXposed to the market, the field salesman is an important collector of market information. And the field sales manager can clearly contribute to the effective upward communication of this information. (I) 1‘) 10 Second, just as information about market and competitive conditions is transmitted upward by the field sales manager, the entire marketing effort of the firm as well as its goals and policies disseminates through corporate channels to the field salesman and his customers via this field sales manager. Third, the field sales manager occupies an equally vital internal position, because he is the link between employee and employer. As noted earlier, in the selling organization this is a particularly important function. The field sales manager occupies a unique position; sen— sitive to both corporate goals and the market. Hence he fulw fills a unique communication position. Goal sensitivity should provide him with insight into the kinds of information required by corporate management for marketing decisions while market sensitivity provides sufficient insight so that he may filter and summarize the collected information into a form most meaningful to management. More than this, however, the position of dual sensitiv~ ity occupied by the field sales manager presents greater im- plications. The importance of marketing communication not~ withstanding, this position may provide a decision center since many decisions now being made in upper echelons of management may be best made at the field level. There is no question that the decentralization of decision-making requires 11 the dual sensitivity. Adaptation to markets may require a flexibility that can come only from field level decision~ making. In the preface to much of the writing in these areas, the writers deplore the lack of emphasis given to selling and sales management. Yet, regardless of the actual Operational significance, these statements have not substantially changed attitude or behavior. Moreover, the literature and research in these fields is only infrequently directed at the field sales Operation. We must strive to increase the effectiveness of field salesmen. Correlated with this, we must be concerned about the effectiveness of the supportive personnel of the sales- man, the field sales manager and other members of the sales management. We must also be concerned with determining methods for predicting success or failure of sales managers and sales- men. Much of the traditional literature in sales management focuses on the sales manager, i.e., it is organized around those functions which sales managers perform and is internally focused. This is, in part, analogous to advocating that a firm must be productionnoriented rather than market-oriented. The essence of the marketing concept lies in its insistence upon a market or consumer orientation externally focused. 12 Yet much of the sales management literature violates this tenet. It seems imperative that future work in this area be directly concerned with the relationship of the sales manager to the salesmen he supports. There is much literature and research in the behavioral sciences which may give assistance in two ways. First, since we are dealing with the human being and his interaction with others; social psychology and psychology offer many insights into human behavior and those factors influencing it. As much of this research as is applicable to the problems of sales management and salesman effectiveness must be utilized. And it is important to note that some marketing scholars have laid considerable systematic ground work for the inclusion of behavioral science concepts in marketing. In many cases, their lead has not been followed. Definitions Many of the terms used in this paper have diverse meanw ings depending on the receiver. To avoid many of the problems arising from the variation, a list of definitions, the source of the definition, and the rationale for its selection where required are included here. Field Sales Manager: The field sales manager is that executive to whom the field salesmen report. He is the first 13 level of management for a company except where a firm has adOpted a system giving some salesmen small numbers of manage- ment duties. This definition is more specific than that of Davis who defined the field sales manager as "those line of- ficials who Operate between home office executives and the field salesmen."l Field Salesman: The field salesman is that man whose primary organizational responsibility is selling. This defini- tion eliminates those members of the organization who sell only occasionally. Superiors of Field Sales Managers: The man to whom the field sales manager reports will be designated the "superior" in this report. As with the field sales managers and the field salesman, a multiplicity of titles is attached to the . . , 13 same apprOXimate hierarchical position. Chapter II contains a discussion of the conceptual framework. Chapter III contains a discussion of the research methodology including sample selection, instrument construc- tion, and administration, and analytical techniques. M 12 . Ibid., p. 3. 13See Appendix C for job titles of respondents to the questionnaire used in this study. 14 Chapters IV-VI contain the presentation of findings. The orientation within each of these chapters is from the general to the specific. Finally, Chapter VII contains an overview of the significant findings and a discussion of some possible Operational implications of these findings. CHAPTER II CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Following the discussion of the increasing importance of the field sales manager‘s market sensitivity and noting that the salesman himself is changing very rapidly,1 it is plausible to expect the field sales manager to be utilized more as a decision maker in the future. If we expect a man to be a decision maker, then we must provide him with the inw formation and environment conducive to that activity. Simon suggests that the decision making process has three phases: 1. Searching the environment for new conditions requiring decisions. 2. Inventing. develOping and analyzing alternative courses of action. 3. Selecting a particular course of action.2 Social psychology provides a conceptual framework for investigating the influences on the field sales manager and their effect on his performance. The part of social psy- chology - role theory — dealing with the effect group members 1Carl Rieser, ”The Salesman Isn't Dead--He's Different," £93m. November. 1962. pp. 124 ff. 2Herbert A. Simon, The New Science of Management Deci- E322 (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), p. 2. 15 16 have on other members of the same group is particularly use— ful. Role theory offers a useful way of looking at these relationships: and can be Operationalized to actual situa- tions. Since the environment is a key to effective decision making and since the pressures on an individual affect his perception of the environment, role theory concurrently offers a way of looking at the future of the field sales manager as a decision maker. In fact, it may be inferred that knowledge about the environment and elimination of dysfunctional pres- sures are the key elements to making the field sales manager°s future performance effective. Research by Leavitt on communi- cation patterns and performance substantiates the importance of the field sales manager's structural position. He found that when one individual in a group was the focal point for exchange of information that individual was considered by most other group members to be the leader of that group. All group members in the case were restricted from interacting other than through the focal point.4 Because salesmen are frequently separated geographically, effectively restricting interaction with other salesmen, the position of field sales manager becomes a leading one if utilized effectively. 3Bruce J. Biddle, The Present Status of Role Theory, Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 1961, p. 2. 4Harold J. Leavitt, "Some Effects of Certain Communica— tion Patterns on Group Performance," Journal of Abnormal and §9cial Psychology, 46, pp. 38-50. 17 We are fundamentally concerned with two aspects of the relationship among men: the normative and the behavioral. The very fact that such a dichotomy is useful immediately pre» sents some problems from a conceptual standpoint. First, in the literature on role, researchers have reached no precise definition of the terminology used. Secondly, each side of the dichotomy above may be subdivided. For example, in a normative sense, we can predict expectations to be both (1) for behavior and (2) for personal attributes, qualities and train- ing.5 While this inquiry primarily relates to the behavioral aspects, it must and will briefly consider some attributes. Gross, Mason and McEachern, after reviewing much of the literature on role, determined that most authors' definitions contain three basic ideas: that individuals (1) in social locations (2) behave (3) with reference to eXpectations.6 They also suggest that most authors have used the role con— cept to embrace that normative element of social behavior.7 Linton who is credited with solidifying the role con» cept describes a role in terms of status: A status, in the abstract, is a position in a particular pattern (of social be- havior). . . a status, as distinct from SNeal Gross, Ward S. Mason, Alexander W. McEaChern, EXplorations in Role Analysis (New York: JOhn Wiley and Sons, 1965), p. 63. 61bid., p. 7 71bid., p. 17. 18 the individual who may occupy it, is simply a collection of rights and duties. A role (then) represents the dynamic as— pect of status. An individual is socially assigned to a status and occupies it with relation to other statuses. When he puts the rights and duties which constitute a status into effect, he is performing a role.8 It is clear that Linton views role not as normative but as be» havioral, and is using the term status, in a sense, as the normative. Gross, Mason, and McEachern do not believe that status is as inclusive as Linton suggests. They distinguish between status and office in the following manner: The term status would then designate a position in the general institutional system, recognized and supported by the entire society, spontaneously evolved rather than created, rooted in the folk- ways and mores. Office, on the other hand, would designate a position in a de- liberately created organization governed by specific and limited rules in a limited group more generally achieved than ascribed.9 And with respect to occupational position, Davis indicated that a position may be both a status and an office — the first when viewed by the public and the second when viewed by a . 10 . . . . particular firm. So, in terms of these distinctions. office 8Ralph Linton, The Study of Man (New York: D. Appleton- Century, 1936), pp. 113-114. Biddle, Op.cit., p. 4 reviews the shortcomings of these definitions. 9Gross, Mason, and McEachern, Op.cit., p. 57. loKingsley Davis, Human Society (New York: Macmillan. 1948), pp. 88—89. 19 will here be analogous to position. The investigation of status is not within the scope of this study, however impor- tant or unimportant it may be to effective performance by the field sales manager. Role then, is a set of related cognitions maintained for a person. . .by himself or others.11 An individual's own expectations for his performance and attributes plus the ex- pectations of those related to him regarding his performance and attributes define his role in a given set of environmental conditions. And if one wishes to look at the behavior of an indi- vidual, he is in effect viewing the role behavior of that indi- vidual. Role behavior then is the action or behavioral part of role.12' 13 If a role then is a set of expectations about the per- formance and attributes of an individual in a given location, llBiddle, op.cit., p. 5. 12These definitions vary from Newcomb, Converse, and Turner. They use the term "prescribed role" to define the normative aspect. They also seem to use "role" and "role behavior" someWhat interchangably to describe the behavioral aspects. Otherwise much of these authors' discussion of role relationships permeates this section. See Theodore M. Newcomb, Ralph H. Turner and Philip E. Converse, Social §§ychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), Especially Chapter II. 13For an inclusive list of terms and definitions con- ceptually similar to those used here, see RObert Merton, §9cial Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1956), p. 368-370. 20 a key factor in analysis is the identification of the definers of the role, i.e., those who have relevant expectations. Gross, Mason, and McEachern have commented on the failure of some social researchers to adequately identify these role de- finers. These researchers often suggest that the parameters of the population included as role definers are too indefinite for empirical usefulness. Consider, for example, using "society" as role definers.l4 Yet even having identified the relevant role definers -- a role set,15 access to each member of the role set for research purposes may be very difficult because there may be a large number. Furthermore, the degree of in- fluence of each member of the role set is very difficult to identify. Consequently, including the expectations of all members of the role set may give as distorted a picture as not having identified some members. It was assumed by virtue of the hierarchical position that both superiors and subordinates would be relevant role definers for the focal position, the field sales manager. The rationale for this selection rests in two areas. First, any formal sanctions or rewards imposed on an individual‘s role behavior will come at least indirectly from his superior. __ 4 . Gross, Mason, and McEachern, Op.c1t., p. 5. Robert L. Kahn, et.al., Organizational Stress (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964), pp. 13-14. 21 Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the individual to conw sider the role expectations of the superior in defining his own role and hence in his role behavior. It is important to note that the assumption of a close connection between self perceived role and role behavior (within the organizational constraints) is necessary for any Operational recommendations. Second, since the field sales manager is undoubtedly evalu- ated in part on the performance of his subordinates, he will be cognizant of their expectations about his performance. The focal individual is an integral member of his own 16 role set and hence his own views are also relevant. The foremost issue is whether agreement (consensus) on role definition for a particular focal individual holds any im~ portance. Gross, Mason, and McEachern succinctly stated the thought of many authors on the importance of concensus: It was our assumption that the extent to which there is consensus on role defini- tion may be an important dimension af- fecting the functioning of social systems. They go on to suggest on a more restricted level that. . "the degree of consensus among significant role definers as perceived by an actor may be an important variable affecting 16Ibid.. p. 17. 7Gross, Mason, and McEachern, p. 5. 22 his behavior."18 What then is the result of non-consensus? Clearly, tensions can be created for the incumbent of the focal posi- tion.19 Although some authors have chosen to divide these tensions into role conflict and role ambiguity20 the con_ sideration here will be only role conflict. This decision is based on the premise that role ambiguity and role conflict can be thought of as similar when effectiveness of perform- ance is the major objective. Turner believes that role conflict in its general sense exists when there is no immediately apparent way of simul— taneously COping effectively with two different other-roles (role expectations).21 Brown agrees with this definition of role conflict and suggests that role conflict mug: create a . 22 problem for the incumbent. _.—‘-.l lBgQig. For support of this position see A. R. Linde» smith and Anselm L. Strauss, Social Psychology, revised edin tion (New York: Dryden Press, 1956), pp. 383-385. 19See C. Osgood, "Cognitive Dynamics in Human Affairs.“ Egblic Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1960, p. 341. 0 . See, for example, Kahn, et.a1., Op.c1t. 2 . . lRalph H. Turner, "Role Taking: Process versus Cone formity," in Arnold Rose (ed.), Human Behavior and Soc1al ££9Cesses (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1962), p. 37. 22Roger Brown, Social Psychology_(New York: The Free Press. 1965), p. 156. 23 The issue of whether or not consensus exists is meaningw less unless it can be related to operational performance and productivity. A study by Getzels and Guba indicated that those instructors at a military school who experienced role conflict also tended to be ineffective when measured by their peers. More important, however, are the related implications of a study by Smith. In an experimental group, the researchers paid some members not to enter the discussion while the other members remained ignorant of the arrangement. The produc- tivity of the experimental group drOpped sharply as compared to a control group. When the experiment was repeated and all group members were advised of the situation, experimental group productivity did not vary from the control group. To summarize, role theory presents a systematic way of looking at the relationships of members of groups and the ef— fect each has on the other. It provides terminology and defi- nitions aiding in the construction, implementation, and re- porting of empirical research. The research here reported utilizes it to a considerable degree. 23 . J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Role, Role Conflict, and Effectiveness: An Empirical Study," American Socio~ logical Review, 19, 1954, pp. 164-175. 24E. E. Smith, "The Effects of Clear and Unclear Role Expectations on Group Productivity and Defensiveness," gpurnal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 1955, pp. 213- 217. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The basic design of this research is cross-sectional, i.e., all data were collected within a relatively short time interval and there was only one set of replies per respondent. Because the field sales manager is in a structural posi- tion in a corporate hierarchy, this position was examined from as many organizational viewpoints as possible. In effect, it was necessary to assume that deSpite structural similarities, industry, product and corporate differences in both role and role behavior may be present. The larger the number of simi~ larities in role and role behavior identified when including these potential differences, the more generalizations can be made about the structural position itself. As indicated earlier, the role set defined for this in~ vestigation contained hierarchical superiors and subordinates- Specifically, the role set contained the following: 1. The field sales manager. 2. The man to whom this field sales manager reports. 3. The most productive salesman reporting to this field sales manager. 24 1v 25 4. The least productive salesman reporting to this field sales manager. With this multiple role set and presumption of industry, product, and corporate differences, it is necessary to specify the method of data collection. Despite the inherent limita- tions of mail survey methods,1 this method best fitted the needs of the study for two reasons. First, the alternative of personally interviewing a large number of field sales personnel would be economically unfeasible. Second, a structured ques- tionnaire which would allow statistical comparison was desired. And anonymity, however important it might be to response, would be more easily conveyed by mail. Some limitations arose and these are discussed in a later section. Questionnaire Construction In line with the objectives of defining the nature of the field sales manager‘s job, defining the normative aspects of his role, and assessing the relationship of his authority and his responsibility, the questions were divided into four major parts. The objective of the first part was to ascertain cur~ rent behaviorm—what are his present tasks and what is their relative importance. Interviews with Operating sales managers -—_ lMildred Parten, Survey§, Polls, and Samples (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950). Pp. 391-402. 30 three is the responsibility scale and part four is the authority scale. Items while identical were scrambled so that it would not be immediately apparent that all twenty-four in each part were the same. In addition to these four major parts, additional infor- mation was desired. This included classification information as well as interaction and job satisfaction information for both field sales manager and salesmen respondents. It is immediately apparent that the questionnaires are lengthy. Since it was not possible to obtain the breadth and depth of information required by using a very short ques- tionnaire, the decision was made to obtain as much as was reasonably applicable in a single questionnaire. In addition, mailing lists of field sales managers and the specified role definers were not readily available. Consequently, the amount of effort required to obtain the names of samples did not justify a superficial treatment. And the response obtained justified the intensiveness of the questioning. Sample Selection Because corporate, industry, and product line differ~ ences were assumed, it was clear that an intensive investi- gation of a single company would probably not produce any generalizable results. At the very least, generalization would have been tenuous. To fulfill the requirement of L14 f“ u, _ , -,__.i_,_.--, , g 31 obtaining results which could be generalized, two samples are drawn. The intensive sample contained two companies belonging to the same corporation. Each company provided the following information: 1. The names and mailing addresses of all field sales managers dichotomized as to their pro- ductivity relative to one another. 2. The names and mailing addresses of the men to whom these field sales managers report. 3. The names and mailing address of the most produc- tive salesman reporting to each field sales manager. 4. The name and mailing address of the least produc— tive salesman reporting to each field sales manager. No criteria were given the participating companies in either the intensive or the extensive samples on the defini- tion of productivity. Each company was asked simply to de- fine the term in a way acceptable to it. This method was used partly as a concession to par- ticipating companies whose methods of evaluation would not fit a standardized definition and partly because this dis- sertation is not concerned specifically with the measurement Of productivity. Moreover, the literature contains a great diversity of definitions of productivity. This prohibited 32 the construction of a definition which would have uniform acceptance. The extensive sample comprised companies marketing a wide range of products in various geographic areas. The in— formation required of companies in the extensive sample was identical to that of the intensive with one exception -— since only one field sales manager's name was to be used, no productivity measure was solicited. In order to get the required names, a typed letter and mimeographed form were sent to past registrants in Michigan State University's Executive Seminar in Sales Management and to officers of local chapters of Sales-Marketing Executives, International whose titles indicated a sales management con— nection (These letters and accompanying forms are reproduced in Appendix A). This mailing totaled 350 individuals, with some company duplication. A total of 127 responses arrived, representing 73 companies and giving 83 usable lists of names and addresses. As in subsequent mailings all letters were typewritten, personally signed by the writer and by Dr. W. J. E. Crissy, and a return envelope without postage was provided. It is unfair to judge the returns from these letters too harshly. First, the information required particularly about salesman productivity is very often a sensitive area n5 5. Hu~ “L. n 2.x 33 and may not be known even to the salesmen involved. Second, salesman evaluation is known to be an area in which there is much variation. Companies often do not have explicit measuring techniques, i.e., much evaluation is informal and based on personal knowledge. Third, despite assurances of confiden- tiality, when returning names and addresses, if the addressee did not include his own name, he would have no knowledge of the use of the names and addresses. Finally, While every efw fort was made to send requests to those who could provide such information, in a number of cases the organizational structure precluded a company‘s participation. On the positive side, many expressions of interest ac- companied names and addresses, were indicated by telephone, or were sent even though a company could not or would not provide the requested information. Two unusual cases develOped. In the first, the respondu ent asked that all salesmen be included in the questionnaire mailing. He returned the salesman productivity information after being advised of the responses. In the second, one com- pany offered to distribute the questionnaires to the appro- priate individuals, but company policy prevented release of their names. Questionnaire Administration Questionnaire booklets were printed in three forms (and 34 in three colors to facilitate coding); one for each hierarchi- cal position. The only differences among the forms were in the use of pronouns and in the instructions to each part since the objective was to focus on the field sales manager. Ques- tionnaire booklets were printed and coded with a seven digit number. Throughout all mailing, reSpondents were assured of the confidence of their answers and no signatures were solic- ited. But identification of respondents was necessary. Con- sequently, the code on each contained a questionnaire number corresponding to the number on the name card in research files, a company number, a position number and a number corresponding to the productivity of the field sales manager. Few peOple question the presence of a serial number if they receive as— surance of anonymity of response. Mailings of 343 questionnaires to the extensive sample and 137 questionnaires to the intensive sample were completed within two weeks. Approximately six weeks following the initial mailing. duplicate packages were sent as a follow-up to individuals in the extensive sample. Table 1 and 2 indi- cate the breakdown of responses included in subsequent chapters. Table 3 shows how these data were divided for analyti- cal purposes. It indicates the code number for a given posi— tion, the title and productivity of individuals included, and 5Parten, Op.gi£., pp. 400-401. 35 TABLE 1 MAILING AND RETURN INFORMATION FOR EXTENSIVE SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRES .Mailing Adjusted* Total Returns First Mailing 160 Follow-up 38 _istribution of Returns Field High Sales Productivity Superiors Managers Salesmen Mail 77 85 80 Return 54 63 49 Percentage 70.1 74.1 61.2 319 198 Low Productivity Salesmen_“ 77 32 41.5 *Adjusted for Post Office Returns, Error in Coding, and to reflect mailing to all salesmen of the company noted in the text. 36 TABLE 2 MAILING AND RETURN INFORMATION FOR INTENSIVE SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRES .Mailing Total 137 523.2523 Total 101 Less: Not Completed 3 Net Returns 98 Distribution of Returns High Productivity Low Productivity Field Sales Field Sales Superigr§_ Managers Managers Mail 6 22 21 Return 4 17 18 Percentage 66.7 77.2 85.7 High Productivity Low Productivity Salesmen Salesmen Mail 44 44 Return 27 32 Percentage 61.3 72.7 37 TABLE 3 IDENTITY AND SOURCE OF DATA GROUPINGS Code Identifies Source Number Number 10 All Superiors Both Extensive 58 and Intensive 20 Field Sales Managers (No Pro- ductivity Measure) Extensive 63 21 Field Sales Managers (TOp Half Productivity) Intensive 17 22 Field Sales Managers (Bottom Half Productivity) Intensive 18 For the following number pairs the second defines the productivity of the field level sales manager to which the salesman report; to be interpreted as follows: 0-- no productivity measure, 1-— Field level sales manager is in the top half in productivity, 2—- Field level sales manager is in the bottom half in productivity. 3O 31 32 4O 41 42 High Productivity Salesman High Productivity Salesman High Productivity Salesman Low Productivity Salesman Low Productivity Salesman Low Productivity Salesman Extensive Intensive Intensive Extensive Intensive Intensive 49 14 12 32 17 15 38 identifies the sample (extensive or intensive) from which the data were derived. Statistical Technigues Because of the ordinal nature of data obtained in the current activities section, the mean is a relatively inappro~ priate measure of central tendency. The ordinal nature is not, however, in itself disqualifying. But the fact that the in- terval between ranks is not known is a disqualifying factor. A perusal of questionnaires reflects the inequality of the intervals. For example, in a number of instances, respondents indicated (incorrectly according to the instructions) their ~- perception of the interval between ranks within a section. in a very few cases were these intervals equal. Moreover, to ag- gregate responses from each of the five sections, the interval would have to have been equal for all. The fact that the perv centage of time spent on each section as a whole varied, pre~ cluded such equality. The median conversely is an apprOpriate measure of cen- tral tendency because its value depends only on the size of the sample. Where a measure of central tendency was desired in this part, the median was used. Also in this section of ranked activities, the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient was used to determine the correlation between two sets of ordinally ranked items. The 39 primary use in this paper was to compare responses of differ- ent positions to the same items. In other sections in which scaling devices were used, the mean was employed as a measure of central tendency. There were two reasons for this. First, although there was no way of knowing whether the intervals between scale positions were equal, the mean reflected the relative positiveness or nega~ tiveness of the response. This is all that was desired. The fact that the scale was artifically discontinuous, i.e., limited points of choice were provided, does not obviate the 6 Second, the statistical test used to deter~ use of the mean. mine the significance of the difference between the responses of two reSpondent groups required the mean as a measure of central tendency. The following paragraphs of this chapter discuss the method of testing and the rationale behind its use. Because of the division of the data into the ten groups {See Table 3) some small sample groups appeared. This im- mediately causes problems for statistical analysis.7 The 6Claire Sellitz, et.al., Research Methods in Social: figlggiggg, revised edition (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1959}, p. 410. 7Much of What follows is the result of discussions with Dr. Herman Rubin of Michigan State University's Department of Statistics. His assistance and interest are acknowledged. It should be noted, in addition, that there is some contro- versy among users of both parametric and non-parametric sta- tistics as to when Specific techniques are applicable and when they are not. Clearly the purpose of this paper is not 40 largest single problem revolves around the nature of the dis~ tribution of population from which the sample was drawn. The nature of the distribution becomes particularly important when researchers utilize analytical statistics. There are two general classes of statistical techniques: Parametric and non-parametric...8 Parametric statistics, in general, make stringent assumptions about the distribution of the pOpulation, i.e., it is generally assumed to be normal or very close to normal. For large sample sizes, this assumption is not par- ticularly restrictive. But for small samples the use of these tests becomes relatively meaningless. On the other hand, nonwparametric statistics, in gen« eral, make no assumptions about the nature of the distribu— tion and it is expected that these would be more meaningful for survey research of the type reported here. But non— parametric statistics with sample sizes less than forty are employed only with difficulty. In addition, the data were discontinuous. This is not to say that the ideas reflected in the responses were not continuous, but only that, to facilitate coding and analysis, data were grouped. to resolve this controversy. It does have the "virtue", however, of consistency. 8For a view somewhat different from that here presente- see Sol Siegel, Non~Parametric Statistics, New York: McGraw- Hill, 1956. 41 Probably the best statistic for continuous data and large sample sizes of the type reported here is the Kolmogorov- Smirnov two~samp1e test statistic. In fact, this is a useful statistic for small samples if the two groups being compared are of equal size. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test statistic is from the family of non-parametric statistics and thus, for large samples, it does not make any assumptions about the popu- lation distribution. It is also possible to calculate the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test statistic for grouped data with small but unequal sample size, but it is extremely difficult. Moreover, the power gained from this calculation versus the test used throughout this analysis is negligible. The statistic used for analysis in this research was a modified "t" statistic the results of which closely approxi» mated the more difficult Kolmogcrov-Smirnov test. In addi- tion, the "t" statistic is more powerful in testing shifts in central tendency with which we were most concerned. The only assumption made here then was that the data follow ”t” statistic distribution. Limitations of the Study As with almost any empirical study, this one has limita— tions. Some are certainly the result of constraints of time and money. Others are noted in the analysis chapters, but .1. . [VAI‘ 42 there are some general limitations which should be noted at this point. 1. The limitations of mail questionnaire surveys are well-known. It is exceedingly difficult to assess the accuracy of given responseS‘or to eliminate all semantic difficulties. Moreover, it is not possible to profile, in this case, the nature of the non-respondents. But the nearly seventy per cent aggregate return mitigates this limitation somewhat. Whenever one assesses the effectiveness of a field sales manager or a field salesman, it is important to realize that personal selling represents but a single part of the firm's total demand creating and demand satisfying force. It would be unfortun- ate not to consider variables such as the degree to which advertising, personal selling and sales promotion are coordinated and maintained in a particular salesman's territory. Methodological limitations also occur. The ordinal nature of the data limits the number and certainty of conclusions which can be drawn. And the sta~ tistical limitations have been noted. Finally the representativeness of either the 43 extensive or intensive sample cannot be proved or disproved. Summary Utilizing role theory as a conceptual framework, a mail questionnaire was develOped. The questionnaire was adminis‘ tered to an intensive sample composed of the field sales struc- ture of two companies, and to an extensive sample of names solicited from many different companies marketing various products. Statistics used in the analyses include the Spearw man rank order correlation and a modified "t” test. CHAPTER IV THE FIELD SALES MANAGER'S JOB I. Extensive Sample The purpose of this chapter is to examine the current activities of the field sales manager -— his role behavior. The basic data are from Part A of each of the questionnaires filled out in each case by the superior, the field sales manager, and the two salesmen. To define the field sales manager's job as he perceives it, each respondent was asked to rank a set of activities within each of five sections. The specific instructions to field sales managers were as follows: Please rank the following activities from one to in terms of the amount of time you Spend in an average week on each in relation to the others in this group. If you have no connection Whatsoever with a par- ticular activity, please write the word "none" in the space before the activity. Each section contained a different number of related but dif- ferent activities. Table 4 shows the relative distribution 0f activities. In addition, each respondent was given the Opportunity 44 45 TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVITIES BY SECTION IN QUESTIONNAIRE PART A “4 Section Number of Activities Listed Marketing Activities 10 Selling Activities 5 Financial Activities 6 Personnel Activities 9 Administrative Activities _4 34 to Specify a time consuming activity in which he engaged but which was not included in the questionnaire. A review of the inclusions substantiated the validity of the items in Part A in two ways. First, despite the fact that respondents were free to make insertions, relatively few did so. And many Which were included appeared in other sections. Second, if any activity had received all "none" responses, i.e. was not ranked by any respondent, it would have been invalidated. This did not occur. In order to establish a profile of the field sales manw agers job, it is necessary to look at their responses in each 0f the five sections. It is also useful to examine the number 0f "nones" and the range of responses. Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 show the modal responses of field sales managers when rankings are combined to form high, middle, and low groups. 46 Also presented are the number of nones recorded and the range of ranking. Each activity section will be considered in turn. Part A caused the greatest number of questionnaire administration problems. Instructions were not always followed and on occasion the answers could not be edited to the correct form. Consequently some responses were unusable and hence ex~ cluded. This accounts for the section to section variation in the number of respondents. Table 5 shows the time spent in an average week on each of the five sections as a whole by field sales managers in the extensive sample. TABLE 5 MEAN PERCENTAGE OF TIME SPENT ON EACH ACTIVITY GROUP BY FIELD SALES MANAGERS Mean Percentage of Work Time axm‘ — Activity Group Marketing 18:1 Selling 36°6 Financial 7°4 Personnel 20:4 Administrative 18°? 100.7* *Total is not 100% because of rounding. Marketing Activities. The range of ranks ascribed by field sales managers to the activities in this section was ve ea 14a of men of t the 47 very wide. Only two did not receive at least one response in each of the ten possible ranks. The number of "none" responses was small with two exceptions; each having some relevant im- plications. These responses as well as the grouped rankings of marketing activities are summarized in Table 6. First, in reSponse to the statement "participating in the formulation of overall marketing policy", nearly twenty per cent indicated no time commitment to this activity. This would seem, based on research in other areas, to be a detri— ment to the effectiveness of the manager in the implementation of overall marketing policy.1 There is no question that the field sales manager must be viewed as a key link in the im~ plementation of marketing policy.2 And his participation in the laying of plans will enhance his effectiveness in imple- mentation particularly if these plans require some changes in his own behavior. The greater his participation, the greater will be his commitment to the behavior prescribed by the group Of formulators. Moreover, to the extent that he is expected to translate marketing policy into Operational terms and to communicate this policy and its objectives to his lSee Leon Festinger, The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (NEW York: Harper & Row, 1957), and Newcomb, Converse and Turner, Op.cit., pp. 104 ff. 2In some organizations, the field sales manager seems also to be bypassed in the implementation of marketing Policy. See Chapter VI. ullllllull.ll Fb( rviCI‘L,\-“a mark. .2 A» u-~‘~m~oo mmHmm HUHHpmHU mcH3mH>mm . . .. uoanme pH: OHIH am H H \wm om CH mmHmm unsusm mchmmumuom OHIH $m.mm mH Rmc mm mmHuH>Huum Hmcofluoe ionm mcHHHmmlcoc Hm£uo HO\U:m mchHuHm>©m mafimmcmz mIH XO.H H $00 om ucmEmmmcmE ou GOHH IMOHGDEEOU How coHumEHOm:H Hmeoumso can mmHmm mcHNHHmEEnm OHIH fiO.m m Kev mu unwEmon>®© DUDUOHQ 3oz no no .muosoonm .mucmammcmuum wum>HHmc .onum CH mmmcm£u co mchH>U¢ mIH 0 Rue Hm HomEmmmamE Eoum O0>Hoomn COHumEHowcH mcHummmHQ 3A no.8 S was He Sofiom OCHpmmeE HHmuw>o wo GOHH IMHDEHOH mflu CH mcflummHoHuHmm OHIH o umm Hm pump mmHmm mcHNSqu< OHnH 0 Rev Hm cmEmmHmm Op coHumE InomcH mumuomnou mGHHMUHSDEEOU oHsH ea.H H umm om SpH>Huom m>HpHummsou mcHsmH>om umcmm mucmoconmmm wcoz OHnm hue qu HmQEDZ . xcmm Hmuoa mo mmcchmm >HH>Hu04 mmmucmoumm mm mcoz mdflOdZflS .Ilu‘: illsflfll ii ,Ixri I . ....|..Iu gill .v‘l‘. hlv 3..§.1llu.'h.nll. mmflfim OHMHE mqmzdm m>HmZmBXm wm mMHBH>HBU¢ UZHBMMMfiS m0 mOZHXZ¢m H¢QOZ w mqm<fi 49 salesmen, his effectiveness will be reduced by a lack of par~ ticipation. Second, because the firm's impact on a market or mar~ kets is the sum total of all its activity in that market, the need for coordination of all demand creating and sustaining activities of the firm in a market is substantial. Yet nearly twenty—five per cent of the field sales managers do not partic~ ipate in the management of advertising or other non-selling promotional activities. It is consistent to believe that this results in fragmented, inefficient effort. And one may expect the firm‘s impact on the market to be less than the maximum possible. At the same time, sixty-eight per cent of those who do participate in this activity, rank it in the low group. This indicates potential fragmentation even though some ef~ fort is expended. Selling Activities. This group of activities is the most important of the five in terms of time commitment; taking an average of thirty—seven per cent of the field sales man~ ager‘s time. Much has been said about the degree to Which the field sales manager. or any sales manager for that matter, should engage in selling activities of any kind. In this res gard three Specific points are made about the responses. First, thirtyafour per cent of the respondents have no accounts of their own. (See Table 7) Most of the remainder R. MNlh mi 63.5 5O mHMm mo mEHOu MIH HcmH w comm m? \ HMHowmm mom ummsown m.HoEoumDU M £0 mcHOHoom mIH m.H H HHS mm coEmoHMm mHQ SDHB mHHmo mmHmm mcmez mIH m.m N XHc Hm nympho HmEoumso mchprmxm mIH m.H H Xom mm mucsooom EmHQon OCHHOcmm mIH xvm mH ch mm mucsooom :30 mHS Op OCHHHmm Homemnmm chmm mucmpsoammm mcoz mie m NIH HmQEDZ xcmm Hmuoe mo cmxcmm . wmmpcwoumm mpH>Hu0¢ mm mcoz mmm0<242 mm4HmZmBXm mmHBH>HBO¢ UZHHHmm ho mUZHMZ¢M HfiQOE Wm h HHmc¢ cIH o.mN mH Rom mm CoHpmuomo mOHmmo Cocmnn mo mumoo mCHHHOCuCOO 01H h.Nm 5H RNm mm mammUSQ mCHHmmmHm OIH o.mm Hm XNO HN mumoo mCHmsonoums pcm >MODCO>CH mCHHHOHuCOO mIH Kc.m m Run no mumu mmComxm mCHHHmm OCHuhHMCd mmCmm mqupComwmm mCoz cam cum NIH M03832 ll MCmm Hmuoe mo coxcmm wmmquUHmm >DH>Hp0¢ mm MCoz .. Mafia! ‘ , ,.f ‘I i. mmm04242 mmHHmZMBNm Mm mmHBH>H804 Qmm i m m fimc mv CmEmmHmm How mEMHm w maN loam COHHMmCmmEOU mCH3mH>mm _ o o Xmm Nm meHQOHm HCCOmem m Co CmEmmHmm OCHmH>©¢ N m H H Xmm Hm HUHHumHU mHH CH mowa HmCCOmHmQ wHDpCm mCHummomHom mIH o 0 Row Nm cmEmonm EmHQoum OCHHUCmm 4 I :3 h H o o How Nm mmCHummE memm mCHUH0£ UCm mCHCCmHm mIH m.m N XNc om CwEmmHMm BOC mCHHumem OCm mCHuHCHUmm mIH o.H H Xmm Hm OUCMEHOHHOQ CmEmmHmm mo mpHmUCmuw mCHSmHHQmumm VIH o o Rom Nm CmEmmHmm mCHCHmna wocmm mHCmcComnom mcoz man one miH HOQEJZ mem Hmuoe Ho poxcmm mmmquonom huH>HH04 mm mCoz mmm0¢2¢z mdem QHMHm mHm2¢m m>HmZMme wm mmHBH>HBU< HMZZOmmmm m0 mOZHXZ Co muuommh mCHuHHB cIH c.m m KOO Hm meEOHmDU ppaumapmmme aqu maproz VIH v.> v $05 on mcHOUOH mCHmmmx auH m.¢H m new we mUHuuo pHmHu map maammamz wmcmm quOOCOQmmm OCOZ m MIN H Honesz mem HmHOB mo cmemm wmmquuumm muH>Huo¢ mm wCoz mmmw¢2¢2 mMHdm QHWHh WHmzfim W>Hm2m9xm 5m mmHBH>HBU¢ m>HB¢MBmHZHSQ¢ m0 mUZH¥2¢m H¢002 OH WHm48 58 TABLE 11 THE FIELD SALES MANAGER'S JOB EXTENSIVE SAMPLE I. Selling Activities A. Making sales calls with his salesmen. B. Handling problem accounts. C. Personal selling to his own accounts. D. Expediting customer orders. E. Deciding on a customer's request for special terms of sale. II. Personnel Activities A. Training salesmen. B. Establishing standards of salesman performance. C. Planning and holding sales meetings. D. Advising salesmen on personal problems. E. Handling problem salesmen. F. Recruiting and selecting new salesmen. G. Forecasting future personnel needs in his district. H. Reviewing compensation programs for salesmen. I. Revising man specifications required for the field sales position. III. Administrative Activities A. Managing the field office. B. Writing reports on various aspects of district Operations. C. Keeping records. D. Working with dissatisfied customers. IV. Marketing Activities A. Analyzing sales data. B. Communicating corporate information to salesmen. C. Digesting information received from management. D. Summarizing sales and customer information for communication to management. E. Reviewing competitive activity 59 TABLE 11 (continued) Forecasting future sales in his district. Reviewing district sales coverage and salesmen's territory alignment. Advising on changes in price, delivery arrangements, products, or on new product development. Participating in the formulation of overall marketing policy. Managing advertising and/or other non-selling promotional activities. Financial Activities A. B. C. D. Analyzing selling expense data. Controlling costs of branch office Operations. Controlling inventory and warehousing costs. Watching the trend of costs expanded in relation to profits generated in his district. Preparing budgets. Advising on the need for additional capital expenditure in his district. 60 of the other role definers. The most pronounced deviation occurred in the low productivity salesmen's assessment of the importance of items A, D, E, and F. The low productivity salesmen assign more effort to review of competitive activity and to participation in the formulation of overall marketing policy. And they assign less effort to the digesting of in- formation received from management and to advising on changes in price, delivery arrangements, products, or on new product development. Superiors and high productivity salesmen agree closely (P greater than .9) with the field sales managers“ own per- ception of the relative time allocation to these activities. Selling Activities. The rankings in this section were identical with the exception of a deviation again on the part of the low productivity salesmen. Since this deviation is not significant, there is no indication that role conflict would arise here. Financial Activities. All role definers assigned less effort to the control of inventory and warehousing costs than did the field sales managers themselves. In addition, the low productivity salesmen perceived more effort in the com- parison of eXpended costs to profits generated. Responses of both the superiors and the low productivity salesmen correlated 61 less in their rankings of these activities than did those of the high productivity salesmen with the field sales managers“ own rankings. Personnel Activities. There was a relatively high level of agreement among the four respondent groups about the relaw tive rank of the personnel activities with the rank correlation coefficient exceeding .88 for all three comparisons. The largest deviations occurred in items B, C, D, E, and F. With respect to the direction of deviation, no pattern was particu- larly pronounced. The largest deviation occurred between the field sales manager and his superior. The latter believed that recruiting and selecting salesmen required greater time than did the incumbents themselves. Administrative Activities. No pronounced differences were apparent. ngmagy. Although agreement was high among the four respondent groups in many cases, there were, within the mar" keting, financial, and personnel activities sections, devia- tions which reflect some misunderstanding of the field sales manager's job. Whether a particular deviation because of its size or of the nature of the particular activity is summarily disrupting to the efficient operation of the organization can~ not be determined with certainty. But these deviations may be 62 determinants of role conflict among the role definers. A misunderstanding of the amount of time required for the field sales manager to perform a given task may also create pres- sures which would prevent the successful accomplishment of a given activity. (See Table 12 for a composite view.) TABLE 12 MEAN PERCENTAGE OF TIME SPENT ON EACH ACTIVITY GROUP AS PERCEIVED BY ROLE DEFINERS Mean Percentage of Work Time Activity Field High Low Group Sales Productivity Productivity Managers* Superiors Salesmen Salesmen Marketing 18.1 17.0 26.3 24.3 Selling 36.6 38.7 31.0 32.8 Financial 7.4 5.3 9.3 8.3 Personnel 20.4 24.5 15.1 17.6 Administrative 18.2 14.4 17.8 16.8 *it’ *1? ** *4: *From Table 5 **Totals may not equal 100% because of rounding. II. The Intensive Sample In questionnaire administration no distinction was made between the extensive and intensive samples. All respondents in each structural position responded according to the same instructions. The distinction between the extensive and the intensive was two fold: (1) the intensive sample contained 63 two companies in the same corporation within the same industry and (2) the entire sales organization (all superiors, field sales managers and two salesmen per field sales manager) of each company was the subject of inquiry; differing from the extensive sample where one field sales manager per company his superior and two of his salesmen comprised the respondent group. By including all field sales managers in the intensive sample, it was possible to obtain a measure of their relative productivity (the participating companies were asked to dichotw omize their respective groups of field sales managers by pro— ductivity). In practice however the companies chose to rank their managers on productivity. The writer dichotomized each group on the basis of the rankings thus providing a high pro~ ductivity group and a low productivity group. Thus an ex- amination can be made of the similarities and differences in the way high productivity and low productivity field sales managers perceive their functions. And while cause and ef- fect cannot be stated conclusively, the differences indicated by the two groups may reflect misallocated time which, in turn, may affect productivity. It should be noted that the two companies in this sample are particularly apprOpriate for this inquiry because both employ a very detailed, Specific job description of the field sales manager. This is provided incumbents as a guide to 64 what is expected. Further, there are few substantive intern company differences in these. Any deviation in individual activities by a field sales manager would in itself be a po- tential source of conflict for him. But more importantly there is sufficient constriction of the individual field sales manager's latitude that it would be expected that there would be very small differences in performance. Thus at the outset we would eXpect very small differences in performance and that that performance would be poor, mediocre or good depending on how well the prescribed duties are related to with market conditions. Differences in performance between high prodqu tivity and low productivity field sales managers may be indi- cation of the effectiveness of a detailed job description- The intensive sample has the additional advantage of containing few of the industry, corporate, and product dif~ ferences assumed to be present in the extensive sample. This elimination allows the construction of a profile of the field sales manager‘s job by productivity which may be generalized to the industry of which the two companies are members. This profile also can be compared to the one constructed from ex» tensive sample responses in an attempt to generalize about the structural position of “field sales manager." As with the previous section the data were derived from Part A of the questionnaire and the discussion follows the format pursued 65 in the previous section. Marketing Activities. Table 13 shows the modal response pattern of field sales managers in the intensive sample. There is high agreement between the "high” and "low” groups; with the groups agreeing unanimously on the mode of each activity. But the differences that do occur are particularly significant in view of the detailed manual of practice. The commitment of low productivity field sales managers is considerably less in the formulation of overall marketing policy and in forecasting district sales. At the same time it should be noted that neither group ranked time Spent on policy formulation higher than eight on the scale. The importance of participation in poligy formulation if effective implementation is expected is noted again here as in the extensive sample. Conversely, although more than oneethird of the low productivity managers do no sales fore“ casting whatsoever. the modal response of those who do is in the middle range. Moreover high productivity managers while responding at the same mode are more heavily committed to this activity. This may suggest a lack of commitment on the part of the low productivity field sales manager to planning of activities in his district. This in itself may indicate a conflict for this manager in that he may prefer to engage in less speculative activities. It may also reflect an over 66 mm mm m 0 e\oOm $00 .Nuom m OH #CQEQ‘OHONVQQ nonpoum 3mg so no .muUDUOHm .mucmEGmcmn tum >Hm>flamp .moflum GH mmmcmflo so mnflmfi>pfi O O O O X&m Ram ma 0H UCTEGWNCME Eonm ©m>H®UmH coaumanomcfl mcflummmflm E Om S w $63 $03 m m sufioo 33mins Sm luw>o m0 COHHMHSEHOM may CH mcflummHUflunmm o o o 0 Ken Rmo ma ma mump mmamm mcfluhamc< o o o 0 $3 $3 2 3 8533 0p coaumEMOMCH wpmuomuoo mcsumoflsseeoo Xm so H H $3 $0.. NH 3. 3:38 m>Hpeumeoo mae3ww>mm .3 let. .1 5mm 3. or .3. mm .3. M: .3. or mucmpcomwwm iwcmm roaaml! Riv - .llNHflll .mmwmmmm Hmuoe mo 11 wmowxcom quEdz >ufl>wpo¢ ommucwoumm mm mcoz 33A Qzfi EUHE Em mmHBH>H804 UZHBMXMHBUDQOmm ma mqmdfi mazwxz¢m Hua>a¢o§poum 30A u mg mummmcmz mwamm pamflm hufi>HuUSQOHm Smflm H mm o o o A x8 x2 3 fl €9.23? >HOUfluumu m.cmEmmHmm paw mmmum>oo mmamm uowuumwfl mcfi3wfl>mm mm ma m m Rmn Ron m wa uofiuumwc we: ca mmHMm unsusm mafiummumnom No me m AH Row Row m m mmflufi>fluum Hmcofluoaonm mafiaammlcoc Hmnuo no \pcm mcfimfluuw>©m mcflmmcmz m o H 0 new use NH 6H ucmsmmmcms Guy COHHMOMCDEEOU HOW coflumEHOMCfl HmEoumsu pom mmamm mcfluwumaeam l1.) 41" mm mm on an in mm on an is mm ms or mucmpcoawmm awcoz ldeMII. liMHMll. ilNHfl!l .Qflxcmm HMpoe mo mmcflxcmm noflEnZ >aa>fluo< mmmucmouwm mm mnoa a ..!II .lflw {JinnJruuk la“! 3' x i prscaucoov ma mgmfluoscoum 30g n ma mummmcmz mwamm camflm >ua>fluoscoum swam H mm o o Rom Xnm w n mamm mo 5mm hem Ha m mEHmu Hafiowmm How umwsku m.Hmfiou Imnu m :0 mcflpflumn o o o 0 $03 $09” ma 3 cosmmamm ms: npflB mHHmu mmamm mcfixmz Xmm fimm w v XBm fimo n ma nympho HmEoumDU mcfluflcmmxm Rom xoa m m fimn xmo NH ma manpooom Emfinonm mcflaccmm Rum Koo ma ma Rom Rom Xooa m H mucuooum s30 was on moaaamm HchmHmm m4 mm mg mm mg m3 m9 m3 m4 gm .mq Am mucmccommmm «wcoz Igmiw m . NIH, mcwxcmm HMpOB mo pmxcmm quEdz muw>flu04 mmMpcmuumm mm wcoz mmmO§Z¢S mmqflm QQMHm.%BH>HBUDQOmm 30a 92¢ EOHE Mm mmHBH>HBU¢ OZHAQmm m0 mDZHxZ¢m dfimoz ca mgmuH>HpUJ moo mum mmmcummou :chz: + UOHm 304 M m4 mummmcmz mmamm camam maw>Huuscogm mem H mm in .5 1. .ill .I “UHHumHG o 00 m . mm he 6 w New \om oH mHs :H cmumnmcmm mufiuoum Ou coaumamu CH cmccmmxm mumou mo camup on» maflnoumz map 00 00 N .V UUHHU . mm on eH mH \ooH \ms mH: CH muspHccmoxm HmpHmmo HmcoHuHuem How come on“ so mcflmfl>©< mm mm NH ma th KOCH m N coflumummo ooflwmo Susana we mumoo mcHHHonucoo me He NH NH xooH Rom w m mummpsn mcmummmum mm OOH wH nH xom Rom m o mumoo mcflmsonmnm3 cam >H0pcm>cH mcflHHouucoo smN .sNH v N me smm NH mH mums mmcwmxw mcHHwa mcflumamc< m9 m3 mg m2 m4 mm mg mm mg m2 m4 m3 Wucmpcommmm emcoz IIMHWII. IIMHMII .IIMHflIE .mqflmmmm Hopoe mo pmxcmm ngfioz >pfl>auo< mmmucmonmm mm wcoz i. W Ii 11.. .. :Auillll... ! .I‘IE! . ,1.in {filial mmm0¢Z¢S mm4HBUDOCmm BOA Q24 mUHm Wm mMHBH>HBU< AwuoNUCHm LWHI H ML whammcmz memm UHOHA NHH>HUU3coum BOA M AH mummmcmz miHmm pH:4p Hilallallfi , .m?llifl all a- -1w1 .13m. EMEJlaflNMMMMMMfimmHmm chHm mm no h m \00H \mo ogu How pmuHoomH mcoHu IMUHMHummm cmE mchH>mm mEmumOHm 00 N. 000m HH NH cmemmfimm HOW m ON H m \m \ COHOMmCmmEOU mcHzmH>mm m 00 00 HH mH meHQoum HMGOmHm m o H o \no \vo co cmEmmHmw mchH>pm AH s N H now. new 3 3 .6333 mHS CH momma HOGGOm lumm unsusm mcHummomuom o o o o s3 s2. NH mH cmsmonm EmHQOHm mcHHccmm o o o o fihm fibo NH mH mmcHummE mmHmm mchHOQ cam OCHQSMHm o o o o fimm Koo NH mH coEmmHmm 3w: mcHuomHmm 0cm mcHuHsuumm mm ON v m Rom fiNfi m NH mucmanomumm cmEmmHmm wo moumpcmum mcHfimHHQmumm o n o H fiNm Xmm NH «H cmEmemm mchHmHB mH mm mg mm m4 m3 OH mm mH mm AH am mucmccomwwm *mCOZI. IlNHMII. IIMHmII. IHMHMEI. mdwmmmm HMHOB m0 Umxcmm HTQEDZ %UH>MMO< mmmucmoumm mm mcoz ‘ I‘ll mmmw<2¢2 mmHHBUDQOmm 30H 92¢ mem %m mMHEH>HBU¢ HWZZOmmmm ho mUZH¥Z so muuommn mCHuHHB mo ON nRom O NH WHwEOuwDU Umflmmflubm umHo AOHB mcHMnoz o o Rom an 0H mH mUHOUOH mCHQOOK om no XHN Xmo m h wUHmmO UHme wfiu maHmmcmS AH mm mH mm mH m3 m4 m3 mucmccommmm msN _ H mmecmM Hmuoe m0 Umxcmm MOQEDZ >UH>Hp04 mmmucmoumm mm wcoz NH WHmfiB mmm0<2¢2 mmqfim QHmHm NEH>HEUDQOKQ 30H 92¢ EOHE Wm mmHBH>HBU4 m>HB4mBmHZHSQ¢ m0 mOZHMZ¢m HdQOE 77 coefficients indicated relatively high agreement, the low productivity salesmen deviated from the field sales managers on every activity. The largest deviation arose on the review of district sales coverage and the realignment of territories. The low productivity salesmen assigned more Of the field sales manager's time to this activity. As perhaps the most Often affected by this activity, this ranking is not unexpected. There is very low agreement between both groups of salesI men and field sales managers on the relative time expended on selling activities; the rank correlation coefficient being .375 for both comparisons. And while personal selling to their own accounts is not common for field sales managers in this sample, both groups Of salesmen ranked this activity lower than do their managers. Conversely, probably as a re- sult Of the high emphasis given the making of sales calls with salesmen by the sample firms, all groups ranked that activity number one. Because the financial activities as a group were re— garded as consuming little time, a detailed discussion of the relative rankings is not justified. It is noted that on the two financial activities in which field sales managers most frequently engaged (See Table 15), all four respondent groups agreed that the analysis Of selling cost data was the most time consuming of all activities. The superiors as well as 78 the high productivity salesmen perceived the comparison of costs expended to profits generated as being relatively more time consuming than did either the field sales managers or the low productivity salesmen. The training of salesmen was the unanimous choice among the incumbents and role definer groups as the most time con- suming Of the personnel activities. And there was high gen» eral agreement On the other activities in the group. The high productivity salesmen, whose overall rankings least agreed with the field sales managers', accorded less relative time to the planning and holding Of sales meetings than did the field sales managers. Superiors also ranked this activity lower. In administrative activity comparison, there were few deviations. And the number of activities precluded any mean- ingful rank correlation calculation. The Low Productivity Field Sales Manager. In general there was less agreement throughout the five groups Of aCthi~ ties between the low productivity field sales manager and his role definers. In the marketing, selling, and financial activities the field sales manager had highest agreement with his low productivity salesman. His lowest agreement was with his superior in the marketing activities and with his high productivity salesman in the selhing and financial activities. 79 Again although there were a large number of "none" responses to financial activities, the low productivity field sales manager deviated from all role definers on every item in the group. In the personnel activity group, the pattern of agree- ment was somewhat reversed: the least agreement being with the low productivity salesmen who received more time spent on the establishing Of standards and less to be spent on the re» view Of compensation programs. This finding is not uneXpected for as with the review of district sales coverage and the re- alignment Of sales territories, the low productivity salesmen are perhaps most subject to consistent evaluation against standards and most sensitive about their compensation. The field sales manager and the remaining two role de- finer groups showed relatively high overall agreement on the relative amount of time spent on these activities. In the administrative sector there was again little deviation on the part of any group from the focal position. Extensive and Intensive Comparison on Current Activities Having looked at both samples individually, it is useful to Observe the relative agreement Of the extensive and inten— sive groups on the time required to perform the field sales manager‘s various activities. Table 18 reflects the modal 80 pattern of agreement. Considering the marketing activities the modes of the two samples were the same but the extensive respondents allocate relatively more time to advising on changes in price, delivery arrangements, products, or on new product development. Conversely, there was low modal agree- ment on the relative importance of selling activities. The extensive respondents who engage in personal selling to their own accounts modally ranked that activity high. There was little Of this in the intensive sample. The expediting Of customer orders, the making of sales calls with salesmen, and making decisions on customer‘s requests for special terms Of sales were all modally ranked lower by the extensive sample. There was modal agreement in the financial activities on the analysis Of selling eXpense data and on the control of branch Office costs. But neither group was heavily com- mitted to these activities. With reSpect to personnel activities there was modal agreement on the time required for the following actiVities. 1. Training salesmen 2. Establishing standards of salesman performance 3. Planning and holding sales meetings 4. Handling problem salesmen 5. Revising man specifications required for the sales position m4. MNTHQANPH. 81 x quECmHHm >HOHHHHOO m.CmEmmHmm pCm mmmno>oo meMm HUHHumHO mCH3mH>mm x uUHHumHU mHS CH mmHmm mususm mCHummomHom x mepH>HuUm HmCOHuOEOHm mCHHmeICOC Monuo HO\©Cm mCHmHuHm>cm mCHOMsz x quEmeCmE Op COHumoHCCEEOU How COHumEHOmCH HOEOumCU ccm mmHmm mCHNHHmEECm x quEmOHw>wc HUCOOHQ BOC Co no .muosponm .mquEmmCmuum MHO>HHOO .wUHHm CH mmmCmao CO mCHmH>p¢ x quEmeCmE Eoum cm>HwowH COHumEH0mCH mCHummmHQ x hoHHom mCHummeE HHmuw>o mo COHOMHCEHOH Gnu CH mCHummHUHuHmm mumc mmHmm mCthHMCC CmEmmHmw cu COHumE IHOwCH mpmnomnou mCHumoHCCEEOU %UH>Huum w>HHHumeOU mCH3wH>mm umCHumxumS CH cam mm HHco CH cam NHco mm cam ucmsmmumc w>Hmcmuxm O>HmCmuxm m>HmCmuxm oz HHH>HuoC wa3umm uCOEmeo¢ Hmpoz mmm0¢Z¢S mmqflm DHWHm mqm2¢m m>HmZmBZH 924 m>HmszXm ym mOZHMZc4 x COHumummo mUHmwo CUCmHQ mo muwou mCHHHOHuCOU x mummusn mCHHmmem x mumoo mCHmCOQ Imnmz UCm mHOUCw>CH mCHHHOHuCOU mump mmCmme mCHHHmm mCHNNHMCC "HmHUCMCHm x mem mo mEku HMHummm How ummsvwm m.HmEOumCU C CO mCHUHUmQ x cwEmmHmm mHC LHHB mHHmo memm mCmeS x nympho CmEOumCo mCHuHUmmxm muCDooum EmHQOHm mCHHchm x mucsouum C30 mHC on mCHHHmm HmComCmm .mcHHme CH 6cm Cm CHCO CH can CHCO CC cam ucmsmmumm O>HmCmuxm m>HmCmuxm m>HmCmuxm OZ CuH>Huom Cwm3umm quEmeoC Hopoz AUwCCHUCOUV mH mqmde 83 VA VA mCOHumuwmo uUHHume mo muowmmm mCOHHm> CO mHHOQOH mCHuHHS mCmEOumso cmemHummme SUHB mCHxHOZ monoowu mCHmmmx mOmeo OHOHH OCH mCHmMCmE nm>HumnumHCHE©¢ COHuHmOm mmHMm prHm wnu How UOCHDOOH mCOHHMOHwHUmmm CmE mCHmH>mm x CmEmmHmm Com mamumonm COHummCmmEOU mCH3mH>mm mEmHQOHm HMCOmCmm Co CmEmmHmm mCHmH>©¢ x HUHMHch mH£ CH mummc HwCCOmHmm mnfiusw mCHummumnom CmEmmHMm EmHnoum mCHHUCmm mmCHummE mmHmm mCHpHOH pCm mCHCCMHC CH 6cm Cm CHCO CH cam m>HmCmuxm m>HmCmuxm >HCO mm UCM ucmEmon< m>HmCmuxm Oz wuH>Hu04 cmm3uwm quEmmCmC Hmpoz AOODCHCCOOV mH mqm<9 84 In the recruiting and selecting salesmen and reviewing com- pensation programs, the modal group of the extensive sample was lower than that Of the intensive. High and low produc- tivity field sales managers did not agree as to the relative time requirement for personnel forecasting and for advising Of salesmen on personal problems. In the former the extensive group was in agreement with the high productivity field sales manager; in the latter with the low productivity group. Because of the nature Of the intensive sample a com- parison Of agreement on the managing Of the branch Office was not valid. There was modal agreement on the relative time re- quired for record keeping. And in the writing Of reports and the working with dissatisfied customers, the extensive sample was in agreement with the low productivity field sales man- ager group. Summary Table 19 summarizes the percentage commitment of time to the five activity groups by extensive and intensive sample field sales managers. In terms Of their current activities. these field sales managers are first committed to selling activities and second committed to personal activities. In addition, the productivity Of the field sales manager does not seem to be reflected in these means Of time expended. ' ' reas The frequency Of "none" responses in certain a 85 TABLE 19 COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL TIME SPENT ON ACTIVITY GROUPS BY EXTENSIVE AND INTENSIVE SAMPLE FIELD SALES MANAGERS Activity Intensive Group Extensive HP LP Marketing 18.1% 6.9% 10.1% Selling 36.6 45.6 46.2 Financial 7.4 2.9 2.6 Personnel 20.4 32.1 28.1 Administrative 18.2 12.0 11.8 should be reinterated. Fewer respondents in the intensive sample participate in the formulation of overall marketing policy with the low productivity field sales managers being lower than the high group. But there is a low commitment in both the extensive and the intensive. Similarly both samples have a low commitment in the management Of non-selling pro- motional activities with the intensive again lower than the extensive. Personal selling on the part Of field sales manager is highly restricted in the intensive sample and only about two- thirds of the extensive sample have any activity in this area at all. But Of those extensive respondents engaged in per- sonal selling to their own accounts the time commitment is high. With the exception of the analysis of selling expense. _.__,...__.._.,_._.—, 86 the entire group of financial activities is not an important consumer of the field sales manager's time. And many field sales managers do not revise the specifications required for a sales position. Even if some activity in this area was noted, its relative importance is low. CHAPTER V ROLE ANALYSIS I. Introduction The Objective Of this chapter is the definition of the role of the field sales manager - the normative aSpect of his relationship with those around him. Primary emphasis is placed on the behavioral prescriptions of the role, but a small number of attributes are considered. These attributes deal with three areas which are of primary interest: (1) the importance Of a college education, (2) the importance of selling and/or management experience, and (3) the need for management training. All other items deal with job and jobw related behavior. This analysis is macrOSCOpic: it considers each posi~ tion in each sample as a group. NO distinction is made among the various companies, products, and geographic areas with which respondents are connected. As in Chapter IV, the analy- sis will proceed from the extensive sample to the intensive. And within each sample, the responses of field sales managers are examined with respect to one another. Then these reSponses are compared with those Of the role definers. The role set 87 88 of the field sales manager in each sample (the superior, the high productivity salesman, and the low productivity salesman) remains the same for this chapter. The dichotomy Of field sales managers in the intensive sample is utilized to compare high productivity and low productivity field sales managers. The data in this chapter are derived from responses to Part B Of the superiors' and the salesmen‘s questionnaire and from Part E Of the field sales managers‘ questionnaire. The instructions were, in part, as follows: We would like you to approach each Of the items in this part as if you could completely dictate what the role of the field sales man- ager would be. In a sense, this is equivalent to your Opinion Of the "ideal" field sales manager. Forty-five items composed the role definition part of the superiors' and the field sales managers' questionnaires. Due to a typographical ommission, the salesmen‘s questionnaire contained only forty_four items. Because respondents were asked to circle the number corresponding to the intensity of their expectations, the statements were not numbered. And while this created a certain degree of difficulty in coding and processing, it eliminated the potential confusion of another number attached to the question. For each item, the respondent was asked essentially two questions: (1) whether he believes the field sales man— ager should or should not engage in a particular activity and 89 (2) the strength of his belief. A single scale allows the respondent to answer both questions about each item. The alternatives available to him were: 1— Absolutely must 2— Probably should 3— May or may not 4— Probably should 5 Absolutely must not Alternatives ”one" and "five" clearly leave no room for adjustu ment. For a respondent to respond "one" to a statement indi- cates a clear mandate. It implies that any less commitment to the activity or attribute described would bring sanctions. Conversely, a response of "two" or "four" leaves room for the incumbent to exercise his own judgment at least insofar as the degree to which he does or does not commit himself is con~ cerned. A response of three would seem to indicate that, to the particular respondent, the activity or attribute is not an important part Of the incumbent‘s role. In coding responses and calculating statistics, re- sponses were weighted by the number corresponding to the num~ ber Of the scale alternative. Respondents were not advised of this method and there is no way to assess the degree of influence the presentation had on the responses. One Of the alternative weighting methods was to assign plus and minus signs to the possible responses. It was felt that the presence Of a sign might have an undesirable effect 90 on the reSponses. and this alternative was discarded. A second alternative was to utilize alphabetic char- acters to label the scale responses. Since, however, this is also a commonly known sequence and because the number labels facilitated coding, this alternative was similarly discarded. The items in this section were divided into four groups. A brief discussion Of each follows. Job Performance Items The job performance items were selected to correspond as closely as possible with the activities in Part A Of the questionnaires. Table 20 illustrates the breakdown by sec- tion Of the twenty—four items in this group. TABLE 20 DIVISION OF ROLE DEFINITION ITEMS BY ACTIVITY GROUP Number Of Related Role Items Activity Group Marketing 8 Selling 3 Financial 1 Personnel 10 Administrative 2 The responses to these items are examined in this chapter; leaving for Chapter VII the comparison of the two samples. 91 Most Of the activities in this group are directly related to the way the field sales manager should perform his job. They are the key items in this study. Organizational Position Items The five items in this group were specifically designed to determine the position of the field sales manager in the organizational hierarchy. Is he part of management or is he a salesman? Does he identify with salesmen or with management? Is he the link between corporate management and field sales force as his title indicates? Clearly, differences in percep~ tion between the field sales manager and his role set on his organizational position are potential sources Of conflict. Positional Behavior Items The six items in this group include those not apprOpri~ ately classified as job performance items. Yet they are closely related and were selected on the basis that the field sales manager had some allowable latitude in his behavior. At the same time, the responses to these items were construct~ ed to reflect the amount Of rigidity in job performance perm ceived by the field sales manager and his role definers. Positional Attributes The four items in this group are the sole attributes in the role section and they were discussed at the beginning of 94 II. The Extensive Sample Job Performance Items The marketing activities included in this section are listed below. A. Be able to make price concessions on his own authority. B. Be consulted regularly on the use Of advertising, sales promotion, and other demand creating methods in his district. C. Consult with the corporate marketing research de- partment on competitive activity in his district. D. Have full jurisdiction over the size Of the sales force in his district. E. Analyze district coverage and realign salesmen's territories on his own authority. F. Be included in long range market planning dis- cussions. G. Make sales forecasts in his district. H. Participate in new product planning and develOpment. On item A, field sales managers showed very low intra- positional consensus with no response receiving more than twenty-seven per cent Of the total. At the same time, the mean response Of 2.7 means to indicate that field sales manm agers did not wish to get involved in this activity. This can be viewed as encouraging if one considers the emphasis price receives in economic and marketing literature. The field sales managers may be indicating the weakness of price 95 adjustments (concessions} as a selling force. If this is so, it adds to the importance of other non-price marketing and selling techniques. It should also be noted, however, that price concessions are not an alternative in regulated indus- tries. And the incidence Of broad legislation regarding pricing may have influenced the responses. On all other marketing items, moderate intrapositional consensus appeared. The mean response of field sales managers to items B, C, D, E, F, and G was less than 2.0 indicating a positive expectation for these activities. In effect, these field sales managers would eXpect individuals in their posi— tion to engage in these activities. And with the exception of item F, the modal response was at one, indicating that these respondents do not believe there is any latitude; any legiti- mate way Of avoiding activity in this area. On item H, the mean response was 2.1 and the modal re- sponses at two. Field sales managers were not yet definitely convinced that their participation in new product planning and develOpment should be expected. But eighty-five per cent responded favorably. The role definers had a somewhat dif~ ferent conception of the "ideal" field sales manager. Of greater interest is the pattern of superiors' expectations. Except for item G, the mean superior response was higher than the field sales managers. For items A through E, the 96 difference was significant above the five per cent level. This pattern may indicate the lack Of emphasis placed on these marketing activities by the superiors. The closer the mean response gets to three, the less significant the activity be- comes to the role of the field sales manager. As each activity in some way connects the company to the market place, a lack Of perspective On the part of superiors may be indicated. In addition, it is reasonable to expect that the activi- ties included in this lst, if they_are now_performeg, are per- formed somewhere above the field sales managers' level. Therefore, the superior may be directly involved in their execution. He may believe that to suggest that these activiw ties belong at a lower level is a reflection on his own per— formance. He expectations for the "ideal" field sales manager would reflect this concern. Moreover, the elimination of these activities from his direct control would tend to lessen the SCOpe Of his activities which would also be somewhat disw quieting to the superior personally. This is not to say that the superior has not considered the sc0pe and intensity of tre field sales manager's job and decided that these activi— ties would add an untenable burden to his already broad task. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that there is sufficient division between superiors and field sales managers to create conflict between them. 97 The high productivity salesmen s expectations differed significantly from the field sales managers' only on items D and E. Both of these items influence the salesman 5 job dir~ ectly. And while the mean response to both items was 2.4, indicating a positive expectation, the intrapositional con- census Of these salesmen was not particularly good. As a practical matter, however, the reSponse pattern was still highly positive. The low productivity salesman on the other hand, differed significantly from the field sales manager on items E and H. As with the high productivity salesmen, the intrapositional consensus Of low productivity salesmen on item E was quite low. And also similar is the fact that the mean responses continued to be positive. The concern Of salesmen regardless Of productivity about the realignment of sales territories is understandable. Since their past experiences and associations influence their responses, the implication for sales management is clear. Indiscriminate territory realignment may have created past problems for these groups. The reasons for any realignment clearly must be discussed with those affected. The needs for realignment must be of greater importance than the need to establish and maintain a long term customer-company rela- tionship. Otherwise, those relationships already established 98 Wlll be disrupted and perhaps destroyed for insufficient reasons. In general, it can be stated that the superiors' re— sponses reflect less positive expectations for activity in the areas included in this section than do either the incum- bents or the salesman groups. Table 21 includes the signifi- cant differences and hence the areas of potential role conflict. Two key issues in sales management were again included in the selling activities portion of the role definition sched~ ule. The making of sales calls with salesmen (A) and perscnal selling by the field sales manager to his own accounts (B) have been the subject of discussion. On the former there was a very high consensus among respondent field sales managers. Ninety-three per cent marked the "absolutely must" alternative. The superior group“s expectations were of nearly the same intensity. The expectations of the high productivity saleSm men were somewhat less positive and a significant difference occurred between their mean response and that of the field sales managers. This response was not unexpected since these men are the highest productivity salesmen reporting to their reSpective field sales managers. It is not unreason- able to suggest that these men have on occasion been Singled out for their efforts. And they may see their performance as primarily resulting from their individual effort. _._f ._7 99 TABLE 21 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EXPECTATIONS OF FIELD SALES MANAGERS AND THEIR ROLE Item A. G. Be able to make price con- cessions on his own authority. Be consulted regularly on the use of advertising, sales promotion, and other demand creating methods in his district. Consult with the corporate marketing research depart- ment on competitive activity in his district. Have full jurisdiction over the size of the sales force in his district. Analyze district coverage and realign salesmen“s territories on his own authority. Be included in long range market planning discus- sions. Make sales forecasts fcr his district. H. Participate in new product planning and develOpment. x: DEFINERS ON MARKETING ACTIVITIES High Produc- tivity Salesmen Low Produc~ tivity Salesmen Superiors significant at .05 level of confidence. 100 One respondent introduced another aspect in noting this issue: I believe that the field sales manager should work with the men in the field at their request rather than on a routine basis (excluding new salesmen). This would make for all concerned, better working relations and up-grade both while tending to eliminate "the boss breathing on the salesman’s neck" attitude. (Customers) are taking a dim View of "Boss—Salesmen" calls unless planned for a Specific purpose. It should be noted, however, that the high productivity salesmen differed in intensity rather than direction. And they therefore indicated an expectation that the field sales manager should consider this activity an integral part of his job. The low productivity salesmen also differed somewhat in the intensity of their expectations on this question. But their differences were not significant within the limit of significance being used. It should be reiterated that the making of calls With salesmen can have at least two primary purposes: (1) to make a sale and (2} to train the salesman. Despite the fact that some respondents indicated that selling and training on a joint call do not differ greatly, the perception of the indi- viduals involved regarding the purpose of the call will inr fluence their behavior during the call. It may be suggested 101 that the training a salesman gets when he and his superior make a sales call is incidental to the making of the sale. The high productivity salesmen“s deviation from a universal "abso~ lutely must" may reflect a lack of understanding of the pur- pose of the joing call. The eXpectations of the role definers concerning personal selling by the field sales manager to his own accounts were in- conclusive primarily because all of the four positions had low intrapositional consensus. Note that the wording of the item is permissive. It does not say that he must sell; only that he be able to sell. Still the highest modal response for any of the four positions was thirty-nine per cent. It should be noted, however, that the positive responses were greater than the negative. Should the field sales manager be able to commit the home office to other than normal terms of sale? (C) The major difference was between the field sales manager and his superior. The modal response of the former was two while that of the latter was five, and the means are significantly different. There was again very low intrapositional con- sensus among the four positions. The superiors were, how- ever, much more negative in their response than any of the other three positions. The fact that no superiors responded "absolutely must" 102 and nineteen per cent of the field sales managers so responded indicates probable role conflict on this issue. Since there was little consistency within the groups themselves on these selling activities, one may suspect that as a group they are not well defined and as a consequence may be a source of role conflict. Table 22 summarizes the significant differences between the field sales managers and their respective role definer groups. TABLE 22 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EXPECTATIONS CF FIELD SALES MANAGERS AND THEIR ROLE DEFINERS ON SELLING ACTIVITIES High Low Produc— Product tivity tivity Item Superiors Salesmen Salesmen A. Make sales calls with salesmen. B. Be able to engage in per~ sonal selling to his own accounts. C. Be able to commit the home office to other than normal terms of sale. x = significant at .05 level of confidence. 103 Only one financial activity, prepare district expense budgets, appeared in the role definition schedule. On this item, there was moderate interpositional consensus. But while the modal responses were identical (one) for all groups, the mean response of the field sales managers was lowest. And the positive responses far exceeded the negative for all groups. There was no indication of a significant degree of role conflict surrounding this activity. The personnel activities included in the role defini- tion schedule were: A. Hold regular sales meetings with salesmen. B. Determine sales quotas for individual salesmen. C. Establish standards for salesmen's performance. D. Review and recommend changes in salesmen's com- pensation plans. E. Make forecasts of future personnel requirements in his district. F. Consult with salesmen on their personal problems. G. Terminate salesmen on his own authority. H. Recruit and select salesmen. 1. Train salesmen. J. Keep an eye on the personal life of his salesmen. There were no significant differences between the ex- pectations of field sales managers and their role definers on items A and E. lntrapcsitional consensus was moderately 104 high on both although on the issue of holding sales meetings the low productivity salesmen tended to be less positive in their response. But the modal reSponse for all groups was one on both items. One or more of the role definer groups had a signifi- cantly different response than the focal position on all other items in this section. On item B, the field sales managers had moderate intra- positional consensus as did the groups of role definers. Although mean responses indicated positive expectations, the intensity of the response of both salesman groups was less intensive with the low productivity salesmen having the highest mean. It should be noted that the type of quota was not spec— ified in the item. Most generally quotas take two forms: (1) a goal quota or (2) a standard quota. The goal quota represents some level of salesman performance which is superior While conversely, a standard quota dictates some level of minimum acceptable performance. So regardless of the type of quota perceived by any group, salesman on balance believed that this was not an ”absolutely must" activity. Allied with the setting of quotas, item C "establish standards. . ." also showed significant differences between the focal position and all role definer groups. To the extent 105 that the field sales manager‘s evaluation is dependent on the performance of his salesmen, his desire to have a standard against which to evaluate their performance is understandable. Ninety—seven per cent of the field sales managers responded 222 or_twg to this item. The salesman groups both had less intense expectations in this area. But the superiors' responses were of more in- terest. While the salesmen‘s expectations may be someWhat anticipated, the fact that twenty per cent of respondent superiors answered three is not. In effect, twenty per cent of the superiors indicated that the establishing of salesman performance standards was not part of the field sales manager‘s role. How can it not be? The field sales managers agreed within the limits set with the high productivity salesman on item D. But they dis- agreed with the other groups who again had expectations some- what less intensive. Fully one-third of the superior group responded in the thgge. four, or iiXE category. On item F, field sales managers indicated moderate intrapositional consensus. with eighty per cent reSponding positively. Their responses continue to differ significantly from those of the salesmen who respond less intensively. There was an indication that both superiors and field sales managers believed the personal problems of a salesman has a 106 direct influence on his job performance. And they therefore considered that watching the personal problems is an important part of the field sales manager's job. The salesmen's re- Sponses, conversely, indicated a desire to maintain a life and its problems apart from their occupation, although their responses continue to be positive. The responses to item G were the most diverse of any in the personnel section. The field sales managers' intraposi- tional consensus was only slightly below the level previously designated as low consensus. Further, the role definer groups had low intrapositional consensus. But the focal position expectations were more positive (seventy per cent indicated 223 or two) and differ significantly from those of the role definers. The high productivity salesmeq's responses were polarized indicating that they felt that the issue was defin nitely a part of the field sales manager's role, but differing on how he should handle it. Conversely, one third of the superiors answered with alternative three. This may again indicate that the superiors did not consider the termination of salesmen by the field sales manager on his own authority part of his role. The recruiting and selecting of salesmen (item H) gen- erated some interesting results. 1. There was moderate intrapositional consensus among 107 field sales managers. Their modal response was clear and the mean response was positive. 2. While the difference between the expectations of field sales managers and superiors was not sig- nificant, nearly one-third of the superiors re- sponded in the "may or may not" category. 3. Both groups of salesmen differed significantly from the focal position. Their modal response was less clear and their mean response was less positive. There was not a clear "absolutely must" mandate for the field sales manager in this area. In fact, there is an in- dication that activity in this area may create conflict for the field sales managers. The expectations for the field sales manager to train salesmen (item I) were strong from both superiors and incum- bents. But salesmen in both groups differed significantly from the focal position; both being less positive. It should also be noted that the modal responses from the four groups were the same at one and intrapositional consensus for both groups of salesmen was not as high as with the focal position or the superiors. This finding should be of interest to those who suggest that training is a key segment of the field sales manager 5 job. If salesmen respond less positively, consequently less 108 positive about this activity‘s place in the field sales man~ ager°s role, then one might infer that the salesmen would be less receptive to training efforts. The data from item J indicated that all four groups did not consider this issue particularly important to the field sales manager's role. Table 23 shows the items on which role definer eXpectations differed significantly from the field sales managers'. The administrative activities included in the role defi- nition schedule were two: (1) Be wholly responsible for the internal management of the field office, and (2) recommend promotion of salesmen to management positions. The latter did not generate any significant differences with all re- Sponses concentrated in the positive categories. The former, on the other hand, generated significant differences between the superiors and high productivity sales~ men and the field sales managers. The field sales managers' expectations in this area were more positive than either group. But the intrapositional consensus was not particularly high. About twenty per cent of the groups responded ”may or may not" indicating that to them at least the issue was not a key one. The "Ideal" Field Sales Manager's Job Table 24 presents a profile of the "ideal" field sales 109 TABLE 23 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EXPECTATIONS OF FIELD SALES MANAGERS AND THEIR ROLE DEFINERS ON PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES Differences High Low Item Produc- Produc- tivity tivity Superiors Salesmen Salesmen A. Hold regular sales meetings with salesmen. B. Determine sales quotas for individual salesmen. x x C. Establish standards for salesman“s performance. x x x D. Review and recommend changes in salesmen's compensa- tion plans. x x E. Make forecasts of future personnel requirements in his district. F. Consult with salesmen on their personal problems. x x G. Terminate salesman on his own authority x x x H. Recruit and select salesmen. x x I. Train salesmen x x J. Keep an eye on the per- sonal life of his salesmen. x x = significant at .05 level of confidence. llO manager‘s job using the mean responses to the extensive sample field sales managers to the job performance items on the role definition schedule. The lower the mean response. the more intense are these reSpondents‘ expectations that the "ideal" field sales manager should perform a given activity. Organizational Position Items These items were designed to determine the perceptions of the field sales managers and the role definer groups about the position the field sales manager should occupy in the organization. Essentially they were meant to determine if the field sales manager should be considered a manager. The response patterns are shown in Table 25. On item A, the field sales manager group stood alone in the intensity of its eXpectation about the relationship of the field sales manager to corporate management. Particularly noteworthy is the response pattern of the superiors who while responding positively attached little intensity to their ex~ pectation. To the extent that this perception affects the superiors' present action, the field sales managers will un~ doubtedly experience conflict about Where they stand in the firm. On the other hand, a seeming paradox exists in the re- sponses to item B. Here the superiors and field sales man- agers agreed that the field sales manager should be the key 111 TABLE 24 THE "IDEAL" FIELD SALES MANAGER'S JOB AS REFLECTED IN THE RESPONSES OF THE EXTENSIVE SAMPLE FIELD SALES MANAGERS I. II. III. MEAN EXPECTATION: 1.1 - 1.3 A. Makes sales calls with salesmen. B. Hold regular sales meetings with salesmen. C. Make forecasts of future personnel requirements in his district. MEAN EXPECTATION: 1.4 - 1.5 A. Establish standards for salesman's performance. B. Train salesmen. C. Make sales forecasts for his district. MEAN EXPECTATION: 1.6 A. Be consulted regularly on the use of advertising, sales promotion, and other demand creating methods in his district. B. Analyze district coverage and realign salesmen’s territories on his own authority. C. Review and recommend changes in salesmen's compensation plans. D. Recruit and select salesmen. MEAN EXPECTATION? 1.7 A. Consult with the corporate marketing research department on competitive activity in his district. B. Be included in long range market planning discussions. C. Determine sales quotas for individual salesmen. D. Prepare district expense budgets. E. Be wholly responsible for the internal management of the field office. MEAN EXPECTATION: 1.8 - 2.1 A. Consult with salesmen on their personal problems. B. Have full jurisdiction over the size of the sales force in his district. 112 TABLE 24 (continued) VI° m Terminate salesmen on his own authority. Participate in new product planning and development. MEAN EXPECTATION: 2.5 — 2.7 A. B. Keep an eye on the personal life of his salesmen. Be able to engage in personal selling to his own accounts. Be able to commit the home office to other than normal terms of sale. Be able to make price concessions on his own authority. 113 TABLE 25 SUMMARY OF EXTENSIVE SAMPLE RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONAL POSITION ITEMS Modal Respond- Per- Signifi- Item ent* Mean Mode centage cance A. Be regarded FSM 1.5 l 65% as an integral SUP 2.0 2 43% .01 member of cor- HPS 1.8 l 42% .05 porate manage— LPS 1,9 l 43% .05 ment. B. Be viewed as the key link between FSM 1.2 l 84% corporate man- SUP 1.2 l 82% agement and the HPS 1.5 l 67% .01 field sales LPS 1.4 l 65% .05 force. C. Be regarded as FSM 2.0 l 41% administrative SUP 2.2 l 39% n.s. support for the HPS 1.9 2 45% n.s. salesman. LPS l.7 l 52% n.s. D. Join salesmen FSM 2.9 3 5l% in social SUP 2.9 3 49% activities HPS 2.5 3 49% .01 LPS 2.4 3 53% .01 E. Join Managew FSM 2.7 3 52% ment in social SUP 2.6 3 55% activities HPS 2.5 3 53% .05 LPS 2.4 3 53% .05 *FSM = Field Sales Managers SUP = Superiors HPS = High Productivity Salesmen Low Productivity Salesmen LPS ll4 link between corporate management and the field sales force. The differences in the superiors' responses to item A and item B may indicate an additional source of role conflict for the field sales manager. The superior seemed to be giving the field sales manager a place in the middle belonging to no one i.e., he Egg; be the key link between salesmen and cor- porate management but he probably should be an integral member of corporate management. The responses of the salesman groups to item B are un- derstandable if one sees that the statement could mean that the salesman would have little contact with corporate manage- ment except through his superior. The item might be viewed as a restriction on informal communication. Expectations regarding the administrative support of salesmen were positive, although not particularly strong. It would not have been surprising to see the field sales managers deviate more than they did since the statement could have been interpreted as a housekeeping function. On the question of social activities (items D and E) it was apparent that neither the superiors nor the field sales managers eXpect them to be a large part of the field sales manager“s role. Both salesman groups, however, were slightly more positive in both cases. These responses tended to indicate an identification by 115 field sales managers with management superiors, on balance. tended toward a somewhat weaker identification. Since this identification permeates the entire social framework in which the field sales manager operates, it could be a source of dis- rupting role conflict. Positional Behavior Items Table 26 summarizes the reSponse patterns to the posi— tional behavior items. Note that items C, D, and F were de- signed to determine the relative rigidity of performance ex- pected of the field sales managers. Essentially a mean re- sponse greater than three on any or all of these items would be taken as an indication that the field sales manager would be expected by that group to be a "free wheeling" type. This response could be interpreted to mean the field sales manager should be relatively autonomous in his Operation. The remaining three items explore two additional facets of the management job. What should be the field sales man- agerfis place in salesman compensation discussions and should he be in or out of his office most of the time? It should be noted that there were a few significant differences (4) between the expectations of the field sales managers and the various role definers. In item B, there was an indication that this is not a strong issue for field sales managers. But both salesman groups appeared to be expecting 116 TABLE 26 SUMMARY OF EXTENSIVE SAMPLE RESPONSES TO POSITIONAL BEHAVIOR ITEMS Modal Respond- Per- Signifi— Item ent* Mean Mode centage cance A. Spend most of FSM 4.2 5 48% his time in the SUP 4.6 5 70% .05 office. HPS 4.0 5 41% n.s. LPS 4.0 4 42% n.s. B. Help corporate management re— FSM 3.2 3 40% sist salesmen's SUP 3.0 3 49% n.s. demands for HPS 3.5 4 35% .05 higher incomes. LPS 3.6 3 48% .05 C. Carry out the orders of corpo- FSM 2.3 l 33% rate management SUP 1.9 l 53% n.s- even though he HPS 2.6 2 39% n.s. believes them LPS 2.4 l 42% n.s. to be unsound. D. Follow his job description FSM 2.2 2 40% closely in the SUP 2.1 2 50% n.s. performance of HPS 2.1 2 54% n-s. his job. LPS 2.1 2 48% n.s. E. Help salesmen FSM 2.0 2 40% get higher SUP 2.3 3 43% .05 salaries and/or HPS 1.9 l 39% n.s. commissions. LPS 2.0 2 36% n.s. F. Pay close atten- tion to how FSM 2.3 2 37% other field SUP 2.3 2 46% n.s. sales managers HPS 2.3 3 38% n.s. in his company LPS 2.1 2 42% n.s. operate. *FSM = Field Sales Managers SUP = Superiors HPS = High Productivity Salesmen LPS = Low Productivity Salesmen 117 some support in the matter of compensation. On the items designed to assess rigidity of performance. it was apparent that the field sales managers expected some- what less rigidity. But, with the exception of superiors on item C, no reSponse group reflected extremely rigid or ex- tremely flexible expectations. Worth noting on item C, the field sales managers have low intrapositional consensus. This issue may be rare enough that respondents had difficulty as- sessing their expectations. It is, however, potentially con- flict producing. It was clear that no group perceived the "ideal" field sales manager as spending most of his time in the office. The fact that this quite negative expectation may not be congruent with the number of office-oriented "absolutely must" and "probably should” expectations did not seem apparent to the respondents. On item B, the field sales managers fall in a middle ground between the salesmen, none of whom had negative ex- pectation, and superiors who tended to be non-commital. The differences here may be a source of not only role conflict, but also interpersonal conflict for the field sales manager. Pgsitional Attributes The items in this section were relatively superficial and were listed at the beginning of this chapter. The \Ww ~...\~ y N.“ riv“)J’.V?J.ln)f\.c‘I-U . (Ins! .‘.v.v.¢ .‘ .L 5 I 118 following points could be made after examination of the rem sponses. 1. All four groups (with high intraposition con- sensus) expect the field sales manager to have field selling experience. 2. The expectation for management experience while positive was not nearly as strong. Modal reSponses were, in fact, three for all groups. 3. There was an indication of a strong expectation for the field sales manager to have management training prior to assuming his duties. 4. The expectation that a field sales manager be a college graduate was not strong. The evidence pointed to a "may or may not" kind of attitude. There were no significant differences between the field sales managers and any of the role definer groups on any item. The purpose of this section is two fold. First, it attempts to satisfy the second objective of this study by de~ fining the "ideal” field sales manager’s job. Second, it attempts to show the areas of potential role conflict between the field sales manager and his role definers. The former appears in Table 24. The latter are summarized in Table 27 showing the number of significant differences between the ex- pectations of the field sales managers and each of the 119 selected role definer groups. With this number of differences. the field sales managers and their role definers are not in agreement on the intensity of their expectations on some items. This must cause a problem for the field sales managers. TABLE 27 SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXTENSIVE SAMPLE FIELD SALES MANAGERS AND EACH OF THEIR ROLE DEFINER GROUPS Number of Significant Differences High Low Item Section Produc- Produc» tivity tivity Superiors Salesmen Salesmen Job Performance Marketing Activities 5 2 2 Selling Activities 1 1 Financial Activities Personnel Activities 3 7 7 Administrative Activities 1 1 Organizational Position 1 4 4 Positional Behavior 2 l 1 Positional Attributes ___ ___ . Total 13 16 14 = 43 III. The Intensive Sample Having examined the intrapositional and interpositional consensus of the extensive sample field sales managers, the 120 perspective of the examination narrows somewhat to take advantm age of the productivity measures of the intensive sample field sales managers. Because the importance of finding consensus cannot be assessed without productivity measures, the primary emphasis of this section will be to examine the relationship of the high productivity and the low productivity field sales managers with those in their respective role sets. The items to which members of the intensive Sample re- sponded were identical to those of the extensive sample. The order of presentation will remain the same.3 Job Performance Items Mean and modal response to the marketing items by high and low productivity field sales managers are in Table 28. By the standards established earlier, all respondents had moderate intrapositional consensus. And on items D, E, and F the expectations of the two groups were virtually identical. On items B, and C however, the low productivity group”s expectations were more positive. Both of these activities, coordination of non-selling activities and consultation with the corporate marketing research department, can be viewed as assistance for the field sales managers. These patterns 3Response means and statistics appear in Appendix E. RESPONSES TO MARKETING ITEMS BY INTENSIVE SAMPLE FIELD SALES MANAGERS 121 TABLE 28 and develOpment. *HPFSM High Productivity Field Sales Managers LPFSM = Low Productivity Field Sales Managers Respond— Modal Item ent* Mean Mode Percentage A. Be able to make price HPFSM 4.2 4-5 4r% + 41% concessions on his LPFSM 4.0 4 42% own authority. BY Be consulted regularly on the use of adver» tising, sales pro- HPFSM 2.1 2 53% motion, and other de- LPFSM 1.8 l 47% mand creating methods in his district. C. Consult with the corpo- rate marketing research HPFSM 2.2 2 4r% department on competi- LPFSM 1.8 2 47% tive activity in his district. D. Have full jurisdiction over the size of the HPFSM 2.8 3 35% sales force in his LPFSM 2.8 3 42% district. E. Analyze district cover~ age and realign sales~ HPFSM 1.6 l 59% men’s territories on LPFSM 1.6 l 58% his own authority. E. Be included in long HPFSM 2.0 2 59% range market planning LPFSM 2.1 2 44% discussions. G. Make sales forecasts HPFSM 1.9 l- 33% + 35% for his district. LPFSM 1.8 1 42% H. Participate in new HPFSM. 2.8 3 47% product planning LPFSM 2.8 2 39% 122 may reflect the low productivity managers' expectation that his "ideal" counterpart have relatively free access to this assistance. At the same time, the high productivity group while responding positively did not feel a similar need. In general, with the exception of item F, the low productivity field sales managers responded more favorably to all marketing items. There were however no significant differences between the two groups. Two additional response patterns should be noted. First. both high and low productivity groups differed signifi‘ cantly from the superiors on items A, D, and E. All three of these items imply an Operational decision: Making price con- cessions, adding to or subtracting from the sales force, or realigning sales territories. And in these three cases, the superiors' were more negative in their expectations. This seems to indicate a rigidity or unwillingness to include these decision areas as ”should do" activities for the field sales manager. The legal implications of A notwithstanding. the superiors may be indicating a reluctance to give up a decision area now their own province. As in the extensive sample. the low productivity sales- men were less sure that item B is a part of the high produCn tivity field sales manager's role. And their difference was significant. The difference between the high productivity 123 field sales manager and his low salesman was in the same diIEC“ tion, but it was not significant within the limits set. It would appear that the low productivity salesmen are more con- scious about territory realignment which is not unexpected. Of course, the considerations noted earlier about indiscrimin— ate realignment are still important decision criteria. As the consideration of responses to the selling activim ties items begins, it is apprOpriate to reiterate that the two companies in the intensive sample have very detailed jdb de— scriptions for their field sales managers. And one of the key points in each job description is the specification of the time a field sales manager spends in the field. In both cases, the manual specifies that the field sales manager spend upwards of eighty per cent of his time in the field. This implies considerable joint call activity. In view of this specification, the responses to the item "make sales calls with salesmen" are particularly inter- esting. There were no significant differences between the high productivity field sales managers and their salesmen although the low productivity salesmen's responses were less strong. .But both salesman groups differed significantly from their low productivity field sales manager. In all cases, the responses were either 923 or Egg, but salesmen indicated considerably more latitude in their eXpectations. 124 It can be presumed therefore that one of the weak areas of the low productivity field sales manager is his joint call activity. The low productivity field sales managers, with rather low intrapositional consensus, also differed from their superiors on the matter of personal selling by the field sales manager. The superiors were stronger in their expectations than the low productivity group of whom forty—two per cent answered in the negative. It is possible that the field sales manager in this case is unable to c0pe with the present demands of his job and consequently perceives any addition of this type as an untenable burden. 0n the remaining activity in this group, there were no significant differences, with all groups means being in the negative area. The nature of the business in which these companies are engaged, with much indirect selling. probably influences the response pattern. The preparation of district expense budgets is the only financial activity in the role definition schedule. The modal responses of both field sales manager groups was three, with no extreme responses. Interestingly, the superiors' modal response was four, indicating a negative expectation in this area. This pattern indicates that this activity has little place in the field sales manager's role and that little role 125 conflict between the superiors and the field sales managers exists on this expectation. Perhaps the fact that salesmen were somewhat more positive in their expectations indicates that, as the major ”eXpense” incurrer, the salesmen would prefer more stringent parameters in this area. Table 29 summarizes the responses to the personnel activ« ities by field sales managers in the intensive sample. As indicated by an inspection of the table, modal agree- ment was high between the groups of field sales managers. Certain differences between these managers and their role de- finers were, however, important. 1. Salesmen reporting to low productivity field sales managers were somewhat weaker in their expectations about item A than were those reporting to high productivity field sales managers. 2. Salesmen reporting to low productivity field sales managers were consistently more negative in their expectation for the establishing of performance standards (item C) by their field sales managers. They were more negative than either field sales manager group as well as those salesmen who report to high productivity field sales managers. 3. On item D, all superiors responded "probably should" while the high productivity field managers 126 TABLE 29 RESPONSES TO PERSONNEL ITEMS BY INTENSIVE SAMPLE FIELD SALES MANAGERS Respond- Modal Item ent* Mean Mode Percentage A. Hold regular sales HPFSM 1.1 1 94% meetings with salesmen. LPFSM 1.0 1 100 B. Determine sales quotas HPFSM 1.4 1 65% for individual salesmen. LPFSM 1.7 1 58% C. Establish standards for HPFSM 2.0 2 65% salesman’s performance. LPFSM 1.8 2 53% D. Review and recommend HPFSM 1.6 1 59% changes in salesmen”s LPFSM 2.0 1-2 37% — 37% compensation plans. E. Make forecasts of future HPFSM 1.6 l 47% personnel requirements LPFSM 1.5 1 53% in his district. F. Consult with salesmen HPFSM 2.0 l 47% on their personal LPFSM 1.9 2 42% problems. G. Terminate salesmen on HPFSM 1.5 l 65% his own authority. LPFSM 1.6 1 63% H. Recruit and select HPFSM 1.1 l 94% salesmen. LPFSM 1.1 l 95% I. Train salesmen. HPFSM 1.4 1 71% LPFSM 1.4 1 74% I. Keep an eye on the HPFSM 1.9 2 41% personal life of his LPFSM 2.0 2 47% salesmen. *HPFSM = High Productivity Field Sales Managers LPFSM Low Productivity Field Sales Managers 127 indicated a more positive expectation perhaps reflecting a desire to be more closely associated with a controversial area. 4. As in the extensive sample, both groups of field sales managers stood alone in their expectation for the "ideal" field sales manager to have the authority to terminate salesmen. Interestingly, the superior group mean was the highest (most negative) of the seven groups being considered. In addition, their intrapositional consensus was very low. 5. The salesman groups differed significantly from their field sales managers on item J. This was an additional indication that salesmen on balance see little connection between their personal and company lives. The administrative activities included in the job per- formance items did not generate any substantial role conflict items. Since these companies comprising the intensive sample Operate few branch offices, these responses would be only conjectural or, at least, not based on current activities. Consequently, this is not particularly valid for measuring potential role conflict. The recommendation of salesman pro~ motion to management was eXpected by all groups. However, 128 the low productivity field sales managers were slightly less intense in their expectations. One might assume that since promotion is often Offered to a "good" salesman, these field sales managers may be slightly more reluctant to promote these men . The "Ideal” Field Sales Manager's Job As with the extensive sample, we can now rank the job performance activities by the priorities given by intensive sample field sales managers. Table 30 shows the profile gen- erated by the high productivity field sales managers while Table 31 shows that generated by the low productivity field sales managers. The differences in pattern between these two groups will provide grounds for inference about why the two are different. Organizational Position Items The objective of these items was to place the field sales manager in the organizational structure; primarily the informal structure. The responses of the high and low pro- ductivity field sales managers are summarized in Table 32. Interestingly, the mean response of superiors to item A was 2.8 with no extreme (l_or 5) responses. At the same time. the mean response of the salesman groups were slightly higher. TABLE 30 THE HIGH PRODUCTIVITY FIELD SALES MANAGER'S PERCEPTION OF HIS ”IDEAL" JOB 129 TABLE 31 THE LON PRODUCTIVITY FIELD SALES MANAGER'S PERCEPTION OF HIS ”IDEAL" JOB Is W EXPECTATION: 1.0 " Is). A. Make sales calls with salesmen. 3. Hold regular sales meetings with salesmen. C. Recruit and select salesmen. II. MEAN EXPECTATIle 1.4 - 1.5 A. Determine sales quotas for individual salesmen. 8. Train salesmen. C. Terminate salesmen on his own authority. III. urns EXPECTATION: 1.6 A. Analyze district coverage and realign salesmen's territories on his own authority. 8. Review and recommend changes in salesmen's compensa- tion plans. C. Make forecasts of future personnel requirements in his district. IV. MBA! EXPECTATION: 1.9 — 2.0 a. Make sales forecasts for his district. 3. Keep an eye on the personal life of his salesmen. C. De included in long range market planning discussions. D. Establish standards for salesman's performance. 2. Consult with salesmen on their personal problems. V. MEAD EXPECTATIOIx 2.1 - 2.8 A. De consulted regularly on the use of advertising. sales promotion. and other demand creating methods in his district. 8. Consult with the corporate marketing research depart- ment on competitive activity in his district. C. Be wholly responsible for the internal management of the field office. D. Rave full jurisdiction over the size of the sales force in his district. 3. Participate in new product planning and development. F. Prepare district expense budgets. VI. MEAN EXPECTATION: 3.2 - 4.2 A. Be able to engage in personal selling to his own accounts. 3. Be able to consult the home office to other than normal terms of sale. C. Be able to make price cancessions on his own authority. A. 3. C. II. A. B. C. D. III. A. C. D. A. B. C. VI. A. B. C. D. MEAN EXPECTATION: MEAN EXPECTATIOII MIA! EXPECTATION: MEAN EXPECTATION: HEAR EXPECTATION: MEAN EXPECTATION: 1.0 - 1.1 Hold regular sales meetings with salesmen. Recruit and select salesmen. Hake sales calls with salesmen. 1.4 - 1.6 Train salesmen. Make forecasts of future personnel requirements in his district. Analyze district coverage and realign salesmen's territories on his own authority. Terminate salesmen on his own authority. 1.1 -' 1.3 Determine sales quotas for individual salesmen. Establish standards for salesman's performance. Be consulted regularly on the use of advertising, sales promotion. and other demand creating methods in his district. Consult with the corporate marketing research depart- ment on competitive activity in his district. Make sales forecasts for his district. 1.9 - 2.0 Consult with salesmen on their personal problems. Review and recommend changes in salesmen's compensa- tion plans. Keep an eye on the personal life of his salesmen. 2e1 - 2.8 Be included in long range market planning discussions. Be wholly responsible for the internal management of the field office. Participate in new product planning and development. Have full jurisdiction over the size of the sales force in his district. 3e1 - ‘00 Prepare district expense budgets. Be able to engage in personal selling to his own accounts. Be able to commit the home office to other than normal terms of sale. as able to make price concessions on his own authority. 130 TABLE 32 SUMMARY OF INTENSIVE SAMPLE FIELD SALES MANAGER RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONAL POSITION ITEMS Respond- Modal Item ent Mean Mode Percentage A. Be regarded as an inte- HPFSM 1.5 1 65% gral member of corpo- LPFSM 1.3 l 74% rate management. B. Be viewed as the key link between corporate HPFSM 1.2 1.0 82% management and the LPFSM 1.0 1.0 100% field sales force. C. Be regarded as adminis- HPFSM 3.1 2+4 29% & 29% trative support for the LPFSM 2.5 l 32% salesmen. D. Join management in HPFSM 1.2 l 82% social activities. LPFSM 1.0 l 100% E. Join salesmen in HPFSM 1.5 1 65% social activities. LPFSM 1.3 1 74% There is little question that both managers believe the "ideal" be identified as a management job. tensive sample, however, are less strong field sales 4 The groups of field sales managers job should superiors in the in- in their expectations. With the patterns of the salesmen concurring with those of the field sales managers, there is a potential conflict be- tween the superiors and field sales managers on the question 4 Note that 64% of the high productivity group and 71% of the low held sales positions prior to their present job. 131 of the latters‘ position in the organizationo The low productivity salesmen did not have as positive an expectation as did other groups on item B. But the modal response for all seven groups was gag. Note that the low prOw ductivity field sales managers were unanimous in believing the field sales manager should be regarded as the key link bet tween corporate management and the field sales forceo The high productivity group had more negative expectaw tions on item C than did the low group. But the mean of 301 cannot be interpreted as indicating that this item is not imv portant° The bi—modal distribution of the responses reflects the low intrapositional consensus as well as showing the non- neutrality of the responseso The low productivity group°s modal response reflected a more positive expectation and this was supported by the fact that While forty-seven per cent of the high group had negative expectations, only twenty per cent of the low group concurredo The superiors were more negative than either field sales manager group and all salesman groups were more posiw tiveo The salesmen 5 position is not unexpected since they are the recipients of the supporto But the superiorsu rem sponse is somewhat more difficult to assesso One potential reason for their responses is that they do not believe their salesmen capable of handling the major selling job° If this 132 is true, then they would not see administrative support as an activity the field sales manager should engage in. More likely they would expect him to play a dominant part in sellingo This viewpoint is somewhat substantiated by the specification in the manual of practice as to the amount of time a field sales manager should Spend in the fieldo Items D and E compare the importance of social activi- ties with management and with salesmeno Although modal groups were the same, both field sales manager groups had more nega- tive expectations about social activities with salesmeno The salesman groups also conformed to this while being slightly more positive in their response to item D. Positional Behavior Items The responses of the high and low productivity field sales managers are shown in Table 330 Two key points can be made about the response patterns to these items° First, items C, D, and F were designed to test the amount of rigidity expected of the field sales manager in his jobo The lower the mean score on each item, the less flexibility is expected in the "ideal" jobo On items C and D, the field sales manager groups agreed closely with one another and their mean responses indicated an ex~ pectation that the field sales manager should carry out the orders of corporate management regardless of his personal SUMMARY OF INTENSIVE SAMPLE FIELD SALES MANAGER RESPONSES TO POSITIONAL BEHAVIOR ITEMS 133 TABLE 33 Respond- Modal Item ent Mean Mode Percentage A. Spend most of his HPFSM 4.9 5 88% time in the office. LPFSM 4.7 5 79% B. Help corporate manage— ment resist salesmen's HPFSM 2.4 3 50% demands for higher LPFSM 2.6 3 47% incomes. C. Carry out the orders of corporate management HPFSM 1.2 l 77% even though he believes LPFSM 1.2 l 79% them to be unsound. D. Follow his job descrip— HPFSM 1.3 l 70% tion closely in the LPFSM 1.5 l 58% performance of his job. E. Help salesmen get HPFSM 1.6 l 63% higher salaries and/or LPFSM 1.7 l 53% commissions. F. Pay close attention to how other field sales HPFSM 2.1 2 41% managers in his company LPFSM 2.1 2 53% operate. judgment and stick closely to his job description. The in- tensive sample superiors were unanimous on item C; ing in the "absolutely must" category. all respond~ In the case of item C. the superiors seemed to believe that corporate judgment is always the correct prescription for all markets and managers. 134 This would reflect an extremely powerful and effective com- munication system as well as a store of adequate home office manpower to analyze the information and make decisions. Or. conversely, only the barest decision-making would be done at the home office; the field sales manager having wide latitude in decision making. If the former would be the situation, it would be untenable. If the latter would exist, there is rea~ son to accept the superiors' viewpoint. Both groups of salesmen were less strong in their eXpectaw tions with regards to these items While keeping positive posture. Secondly, the issue of compensation was an area in which interesting responses occurred. The field sales manager groups indicated, in the previous section, an expectation that field sales managers should identify with management. Yet the mean response to item B was more negative than that to item E. Although there is certainly an interchange be“ tween employer and employee regarding compensation, it would be expected that a manager should be someWhat more committed to resisting demands for higher incomes than to helping the employee get higher salaries and/or commissions. Positional Attributes The items composing this section sampled four areas: (1) the need for a college education, (2) the need for 135 management training prior to assuming the job, (3) the need for personal selling experience and (4) the need for manage- ment experience. The following points can be made about the responses. 1. There was high agreement among all seven groups that the field sales manager should have personal selling eXperiences. 2. A college education should not be a restrictive prerequisite for the position. Both field sales managers and both salesman groups modally responded "may or may not". 3. The responses to "have management experience. . . .” followed a similar pattern. 4. However, the expectation that new field sales managers should have had some management training was a positive one with superiors evenly divided between "absolutely must” and “probably should“. Potential Role Conflict for Intensive Sample Field Sales Managers Table 34 shows the number of significant differences which resulted from a comparison of the high productivity field sales managers and the low productivity field sales managers with their respective role definer groups. The fact that the low productivity group had fewer total 136 . (.‘nfihjlfiunt ail: EU I. . "I“ . I. ...H§JII , .Hlnrv 0N mm H HMHOB 3 .ml .ml MM. ml mi Ml. mwuzflHnuu¢ HmcoHuHmom m N m N H0H>m£mm HmCOHuHmom H N N H H H COHuHmom HMCOHDMNHcmmHO H H meuH>Huo¢ m>HumuustHEp< m H H m m H mepH>Huod Hmccomumm H H H , meuH>Huo< HMHUcmch H H H 33:33. mcHHHmm m m H m mmHuH>HpU¢ maprxumz MUZDH>Hquponm 30H >DH>Huuapoum SmHm mmuswummeQ ucmoHMHcmHm mo HmQESZ mmbomw mmZHEMQ maom MHMEB QZ¢ mmm042<2 mmHHmZMBZH ZMMBBmm mememmmHQ m0 Wmdzzbm vm MHmflB 137 significant differences with their role definers should not be taken as destroying the concept of consensus. The low pro- ductivity groups deviations were frequently large although not within the limit of significance set. It is possible, in view of this, to project that the low productivity field sales manager will experience more role conflict than his high pro- ductivity counterpart. And although it was not true in the extensive sample, the low productivity salesman's expectations were in conflict with his field sales manager's more often than the other groups. The High Productivity vs. The Low Productivity Field Sales Manager The mean scores from the role definition instrument represent the intensity of the respondent's expectation that the field sales manager should or should not perform an activ~ ity. have a responsibility, or have the authority. The perceptions of these two groups on the job performa ance items were shown in Tables 30 and 31. When these tables are combined and allowing for ties in the mean expectation score, the differences between the high productivity and low productivity field sales managers are apparent in two major areas. First, the high productivity group expectations indi- cated a longer time perspective as evidenced by their stronger expectations on the items dealing with market planning and the 138 setting of sales quotas. Both of these involve the spending of time on activities the results of which are often not im- mediately visible. And the high productivity group seems to be more willing to commit this time. Similarly, the high group response was stronger regard- ing the review and revision of compensation. This reflects an awareness on the part of this group that conditions surround- ing the employment of salesmen also change and they would ex- pect the "ideal" field sales manager's job to be strongly cognizant of the need to adjust to these conditions. Second, the high productivity group seemed to impart a broader perspective to the job. Planning requires a broad perspective to be effective. And the high group sees the salesman as something more than an employee putting in a specified amount of time on the job. The high group attaches greater importance to keeping an eye on the personal life of the salesmen. No man can represent his company part of the time, particularly the salesman. Therefore, we would expect the salesman to consistently reflect favor on the company both on and off the job. It should be noted that the intensive field sales man~ ager groups agreed highly in their expectations about the extremes. The high and low mean score items were very sim- ilar. 139 Summary The objective of this chapter was to define the role of the field sales manager — what he should or should not do. In examining the role, we have also examined those areas on Which the incumbent and his role definers disagree - areas of poten- tial role conflict. The different perceptions of the role of the field sales manager as defined by the extensive sample field sales managers, the intensive sample high productivity field sales managers and the intensive sample low productivity field sales managers are summarized in Tables 24, 30 and 31. The three groups agree closely on the items at the top and the bottom of these tables. The disagreement among them occurred in areas of moderate expectation intensity. The major differ- ences between the two intensive groups have been noted. And the differences between the extensive and intensive will be presented in Chapter VII. But the agreement already noted is sufficiently high to suggest that the field sales manager's job is not, on the average, as sensitive to industry, corporate, and product difr ferences as originally assumed. The evidence regarding role conflict seems to indicate a connection between productivity and the degree of role conm flict. The low productivity field sales manager and the low productivity salesmen seem to be more subject to conflict 140 than their high productivity counterparts. The implications of these issues will also be discussed in Chapter VII. CHAPTER VI RESPONSIBILITY - AUTHORITY ANALYSIS I. Introduction The purpose of this chapter is a dual one: (1) The determination of the authority-responsibility relationships of the field sales manager; and (2) the integration of the current activities items reported in Chapter IV and the re- sponses reported in Chapter V. The perspective is essen- tially microscopic in that individual activities are examined from two vieWpoints: What is the field sales manager‘s cur- rent responsibility and what is his current authority with respect to these activities. Every attempt was made to main- tain a core of activities and functions comparable to those in the current activities analysis (Chapter IV) and in the role analysis (Chapter V). And the analysis will follow much the same pattern. The instructions were as follows with only small changes to conform to the respondent”s relationship with the field sales manager. For the responsibility items: Please use the following scale to indicate your 141 142 present responsibility in each area noted below. 1. I am completely responsible for this in my district. 2. I am largely responsible for this in my dis- trict. 3. I have little responsibility for this activity in my district. 4. I have no responsibility in this area at all. For the authority items: Please use the following scale to indicate your present authority in the areas noted below. 1. I can act on my own. 2. I can act on my own, but advise my superior. 3. I can act only after clearing with my superior. 4. I recommend action only. 5. I act in this area only when asked to do so by my superior. The use of a scaling device for these two sections was to serve two purposes. First, it is a relatively easy method for respondents to use in categorizing their responses, i.e.. a scaling method is convenient. Second, it was thought that a comparison between authority and responsibility would be possible. With respect to this second purpose, however, it became apparent at the outset that the subjectivity of the scale items prevented a direct comparison. There was no 143 guarantee that the scale items, although tested, adequately reflected the potential degrees of responsibility and author~ ity. Moreover, the research did not attempt to establish the degree of authority required to perform a given responsibility effectively. The long standing debate in the management lite erature surrounding the sources of authority, and the need for equivalency of authority and responsibility also was a deterrent. Nevertheless this device provided a method of examining in a micro way some of the items which had approached earlier in the questionnaire. The reader will remember that the re— sponsibility and authority items are nearly identical in conm tent; that only the order of presentation varies. The responsibility-authority items were divided into five groups: Marketing, Selling, Financial, Personnel, and Administrative. The division was performed on returned ques- tionnaires to make each section seem as autonomous to the respondents as possible. And the response were weighted by the number of each scale alternative. While a direct comparison of authority and responsi- bility is methodologically unfeasible, insight can be gained from an examination of the role definer perceptions of the field sales manager“s responsibility and his authority separately. In fact incongruence between the incumbent and 144 his role definers on the amount of his responsibility or his authority to perform given functions may generate more ex- ternal conflict than an inequality on responsibility and authority perceived by the incumbent would generate internal conflict. To illustrate, is it not important for a salesman to know what kind and degree of authority his superior has in altering company terms of sale? Similarly regardless of the hierarchical authority, is it not necessary for a field sales manager and his superior to agree rather closely on the extent of his responsibility to perform an activity? The analysis will consider both types of conflict. And it will proceed from the responses of the extensive sample to those of the intensive sample.1 II. Extensive Sample Marketing Activities. The responses of the extensive sample field sales managers and their role definers to the seven marketing responsibility and authority items are summ marized in Table 35. There was a very high agreement with the significance limits on both the responsibility and authority items. At no time did the superior group differ significantly from the field sales managers. And salesmen differed in their responses Response means and statistics are given in Appendix F. 145 TABLE 35 MEAN RESPONSES OF EXTENSIVE SAMPLE INCUMBENTS AND ROLE DEFINERS ON THE FIELD SALES MANAGER'S MARKETING RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY Respond- Responsibility Authority Item ent* Mean Sig. Mean Sig. A. Implementing long FSM 2.7 3.2 range market plans. SUP 2.5 n.s. 3.5 n.s. HPS 2.8 n.s. 3.3 n.s. LPS 2.8 n.s. 3.7 n.s. B. Making price con- FSM 2.9 3.3 cessions. SUP 3.2 n.s. 3.7 n.s. HPS 3.1 n.s. 3.6 n.s. LPS 2.9 n.s. 3.4 n.s C. Realigning sales FSM 1.8 2.4 territories. SUP 2.0 n.s. 2.6 r.s HPS 2.0 n.s. 2.5 n.s. LPS 2.2 .05 2.5 n.s. D. Getting necessary mar— FSM 2.4 2.1 ket information from SUP 2.5 n.s. 2.0 n.s. the corporate market- HPS 2.5 n.s. 2.0 n.s. ing research depart- LPS 2.5 n.s. 1.8 n.s. ment. E. Forecasting future FSM 1.8 2.1 district sales. SUP 2.0 n.s. 2.4 n.s HPS 1.7 n.s. 1.7 n.s. LPS 1.9 n.s. 1.5 .Oi F. Requesting advertising FSM 2.3 2.6 and sales promotion to SUP 2.2 n.s. 2.6 n 5. support personal sell- HPS 2.2 n.s. 2.7 n.s. ing in his district. LPS 2.4 n.s. 2.7 n.s. G. Collecting specific in- FSM 1.7 1.3 formation about com- SUP 1.7 n.s. 1.2 n.s. petitive activity in HPS 1.9 .05 1.2 n.s. his district. LPS 2.0 .05 1.4 n.s. *FSM = Field Sales Manager SUP Superiors HPS = High Productivity Salesman LPS Low Productivity Salesman 146 in only a small number of instances from field sales managers. The pattern of responsibility attached to items A, B, D. and F, however, was in itself noteworthy. The field sales manager has relatively low responsibility in these areas. This may reflect a low integration of non—selling demand creation activities (item F), low cooperation between the corporate marketing research staff and the field sales force (item D), and the lack of field price concessions (item B). The responses to item A were interesting particularly When the fact that four- teen per cent of the superiors indicated "no responsibility" for the field sales manager in this area. The question to be asked is: "Who implements long range market plans?" This superior group response implies that implementation is ac- complished at a higher level. If the implementation is to be effective, certainly all members of the organization must be expected to participate. This becomes increasingly im~ portant as the physical and communicative distances between the formulators and the implementers of plans increase. The response pattern on item F may indicate that the support of non-selling demand creation activities is autono- mously determined and applied. As previously suggested, the company‘s impact on a market is in large part determined by the degree of reinforcement demand creation activities given to each other. To lack a coordination of these activities 147 is to hinder the potential reinforcement and hence to reduce the company‘s impact. The mean authority responses indicated that the superior is apprised of activity by the field sales manager in these areas. Perhaps this reflects the superiorsa desire to maintain a close working relationship with his field managers. It may also reflect, however, the superiors’ re— sistance to decentralizing the integrative function. Selling7Activities. The selling activities included in these sections were as follows: A. Making sales calls with salesmen. B. Making personal sales calls to his own accounts. C. Granting credit to customers. D. Handling problem customers. On item A, there was little question that the field sales manager could use his own judgment and that he had the authority to make or not to make sales calls with salesmen. There was also little variation on item D; the field sales manager being largely responsible for this task. As to the question of making sales calls on his per~ sonal accounts, the authority responses for all four exten~ sive groups were polarized. Either the field sales manager has the responsibility and the authority to make these calls or he has no responsibility and does so only when requested by his superior. This was a clear picture showing one of 148 the differences existing among different field sales organic zations. Similar but not as polarized were the responses to item C. The model response of field sales manager indicated that their authority was limited to "recommending action." All role definer groups perceived even less authority and respon- sibility, and they were significantly different on both scales. The wide variation of responses may reflect certain differences among products and among industries. Financial Activities. The establishing of district ex- pense budgets seemed to be largely out of the hands of the field sales manager. Whether or not such budgets are used in fact is unknown, but the authority is largely with the superior (or higher). Personnel Activities. The responses to the personnel activities in these two sections are summarized in Table 36. As with the previous item groups in this Chapter, the four respondent groups showed high consensus on the items as a group, within the specified limits. The superior group, however, tends on the average to accord less responsibility and less authority to the field sales manager. This may be another indication that the superior does not wish to utilize fully his field sales manager or does not wish to release 149 TABLE 36 MEAN RESPONSES OF EXTENSIVE SAMPLE INCUMBENTS AND ROLE DEFINERS ON THE FIELD SALES MANAGER'S PERSONNEL RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY Respond- Responsibility, Authority Item ent* Mean Sig. Mean Sig. A. Recruiting and FSM 2.0 2.5 selecting salesmen. SUP 2.1 n.s. 2.8 n.s. HPS 2.1 n.s. 2.6 n.s. LPS 2.2 n.s. 3.0 .05 B. Training programs FSM 2.0 2.5 for salesmen. SUP 2.3 n.s. 2.2 n.s. HPS 2.4 .05 2.6 n.s. LPS 2.4 .05 2.7 n.s C. Setting up sales FSM 1.5 1.7 performance standards. SUP 1.6 n.s. 2.1 n.s. HPS 1.6 n.s. 1.9 n.s. LPS 2.2 n.s. 2.4 n.s. D. Assigning specific FSM 1.5 1.7 accounts to Specific SUP 1.6 n.s. 2.1 n.s. salesmen. HPS 1.6 n.s. 1.9 n.s. LPS 1.9 .05 1.9 n.s. E. Establishing sales FSM 2.6 3.1 incentives for SUP 2.8 n.s. 3.6 .05 salesmen. HPS 2.6 n.s. 3.3 n.s. LPS 2.6 n.s. 3.4 n.s. F. Changing the com— FSM 3.2 4.1 pensation system SUP 3.5 n.s. 4.2 n.s. for his salesmen. HPS 3.3 n.s. 4.0 n.s. LPS 3.2 n.s. 4.1 n.s. *FSM = Field Sales Manager SUP = Superiors HPS = High Productivity Salesman LPS = Low Productivity Salesman 150 to the field sales manager activities which traditionally have been performed by higher corporate management. It should be noted that the differences between the superior group and the field sales manager group were not significant. Nevertheless, a pattern seems to be manifest. In addition the relative amounts of authority and responsibility are based on a comparison of the role definer perceptions with the field sales managers' mean responses. On items A, B, C, and D the field sales manager was per- ceived as largely responsible and his authority was perceived as being between the advising of a superior of an action and checking with him prior to action. On items E and F, however, the field sales manager was perceived to have less responsibility and less authority. In fact on E, fifty per cent of the field sales managers indi- cated they had little or no responsibility. And their authorw ity in this area was at most the recommendation of a course of action. This would seem to indicate that the establishm ment of sales incentives, if performed at all, was done at a higher level. This. of course, assumes that the salesmen respond in about the same way to a given incentive. And further it assumes that the need for sales incentives is relatively consistent throughout the company‘s markets. Neither of these assumptions is particularly well grounded. 151 An individualis perception is known to be selective i.e. no two peOple see a prOposition, or an incentive in this case. in exactly the same way. To assume that the company°s sales- men perceive incentives in about the same way is to ignore the possibility that they do not. And any congruity, should this be the case, will then reduce the effect of the incenn tive. Moreover to assume that the need for incentives is rela- tively constant is to assume that the company's competition spreads it effort equally and consistently throughout the com~ panyis markets. It further assumes a degree of customer and prospect homogenity which, if true, would eliminate the need for market segmentation. Administrative Activities. The items included in this group examined the management of the branch office and the transfer of salesmen to management positions. The data indi- cated that the field sales manager was largely reponsible for the management of the branch office and that he, on balance. would rarely have to go beyond advising his superior of an action in this regard. It should be reiterated that some companies did not maintain branch offices. For some of the companies in Which this was the case, the data indicated that respondents interpreted this item as asking "what are the field sales manager”s responsibility and authority for perm forming the housekeeping functions in district Operation?" 152 The item concerning the transfer of a salesman to a management position was included because some respondents in the pre-test indicated that their companies had several levels of salesmen, and some of these salesmen had limited manage~ ment duties. However the data indicated that the field sales manager largely acts as a recommender of transfer and that his responsibility in this area is small. In reviewing the responses of the extensive sample to the authority responsibility items, it was clear that a high level of agreement existed, on the average among the four positions. And it was also clear that the field sales man- ager generally had some obligation and some authority to act on all the functions respresented by the items. The analysrs of the intensive sample responses to these same items follows. III. The Intensive Sample Following the pattern set in earlier chapters, the major consideration here is the difference between the high productivity field sales manager and his low productivity counterpart. The reader will remember that this sample grcip comes from two companies in the same corporation and that, on a job description basis, their jobs are very similar. Moreover, the job description is issued by each company to field sales manager as a guide to their activities. Based 153 on the common starting point, little variation would be ex- pected. Marketing Activities. The responses of the high and low productivity field sales manager to the marketing items are summarized in Table 37. The responses to item A were not particularly surprising given responses to similar items in past chapters. And the comments made in those places seemed also to be apprOpriate here. What was unexpected, however, was the low intraposi— tional consensus among both groups of field sales managers, as well as the role definer groups, on the amount of the field sales manager's authority. The range of responses suggests two possible explanations. First as with any short but in- clusive statement, the item may be ambiguous. But it would be expected that this terminology would be commonly used within a company and that the members of the organization would have a common definition for it. Second, these data may reflect the lack of consideration of the field level manager in the implementation of long range market places. It may also indicate a lack of market plans. Neither of these alternatives was supported or rejected by the responses of the superiors. But they also on the average agreed that the field sales manager had low responsibility in this area. Item B, as has been characteristic, produced little 154 TABLE 37 MEAN RESPONSES OF HIGH PRODUCTIVITY AND LOW PRODUCTIVITY FIELD SALES MANAGERS TO THE MARKETING RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY ITEMS Item Respondent Responsibility Authority A. Implementing long HPFSM 3.3 3.7 range market plans. LPFSM 3.1 3.9 B. Making price HPFSM 3.8 4.3 concessions. LPFSM 3.9 4.3 C. Realigning sales HPFSM 2.2 2.5 territories. LPFSM 1.7 2.2 D. Getting necessary market information HPFSM 2.9 1.7 from the corporate LPFSM 2.8 1.8 marketing research department. E. Forecasting future HPFSM 2.7 3.0 district sales. LPFSM 2.6 2.4 F. Requesting adver— tising and sales HPFSM 3.4 4.0 promotion to support LPFSM 3.2 3.7 personal selling in his district. G. Collecting specific information about HPFSM 1.8 1.1 competitive activity LPFSM 1.7 1.1 in his district. HPFSM LPFSM High Productivity Field Sales Managers Low Productivity Field Sales Managers 155 doubt as to the field sales manager's position. All respon— dents agreed that both authority and responsibility were low. The realignment of sales territories were perceived by the low productivity group to be very much within their job. They believed their responsibility as well as their authority, to be significantly higher than did the high productivity group. Their position was not supported by the superior group fifty per cent of Whom indicated that the field sales manager°s authority was limited to recommending action. The responses to item D again showed low intrapositional concensus. But the key difference area arose with respect to the superiorsa responses. They agreed unanimously that the field sales manager could act on his own. But they indicated that he had very little responsibility in this area. This response pattern seemed to imply that the use of the corpo— rate marketing research department need not be used but if the field sales manager so desired he was authorized to do so on his own. The question becomes one of whether or not a firm can justify the non-use of marketing research informa- tion. The pattern further implies that the knowledge of the market and the interpretations of its actions are derived almost solely from the sales force. While the sales force is a key source of market information, its exclusive use would seem to limit the knowledge of corporate management of its 156 over—all market. On item B role definers accorded more responsibility and more authority to the field sales managers than they per- ceived for themselves. For example the mean superior author- ity response was 1.8 indicating that the field sales manager's authority for sales forecasting required only that he advise his superior. A clear picture then of the authority and re- sponsibility for sales forecasting was not evident. With such a division it seems likely that forecasting would not be a regular activity. And further, reliance on sales forecasts as a standard against which to evaluate performance would seem to be necessarily small. The field sales manager groups both perceived little authority or responsibility for the activities in item F. Particularly important however is the fact that salesman groups consistently perceived the field sales manager as having greater authority and responsibility in this area. Since salesmen undoubtedly come in contact with nonwselling demand creating efforts, and since these efforts may appear at times to hinder the selling effort, the salesmen can be expected to accord this responsibility to the field sales manager. The conflict occurring may further hinder the selling effort. The collection of specific information about 157 competitive activity in the district was largely the respon- sibility of the field sales manager. And the role definers agreed that he could act, in general, on his own in this area. Selling Activities. All intensive sample groups agreed closely that the field sales manager was completely respon- sible for joint calls and could do so on his own authority. But the responses to item B were very unclear. The responses of all groups were polarized which would seem to indicate a misunderstanding of the question. Since at the outset (sub- stantiated by the current activities analysis) the intensive sample field sales managers did not have their own accounts to any degree, these responses cannot be given any credence. The responses to items C and D followed patterns estab- lished in the extensive analysis of this chapter with all groups in agreement. The granting of credit was largely outside the province of the field sales manager‘s responsi- bility. On the other hand the handling of problem customers was largely his responsibility and he could on the average act on his own. Financial Activities. Taking the mean responses to the single financial activity — establishing district expanse budgets - it was clear that the field sales managers' author- ity and responsibility were very limited. It was interesting 158 to note, however, that salesmen accorded significantly more authority and responsibility to the field sales manager in this area. Since the salesmen are major users of expense money, there could be little doubt that some controls are placed on that use. The responses may reflect a relatively unstructured evaluation of these expenses by the field sales managers. Personnel Activities. The mean responses to the per- sonnel items are shown in Table 38. There was high agreement among all groups on the rela- tive authority and responsibility of the field sales manager for activities A and D. All concurred that, in these areas, both were relatively high. Similar agreement existed on items E and F but the consensus accorded low responsibility and authority in these activities. A potential conflict situation existed with respect to item F, however. Salesmen perceived the field sales manager as having greater respon— sibility and authority for changes in compensation programs than he did himself. Should dissatisfaction exist in the sales force regarding its compensation and that dissatis- faction voiced to the field manager in anticipation of change, conflict may arise when changes do not appear. On the aver- age, the best the sales force can expect is for the field sales manager to recommend changes. A delay in a change may 159 TABLE 38 MEAN RESPONSES OF HIGH PRODUCTIVITY AND LOW PRODUCTIVITY FIELD SALES MANAGERS TO THE PERSONNEL RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY ITEMS Item Respondent Responsibility Authority A. Recruiting and HPFSM 1.6 1.9 selecting salesmen. LPFSM 1.5 1.8 B. Training programs HPFSM 1.9 2.5 for salesmen. LPFSM 2.3 2.8 C. Setting up sales HPFSM 2.6 3.5 performance standards. LPFSM 2.9 2.9 D. Assigning specific HPFSM 1.5 1.8 accounts to specific LPFSM 1.3 1.7 salesmen. E. Establishing sales HPFSM 3.0 3.5 incentives for LPFSM 3.1 3.6 salesmen. F. Changing the com— HPFSM 3.5 4.1 pensation system LPFSM 3.6 4.3 for his salesmen. HPFSM = High Productivity Field Sales Managers LPFSM Low Productivity Field Sales Managers be expected to cause resentment among the salesmen particu- larly since they tend to perceive the action as within the field sales manager's job. The responses to items B and C, conversely, did not show as consistent a pattern. For sales training prOgrams, the high productivity field sales managers perceived himself 160 as having greater responsibility than his low productivity counterpart. But the authority responses were again polarized indicating that they perceived their authority as advisory — that they would recommend action. The superior group per- ceived the field sales managers' authority as being fairly autonomous in this area. There was again therefore an indica— tion of ambiguity in the item. It is possible that two dis- tinct types of training-on—the—job and formal corporate pro- grams - caused respondents to choose their response based on how they interpreted the word "training." The implications of the response pattern to item C seemed to be more important. While the high productivity field sales managers saw some responsibility for themselves in the setting up of performance standards, sixty-four per cent perceived the authority as either recommend only or act only when asked to do so. If the field sales manager is in any way responsible for the performance of his salesmen or is evaluated on their performance, it would seem imperative that he should be an integral part of the establishment of the standards for their performance. The question clearly is not whether or not the field sales manager in fact has the authority to set these standards but rather whether he preceives that he can and must do so. Administrative Activities. As previously noted, the 161 intensive sample companies make little use of the branch office. And on both administrative activities all groups agreed that the field sales manager has little responsibility and little authority to engage in this; or in the transfer of salesmen to management. Summary. The objective of this chapter was to examine the relationship of the field sales manager's responsibility and his authority to perform the activities of his job. Also it was to integrate the items of Chapter IV and the responses of Chapter V. With this objective in mind, the mean respon- sibility scores for the extensive sample and the high and low productivity field sales managers are summarized in Table 39 as a prelude to the final summary and conclusions. 162 .wUHmmo Socmun mflu mchmcmz .meHouHH Inmu mmHmm mGHcmHHmwm .mmHmm DUHuume mHDDSH mcHummuoHom .DUHHumHo mH£ CH muH>Huom m>HuHumeou poops COHumEu0mGH UHMHummm mSHuomHHOO .mHmEou ImDU EmHQOHm mcHHUcmm Ho.Ntm.H cmmEv mHQHmcommmm.NHmmHMH .amEmmHMm UHHHU 10mm on mucsooom UHMHmem ocHsmHmm< .cwEmmHmm SDH3 mHHmu memm mstmz Am.HnH cameo >uHHHQHmCOQmmm mumHQEOU .mmHMm uoHuumHo mnouom mcHummumuom .cmEmemm How mEmnmoum mCHchue .mMmEop ImDU EmHQOMm mcHHpcmm .mmHHouHH lump mmHmw mCHcmHHmmm .DUHHumHU mHQ CH huH>HuUm m>HuHumm I800 DSOQM coHumEnOm IGH UHwHommm maHuomHHOO 1...-..H cmmec .HH oHflHmcmmmmm >HmoHMH .HH .cmEmmHmm mcH IuomHmm pom mcHqunumm .cmEmonm UHHHommm on mucgou low UHMHmem mchmHmm¢ .cmEmonm LDHB mHHmo mmHmm mcmez Hm.H-H amuse .H NMHHHQHmcoommm mumHmEOO .H .moHHouHunmu monm mchmHHmmm wnmeou Imoo EoHQoum mcHHocmm .cmEmmHmm How mfimumoum ochHmue .uUHnume mHS CH huH>Huom m>HuHumm IEOU usonm coHumEHom UCH UHmHuwmm ocHuumHHOO .cmEmmHmm mcH IuomHom pom mcHuHsnomm is N-..H cameo MHQHmcoommMINHmoumm .HH .cwEmemm UHMHommm on mucsoo tom UHMHUmmm mCHcmHmm¢ .cmammHmm SDHB mHHmo mmHmm mCmeS Am.H-H cameo HuHHHpHmcdmmwm manoaoo .H mummmcmz mmHmm onHm mHmEmm w>Hmcmuxm mummmamz mmHmm pHmHm muH>HuUDpOHm 30H mummmcmz mmHmm oHon qu>Huooooum SmHm ll mmm0¢z<2 mflH¢m QHMHm WHm2HmZMBZH QZ¢ m>HmZmBXm m0 mmmzommmm MBHHHmHmZOmmmm Z¢m2 QMMde mm MHmde 163 .coHUHmom ucmEmmmcmE m CH :mEmmHmm mHS mo moo mcHuummmcmne .cmE ImmHmm Hem mw>Husmo ICH mmHmm moHanHQmumm .mpomosn mmcmmxm noHuano maHrmHHnmumm .ucmEuummmp Quummmmn mcHummeE COHDMHOQHOU mnu Scum coHumEHOMCH umxumE mummmmumc mchumO .DUHHumHo an cH mcHHHmm HMGOmHmm DHOQQSm Op COHDOEOHQ mmHmm pom msHmHuHm>pm ocHummsowm .moumocmum mucmEH0m lumm mmHmm ms mCHuumm .cmEmmHmm new mfimnmoum mchHmue .cwEmmHmm msHu Iomem can mcHuHsuomm .mussooum CBC mHS co mHHmU mmHmm HMCOmHmm mstmS .swEmmHmm mHH mo Emum>m COHDMmcmmEOU map mGHmcmnv .mummosn mmcwm uxm noHuumHo mcHsmHHnmnmm .mucsooom :30 mHQ so mHHmo mmHmm Hmcowumm mcmez .monmo Hocmun wnu mGHmmcmZ .noHuano mHs 2H mcH IHHom HMGOmHmm uuommsm ou COHDOEOHQ mmHmm pom mchHuHm>om mcHumwsowm .mcmHQ pomeE mmcmu mcoH mchcmEmHmEH .cmEmmHmm How mm>Hu IcoocH monm mCHSmHHflmumm .coHuHmom ucmE ImmmcmE m on cmEmmHmm mHS mo moo mcHHHommcmne .moumpcmum mocm IEuomHmm mmHmm m5 mCprwm .ucmEuHmmwc Summon Imu oCHummeE mumuomuoo m£u Eoum coHumEHomcH ummeE hummmmom: mcHuuww Ho.N can» Hmumoum cmmEv NDHHHQHchQmmm 02 Ho oHuuHH .HUHnano mH; cH mcH IHHmm HmGOmHmm “Hommsm OD COHDOEOHQ mmHmm 0cm mchHuuo>pm mcHummsomm .mGMHm ummeE mocmn mGOH mchcmeHmEH .monmo Susana mflu mchmcmS .mumoosfl wmcmmxm noHnanu mcHsmHHanmm .cmEmmHmm MOM mm>Hu IcmosH monm mcHHmHHflmumm .ucmE aunmmwo Soummmmn mcH lummeE mpmnomnoo on“ Eonm coHumEHOmsH pox IHmE mummmmumc mcHuumo .memm uoHuume mumpsw mcHummuwuom H©.N swap Hmummum :mmEV NuHHHaHmcoommm oz no mHnnHH .HHH .moumocmum mocmEHOM unmm mmHmm on ocHuuom .coHuHmom ucmEmmmcmE m on :oEmmHmm wH£ .HHH mo mco mGHHHmwmcmue mummmcmz memm pHmHm meEmm m>Hmcmuxm wumomsmz memm UHmHm muH>HuUS©oum 30H mummmsmz mmHmm onHm muH>Huosooum anm Homscanoov mm mumae 164 .cwEmmHmm mH£ Mom Emumhm coHummcmm IEOU on» mchCMHU .mcon Immocoo moHHm mCmez .mHmEoumso on qumHU maHusmuo .mamHm umXHmE wmcmu mcoH msHusmEmHmEH Ho.N cmnu Houmwum Gooey NDHHHQHm uncommm 02 no mHuuHH .HHH .mumfioumso on qumHU mcHusmuo .mcon Imwocoo mUHHm mCmez .mGOHm ammocou mUHum mstmz .mumEoumfio on DHomMU mchcmuo .mucgooom C30 mHfl co mHHmo mmHMm HMCOmHmQ mcmez .cmEmmHmm mHS How Ewumwm GOHu ImmcmmEoo mfiu maHmcmnu ..mummmcm2 mmHmm pHmHm mHmEmm w>Hmcmuxm mummmcmz mmHmm onHm muH>Huooooum 30H HowscHuaouv mm mumae mnwmmsmz monm onHm >DH>Hu05©oum QmHm 20!. I CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction. This dissertation has been focused on the field sales manager -- that man to whom the field sales- men report. There were four primary objectives. 1. To define the nature of the field sales manager's job. 2. To define the "ideal" field sales manager°s job. 3. To examine the extent of agreement about the field sales manager°s job among the field sales manager, his superior, and his subordinates. 4. To examine the relationship between the field sales manager”s authority and his responsibility in his job performance. Because it offered a set of prOpositions about the in- teraction of members of groups, role theory was utilized as a conceptual basis. The major postulate of role theory that permeates this study is that the closer a group of men agree (have consensus) on the kinds of actions performed by and ex— pected of one another, the more effectively will that group Operate. Role conflict is created when this agreement is lacking. 165 166 In adapting this postulate to the study of the field sales manager, the following methodological steps were taken: 1. The evaluation of the concensus postulate in an Operational business environment required measures of the productivity of the individuals in the sys- tem being investigated. To meet this requirement two samples were drawn. One sample (the extensive) contained a large number of firms selling various products and services in various geographic areas. The second sample (the intensive) consisted of the entire field sales organization of two companies in the same corporation selling to the same markets. Each company in the extensive sample provided the name of a field sales manager, his superior, the most productive salesman reporting to him, and the least productive salesman reporting to him. Each company in the intensive sample provided the same information but, in addition, provided a produc- tivity measurement for each field sales manager. Mail questionnaires were sent to each individual in both samples. Questionnaire content was es— sentially the same but each position in the hierarchy received a questionnaire designed to elicit his responses about the field sales manager 167 with whom he was associated. Personal interviews were used to verify the content of the questionnaire as well as supplement the data generated. 4. Each questionnaire contained four major parts: (1) a current activities section designed to deter- mine how the field sales manager now allocates his working time, (2) a role definition section designed to determine the respondents“ perception of the "ideal" field sales manager‘s job, (3) a responsi- bility section to determine the relative intensity of the field sales manager“s responsibility to per— form certain activities and (4) an authority section to determine his relative autonomy to act. The items in each of the four parts were sufficiently similar in content as to allow cross-comparisons. In fact the items in parts three and four were identical; except for the order of presentation. Chapters IV, V, and VI are devoted to examining each of these areas. While each individual chapter corresponds with an objective, collectively they also examine potential role conflict from three perspectives: (1) macroscopically in the way the field sales manager's time is allocated, (2) macro- sc0pically in the way he should behave, and (3) microsc0pi- cally in specific reSponsibility and authority areas. 168 General Findings. Field sales managers in the extensive group spend, on the average, two-thirds of their working time performing the selling and personnel activities specified in Chapter IV. They allocate the remainder of their time to the three remaining groups in this order: marketing, administra- tive, and financial. The intensive sample field sales managers also agreed that the selling and personnel activities were most time consuming and that financial activities were least time consuming. But they spent more time on administrative than on marketing activities. Moreover, if the activities are considered individually, we find that both samples agreed in all three sections on those specific activities on Which the field sales manager spends most of his time. And these activities were those that the respondents most intensely ex- pected the field sales manager to engage in and those over which he had the most responsibility in his current job. Such activities as making sales calls with salesmen, were highly emphasized by the role definer groups. In View of this agreement, which also appeared on those activities perceived as least important and least time consuming, the assumption that the field sales manager°s job is dependent on the com- pany he works for, the industry he is in, and the products he sells is only partially valid. The data indicate that the major differences are in the middle of the group of 169 activities used in this study. It, therefore, appears that the field sales manager”s job by virtue Of its hierarchical position is, on the average, insensitive tO these differences insofar as the largest and smallest responsibilities are con- cerned. Neither sample Of field sales managers is particularly committed to the formulation nor the implementation of over all marketing plans. There was an indication that both were accomplished, if at all, at levels above the field. In view of the rapidly changing market environment, this is incon- gruous with any Operational marketing concept. Of course it is possible that no such systematic planning takes place, and this is also incongruous. This same indication appeared in response to items concerning the coordination of selling and non—selling demand creating methods. The field sales manageris high commitment to the sell- ing activities of the company seems to indicate that he is largely responsible for the total Operation Of the sales force in a given area. Now this may also be interpreted as meaning that the salesmen°s activities are best known tO the field sales manager. TO suggest that the coordination Of all demand creating methods may be accomplished at a high level in corporate management is to assume a knowledge Of the sales force and its competitive problems and activities as 170 well as a nearly noiseless communication channel between the field and the home office. Neither of these assumptions seem particularly well founded. The field sales manager groups felt more strongly than their role definers that the establishment of sales perform- ance standards should be their responsibility. And similarly field sales managers felt that the termination of salesmen should be within their own authority. In both Of these cases there is an indication, particularly When superiors’ responses are considered, that the role definers do not believe that the field sales manager should have complete control over the salesmen on whose performance hs is probably evaluated. In these areas the field sales manager may experience some de- gree of conflict particularly if the established standards do not reflect the market area in which he Operates, or if his recommendations for changes in the sales force are fre- quently minimized by management. Price concessions were introduced several times in the questionnaire and the data indicate that the making of price concessions is, on the average, not especially important to the field sales manager. He does not believe strongly that he should be able tO make these concessions on his own authority and moreover, his authority in this area is also limited. This seems to indicate that price as a key selling 171 factor is somewhat over emphasized. And the role definers generally agreed. It would, therefore, seem apprOpriate tO concentrate on other points in the selling process. This is not to say that price is not an important variable. This re- search did not examine the relative importance Of the com- pany's appeals on the customer. However, it may be suggested that the making Of price concessions in the field is perceived as being more problem creating than problem solving. Whether field sales managers should engage in personal selling to their own accounts has been the subject of much discussion. The data indicated that although one-third of the extensive sample field sales managers had no activity in this area, those who did so were rather heavily committed to this activity. Consequently, it would seem unreasonable to expect an abrupt change in the relative commitment of this activity. But the requirements of the field sales manager‘s efforts would seem to indicate that personal selling by field sales managers should be reduced at a rate that will insure continuity of effort in his district. In fact, in- cumbent field sales managers do not themselves consider per- sonal selling tO be a major activity in the "ideal" field sales manager's job. This study examined few attributes of the field sales manager. But among those examined were the requirements of 172 personal selling experience and of management training prior to the assumption Of duties- In each case, both incumbents and role definers indicated they expected the prospective field sales manager to have both. It should be noted that both groups also indicated that the field sales manager ”may or may not" have management experience. This finding should be en- couraging to those concerned about how to develop a stream of continuing management talent. This response pattern might be interpreted as saying that the field sales manager’s job may be a man's first management position but that he should have an apprOpriate amount of prerequisites for it. Respondents were generally indifferent to a college edu- cation as a prerequisite Of the field sales manager. Yet seventy—six per cent of the high productivity field sales managers completed a college degree while only fifty per cent of low productivity group had done so. The data also indicated some specific areas in which, on the one hand, field sales managers and their superiors had some important differences, and on the other the high productivity and low productivity field sales managers were divergent in their perceptions. Superiors responses in one area Of the role definition section seemed to indicate that superiors either had not formulated an Opinion on the field sales manager“s corporate position or had formulated One 173 Which set the field sales manager apart from both management and the field sales force. For example, the superior group held no particular expectation that field sales manager should be a integral member of corporate management. At the same time they held a relatively strong expectation that he be the link between corporate management and the field sales force. These two items may seem to be complementary but consider the fact that many field sales managers Operate outside of the home Office. As a key link between corporate management and the field sales force, the field sales manager is also not a part of the field sales force. Therefore, given response patterns, the superiors seem to perceive him as in the posi— tion of belonging to neither group. The superior groups“ responses reflected a somewhat narrow View Of the field sales manager's jOb. For example, this group tended to have more negative expectations on the marketing activities than did the incumbents themselves. The reader will note that the marketing activity group contained items which were future- oriented and which were integrative in nature. By having more negative expectations in this area, the superior may be perpetuating the field sales manager as only an Operative -- concerned with day—temday field operations. To the extent that this stance is accepted by the field sales manager, the flow of management talent is hindered because the field 174 sales manager has not been subjected to the rigors and un- certainty Of planning nor has he been required to integrate the personal selling effort into the company's total market posture. There also were some differences between the high pro- ductivity and the low productivity field sales managers which deserve summarization. Field salesmen who report to low pro- ductivity field sales managers were less positive in their expectation of joint field sales manager-salesman sales calls. This may indicate a weakness in the field sales manager’s ability to conduct a joint call. This is particularly where a majority Of the field sales manager‘s job is in this area. The low productivity field sales manager also seemed to have a narrow perspective as well as a short time perspec- tive. These indications occurred in all sections Of the ques- tionnaire. The following statements form the bases for this judgment on the low productivity field sales manager‘s per- spective. (As compared with his high productivity counter— part). 1. He commits less time to sales forecasting. 2. He commits less time to the digesting Of infor- mation received from management. 3. He indicates a less strong expectation that he should follow his job description. 175 4. He commits more time to the personal problems Of his salesmen. 5. His eXpectation that sales quotas should be set is less strong. 6. He devotes more time to the planning and holding Of sales meetings and less time to the revision of man specifications required for the sales position. The responses of the low productivity field sales manager seemed to reflect a preference for the status quo and an aver- sion to those activities which are future-oriented. Under these circumstances, it does not seem reasonable to expect the low productivity field sales manager's performance to im- prove relative tO his currently higher productivity colleagues. In addition, the low productivity group, on several occasions, indicated an average responsibility score lower than and an average authority score higher than the high productivity group. This would seem to indicate some areas in which the low productivity field sales manager may be uncomfortable. Hence one might expect him to consult more consistently his superiors on a course of action to be taken. In some cases this would seem to reduce the value to his company Of his presence in the market. With respect to the issue Of role conflict and its ef- fect on productivity, there is an indication that both low 176 productivity field sales managers and low productivity sales- men differ more Often and with greater intensity than their high productivity counterparts. The causal relationship clearly has not been established. Nevertheless the evidence seems to reflect the validity of an attempt to reduce these areas of difference. Implications of the Study. At the outset it must be noted that any recommendation which advocates that the field sales manager become more Of a manager and perhaps less cur- rent Operations oriented will increase the demand for training and for his own personal develOpment. Hence such a recom- mendation has, in general, long rather than short run meaning. The data from this research suggest the following recommenda- tions: 1. The field sales manager's organizational position does not seem tO be clear to either the role de- finer groups or the incumbents. Because many deci- sions are made at and pass through this hierarchical position, it seems imperative that the relationship among the field sales manager, his subordinates, and corporate management be clarified. 2. The means of evaluating the field sales manager°s performance should be clearly apparent to him. If profits are the measure Of performance, then 177 certainly the field sales manager would be con- cerned about the relationship of the cost expended in his district to the revenues generated. This has the added advantage Of providing the field sales manager with a tool to evaluate his salesmen and one which can also be communicated to these salesmen. Field sales managers indicated a significant commit— ment Of time tO administrative activities. While to advocate that reports and records be eliminated is unrealistic, this commitment shows the importance Of effective communication. It indicated the need to assess information requirements as well as as- sessing the value Of information communicated to the field. There was an indication in the responses to this study that much Of the activity, respon— sibility, and authority of the field sales manager were not clear to the field salesmen. Whenever this situation exists, the possibility of mistakes is enhanced. Just as a company wants its message communicated to customer, so too it should want its employees to receive messages in a direct, clear fashion. Allied with the above, there were a sufficient 178 number of differences between salesmen and field sales managers to indicate potential conflict be- tween them. One way tO mitigate this potential conflict would be to include the job description Of the field sales manager as an integral part of the sales training programs. For the new salesman, this may be particularly useful in that there are at least two things of which he can be sure -- what he can expect from his superiors and what the superior must and can do in the Operation Of the district. The inclusion of a detailed discussion Of the field sales manager's job would have the additional advantage Of providing the salesman with the perspective he may need for promotion to this level of management. The respondents in this study were sufficiently positive in their expec- tations that the field sales manager should have field selling experience that new field sales managers probably will come from the sales force. Provided he appears to have the potential for advancement, why not start the desired management training When a man initially enters the sales force? On the Whole, the field sales manager seems to be 179 currentvoperations oriented. Little importance was attached to the various planning activities included in the various sections. Any corporate marketing policy not having an effect at the field level where the customer is has no effect at all. There- fore it would seem reasonable to include field per- sonnel in the planning and implementation Of corpo- rate marketing policy. In the area Of personnel the need to plan for new personnel requirements as well as up-dating the specifications for the field sales position would seem to be important particularly in those companies Which are heavily committed to personal selling as a means of demand creation. Again the flow Of management talent would be en- hanced as the field sales manager lengthens his perspective and plans the activities in and the requirements of his districts. In the area of personal selling and sales calls with salesmen the following points may be considered. A. The joint call to which the field sales man- ager now commits a significant amount of his time does not seem to be well defined. As noted the perception of the participants will influence their 180 behavior on the joint call. Because the joint call may serve many purposes, one purpose to the ex- clusion Of others is not recommended here. But it does seem important to the successful completion of such a call that each participant be aware Of its major purpose. B. It seems possible that the field sales manager with personal selling experience could use that experience in training and develOping the salesmen. TO use the joint call for selling except in the absolutely essential instance would probably delay the salesman's develOpment. To make joint calls for training purposes would seem to be more fruitful in the long run. C. The respondents did not indicate any strong ex- pectations concerning the field sales manager‘s selling to his own accounts. Yet the commitment Of time of those respondents so engaging was rela- tively high. This suggests that changes in this area probably should be gradual; that it is un- realistic to expect complete elimination of per- sonal selling by field sales managers in a very short time period. Certainly the reasons Why the field sales manager now is selling are important 181 and where a need is fulfilled for him by this activity, the need must be fulfilled in other ways before the complete transition can take place. Areas For Further Research. The recommendations above are tentative based on the analysis of some of the data col- lected in this study. By design more data were generated than were required to fulfill the objectives of this initial study. And while the writer intends to pursue this course of research, the data are available to any who also wish to inquire into field sales management or, on a theoretical basis, into the relationships among men in this kind of environment. Data are available which give satisfaction and inter- action information about both the field sales managers and salesmen. Role theory may also be used as a conceptual framework to relate this information to the findings of the current study. As indicated, each of the four sections Of the questionnaire contained items pertaining to the same issue. And while this study utilized some of this cross classification, much more research is possible. The measures of productivity of both field sales managers and salesmen can be utilized in conjunction with classification and satis- faction data tO determine if patterns are present which would indicate methods of increasing productivity or Of eliminating potential causes of low productivity. 182 There are also some additional areas in Which further research may be done. For example, this research made no attempt to assess the relative importance of the members of the role set as perceived by the field sales manager in the definition Of his role. In fact the role set was constructed on an a priori basis. Research to indicate the important role definers would have Operational significance in that effort to reduce potential conflict areas could be more accurately focused. Concluding Statement. If a company accepts the market- ing concept as a way of business life, then it would seem im- perative that it utilize field sales management and the field salesmen intensively to provide information about the market and tO communicate with the market. The field sales manager is uniquely in a position to enhance his company's marketing effort. But advantage must be taken Of this uniqueness. APPENDIX A This appendix contains the letters and forms used to Obtain the names included in the ex- tensive sample. 183 184 April 15, 1966 Mr. JOhn Smith Field Sales Manager XYZ Corporation 1234 Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan Dear Mr. Smith: As part Of our continuing research into all phases of business, we are conducting a study of the field sales manager. Much has been written in the general area of sales management, but little has been said about this key first level manager. Since the field salesmen report directly to this man, we believe he is an important factor in the effectiveness Of the salesman. Your participation in one Of our Executive Seminars in Sales Management demonstrates your interest in the develOpment Of mar- keting and sales management. We are, therefore, requesting your help in providing us with the names and mailing addresses of a representative Of your firm in the following categories: 1. A field sales manager. 2. The man to whom this field sales manager reports. 3. The most productive salesman reporting to this field sales manager. 4. The least productive salesman reporting to this figld sales manager. (Salesmen should have been employed by your company two or more years.) We recognize that productivity has no one measure and that each firm has its own method Of evaluating salesman productiVity. We would like you to use your own criteria in this regard. Upon receipt of these names, a questionnaire will be sent to those you designate. Any information provided by you or any member of your organization will be held in strictest confi- dence. All replies will be sent directly to and reviewed only by the research director. The enclosed form and return enve- lOpe are provided for your convenience in furnishing the above names and addresses. As you know, the success Of any research Of this type if largely dependent on the amount of COOperation between the 185 Mr. John Smith 2 April 15, 1966 academic and business communities. We hOpe you will join us in studying this important area. We sincerely thank you. Sincerely yours, Rodney E. Evans Dr. W. J. E. Crissy Research Director Chairman of the Research Committee 186 MICHIGAN STATE **IVERSITY Graduate School of BuSiness Administration Department Of Marketing and TranSportation Administration CORPORATE INFORMATION Regional Sales Manager: Name (Man to whom field sales manager reports) Title Address Field Sales Manager: Name (Man to whom territory salesmen report) Title Address This field sales manager“s Name Most productive salesman Address This field sales manager”s Name Least productive salesman Address May we use your name as a means of introducing ourselves to these men? Have no preference Please complete and return by May 2, 1966 187 April 20. 1966 Mr. John Smith Field Sales Manager XYZ Corporation 1234 Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan Dear Mr. Smith: As part Of our continuing research into all phases Of business, we are conducting a study of the field sales manager. Much has been written in the general area of sales management, but little has been said about this key first level manager. Since the field salesmen report directly to this man, we believe he is an important factor in the effectivness of the salesman. Your membership in Sales and Marketing Executives and your par— ticipation as an officer in your local club demonstrates your interest in the develOpment of marketing and sales management. We are, therefore, requesting your help in providing us with the names and mailing addresses of a representative of your firm in the following categories: 1. A field sales manager. 2. The man to whom this field sales manager reports. 3. The most productive salesman reporting to this field sales manager. 4. The least productive salesman reporting to this field sales manager. (Salesmen should have been employed by your company two or more years.) We recognize that productivity has no one measure and that each firm has its own method of evaluating salesman productivity. We would like you to use your own criteria in this regard. Upon receipt of these names, a questionnaire will be sent to those you designate. Any information provided by you or any member of your organization will be held in strictest confi- dence. All replies will be sent directly tO and reviewed only by the research director. The enclosed form and return envelope are provided for your convenience in furnishing the above names and addresses. If your firm does not have two levels of sales management, this information is also valuable to us. We would appreciate 188 Mr. John Smith 2 April 20, 1966 your advising us whether this or any other factor prohibits your participation in this study. As you know, the success of any research of this type is largely dependent on the amount of COOperation between the academic and business communities. We hOpe you will join us in studying this important area. We sincerely thank you. Sincerely yours, Rodney E. Evans Dr. W. J. E. Crissy Research Director Chairman Of the Research Committee APPENDIX B This appendix contains initial questionnaire cover letters, the follow-up letter, and COpieS of the questionnaire booklets. Gray Booklet - TO Field Sales Managers Gold Booklet - To Superiors Buff Booklet - To Field Salesmen 189 190 May 23, 1966 Mr. John Smith XYZ Corporation 1234 Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan Dear Mr. Smith: Thank you for your response to our request for names and ad- dresses Of members of your organization. Questionnaires de- signed tO get their views concerning field level sales manage- ment are now being sent. Since your name was among those you provided, we have enclosed your position questionnaire with this letter. We ask that you complete and return it directly to us in the enclosed return envelOpe. As one who works in sales management, you are well aware of the importance Of effective sales management at all levels. Because Of this importance, we have designed an intensive ques- tionnaire. To ask a few relatively superficial questions would not aid our understanding Of this function. Since we are contacting only a small number of men in positions like yours, your completed questionnaire is very important to us. As we noted in our first letter, any information you pro- vide will be held in strictest confidence. Your COOperation is very much appreciated. Sincerely, Dr. W. J. E. Crissy Chairman of the Research Committee Rodney E. Evans Research Director cs Enclosures 191 May 23, 1966 Mr. John Smith XYZ Corporation 1234 Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan Dear Mr. Smith: As part of our continuing research into sales management, we are studying the role of field sales managers like yourself. As the superior to whom field salesmen report, your ideas and Opinions are the focal point of our study. The enclosed ques- tionnaire, which we ask that you complete and return to us, enables us to get your ideas in a number Of specific areas. We want to be frank with you. Because of the importance and complexity Of sales management, this questionnaire will take more than five or ten minutes Of your time. TO ask a few relatively superficial questions would not aid our understand- ing Of this function. Any information you provide will be used only by the research director and will be held in strictest confidence. We ask, in fact, that you not discuss your answers with other members Of your organization. Specific directions are given in the questionnaire booklet. Because we are contacting only a small number of men in posi- tions such as yours, your completed questionnaire is very important to us. A return envelope is enclosed for your con- venience. Your COOperation is sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, Rodney E. Evans Dr. W. J. E. Crissy Research Director Chairman of the Research Committee cs Enclosures 192 Mr. John Smith XYZ Corporation 1234 Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan Dear Mr. Smith: As part of our continuing research into sales management, we are studying the role Of the field level sales manager. As the superior Of field sales managers in your company, your Opinions are of considerable importance to our study. The enclosed questionnaire, which we ask that you complete and return to us, enables us to get your Opinions in specific areas. We want to be frank with you. Because Of the importance and complexity Of sales management, this questionnaire will take more than five or ten minutes Of your time. To ask a few relatively superficial questions would not aid our understand- ing of this function. Any information you provide will be used only by the research director and will be held in strictest confidence. We ask, in fact, that you not discuss your answers with other members of your organization. Specific directions are given in the questionnaire booklet. Because we are contacting only a small number Of men in posi- tions such as yours, your completed questionnaire is very important to us. A return envelOpe is enclosed for your con- venience. Your cooperation is sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, Rodney E. Evans Dr. W. J. E. Crissy Research Director Chairman of the Research Committee cs Enclosures F a I Department of Marketing and Transportation Administration Graduate School of Business Administration Michigan State University The number in the upper right hand corner of this page serves only as a guide for the research staff. Its only purpose is to tell us whether or not a particular questionnaire has been returned. This research is designed and conducted only by the university. No names of individuals or firms will be identified in the text of the research report. Because different firms use different titles for their positions, we have adapted a standard set of terms for this research. We ask that you adapt these terms to your own organization when completing your questionnaire. A. Field Sales Manager — that manager to whom the field salesmen report. B. District — the area under the control of a field sales manager including the territories of all field salesmen reporting to him. Please answer all questions. Use enclosed envelope to return your question- naire directly to us. Your personal answers are the important thing to us. Thank you very much. ’ART A Ve are interested in a deeper and better understanding of your job. In this art, several selected activities are listed under each of five general headings. Ve would like you to answer in terms of how on at the present time allocate 'our working time to each activity. Specific irections are given under each ;eneral heading. til the end of each general heading, we ask that you indicate the percentage of 'our total time in an average week that you spend on the activities under that zealdoigg as a group. The sum of your percentages for the five headings should re 7.. . Marketing Activities ’lease rank the following marketing activities from 1 to 10 in terms of the he l(limount of time you spend in an average week on each in relation to the others at is oup. f you ave no connection whatsoever with a particular activity, please write the vord “none” in the space before the activity. .................. A. Reviewing competitive activity. ................... B. Communicating corporate information to salesmen. ................... C. Analyzing sales data. ................... D. Participating in the formulation of overall marketing policy. 1 .....E Digesting information received from management. .................... F. Advising on changes in price, delivery arrangements, productsu on new product development. .................... G. Summarizing sales and customer information for communicatim to management. .................... H. Managing advertising and/or other non-selling promotional ti“ tivities. .................... I. Forecasting future sales in your district. .................... I. Revieng district sales coverage and salesmen’s territory align- ment. .................... K. Other (please specify) “Wm Please now indicate he ow the percentage of your total time in an average we Wm that you spend on these activities as a group. ...................... “In II. Selling Activities “V-l‘er Please rank the following selling activities from 1 to 5 in terms of the would of time you spend in an average week on each in relation to the others“! he the grOup. ‘ Me? If you have no connection whatsoever with a particular activity please writeth amp. ' word “none” in the space before the activity. ”at ._ 1 .................... A. Personal selling to your own accounts . “Wu .................... B. Handling problem accounts. .................... C. Expediting customer orders. .................... D. Making sales calls with your salesmen. .................... E. Deciding on a customer’s request for special terms of sale. .................... F. Other (please Specify) Please now indicate below the percentage of your total time in an average with .. that you spend on these activities as a grOup. ‘ ...................... “i III. Financial Activities Please rank the following financial activities from 1 to 6 in terms of the 4mm“? \ of time you spend in an average week on each in relation to the others in this ou . . . . lgfryold have no connection whatsoever with a particular activ1ty please write the word “none” in tthe space before the activity. 2 .................... A. Analyzing selling expense data. .................... B. Controlling inventory and warehousing costs. .................... C. Preparing budgets .................... D. Controlling costs of branch office operation. ............. - ....... E . Advising on the need for additional capital expenditure in your district. .................... F. Watching the trend of costs expanded in relation to profits gen- erated in your district. .................... C. Other (please specify) Please now indicate below the percentage of your total time in an average week ., ,that you spend on these activities as a group. ...................... % IV. Personnel Activities 7: Please rank the following personnel activities from 1 to 9 in terms of the amount of time you spend in an average week on each in relation to the others in the group. If you have no connection whatsoever with a particular activity please write the word “none” in the space before the activity. .................... A. Training salesmen. .................... B. Establishing standards of salesman performance. .................... C. Recruiting and selecting new salesmen. 3...... .................... D. Planning and holding sales meetings. . .................... E. Handling problem salesmen. m .................... F. Forecasting future personnel needs in your district. .................... C. Advising salesmen on personal problems. , ...................... H. Reviewing compensation programs for salesmen. .................... I. Revising man specifications required for the sales DOSition. .................... I. Other (please specify) fl Please now indicate below the percentage of your total time in an average week i that you spend on these activities as a group. 3:}, ------------------- % V. Administrative Activities Please rank the following administrative activities from 1 to 4 in terms of the amount of time you spend in an average week on each in relation to the other: in the group. If you have no connection whatsoever with a particular activity please write the word “none” in the space before the activity. .................... A. Managing the field office. .................... B. Keeping records. .................... C. Working with dissatisfied customers. .................... D. Writing reports on various aspects of district Operations. .................... E. Other (please specify) Please now indicate below the percentage of your total time in an average week that you spend on these activities as a group. ti, ~ Before going on, please check the tficzelrcentages you have indicated at the endol each of the five sections to be sure t they add up to 100%. V], Please describe the single a3pect of your job which you believe is not critical to the successful execution of the job. m” iPl ...... a. Io. """""" .................................................................................................................................. ....... .................................................................................................................................. ,u “o‘ ....... ...................................................................................................................................... 0000000000 .................................................................................................................................. .r' """""" ................................................................................................................................ . PART B We are interested in knowing something about you personally. Please dial the appropriate answer. 1. What is your exact job title? ............................................................................... 2. Are You located in Your company’s home office? Yes ............ N0 ’ 3. How old are you? .................... Under 30 40.44 , . .. 30-34 .................... 45-50 .................... 3539 Over 50 .- 4. Please indicate the highest level of formal education you have attained. . High School 1-3 years of College .................... Bachelor’s Degree .................... Master’s Degree or more 5. Please indicate the number of years you have been with your present company. .................... Under 2 years 11-15 years .................... 2-5 years 16-20 years .................... 6-10 years Over 20 years 6. How long have you been in your present position in the company? .................... Under 2 years 11-15 years .................... 2-5 years 16-20 years .................... 6-10 years Over 20 years , 7. How many field salesmen are under your supervision? .................... 0-4 11-15 .................... 5-10 More than 15 8. How many hours in an average week do you spend on the job? .................... Less than 40 51-55 .................... 40-45 56-60 .................... 46-50 More than 60 9. Please indicate the type of position you held before taking your present one. .................... Field salesman with your present company. .................... Field saleman with another company. .................... Sales management position with another company. .................... A management position not directly connected with sales with your present company. .................... A management position not directly connected with sales with k another company. .................... Office manager of branch office. ' .................... “Assistant to” a man in a position similar to the one you now hold. .................... Other (please specify) 10. How many men in your company hold a position similar to your own? .................... 0.5 .................... 20-29 .................... 6.9 .................... 30-39 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 10.19 40 or more 5 PART C The following scale is used to measure how you feel about your job. Please circle the number which best reflects your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each aspect of your job. H Very satisfied H l0 Fairly well satisfied [CNN N) [010w 10 lo t0 l0 CD Somewhat dissatisfied 090::me A Very dissatisfied )5 vb firm-Aha. rl' --.lnfirli ‘ 4' Fairly We'll nulls-(inc! Htrlnwlmlt almond-float '1 2 3 1 Very staisfied 2 Fairly well satisfied 3 Somewhat dissatisfied 4 Very dissatisfied The 0p rtunity my present job offers to work in those areas when I can 0 my best r '11 7M0 01 Being in my present job in view of my career objectives. r The importance attached to my job by company people not con- nected with sales. The amount of authority I have over the compensation of salesmen under me. The amount of personal selling I can do myself. The weight my recommendations have with my superiors. The amount of authority I have over the termination of salesmen under me. The degree to which peOple outside my company recognize ll“ importance of my job. The amount of support my superiors give my decisions. The amount of authority I have in relation to the resposibility.‘1i"in me. The amount of income I receive. The amount of time I must spend on the job. The Opportunities for promotion in my present companY- ‘l Being in my present job instead of some other job in my 0011193“ I‘ l The amount of authority I have over the recruiting and selectin‘l‘“ salesmen for my district, . 'lfaf. The amount of personal satisfaction I receive from my )ob comm. ing the ohiectives I had when I took it. The selection of sales as a career. 6 {has '— '-' 1'— Very satisfied '3 g 1 Very satisfied. is 3 E 2 Fairly well satisfied. 3 g :3: 3 Somewhat dissatisfied. 1% g E- 4 Very dissatisfied. In no > 2 3 4 The amount of office paperwork I must do. 2 3 4 The amount of time I must spend in the office. 2 3 4 The amount of COOperation I get from my superiors when I need. information. PART D The followin scale measures the frequency of interaction which you have with people aroun you. Please indicate how often durin an average week you would meet or talk with are following peOple or groups 0 peOple. ..T. h —£ 1 Very often q 2 Rather often :3 £2: 3 3 Sometimes -' 3 E E if E 4 Rarely 1’ é” a a; 2 5 Never l 2 3 4 5 Salesmen individually on company business. ll 2 3 4 5 Salesmen in a group socially. 2 3 4 5 Your immediate superior on company business. 2 3 4 5 People in your company other than salesmen under you or your immediate superior on a social basis. 2 3 4 5 Other field sales managers. 2 3 4 5 Salesmen individually on a social basis. 1 2 3 4 5 Customers on company business. 1 2 3 4 5 Your immediate superior socially. l 2 3 4 5 Company executives responsible for long range planning on company business. .. l 4 5 Salesmen in a group on company business. 1 2 3 4 5 Customers on a social basis. "ll 2 3 4 5 PeOple other than customers not connected with your company socially. l 2 3 4 5 People responsible for advertising and sales promotion in your district on company business. 7 *— PART E This part is particular] important to our research. The scale below allows us to measure the role of the field sales manager. We would like you to approach each of the items in this part as if you could completely dictate what the role of the field sales manager would be. In a sense this is equivalent to your opinion of the “ideal" field sales manager. Please circle the number that best reflects your feelings about each item; keeping in mind that we are interested in making this position as effective as possible. 1 2 Ahm)lu’-.’ m‘.-. l’ra bub), should g g 1 Absolutely must 1 2 ‘. g “E g g a 2 Pr0bably should 1 2 1 €Eg§3 3Mayormaynot 1,5 g g E i g 4 Probably should not ' f: E Q E 3 5 Absolutely must not 1 2 i l 2 3 4 5 Have field selling experience. 1 2 3 4 5 Be regarded as an integral member of corporate management 1- 3 i 1 2 3 4 5 Be consulted regularly on the use of advertisin , sales 1)me~ 1 3 tion, and other demand creating methods in his ' ‘CL 1 2 3 4 5 Consult with the corporate marketing research department 03 competitive activity in his district. 1 2 3 4 5 Be file to commit the home office to other than normal term ‘ ~ of s e. Be able to make price concessions on his own authority. 1 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 Consult with salesmen on their personal problems. 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 Recommend promotion of salesmen to management positi0m ‘ 1 2 l 2 3 4 5 Make forecasts for future personnel requirements in his diSlTi‘l 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 Have full jurisdiction over the size of the sales force in hi? 3 district. 1 2 3 4 5 Recruit and select salesmen. 1 2 3 4 5 Train salesmen. 1 2 3 4 5 Be able to engage in personal selling to his own accounts. 1 1 2 3 4 5 Terminate salesmen on his own authority. l. 1 2 3 4 5 Make sales calls with salesmen. 1 2 3 4 5 Hold regular sales meeting with salesmen. 1 2 3 4 5 Determine sales quotas for individual salesmen. 1 2 3 4 5 Analyze district coverage and realign salesmen’s territories 0* his own authority 8 Absolutely must to N) to N) Probably should to NNNNNNN {0 l0 00 GO 00 03 Mayormaynot 03030003000003 at A re A Probably should not pk A AAAAAAA Absolutely must not UIUIUIUI .- — ~ _ __ __ _ r v Y.— ‘v-wm A - l Absolutely must 2 Probably should 3 May or may not 4 Probably should not 5 Absolutely must not Be included in long range market planning discussions. Make sales forecasts for his district. Participate in new product planning and development. Be evaluated primarily on his district’s contribution to overall corporate profit. Engage in community activities to promote good will for his company. Be wholly responsible for the internal management of the field office. Be evaluated primarily on his district’s sales volume. Be viewed as the key link between corporate management and the field sales force. Review and recommend changes in salesmen’s compensation plans. Join salesmen in social activities. Establish standards for salesmen’s performance. Spend most of his time inthe office. Join management in social activities. Prepare district expense budgets. Have management experience. Help corporate management resist salesmen’s demands for higher incomes. Carry out the orders of corporate management even thOugh he believes them to be unsound. Keep an eye on the personal life of his salesmen. Consult with present salesmen about filling a vacant sales position. Be compensated only on the overall performance of his district. Be regarded as administrative support for the salesmen. 9 W ‘2: ms East. 1234 1234 1234 12 4 12 12 4 PARTF 1 Absolutely must *2 2 Probably should 5. 3 May or may not 2% 4 Probably should not ‘3 5 Absolutely must not 5 Follow his job description closely in the performance of his job. 5 Help salesmen get higher salaries and/or commissions. 5 Pay close attention to how other field sales managers in h company operate. 5 Be a college graduate. 5 Receive management training prior to assuming his dunes. 5 Be compensated on the basis of the profits generated in h district. Please use the following scale to indicate your present responsibility 1n each m noted below. i—I 1—I i—‘ H r—I H l-‘ Completely responsible H to N) to N) to N) N) Largely responsible N) 00 00 GO GD 09 03 w Little responsibility 03 uh pk uh sli- A A A No responsibility thrhuh 1 I am completely responsible for this in my 2 I am largely responsible for this in my Md“ (and. 3 I have little responsibility for this activity in I“ district. 4 I have no responsibility in this area at all. Recruiting and selecting salesmen. Training programs for salesmen. Setting up sales performance standards. Implementing long range market plans. Making price concessions. Realigning sales territories. tin: Getting necessary market information from the corporate make I ‘ departrnent. Forecasting future district sales. Granting credit to customers. Transmitting customer comments about company products” services to management. 10 3a puns-[bio unpalatable» I. oilctly rus- lo“ rguly rat f. advluo ,-.--a H ._. 1-'- H v-I Completely responsible ll-‘l-ll-ll-i l I am completely responsible for this in my district. 2 I am largely responsible for this in my district. 3 I have little responsibility for this activity in my district. 4 I have no responsibility in this area at all. Establishing district expense budgets. Making sales calls with salesmen. Assigning specific accounts to specific salesmen. Making personal sales calls on your own accounts. Requesting advertising and sales promotion to support personal selling in your district. Handling problem customers. Establishing sales incentives for salesmen. Managing the branch office. Determining what market information should be collected by sales- men for communication to management. Transferring one of your salesmen to a management position. to t0 t0 to N Largely responsible CO 00 00 03 00 Little responsibility :5 uh uh uh its No responsibility (ONION) 00030000 Alhrklh H N 535' 1 2 3 4 Collecting specific information about competitive activity in your district. 1 2 3 4 Changing the compensation system for your salesmen. .. I 2 3 4 Contributing company funds to local charity. ‘3; H H H Can act -..r.1 2 3 4 Providing social occasions for salesmen. PART G Please use the following scale to indicate your present authority in the areas noted below. 1 I can act on my own. 2 I can act on my own, but advise my superior. o if g ‘3 ° ,3 3 I can act only after clearing with my superior. f: E 3 g 4 I recommend action only. 5 E g E 5Iactinthis area only when asked to do so by my 4 <1 4 superior. 2 3 4 5 Setting up sales performance standards. 2 3 4 5 Changing the compensation program for salesmen. 2 3 4 5 Sales training programs. 11 l—‘ H H l—‘ H l—‘ Can not HI-‘i—‘H HHHI—I l—‘i-Il-‘i-‘H p—r Thank you for ' ' ' provrdmg us with the answers t these UeStionS' welcome your attachmmt of any comments. 0 q l0 to [0 NJ N) [0 Act but advise [ONION NNNNN NNNDNJ [\9 00 03 00 00 00 03 Act after clearing 00000009 ODODWOOOO 00006003 '5‘ "7‘ '9‘ '5 '9‘ ’5 Recommend only uhvhr-Psrh Arkihlhfi ##1## sh 010101010101010101010101010101Actwhenasked 01010101 01 1 I can act on my own. 2 I can act on my own, but advise my superior. 3 I can act only after clearing with my superior. 4 I recommend action only. 5 I act in this area only when asked to do so by my t superior. Making price concessions. Giving company funds to local charity. Handling problem customers. Establishing district expense budgets. Implementing long range marketing plans. Transmitting customer comments about company Pwdum and '1 services to management. Recruiting and selecting salesmen. Establishing sales incentives for salesmen. Realigning salesmen’s territories. Making sales calls with salesmen. . i Getting market information from the corporate marketmg f9“ ' search department. Forecasting future sales in your district. Assigning specific accounts to specific salesmen. Collecting specific information about competitive actiVill’ 111 your district. Providing social occasions for field salesmen. ll i Granting credit to customers. l Transferring one .Of your salesmen to a management position- Making sales calls on your own accounts. Requesting advertising and sales promotion to support the per- sonal selling effort in your district. Managing the branch office. 1h ‘ Detem‘ining what market information should be 00116de b 1 salesmen for communication to management. 12 We wouhi ll I De ‘ Department of Marketing and Transportation Administration a. Graduate School of Business Administration Michigan State University The number in the upper right hand corner of this page serves only as a guide for the research staff. Its only purpose is to tell us whether or not a particular questionnaire has been returned. This research is designed and conducted only by the university. No names of individuals or firms will be identified in the text of the research report. Because different firms use different titles for their positions, we have adOpted a standard set of terms for this research. We ask that you adapt these terms to your own organization when completing your questionnaire. :2? A. Field Sales Manager — that manager to whom the field salesmen report. B. District — the area under the control of a field sales manager including the territories of all field salesmen reporting to him. Please answer all questions. Use enclosed envelope to return your question- naire directly to us. Your personal answers are the important thing to us. Thank you very much. saPART A We are interested in your opinion of your immediate superior’s job. In this part several selected activities that he may perform are listed under each of five gen- eral headings. We would like you to answer in terms of how you believe your immediate superior now allocates his time. Specific directions are given under each general heading. At the end of each general heading, we ask that you indicate the percentage of M his total time in an average week that you believe your immediate superior spends A“ on the activities under that heading as a gr oup. The sum 0f your percentages for the five headings should be 100%. :51 I. Marketing Activities ' Please rank the following Marketing activities from 1 to 10 in terms of the amount of time you believe your immediate superior spends in an average week p on each in relation to the others in this group. ““ If you believe that he has no connection w atsoever with a particular activity, please write the word “none” in the space before the activity. .................... A. Reviewing competitive activity. 1i? :1, .................... B. Communicating corporate information to salesmen. .................... C. Analyzing sales data. .................... D. Participating in the formulation of overall marketing policy. . V .................... E. Digesting information received from management. 1 ' i " __fi V' T.‘¥_.“'WZxWMWWWV—fi — ~- '-4- - ’ J -------------------- F. Advising on changes in price, delivery arrangements, products, a 1 on new product development. ____________________ c, Summarizing sales and customer information for comma“ _ to management. 2 3. .................... H. Managing advertising and/ or other non-selling promotional 3f- tivities. .................... I. Forecasting future sales in his district. 1 ____________________ l- Reviewing district sales coverage and salosnrlen’s territory “Mg” 3 ment. ‘ ' ‘ .................... K. Other (please specify) 3 Please now indicate below the percentage of his total time in at! 003793? P“: that you estimate your immedate superior spends on these selhng actmties 3 a. i a group. 0 as!" ............. -0 II. Selling Activities 3 3 Please rank the following selling activities from 1 to 5 in term of the 0M“! if time you believe your immediate superior spends in an average week on 93 “l I i f relation to the others in the group. - ctin'tx‘ If You believe that he has no connection whatsoever with a Pammlar a " please write the word “none” in the space before the activity. 3 '2 .................... A. Personal selling to his own accounts. :3 i .................... B. Handling problem accounts. I 2 5 .................... C. Expediting customer orders. ; 3 5 to .................... D. Making sales calls with his salesmen. .................... E. Deciding on a customer’s request for SPBCial terms 0f sale. I 2 5 .................... F. Other (please specify) 3 o c . 3‘, gleam now mdrcate below the percentage of his total time in an “Maggy: ts . a goyou est1mate your immediate superior spends on these 59111113 30ml ‘3 up. , - I'M-L.- (‘2'- ............ "h III. Financial Activities . 3 Please rank the fol] . . . , , , , of the amowi 322 . owmg fmancral actmtres from 1 to 6 in terms eels on 93333 3 07‘ time you believe - - . - w . ,~ your immediate an error ends m an average 1n relation to the others in the group. p 3P i 3 l If1e);ou believe that he ..has no connection whatsoever with a Partlcular ”W p se wnte the word none” in the space before the actiVitY- .................... A. Analyzing selling expense data. 2 l itT-T ‘w‘ ”13'3"" x '5“ gm.)- T.‘ 3‘, _ . ‘- x " .‘4 H H p—a t—l g—n H p—a H H H H H p—ap—aHp—a F" Absolutely must. N) Probably should [ONION NNNNNNNN MNNN 09 May or may not 00030309 00000903030003“ 00000003 uh Probably should not ukvhrkuhArD-bkh Ankh-huh Adi-AA Absolutely must not 01 U! 01 010101010101010101010101 CRUICRU! 1 Absolutely must 2 Probably should 3 May or may not 4 Probably should not 5 Absolutely must not Be consulted regularly on the use of adveritising, sales pro- motion,, and other demand creating methods in his district. Consult with the corporate marketing research department on competitive activity in his district. Be able to commit the home office to other than normal terms of sale. Consult with salesmen on their personal problems. Recommend promotion of salesmen to management positions. Make forecasts of future personnel requirements in his district. Have full jurisdiction over the size of the sales force in his district. Recruit and select salesmen. Train salesmen. Be able to engage in personal selling to his own accounts. Terminate salesmen on his own authority. Make calls with salesmen. Hold regular sales meetings with salesmen. Determine sales quotas for individual salesmen. Analyze district coverage and realign salesmen’s territories on his own authority. Be included in long range market planning discussions. Make sales forecasts for his district. Participate in new product planning and development. Be evaluated primarily on his dirtrict’s contribution to overall corporate profit. Engage in community activities to promote good will for his company. Be wholly responsible for the internal management of the field sales office. Be evaluated primarily on his district’s sales volume. 5 H Absolutely must p—t l-‘t-‘l—Il—‘l—‘l—lt—i l—‘t—‘i—‘I—Il—‘l—l 3...: N) Probably should to NDNNJNNMNJ [ONNIOIO IONN) -_.:~- *."':;"' _""_i!*-.'”__“L' .‘f‘lf-n'ifl' “fl-w' .m-~_n'.-_.-__.—_v~ -_A__u.._ . _-rv- W ~J' -~ -.-...-... ...—. .- e 1‘ 03 May or may not 03 00000003000000 000900000303 096300 A Probably should not bk Arkrhhtknhuh pk thubnlkrhvh PART C Please use the follow' . ’ mg scale superiors responsibility in eac ‘— ___—-". - V Absolutely must not 01 01 OIUIUIMUIUIUI 010'! 0101010101 5 1 Absolutely must 2 Probably should 8 May or may not 4 Probably should not 5 Absolutely must not Be viewed as the key link between corporate management and the field sales force. Review and recommend changes in salesmen’s compensanon plans. Join salesmen in social activities. Establish standards for salesman’s performance. Spend most of his time in the office. Join management in social activities. Prepare district expense budgets. Have management experience. Help corporate management resist salesmen’s demands for higher incomes. Carry out the orders of corporate management even though he beheves them to be unsound. Keep an eye on the personal life of his salesmen. Consult with present salesmen about filling a vacant sales position. ' Be compensated only on the overall performance of his dis’m'd. Be regarded as administrative support for the salesmen- Follow his job description closely in the performance Of his lob' Help salemen get higher salaries and/or commissions. Pay Close attention to how other field sales managers in h!5 company Operate. Be a college graduate. Receive management training prior to assuming his dunes. B? compensated on the basis of the profits generated in h” dlstrict. . . . . ' will?“ to indicate what you believe rs your mun h area noted below. 6 i—i t—I r—I t—I t—I t—‘ t—‘ Completely responsible 1...: t—‘t—II—IH... Ht—ll—IIH N) to N) [O N) to NJ to to N) N) N) N N) Largely responsible (ONION) N’N Little responsibility woomoaoomco 000303 0000030903 03000903 No responsibility masseuse» Quirk thunk-1A Afifigg A 1 He is completely responsible for this in his district. 2 He is largely responsible for this in his district. 3 He has little responsibilty for this in his district. 4 He has no responsibility in this area at all. Recruiting and selecting salesmen. Training programs for salesmen. Setting up sales performance standards. Implementing long range market plans. Making price concessions. Realigning sales territories. Cettin necessary market information from the corporate marketing researc department. Forecasting future district sales. Granting credit to customers. Transmitting customer comments about company products and services to management. Establishing district expense budgets. Making calls with salesmen. Assigning specific accounts to specific salesmen. Making personal sales calls on his own accounts. Requestin advertising and sales promotion to support personal selling in fiis district. Handling problem customers. Establishing sales incentives for salesmen. Managing the branch office. Determining what market information should be collected by sales- men for communication to management. Transferring one of his salesmen to a management position. Collecting specific information about competitive activity in his district. Changing the compensation system for his salesmen. Contributing company funds to a local charity. Providing social occasions for salesmen. 7 PART D Please use the following scale to indicate what you believe is your immedian‘ . i superior’s authority in each of the areas noted below. _: lHecanactonhisown. . , 9 g .5 E 2 He can act on his own. b1“ advises hls suPeilm' E 3 '3 33 ° a: 3 He can act only after clearing with his SUPCUOT' '3 B ‘2 a . l “l .‘l .. .. § ‘8’ g 4 He recommends actlon only. 3 ‘ * E .5: E g E 5 He acts in this area only when asked to do 50 b} 3 2 3 5 g 3 g 3 his superior. 1 2 3 4 5 Setting up sales performance standards. 1 2 3 4 5 Changing the compensation program for salesmen pm 1 2 3 4 5 Sales training programs. 1 2 3 4 5 Making price concessions. 3: :32; 1 2 3 4 5 Giving company funds to a local charity. 33331 ra l 2 3 4 5 Handling problem customers. , H 1 2 3 4 5 Establishing district expense budgets. W 1 2 3 4 5 Implementing long range marketing plans. 1 2 3 4 5 Transmitting customer comments about company FwdUCtS and services to management. 1 2 3 4 5 Recruiting and selecting salesmen. ‘ 333, . d3 1 2 3 4 5 Establishing sales incentives for salesmen. 1 2 3 4 5 Realigning salesmen’s territories. 1 2 3 4 5 Making sales calls with salesmen. 1 2 3 4 5 Getting market information from the corporate marketmg n- search department. 1 2 3 4 5 Providing social occasions for field salesmen. 1H0“- 1 2 3 4 5 Forecasting future sales in his district. 1 2 3 4 5 Assigning specific accounts to specific salesmen. h" 1 2 3 4 5 Collecting specific information about competitive actl‘nty m 1‘ district. 1 2 3 4 5 Granting credit to customers. 7H3; 1 2 3 4 5 Transferring one of his salesmen to a management pogmon. 1 2 3 4 5 Making sales calls on his own accounts. 1 2 3 4 5 Requesting advertising and sales promotion to support the per sonal sellmg effort in his district. 8 \‘Jlt‘qmen‘ 'ict. ls???- :lIL‘ “‘9' J tr't'tr' li WW“ «r’ A, 3??» i ‘1 mind.“ 1 He can act on his own. 2 He can act on his own, but advises his superior. mu Meiji: o 5 .5 W- i g g ..E 3 He can act only after clearing with his superior. 3 1: g g g g 4 He recommends action only. “Ti-3W z a a s 5 He acts in this area only when asked to do so by “I3. thin-"3:116 3 E g 3 superior. -r r rm; “74 ‘9 m 33333.. I 2 3 4 5 Managing the branch office. Ni." “ii“ W1 2 3 4 5 Determining what market information should be collected by salesmen for communication to management. lHLlLIdS. «a “W PART E We are interested in knowing something about you personnally. Please check the appropriate answer. . 1 3h 0 o o o a WP ~ 1, What rs your specific job title? ............................................................................... 2. How old are you? 1'th. ‘ 3 .................... Under 30 years .................... 40-44 3 W... .................... 30.34 .................... 4550 infill “i" .................... 35.39 Over 50 3. What is the highest level of formal education you have attained? WW .................... High School .................... 1-3 years of college .................... Bachelor’s Degree the to?“ " .......... Master’s Degree or more 4. How long have you been with your present company? .................... Under 2 years 11'15 .................... 2.5 16-20 .................... 6.10 Over 20 5. How many hours in an average week do you spend on the job? .................... Less than 40 51-55 .................... 40.45 56-60 .................... 46.50 More than 60 9 _l 6. How long have you been engaged in selling as a full time occupation? .................... 3-6 .................... 7-10 7. On which of the following types of customers do you make the largest nuIII- ber of calls? .................... 1. Retaliers .................... 2. Wholesalers .................... 3. Industrial users .................... Under 2 years 11-15 .................... 16-20 .................... Over 20 .................... 4. Individual consumers (general public) \ .................... 5. Government buyers .................... 6. Institutional users .................... 7. Other (please specify) PART F Your feelings about your own job are also vital] important to our research. lie following scale allows us to measure how you eel about your Job. . _ , Please circle the number which best reflects your satisifaction 0" “WWW with the areas noted. i—I i—l i—I H H Very satisfied i—ll-l i-li—‘i-‘i-IH N) N) N) N) N) Fairly well satisfied [ON-D NMNNN C»? (.0 GD 09 6') Somewhat dissatisfied 0303 (00096309 I A A A A A Verydimumed Ash Arkhrliih 1 Very satisfied. 2 Fairly well satisfied. 3 Somewhat dissatisfied. 4 Very dissatisfied. The amount of market information received from managell‘ent‘ How responsive my boss is to special situations in my temwry' The amount of income I receive. The selection of sales as a career. . ' ' 5 The amount of ersonal satisfaction I get from my 10b wnSldem' the obyectrves I ad when I took it. The 0PPortunities for promotion in my present company. . ”“1 T.he amount of authority I have in relation to the resllons'blh‘ given me. Being in my Present job instead of some other iOb in my company The amount of time I spend on the jOb- The amount of paperwork I must do. The amount of counsel and guidance I get from my boss. The weight my recommendations have with my “Peder; 10 ~4-. ..r» ,- V I ...x ..v-v 7": PART 0 Please use the following scale to indicate how often in a typical week you would meet or talk to the following pe0ple or groups of mph. 1 Very often 2 Rather often 3 Sometimes 4 Barely 5 Never Other salesmen for your company on business Never Your boss socially. People from your company’s marketing research department Other salesmen for your company socially. t—I I----‘ i—' t—I H Very often to N) N) N) N) Ra that often 03 03 00 C9 03 Sometimes it:- A. A up. up- Be rely U! U! U! U! U! Pe0ple other than customers connected with your company on a social basis. l 2 3 4 5 Customers on a social basis. Thank you for providing us with the answers to these questions. We would welcome your attachment of any comments. 11 197 June 22, 1966 Mr. John Smith XYZ Corporation 1234 Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan Dear Mr. Smith: You will remember our request for help with our research con- cerning the field level sales manager. Preliminary tabulation of responses is providing us with valuable information about men in these positions. We hOpe to begin our final tabulation by the sec3nd week in July and are anxious to include your views. We gould, there- fore, appreciate your reply at your earliest convenience. If, by chance, the earlier booklet did not reach you or has been mislaid, a duplicate is enclosed. Dr. Crissy and I want to reemphasize that our project is con- ducted only by the University and that no individual responses are available to participating companies. Your confidence will be strictly respected. As you know, the validity of our findings will be considerably enhanced by complete returns. Thank you for your c00peration. Very truly yours. Rodney E. Evans Research Director REEscs Enclosure APPENDIX C JOB TITLES OF RESPONDENTS 198 199 TABLE 40 JOB TITLES OF FIELD SALES MANAGERS Taken From Responses to the Question: "What is Your Exact Job Title?" Number Included Job Title . . In This Study Division Sales Manager 21 District Sales Manager 14 Division Manager 14 Field Sales Manager Sales Manager Regional Sales Manager Branch Manager District Manager District Sales Supervisor Sales Supervisor Branch Sales Manager Branch Office Manager District Traffic and Sales Manager Branch Store Manager Manager, Chemical Sales Ohio Sales Manager Northeast Regional Manager Department Sales Manager Regional Manager District Manager, Chemical Division Manager Regional Sales Supervisor Sales Supervisor I Central Region Sales Manager District Manager in Charge of Sales & Service Residential Sales Manager Field Sales Supervisor F‘HEAFJFJF'HIdFJFJF'HI‘F‘F‘F‘H(»L0UJu)wuhkfi 200 TABLE 41 JOB TITLES OF FIELD SALESMEN Taken From Responses to the Question: "What is Your Exact Job Title?" Job Title Number Included In This Study Salesman Sales Representative Professional Service Representative Sales Engineer Pharmaceutical Salesman Senior Sales Representative Detailman District Sales Manager Medical Salesman Pharmaceutical Representative Drug Salesman Agent Representative Technical Representative Insurance Sales Agent Insurance Salesman Special Accounts Salesman Advisory Marketing Representative Eastern Sales Representative Senior Salesman Field Sales Manager Dealer Representative Chemical Salesman Territorical Salesman Special Account Representative Field Sales Representative Regional Sales Representative Sales Representative II Field Salesman Account Manager Sales Specialist Account Representative Salesman, Class III Executive Sales Representative General Representative Philadelphia District Sales Manager Dealer Salesman 25 23 17 H HEAFJF‘HIAFJFJP‘HtAFAFJH‘HFJF‘F‘Hl‘k‘k‘NDvabOhJNJNiNLnO‘m 201 TABLE 41 (continued) Job Title Number Included In This Study Special Representative Federal Government Salesman Sales Associate Account Executive District Sales Supervisor Regional Salesman Detail Representative Territory Representative Salesman Drugs Medical Sales Representative HIAFJH‘HFAFAF‘HIH 202 TABLE 42 JOB TITLES OF FIELD SALES MANAGERS' SUPERIORS Taken From Responses to the Question: "What is Your Exact JOb Title?" Job Title M Number Included In This Study General Sales Manager District Manager Regional Sales Manager Sales Manager District Sales Manager Marketing Manager Divisional Sales Manager Division Manager Vice President-Marketing Mid-East Regional General Manager Industrial Sales Manager Superintendent of Agencies Director of Sales Operations General Manager Assistant Vice President of Sales National Sales Manager Vice President-General Sales Manager Assistant Division Sales Manager Manager-Residential Sales General Manager of Branch Vice President-Sales Director-Field Sales Director of Sales Field Sales Manager 6 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l APPENDIX D SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR ROLE DEFINERS TO FIELD SALES MANAGERS ON CURRENT ACTIVITIES 203 204 mo. Ho. Ho. wocmoHMHcmHm mom. u my mom. u mu any. n mu m om.m o oo.m o ov.v m.m mm.v uschoHHm >nouHHHmu m.cwEmmHmm cam mmmnm>oo mmHmm uUHHuwHO mcH30H>wm .b w oo.m m mm.m m 00.5 m mm.o _ uUHHumHU HHwSu QH memm mususw.msHummumHom .H OH NH.m OH mm.m oH mw.m 0H mm.m mmHuH>Huom HMCOHDOEOMQ msHHHmmlcoc Hmfluo H0\©cm mCHmHuHm>Um mchmcmS .m w so.v a ms.v m oo.v m mo.v ucmswmmcms on soHumoHcsEEou How coHumEHomcw HwEoumDo cam mmHmm mGHNHHmEEDm .O m 00.0 m om.v m mm.m v mm.¢ ucmsdon>op DUDUOHQ 3oz so no .muos Ipoum .mucofimmsmuum >Hw>HHwU .mUHHm SH mwmcmnu so mchH>U¢ .m o oo.m m om.m m VH.m m mm.m uswEmmmcmE Eonw ©w>HmomH COHDMEHOMSH @cHummmHQ .m m oo.m m om.o m mH.m m so.a massed mcHuwxumE HHmum>o mo COHu rmHDEHom mflu CH msHummHoHuHmm .Q H ov.m H om.m v mm.m H mn.m mumo mmHMm mCHumHmcd .O m mm.m m mm.m H n©.m m vH.m :mEmmHmm 0» coHumE IMOmsH wumnomuoo mcHumUHcsEEoo .m m oo.m s mm.m a Hs.v m.o mm.v Sufl>flpom w>fiuflumdeoo mcazmfl>wm .¢ xsmm cmemZ xcmm cmewz xcmm smemS xcmm CMHUmZ cmEmmHmwl..lldwEmmHmm mHoHHmQDm Hmmmcmz mufl>flu sufl>su mmsmm nsmflm suw>fluo< nonpoum nonpoum 30H amHm I; Iii mmHBH>HBU¢ UZHBMMMflE ho MOZHMZ¢M Me MHmHmzmfixm ho mZOmHm¢mZOU ZflHsz 205 HO. mo. u H m mmom ¢H.m mm.N md‘ MH.H mmom OH.N Doom Mfi‘ om. om.N Doom wmoH mm.m mm. omom ooom mmoH wocmoHMHcmHm mem mo mason HMHUQO How ummsku m.HwEoum90 m :0 mcHUHUwQ om :wEmmHMm “Hmnu QDHB mHHmo memm mamez on mumpuo Hwaoumfio msHqummxm .O mussooom EmHQOHm mcHHccmm om mucaouom s30 mH£ ou maHHHmm HMCOmHmm .d xcmm cmemz xcmm CMHUOS cmEmmHmm cmEmemm mHOHHmQSm mufl>su >us>su soapoum lumpoum 30A smflm xcmm CMHUmZ xcmm GMHCQE mummmcmz mmHmm chHm mpH>fluu¢ mMHBH>HBU< OZHHHmm m0 mOZHMZ¢m vv mqmdfl, mqmzdm M>Hmzmfixm m0 mZOmHmfimEOU ZdHQMZ 206 .m.c mo. .m.c mocmoHMHcmHm cos. n mu mmm. n my mum. n mm H om.H m hH.m m mo.m o¢.m DUHMumHU HHwfiu CH omumumswm muHmoum on COHDMHOH :H wwvcmmxm mumoo mo pawn» may manvumz .m m n©.m o >©.m o om.¢ hm.m “UHHume HHmflu CH mHDDHCGmmxw Hangman amnesuflcom How poms on» so mGHmH>C£ .m m ow.H m HR.H H Hm.a as.s cosumummo ooawmo Susana mo mumoo mcHHHoupcoo .n m om.m m ma.m v mo.m ms.m mummosn mcflummmum .o a mm.m v so.~ m oo.m H».H mumoo mcflmsosmumz pcm muonsm>cH mGHHHOHDCOO .m N no.H H mH.H mm. mm. mump mwcmmxm mcHHme mcHumesd .< xcmm CMHUwz xcmm CMHUmZ xcmm CMHUmz xcmm cmHUmE cmEmmHmm cmEmmHmm mHOHHmmDm mummmcmz >us>au mufl>au mmsmm wfimflm >pa>fluo< sodooum nonconm 304 anm mmHBH>HBU¢ HdHUZflZHm m0 mUZHMde mamzflm m>HmZMBXm m0 mZOmHmwm .H 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 awsmmHmm 000 05000000 GOHummcmeoo mcH3mH>mm .m 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 0H.0 0 00.0 msmHnonm HmaOmnmm so awEmmHmm mchH>U¢ .O m ov.v m oo.v h mm.m h 00.0 uUHHume HHmQD CH mcmwc HmCGOmem mnpusm maHummuwnom .m o MH.m w oo.m m on.m w Hm.m cmEmmHmm EmHQOHQ mGHHOGmm .m 0 00.0 0 sH.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 mmcHummE mmHMm mcHoHO£ cam mcHscmHm .Q v oo.v q om.v N mm.m m mm.¢ SwfimmHsm 3mm mCHuomem cam mGHpHsuumm .O 0 00.0 0.H 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 00002000000 :msmmHmm Mo moumocmum msHflmHHQmpmm .m H 00.H 0.H 00.0 H 00. H 00. cmsmmHmm mchHmue .0 xcmm cmemz xcmm cmemz xcmm cMprz xcmm GMHomz cmEmemm cwEmmHmm mHoHuwQsm mummmcmz 00H>H0 suH>Hu mmHmm 0H0H0 >BH>H000 IUSCOHQ IUSUOHQ 30H anm 'i l mMHBH>HBU¢ Hmzzommmm m0 mUZHMZHmZMBXm m0 mZOmHm¢mEOU ZéHQmS 0% mqmfifi 208 H0. H0. mucmonHamHm 000. n mu 0.H u 00 0.H u 00 0.H 00.H 0 00.H 0 00.0 0 00.H mcoHumummo uuHuume mo muommmm mSOHHm> co manommn mcHuHHZ .n 0 00.0 v 00.0 0 H0.0 a 00.0 mumsoumso pmemHDMmmHU nuHB mcHxHOB .O 0 0s.H 0 0H.0 0 00.0 0 0H.0 0000000 mchwmx .m 0.H 00.H H 00.H H 00. H 00.H monmo 0Hme 0:0 mchmamz .0 xcmm cmHUmz xcmm GMHCOZ xcmm CMHUOZ xcmm CMHUOE cwEmmHmm CwEmemm mHOHHmmDm mummmcmz muH>Hu 00H>Hu , memm 0H0H0 suH>Huoa IUDUOHm Iosooum 30H anm mMHEH>HBU£ m>HB¢mBmHZHEQ¢ m0 wUZHXZHmZmBNm m0 mZOmHmfimSOU ZfiHQmE NV mqm<8 209 Ho. Ho. Ho. mocmoHMHcmHm 0H0. n mu 000. u 00 000. u my 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 m 00.0 ucmacmHHm >uouHuumu m.cmEmemm 0cm wmmum>oo memm UUHHumHG mGHSmH>mm .b 0 mm.m m m0.¢ m 00.0 h om.m DUHuumHo nHm£u CH mmHmm mudusm mchmmomHom .H m.m 00.0 m 00.0 m oo.m m oo.m mmHuH>Huom HmcoHDOEOHm mcHHHmmlsoc Hmfluo H0\©sm mchHuHm>pm msHmmsmz .m 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 “005000008 0» COHumoHQDEEOU How GOHUMEH0maH HmEoumSU mam mmHmm mCHNHHmEESm .0 0H 00.0 0H 00.0 a 00.0 0 00.0 unmsmon>wo HUDUOHQ 3m: :0 Ho .muos locum .mucmfiwmcmnum >Hm>HHm© .wUHHQ CH mmmcmfio co mCHmH>Um .m w oo.m m oo.m H mm.H m mm.m ucmEmmmcmE EOHM om>HwowH coHumEu0mcH mcHummmHn .m m.m 00.0 m 00.0 OH oo.m 0H 00.m >UHHOQ mcHumxumE HHmuw>o mo coHu ImHDEH0m ms» sH mchmmHoHunmm .9 H 00.0 0 00.0 0.0 00.0 0 00.0 0000 mmHMm 0cHN>Hma0 .o m no.m H mb.H m.m oo.m H H0.H cmfimoHMm 0» coHumE unemcH mumnomhou mcHumoHGDEEOU .m 0 00.0 s 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 muH>Huom o>HuHquEOU mcH3mH>mm .0 xcmm :mHowE xcmm CMHUmZ xcmm CMHpmS xcmm GMHUwZ cmEmmHmm cmEmmHmm mHoHHoQDm Hmmmcmz muH>Hu 00H>Hu mmHmm 0HmHm suH>Hpo0 nonpoum IUDpoum muH>Hu05©oum 300 smHm :mHm mmmZHme qum mHmmB D24 mmmwm242 mqum QQMHm MEH>HBUDQOmm EOHE Mm mMHBH>HBU¢ UZHBMMMfiE m0 mOZHMZHu suH>Hu memm 0H0Hm mpH>Hpo0 soapoum nonpoum muH>HuUDUoum 300 smHm anm mmmZHmmn mqom MHmmB 02¢ mmmOHBUDQOmm EOHE Vm mmHBH>HBU¢ OZHHHmm m0 mUZHMZCm .m 0 0.0 0 u- 0 00.H coHumnmmo monmo Socmufl mo mumoo mcHHHOHpSOO .9 0.0 00.H 0.0 0.H 0 00.H muwmcsn mcHsmmmam .o 0 II m I: 0 II mumoo mchUOQwHMB Ucm >Houcm>cH maHHHOHDGOO om mump mmcwmxm mCHHHmm mcHn%Hmc¢ .4 H mm. . Om. H «0. xcmm QMHme xcmm CMHUOE xcmm cmHUmz xmwm CMHUQS cwEmmHmm cmEmmHmm mHOHqumw mhwgmcmz >0H>Hu >0H>Hp mmHmm 0HmHm >0H>Huo0 nonpoum nosooum >DH>HDUDUOHQ 300 smHm smHm mMMZHme WHOM mHmmB 02¢ mmm0HBUDQOmm me2 Wm mmHBH>HBU¢ H¢HUZmm .H m 0.0 n N.o 0 m.© m.© m.m :wEmmHmm How mEMHmOHm COHDMmemEOU mCH3wH>wm .m 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 msmeoum HmsOmumm co cwEmemm mCHmH>©¢ .O 0 mm.m 0 m0.¢ m mm.0 w 0.0 uUHHuch HHmQD CH momma HOGGOmumm mususm mcHummomHom .m 0 00.0 0 0.0 0 00.0 0 0.0 swammHmm smHnoum mcHHocmm .m 0 00.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 00.0 mmcHumms mmHmm mchHofi Ucm mchcmHm .Q m m.m m o.m m m.m m m.m smEmmHMm 3oz mCHuUmem 0cm mcHuHSuomm .U 0 0.0 v 0.0 m 0.0 w 0.0 mommEHOMme cmEmeMm mo mpumosmum manmHHQmumm .m H 00.H H 00. H 00. H 00. cmEmmHmm mchHmus .0 xcmm CMHUmE xcmm :mHomz xdmm cmHomZ xcmm CMprE cmEmmflMW! cmEmonm mHoHHszm muwmmcmz 00H>Hu >0H>Hu mmHmm 0H0Hm 00H>Hau0 losooum nonpoum huH>Hu05©oum 300 smHm smHm It»: ., ! Bills “Jfluuqfllll “.de mmMZHme mHOM mHmmB QZ¢ mmm0<2¢2 mMHfim QAWHM %BH>HBUDQOmm EOHE Nm mmHBH>HBU€ Hmzzommmm m0 mOZHKZ¢m ZflHQMS Hm mqm so muHOQmH mcHuHHB .0 v m.m w om.m 0 m.m w mm.m mHmEoumso UmHmeHMmmHU SpHB mGHMHO3 .U 0 00.H 0 0.H H 0.H 0 00.H 0000000 mchmmx .0 0 00.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 00.0 00H000 0H0H0 0:0 mchmcmz .0 xcmm CMHUmz xcmm QMHmmE xcmm CMHOmz xcmm cmHUwz COEmmHmm GwEmemm mHOkanfiHHm meUMsz >0H>Hu >0H>H0 mmHmm 0H0Hm 00H>H000 lospoum nonponm >DH>Hu09©oum 300 smHm anm mmmZHme mqom mammfi QZ< mmm042€2 mmgdm QHmHm VBH>HBUDQOmm mOHE hm mmHBH>HBU< m>HB¢MBmHZHEQ¢ m0 m02axz¢m ZdHsz mm MHm000H0000 m.CmEmmH0m OCm wmmuw>oo mmHmm MUHHpmHO OCH3wH>mm .b O mm.m m.m 0.0 m 0.0 O 0.0 uUHHumHO HHmnu CH mmHMm mususm OCHummuwuom .H m O.m OH 0.0 m O.m OH 0.0 meuH>Hgom HMCOHHOEOHQ OCHHHmmICOC Hmnuo HO\OCm OCHmHuuw>©m OCHOMCMS .m 0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0002000005 00 COHumoHCCEEOU MOM COHumEHOMCH HmEoumCU 0C0 mmHmm OCHNHnmEECm .0 0H 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 000500H0>00 uUCOOHm BmC CO HO .muUC IOOHQ .mquEmmCmuum >H0>HHwU .wUHHm CH mmmCmfio Co OCHmH>©C .m m O.m H O.H H mm.H m m.m quEmOMCmE Eouw O®>Hmomu CoHumEH0mCH OCHummmHQ .m 0 0.0 0 0.0 0H 0.0 0 0.0 >0HHom OCHummeE HHmum>o mo COHu imHoEMOM mflu CH OCHummHUHuHmm .Q H 00.H 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H 00.H 0000 00H00 00H0>H0c0 .o m mm.m m.m O.¢ m.m O.N N 00.H CwEmeMm Op COHumE iHOmCH mpmnomuoo OCHpmoHCCEEOO .m 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 >0H>H000 0>H0H000500 00H30H>0m .0 mem CMHOmz XCmm Cmemz mem CMHUmz mem CMHOGZ CmEmmHmm CmEmemm mHoHHmasm mCmOMsz >0H>H0 >0H>H0 00H00 0H0H0 >0H>H000 luscoum Ioswoum huH>HuUCOonm 30H COHm 30H mmmZHMMQ mdom MHMEB DZ< mfiflOdZdZ mmqHBUDflomm 30H Mm mMHBH>HBU¢ OZHBMMM4Z m0 mOZHMZ¢m Z¢HQME mm mqmfifi 215 mO. .m.C .m.C mquoHMHCmHm 000. n 00 000. u 00 000. u 00 v 00.0 m Om.m m.m O.m 0.0 00.0 mHmm Mo 08000 HMHmem How umwsku m.quoumCU 0 C0 OCHOHqu .m H mm. H 00. H m. H 00. CmEmmH0m HHwnu £0H3 mHHmu mmHmm OCmez .0 m 0©.N v O.m m m.m m.m Om.m 000000 HmEoumCU OCHuHmexm .O 0 00.H 0 00.H 0 0.H 0 00.H 00000000 00H0000 00HH0000 .0 m m.m m O.N m.m O.m m 0.0 mpCCouom C30 mHC 00 OCHHme H0COmumm .C xcmm CmHUmz xcmm cmewz mem cmHsz mem CmemS cmEmemm cmEmmHmm muoHumqsm mummmmwz.il >0H>H0 >0H>00 00H00 0H0Hm >0H>H000 nonpoum toCUOHm >0H>Huuspoum 304 COHm 30H mmMZHmMQ Mdom mHMEB Q24 mmm0<2<2 mmqflm QHmHm >BH>HBUDflomm 30H Wm mMHBH>HBU¢ UZHHHmm ho mOZHXZ¢m ZU¢ .m 0.0 00.H 000000000 000000 CUCMHQ mo mpmoo OCHHHOHuCOO .Q H 00. mpmmpsfl OCHHmmmHm .O m mO.N mumou OCHmDOCmHMB OCm huoqu>CH OCHHHOHUCOO .m N 0m. 0000 mmCmmxw mCHHme mCHwhHMCd .¢ XCmm CmHUmZ mem CMHUwE mem CMHOmE mem CMHsz CwEmmHmm CwEmmHmm mnoHuummml mumUMsz s00>00 >0H>00 00H00 0H0Hm >0H>H000 auspoum Iospoum >0H>Huuswoum 30H COHm 30H mmMZHmMQ mqom mHmmB 92¢ mmm0<2¢2 wmqfim QHmHm >BH>HBUDQOmm 30H Mm WWHBH>HBU< HéHUZdZHm m0 mOZHMZ¢m ZdHQmS mm mdmdfi 217 HO. HO. HO. wUCMUHMHCmHm 0H0. u 0 000. u 0 000. u 00 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00000000 00H00 0H000 000 000 00000000 mCOHumoHMHummm CmE OCHmH>mm .H O m.© O OH.m 0 0.0 O hm.v CmEmmHmm new mEmumonm COHummCmmEoo OCH3wH>mm .m 0 m.m m m.O O 0.0 0.0 Om.m mEmHfloum HMCOmem CO CmEmmHmm mCHmH>O¢ .0 0 m.0 0 NO.m m mm.0 0.0 Om.m 00H00mH© HHmnu CH mommC HmCCOmumm mususm OCHummowuom .m 0 0. 0.0 0.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 00000H00 00H000m 00HH0000 .m 0 00. 0 00.0 0 0.0 0 00. 00000000 mmHmm OCHOHOS 0C0 OCHCCmHm .Q m 00.N m 0.0 N m.N m Ow.N CmEmmHmm 30C OCHuUmHmm OCm OCHquuumm .O 0.H O.H m.¢ m.v m O.m 0 m.m mUCmECOMCmm cmfimmHmm wo mOHmOC00m OCHLmHHQMpmm .m m.H O.H H 00. H 00. H O0. 90000.me0m OCHCHMHB .C .xcmm cmemz xcmm CmHsz xcmm CMHUWZ mem CMHOmz cwEWmHmm CwEmmHMWi mnoHywosm mummmcmz >0H>Hu >0H>H0 memm OHmHm wua>Huod floCOoum IUCOOCC >0H>Hpuspoum 30H SOHm 30H . t I, 3.305.011.4300!..‘h..aalhn€.flifil mmMZHmmm mgom mHmmB 92¢ mmm0<2¢2 mqum GAMMA NBH>HBUDQOMQ 30H Fm mMHBH>H904 HWZZOmmmm m0 mUZH¥Z C0 mwnomwu mCHuHHB .Q 0 0H.m v mN.m 0 0.0 0 mN.m 000800090 000000000000 0003 0000003 .0 H 00. 0 00.H H 0.H 0 00.H 0000000 0000000 .0 m 0N.N m mm.N m O.m H om. muHmmo OHmHm 0C0 OCHmmsz .0 xcmm CmHUmz 000m C0000: XCmm cmemz MCmm Cmewz CmEmemm CmEmemm mpoHumasm 000mmcmz 000>H0 000>00 00H00 0H000 >0H>H000 Iosooum Iosooum >0H>Huospoum 304 CmHm 304 mmWZHMMQ WHOm mHmmB 92¢ mmm0<2¢2 mm4HBUDQOmm 304 Nm mmHBH>HBU¢ m>HB00 000 @00000Hm 009000m 30: 00 00000000000 on 00000000 00S 00% 0000000ow 00H00 0x02 cw 00000000000 mcflcamam 00x008 0mc00 0:00 :0 00050000 0m .0 >0000£050 030 00: 00 000000 I00000 0.00800000 0000000 000 0mm00>00 00000000 00>000< .m 00000000 00: :0 0000M 00000 0:0 mo 0000 0:0 00>o 00000000000fl 009m 0>0m .Q 00000000 00: 00 >00>0000 0>00000Q800 00 0008000000 #0000000 mcau0x I008 000000000 030 #003 0050000 00 00000 U000 00: 00 0000008 00000000 000800 00:00 000 0000.0008 I00m 0000 .00000000>©0 m0 005 030 00 >00005©00 000000000 0m om >000O£000 830 00S 00 00000 I000000 0000@ 0x08 00 0090 0m .0 0800H 00000X002 MUZHBUDQO¢Q SUNS mZOHBHmZMBZH Z0m on .0.0 0.0 .0.0 0.0 .0.0 m.m o.m 00008000000 0000800000 000 000000000 000000000 c0 mo. 0.m mo. 0.N .0.0 0.0 0.0 00800000 00000>0000 000 000050 00000 000800009 .0 00.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 .0.0 0.0 0.0 00800000 0003 00000008 00000 0005000 000m .4 08000 000000000 moo m.m mo. 0.m .000 mom m.m 0000099 0000mx0 00400000 0000000 .0 08000 000000000 .000 mom .0c0 mom .0.0 m.m mom 00090000 030 000 00 0000000 00000000 00 000000 00 0000 0m 90 .0.0 m.0 00.0 000 .0.0 0.0 0.0 00800000 0003 00000 00000 0002 .m .0.0 00m .0.0 ¢.m .0.0 mov 0.m 0000 00 08000 008000 0000 00000 00 000000 0800 000 008800 00 0000 0m .0 08000 000000m 000m 0002 000m mm02 000m 0002 0002 "waw 000 mam 09m 2mmmm 00050000000 mm mqmde 222 .0.0 m.v .0.0 m.¢ .0.0 o.m 0.0 000000 000 00 0800 000 00 0008 00000 .0 08000 000>000m 0000000000 .0.0 m.m .0.0 0.m .0.0 m.m 0.m 00000>0000 000000 00 00800000 0000 .m .0.0 0.N .0.0 n.m .0.0 com m.m 00000>0000 000000 00 0008000008 0000 .0 0o. 0.N 00. 0.0 .0.0 0.0 0.m 00800000 000 000 0000050 0>000000000800 00 00000000 0m .0 .000 0.0 00.0 m.0 .0.0 m.0 m.0 00000 00000 00000 000 000 0008000008 000000000 0003000 0000 >00 000 00 00300> 0m cm .0.0 0.0 .0.0 0.0 mo. m.m mo0 00080m0008 000000000 00 000808 00000000 00 00 00000000 0m .4 08000 00000000 00000000000m0o mo. 0.0 mo. 0.0 .0.0 o.m v.m 000000000 0008000008 00 00800000 00 000008000 000880000 .m .0.0 m00 .0.0 N00 .0.0 0.0 0.0 000000 00000 000 00 0008000008 00000000 000 000 00000000000 000003 00 .0 08000 0>00000000080< H00 Nam H00 Ham cmoc mom moH cmgmmfimm mflg NO 0000 00000000 000 00 000 00 0000 .0 omoc mo.” omoc moH omoc MoH on cmgmwfimm cHMH—H. 0H mmwm 0002 0000 0002 0000 0002 0002 ; 000 000 000 mwmmm 0000 0005000000v mm m0mUH>Hu05©onm 30H u mmH cwEmmHmm wuH>Huoswoum Sme u mam mHOHmesm n mDm muwmmcmz mmHmm onHm muH>HuUDUOHm SmHm u 2mmmm o H N H m H m H moamflummxm mcHHHmm OHmHm m>mm on omoc h.m .moc mom .m.: m.m m.N mocmflnmmxm usmEmmmcmE m>mm o0 om.c N.m .m.c @.N .m.c oom H.m mmHuSU mHS mCHESmmm ou HOHHQ maflchuu ucmfimmmcme m>awumm .m om.c m.H .m.c H.m .m.c moH 00H mumzwmnm mmmHHOU m mm .d mEmuH mmusnflnuufi HmcoHuHmom cmcc 0.H .mcc Hum om.c m.m HON mumummo hammfioo mHQ CH mummmcmfi mmHmm chHw umnuo 30: Cu :oHucwuum mmoHU wmm .m om.c voH omen 09H .moc mom 0.H mconmHEEoo u0\©cm mmHHmHmm HmLmHfl uwm cmEmmHmm mHmm om mo. m.H .m.c 00H owe: m.H moH 90H mH: mo mocmEHOmHmm mflg CH hmeoHU coHumHHUmmU new man 3OHHom on we. Hem moo 0.H .moc ooH NOH casemc: mg on Ewflu mm>mHHmQ mfl £m50£u cm>m ucmEmmmcmE mumu Iomuoo mo mnmwyo wflp use hunmo 00 H00 mom Ho. ham owe: o.m ¢om meoocH umanfi How mccmEmU m.cmEmmHmm umHmmu ucmfimmmcme mHMHomnOU mHmm om cmHm cmmz amwm :mmz cmHm :mwz cmmz . mg I mam 22% am”: Acmscflucoov mm mqmde 224 omoC .m.C omoG omoc omoc wmuuHEo .muc m.N om.C mom .m.: o.~ .moc m.H .mOQ 0.H .mOG OON .m.c omoC mum O.N Hoe 00¢ uuHEO moo oom quEmOHm>m© UCm mCHCCmHm CUDCOHQ BmC CH mummHUHuHmm om HUHHumHU mH£ you mummowH0m mmHmm mxwz .0 mCOHmmsoch mCHCCmHm umMHmE mmCmu mCoH CH UmUCHUCH mm .m muHHOLqu C30 mHS CO meuou IHHHmu m.CwEmemm CmHHmmH ow mmmum>oo uUHHumHU muhHMCfi om HUHHumHC mH£ CH onOM memm mnu mo mNHm wflu Hw>o CoHuovaHHDn HHCM m>mm on CUHHumHU mHfl CH muH>Huum m>HpHquEoo Co quEuHmmmU fioummmmu mCHumx lumE wumuomnoo mnu QuHB uHCmCOU .U uUHHu ImHU mH£ CH mUOLHmE OCHummHU UCmEmv umnpo 6C0 .COHMOE loam mHmm .mCHmHun>um mo mmD mflu Co mHHMHCmmH UmuHCmCOU mm .m muHHonqu C30 mHS Co mCon ImmoCoo onum wme on mHQm mm ed mEmuH mCHummez m02¢2¢0mmmm mOh CmHm mez mmq CmHm mez CmHm Cmmz CM m2 mam mDm Emmmq EmHH mmm0¢2¢2 mmq¢m QQMHm MBH>HEUDQOmm 30H mZOHBHmZMBZH de2 mm mqm<8 225 omoC mo. om.C .moc mo. .m.C .m.C omoC Ho. omoc moo om.C mem d‘fl‘ fi'fi‘ Mv—l 0 mmq .m.C mo. .mofl om.C omoC .m.G om.C mo. .m.C omoc CmHm MO d‘v-i KDH Mr—l mesCHuCOUV mm CwEmmHMm pomem UCm uHsuowm .m %UHH0£qu C30 mHQ C0 CmEmmHmm muMCHEHmB .0 mEmHQOHm HMCOmHmm HHwCu C0 CmEmemm fiuH3 pHCmCOU .m CUHHuch mHn CH mquEmHHCva HmCCOm Inmm mHDqu m0 mummuwHOM mme .m mCmHm CoHummCmmEOU m.CmEmmHmm CH mmmCmno @CmEEOUwH nCm 30H>mm .Q mquEHOMHmm m.CmEmmHmm How mmumchum SmHHflmumm .U CwEmmHmm Hm5©H>H©CH How mmuosv memm mCHEHQHmQ em CmEmmHMm CuH3 mmCHume mmHmm HmHCmmH UHom o< meuH HmCCOmHmm mummcsfl mmamxm uoHupmHU mummwum om mEmuH HMHUCMCHm muCSOUUm C30 mHS 00 mCHHHmm HMCOmem CH mmmmCm on mHQm mm .0 CmfimmHmm £0H3 mHHmu memm 0x02 .m mHmm m0 mEHmu HmEHOC Cmfiu Hwfiuo 0p mUHHHO 080; may CHEEOU 0p mHQm mm 04 mamuH maHHHmm EGHH Mdmdfi 226 .moC mow om.C mow .moC oom Nov monmo wzu CH mEHu mHS mo HmOE @Cmmm .< mEmuH H0H>mflwm HmCoHuHmom .m.C H.m .m.C H.m om.C m.m m.m meuH>Huom HmHUOm CH CwEmmHmm CHOb .m .m.C m.m .m.C ©.m .moC o.m m.m mmHuH>Huom HMHUOm CH UCmemmCmE CHOb on Ho. m.H Ho. m.H .m.C 00¢ m.m cwEmemm may now unommsm 0>HumuumHCHE©m mm Umoummmn mm .0 .moC m.H om.C m.H .m.C moH ooH wouom meMm UHmHm map UCm quEmeCmE MHMHOQHOU Cmm3uwfl XCHH mwx may mm Uw3wH> mm om .m.c H.H mo. m.H Ho. m.m m.H ucmsmmmcms mumuomnoo Mo “09808 HmnmprH cm mm chummwu mm om mEmuH CoHuHmom HmCOHumNHCmmHO O amoC mam .m.C 0.H °moC o.m m.m mCOHuHmom quEmeCmE 0p CmEmeMm mo COHCOEOHQ UCwEEOme om om.c moH .mo: moH .mo: ooH voH muHmmo chHC may wo quEmmMCmE HmCHmuCH 0:» How mHQHmCOQme >HH0£3 mm .< mEmuH w>HpmnumHCHE©¢ Hoe mom Ho. mow .moC m.m oom CmEmmHmm mHfi m0 wMHH HMCOmuwQ 0:» C0 mum Cm mmmx oh om.C NoH om.C on .moC m.H on CmEmemm CHMHB 0H CmHm Cmmz CmHm Cmmz CmHm Cmmz mez mag mam II, mam EmCCC EmuH I'l .-.Ill AmeCHUCOUV mm mHmHu0900Hm 30H mmH CwEmemm muH>HuUDUOHm SmHm mam HOHHmmsm u mDm mummmcmz memm chHm muH>Huosmoum 3oq u CmCCC N H o H .moC m.H H.H mUCmHHmmxm mCHHme @HwHw w>mm .Q .m.C >.N .moC Com .moC mom v.m QUCmHHmmxm quEmeCmE w>mm .U moo hem om.C mom .m.C o.m m.m meusw mHS mCHEDmmm 0p HOHHQ mCHCHmuu quEmeCmE 0>Hmomm .m omoC H.N .m.C m.H omoC m.H moH mumswmum mmeHOU m mm .C meUH mmuCQHHuud HMCoHuHmom omoC m.m .moC m.m .moC mom H.m mumummo hCmmEOU mH£ CH mummMCmE memm UHme C0500 30: on COHquuum mmoHU wmm .m 0mg: m.H .m.C mom omoC m.m noH mConmHEEOU H0\©Cm mmHHmHMm umflmHS umm CwEmemm mHmm om mo. 0.H .m.C moH omoC m.H moH QOn mHn mo mUCMEHOHHmm GSH CH mHmmoHU COHumHuummU 90m mH£ 30HH0m on Hog vem Hog Ham om.C ooH mcH UCCOmCD 09 0p 803» mm>mHHmQ w: Lmsonu Cw>m ucoEomMCmE wumu IOQHOU m0 mumouo wflu #90 >Humo 00 Ho0 m.m Ho. mom om.C oom oom mmEOUCH HwSmHS Mom mUCmew mUCmEmmHmm umHmmH quEmmMCmE mumuomuou mHmm .m QmHm Cmmz CmHm Cmmz Cme Cmmz Cmmz mmq mam CmCmq amuH AcmscHucoov mm mqmdfi APPENDIX F‘ Mean authority and responsibility responses of intensive sample role definer groups are contained in this appendix. As in Appendix D, the role de- finer groups are specific to the field sales manager group with which they are most closely associated. The responsibility scale was: 1. He is completely responsible for this in his district. 2. He is largely responsible for this in his district. 3. He has little responsibility for this in his district. 4. He has no responsibility in this area at all. The authority scale was: 1. He can act on his own. 2. He can act on his own, but advises his superior. 3. He can act only after clearing with his superior. 4. He recommends action only. 5. He acts in this area only when asks to do so by his superior. 228 229 v.H v.N N.m m.N m.N ¢.N m.N ©.N ¢.N H.N v.¢ ©.m H.v H.m Cn5< mem mmH 0.H H.H 0.H 0.H 0.H H.H CmEmmHmm SuH3 mHHmo memm mCHxMS .¢ mEmuH mCHHHmm ¢.H ¢.N 0.H m.H H.H m.H uoHuumHo mHC :H HuH>Huom 0>HuHumeOU usonm COHumE IHOHCH UHwHowmm OCHuUwHHOU .0 H.m m.m o.m o.m o.¢ ¢.m HUHuuch mHS CH mCHHHmm HMCOmHmm Huom imam 0p COHHOEOHQ memm pCm mCHmHuHm>Um mCHummSUmm .m m.m m.H m.H m.m o.m h.m mmHmm HUHHumHU wHDuJH mCHummowuom .m H.m ¢.m 0.H m.m H.H m.~ ucmsuummmo Loummmmu mCHummeE mpmuom luoo may Scum CoHmeHOHCH umemE >HMmmmowC mCHuumw .Q mom mmHHOuHHHmH mmHmm mCHCmHHmmm .0 m.m mConmmUCOU mUHHm mCmez .m m.m mCmHm umMHmE mmCmu mCOH mCHquEmeEH .4 meHH mCHumxnmz 0 Olwih st'srm moom ning mtncn 0 NC‘M wyonn O fluq'm b-mnn 0 «wd'm £u5< mmmm £u9¢ mmmm £u9< mmmm mam mam . Smear EmuH mmm0¢242 wmq¢m QAMHm >9H>HBUDQOMQ mem m0 mmMZHme mqom m0 mmmzommmm VBHmomfibfl Q24 WBHHHmHmZOmmmm Z¢m2 ow MHm48 230 m.m m.N 0.H 0.H h.m m.m ¢.m How ¢.N h.H v.m m.m ¢.N m.m m.v mom h.m h.m £u5< Qmmm mmH m.m H.m m.m ©.N 0.H m.H m.N m.N ©.N m.N H.N h.H N.m m.N 0.H N.N v.v m.m m.m m.m Sand Qmmm mam m.m o.m m.m oom O.N 0.H m.H m.H m.N m.m m.m ®.m O.N O.N m.N 0.H m.H m.H 0.H 0.H m.¢ o.v m.m H.m m.H m.m m.H N.N m.¢ cow H.v ®.m 0.H m.m H.v ©.m £u5< Qmmm Ludfl Qmmm mDm 2mmmm HomDCHuCOUV om WHmCB CmEmmHmm mH£ How Ewumhm COHummamEOU 0:» mCHmCMSU .m CmEmmHmm How mm>Hu ICmoCH mmHMm mCHCmHHQmumm .m CwEmmHmm UHHHommm 09 mquooom UHHHUmmm mCHCmHmm¢ .Q mUHMUCmum 00Cm qEHOHme mmHmm m5 mCHuumm .U CmEmmHmm How mamnmoum mCHCHMHB .m CmemmHmm mCHuomem UCm mCHUHDHomm .C mEmuH HwCComumm mummonfl mewmxm uoHuume mCHCmHHQmumm .C meuH HmHUCMCHm mumeoumso EmHQOHQ mCHHUCmm .Q mumeoumso on quwuo mCHuCMHw .U mquooom C30 mHS C0 mHHmu mmHmm HMCOmem mCmez .m EwuH 231 CwEmmHmm huH>Hu09©0Hm 30H u mmH swammHmm HpH>Huosooum CmHm u mmm mHOHHwQSm n mDm mummMsz mmHmm prHm >CH>HCUC©0HC SmHm u Swmmm H.m ¢.m m.m m.m o.¢ m.m o.¢ o.m coHuHmom ucwEmmMCmE m 0H CwEmmHMm mHC Ho 0C0 mCHunwmmCmne .m m.m m.m ©.m o.m o.m o.v o.m m.m moHHmo CUCMHQ mag mCHmMsz .C mEmuH m>HumuumHCHE©C Chad Cmmm Cus< mmwm Cus< Cmmm Luca Cmmm mmq mam mom EmCmm ampH HomCCHuCoov om MHmCB 232 0.H N.H 0.H moH 0.H 0.H 0.H 0.H CmemHmm SuH3 mHHmo memm mCwaS .d mEmHH mCHHHmm ¢.H o.m H.~ m.m 0.H m.H H.H H.H uUHuumHo mHC 2H muH>Huum m>HuHummEOU HDOQM CoHumE IHOHCH UHHHoQO mCHuowHHOU .w uUHHumHU mHS CH mCHHHmm HMCOmHmm puom ImCm ou COHHOEOHQ mmHMm UCm mCHmHuHm>Um mCHumvamm .m mmHmm HUHHumHU wudHDw mCHHmmomuom .m UCwEuHmmwo Cuumwmmu mCHumemE mumnom unoo mfip 809m CoHumEHOHCH umxnme >HMmmmomC mCHupmw .Q n H mmHuoannmu mmHmm mCHCmHHmwm .U m.m mconmmUCoo wUHHm mCmez .m H m mCMHm ummeE omCmu mCoH mCHquEmHQEH .C mepH mCHuwxumz 0mm «3q~m O‘LOO Ncnrq HBUD90mm 30H m0 mmWZHme mHOm m0 mmmZOmmmm NBHmomfibd QZ< WBHHHmHmZOmme 24m: Ho mqmde 233 o.m m.m N.N 0.H m.m ¢.N m.m m.N O.N 0.H m.m v.m O.N vow m.¢ m.m m.m O.m £u5< mmwm mmH m.m m.m O.¢ m.m m.m 0.H h.m ©.N m.m m.m m.m m.H ©.m o.m m.H h.m H.v ©.m o.¢ m.m £u5< Qmmm mam m.v m.m m.v ©.m m.m o.m ®.m H.m o.N 0.H h.H m.H m.N m.N m.N m.N O.N o.N m.N m.m m.H m.H m.H m.H Lus< mmwm CuC< Qmwm mDm Zmbmq AUmCCHuCOUV Hm mqmfia CwEmmHmm mHS How Emumwm COHUMmCmQEOU map mCHmCMCU .m CmEmmHmm How mm>Hu ICmUCH memm mCHSmHHQMHmm .m CmEmmHmm UHHHUmmm 0p mquouom UHMHommm mCHCmHmmC .Q mpHmUCmpm mUCm IEHOHHmm mmHMm QC mCHuumm .U CmEmmHmm Cow mamnmoum mCHCHMHB .m CmEmmHmm mCHuomHmm oCm mCHuHsuomm .C mEmuH HmCComumm muwmpsn mmCmme uoHuume mcHCmHHQmumm .< mEmuH HmHUCMCHm CmEmeMm UHHHuwmm ou muCCooom UHHHUme mCHCmHmm4 .Q muweoumzo 0p quwuo mCHquuw .U mquooom C30 mHL C0 mHHmu memm HMCOmCmm mCmeS .m EmuH 234 CmEmmHmm >CH>HpoC©0um 30H n mmH CmemHmm huH>Huospoum fimHm mmm mHOHCmmflm u mDm memMsz mmHmm UHmHm th>HpUUUOHm 30H n memH m.m m.m H.v m.m o.v m.m m.v o.m coHuHmom quEmmmCmE 0 cu CmEmmHmm mHC m0 0C0 mCHCHmmmCMHB .m H.m >.m n.m m.m o.m o.v m.m m.m onmmo HUCMHQ oCu mCHmmsz .d mEmuH m>HpmuumHCHECC Cpsd mmmm SHJC Qmmm CCCC Qmmm Cusm Qmmm Em mmq mam 0H @Dm Smmmq HomsCHucoov Ho mqm