Marketing Intelligence & Planning Customer-salespeople relationship: Influence of salespeople entrepreneurial behaviours Douglas Amyx, Shahid N. Bhuian, G. David Shows, Article information: To cite this document: Douglas Amyx, Shahid N. Bhuian, G. David Shows, (2016) "Customer-salespeople relationship: Influence of salespeople entrepreneurial behaviours", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 34 Issue: 5,pp. 586-604, doi: 10.1108/MIP-09-2015-0170 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-09-2015-0170 Downloaded on: 04 April 2017, At: 17:53 (PT) References: this document contains references to 82 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 413 times since 2016* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2016),"Capturing qualitatively different healthfulness images of food products", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 34 Iss 5 pp. 605-622 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-06-2015-0119 (2016),"Using values to segment virtual consumers on social networking sites", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 34 Iss 5 pp. 623-645 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-11-2015-0223 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emeraldsrm:448547 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) *Related content and download information correct at time of download. Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) Customer-salespeople relationship Influence of salespeople entrepreneurial behaviours Douglas Amyx Department of Marketing and Analysis, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana, USA Shahid N. Bhuian Department of Marketing, College of Economics and Political Science, Sultan Qaboos University, Al-Khod, Oman, and G. David Shows Department of Marketing, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, USA Abstract Purpose – Based on customer value-based and social exchange theories, the purpose of this paper is to hypothesize and examine the relationships between salespeople entrepreneurial behaviors (innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking) and customer trust in, satisfaction with and commitment to the salespeople. Design/methodology/approach – The influences of salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors on customer trust in, satisfaction with, and commitment to salespeople were examined utilizing a structural equations model with a sample drawn from the newspaper industry. Findings – As predicted salespeople entrepreneurial behaviors (treated as a higher order factor) significantly and positively influence customer trust in, satisfaction with, and commitment to the salespeople. Research limitations/implications – This study confirms innovative, proactive, and risk-taking practices are useful in fostering customer trust, satisfaction, and commitment in the domain of personal selling. The key limitations are the small sample size, the use of a single company, and the omission of other potential outcomes. Practical implications – Entrepreneurial behaviors/activities such as, innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking are worthy undertakings for salespeople. Considering these traits in salespeople hiring and/or fostering them in salespeople training should be worth pursuing. Social implications – By improving the quality of exchanges through salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors and customer-salespeople relationship quality, social exchanges, and in turn social welfare are promoted. Originality/value – As per the literature search, this is the first study linking salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors and customer-salespeople relationship quality represented by trust in, satisfaction with, and commitment to salespeople drawing insights from customer value-based and social exchange theories. Keywords Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Risk, Customer orientation Paper type Research paper Marketing Intelligence & Planning Vol. 34 No. 5, 2016 pp. 586-604 ©EmeraldGroupPublishingLimited 0263-4503 DOI 10.1108/MIP-09-2015-0170 Received 1 September 2015 Revised 1 November 2015 17 November 2015 Accepted20November2015 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm The authors would like to recognize William Atkinson who made data collection possible for this project. 586 MIP 34,5 Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) As boundary spanners, today’s industrial salespeople not only focus on generating sales but also on reaching out to customers and engaging them in long-term relationships(Bruhn,2003;DenizeandYoung,2007;Gronroos,1993;UlagaandEggert, 2006). In fact, this relationship with customers is the basis for understanding and sustainingcustomervaluecreationinexchangesinthehypercompetitiveglobalmarket place (Anderson and Narus, 1999; Day and Montgomery, 1999; Morgan and Shelby, 1994; Slater, 1997; Tournois, 2004). Scholars argue creating superior customer value has become the next source of possessing a competitive advantage (Slater, 1997; Tournois, 2004). Thus given the importance of the long-term customer relationship, a stream of marketing literature has evolved under the umbrella of relationship marketing (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Crosby et al., 1990; Wulf et al., 2001; Ganesan, 1994; Granovetter, 1985; Morgan and Shelby, 1994). Gronroos(1994) called relationship marketing a new paradigm in the marketing discipline. In a review article, Chumpitaz Caceres and Paparoidamis (2007) consolidated various relational variables into three core constructs, namely, trust, satisfaction, and commitment. Thus, in this study, to seek a long-term relationship with customers, salespeople have to gain customer trust, satisfy customers, and obtain customer commitment. Even though much contribution has been made in identifying potential drivers of customer trust, satisfaction, and commitment (e.g. shared values, communication, relationship specific investment, relational norm, conflict handling, seller expertise, bondingstrategies,marketorientation,andcompanyreputation;seeChowdhury,2012, for a detailed review), the potential role of salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors in fostering customer trust, satisfaction, and commitment has been overlooked. Yet, there is a significant void in the entrepreneurship literature because the proponents of customer value-based theory contend entrepreneurial efforts are crucial in creating superior customer value (Slater, 1997; Tournois, 2004; Zehir et al., 2012). As customers demand ever-increasing levels of quality and service at lesser costs, a superior customer value creation requires innovative solutions to customer problems, proactive attempts to address customer concerns, and a willingness to take risks – behaviors termed as entrepreneurial behaviors (Covin and Slevin, 1990; Kreiser and Davis, 2010; Slater and Narver, 1995; Slater, 1997). Although industrial salespeople are not entrepreneurs per se, scholars argue there is a natural fit between the roles of entrepreneurs and salespeople (Anderson and Oliver, 1987; Senguptaet al., 2000).More specifically,industrialsalespeoplearefrequentlyinanautonomouspositiontoaidtheir customers through entrepreneurial-like behaviors. That is, because of the nature of the role of industrial salespeople, they may improve their customers’ situation by having the autonomy and latitude to innovatively solve problems, proactively address issues and customer concerns, or take the necessary risks to exceed customer expectations. As mentioned earlier, a long-term customer relationship serves as the basis for sustaining superior customer value because a long-term performance goal of customer value necessitates a long-term relationship (Heskett and Schlesinger, 1994; Jones and Sasser, 1995; Slater, 1997). That is customer value-based theory provides an explanatory framework for understanding the linkages between salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors and customer trust in, satisfaction with and commitment to the salespeople. The processes involved in the relationships between salespeople entrepreneurial behaviors and customer trust, satisfaction and commitment are based not only on customer value-based theory but also on social exchange theory. Social exchange theory purports human interactions are rooted in exchanges of social and material resources and norms of reciprocity (Homans, 1961; Blau, 1964). Even though 587 Customersalespeople relationship Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) social exchange theory initially attempted to explain relationships among individuals, scholarsfounditusefulinexplainingotherrelationshipssuchasrelationshipsbetween organizations and employees and employees and external stakeholders (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Whitener, 2001). As such, customer-salespeople linkage can also be studied through the lens of social exchange theory. According to the social exchange theory customers’ perceptions of values stemming from the entrepreneurial behaviors of salespeople will play important roles in affecting their behavior and attitudes toward these salespeople. As voluntary actions, social exchanges are embedded in trust where the recipient of a benefit will reciprocate with an equitable favor (Haas and Deseran, 1981). Since customer value is the differentiator of product offerings in the market space, the perceived customer value emitting from entrepreneurial behaviors of salespeople is likely to result into an increased customer retention and loyalty, in other words a long-term customer-salespeople relationship (Heskett and Schlesinger, 1994; Jones and Sasser, 1995). The purpose of this paper is to theorize and examine entrepreneurial behaviors of industrial salespeople and see how such behaviors affect customers’ perceptions of their trust in, satisfaction with, and commitment to the salespeople. Customer valuebased and social exchange theories provide the explanatory framework for understanding the linkages between salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors and customertrustin,satisfactionwith,and commitmenttothesalespeople. Therefore, this study asserts that by behaving entrepreneurially, an industrial salesperson can successfully affirm the marketing concept and have mutually beneficial long-term relationships with his/her customers by acquiring trust, satisfaction, and commitment. Thisstudyisimportantbecauseitestablishesforthefirsttimeapotentiallinkwiththe tripartite entrepreneurial behaviors of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking among salespeople and the key benefits of forming trust, satisfaction, and commitment – essential outcomes that all salespeople aspire to reach. Theoretical background and hypotheses Basedupontheinsightsofferedbycustomervalue-basedandsocialexchangetheories, each construct (the entrepreneurial behaviors of: innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking and customer-salespeople relationship of: trust, satisfaction, and commitment) and the relationships between salespeople entrepreneurial behaviors and customer trust in, satisfaction with and commitment to the salespeople that have been proposed earlier are discussed next. Defining entrepreneurial behaviors Inthisstudy,entrepreneurialbehaviorsrepresentinnovativeness,proactiveness,and risk-taking traits of entrepreneurship. There is substantial agreement among researchers on what constitutes entrepreneurship. This study adopts a widely used conceptualization of entrepreneurial behaviors that considers three closely related dimensions of entrepreneurship: proactiveness, innovativeness, and risk taking (Covin and Slevin, 1990; Fairoz et al., 2010; Kreiser and Davis, 2010; Miller and Friesen, 1983; Morris and Paul, 1987). Scholars contend that in hypercompetitive environments, the sustainability of competitive advantage through creating sustainable superior customer value depends on a firm’s innovative (Jacobson, 1992),proactive(Zahra,1991),andrisk-taking(Lynnetal.,1996)capacities.Thethree dimensions of entrepreneurship, deemed as entrepreneurial behaviors in this study, are discussed next. 588 MIP 34,5 Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) Innovation reflects the propensity to engage in new ideas and the creative process that may result in new products, services, or technology (Wiklund, 1999). According to Drucker (1985), innovation is the most basic task of the entrepreneur. He describes innovation as the means for exploiting change. Carland et al. (1984) states that an entrepreneurisanyonewhoinitiatesandmanagesabusinesstoseekprofitandgrowth isprimarilyaninnovator.Slater(1997)assertsthatcustomervalue-focussedinnovation is essential to sustain competitive advantage. Proactiveness represents the extent that one is a leader and associates with aggressive posturing in relationship to its competitors (Davis et al., 1991). Proactiveness is an “opportunity-seeking, forwardlooking perspective involving introducing new products or services ahead of the competitionandactinginanticipationoffuturedemandtocreatechangeandshapethe environment” (Lumpkin and Dess, 2001, p. 431). Therefore, proactiveness is about lookingaheadbeyondwhatcompetitorsaredoingandactivelyaffectingthecustomer’s surroundings in a way that will delight the customer and create a competitive advantage for the firm. Risk taking is the extent that one is willing to make large and risky resource commitments (Covin and Slevin, 1991). An individual’s risk-taking propensity is defined as his/her tendency to take chances in uncertain decision-making contexts. Mill (1984) indicates that risk taking is the primary factor in determining whether one is an entrepreneur or a manager. A successful customer value-based innovation necessitates a willingness to take risk (Slater, 1997). Entrepreneurial behaviors of salespeople Next, this research posits that the industrial salesperson has the potential to behave like an effective entrepreneur manifesting the traits of, innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking. Anderson and Oliver (1987) suggest that many salespeople are “entrepreneurs” responsible for their own performance. Similarly, Jones et al. (2000) acknowledge the entrepreneurial nature of salespeople where they must initiate changes within their organizations. “In many ways, salespeople are entrepreneurs” (p. 37). Theyare“[…]distalfromtheorganization,theyareautonomousbusiness‘owners.’They areempowered.Salespeopleconductbusinesswithlimitedsupervision,decidingonways to grow sales volume in their respective territories” (p. 37). Salespeople act as problem solverswhoideallyseekchangewhereitisinthebestinterestoftheircustomers(Futrell, 2011). Furthermore, Carland et al.’s (1984) definition of an entrepreneur as any person who initiates and manages a business with the purposes of earning a profit and growth fitstheroleofsalespeopleaswell.Thatis,asalespersonisresponsibleforhis/herprofits and expenses and is autonomous, like the person who runs his/her own business. Thus, it is asserted that to be effective, salespeople can exhibit entrepreneurial behaviors of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking. Innovatively, the salesperson can manipulate his/her product/service best serve customers’ needs better. Proactively, the salesperson can attempt to anticipate customers’ needs and find solutions to problems in a way that is superior to competitors. Finally, as risk takers, salespeople can take chances by committing resources to pursue clients with potentially uncertain results and/or by pushing risky innovative solutions to customer problems. Salespeople entrepreneurial behaviors and customer trust in, satisfaction with, and commitment to the salespeople So far, the discussion has centered on the components of entrepreneurship and their links to the entrepreneurial behaviors of salespeople. The remainder of the literature 589 Customersalespeople relationship Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) review examines the outcomes of salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors from the perspective of the customer: trust in salespeople, satisfaction with salespeople, and commitment to salespeople based on the insights derived from customer valuebased and social exchange theories. Figure 1 illustrates the study constructs and the relationships. Customer trust in salespeople is the first proposed outcome of salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors. Trust is a widely discussed construct in relationship marketing research (e.g. Crosby et al., 1990; Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Morgan and Shelby, 1994; Wilson, 1995). The common denominator across different definitions seems trust is the belief, attitude, or expectation of a party in a relationship that the relationship partner’s behaviors or the outcomes of the relationship will be beneficial for the trusting partner (Andaleeb, 1992). Elsewhere, the conceptual approaches of customer trust is summarized as the belief of the customer that the supplier will act benevolently, honestly, and competently to serve the best interest of the relationship (Walter et al., 2000). The literature on salespeople’s trust reveals many variables that affect trust by customers. Some recurring themes include competence/ability (e.g. Gill et al., 2005; Kennedy et al., 2001) and honesty/integrity/ethical behavior (e.g. Hawes etal.,1989;RomanandRuiz,2005).Salespeople’sentrepreneurialbehaviorsaspotential determinants of trust in salespeople can be explained by customer value-based and social exchange theories. Using the customer value perspective, scholars have argued customer long-term relationship and/or relationship quality depends on customers’ perceptions of value emanating from the market offerings (Tournois, 2004). Research in the area suggests in today’smarketplacecreatingandsustainingacompetitiveadvantagerequiresproviding a sustained customer value (Slater, 1997; Tournois, 2004). In turn, a sustained customer value as perceived by customers result into customer patronization in terms of a long-term relationship. Sustained customer value can be best achieved when there is a sustained customer relationship. As mentioned earlier, entrepreneurial values and activitiesofinnovation,proactiveness,andrisktakingarecrucialincreatingasustained customer value in an environment where customers demand for “an ever-increasing levels of quality and service at lower costs” (Slater, 1997, p. 164). In the context of salespeople-customerexchanges,thevalueperceptionintheentrepreneurialbehaviorsof salespeople is likely to result in customer trust, the keystone of customer relationship. Salespeople’s Innovativeness Salespeople’s Proactiveness Salespeople’s Risk Taking Salespeople’s Entrepreneurial Behaviors Customers’ Trust Customers’ Satisfaction Customers’ Commitment First-Order Indicators Higher-Order Factor Outcomes H1 H2 H3 Figure 1. Model of salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors 590 MIP 34,5 Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) Luhmann(1979)arguesinahighlycompetitiveenvironment,customerexpectedbenefits, such as customer value, leads to customer trust, an attitude, before customers engage in behavioral actions. Customers’ trust can also be viewed as a reciprocal favor customers return to salespeople in exchange for the benefits customers derive from the entrepreneurial activities of salespeople as per the social exchange view. Past research found a strong positive relationship between the intrapreneurial ability ofa key account salesperson and customertrust (Sengupta et al., 2000), the only study linked salespeople entrepreneurial behaviors and customer trust. Here customer trustisanoutcomeofentrepreneurialabilitywithinanorganization(i.e.intrapreneurial ability) among key account salespeople. Therefore this study proposes salespeople entrepreneurial behaviors (innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking) are important value signals toward customers, and thereby, increases the levels of customer trust toward the salespeople. Thus: H1. Salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors positively influence customer trust in salespeople. Customer satisfaction with salespeople is the next proposed outcome of salesperson entrepreneurial behaviors. Customer satisfaction has been studied extensively as a central element of the marketing concept for the last several decades (e.g. Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Churchill and Surprenant, 1982; Oliver and DeSarbo, 1988). Themostwidelyuseddefinitionsofsatisfactionaretheconfirmation/disconfirmation (C/D paradigm) view and perceived performance or quality approach (Walter et al., 2000). According to the C/D view, customer satisfaction is a comparison between pre-purchase expectation and post-purchase and post-usage evaluation of a product. In the perceived performance or quality approach, satisfaction is based on the performance and the perceived quality of the product over time (Anderson et al., 1994). Oliver (1993) consolidated various definitions of satisfactions. Oliver considered satisfaction to be a customer’s subjective judgment of perceived attributeperformance.Thesalesliteratureidentifiesvariousantecedentsofcustomer satisfaction, namely, ethical behavior, expertise, fulfillment of expectations, listening behavior, empathy, and selling behavior (Aggarwal et al., 2005; Lagace et al., 1991; Roman and Iacobucci, 2010; Swan and Oliver, 1991). The potential linkage between salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors and customer satisfaction can be justified by customer value-based and social exchange theories. As mentioned earlier, in today’s market place, the major source of competitive advantage comes from creating superior customer value (Woodruff, 1997). Because customers demand an ever-increasing level of quality and lower costs, customers will perceive a superior customer value in offerings that deliver an increasing level of qualityandaloweringlevelofcost(Tournois,2004).Thuscreatingasuperiorcustomer value requires innovative and entrepreneurial values and efforts (Jacobson, 1992; Schumpeter, 1934; Slater, 1995). Scholars contend a superior customer value differentiates market offerings and provide customers with the highest level of satisfaction and enhances customer relationship (Jones and Sasser, 1995; Tournois, 2004). In the context of customer-salespeople exchanges, the perceived customer value arising from salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors (innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking) is likely to provide customers with a high level of satisfaction. From the social exchange perspective, the attribute performance manifested in salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors can result into customer satisfaction judgment as a reciprocity. This study thus proposes by creating a superior customer value and 591 Customersalespeople relationship Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) attribute performance salespeople entrepreneurial behaviors can generate customer satisfaction judgment. Therefore: H2. Salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors positively influence customer satisfaction with salespeople. Customer commitment to salespeople is the final proposed outcome of salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors. In the relationship marketing literature commitment is widelyviewedasanintegralpartoflong-termbusinessrelationship(e.g.Andersonand Weitz,1992;MorganandShelby,1994;Walteretal.,2000).Commitmentispresentedas athree-dimensionalconstruct,namely, affective, instrumental,andtemporal(Gundlach et al., 1995). Affective commitment refers to the positive attitude toward the future continuity of the relationship. Instrumental commitment represents some form of investment, e.g., time and other resources, made in the relationship. Temporal commitment indicates the relationship exists over time. As per the most common view of commitment, it is a lasting intention to build and maintain a long-term relationship (Walter et al., 2000). Sales literature advances numerous variables as potential antecedents of customer commitment toward salespeople including attraction, perceptions of quality, ethical sales behavior, consideration, and adaptive selling (Jacobs et al., 2000; Johnson et al., 2001; Roman and Ruiz, 2005). Drawing from the insights offered by customer value-based and social exchange frameworks, this study contends salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors are related to customer commitment toward the salespeople. As mentioned previously, creating superior customer value has become the next source of possessing a competitive advantage (Slater, 1997; Tournois, 2004). Elsewhere scholars assert that the long-term relationship with customers is the basis for understanding and sustaining customer value creation in exchanges in today’s hypercompetitive global market place (Anderson and Narus, 1999; Day and Montgomery, 1999; Morgan and Shelby, 1994; Slater, 1997; Tournois, 2004). Further, the creation of a sustained superior customer value depends on innovative and entrepreneurial capacities (Jacobson, 1992; Tournois, 2004). A superior customer value necessitates a long-term customer relationship, an integral part of which is customer commitment. Applying in the context of salespeople and customer exchanges, through creating superior customer value, salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors can entice customers to build and maintain a long-term relationship with the salespeople, the essence of customer commitment. Also, in the salespeople-customer exchanges, the perceivedcustomervalueoriginatingfromsalespeopleentrepreneurialbehaviorsislikely to be reciprocated by intending to build a long-term relationship with the salespeople according to the social exchange view. Therefore, this study proposes a relationship between salespeople entrepreneurial behaviors and customer commitment. Hence: H3. Salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors positively influence customer commitment to salespeople. Methodology Sample A total of 400 B2B customers of a New England media company were contacted by mail to complete a survey. These customers were small to medium-sized businesses that had used the media firm. A random sample was created from the media firm’s customer list. As part of the incentive for filling out the survey, a $50.00 advertising 592 MIP 34,5 Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) coupon was offered to respondents. A strict time limit was enforced on the survey respondents so that responses would need to be returned within ten days of receiving the survey. Of the 400 customers who received surveys, 116 customers returned completed surveys within the specified time limit, yielding a 29 percent response rate. Measures From Figure 1, innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking are three dimensions of entrepreneurship adapted from Covin and Slevin (1989) and Naman and Slevin (1993). The model contains the constructs of trust of the salesperson (nine items adapted from Crosby et al., 1990), satisfaction with the salesperson (three items adapted from Crosby etal.,1990),andcommitmenttothesalesperson(sevenitemsadoptedfromMorganand Shelby, 1994). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), reliability, validity, non-response bias, and common method bias We followedAnderson andGerbing’s(1988) two-step procedure.First,we assessedthe validity, unidimensionality, and reliability of the measures. The resulting purified measures were then used to analyze the structural model. Because of the concern about the ratio of sample size and number of parameters, we estimated two CFA models. The CFA model 1 consisted of all the three dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation: innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking. The model demonstrated a good fit: χ2¼23.773, df¼24, RMSEA¼0.010, IFI¼0.999, TLI¼0.999, and CFI¼0.999. The magnitudes of t-values ranged from 8.311 to 18.340, that is, all are greater than 1.96, significant at po0.05. The standardized regression weights and squared multiple correlations regarding items are reported in Table II. The CFA model 2 had the constructs of trust (nine-item), satisfaction (three-item), and commitment (seven-item). The initial run did not produce a good fit. Based on low-factor loadings (corresponding critical ratio value less than 1.96), high residuals (regression weight/SE is less than 1.96), and modification indices (higher than 10), we deleted nine items. The resulting revised model appeared good-fitting: χ2¼38.174, df¼32, RMSEA¼0.041, IFI¼0.995, TLI¼0.993, and CFI¼0.995. All t-values are greater than 1.96,significant atpo0.05. The t-values ranged from 8.955 to50.775. The t-values, standardized regression weights and squared multiple correlations pertaining to all items are in Table II. In addition, the complete scale information are given in the Appendix. Five items – TRUST1, TRUST2, TRUST3, TRUST4, and TRUST6 were deleted from the scale of salesperson trust. An example of a deleted item is: “The Company XYZ’ssalesrepresentativecan be relied upon to keep his/her promise.” We posit a retained item captures the meaning of this item –“The Company XYZ’s salesrepresentativeishonest.” (notethatintheactualsurvey,therealcompany’sname wasusedbuttoprotectanonymity,XYZisusedinthispaper).Likewise,webelievethe underlining meanings of other deleted items were maintained by the items remained in the scale. Also, in a review article about measures of trust, McEvily and Tortoriello (2005)identified119differentscalesoftrustwithaminimumofone-itemscale.Further, four items – COMMT1, COMMT2, COMMT3, and COMMT6 were deleted from the scale of salesperson commitment. A sample deleted item is: “I am very committed to therelationshipthatIhavewiththeCompanyXYZ’ssalesrepresentative.” Asampleof a retained item is: “The relationship that I have with the Company XYZ’s sales representative is something I intend to maintain indefinitely.” We believe that the 593 Customersalespeople relationship Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) remaining items better captured the intended meanings in comparison to the deleted items. In addition, the literature used different commitment scales with varied number of items (Currivan, 1999). Please refer to Table I for correlations and summary statistics. The average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability scores of all the constructs met the recommended levels of Bagozzi and Yi (1988). The AVEs for innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking, trust, satisfaction and commitment were, respectively, 0.81, 0.87, 0.71, 0.82, 0.77, and 0.75. The corresponding composite reliability scores were 0.96, 0.96, 0.92, 0.92, 0.96, and 0.96, respectively. Table II also reported coefficient α values, which are all above 0.70. Acceptable convergent validity was achieved with significant (CRW2.00) critical ratios for all the indicators (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The test for discriminant validity was supportive, no confidence intervals (+/− two standard errors) for the estimated correlations for the constructs included 1.0 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Fortestingnon-responsebias,multivariateanalysisofvariancewasappliedtoallof thevariablesrelatedtoalltheconstructs,comparingtheearlyrespondentswiththelate respondents (Armstrong and Overtson, 1977). The multivariatetest (Pillai’s Trace: sig.: 0.462)showednogroupdifferences.Therefore,non-responsebiasdoesnotappeartobe a serious concern. Since the data for this study were obtained from a single survey, common method variance was possible. Following Podsakoff and Organ (1986), we used the Harman’s one-factor test in which all variables are hypothesized to load on a single factor representing the common method. No such general factor appeared. Hypotheses test To test the hypotheses, we computed the structural model in AMOS 8.0 (Byrne, 2001) with purified scales from the above steps. Since innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking are three dimensions of entrepreneurship adapted from Covin and Slevin (1990) and Naman and Slevin (1993), we used a higher order model where entrepreneurship was the higher order factor and innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking were the first-orderindicators. Entrepreneurship in turn directly influenced trust, satisfaction, and commitment. More specifically, innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking individually do not represent entrepreneurship adequately. Each of these dimensions of entrepreneurship is necessary but not sufficient to fully 1. INNO 2. PROAC 3. RISK 4. TRUST 5. SATIS 6. COMMT 1. INNO 1 0.796 (0.000) 0.612 (0.010) 0.382 (0.000) 0.441 (0.000) 0.556 (0.000) 2. PROAC 1 0.679 (0.000) 0.401 (0.000) 0.426 (0.000) 0.514 (0.000) 3. RISK 1 0.199 (0.033) 0.262 (0.005) 0.372 (0.000) 4. TRUST 1 0.762 (0.000) 0.625 (0.000) 5. SATIS 1 0.663 (0.000) 6. COMMT 1 Mean 4.39 4.30 4.11 6.03 6.01 4.83 SD 1.44 1.30 1.15 1.07 1.47 1.52 Notes:INNO–salespeople’sinnovativeness;PROAC–salespeople’sproactiveness;RISK–salespeople’s risk taking; TRUST – customers’ trust; SATIS – customers’ satisfaction; COMMT – customers’ commitment Table I. Correlations, means, and standard deviations 594 MIP 34,5 Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) reflecttheentrepreneurshipconstruct.Thistypeofphenomenoncanbebetterrepresented by a hierarchical factorial structure, i.e., the first-order factors will be explained by some higher or second-order factor (Byrne, 2001; Hult and Ketchen, 2001). The fit indices demonstrated an adequate fit: χ2¼303.921, df¼146, RMSEA¼0.097, IFI¼0.929, TLI¼0.916,andCFI¼0.928.First,allthreepathsfromthehigherorderentrepreneurship construct to all its three first-order dimensions were significant. The t-values are 10.374, 10.531, and 7.427, that is, all values are higher than 1.96, significant at po0.05. Further, the corresponding standardized regression weights are 0.897, 0.957, and 0.759. Asexpected,entrepreneurshipisstronglyandpositivelyrelatedtosalespersontrust (t-value¼4.679, standardized β¼0.492), supporting H1. Consistent with H2, entrepreneurship is positively and significantly related to salesperson satisfaction (t-value¼5.938, standardized β¼0.539). Finally, entrepreneurship is significantly and positively related to salesperson commitment (t-value¼6.676, standardized β¼0.667) supporting H3. Refer to Table III and Figure 2 for results of hypotheses tests. t-value Standardized regression weight Squared multiple correlation Reliability coefficient Average variance extracted Composite reliability Salespeople’s innovativeness 0.804 0.95 0.81 0.96 INNO1 0.907 0.926 INNO2 15.025 0.890 0.793 INNO3 18.340 0.962 0.823 Salespeople’s proactiveness 0.915 PROAC1 0.871 0.759 0.85 0.87 0.96 PROAC2 11.990 0.866 0.750 PROAC3 08.311 0.683 0.466 Salespeople’s risk taking 0.575 RISK1 0.818 0.669 RISK2 10.093 0.871 0.758 0.87 0.71 0.92 RISK3 8.941 0.774 0.600 Customers’ trust 0.242 TRUST5 0.725 0.525 TRUST7 9.657 0.920 0.846 TRUST8 8.955 0.847 0.718 0.90 0.82 0.92 TRUST9 9.236 0.874 0.764 Customers’ satisfaction 0.291 SATIS1 0.985 0.971 SATIS2 50.775 0.995 0.990 SATIS3 28.559 0.949 0.901 Customers’ commitment 0.444 0.98 0.77 0.96 COMMT4 0.844 0.712 COMMT5 10.574 0.849 0.721 COMMT7 10.646 0.854 0.730 0.88 0.75 0.96 Notes:Forcompletescales,pleaserefertotheAppendix.INNO1,PROAC1,RISK1,TRUST1,SATIS1, and COMMT1 were fixed to 1.0 to satisfy the scaling requirement Table II. Measures and reliabilities 595 Customersalespeople relationship Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) Discussion and implications This study examined the influences of salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors (innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking) on customer trust in, satisfaction with, and commitment to the salespeople. Customer value-based and social exchange theories provided the theoretical lens for explaining the relationships between CFA model 1 CFA model 2 Structural model t-value Standardized regression weight Comment Fit indices χ2 23.773 38.174 303.921 df 24 32 146 RMSEA 0.010 0.041 0.097 IFI 0.999 0.995 0.929 TLI 0.999 0.993 0.916 CFI 0.999 0.995 0.928 Paths ENTR to INNO 10.374 0.897 ENTR to PROAC 10.531 0.957 ENTR to RISK 7.427 0.759 ENTR to TRUST (H1) 4.679 0.492 Supported ENTR to SATIS (H2) 5.938 0.539 Supported ENTR to COMMT (H3) 6.676 0.667 Supported Notes: ENTR – salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors; INNO – salespeople’s innovativeness; PROAC – salespeople’s proactiveness; RISK – salespeople’s risk taking; TRUST – customers’ trust; SATIS – customers’ satisfaction; COMMT – customers’ commitment Table III. Structural analyses results Salespeople’s Innovativeness Salespeople’s Proactiveness Salespeople’s Risk Taking Salespeople’s Entrepreneurial Behaviors Customers’ Trust Customers’ Satisfaction Customers’ Commitment H1: t=4.679 H2: t=5.938 H3: t=6.676 t=10.374 t=10.531 t=7.427 First-Order Indicators Higher-Order Factor Outcomes Notes: 2=303.921; df=146; RMSEA=0.097; IFI=0.929; TLI=0.916 and CFI=0.928. All paths are greater than 1.96, significant at p<0.05. The standardized regression weights corresponding to t-values are given in Table III Figure 2. Structural model of salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors 596 MIP 34,5 Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors and customer trust in, satisfaction with, and commitmenttothesalespeople. The study’sresults areconsistentwithour predictions. In particular, salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors positively impacted customer trust in, satisfaction with, and commitment to the salespeople. Since trust, satisfaction, andcommitmentrepresentlong-termrelationshipandrelationshipquality,thefindings essentially mean by behaving entrepreneurially, salespeople can build and maintain long-term customer relationships, the cornerstone of the marketing concept. Further, these findings support previous theory regarding the potential entrepreneurial roles of salespeople (Anderson and Oliver, 1987; Sengupta et al., 2000). Theoretical and managerial implications Throughthiswork,managers,andacademiciansalikecanhaveabetterunderstanding of what it means to be entrepreneurial salespeople. While one may consider the role industrial salespeople to be independent problem solvers, this study identifies the specific entrepreneurship traits of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking as characteristics that manifest in salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors. Further, this study helps explain the nature of salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors, and ultimately how these behaviors mutually benefit salespeople and their customers. The results of this study also support the notion that salespeople’s entrepreneurial behaviors comprise the facets of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking. For salespeople, these facets may have slightly different implications than for a small business owner or manager. To be innovative, the salesperson may need to be creative in the way he/she approaches the customer and solves a problem. For example, media salespeoplemayneedtodevelopanewormodifiedmethodofsettingupcustomerrates for advertising. In addition, media salespeople may need to be a hands-on creator of website advertising and be willing to use his/her creativity in helping the customer develop bold ads that capture the attention of the target audience. To be a proactive salesperson may imply relate to those who are best able to plan andtailortheirpresentationswellandarebestpreparedtohandlecustomerobjections. When selling media communications, being proactive may also suggest providing evidence that money spent on advertising is justified and working for the customer, whether online or in hard copy print. Being proactive will likely also mean convincing and reassuring customers that this media provides a superior competitive advantage over competitive media buys. Risk-taking salespeople may suggest a willingness to go for the big sale and not be afraid to ask for more resources and investment from the customer; i.e., you cannot get what you do not ask for. The communications media industry is going through many changes as customers are increasingly using technology to access their information and receive entertainment. Media communications salespeople must work to gain their customers’ trust by ensuring that the media buys are appropriate given the target market, economic conditions, and customer’s budget constraints, and “push the envelope” to where the customer is maximizing his/her reach potential while still not going beyond his/her comfort level. This study posits that the entrepreneurial activities such as, innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking are worthy undertakings for salespeople. This research supports that these activities influence trust, commitment, and satisfaction in buyers, which relate to relationship quality and future purchase intentions. Testing the quality of these traits in salespeople can confirm their relationship in successful salespeople and the desirability of these in the hiring process. 597 Customersalespeople relationship Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) These findings also provide a foundation to earlier theoretical work on the connection between entrepreneurial practices and relationship exogenous constructs such as trust, satisfaction, and commitment (Bergeron and Laroche, 2009; Gill et al., 2005; Jayakody and Sanjeewani, 2006). This study supports innovative, proactive, and risk-taking practices are not only the domain of entrepreneurship, but also lend themselves to personal selling. Most importantly, these findings suggest that the customer trusts, is satisfied with, and is committed to entrepreneurially behaving salespeople. These are the goals of relationshipmarketing desiredbysalespeople. Therefore,entrepreneurialsalespeople’s qualities of innovation, proactiveness, and risk taking are likely to delight customers. This implies that customers desire salespeople who can present new ideas and solutions innovatively; attend to their needs proactively; and are willing to go the distance for them by overcoming the risks inherent in selling. Customers may view entrepreneurialsalespeopleasmorethanonetomakebusinessexchangeswithbutasa long-term relationship partner who helps co-creates value. Where entrepreneurial salespeople are more assertive, forward thinkers, and gamblers, customers may experience excitement, delight by such people, and see the merits of having someone like that on their side. Limitations and future research One limitation is that the sample size was somewhat small. Specifically, the results camefromasampleof116industrialbusinesscustomerrespondents.Yet,theresponse rate of 29 percent was rather high and suggested above average participation by respondents. Further, a non-response bias test was conducted and such a bias is not considered a problem. Anotherlimitationisthatasingleorganizationwasthefocusinthestudy.Whileitis difficult to make generalizations based on one company, there is also an advantage of using customersfrom one firm/industry by having a consistencyof comparison. While the notion that a salesperson acts as an entrepreneur is an analogy that makes sense and seems intuitive, such a role has only been studied once previously in the sales literature.Accordingly,therearemanyopportunitiestofurtherstudyentrepreneurship among salespeople. Because there is no single commonly accepted definition of entrepreneurship, the specific components of entrepreneurship could conceivably vary in future work. More importantly, the outcomes of entrepreneurship could change. Instead of customer trust, satisfaction, and commitment to the salesperson, new variables could include perceived value created, liking of the salesperson, or perceived service performance. References Aggarwal,P.,Castleberry,S.B.,Ridnour,R.andShepherd,D.C.(2005), “Salespersonempathyand listening: impact on relationship outcomes”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 16-31. Andaleeb, S.S. (1992), “The trust concept: research issues for channels of distribution”, Research in Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-34. Anderson, E. and Oliver, R.L. (1987), “Perspective on behavior-based versus outcome-based salesforce control systems”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 76-88. Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1992), “The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 18-34. 598 MIP 34,5 Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), “The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms”, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-143. Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (1994), “Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from Sweden”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 53-66. Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1999), Business Market Management: Teaching Business Market Management, Prentice Hall, New York, NY. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423. Armstrong,J.S.andOvertson,T.S.(1977),“Estimatingnonresponsebiasinmailsurveys”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94. Bergeron, J. and Laroche, M. (2009), “The effects of perceived salesperson listening effectiveness in the financial industry”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 6-25. Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY. Bruhn, M. (2003), Relationship Marketing: Management of Customer Relationships, Pearson Education, New York, NY. Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah, NJ. Carland,J.W., Hoy,F.,Boulton,W.R.andCarland,J.C.(1984), “Differentiatingentrepreneurs from smallbusinessowners:aconceptualization”,AcademyofManagementReview,Vol.9No.2, pp. 354-359. Chowdhury, P.P. (2012), “Antecedents and consequences of trust and commitment in B2B relationship: a review of literature”, Indore Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 49-63. Chumpitaz Caceres, R. and Paparoidamis, N.G. (2007), “Service quality, relationship satisfaction, trust, commitment and business-to-business loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 7/8, pp. 836-867. Churchill, G.A. Jr and Surprenant, C. (1982), “An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 491-504. Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 75-87. Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1990), “New venture strategic posture, structure, and performance: an industry life cycle analysis”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 123-135. Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 7-25. Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990), “Relationship quality in services selling: an interpersonal influence perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 68-81. Currivan, D.B. (1999), “The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in models of employee turnover”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 495-524. Davis, D., Morris, M. and Allen, J. (1991), “Perceived environmental turbulence and its effect on selected entrepreneurship, marketing, and organizational characteristics in industrial firms”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 43-51. Day, G.S. and Montgomery, D.B. (1999), “Charting new directions for marketing”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, Special Issue, pp. 3-13. 599 Customersalespeople relationship Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) Denize, S. and Young, L. (2007), “Concerning trust and information”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 968-982. Drucker, P. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles, Harper and Row, New York, NY. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 500-507. Fairoz, F.M., Hirobumi, T. and Tanaka, Y. (2010), “Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance of small and medium scale enterprises of Hambantota district Sri Lanka”, Asian Social Science, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 34-42. Futrell, C. (2011), ABC’s of Relationship Selling through Service, McGraw-Hill, Erwin, NY. Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, April, pp. 1-19. Gill, H., Boies, K., Finegan, J.E. and McNally, J. (2005), “Antecedents of trust: establishing a boundary condition for the relation between propensity to trust and intention to trust”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 287-302. Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510. Grönroos, C. (1993), “Toward a third phase in service quality research: challenges and future directions”, Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 49-64. Grönroos, C.(1994), “Frommarketing mixtorelationship marketing:towardsaparadigm shiftin marketing”, Management Decision, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 4-20. Gundlach, G.T., Achrol, R.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1995), “The structure of commitment in exchange”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 78-92. Haas,D.F.andDeseran, F.A.(1981), “Trustandsymbolic exchange”,Social PsychologyQuarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 3-13. Hawes, J.M., Mast, K.E. and Swan, J.E. (1989), “Trust earning perceptions of sellers and buyers”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-8. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P. and Gremler, D.D. (2002), “Understanding relationship marketing outcomes an integration of relational benefits and relationship quality”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 230-247. Heskett, J.L. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1994), “Putting the service-profit chain to work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 164-174. Homans, G.C. (1961), Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, Harcourt Brace, Orlando, FL. Hult, G.T.M. and Ketchen, D.J. (2001), “Does market orientation matter? A test of the relationship between positive advantage and performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 899-906. Jacobs, R.S., Hyman, M.R. and McQuitty, S. (2000), “Exchange-specific self-disclosure, social selfdisclosure,andpersonalselling”,JournalofMarketingTheory&Practice,Vol.9No.1,pp.48-62. Jacobson, R. (1992), “The ‘Austrian’ schoolof strategy”,Academy of Management Review,Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 782-807. Jayakody, J.A.S.K. and Sanjeewani, W.M.A. (2006), “The impact of salesperson transformational leadershipbehavioroncustomerrelationshipmarketingbehavior:astudyoftheSriLankans corporate banking sector”, International Journal of Banking, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 461-474. Johnson, J.T., Barksdale, H.C. and Boles, J.S. (2001), “The strategic role of the salesperson in reducing customer defection in business relationship”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 123-124. 600 MIP 34,5 Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) Jones, E., Roberts, J.A. and Chonko, L.B. (2000), “Motivating sales entrepreneurs to change: a conceptual framework of factors leading to successful change management initiatives in sales organization”, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 37-49. Jones, T.O. and Sasser, W.E. Jr (1995), “Why satisfied customers defect”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 164-174. Kennedy, M.S., Ferrell, L.K. and LeClair, D.T. (2001), “Consumers’ trust of salesperson and manufacturer: an empirical study”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 73-86. Kreiser, P.M. and Davis, J. (2010), “Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the unique impact of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 39-51. Lagace,R.R.,Dahlstrom,R.R.andGassenheimer,J.B.(1991),“Therelevanceofethicalsalesperson behavior in relationship quality: the pharmaceutical industry”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 39-47. Luhmann, N. (1979), “Familiarity, confidence, trust: problems and alternatives”, Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Vol. 6, pp. 94-107. Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (2001), “Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: the moderating role of environment and industry life cycle”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 429-451. Lynn, G., Morone, J.G. and Paulson, A.S. (1996), “Marketing and discontinuous innovation: the probe and learn process”, California Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 3-31. McEvily, B. and Tortoriello, M. (2005), “Measuring trust in organizational research: review and recommendations”, working paper, University of Toronto, Toronto. Mill, J.S. (1984), Principles of Political Economy with Some Applications to Social Philosophy, John W. Parker, London. Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1983), “Strategy-making and environment: the third link”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 221-235. Mohr, J. and Spekman, R. (1994), “Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-152. Morgan,R.M. and Shelby, D.H. (1994), “Thecommitment-trust theoryof relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 20-38. Morris, M.H. and Paul, G.W. (1987), “The relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing in established firms”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 247-259. Naman, J.L. and Slevin, D.P. (1993), “Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: a model and empirical tests”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 137-153. Oliver,R.L. (1993), “Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases ofthesatisfaction response”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 418-430. Oliver, R.L. and DeSarbo, W.S. (1988), “Response determinants in satisfaction judgments”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 495-507. Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544. Roman, S. and Iacobucci, D. (2010), “Antecedents and consequences of adaptive selling confidence and behavior: a dyadic analysis of salespeople and their customers”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 363-382. Roman, S. and Ruiz, S. (2005), “Relationship outcomes of perceived ethical sales behavior: the customer’s perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 439-445. 601 Customersalespeople relationship Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) Schumpeter, J. (1934), Theories of Economic Development, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA. Sengupta, S., Krapfel, R.E. and Pusateri, M.A. (2000), “An empirical investigation of key account salesperson effectiveness”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 253-261. Slater, S.F. (1995), “Issues in conducting marketing strategy research”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 257-270. Slater, S.F. (1997), “Developing a customer value-based theory of the firm”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 162-167. Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, July, pp. 63-74. Swan, J.E. and Oliver, R.L. (1991), “An applied analysis of buyer equity perceptions and satisfactionwithautomobilesalespeople”,JournalofPersonalSelling&SalesManagement, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 15-26. Tournois, L. (2004), “Creating customer value: bridging theory and practice”, The Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 13-23. Ulaga, W. and Eggert, A. (2006), “Value-based differentiation in business relationships: gaining and sustaining key supplier status”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 119-136. Walter, A., Mueller, T.A. and Helfert, G. (2000), “The impact of satisfaction, trust, relationship value on commitment: theoretical considerations and empirical results”, 16th IMPConference Proceedings, Bath, pp. 2-19. Whitener, E.M. (2001), “Do ‘high commitment’ human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 515-535. Wiklund, J. (1999), “The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 37-48. Wilson, D.T. (1995), “An integrated model of buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 335-345. Woodruff, R.B. (1997), “Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-153. Wulf, K.D., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Iacobucci, D. (2001), “Investments in consumer relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 33-50. Zahra, S.A. (1991), “Predictors of financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: an exploratory study”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 259-285. Zehir, C., Ertosun, Ö.G., Zehir, S. and Müceldilli, B. (2012), “Total quality management practices’ effects on quality performance and innovative performance”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 41, December, pp. 273-280. Appendix. Scale items Salespeople’s innovativeness 1. (INNO1) The salesperson of Company XYZ is innovative. 2. (INNO2) The salesperson of Company XYZ frequently introduces new services. 3. (INNO3) The salesperson of Company XYZ provides innovative services. 602 MIP 34,5 Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) Salespeople’s proactiveness 1. (PROAC1) The salesperson of Company XYZ is proactive compared to its competitors. 2. (PROAC2) The salesperson of Company XYZ is usually the first company to introduce new services. 3. (PROAC3) The salesperson of Company XYZ has a strong competitive position in the market. Salespeople’s risk taking 1. (RISK1) The salesperson of Company XYZ takes calculated risks. 2. (RISK2) The salesperson of Company XYZ is a bold company. 3. (RISK3) The salesperson of Company XYZ becomes assertive when faced with risks. Customers’ trust X1. (TRUST1) The Company XYZ’s sales representative can be relied upon to keep his/her promises. DELETED X2. (TRUST2) The Company XYZ’s sales representative is sincere. DELETED X3. (TRUST3) The Company XYZ’s sales representative is dependable. DELETED X4. (TRUST4) The Company XYZ’s sales representative is trustworthy. DELETED X5. (TRUST5)TheCompanyXYZ’ssalesrepresentativedoesnottrytoselladvertisingtome that I do not really need. X6. (TRUST6) The Company XYZ’s sales representative puts my interests before his/her own. DELETED X7. (TRUST7) The Company XYZ’s sales representative does not misrepresent his/herself to create the impression he/she wants. X8. (TRUST8) The Company XYZ’s sales representative is honest. X9. (TRUST9) The Company XYZ’s sales representative does not withhold critical information to affect my buying decisions. Customers’ satisfaction 1. (SATIS1) I am satisfied with the Company XYZ’s sales representative. 2. (SATIS2) I am pleased with the Company XYZ’s sales representative’s neat appearance. 3. (SATIS3) I have a favorable attitude toward the Company XYZ’s sales representative. Customers’ commitment X1. (COMMT1)Iam verycommitted totherelationship that IhavewiththeCompany XYZ’s sales representative. DELETED X2. (COMMT2) The relationship that I have with the Company XYZ’s sales representative is very important to me. DELETED X3. (COMMT3) The relationship that I have with the Company XYZ’s sales representative is very significant to me. DELETED X4. (COMMT4) The relationship that I have with the Company XYZ’s sales representative is something I intend to maintain indefinitely. 603 Customersalespeople relationship Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT) X5. (COMMT5) The relationship that I have with the Company XYZ’s sales representative is very much like that of a close friend. X6. (COMMT6) The relationship that I have with the Company XYZ’s sales representative is something I really care about. DELETED X7. (COMMT7) The relationship that I have with the Company XYZ’s sales representative is worth the effort to maintain. Corresponding author Douglas Amyx can be contacted at: [email protected] For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] 604 MIP 34,5 Downloaded by Western Sydney U At 17:53 04 April 2017 (PT)