Advertisement

Salespeople’s reward preference methodological analysis

  • Echchakoui SaidEmail author
Original Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Research on salespeople’s preferences for rewards lacks consistency, especially regarding the importance of reward recognition. Contrary to the theoretical expectation, they found the recognition is less ranked by salespeople. These researches used ordinal or cardinal pairwise comparisons and explain these founding inconsistencies using context, such as industry standards and culture. This study argues that these results’ discrepancies may be attributed to the methodology used by researchers. To show our view, this paper demonstrates that ordinal and cardinal pairwise comparisons fail the conditions of Arrow’s impossibility theorem. With a case of 99 call center agents, we compare the salespeople’s reward preference results using five methods: (1) ordinal pairwise comparison method, (2) cardinal pairwise comparison method, (3) analytical hierarchy process (AHP), (4) fuzzy AHP, and fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS (technical order preference by similarity to the ideal solution). Results show except of salary that takes first place for each method, finding of two classes of methods are distinguishable. The first class includes the ordinal and cardinal methods, in which salespeople’s preferences for recognition rank last. The second class, which contains AHP, fuzzy AHP, and fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS, orders recognition in three or four positions.

Keywords

Reward preference methodology Pairwise comparisons AHP method Fuzzy logic Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Salespeople 

Notes

Supplementary material

References

  1. Abratt, R., and M.R. Smythe. 1989. A survey of sales incentives programs. Industrial Marketing Management 18: 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aczél, J., and T.L. Saaty. 1983. Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 27: 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmad, S.N. 2017. Uncovering the paths to helpful reviews using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Marketing Analytics 5 (2): 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albaum, G. 1997. The Likert scale revisited: An alternate version. Journal of the Market Research Society 39: 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arrow, K.J. 1951. Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Bartol, K.M. 1999. Reframing salesforce compensation systems: An agency theory-based performance management perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 19 (3): 1–16.Google Scholar
  7. Basu, A., R. Lal, V. Srinivasan, and R. Staelin. 1985. Sales-force compensation plans: An agency theoretic perspective. Marketing Science 8 (3): 324–342.Google Scholar
  8. Berger, P.D. 2016. One man’s path to marketing analytics. Journal of Marketing Analytics 4 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chamodrakas, I., D. Batis, and D. Martakos. 2010. Supplier selection in electronic marketplaces using satisficing and fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications 37: 490–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, C.T. 2000. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 114: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiang, F. 2005. A critical examination of Hofstede’s thesis and its application to international reward management. International Journal of Human Research Management 16 (9): 1545–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chien, C.J., and H.H. Tsai. 2000. Using fuzzy numbers to evaluate perceived service quality. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 116: 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, X., H. Yu, and F. Yu. 2015. What is the optimal number of response alternatives for rating scales? From an information processing perspective. Journal of Marketing Analytics 3 (2): 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chonko, L.B., J.F. Tanner Jr., and W.A. Weeks. 1992. Selling and sales management in action: Reward preferences of salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 12 (3 (Summer)): 67–75.Google Scholar
  15. Churchill, G.A., N.M. Ford, and O.C. Walker. 1979. Personal characteristics of sales persons and attractiveness of alternative rewards. Journal of Business 6 (1): 24–51.Google Scholar
  16. Cron, W.L., A.J. Dubinsky, and R.E. Michaels. 1988. The influence of career stages on components of salesperson motivation. Journal of Marketing 52 (1): 78–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghose, S., and O. Lowengart. 2013. Consumer choice and preference for brand categories. Journal of Marketing Analytics 1 (1): 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chou, S.-W., and Y.-C. Chang. 2008. The implementation factors that influence the ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) Benefits. Decision Support Systems 46 (1): 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Courcoux, Ph, and M. Semenou. 1997. Preference data analysis using a paired comparison model. Food Quality and Preference 8 (5–6): 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Darmon, R.Y., B.P. Rigaux-Bricmont, and P. Balloffet. 2003. Designing sales force satisfying selling positions: A conjoint measurement approach. Industrial Marketing Management 32 (60): 501–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dubinsky, A.J., R.E. Anderson, and M. Rajiv. 2000. Importance of alternative rewards impact of managerial level. Industrial Marketing Management 29 (5): 427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Echchakoui, S. 2013. Système de contrôle de la force de vente : bilan et voies de recherche. Recherche et Applications en Marketing 28 (4): 72–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Echchakoui, S. 2014. Salesperson profitability in relationship marketing. Journal of Modelling in Management 9 (3): 306–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Echchakoui, S. 2016. Addressing differences between inbound and outbound agents for effective call center management. Global Business and Organizational Excellence 36 (1): 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ertugrul, I., and N. Karakasoglu. 2007. Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications 36 (1): 702–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fisher, C.D., and A.X.Y. Yuan. 1998. What motivates employees? A comparison of US and Chinese responses. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 9 (3): 516–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ford, N.M., O.C. Walker Jr., and G.A. Churchill. 1985. Differences in the attractiveness of alternative rewards among industrial salespeople: Additional evidence. Journal of Business Research 13 (2): 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gacula, M.C., and J. Singh. 1984. Statistical methods in food and consumer research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Herzberg, F. 1968. One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 53–62.Google Scholar
  30. Hiziroglu, A. 2013. A neuro-fuzzy two-stage clustering approach to customer segmentation. Journal of Marketing Analytics 1 (4): 202–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hofstede, G., G.J. Hofstede, and M. Minkov. 2010. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, Rev. 3 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Hohenberg, S., and C. Homburg. 2016. Motivating sales reps for innovation selling in different cultures. Journal of Marketing 80 (2): 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hollet-Haudebert, S., C. Fournier, and E. Pullins. 2015. Designing sales contests in call centers: Understanding inside salespeople’s preferences for contest design attributes and rewards. Journal of Selling 15 (1): 56–68.Google Scholar
  34. Hwang, C.L., and K. Yoon. 1981. Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ingram, T.N., and D.N. Bellenger. 1983. Personal and organizational variables: Their relative effect on reward valences of industrial salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research 20: 198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnston, M.W., P. Varadarajan, C.M. Futrell, and J. Sager. 1987. The Relationship between organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and Turnover among new salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 7 (3): 29–38.Google Scholar
  37. Kannan, D., A.B.L. de Sousa Jabbour, and C.J.C. Jabbour. 2014. Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: Using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company. European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2): 432–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kumar, P., and D. Claudio. 2016. Implications of estimating confidence intervals on group fuzzy decision making scores. Expert Systems with Applications 65 (15): 152–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kumar, V., S. Sunder, and R.P. Leone. 2014. Measuring and managing a salesperson’s future value to the firm. Journal of Marketing Research 71: 591–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lazim, M.A., and M.T.A. Osman. 2009. Measuring teachers’ beliefs about Mathematics: a fuzzy set approach. International Journal of Social Sciences 4 (1): 39–43.Google Scholar
  41. Likert, R. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 22 (140): 1–55.Google Scholar
  42. Lin, W.R., and Y.S. Chen. 2004. A fuzzy strategic alliance selection framework for supply chain partnering under limited evaluation resources. Computers in Industry 55: 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Liu, S.S. 1998. Reward perceptions of Hong Kong and mainland Chinese sales personnel. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 18 (3): 47–56.Google Scholar
  44. Lopez, T.B., C.D. Hopkins, and M.A. Raymond. 2006. Reward preferences of salespeople: How do commissions rate? Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 26: 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mallows, C.L. 1957. Non-null ranking models. Biometrika 44: 114–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Murphy, W.H., and R.S. Sohi. 1995. Salespersons’ perceptions about sales contests. European Journal of Marketing 29 (13): 42–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nguyen, T.K., N. Marilleau, and T.V. Ho. 2008. PAMS—A new collaborative framework for agent-based simulation of complex systems. Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 5357: 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Mahony, M., S. Masuoka, and R. Ishii. 1994. A theoretical note on difference tests: Models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. Journal of Sensory Studies 9: 247–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ostrow, P. 2013. Motivate, incent, compensate, enable: Sales performance management best practices. Boston: Aberdeen Group.Google Scholar
  50. Piercy, N.F., D.W. Craverns, and N. Lane. 2009. Sales management control level and competencies: Antecedents and consequences. Industrial Marketing Management 38 (4): 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pierre, X., and D.G. Tremblay. 2012. Améliorer l’implication et la rétention des agents dans les centres d’appel : agir sur les pratiques de gestion. Recherches en Sciences de Gestion 4 (91): 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rad, A., B. Naderi, and M. Soltani. 2011. Clustering and ranking university majors using data mining and AHP algorithms: A case study in Iran. Expert Systems with Applications 38: 755–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saaty, L.T. 1970. Optimization in integers and related extremal problems. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. From a course given at the University of California, Los Angeles, and at the George Washington University.Google Scholar
  54. Saaty, T.L. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in a hierarchichal structure. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15: 234–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Saaty, T.L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  56. Saaty, T.L., and J.S. Shang. 2007. Group decision-making: Head-count versus intensity of preference. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 1 (1): 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Saaty, T.L., and L.G. Vargas. 2007. Dispersion of group judgments. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46: 918–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Saaty, T.L., and L.G. Vargas. 2012. The possibility of group choice: Pairwise comparisons and merging functions. Social Choice and Welfare 38 (3): 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sen, A. 1970. The impossibility of a paretian liberal. Journal of Political Economy 78 (1): 152–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sen, A. 1995. Rationality and social choice. In Rationality and freedom, 261–299. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Sen, A. 1997. On Economic Inequality. Expanded edition with a substantial annexe by James E. Foster and Amartya Sen. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  62. Steenburgh, T., and M. Ahearne. 2012. Motivating salespeople: What really works. Harvard Business Review 90 (7–8): 70–75.Google Scholar
  63. Turner, H.M. 1973. The people motivators, consumer and sales incentives in modern marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  64. Vaidya, O., and S. Kumar. 2006. Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research 169: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang, T.C., and T.H. Chang. 2007. Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications 33 (4): 870–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wang, Y.M., and T.M.S. Elhag. 2006. Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an application to bridge risk assessment. Expert Systems with Applications 31: 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yang, Z.L., S. Bonsall, and J. Wang. 2011. Approximate TOPSIS for vessel selection under uncertain environment. Expert Systems with Applications 38 (12): 14523–14534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zadeh, L. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8: 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zandi, F., and M. Tavana. 2012. A fuzzy group multi-criteria enterprise architecture framework selection model. Expert Systems with Applications 39: 1165–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zimmermann, H.J. 2001. Fuzzy set theory and its applications, 4th ed. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishres.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zoltners, A.A., and P. Sinha. 2005. Sales territory design: Thirty years of modeling and implementation. Marketing Science 24 (3): 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zoltners, A.A., P. Sinha, and S.E. Lorimer. 2006. The complete guide to sales force incentive compensation: How to design and implement plans that work. New York: AMACOM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Quebec at RimouskiLévisCanada

Personalised recommendations