Technology-enabled sales capability: A capabilities-based contingency framework

Figures & data

Table 1. Review of research investigating firm-level sales-specific capabilities.

Study	Firm-level sales-specific capability	Sample	Ultimate dependent variables (DV)	Findings
(Johnson and Bharadwaj 2005)	Digitization of selling activity	168 salespeople	Salesperson effectiveness^(I)	Digitization of selling activity enhances salesperson effectiveness
(Krush et al. 2013)	Sales capability Marketing dashboard	158 managers in B2B firms	Cost control^(F) Customer performance^(F)	Sales capability enhances sensemaking. Sales capability and marketing dashboard have an interactive effect on sensemaking.
(Töytäri and Rajala 2015)	Value-based selling capabilities—planning, implementation, and leverage	Nine cases of global industrial companies	Not applicable	Delineation of 12 capabilities for implementing a value-based sales approach
(Guenzi et al. 2016)	Sales force management capabilities Three first-order constructs: Sales force structuring Customer targeting Talent management Personal selling capability Second-order construct consisting of two constructs: Salesmanship Account management	214 sales managers or higher	Customer performance^(F) Market Performance^(F) Profitability^(F)	Personal selling capability enhances customer and market performance
(Keszey and Biemans 2016)	Sales–marketing encroachment	296 marketing executives	New product financial performance^(F) New product success compared with competitors^(F)	Sales-marketing encroachment enhances financial performance but not success
(Nijssen et al. 2017)	Sales organization ambidexterity (i.e., alignment of high levels of retention and acquisition)	174 senior sales managers	Sales growth^(F) Net profit growth^(F)	Sales organization ambidexterity enhances sales growth but not net profit growth
(Worm et al. 2017)	Sales capability	247 managers	Profitability growth^(F)	Sales capability moderates the relationship between solutions offering and profitability growth. There is a non-significant direct effect of sales capability on profitability growth.

While there are undoubtedly more papers that discuss sales-related capabilities (e.g., organizational learning; Raman, Wittmann, and Rauseo 2006) or capabilities that can influence particular aspects of sales (e.g., network capabilities; Kohtamäki et al. 2013), such capabilities can be construed at a broader level and can also apply to other areas within the firm (e.g., marketing).

Note: F = Firm-level DV and I = Individual-level DV.

Figure 1. Proposed framework.

Table 2. Construct properties.

Construct/Items	Item loading	Cronbach’s α	Composite reliability	ρA
Technology sensing capability (My firm …)		0.86	0.91	0.86
Is often one of the first in our industry to detect technological developments that may affect our business.	0.87
Periodically reviews the likely effect of changes in technology on our business.	0.88
Actively seeks intelligence on technological changes in the environment that are likely to affect our business.	0.90
Is often slow to detect changes in technologies that might affect our business.*	–
Vigilant market learning capability (My firm…)		0.83	0.89	0.84
Is highly sensitive to the market environment and detects market signals in a timely and accurate manner.	0.85
Actively collects extensive marketing information through traditional media and social networks.	0.84
Can forecast market trends based on past histories of consumer demand.	0.81
Acquires and distributes new information to different divisions in a timely manner.	0.76
Adaptive sales capability (My firm…)		0.83	0.90	0.83
Is flexible in using a variety of sales approaches and strategies in response to changes in the market.	0.85
Is capable of altering sales approaches and strategies in response to changes in the market.	0.87
Likes to experiment with different sales approaches and strategies in response to changes in the market.	0.86
Technology-enabled sales capability (My firm…)		0.88	0.92	0.89
Is effective at deploying technology to help connect salespeople with current and prospective customers.	0.87
Is competent at leveraging technology to aid salespeople throughout the selling process.	0.87
Is proficient at exploiting technology to develop, refine, and monitor performance metrics of the sales process.	0.87
Is capable of integrating technology to assist salespeople effectively manage customer relationships.	0.84
Financial performance (Relative to your competitors, how well does your company perform on…)		0.85	0.90	0.85
Return on investment (ROI).	0.86
Return on sales (ROS).	0.88
Reaching financial goals	0.88
Return on assets*	–
Customer relationship performance (Relative to your competitors, how well does your company perform on…)		0.83	0.90	0.84
Customer satisfaction.	0.84
Customer retention/loyalty.	0.89
Product/service quality.	0.86
Top management technology advocacy (In my firm, top managers…)		0.87	0.91	0.88
Keep telling sales managers that the sales force must gear up now to meet changing technology trends	0.82
Make an effort to convince the sales force of the benefits of a new technology.	0.84
Encourage the sales force to develop and implement new technologies.	0.90
Are frequently the ardent champions of new technologies.	0.84
Technology turbulence (Regarding the business environment in our primary markets…)		0.82	0.89	0.85
The technology in our industry is changing rapidly.	0.86
It is very difficult to forecast where the technology in our industry will be in the next two to three years.	0.89
The technological changes in this industry are frequent.	0.82
A large number of new product ideas have been made possible through technological breakthroughs in our industry.*	–
Market turbulence (Regarding the business environment in our primary markets…)		0.70	0.82	0.71
Customers’ product preferences change quite a bit over time.	0.77
We are witnessing demand for our products and services from customers who have never bought them before.	0.73
We cater to many of the same customers that we used to in the past.	0.83

Notes: (1) Scales for Financial Performance and Customer Relationship Performance were anchored from 1 = “Much Worse Than Competitors” to 7 = “Much Better Than Competitors.” All other scales were anchored from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree.” (2) * indicates item was dropped in the measure purification process. 

Table 3. Correlations, means, standard deviations, and AVEs.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Technology sensing capability	0.78
2. Vigilant learning capability	0.72	0.67
3. Adaptive sales capability	0.50	0.61	0.74
4. Technology-enabled sales capability	0.69	0.62	0.50	0.75
5. Financial performance	0.49	0.52	0.44	0.48	0.77
6. Relational performance	0.38	0.48	0.43	0.47	0.65	0.75
7. Top management technology advocacy	0.75	0.76	0.61	0.56	0.42	0.36	0.73
8. Technology turbulence	0.65	0.65	0.58	0.54	0.43	0.33	0.65	0.74
9. Market turbulence	0.47	0.49	0.41	0.38	0.32	0.20	0.47	0.69	0.61
Mean	5.33	5.45	5.73	5.75	5.65	5.99	5.40	5.29	5.42
S.D.	1.26	1.03	0.98	1.06	0.95	0.91	1.14	1.18	0.97

Note: Average variance extracted values in italics in the diagonal; All correlations significant at the .05 level.

Table 4. Matrix of Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratios of correlations.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Technology sensing capability	–
2. Vigilant learning capability	0.72	–
3. Adaptive sales capability	0.60	0.73	–
4. Technology-enabled sales capability	0.79	0.72	0.59	–
5. Financial performance	0.57	0.62	0.52	0.55	–
6. Relational performance	0.44	0.58	0.52	0.55	0.78	–
7. Top management technology advocacy	0.86	0.89	0.73	0.63	0.49	0.41	–
8. Technology turbulence	0.77	0.77	0.69	0.63	0.50	0.39	0.76	–
9. Market turbulence	0.56	0.58	0.51	0.45	0.40	0.25	0.56	0.88	–

Table 5. Results from hypotheses tests.

Relationships	β (t-value )	Result
Direct effects:
H1: Technology sensing capability → Technology-enabled sales capability	0.48*** (7.24)	Supported
H2: Vigilant learning capability → Technology-enabled sales capability	0.20** (2.56)	Supported
H3: Adaptive sales capability → Technology-enabled sales capability	0.15** (2.22)	Supported
H4(a): Technology-enabled sales capability → Financial performance	0.49*** (5.01)	Supported
H4(b): Technology-enabled sales capability → Relational performance	0.48*** (6.35)	Supported
Moderating effect: Top management technology advocacy
H5(a): Technology sensing capability → Technology-enabled sales capability	0.05 (1.10)	Not supported
H5(b): Vigilant learning capability → Technology-enabled sales capability	0.08** (1.97)	Supported
H5(c): Adaptive sales capability → Technology-enabled sales capability	0.08** (2.18)	Supported
Moderating effect: Technological turbulence
H6(a): Technology sensing capability → Technology-enabled sales capability	0.09** (1.97)	Supported
H6(b): Vigilant learning capability → Technology-enabled sales capability	0.11** (2.53)	Supported
H6(c): Adaptive sales capability → Technology-enabled sales capability	0.08 (1.52)	Not supported
Moderating effect: Market turbulence
H7(a): Technology-enabled sales capability → Financial performance	0.10 (1.30)	Not supported
H7(b): Technology-enabled sales capability → Relational performance	0.14*(1.78)	Supported

* p < .10, ^**p < .05, ^***p < .01.

Johnson, Devon S. and Sundar Bharadwaj. 2005. “Digitization of Selling Activity and Sales Force Performance: An Empirical Investigation.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33 (1):3–18.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Krush, Michael T., Raj Agnihotri, Kevin J. Trainor, and Edward L. Nowlin. 2013. “Enhancing Organizational Sensemaking: An Examination of the Interactive Effects of Sales Capabilities and Marketing Dashboards.” Industrial Marketing Management 42 (5):824–35. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.02.017.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Töytäri, Pekka, and Risto Rajala. 2015. “Value-Based Selling: An Organizational Capability Perspective.” Industrial Marketing Management 45 (1):101–12. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guenzi, Paolo, Laszlo Sajtos, and Gabriele Troilo. 2016. “The Dual Mechanism of Sales Capabilities in Influencing Organizational Performance.” Journal of Business Research 69 (9):3707–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.033.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Keszey, Tamara, and Wim Biemans. 2016. “Sales-Marketing Encroachment Effects on Innovation.” Journal of Business Research 69 (9):3698–706. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.032.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nijssen, Edwin J., Paolo Guenzi, and Michel van der Borgh. 2017. “Beyond the Retention—Acquisition Trade-off: Capabilities of Ambidextrous Sales Organizations.” Industrial Marketing Management 64:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.03.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Worm, Stefan, Sundar G. Bharadwaj, Wolfgang Ulaga, and Werner J. Reinartz. 2017. “When and Why Do Customer Solutions Pay off in Business Markets?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 45 (4):490–512. doi: 10.1007/s11747-017-0529-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Raman, Pushkala, C. Michael Wittmann, and Nancy A. Rauseo. 2006. “Leveraging CRM for Sales: The Role of Organizational Capabilities in Successful CRM Implementation.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 26 (1):39–53. doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134260104.

 Google Scholar

Kohtamäki, M., J. Partanen, V. Parida, and J. Wincent. 2013. “Non-Linear Relationship between Industrial Service Offering and Sales Growth: The Moderating Role of Network Capabilities.” Industrial Marketing Management 42 (8):1374–85. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.07.018.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar