Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of a sales team’s perceived entitativity on customer satisfaction

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

Abstract

This research investigates the impact of a sales team’s entitativity—the extent to which a group of individuals is perceived as a unified single entity—on customer satisfaction. Four studies demonstrate that a sales team entitativity cue, either based on appearance (e.g., wearing the same outfit) or based on behavior (e.g., explicit coordination in service), leads to heightened perceptions of service quality, which subsequently enhances customer satisfaction. Further, these two entitativity cues are shown to have interactive effects. Specifically, when both cues indicate high entitativity, customer satisfaction with the sales team exceeds the average evaluation of individual team members. However, if at least one cue suggests low entitativity (e.g., different outfits or no explicit coordination), the positive influence of the entitativity cue is undermined and customer satisfaction with the team’s service is mitigated. Product category is identified as an important moderator of the main effect.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As customer satisfaction was measured on the same 9-point scale for the team and its members, a comparison could only be made by using the average, rather than the sum, of the individual members’ ratings relative to the team’s rating.

References

  • Abelson, R. P., Dasgupta, N., Park, J., & Banaji, M. R. (1998). Perceptions of the collective other. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 243–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahearne, M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., Mathieu, J. E., & Lam, S. K. (2010). The role of consensus in sales team performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 458–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnett, D., Macy, B., & Wilcox, J. (2005). The role of Core selling teams in supplier-buyer relationships. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 25(1), 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auh, S., Spyropoulou, S., Menguc, B., & Uslu, A. (2014). When and how does sales team conflict affect sales team performance? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42, 658–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachrach, D. G., Mullins, R. R., & Rapp, A. A. (2016). Intangible sales team resources: Investing in team social capital and Transactive memory for market-driven behaviors, norms and performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 62, 88–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, J. (2007). Outfits promote brand, inspire customer confidence. Northern Pennsylvania Business Journal, 22, 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General system theory. New York: George Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B., & Harasty, A. S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 347–370). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B., Hong, Y., & Li, Q. (2004). Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 25–38). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64(2), 123–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadogan, J. W., Lee, N., Tarkiainen, A., & Sundqvist, S. (2009). Sales manager and sales team determinants of salesperson ethical behaviour. European Journal of Marketing, 43(7/8), 907–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caruana, A. (2002). Service loyalty: The effects of service quality and the mediating role of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 36(7/8), 811–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. L. C. (1983). Interdependence and coordination in organizations: A role-system analysis. The Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 156–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coovert, M. D., & Reeder, G. D. (1990). Negativity effects in impression formation: The role of unit formation and schematic expectations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(1), 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M. T., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (2002). Perceived Entitativity, stereotype formation, and the interchangeability of group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1076–1094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environment. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darke, P. R., & Dahl, D. W. (2003). Fairness and discounts: The subjective value of a bargain. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 328–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, N., Banaji, M. R., & Abelson, R. P. (1999). Group entitativity and group perception: Associations between physical features and psychological judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 991–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, A., de Ruyter, K., & Lemmink, J. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of the service climate in boundary-spanning self-managing service teams. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, A., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2006). Linking employee confidence to performance: A study of self-managing service teams. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 576–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Ruyter, K., de Jong, A., & Wetzels, M. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of environmental stewardship in boundary-spanning B2B teams. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(4), 470–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., & Ramsey, R. P. (2003). An investigation of team information processing in service teams: Exploring the link between teams and customers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denson, T. F., Lickel, B., Curtis, M., Stenstrom, D. M., & Ames, D. R. (2006). The roles of entitativity and essentiality in judgments of collective responsibility. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American customer satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing, 60, 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geier, A. B., Rozin, P., & Doros, G. (2006). Unit bias: A new heuristic that helps explain the effect of portion size on food intake. Psychological Science, 17, 521–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotlieb, J. B., Grewal, D., & Brown, S. W. (1994). Consumer satisfaction and perceived quality: Complementary or divergent constructs? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 875–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubhub. (2012). http://visual.ly/top-class-trends-college-eating?utm_source=visually_embed.

  • Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (1998). Perceptions of groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47–74). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Maddox, K. B. (1999). Dualities and continua: Implications for understanding perceptions of persons and groups. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 606–626). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L., Chen, J. M., & Way, N. (2011). Dynamic aspects of entitativity: From group perception to social interaction. In R. M. Kramer, G. J. Leonardelli, & R. W. Livingston (Eds.), Social cognition, social identity, and intergroup relations: A festschrift in honor of Marilynn brewer (pp. 27–52). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y., Levy, S. R., & Chiu, C. (2001). The contribution of lay theories approach to the study of groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 98–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ip, G. W., Chiu, C., & Wan, C. (2006). Birds of a feather and birds flocking together: Physical versus behavioral cues may lead to trait versus goal based group perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 368–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2004). Diversity in social context: A multi-attribute, multilevel analysis of team diversity and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 675–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamal, A., & Anastasiadou, K. (2009). Investigating the effects of service quality dimensions and expertise on loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4), 398–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E., Busch, P. S., Dacin, P., Dixon, A., Chonko, L., & Cannon, J. (2005). Key accounts and team selling: A review, framework and research agenda. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25(2), 181–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kashima, Y., Kashima, E., Chiu, C., Farsides, T., Gelfand, M., Hong, Y., et al. (2005). Culture, essentialism, and agency: Are individuals universally believed to be more real entities than groups? European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(2), 147–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambe, J. C., Webb, K. L., & Ishida, C. (2009). Self-managing selling teams and team performance: The complementary roles of empowerment and control. Industrial Marketing Management, 38, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi, D. (2010). Group dynamics for teams (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Lickel, B. (2000). Perceptions of interdependence and judgements of collective responsibility (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Santa Barbara, CA.

  • Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group Entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 223–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lickel, B., Schmader, T., & Hamilton, D. L. (2003). A case of collective responsibility: Who Else was to blame for the columbine high school shootings? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(2), 194–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liozu, S. M. (2015). Pricing superheroes: How a confident sales team can influence firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 47, 26–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maruff, P., Danckert, J., Camplin, G., & Currie, J. (1999). Behavioral goals constrain the selection of visual information. Psychological Science, 10(6), 522–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, A. R., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (1994). Online and memory-based aspects of individual and group target judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 173–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, A. R., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (1997). Target entitativity: Implications for information processing about individual and group targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 730–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance (Vol. 14). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menguc, B., Auh, S., & Uslu, A. (2013). Customer knowledge creation capability and performance in sales teams. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 19–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. G. (1965). Living systems: Basic concepts. Behavioral Science, 10(3), 193–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, M. A., & Armstrong, G. M. (1994). Selling teams: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 14(1), 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, M., & Gupta, S. (1997). Examining the formation of selling centers: A conceptual framework. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 17, 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, M. B., & Albrecht, C. (2008). Team selling: Getting incentive compensation right. Velocity, 10(2), 33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, K., & Bowen, J. (2000). The effect of employee outfits on employee satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(2), 86–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newheiser, A., Sawaoka, T., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Why do we punish groups? High Entitativity promotes moral suspicion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 931–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 418–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W., Scheer, L. K., Houston, M. B., Evans, K. R., & Gopalakrishna, S. (2007a). Use of relationship marketing programs in building customer–salesperson and customer–firm relationships: Differential influences on financial outcomes. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24, 210–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J. E. M. (2007b). Customer loyalty to whom? Managing the benefits and risks of salesperson-owned loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Alternative scales for measuring service quality: A comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria. Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 201–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L., & Sims Jr., H. P. (1999). Empowered selling teams: How shared leadership can contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19(3), 35–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raghubir, P., & Srivastava, J. (2009). The denomination effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 701–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, A., Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, T. (2010). Managing sales teams in a virtual environment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979). A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 86(1), 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rydell, R. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2005). Perceptions of Entitativity and attitude change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salojärvi, H., Sainio, L., & Tarkiainen, A. (2010). Organizational factors enhancing customer knowledge utilization in the management of key account relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8), 1395–1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, C. (2013). Group influences of selling teams on industrial salespeople’s cross-selling behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreier, M., Fuchs, C., & Dahl, D. W. (2012). The innovation effect of user design: Exploring consumers’ innovation perceptions of firms selling products designed by users. Journal of Marketing, 76, 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shao, C. Y., Baker, J., & Wagner, J. (2004). The effects of the appropriateness of service-contact-personnel dress on customer expectations of service quality and purchase intention: The moderating influences of involvement and gender. Journal of Business Research, 57(10), 1164–1176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, S. J., Castelli, L., & Hamilton, D. L. (2002). The spontaneous use of a group typology as an organizing principle in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 328–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709–1721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleep, S., Bharadwaj, S., & Lam, S. K. (2015). Walking a tightrope: The joint impact of customer and within-firm boundary spanning activities on perceived customer satisfaction and team performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(4), 472–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. (2015). The art of team selling, IA Magazine. http://www.iamagazine.com/magazine/read/2015/11/02/the-art-of-team-selling.

  • Smith, J. B., & Barclay, D. W. (1993). Team selling effectiveness: A small group perspective. Journal of Business to Business Marketing, 1(2), 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. W., Faro, D., & Burson, K. A. (2013). More for the many: The influence of Entitativity on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 961–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. R. (1985). Packaging the service provider. The Service Industries Journal, 5(1), 64–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Rodgers, J., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The central role of entitativity in stereotypes of social categories and task groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 369–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spreng, R. A., & Mackoy, R. D. (1996). An empirical examination of a model of perceived service quality and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 201–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steward, M. D., Walker, B. A., Hutt, M. D., & Kumar, A. (2010). The coordination strategies of high-performing salespeople: Internal working relationships that drive success. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 550–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strutton, D., & Pelton, L. E. (1998). Effects of ingratiation on lateral relationship quality within sales team settings. Journal of Business Research, 43, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers, I., Coffelt, T., & Horton, R. E. (1988). Work-group cohesion. Psychological Reports, 63(2), 627–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, J., Maurer, K., Thakkar, V., Hamilton, D., & Sherman, J. (1999). Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 181–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thakkar, V. (2006). Judgment polarization or negativity: The impact of perceived Entitativity on impressions about groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.

  • Tu, Y. T., Yeh, R., Chuang, N. K., Chan, T., & Hu, S. M. (2011). Effects of employees’ outfit on company image and employees’ self- perceptions and customers’ perceptions. Asian Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16, 635–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ustuner, T., & Godes, D. (2006). Better sales networks. Harvard Business Review, Special Double Issue, 84, 102–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welbourne, J. L. (1999). The impact of perceived entitativity on inconsistency resolution for groups and individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(5), 481–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Workman Jr., J. P., Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2003). Intraorganizational determinants of key account management effectiveness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yantis, S. (2000). Goal-directed and stimulus-driven determinants of attentional control. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance (pp. 73–103). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, C., & Hunt, S. D. (2001). Salesperson cooperation: The influence of relational, task, organizational, and personal factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(4), 335–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, 3220 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Chen Wang

  2. Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, 2053 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z2, Canada

    JoAndrea Hoegg & Darren W. Dahl

Authors
  1. Chen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. JoAndrea Hoegg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Darren W. Dahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chen Wang.

Additional information

Rebecca Hamilton served as Area Editor for this article.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 1138 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, C., Hoegg, J. & Dahl, D.W. The impact of a sales team’s perceived entitativity on customer satisfaction. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 46, 190–211 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0573-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0573-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation