Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 16, Issue 3–4, pp 16–22 | Cite as

The purchasing agent: Friend or foe to the salesperson?

  • Peter M. Banting
  • Paul A. Dion


This research investigates the links between the negotiation performance, personal characteristics, and aptitudes, for a sample of 460 purchasing agents. Negotiation performance, in the adversarial sense, and buyer empathy were not found to be important. Buyers who were motivated, satisfied and certain of management expectations performed best. These findings confirm earlier results by the same researchers.


Dion Performance Expectation Negotiation Performance Trade Relationship Negotiation Skill 
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. Chonko, L. B. 1982. “Are Purchasing Agents Machiavellian.”Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 18 (Winter): 15–20.Google Scholar
  2. Christie, R. and Geis, F. L. 1970.Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Churchill, G. A., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W., and Walker, O. C. 1985. “The Determinants of Salesforce Performance.”Journal of Marketing Research 22 (May): p 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Churchill, G. A., Ford, N. M., and Walker, O. C. 1981.Sales Force Management. Homewood Illinois: Irwin.Google Scholar
  5. Dion, P. A. and Banting, P. M. 1987. “Cunning or Cooperative: What Should Purchasing People Be?”Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  6. Hakanson, H. 1982.International Marketing and Purchasing of Goods. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  7. Hogan, R. 1969) “Development of An Empathy Scale.”Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33 No. 3: 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lamont, L. M., and Lundstrom, W. J. 1977. “Identifying Successful Industrial Salesmen by Personality and Personal Characteristics.”Journal of Marketing Research 22 (Nov.): 517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mayer, D. and Greenberg, H. 1964. “What Makes a Salesman Good?”Harvard Business Review 42: 119–125.Google Scholar
  10. Perdue, B. C., Day, R., and Michaels, R. E. 1986. “Negotiation Styles of Industrial Buyers.”Industrial Marketing Management 15: 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Porter, L. W. and Lawler, E. E. 1968.Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood Illinois: Irwin-Dorsey.Google Scholar
  12. Raiffa, H. 1982.The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Vroom, V. H. 1967.Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Weitz, B. Winter 1981. “Effectiveness in Sales Interactions: A Contingency Framework.”Journal of Marketing 45: 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter M. Banting
    • 1
  • Paul A. Dion
    • 2
  1. 1.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.University of Minnesota at DuluthDuluthUSA

Personalised recommendations