Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An empirical test of linkages proposed in the walker, churchill, and ford model of salesforce motivation and performance

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In their model of salesforce motivation and performance, Ford, Churchill, and Walker hypothesize that a salesman's selling experience, participation in his supervisor's decision making, and closeness with which he is supervised are negatively related to his perception of role ambiguity and positively related to his job satisfaction. In addition, they hypothesize that the salesman's perception of role ambiguity is negatively related to his job satisfaction. The present study supports these hypotheses in terms of the following findings: (1) participation and closeness of supervision were negatively related to the salesman's perception of role ambiguity, (2) closeness of supervision was positively related to his extrinsic job satisfaction, and (3) participation was positively related to intrinsic job satisfaction. Finally, role ambiguity was negatively related to both extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adams, Stacy J. “Structure and Dynamics of Organizational Boundary Roles”, in Marvin D. Dunnette,Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1976, 1175–99.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alderfer, Clayton P. and Benjamin Schneider. “On the Structure of Human Needs”, Working Paper, Yale University.

  3. Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr., Neil M. Ford, and Orville C. Walker, Jr. “Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction in the Salesforce”,Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (November 1976), 323–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Donnelly, James H., Jr. and John M. Ivancevich. “Role Clarity and the Salesman”,Journal of Marketing, 39 (January 1975), 71–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fleshmann, Edwin A. “The Description of Supervisory Behavior”,Journal of Applied Psychology, 37 (February 1953), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Griffin, Larry J. “Causal Modeling of Psychological Success in Work Organizations”,Academy of Management Journal, 20 (March 1977), 6–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Halpin, A. W. and B. J. Winer. “A Factorial Study of the Leader Behavior Description”, in R. M. Stagdill and A. E. Coons,Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kahn, R. L., P. M. Wolfe, R. P. Quinn, J. D. Snoek, and R. H. Rosenthal.Organizational Stress. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kerlinger, Fred N. and Elazar J. Pedhazur.Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Korman, Abraham K. “Consideration, ‘Initiating Stucture’, and ‘Organizational Criteria’—A Review”,Personal Psychology, 19 (Winter, 1966), 349–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Likert, R.New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nunnally, Jum C.Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Porter, Lyman W. “A Study in Perceived Need Satisfaction in Bottom and Middle Management Jobs”,Journal of Applied Psychology, 45 (February, 1961), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Porter, Lyman W. and Edward E. Lawler.Managerial-Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rizo, John R., Robert J. House, and Sidney I. Lirtzman, “Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations”,Administrative Science Quarterly, 15 (June 1970), 150–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schuler, Randall S., Ramon J. Aldag, and Arthur P. Brief. “Role Conflict and Ambiguity: A Scale Analysis”,Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20 (January 1977) 111–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tosi, Henry, “Organizational Stress as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Influence and Role Responde”,Academy of Management Journal, 14 (March 1971), 7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vroom, V.Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Walker, Orville C., Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., and Neil M. Ford. “Motivation and Performance in Industrial Selling: Present Knowledge and Needed Research”,Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (May 1977), 156–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Walker, Orville C., Jr., Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., and Neil M. Ford “Organizational Determinants of the Industrial Salesman's Role Conflict and Ambiguity”,Journal of Marketing, 39 (January 1975), 32–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Iowa State University, Iowa, USA

    R. Kenneth Teas Ph.D.

Authors
  1. R. Kenneth Teas Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The author thanks Professor Norbert L. Enrick, Kent State University, for his useful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Teas, R.K. An empirical test of linkages proposed in the walker, churchill, and ford model of salesforce motivation and performance. JAMS 8, 58–72 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02721973

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02721973

Keywords

Search

Navigation