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

  • R. Kenneth Teas


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.


Role Conflict Leader Behavior Role Ambiguity Close Supervision Extrinsic Reward 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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. 2.
    Alderfer, Clayton P. and Benjamin Schneider. “On the Structure of Human Needs”, Working Paper, Yale University.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donnelly, James H., Jr. and John M. Ivancevich. “Role Clarity and the Salesman”,Journal of Marketing, 39 (January 1975), 71–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fleshmann, Edwin A. “The Description of Supervisory Behavior”,Journal of Applied Psychology, 37 (February 1953), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Griffin, Larry J. “Causal Modeling of Psychological Success in Work Organizations”,Academy of Management Journal, 20 (March 1977), 6–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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. 9.
    Kerlinger, Fred N. and Elazar J. Pedhazur.Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Korman, Abraham K. “Consideration, ‘Initiating Stucture’, and ‘Organizational Criteria’—A Review”,Personal Psychology, 19 (Winter, 1966), 349–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Likert, R.New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1961.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nunnally, Jum C.Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1967.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Porter, Lyman W. and Edward E. Lawler.Managerial-Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vroom, V.Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Kenneth Teas
    • 1
  1. 1.Iowa State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations