Salesperson socialization to the consumption of organizationally provided support services: differences between high- and low-performing salespeople

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model

Table 1. Measurement model

Construct Scale Items	Std. Factor Loading
Reliance on Support-service Provider (Extent of participation with time and effort in…) Reversed AVE = .591; Composite Reliability = .810
Actual work (items averaged): Physically finding the office location Performing hands-on work in office construction/remodeling	.73
(b)Supervision (items averaged): Supervising the finding of an office location Overseeing the work done on office construction/remodeling	.90
(c)Information (items averaged): Keeping informed on progress made in finding office location Keeping informed on progress made in office construction/remodeling	.66
Satisfaction with Support-service Outcome (Office) (Degree of satisfaction with office aspects…) AVE = .616; Composite Reliability = .864
How office location meets your needs	.67
(b)How office atmosphere (layout, comfort) meets your needs	.76
(c)How office helps you convey a professional image to your clients	.86
(d)How office assists you in selling to your clients	.83
Future Support-service Consumption Intentions (Likelihood to engage in following behaviors…) AVE = .818; Composite Reliability = .957
Say positive things about the OPS to other employees	.85
(b)Recommend the OPS to other employees	.96
(c)Encourage new employees to use the OPS for solving office related problems	.90
(d)Consider the OPS first when your need to solve an office-related problem	.86
(e)Rely more on the OPS to solve office problems	.85
Support-service Role Clarity (Extent of agreement) AVE = .774; Composite Reliability = .945
I had a clear idea of what work objectives sales people should have during the office opening process	.82
(b)I knew how much time sales people should allocate to the office opening process	.88
(c)I knew what the responsibilities of sales people are in the office opening process	.92
(d)I knew exactly what work behaviors are expected from sales people during the office opening process	.88
(e)I had clear explanations of what sales people have to do in the office opening process	.90
Communication of Support-service Policies (Extent of received communication about…) AVE = .672; Composite Reliability = .891
How sales offices are located	.83
(b)How sales offices are designed	.80
(c)Why sales offices are located as they are	.84
(d)Why sales offices are designed as they are	.82
Communication Frequency (Est. frequency of communication with management about office opening process over a typical month) AVE = .758; Composite Reliability = .903
Face-to-face interaction	.90
(b)Phone or online interaction	.95
(c)Written documentation (brochures, letters)	.75
Job Satisfaction (Level of agreement with statements) AVE = .655; Composite Reliability = .883
Generally speaking, I am satisfied with this job	.90
(b)I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job	.81
(c)I find the work that I do exciting	.79
(d)I would advise a friend to work for my firm	.73
CFA Model Fit Statistics: CMIN/DF = 4.2; CFI = .94; NFI = .92; RMSEA = .06

All scales are 7-points, with 1 = low end and 7 = high end

Table 2. Descriptive statistics, cronbach reliability, and correlations

	Means	SD	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.
Reliance on SS Provider	4.38	1.33	.81
(2)Satisfaction with SS Outcome	5.67	1.14	−.13**	.86
(3)Future SS Consumption Intentions	4.68	1.66	.12**	.30**	.96
(4)SS Role Clarity	4.76	1.56	.06	.26**	.39**	.95
(5)Communication of SS Policy	4.21	1.44	−.08*	.23**	.31**	.33**	.89
(6)Communication Frequency	3.10	1.72	−.10**	.10**	.02	.03	.19**	.90
(7)Job Satisfaction	6.16	1.00	.01	.26**	.20**	.20**	.19**	.11**	.88
Job Tenure (months sell)	12.2	6.3	−.15**	−.09*	.07*	−.04	.01	−.05	.01

*p < 0.05 (two-sided); **p < 0.01 (two-sided); N = 822

Table 3. Structural equations model results

	Reliance on SS Provider			Satisfaction with SS Outcome			Future SS Consumption Intentions	Job Satisfaction
	All Empl. N = 822	High Perf. N = 289	Low Perf. N = 278	All Empl. N = 822	High Perf. N = 289	Low Perf. N = 278	All Empl. N = 822	All Empl. N = 822
	Std. Est. t-val/ p-val	Std. Est. t-val/ p-val	Std. Est. t-val/ p-val	Std. Est. t-val/ p-val	Std. Est. t-val/ p-val	Std. Est. t-val/ p-val	Std. Est. t-val/ p-val	Std. Est. t-val/ p-val
SS Role Clarity	.12 2.9**	.15 2.1*	.13 1.8	.23 5.7**	.27 3.9**	.26 3.7**	.25 7.0**
SS Policy Comm.	−.08 −1.9	−.21 −2.7**	−.05 −.6	.16 3.9**	.10 1.3	.20 2.8**	.17 4.6**
SS Comm. Frequency	−.11 −2.8**	−.04 −.6	−.15 −2.2**	.05 1.2	.02.3	.12 2.0*
SS Policy Comm.* SS Comm. Freq.	−.09 −2.4*	−.17 −2.5*	−.06 −1.0	−.01 −.2	−.01 −.2	−.04 −.6
Reliance on SS Provider				−.15 −3.6**	−.35 −4.7**	−.01 −.2	.20 5.5**
Satisfaction with SS Outcome							.26 6.9**	.25 5.9**
Future SS Consumption Intentions								.14 3.5**
Control: Job Tenure (# months)	−.17 −4.4**	−.13 −2.1*	−.17 −2.6**	−.10 −2.9**	−.17 −2.8**	−.01 −.2	.13 4.2**	.02.4
Sq. multiple correlations	.07	.11	.07	.14	.23	.17	.28	.10
Model Fit All Employees	CMIN/DF = 3.8; CFI = .938; NFI = .92; RMSEA = .059
Model Fit High/Low Perf. Groups	CMIN/DF = 2.2; CFI = .927; NFI = .88; RMSEA = .046

*p < 0.05 (two-sided); **p < 0.01 (two-sided); N = 822

Figure 2. SEM results: statistically significant paths for the all employees model